The consequence of whether Rossler is right or wrong is the issue, not whether irresponsible schoolboys at CERN managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the untutored and overly awed media.

No, I was trying to get you and others to state your critique in terms which others can follow without deconstructing it and then reassembling it in intelligible terms, and to make it complete, and therefore convincing if Rossler doesn’t answer it directly.

The focus on style in this case is the focus on clarity, evidence, logic and dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s, unalloyed by distracting barking, growling, yapping, and trouser gripping. So that your triumphant victory or embarrassing defeat is visible to all who need to appreciate it, in this case the 6.9 billion other inhabitants of the planet.

Rossler: “You made a mockery out of my politeness by demanding I should, in two equal dimensionless ratios, give answers about the relation between the respective cross units.”

What are you saying now? It sounds totally incoherent, but I guess that you are still referring to the equation “sigma/ tau = T_tail/ T_tip = const.” (but “the respective cross units”? go figure!) Anyway, as long as you keep repeating yourself, I’ll keep doing the same (and I should warn you that I don’t tire easily):

the equation “sigma/ tau = T_tail/ T_tip = const.” is simply what you get if you *assume* that your eq.(1) and Einstein’s eq.(30a) are both correct, and you combine them. As such, this equation provides *zero* information on whether eq.(1) is correct. Moreover, it does not provide a definition for T, thus we cannot use it to decide whether eq.(2) is correct.

If you want this discussion to progress, you MUST provide a mathematical definition of T, in terms of some other quantity whose meaning is not ambiguous. Therefore:

What is the relation between the variable T_tip in your eq.(1) and the variable sigma in Einstein’s eq.(30a)?

“So everyone who contributed actively to the mockery will not get any answer from me any more (unless they apologize).”

What is this, another cheap attempt to evade the questions? Not that we got any answers from you so far…

To discuss papers it is importnat to know exactly the definitions and dimensions of every part of it. Original thinking does not replace clear and precise defintions. And you should really ask yourself why Rössler is not able to give a short and clear answer to the same basic questions as four weeks ago.

Use this url

lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern-by-not-updating-its-three-years-old-safety-page-compromises-the-quoted-scientists/comment-page-X#comment-87589

and insert 5,4,3,2,or 1 to get back to previous comments.