Blog

May 17, 2012

Big Bang gone, Gravitational Waves gone, Hawking Radiation gone: The Dolphins Confront CERN

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

The reason for the current planet-wide abandonment of major progress lies in the re-acquired belief in clairvoyance – of which anonymous peer review is a symptom. Einstein would ridicule the latter as a “dogma-generating superstition.” While in the early 17th century, the innovators were burnt on the stakes, to date the censors choose instead to burn themselves along with their children and planet.

NO BIG BANG

The expansion theory got disproved in 1929 by Hubble’s friend Zwicky. A remaining gap was closed in 1943 by Chandrasekhar, but the two apparently never met. The final cornerstone is the discovery of a “second statistical mechanics” besides Thermodynamics, called Cryodynamics. It can be used to break the decades-old impasse of hot fusion and hence solve earth’s energy problems.

NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVES

Originally taken back by Einstein, these waves in spacetime were laid to rest by the global constancy of the speed of light c, implicit in the “L” of the T-L-M-Ch theorem (Rossler-Cook) which revives the power of Einstein’s “happiest thought,” the equivalence principle.

NO HAWKING RADIATION

Stephen Hawking’s ingenious idea of black hole evaporation got toppled by the same letter “L” in the Telemach theorem.

THE VOICE OF THE DOLPHINS

Leo Szilard was the first to call for the help of cetacean intelligence, after having been unable to prevent his brainchild, the bomb, from being dropped in 1945.

Next, a female co-worker of John C. Lilly’s took the first steps empirically, but got ostracized into scientific nonexistence.

Finally, Lilly’s good friend Gregory Bateson approved of a paper by the present author published in the San Diego Biomedical Symposium 1975, entitled “A proposed treatment of early infantile autism…” which showed how to tap the higher intelligence and humor of cetaceans and other savants.

THE CERN COVER-UP

On January 27, 2011, CERN stood before a court in Cologne listening to the final advice given to it: To admit a “safety conference” before continuing the nuclear collisions of the LHC experiment. Instead, CERN keeps shooting sharp up to this day while keeping the fact of this official admonition made to it in time a planet-wide secret.

The planet’s media pretend not to know better than the “cleaned version” distributed on Wikipedia, for example.

A PLANET-BORNE QUESTION

In the name of the planet’s cetaceans – dolphins and their relatives including the highest-brained creature known, the sperm whale – and all other savants, I herewith ask the planet’s public to insist on honesty being restored in the face of un-disproved black-hole mediated terminal danger by posing the following question to CERN:

“WHY did CERN cover up the received public admonition to admit the logically necessary safety conference before its continuing with the LHC experiment?”

241

Comments — comments are now closed.

  • Otto E. Rössler on June 5, 2012 3:26 am

    Professor Peter Howell shows he cannot remain within the boundaries of his own profession. I have sympathy for that trait.

  • PassingByAgain on June 5, 2012 3:39 am

    Rossler, you write: “And didn’t you realize that I had detracted from my own argument by the stupid misquote?”

    HUH? it’s exactly the other way round! You misquoted TRMG, pretending that he/she had written “local mass” instead of “total energy”, because “local mass”, in your own words, “fits much better to clinch your argument”. When will you stop playing dumb?

    Or perhaps this is your latest strategy? Making up the physics and misquoting textbooks is no longer enough for you. To sustain your delusion that “Telemach” has not been disproved, you now have to pretend that people on this blog wrote the very opposite of what they have actually written. And who cares if everybody can go through the old comments and just point out your lies? Keep denying the evidence no matter what, and maybe your bubble of madness will not burst…

  • Otto E. Rössler on June 5, 2012 3:48 am

    Please, state what you wanted to say, dear Passenger: Please, do give the counterargument you say exists. I am sometimes slow, but I promise I shall recognize it in both senses of the word if you found it at last.
    (And stop using foul language since this only proves you cannot do better.)
    And: Is TRMG really female and — perhaps — identical with Trigemina whom I admire?

  • hdc on June 5, 2012 3:52 am

    “Stupid misquote” — who should believe this from a proven liar?

    You have done this quite often in the past, trying to change the meaning of ouor opponents statements constructing support for your nonsense where clearly no one was supporting you.

  • hdc on June 5, 2012 3:54 am

    I promise I shall recognize it

    Empty words. In the end Passingbyagain and others will be declared to be dogmatic / stupid / anonymous/ whatsoever — you always find a reason for ignoring disproofs. Your behavior is well known, Rössler!

  • TRMG on June 5, 2012 12:01 pm

    Rössler, you asked me to explain the difference between “mass-energy” and “mass.” Of course, since you are resistant to any good advice you insist on using the ambiguous term “mass-energy,” which is the cause of your whole confusion. Obviously you also forgot your initial motivation to ask me that questions, because you seem absolutely satisfied with a completely imaginary answer, that nobody gave and nobody asked for, about some imaginary difference between “rest mass” and “local mass,” which doesn’t exist.

    Anyway, I answered (your original) question in terms of the only meaningful interpretation of “mass-energy” that is also relevant to the discussion, namely: “rest energy measured by a fixed observer.” (BTW, I forgot to mention in my answer that in order to obtain the rest energy from the total energy you have to consider the case t’=1. So the rest energy, as measured by a distant observer, *per unit mass* equals (1-2M/r).)

    So, it is confirmed by Wald, whose authority was accepted by you, that rest energy measured by the above observer does not equal the body’s mass. This clearly invalidates the basis for your purported observer dependent mass, since you argue from the total energy of photons, which is converted into *rest energy* of atoms, which then is simply, and erroneously, equated with the atom’s mass. This is not only a matter of terminology, since mass and rest energy are different *things*, not just different names for the same thing.

    Perhaps now that the importance of that distinction is hopefully clear to you again, you should give my, or rather Wald’s, answer a third reading. And then, maybe, attempt the first serious answer.

  • Otto E. Rössler on June 5, 2012 1:24 pm

    Dear TRMG:

    I am very grateful for your taking so much time. Let me go directly to the main point. Quote: “your purported observer dependent mass”.

    This I never said or meant. The local observer observes the normal rest mass (if I may use that term in the frame in which it actually applies).

    Now an important misunderstanding has been cleared, so I feel. Does this change anything in your opinion? (I for one see no real difference between how I understand you and what I want to convey.) Thank you once more for your help.

  • TRMG on June 5, 2012 1:57 pm

    And there’s the other guy impersonating “Otto E. Rössler” again.

    “Quote: “your purported observer dependent mass”.
    This I never said or meant.”

    Except the last time on June 2, 2012 1:32 pm in this thread, where you wrote: “The outer observer finds the locally normal appearing rest-mass m on the neutron star to be m/2. […] Nothing else Telemach ever said. ”

    So the local observer measures mass m, the outer observer measures mass m/2. But of course this was the opinion of June-2-Rössler. June-5-Rössler never said that mass depends on the observer.

    “The local observer observes the normal rest mass (if I may use that term in the frame in which it actually applies). ”

    Yes, that’s one half of your story. What mass does June-5-Rössler think the distant observer measures? Please try to answer before the next incarnation of you gets access to the keyboard.

  • hdc on June 6, 2012 12:04 am

    But Telemach is a well defined “theorem” without self-contradictions…of course :D

    Poor Roessler!

  • Otto E. Rossler on June 7, 2012 1:58 am

    Dear TRMG:

    I do not understand your question. To me, everything you quote seems consistent: The local observer measures m, the far-outside observer measures m/2, on our idealized neutron star.

    Where is the problem. We both agree on that. Or at least should — right?

  • eq on June 7, 2012 2:18 am

    Rössler, be careful not mtaking the statements of your other incarnations to be TRMGs. :D

    To everyone here you seem to be quiote confused.

  • Otto E. Rossler on June 7, 2012 2:38 am

    Would this not be a beautiful chance for you to bring order into the confusion?

  • eq on June 7, 2012 2:46 am

    BTW, I fortgot to mention it, you again have contradicted yourself. The June-7-Rössler again speaks about a observer dependent mass while an earlier version of Rössler stated clearly in a reply to TRMG:

    ““Quote: “your purported observer dependent mass”.
    This I never said or meant.””

    So what? :D

  • eq on June 7, 2012 2:48 am

    It is your confusion and the only way to bring order in it would be to learn, Otto.

    You have to learn but first to admit that you lost the debate (not the first time) as everyone here can see..

  • Otto E. Rossler on June 7, 2012 2:50 am

    I never said locally observer-dependent mass. For to the local observer, the mass of a body locally at rest is always constant. The same mass is different for other observers. What makes you so confused about that?

  • eq on June 7, 2012 2:53 am

    Oh, now the game of invention of new terms that in fact never appeared in the discussion before…what boring.

    You were clearly speaking of a observer-dependent mass and at the same time you were denying it. It is clearly shown in the quotes above, you can not hide it. So what, Rössler? Will the June-7-Otto resolve this or add more confusion to it?

  • TRMG on June 7, 2012 3:17 am

    First there is a mistake in my comment on June 5 12:01.

    For a particle at rest t’ = 1/sqrt(1 — 2M/r), not 1, which is just an expression of time dilation. Then it follows that the rest energy, as measured by a distant observer, *per unit mass* equals sqrt(1-2M/r), as it should. Note that this means that the rest energy as measured by a distant observer includes (the negative) potential energy.

    Sorry for adding to the confusion.

    “The local observer measures m, the far-outside observer measures m/2, on our idealized neutron star.”

    So, you’re back at believing in an observer-dependent mass? Then my comment on June 5 12:01 still applies, with the appropriate correction of today.

    “Where is the problem. We both agree on that.”

    What? You think I agree? Is there any of your multiple personalities who remembers what happened the last 200 or so comments on this thread? If so, let him grab the keyboard.

    To repeat: The problem is that mass does not depend on the observer. Rest energy does depend on the observer, but both quantities must not be equated for a distant observer, because for him rest energy equals mass plus potential energy.

  • PassingByAgain on June 7, 2012 3:34 am

    Otto E. Rossler on June 7, 2012 2:50 am writes: “The same mass is different for other observers.”

    That’s it: today’s Rossler believes that the distant observer measures a reduced *rest mass* (as opposed to a reduced *rest energy*) for a body sitting on the neutron star. He does not (or pretends not to) understand the difference between the two concepts. What’s the point of even trying to discuss the fine details of general relativity with such an ignorant clown?

  • eq on June 7, 2012 3:45 am

    BTW,
    Otto E. Rossler on June 7, 2012 2:50 am
    “I never said locally observer-dependent mass. ”

    I never talked about “locally observer dependent mass”. The locally is an addition of yours. Again you tried to change the meaning of other statements by setting up strawmen.

  • Otto E. Rossler on June 7, 2012 4:26 am

    Dear TRMG:

    Thank you for: “Note that this means that the rest energy as measured by a distant observer includes (the negative) potential energy.” (Then he agrees that the local observer sees something different.) I do not believe we have any difference of opinion.

    Another example: “mass does not depend on the observer. Rest energy does depend on the observer, but both quantities must not be equated for a distant observer, because for him rest energy equals mass plus potential energy.” Again I agree.

    Take care, Otto

  • TRMG on June 7, 2012 4:48 am

    ““Note that this means that the rest energy as measured by a distant observer includes (the negative) potential energy.”(Then he agrees that the local observer sees something different.)”

    Not “something” different. I was more specific. He sees a different *rest energy*.

    “I do not believe we have any difference of opinion.”

    Yes we do. You believe that an analogous statement is true for an entirely different physical quantity, namely (rest) mass. I disagree. You even asked me to explain the difference between rest energy and mass, which was the point of my quoting from Wald’s book. But PassingByAgain is right, you seem either unable or unwilling to grasp the difference between these two concepts.

    “Another example: “mass does not depend on the observer. Rest energy does depend on the observer, but both quantities must not be equated for a distant observer, because for him rest energy equals mass plus potential energy.” Again I agree. ”

    Your opinions seem to change by the hour now, which reminds me of our discussion of time dilation, and is, I believe, always symptomatic of your cognitive dissonance reaching its climax. If mass does not depend on the observer, then all observers (including the local and the distant observer) agree about the mass of a particle. Are you sure you want to subscribe to that view? Then what is the content of equation (3) of “Telemach”?

  • Otto E. Rossler on June 7, 2012 4:55 am

    There is love in this man:
    http://www.google.de/imgres?um=1&hl=de&sa=N&b.….s:60,i:237

  • Otto E. Rossler on June 7, 2012 4:56 am

    What do you say to Dr. Penner’s brave attempt?

  • eq on June 7, 2012 4:57 am

    The crackpot again tries to change the topic.

  • eq on June 10, 2012 12:59 pm

    The long Otto-silence again. :D

  • Otto E. Rossler on June 10, 2012 2:59 pm

    Quote (TRMG): “If mass does not depend on the observer, then all observers (including the local and the distant observer) agree about the mass of a particle. ”

    I do not understand the gist of your argument here. Why not stick to facts none of us can disagree about? I gave you some. Let me go slowly: Birkhoff showed that the effective (gravity-generating) mass of a body that you let fall from a larger height is invariant. Komar said similar things. We agree on that (I believe).

    Then imagine a lower-level observer. The same mass-carrying body can be arrested on his floor as it were. To him, the rest mass — the mass he can measure on this body that is now at rest relative to him — is unchaged compared to what the higher-up observer measured when the same massive body was at rest relative to him. I think you will not disagree.

    But then we have a problem, right?

    The body having come to rest relative to the lower-level observer no longer has the full “total mass” (“mass-energy”?) it possessed up there. For part of that mass (or energy) was dissipated when the mass was arrested down there. We even had the example of z=1 when the two local masses, that of the body come to rest itself and that of its re-collected kinetic energy, were both equal.

    You did not bear with me on that previous occasion because you did not reply. Can you do so now? Specifically: Can you re-formulate the problem into a technical language you understand and can stick to, so that I can try and understand what you mean in that language?

  • hdc on June 10, 2012 11:30 pm

    Are you sure you want to stick to your interpretation of the Komar mass again? Are you sure you want still use these non-defined and diffuse terms like “mass-energy” instead of proper defined physical terms?
    Are you sure that you still do not mix up observers ? (Thats obviously your biggest problem — you have a problem with relativity, you want to create a “absoluttivity ” theory :D )

    And by the way, the first question which would be the base for following discussions you still avoid to answer: is mass obsever-dependent or not?

  • Otto E. Rossler on June 11, 2012 2:36 am

    There is a real question coming from anonymous eq for once:
    “Is mass obsever-dependent or not?”

    I gave the answer above. I repeat: Locally it is not, far away it is. Did you not read what I wrote above? You have the choice between contradicting me or agreeing. Why the fear to out yourself with an opinion for once?

    Take care, Otto E. Rossler

  • hdc on June 11, 2012 3:15 am

    You apparently have never understood the question from TRMG…Did you not read what he wrote??

    What do you think is the meaning of a question if one asks you about observer dependency in the context of relativity? Do you think TRMG was asking about “locally observers”? Again you include words which were not asked and not relevant for the question.

    So, again, read the last statements from TRMG and others and answer the question: Is mass dependent on the observer? So far we had two opposite answers from two Otto Rösslers here. If both Rösslers were the same person they are contradicting themselves and were not able to resolve it. Everyone can read that in the last ~50 comments…

  • hdc on June 11, 2012 3:19 am

    TRMG already told you that much of your confusions stems from the fact that you are not able to understand the terms mass or energy. In the last answer you again wrote something completely non-defined — perhaps you should start with clear and precise definitions of your terms instead of writing again diffuse phrases.

  • hdc on June 11, 2012 3:23 am

    Quotation of the last TRMG-posting:

    ““[TRMG]: mass does not depend on the observer. Rest energy does depend on the observer, but both quantities must not be equated for a distant observer, because for him rest energy equals mass plus potential energy.”

    [Rössler:] Again I agree. ”

    [TRMG]: Your opinions seem to change by the hour now, which reminds me of our discussion of time dilation, and is, I believe, always symptomatic of your cognitive dissonance reaching its climax. If mass does not depend on the observer, then all observers (including the local and the distant observer) agree about the mass of a particle. Are you sure you want to subscribe to that view? Then what is the content of equation (3) of “Telemach”? “”

    So far you have not given any substantiated answer to that. You simply repeat your confusion. So on the one hand you agree to the observer-independent mass, on the other hand you conrtradict yourself. Perhaps you should define your terms more precisely… and start to THINK.

  • Otto E. Rossler on June 11, 2012 3:43 am

    Oh no: You both, eq and TRMG, refuse to understand by creating disinformation.

    Can you say a word to the angular-momentum proof of Telemach given yesterday?

    I repeat it in even clearer terms here:

    ————————————————————————-

    “Angular-momentum Conservation Confirms Telemach“

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

    Friction-free clocks (rotating wheels) that are transported towards a lower level in gravity (or in the equivalence principle) rotate more slowly down there in accord with Einstein’s gravitational clock slowdown (“gravitational twin paradox”). They therefore must also be enlarged down there in order to conserve their angular momentum J.

    To witness, take an ideal bicycle wheel with

    J = m * r^2 * omega = const., (1)

    where m denotes the wheel’s mass, r its radius and omega its rotation rate.

    The 3 predictions made by Telemach [1] hold true on an idealized neutron star (with a unit redshift valid on its surface). Down there on the neutron star’s surface, m is halved, r doubled and omega halved. Thus, J is exactly conserved!

    This is a test which any correct interpretation of general relativity (and the Rindler metric) must pass. The currently favored interpretations flunk this test. Therefore they are in for an overhaul. Telemach points the way.

    I thank Heinrich Kuypers for his cooperation. (For J.O.R.)

    References

    [1] O.E. Rossler, Einstein’s equivalence principle has three further implications besides affecting time: T-L-M-Ch theorem (“Telemach”), African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research 5, 44 — 47 (2012). http://www.scribd.com/doc/82752272/Rossler-s-Telemach-paper

    ———————————–

  • hdc on June 11, 2012 4:21 am

    There is nothing like a proof for Telemach as here the same confusion of yours about observers and what which observer measures is the base of your “proof”. As long as you have not understood what several people try to teach you for years now about observers and terms in relativity. In fact you are refusing to write at least proper defined postings and this enhances your confusion again and again.

    BTW, as a proven liar you are the last person who should accuse others with someting like disinformation.

  • Otto E. Rossler on June 11, 2012 4:31 am

    Poor speechless hdc-eq. Really no one able to say a word?

  • hdc on June 11, 2012 4:41 am

    It would be useless to repeat it all over again. Why do you not answer the last question and why are you avoiding it so obviously?

    Without changing or introducing new examples of your confusion, there is no reason for that unless you have resolved the problems with the older statements.

  • Otto E. Rossler on June 12, 2012 12:04 pm

    Not a single scientist around.

  • TRMG on June 16, 2012 10:22 am

    Rössler: “Quote (TRMG): “If mass does not depend on the observer, then all observers (including the local and the distant observer) agree about the mass of a particle. ”
    I do not understand the gist of your argument here. Why not stick to facts none of us can disagree about?”

    This would be a good advice if I was talking to a rational person, but so far you have not shown the slightest reluctance to dispute even the most obvious facts, or assume contradictory statements about these facts.

    It starts with your description of Birkhoff’s theorem which is just absurdly wrong (Birkhoff didn’t show that gravitational mass is invariant. He did show that a particular vacuum solution, namely the Schwarzschild metric, is unique under certain conditions.) But fortunately, for once, your confusion doesn’t matter since Birkhoff’s theorem is completely unrelated to this discussion. I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

    “Then imagine a lower-level observer. The same mass-carrying body can be arrested on his floor as it were. To him, the rest mass — the mass he can measure on this body that is now at rest relative to him — is unchaged compared to what the higher-up observer measured when the same massive body was at rest relative to him. I think you will not disagree.
    But then we have a problem, right?”

    Well, I don’t.

    “The body having come to rest relative to the lower-level observer no longer has the full “total mass” (“mass-energy”?) it possessed up there. For part of that mass (or energy) was dissipated when the mass was arrested down there. We even had the example of z=1 when the two local masses, that of the body come to rest itself and that of its re-collected kinetic energy, were both equal.

    You did not bear with me on that previous occasion because you did not reply. Can you do so now? Specifically: Can you re-formulate the problem into a technical language you understand and can stick to, so that I can try and understand what you mean in that language?”

    Yes I did. The problem is your confusion of two terms of that “technical language” namely, “energy” and “mass.” You were just successfully demonstrating this by blithely interchanging them again in the preceding paragraph. Mass doesn’t get dissipated during the process you described. If the body is stopped below, it loses some of its energy, namely kinetic energy, but its mass stays the same of course. I already explained the difference to you and why it matters to your argument. Maybe you should go back reading what I wrote.

  • Otto E. Rossler on June 19, 2012 2:18 pm

    It would e helpful to other readers if you cared repeating what you had written before when referring to it if it is not in the same thread. (I certainly make similar mistakes and appreciate similar help.)

    Forgive my delayed answer. The last paragraph is the content-rich one. You say “If the body is stopped below, it loses some of its energy, namely kinetic energy, but its mass stays the same of course.”

    I agree. And I ask you to contradict me if I here adduce again the example of the idealized neutron star with z = 1 (that is, a halving of the local speed of time). In this case the kinetic energy set free on landing just suffices to build a second stone of the same local weight. Do you agree?

    Thank you.

  • Otto E. Rössler on June 21, 2012 5:48 am

    P.S. I cordially invite TRGM to find the hoped-for flaw in my maximally primitive (special-relativistic) “Minipaper” on: http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/06/rest-mass-nonconservation-i.….-minipaper

  • handic on September 14, 2012 4:40 pm

    I do agree with all of the ideas you’ve offered to your post. They’re really convincing and can certainly work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. Could you please lengthen them a little from subsequent time? Thank you for the post.

  • Otto E. Rossler on September 15, 2012 12:06 pm

    I appreciate your surprising support, dear anonymous colleague. I shall try to follow your advice. I am momentarily busy updating my post “Complexity decomplexified” which gives — perhaps — a kind of stereoscopic view.