Oct 20, 2011

What Could I Do to Get the Vital Safety Conference Going?

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Neither Robert M. Wald – long the biggest name in general relativity because of his superhuman book of 1984 – nor Wolfgang Rindler – the revered grandmaster of the Einstein equivalence principle – contradict me nor does Hermann Nicolai – my official adversary – do so any longer in the open. While on the other side professor Richard J. Cook and two more world-class specialists in and outside Europe share my results.

Is this impressive list not reason enough to let the scientific safety conference take place at last?

Somehow it is cute that the three first-mentioned scientists do not let pressure be put on them: “Nothing is more imposing than being unimposable,” my friend Konrad Lorenz used to say. But the seeming silence is the loudest of history because the responsible gentlemen simultaneously keep their iron grip on an open faucet. Their lips are compressed while the MG rattles – the most visible coward act of history. This unless by happenstance an error in the critics’ results can still be uncovered – which to facilitate is the only aim of the “safety conference” refused by CERN for 3 ½ years.

Imagine: To be cleared from the worst reproach of history is what CERN abhors the most. They are going to have a very hard time to explain this before the future. With each passing day, they are bringing themselves and science and Europe and Christianity closer to the brink of history, even if the planet eventually survives which will not be known for years to come.

P.S. The danger is currently still below 3 percent.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Hansel says:

    Robert Cook is no world class specialist in relativity nor are you one. Both of you are cranks in this field.

    There is not a single specialist agreeing with your long ago disproved views. A hint: El Naschie also is not a specialist, he is a proven crackpot.

  2. Hansel says:

    And Prof Nicolai disproved your bullshit completely years ago.

  3. Dear anonymous Hansilein:
    You are lowering the academic level but this is somehow cute because you are obviously not evil-minded.

  4. Hansel says:

    You have no academic level. Academic level would mean to answer questions e.g. about your buzzwords.

    Instead you prefr to write a new test full of lies. Prof. Nicolai does not respond to youo because it was all said. To construct a kind of agreement from this is the style of a pure crackpot not of a scientist.

    Ah, Rössler, what about the Komar mass? Isn’t your avoidance to answer this question strange?

  5. Sweet little dogmatic Hansilein: If you wish I allow you to become my student. All attendants co-determine the agenda, every Tuesday and Thursday at 6 pm.

  6. “The best of science doesn’t consist of mathematical models and experiments, as textbooks make it seem. Those come later. It springs fresh from a more primitive mode of thought when the hunter’s mind weaves ideas from old facts and fresh metaphors and the scrambled crazy images of things recently seen. To move forward is to concoct new patterns of thought, which in turn dictate the design of models and experiments.“
    (Edward O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life, 1992, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0–674-21298–3.)

  7. Hansel says:

    Bullshit. Even if the people are not thinking directly in mathematical ways it is necessary to formulate in precise matehmatical form afterwards. This formulation has to be consistent.

    Nothing of this can be found in your stuff.

    Science is written in mathematics. Science without math is not longer exact science because it would be impossible even to share results.

    But what I am talking, Rössler, you can not understand this being an old experienced crank.

    So what about the Komar mass? You throw around with buzzwords and could not even define the connection of these to your “theory”? Do you really think the people are satisfied when you mention a buzzword like Komar Mass when asked for the strange charge-disappearing?

    So, define the K.M. and how it is connected to your “model”. Precise, not prosaic.

  8. Hansel says:

    Before I forget: mathematical formulation of science is the very opposite of a dogmatism as it allows the whole world to critisize it without the need to learn a certain language or something like that. Additional it makes it impossible to hide diffuse bullshit behind prosaic mist.

  9. Hansel says:

    And who is accusing scientists being massmurderer like Otto here should have more than metaphorical bullshit to show!

  10. Peter Howell says:

    Hansel: stop feeding the troll! He is living of the responses from people like you, let him starve in peace. Nobody is taking him serious anyway! His only success is to severely damage the credibility of the lifeboat foundation.
    Prof. P. Howell

  11. I do not accuse anyone of being a mass murderer, only of risking to become the worst of the past and the future by refusing scientific dialog. Little Hansel unfortunately believes professor Nicolai needs his hip-shooting assistance.

    My M (in the T-L-M-Ch theorem) happens to be numerically identical with the Komar mass — when you use a weightless cord to hold the latter suspended from far outside. This I learned from “Ich,” by the way.

  12. Hansel says:

    Rössler, we all know (and have saved) what you have written in the past about CERN and people working there. To repeat it one more: Shame on you!

    Numerical identical? Thats a joke, isn’t it? The world wants to see a theoretical founded connection between the Komar mass and your “theory”. In fact you have not even startet to answer the question. What kind of scientist are you?

  13. Sorry, Peter — I had not seen your last message yet. You again forgot to tell the world who you are (the famous cognitive scientist from London with a bachelor in physics?) and how you come to your reassuring insights. The planet is hanging on your lips. No one will be happier than me if you can dismantle Telemach or the quantum protection of neutron stars.

  14. Hansel says:

    A bachelor in physics is more than you have. If one is looking at your papers it seems that you are even below that level.

    Of course you are right, Peter. Rössler does not deserve any kind of answer. Neither from a scientific nor from a moral point of view.

    (Concerning the bachelor: You, as a professor in theoreticla chemistry, were not able to give a lecture in chemistry basics years ago — and now you think you can do general relativity with metaphorical bullshit.It is strange that there are still people taking you serious)

  15. Hansel says:

    concerning the Wald I am so free to cite someone more competent than me:

    Btw — Roessler apparently likes to refer to [Wa84]; unfortunately, that book is way beyond his comprehension:

    A) In chapter 2 [Wa84], tensor maths is covered in-depth (btw — in excellent didactic style). Including contraction, of course.
    Roessler, however, apparently still thinks that even new charts of old metrics could yield new physics…

    B) Roessler often strangely refers to the “Rindler metric” when talking about *curved*(!) spacetime. Unfortunately, footnote 8 on [Wa84] p.149 reads
    “In fact, the curvature of the Rindler metric vanishes”

    C) Last time he “referred” to [Wa84], Roessler apparently had a vision of “charged blackholes” creeping out of pp 432–434 of that book:
    “Also können Schwarze Löcher selbst geladen sein.
    Dies ist in einem Anhangskapitel des berühmten mathematischen Lehrbuchs “General Realtivity” von Robert M. Wald von 1984 im Detail ausgeführt (Seite 432–434).”

    Naturally, [Wa84] has a full coverage (40 pgs) of black holes (+30 pgs about singularities), BUT at those very pp 432–434 there’s absolutely NOTHING about black holes, let alone their chargedness.
    Pp 432–434 belong to “APPENDIX B” (“Differential Forms, Integration, and Frobenius’s Theorem”) chapter 2 (“Integration”).
    And that chapter deals with…
    now make an educated guess!

    Right! “Integration of differential forms” — imagine that… ;)
    Especially about the most generalized flavor of Stokes’s theorem.

    C) is a role-model for an Roesslers very special “scientific” method

    - After he stumbled across that chapter he permanenty added “Gauss-Stokes” to his buzzword-armory.
    - And that chapter was also “well” suited for bluffing people lacking maths skills — the formalism of calculus of differential forms is sort-of cryptical, so he had a good chance that even IF one of his “believers” would “dare” taking a deeper look at the sources behind their masters voice, they would be deterred by the cryptical look of that chapter.
    (Not implying that the average Roessler follower could do any higher maths; but just in that, unlikely, case… :D)

    [Wa84] Robert M. Wald, General Relativity, Physics/Astrophysics (University of Chicago Press, 1984).

  16. EQ says:

    BTW, Rössler, the world is not interested in hearing more of your misunderstandings of what the user ICH said to you. Instead all people are waiting for the precise frmulation of the connection between the Komar mass and your bullshit.

    Time for bluffing and buzzwords is gone.

  17. I object to hate blogs being quoted on Lifeboat, little guy

  18. Hansel says:

    The quoted blog is fighting for good scientific practice. El Naschie and you are examples for crackpottery, not for science.

    Currently you are creating a hateblog here on lifeboat.

  19. Another blindly believing dogmatist in Germany who was never shown that science consists in finding new things. Max Planck Institutes have no teaching leg — which is now a great disadvantage to the world.

  20. Hansel says:

    Meaningless blabla, Rössler. Again no answer.

    Your lies are unmasked by the cited lines and mine. Neither is the user “ICH” supporting you nor is any kind of critique outdated and so on…

    Ah, and of course you can not answer questions about your own buzzwords.

  21. Peter Howell says:

    Hansel: really, stop. Roessler was raised by his father as a “Herrenmensch”, so he honestly believes that he is superior to anyone else on this planet and that people have to bow to him. Nothing you or anyone else can say will ever make him change his mind.

    P. Howell

  22. Peter Howell outed himself here as openly hating a German-speaking son of an Austrian Jew whom he never met.

    Why are grown people throwing mud at a person whose only aim is to be falsified? When a danger this person has proved to exist must either be disproved or stopped. Suppose I was a patient of this professor of medicine: Would this change anything in the results that lie on the table?

    I would be so glad if Peter Howell were right with his psychological conviction that I cannot possibly be right. His being a psychologist leaves him no other criteria to judge from than to venture a “psychiatric diagnosis from a distance.” But is this the right way to help CERN and help the world in the presence of objectively undisproved facts?

  23. EQ says:

    Your father was a Nazi already in the 1920s. If there is something he definitely was not then it is a jew.

    Bloody liar, history falsifier.

  24. Gary Garrison says:

    Dear Otto

    “Peter Howell outed himself here as openly hating a German-speaking son of an Austrian Jew whom he never met.”

    wanna tell us, how your father, engaged in austrian Nazimovement from the beginning as 17 years old guy , arrested in 1933, imigrated to Germany after Dollfuss was murdered, integrated at the “SS-Anenerbe”, scholar at the university of Tuebingen, married with the sister of Nazi Otto Huth, member of the “Institut zum Studium der Judenfrage” and the “SS-Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler”, and last but not least recruited for the partisan “Wehrwolf”, and long but not long enough excluded from academic occupation …

    … could ever hidden his “jewish” origin in the “Großer Ariernachweis” (“Greater Aryan certificate”) required from all SS-officers back to 1750.

    And why should he do that before the year 1933, being part in austrian Nazi movement for a decade of his lifetime.


  25. Hansel says:

    Yes, the old Rössler knew already in the 1920s that he had to protect himself against the Nazi-dictatorship which was clearly visible at that time…who can believe this nonsense made up by Rössler jun?

    Otto, you are a history faker, nothing else. Shame on you again!

  26. I was not allowed by a family member to tell before that my father, born in Eisenstadt, was carrying his pistol with him when working as a translator at the Ahnenerbe in Tübingen, in case he would ever meet his boss, Himmler. That he was blind to Hitler until 1945 by not believing he was responsible owing to his having admired him when young remains a weak spot. My father was never cruel a single time in his life, and he discovered the meaning of the words Adonai yeraeh (the Lord can always be seen) in the story of Isaac, after his 7-years-old grandson had been killed.

    The Mossad told my sister in 1981 that “we hold nothing against your father.” If the Israeli Secret Service cleared him, maybe I can ask you, Gary, to no longer hate me for being the son of my father. And to no longer out of such reasons think that CERN was the lesser menace to the planet than me. Okay?

  27. Hansel says:

    Have you banned Jason, Solkar and The Brain? They cannot post.


  28. eq says:

    “My M (in the T-L-M-Ch theorem) happens to be numerically identical with the Komar mass ”

    You have to show that. Science is about proving statements. You should know this :D

  29. eq says:


    Thanks for demonstrating the fact that otto is a liar. A man without any moral.

  30. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Only clairvoyant people around any more, replacing scientific counterargument by cheap ideology like in the midle ages.

    No physicist capable of bringing a physical argument (the desired counterproof) about. Instead everyday hunches that the anonymous knights know are private hunches that cannot possibly help anyone. “Punishing the messenger” was the name of the game in antiquity.

  31. HAnsel says:

    First: You brought the lie about your father in the discussion again. You, not Gary, no one else. (It was also you bringing this being-a-jew-lie into the discussion during an interview with a mnewspaper three years ago)

    Second: this lie is essential for your self chosen role as the victim. It is essential for your comparions of the university of Tübngen with the Nazis in the 90s and now it is essential for the same kind of comparison of CERN with Nazi-murderers.

    So stop about complaining, the person who brought ideology, defamatory comparisons etc in the discussion was always you. You are also the one person running away from any kind of scientific discurse. You are not answering the most simple questions about your own theory. Probably because you can not do it. an actual example is the cKomar mass in this thread here. You are not able to define the term, or to connect it in a proper way to your “results”.

    To sum up, all of this is not scientific. It is the typical behavioral pattern of a crackpot.

  32. Gary Garrison says:

    @ Otto

    sorry, I forgot to mention Petra.


  33. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Gary: I liked your logo from Emile Zola which I just saw.
    Can we be friends?

  34. Gary Garrison says:


    “Can we be friends?”

    I hope so. Yeah, Emile Zola was a great guy. I admired him the first time i read something of him


  35. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I am very honored, my dear Gary — Otto

  36. Robert Houston says:

    I object to the constant mud-slinging and verbal abuse from the anonymous crank called “Hansel” (AKA, “EQ”). He has been misusing the posting privilege at Lifeboat to carry out a personal vendetta against Professor Rossler. Hansel/EQ is a chronic hate-monger who always lowers the tone of discussion at Lifeboat to his own gutter level. This vicious creep should be banned from any civilized website.

  37. AnthonyL says:

    Hansel’s excessive vituperation is somewhat useful, Houston, in bolstering the reputation of Rossler, who comes off as gentlemanly and therefore more credible by comparison, since leaders of all kinds are visibly more restrained and polite when dealing with contentious issues.