Menu

Blog

Sep 7, 2011

Until the Telemach Theorem Has Been Refuted I Herewith Order SCUN* to Close CERN**

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

The first who sees an iceberg has the right and the duty to tell the Titanic’s captain to stop the engine.

* United Nations Security Council
** European Council of Nuclear Research

24

Comments — comments are now closed.


  1. Anthony L says:

    Professor, what is the relevance of Strawberry Fields Forever? It seems to express precisely the witless lack of concern about the dangers in the present and future that you complain about with regard to the LHC, is that it?

    “No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low.
    That is you can’t you know tune in but it’s all right.
    That is I think it’s not too bad.

    Let me take you down, ’cause I’m going to Strawberry Fields.
    Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
    Strawberry Fields forever.

    Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
    It’s getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
    It doesn’t matter much to me.

    Let me take you down, ’cause I’m going to Strawberry Fields.
    Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
    Strawberry Fields forever.

    Always know sometimes think it’s me, but you know I know and it’s a dream.
    I think I know of thee, ah yes, but it’s all wrong.
    That is I think I disagree.

    Let me take you down, ’cause I’m going to Strawberry Fields.
    Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
    Strawberry Fields forever.
    Strawberry Fields forever.
    Strawberry Fields forever.”

  2. Robert Houston says:

    In this context, “Strawberry Fields Forever” seems to be a poetic way of saying, “May the beauty of the Earth endure in peace. ” A similar message, specifically related to CERN’s collider, was conveyed with a poignant musical score in the beautiful 6 minute video, “Our Final Days.” (Click the 4-pointed square in the lower right corner of the YouTube screen to get a full screen.) See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsCPvYVCzGs

  3. Art is deeper than science. Children love strawberries. Taste, color and the Now are metaphysical gifts. Love can be returned. We are not afraid. Ubammu.

  4. PassingByAgain says:

    it’s time to pass that joint, Otto…

  5. Dear anonymous colleague PassingByAgain:

    Which of the 4 leters T-L-M-Ch in the Telemach theorem is the weakest in your opinion, and why so?

  6. PassingByAgain says:

    “T” is wrong, to start with, then the others are irrelevant. Read again the previous threads if you forgot “why so”. I (and others) tried to argue with you over two months and hundreds (if not thousands) of posts, but you never gave a straight answer, you contradicted yourself every second post and finally you just dropped out of the discussion and started haranguing your imaginary friends at the UNSC. I have no inclination to get sucked in that time-wasting vortex again…

  7. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Please, read my most recent version of Telemach on this website ( http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/meek-boldness ) if you still fight with your own misunderstandings. Misunderstandings are forgivable and are sometimes very hard to eliminate but must not be confounded with a counterproof.

    The world is waiting for a counterproof to L-M-Ch.

    T was described by Einstein and is not contested by anyone (except by a certain anonymous polemicist and his claque who thereby make the worst possible propaganda for CERN).

    A counterproof is easy to recognize: It states a fact about nature and proves it so that an earlier-stated fact loses its status. Which is your new fact, dear anonymous polemicist?

  8. Hanselllll says:

    It was shown that your T ist not the T which Einstein used. Up to now you were not able to connect your variable and Einsteins in a scientific and logical way.

    Unless you have done this your eq 1, the T, is still not in agreement with Einstein.

    The rst of your “theorem” is pure crap, e.g. the Ch is already completely disproved by nature itself as there is no constant ratio between mass and charge. And thats only ONE of many ridiculous points in this section of your “paper”.

    All of this was shown to you more than one time on more than one website. You prefered always to leave the discussion at one point to write a new article claimining to be still not disproved and that there were never serious objections to your “theses”.
    So you are at least a proven liar.

  9. Otto E. Rossler says:

    These young (?) uncritical believers in CERN cannot think.

    Proof: They argue that if there are two classes of charged particles, of the same charge but different mass (which is the case, positrons and protons), and if the charge-mass ratio is constant for every freshly released particle in the universe (which is also the case): then this combined fact (the Ch of Telemach) were illogical.

    Telemach is proud to face such masked suitors, CERN’s only defense in its publicly doubling the planet-risking luminosity in the coming six weeks.

    Please, world captain: save the strawberry fields from CERN’s second assault.

  10. Anthony L says:

    “In this context, “Strawberry Fields Forever” seems to be a poetic way of saying, “May the beauty of the Earth endure in peace.” — R Houston

    What? How does it say this? You are imagining things, Houston.

    Here is an exact translation of the whole set of Oobla dee oobla da verses here:

    1. No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low.
    That is you can’t you know tune in but it’s all right.
    That is I think it’s not too bad.

    Utter nonsense, in the Beatles tradition of really not caring what their words meant, as they often said.

    2. Let me take you down, ’cause I’m going to Strawberry Fields.
    Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
    Strawberry Fields forever.

    As Line 2 says, let’s drift off to weed land’s dreamscape, nothing is real enough to worry about, pass the LSD.

    3. Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
    It’s getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
    It doesn’t matter much to me.

    Same message, let’s not trouble ourselves to make sense of anything react to anything, just take another puff and gaze at Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds…

    4. Let me take you down, ’cause I’m going to Strawberry Fields.
    Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
    Strawberry Fields forever.

    Let’s get totally toked out, let’s not worry about the worries other people have such as thinking the world is going to end tomorrow as the LHC cranks up.

    5. Always know sometimes think it’s me, but you know I know and it’s a dream.

    You want sense, don’t bother me, I am totally blasted and high on another plane.

    6. I think I know of thee, ah yes, but it’s all wrong.
    That is I think I disagree.

    Stop bothering me with your foolish fantasies, I cant keep my thoughts straight as it is.

    7. Let me take you down, ’cause I’m going to Strawberry Fields.
    Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
    Strawberry Fields forever.
    Strawberry Fields forever.
    Strawberry Fields forever.”

    Here have a toke, there’s nothing to worry about, life is a fantasy.

    Nothing much about the beauty of peace on earth here, just drugged vagueness and inability to think a coherent thought.

    You are projecting, Mr Houston, as is your Great Leader in conCERN.

  11. Robert Houston says:

    Anthony, you’re welcome to your DEA interpretation of the lyric. However, I was referring to the title phrase. I see stawberry fields where, apparently, you only see “weed”.

    Dr. Rossler expressed the significance better than I. By the way, as he explained elsewhere, “Ubammu” means “Our Father” — the first words of the Lord’s Prayer — in the African language Hausa.

  12. Dear friends: How can the world-wide press curfew — Twitter and Facebook included — be broken?

  13. Anthony L says:

    Dear Professor Rossler, the answer is simple. The curfew can be broken if you would simply write out your basic text in a way which the editors and reporters of the leading publications of the world on the Web and in print can accept as coming from a responsible and accomplished thinker, who can respond to queries and contradictions in a responsive and responsible way which demonstrates that he is to be taken seriously and he himself takes seriously his own position that the world may very well end if his thinking is not taken into account by the political leaders of the planet.

    Unfortunately these people do not understand that one mark of a great thinker is that he sees what is happening so well and the childish incompetence of his opponents so clearly that he is as aware of the human comedy as comedy so acutely that he can but make jokes (eg about hair holes, much to the upset of the French) and allusions (eg Strawberry Fields as suggestive of the childish innocence of the human population of the planet instead of a drugged state of mind) and construct his remarks in a playful and imaginative fashion eg posts on Lifeboat which ignore how seriously the officials of the UN and other occupants of high bureaucratic position take themselves.

    Wit and humor and innocent playfulness are the reliable mark of the superior mind as all sophisticated people realize but Alas! they very often lead to those panting in the rear deciding that said mind is that of a crackpot and refusing to take him seriously. Sadly enough this dictates that those who wish to be taken seriously have to act in a sober and unimaginative manner and keep their jokes and playfulness for their friends and admirers.

    Their sobriety will be more easily taken as that of a serious and weighty thinker that the jokes and wit which more truly mark that type.

    Sorry to have to say this to you since I perfectly understand the demand is unfair and involves repressing your natural exuberance and imagination, which is so far above the mundane level on which high officials operate.

    But when one wishes to be taken seriously by the earnest dolts that run human affairs one has to act earnest, for only then will they take what you say in earnest.

    This is principle one of the successful maverick, and essential to follow if you are to stand any chance of bringing round the prow of the great ship of humanity from steering directly into what may be the largest iceberg of all.

  14. Anthony L says:

    oops “that he is aware” not “that he is as aware”

    “than the jokes” not “that the jokes”, sorry

  15. Dear Anthony:

    I appreciate your helpful words. If we had much time left, this would be a good strategy indeed and it would — perhaps — even bring the issue before the SCUN eventually

    But now the issue IS before the SCUN.

    So the world and I need your advice how to get this body to make a decision that will prove responsible in retrospect.

    I believe the fact that I am serious has transpired. And that no single scientist on the planet says “I can prove Telemach wrong.”

    Don’t you think the fact that I have not a single open adversary in science is a living proof that my request for a double check cannot be ignored any longer?

    I only beg for the benefit of the doubt. Not doubt in CERN: doubt in me. That is the only risk that the whole planet is shrinking away from — a nothing.

    To refuse giving a nothing is unprecedented in history. Or is it not?

    Take care,
    Otto

  16. PassingByAgain says:

    Anthony, I’m just curious: do you too believe that the issue is before the UN Security Council???

  17. Anthony L says:

    With respect, Professor Rossler, when you state “Don’t you think the fact that I have not a single open adversary in science is a living proof that my request for a double check cannot be ignored any longer?” you ignore what I have just written, which is that you have to be taken seriously by the entrenched army of conventional scientists before any of the possibly few who understand your theoretical position will be interested in publicly answering it, since in taking it seriously enough to answer it they are themselves committing themselves to backing that seriousnessness in the eyes of the world.

    Again, they first have to take you seriously. If none of them do, then none of them will publicly assess and reply to your position, even if they think it wrong. If they think it right, they will take it seriously by definition, and respond to it. If they think it wrong, however, they might think that it is wrong because EITHER a) you are not to be taken seriously OR b) that it is wrong in their judgment after they have taken you seriously enough to examine it carefully.

    a) and b) are two separate possibilities either of which may account for the lack of anyone stepping up to state that in their judgment you are theoretically unjustified in your conviction that the world is in danger to an extreme degree.

    Unfortunately you keep ignoring a), which actually to many observers suggests a).

    Statements such as your complaint is being taken seriously by the UN Security Council and being discussed within that group during its meetings or even by its staff which do not have any evidence behind them also suggest a) to observers.

    The important thing is for you to avoid a), as I have suggested to you, since it is a priority for you if you are to proceed on the official level with your application requesting that your thinking on this infinitely important topic (the future of humanity and the planet) be entertained by people within major governments or such high level global organizations.

    The issue is one of basic human nature, which always underlies success in politics. These people take themselves very seriously and you have to give them very solid ground under their feet before they will venture onto the ground you are asking them to walk.

    PassingBy I hope that answers your kind enquiry, also.

  18. Dear Anthony — everyone sees how nice you are while not getting the point that the clock is running.

  19. Anthony L says:

    Dear Professor Rossler,

    The point is that you are not presenting anything persuasive to such people as you need to impress which will get them to listen to you, because they are not party to your thinking on the matter, to any degree at all, and therefore cannot join you in your conclusion that time is short.

    You may be used to being taken seriously by your colleagues and your friends who are aware of and understand your achievements, but it is strangers to whom you must apply for consideration. It is on that level that I am talking, not on whether you are an authority among your peers.

    It is always difficult for those whose expertise is hidden from journalists and the leaders of a society, and perhaps above many of those who work in the same field, especially if they are trying to change a world view which is accepted by most people as a given.

    Sadly it seems to me that the basis of your appeal has to be emotional, and the pitfalls are emotional too, a very difficult position for a man of extreme thoughtfulness to be in.

    As far as I know the only solution is very great oratory which first reflects the misguided prejudices of the audience and then is able to change their conclusion to a new perspective.

    Even President Obama seems to be failing in this respect.

  20. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Anthony L:

    You are falling me in the back by continuing not to see that no single scientist with a name contradicts my maximally easy-to-falsify (if false) Telemach theorem.

    A world press that is unable to see this is no world press but an element of a planetocidal conspiracy. And you now drift towards its center at a time when every minute counts.

    Please become objective again as I know you can be. Or if you still are sure I am behaving in the wrong way by turning to SCUN and UNGA for lack of time, tell me a better short-term (not long-term where I would not contradict you) strategy.

    Is it so often that the last and highest gremium of the planet is being appealed to in the name of every single human being in plain sunlight? Is the press there to conceal what a child sees?

    Please, become a bridge again, Simnon and Garfinkle style.

  21. PassingByAgain says:

    Simnon and Garfinkle???

  22. Otto E. Rossler says:

    One of the nicest songs of the “I’m going to San Francisco” time.

  23. Robert Houston says:

    The reference, of course, is to Simon and Garfunkel’s 1970 hit song, “Bridge over Troubled Water,” which won the Grammy Award for best song of the year.