Comments on: If No Single Scientist Openly Contradicts My Results: Why No Public Debate?

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:52:55 +0000

Forgive me — can you, please, repeat the reference?

By: Rajesh

Rajesh — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:58:26 +0000

It was received with a lot of scietpcism from the science world but, as of yet, no one has spotted an obvious flaw, leaving everyone on edge as scientists attempt to replicate the finding. This will be huge news in 2012 if it’s found to be accurate and you can read more about it in my old blog.

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:51:36 +0000

Dear Messenger:
Please, allow me to ask what paper you have in mind.

By: Messenger

Messenger — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 02:52:24 +0000

Dr. Rossler,
If you are still active, I would be grateful for any reviews and feedback you could provide on the paper linked from the above forum.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:00:48 +0000

In the other currently very active blog here on Lifeboat, we have just arrived at a point where the strange fact that the whole discipline of physicists adheres to a false picture of gravity: To an erroneous physical interpretation of the correct Einstein principles and equations.

In short: The community of specialists believes that although even light takes an infinite amount of time to reach the horizon from the outside, or to emerge from the horizon, as the accepted equations imply, some other objects (material bodies like astronauts or electrons or virtual particles) could reach the horizon or come out from it in finite outer time.

This false belief is decades old and thus time-honored. Every citizen knows about Hawking radiation which is based on this very assumption. So it would be high time some physicist of standing in the public eye would start to explain the situation to the world public.

Am I right when saying that this is the biggest gaffe in science for many decades, and that on the basis of this oversight all the media of the world have cooperated with CERN exposing the public to dangers obviously potentially implicit in the bigest blunder of history?

This fact — in case people like Leonard Susskind (from whose work I learned much 13 years ago) and Gerard ‘t Hooft do not object — not to speak of Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein and my friend David Finkelstein — suffices to prove to the world public and the media that the very physicists they trust blindly enough to suppress all warnings are not trustworthy. Unfortunately.

Is this not a ray of hope at the horizon?

By: AnthonyL

AnthonyL — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:42:09 +0000

Unfortunately, no man is a hero to his valet (or wife). Therefore no man at CERN or outside it at a high level is going to take his wife’s concern seriously unless a Lysistrata strategy is implemented. Even then doubts that a chorus of Old Women would be enough to take over the Akropolis in this case, however, and there are plenty of females on the CERN staff anyway. So on the whole it appears that only President Obama remains a worthwhile target, ie of sufficient stature and capable of listening and acting on the gravity of the theoretical dangers. Access through Michelle would appear hopeless unless she is given a tour of inspection of the gigantic halls of the LHC, which should give any sensible mortal pause. The first step, therefore, is to sell CERN on the idea of giving Michelle and her husband a tour of the facilities, provided of course that they are in good order at the time, and not under helium. Perhaps this should be emphasized as an addition means of pointing out the dangers, by highlighting the inept engineering capacities of LHC staff having already led to it twice falling apart like a Christmas toy for physicists where some of the bolts got lost in the unwrapping and assembly.

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:27:48 +0000

Yes.

By: AnthonyL

AnthonyL — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 05:25:33 +0000

Well; Dr Rossler, at the risk of sounding facetious, we have our heroic figure already in the form of your distinguished and thoughtful self, but unless you are already influential with a wife in key position, or preferably, more than one wife, or are prepared to try and place yourself in such a position, the outlook is not bright, and we can fully understand that you may be morally prevented from any such course of advance. On the other hand, the law celebrated by the play Six Degrees of Separation is that we are all separated from any other person on the planet by only six steps of friendship or connection, so maybe the process can be effected through more than one link.

We are merely trying to be positive, and give you some humorous relief, but we can see, Alas, that we are probably coming off too facetious for a very serious issue, one that has arisen precisely because the grown kids at CERN laugh it off.

Still, we do believe that wives and daughters may be the route to salvation, since women tend to have considerable skepticism about their husbands anyway, unless they share the same career. And possibly even then.

All that may be needed is that Carla Bruni or the equivalent at CERN be apprised of Lifeboat and there may be a breakthrough.

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:58:47 +0000

I agree with you that the peer-review system guarantees dogmatic science –the absence of scientific revolutions. This is why it was deliberately introduced by Leo Szilard, by the way.

I also completely agree that one of the CERN wives is the hope of the world. If they only were allowed to learn about this lifeboat.

By: AnthonyL

AnthonyL — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:22:38 +0000

Sorry that should read "journal dedicated" not "medicine dedicated".