Comments on: Are There No Women in the Media?

By: Robert Houston

Robert Houston — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 03:40:42 +0000

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 http://www.lhcfacts.org/ ). 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: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hawking-radiation .

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: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0408009 ),

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:45:00 +0000

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?

By: Hansel

Hansel — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:16:32 +0000

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

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:30:50 +0000

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.

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:02:42 +0000

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

By: Hansel

Hansel — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:13:07 +0000

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

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:52:35 +0000

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.

By: Hansel

Hansel — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:26:49 +0000

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.

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:58:11 +0000

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

By: Hansel

Hansel — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:48:45 +0000

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 ;)