May 7, 2012

Telemach Makes Black Holes dangerous– No Suitor ready to Disarm Him as of Yet (and other Writings)

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Telemach Makes Black Holes dangerous– No Suitor ready to Disarm Him as of Yet

The T is uncontroversial: no one questions that clock rate T is reduced more downstairs in the way described by Einstein in 1907 – his “happiest thought” as he always said. But if the clocks are indeed ontologically slower-ticking down there (as the gravitational twin clocks experiment implicit in the G.P.S. proves to the eye every day), then other physical quantities valid down there, besides clock rate T, are automatically affected by the same Einstein factor: Length L, mass M and charge Ch. This is the T-L-M-Ch theorem.

Metrologists are responsible for the famous Ur-meter, the famous Ur-kilogram (quite expensive) and the well-known unit Ur-charge of electrons. The whole profession is keeping a low profile at present for being unable to defend the three dethroned constants against the onslaught of the Telemach revolution. The Ur-kilogram is ready to be auctioned at Sotheby’s. All distances in the universe have acquired new values while several new constants of nature have arisen and Einstein’s constant “c” has become a global constant. The field has greatly won in clarity.

It would be too nice if more colleagues cared to contribute to the obtained more consistent picture of general relativity – independently described with a wealth of new formulae by Richard J. Cook (see his paper “Gravitational space dilation”). The implied connection to the properties of black holes makes the new results even more exciting. I pledge that doctoral students be allowed to work in newly promising branch of physics.

Imagine: a Whole Planet Betting its own Survival on your being Wrong

What I showed is that Einstein’s happiest thought – that clocks on a lower floor tick more slowly – possesses 3 corollaries (impossible to spot in 1907): size and mass and charge are affected by the same factor (the former going up, the latter two going down). No colleague on the planet objects to “Telemach,” as the result involving T, L, M, Ch is called.

But the planet accepts like sheep that the LHC experiment continues: This even though the most hoped-for products – artificial black holes – have become more probable; undetectable to its sensors; and last-not-least are going to shrink the earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years.

No one believes any more in big progress being possible through meticulous thought today. But: must really every child’s life be bet on this current complacency?

Dear Cologne Administrative Court: thank you for having endorsed the necessity of the “safety conference” in your final statement made unto CERN on January 27, 2011.

I Am mildly Disappointed that None of the Young Scientists Tries to Get…

… a piece of the cake by elaborating on Telemach. I say so not because the Telemach theorem is a major new result affecting the planetary safety of the famous LHC-experiment at CERN, Switzerland, but because he or she thereby re-opens the door to fame to the “planetary” young generation like the members of Neil Turok’s genius school in South Africa. (Telemach was published in Africa.)

By the way: Dismantling Telemach is no less rewarding a task – it is actually the outcome I would personally prefer in view of the danger that its correctness brings with it. But to either end, one first has to understand it, which apparently none of the more senior physicists and mathematicians of the planet has so far achieved. The explanation for this in my eyes lies in the intimidating simplicity of Telemach. (I am by the way not alone in having found the theorem: Richard J. Cook of Colorado Springs was earlier with T,L,M but kindly acknowledges Ch.) Now it is your turn.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. I encourage Professor Robert M. Wald to reply.

  2. I take offense with the “official” claim of “individual sentiment” made above. This implies that I were lying since — I repeat — not a single physicist openly contradicts Telemach to the best of my knowledge.

    And please, dear Lifeboat: reactivate my post of today. You can add a derogative statement as you did above, but you promised to no longer use violence. Thank you.

  3. bill johnson says:

    To no longer use violence? Since when is monitoring blog postings an act of violence?

    As for “not a single physicist openly contradicts Telemach to the best of my knowledge.” Really? Every scientist at CERN contradicts your Telemach unless you think that they accept its findings and are trying to destroy the world by design. Obviously that isn’t the case and they openly contradicted your claims in court.
    Now they may be ignoring you know but they have dealt with you in the past, and have made it clear that they are aware of the concerns but don’t see them as valid.

  4. Bryan Price says:

    Professor Rossler, you remind me of the fable, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. There are plenty of things out there that can currently wipe us out.

    As to the disclaimer, it’s a disclaimer. It is not implying anything at all that you are lying. It simply divorces Lifeboat from your comments. You may not like that, but that is Lifeboat’s call, not yours. That you are going about it so, makes me wonder just how rational you are.

    And judging from the RSS feed, they DID put exactly such a disclaimer on it.

    I really have no comment about the “violence”. But this is Lifeboat’s site, to run as they see fit, not how one Otto E. Rossler sees fit to run.

    You are, however, free to set up your own site and say whatever you wish.

  5. Dear Bill:

    If you call unsubstantiated dissensus “contradicting a theorem,” you propose to usher-in a new era in physics. Did you take into account that this will not make you many friends amongst serious CERN physicists?

    But maybe this was your real intention — to entice one of our honorable CERN colleagues to take heart and propose a first counterargument to Telemach? So this is a very important — either CERN saving or planet-saving — post from your part, I feel. Thank you for it,


  6. Dear Brian:

    you are right with your comment, and I take back my reproach to Lifeboat. The other canceled posts were promised to be returned with the same disclaimer.

    Thank you,

  7. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto some retrieved writings from December (with same disclaimer), comments also — http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/12/dear-little-planet and January — http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/01/the-petty-non-offenses-of-t…rseverance
    and an omnibus of some shorter spammings — http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/01/did-nature-put-a-chain-trap-to-humanity More recent posts such as the direct incitement of violence in ‘Dear Children: Sweet Barrage’ will not be restored.