Menu

Blog

Jun 18, 2011

Five Fateful Coincidences

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

- Black holes do not evaporate.

- Black holes are uncharged.

- Black holes cannot eat neutron stars from within.

- Black holes grow exponentially inside earth.

- Black holes arise more readily than thought.

Everybody immediately agrees that so many simultaneous overturns of accepted wisdom are unlikely to be all valid even if no counterproof has been forthcoming for 4 years. If a single one of the first four findings is false, CERN is safe (if the fifth is false, CERN is less unsafe).

On the basis of this purely probabilistic argument, CERN quietly rejects the “scientific safety conference” requested from the German government by a court. On the same basis, the planet’s print media have resolved to spare their readers the disquieting news that there is an 8 percent chance of the planet being shrunk to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time if all 5 points are true and CERN continues.

If science were a matter of probabilistic common sense, this decision — shared by the pope, the queen, the emperor, the president and the helmsman — would be impeccable. But then the earth would still be flat too. So, please, forgive me for continuing.

- Point 1 dethrones Stephen Hawking’s famous 38 years old conjecture. (The reason is the Telemach theorem which states that along with the gravitational time dilation T, also length L, mass M and charge Ch co-vary in proportion or anti-proportion, respectively.)

- Point 2 dethrones the famous electromagnetic extensions of general relativity and the venerable physical law of charge conservation (again Ulysses’ son Telemach is responsible).

- Point 3 is an implication of quantum mechanics (frictionless superfluidity).

- Point 4 is an implication of chaos theory (Kleiner attractor).

- Point 5 is due to the empirical validity of a form of string theory (implicit in point 2).

That so many new results should hold true simultaneously is highly improbable a priori. Therefore the un-disproved five coincidences amount to a genuine trap posed to humankind by nature: To either give up on 5 scientific dogmas simultaneously or else die with a probability of 8 percent.

The most recent analog is the 7 plagues sent to a self-righteous pharaoh in an old tale. Then I would be given the role of the prophet – a 71 years old chaoticist who finds himself forced by destiny to try and bring his contemporaries to dismantling at least one out of 5 insights blown by the wind onto his desk? Fortunately, every earthling retains the chance to survive with 92 percent if CERN continues not tolisten. So maybe I should rather shut up?

Forgive me for being less risk-prone than many: I insist publicly on CERN’s stopping immediately until one of the 5 fateful coincidences has been removed. My perseverance may have to do with my having seen the uniqueness of the human smile in the cosmos. Old people have strange insights.

(Elements of an improvised talk given yesterday at the University of the Arts Berlin to unwind Olafur Eliasson’s interdisciplinary conference “Life Is Space 4 Marathon.” I thank the wonderful interactive audience and the organizer who of course do not share in the responsibility. For J.O.R.)

308

Comments — comments are now closed.


  1. Ed Sweet says:

    I still can’t see how, if your five points are true, that star formation could have happened at all. Given the gigantic volume of space, colliding cosmic rays would have seeded enough slow moving black holes (which would get sucked into protostellar nebulas, and sometimes capture enough atoms to slow down and get captured by the protostars) to lead to a galaxy full of black holes and not of stars.

    And if you think it’s bad in the spiral arms, just wait till you get to the crowded environment of the galactic center…black holes galore!!! Exactly what we do not see.

    Like all crackpots, you do not link your pet theory to the way the real world works. Just like believers in psychic powers, who never quite explain why psychics never go to Las Vegas, or play poker. Or UFO believers, who never quite explain why UFO’s look so much like military “black project” aircraft, if they’re from space. Or alternative medicine quacks, who ignore loads of negative evidence, and say their treatments work even if they don’t outperform the placebo effect.

    Does your theory make any empirical predictions that experiments can see, other than the Earth getting sucked into a black hole in a few years? Anything we can test???

    Or what about loss of charge effect having observable effects in heavy atomic nuclei??

    The reason Stephen Hawking does not listen to your argument, is that it has enough holes to fly a fully loaded 747 through!

  2. Dear Mr. Sweet, Esq.:

    hank you for your nice — unfortunately quantitatively misleading to the best of my knowledge — ideas about the density of head-on collisions of cosmic rays in the universe.

    Then you make me sad because you start attacking me personally. What I would dearly want to know is why.

    You obviously did not read my paper on Telemach on Lifeboat. There are many wonderful consequences of the new basic finding mentioned in it.

    Your question about heavy atomic nuclei misses the fact that charge, like rest mass-energy, is being reduced only in gravitation, not in special relativity or under the influence of the strong force. Although this latter question which you are responsible for raising may well generate surprises in the future. Ideas in this direction can be found in György Darvas’ work if I am not mistaken.

    Please, tell me why you treat me as a hateworthy person. It gravely chagrins me.

    Sincerely yours,
    Otto E. Rossler

  3. Hnasel says:

    Or what about this superfluidity effect in neutron stars. Where is the theoretical derivation of gravitational superfludity? or the superfluidity of the strong and weak forces?

    Is there something like a scientific argument behind Rösslers statement or is this again a hole a “fully loaded 747 can pass”?

  4. Good question, Mr. Hnasel, but the superfluidity of neutron star cores is long in the literature. I drew attention to it as a refutation of CERN’s neutron star argument in a paper sent to CERN and published in July 2008 (“A rational and moral and spiritual dilemma”).

  5. Hnasel says:

    Superfluidity/friction is a electromagnetic phenomenon. Neutron stars were chosen because of their high density and enormous gravitation. You are obviously not aware of this. Additionally there is no kind of theoretical derivation of gravitational superfluidity or superfluidity concerning the strong and weak force in your mentioned “paper” (how can someone really call that stuff a “scientific paper”?) which would be relevant for an environment extreme as the interior of a neutron star. It seems to be that your argument does not even exist in terms of good scientific working!

  6. You are right: principles must be seen at first before they can be elaborated — what you call “good scientific working.” Science is like medicine: anything that helps is better than nothing at all. But you err about superfluidity: there is no “gravitational superfluidity,” only quantum superfluidity. It would be nice if you could work out the quantum equations of the undisputed and well-known (among other groups Tubingen-described — not my group) high-temperature superfluidity present in neutron stars. The latter has the consequence that black holes cannot grow much inside neutron stars.

    While a mini black hole of high linear momentum, originating from a cosmic ray colliding with a crust particle, does get stuck in the crust to grow there as CERN correctly says, it does not stay there since it becomes heavier and heavier. So it breaks loose and sinks into the superfluid large core where it fasts. It will only eat some more when reaching the crust from the inside next time on its Keplerian course, becoming heavier once more. This could go on for a long time, causing sudden rotation changes (“glitches” are indeed being observed). But so only if there is but one resident black hole. If it is two or more, they are bound to meet some day and by colliding lose some of their former kinetic energy. Such an internal colony can stay there forever as it were. So the persisting existence of many neutron stars is not the safety argument that CERN claims it to be. I used to think it was against better knowledge but it now appears to me more probable thanks to your help that they just do not care about “ugly science” — much like yourself. I would love to talk with a group of people at CERN. Can you make the contact?

  7. Hnasel says:

    quantum superfluidity

    uh, you have found a nice word. Obviously you have only this word as you are showing here:

    It would be nice if you could work out the quantum equations

    So in fact you have nothing more than this statement. And of course there is no other real scientist in the field who says something like “mini black holes can not grow inside a neutron star because of the superfluidity”. Are they all brainwashed? Are they all stupid idiots and only you are right, having not a single equation, no proof, absolutely nothing more than this statement?

    I do not think that someone at CERN wanted to talk to you again. Not after accusing them as being a kind of modern nazis preparing a genocide and so on, all accusations based on flawed non-arguments like the points above.

  8. Dear Mr. Hnasel: I say nothing about other scientists; I learned from you to be more tolerant.

    Anything new in science is awkward and worthy of further elabortion and added elegance. Is it not fine with you if something does not have a finished dogmatic character as of yet? I mean, does it not tickle you to make it better? I do need your help in that.

    Some sciences even remain qualitative. Poincaré had a hard time convincing his fellow mathematicians that topology and qualitative behavior had anything to do with hard science.

    Not having dealt with a new question does not presuppose one’s being brainwashed. There simply are new things to discover. And actually it is much more fun than to reproduce or embellish what is folklore already.

    You see, I do not call CERN genocidal — in terms of its intentions. Only in terms of its committing the dumbest deed of history. How would you call someone with whom you identify to prevent him from making a suicidal mistake? My father used to call me names, but it was always in a loving spirit. This is how I hope CERN will take it if I say: dear stupoidest most noble scientists of the world, please, start to listen at long last. For no one else loves you more than I do.

    Sounds even worse, doesn’t it?

    Got it?
    .

    nL.

  9. The last two lines I forgot to remove.

  10. eq says:

    Blablabla, Mr. Rössler. Your talking about dogmatic stuff and so on is only bullshit, written by you to avoid any scientific elaboration of your statements.

    The facts are like this: you have no proof, no argument. Only saying that there is an effect is not science. Scientists like Einstein, Hawking, Planck etc had clear and exact derivations of their theses. They had clear equations with predictions for experiments. Please stop comparing yourself with these real scientists.

    You have absolutely nothing as was in fact admitted by yourself in the previous postings.

  11. eq says:

    Only in terms of its committing the dumbest deed of history.

    Bullshit. That is no excusion for your postings comparing much better scientists than you with modern nazis preparing a “planetocaust”.

    So, instead of writing more prosaic bullshit, whre is your scientific proof for gravitational/strong/weak force superfluidity?

  12. Ed Sweet says:

    Where are some hard numbers proving that my argument about cosmic ray collisions producing black holes (and precluding star formation, and the existence of red giant stars) is quantitatively misleading?

    I would be glad to stop repeating this argument, if someone would show me hard numbers. I took Professor Tottoli’s calculation at face value…could his collision numbers have been too high?

    I will admit I am wrong, if someone will just show me why I am wrong…

  13. Okay, that is fair enoiugh on your part. But forgive me that it is illogical. You argue that as long as a certain hand-waving counterargument to the proven danger has not been dismantled in detail — which may take years -, there is no danger. Niccolò Tottoli is not the only one who has thought about this. Others have arrived at other hand-waving numbers. You sound like wanting to bet the life of the planet on waiting for a consensus concerning this subquestion?

    The question itself is good and worthy of more effort.

  14. Me says:

    It is useles to try to rgue or discus with Roessler. He has proven to be imune to logic, is not listening to arguments and — as you all have concluded quickly and rightful — has no scientific proof for his claims. Intead he is trying to make as many ad homen statements against CERN as possible.

    Lifeboat is losing lots of credibility handing this blog to Roessler for his crusade against humanity and science!

  15. Ed Sweet says:

    This is no longer worth my time and effort to try and debunk, since nobody is being convinced. Goodbye everyone. Back to my life.

  16. Hnasel says:

    “proven danger”

    LOL. Show your proof. You can start with your neutron star argument. Up to now there is nothing which can be called a scientific argument from your side.

  17. Thank you for asking me to repeat. Going through my posts on Lifeboat is what I would kindly invite you to do first. The neutron star argument was presented above. Please, tell me where to elaborate.

  18. Hnasel says:

    There is no scientific argument above. For the start you should perhaps look in real papers to learn how a scientific argument looks like. You know, detailed calculations, predictions derived out of equations and so on.

    You say that the dense matter of the interior of a neutron star can not be eaten by a microblackhole. Show it. Up to now there is nothing than your statement.

  19. Richard Kane says:

    Micro black holes may or may not be safe but slightly more likely to be safe if experiments were on the Moon. If it is true they can never stay still, two of them going at equal speeds opposite each other, if slower than light care might be taken to keep them away from the sun. If stable under only ideal conditions the liquid helium coolant rotated with heavier and warmer liquids than liquid helium. And the cooling coils perpendicular, so the gravity pulling toward the center of the earth wouldn’t allow a small delicate hole to be caught in an updraft suspending it in place.

    If strangelets becomes a problem various possible containers. a fast elevator, and rockets at the top in Switzerland taking turns being ready for instant launch. It is also possible that there might be some kind of warning so taking Otto seriously might lead to a quick stop in research.

    RichardKane
    pa.blogspot.com

  20. Robert Houston says:

    In their misguided effort to debunk the serious safety issues raised by Dr. Rossler re the LHC, the rude disputants on this thread demonstrate their own ignorance.

    For example, Hnasel says, “Show your proof. You can start with your neutron star argument…” His foolish claim is that there’s no reason to believe that neutron stars have superfluid cores.

    In actuality, astrophysics databases show that since 1970 there have been some 60 published studies affirming the superfluid and superconductive state of neutron stars — their cores and also their crusts. Recently, NASA’s Chandra X-ray satellite found direct evidence of the superfluid core of a neutron star. See: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/02/23/nasas.chandra.fi…stars.core .

    Ed Sweet has persisted in baseless assertions that any black holes formed by cosmic rays (CR) could be slowed to below the escape velocities of the Earth and Sun. CERN’s top safety theorists extensively studied this issue and concluded otherwise. The 2008 published technical report by Giddings and Mangano of CERN, which analyzed potential slow-down mechanisms (Sec. 5), found that “these mechanisms cannot efficiently slow down neutral CR-produced black holes in Earth, or in other bodies such as planets and ordinary stars” (p. 16).

  21. hnasel says:

    Ah, that is “my foolish claim”? Was it me to use the superfluidity as an argument?

    The point is not whether neutron stars are suprfluid or not but Rösslers foollish claim that superfluidity would prevent any particle inside the star being hit by another particle. Otto should give theoretical explanations for his up to now completely unfounded assumptions. It is indeed foolish to consider Rösslers statements as “serious safety issues” –because in fact they do not even exist in the present form.

    Again a incomplete citation as in the thread about hawking radiation? :D

  22. TRMG says:

    “His foolish claim is that there’s no reason to believe that neutron stars have superfluid cores. ”

    No, the superfuidity itself is not the issue. Only that (uncharged) black holes don’t care for equations of state, but merely for the energy density surrounding them, which is nevertheless higher in the core than in the crust. This is because, if uncharged, they only interact via gravity the source of which is energy. Rössler claims otherwise without any proof, that the state of matter somehow is important. He makes these claims up ad hoc and recklessly without any efforts, then promotes them as “theorems” and expects others to scrutinize them meticulously. This is unscientific and dishonest imposture.

  23. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I am interested to hear that taking the lack of friction, discovered by Kammerlingh-Onnes exactly 100 years ago and more or less well explained by quantum mechanics since, seriously is non-scientific.

    A danger that no one can disprove is certainly unscientific in comparison to a proven non-danger, but unfortunately we still do not have the latter. This is my whole point.

    Of course am I a foolish human being. But why get angry at me if I am trying to increase your own security, dear young colleagues. All the topics I am touching on are beautiful themes for Ph.D theses. In that sense it would likewise make sense to help me. For all I am asking for is to be proven wrong. As no physics Nobel prize winner is able to do it, you would win a big name by being stronger.

    Please, embark on a program to falsify me! The planet will be grateful to you and pay you well. I could put in a good word for you at Singularity University.

  24. TRMG says:

    “I am interested to hear that taking the lack of friction, discovered by Kammerlingh-Onnes exactly 100 years ago and more or less well explained by quantum mechanics since, seriously is non-scientific. ”

    But you won’t. Only travestying Kamerlingh Onnes’s result by claiming that it shows black holes to be prevented from accreting matter in a high density environment is unscientific. Not the friction, but the density is relevant for accretion speed.

    “For all I am asking for is to be proven wrong.”

    Done. You still got an equation to revise, remember? Your understanding of gravitational time dilation is shown to be flawed.

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/05/osama-bin-cern#comments

  25. AnthonyL says:

    Additionally there is no kind of theoretical derivation of gravitational superfluidity or superfluidity concerning the strong and weak force in your mentioned “paper — Hnasel

    In actuality, astrophysics databases show that since 1970 there have been some 60 published studies affirming the superfluid and superconductive state of neutron stars – their cores and also their crusts. Recently, NASA’s Chandra X-ray satellite found direct evidence of the superfluid core of a neutron star. — Houston.

    Ah, that is “my foolish claim”? Hnasel

    Yes, that is your foolish claim, or solid implication, Hnasel, that superfluidity at the core of neutron stars was undemonstrated, along with many other foolish remarks. it is time for you to pay attention to your betters, Hnasel, since your mistakes are not even enlightening. Please leave Prof Rossler alone, and stop making puerile objections to his well executed papers. Or ask him with proper respect to elucidate if there are so many things you do not understand.

    Rossler does not deserve to be beset by schoolboys whose immature high school geek status is obvious and whose knowledge is evidently derived entirely from Wikipedia, or trolls doing the bidding of CERN who may be older but no less time wasting in their motivation of jeering at a first class independent thinker, a type which is too often the only source of true progress and enlightenment in a scientific era of solidying group think.

  26. hnasel says:

    LOL. The next guy who does not understand that the superfluidity is not the point. The important propoery is the density of the star!

    think again and do not bother me again with non-intelligent posts like this!

    ah, “well executed papers” — ROFL. Good joke!

  27. hnasel says:

    The point is that superfuidity is not preventing black hole from accreting the matter of the star. Moving particles can still hit other particles. Therefore it is possible for a black hole to eat them. In the dense core or crust of a neutron star the probability for a mbh to grow is therefore strongly increased.

    The same astronomers you are citing above are observing old neutron stars in the universe which would not exist iff Rössler were right with his “well executed papers” (ROFL). It needs more than a simple statement to disprove this argument.

  28. Robert Houston says:

    CERN’s main safety argument since 2008 is that the density of neutron stars could stop black holes, as could the head-on collisions in the collider. In developing and presenting their argument, they never mentioned or considered the superfluidity of such stars. Since superfluidity is a friction-free state of matter, it may cancel the stopping power of the star’s density.

    According to a notice from the Royal Astronomical Society (2/23/2011), there was earlier evidence for the superfluidity of the crust of neutron stars, and the new finding from the Chandra satellite is direct evidence of the superfluidity of their core.

    Thus, CERN’s safety argument is undermined by the possibiliity that cosmic ray –produced black holes travelling at near light speed may go through a neutron star without being stopped, for the escape velocity for neutron stars is one-third the speed of light.

  29. AnthonyL says:

    Houston has perfectly stated the core of the issue. Will the mBHs likely to be produced by the LHC stick around to eat our planet?

    The existence of neutron stars cannot obviate this possibility if any mBHs created by collisions there would instantly escape the neutron star, and could not linger to accrete matter. If the core is superfluid that would be the case.

    In the LHC, on the other hand, collisions might result in slow moving mBHs unable to escape this planet. They might then stick around to eat it up and all of us too, including even Mr hnasel.

    In sum it seems that CERN’s LHC safety argument is now reduced to suggesting that at least white dwarfs are left to serve as exhibits of how a large body might survive mBHs or stranglets created by cosmic ray collisions, but there are only eight white dwarfs so far observed, five in one paper alone.

    One would normally hope that you, hnasel, might expertly try and refute that statement, but your logic above is so misplaced that it seems likely that you are motivated by the premise that anyone who argues with CERN must be wrong by definition, rather than by pure reasoning.

    The issue is not whether black holes could gobble up the neutron star, but whether they could ever be in a position to do so. On Earth they would be moving at far less than escape velocity, perhaps even being almost stationary, if the collision was perfectly head on.

    Would you not agree with that simple statement?

  30. AnthonyL says:

    Hnasel, my previous comment contained speculative characterizations of Rossler critics here which were too lurid, and I withdraw them with apologies.

  31. TRMG says:

    “The existence of neutron stars cannot obviate this possibility if any mBHs created by collisions there would instantly escape the neutron star, and could not linger to accrete matter. ”

    It is stopped *by* accreting matter (“accretion slow-down”) and by gravitational scattering (“Coulomb slow-down”) alone (the former being the dominant effect) virtually as soon as it hits the neutron star’s surface. The friction of the superfluid phase is irrelevant, because it neither prevents the superfluid from being accreted nor from interacting via gravity. Since accretion slow-down and Coulomb slow-down are *sufficient* to stop the black hole, you can suppose the friction to assume any value you like, including zero.

    “If the core is superfluid that [instant escaping, no accretion] would be the case. ”

    Pure fantasy.

    BTW, what is your opinion about Rössler’s elementary mistake regarding gravitational time dilation in his “telemach theorem”?

  32. hnasel says:

    Since superfluidity is a friction-free state of matter, it may cancel the stopping power of the star’s density.

    How is this working? Are the particles in the core just vanishing ? Superfluidity is by the way an effect of electromagnetism. Can you really rule out any effects caused by the special conditions of a neutron star (think about the name — why are this objects called *neutron* stars? Thats also the reason why I ws talking about *gravitational/strong/weak force* superfluidity. )?

    If you can, show it in a proper scientific way. Only to say “there is superfluidity and therefore all particles in the core are just stepping out of the way of each particle like a black hole traveling through the core” is not even an argument. It is just an unfounded statement.
    Is it possilbe that the reason why Giddings and Mangano did not mention the superfluidity is that it just does not matter?

    And again you have no git it that no one here is cosidering the findings of the astronomers wrong. Superfluidity is just not the important point.

    P.S.: Rössler himself admits above that a mbh will get stuck in the (also very dense) crust of a n-star. There it is growing even in his “model”. So it is even more likely in Rössles own “model” that these objects will hit particles of the even more dense core if they can reach and travel through it.

  33. hnasel says:

    Thanks to TRMG for his much better explanation!

  34. Nice Guy says:

    Who would have imagined that scientists were such dicks?

  35. Nice Guy says:

    Can you disprove that? Or is there a paper on it already?

  36. I am very happy with the above discussion (I was away for a day).

    There is the possibility that neutron stars are superfluid everywhere. In this case we would not have to distinguish between ultra-small (LHC type) micro black holes and bigger ones (for example 2-cm big ones with the mass of the earth) being reared inside the crust.

    The latter if sinking down pose the interesting physical question of how a “rotating” superfluid responds to a hot much faster rotating internal small disk and two jets.

    There ought to be experiments on the response of a rotating superfluid to a piercing laser beam. This would be intersting to investigate.

    Whenever the internal black hole would have eaten a chunk of superfluid matter, a glitch would be necessary. Glitches have been observed. So all of this is very interesting. As long as exponential growth inside a superfluid has not been demonstrated convincingly, the neutron-star based life insurance offered by CERN is void.

    Nevertheless the questions arrived at in the present discussion are worthy of study in the future. My suggestion to wait with experiments whose safety depends on the outcome of this future study stands unchallenged.

    TRMG has great merit having triggered this lively exchange. So I hope he can forgive me if I ask him to tell us more about the reasons he thinks Einstein’s gravitational clock slowson (the T in Telemach) does not exist.

    He is not alone with such a belief. It is, for example, also implicit in the most recent article in the (already out) July issue of Scientific American in which Leonard Susskind and Gerard ‘t Hooft are quoted with similar opinions.

  37. Hnasel says:

    In the end you are admitting that superfluid matter can be accreted by particles like hypothetical micro black holes. Therefore your scenario of danger does not exist any longer.

    This would be a good time to apologize to the scientists you have accused to prepare or conduct a planetocaust.

  38. TRMG says:

    “As long as exponential growth inside a superfluid has not been demonstrated convincingly, the neutron-star based life insurance offered by CERN is void. ”

    It has been demonstrated. Gravity is known to interact indiscriminately with all kinds of matter and energy, be it free neutrons, neutrons bound in nuclei, or neutrons in a superfluid phase. This is called “equivalence principle”—a fundamental tenet of gravitational physics you tend to be very fond of, as long as it seems to comply with your preferred conclusions. So, of course a superfluid gets accreted in the same way, and as fast as any other froms of matter. This is the basis of Giddings’s and Mangano’s bounds on accretion times in neutron stars. Unless the equivalence principle is mysteriously inoperative there, everything inside follows its fatal geodesic beyond the black hole’s horizon.

    “So I hope he can forgive me if I ask him to tell us more about the reasons he thinks Einstein’s gravitational clock slowson (the T in Telemach) does not exist.”

    I repeatedly claryfied that this is not what I think. You know this, but keep misrepresenting my position, which makes you look like a liar.

    Again, Einstein’s gravitational time dilation is real. It says that measured time intervals in a gravitational field are shorter downstairs than upstairs. This is expressed by the formula (following from the Schwarzschild metric, and experimentally verified) t_down*(1+z) = t_up, where z > 0 is the gravitational redshift. Instead Rössler uses the wrong equation t_down = t_up*(1+z), making the lower interval longer than the upper one. Since Rössler contends that distances must scale proportionally to time intervalls, he should have concluded from the correct equation that lengths are shorter downstairs.

  39. TRMG says:

    “a superfluid gets accreted in the same way, and as fast as any other froms of matter.”

    To be more precise, what I should have said is “a superfluid gets accreted in the same way, and as fast as any other froms of matter, subject to the same forces of non-gravitational origin,” which in this case are of course the nuclear forces between the neutrons. The strength of these forces defines the capture radius of the black hole and was of course accounted for in the accretion rate equations given by Giddings and Mangano; so this qualification is irrelevant to the discussion, and was only added here for completeness.

    (For the same reason the fatal path beyond the horizon may of course be non-geodesic.)

  40. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Very interesting comments. I reply to TRMG.

    You first implicitly tone down the importance of quantum mechanics in neutron stars. If superfluids were normal in responding to forcing influences — why then do neutron stars show the famous “glitches” (the whole star heavier than the sun changing rotation rate in rare discrete jumps)? Similar constraints are bound to modify any sucking-up of superfluid matter into an internal throat — so that mean feeding rates cannot presently be calculated, I predict, if both are rotating. But first the question will need to be solved whether or not such large no longer CERN-type black holes can indeed arrive inside a neutron star, right?

    This is a wonderful problem which deserves to be treated in its own right in the time that this will take. CERN has no excuse in my eyes for saying no to such clarification.

    Second, I thank you that you explained with simplistic but telling formulas (as I love them) what you have in mind. It appears to me that the discrepancy now turns out to be semantic: You look at the intervals downstairs with the eyes of upstairs. Then a shorter segment of a lower interval corresponds to a given upper interva — I agree completely with that. As a consequence, I would tend to predict that you will converge toward my formal version of the same problem so that we both will concur that errors of sign are insubstantial as long as there is dialog.

    (That no paths beyond the horizon in finite outer time are possible, despite Susskind’s and every one else’s assumption to the contrary, you did not explicitly put into question so far: right?)

  41. Hnasel says:

    “why then do neutron stars show the famous “glitches””

    >Your answer not long ago was related to the accretion of superfluid matter:<

    Whenever the internal black hole would have eaten a chunk of superfluid matter, a glitch would be necessary.

    .

  42. AnthonyL says:

    Anyone who uses the word “liar” when engaged in a discussion of the rickety Heath Robinson structure that is our best current attempt to explain celestial phenomena, and thus work out the dangers of the LHC mimicking primordial conditions, marks himself as immature, and therefore less impressive as a commentator.

    That is why I withdrew my lurid descriptions above, even though the use of the even more lurid word “liar” suggests they were possibly correct, and that we are dealing with emotional and political impetus here rather than pure theory.

    Please withdraw the word “liar” and substitute “mistaken”. if mutual respect is to be maintained, and entries by those ignorant of how magnificent a species we scientists and scientists manque are are not going to be repeated characterizing scientists as “such dicks”.

    This is not a joking matter, and Rossler and all commentators on his thesis need to be viewed with respect if the situation is to be correctly assessed.

  43. Burdette says:

    Professor Rossler, Hnasel and TRMG,

    This is an excellent discussion, and an interesting discussion. We may not all place a great deal of credence in Professor Rossler’s claims, but it is a discussion worth having, and also worth having in a civil tone. And it is an opportunity to learn about Relativity, and Neutron Stars, and Superfluids, too. If conducted in a civil and respectul manner, it will be a credit to all involved.

    Burdette

  44. AnthonyL says:

    “BTW, what is your opinion about Rössler’s elementary mistake regarding gravitational time dilation in his “telemach theorem”?”

    Since it follows EInstein, that you are quarreling with EInstein.

    Also interesting is that CERN has already admitted that the neutron star safety argument is null and void, and yet here you are, defending CERN with what it has already stated is a non starter.

    Try moving to white dwarves, except that they are clearly not much good either, since they presumably would deflect or slow cosmic rays with their massive magnetic fields, so they couldn’t create mBhs save if the stars were sufficiently small, where you are left with only eight candidates holding the fort for CERN.

    By the way Giddings and Mangano have never answered Plaga’s objection to their arbitrarily specifying a larger size for mBHs where only a small decrease would allow them to wreak havoc, have they? Maybe you should help them out.

    It is perfectly clear to any outsider that all these angels dancing on the head of a pin do not allow you to confidently slam any alternatives suggested by Rossler and Plaga, and it is not helpful to reflexively defend the status quo. That is playing politics with the fate of the planet.

    This theoretical mess should be sorted out precisely because it has not been clarified by evidence, and so we should be very cautious. At present we can only continue to proceed as a very large gamble, not knowing what we risk.

    CERN has no right to take us all on its joyride when its safety arguments crumble one after the other, and the stakes are so high, even if the probability is thought to be low.

    Rossler states the chances of one kind of catastrophe is alarmingly high, and you strive to pick holes in his thesis, as a public service, but you do it insultingly, which defeats your own credibility.

    But even if you find a flaw in his analysis, on a broader front it seems to be the case that we don’t know what the LHC will yield, and therefore the true probability of all kinds of disaster, including ones we cannot foresee at all, is incalculable.

    .

  45. Robert Houston says:

    Most of Anthony’s points are excellent, but one need to be clarified.

    It’s an overstatement to say that “CERN has already admitted that the neutron star safety argument is null and void.” CERN has been pushing this shaky argument since 2008, when it was devised by Giddings and Mangano of CERN. The latter admitted in their report, however, that it had a major flaw in that “known neutron stars have strong magnetic fields.” These are up to a trillion times the strength of Earth’s and would deflect or weaken cosmic rays, so that they may not produce black holes.

    Consequently, in regard to the neutron star safety argument the Science Policy Committee of CERN in its “SPC Report” (2008) judged the evidence inadequate. The Committee stated that “this argument relies on properties… that do require confirmation” (p. 3).

  46. TRMG says:

    Rössler:

    “If superfluids were normal in responding to forcing influences – why then do neutron stars show the famous “glitches” (the whole star heavier than the sun changing rotation rate in rare discrete jumps)?”

    I didn’t say superfluids were normal (whatever that’s supposed to mean). I said, that if the equivalence principle holds, then they are affected by gravity the same way as any other form of matter. Do you doubt the equivalence principle? Also I’d like to remind you, that your claim was to have *proven* that black holes can’t accrete superfluids, at least as fast as assumed. Now that “proof” turns out to consitst entirely of an absence of an explanation for glitches.

    “It appears to me that the discrepancy now turns out to be semantic: You look at the intervals downstairs with the eyes of upstairs.”

    No, the lower time is—measurably, remember—shorter, than the upper one, no matter how you look at it. This is no more a question of semantics than whether I’m older than the Mount Everest.

    “Then a shorter segment of a lower interval corresponds to a given upper interva – I agree completely with that. ”

    That’s promising. Will you correct your equation then?

    “As a consequence, I would tend to predict that you will converge toward my formal version of the same problem so that we both will concur that errors of sign are insubstantial as long as there is dialog. ”

    Excuse me? A consequence of correcting your equation would be your converging back to reality, not my wandering off into delusion. BTW, forget about playing your error down as inessential, like your last sentence suggests. It’s fatal to your wannabe-theorem.

    (That no paths beyond the horizon in finite outer time are possible, despite Susskind’s and every one else’s assumption to the contrary, you did not explicitly put into question so far: right?)

    I certainly won’t answer to loaded questions from you, especially when the implied statement is as dubious as in this one. I don’t trust you in representing other people’s position any more than in representing mine.

  47. AnthonyL says:

    “The Committee stated that “this argument relies on properties… that do require confirmation” (p. 3).”

    Therefore as a safety argument it is not yet a starter, if a safety argument should depend on confirming evidence of some kind, surely. There must be something more than speculation in a safety argument which reassures the public to whom CERN is responsible, though it seems to want to overlook that fact. One can speculate in any direction freely, but it doesn’t count as a safety reassurance until you have something you can count on.

    By the way, even if this discussion can continue to be polite, which still seems in doubt, it is not profitable unless Rossler’s critics acknowledge when they are corrected by extant papers.

  48. TRMG says:

    AnthonyL:

    “Anyone who uses the word “liar” when engaged in a discussion of the rickety Heath Robinson structure that is our best current attempt to explain celestial phenomena, and thus work out the dangers of the LHC mimicking primordial conditions, marks himself as immature, and therefore less impressive as a commentator. ”

    Rössler was repeatedly attributing denial of gravitational time dilation to me, despite my doing nothing but *explaining* this phenomenon to him in every single comment to his “Osama-bin-Cern” post (speaking of immature name-calling, btw), despite my acknowledging time dilation as a measured fact, and despite my explicit objections to this misrepresentation. I don’t think that was unintentional at all, because he habitually did the same in other disussions. If that doesn’t make him at least look like a liar (this is what I said) to you, and if my mere confronting him with this impression he leaves, upsets you so much as to call me immature, while you seem strikingly oblivious of Rössler’s own verbal blunders (“Planetocaust” is the kind of tone he adopted for years now in his discussions without regrets), then I suspect you may just be a little biased.

    “BTW, what is your opinion about Rössler’s elementary mistake regarding gravitational time dilation in his “telemach theorem”?”
    Since it follows EInstein, that you are quarreling with EInstein.”

    No it doesn’t follow Einstein. That’s what I explained above. Do you take Rössler’s word at face value for this, or have you bothered to check with the Schwarzschild metric?

    “Also interesting is that CERN has already admitted that the neutron star safety argument is null and void, and yet here you are, defending CERN with what it has already stated is a non starter. [etc.]”

    No, I was attacking one of Rössler’s claims about the accretion of superfluids. If you have anything to say about that, please proceed, but such commonplaces won’t do. All the more if, as Robert Houston helpfully makes clear to me, they don’t invalidate anything what I said.

    What is interesting to me is thist phenomenon always occuring in these disucssion: that LHC gloomsters seem less concerned about the validity of their specific claims as whether they have enough to tire their opponents. Whenever the untenablility of one specific claim is established they’ll always ignore it and move to the next one, regardless if it’s even consistent with the previous one. Do you believe that black holes are metastable (Plaga) or stable (Rössler)? Do you believe they are harmful because they emit Hawking radiation or because they don’t? You would like to believe in both, right?

  49. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you, AnthonyL and Robert Houston.

    Dear TRMG: A slowed-down clock has larger time intervals, not shorter ones. You are here caught in a mental trap. The latter is not a weakness — stubbornness is the sign of genius. But I cannot reply to you any more until you have come back to logic here.

    I would that someone could do the same favor to the grand names in relativity who back CERN with their deadly superstition of a faster-than-light superhighway to and from the horizon. This dialog will become famous — but hopefully not too late.

  50. TRMG says:

    “Dear TRMG: A slowed-down clock has larger time intervals, not shorter ones. ”

    Oh dear! What does it mean for the lower twin to stay younger than the upper one? Does it mean that since his birth a larger time intervall has passed compared to his brother, or isn’t it rather a shorter one? Or do you believe the lower twin ages faster? That’s at least not what you claimed so far and it’s also empirically false.

    Let’s look at what the Schwarzschild metric says, to end this at long last:

    proper time at distance r = sqrt(1- r_Horizon / r) * proper time at infinity.

    Now, if you descend from larger r to smaller r, the factor (1-r_Horizon/r) decreases accordingly from being nearly one far outside, to becoming nearly zero near the horizon, thus making the proper time at smaller r (downstairs) *shorter* relativ to the proper time at larger r.

  51. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Yes, a twin who has aged less is younger — downstairs and when he has come back. For his clocks were slowed-down. Then ask his brother whether the fewer seconds on his returned win’s watch have been longer compared to his own or shorter.

    Nevertheless I thank you for your perseverance. If you come over here, would you help me convince the Western school of general relativity that there is no Hawking radiation and no causality paradox with black holes because of the infinite temporal distance? (Forgive me that I am greatly impressed by your original way of thinking.)

  52. TRMG says:

    “Yes, a twin who has aged less is younger – downstairs and when he has come back.”

    The point is, that the elapsed time since his birth is *shorter*.

    “Then ask his brother whether the fewer seconds on his returned win’s watch have been longer compared to his own or shorter. ”

    So the fact that I’m younger than the Mt. Everest means that the Mt. Everest’s seconds are a lot shorter than my seconds?

    For both twins “one second” refers to exactly the same amount of time. A larger time intervall means “more seconds,” not “shorter seconds.” A variable second would make comparisons of time intervals, measured in seconds, pointless.

  53. Hnasel says:

    Also interesting is that CERN has already admitted that the neutron star safety argument is null and void

    CERN has not done this. You should not take Rösslers statements too serious!

  54. Hnasel says:

    “Rossler states the chances of one kind of catastrophe is alarmingly high”

    Ask Rössler for the derivation of this probability. As with the neutron star “argument” there is no scientific calculation or even estimation. Nothing.

    He derives this originally from the picture of a russian roulette gamer. In this game the chance to be killed is with one bullet 16%. Actually the LHC is running with half-power, so Rössler comes to 8%. Thats it! You you don’t believe me, google it. You will find nothing like a scientific argument for his numbers.

  55. Hnasel says:

    “that it had a major flaw in that “known neutron stars have strong magnetic fields.”

    Ah, they only mentioned it? No solution for the problem?

    Or again cherry picking?

  56. robomoon says:

    Pair of Aluminum Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein’s Relativity at a Personal Scale http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100923142436.htm 24 Sep., 2010. “…ticked at a slightly slower rate than the second clock, as predicted by relativity.” Sorry, our planet will die.

  57. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Robomoon:

    Thank you.

    Do you think TRMG will listen to you if you explain to him his 180-degree logical mistake?

    I would too much like to win him over as an ally since he dares think on his own which makes him almost unique among the relativists of the planet (exempting my late friends Johnny Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt and my great inspirer J. David Nightingale who no longer fights).

  58. PasserBy says:

    robomoon, you are quoting the wrong paragraph in the article (i.e., the one about moving clocks). The relevant paragraph is just above the one you quote, and it reads:

    “In one set of experiments, scientists raised one of the clocks by jacking up the laser table to a height one-third of a meter (about a foot) above the second clock. Sure enough, the higher clock ran at a slightly faster rate than the lower clock, exactly as predicted.”

    If I understand correctly what TRMG meant at 2:58am (he/she can confirm), a second is *defined* as a specific number of cycles of the standard clock. If the higher clock ticks faster than the lower clock, a given time interval will contain more seconds (i.e., it will be *longer upstairs than downstairs.

  59. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Yes.

  60. PasserBy says:

    Yes???

    If you agree with that statement, why then do you insist that your equation 1 in “Osama bin CERN” — which implies T_tail > T_tip — is not wrong?

  61. TRMG says:

    PasserBy: You got it exactly right. I don’t know what robomoon was trying to say, or why Rössler thinks it confirms him. That the upper clock runs faster, and thus measures the larger intervall, is exactly what I’m saying. Rössler is the only one contradicting the predictions of relativity here.

  62. TRMG says:

    Maybe Rössler is thinking that my question about Mt. Everest above was a joke, but it’s not. What he presumably not understands is, that, according to relativity, Mt. Everest is older than me *in exactly the same sense* as the upper twin is older than the lower twin in a gravitational field.

    In both cases everyone’s age is nothing but the length of his wordline since birth (no matter where that line starts, but for twins it starts at the same event), and age differences correspond to differences in this length. If he thinks that the upper twin is older because of his seconds being shorter, why doesn’t he believe the same thing about Mt. Everest’s seconds?

  63. PasserBy says:

    Perhaps we can help Rossler visualize the situation: let’s imagine that each twin is given an atomic clock, and asked to count the number of ticks that occur in the time interval T between the moment in which the twins are separated and the moment in which the twins are reunited.

    If the clock of the upstairs twin runs faster than the clock of the downstairs twin, when the twins meet again the upstairs twin will have counted more ticks than the downstairs twin. In other words, T_upstairs > T_downstairs. Right?

  64. Otto E. Rossler says:

    It is nice that TRGM has acquired a passing-by twin who agrees with him (and me) about all pertinent measurements.

  65. TRMG says:

    So you agree that T_upstairs > T_downstairs (that’s what’s measured), but you still insist that your Eq. (1), which says the opposite, is true? I think you are the one who should return to logic, not me.

  66. PasserBy says:

    I cannot agree with both you and TRGM, because you don’t agree with each other. Please stop misrepresenting other people’s positions and answer this simple question: if you agree that an interval T measured upstairs is longer (in number of atomic-clock ticks) than the same interval measured downstairs, why do you keep claiming that your equation 1:

    T_tail = (1+z) T_tip

    is correct? Since z>0, that equation implies T_tail > T_tip, in contradiction with the experiment. Right?

  67. PasserBy says:

    needless to say, I was replying to Rossler ;-)

  68. robomoon says:

    Laughing helps. So there was the word yes below your comment that followed after my statement: this planet will die. That should not be a confirmation about physics I brought into discussion together with my statement, right? Psychology remained stagnant for half a century and this should be changed by experiments to make people enjoying life.

  69. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Laughing helps!

    Thank you, dear Robomoon and Passerby and TRMG.

    The symbol T got misunderstood. Forgive me that it took me so long to find out.

    The unit clock time T, downstairs, covers more than one unit clock time T, upstairs. Therefore the wavelenths downstairs are longer (L) and the frequencies and energies = masses are lower there (M), and the associated charges are lower there too (Ch).

  70. PasserBy says:

    @robomoon: what?

    @Rossler: what’s taking you so long? Are you so busy writing to Hawking, Obama and Mandela that you don’t have time to answer TRGM’s simple question on Eq.(1) of your “theorem”? You keep complaining about being ignored, but every time somebody tries to engage you in a discussion of your equations (the only kind of discussion that matters in physics, BTW) you slip away…

  71. PasserBy says:

    ooh, you sent your post while I was writing mine. So now you will write back to Hawking etc. to amend your “theorem”?

  72. hnasel says:

    No he is repeating the same bullshit as before.

  73. AnthonyL says:

    “… if my mere confronting him with this impression he leaves, upsets you so much as to call me immature, while you seem strikingly oblivious of Rössler’s own verbal blunders (“Planetocaust” is the kind of tone he adopted for years now in his discussions without regrets), then I suspect you may just be a little biased.”

    Calling your discussant names is different from Rossler painting the Doomsday scenario he fears in lurid colors with “Planetocaust” , which is accurate enough if it involves wiping out humanity and the planet. In fact, labeling the institution for which you are shilling “Osama-bin-CERN” is also accurate, given the potential catastrophe he is saying CERN is willing to terrorize him with, with as little regard for the public at large and potential collateral damage as CERN is showing, by refusing all independent review (every reviewer so far works for or is allied to CERN)_

    So neither names are “blunders”. Nor are they ad hominem. “Liar” is ad hominem name calling, and disturbs the balance of the sophisticated corrective exchange we all seek. I don’t believe I said it proves you immature, but merely it makes you seem immature, when you are presumably not (I presume, anyway). If I said otherwise, I apologize.

    Your comments are informed and valuable, but less so if they are motivated by any emotion other than the desire to work out the truth in partnership with other worthy minds, and I hope that if they are (and they do seem disrespectful of a good man and a good mind) it does not lead you to blunders.

    Good science thrives on freedom of thought and as Judge Learned Hand put it, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand
    the minds of other men and women…”

    This is why I object to anyone trying to sit on Rossler and repress his view by rude remarks and professional scorn, and I hope you will curb any tendency you have to indulge in such impulses, however understandable they are, given the almost universal human joy in firing missiles from the ramparts of the established church, as if that earned them the blessing of the powerful leader, which is not God in this case, but God’s substitute now available for physicists, the church of CERN’s LHC with its cathedral like interior spaces and its power (according to Rossler, Plaga and many other LHC “gloomsters” ) (good one!) to send us all to another world.

    Since informed heretics are the prime source of scientific progress, I prefer to listen to them all, however incredible their claims may seem to the faithful who wish to burn them at the stake. But they should be willing to be subjected in their turn to objections from informed people such as yourself, and to justify their conclusions. Rossler is perfectly willing to do so and perfectly polite with it, So please stop imitating Monty Python and hurling dead cows at him. Your critique stands alone and needs no such help.

    On superfluids all I have to say is that clearly there are sixteen different ways you can theorize that neutron stars are good exhibits proving that mBHs are not a threat to Earth and us if the LHC spins them off, but CERN’s Safety Policy committee was realistic enough not to bother to run that flag up the mast, and now has only eight out of however many white dwarfs have been spotted — 60 or more? — to rest its safety case upon. In other words, nothing much.

    If you have met any of the 10,000 scientists involved with the LHC, you surely know that all privately admit there is nothing to prove the LHC safe, since no one knows what it will yield. Everyone hopes that it will be this or that bolstering their pet theory. What everyone agrees on is that anything is possible, including mBHs and strangelets. They even have a measuring instrument set up for strangelets while denying to the public they expect any.

    The bottom line therefore is that the possibility of MBHs and strangelets should be properly reviewed and assessed by informed outsiders who can understand the material and whose careers are independent of the LHC. They should presumably be retired if they are subatomic researchers themselves. But one thing is certain. They should not be people who automatically assume that an independent thinker is wrong to call into question proceeding to the highest beam energy possible without such a review.

    As far as Einstein goes, you seem to have reversed the equation which states that your twin, TRMG 2, if sent up in a rocket approaching the speed of light, would return in what he would think only a year or two to find you, TRMG-1, wearing a white beard, or in your grave.

    This is the equation which we all will be relying on to get to a distant star without dying on the way. Unfortunately, when we return everyone we know will be dead and gone, if not by CERN’s hand then simply because it will be inconceivably far into the future here.

    Your equation might be more convenient in the short run, since one could rocket to Jupiter and back and emerge to find one’s wife and loved ones might not be much older, which would be nice.

    Alas, Einstein-Rossler would not allow such a delightful outcome.

  74. AnthonyL says:

    “… if my mere confronting him with this impression he leaves, upsets you so much as to call me immature, while you seem strikingly oblivious of Rössler’s own verbal blunders (“Planetocaust” is the kind of tone he adopted for years now in his discussions without regrets), then I suspect you may just be a little biased.”

    Calling your discussant names is different from Rossler painting the Doomsday scenario he fears in lurid colors with “Planetocaust” , which is accurate enough if it involves wiping out humanity and the planet. In fact, labeling the institution for which you are shilling “Osama-bin-CERN” is also accurate, given the potential catastrophe he is saying CERN is willing to terrorize him with, with as little regard for the public at large and potential collateral damage as CERN is showing, by refusing all independent review (every reviewer so far works for or is allied to CERN)_

    So neither names are “blunders”. Nor are they ad hominem. “Liar” is ad hominem name calling, and disturbs the balance of the sophisticated corrective exchange we all seek. I don’t believe I said it proves you immature, but merely it makes you seem immature, when you are presumably not (I presume, anyway). If I said otherwise, I apologize.

    Your comments are informed and valuable, but less so if they are motivated by any emotion other than the desire to work out the truth in partnership with other worthy minds, and I hope that if they are (and they do seem disrespectful of a good man and a good mind) it does not lead you to blunders.

    Good science thrives on freedom of thought and as Judge Learned Hand put it, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand
    the minds of other men and women…”

    This is why I object to anyone trying to sit on Rossler and repress his view by rude remarks and professional scorn, and I hope you will curb any tendency you have to indulge in such impulses, however understandable they are, given the almost universal human joy in firing missiles from the ramparts of the established church, as if that earned them the blessing of the powerful leader, which is not God in this case, but God’s substitute now available for physicists, the church of CERN’s LHC with its cathedral like interior spaces and its power (according to Rossler, Plaga and many other LHC “gloomsters” ) (good one!) to send us all to another world.

    Since informed heretics are the prime source of scientific progress, I prefer to listen to them all, however incredible their claims may seem to the faithful who wish to burn them at the stake. But they should be willing to be subjected in their turn to objections from informed people such as yourself, and to justify their conclusions. Rossler is perfectly willing to do so and perfectly polite with it, So please stop imitating Monty Python and hurling dead cows at him. Your critique stands alone and needs no such help.

    On superfluids all I have to say is that clearly there are sixteen different ways you can theorize that neutron stars are good exhibits proving that mBHs are not a threat to Earth and us if the LHC spins them off, but CERN’s Safety Policy committee was realistic enough not to bother to run that flag up the mast, and now has only eight out of however many white dwarfs have been spotted — 60 or more? — to rest its safety case upon. In other words, nothing much.

    If you have met any of the 10,000 scientists involved with the LHC, you surely know that all privately admit there is nothing to prove the LHC safe, since no one knows what it will yield. Everyone hopes that it will be this or that bolstering their pet theory. What everyone agrees on is that anything is possible, including mBHs and strangelets. They even have a measuring instrument set up for strangelets while denying to the public they expect any.

    The bottom line therefore is that the possibility of MBHs and strangelets should be properly reviewed and assessed by informed outsiders who can understand the material and whose careers are independent of the LHC. They should presumably be retired if they are subatomic researchers themselves. But one thing is certain. They should not be people who automatically assume that an independent thinker is wrong to call into question proceeding to the highest beam energy possible without such a review.

    As far as Einstein goes, you seem to have reversed the equation which states that your twin, TRMG 2, if sent up in a rocket approaching the speed of light, would return in what he would think only a year or two to find you, TRMG-1, wearing a white beard, or in your grave.

    This is the equation which we all will be relying on to get to a distant star without dying on the way. Unfortunately, when we return everyone we know will be dead and gone, if not by CERN’s hand then simply because it will be inconceivably far into the future here.

    Your equation might be more convenient in the short run, since one could rocket to Jupiter and back and emerge to find one’s wife and loved ones might not be much older, which would be nice.

    Alas, Einstein-Rossler would not allow such a delightful outcome.

    (This comment apparently posted some other thread in error, apologies)

  75. AnthonyL says:

    (Lifeboat seems to be jumping around unpredictably on my browser and if you have seen this reply on this thread before I can only apologize).

    “… if my mere confronting him with this impression he leaves, upsets you so much as to call me immature, while you seem strikingly oblivious of Rössler’s own verbal blunders (“Planetocaust” is the kind of tone he adopted for years now in his discussions without regrets), then I suspect you may just be a little biased.”

    Calling your discussant names is different from Rossler painting the Doomsday scenario he fears in lurid colors with “Planetocaust” , which is accurate enough if it involves wiping out humanity and the planet. In fact, labeling the institution for which you are shilling “Osama-bin-CERN” is also accurate, given the potential catastrophe he is saying CERN is willing to terrorize him with, with as little regard for the public at large and potential collateral damage as CERN is showing, by refusing all independent review (every reviewer so far works for or is allied to CERN)_

    So neither names are “blunders”. Nor are they ad hominem. “Liar” is ad hominem name calling, and disturbs the balance of the sophisticated corrective exchange we all seek. I don’t believe I said it proves you immature, but merely it makes you seem immature, when you are presumably not (I presume, anyway). If I said otherwise, I apologize.

    Your comments are informed and valuable, but less so if they are motivated by any emotion other than the desire to work out the truth in partnership with other worthy minds, and I hope that if they are (and they do seem disrespectful of a good man and a good mind) it does not lead you to blunders.

    Good science thrives on freedom of thought and as Judge Learned Hand put it, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand
    the minds of other men and women…”

    This is why I object to anyone trying to sit on Rossler and repress his view by rude remarks and professional scorn, and I hope you will curb any tendency you have to indulge in such impulses, however understandable they are, given the almost universal human joy in firing missiles from the ramparts of the established church, as if that earned them the blessing of the powerful leader, which is not God in this case, but God’s substitute now available for physicists, the church of CERN’s LHC with its cathedral like interior spaces and its power (according to Rossler, Plaga and many other LHC “gloomsters” ) (good one!) to send us all to another world.

    Since informed heretics are the prime source of scientific progress, I prefer to listen to them all, however incredible their claims may seem to the faithful who wish to burn them at the stake. But they should be willing to be subjected in their turn to objections from informed people such as yourself, and to justify their conclusions. Rossler is perfectly willing to do so and perfectly polite with it, So please stop imitating Monty Python and hurling dead cows at him. Your critique stands alone and needs no such help.

    On superfluids all I have to say is that clearly there are sixteen different ways you can theorize that neutron stars are good exhibits proving that mBHs are not a threat to Earth and us if the LHC spins them off, but CERN’s Safety Policy committee was realistic enough not to bother to run that flag up the mast, and now has only eight out of however many white dwarfs have been spotted — 60 or more? — to rest its safety case upon. In other words, nothing much.

    If you have met any of the 10,000 scientists involved with the LHC, you surely know that all privately admit there is nothing to prove the LHC safe, since no one knows what it will yield. Everyone hopes that it will be this or that bolstering their pet theory. What everyone agrees on is that anything is possible, including mBHs and strangelets. They even have a measuring instrument set up for strangelets while denying to the public they expect any.

    The bottom line therefore is that the possibility of MBHs and strangelets should be properly reviewed and assessed by informed outsiders who can understand the material and whose careers are independent of the LHC. They should presumably be retired if they are subatomic researchers themselves. But one thing is certain. They should not be people who automatically assume that an independent thinker is wrong to call into question proceeding to the highest beam energy possible without such a review.

    As far as Einstein goes, you seem to have reversed the equation which states that your twin, TRMG 2, if sent up in a rocket approaching the speed of light, would return in what he would think only a year or two to find you, TRMG-1, wearing a white beard, or in your grave.

    This is the equation which we all will be relying on to get to a distant star without dying on the way. Unfortunately, when we return everyone we know will be dead and gone, if not by CERN’s hand then simply because it will be inconceivably far into the future here.

    Your equation might be more convenient in the short run, since one could rocket to Jupiter and back and emerge to find one’s wife and loved ones might not be much older, which would be nice.

    Alas, Einstein-Rossler would not allow such a delightful outcome.

    (This comment apparently posted some other thread in error, apologies)

  76. AnthonyL says:

    Well, the above seems to have posted three times, but since it applies very well to the unreformed hnasel, still using schoolboy language like “bullshit”, that may simply be the minimum necessary to get through to him.

  77. AnthonyL says:

    The cause of the treble posting is that while my display of this thread asserts there are 78 Comments, only about ten now display for me on Chrome/Vista64. Lifeboat apparently loses over 60 Comments?

  78. AnthonyL says:

    The earliest comment (at the top of Comments under the Tab “79 Comments so far”) that displays for me is now Otto E. Rossler on June 24, 2011 1:49 am. The rest after that display down the page. But none before. Clicking the tab on the right above that — labeled simply “79 Comments” doesn’t change that.

    Is there some secret to getting them back? I didn’t keep a record. Is Lifeboat unreliable?

  79. AnthonyL says:

    Yeah, the same url — http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences#comments — produces now 80 Comments still starting late at the same Rossler Comment.

    Same result in Internet Explorer. So LIfeboat eats Comments?

  80. AnthonyL says:

    OK, all Comments lost appear on http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/c…ment-86124.

    So there is a Page 1 and a Page 2 which are not visible tabs on my browsers. Anyone point to where they are meant to be?

    How does one choose between page 1 (url above) or page 2 at http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/c…ment-86184?

  81. AnthonyL says:

    The basic Post url http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences just yields Page 2 (without Page 1 Comments).

  82. Robert Houston says:

    “So the fact that I’m younger than the Mt. Everest means that the Mt. Everest’s seconds are a lot shorter than my seconds?” — TRMG

    No, because, unlike the twins, you and Everest are both on Earth and weren’t born the same day. Here’s how to represent your ages:

    TRMG: 12 years old.
    Everest: 60 million year old.

    However, seconds at the peak of Mt. Everest would be slightly shorter than those at the base, as has been confirmed by atomic clocks in altitude experiments.

    The TRMG Error: For both twins ‘one second’ refers to exactly the same amount of time. A larger time interval means ‘more seconds,’ not “shorter seconds.” — TRMG

    Not when there’s time dilation. This is the crux of TRMG’s confusion. He misunderstood T to mean absolute time according to the atomic clock at the National Bureau of Standards. Instead, Prof. Rossler used T in his theorem in the same sense as in Einstein’s thought experiments: T refers to local time as measured by local clocks.

    In the famous twin paradox, the twin in the near light speed rocket comes back in a year as measured by the clock onboard. He’s still young but finds his brother on Earth has grown a white beard and is 40 years older. It would be correct to write the equation as in Rossler’s first theorem, understanding that T = 1 year as measured by local clocks:

    T_rocket = T_earth * 40

    Thus, Prof. Rossler was right, and TRMG is be forgiven for being such a brash but mistaken schoolboy.

  83. TRMG says:

    AnthonyL: “Calling your discussant names is different from Rossler painting the Doomsday scenario he fears in lurid colors with “Planetocaust” , which is accurate enough if it involves wiping out humanity and the planet. ”

    Fine, I knew that you would be saying something like that, and though I think it rests on completely misguided assumptions, I can accept it. I only believe that my reasons for why Rössler left the impression of lying to me are accurately justified too, since they involve his having said something he should, without any doubt, have known to be false. You seem to ignore my reasons entirely (snipping them from the quote of mine above), while defending Rössler’s, which still makes you look biased.

    ““Liar” is ad hominem name calling, ”

    In this case I think it’s not, since I didn’t use it as an argument, and I think it is defensible by observing his misrepresentation of my views against his better knowledge. Also I didn’t say he was a liar, but that his behavior makes him look like one.

    “labeling the institution for which you are shilling …”

    Huh?

    “…“Osama-bin-CERN” is also accurate, given the potential catastrophe he is saying CERN is willing to terrorize him with, with as little regard for the public at large and potential collateral damage as CERN is showing, by refusing all independent review (every reviewer so far works for or is allied to CERN)_”

    We differ in our judgment of CERN’s behavior as much as we differ in our judgment of Rössler’s. I think we’ll just have to leave it at that.

    “The bottom line therefore is that the possibility of MBHs and strangelets should be properly reviewed and assessed by informed outsiders who can understand the material and whose careers are independent of the LHC. They should presumably be retired if they are subatomic researchers themselves. But one thing is certain. They should not be people who automatically assume that an independent thinker is wrong to call into question proceeding to the highest beam energy possible without such a review. ”

    Well, I don’t *automatically* assume that Rössler is wrong (and so does no physicist I know), but based on what he writes and contends in discussions like this.

    “As far as Einstein goes, you seem to have reversed the equation which states that your twin, TRMG 2, if sent up in a rocket approaching the speed of light, would return in what he would think only a year or two to find you, TRMG-1, wearing a white beard, or in your grave. ”

    Oh, you have completely misunderstood what situation we are talking about. What you describe here is the ordinary (kinematical so to speak) twin paradox of special relativity. No one doubts that your desription of it is correct, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with Rössler’s claim.

    Rössler talks about gravitational time dilation, occuring in a situation were there are two clocks (or twins) each *resting*, not moving near the speed of light, at different heights. In this case, as shown above by means of the Schwarzschild metric, which applies here, the lower time intervall is smaller, than the upper one, while Rössler’s Eq. (1) says the opposite.

    ***

    Robert Houston:

    “T refers to local time as measured by local clocks.”

    That’s right and I didn’t deny it. The point being, that the elapsed local time downstairs is *shorter* than upstairs, if both clocks start and stop simultaneously. That’s in contradiction to what Rössler’s Eq. (1) says.

    “This is the crux of TRMG’s confusion. He misunderstood T to mean absolute time according to the atomic clock at the National Bureau of Standards.”

    If you think the unit of time measurment defined by the National Bureau of Standards presupposes an absolute time, you may want to start thinking a little deeper about this issue.

  84. TRMG says:

    Robert Houston: “In the famous twin paradox, the twin in the near light speed rocket comes back in a year as measured by the clock onboard. He’s still young but finds his brother on Earth has grown a white beard and is 40 years older. It would be correct to write the equation as in Rossler’s first theorem, understanding that T = 1 year as measured by local clocks:

    T_rocket = T_earth * 40″

    As already pointed out to AnthonyL, this is not the situation Rössler’s equation refers to at all. Try googling “gravitational time dilation.”

  85. TRMG says:

    Rössler:

    “The unit clock time T, downstairs, covers more than one unit clock time T, upstairs.”

    That’s of course not true. Any measurable time interval can serve as unit of time measurement. It doesn’t make any sense to claim, that one of these intervals being longer is the reason for all others being shorter. Take “present age of the lower twin” as unit of measurement. How does the situation look like then?: T_downstairs = 1, and T_upstairs = 1+z > 1. That still contradicts your Eq. (1).

    Remember I demonstrated above that your equation is false, by doing not much more than staring at the Schwarzschild metric. You can’t ignore that. Stop trying to define the problem out of existence by semantic mumbo-jumbo, and start understanding what time dilation means. It doesn’t mean that units of measurement are variable or depend on the gravitational potential. It means that both twins take paths of different lengths through spacetime.

  86. robomoon says:

    How about Planetdeath when reading the word Planetocaust does not feel good anymore?

  87. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I am very grateful for the above exchanges.

    What is worrying me is that here a wonderfully brash young man is posing in the role of the scientific community as CERN’s sole defender, and no one in the name of the learned community feels like correcting his sustained 180-degrees mistake (of a longer time being a shorter time).

    So I am slowly getting afraid that this IS the opinion of the learned community — just as a belief in finitely existing horizons with “information paradoxes” is the official doctrine. If either of the two blunders (or both) is silently kept up much longer, an irreparable damage to the image of science on the planet is entailed.

    Am I the only real ally of CERN’s left by my upholding the ideal of a verifiable truth?

    Dear TRMG: You were my best critic so far with neutron stars. In response to it I had to distinguish between two situations which I previously had erroneously thought did not make much of a difference (freshly generated mini black holes from the surface, on the one hand, and partially grown ones dropped from the crust in case the latter is non-superfluid as no one seems to know, on the other). Of these two most interesting prototypical situations, the second is far from being understood up until now.

    I therefore still hope that you will re-bounce — either as my most powerful critic or as my most combative ally.

    This is because if — forgive me — the danger is as big as has not been disproved so far in my eyes, I do need powerful technical help, right?

  88. TRMG says:

    “So I am slowly getting afraid that this IS the opinion of the learned community ”

    Oh, I get it. All of a sudden it turns out again, that your “theorem” is even more revolutionary than you thought before. Eureka!

  89. hnasel says:

    …and therefore it must be correct. Rössler is a real genius!

  90. hnasel says:

    Rössler: Nice try, your new neutron star argument. In both cases both “types “of mbhs can accrete matter as the particles neither in the core nor in the crust are protected against accretion by a hypothetical mbh.

  91. Otto E. Rossler says:

    You are making the theorem important by not being able to disconfirm it. This is my only request in view of the consequences it has if correct. If the planet is at stake, there is no time for conceitedness, right. I need your help.

    Please, go out and find allies at last.

  92. TRMG says:

    Rössler: How is the variable T in your Eq. (1) related to proper time in General Relativity?

  93. Peter Howell says:

    Roessler wrote: „This is because if – forgive me – the danger is as big as has not been disproved so far in my eyes …”

    That is the main point. Roessler is not accepting any other opinion rather his own, the fact that dozens (if not more) of physicists have disproved him and the scientific world sees his claims as proven wrong and false, don’t count in his mind. As long as he is a contestant AND the judge in one person, the game cannot be won. Roessler will never give in, so any discussion with him is really a waste of time. If people are genuinely interested in WHY he is wrong (and as TRMG stated here before, the ingoing position was he is right), there is enough evidence on the web, a beginning can be the following links:

    http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/CommRoesslerPaper.html

    http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact…ent-en.pdf

    Please keep in mind, Roessler is not a physicists, he is a medical doctor. If I have cest pain, I might consult him rather than the guy in my grocery store, but when I want to discuss particle physics, I rather go with the experts.
    Peter

  94. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for your question, TRMG. As you know I prefer the greater clariy of the equivalence principle , but the two give the same answer. The proper time downstairs is the lower twin’s clock which makes less than one tick in the same time as the upper twin’s makes one.

  95. PasserBy says:

    Rossler: you sound like you don’t even understand what TRMG is asking.

    In General Relativity, the “proper time” between two points along a path in spacetime has a definite mathematical meaning (get a textbook and look up the relevant formula). I suspect that TRMG is asking you what is the relation between, e.g., the variable T_tail in your Eq.(1) and the proper time between two events as measured by the downstairs twin. Can’t you just reply with a formula, as would be normal in a discussion about physics?

  96. robomoon says:

    Science is deriving from psychological experimentation on large groups of scientists in our lab.

  97. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Sorry, PasserBy is right: I thought TRMG had meant the simpler thing again… But if not, everything becomes very complicated because proper time of a stationary or falling subject has almost nothing to do with the time durations that signals (and objects) between levels take for those levels. This is easily confounded and is the reason for you three seeking advice. (You can read my gothic-R paper in the meantime to get the formulas from there.)

    Thus it would be a mistake if we three veered away from our vital question by reproducing rote-learning skills (there are as you may know many answers depending on the path you have in mind). Here, the scientific community is being challenged to take back the worst blunder of history — that they all overlooked that the speed of light cannot be overtaken (to and from the horizon).

    It is by the way correct that viewed from the horizon, light takes only a short time to touch down from above and go up. But this point of view — owed to an in the limit infinite slowdown of the clocks valid down there — has nothing to do with what holds physically true on the outside to which we and any survivor forever belong.

    Are you ready to defend this blunder of CERN and the whole scientific community (with very few exceptions like Frolov and Novikov) at long last since no one else steps forward to do it?

    Thank you for remaining at the ball so far.

  98. PasserBy says:

    there you go, handwaving again

  99. hnasel says:

    Hey, xou can not expect that Rössler will give one single equation or something really precise and therefore falsifiable statement … that is his method to remain “not refuted”

  100. TRMG says:

    Rössler: “Sorry, PasserBy is right: ”

    Indeed he is.

    “I thought TRMG had meant the simpler thing again… But if not, everything becomes very complicated because proper time of a stationary or falling subject has almost nothing to do with the time durations that signals (and objects) between levels take for those levels. This is easily confounded and is the reason for you three seeking advice. (You can read my gothic-R paper in the meantime to get the formulas from there.) ”

    Yeah, right, that simpler thing again, which was not what I asked about now, which was the very complicated thing about the signals and the levels, about which there sure is a formula in your gothic-R-paper.

    Do you think we are all stupid here?

  101. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Please help me to see the previous posts up to 101 so I can reply. Thank you.

  102. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for your kind help.

    Why is no one answering my yesterday’s comment?

  103. Peter Howell says:

    Rössler: there are answers to your yesterday’s comment — are you playing dumb with us? In summary, the comments say you are not answering the questions asked and are not engaging in a discussion. What would be needed for you to accept defeat?

  104. PasserBy says:

    Rossler: What??? You cannot be serious…

    In case you forgot, it is YOU who are refusing to answer TRMG’s
    question, with the pathetic excuse that “it would be complicated”. Well you know what, physics IS complicated, but the only meaningful way to discuss it is by sticking to its rules: express your statements in a mathematical form and, at the very least, accept that two statements that contradict each other cannot both be true. Your patronizing attitude towards the “youthful” TRMG (who, it appears, is much more qualified than you to discuss this matter) and your ridiculous habit of name-dropping (your great friend Wheeler, really?) are no substitute for solid arguments.

    Look, I came to your blog with the same mixture of morbid curiosity
    and guilty pleasure with which other people might slow down to look at a car wreck. For a couple of days I found it amusing to try to steer you into a proper discussion on physics. But now, while I truly commend TRMG’s sustained effort in that direction, I tend to agree with hnasel’s position. You are not just delusional and ignorant of the relevant physics, you are deliberately refusing to make precise statements because you already know that they would not hold up to scrutiny.

  105. hnasel says:

    The pount is that Rössler does not want to be refuted. Thats the last thing he want to be.

    If all scientists criticise his “results” then there is no mistake made by Rösser but the “biggest blunder” in history of science. In Rösslers view it is impossible to be wrong.

  106. TRMG says:

    This is so hilarious! :-)

    I agree, of course, that trying to convince Rössler is pointless, but exposing him as scientific impostor wherever he promotes his junk science may be worthwhile. Well, let’s consider the case proven. Rössler has nothing but wrong equations backed up by meaningless gibberish, and is unable to conceal that anymore.

  107. hnasel says:

    “but exposing him as scientific impostor wherever he promotes his junk science may be worthwhile.”

    Of course!

  108. Otto E. Rossler says:

    CERN’s defenders’ last weapon is psychology, not science?

    Please, offer a refutation or quit in the smoke of your brave namelessness.

    But I would much prefer a refutation since I grew to like you.

  109. hnasel says:

    “CERN’s defenders’ last weapon is psychology, not science?”

    Up to now it was YOUR only “weapon”. Or waht was the reason for speculating about the biggest blunder, the dogmatic behaviour of the scientific community etc?

    You are the only person in this thread who is avoiding precise scientific answers to precise questions.…But you should have a second chance. Try again to answer the question of TRMG ;)

  110. Which question of TRMG?

  111. By the way: You have a bigger forum on http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/idiotic-blunder-behind-risked-planet

    But please only named contributors there!

  112. hnasel says:

    Nice try, you cannot answer the questios, cou cannot corrrect your equations beacause you dont understand them at all — the result is the same as it was already observed in discussions with you in german blogs. You start to insist on non-anonymous posters while anonymity was never a problem as long as the people were admiring your scientific genius.

    The person is not important. What matters in real science are precise statements, equations with well-defined variables.

  113. hnasel says:

    TRMG on June 25, 2011 11:33 am

    Rössler: How is the variable T in your Eq. (1) related to proper time in General Relativity?

  114. PasserBy says:

    Rossler: nice try, when you don’t have arguments to close a discussion, just start a new thread… Stop playing dumb, you know very well which question of TRMG you are unable to answer.

    As to the issue of names, I can nearly agree with you: this discussion looks more and more like a bunch of grownups profiting from anonymity to gang up and make fun of a pathetic and clueless old man. But hey, you brought it on yourself. Everybody here tried their best to engage you in a discussion about equations (which don’t need a signature to be right or wrong), but you simply won’t run the risk of being refuted.

    Personally, I’ve not been using my name because on Friday I was checking your blog from my workplace, and I wouldn’t have liked my employer to know that I wasted my time (and the taxpayer’s dime) on this car wreck. I wish the other guys the best of luck if they keep trying to bring you to reason, on this thread or on the next. I, for one, will put my time on the internet to a more productive use by watching youtube videos of laughing babies or farting dogs.

  115. hnasel says:

    “CERN’s defenders’ last weapon is psychology, not science?”

    let’s compare this to your newest heading:

    Idiotic Blunder Behind Risked Planet
    […]
    Official belief in miracles.
    […]

    I must admit, this sounds really scientific to me. :D

  116. Dear Passer-bye: Why should I lie to you?

    I never said I am not stupid. “Local” proper time is the time experienced by a resting person. That is the time T_downstairs about which the whole world agrees with Einstein it is slowed by the gravitational redshift factor.

    It was very kind of you to give a reason for your anonymity. This is of course a worthy substitute for a visible name.

    Take care.

  117. TRMG says:

    This will definitely be my last word on this topic, because Rössler will regret being so carelessly unambiguous, and retreat to the usual hogwash soon.

    I guess that people who have not understood what’s going on by now, are simply not interested anyway.

    ““Local” proper time is the time experienced by a resting person. That is the time T_downstairs about which the whole world agrees with Einstein it is slowed by the gravitational redshift factor. ”

    So, we can finally write down that Rössler’s T_downstairs is supposed to be identical to the local proper time. That’s good, because now we can easily compare his Eq. (1) to the predictions of the Schwarzschild metric, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric#The_Schwarzschild_metric

    From which we learn: “tau is the proper time (time measured by a clock moving with the particle) in seconds”. If the particle is not moving, but resting, we have for all spatial coordinates dr = 0, d phi = 0, and d theta = 0. Therfore:

    According to Einstein/Schwarzschild: T_down = sqrt(1-R/r)*T_up,
    According to Rössler’s Eq. (1): T_down = (1+z)T_up.

    Do you see any difference?

    Hint: 1/(1+z) = sqrt(1- R/r ). Yes, there is a simple forgotten reciprocal that spoils Rössler’s “theorem.”

  118. Thank you for this calculation. As you know, I am a slow-thinker. Can you explain a bit more as to where the difference lies?

  119. TRMG says:

    You haven’t read the hint.

    Einstein: T_down = T_up / (1+z)
    Rössler: T_down = T_up * (1+z)

  120. Dear TRMG:

    Please, check whether proper time really decreases according to Einstein downstairs, as you claim and as you say wikipedia claims.

  121. TRMG says:

    First of all, do you realize the difference between your equation and Einstein’s equation now?

    Now, according to Einstein T_down changes in proportion to sqrt(1-R/r). At r = infinity this factor equals 1. At r = R it equals zero. Yep, definitely decreases.

  122. hnasel says:

    OK, in the end Einstein himself is also wrong. :D According to the experiences wth Rössler in the past this must be his delusional conclusion. :D

  123. Dear TRMG:

    It is very interesting that so many people (10?, 100?, 1.000?), all scientists, cannot help in this dialog about an error of sign.

    You agree that the twin who went down in gravity and came up again is youner, do you not?

    When you have answered this question I can return to you.

    Take care, Otto

  124. Me says:

    Roessler, the proof that you are wrong and your equation contradicts Einstein is just 5 lines above — and you act as nothing happened. Your arrogance is unbelievable. You “can” return? Be glad some people are still willing to even accept your virtual presence.

  125. Why is having an undisproved scientific opinion, put up for criticism, arrogant?

  126. TRMG says:

    Rössler: Sorry, this is leading nowhere. I answered all your questions, including the last one you just posed (this particular one probably a million times). You just refuse to think about the answers.

  127. There is a misspelling in my post to TRMG above: younge (not youner).

    And I add that in my eyes (which may be held without my noticing), the PERIODS T (not TIMES T) are longer downstairs.

    This latter distinction, not made, appears to be the source of TRMG’s misunderstanding, if I am not mistaken.

  128. Second misspelling…

  129. Thank you, dear TRMG. I “just refused to think about the answers”?

    No: there are difficult questions. Please, tell us why you think that the seconds of a less rapidly ticking clock are shorter compared to those of the normal clock.

    Or is this a misunderstanding on my part of your thinking?

    Take care, Otto

  130. TRMG says:

    “Or is this a misunderstanding on my part of your thinking?”

    Yes, it is, as I aready said a million times too. But don’t bother with my answers. You have to focus on your new PR campaign now.

  131. Peter Howell says:

    Rössler wrote: “Why is having an undisproved scientific opinion, put up for criticism, arrogant?”

    As I stated before, your claims are not undisproved, you have been proven wrong many times, here and elsewhere. You are just NOT ACCEPTING this, but that doesn’t mean you’re right. In your mind, who should be the judge telling if you’re claims are right or wrong? It certinly cannot be you.

  132. You did not answwer my question: My T (clock period) is increased downstairs, you claim Einstein says the opposite.

    This is not true, or did I misunderstand something? You see, I would very much like to have you as an ally.

  133. Dear Mr. Howell:

    Quote: “you have been proven wrong many times”

    This is a very important claim. Can you give me and the world the evidence?

    Thank you.

  134. The second cannot be found, the first is totally superseded by later work (including my first public response given at the time).

    Can anyone come up with a piece of real evidence? I desire nothing more, and so does the whole planet. You will get instant recognition, Mr. Howell.

  135. Peter Howell says:

    No Prof. Roessler, the first is NOT superceded by your work. You just claim so. But please, I keep open minded, please post here why you think Prof. Bruhns is wrong in his well founded argument (and not verbally, please write down the math and formulas, anytzhing else can not be acpted).

    For the second link please see here:

    http://www.ketweb.de/stellungnahmen/20080730_Antwort_von_Pro…iulini.pdf

  136. Peter Howell says:

    Oh, and pleaase Prof. Rössler do not forget to answer why your equation contradicts Einstein as TRMG has shown above — are you smarter than Einstein or are you wrong? The world is waiting.….

    Also, you still owe the answer to who should be the judge telling you’re right or wrong. Again, it cannot be you!

  137. Hnasel says:

    You have not changed your respective paper about the R-theorem and therefore the review of Prof. Bruhn.

    Furthermore you have not disproved the astronomical arguments given by CERN and because of that your arguments are irrelevant even if you would have done so.

  138. Hnasel says:

    Sorry, wrong ending

    Furthermore you have not disproved the astronomical arguments given by CERN and because of that your arguments are irrelevant even if your “theorems” would have been right…

  139. Peter Howell says:

    And then there was silence.….

  140. Robert Houston says:

    Silence was what you snotty trolls deserved from the start.

    Your foolish insistence that time speeds up at the base of an accelerating rocket contradicts not only Rossler but Einstein and modern physics. They all agree that it slows down. For example, here’s the conclusion from physicists at CERN’s sister institution DESY, Germany’s largest accelerator center:

    “A clock attached to the rocket’s ceiling (i.e. furthest from the motor) ages faster than a clock attached to its floor… Einstein postulated that any experiment done in a real gravitational field…will give a result indistinguishable from the same experiment done in an accelerating rocket, so the idea that the rocket’s ceiling ages faster than its floor…transfers to gravity… This difference…has been verified experimentally” (DESY, The Relativistic Rocket).

  141. hnasel says:

    You have not understood the equation of Einstein given by TRMG.

    Go back and think again.

  142. TRMG says:

    “Your foolish insistence that time speeds up at the base of an accelerating rocket…”

    After more than 143 comments in total you haven’t even begun to understand what we are saying, and you’re still calling us trolls. Good job, Houston.

    “They all [Rössler, Einstein, modern physics] agree that it slows down.”

    No, Rössler can’t agree, because he is confused about what that even means. Will the proper time T displayed by a slowed down clock eventually be larger, or smaller compared to the other clock? If you are confused too, think of the clocks as race cars and of proper time as their mileage.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time

  143. Robert Houston says:

    Go argue with the physicists of DESY. Using similar terms, they came to the identical conclusion as Prof. Rossler. Concerning the inside of an accelerating rocket, they wrote: “a clock attached to the rocket’s ceiling…ages faster than a clock attached to its floor.” (See section “Inside the Rocket” of “The Relativistic Rocket” at: http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/rocket.html ).

    It’s obvious that whatever gyrations of sophistry you went through, TRMG, you’re the one who’s confused, for you came to the opposite conclusion from the physicists of DESY (and elsewhere) and are thus likely to be in total error. Rossler was indeed correct in his theorem, and the reversal that you suggested would have rendered it as fallacious as your stubborn misinterpretations.

    Hnasel wrote, “You have not understood the equation of Einstein given by TRMG.” DESY states that it’s conclusions about the accelerating rocket (which were the same as Rossler’s) represent those of Einstein. On this thread, TRMG did not give us an equation by Einstein; instead he gave us what he said was an equation by Schwarzchild from a Wikipedia article on the Schwartzchild metric, which in fact contained no such equation.

  144. hnasel says:

    Houston, then there is also no Einsteinian equation given by Rössler too, because all of his crap is based on his revolutionary findings in the Schwarzschild-metric (s“R-theorem”). His wrong equation is not a solution of the field-equations but a wrong derivation from the schwarzschildmetric.

    And of course there is such an equation in the wikipedia article. The problem is that you have not read all of TRMGs postings carefully. TRMG has shown how you can derive his equation from the wikipedia-equation.

    Go back and think again. And start reading instead of blindly admiring and defending Rössler.

  145. Peter Howell says:

    Wow — out of the blue comes Mr Houston and calls me a troll. Coming from you, it seems to be a compliment. Let me assure you, I have been a research fellow at DAISY, and noone there is even remotely agreeing with Roessler. So go back, improve your behaviour and learn some basics about physics. SO far the main troll here seems to be you.

  146. TRMG says:

    Houston: So, you’re saying that, since Rössler agrees with DESY, and since I disagree with Rössler, I must also disagree with DESY and therefore be wrong. Your convenient stance of ignoring everything I say completely, and simultaneously distorting it into it’s exact opposite is thus solely based on the assumption that Rössler’s arguments are at least *consistent*. And this is precisely where it falls flat.

    “a clock attached to the rocket’s ceiling…ages faster than a clock attached to its floor.”

    Yes, Rössler most likely agrees that this description is correct, but so do I (so I have nothing to argue about with DESY), and probably everyone else. But you should really abandon yor false belief that Rössler was competent enough to transmute this simple fact into a formula correctly. In fact, it has been my point from the beginning that his Eq. (1) contradicts his own prose (read my first comment to his “Osama bin Cern” post). So, does Rössler’s Eq. (1)

    T_tail =T_tip * (1+z)

    correctly capture DESY’s description of the situation? In other words, will the faster race car (clock at the ceiling/tip) eventually be the one with less mileage (proper time T_tip)? Unless you answer this question you will not understand anything.

    Again, here are Einstein/Schwarzschild/Rindler chorusing

    T_tail = T_tip / (1+z),

    which, as you should try to convince yourself, describes the situation correctly. (Faster aging clock, more proper time.)

    And yes, this formula *is* contained in the articles I cited, not verbatim (so text search won’t help), but by simple logical implication. I even guided you through the steps, but when it comes to thinking you’re on your own of course.

    Now, unfortunately for Rössler’s other claims to make any sense, the validity of his Eq. (1) is vital, notwithstanding the verbal description we all agree on.

  147. AnthonyL says:

    “I have been a research fellow at DAISY, and noone there is even remotely agreeing with Roessler” — Peter Howell.

    So they have research fellows who cannot spell?

  148. AnthonyL says:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but the software on Lifeboat seems willing to carry only a certain number of comments per page, and divides them into pages. This is the start of page 4, which now comes up as the only page it will display when asked the respond to the basic link http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences.

    In fact it is page 4, as in the link http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/c…ment-86018. To get earlier Comments you have to insert different page numbers in the url.

    Lifeboat software does not list the page numbers of comments on screen for me, so I have to use this method. But this may be because I am using Chrome. Possible MS Explorer shows page numbers, does it? I recall I tried Firefox, and they didn’t show up there either.

  149. Jason says:

    AnthonyL, regarding “research fellows who cannot spell”, “oe” is sometimes used instead of “ö”, just FYI. Or maybe you mean “noone” for “no one”? A small and very common mistake. Anyway there were no particularly egregious misspellings in the sentence you quoted.

  150. Peter Howell says:

    Unlike the trolls here, real scientics (incl. the ones at DESY/ DAISY — you get it?) have a sense of humor. But you made your point on what is important for you in this discussion… You may want to check out TMZ. COM — seems more fitting for your interests.

  151. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Just came back from 5-day conference in France — forgive me the delay. And: How do I open the June comments?

    Has Stockholm or Rome replied?

    Peter Howell seems to be the most competent specialist to judge from the above post-June 30 listing. Why are you sure I or other scientists are not trolls? Is not being a troll a since qua non for being humane?

  152. Otto E. Rossler says:

    It would be so nice, dear Mr. hnasel, if your claim of disproval were true. Where is the evidence? The planet is waiting for your reply.

  153. Robert Houston says:

    One of those LHC black holes has consumed most of the comments on this thread. But using Anthony’s method, here’s a link to p. 3 of the comments (June 25 to early July 1, 2011):
    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/c…ment-86018

    On June 30, TRMG posed a well-worded question: “Will the proper time T displayed by a slowed-down clock eventually be larger, or smaller compared to the other clock?“
    Answer: Smaller. One doesn’t need special equipment to show this: my slow kitchen clock with its weak batteries is always behind the other clocks in total minutes displayed. Admittedly, that’s not just because the kitchen is in the basement of my spaceship.

    Early on July 1, TRMG clarified that he agrees with Rossler and DESY that “a clock attached to the rocket’s ceiling…ages faster than a clock attached to its floor.“
    He asked, “Does Rossler’s Eq. (1) — T_tail=T_tip * (1+z) — correctly capture DESY’s description of the situation?“
    Answer: It does, for it will yield a larger number of time units (minutes, hours) for the faster clock and do so in accordance with the Rindler metric (z).

    TRMG: “Will the faster race car (clock at the ceiling/tip) eventually be the one with less mileage (proper time T_tip)?“
    Answer: No. The faster clock at the tip will eventually be the one with the greater count of elapsed units of proper (local) time.

    Using his prestigious new nom-de-plume of “Einstein/Schwarzchild/Rindler”, TRMG then presented a revised equation that he claims “describes the situation correctly (faster aging clock, more proper time)”:

    T_tail = T_tip/(1+z).

    But this equation would produce a fraction for the faster clock at the tip and thus less proper time, in terms of number of minutes or hours elapsed, as compared with the slower clock. Apparently, TRMG is not focusing on the aggregate local time count, as did Rossler, but rather on the comparative length of each time unit as measured in coordinate time (i.e., earth time). His equation is thus misleading, for it would not show the displayed local time count, as Rossler’s theorem (Eq. 1) correctly does.

  154. TRMG says:

    Houston: “The faster clock at the tip will eventually be the one with the greater count of elapsed units of proper (local) time. ”

    Thanks for the clear answer, agreeing that T_tip should be larger. Now hopefully we are nearly done. Everything else is just a little arithmetics.

    “He asked, “Does Rossler’s Eq. (1) – T_tail=T_tip * (1+z) – correctly capture DESY’s description of the situation?”
    Answer: It does, for it will yield a larger number of time units (minutes, hours) for the faster clock and do so in accordance with the Rindler metric (z).”

    No, it won’t. We just agreed that the clock at the tip is the faster aging one. If you take a positive number, like T_tip, and multiply it by a number larger than 1, like 1+z, you get an even larger number–T_tail in this case. But T_tail should be smaller, because it pertains to the slower aging clock at the bottom.

    (BTW, z is not the Rindler metric, but the redshift. It’s greater than 0.)

    “Using his prestigious new nom-de-plume of “Einstein/Schwarzchild/Rindler”, TRMG then presented a revised equation that he claims “describes the situation correctly (faster aging clock, more proper time)”:
    T_tail = T_tip/(1+z).
    But this equation would produce a fraction for the faster clock at the tip and thus less proper time, in terms of number of minutes or hours elapsed, as compared with the slower clock.”

    No! Are we looking at the same equation? The fraction here equals the shorter time T_tail, not T_tip. Are you aware that 1+z is greater than 1? Then for this equation to hold T_tip must be larger, than T_tail, like we agreed it should be.

    ***

    Let’s make an example: Assume z = 1 (quite extreme, but valid), and T_tip = 1 (all times measured in seconds), then, according to Rössler’s equation, T_tail = T_tip*(1+z) = 1×2 = 2. So T_tail = 2, and T_tip = 1. The clock at tip, which is supposed to be aging faster, only displays half of the proper time of the tail clock. So Rössler’s equation must be false.

    According to the other equation, T_tail = T_tip/ (1+z) = 1/2. So T_tail = .5, and T_tip = 1. Here the faster clock at the tip displays twice as much time.

  155. It is a sweet logical confusion. Do you really stick to the claim that clocks that have fewer seconds per second have shorter seconds?
    Science is friendship. It is time for an apology and then new vistas open up.

  156. TRMG says:

    “Do you really stick to the claim that clocks that have fewer seconds per second have shorter seconds?”

    No, I stick to the view that posing utterly nonsensical questions like this one is symptomatic of very deep confusion.

    ‘Do race cars that have fewer miles per mile have shorter miles?’

  157. hnasel says:

    ““fewer seconds per second have shorter seconds?””

    seconds per second??

    You are assuming a kind of absolute time?

    if so then you are in total disagreement with the theory of relativity. Then you have not even understood the fundamental principles.

  158. I repeat my question in longer form for you:
    Do you really stick to your claim that clocks that have fewer seconds in the time another clock has a given number of seconds, possess shorter (rather than longer) seconds than those of the other clock?

  159. hnasel says:

    First you have to answer the still open question:

    How is the T in your equation related to proper time in relativity?

    Give the answer in a precise mathematical relation.

  160. TRMG says:

    Rössler: Increasing the word count won’t help. Try reducing the nonsense.

    BTW, I never said anything about “shorter seconds,” so I cannot stick to any such claim.

  161. PassingByAgain says:

    I see that, after many days, this thread does not lose its potential for entertainment! I am really in awe at TRMG’s patience, but I am afraid that he/she is preaching in an intellectual desert here…

    Robert Houston has hopefully decided to go back to middle school, so perhaps the next time he shows up he will understand elementary algebra.

    As to Rossler, he does indeed appear to believe in some sort of absolute time according to which the downstairs seconds are shorter than the upstairs seconds. Well, if I remember correctly TRMG has already addressed that claim in an earlier post, but clearly paying attention is not one of Rossler’s strong suits.

    The way I remember TRMG argument is: a second lasts one second, by definition, both upstairs and downstairs (or, if you prefer, a second lasts “the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom”, both upstairs and downstairs).

    Now, imagine that two clocks are separated in the spacetime point A and reunited in the spacetime point B. When they meet again, the clock that lived upstairs has counted more seconds than the clock that lived downstairs. However, the reason for this is *not* that the seconds downstairs are longer than the seconds upstairs. Again, a second lasts one second both upstairs and downstairs. The point is that in general relativity the proper time T_AB (i.e. the time measured by each clock between point A and point B) corresponds to the length of the path traced in spacetime by each clock. Due to the non-flatness of the metric, the upstairs clock traces a longer path in the spacetime when going from A to B, therefore it counts more seconds, i.e. T_AB_up > T_AB_down. Right?

  162. PassingByAgain says:

    Sorry, read the sentence above as “As to Rossler, he does indeed appear to believe in some sort of absolute time according to which the downstairs seconds are LONGER than the upstairs seconds”.

  163. hnasel says:

    Seconds are seconds. Only with the concept of a kind of absolute time you can qualifiy some seconds as shorter or longer…in relativity there is no absolute time. Only in Rösslers private version of relativity: The ontological relativity *ROFL*

  164. AnthonyL says:

    “I have been a research fellow at DAISY, and noone there is even remotely agreeing with Roessler” — Peter Howell.

    “Unlike the trolls here, real scientics (incl. the ones at DESY/ DAISY – you get it?) have a sense of humor”

    In fact, of course, I was referring to your constant misspelling of the distinguished Otto Rossler’s name. Some might find in this an indication of the level of your grasp of the discussion, but we are not among them, because we recognize your genius and your irony, just as the same Rossler acknowledges your competence. What a pity you cannot show the same respect, which is always the oil that makes the machine of discussion among “scientics” run smoothly.

  165. TRMG says:

    PassingByAgain: “As to Rossler, he does indeed appear to believe in some sort of absolute time according to which the downstairs seconds are shorter than the upstairs seconds. ”

    I had the same idea as you and hnasel, but I decided that it’s absolutely impossible to attribute any kind of definite believe to this horrible mess of random statements he utters. This is just pure confusion. Also remember, he doesn’t derive his equations; he just conjures them up. So he doesn’t even need a set of consistent fundamental believes for any logical reasons.

    By now I believe that Rössler is not even clear about the distinction between physical quantities (like proper time) and units of measurement (like seconds), because he seems to keep switching between both interpretations, with a clear preference for the latter though, which however makes no sense at all. When it comes to comparing two physical quantities like “proper time downstairs” and “proper time upstairs” this lack of distinction presumably leads him to such bloopers as “fewer seconds per second” etc.

    “The way I remember TRMG argument is: a second lasts one second, by definition, both upstairs and downstairs (or, if you prefer, a second lasts “the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom”, both upstairs and downstairs). ”

    Yes, units of measurement serve only one purpose: to express physical quantities numerically. We could of course let each twin chose different units, but we *can’t* of course call both of them “second” if they don’t refer to the same amount of each twin’s respective proper time (and if they do, we need not mention them at all in calculations). Especially we should not call them “longer seconds” and “shorter seconds,” because second is a well-definied amount of time.

    As for your last paragraph, I completely agree too.

    The relation “proper time = arc length in space time” is of course the reason for the race car analogy I used above

  166. Peter Howell says:

    AnthonyL wrote: “In fact, of course, I was referring to your constant misspelling of the distinguished Otto Rossler’s name. ”

    Again, you are the one being wrong and fololish. The one misspelling his name is you. In German, Prof. Roessler writes his name with the letter “ö” NOT “o”, which on any English keyboard doesn’t exist, so I use the CORRECT alternative spelling of “ö” which is “oe” — ROESSLER. His name is not Rossler.

    Any other comments of substance? Again, take a look at TMZ.COM — that’s where your competence seems to be.

    Oh, and given what I have seen from him so far, I think we can forget the “distinguished”. He might have been a respected medical doctor, but his behaviour here, refusing to listen to any arguments, showing his incompetency in nuclear physics (anf ART!), makes me wonder what his probelm is. i do not know the University of Tubingen, but if Prof. ROEssler represents the typical academic levels there — sound to me more like a German version of the University of Phoenix!

    Peter H.

  167. Why is it so ridiculous if I ask the world to come up with a scientific counterproof? I am only the child that saw that the emperor has no clothes. My clothes are of no concern.

  168. You are being enigmatic. Any specific request?

  169. Dear PasserByAgain, I do not contradict you when you talk about clocks. Also someone’s idea that I were reviving a kind of absolute time is correct, but it is of course all in Einstein. And it is different from a convention often used (Rindler’s light circuit postulate) without detracting from the latter.

  170. Let me also say thanks to Burdette belatedly (since I had been abroad, and cannot read pre-100 E-mails any more).

  171. PassingByAgain says:

    huh? you’re being slippery again. How can you “not contradict” what I wrote above (“a second lasts one second, by definition, both upstairs and downstairs”) and at the same time insist that one clock has “shorter seconds” than the other?

  172. I said Rindler’s and my result do not contradict each other. Please, stick to the point.

  173. Peter Howell says:

    Roessler, it’s you not ‘sticking to the point’. You’re not answering a single question, so completely useless to continue a dialogue with you. Not sure what your motivation is beside complete egocentricity and Vanity, it’s certainly not scientific curiosity or anxiety for mankind. Otherwise you would engage in a scientific discussion, and answer easy questipns such as how the ‘T’ of your ‘theorem’ relates to proper time! Oh, and Kindler has nothing to do with it, throwing in random names not helping you — only with trolls who have no knowledge in science.

    Peter H.

  174. Peter Howell says:

    I meant Rindler, not Kindler, damn smartphones!

  175. Dear Peter (if I may call you so): Why do you say “You’re not answering a single question” on a forum where every knowledgeable reader sees that it is not true? Ask Professor Rindler if you wish. He still has the old humility of mind which was a precondition for finding new things in the past.

    The postulate in question goes back to Einstein who first saw that you can force a common global time time under certain rather general conditions. My own global time is a different one, but the two do like each other since the spirit is the same.

  176. hnasel says:

    Again, give a mathematical defintion of your T!

  177. TRMG says:

    Rössler: You’re distracting. Since you’re not denying time dilation, you’re not positing a “global” or “absolute” time in any sense relevant to the discussion. On the contrary, the erroneous assumption that time intervalls get *larger* while descending in a gravitational potential, and do so in a quite “ontological” sense, is essential to your argument.

    So much about “sticking to the point.”

  178. hnasel says:

    There is no global time in general relativity. Your very basic assumption is wrong.

    And now please answer the questions. As Peter already mentioned throwing some names in the dsicussion is NOT a scientific argument.

  179. Peter Howell says:

    Prof. Roessler: no, you cannot call me Peter. Doing some research on you in the past hour, I am not considering you someone I want to be close to.

    And again, you are lying in plain sight. As any reader in this public can see, you are NOT answering the questions. Otherwise you would be able to give a straightforward answer and equation for the question:

    “How is the ‘T’ in your claim related to proper time in ART?

    And saying this question is irrelevant or giving a speech about the complexity of defining proper time is NOT answering this question.

    You want to discuss with experts in this field, then here is your chance. But I am not wasting anymore time with blubberish nonsense from you. Show some meat to the bone.

    As to Lifeboat: I was always a curious visitor to your site and at least open to your causes, as I believe that science is the only way to allow mankind to survive. However, as you are giving away your blog to someone like Prof. Roessler, who — if you do some simple web search — is not the respected scientist he claims to be (and your bio of him is painting an awfully wrong picture), Lifeboat is losing lots of credibility. Roessler has published most of his research in papers, that have low, if any scientific ratings, or where the editors have been convicted of scientific and financial fraud. He compares the work of CERN scientists with the horror of the Nazis. And as he shows in this forum, he is not even familiar with the most basic physical concepts. If there are any physicists on your board or in your editorial group, they would immediately see this.

    Peter H.

  180. PassingByAgain says:

    Rossler: I AM sticking to the point. Indeed, the point here is your repeated statement that “time intervals are longer downstairs”, which appears to contradict both the prediction of general relativity and the experimental results.

    This discussion can progress only if you give a physical definition of what you mean by “time interval”, which you have consistently refused to do (apart from when you ventured that you mean the proper time, allowing TRMG to beat you on the head with it).

    Silly statements like “Einstein […] first saw that you can force a common global time time under certain rather general conditions. My own global time is a different one, but the two do like each other since the spirit is the same.” are not a valid substitute for a rigorous definition.

    Really, “The two like each other”? “The spirit is the same?” Do you think you are talking to idiots here?

  181. Peter Howell says:

    PassingBy: well said. And yes, he thinks we are all idiots, in fact I am suspicious of him being convinced being the only person ‘in rhe knoq’. Just read his comment in the other post, his arrogance is even bigger than his ego. I know half a dozen colleagues at the Perimeter institute, who probably have forgotten more about ART than Roessler will ever learn, nut he claims to judge on who us an expert in this field and who’s not — Keep in mind, he’s a MD, not even a scientist remotely educated in physics!

    I am puzzled the university of Tubingen is allowing him to represent the faculty.

    Peter H.

  182. Peter Howell says:

    Forgive the typos — Cannot type properly on my iPhone and need some sleep now!

  183. Dear Peter:

    If you know anyone — you claim many — at Perimeter who could falsify my results: Please, be so kind as to make the contact so that a specialist can bring his counterarguments against Telemach to my and the world’s attention. So everyone can see who concedes defeat; for conceding defeat has always been the only presentable sign of a solution having been obtained in science. Right?

    I once did write a long letter to Perimeter years ago without getting a reply. I would be genuinely grateful for the contact.

    And: I never thought you or anyone else was an idiot. I only need the benefit of the doubt — communicated doubt — in the form of a falsifiable argument. And since you wanted to know: I do not have a high opinion of my own faculties.

    Peace at last?

  184. PassingByAgain says:

    more blah blah, and still no definition of “time interval”…

  185. TRMG says:

    There is no need to harass anyone at PI, if you can’t even manage your unfinished business here: Why does your Eq. (1), which you said [1] refers to local measured proper time, yield a larger time interval for the lower clock, while Relativity and reality say the opposite?
    _____
    [1] “‘Local’ proper time is the time experienced by a resting person. That is the time T_downstairs about which the whole world agrees with Einstein it is slowed by the gravitational redshift factor.” (Otto E. Rössler on June 26, 2011 6:05 am)

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/comment-page-3

  186. Dear TRMG:

    People who do not understand what the other means necessarily understand blah-blah. I do, you do. I can only ask you to try to understand by asking questions about the thing you did not understand in what I said, and I will also try to understand your own question better.

    You are a lonely island on which two clocks of differing unit periods called seconds cannot be logically compared in the right way: that the one has compared to the other LONGER seconds. In particular: that it is the one that is SLOWER-ticking.

    Please, read again my detailed explanations of this fact given to you before. Or ask me about the point here we diverge. Or allow me to ask why you disagree with my above paragraph.

    This is a very important forum, as you know, and I am grateful for the fact that you contributed to it. Okay?

  187. Dear hnasel: Please, read Rindler’s “Relativity, Special, General, Cosmological” 2001, specifically — or just — the page with the “light circuit postulate” which is due to him. Okay? (I do not find my copy at the moment.)

  188. TRMG says:

    Rössler: So you can’t answer the question I asked?

    It made, by the way, no reference to “seconds” at all, so your explanations are completely dispensible. As far as I am concerned you can chose any unit of time you deem appropriate for each clock. It doesn’t affect in any way which clock will be older eventually, and that’s what I am asking about.

    So, still the question remains why your Eq. (1) predicts the proper time of the lower clock to be longer, while the Schwarzschild metric predicts it to be shorter in agreement with experiment.

    “You are a lonely island on which two clocks of differing unit periods called seconds cannot be logically compared in the right way:”

    I don’t I have any problems comparing both clocks. In fact I did it several times in this thread.

    “that the one has compared to the other LONGER seconds. In particular: that it is the one that is SLOWER-ticking. ”

    Do you believe that a slower driving race car has LARGER miles, compared to a faster one? Do you believe that the reason for its making less mileage is because each of its miles represents a larger distance? Why then do you believe exactly the same nonsense about time dilation?

  189. Quote: “Do you believe that a slower driving race car has LARGER miles, compared to a faster one?”

    Thank you for this example. Answer: With SPACE you are right, with TIME you are wrong. For if in the same time of one tick of the faster (upper) clock, the slower one makes fewer ticks, as you concede, then during the time of 1 tick upstairs, only a half tick (say) has taken place downstairs.

    Please, do aceept this or disprove it at last. I have respect for pertinacity. I would be glad if the unnecessary aggressive undertones could finally be replaced by cooperation.

  190. Hansel says:

    What is the dimension of your T? Seconds?

  191. Hansel says:

    Thats not scientific. What is the dimension of the T in your equation?

    And who is measuring the “same time”? What is the meaning of “in the same time”?

  192. TRMG says:

    “Thank you for this example. Answer: With SPACE you are right, with TIME you are wrong.”

    No, I’m not. In fact the analogy would work with *any* physical quantity. Only with “distance” and “cars” it’s nearly perfect. If I’d asked you to compare the energy output of a 60 Watt light bulb with a 100 Watt light bulb, both simultaneously switched on and off. would you say that the 60 Watt bulb’s energy is smaller because of its “Joules being larger”?

    Now I’m not asking you to compare distances or energies, but proper times of two clocks resting in a gravitational field, both simultaneously starting and stopping their measurement. Again, how does your Eq. (1) account for the fact that the proper time—measured in any unit you like—of the lower clock is shorter compared to the upper clock, like it is established experimentally. (This is the phenomenon known as “gravitational time dilation”.) Can you answer this or not?

  193. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you, dear TRMG.

    I admire you for your perseverance. It is only comparable with mine. I know how it feels to be alone.

    So I am very reluctant to ask you to look again at your miost recent post. The proper time below being shorter MEANS that in the time of a whole time unit upstairs, a fraction of the lower unit has taken place. Right?

  194. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Hanse, I thank you for your question. I have a diagram of the situation in a paper of 1998 in which we described the “WM diagram” (of interdenting light rays between upstairs and downstairs along the two horizontal time axes. It is related to Alfred Schild’s diagram of 1960, but unlike the latter symmetric.

  195. Peter Howell says:

    Prof. Roessler: again, for you it is not “Dear Peter”, can’t you read?

    And no, I will certainly not act as a door opener to anyone for you; you are disproved in public, no need to harass more people. If your letter to PI was remotely similar to your behavior here, no wonder no one takes your serious. How do you envisage a discussion if you are not answering simple questions like the ones brought forward here?

    I don’t know what your problem is, but you seem to be a hateful and vain man. Science is about joint efforts, open discussions, progress and in my experience – while competitive at times – build on respect and often friendship. You on the other hand, just express hate, packed in nice and nimble language on first sight. But you are like the preachers who say: “[My religion] is peaceful and based on love. If you don’t believe it, you will die!”

    No real scientist is taking you serious, and maybe this is your problem and motivation. You are not interested in scientific proof, but you want a big public stage for you to shine – vanity at its best. You seem to have a small following here and elsewhere — but so did Charles Manson.

    I will definitely not waste more time with you, there is real scientific progress to be made! And students who want to learn the beauty of science as I described it above.

    Peter H.

  196. Robert Houston says:

    @ Peter Howl
    Thanks for deciding to exit, Peter Howl, and good riddance to you. On this thread you’ve been nothing but a howling spiteful hypocrite. You dare accuse Dr. Rossler of being “hateful and vain,” while you’ve spewed hate and arrogance in nearly every comment. In contrast, Rossler has been consistently polite, patient, and gentlemanly toward you and your fellow bullies. It’s obvious that you’re the blogger affiliated with DESY who specializes in ad hominem attacks on Dr. Rossler. So please return to your bat cave and say no more, troll.

  197. AnthonyL says:

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/c…ment-86018 seems to be the correct url for reading previous Comments here, where X is the number of the page (2, 3 etc.)

    That’s if anybody feels inclined to follow this thread all the way along, which seems doubtful, since it is degenerating rapidly into name calling of the worst kind, especially by “Peter Howell”. I now regret my own descent into castigating Rossler harassers here as trolls even more, but I have apologized, and poor speller Howell has not (“superceded” anyone? a common mistake since the 17th Century, but still a mistake, Sir!).

    “I don’t know what your problem is, but you seem to be a hateful and vain man. Science is about joint efforts, open discussions, progress and in my experience – while competitive at times – build on respect and often friendship. ” — “Peter Howell”

    Where exactly do you find permission on this or any other thread to give vent to this evidence of your own unfortunate imagination? How is this indicative of any understanding that scientific work depends on civil cooperation, since it demonstrates the exact opposite?

    Rossler is merely writing papers with a dire conclusion he says he would love to abandon, if only someone sensible would find them in error and have the capacity to explain why, which seems wanting here. He — and we — certainly don’t need your hateful and uninformed fantasies cluttering up this thread or anywhere else. What we ned is for you to apply your “competence” (Rossler) in stating precisely where he is in error. Where have you done that? The word precisely is key here.

    All paid up members of the global public would be delighted if you could do so, including Rossler, it seems. I speak for some 6.5 billion human beings without an advanced degree in physics.

    We need productive and thoughtful comments, preferably addressed to “Rossler”, since that is how he spells his name here in civil acknowledgment of those who are not in Germany and who do not have a suitable keyboard. Of course all who care know that his native spelling is Roessler and the oe represents the trema, and he is being polite to simplify it in English sites. He is always civil, even when attacked by CERN defenders anxious that the LHC should not be disturbed by global responsibility.

    As far as your advice to me to abandon TMZ and comment on the discussion goes, it seems fairly clear in one respect, at least„ since anyone who troubles to examine the two competing equations as simple equations would have to agree that

    Einstein: T_tail = T_tip / (1+z)
    Rössler: T_tail = T_tip* (1+z) T_tail = T_tip*(1+z)

    represents Einstein saying T_tip is larger than T_tail, and Rossler is saying T_tail is larger than T tip.

    Since as I understand it (switching from a rocket to the extreme case of interstellar voyaging) T_tip represents TRMG 1 visiting a nearby star at near light speed and returning a few years years later according to his rocket clock only to find that everyone on Earth has gone through dozens of generations, and T-tail is the time clock left on Earth (or the rocket base), we see that the equation labelled Einstein is in line with that picture and the equation labeled Rossler is not.

    After all, cheese=cabbage/(1+ z) if z>1 means that the cheese is bigger than the cabbage, and cheese=cabbage*(1+z) means that the cabbage is bigger than the cheese.

    So TRMG seems quite right on the point,. So has Rossler really got such a simple equation wrong, and does it ruin his entire theorem? If one is considering time dilating in some way, it gets very tricky, since you have to define your terms very precisely. Are the seconds ticked off by the rocketeer longer in some way than the seconds ticked of on Earth? If considerations like this enter in, you need to introduce additional terms into the equation, do you not? If this is what Rossler has done, or not done, and if it is what you think should be done, or not done, is what readers of this thread need you to clarify. Presumably that would also get you a proper answer from the good Tubingen prof.

    Perhaps the assault on Rossler as a totally unqualified MD out of his depth in cosmic physics here could stop long enough for this and other scientic — er, sorry, scientific points to be properly elucidated?

    After all, he made his name in his work after he won a medical degree, in chaos physics, did he not, where he discovered the elegant Rossler attractor, did he not, and then he branched into chemistry, among other studies. The man is a respectable polymath, according to Wikipedia, which treats him with respect aexcept to repeat an unspecific claim that his position papers on the LHC wouldn’t pass peer review.

    Since your cell phone apparently does not easily access Wiki, here is his bio there:

    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Rössler was born in Berlin. He was awarded his MD in 1966. Rössler then began his post doc at the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Physiology, in Bavaria. In 1969, he started a visiting appointment at the Center for Theoretical Biology at SUNY-Buffalo. Later that year, he became Professor for Theoretical Biochemistry at the University of Tübingen. In 1976, he became a tenured University Docent. In 1994, he became Professor of Chemistry by decree.

    Rössler has held visiting positions at the University of Guelph (Mathematics) in Canada, the Center for Nonlinear Studies of the University of California at Los Alamos, the University of Virginia (Chemical Engineering), the Technical University of Denmark (Theoretical Physics), and the Santa Fe Institute (Complexity Research) in New Mexico.

    In June 2008 Rössler emerged in the public eye [1] as a critic of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) proton collision experiment supervised by the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva and was involved in a failed law suit to halt its start up. He argued that CERN’s proton collisions had a one in six chance of generating dangerous miniature black holes that could bring about the end of the world. This kind of planetary Russian Roulette, Rossler says, “is a risk you mustn’t take.” [2], though his arguments were later described as being “… based on an elementary misunderstanding of the theory of general relativity” and that his ideas would not pass peer review.[3]

    Rössler has authored around 300 scientific papers in fields as wide-ranging as biogenesis, the origin of language, differentiable automata, chaotic attractors, endophysics, micro relativity, artificial universes, the hypertext encyclopedia, and world-changing technology.“
    //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    Until you overly keen detractors of Rossler can state your case more precisely and demonstrate in clear mathematical and verbal terms that he is wrong, as he has requested, he has a right not to respond in full.

    Meanwhile, let me just say that it is people outside groups who have made the bulk of brilliant scientific advances in history, and it may be a sine qua non for most creative geniuses to work outside large groups, and for their work to upset the assumptions and the interests of groups. The strictures you write against Rossler in general amount to saying he is not a club member, but it is sheer naivete to suppose that is a disqualification for good work, even in this era of massive science.

    I’d bet that Rossler is more interesting and fertile mentally than most of your sometime colleagues at DESY. You should be careful before writing off “crackpots”, if that is how you see him, which seems to be the case.

  198. TRMG says:

    Rössler: BTW, as to your previous remark again: “Thank you for this example. Answer: With SPACE you are right, with TIME you are wrong.”

    Are you aware that in Relativity we are dealing with a structure called “spacetime,” in which spatial and time-like distances are actually given by a single object, namely the spacetime metric? This makes the analogy even stronger in Relativity.

    ***

    “The proper time below being shorter MEANS that in the time of a whole time unit upstairs, a fraction of the lower unit has taken place. Right? ”

    If both clocks measure time in the *same* units (i.e. no “longer” or “shorter” version exists), then the answer is: yes, in exactly the same sense as while a 100 W bulb emits 1 Joule of energy, the 60 W bulb emits a fraction of a Joule, and while a faster car makes a mile, a slower car makes a fraction of a mile. Or in numbers (with z=1), if T_up = 1 sec, say, then T_down = 1 sec /(1+z) = 1 sec / 2 (<— fraction!) Now 1/2 second is a fraction of one second, isn’t it?

    Now is it clear that your formula does not account for this correctly?

  199. AnthonyL says:

    @Howell Let me retract my whole position on the trema in Rossler’s name here, which I now finally see is actually voiced typographically in my edition of Chrome/Lifeboat in every case, but with tittles so small as to be quite invisible to me until I put my nose inches from the monitor just now. How the heck one is meant to see such tiny diacritic dots in Chrome I can’t imagine. They are half the diameter of the tittles of the i’s.

    Anyhow you are quite right to use the oe then. Sorry.

    But still not right to abuse rather than be gentlemanly towards Rossler, however annoying you may find him, with his somewhat challenging English, which may be what prevents him from answering your challenges as directly as you wish.

  200. AnthonyL says:

    Please read only two equations in my post above, sorry.

    Einstein: T_tail = T_tip / (1+z)
    Rössler: T_tail = T_tip* (1+z)

    If T_tail > T_tip, then Einstein is right, and so is TRMG. Rossler has it wrong, unless he introduces other terms.

  201. TRMG says:

    AnthonyL: ??? You arrive at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

    The equation labelled “Einstein” is correct if T_tip > T_tail. This is in accordance with the gedanken experiment of the accelerated rocket, where the clock at the ceiling ages faster. So this is the correct equation.

  202. TRMG says:

    BTW, if Rössler introduced other terms, he would run into serious difficulties with observation. Unless the actual measuerd effect would be completely reversed, his formula can’t be right. Or it would describe another effect, entirely different from “ordinary” gravitational time dilation. But that is not what he claims.

  203. AnthonyL says:

    Oops CORRECTION:

    Einstein: T_tail = T_tip / (1+z)
    Rössler: T_tail = T_tip* (1+z)

    If T_tail < T_tip, then Einstein is right, and so is TRMG. Rossler has it wrong, unless he introduces other terms. Or there are other complications defining T.
    Correct?

  204. TRMG says:

    Yes, though I would not regard any subtle redefinitions of T as a passable loop hole out of his dilemma. If you talk about “time dilation,” as Rössler claims he does, you have to talk about time, which in this case means “proper time,” not some fuzzy, whishy-washy, would-be-time-like variable T, which can mean anything or nothing.

  205. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I thank you all for this (here momentarily visible) rest of the thread starting with No. 204. (The link to the earlier part given in No. 204 above does not work at my location.)

    My son who was born in Los Alamos was spelling his name Rossler.

    I am very grateful for the crystallization process that has been achieved above. And I would add that someone who very politely says to a very tall man: “dear Sir, forgive me, I do not mean it personally, but if you do not move you are doing an atrocity” will certainly having to reckon with some retaliation for daring to say so. Ten thousand physicists and a whole continent — and the rest of the world behind them — are a very tall man indeed. So I understand the anger very well and am not miffed about it at all.

    May I try to say it as I see it to be to the best of my knowledge — please, correct me? T does not mean TIME in my criticized formula in AnthonyL’s text, quote:
    Einstein: T_tail = T_tip / (1+z)
    Rössler: T_tail = T_tip* (1+z)
    but, rather, PERIOD: the local unit clock period length (a reciprocal of time).
    (The slower a clock is ticking, the longer you have to wait in the unit periods of a normal clock standing beside it until a single period has been produced by the slowed-down clock.)

    This makes the follwing juxtaposition the correct one:
    Einstein: T_tail = T_tip*(1+z)
    Rössler: T_tail = T_tip*(1+z) .

    If this is wrong, I would indeed acknowledge defeat with my whole system of warnings which I always hoped to be punctured at one point — hopefully in time.

  206. TRMG says:

    Rössler: “T does not mean TIME […] but, rather, PERIOD: the local unit clock period length (a reciprocal of time).”

    What?? The clock’s period is a definite amount of its proper time. So here T_tail = T_tip/(1+z) applies unequivocally.

    The reciprocal of time is commonly referred to as “frequency.” Do you now, contrary to your earlier statement clarifying that T means proper time, claim that T means frequency? Which would be unusual to say the least, and it would, by the way, invalidate your “theorem” all the same.

  207. hnasel says:

    Oh my god — this is rididulous. First the T was the “normal” proper time , then the “period of the time”.

    Roessler, I had asked you about the dimension of the T. Now it seems that you had not even understood the question then.

    In general a paper which has such “definitions” of variables in the equations (in fact there is neither a definition nor the author is knowing them!) is not worth to deal with. It is not really surprising that no one answers to Roesslers letters as long as he does not give any clear scientific evidence in the form of a precise equation or something like that.

  208. hnasel says:

    One week ago it sounded a little bit different:

    “‘Local’ proper time is the time experienced by a resting person. That is the time T_downstairs about which the whole world agrees with Einstein it is slowed by the gravitational redshift factor.” (Otto E. Rössler on June 26, 2011 6:05 am)

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/comment-page-3

  209. Otto E. Rossler says:

    No further comments by any other member of the incriminated scientific community?

    So the world must go under (if only with 8 percent probability) becauese thinking has been replaced by folk psychology in a once able community?

    I had never expected that Einstein’s most primitive equation in gravity — the increase of clock periods further down — would become too hard to grasp for a physics community reared on dogmatic as it now seems never understood textbooks.

    I emntioned the WM diagram. If you want to see it, here is it in this mini-paper:
    http://books.google.de/books?id=gzV49fwsReUC&pg=PA370&#…38;f=false

    Does the Figure there really not talk to anyone?

  210. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I just see that the Figure’s unit intervals (between the two legs of a V upstairs, and the two legs of a Lambda — inverted V — downstairs, respectively) have not been labeled by “2” on the upper and by “1” on the lower horizontal time axis here — as I usually draw the diagram today as the most telling numerical case, valid on an idealized (multiple-density) neutron star.

  211. Hansel says:

    It is not talking to you as you still think about absolute time in relativity theory.

    Your statement is a little bit arrogant being a “scientist” not able to define his own equations. You prefer´it to call the scientific communitiy dogmatic, stupid etc. Meaningless blabla about folk psychology — you really like this. Scientific arguments are looking a little bit different, as you should know. The possibiliy that you are the one who does nnot understand the textbooks came never to your mind, isn’t it?

    BTW please give the detailled derivation of your just mentioned 8% chance. You know, equations, logical assumptions in the beginning and so on.

  212. Hansel says:

    Additionally the wordl will not “go under” even in the case you were right because you have not disproved a single one of the safety arguments given by LSAG in 2008.

    For example there is no explanation from your side why super-dense matter should be protected of accretion by a hypothetical black hole. Only to say it is the superfluid state is NOT enough as was clearly shown by TRMG and others in the earlier part of this comment section

  213. PassingByAgain says:

    Oh yes, I’ve always been curious about that 8%. But we shouldn’t distract Rossler from addressing TRMG’s argument:

    “The clock’s period is a definite amount of its proper time. So here T_tail = T_tip/(1+z) applies unequivocally.”

  214. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Does no one read what I say?

  215. Hansel says:

    One week ago Rösslers definition sounded a little bit different ;)

    “‘Local’ proper time is the time experienced by a resting person. That is the time T_downstairs about which the whole world agrees with Einstein it is slowed by the gravitational redshift factor.” (Otto E. Rössler on June 26, 2011 6:05 am)”

  216. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Someone who refuses to think can, unfortunately, not be answered.

    No one else around?

  217. Hansel says:

    Will you start think in the end? Is it possible that your “unique” absolute-time-interpretation of Einstein could be wrong? Why are you changing the definitions of your variables weekly?

    However, to go back to the beginning of this comment section: even if you were right (what is evidently not the case) it would have no effect on the survival of this planet. You have not disproved anything of the paper by Giddings & Mangano 2008. You say so — but that’s already the complete argument. There is nothing more from your side. Unfortunately this is not enough.

  218. Hansel says:

    All of the five points above are flawed. There is no proof or conclusive derivations of the unchargedness of black holes. The same applies for the non-evaporating (your ridiculous paper adresses not even the hawking-effect), and of course the neutron star argument. No derivations, no euqations, no logical chain of evidence. Only meaningless blabla.

    The reason for this lack of hard and precise statements can found in the last postings of this comment section. If it is shown that a equation is wrong Rössler changes the definition of the variable immediately. Therefore he HAS TO avoid any kind of precise definition in the beginning.

  219. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Of course I could be wrong.

    But no one shows me — that is my problem.

    Please, disprove what I said instead of making cheap assertions in a circle without listening. Can someone help you?

  220. Hansel says:

    no the problem is that you are the only person you are accepting to judge the falsification. The next problem is that in reality you don’t want to be disproved because you like it to be on the big stage where you can call the whole scientific community a group of dogmatic idiots. You have shown this in various posts only containing psychological blabla and of course the comparison of scientists with the Nazis.

    The point is that you have nothing which has to be disproved in the meaning that from the point of view of a scientist you have nothing worth to deal with. That is the reason why no one is answering your ridiculous letters and no one is citing your (not even published) “papers”. You can not expect that anyone will even read your “papers”, especially as far as you are calling the scientists Nazis. You are the naked emperor, not Einstein and not the scientific community. The five points above are good examples because for not one of them you have presented supporting evidence meeting at least the lowest standards of scientific working (only to claim that there is a protection without further explanations is perhaps applicable in an organization like a church but NOT in science)

  221. AnthonyL says:

    “Oh my god – this is rididulous. First the T was the “normal” proper time , then the “period of the time”.”

    Hnasel, with respect, could we ask you to simmer down and make more purely impersonal statements? The lack of respect in “ridiculous” and other characterizations is not part of productive discussion except in beer gardens among friends that know each other very well. Please credit Rossler with his intelligence and achievements, however you may doubt his science in this case.

    There is an obvious language problem here on both sides, for what posters think are precise formulations are not received as such by those who respond. Your language is just as foggy as Rosslers, technically speaking, if you don’t mind me saying so. So you have to allow for misunderstanding on both sides. This is an area where it is very difficult to keep things straight, is it not? Even the mathematics is subject to the knotty problem of defining its terms perfectly.

    It is also exaggerated to complain that Rossler views the scientific community as a pack of dogmatic idiots Nazis etc. He has been consistently polite and humble here, and he didn’t say this as luridly as you imply. He is understandably complaining about the global unwillingness to take what he says seriously — which you keep demonstrating! Saying something is silly and quietly proving it wrong are two different things, you must agree.

    The people he is really concerned with are the people with the power to take responsibility for the risks the LHC is running, which by definition (since they are wholly unknown except for best guesses) are not zero. Apparently you are not one of them, but the least you could do is treat what he says with respect and, if you can carefully deconstruct it and assure him and the rest of the world that we are safe, then please do so. We will all be very gratified, including Rossler, as he says.

    For what it is worth, as one reader, I am well aware of your merits just as I am well aware of Rossler’s merits, and know that neither of you deserve scorn. But IF you want to be read with appreciative understanding you have to skip the “rididulous“‘s etc, which seem nothing more than an understandable display of your frustration at not getting Rosslers ideas in line with yours, when that display is one good reason why it doesn’t happen.

    It seems that you are not trying very hard to understand what Rossler means, or granting him the benefit of your doubt, at least initially, when you should, before you rush to excoriate him, at least show you understand very well what he is intending to say. Lead the horse to water, if you want him to drink.

    Speaking for myself I understand your frustration, for surely Rossler could be making more of an effort to be properly understood. But giving vent to it helps nobody and overlooks the possibility that if Rossler did express himself perfectly in English and you understood him perfectly in English you might respect what he says, even if you find it questionable. Have you read his paper properly, or at all? By properly I mean without prejudice.

    As the distinguished Peter Howell has recently well observed here science is a group activity which depends on positive attitudes such as patience and friendly respect which allow full expression of competing ideas, without degenerating into the kind of rudeness that scotches progress towards the agreement on conclusions we all seek. Am I repeating myself? Sorry.

    By the way, please don’t tell us that you view your job to put down Rossler at all costs in case the UN or someone else responsible for the welfare of the planet sees the need to stop escalating the LHC until we have had a sober full review of what is potentially involved, when the safety arguments look increasingly rickety.

    That is not the case, is it? You are trying to pursue a decent examination of what is involved with his theoretical objections, aren’t you, rather than just trying to defend the LHC from being interrupted?

    I thought so. Good for you. We need objective science, in this case above all.

  222. AnthonyL says:

    The above assumes that Hansel is a correction of hnasel, but if it isn’t, then it is addressed to both gentlemen, and anyone else tilting ad hominem here.

    I cannot give any scientist of any age any better advice than this: the intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not. – Peter Medawar, Advice To A Young Scientist.

  223. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Quote of Hansel above: “the problem is that you are the only person you are accepting to judge the falsification”

    Thank you for this sentence, Mr. Hansel. It is true. No scientist is allowed to accept a proof that is either wrong or he does not understand.

    You do not understand my proof given in Telemach. You tried to tell me what you do not understand/believe. I do not understand what you say as a counterargument. I tried my best. Therefore, I gave my last geometric proof above, with the reference to Fig. 1 in my 1998 paper.

    It proves all your arguments wrong. But you say not a single word about it.

    So I realize you refuse a scientific debate. This is why I asked for other critics who do remain in dialog.

  224. hnasel says:

    You are refuding the debate. How often were you asked for precise mathematical answers? How often have you given such an answer? And how often your answer consisted of nothing than diffuse non-defined words (and meaningless blabla about science as friendship, dogmatism, non-thinking folks etc)? How often were you asked about some very basic issues like the dimension of your variables, the relation of your variables to the quabtities in general relativity etc?

    There is no proof in “Telemach”. There is only a wrong equation which you have not understood — or give us a better explanation for changing the meaning of T in one week from “time” to “periods of time”. There are arguments that are not even flawed like the Ch-“proof”- it does not exist at all! The same is true for the other “proofs”.….It does not matter whether we look at the non evaporating holes, the neutron stars, the production of black holes.…There are no logical, well defined derivations, no explanations, no exact scientific arguments. Instead of something like that there is only meaningless and diffuse prosaic “blabla”.

  225. hnasel says:

    And this diffusive writing, this avoidance of any kind of precise and therefore falsifiable statement is the reason why it is in principle impossible to disprove Rössler . Everytime someone finds an error in his “papers” he can easily say that he has meant all things in a different way. One example for this strategy was seen this morning when Rössler changed ad hoc the definition/the dimension of his T.

  226. PassingByAgain says:

    Rossler: on my browser the google link you give above only shows the first page of an article, with no figures at all (let alone any “figures that prove all [hnasel’s] arguments wrong”). Why don’t you give the full reference of the journal in which the article was published?

    And most importantly: why don’t you reply to TRMG?

  227. hnasel says:

    By the way, as passingbyagain mentioned this morning you have still something to think about.

    “PassingByAgain on July 4, 2011 3:44 am

    Oh yes, I’ve always been curious about that 8%. But we shouldn’t distract Rossler from addressing TRMG’s argument:

    “The clock’s period is a definite amount of its proper time. So here T_tail = T_tip/(1+z) applies unequivocally.” ”

  228. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Very interesting.
    First: when I had opened the named Google-link earlier today, all 3 pages were shown — I apologize for the fact that now the second and third are gone. I will try to find a better link.

    Second, hnasel poses an interesting question by saying (quote): “The clock’s period is a definite amount of its proper time”

    Proper time taken alone says nothing (it just has a certain speed of running). You must look at a unit period inside, and compare the latter to a unit period in the proper time of another (more upper) clock: checking how much time it covers there if sending a light pulse up at the beginning and the end of a period.
    Alfred Schild did this already in1960; you find it as a picture on page 188 of Misner-Thorne-Wheeler’s book “Gravitation” (the famous “bible” of 1973 which you no doubt possess).

    The slower proper time’s periods downstairs actually map bijectively on more than one proper time period upstairs!

    This is the essential finding.

  229. AnthonyL says:

    “I thank you all for this (here momentarily visible) rest of the thread starting with No. 204. (The link to the earlier part given in No. 204 above does not work at my location.)”

    It wasn’t meant to work until you write in the page number you want, instead of the X. It only works according to which section number you insert into it.

    We are currently on page 5 where X is 5.

    Thus

    page one:

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/c…ment-86018

    page 2:

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/c…ment-86018

    page 3:

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/c…ment-86018

    page 4:

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/c…ment-86018

    and the current page 5:

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/c…ment-86018

    With all due respect, it is surprising to find that you physicists cannot be more precise in your formulations here, if you think that Rossler is so wrong. Why cant we have a simple paragraph, elegantly formulated, telling us all why you think Rossler is wrong, in which case he could provide a paragraph in answer to say why he thinks you are wrong?

    Wasn’t it Einstein who said that if you couldn’t explain your ideas to a chambermaid you didn’t understand them yourself very well?

    Is relativity really that complicated? Maybe the problem is that it hasn’t been fully worked out and we will understand its ramifications so much better a century from now? They do say that all science is liable to be updated as time passes.

    And if that is the case, should we by definition be careful not to reject too brusquely unusual theorizing by unconventional minds?

  230. TRMG says:

    AnthonyL: “With all due respect, it is surprising to find that you physicists cannot be more precise in your formulations here, if you think that Rossler is so wrong. Why cant we have a simple paragraph, elegantly formulated, telling us all why you think Rossler is wrong, in which case he could provide a paragraph in answer to say why he thinks you are wrong? ”

    So,

    Einstein: T_down = T_up/(1+z)
    Rössler: T_down= T_up*(1+z)

    isn’t precise enough for you anymore?

    What was Rössler’s answer so far? Redefining T in two inconsistent ways in a single sentence (revealing on the way is ignorance about the difference between “period” and “frequency”). Or something like this:

    “Proper time taken alone says nothing (it just has a certain speed of running). ”

    You can’t even properly reply to such a nonsense, let alone that it was worth one. He could as well have said “distance alone means nothing it just has a velocity.” The only reason, I think, he gets away with this is that most people are not as familiar with terms like “proper time” as they are with “distance.”

    From this it is pretty clear to me (and it should be to everyone else) that his intentions are not to be understood, but to make excuses why his elaboration do not really mean the ridiculous false nonsense that they obviously imply. Do you think he could have derived a false formula like Eq. (1) anyhow, like he claims he had done? Why didn’t he show his derivation, but said that this is a well-known result, when in fact it turns the result that is well-known upside down?

    The answer is, he never proved anything; he just makes stuff up. You show that it’s false. He makes other stuff up as an excuse. This can go on and on. And it does so for three years now. Why do you think that is?

    What is his explanation for disagreeing with the textbooks on this topic? Boasting that he is the only one who really understood this “most primitive equation.” Do you, as the intelligent layman, find that convincing? You should feel deceived.

    “Is relativity really that complicated? Maybe the problem is that it hasn’t been fully worked out and we will understand its ramifications so much better a century from now? They do say that all science is liable to be updated as time passes. ”

    Oh god, you must be joking. We are not discussing any intricate physical or mathematical problems here. This is Relataivity 101 and Rössler hasn’t understood a single word of it. It is as simple as that. He obviously knows enough jargon to impress a laymen audiance, especially the ones nursing romantic stereotypes about misjudged and brilliant outsiders fighting against a dogmatic establishment, but that’s it. So this whole discussion has not the tiniest bit of scientific significance. It’s like debating on the Pythagorean theorem, where the side that has problems understanding what a square is, also claims to be the only one who really understood this “most primitive formula.”

  231. TRMG says:

    P.S. BTW, as Hansel reminded us above, just a week ago he was careless enough to be precise, and define T as proper time unambiguously. Now he says, “proper time alone says nothing.” So just a week ago, he was offering us a definition that he now claims to be meaningless?

    Did he feel the need to explain his change of mind? No. Is it because shortly after a trivial exercise showed that his Eq. (1) does not yield the correct relation between proper times? Most probably yes.

  232. Otto E. Rossler says:

    This morning the reference I gave above does once more lack the second and third page, and hence the graph on the second page, p. 371.

    So let metell you the essence. I there drew two horizontal lines, t_up and, underneath, t_down.

    Then I connected the lines by slanted rays (light rays) gowing down and coming up again (letter V’s). So twice (a letter W). And I drew, displaced by a half phase, two connected letter Lambdas, so that the WM symbol obtained intermeshed symmetrically inthe middles of its legs.

    Now numbers can be atached. On an (embellished) neutron star, for example, time would be half as fast on the t_down axis. That is, we could write “2” between a unit interval (the distance between the two legs of a V), upstairs, and “1” between a unit interval (between the legs of a lambda, downstairs.

    Finished. What does the contraption mean?

    It means that there is a bijection in both directions. A “2-interval” upstairs is mapped onto a “1-interval” downstairs, and vice versa. (We, that is, Dieter Fröhlich and I, had first expected to find here a non-bijective, most likely chaos-generating, map; this failure was a big disappointment to us at first.)

    Thus, one sees two things. First, that it is possible to have a “light circuit” in Rindler’s terms). That is, it is possible to have a single global time in general relativity in the absence of rotation if we only decleare that the different intervals upstairs and downstairs are subjected to a normalizing re-scaling in a purely formal way.

    But this new global time is purely formal. It means that locally different time intervals are so re-scaled that a single global time results. This re-scaling is mathematically conveneient sometimes, but it is unphysical.

    Second, one sees that shorter time intervals — in terms of the local clocks downstairs — are mapped bijectively onto longer time intervals upstairs. Richt?

    This was not seen before it appears. Schild, who first drew a good part of the WM diagram in 1960 (I quoted p. 188 of the Misner, Thorne, Wheeler bible of 1973 titled “Gravitation” with Freeman), did not yet capture the different time speeds on the two levels.

    What does the new insight mean? It means what Einstein always said: that locally unchanged clocks tick more slowly downstairs, and that a twins paradox also exists in gravity.

    One knows, for ecample, that it takes light an infinite time to touch down to the horizon of a black hole, and an infinite time to come back up again. Oppenheimer and Snyder, who first saw that it takes an astronaut only two days to from the surface of a collapsing star to reach the horizon, emphasized that this refers to the astronaut’s own, fallling along, clocks. So when the astronaut were to be brought back up after two days of falling, and two days of coming up again (a fictitious assumption), he would be 4 days old while the waiting twin brother upstairs would have assembled infinitely many years on his own back in the meantime.

    The same holds true for any other object touching down. So nothing can ever reach the horizon in finite outside time (as is known, in particular, to the Russian school); that is, in finite universe time which is outside time.

    In consequence, the astronaut whoo only needs two days to touch down will in reality never reach the horizon, for to do so would presuppose that nothing intervenes in those two days. But those two days correspond to an infiniy of time in the outide universe. So only if the universe exists for an infinitely long time can the astronaut hope to reach the horizon. And, at that, so only if nothing intervenes before he arrives there. For exmaple, it could happen — and is virtually bound to happen — that the black hole he is approaching will encounter a bigger black hole, in the infinitely long future that is at stake. Then his own approaching the present black hole will have an end and he will — like any other object — have to make an automatic change of course in order to approach the other, stronger, black hole. Now this harbors a problem. His trajectory willl have to change from going faster and faster towards the first black hole towards going faster and faster towards the second one. So there must be a point of decision somewhere in between. This amounts to a saddle point, a so-called blue-sky catatrophe in Ralph Abraham’s terms. The saddle point then most likely means that he, the astronaout, or rather every single particle in his body, will be forced to exchange its loyalty to go to the one attractor towards that to go to the other attractor. In between, there is an unstable point, a a saddle point. Therefore, the particle in question will be sent into outer space away from both black holes. Hence a shower of protons is bound to come out of the astronaut and fertilize the infinitly old cosmos that we had presupposed.

    You see: Einstein’s “simple” insight that clocks are slowed-down more downstairs in gravity is far from being exhausted. Horizons have totally new properties. What needs to be explained is how come these new fact could be overlooked for so long (and be so harshly fought also on this blog still).

    But: If it is true that black holes have radically different properties from what the whole physics community has thought up until now, should one then really feel safe trying to produce them artificially day and night?

    Is a thinking pause really something that CER must fear and shun?

    P.S.: Now at this moment, the picture on p. 371, the second page of my paper on the above link, happens to be visible again.

  233. TRMG says:

    Since the preview still doesn’t work I don’t know if the following will be useful to anyone. I have access to the fulltext and looked at the “geometric proof.”

    “Therefore, I gave my last geometric proof above, with the reference to Fig. 1 in my 1998 paper.
    It proves all your arguments wrong. But you say not a single word about it.”

    No, it proves that you can’t distinguish time dilation from an artifact of your own diagrammatic representation.

    Presumably the periods of the wavy lines *define* the units of the time axes (no other indication of such units is given), and, yes, the diagram makes the units of the lower axis look 4 times larger as the units of the upper one. But they are longer *only in cm on the paper*! (I could draw a picture of me appearing taller than the Eiffel Tower, but I wouldn’t mistake it for reality.) I realize that you *have* to draw it that way, or otherwise the propagating light rays could not be parallel straight lines. But this is of course owing to the very real gravitational light deflection occuring. You could as well have decided to draw the the light signals as exponential functions (the way they look like in the Rindler metric), which would be a different diagram representing the same situation, only with the units of both axis being equally long.

    Still, one period of the lower wavy line must consume the same amount of seconds on the lower axis as the upper wavy line’s period consumes on the upper axis. Otherwise the signals could not be “locally equivalent” as the caption states.

    Now what does your own diagram say about the relative times t_1 and t_2? It says t_2 = t_1/(1+z) in contradiction to your Eq. (1) again. You can see this by following the diagonal light-like lines upwards. One period (unit) on the lower axis ends up being 4 periods (units) on the upper axis, amounting to a redshift of z=3. Or in numbers again: T_down = 1, T_up = 4, and hence

    T_down = T_up/(1+z).

  234. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I am happy with the last but one line of TRMG’s remarks.

    That equation is okay (if the fact that the factor was 2 in my recollection is left unaddressed).

    As to the last line I still think that the capital T in that line means something else than the T in my Eq.(1) of the Telemach paper on this blog. But this is (almost) beside the point now that we could agree on the first of the two equations of the last two lines above. I repeat:

    “T_down = 1, T_up = 4″ (or 2, respectively). With T referring to local proper time.

    So we do mean the same thing in terms of reality. It all becomes a matter of nomenclature now once this much of a consensus has been obtained. A friendly celebration is on line.

  235. Hansel says:

    And what is the meaning of your T? What is the dimension?

  236. PassingByAgain says:

    Rossler says: “This was not seen before it appears. Schild, who first drew a good part of the WM diagram in 1960 (I quoted p. 188 of the Misner, Thorne, Wheeler bible of 1973 titled “Gravitation” with Freeman), did not yet capture the different time speeds on the two levels. ”

    So let me get this straight: in the classic textbook “Gravitation”, which you quoted triumphantly as if it could shut hnasel’s mouth, there is in fact nothing about shorter seconds and longer seconds. That interpretation can only be found in a 1998 paper of yours, which TRMG appears to have easily dismantled above. Just as a personal curiosity, where was that 1998 paper published? Did it undergo peer review?

  237. Hansel says:

    TRMG wrote:
    “Why didn’t he show his derivation, “

    That is THE question he should answer…In a scientific paper the variables in equations are normally well-defined. Not in Rösslers paper as was shown yesterday and before. In a scientific paper the equations are logically derived — again there is nothing like this in Rösslers paper.
    And of course all of this should be true for a person claiming to be an expert in the field of gravitational physics!

  238. Hansel says:

    Of course there is nothing like shorter or longer seconds in the Misner Thorne Wheeler. It is only Rösslers misunderstanding because he is thinking in terms of an absolute time or something like that.

  239. TRMG says:

    Not so fast. The question what your Eq. (1) really describes, besides a diagrammatic artifact, is still open.

    Anyway, if you agree that proper times get shorter downstairs, and if, as you claim, distances have to scale proportionally with time, then the conclusion that distances have to shrink, not expand, downstairs seems quite inevitable too.

    Or in other words, you seem to agree that reality is described by T_down = T_up/(1+z), so considering your Eq. (2), you run into the next dilemma. Postpone the celebrations until you have found an answer to this one.

  240. TRMG says:

    PassinByAgain: As to the paper: I obtained it from a volume on “A Perspective Look at Nonlinear Media” from “Lecture Notes in Physics.”

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p5u236175862j273/

    One of the authors of this paper, Jürgen Parisi, also co-edited this volume. I can’t judge about the quality of the other papers. Their topics range from “Quantum chaors in Rydberg atoms” to “The modelling concepts of sociodynamics.”

    ***

    I also looked up p188 of MTW, which Rössler cited above. It describes an argument put forward by Schild, that gravitational redshift is not compatible with a flat spacetime. It is not intended as a geometric proof of gravitational time dilation, but it presumes it up front as an experimental fact—in the usual sense of a difference in proper times between sender and receiver, but no variable seconds—, and concludes from it that spacetime must be curved.

  241. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Good to see that TRMG at least sees the point. We have a common equation to defend now. Anyone daring to assail it?

  242. Hansel says:

    The next Rössler-strategy: Suggest that there is no disagreement.

    @Rössler: If you read the last postings very carefully again you will see that there is NOT a common equation but an equation different to the equation in the “Telemach”-text (to call it a paper is not appropriate). The question is still open what this equation describes. The dimension of the T is still open.

    The question why you are not showing the derivation of the equation is also still open.

  243. TRMG says:

    TRMG wrote: “You could as well have decided to draw the the light signals as exponential functions (the way they look like in the Rindler metric), which would be a different diagram representing the same situation, only with the units of both axis being equally long. ”

    Minor correction: I think it should be hyperbolas not “exponential functions”.

    Rössler: I think you got confused again. Assail a correct equation, that overthrows your whole argument? What for?

  244. PassingByAgain says:

    Rossler: TRMG has never missed the point, nor has he changed his position by an inch. The equation he writes above is in flat contradiction with your eq.(1), so the two of you DON’T have any common equation to defend.

    BTW, I now have section 7.3 of the MTW textbook in front of me. As expected, the description of fig.7.1 at page 188 states unambiguously that “the time intervals are different, delta tau_top > delta tau_bot”.
    This is in agreement with TRMG’s equation, and in contradiction with yours. Have you even read the stuff that you were trying to use against hnasel? But hey, I suppose that even Misner, Thorne and Wheeler have to be counted among the “idiotic blunderers” for failing to see the true implications of their own figure 7.1… Luckily your 1998 paper set things straight. Again, can you remind me where it was published?

  245. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I am waiting for my colleague’s TRMG’s comment.

  246. PassingByAgain says:

    meanwhile, can’t you answer your other colleagues’ questions?

  247. Hansel says:

    BTW TRMG is in fact waiting for a comment of Rössler:

    TRMG on July 5, 2011 2:31 am

    Not so fast. The question what your Eq. (1) really describes, besides a diagrammatic artifact, is still open.

    Anyway, if you agree that proper times get shorter downstairs, and if, as you claim, distances have to scale proportionally with time, then the conclusion that distances have to shrink, not expand, downstairs seems quite inevitable too.

    Or in other words, you seem to agree that reality is described by T_down = T_up/(1+z), so considering your Eq. (2), you run into the next dilemma. Postpone the celebrations until you have found an answer to this one.

  248. PassingByAgain says:

    Perhaps, while the two wait for each other, Rossler could also comment on the meaning of this footnote at the bottom of page 188 of MTW:

    “Proper time equals Lorentz coordinate time for both observers, since they are at rest in the Earth’s Lorentz frame”

    Does this sound anything like “a second downstairs is longer than a second upstairs”?

  249. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I do not think that TRGM needs your assistance in order to formulate the consequences of the equation that he and I seem to be alone in the world, defending.

    I am certainly willing to discuss with him my Eq.(2) now, after Eq.(1) is no longer seriously contested between us.

  250. TRMGAgain says:

    All of my comments seem to get queued to await moderation now. I don’t know why and if they will appear eventually.

    In the meantime, Rössler, would you please go back and read carefully what I wrote before you declare agreement again?

  251. Hansel says:

    Rössler, there is still NO agreement between you and anyone about eq 1.

  252. AnthonyL says:

    “Proper time taken alone says nothing (it just has a certain speed of running). ”
    You can’t even properly reply to such a nonsense, let alone that it was worth one. He could as well have said “distance alone means nothing it just has a velocity.” The only reason, I think, he gets away with this is that most people are not as familiar with terms like “proper time” as they are with “distance.”

    OK, but if it seems nonsense, can’t we state specifically and formally why, leaving him to defend it or otherwise, as he wishes. Otherwise it is impossible to nail things down, given that allowances have to be made for the English language difficulties of both sides, where the concepts one has in mind are not necessarily seen correctly by the other.

    The posts above seem to be getting there. I agree that it would be helpful if Dr Rossler would also state more specifically what his formal position is. If you can, and he can’t, then your impolite suspicion that he is evading formalism and responsibility might be justified. But he is now more forthcoming as his interrogation becomes slightly more polite and specific, is he not?

    Rossler is unfailingly polite, and if you are too, we should have a clear answer. He has even stated that he would welcome disproof. So if the simple equation above is an error, and his entire system is dependent on it, please state this formally in words and mathematics.

    He seems to think you agree on it, now that he has stated that he had the inverse in mind, so his formulation matches Einstein’s, but you take this as yet another evasion. Formal statements would resolve the issue one way or another.

  253. Hansel says:

    “but you take this as yet another evasion”

    It is another evasion. Why can’t he show his derivation of the equation? Why can’t he define the dimension of the T?

    And it is the opposite of being polite suggesting that there is an agreement when there is in fact NO agreement as was more than one time clearly stated by TRMG and others.

  254. TRMGAgain says:

    AnthonyL: “OK, but if it seems nonsense, can’t we state specifically and formally why, leaving him to defend it or otherwise, as he wishes. ”

    Would you agree that the analog sentence about “distance” I gave is nonsense too? (I hope so.) I have no idea how to formally prove that it is, other than stating, “no, distance means something; we can measure it,” or something along these lines. The same holds for proper time. It is the time that clocks measure while floating through spacetime, so it means everything when we talk about time and time dilation. But so far it seems that Rössler hasn’t even got a very clear understanding of what proper time is. All his remarks have been very vague in this point.

    “Otherwise it is impossible to nail things down, given that allowances have to be made for the English language difficulties of both sides, where the concepts one has in mind are not necessarily seen correctly by the other. ”

    I don’t think that the language barrier is the major problem here. He has a peculiar style even when writing in German, and seems no more capable of lucidly expressing his alleged scientific results in his first language.

    Also, what concepts do you mean? Rössler doesn’t claim to have invented new concepts about anything as far as I know. He obviously thinks he is talking about ordinary gravitational time dilation. That is a concept widely understood among physicists. Nowhere you will find any account of it that refers to change of time units for example, because that doesn’t make much sense on very general grounds. (Again, think of the analogies I gave.) So, yes, propbably he has a completely different concept in mind, but he doesn’t seem aware of that, which makes it unlikely that there is something meaningful behind it in the first place. In fact I’m pretty sure there will be nothing left once we stripped of the indecipherable language.

    “So if the simple equation above is an error, and his entire system is dependent on it, please state this formally in words and mathematics. ”

    I thought I had done this already, and you seemed to have understood it yesterday: Rössler simply turns the relation of proper times upside down. His excuse is, that he doesn’t really talk about proper time (which unfortunately means he is not really talking about time dilation either). As for the present state of the discussion, the intended meaning of Rössler’s Eq. (1) has become completely opaque again. For all I know it refers to some entirely artificial relation between the unit lengths of two axes in his diagrammatic representation of time dilation, that he attempted in one of his earlier papers. Do you want me to elaborate on this point? (I did to some extent in a previous comment, and added a minor correction in a subsequent one that unfortunately didn’t appear yet.)

    “He seems to think you agree on it, now that he has stated that he had the inverse in mind, so his formulation matches Einstein’s, but you take this as yet another evasion.”

    Yes, he occasionally declares perfect unanimity all of a sudden, for reasons that never become entirely clear. I don’t know why he believes that I agreed with him, if he really does.

  255. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you, AnthonyL.

    Proper time is important. It indeed ticks always with the same rate if you have nothing to compare it with. It is just as in special relativity: all the mightily distorted and weighty people (in Gamow’s tale pf Mr. Tompkins) passing by you do not know there is something special about them, in their own frame. To them, the others look strange.

    Please, help me get TRMG back on track. He was ready to tackle my Eq.(2) in the Telemach paper. Anyone ready to attempt to dismantle Eq,(2)?

    I understand that TRMG is under peer pressure not to become to close with the “enemy” who said that CERN is presently risking the planet, and this fraternization is unacceptable since they are on the side of the ten thousand physicists of CERN who no longer respect what honesty in science means: not to skirt the duty to FALSIFY a new result. As long as this has not been achieved — so that both sides can agree -, the rest of the world is not happy with either side. One of them is either stupid or irresponsible.

    What the innocent bystanders forget is that it is rather UNIMPORTANT whether it turns out that I am stupid or deluded or both. The world will survive that. But the opposite alternative happens to have a little bit more weight.

    So wasting precious time on trying to make me look like a fool is not a sign of very high intelligence – no one on this blog is on my mind when I say that.

    Dear TRMG: This exempts you from the beginning, but your cronies did make a mistake with their time budget.

    Now I have to return to the politeness that Anthony is requesting — rightly requesting. So I ask your forgiveness that I took you as buddies and talked as openly with you as my new friendship with you allows me to do, knowing that the whole world is curious to watch how this strange dialog continues.

    For you don’t have every day an old provocateur who challenges the whole world to be “a little bit cautious” because cautiousness does not cost anything compared to BELIEVING in an authority that publicly in the plain sight of the world is not able to defend itself with a cogent counterargument.

    Which is indeed not easy to obtain since CERN’s defense unfortunately must be 10-to-the tenth times more cogent than my own stupid warnings. So it is no wonder that the only weapon of young well-reared physicists is the irrational hope that a bit of folk psychology might help them escape the duty to find a real fault in the results of the guy whom they pretend to hate because he shows them the beauty of being fearless in science, which is the only real proof of scientific thinking according to famous clown.

    It does not matter if you look like an idiot as long as you are on the track of something that is worth your efforts. All the patronizing institutions in which you believe unreflectedly do not exist. They only seem like existing. CERN has no right to go on if it is wrong – right?

    And as long as it cannot show it is not wrong, not even with your own capable aid (I do have a great respect for you), it cannot continue. For you have revealed to the world its weakness: Psychology as the last way out in a PHYSICS dispute.

    So I herewith can declare to the world that judge Niemeier is not a non-person but the most perspicuous man I ever watched in action. PLEASE, dear planet, pay attention to his official request: “A scientific safety conference in time.”

    And in case I should have annoyed any single sparring partner here, I ask you cordially to forgive me. I do have my weak sides. Now let us continue with the real business.
    —————-.-

  256. Otto E. Rossler says:

    P.S. I have not yet seen TRGM who interloped.

  257. Hansel says:

    Please stop your nonsensical talking about enemies and so on. It is ridiculous. please remember that you were the one who wanted to exclude psychological blabla aout of this comment section. The question is why it is almost only you starting such a crap again and again.

    We are still at your eq1. There are still open questions about the meaning/definitions of variables and the derivation of this equation. There is still NO agreement.

  258. Hansel says:

    What do you expect from a scientific conference when you are not even able to define your basic variables like the T in the comment section of a blog like this?

    The people there will ask you exactly the same questions. Will you then answer in the same manner, calling the scientists there a group of stupid dogmatic idiots etc?

  259. TRMGAgain says:

    Otto E. Rossler on July 4, 2011 2:11 pm : “Proper time taken alone says nothing (it just has a certain speed of running). ”

    Otto E. Rossler on July 5, 2011 11:27 am: “Proper time is important. It indeed ticks always with the same rate if you have nothing to compare it with. ”

    Yes, thanks for clearing things up again. BTW, we compare the proper time of one clock with the proper time of another clock all along. That is the whole point of time dilation! So judging by your second statement you still haven’t even understood what you’re talking about.

    “Please, help me get TRMG back on track. He was ready to tackle my Eq.(2) in the Telemach paper. Anyone ready to attempt to dismantle Eq,(2)? ”

    I already did. Maybe you should spend more time reading and understanding than ranting.

  260. Hansel says:

    That is the next Rössler-strategy: Writing long pieces of rant until the guy who has already disproved his “theses” willfrustrated leave the nonsensical debate.

    And then he will again claim to be not disproved and so on.

  261. TRMG says:

    AnthonyL: “He seems to think you agree on it, now that he has stated that he had the inverse in mind, so his formulation matches Einstein’s, but you take this as yet another evasion.”

    I forgot to mention: I don’t think he really *has* the inverse in mind. He was inconsistent at this point. Also this interpretation wouldn’t go well with his other statements, including “R theorem” for example.

  262. PassingByAgain says:

    Well, guys, it’s been fun, but tomorrow I’ll go on holidays and I’ll be essentially offline for one week. By the look of it, I expect that on my return this thread will have reached 500 posts. Rossler will still be claiming that black is white, and alternatively calling his critics genocidal idiots or pretending that they in fact agree with him. TRGM, hnasel/Hansel, Peter, I wish you all the best of luck once again, but I have no great hopes on the outcome of your struggle. You might as well try to discuss gravitational time dilation with your cat: it well never concede that you are right, but does this mean that your arguments are incorrect?

    To AnthonyL and any other curious non-expert I strongly recommend section 7.3 of the Misner, Thorne, Wheeler textbook, which Rossler himself was so unwise to quote in the mistaken belief that it supports his thesis. In fact, that section gives a neat account of the thought experiment with two clocks in a gravitational field, and anybody who can read English will learn from it that Rossler’s eq.(1) is in contradiction with experiment, and that Rossler’s ramblings on shorter/longer seconds are utter rubbish.

  263. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Please, dear guys: You are anonymous. So you can afford a bit more risk-proneness.

    That the clocks tick more slowly in proportion to the redshift seen from above, has by now been accepted in our circle.

    Slower clocks downstairs make less than one tick during the time the upper clock makes one. Indeed during two upper ticks on the outside, a clock on an idealized neutron star makes just one. Hence the “temporal wavelength” downstairs is elongated by the factor two on that neutron star. If there is no disagreement about that “Einsteinian” finding any more, we can now continue: How about the “spatial wavelength”?

    Locally, everything looks normal. (To a singing male blackbird, its own voice is a baritone, not the twitter it is to us; forgive me the analogy.) So the locally normal appearing spatial wavelength L, with c unchanged, is bound to be elongated by the same factor by which the locally normal temporal wavelength T is changed as we saw.

    This prediction, unfortunately, needs to be carefully assessed. For it could be that c is no longer the same downstairs even though c looks the same there; this actually is the usually made assumption as you no doubt know. If this assumption were true, the unit-lengthperiod L would be unchanged despite the objective change in unit-time period T. Thus the correct L is not easy to find.

    How do we get to L? If I remember correctly (one always has to start from scratch in not quite finished territory), it was the energy that helped out in the Telemach paper. The normal-looking photons have half as much mass-energy, downstairs, as we saw (half the frequency, twice the period). So any objects, made out of these photons locally, have half as much mass-energy, too. Then quantum mechanics says that the size of these objects is proportionally enlarged. Since this is not locally visible as everything is locally unchanged, L is doubled. This yields Eq.(2) of Telemach. We took a roundabout path via Eq.(3), which described the rest-mass change. (Global constancy of c is then a corollary.) Next, only Eq.(4) remains, and then we are done.

    I should perhaps confess that the only thing the specialists at a renowned institution really did not want to accept from me, was Eq.(4).

    For if charge goes down with rest mass-energy (Eq.4), this result takes away the “stickiness” of mini black holes: they then can pass through planets and suns and white dwarfs unstopped – only the maximally slow artifificial ones made by humans can stay inside earth. Thus, the only really dangerous equation, as far as CERN is concerned, is Eq.(4) – that charge goes down along with the mass-enery of stationary particles.

    But we are obviously still far away from you all accepting the above logical chain of arguments, are we not?

    If you can dismantle only the fourth result above, Eq.(4) valid for M, all my resistance to CERN’s brave — in that case — continuation will be gone. For I really want nothing else than to be released at last from the trap of having to warn people whom I never met and who do not know me at all; it is a quite frustrating job.

    On the other hand, it does make sense to test experimentally what the mass-energy difference is between the mass-energy of the two 511 keV photons that remain after two electrons (a negatively and a positively charged one) have annihilated each other, and the quite well known other empirical value of the rest mass m_e of an electron (after Kauffmann’s pioneering result in 1903). Thus, we could for the first time say how much mass precisely an isolated charge would occupy if charge has a natural mass as a finite fraction of the electron’s total mass energy. As it turns out, he former measurement of the two photons paradoxically is quite un-sharp (in the percentage range) so far. A question of this type was first contemplated by J.J. Thomson, the discoverer of the elctron. I was forced to see this chance for an empirical decision by Alf Pretzell (personal communication).

    But I better stop here to await your esteemed criticism, gentlemen.

  264. AnthonyL says:

    OK, thanks for the clarifications. As far as the non physics generalizations go, I still think they are premature, a waste of time on both sides until any error or misunderstanding is nailed down firmly, though one can certainly sympathize with those that say this is proving slippery. That is why I (on behalf of the chambermaid contingent) suggested returning to basics and defining terms, then stating the perceived falsity of the Rossler theorizing in those terms, including mathematical formulations if possible. Is that too much to ask?

    Have we not got a simple result, now? The equations state a simple fact, whatever their terms might mean, that one thing is bigger than another, if the other has to be multiplied to get the first. (Apparently I should have written “After all, cheese=cabbage/(1+ z) if z>1 means that the cabbage is bigger than the cheese, and cheese=cabbage*(1+z) means that the cheese is bigger than the cabbage.” Sorry.)

    So we have the following:

    Einstein/Schwarzschild/Rindler T_tail = T_tip / (1+z)

    All are agreed that the clock at the tip is the faster aging one, as this states.

    Then we had Rössler T_tail =T_tip * (1+z) which seemed to say the opposite.

    Rossler then explained why his equation is different from Einstein’s: ” T does not mean TIME in my criticized formula but, rather, PERIOD: the local unit clock period length (a reciprocal of time). (The slower a clock is ticking, the longer you have to wait in the unit periods of a normal clock standing beside it until a single period has been produced by the slowed-down clock.)”

    So he restated Einstein to match his own formulation:
    Einstein: T_tail = T_tip*(1+z)
    Rössler: T_tail = T_tip*(1+z) .

    He confirmed that his whole system stood or fell with this explanation, truth or error. When it was rejected here as changing proper time T in both equations to frequency T, Rossler replied it was just “Einstein’s most primitive equation in gravity – the increase of clock periods further down.” His critics replied that this lacked sense.

    Professor Rossler was also asked to justify his estimate of 8% chance the world would end within five years, but has not replied to that.

    If this is a true account of the bottom line here, can we please have a formal statement of why the change from T as time to T as frequency is wrong, so that Rossler can explain a little further why it makes sense in his mind.

    Is there any part of Rossler’s papers/texts which can be copied to show this or other points, and formal objections to them?

    Is it possible that Rossler’s level of thought on this topic is partly intuitive and therefore not subject to chapter and verse analysis?

  265. TRMG says:

    Rössler: “Hence the “temporal wavelength” downstairs is elongated by the factor two on that neutron star.”

    What is “temporal wavelength”? Is it the same as frequency?

    So this would mean (using a more common notation)

    f_down = (1+z)* f_up Eq. (1) and
    T_down = T_up / (1+z).

    Is that what you mean? (Then I wonder why it took you 300 comments to clarify, what should have taken you one, but anyway.)

    ***

    AnthonyL: “If this is a true account of the bottom line here, can we please have a formal statement of why the change from T as time to T as frequency is wrong, so that Rossler can explain a little further why it makes sense in his mind. ”

    This would not be wrong. It only would either defy his Eq. (2) or his “R theorem,” because he stated that length and time, not frequency, have to scale proportionally.

    So either L_down = L_up / (1+z) holds, in analogy to the (now inverse of) Eq. (1), and in contradction to Eq. (2). Or, if we stick to Eq.( 2), we would obtain for the light speed

    c_down = L_down/T_down = (1+z)² * L_up/T_up = (1+z)²* c_up

    in contradiction to the alleged global constancy of the speed of light.

  266. TRMG says:

    BTW, I just noticed that Eq. (2) is itself in contradiction to the “R theorem,” because it would make the distance to the horizon finite, not infinite. In fact, it scales exactly like the (finite) proper distance, not like the “R distance.”

    See for example Eq. (11) in “Abraham-like return to constant c …”:

    “gothic R” = 1/(1-2m/r) dr,

    or in the notation applied here;

    “gothic R” = (1+z)² dr, or

    L_down = (1+z)² L_up.

    This seems even wose than I thought.

  267. hnasel says:

    Rössler, it seems you are totally confused about things like time dilation, redshift and so on…you really should read the pages in the Misner Thorne Wheeler again.

    For example, where is the redshift happening? “Ontologically Downstairs?”

    And again, define the T in your equation. What is it now? What dimension has it? Is it the proper time as you state in one kind of your comments and which you seem to think of or is it something different? And why does it take so long for you to answer such a easy question with a short and precise answer?

    BTW: Your “prrof” for the eq4 is flawed. You are referring to the formation and annihilation of positronium — the problem is that you are comparting here total charge zero on both sides of the equation…additionally the fact that there are many different partices with different masses and the same charge already contradicts your “finding”.

  268. hnasel says:

    Yes, he is not even consistent in his own “theory-constructions”.

    uh, I see that he is talking about quantum mechanics now when it comes to his “ontological enlargement effects” downstairs — without any reference or precise derivation again. How suprising…looks nice to the laymen using such terms although it is meaningless…

  269. TRMG says:

    hnasel wrote: “And again, define the T in your equation. What is it now? What dimension has it? Is it the proper time as you state in one kind of your comments and which you seem to think of or is it something different?”

    Yes, if really “temporal wavelength” does mean something like “frequency” I’d really like to hear an explanation for why he used a completely different definition not long ago. Did he prove a “theorem” first and just now understood its real meaning? Or did he just juggle some symbols around? Seems more like he just invented another excuse and now sees how far it leads.

  270. Hansel says:

    Yes, he should really clarify this point instead of flooding the comments with his other inconsistent “findings”. but I have the strong feeling that this is again a part of his usual strategy to remain not disproved …

  271. Hansel says:

    And then there was again a long silence.……

  272. AnthonyL says:

    “in contradiction to the alleged global constancy of the speed of light”

    I like that “alleged”, TRMG. Does that mean you are prepared to review, even challenge this claim? If so, you would immediately rise in my estimation even higher than the position you now occupy. All physics theory fundamentals should count as “alleged” until we have solved the problem of their frequent collision with common sense ie the concepts we use in daily life. Why is light traversing the universe at one fixed speed, and that speed the topmost possible for any thing? It seems unreasonable. Is light material? I was under the impression it wasn’t. So why should it limited in speed at all? Presumably it is limited as other waveforms are limited, by the speed of movement of the cosmic sea its waves disturb, is that it? So maybe we need the concept of an ether after all?

    Gentlemen, it seems to this onlooker that you have raised small specific quarrels with what you believe Professor Rossler is maintaining here and in his papers, and demonstrated that, as you understand the currently accepted scheme of physical understanding, what he says is out of whack with it and often a reversal.

    His answers do not seem always to address your points at the same level of specificity. He seems more interested in a discussion at some higher level. Is this wrong? May I remind you that EInstein himself needed help with his mathematical formulations?

    Rossler says he seeks a valid disproof or contradiction of what he believes are well worked out reasons to fear that the LHC escalation is flirting with catastrophe. And he engages in dialogue, running a gauntlet of scorn and derision at what you feel is his misunderstanding of current thinking.

    Yet my pleas that you make a formal statement at the level of an acceptable journal paper, but only one paragraph long, demonstrating or at least stating why part or whole of his theory is incorrect seem to be ignored, just as you say that your objections are being ignored by Rossler.

    Cant you manage something better, that can be quoted in the media as one reply received by the Professor to his efforts? That can be responded to as he wishes? Otherwise it just looks like drive by potshots.

  273. Thank you, AnthonyL.

    Your proposal is excellent.

    It would suffice to show that the WM diagram is false.

  274. Hansel says:

    The point is that you have not understood a single word written in the respective section of the Misner Thorne Wheeler. You are totally confused about time dilation and redshifts together with your thinking about an absolute time…

    again, what is your T? Where is the redshift created? “Ontologically downstairs”?

  275. Hansel says:

    “Yet my pleas that you make a formal statement at the level of an acceptable journal paper”

    The first step should be that Rössler presents his stuff at the level of an acceptable journal paper. He has never done so in the last three years. “osama bin cern” meets no standard of any academic journals. No clear defintion of equation, no logical derivations. And of course no proof for the claims made there. Examples were given in tis comment section, e.g. concerning the first equation and the “charge-proof” which is, sorry, complete meaningless bullshit.

  276. TRMG says:

    AnthonyL, though you raise some other interesting questions, I will focus on the ones that seem most relevant to the present discussion. (This comment ended up being too long anyway, sorry.)

    “I like that “alleged”, TRMG. Does that mean you are prepared to review, even challenge this claim? ”

    This claim, as Rössler means it, is only alleged by him. In general relativity the speed of light is only locally constant. This is the minimum requirement imposed by the equivalence principle. (Gerhard Bruhn makes a similar point in the paper that Peter Howell was referencing somewhere above in this thread, if I’m not mistaken.) However the *truth* of this statement, indeed wasn’t the point here, but its *consistency* with Rössler’s other statements. Since the collection of statements he utters is *inconsistent*, not all of them can be true, so he has to revise at least some of them. Simply redefining his variables doesn’t help here by the way.

    “Gentlemen, it seems to this onlooker that you have raised small specific quarrels with what you believe Professor Rossler is maintaining here and in his papers, and demonstrated that, as you understand the currently accepted scheme of physical understanding, what he says is out of whack with it and often a reversal. ”

    Well, you could probably state it that way, though not with “small” in the sense of “unimportant,” or even with the implication “possible to remedy.” Since he often reverses the facts on a very basic level, our quarrels are fatal to his contentions.

    “His answers do not seem always to address your points at the same level of specificity. He seems more interested in a discussion at some higher level. Is this wrong? May I remind you that EInstein himself needed help with his mathematical formulations? ”

    There is probably nothing wrong with that. But it is the opposite of scientific analysis and scrutiny. You cannot get the big picture right, if every detail is wrong. At least not in a sense that is relevant to a work of science.
    And, no offense, but your comparison with Einstein is unintentional funny on so many levels. As far as I know, Einstein’s problems were related to his understanding of Differential Geometry— a mathematical theory that was not as widely used or even known among physicists of his time as it is today. I think he was even the first one ever who attempted to apply it to a theoretical solution of a physical problem (making gravity comply with the principle of relativity). And it’s a subject still not easily understood today, but requiring a lot of study and specialization. With respect to the mathematical methods that were common among physicists a century ago, Einstein was perfectly able.
    Now compare the difficulties of understanding Differential Geometry with a discussion going on for weeks about which of the two following equations can possibly be the correct one: T_tail = T_tip*(1+z) or rather T_tail = T_tip/(1+z). You should recognize a difference by several orders of magnitude. If Einstein had problems of comparable size, it would have taken him forever, instead of only ten years, to finish General Relativity. And Rössler is not seeking any help whatsoever, if he doesn’t even acknowledge the problem, but resorts to complete denial and stupid excuses instead.

    “Yet my pleas that you make a formal statement at the level of an acceptable journal paper, but only one paragraph long, demonstrating or at least stating why part or whole of his theory is incorrect seem to be ignored, just as you say that your objections are being ignored by Rossler.”

    Formal statements were given above, that demonstrate the falsity (of Eq. (1)) and the inconsistency (of Eq. (2)) with Rössler’s other statements. Since you never address them, but only repeat your request, it remains unclear what you are missing. Your major concern should be to *understand* these statements anyway, not to get them ready for printing. I honestly don’t see your point here. The whole topic of this discussion doesn’t climb to any level that would be remotely suitable for a scientific journal, due to the triviality of Rössler’s errors. So this part of your request simply cannot be fulfilled I think. And Rössler’s theses do not fulfill them either. Nothing I or anyone else said here goes beyond anything you can find, either explained or refuted, in elementary textbooks about Relativity. If you are interested in a concise treatment, why don’t you simply study them? (PassingByAgain made an excellent recommendation above.) I am really serious with that. I have explained everything as carefully as I think is achievable in the comment section of a blog, by using only textbook statements from General Relativity and elementary algebraic equations. If you still find it not easy to accept, then maybe you are not really thinking this through or you are lacking some more elementary prerequisites, you could acquire more efficiently elsewhere.

    “Cant you manage something better, that can be quoted in the media as one reply received by the Professor to his efforts? That can be responded to as he wishes? ”

    Like I said: take the formal statements above. I think they are fine the way they are. You can quote them, reply to them, ask questions about them, or ignore them entirely. Rössler is free to do the same. I don’t see any reason to improve my efforts here.

  277. TRMG says:

    Rössler: “It would suffice to show that the WM diagram is false. ”

    I did this on July 5, 2011 1:09 am in this thread. You were not objecting, but declaring unanimity. Another indication that you are not even paying attention.

    To make a short story even shorter: In the presence of acceleration or gravity you cannot draw both light rays *and* the time axes of two stationary observers as straight lines in a spacetime diagram. If the light rays are straight lines, the time axes of of the observers are hyerbolas, and vice versa (this is due to gravitational light bending).

  278. TRMG says:

    BTW, you should explain your statement that L of Eq. (2) should equal your “gothic R” distance, despite the fact that they are obviously different.

  279. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I am diappointed about my most maverick commentator.

    Why should it be forbidden to compare two light levels as a function of local time and connect them by jumping photons?

    Please, return to constructive commentaries. You can.

  280. TRMG says:

    “Why should it be forbidden to compare two light levels as a function of local time and connect them by jumping photons?”

    Are you sure that this question makes any sense? I wasn’t forbidding to compare anything in local time, let alone “light levels, connected by jumping photons,” not least because I think this is a load of meaningless hokum you just made up.

    I was making the, quite uncontroversial, statement that time axes of constantly accelerated observers are no straight lines, as depicted in your figure, but hyperbolas. And consequently, in a representation with straight time axes, the light rays must be curved: more precisly they are given by the exponential curves x=exp(t-t_0) as is immediate from the form ds² = x² dt² — dx² of the Rindler metric.

    If I remember correctly you once quoted the paragraph about the Rindler metric found in Wald’s text. Would you please refer to Fig. 6.8, if available, and describe how the curves labelled “x=constant” (these are the time axes of the respective observers) look like?

    And lest we forget it, would you please explain your statement that L of Eq. (2) should equal your “gothic R” distance, despite the fact that they are obviously different.

  281. AnthonyL says:

    You know, there is something sad about the fact that Rossler’s critics have to name themselves with pseudonyms while he takes full public responsibility for what he writes and thinks.

  282. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear TRMG: Thank you also. Quote: “in a representation with straight time axes, the light rays must be curved.”

    You forgot to add “in space-time.”

    The WM diagram does not refer to space, only to time, as you know.

    The impression of your just trying to pour sand into the discussion is not totally unjustified? Forgive me.

  283. Hansel says:

    Oh yes, the validity of an argument depends entirely on the name. Therefore Rösslers equations are of course correct and all the stuff is consistent.

    Thanks for this great insight!

  284. Hansel says:

    No, Rössler, he shws clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    What about your T? Is it a time or something different?

  285. Otto E. Rossler says:

    How old are you? Can you look at Schild’s picture? And compare it to the WM diagram, and then come back?

    No single scientific counterargument so far.

    Even though the only thing that would matter is to help in recruiting others to help get time needed for clarification before it is too late.

  286. EQ says:

    It is obvous that you are working with two different T’s at the same time in your “paper”. If T is a time (as suggested by your L/T than your eq 1 is wrong. If T is something different then your “L/T=c” has a problem. It is not consistent with the rest of your paper. And errors like this toether with unfounded non-sequiturs can be found everywhere in your “paper”

  287. TRMG says:

    “The WM diagram does not refer to space, only to time, as you know.”

    What? No, I didn’t know that. What does the axis distinctly labelled “d” refer to then? I thought it would be spatial distance. And what are the diagonal lines, I understood to represent ligh-like curves? There are no light-like curves in a diagram “just referring to time,” which would be enabled to represent time-like curves only (and in a very trivial way).

    “The impression of your just trying to pour sand into the discussion is not totally unjustified?”

    You asked what the WM diagram tells me and what’s wrong with it. I just replied. But there seems to be not much the digram is supposed to tell in the first place. So we can agree that your putting it forward as an argument was misplaced.

  288. TRMG says:

    “How old are you? Can you look at Schild’s picture? And compare it to the WM diagram, and then come back?”

    Schild’s picture (if you’re still referring to p188 in MTW) is a spacetime diagram. It refers to space and time. So what?

  289. TRMG says:

    So let me get this straight: You are drawing to parallel time axis, this is obviously the part “referring to time.”. The eponymous W and M shaped light rays, are obviously not supposed to convey any relevant information. Then you draw a wavy line around each of the t axis, one with a large period and one with a small period. And this is intended to prove… what again?

  290. TRMG says:

    Sorry for the typos, but you get the idea.

  291. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you asking “what again?”

    : Two places at different heights can and do have their own local time axes, and arriving and departing light signals can be marked on them. Right?

    You are looking through pre-judging (scholastic) eyes. This is a compliment but also a criticism. You thereby give the impression of your assignment being not to understand. Playing dogmatic oldies is not a good role for the younger generation, however (if this interpretation of mine were true as I hope it not to be). Especially when the existence or non-existence of the future is given into their hands. Please, start being constructive rather than dogmatic. Dogmatic science is not science, it is ideology — the opposite and greatest enemy of science since it comes with the insignia of science in a misleading way. If my apprehension is right, you will regret having for psychological reasons — blind belief — neglected to participate in saving the future.

    As you know you are the only one who started thinking on his own. You could understand the meaning of a new result that one has come closer to so far. Why do you not answer the other discussants who understand less than you do?

    The truth of Telamach, like every thruth, is simple. Falsification is nice — if it works. But understanding is more. Take care.

  292. Otto E. Rossler says:

    “that NO one has come closer so far” (forgive the typo, esteemed Mr. TRMG.

  293. Otto E. Rossler says:

    and “thank you FOR asking”

  294. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Please, present one at long last, dear Hansel

  295. TRMG says:

    “Two places at different heights can and do have their own local time axes, and arriving and departing light signals can be marked on them. Right? ”

    So there are “places” in your diagram? Like places in space?

    “You could understand the meaning of a new result that one has come closer to so far. ”

    Probably not if you keep giving blatantly self-contradictory explanations.

  296. Otto E. Rossler says:

    You are losing face, dear Hansel.

  297. Anthony L says:

    Anyone wondering where the Comments are for this post, there 300 more of them, but you have to find them by inserting the following url and changing the X for page 1,2,3,4,5,or 6:

    lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/comment-page-X#comment-86018

    Each page has fifty Comments on it. As an exhibition of the attempts of CERN defenders to undermine and dismiss Rossler’s thinking, they are quite revealing.

  298. I learned a lot about the absence of analogical thinking in modern scientific education on the planet.

  299. Hanselllll says:

    Oh yes, you can state this after so many analogies in this thread which have shown your equations being wrong.

  300. Thinking is always analogical, even when creeping into algebraic tunnels. Please, show me where Telemach is wrong, old young friend.

  301. Rishi says:

    Perefct answer! That really gets to the heart of it!

  302. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for putting your mind into this — can you help?