Jul 10, 2011


Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Science requires trust and doggedness, not reproduction. I got introduced to it by Lennartz, Bertalanffy, Weizsäcker, K. Lorenz, Rosen, Winfree, Yamaguti, E. Lorenz, Wheeler, Birman.

1) BIOGENESIS: Life as a self-improving fire (in parallel with Stu Kauffman); as an Erdös growing automaton (in parallel with Joel Cohen); as a Teilhard-Prigogine attractor

2) WELL-STIRREDNESS: Liquid finite automata

3) NP-COMPLETENESS: Traveling-salesman-with-alarm-clocks problem; Gödel as a limit; spatial Darwinism; positional adaptation (unlike metabolic adaptation) is predictable; brain equation

4) HUMANUM: Smile-laughter indistinguishability in a single species; Pongo goneotrophicus; invention of the suspicion of benevolence by the human toddler; epigenetic personogenesis (a function change in the mathematical sense of Bob Rosen); jump to Point Omega; acoustic smile therapy of primary autism; “galactic export” of personhood to other bonding species endowed with mirror competence (including artificial brains)

5) CHAOS: New attractors; chaotic hierarchy; nowhere differentiability on a Cantor set; superfat attractors; transfinite invertibility (Anaxagoras) confirmed; out of gratitude to Anaxagoras, his adopted hometown Lampsacus was later declared “hometown of all persons on the Internet” (1994)

6) PLANCK’S CONSTANT: A first explanation of h offered (based on the Sackur-Tetrode action in conjunction with classical indistinguishability); fever test in the spirit of von Neumann; message sending to another Everett world (with Peter Weibel); cession twin of action

7) EINSTEIN’S CONSTANT: A first explanation of a universally constant c offered (based on Sackur-Tetrode and finite observer diameter); microscopically exact assignment conditions testable

8) NONLOCALITY EXPLAINED: Einstein completion of quantum mechanics made falsifiable; combined ground-satellite Bell experiment to test whether more than one quantum world exists (similarly Feingold, Penrose, Zeilinger)

9) CRYODYNAMICS: Zwicky’s and Chandrasekhar’s “dynamical friction” re-discovered; the new science of cryodynamics as applicable to a gas of mutually attractive Newtonian/Einsteinian particles of different mass classes; sister science to thermodynamics; no Maxwellian velocity distribution; ectropic behavior; Boltzmann’s “hypothesis of molecular chaos” confirmed; connection to Poincaré homoclinicity; new open frontier

(Predicted negative implications: no big bang; no primordial synthesis; no inflation; no accelerated expansion; no dark energy; no distant origin of background radiation in confirmation of Guillaume-Assis; no nonbaryonic dark matter; no multiple universes; no modified gravity

Predicted positive implications: Giacconi’s ultra-distant quasars confirmed; fractal Fournier-Mandelbrot universe; new explanation for Pioneer anomaly; new machines in sight)

10) BLACK HOLES REVISITED: Telemach (T-L-M-Ch) theorem; black holes are non-charged; are eternally unfinished; a Reeb foliation of space-time forms around rotating black hole; in a merger of two [pre-] black holes, the larger one recycles every particle of the smaller one by ejecting it into the outer universe (analog to Ralph Abraham’s blue-sky catastrophe); topology inversion near horizon (Abramovicz) confirmed; quasars acting as charge generators; microscopic mini-quasars existing; exponential quasar growth inside matter; small black holes cannot grow inside superfluid core of neutron star; electrons can no longer be maximally small since they then would be black holes and hence non-charged (first empirical evidence of string theory); LHC danger

APOLOGY: I am not a detached observer. But I hope that the above chronological listing shows that my latest findings are not necessarily less cogent. In particular, point 10 means that the artificial black holes hoped to be produced at CERN are,

i) more likely to form,

ii) undetectable at first,

iii) growing exponentially inside earth,

iv) devoid of astronomical safety assurance.

Therefore, I implore the planet to at long last install the scientific safety conference necessary to deal with the black hole danger incurred by CERN.

I thank Dieter Fröhlich, Bill Seaman, Christophe Letellier and Andreas Scheider. (For J.O.R.)


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. EQ says:

    Will you answer the questions about the inconsistency of your equations in the other commentsections or are you trying to remain silent?

  2. EQ says:

    Who is El-Naschie?

  3. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Questions about inconsistencies in my equations I will try to answer. More important though would be a first demonstrated inconsistency — right?

    You might be able to condense for me claims of not understanding to bring them into a more consistent form? That would be very kind and helpful to both sides.

  4. Hansel says:

    It was long ago demonstrated. You know exactly what I meant.

    Definition of the T? Was it Time or something else? Dimension?

    TRMG has shown that there was a clear contradiction. If the T is something different than time then your equation L/T is not valid. If it is a time, than your equation 1 is WRONG.

  5. Me says:

    And the wonder of censorship strikes again when it comes to critizising the holy man Roessler. Where did the comment on El Naschie go? This site starts to look more and more like a followship — scientology anyone?

  6. Hansel says:

    Yes it is interesing. Yesterday I wrote long replies to Houston and this other guy and all of it was either deleted or flagged as spam before publishing.

    Very interesting! So in the end Rössler can say, “no one has ever disproved me! no one has shown inconsistencies in my great work!”

  7. Me says:

    Do some search on lifeboat on the web, and you will find out why very quickly. This organisation and blog is not about science, I gave you a hint with scientology.…

  8. Me says:

    To make it easier for you and before big brother strikes again:

  9. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Hansel tells the world he has found the disproof that the world is waiting for. Can give the idea?

  10. Otto E. Rossler says:

    “you” was missing.

    By the way: Did anyone also hear that the UN Security Council is addressing CERN safety?

    It was a very indirect information I obtained in a private letter, but it would be of tremendous importance if correct.

  11. Robert Houston says:

    The ten cardinal results of Professor Rossler indicate some of his important contributions in biology, chaos theory, and physics, and demonstrate the remarkable depth and range of one of the great scientific minds of our age.

  12. Hansel says:

    Surely you can show us the big number of papers citing this important contributions.

  13. Me says:

    Robert, nice to meet a Roessler groupie. But didn’ you forget to mention that he can also turn water into wine and can walk on water.?

  14. EQ says:

    Oh, he must be capable of that. After conjuring this amount of results out of nothing.

  15. Robert Houston says:

    Major biographical sources in the sciences, including Scholarpedia, Atomosyd, and Wikipedia, agree that Prof. Rossler has written at least 300 scientific papers, as well as several books.

    It is imperative that his warnings be respected and that the call for a safety conference be implemented soon. Until it is, the LHC should be shut down and forbidden from operating by the 20 CERN Council governments as a potential threat to the public safety of their citizens and all mankind.

  16. Anthony L says:

    Houston, it is important to state a) what the conclusions of the major papers are b) where they were published in what journal of what standing c) how often they are cited subsequently by theorists and researchers in the field. Merely stating that Professor Rossler has written 300 papers and several books is not enough unless it is demonstrated that they received a respectful reception among those that can understand them, or think they do.

    Valid cutting edge work will surely be signaled by these criteria and others even if as in the case of Einstein some influential people may oppose them, and the lay reader or writer may not follow them. Have you read and followed any of them from beginning to end? If so which ones would you recommend and why?

    How many of these papers have been discussed at length or responded to in other ways by colleagues of stature in the field?

    These are the kind of gauges that journalists have to use to establish that a theorist in science deserves respect for his opinion that the LHC must be properly assessed by outsiders, you must agree.

  17. Robert Houston says:

    The article shows that Dr. Rossler has made significant contributions in many scientific fields. The 300 papers I mentioned were all published in scientific journals, as is verifiable from a 60 page bibliography. Dr. Rossler is one of the great names in chaos research and is the founder of endophysics. His concerns for the danger of collider experiments should be taken seriously, not dismissed with snooty aspersions.