May 23, 2011

Self-critical Assessment of My Armageddon-preventing Results – to be Read Before the American Congress

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Moderate climate critic Richard A. Muller emphasized before the American Congress that a fair presentation of any warning-type scientific results presupposes a fair treatment of the stance of the skeptical majority. I therefore herewith present my Armageddon scenario (of 8 percent within perhaps 5 years) to the American Congress in the requisite, maximally vulnerable manner; in 4 points.

Point # 1 – lack of publication in refereed journals –

Correct. My seminal paper of 2007 remains unprinted – even though it was accepted for publication by a refereed journal. The reason: the journal got closed down. Although it was re-opened recently under its old name, its scope was reduced so as to no longer cover theoretical physics. The journal’s name: “Chaos, Solitons and Fractals.”

Point # 2 – alleged falsity of my first major result –

The result (a “gravitational space dilation” paralleling gravitational time dilation) was independently described in 2009 by Professor Richard J. Cook of the American Air Force Academy.

This result is not really contentious since the traditional interpretation of general relativity and the Einstein equivalence principle makes the same quantitative predictions about measurable data. Only that the traditional interpretation (a locally undetectable reduction of the speed of light in proportion to the gravitational redshift) is replaced by a simpler one (global constancy of the speed of light) which would have greatly pleased Einstein.

Point # 3 – alleged falsity of my second major result –

The result (“gravitational mass-energy reduction”) is well-known to hold true for locally emitted photons. The implied proportional mass-energy reduction of any locally at rest particle and body was independently described by Cook. It to my knowledge stays uncontested. The traditional notion of the “Komar mass” has essentially the same meaning.

Point # 4 – alleged falsity of my third major result –

The result (“gravitational charge reduction”) is revolutionary. It was confirmed by Cook (personal communication 2011). It is a new implication of Einstein’s equivalence principle and the general theory of relativity. It follows from point 3 via general covariance.


Rather than go on with implications, I stop with this third result because it is a scandal. It contradicts 95 years of post-general-relativity physics (“Reissner-Nordström metric”) and 150 years of electromagnetism (“Gauss-Stokes theorem”). Such a revolution is maximally rare. It is bound to have major implications.

There is no response from the part of the profession. The LHC experiment — which is made maximally unsafe by the new results — is being quietly continued. Hate blogs (“relativ-kritisch” and “ElNaschiewatch”) are needed to keep the media quiet.

I would like to ask the American Congress to launch an investigation into lack of circumspectness of the American physical organizations and science media, in the face of revolutionary new results suppressing which endangers the American people.

Professor Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher, University of Tubingen, Germany (For J.O.R., May 23, 2011)


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. robomoon says:

    Perhaps it is not a problem at all, but it may be not totally unnecessary to tell you that one part of the following epilog could eventually be misunderstood by someone who does not know so much about the correct grammatical syntax of: “The LHC experiment – which is made maximally unsafe by the new results…” So if, for e.g., someone like one less informed individual who is not sufficiently literate in the English grammar and perhaps also without sufficient knowledge about some background info is reading this, an insufficient know-how about the grammar could be leading to one little misinterpretation. So the sentence could be understood like: “the LHC experiment is made maximally unsafe by the new results (because the new results are a dangerous thing).”

  2. Thank you, you are right. Also I have to admit that the experiment is being made absolutely unsafe by the new result. Without it, it wouldn’t be — until one finds out too late.

  3. Me says:

    Why are you gekrümmt comment that are frigidem with Roessler’s actions? No free Speech analoge? Roessler’s does compare the Holocaust with CERN, Look for yourself St ‘’. Or are you agreeing with him?

  4. Dear Mr. Me:

    Forgive me that in the next generation I am bent on preventing the final extinction of the chosen people along with all potential sons of Abraham, including all potential future persons on the planet.

    I cannot understand why you distribute defamatory information that is recognizably self-contradictory. I learned from my late father that there is only one religion which does not hold the sons responsible for the sins of their fathers — ours. Take care, Otto

  5. robomoon says:

    It is currently appropriate to hazard the consequences deriving from words like Holocaust at when the press is not sufficiently available. If a journalistic action would be available as already demanded in previous blog articles, the public could be better informed without usage of such words or related expressions of angry emotions. For a neutral use of language, see…brief_an_a invoking: the Charter of the United Nations.

  6. Otto E. Rossler says:


  7. Peter Howell says:

    So my original post got deleted — censorship as the last standing weapon. Great. And no — comparing the holocaust to science is not legitamate, it’s spitting on the graves of millions who have died by tortureof the Nazis — Nazis such as Rösler’s father was one. It seems to stick in the family!

    So go on, censor this post and show what you think of free speach and democracy!

  8. robomoon says:

    Nobody posting comments to the above blog article is doing something bad equal to spitting, censoring free speech, etc. Are you posting all these things in hope that I am agreeing with it? Is there any legal reason? No, I do not agree!

  9. Me says:

    Once again a reply from Peter got deleted and censored. You guys have Problem with democracy and free speech!

  10. robomoon says:

    The problem are indignities.

  11. Me says:

    Dignity is what you, Roessler et al are missing. Censoring was the start of all evil regimes. Do some research on Roessler’s father and you will find out that Roessler is lying. But that’s not the point. You are surpressing and censoring diverse opinions in this blog, so why have commentary funtion at all? Oh, and Roessler is no Jew as he claims, juat another of his tricks. If I would have lost family during the Nazi regime, I would be hurt deeply by Roessler’s attacks.

  12. Forgive me but I never suppressed any expression of opinion in this blog, nor did I lie consciously. If you know more about me than I do, I will be grateful to learn about your knowledge.

    But what I do not understand: What is it that makes you angry at the request to be cautious and rational in a situation that might be deadly? If someone tries to save your life, why dissemate hate against him?

  13. robomoon says:

    Only the truly revolutionary ideas in psychology science will be helpful to learn about the right communications with an individual who is often overly angry with you. The common definition of sanity would not help to convince angry attackers by normal ways of communications, despite of natural science that should keep them with their alliances and offspring alive. It must be for a better mental health to avoid direct communications with them while better therapeutic ways of language use are insufficiently retrievable. Disclaimer: there is not a close cultural connection between me and the following link…tists.html and this has not been written by a professional therapist.

  14. Me says:

    Calling people with different opinion mentally ill has also been used by your idols before — Hitler, Stalin, .…

  15. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Opinions do not matter, only facts. Why are you uttering false and hateful opinions when all we need is to get the facts right? Please, dear Me, start to help by providing a fact.