I proved that black holes are different – they can only grow in a runaway fashion inside matter.

So if anyone would produce them on earth, earth would be doomed as soon as one would stay. No one disputes this.

Nevertheless the biggest effort at producing them on earth is going to be made during the next 10 weeks. CERN stages it.

I do not ask CERN to stop it: I only ask CERN to explain why they do it.

AND I ASK EVERYONE TO LISTEN

http://www.cinemablographer.com/2012/06/last-night.html
… is too early a movie at the present time (although it is nice). I instead re-iterate that I cannot understand the stubbornness of a whole planet refusing to check whether the offered proof of danger contains an error or not. All of the planet’s media never behaved as irresponsibly before: to refuse checking is never intelligent or defensible in retrospect, or is it?

A German higher administrative court (OVG Münster, Az. 16 A 591/11) ruled definitively yesterday that the principle of reversal of the burden of proof is not applicable in this case: You have to prove that the potentially earth-eating black holes are actually being produced before you can lawfully object to the ongoing attempt at their production.

———————————————–

Let me re-iterate how I see the situation in a manner that is maximally self-critical in a Popperian sense:

The 28 years old Einstein wrote a paper in 1907 which contained a radically new prediction: clocks located more downstairs in gravity (like at the base of a high-rise building) are slower-ticking in a locally imperceptible way. The G.P.S. later agreed.

It took quite a number of years until the automatically existing corollaries to this breathtaking result became identified unequivocally: T (clock time) is accompanied by L (meter-stick length) and M (particle mass) and Ch (particle charge), all locally invisibly affected by the same factor, the first two going up, the last two going down. Since some people have difficulty remembering 4 items at once, I call this find Telemach (T, L, M, Ch) for short. Note that Telemachus helped his father Ulysses expel the suitors of his mother’s throne.

Telemach does not interfere with general relativity: it is implicit in it. But Telemach interferes with some allegedly physical implications of general relativity – Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr-Newman amongst them. And the most famous post-Einsteinian black-hole theorems (including wormhole based time travel and Hawking evaporation) go down the drain as well. Thus there automatically is a strong lobby in existence against Telemach according to the motto “This is not true and if it is true we don’t believe it.”

Why do I insist on Telemach being important enough to deserve an attempt at falsification to be made by the scientific community? The reason is the looked-forward to hopeful production of black holes (“one every second”) at CERN in Switzerland. CERN’s scientists did publish a big paper a year ago to the effect that they did not find any. Unfortunately, shunned young Telemach predicts that CERN’s sensors cannot detect its most hoped-for success, black holes.

The prediction of an enhanced success rate combined with sensor blindness goes so much against the honor of CERN that they decided 4 years ago to sit it out. No update of the 2008 safety report appeared ever since, no talking to the press about dangers any more, no compliance with a court’s tactful kind request to admit a “safety conference” (January 27, 2011), no permission given to “CERN’s Young Scientist” to implement their invitation for a talk made to a CERN critic 2 ½ years ago, no permission for CERN’s sister organization (the United Nations Security Council) to conduct an investigation – while simultaneously the fact that this highest terrestrial body had been asked for help blocked all national parliaments from discussing the matter.

No one who is accused of committing a crime – this one could be the worst of history – can be expected to act differently. I sympathize with CERN. Few temptations for mortals are less inescapable. Imagine: you got ten billion dollars to test certain hypotheses with maximally shiny machines – and then it is revealed that if you follow the allotted task an entirely new risk is encountered: those who gave you the money will not be pleased. Will you have to give the money back if you hesitate continuing on schedule? In other words: no one would have acted differently in CERN’s place. They just had to crank up their attempt to generate these suddenly allegedly dangerous objects, every year and every month and every day – especially so during the last three scheduled months that we are living through right now before the machine will be dismantled for two years in favor of an almost doubled-in-performance successor after the end of the year 2012 .

So everyone fully understands CERN, both in the present situation and from the point of a future intelligence looking back (as we hope will exist). Only some blockheads who still believe in individual virtues like honesty and dignity are protesting: “Is this not a crime?” When the emperor asks you to die along with him, you have no choice but to comply.

Some parents love their children more than the emperor. I see no friend for the end of the world as of yet.

Today is Felix-Baumgartner day since creativity wins. And today, I saw an interesting dialog about my potentially planet-saving results on the Internet. The latter was conducted by amateur physicists ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?113769-Invited-%28pe…-R%F6ssler ) who thereby have earned great merit since the whole rest of the profession refuses to come out.

The young colleagues tried to convince themselves and their readers that my “Telemach” result, which has the planet-saving potential if flawless, violates textbook and wiki wisdom and therefore is bound to be false.

Nevertheless I am very grateful to Mr. “rpenner” (pseudonym) and his friends for their being the only scientists so far who dare come out in a not totally anonymous way.

The emphasis they place on the Rindler metric at the beginning is especially meritorious. The Rindler metric is arguably the most important post-Einsteinian discovery. It implies the Telemach theorem – on the truthfulness of which the survival of the planet is predicated as no one denies.

But is the Rindler metric not well known and no one ever extracted fundamental new implications from it? Let me take this topic up for you.

The Rindler metric describes a one-light-year-long rocketship which at the tip has 1 g acceleration (earth’s gravity) and at the rear end has infinite acceleration. It consists of a very large number of “rocket rings” lined up between tip and bottom that all stick spontaneously together without touching because their constant accelerations vary in a lawfully graded manner. The best textbook still is Robert M. Wald’s “General Relativity” of 1984. It correctly reproduces (on page 151) the everywhere equal ticking times valid over the whole length of the ship – which, however, do not reproduce the local clocks’ readings, as the book correctly stresses. The local clocks rather tick more and more slowly towards the tail end to become effectively frozen there. This “local reality” of unit time intervals T inside the Rindler rocket has three corollaries: L (a meter stick’s length) is locally imperceptibly increased in proportion to T; M (a unit mass like that of an electron) is locally imperceptibly decreased by the same factor; and Ch (a unit charge) is likewise locally imperceptibly reduced in proportion.

This is maximally strange since the same rocketship – when briefly interrupted in its acceleration everywhere in the external simultaneity, while being momentarily at rest along the horizontal axis – is not infinitely long (only one light year long) and is not infinitely mass-reduced at the tail nor charge reduced there. Nevertheless these interior artifacts are “ontological”: An astronaut descending from the rocket’s tip inside is, after having been hauled back up again, indeed empirically younger on return in accordance with the equations. Thus, it is the internal picture T,L,M,Ch (“Telemach”) and not the external one which proves to be physically relevant.

My message is that this new ontology is presently being neglected by humankind at the risk of self-extinction. A “safety conference” is all that I am requesting for 4 years.

It will be my privilege – and perhaps not only mine – to learn more about these matters in the continued dialog with Mr. rpenner and his friends, Ms. Trooper and the others, on this forum here. Or if they so prefer, on theirs, to be mirrored here since the present discussion started out on Lifeboat. And if we are lucky will we even be granted a word of kind advice from grandmaster Wolfgang Rindler himself.

The Ontological Einstein – One to Four

Otto E. Rossler and Dieter Fröhlich, Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tubingen, Germany

One: Ontological clock slow-down downstairs in gravity

Two: Ontological rest-mass decrease downstairs in gravity

Three: Ontological size increase downstairs in gravity

Four: Ontological charge decrease downstairs in gravity

(1): Assume an upstairs and a downstairs floor to be equally strongly accelerating in gravity for simplicity. Then the situation can be transposed to a constant-acceleration rocketship of equal height in outer space that by definition is governed by the rules of special relativity alone. Here one finds that whenever a light ray from the rear end arrives upstairs at the tip, the point of arrival has, during the flight time of the photon, picked up additional speed. Hence the emitted light arrives upstairs redshifted. The normal-ticking CLOCKS and atoms present downstairs therefore appear slowed down from the point of view of upstairs owing to a receding motion of constant speed (without falling back) performed by them. This 1907 result can be called “ontological” because an upper-level clock that is brought down and then back up again predictably presents an ontological (undeniably present) deficit in the number of ticks performed in the meantime, on its being re-united with its waiting twin. Einstein always called the “equivalence principle” between gravity and ordinary acceleration (that allowed him to solve everything from within the fold of special relativity and hence intuitively) “the happiest thought of my life.” It is indeed miraculous because it derives an asymmetry from the symmetry of special relativity. (So many perspective changes were never made before in a single mind according to anthropologist George Herbert Mead.) Three corollaries are implicit: points 2–4.

(2): Since the red-shifted photons arriving from below are non-redshifted on emission, they are inter-transformable into material particles and vice versa (as in positronium creation and annihilation) down there. Hence all locally-at-rest MASSES downstairs are ontologically reduced by the redshift factor relative to upstairs.

(3): Since the wavelengths of all locally emitted photons are increased downstairs by point (1), and simultaneously all masses locally at rest downstairs are reduced by point (2), it follows logically as well as independently from quantum mechanics that all the locally normal-appearing LENGTHS downstairs are ontologically increased by the redshift factor compared to upstairs.

(4): Since all masses that are locally at rest are reduced downstairs via (2), and the charge/mass ratio is locally conserved via Einstein’s principle of general covariance, the CHARGES of all local electrons and positrons (etc.) are ontologically reduced downstairs by the redshift factor compared to upstairs. (Q.e.d.)

Remark: Ulysses’ son Telemach helps one to remember all 4 ontological changes (Time, Length, Mass and Charge). Let us add that the “Einstein dilation” (3) does not show up in the transverse direction from above in spite the locally maintained isotropy – just as the Lorentz contraction does not show up in the transverse direction despite the likewise locally maintained isotropy.

Historical note: Points number 2 and 3 have been found many times individually (and several times in combination) by specialists and aficionados. Number 4 first appeared in a conference paper in mid-2008 (and under the name “Telemach theorem” on the Internet in early 2011 and in a refereed journal in early 2012, see http://www.academicjournals.org/ajmcsr/PDF/pdf2012/Feb/9%20Feb/Rossler.pdf ).

Acknowledgments: O.E.R. thanks Burton Voorhees and Ali Sanayei for a discussion. For J.O.R.