The conference was first publicly requested on April 18, 2008 and first endorsed by a court on January 27, 2011.
Had CERN who stood before that court not said “no” almost a year ago, the danger to the planet consciously incurred during 2011 could not be planned to be quintupled this year.
The only task of the conference is to find a counterproof against a single element of the 5-element chain proof of danger which looks as if nature had posed humanity a trap. The topic is the micro black holes planned to be produced by CERN as a self-declared “black hole factory.” They have 5 new properties:
– they arise much more easily
– they are undetectable by CERN’s sensors
– they at first pass friction-free through earth’s matter
– they if slow enough to circulate inside earth get stuck after a while to grow exponentially as a mini-mini-quasar that, after some years, will make for a beautiful sight from the moon
– they are not exculpated by their ultrafast natural analogues getting stuck inside neutron stars because the latter are protected by their quantum superfluidity.
The explanation for points 1 – 4 is the new infinite distance of the surface (horizon) of a black hole from the outside world (so they cannot “Hawking evaporate”), and their new unchargedness makes them slippery, and chaos theory (my special field) makes them self-organizing inside matter.
The 5 points go un-disputed in the scientific literature since they were first published in mid-2008. They go deliberately unquoted by CERN to which they were sent in early 2008. The latest version of the original advanced gothic-R theorem – the “Telemach theorem” in print with the African Journal of Mathematics – since last January waits for a first scientific critic to stand up. No scietist still openly criticizes the gothic-R theorem which had immediately been generalized to 3 dimensions by a more able colleague in answer to all later criticism.
All I ever asked for is the benefit of the doubt. No colleague contradicts me any more in the open. This fact notwithstanding, all global political and jurisdictional institutions and information empires violate their lawful duties by refusing to act or report.
My last hope is the German head of state Wulff who is currently under pressure for having accepted presents from friends before taking the highest office. I asked him to kindly look into the matter and tell the planet whether the proof of danger has been disproved: “yes” or “no.” The whole planet will embrace him as its most beloved figure if he tells the truth (“no” — the danger is unfortunately real as far as anyone can say without the safety conference).
Tottoli, it is not necessary to prove that cosmic ray collisions are going to have a different outcome from those in the LHC if we accept the authority of the CERN safety report, which states that in the latter case they may well “linger”. Are you saying you do not accept their authority? Given their inconsistencies, that may well be justified. But PassingBy and other Rossler critics treat them as gospel, I believe. So their own faith in the safety of the LHC would seem to be undermined by the very authorities they believe in.
PassingBy you always operate on the ruling premise that any conCERN must be wrong, therefore Rossler must be wrong, and any publication that accepts his work must be wrong etc. But conCERN is obviously justified by the inconsistencies and self-contradictions and inadequacies of the CERN publications and actions (in setting up detectors etc). Therefore you have to stop using this premise in your thinking.
However your critique of Rossler’s paper seems to be that because it is not fully mathematically formulated it must be worthless, and/or some of his description of his thinking doesn’t fit your understanding of accepted physicis re black holes etc. As regards the former, you have failed to accept that speculation about the various factors involved and how they interrelate can operate on the meta level conceptually. But it seems clear to anyone who studies very bright theorists that they think in geometric or spatial terms before nailing it down in pure mathematics. One interesting example appeared on US TV this weekend — a super whiz kid named Jake on 60 Minutes who has wowed university level classes and conferences with his math prowess from the age of eight. At one point in the original segment at
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57358845/jake-math-pro.….is-autism/
he shows that his initial thinking on a topic typically involves triangles placed on top of or beside each other, at least as shown in the segment.
That Rossler has not satisfied you with his formulae doesn’t seem very impressive so far because in the first instance he actually agreed with Einstein and was just writing an equation which was to be interpreted in a different way than we supposed ie as a correlation not between what the two clocks might show, but in the length of the time units in the different locations. So whether or not you agreed with his approach it still didn’t give you a reason to reject his overall thinking, did it?
In the second place you appear to have picked a new quarrel with his thinking and I haven’t been able to catch up. Is this correct and can you express its conclusion in a nutshell?
Here is the followup video of Jake Barnett if it is of interest.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57359443-10391709/jak.….lumnArea.1
Certainly shows how a perfect memory can facilitate mathematical speculation. Let’s hope he manages to bring quantum physics, macrophysics and gravity together with common sense before we die.
As far as your statement that no serious journal asks contributors to pay, are you specifically referring to particle physics, and if so, or not, what is your reference if any? And does Rossler’s theorem deserve to be pigeonholed thus or does it belong elsewhere? After all, you don’t think it is correctly placed under the umbrella of mathematics.
The discussion has been going on at Lifeboat for some time. Why is it that you have not succeeded in shooting down Rossler’s thinking once and for all? You seem to state with Hansel that it is because he evades directly answering your objections. But is it not possible to state now what these objections are in a form which can be reported in a newspaper as proof of his lack of substance, or error, or whatever you wish the bottom line to be?
HUH? What are all these ramblings supposed to mean? Have you caught Rossler’s virus? Go work on the “Attempto” manifesto, it will keep you busy for the foreseeable future…
Dear Anthony I am not sure whether I understand you or not — perhaps my language barrier. To my mind it is important to tell that CERNs cosmic ray argument is wrong and that such frontal collisions of pairs of equally fast protons with LHC design energy have very, very probably never happened in our entire solar system since its existence. If this often repeated pseudo general safety argument would be correct then most risks could be automatically denied — but unfortunately this is not the case. Best regards, Niccolò
Here is the link to page 1 of this blog theme:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/01/can-anyone-explain-why-cern.….ent-page-1
Dear Anthony L Thanks for your great comment – quite deep. But to ‘linger‘ is perhaps not all.
You write “self-contradictions and inadequacies of the CERN publications and actions (in setting up detectors etc).“
Oh yes, since a long time CERN/LSAG tell “strangelets are unlikely to be produced” but they have the CASTOR (Centauro And STrange Object Research-detector), to search for the strangelets — strange.
Best regards, Niccolò
Dear all if you like to go on page one of this topic you can add “/comment-page-1” at the end of the url.
Oh — I thought my first comment has been blocked… But all right. Thanks.
Hmm..PasserBy has turned as evasive at he claims Rossler has been. But now Rossler has laid it on the line as best he can, it is time for PassingBy and his jeering squad to do the same, surely. Fair is fair, even on the irresponsible Web.
Kindly read my post again PBy. It is not that obscure. It addresses styles of thought and whether the highest plane of genius may be above you. If not, kindly let us know with show and tell to match the eminent chaos theorist Rossler of Tubingen.
if this is beyond you at the present time, I can lend you my panga with which I am clearing a path on the Rossler give-it-a-try post thread at http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/01/attempto-let-me-give-it-a-t.….ent-100241 , after we reach the oasis of new understanding which the Professor has in mind.
@Tottoli Precisely. The public disclaimer of any expectation of strangelets and the presence of a rather large detector (though somewhat misplaced and less likely than normal to detect its game) is sufficiently incongruent to show the two faces of CERN in crystal clarity.
It is not helpful when CERN says one thing and does another.
Your url to get the first fifty Comments is correct and here it is in full
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/01/can-anyone-explain-why-cern.….ent-page-1
BTW, Jason of “El Naschie Watch” found a very interesting text written by a librarian at University of Colorado Denver. Check who’s first on the “List of Predatory Open Access Publishers”:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78839736/Beall-s-List-of-Predatory.….shers-2012
YES, it’s the publisher of “African Journal of Mathematics”…
Here is Jason’s original post: http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2012/01/bealls-list.html
“Seeking legitimacy, it falsely associates itself with authenticorganizations and conferences.”
I see no evidence for the word “falsely” in the above quote. Maybe my readers do not know that Nigeria has more inhabitants than Russia. I am very grateful for what the journal is doing for the world.
I suppose it means that the publishing company has nothing to do with any of the conferences listed in its “conference announcements” page:
http://www.academicjournals.org/conference_announcements.htm
Anyway, for the benefit of the laziest among Lifeboat’s readers, let me paste all of the relevant text from the link:
Beall’s List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers by Jeffrey Beall
2012 Edition
Predatory, open-access publishers are those that unprofessionally exploit the author-pays model of open-access publishing (Gold OA) for their own profit. Typically, these publishers spam professional email lists, broadly soliciting article submissions for the clear purpose of gaining additional income. Operating essentially as vanity presses, these publishers typically have a low article acceptance threshold, with a false-front or non-existent peer review process. Unlike professional publishing operations, whether subscription-based or ethically-sound open access, these predatory publishers add little value to scholarship, pay little attention to digital preservation, and operate using fly-by-night, unsustainable business models.
Academic Journals
This bogus, Nigeria-based publisher has been around for years, and continues to increase its journal fleet of over one hundred titles from all areas of study. Seeking legitimacy, it falsely associates itself with authentic organizations and conferences.
(…)
Recommendation:
Do not do business with the above publishers, including submitting article manuscripts, serving on editorial boards, buying advertising, etc. There are numerous traditional, legitimate journals that will publish your quality work for free, including many legitimate, open-access publishers. If you are involved in any form of scholarly evaluation such as, hiring, tenure / promotion review, or grant funding, be skeptical of articles published by any of these publishers listed above. Reading a list of publications or a vita, it is very difficult to distinguish legitimate journals from the illegitimate ones. One of the tricks the sham publishers use is to assign authentic-sounding and appearing titles to their journals. The presence of these bogus publishers has changed the task of scholarly evaluation, which now needs a keener eye to discern articles published in fraudulent journals.
More on “Academic Journals” from the same librarian guy:
http://metadata.posterous.com/description-of-an-open-access-scam
http://scholarlyoa.com/category/scholarly-open-access-publishers/
http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/26/publishing-scam.html
Rossler, I hope you haven’t disbursed the $550 yet…