Comments on: Mini-Paper

By: Otto E. Rossler

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:14:59 +0000

Please, repeat the question you are so interested in.

]]>

By: eq

Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:13:45 +0000

The discussioon there is also relevant for your last nonsensical example. Your “results” are based always on the same confusion about basic conceptrs in relativity.

]]>

By: eq

Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:12:42 +0000

Always the same :D You prefer to ignore inconvenient arguments and statements..not for the first time. Quite classical crackpot-behavior.

However, answer the questions in the thread with TRMG. The link is pasted above. Everyone here can see that you are avoiding answers there, everyone can see that you are confused about relevant terms. Despite that you prefer to repeat the stuff again and again without ever resolving the basic problems which were clearly shown by TRMG and others (also not for the first time,).

]]>

By: Otto E. Rossler

Sun, 10 Jun 2012 17:05:38 +0000

No answer to my little note coming in?

]]>

By: eq

Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:15:51 +0000

And stop talking about seeking the truth as long as you avoid to give any answers like it is shown in the above linked discussion with TRMG.

It is quite dishonest to ignore something like that and to pretend, there were n open questions, no problems, no contradictions or objections and so on.

However, what could one expect from a crackpot like you whose behavior is already well-known? We all know that you are unable to realize your flaws and ae not interested in something like scientific truth or a real discussion of your nonsense…

]]>

By: eq

Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:10:08 +0000

Oh, Rössler, have you already forgotten this confusion of yours about mass, energy or observers?

You remember this confusoion of yours about whether mass is observer dependent or not? TRMG and others are still waiting. And as this confusion of yours is in fact the core of what you call your “results” the answer is highly relevant also for the new nonsense presented above.

]]>

By: Otto E. Rossler

Sun, 10 Jun 2012 10:47:54 +0000

There are no open questions unless you can list them — one suffices at a time. (Anoymity combined with aggression gives a bad impression of the poster.) Please, show me an error so I can do something about it. For all I seek is truth whereby I crave nothing more than to be proven wrong in view of the otherwise accepted infinite danger. Time is running out!

Can you say something about angular momentum conservation? Apparently no one can. Even Professor Penner — the only courageous scientist so far — has retreated?

]]>

By: Visitor

Sun, 10 Jun 2012 10:13:24 +0000

It would be better first to resolve your confusion about terms like mass,energy and observers in relativity than repeating the same nonsense again and again in new “papers”, Roessler. It is quite interesting and tells a lot bot your honesty that you try to ignore the open questions in the other thread quoted above. Your behavior is not the behavior of a scientist than a crank who will never admit any errors and repeat the same pseudoscience (probably enriched with even more confused sciency-sounding terms) again and again in order to avoid any further discussion about the obvious flaws.

]]>

By: Visitor

Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:16:03 +0000

Repeating the same bullshit once ‚ore together with your flaws like the mixed observers and so on does not answer the still open relevant questins, Rössler.

]]>

By: Otto E. Rossler

Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:51:47 +0000

Angular-momentum Conservation Confirms Telemach
========================================

Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, D-72076 Tübingen

Friction-free clocks (rotating wheels) that are brought downstairs rotate more slowly there in accord with Einstein’s gravitational clock slowdown. They must therefore be enlarged in order to conserve their angular momentum J. Take an ideal bicycle wheel with J = m * r^2 * omega = const., where m is mass, r the wheel’s radius and omega the rotation rate.

The 3 predictions made by Telemach on an idealized neutron star (m halved, r doubled, omega halved) exactly conserve J. This is a test which any correct interpretation of general relativity and the Rindler metric must pass. The currently favored interpretations flunk this test. (I thank Heinrich Kuypers for cooperation. For J.O.R.)

]]>