I congratulate Peter Higgs. And I ask him to forgive me that I raised the “cost” issue in my Aljazeera interview of to date. Not the financial cost, but the cost incurred by humankind: The fact that the doubling of data planned for the rest of the year (up to the scheduled pause for upgrading) will once more double the risk that the planet will be shrunk into a 2-cm black hole after a few years’ delay.
This risk is presently at about 4 percent already. Doubling it is a nightmare – unless a counterproof can be found. Until this aim has been achieved, I herewith ask Peter Higgs to join me in bequeathing CERN for a brief stop until the “doubling of the danger” has been shown to be inconsequential: because the black holes, to which CERN’s sensors are blind by design according to the published proof, have been shown to be absent since the proof has been punctured. The best scientist of the planet may need only hours if we are all lucky.
So far, CERN refuses to address the 4-year-old issue that only grew in strength – by admitting a safety conference. No citizen of the planet understands this ostrich policy. Dear Peter Higgs: will you help us all? No one else on the planet can.
I gave all proofs. There lies no counterproof on the table.
If you have one, give it as a theorem, please. I apologize for being unable to see one in your injunctions. If this is my own fault, others will be grateful to you, too, if you can formulate a counter-proof to Telemach. It will make you famous. You will even no longer have to hide your face. Thank you.
Earlier comments here:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….1#comments
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….2#comments
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….3#comments
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….4#comments
You gave no proofs — what you gave was a pseudoscientific non-sequitur gish-gallop. You were not even able to prove your (poor and obvious wrong ) equations being correct…no definitions, no derivations, a lot of empty words and prosaic bullshit.
If something is definitelyx no scientific proof its your “paper”.
As you are claiming extraordinary things you have the burden of proof and therefore you have to deliver:
2) A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months.
3) A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?”
It is quite amusing and says a lot about your honesty that you are evading these questions for years now.
“You gave no proofs” is a nice rhetorical statement — my compliments.
However, if my proof is so easy to disprove as you claim: why not give it a try?
I am afraid everyone sees that you are doing CERN a very big disfavor here by giving the impression as if you were paid by them to saw disinformation. This is a very bad example to offer to the younger generation: Propaganda is not science, my dear eq.
Otto, instead of this non-scientific bullshit and poor statements about motivations, all done in order to hide your complete lack of hard evidence supporting your claims, you should invest your time in answering the questions. It is obvious that you are tyring to disinform the public here.…
There is no rational reason for your avoidance of the questions and therefore scientific standards.
So again you have to deliver:
2) A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months.
and
3) A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?”
Your request to believe your statements blindly is not science, but pure dogmatism.
PS: Of course your “proof” (which is in fact no proof) was refuted many times, I even repeated a few of the critical points above. Perhaps you can answer the public why you never derived your equations from Einstein oriiginal ones when asked. And this is only one of many open questions.…
PS 2: What is the danger actually? 5,67%?
Did you ask CERN’s approval before continuing with the open disinformation?
No, Otto. I am still waiting for the pay-cheque from CERN — strangely they are paying much less than I should deserve according to your postings.
Precise questions are the opposite of disinformation. Calling questions clearly pointing to crucial parts of your claims are surely no disinformation. On the other hand, to avoid answers to these questions by suggesting they were already answered is clearly a kind of disinformation. If there are somewhere the detailed calculations asked for, just give them. So far no one on the planet has ever seen something like that from you.
To remind you:
A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months.
and
A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?”
This CERN supporter requires exact probabilities to be given before he accepts the fact that his house has already caught fire.
“Count Bobby” is the right nickname for him.
Oh, Otto, the question seems to difficult for you.
A detailed calculation means not necessary the number has to be exact in the end — it means you have to show up your model behind your extraordinary probabilities. What inputs are there, what are the assumptions, operations, and so on.
That was asked, ans someone like you who throws extraordinary high probabilities like 5% in the discussion should be able to show very strong evidene supporting it.
So, there is no way to avoid it. You introduced the numbers, you never could expect from anyone in the community to leave this un-questioned. You can still apologize and admit to have violated ethical and scientific standards by just inventing the number.
And again, the first question asks especially for a proof that there is fire.
Detailed calculations again mean a scientific model with precise defintions and assumptions etc.
“And again, the first question asks especially for a proof that there is fire.”
Thank you for this statement. Telemach is waiting for your counter-proof.
Telemach is far away from being a serious scientific paper or a “theorem” (perhaps you should present the world your definition of a theorem — I think that could be quite amusing). For instance, it lacks still proper defintions, clear and precise derivations of the equations and so on.
So far it is a pseudoscientific gish-gallop with vague prosa..It is well known that you deliver up to three contradicting defnitions even for the quantities in your first equation when asked for it in discussions…short: your behavior was the clear opposite of being scientific but exactly fulfilling the definition of a crank.
So, if you want to have attention you should work on answers to the questions:
To remind you:
A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months.
Which is nothing else than a substantiation of your claim. As already mentioned, so far there is in fact nothing that could be called scientific even on a rudimentary level.
and, do not forget, as you are supporting your defamatory statements with high and extraordinary probabilities:
A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?”
The interesting point is, why you try to avoid especially the last point so strangely with evasive statements of poorest quality.
(In a July 24 posting, Rössler used the word criminal. Here is my response and explanation of why I don’t see a point in continuing.)
I do not know Otto Rössler personally. But after watching him repeatedly make scientific and numeric and mathematical claims about the chances of something happening and the time for something happening and about certain claims being theorems and never answering questions about assumptions, calculations, axioms and reasoning, I have come to the strong, if provisional, opinion that he is only a self-promoting pseudomathematician and often prone to making up stories to make himself seem more important. If Otto Rössler were any type of scientific expert there would be no need to ask these questions because scientific methodology and any proper peer review of Rössler’s work both would have required him to answer these basic questions as part of the burden of proof of someone making original claims.
Due to these as-yet unjustified and therefore scientifically irresponsible claims, reportedly a girl in India committed suicide in 2008. In some jurisdictions it is a criminal act to shout “Fire!” in a theater because of the high chance of panic and injury. Similarly in an actual case of evacuating a ship to the lifeboats, panic-mongering is counter-productive. Rössler is not solely responsible for the media firestorm that flared up in 2008 but he was all too happy to pour the fuel on the fire.
Science has to be a precise, useful and communicable description of nature. Rössler only claims precision but has not communicated how he has any idea how his claims usefully relate to nature and therefore has neither communicated a scientific model of nature nor demonstrated that his claims are useful in any scientific manner. Instead of demonstrating where the claims come from Rössler cements my inference that he simply makes up baseless stories by not answering basic questions that would have been asked very early on if he had not evaded peer review.
In this posting, I think Rössler has jumped from pseudomathematician to pseudolawyer and should be ignored for similar reasons. If his claims were based in evidence and communicable reasoning it should be easy to explain them and in four years this self-styled soi disant prosecutor has not built a case and denied that he has the burden of proof. A CERN researcher has spend hours with Rössler and no part of his thinking has been elucidated. Perhaps Rössler’s most productive step would to consult with an expert of the mind and try and work out why he has been unable to explain the reasoning behind any of his many claims. I am not of the provisional opinion that the reason is some sort of superhuman genius unique to Rössler.
I expect this to be my last posting, because nothing more needs to be said.
But before you leave rpnenner, this is something interesting for you.
The followings are links to interesting articles for you to read about the connections between noncommutative geometry, Cantorian space-time, scale relativity, transfinite probabilities, fuzzy logic, etc. I hope you will see a lot of physics and rigorous mathematics here that runs against your claims of the Cantorian space-time ideas being only numerics:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0007224
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/09600779/2001/0000.….1/art00196
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0004152
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0011040
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0009014
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0104016
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0002019
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0101104
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0305035
http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle.fullcontentlink:pdfe.…..4.451.xml
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0107266
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0001134
http://www.cima.uevora.pt/FullText/Ramos-Martins-Severino-Ra.….namics.pdf
Good luck rpenner.
I apologize for having given a theorem. Mr. Penner is not able to say why it is wrong, but he uses folk psychology to publicly discredit its author. It is a good idea to quit if he is really unable to understand.
And I ask again everyone who can come up with a counter theorem to Telemach to do so. And I apologize if I ever refused to answer a scientific question from Mr. Penner. In this case I ask his forgiveness and pledge for him to kindly repeat it.
This does not hold for every questioner here becaus many like Mr. Penner publicly show their personal prejudices but do not give a guarantee that the hundredth attempt at explaining a simple fact to them has any purpose to it.
Friendly criticism is, however, the bread and butter of science. Anyone who has a friendly criticism to offer is cordially invited to utter it, no matter whether being anonymous or not. I shall do my best to reply to him or her.
I also did not yet give up on my hope that Mr. Penner will come back to the scientific dialog that he had engaged me in early on. And I am sure he is very competent doing so.
Dear blog Adminstrator, Mr Kerwick, I made a comment to reply to Mr rpenner but it didn’t appear. Please kindly release it. Thanks.
This may sound crazy but I believe that time runs on a cioonnutus time wave . A time wave resembles radio waves of information, a time wave is similar in some aspects. A time wave consists information from a certain time and place in history and if that time wave is captured or accessed, a time traveler can travel to that point in time and with the right equipment that traveler can access earlier time waves from the current time wave being accessed and allowing the traveler to go further back in time. There will be a new particle that will provide further exploration into the field called, Zero Atom, or Absolute Zero Particle . So in plain english, we can tune in on history.
Would be great, but appears incompatible with special relativity, does it not? Who is cioonnutus? Who is Ayano?