Comments on: “Two Percent Explained”: CERN Overlooked That Simultaneity Is Non-global on Rotating Earth

By: Hansel

Hansel — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:56:57 +0000

I should add that Rössler is the fearflu here. He is fearing the result of a proper derivation of his equation knowing that his complete “theory” w0ould collapse immediately.

He is so fearful that he prefers to insult people rather than deriving his equation. :D

By: Hansel

Hansel — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:28:04 +0000

Defense against what? Your crap? :D

no one has to fear this “work”.

The question is more “why have you not even discussed errors andso on :D

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:47:21 +0000

No rational defense visible far and large between, dear colleagues from CERN?

By: EQ

EQ — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:59:29 +0000

The uncertainty of the measurement is already bigger than your two percent. You have bnot ecen checked that, isn’t it?

poor Rössler. When will you learn to work scientifically? :D

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:12:49 +0000

Short Public Statement Regarding the New Paper by CERN on the Internet:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf

To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 8:04 AM Swiss Time
Subject: Important information on neutrino experiment

Dear Dr. Autiero:

You did not quote in your new paper my results which I had published on the Internet. ( http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/%E2%80%9Ctwo-percent-explained%E2%80%9D-cern-overlooked-that-simultaneity-is-non-global-on-rotating-earth )

This is a major omission which shows you did not put into regard an important source of error.

Please, reply or make a correction in your paper.

Thank you very much,
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rossler, Chaos researcher, University of Tübingen

By: eq

eq — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:36:32 +0000

Oh, there are many reasons for not publishing it. First of all it does not meet basic scientific standards as I have explained above.

This is not a paper.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 12:51:06 +0000

Science was not angry. They cited a different reason why they could not publish. I quote: “as the work you are commenting on has not been peer-reviewed and published, we don’t feel that it would be appropriate to consider an expanatory paper at this time.”

By: eq

eq — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:34:12 +0000

Submitting the same paper to multiple journals simultaneously is not just rude, it’s unethical: see, e.g., http://publicationethics.org/case/repetitive-duplicate-submission-multiple-journals-and-redundant-publication

For most major publishers, simultaneous submission also violates the agreement the author has to accept upon submission. Thus, even if the paper happens to be the best thing since sliced bread, it can’t be published because the author has falsified said legal agreement.

By: Hansel

Hansel — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:30:29 +0000

The point was that no serious scientist would consider this 2% as significant enough tpo be a result.

BTW you have not even shown the calculations with error-esimations etc. Therefore this paper does not meet the quality criteria of any serious journal. t does in fact not meet the criteria normally applied to undergraduate work.

To call it a “proof” is delusional.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:00:05 +0000

Look, my dear two friends: I proved that there predictably exists a measurement which gives a two-percent superluminality value just like the 60 percent of CERN’s. I bet with you that CERN will be grateful for this finding. For these scientists are good.