I am fighting a fight that can cost me my scientific reputation, begging for the privilege to be falsified.

The public does not realize this. That I have challenged the brightest minds of the planet to prove that the scientific proof I have offered contains a flaw. No one comes up with a counterproof. Also I am not alone.

My proof implies that that director-general Heuer of CERN is actively trying to kill everyone on the planet out of ideological blindness. The risk is being doubled at CERN during the present month, and is planned to be tripled once more next year. Even now it can already be too late if my presented proof holds water.

The most appalling phenomenon is not the evil nature of the accused ones but the blindness of the press. They totally forgot that science is about truth and that, if no scientist stands up and says “I can prove Rossler wrong and this is my evidence,” Rossler is right.

Authority does not exist in the face of the truth. I can save you and your child. Please, give me the benefit of the doubt.

Heuer of CERN is actively trying to kill everyone on the planet

Thats it. You are an bloody **** — and this is your real reputation. You are not famous for science, you are famous for accusations and defamations like this.

Mr. Rössler

did ya use offical wording from Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen?

GG

Killing that occurs through negligent manslaughter, even without malicious intent, still constitutes a punishable crime. Dr. Rossler qualified his charge against CERN director Heuer with the phrase “out of ideological blindness.” If Dr. Heuer is blinded to the potential consequences of his acts in cranking up a collider that his own scientists admit may “become a black hole factory” (CERN Courier, Nov. 12, 2004), then he may not be guilty of 1st degree murder if many are killed — just mass manslaughter.

Under the circumstances, his failure to hold safety conferences or on-going safety reviews could qualify as criminal negligence. Director Heuer should be removed by the CERN Council and the LHC shut down before an irreversible catastrophe occurs.

Professor, you state that you have offered “scientific proof” which should be falsified or your anxiety about the LHC must be justified and responded to.

Your critics on this blog seem to feel strongly that your proof is not stated carefully enough in mathematical and physical terms to elicit a disproof from the physics community, and that is why the latter has not been forthcoming.

Can you please affirm that your conclusions are not simply intuitive, but actually are worked out in and presented in rigorous terms which a disproof can address?

These are three important contributions.

Gary: Do you really think a scientific result needs the approval of an institution? Belief in false authority is the problem, not the solution in the present case.

The second contribution speaks the truth in much better words than I could find.

The third is helpful, too because it shows how easily sympathetic minds can be misled by anonymous liars (liars in the same sense that the CERNians are killers). The fact that the detractor quoted by you refuses to talk with me proves he is not serious behind his mask. But since you asked: my public wish of 4 years’ standing to have my results disproved remains unconsummated.

There is genuine hunger for truth in all three contributions: thank you for that.

“Gary: Do you really think a scientific result needs the approval of an institution? Belief in false authority is the problem, not the solution in the present case. ”

Aha, so this :

“My proof implies that that director-general Heuer of CERN is actively trying to kill everyone on the planet out of ideological blindness.”

is your scientific result?

Garys question was about this phrase, ****.

(BTW: all scientist know that you have not a single result)

Rössler: It is you who is always avoiding to give answers when asked to critical ponts of your “theorem”…you are the **** who prefers it to write about killers, murder and so on instead of giving scientificd answers.

However, as there is no theorem it does not matter whether you answered or not. In fact your non-answers are proving everytime that there is no theorem. :D

Mr. Roessler,

„Gary: Do you really think a scientific result needs the approval of an institution? Belief in false authority is the problem, not the solution in the present case.“

you didn’t match my point! Your are one of two reviewers of Klaus Sonnleitners Ph. D. thesis „StV4 : Ein symplektisches zeitreversibles Störmer-Verlet-Verfahren vierter Ordnung für Hamiltonsche Mehrteilchensysteme mit zwei Anwendungsbeispielen (Gas, T-Rohr-Anordnung)“. The second is Nils Schopohl, chief of staff of the Institute for Theoretical Physics and the Center for Collective Quantum Phenomena. So, I guess your claims were backed by parts of the scientific community at Tuebingen? Perhaps including your attacks on Mr. Heuer and other scientists at Cern? Could this be real? Or are you offended by the establishment at Tuebingen?

GG

At long last a scientific argument — to judge from your first line.

But then it turns out that you point your finger to another, humanly very important issue.

You may have realized that cosmology is a scientific discipline which has its own paradigms. It would be a mistake to mix results which have nothing to do wioth each other in science.

But more important is another point. It is absolutely necessary and vital to me that I tell you that my professional contacts with professor Schopohl are solely based on the fact that I needed a co-advisor for my student’s finished doctoral dissertation, and he met the incredibly high standards needed for that.

We had many scientific discussions since, but we never touched on the topic of CERN and the world’s safety. Friends and children must be kept out of personal battles — even if saving the world is at stake.

I hope you can agree to this general statement. I need you to save the world because you are unbiased personally. Friends and family, and even colleagues working in the same safety-relevant field, if being your personal friends, cannot rationally and morally be drawn into a planet-saving crusade.

I hope you will not disagree.

So you have not even tried to convince your colleague of the importance of your mission for the survival of the world? For the survival of his family (in case he has one)?

Interesting!

Perhaps he would have been able to help you. Hey, it is the planet — why not trying really everything regardless of whether it is promising or not.….

Mr. Roessler, thx for response.

„It is absolutely necessary and vital to me that I tell you that my professional contacts with professor Schopohl are solely based on the fact that I needed a co-advisor for my student’s finished doctoral dissertation, and he met the incredibly high standards needed for that.“

ugh. So, could you tell us Mr. Schopohls answer on ya request? As I assume, Mr. Sonnleitner involved in what you call the „Tuebingen school“ and just a little bit younger then yourself was an exceptionel case, even by normal standards. Did ya get Mr. Schopols as second reviewer by professional process, or did ya met some personell bias?

„We had many scientific discussions since, but we never touched on the topic of CERN and the world’s safety. Friends and children must be kept out of personal battles – even if saving the world is at stake.“

So, ya left me helpless in some sense. Ya claim to be disproved by the scientific establishment and never asked your colleagues just around??? That makes no sense. I guess, University of Tuebingen backs ya, cause ya got Ph. D.s even 2010. Mr. Sonnleitner got it in the end? The university obviously supports ya fight. Perhaps undercover?

GG

Give us a link to a concise argument, and I’ll try my best to falsify/prove it. If I can’t, I’ll fight on your side as hard as I can. But let me guess, you don’t even have a decent link to provide us and you’re just living in your own world.

PS: Robert Houston.

You write so much better than Rossling. Instead of defending Rossling’s weird posts that compare CERN to Nazi’s and ask the Pope for help and other odd comparisons, why don’t you write some short posts of your own? I personally, would love to read them.

“PS: Robert Houston.

You write so much better than Rossling. Instead of defending Rossling’s weird posts that compare CERN to Nazi’s and ask the Pope for help and other odd comparisons, why don’t you write some short posts of your own? I personally, would love to read them.”

If you go over Professor Rossler’s many blog posts you will find many contributions of Comments by Houston establishing the facts of this issue, showing that CERN has made many admissions and other high ranking physicists have written papers and books which substantiate Rossler’s concern for different reasons.

Unfortunately this blog site does not preserve Comments in a visible manner because it sweeps every fifty Comments section under the carpet and starts a new section. You have to write in the url of the previous fifty Comment section if you want to read them. I and others have tried to note the correct url in many cases as soon as the new section started.

I wrote above “Can you please affirm that your conclusions are not simply intuitive, but actually are worked out in and presented in rigorous terms which a disproof can address?”

In reply Professor you wrote only that “The third is helpful, too because it shows how easily sympathetic minds can be misled by anonymous liars (liars in the same sense that the CERNians are killers). The fact that the detractor quoted by you refuses to talk with me proves he is not serious behind his mask. But since you asked: my public wish of 4 years’ standing to have my results disproved remains unconsummated.”

This is not a direct response to my request, Professor. I hope that you can affirm that your theorem has been written out in the manner required for the debunking or confirmation you request from the world physics community, because otherwise they have the excuse that it is not stated formally enough for them to have to respond to it.

Now the superstition disease has struck AnthonyL, too.

You know my Telemach paper. I offered it to elicit a disproof. Instead people who hate me personally because I drew a link between the new facts and CERN throw sand into your eyes by claiming I could not answer their questions.

This is a total reversal of science. Instead of giving a counter-proof, they pretend science consisted in answering stupid questions. This strategy is lethal for the planet if not even you can look through it.

It is not only you could not answer the questions, it is evident that you have not even tried it. :D

And even the few occasions when you “tried” the answer was diffuse if not complete nonsense.

The point is, to call yoour stuff a “paper” is already wrong.

Ah, and when the questions are so “stupid”, why were you never able to answer them in a proper way?

However, there are questions to answer in the comments above. It is very interesting that you have not even tried to convince some of your colleagues to support you. Have you forgotten that the whole planet is at risk?

“Give us a link to a concise argument, and I’ll try my best to falsify/prove it.“

Thank you for that, dear Andrew: A man, a word.

You were in this way asking for the Telemach paper. It is in full length for example on my blog “Osama Bin CERN” above. I predict you will look through the alarmist shroud (I apologize for the stupid loudness that accompanies safety alarms) and go to the heart of the matter. You are my strongest open enemy and hence my best ally. If you succeed you do not even have to reveal your name to get the whole world’s grateful credit. Although I will prefer to see the face behind the mask. But now, please, start.

Again the game starts. At this early point Rössler has no problem withe the anonymity of Andrew. This will surely change when Andrew will ask the usual critical questions about the crap. I predict that Rössler will request a phone-discussion. As an alternative he will complain about the anonymity, which is not a problem now, and refuse to answer any question in a proper scientific way.

Poor little Hansel thinks that counterproofs consist in asking questions rather than coming up with results of one’s own.

Poor Rössler who could not answer questions about his own results.

Perhaps it is necessary to say that there were not only questions — in fact Rössler was asked how he would repair the shown errors in his “theorem”. He failed to answer what means he himself could not repair it. So, who is the poor guy here? :D

BTW, Ottolein, a proof is something totally different from your collection of self-contradictory, wrong equations and buzzword without any kind of deeper understanding of the matter.

And, Otto: where are your “results”? Wehre can I find you detailed quantum mechanical arguments against hawking radiation?

Rhetorical questions, I know. There is nothing like that in your great work. :D

Dear little Hansel: You are too lazy to elaborate.

If it is true — as no one denies — that L is enlarged by the gravitational redshift factor locally (whereby interestingly an observational spatial anisotropy occurs viewed from upstairs, since transverse distances appear but aren’t unchanged from above: light looks transversally slowed from above as is well known), then c is universally constant. Hence the distance from the horizon does not just appear to be infinite — since light takes an infinite outer time to emerge or go down as is well known — but actually IS infinite from above.

The consequence — to come back to Hawking — is that virtual pairs of particles arising outside the horizon cannot become indefinitely separated (by the horizon) in finite outer time as Hawking assumed in violation of general relativity.

Since you believe in finished formulas rather than never quite finished toughts, you might be able to put this insight into a page of formulas which then would help many other physicists better understand this simple argument.

ROFL, answering with a non-quantitative repetition of your crap is really convincing.

Howver, you are the man claiming to be the revolutionary thinker. It is your duty to put it in precise consistent formulas. So again the question where is your detailed quantum mechanical treatment of hawking radiation, where is your proof? Up to now there is nothing!

BTW, Nothing is “ontological enlarged or redshifted “locally”. There is a deep non-understanding of gravitational redshift in your writings.

And again, you were once stating that the T in your silly equation is not a time measured in seconds. So you have problems with your following equation L/T=c — you never fixed this up. poor Rössler.

“Now the superstition disease has struck AnthonyL, too.

You know my Telemach paper. I offered it to elicit a disproof.”

Professor, you answered the above when I asked you “This is not a direct response to my request, Professor. I hope that you can affirm that your theorem has been written out in the manner required for the debunking or confirmation you request from the world physics community, because otherwise they have the excuse that it is not stated formally enough for them to have to respond to it.”

I know nothing about any superstition disease, Professor. I merely ask you to affirm that your position has been written out formally to the level where the physics community cannot claim it is insufficient to require an answer.

Are you saying that your Telemach theorem is stated formally to the level that it could be accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal? If so, where is it laid out in that form available on the Web?

What is the reference url?

Ok, “Osama Bin CERN” (LOL) was too hard for a feeble mind like my own to understand. I need a summary… but I’m scared to ask for one because I have a feeling that Rossling doesn’t know how to give a decent summary.

Dear Anthony:

The paper is to be found in my (I always blush) “Osama Bin CERN” post on Lifeboat. The paper there was submitted to a math (and physics) journal. An earlier version — shorter and perhaps better — was submitted to the journal “Einstein-online.”

Why should I write a paper with refernces in it without taking its content seriously as research results?

Please forgive me the word superstition: It had nothing to do with you, only with the strange fact that the idiotic anonymous refereeing system is vastly overestimated. Nothing very new can be refereed by definition. Leo Szilard invented the idea of anonymous refereeing to deliberately slow science down. But you know that story.

You have recently started to believe that a mindless insistence on algorithms — known formulas — had anything to do with real science. The kids who gave you this impression on this blog are brainwashed into no longer being able to think. Otherwise — if they really took formalism as seriously as they claim — they could long have extended my formalism into the eventually necessary widely expanded next universally used formalism. But this is not easy, and is indeed not recommendable to try without special training in combined thinking and calculating. Then again 90 years of sterility would be pre-programmed.

But all of this is just gossip — not really worthy of your and everyone’s time. The world needs you as a reliable source that if no one can refute an alarm on an airport, better take it seriously. As you know, I have a very bad opinion of your no longer pampered colleagues because of their inability to act as the life-saving catalyst which is at the heart of their precious vocation. Journalists often lose their lives in unruly areas on the planet. Why does the overwhelming majority no longer know that life-saving is their real vocation, just like in medicine?

I cannot tolerate any more the fact that there is no reporting on the famine in East Africa. The scandal that there exists no organization able to help causally is a planetary sin. Edward Fredkin (personal communication 2000) once elaborated a scheme how the United Nations could make sure human rights violations can be healed almost instantly.

Is there not a single journalist who is accredited to the United Nations with the wonderful public profile this job must give?

Did you see my public, hopefully not for long unilateral, dialog with my Albert-Einstein Institute colleague on lifeboat early tody? Do you know of a journalist who can afford acting as a go-between?

Hey Rössler, expressing thinking in a logical structured precise way is the highest form of THINKING.

Science would be worthless without precise logical statements of the arguments. Everyone can see this in the “discussions” with Rössler. non-defined variables are destroying any discussion from the very beginning. But additional Rössler had not even proper definitions for his prosaic terms — so in the end all of his writing was diffuse, inconsistent. Thhis has nothing to do with clear thinking, it is the very opposite.

Shame on you, Rössler, that you dare to accuse scientists as non-thinkers.

(BTW, the “nonthinkers” have done some mathematical formulation of Rösslers stuff in the recent discussions. The results were always the same, Rösslers stuff was seflcontradictory and not in agreement e.g. with Einsteins equations. Rössler was not able to fix this up, neither in a prosaic nor in a mathematical way.)

Example: No one was sure what Rössler meant with the variable T. He used several diffuse words for it, apparantly partly seld-contradicting. So there would have been a easy solution: to gve the dimension of the T. Was the T measured in seconds, in Hertz or something else?

But: Up to now Rössler refused to answer this extremely simple question. Instead of answering it he prefered to write nonsense like the nonsense above about non.thinkers, brainwashed people etc. The conclusion is that every person trying to make things clear in order to establish a discussion is brainwashed.

Would be funny at a safety conference to see Rössler complaining of all the brainwashed people in the room. :D

Andrew, you interloped: forgive my slowness!

You appear not to be a physicist if some technical terms I used are unfamiliar to you.

It is great to be challenged to be “hard” in a few lines. I am afraid it will be a bit more than two.

Einstein saw in his mind that inside a gravitational field, generated not by an attracting mass but by a hind-pushing rocket engine, inside a slender rocketship, the strange and totally unexpected phenomenon occurs that light rising up from the bottom to the tip arrives there redshifted, that is, frequency-reduced.

Then it is instructive to add that he saw — but virtually no one else since does — that the light loses its frequency, not on the way up inside the rocketship, but already starts out redshifted at the hind end. Even famous names like Pound and Rebka did not know that.

The clocks downstairs indeed are slowed down right there: Very hard to grasp. If you do not know or accept that, you have no chance to go on. So most specialists are already out of the game by now.

Second step: If time really is slowed, down there, because the clocks are slower-running without this fact being locally manifest: What else must be automatically changed along downstairs?

Beautiful question, right?

You can guess. If atoms are slower with their characteristic frequencies, this implies that their energy differences are lower. They become bigger. Proportionally so (interestingly). Both all masses go down and, as a consequence (take quantum mechanics), all sizes go up.

This is the M of Telemach (T was Einstein’s time expansion) and the L is the size increase. All trivial but, incredibile dictu, unknown. (Exempting a few blessed people like Richard J. Cook of the US Air Force Academy.)

Then what about charge? T,L,M,Ch taken together make for a name. So you do need the Ch (I am joking). Charge follows by “the principle of general covariance” (Einstein) in the sense that in every inertial system (free-falling ones of sufficiently small size included), the laws of nature are locally identical. Hence: the ratio between its mass and its charge, of a locally normal appearing elementary particle like an electron, must be unchanged, too. Hence if M goes down imperceptibly for the locals, so must charge do.

But then Maxwell’s teacher and he himself would have been wrong? So what? This was many decades before Einstein. It is pure complacency to think this was a counterargument. But the many famous textbooks? The Gauss-Stokes theorem? Scrap. But of course not outside gravitational gradients. But does special relativity not require that charges are invariant? Yes, this is an often experimentally tested fact. But “special relativity with constant acceleration” is something new — STR.02. Einstein could live with this, why not his followers?

But you draw major conclusions?, so I hear you say. Yes, I do, but not out of impishness. The situation is so wonderful, in terms of novelty on the one hand. And life-threatening on the other, in the face of CERN’s dogmatic slumber while sleepwalking. You must not abruptly awaken a sleep-walker, he can be dangerous. But this is the smaller danger in the present case. Here I stop. Did you understand a word? More important: did you not understand one item in particular? Then right there the hoped-for falsification round could start.

Allow me to thank you for having insisted. Only in dialog does science grow, Plato and Buber-Levinas style, performed with infinite humility which is the essence of science.

Take care Andrew, Otto

Mr. Roessler

“The paper is to be found in my (I always blush) “Osama Bin CERN” post on Lifeboat. The paper there was submitted to a math (and physics) journal. An earlier version – shorter and perhaps better – was submitted to the journal “Einstein-online.”

To what journal? “Einstein online” is not a journal, it’s the webspace of AIP dedicated to talk about Einstein on the level of popular science. So, ya kidding or what?

“It had nothing to do with you, only with the strange fact that the idiotic anonymous refereeing system is vastly overestimated. Nothing very new can be refereed by definition. Leo Szilard invented the idea of anonymous refereeing to deliberately slow science down.”

Ya have a problem with peer review? Ya want to avoid basic standards of scientific publication?

“You have recently started to believe that a mindless insistence on algorithms – known formulas – had anything to do with real science.”

So, ya wanna tell us, physics could start without maths? Ridicolous, Otto! Ya wanna make yourself exceptionell, somelike genious? Maybe, ya are the new Einstein?

GG

Ah, charge is decreasing together with mass. This must be the reason why black holes have no charge, right?

But, lets THINK a little bit — why do they have mass? :D

And Einstein saw this redshifted light not in his mind, he derived it. He derived it in a similar way described in books like the Misner…a thing you obviously never understood

Children: ad hominem is nice, but not science. Is there no scientist around? I am waiting for Andrew.

I am the scientist you’re searching for, Dr. Rössler! (Brain is on vacation.)

You didn’t disproof my TeChFat-theorem (remember the shrinking cheesecake: 45 % fat in dry matter!). Therefore it must be true!

Einstein ate cheese and cheese cake on several occasions. This is another proof for my theorem.

The apocalypse is near,

Pinky

Rössler, why there is mass left when the vanishing of mass causes the vanishing of charge?

And please not again ad hominem. Or do you want to say to us that you have not even an consistent idea of your own “theorem”?

I apologize for all ad hominems.

You know that the total mass (including kinetic energy) does not go down. (Birkhoff.)

Only the locally valid (Komar) rest mass goes down in parallel to local photon mass. Here Ch must follow suit.

KOmar mass is something different. You have not even learned the basics. What kind of scientist are you?

You say the photon is already redshifted downstairs. So what is happening to the photon durng traveling up? You now that Einstein and others derive the redshift by cnsidering the loss of energy during this way upwards. Conservation of energy and so on.

Nothing makes sense in your “explanations”. Like your argument aboput the mass. I bet you will start to define hundreds of different mass definitions now only to get out of the obvious trouble.

You were taliing about thiniknbg. It is obvious that you have not done this job yourself. Poor Rössler.

Thank you for starting to take Einstein’s result seriously.

You started to think on your own.

Your questions are good. You may realize that you can answer them yourself. There is no greater fun than that.

It is your task to answer them. You cannot hide that you have no answer to them any longer.

The time for bluffing is gone, we want to see something.

(BTW: You are the one not taking Einstein seriously. It seems you never have read him carefully enough.)

Since any answer from Dr. Rossler will meet with automatic derision from the CERN goons, like Hansel, who seek only to vilify him, why should he bother answering? Since they think they’re so informed, why can’t they answer their own questions?

Among the critics at Lifeboat, the only one who seems like a real scientist is Pinky = as well as his colleague the Brain. They are distinguished from the others by some really creative and witty comments, refreshingly free from malice, unlike those of the CERN geeks.

Hey Garrision, why d’ya consistently use “ya” instead of “you”? Is this merely your juvenile way of showing disrespect ?

Houston, go back to primary school and learn what an equation means before you start again to defend poor Rössler.

Hansel, go back to kindergarten to learn that 1 is less than 2. This appeared to be way over the heads of you and TRMG.

Houston, you have not understood what an equation is. That is obvious for everyone who has at least learned a little bit of math.

For example, learn that I can add thousands of 1s to any side of the equation and this will change NOTHING, stupid!

It certainly seems true that adding any number of 1s to either side or both of an equation will not make the slightest difference in its meaning, Robert. Have you some argument with this claim?

The only way you can make an equation mean something different is to either add numbers greater or less than one, add or substract different terms, change the signs for multiply, divide etc, or change the definition of terms.

I helpfully suggested to you that the difference in opinion that emerged on this series of Rossler blog posts as to the meaning of the original disputed equation was due to changing the definition of its terms from time elapsed to length of the units of time counted by each clock.

The one is inverse to the other, so this could explain the discrepancy between the view of the CERN defenders and the esteemed Rossler.

This would have allowed you to claim as you do that Rossler’s equation was a true statement of the relationship between its terms, and not its inverse.

You are however apparently sticking to your original attempted explanation which is something to do with adding ones to one or both sides of the equation, which is mathematically meaningless.

But you seem to suggest that this would somehow make it a “formula” which defines the terms differently, and in effect inverts the equation from A=B*C to A=B/C.

If you really feel that is true you would have to explain it further, since it is manifestly not true that adding 1s to an equation changes its meaning in any way, mathematically speaking.

Also, it is hard to see that a formula is any different from an equation.

Surely you would do better to switch to my suggested escape route?

By the way, is it not strange that you should have to defend the good Professor from Tubingen, and he does not do it himself? Perhaps we should simply ask him to intervene here and tell us himself what the answer is, rather than have you explain it so valiantly.

Hansel and Anthony appear to have forgotton a key principle in elementary algebra. As any high school math student would know, both their statements are erroneous:

Hansel: “…I can add thousands of 1s to any side of the equation and this will change NOTHING…” Anthony: “…adding any number of 1s to either side or both of an equation will not make the slightest difference in its meaning…”

These naive assertions violate what is known as the “Golden Rule of Equations.” As stated in a standard math textbook, “What you do to one member of an equation, you must do to the other” (Kruglak and Moore, p 62). Otherwise, the meaning will change. For example, if we trusted Hansel and added 1,000 1’s to the left side of a standard distance formula, M = K * 1.6, it would then read “1000M = K *1.6″ and mean that 1000 miles equal 1.6 kilometers!

In reading the distance formula, we know to provide an implicit 1 before the M on the left, so that it means 1 mile. We also know that M and K are different symbols having different values (lengths) but each representing 1 unit of distance. Thus we do not misinterpret it as 1.6 miles = 1 Km. The implicit 1 before M on the left prevents such an error.

If the same normal assumptions are applied to a very similar formula, Rossler’s 1st theorem, it becomes clear and correct. We then understand that T_tail and T_tip are different symbols, and that each represents 1 unit (e.g., 1 hour) of the parameter (time). Thus, assuming z = 1, then with the 1 made explicit his formula, 1T_tail = 1T_tip * (1+z), means that 1 hour downstairs in the rocket equals 2 hours upstairs. It’s that simple.

Houston, you know what “multiplication” is?

If I add thousands of 1s to one side of the equation I change nothing.

x=y

1*1*1*1*1*1*x=y

The whole discussion is about a multiplied factor of one to one side. I saoid in this context, that adding of “one” changes nothing. Of course I could not forseen the stupidness of Robert Houston and his interpretation as could be seen in the posting above.

And again you have not even started to understood the equation. One hour downstairs should be always a value smaller than upstairs. In this case, if you express the T down as a funnction of T up, and nothing else is the shown equation, then Rösslers equation is utterly wrong. Everyone can see this if he has at least visited primary school.

Have you?

Houston, you should start to think what this factor (1+z) means. :D

z=1 -> 1+z = 2

So Tdown=Tup*2 so 1 hour upstairs equals 2 hours downstairs. This is certainly not what Houston wrote. This would have been expressed this way:

Tup=Tdown*2 or Tdown=Tup/2 (or, more abstract again: Tdown=Tup/(1+z))

Therefore it is proven again that Rösslers equation is wrong and Houston stupid.

Here are the first 50 comments:

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/the-world-has-forgotten-tha…ent-page-1

Hansel, do you know what it means to “add”? “If I add thousands of 1s to one side of the equation I change nothing.” — Hansel

So, (1+1+1+1+1+1…) 1M on one side of the equation changes nothing? Is it still 1 mile? No, the number of miles is increased and the equation completely changed. The error is far worse if the 1s are added contiguously “to one side”: 111111…M. Just 100 of those would be a googol! Finally, you realized your error and now speak of “multiplication”, yet still say “add”. As I said, the statements by you and Anthony on this point have been erroneous.

Hansel also wrote, “One hour downstairs should be always a value smaller than upstairs.” This is true in regard to elapsed units of time (number of seconds, minutes or hours) on the local clocks. But the “value” in terms of overall duration should be equal to the value upstairs at the time of comparison. In any situation of time being slowed down, whether due to time dilation or weak clock batteries, there will be a lower number of units of time but a longer duration of those units relative to a faster clock.

EQ wrote: “So Tdown=Tup*2, so 1 hour upstairs equals 2 hours downstairs.” Using the same dubious reasoning, one would also conclude from the standard distance formula of M = K * 1.6 that 1.6 miles equals 1 kilometer. In both cases, the symbols are different. In fact, with z=1, the two-fold difference between Tdown and Tup is even greater than the difference between miles and kilometers.

I emphasized the implicit coefficient of 1 that is normally understood for the symbol on the leftside of a formula and made it explicit, so as to block such a false imposition of the upstairs readouts onto the downstairs clocks. Rossler’s formula was correct.

I was meaning “add” in the same way as you, Houston, in form of a multiplying factor

x ->1x

I thought oit would be clear but obviously I was not aware of your stuoidness. Sorry for that.

“This is true in regard to elapsed units of time (number of seconds, minutes or hours) on the local clocks. ”

Yxes, nothing else is the T.

But if you now start to talk about durations of time in an absolute way you are introducing the absolute frame of reference (and time) through the backdoor. So again you are contradicting general relativity. Additionally you have stated that Rössler was always talking about seconds as the dimension of the Ts. You are now adding two not identical meanings to the same variable. So much confusion for defending your masters voice is ridiclulous.

Poor Houston, you have much to learn. Start with thinking.

And please learn what an equation is. It is unbelievable that yu can not even understand the meaning of an equation like

y=x*A

The intersting point would be why the great man is not participating here. Does he agree with Houstons “math”?

This would be an interesting statement. I would like to send it to the ongoing safety conference immediately. Perhas I should add then that Rössler and houston have found a new, more correct way to do math. Revolutionary, long overlooked insights into arithmetics, worth to be published in the highest impact journal in mathematics.

“longer duration of those units relative to a faster clock. ”

You are assuming absolute time without mentioning or realizing it. :D

“M = K * 1.6 that 1.6 miles equals 1 kilometer. ”

Oh my god, this inability of doing math is amazing. Have you ever seen a school from the inside?

Only one last question, are you agreeing with the math Houston is presenting here, Rössler?

EQ: I said that it was “dubious reasoning” that would interpret “M = K * 1.6″ to mean that 1.6 miles equal 1 km. Are you now saying that it means that? If so, you’re wrong: it means that 1 mile and 1.6 km are equal. My point was that the interpretation that you and TRMG et al. applied to Rossler’s formula would produce such a mistaken meaning for the distance formula, which is similar in form.

Hansel and EQ believe that to speak of duration of an hour RELATIVE to another clock is to refer to a taboo called “absolute time.” Then grow up. Set to the correct time at noon, a clock with weak batteries may show 1 pm when a normal clock shows 2 pm. On the slow clock, 1 hour is twice as long. Similarly, on the accelerating rocket with z=1, the elapse of one hour downstairs has twice the duration relative to a clock upstairs, which would show two hours. This is how it can be that 1T_tail = 2T_tip.

Hansel has begged to learn what an equation is. It’s a statement that two quantities are equal. For example, 1 + 1 = 2, or LHC = DM.

(Doomsday Machine,)

Robert Houston showed that only non-cowardly souls can think.

Roessler: which would exclude you and Houston.

Stils, after more than 3 years, no proof from Roessler reagrding his claims. The world is waiting Ottilein! Show your hands or shut up.

Compared to what standard do you know that the hour is “twice as long”?

#Perhaps you realizes some day your absolute time introduced through the backdoor.

And yes, you have still not grasped the meaning of the euqation or equations in general.

It is experimental observed that the cloks upstairs is fatser than downstairs. So the equation is Tdown=Tup/X being X a factor adressing the different heights/gravitaional potentials etc.

The equation T down = Tup*X means clearly that for every hour upstairs there are more hours downstaoirs. If the T has the dimension of a time Röösslers equation is wrong, proven by nature.

If both of you want to rescue it you have to change the dimension of the T.

There is nothing more to say about it. The proof is there, whether Rössler is accpeting it or nit does not matter. Same whether Houston is learning to do math or not some day.

Any further discussion about hidden meanings of the Ts, duble-defintions for one variable, implicit intriduccing abolut frames of references is a waste of time. Either Rössler is defining and deriving his equations precisely or he should shut up. No a single person in the world have to waste time on this diffuse bullshit.

“Otto E. Rossler on October 23, 2011 1:08 am

Robert Houston showed that only non-cowardly souls can think.”

So you agrree to this “math”? Perhaps I should make a post on a blog from it. Would be funny fr the world to read the insights of the famous chaos researcher into mathematics. Perhaos some people will start think about you as the inventor of your attractor. In some way your inabilitiy to do even simple math is not in agreement with what xyou have shown here.

“In some way your inabilitiy to do even simple math is not in agreement with what xyou have shown here.”

Correction:

…what you have shown devades ago”

Why is Peter Howell lying (no doubt involuntarily) to the world? If no one is able to present a counterproof, your statement is openly misleading the world.

Ask Nicolai or KET or DESY or ‘t Hooft or CERN for a counterproof to the proof I have presented, my dear Peter. You worry me and not just me.

Hansi: If I cannot add 2+2 (as you claim) but can save your life by seeing something else that no one can deny so far, why complain?

Please, meet with me and Nicolai. The world needs people who magnify a fire crier’s voice.

Quote: “Compared to what standard do you know that the hour is “twice as long?”

Very good question — the group is improving. Answer: By the one-to-one mapping between time intervals upstairs and downstairs.

You are playing the anti-twin paradox game without noticing. But thank you for this question once more.

Your R was disproved by Nicolai/ICH, Your telesomething is not even in agreement with nature in the most simple first equation.

No again your silly diagram? There was still a question, you know?

http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2011/08/rossler-not-answe…stion.html

In the respective thrread here on lifeboat it was shown that you were merely talking about artifacts of a poor self-made diagram. A diagram which axes you were not able to define. :D

Quote: “Your R was disproved by Nicolai”

Sorry, but this is a lie: Ask my esteemed colleague Nicolai.

Who still refuses to write a report on my Telemach paper.

It is the truth that your R was disoroved by Nicolai and later again by ICH. The critique is the same.

It is also true that ICH has not repaired your theorem, his results has nothing to do with your theorem.

The liar here is Otto E. Rössler.

And again nothing bout the simple calculation above which is, not the first time, shredding your tlemach into pices in the very beginnig.

“Ask my esteemed colleague Nicolai.”

And I do not think that you really want me to do this. We both know the answer which would reveal you as the liar here.

I herewith invite him to do it publicly here.

(3 interlopers)

You know very well that Prof Nicolai is not wasting his time with readig the bullshit of a known crackpot on a blog like lifeboat.

Nevertheless you will construct a kind of support if he is not-responding here. “No one is contradicting me” — how ridiculous.

You do not seem to have a very high opinion of Professor Nicolai.

Who is asking that? The guy who is telling lies about Nicolai?

To the contrary Ottilein. You are the liar here — and quite on purpose if I may say so.

Roessler cannot come up with any proof for his claims since almost 4 years now. He has been presented with dozens of counterproofs, all of which he ignored. Again, completely in line with his background, probably he is not even to blame. Raised as a “Herrenmensch”, he is not used to take critisism or questioning his own beliefs. Poor Ottilein. No one is scared by you anymore in today’s world, where every 4th grader can google the right answers to your false arguments. Except Robert Houston — Ottilein’s toyboy.

Strange: I gave proofs that no one can prove wrong, and then my “inablity” to respond to nonsense as far as my limited capabilities allow me to recognize, is sold to our dear readers as a meta-proof that my proofs cannot possibly be right.

I believe the world would be happier if someone — like Nicolai — could defuse my proofs while CERN enters the decisive week under the silence of the world media turned into lambs.

“Robert Houston showed that only non-cowardly souls can think”

Professor, this appears to mean that you agree with Robert Houston’s algebraic/mathematical expositions above. Is this correct?

Or do you agree that multiplying one or both sides of any equation will not make the slightest difference to its meaning?

Secondly, do you agree that he is right in saying that the units of time counted downstairs are “longer” than the units of time counted in the upstairs of a rocket, and this is why the hours that pass according to the clocks are less downstairs than upstairs?

If so, do you agree with Hansel that this brings in absolute time as a reference (since the longer units have to be “longer” according to some outside reference)?

It does seem from the above that you agree with Houston on both points, and therefore if he is wrong on both counts you are too.

Surely there is some mistake.

“Or do you agree that multiplying one or both sides of any equation by one any number of times will not make the slightest difference to its meaning?”

is the proper sentence above, sorry.

“So, (1+1+1+1+1+1…) 1M on one side of the equation changes nothing?” — Robert Houston

Robert, Hansel wrote 1*1*1*1*1*.…

Please, please, please: All these questions have nothing to do with Telemach. Believe me that one needs a disproof here. The intuitive approach leading to “hard” facts is always the superior one in difficult terrain. Robert Houston is a thousand times closer than Hansi even if a handiwork type error may be involved in his attempt to make Teleach intuitive. This attempt of his is a great service to the scientific community.

The worldwide consensus over 90 years that Zwicky was wrong with his dynamical-friction theory of photons traversing the cosmos — even after Chandrasekhar’s repair of a point overlooked or not sufficiently focused on by Zwicky (I did not check yet) — shows how donkey-like scientific dogmatism is. Hansi has a chance to learn — no one else of higher rank so far is in a similar position, it appears to me.

All the courageous fighters have great merit, even the cavallerie of provocateurs. Eventually, a lion in the back like Nicolai or Wald might wake up from the noise.

Athony, forgive. These questions you posed I must address:

“do you agree that he is right in saying that the units of time counted downstairs are “longer” than the units of time counted in the upstairs of a rocket, and this is why the hours that pass according to the clocks are less downstairs than upstairs? [and] if so, do you agree with Hansel that this brings in absolute time as a reference (since the longer units have to be “longer” according to some outside reference)?”

First point: Yes. Second point: No.

The decisive week? relly? Again?

Again, because CERN had entered decisive weeks for several years now according to you, Rössler. One year ago the danger was 8%. or 4%. No it is on the threshold to 3%.

What is the base of this “estimations? :D

Rössler, lease answer Anthonys question with a precise equation and defined variables.

Thanks!

“All these questions have nothing to do with Telemach. ”

Oh, they have. Perhaps you should read Telesomething. It is about the first equation in Telesomething. And this equation is utterly wrong, as I have proved above. I should add that I was not the first person doing that.

No one ever disproved the first equation because it is Einstein’s, dear Hansel number 5.

Now to the danger you refer to: As you know this is the last week in a 3-month effort by CERN to triple the total luminosity. Since this task implies optimizing the beams ever more efficiently, the last of those 13 weeks is the most efficient and hence most dangerous one since it brings the largest overall contribution. If you know better, I am interested.

Roessler wrote “No one ever disproved the first equation because it is Einstein’s..”

No, it’s not. You are wrong.

We have already proved several times that your equation is NOT in agreement with anything from Einstein.

BTW, what is the current luminosity and what was the development in the last monts? Can you give us some insights, great LHC-expert? :D

And why were you talking, with the same certainty than today, about a 8% danger last year? Was the luminosity higher then? :D

EQ.:

No one proved my results wrong to the best of my knowledge. If you know better, present a proof — or what you think is a proof. But it should be called that way and imply an argument that can be falsified if false.

Peter:

Please give me the reference — not a long disproved one if possible. Telemach is only about a year old.

Can you?

The 8 percent apply to the luminosity at 7 TeV reaching its maximum dangerousness. I hope that this is not yet the case since CERN still tries to increase its efficiency. I may be wrong and the maximum has already been achieved.

“No one proved my results wrong to the best of my knowledge”

Your knowlegde is limited as we have seen several times now. your mamory is especially limited when it comes to the many objections ond counterproofs of your bullshit.

Typical behavior of a crank. Absolutely not typical for a scientist.

And you are contradicting yourself now. The 8% were connected to the half LHC power of 7 TeV while originally you were talking about 16%, derived only from the picture of russian roulette with one bullet. Now it is 2 or 3 %. so what?

A scientist would now deliver a detailed reasoning how he found this numbers. But I bet that we will NEVER see something like that from you because you are inventing numbers all the time without any kind of rational reasons.

as you were never able to repair your eq 1 you are disproved. Additionally the paper does not even meet undergraduate standards in terms of logical derived arguments.

As a psychologist you are not so bad, assuming clairvoyance that my results are wrong. This, however, I would so much love to have specified.

Repeatingt nonsense does not help you. I gave a theorem. Where is your counter-theorem? Or anyone else’s?

Why does Nicolai keep silent letting his anonymous coworkers take the brunt?

wrong: You gave no theorem. What you presented has not reached the level of undergraduate work.

It is a collectionj of non-sequiturs, poor reasoning, wrong equations whcih are not in agreement with nature and so on.

Nicolai has better use for his time than to deal with you, old crackpot and scaremonger.

“Repeatingt nonsense does not help you.”

You should replace the “you” with an “I” and you would have shown for the first time a correct statement on this blog.

Of course replacement with “me”, not “I”

Old comments can be seen here:

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/the-world-has-forgotten-tha…2#comments

Perhaps Hansi wants to be the first to answer to my new post?

Mr. Rössler!

My impression is that you just want to clown around. (So do I!)

“The world” is shrinking … now!

No, not really. But maybe .…. NOW!

Boring!

The funny thing is that even if you would be correct with THE WARNING, nobody will care! Really, nobody. The armageddon will not be televised!

Currently playing with “Shrinky Dinks” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinky_Dinks),

Pinky

This is a very nice reference, dear Pinky.

Houston, your excellent quotations from CERN and others confirming that CERN’s evasion of outside public review is potentially quite literally a mortal sin which will consume us all in a black hole/strangelet/godknowswhat in a fate unpredicted and unpredictable as the LHC escalates provide an admirable public service.

But your reasoning above is in error, even if its conclusion is right. Perhaps you can clarify? Again, I suggest the escape route that I opened for you earlier.

Viz:

Robert Houston on October 20, 2011 10:13 pm:

Hansel and Anthony appear to have forgotton a key principle in elementary algebra. As any high school math student would know, both their statements are erroneous:

Hansel: “…I can add thousands of 1s to any side of the equation and this will change NOTHING…” Anthony: “…adding any number of 1s to either side or both of an equation will not make the slightest difference in its meaning…”

These naive assertions violate what is known as the “Golden Rule of Equations.” As stated in a standard math textbook, “What you do to one member of an equation, you must do to the other” (Kruglak and Moore, p 62). Otherwise, the meaning will change.

AnthonyL now:

Sorry, Robert, you are making absurd statements based on what you imagined we said, which we didn’t. No one would challenge your “Golden Rule of Equations”. In fact it is a tautology of a triviality equivalent to saying The Sun Rises in the East. Going to an elementary textbook to justify it is like going to an Atlas to find out that New York is East of Los Angeles.

Obviously whatever you do to one side of an equation you have to do to the other side, or it won’t be true any more, since the two sides will not be equal any more, and that is what an equation means — the one side equals the other.

Robert Houston on October 20, 2011 10:13 pm:

For example, if we trusted Hansel and added 1,000 1’s to the left side of a standard distance formula, M = K * 1.6, it would then read “1000M = K *1.6″ and mean that 1000 miles equal 1.6 kilometers!

AnthonyL: Not so. Adding “1,000 1’s to the left side of a standard distance formula, M = K * 1.6, it would then actually read “1000+ M = K *1.6″.

But this mistake is irrelevant. What seems to have happened is that you have misread what Hansel said and what I wrote, perhaps because we didn’t specify the obvious, that we meant “adding 1x or 1* anywhere in an equation makes no difference whatsoever.”

You mistook the meaning of the word “adding”. You thought we meant simply adding a 1 or multiple 1s. We meant adding 1* or multiple 1*s to any of the terms.

To repeat, we both were simply pointing out that adding a 1* to any term in any equation on any side of it or both sides, any number of times, makes no difference whatsoever to the meaning of the equation.

To repeat, you thought we meant adding 1 or multiple 1s to either side of an equation makes no difference. Obviously not. We were referring to the above. Adding 1* or multiple 1*s, not adding 1s, or multiple 1s.

I am sure that apprised of your two errors to this point you can see this very easily, but just in case, let’s take an equation at random and add 1* anywhere in it, or more than once, or on both sides of it, anywhere:

(ab /c+d-h)*HTV / 234.798 =(16xab/HTV) (c-d)*16.7347213398

If this is true, then so is

1(ab /c+d-h)*HTV / 234.798 =(16xab/HTV) (c-d)*16.7347213398

and

(ab /1c+d-h)*HTV / 234.798 =(16xab/HTV) (c-1d)*16.7347213398

and

1(ab /c+1d-h)*HT1V / 234.798×1 =1(16xab/1*HTV) (1*c-1*d)*16.7347213398

and

(1*ab /c+d-h)*HTV / 234.798 =(1*16xab/HTV) (1*1*1*c-d)*16.7347213398

and

(ab /c+d-h)*HTV / 234.798 =(16xab/HTV) 1*(c-d)*16.7347213398

and

(ab /c+d-h)*HTV / 234.798 =(16xab/HTV) (c-d)*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*16.7347213398

All mean exactly the same thing. The equations are effectively all the SAME mathematical algebraical sentence.

Robert Houston on October 20, 2011 10:13 pm cont:

In reading the distance formula, we know to provide an implicit 1 before the M on the left, so that it means 1 mile. We also know that M and K are different symbols having different values (lengths) but each representing 1 unit of distance. Thus we do not misinterpret it as 1.6 miles = 1 Km. The implicit 1 before M on the left prevents such an error.

AnthonyL now:

Sorry Robert, this doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. Judging from what you say, you are saying that in the equation M = K * 1.6, , that gives any distance in miles M and tells you how to translate that distance in miles into kilometers K, ie a “formula” for translating miles into kilometers, and we must not interpret it as saying 1 mile=1.6 kilometers. But that is precisely what it does mean.

You say that we are in danger of misinterpreting the equation (formula) unless we put 1 in front of the M, so we get 1M=1.6K. But no one is in danger of any such thing. “M” means “1M”. “M” means EXACTLY the same as “1M.” You are not adding anything whatsoever to its meaning by changing M to 1M by adding a “1”. The equation M=1.6K is EXACTLY the same equation with exactly the same meaning as 1M=1.6K.

Robert Houston on October 20, 2011 10:13 pm cont:

If the same normal assumptions are applied to a very similar formula, Rossler’s 1st theorem, it becomes clear and correct. We then understand that T_tail and T_tip are different symbols, and that each represents 1 unit (e.g., 1 hour) of the parameter (time). Thus, assuming z = 1, then with the 1 made explicit his formula, 1T_tail = 1T_tip * (1+z), means that 1 hour downstairs in the rocket equals 2 hours upstairs. It’s that simple.”

AnthonyL now:

Robert, the formula (equation for finding out what td is if you know tu) that you and Professor Rossler have stated is td=tu*(1+z) which you now write as T_tail=T_tip *(1+z).

This is precisely the same equation with precisely the same meaning as 1T_tail = 1T_tip * (1+z), so adding the “1“s explains precisely nothing.

You state that “Thus, assuming z = 1, then with the 1 made explicit his formula, 1T_tail = 1T_tip * (1+z), means that 1 hour downstairs in the rocket equals 2 hours upstairs. It’s that simple.”

But if z=1, the equation becomes 1T_tail = 1T_tip * (2). So if T_tail is the time elapsed downstairs , this equation states that time elapsed downstairs is equal to DOUBLE the time elapsed upstairs, or T_tip.

You have reversed elementary algebra. If A=2B, then B=A/2, not double A. If A=2B, B=A/2.

In fact, the time elapsed at the tip would be DOUBLE the time elapsed at the tail, so the equation to state this fact would be T_tip= 2*T_tail.

So you should now abandon your private algebra, go back and change your position and adopt the new position, that the T_tail is the length of a unit of time ticked by the clock in the tail, and that T_tip is the length of a unit of time ticked by the clock in the tip, which is SMALLER. (That is why the clock in the tip clocks more time relative to the clock in the tail, according to Rossler’s new and up to date statement on the “stupi” post thread, in answer to my careful and exceedingly long exposition of the objection of TRMG Hansel etc to Rossler’s Equation (1).

The distinguished Professor has answered in this manner, that his Equation (1) —- td=tu*(1+z) —- expresses the fact that the units of time clocked in the tail are LONGER in duration than the ones in the tip, which is why the clock in the tail takes longer to tick them off and reaches a lower elapsed time in the time it takes the clock in the tip to reach any time.

So the time elapsed in the tail is LESS than the time elapsed in the tip, because the units of time in the tail are BIGGER than the units of time clocked in the tip. So the clock in the tail ticks off fewer of them than the clock in the tip.

On the “stupi” thread TRMG seems to have stopped saying this is a misinterpretation of relativity and how it works, and gone along with agreeing that the units of time passing in the tail are longer than the units passing in the tip.

If so he is agreeing with Houston/Rossler/Einstein, but I suspect he may start clarifying and contradict this impression in his next post.

I look forward to that clarification. Until he does, however, if you change your position and join Rossler and Einstein in nsaying that his Equation (1) refers to the relative duration of units of time passing in both places, ie Td=Tu*(1+z) , all four of you agree!