Thank you, Emiw

Scattershot replies are not going to preserve his credibility in the eyes of onlookers.

The statement he has produced which you refer to is the kind of thing he should deliver on this specific issue, in my opinion, so that journalists can quote it and politicians and officials can refer to it.

For other articles, I would refer you to the website mentioned in my previous comment: http://www.lhcfacts.org/ , It opens with an overview by Dr. Rossler and gives links to some of his major articles. Particularly clear and useful is “A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma,” which summarizes seven safety concerns at the end. Also valuable is his scientific paper, “Abraham solution to Schwarzschild Metric implies that CERN miniblack holes pose a planetary risk.” There are many other worthwhile pieces by Dr. Rossler on the internet.

I disagree with your view that he is under some obligation to jump through hoops at the demand of young adversaries who merely swear and jeer in response. Whether or not any of the commenters are physicists, their lack of civility would disqualify them from serious scientific discussion or reply.

By the way, it is reported that Wheeler and Professor Rossler were friendly colleagues. Did they ever write any paper together?

It would appear that Houston has not read and understood what I wrote, so I can only advise him to read the relevant posts above and on the other threads initiated by Professor Rossler (eg http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/food-for-my-detractors-all-my-scientic-results-in-a-nutshell/comment-page-1#comment-88497 in reply to another firing of your revolver without removing it from your holster to aim it properly) before accusing me of “lashing out” at Professor Rossler.

As the good Professor apparently appreciates better I am merely asking him to clarify what he says here in response to the CERN kids and in supporting fears about the LHC is terms which can be quoted and conveyed by journalists to readers who have no scientific background, which is what journalist do, so that he can gain the respect he needs to influence policy.

There is nothing “confusing” about the exchange so far. It is partly incomprehensible to physics outsiders, and partly answers their objections in terms that they do not accept.

Physics is not a private system subjectively and differently understood by each person who wishes to theorize in it. It is like any other science something confirmed by measurements in the external world which act to justify or deny the speculations of any theorists as to how the external world works.

Whether Professor Rosslers theorizing makes sense in these terms has presumably been established up to some point, and can be stated clearly to get rid of any “confusion” or doubts as to whether he is a reliable authority, which the CERN kids here like to encourage.

Which of his papers which you have read would you recommend as having persuaded you that he knows what he is talking about, in which journals, and how have they been referenced by colleagues in the field? If you have any that impressed you state the link here and state why you are impressed.

That would be more useful than repeating your belief in the Professor’s integrity and insight without explaining why other than it coincides with your own persuasion that the LHC needs further safety review,as Rossler says it does. Unless you occupy some position of prominence in the field that you can tell us, your opinion cannot be quoted by a journalist to back up Professor Rossler’s authority.

Ultimately though it is as I stated above, up to Professor Rossler to supply journalists with proper quotes here to show readers why they should take him seriously. Why wouldn’t you agree with that request? Surely you do not lack faith in the good Professor’s ability to supply them?

If you do then perhaps you yourself could supply quotes and more from his papers with which you are familiar, to assist reporters in doing their job reporting accurately on his credentials and his theoretical conclusions.

Or do you consider that his statenent at http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/food-for-my-detractors-all-my-scientic-results-in-a-nutshell/comment-page-1#comment-88497 is sufficient?

If you do perhaps you would like to translate it into English of the kind the average politician or official can understand.

Rather than acknowledge being part of a journalistic dereliction in having made little effort to find and read and understand Dr. Rossler’s writings, Anthony apparently prefers to lash out at Rossler as being the inadequate one and to join the gang of detractors, most of whom seem motivated to defend CERN at all costs for their own career reasons.

It’s easy to see why someone could be confused by the discussion at Lifeboat, for the gang of detractors has concentrated monotonously on the form and terms of single equation, isolated from all context and meaning. One would suppose from the hundreds of snippy comments about Eq. 1 that there was a fundamental disagreement with Rossler, but as TRMG asknowledged, there isn’t any. Apparently, no one disagrees with Rossler and Einstein and DESY that time slows down in the lower part of an accelerating rocket — the basic point that Eq. 1 was expressing.

According to physicists of DESY, “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 (and that includes the ageing of any bugs sitting on these) transfers to gravity… This difference…has been verified experimentally” (DESY, The Relativistic Rocket, pp. 3–4).

”