Oct 4, 2011

Are There No Women in the Media?

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

By now the world knows that the media do not report on the unrefuted proof that the European LHC experiment is going to shrink the planet to 2 cm in a few years’ time with a sizable probability.

But the media do also contain some women in the lower echelons. And women do not always show a hierarchy-determined allegiance to their leader but do sometimes give priority to their child.

Is there not a single mother on the planet who gives priority to her child’s survival being safeguarded over her job security?



Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Today is Saint Francis’ and Saint Clare’s day.

  2. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The best reference is my TeLeMaCh paper which is on this blog.

    It unfortunately implies three corollaries to Einstein’s first result on the influence of gravity on the behavior of clocks (the well-known slower ticking rate, their enlarged period T). T happens to be not alone. Without quantum mechanics, though, this was impossible to deduce in 1907. Later, the difficult full theory was successfully built around this point of weakness without any formal errors. The Schwarzschild solution is the most straightforward case of the full theory of the 1915 Einstein equation. Within that solution found by Einstein’s friend Schwarzschild even before the full theory was completed, I first discovered the L-M-Ch result (that Length, Mass and Charge change are equally strongly affected as Time is, hence the name Telemach). Since no one was able to dismantle the new implications of Schwarzschild’s solution (several claimed so but no one remained audible), it was easier to go back to the original finding of 1907 and retrieve the new corollaries there; here, a falsification is much much easier to achieve if possible.

    No one found a flaw with Telemach as of yet, but no one agrees publicly (the grand old man, Wolfgang Rindler, refrained from coming up with any criticism). And several other specialists let me know their sympathy. And, I forgot, three people came up independently with the same result later, including Richard J. Cook of the Air Force Academy, and a maximally sophisticated member of a famous academy. But they know that if I cannot stand alone, they cannot help me. I very much appreciate their fairness.

    If this sounds defensive, it is. I never said I am 100 percent certain I am right (although so far I cannot find any flaw). I only need the benefit of the doubt. This is because if I am right, the consequences are formidable. So for example, the many metrological consequences described in the Telemach paper. The paper thus in a sense is too successful. But the reason we are in this dialogue is, of course, the fact that CERN is no longer safe if I am right.

    I objectively have the duty to insist on a refutation as long as my death-including diagnosis remains on the table. You may have heard that the un-refuted danger implicit is currently in the process of being doubled by CERN in plain sunlight: till the end of this month.

    My first professional education was in medicine. I still have the reflexes that you learn as a young medical person: “nil nocere”.

    It is nothing else that I am asking of CERN for years — to care.

    Thank you for asking back, Andrew.

  3. Andrew says:

    I don’t follow.
    Are you saying that you personally developed a theory of Quantum Gravity that would imply LHC will create a miniblack hole, if the theory is correct?

  4. Robert Houston says:

    CERN has long admitted that the LHC may produce black holes. According to CERN physicists, “the 14 TeV centre-of-mass energy of the LHC could allow it to become a black-hole factory with a production rate as high as about one per second” (A. Barrau and J. Grain, CERN Courier, Nov 12, 2004).

    Dr. Rossler’s reinterpretation of Einstein’s relativity theory indicates that the extreme gravity of a black hole would have consequences in addition to the well-recognized slowdown of time and prevention of light escaping. Such consequences would include there being no black hole evaporation (via Hawking radiation) and no interactions via electrical charge. In addition, his quasar-attractor principle indicates that mini black hole growth would be exponential rather than linear.

    For different reasons, a number of physicists have independently come to similar conclusions on each of these points, which undermine the safety bases of CERN’s collider.

  5. Hansel says:

    Aha, Houston, so Hawking and others developing the theory of black hole evaporation had totally forgotten the extreme gravitation of the black hole?


  6. Hansel says:

    The point is that even if Rösslers funny “reinterpretation of Einstein” would be correct it has not implications for Hawking radiation. Consequently you could not find a single argument specifically about hawking radiation in any paper of Rössler.

    That Rössler has no knowledge about this stuff was proved long ago when he was asked about recent experimental evidence for the radiation. It was confirmed by scientists like Unruh that the experiment was indeed applicable to give evidence for hawkings radiation. Rössler never took part in this discussions. He was not even aware of it. He seems to be really a great expert in the field!

  7. Hawking never held up his theorem against my results. At the same time he is my personal hero. Please, dear anonymous CERN squad: stop misusing the most venerable scientists of history.

  8. Dear Hansel: I was too harsh with you. It was ingenious from your part to mention Hawking.

    He responded very fairly when I sent him the DVD of my January 30, 2008 talk at the Berlin Biennale which is on the Internet.

  9. Hansel says:

    Hawking never held up his theorem against my results.

    First: you have no results.

    Second: Hawking is a good scientist and does not waste his time with crap like yours.

    third: publish the answer ;)

  10. You refuse to talk with him and me it appears. Is there someone else at CERN who dares?

  11. Hansel says:

    Again you say nothing about the science, the experiments etc. Instead you are referring to an answer of Hawking to you knowing that no one here has access to it and can check whether you are again lying or not.

  12. I asked whether anyone in the planetary scientific community or media dares talk with Stephen Hawking and me about:

    “Evaporation Evaporated — Yes or No?”

    I am sure Stephen Hawking would do everything to make this discussion possible.

  13. Hansel says:

    You have not adressed Hawking radiation in any paper. Your “work” is irrelevant concerning Hawking readiation.

  14. CERN’s fear that Hawking might take up the glove made palpable.

  15. Andrew says:

    Rossler, if you want to be taken seriously I think you need to take into account your audience when writing. Do you really think your last comment will make any sense to most people? I’ve read it like 8 times and I don’t completely get it.
    When arguing for an extreme position (like the world being eaten by a black hole) you should avoid anything that will make your position even harder to understand. Using poetic metaphors like “take up the glove” will not help your case. Maybe the reason physicists aren’t taking you seriously is not because there is some unscientific physics ideology or a physicist conspiracy or a lack of courage in the physicist community.
    It’s because your arguments aren’t clearly and concisely stated.

  16. Hansel says:

    Hawking is not supporting you and surely also not your silly “theorem”. :D

  17. Dear Andrew: Do you really think the southern accent of someone waving his arms to make you see an obstacle on the road into which you are about to crash makes any difference?

  18. Robert Houston says:

    Hansel’s assertion to Rossler that “you have not addressed Hawking radiation in any paper” is demonstrably false and reveals his unfamiliarity with Rossler’s papers. In reality, all three of the major black hole papers by Dr. Rossler from 2007–2009 addressed Hawking radiation and black hole evaporation in multiple places. (They’re available at ). Rossler’s paper on the Gothic-R Theorem, for example, gave four reasons for the “nonexistence of ‘Hawking radiation’” (p 11). The 2011 Telemach paper was the only major paper on his theory that did not explicitly discuss Hawking radiation.

    Hansel’s comment about “experimental evidence for the radiation” was alluding to a discussion here months ago about a 2010 Italian experiment involving the use of laser pulses in glass as a “laboratory analogue.” Hansel wrote, “It was confirmed by scientists like Unruh that the experiment was indeed applicable to give evidence for Hawking’s radiation.” But here’s what physicist Wm. Unruh actually said about the experiment, as quoted by the Scientific American (Oct 1, 2010):

    “I still need to be convinced that what they are seeing is the analogue of what Hawking found for black holes.” Dr. Unruh in fact pointed out a major discrepancy in the experimental results. See: .

    Though a longtime Hawking backer, Prof. Unruh has described such analogues as providing only “a clue”, not proof, and has admitted that “the derivation by Hawking is nonsense” (Perimeter Inst. 2007). In a major paper, Unruh concluded, “whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation remains an open question…” (from Abs, 2004: ),