I just realize you probably rather had in mind one of my influential detractors who after my repudiating their claims of falsification never retracted their proven-false statements. Especially Albert-Einstein-Institute co-director Nicolai (E-mail: [email protected]) would be capable of answering you in a most competent fashion. After my proving his defense of charge conservation wrong more than two years ago he never replied again and also never retracted his outdated counterclaims. And he never responded later to my Telemach theorem after I had submitted it to him and his Institute’s journal “Einstein-online.”

This could give you the impression that he is my scientific enemy. I for my part would object to that. I am deeply obliged to Professor Nicolai because he forced me in 2009 to find a better proof of black hole non-chargedness than the one I had offered in my 2007 paper on the gothic-R theorem. If he is strong enough to prove the non-chargedness (ch) part of my Telemach theorem wrong more than 2 years after I first sent him my pertinent proof, I shall immediately retract all my warnings against the CERN experiment. I also promise, of course, that I shall do my best to make his proof better understandable to you in case he has one.

For science by definition is friendship. This fight with CERN is absolutely exceptional.

I revere him very much. I do not know whether this is a nuisance to him — can he forgive me that I mentioned his name in a matter where the greatest benevolence on the planet needs to be recruited? He is closest to the original thinking of Einstein’s.

Imagine he would stick to his old position and acknowledge his new ally, me: it would be to no avail. The public would see the same alleged nonsense re-iterated: no news stuff.

What we need is that single remaining great relativist who confesses that he still finds no fault with Telemach (the new-found implication of Einstein’s “happiest thought” that is available on the Internet for a year).

Preventing progress by keeping one’s mouth shut, as the specialists do, is much more ugly than talking lowly of one’s own past merits as Sir Martin does.

But still more important: Every single quality medium on the planet could work the miracle that the whole planet is waiting for. There are more good journalists around than there are good relativists on the planet.

Why not make a planet-wide search for a journalist with a genuine connection to his vocation? Diogenes said: “I am looking for a man.” I say: “I am looking for a journalist.” All this journalist has to do is say: “I am asking this physicist for his opinion about the Telemach theorem.” Then the nightmare will be gone and the licking of the wounds can start.

Isn’t that precisely the kind of mind bending alteration of truth seeking that is endemic at CERN, and the cause of all your current troubles in gaining their attention, and the attention of the world?

Mrtin Rees is an amiable fellow, and that is exactly what large rgoups seek as the first credential of someone they listen to. If a man is a maverick, they tend to reject him as a nuisance and not agreeable.

That is what Martin Rees is aware of, it seems, and would rather keep his position at the Captain’s table in spite of the prediction he made himself that the ship is likely to hit the biggest iceberg ever.

Not very rational for someone who claims to be a scientist, would you agree?

He has lost the vim and vinegar of youth, and is now old, and behaves more like a chicken than a man.

Thank you for your kind thoughts.

I admire Sir Martin for not stabbing his friend in the back.

No one knws anything for sure about strangelets, but there is a very accurate knowledge of black holes lying on the table. Only one prefers not to acknowledge it.

Nevertheless I understand very well why Sir Martin keeps silent: It would be to no avail if he came forward with new insights of his own. No one can take on the role of contradicting 10.000 silent physicists in the open. He or she would only appear to be “bought” by the party of the flag-holder.

What bystanders should focus on instead of finding an outspoken ally is finding an outspoken adversary of my position. This is the real riddle. Why are the media unable to see that no individual scientist contradicts me in the open on the whole planet? Even Dr. Ellis refuses to reply, just as did Dr. ‘t Hooft. Someone should resuscitate the two most courageous CERN allies.

“The trouble with physics” has unfortunately become more than a joke. I need enemies, not friends.

Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rossler

However, he reassured the readers that Hawking radiation would evaporate mini black holes, and that a strangelet disaster, though “a frightening possibility,” was unlikely for it would require the then implausible conditions of strangelets being stable and negatively charged.

But CERN has since admitted, based on recent Chinese studies, that strangelets could be both negatively charged and stable, and two dozen CERN scientists have written that the LHC might produce strangelets (see HeavyIonAlert.org). Moreover, subsequent to 2003, respected physicists have questioned whether Hawking radiation would evaporate black holes. If Rees were apprised of these studies, it’s possible he could become concerned and motivated.

However, he was mainly concerned with the danger of producing strangelets, and reassured the reader that these would only be dangerous if stable and negatively charged, which seemed theoretically unlikely at the time.

It seems to be the old story in science and politics. The expertise which allows miscreants to hid their public irresponsibility also prevents their public irresponsibility from being exposed.