Menu

Blog

Oct 6, 2011

Tübingen Held Two Nazi Dissidents — Tübingen Holds One of Two CERN Dissidents

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

The whole world complied with the Nazi murder. The whole world complies with CERN’s assault on everyone. It is the same world that lets the people in humanity’s cradle starve.

I re-read René Fülöp-Miller’s book Saint Francis. The Now, Color and the Smile are infinite miracles. I thank the Lord in your place.

And today we say Thank You to Steve.

119

Comments — comments are now closed.


  1. Hansel says:

    Your father was not a dissident, he was one of the first Nazis already in the 1920s.

    You are not a dissident, you are not even a scientist. Your papers are not worth to be read, they have not even reached the level of a undergraduates work.And: Not every “theory” different to the mainstream is automatically correct because it was similar in galileos case. Galileo,. Newton, Einstein — all of them gave the world precise equations, they all show their arguments very clear in mathematical derivations. Nothing like this can be found in your “papers”. On the contrary even your very simple equations are wrong and you were never able to repair them or to connect them precisely to Einsteins equations.

    Instead of writing like a scientist you prefer to compare CERN with the Nazis. No one in this world has to deal with the pseudoscience of a hateful old crackpot!

  2. CERN’s fear of the safety conference is palpable in anonymous statements of personal hatred. I am ready to talk with you — are you ready to talk with me?

  3. Hansel says:

    The joke of he year. If there is someone CERN is definitely not “fearing” then it is you, Rössler.

  4. Robert Houston says:

    From his crudeness of his comments, it would appear that the anonymous Hansel is not a scientist but merely a hate-monger, who seeks to uphold CERN by trashing its most well-known dissenter. Dr. Rossler is in fact a real scientist who has been a leader in several technical fields and has published over 300 papers in scientific journals and proceedings.

    Apparently, he is enough of a threat to CERN’s collider that its supporters such as Hansel have ganged up against him at Lifeboat to spew verbal abuse, attacking with a viciousness worthy of a Salem witch-hunt.

    As Dr. Rossler has pointed out here and elsewhere, there is a crucial distinction between the attitude of the Nazis and that of CERN. The Nazis were murderously genocidal racists. The leaders of CERN, however, have compulsively good intentions to advance science at any cost or risk. Moreover, CERN is utterly democratic: it’s not the genocide of 7 million that they’re willing to risk for their selfish ends, but rather, the horror of geocide — with the loss of all 7 billion humans, regardless of race, creed, or color.

  5. Hansel says:

    Rössler has along record of pseudoscience. He was never a leader in important fields of technology or something else.
    Oh, yes, he is in fact a leader in the discipline of buzzword-science. He is really good in combining a few words and terms that sounds scientific and fantastic to people like Houston who are easy to impress with something like that.

    The ability of Houston to judge scientific results and to differentiate between crap and real science shows up in his recent comments. He really thinks that comments like mine are a kind of proof that CERN is fearing Rösslers results. Thank you Houston. It is always good to laugh a little bit in the mornibng. You really made my day. :D

  6. Dear little Hansel: You forgot to answer my question.

  7. Hansel says:

    It is your turn to answqer questions. We were already talking about your wrong equations.

    The result of the discussion was that you were not able to define your equation in a proper way. You were also not able to connect them to equations given by Einstein. And this was only the first equation in your silly paper.

  8. Hansel’s crusade to persuade the world to shy away from falsifying my result scientifically makes him my strongest effective supporter.

  9. Hansel says:

    Rössler, it is clear for everyone with a little background in science that you are an impostor without any kind of scientific results. I have present the open questions again and again you are only answering meaningless bullshit, playing your little games of turning disagreement into agreement and so on.

  10. Hansel says:

    Its you who is totally out of any game :D

  11. Robert Houston says:

    The “game” of Hansel and his fellow CERN loyalists is to answer any comment from Rossler with insults and derision. Such immature, impudent behavior is below the standards of civility of scientific meetings, and would be grounds for ejection of these hecklers. Because the main purpose of their participation here is to discredit Dr. Rossler, whose safety concerns may threaten the continued operation of the LHC, most comments from Hansel and his confreres have such a negative slant as to constitute blatant misrepresentations.

    For example, he claimed above that “Rossler…was never a leader in important fields of technology or something else.” But according to Wikipedia, Otto Rossler is one of the notable scientists in the important field of Chaos Theory. The Rossler Attractor, which developed from the Rossler System of differential equations, is one of the two major attractors in the field and has been useful in modelling the behavior of chemical reactions (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rössler_attractor ). Dr. Rossler was also the founder of Endophysics, and has made significant contributions in many other areas of science and technology.

  12. Hansel says:

    Endophysics is really an important field. Ca you give me names of serious scietists working in it? Except Rössler and gang? :D

    Houston, you should really learn critical thinking. :D

  13. PassingByAgain says:

    Hansel, I think it’s time to leave poor Rossler alone. He had many chances — on this and other blogs — to discuss his “theories” with actual experts of the field (e.g. TRMG), but clearly that is not what he is really interested in. Now all is left to him is ranting about Nazi CERN, spamming the email accounts of celebrities (the Pope, the King, the Nobelist) and duetting with his two or three remaining fanboys. Trying to argue with him only fuels his delusion that somebody still gives a shit about his rants…

  14. Hansel says:

    You are right.

    Good bye, Otto :D

  15. AnthonyL says:

    Hansel, your scorn for Rossler’s mathematical and verbal astrophysics might be justified, but even assuming it is, you still have to reckon with his intuitive vision that CERN is running an increasingly risky proposition, that its own safety arguments reveal how little it has to offer in guarantees that it is safe, that physicists who work in CERN right up to Brian Greene use a blatantly false argument to reassure the public, as I have shown in an April post at ScienceGuardian.com, and that the truth is no one is very sure what will pop out of this vast jack-in-the-box, so therefore until theoretical thinking on all fronts, not just Rossler’s, advances a great deal, there remains quite a lot of valid theorizing which suggests that the consequences could be very dire, and the safety conference urged by Rossler is urged by others also, and they include people who you would not be able to jeer at, such as Adrian Kent, and Rainer Plaga, not to mention Eric Penrose, and therefore your scorn of Professor Rossler may be a bad mistake, and surely at the least as Houston points out not polite, civil, scientific or productive in any way.

    If you really think that Rossler is a worthless crackpot what motivates your constant derogatory remarks here, which seem to reflect a genuine frustration that he wins respect from others? If he is unworthy of respect from you, why do you bother with tilting against such a windmill?

    It suggests that somewhere in there you have some respect for him, but as what? A threat to CERN? Or is it that you are simply employed by CERN in some way to block his activism?

    The bottom line is this: Are you sure that you have a clear and realistic idea of just how much all modern astrophysical theory may be replaced tomorrow or later by better theory? Of how much is intuitive? My sense is that you don’t.

    You will find that Brian Greene said as I have quoted in the heading to Science Guardian that “tonight all we are saying may be utter nonsense” when he was discussing the topic at NYU.

    You may be simply a naive onlooker who doesn’t understand that most of the ideas we have in this sphere may have to be revised in the future. I hope this is not the case.

  16. Hansel says:

    Anthony, I was simply fascinated by this dimension of loss if reality manifested in Rösslers delusional postings.

    And upset by his comparisons of CERN with nazi-murders — a point that should make everyone here sceptical about his goals. normally ;)

    Thats it. If someone thinks CERN would be in fear of Rösslers “results” he is definitley cheating himself.

    Last point: Current theories will be replaced by advanced models in the future. Thats sure and no scientist will disagree at this point. However, it is sure that Rösslers kind of theory, this ridiculous buzzwordbingo without any kind of clear and precise derivation and quantitative formulations, will never be that theory. Newton, Galileo, Einstein — all of them have expressed their theories in this scientific style and that is the reason why they became accepted. On the other hands the work of crackpots like Rösslers always avoids to become that clear and precise, it is in principle not falsifiable (remember this funny debate in the past on this blog when he changed his defintions of variables every hour).

  17. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Please, dear friends, do no longer respond to anonymous supporters of the illogical stance that checking an undisproved theorem at a safety conference demanded by a Cologne court is way more dangerous than risking the planet if the theorem is correct.

  18. Hansel says:

    It was checked, it was disproved several times, and it is not even a theorem (!)
    was proved more than one time. Rössler, perhaps someone will spend some time again on your stuff when you have learned how to work in a scientific way.

    Good bye, Ottolein :D

  19. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I know you are not a bad guy. Please, give a reason why you refuse to talk to me.

  20. AnthonyL says:

    But Hansel, even if you are persuasive in saying that Rossler may not have dotted his i’s, crossed his t’s, and tightened up all the nuts and bolts in his theorem sufficiently to earn formal publication, and may in fact in your expert editorial assessment still be at the stage of sketching the mere outline of his theorem, perhaps even using a private mathematical symbolism to express his conceptual breakthrough, and may generally in many ways be still working out the details of his penetrating vision which you have to admit has certainly persuaded himself, the author, of the dire emergency we all face if the LHC continues with outside safety review, are you giving enough credit to the intuitive nature of original thinking in physics?

    Surely Einstein before he worked out his mathematical formulations of his new physics for publication (some of it with the help of a colleague who knew more mathematics than he did at the time) was operating on pure intuition as he played with his mind experiments to see how things worked at the limits of speed and distance and how gravity and the speed of light etc might fit together consistently in a scheme which eventually translated into special and then general relativity, a scheme which if viewed in purely Newtonian terms initially looked like crackpotism escaping the leash of known physics and totally unsuitable for publication. You are aware that he got his Nobel prize for something less than relativity, aren’t you? (Brownian motion etc)

    How do you know that Rossler’s intuition is so worthless just because of the above factors? The history of science shows that crackpotism is part and parcel of many great scientists understanding of life (eg Newton and alchemy, not to mention God etc) and intuition is a very important initial method of working out breakthrough advances. Physicists and mathematicians often talk of the way in which they think by telling us that they play mentally with 3d shapes and not mathematical formulae in the first instance.

    In what way is your scorn for Rossler’s arguments and theorem different from the professor who looked at the heavens through the wrong end of Galileo’s telescope and pronounced his description of the moon and its motion arrant rubbish? Metaphorically speaking, at least?

    Is it not incumbent upon you and other conventional physicists here to reach out and try to understand Professor Rossler’s personal notation of his thinking rather than insist it is wrong because it is unconventional? Roger Penrose is a very respected cosmologically inclined physicist at Oxford and he has the most peculiar hieroglyphic notation which he invented and uses without anyone calling him a crackpot.

    Are you looking through the wrong end of Rossler’s telescope? I sincerely hope this is not the case.

  21. Hansel says:

    Anthonly, you have not made a single point. Trying to set Rössler on the same level with scientists only because they are often thinking in a non-mathematical form is somewhat misleading…in the end all great scientist have formulated their ideas in a precise and falsifiable way. All of them. And it is still true that 99% of all crackpotism is simply crap. That Rösslers “work” belongs to this category should be clear after the discussions not only on this blog. His first equation is not in agreement with experimental observations and he was up to now not able to repair this. He delivered only very diffuse definitions contradicting the definitions give the hour before and so on.

    Again: to compare Rössler with Einstein is an insult against Einstein and nearly all other real scientist.

    BTW: Einstein got his nobel for the photoelectric effect, not his work on diffusion.

  22. Hansel says:

    “it is unconventional”

    Rössler is not unconventional, he is self-contradictory and plainly wrong. Thats it.. There is nothing to discuss about Rösslers “theorems” any more.

    It is not the problem of CERn or the scientific community that an old crackpot can not accept this.

  23. AnthonyL says:

    Hansel, you do not read my post properly, but reject it nevertheless. Thus you prove my point. You are making no effect to understand Rossler as anything other than an “old crackpot”, which is your juvenile and insulting phrase.

    My Einstein point was that he got the Nobel for something else other than relativity (it was for the photoelectric effect, sorry) because it was still disputed (and not accepted by a prominent member of the committee). Proved by Eddington in 1919 yet still rejected by this member in 1921.

    Given the triviality of your specific contradiction to Rossler’s theorem as an objection to one line of his explanation which he and his supporters say is just a quarrel with the way he formulated a claim by Einstein with which he and the whole world agrees, why should we pay any more attention to your generalized insults than the Nobel committee member who was so wrong so late in the day?

  24. Hansel says:

    Anthony, I have read probably more of Rössler than you in the last years. I know of more debates like he “debate” on this blog over the last months and all of them are nearly identical. Rössler was asked more than one time to fix up obvious errors in his “equations” and was never able toi do it. Never. Instead he always starts to speculate about psyhcological reasons on the other side disabling anybody to see his genius. And no, it is not only an alternbative way to formulate Einsteins finding in his paper. It is obvious that you are the one who has not read the recent debate carefully. Rössler was not able to connect his equation to Einsteins without contradicting other parts of the ” paper” and so on. He showed some funny pictures without definitions of axes, without being able to define them properly when asked for it .… he could not even answer the question about the connections of his ridiculous and disproved gothic R paper to his recent “findings”. (the gothic R IS disproved as Rössler has never changed anything in the mathematics of the paper — probably because he simply can not do it). To come to an end, the triviality of the error in Rösslers “paper” should make you even more sceptical. Instead it seems you take it as a kind of proof that the persons finding the error must be wrong and Rössler right. All Rössler has to do is to say: it is another formulation and AnthonyL is immediatley satisfied with this explanation. Rössler wrote it so there is not need to think about it, isn’t it?

    In general it is amazing that nealry no one here tries to think at least a little bit sceptical about this. I could add more failings of Rössler, even on this blog, e.g. his failure to explain hawking radiation or to give at least one single argument why recent experiments are not applicable to find evidence for it (while other real experts think so).

    It is true that in history some ideas and theories have to wait a long time to become accepted by the community. But it is also true that nothing must be true only because it is rejected by the community. Not every person claiming to have found a revolutionary result is a new Einstein. When it comes to contradictions like in the Rössler case he is obviously not the revolutionary thinker.

  25. AnthonyL says:

    Fair enough, Hansel, and thanks for not including unkind labels for Professor Rossler of the previous kind. You mistake me in interpreting what I say as some claim that Rossler has the goods on this. I am merely pointing out that he has evaded your objections, by not presenting a stable target, with all i’s dotted and t’s crossed, so you haven’t disproved his conclusions, since they appear to be intuitive. All you have established (until he contradicts it with solid mathematical physics of the order of peer reviewed journal articles) is that he is dealing with his own intuitive perceptions, which may be true. You are welcome to believe they aren’t. Certainly the fact that the physics community ignores them doesn’t prove them right. It may only prove they need to be formulated properly. No one sensible would claim that rejection by the community proves something right, that would be too absurd to mention as a line of reasoning, and I am sorry you ended your post with that straw man.

    You can’t prove that someone’s intuition is wrong unless he expresses it formally and Rossler hasn’t done that as far as I know (you have indeed read more of his writings than I have, and you have followed the quarrel here in more detail than I have, sure). Therefore he has escaped your disproof. Unless you can demonstrate that he has expressed it in clear mathematical physical terms, which you seem to agree he hasn’t.

    Thinking that someone who evades grasping the nettle you offer him is wrong is understandable, and may even be likely, given the behavior seems unlikely on the part of someone who has worked out what he means precisely. But I dont see where Rossler has given you that. He has so far evaded the challenge, hasn’t he?

    This seems the same problem that he has had in my view in presenting his case to editors of English language publications, which I have tried to help him with by editing it to a level that a native English speaker would match. They seem to have rejected it so far, but at least we know it is not because he didn’t tighten those bolts.

    You however are rejecting him with being able to hit the target he offers, and so therefore I maintain that on the intuitive level he may be right, and therefore given that he is not as far as I know a publicly demonstrated case of “old crackpotism”, we have to reserve judgment.

    Especially since other expert leading physicists outside of CERN agree with him that there is danger in the LHC or bigger colliders proceeding without proper review from outside, less enthusiastic heads, and we have to note the other factors I mentioned above which suggest CERN is being highly irresponsible.

    Madmen in their delusions can be right in their feelings, can’t they? Not that I am judging Rossler as insane, but the principle holds, doesn’t it? He may have got his analysis wrong in its formulations and rationale, but he could still be the canary in the black hole, couldn’t he? After all, he has done some interesting things in related fields eg chaos, hasn’t he, which some substantial people take seriously, don’t they, or at least do not reject outright as foolish?

    And let me just say that in running a blog which started with professional science reporting experience of two major paradigms being demonstrably (in peer reviewed articles in journals) wrong I became used to a certain coterie of defenders of the foolish but lucrative faith coming into Comments and arguing about detail and producing what they were sure were valid contradictions on a picayune level which they thought implied that the overall debunking of the paradigm was wrong.

    Eventually when they were laboriously answered they went away, giving up the unequal struggle to show that what they disagreed with on a small level proved that the overall critique was wrong.

    Therefore I have not paid too much attention I agree to the specific point where you feel you have disproved Rossler, but not only for this reason, but also for the reason stated above, that he seems to have evaded your critique by not offering a stationery target.

    As I say this is quite reasonably viewed by you as an implicit admission he is not offering a valid set of propositions and derivations, but I maintain it still does not prove his main conclusion wrong. Only when he does state it properly in chapter and verse can you explode it with a direct hit.

  26. Robert Houston says:

    Hansel wrote, “it is amazing that nearly no one here tries to think at least a little bit sceptical[ly] about this.” So why not direct some skeptical thought to CERN’s safety rationales? Scientific critics who have done so found they were full of holes.

    Hansel also wrote of Rossler’s “failure to explain hawking radiation or…why recent experiments are not applicable to find evidence for it…” Prof. Rossler explained the problems with Hawking radiation in his three main black hole papers of 2007–2009 and gave 4 reasons against its existence. Several other scientists have questioned its existence (e.g., V.A. Belinski, 2008) or its ability to extinguish black holes (Larena and Rothman, 2010).

    Even such a longtime Hawking backer as Canadian physicist William Unruh has admitted that “the derivation by Hawking is nonsense” and that laboratory analogues give only “a clue” — not proof — that Hawking radiation occurs (2007). Recently, Prof. Unruh stated that such “creative simulation obviously doesn’t prove Hawking’s theory” (Physorg, Jan 18, 2011).

    It’s ironic that what gained the most critical attention from the CERN-borgs was Rossler’s first theorem in his Telemach paper, which merely expressed the standard Einstein view that time slows down in the lower part of an accelerating rocket. No one disagreed with that postulate, as TRMG admitted. They nevertheless wasted hundreds of comments trying to critique the form of the formula (Eq. 1). They apparently never learned that, without a stated coefficient, the symbol on the left side of a formula is normally assumed to have an implicit coefficient of 1. (Instead, they misused the equals sign to reverse the sides of the equation, and thus its meaning.) They also failed to grasp that 1 hour downstairs in the rocket is equivalent to more than one hour upstairs because of its longer duration period relative to an hour upstairs. Thus, Rossler was absolutely correct in his theorem and his detractors were merely foolish.

  27. Andrew says:

    Anthony and Houston. I’m totally fine with the position you guys hold that the LHC is too dangerous to operate. I’m even almost OK with you liking Rossler’s work, in general. But re-read this post. If you don’t agree that it is one of the shittiest posts you’ve ever seen, then you need to do some really hard reflection.

  28. AnthonyL says:

    Andrew, are you referring to Prof Rossler’s post above? I assume so. Is it the “shittiest” post ever conceived? I would say it is not. I would judge it as perfectly reasonable. The Nazis murdered a large number of people. According to Rossler’s thinking, CERN risks murdering the entire lot of us, and the planet with it.

    Perhaps it won’t in the end. Perhaps all the theories that it might are wrong. Certainly the people who attack Rossler here seem convinced he is wrong to fear the catastrophic result. But if the risk is there, it is a 7billion/50 million times worse than the Nazi policies to risk it, is it not? (The divider there is the number of lives lost in WWII, by one estimate).

    I really don’t see why you should apply such an extreme adjective to it. Am I missing something?

  29. Hansel says:

    Oh, Houston and his private arithmetics were here. It is funny that he still believes Rösslers equation being correct by appliying foolish mathematics. :D In fact it is Houston who failed up to now to grasp the critique. The joke of the year, ROFL.

    and then he perverted relativity theory by applying again, like Rössler, a kind of absolute time (“equivalent times”) which does not exist.

    Houston, Unruh also stated that the expoeriment was in principle capable to find evidence for hawking radiation. Also even if Hawings derivation was nonsense there is more than Hawkings derivation whcih lead to equivalent effects.

    However, Rössler never adressed Hawking radiation in the paper or the respective formalisms/derivations and so on. He never connects his pseudoscience to the quantum effects. He never was able to explain Hawking radiation, neither on this blog nor in any paper. Not a single reason against the radiation is dealling with the conditions causiong the effect at all.

  30. Andrew says:

    Yes, you’re missing something, Anthony.
    What is the content in his post? A reference to the Nazi’s, some book about Smiles, the Lord, and Steve Jobs… all without any reason. It’s just arbitrary garbage. The first thing that popped into his mind. You don’t think so?

  31. AnthonyL says:

    Andrew, it certainly seems to fit your description, but if so, that may be because we don’t follow the associative leaps that have taken place in the distinguished Professor Rossler’s mind before composing it. Don’t we have to ask him to elucidate before damning it as ca-ca? After he has explained we may well see what he means, surely? The Nazi analogy remains fairly clear, does it not? The sympathetic response to Steve Jobs death in the form of a tribute to what Jobs produced in life which Professor R appreciates makes good sense, does it not? Perhaps you don’t have an iPhone/iPad/iPod/MacBookPro/iBook? Admittedly, there are superior alternatives to the iPod if you care about sound, but that is another story.

    All that is at issue as far as I am concerned is the reference to Renee Fulop-Miller, with whom I am unfamiliar, which is surely the reason the meaning of this sentence is at present beyond my understanding. But far from indulge the kind of scornful dismissal you take refuge in, I am prepared to wait on Professor R’s explanation. Is this not the essence of scientific discourse? Do we not wait for the evidence to be fully exposed before we say that a statement is opaque, foolish, or whatever your unusually scatological adjective means?

    I find in my capacity as openminded researcher in the realm of heresy (an openmindedness born of my long experience with a scientifically fatuous paradigm taking over a multibillion dollar health field for 23 years and counting) that often statements which appear totally deluded are simply phrased in a way which prevents them winning the respect they deserve.

    For example, the private algebra of Robert Houston as you rather impolitely phrased it actually makes perfectly good sense if correctly interpreted.

    Houston appeared to contradict elementary algebra when he stated that if Tdown=Tup (1 + z) then Tup was a larger number than Tdown.

    Algebraically this would indeed be a reversal of the meaning of one of the simplest equations of all. Tdown = Tup (n) means that Td is bigger than Tu.

    But Houston’s interpretation is not incorrect, as it happens, except insofar as this equation is possibly not the best way to express what he and it seems Professor Rossler means.

    The equation in their minds (or Houston’s anyway) refers to the fact that the time experienced downstairs is “slower” than the time upstairs, ie the hours pass more slowly and therefore the astronauts experience a shorter time passing downstairs in the same time — their 1 hour downstairs, say — that the astronauts upstairs experience a longer time −3 hours — upstairs. So Tdown is clocked downstairs at 1 hour when Tup is clocked upstairs at 3 hour.

    So when Tdown =1, Tup =3. So Tdown=Tup / 3. The upstairs clock runs 3 hours when the downstairs clock runs 1 hour.

    That’s how Tdown =Tup /3 ie T down is smaller than Tup makes sense.

    Houston thinks of T = number of units, so Tdown is fewer bigger units of longer time passing for the downstairs astronauts (1 hour) in the same time as more units of shorter time pass upstairs (3 hours). The Tdown unit is longer, bigger, the Tup is shorter.

    So the equation Tdown=Tup (n) makes sense, as an expression of the relation between T down units and Tup units. The former are bigger. Tdown is bigger than Tup if you are talking about the size of the units of time measured by each clock.

    If you are talking about the apparent time elapsed as measured by each clock, it is the wrong equation, however. In that case Tdown is less than Tup. In our example Tdown is 1 and Tup is 3.

    Houston was right if you go by his definition of Tdown and Tup as units of time rather than total time.

    Whether this is admissible in the context is another question. I am just pointing out that his private arithmetic wasn’t so private.

  32. Robert Houston says:

    The special feature of my “private arithmetic” is that it includes the number 1. That’s the simplest concept in math, yet it was avoided like the plague by the CERN-borgs through nearly 1000 angry comments seeking to trash Dr. Rossler’s first formula in his Telemach paper. Ironically, that formula merely expressed the established Einstein principle that time slows down in the lower part (or tail) of an accelerating rocket. If they will not recognize the implicit “1” to which the symbol on the left side of a formula is normally set, then make it explicit:

    1T_tail = 1T_tip * (1+z)

    Thus, if the units of T are hours and z (the local gravitational redshift factor) is .5, then the formula shows that the elapse of 1 hour on the clock in the rocket’s tail would be matched by the display of 1.5 hours on the clock up in the rocket’s tip, when their read-outs are compared (as over the intercom).

    The difference is due to the longer duration of the hour downstairs relative to an hour upstairs. (There’s no need to refer to “absolute time,” and I didn’t mention it.) Note that “T_tail” and “T_tip” are different symbols, referring to units of time having different durations, as indicated by the adjustment factor (1+z). Read correctly, Rossler’s formula precisely represents the slow-down of time lower in the rocket in accordance with the gravitational redshift factor.

    Hansel wrote that “Unruh also stated that the experiment was in principle capable to find evidence for hawking radiation.” What experiment? Regarding the Milan experiment involving laser pulses in glass, which has been discussed on Lifeboat, what Prof. Unruh actually said was that “I still need to be convinced that what they are seeing is the analogue of what Hawking found for black holes.” He also pointed out a major discrepancy in the experimental results (Scientific American, Oct. 1, 2010).

    Even after I corrected him with references, Hansel keeps repeating his fib that “Rossler never addressed Hawking radiation in the paper…nor in any paper. Not a single reason against the radiation…” In actuality, Hawking radiation was discussed in all three of Dr. Rossler’s major black hole papers from 2007–2009; his Gothic-R paper, for example, gave four reasons against it (p. 11). It was not discussed in his 2011 Telemach paper, which focused on Einstein, not Hawking.

  33. AnthonyL says:

    “The special feature of my “private arithmetic” is that it includes the number 1.” — Robert Houston

    Robert, do you imagine that 1T_tail = 1T_tip * (1+z) is a different equation from T_tail = T_tip * (1+z)?

    If so, what would that difference be?

  34. Robert Houston says:

    Anthony, it’s the same formula but makes explicit the standard protocol for formulas, which none of the CERN gang appeared to know. According to a major textbook by two Ph.D. mathematicians, both professors: “In a formula..the symbol for the expressed quantity is on the left side with its coefficient…set to unity,” i.e., 1 (Kruglak and Moore, p. 118).

    That simple 1 indicates it’s 1 unit (e.g., 1 hour) and prevents such absurdities as switching the right and left numbers, as TRMG misled his gang to do, so as to reverse the meaning of Dr. Rossler’s theorem.

  35. Hansel says:

    HGouston, it was shown before that your math ws crap. Rösslers equation is simply wrong and not in agreement with Einsteins original equation. Adding the number one to one or both sides changes nothing.

    Learn math, stupid.

  36. Hansel says:

    And Houston, Hawking radiation was not discussed in any Rössler paper. To mention the term alone is not a discussion. Or cajn you give us the reference where Rössler is using quantum mechanical arguments?

    But after seeing your kind of math I am not surprised by the fact the the mentioning of a term is already a detailed discussion in your thinking.

  37. Hansel says:

    BTW, it makes no sense to talk about it before Rössler has not defined the dimension of the Ts. seconds or something else?

    This was asked several times without any satisfying answer. Rössler really is a great scientist.

  38. Robert Houston says:

    Yes, Rossler really is a great scientist, one who can see through the Swiss cheese that CERN dishes out as safety rationales.

    Prof. Rossler repeatedly defined the dimension of T as units of time (seconds, hours, etc.) and noted that a unit also has a duration (or period). While there can be several ways of writing an equation for the same postulate, Rossler’s 1st formula of his Telemach paper clearly represented the standard Einstein view that time slows down in the tail of an accelerating rocket.

    Hansel wrote, “Adding the number one to one or both sides changes nothing.” It prevents the number on the left from being converted to “2” — or whatever may be the product on the right side — as the CERN goofs insisted on doing. Thus, the 1 before “T_tail” blocks a reversal of the meaning and keeps its unit count lower than the right side product of T_tip * (1+z). Of courses, the standard protocol is that a coefficient of 1 is implicit for the symbol on the left side of a formula — a point was ignored or called “crap” by uninformed knaves like Hansel, even after it was confirmed by math professors.

    Hansel thinks that repeating a falsehood will make it so. He claimed that “Rossler never addressed Hawking radiation…in any paper” and that Rossler gave “not a single reason against the radistion…” As I have documented, Rossler in fact addressed Hawking radiation multiple times in each of his three major black hole papers from 2007–2009 and gave four reasons against it.

  39. AnthonyL says:

    “According to a major textbook by two Ph.D. mathematicians, both professors: “In a formula..the symbol for the expressed quantity is on the left side with its coefficient…set to unity,” i.e., 1 (Kruglak and Moore, p. 118).

    That simple 1 indicates it’s 1 unit (e.g., 1 hour) and prevents such absurdities as switching the right and left numbers, as TRMG misled his gang to do, so as to reverse the meaning of Dr. Rossler’s theorem.” — Robert Houston

    Robert, the eminent scholars from whom you quote were simply stating that the term on the left of a formula’s equation is equal to one of the thing being defined by the formula, whatever that thing is. This is simply true by definition, is it not? If I say a widget’s value is defined as w=x/y where w is a widget, it is always 1 widget or 1 w which is being defined by the formula as x/y.

    Or do you have a different conception of the meaning of a mathematical formula?

    In the case of the dispute between the Commenters here and Professor Rossler, in which you supported Rossler, their complaint was that his equation inverted the correct formula. ie Rossler had A=BxC even though A was greater than B, which is mathematically inconsistent.

    You appear to be stating that Rossler was right, because he wasn’t referring to the total time elapse apparent in each case, down and up, but to the size of the units of time each clock was counting.

    In other words, not 1 hour down, 1 1/2 hours up. But 1 longer unit of time down versus 1 shorter unit of time unit up. If you have longer units of time downstairs you will clock a shorter time — say 1 hour — in the same time period counted by the upstairs clock, say 1 1/2 hours.

    The unit of time downstairs is longer than the unit of time upstairs, so the elapsed time on the downstairs clock is shorter than the elapsed time on the upstairs clock.

    Your statements above therefore are not the proper explanation for the difference in views, therefore. What you appear to mean is that the formula is for the relation between the units of time, and not for the different elapsed times.

    Your resort to the quotation from the textbook apparently reflects this point by seeing it as a formula which expressed one unit of anything in terms of some other values.

    But the equation could in fact be a formula which referred to a relationship between the hours elapsed just as easily as being a formula for the relationship between the units down and up.

    Thus the CERN critics were correct if the equation referred to the relationship between the times that elapsed on each clock, saying it was wrong, and you were correct in justifying the equation if it was a formula for the relationship between the units of time in each place ie upstairs and downstairs in the rocket.

    But I believe that the CERN critics were correct and the equation referred to the relationship between the times that elapsed ie the hours measured by the downstairs clock T1 and the time elapsed on the upstairs clock T2.

    In this case T2 was bigger than T1 and therefore the equation (or formula, which is the same thing here) T1=T2 (z) must by definition be wrong.

    It was not an equation or formula for the relationship between the units of time on either place, but for the hours elapsed.

    Is this not so?

  40. AnthonyL says:

    Gawd… Darn thing needs a correction sorry

    It should of course be “ie Rossler had A=B/C” etc

    The bottom line remains that in any mathematical equation, A=B/C B must be greater than A.

    If B is smaller than A, it should be written A=B*C.

  41. Hansel says:

    Houston, mentioning hawking radiation by giving irrelevant reasons against it, to be precise, reasons that are not adressing the specific nature of the hawking effect, is not an argument against the radiation, it is NO argument.

    Rösslers argument in the gothic R-paper, his “special”, physical nonsencical private metric was disproved long ago, by experts like Nicolai or the user “ICH”.

    Your private math is the joke of the year. If T has the dimension of time, measured in seconds, then the equation is wrong. if it is something different, then it has a different dimension.

    BTW, in the second equation Rössler uses the same Ts in the equation c=L/T — here the T is unequivocally a second. So the second equation is not in agreement with the first if the T is something different than a time measured in seconds. Rössler was therefore oscillating between different diffuse definitions of the T, not able to connect his own defintions to the equation given by Einstein.

    This is not science, this is pure crap.

  42. AnthonyL says:

    “Your private math is the joke of the year. If T has the dimension of time, measured in seconds, then the equation is wrong. if it is something different, then it has a different dimension.” — Hansel

    Houston’s T (and Rossler’s I assume) refers to the number of hours elapsed in a period measured as Td downstairs in the rocket and Tu upstairs in the rocket.

    Since Tu > Td, the correct equation has to have the form Tu=Td*z (or Td=Td/z), and not Td=Tu*z (or Tu=Td/z).

    I believe Houston has the equation as Td=Td*z and explains that this is correct by claiming it refers to the units of time which the clocks are counting, which are “longer” downstairs. In that case the terms would be reversed in the equation and Td=Tu*z would be true.

    But I believe that Rossler and y’all were referring to the time elapsed on each clock. Not the length of the units of time ticked off by the clocks. So this escape from the chorus of criticism is not true.

    Thus I believe that therefore Houston’s arithmetic is not the joke of the year, but simply a revision of the meaning of the terms, as I hope you will agree.

  43. Robert Houston says:

    Hansel’s barn-burning attacks are easy to understand, for there’s nothing simpler than nihilism, but Anthony’s careful reasoning is more difficult to grasp. In the previous comment, he set up a series of premises that seemed perfectly correct and then came a negative conclusion which did not seem to follow. In his last comment, the nub of the problem seems to be a difference in definitions. He wrote:

    “Houston’s T (and Rossler’s I assume) refers to the number of hours elapsed in a period measured as Td downstairs in the rocket and Tu upstairs… Since Tu > Td, the correct equation has to have the form Tu = Td * z …”

    That appears to be a misunderstanding. There is no T per se in the formula. Tu and Td (apparently short for T_tail and T_tip) do not refer to a period and are not the total “number of hours elapsed in a period” but merely the individual hour (or unit of time). They are different symbols for they represent units of time that have different relative durations, due to time dilation.

    Anthony also wrote, “I believe Houston has the equation as Td=Td*z…” That must be a typo; it should read: Td=Tu*z. Anthony then states my view that “it refers to the units of time which the clocks are counting, which are ‘longer’ downstairs. In that case…Td=Tu*z would be true.” Having reached this epiphany of truth, he then rejects it by mixing up the definitions again.

    Regarding Hawking radiation, Hansel commented that Rossler’s “reasons against it…are not addressing the specific nature of the Hawking effect.” But Rossler’s papers did in fact address the most significant effect, namely “black hole evaporation.” Even Hawking’s supporters admit that “elements of the original derivation [by Hawking] of black hole radiance rely on assumptions that are apparently not valid” (Giddings and Mangano, CERN report, p. 3).

  44. AnthonyL says:

    “Anthony also wrote, “I believe Houston has the equation as Td=Td*z…” That must be a typo; it should read: Td=Tu*z. Anthony then states my view that “it refers to the units of time which the clocks are counting, which are ‘longer’ downstairs. In that case…Td=Tu*z would be true.” Having reached this epiphany of truth, he then rejects it by mixing up the definitions again.”

    “I believe Houston has the equation as Td=Td*z” should read “Td=Tu*z” yes, as stated later in the paragraph above, obviously, sorry.

    “Having reached this epiphany of truth, he then rejects it by mixing up the definitions again.”

    You will have to explain this. My statement was not an epiphany of truth, as you put it rather sarcastically, it seems to me, somewhat descending from the civil neutrality of your usual mode in Comments here, merely my helpful attempt to make sense of what you stated, rather than allow it to be ridiculed as a “joke”.

    However, all you say is that I “mixed up the definitions again.”

    But in fact I wrote “But I believe that Rossler and y’all ((meaning Hansel etc)) were referring to the time elapsed on each clock. Not the length of the units of time ticked off by the clocks. So this escape from the chorus of criticism is not true.”

    This is a statement that you have defined the terms of the equation incorrectly.

    If you feel you defined them correctly, Td as the time elapsed downstairs compared with the (longer) time elapsed upstairs Tu, you cannot say that Td=Tu*z. since that would mean that Td is larger than Tu. The opposite is true. Td is smaller than Tu. Less time has elapsed downstairs — say 1 hour — according to its clock compared with the time elapsed on the clock upstairs — say 1 1/2 hours

    I is less than 1 1/2. Td is less than Tu.

    Td therefore cannot equal Ty*z.

    Only if you say the terms in the equations refer to the units of time in either place, and say the units are longer downstairs, can you say Td=Tu*z.

    This is simple arithmetic, Robert, not even algebra. 6=3×2 means 6 is greater than 3 by twice as much.

    Are you not going to take the escape route I have offered you as I stand by the open door, and the noise of the galloping CERN defense squad can be heard louder and louder round the corner?

  45. Hansel says:

    Houston, exactly, Rössler says black holes do not evaporate — and that is it. He is in fact NOT adressing Hawking radiation. To do so he would have to deal with the quantum mechanical arguments leading to it, with the present understanding of the issue and so on.Nothing like that can be found in any paper. You cannot even find a proper understanding of relativity in his papers.

    Giddings and Mangano wrote only this about Hawking on p3? Can you cite it completely, propagandist? Have you realized that they are talking about the original derivation?

    And again, you have not even understood the meaning of an equation. To defend this affter Anthony has shown your mistakes is really the joke of the year.

  46. Systematic disinformation from Germany. Please, do not pay attention to it, my friends. These anonymous posters are paid by the enemy of the planet.

    (Of course am I stupid. Maybe the stupidest scientist who ever lived. But even a half-lind man stumbling over a bomb can save everyone.)

  47. Hansel says:

    Ah, the people who find simple errors in your “results” are the enemies of the planet. Very scientific.

    This is again an example how Rössler reacts when he is disproved. He usually calls the other side Nazis, enemies. psychological deficient and so on. I have seen this often in the last decades in many other circumstances.

    So, Rössler, what kind of scientist are you when you think that insultations are a good substitution for giving proper definitions of variables?

  48. Hansel says:

    “Have you realized that they are talking about the original derivation?”

    correction:
    …that they are not only talking about the original derivation…

  49. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Propaganda is evil. Give a proof if you can or shut up.

  50. Hansel says:

    Rössler, alone on this blog you have reacted with defamations several times, calling the other side psychological ill, Nazis or something similar.

    One piece of proof for the last decades: PUT.

    If there is one person who should shut up and apologize then this person is you, Rössler. No one else.

  51. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Hansel:
    You pretend to believe that warning someone that he makes a deadlky mistake was name-calling.
    If these people had any honor, they would sue me. But as you see they don’t.
    Are you so naive as you pretend to be?
    Then please tell the world your age.
    Take care,
    Otto

    s
    to othde

  52. Hansel says:

    You really think they are aware of your ridicuolous games on some blogs?
    Are you living in another universe? :D And by the way, do you really think they would give you the desired stage in front of a court? :D

    However, you have to apologize, bloody crackpot. ;)

  53. Robert Houston says:

    What hypocrisy! Hansel has behaved like a drunken scoundrel out of control. He spews hate and verbal abuse, with insults or profanity in nearly every comment. Yet now he asks for apology from the remarkably polite Professor Rossler on whom he has inflicted such constant calumny. From his behavior at Lifeboat, it would appear that Hansel is a sociopath who lacks any ethical dimension or concern. Hopefully, such a depraved individual does not represent the moral state of the personnel of CERN or its supporters in general.

    And No, I will not apologize to the nasty little devil, nor should Rossler.

  54. EQ says:

    Houston, Rössler appears only polite for totally blinded persons. To overlook his accusations and comparisons of scientists with murderers, Nazis and so on is really revealing the high ethical standard of Rössler.

    Instead of delivering proper scientific arguments Rössler behaves like this — and it says much about your own ethical standards that you overlook this…

  55. Otto E. Rossler says:

    It is very strange — as Hansel lays lays his finger on — that I am allowed by the world public and by the world press and all courts and all police stations and all non-anonymous people to call everyone who cannot provide a counterproof but does not care, an accomplice of CERN’s responsible leader, Mr. Heuer, who is “worse than Hitler” in what he is doing as long as the named condition persists.

    So Hansel is right that unless he can show at long last that he is the planet-wide sought-for demolisher of Telemachus, he too is “worse than a Nazi” by implication. Being anonymous, his temptation to sue me will be infinitely lower than Professor Heuer’s. But that the latter does not do so proves to the world that he accepts that epithet. Which fact makes me very sad since I like his many good qualities including his Swabian accent. His refusal to talk to me was a very sad error of his which entails all those other terrible consequences. For he seems to be more caring in his heart if given the opportunity than all the others burdened with less responsibility.

    But if he sued, suddenly the many cowardly silent scientists would have an excuse to no longer hide their faces but come to the rescue of poor Mr. Heuer. Which is all I ever wanted: to at last be falsified with my terrifying results. And if this heavenly condition comes about, I promise I will from the bottom of my heart ask everyone’s forgiving for my having called him “conditionally” worse than a Nazi since I wish no one ever to be or behave like a Nazi again.

  56. Pinky, the scientist says:

    Let’s sum up the net result of all the efforts of Mr. Rössler lasting for years (including those “shaking up” and scandalous Nazi-comparisons):

    He is writing entries on a more or less daily basis on one blog. Some entries show zero comments. Others have a tiny community of “fans” (for different reasons). In total no more than four or five. Maybe some more silent readers. (Please note: out of billions people on this planet.)

    One or two guys write in support of Mr. Rössler, no matter if he is quoting the currently official catholic pope or writing cringing “letters” to politicians. Rösslers main “finding” is, that CERN and many scientists are equivalent to “mass murderers” and that there is no revolt against a curfew by the whole world press. He is the only human being doing such a heartbreaking warning.

    AND NOW LISTEN TO MR. RÖSSLER (october 24th):
    “It is very strange … that I am allowed by the world public and by the world press and all courts and all police stations and all non-anonymous people to call …”

    Errrr. Reality check:

    1.) Indeed Mr. Rössler seem to have a “fool’s license”.
    AND
    2.) He freely can disseminate nonsense and weird accusations.
    BUT
    3.) Practically NO ONE CARES (anymore). “The world” gives a shit!

    Another big contradiction is the fact that Mr. Rössler only “wants” to have a “tiny safety conference”. Why? Does he think the people he is attacking would be prepared to arrange a “fair dialogue” with him? What can convince those monstrous and evil scientists as the situation is deadlocked? Why there should be a useful “safety conference” if there is such a big conspiracy as Rössler is arguing? Nothing makes any sense.

    Conclusion: Rössler has lost the battle. His behavior did sabotage the infamous “LHC-resistance” itself. Problem solved. Hooray!

    Head-shaking, headbanging,
    Pinky

  57. Peter Howell says:

    Worse than Hitler? Really?

    Dead lifeboat Board members: any views on this kind of ‘scientific’ debate?

  58. Peter Howell says:

    Should read ‘Dear’ Not ‘Dead’.…

  59. Robert Houston says:

    Dr. Howell: Dr. Heuer and the CERN leadership are undoubtedly motivated by good intentions to advance science but the risk they are willing to impose on everyone could have unintended consequences vastly “worse than Hitler” — 7 billion lives lost.

    Pinky: Does this mean that you’re cancelling the Conference with Dr. Rossler, which was arranged by you and your fellow murine scientist The Brain, and was also to include your feline and avian colleagues Sylvester and Tweety?

    It may be true that nothing “can convince those monstrous and evil scientists” of CERN„ however well-intentioned, to give due consideration to assuring the safety of potential black holes and strangelets before risking the planet for their own selfish career goals. Dr. Rossler may be hoping that their antagonism would motivate them adequately to invalidate his Telemach theorem before moving ahead so irresponsibly.

    Ultimately, an independent, multi-disciplinary review panel under international auspices is really needed for this and other giant collider projects, as was urged by physicist and Nobelist Prof. Colegero. Such a panel should deal with the wide gaps that a number of scientists have found in CERN’s safety rationales for the LHC. These go beyond Telemachus and are reviewed in an extensive 2010 report, “Critical Revision of LHC Risks”: http://lhc-concern.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/critical-…ed-int.pdf .

    Here’s a link to the first 50 comments.
    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/tubingen-held-two-nazi-diss…ent-page-1

    On Oct. 18, Anthony wrote regarding Dr. Rossler’s first Telemach formula: “Only if you say the terms in the equations refer to the units of time in either place, and say the units are longer downstairs, can you say Td=Tu*z..” That’s exactly what I’ve been contending, but thanks for phrasing it so clearly. (Of course, the adjustment factor is not z but 1+z.).
    Units of time, such as hours, are inseparable from their durations, just as sticks are inseparable from their length. In a slowdown, the number of units such as hours is lower but the duration of the units is longer relative to a faster clock.

  60. TRMG says:

    Houston wrote: “That’s exactly what I’ve been contending, […]

    In a slowdown, the number of units such as hours is lower but the duration of the units is longer relative to a faster clock.”

    Houston, if you ever get to realize why this is miserable nonsense, you will proudly possess more knowledge of physics than your crackpot mentor ever did.

    Here’s a hint of the rather fundamental problem with your opinion. The physical quantity time t, i.e. the very same entity that relativity predicts to be dilated, is obtained by the number of units, say N, *times* the duration of one of these units, say T, viz

    t = N*T.

    If the number N changed inversely proprtional to the duration of the unit, as you and Rössler maintain by means of Eq. (1), then the physical quantity would remain unchanged. In other words,

    t_tip = t_tail.

    This is why you keep hearing about absolute time being implied by Rössler’s assertions, which are thus at variance with the theory of relativity.

    Actually it’s even worse. The belief, at least tacitly held by Rössler, that any physical theory would be concerned with predicting units of measurement, which are entirely conventional and chosen for convenience, instead of predicting relations between physical quantities reveals a degree of scientific illiteracy that is an embarrassment to a Professor of Chemistry.

  61. Otto E. Rossler says:

    It is very interesting to see the total confusion of thinking in a person obviously versant in the more arcane secrets of the trade.

    In the middle ages, such tragedies occurred as well, but not at the expense of others’ lives being threatened thereby. Or the whole planet.

    These people refuse a personal discussion but then tell the world EX CATHEDRA (if anonymously for good reasons) their pity-generating interpretations of what they believe I said. Clairvoyance at its worst from a masked mouth. Hansel is better.

  62. AnthonyL says:

    “One or two guys write in support of Mr. Rössler, no matter if he is quoting the currently official catholic pope or writing cringing “letters” to politicians. Rösslers main “finding” is, that CERN and many scientists are equivalent to “mass murderers” and that there is no revolt against a curfew by the whole world press. He is the only human being doing such a heartbreaking warning.” — Pinky the (cheesecake) Scientist

    This not quite true. Rainer Plaga, Adrian Kent, Eric Penrose are among a handful of others who warn that the LHC is out of public control, and that astrophysical theory is not authoritatively reassuring, and in fact, some of it points to potential disaster.

    The relevant principle is actually rooted in human nature. All humans make mistakes, and knowledge is incomplete about the past the present and in this case especially the future — we really seem to know nothing predictable about the LHC escalation.

    What’s also relevant is that a handful of people here think Rossler is worth putting down with severe criticism such as crackpot etc. But if he is a crackpot, why the great interest in replying to him? Perhaps you find him irritating, like a buzzing fly at a picnic? He seems like an alert fly to have evaded your swatter so far. And by the way, are the warnings of crackpots not sometimes useful? I think I have asked this before. But as Keynes once said, the highest affairs of important men are often ruled by lunatic scribblers hiding in attics. And are not madmen traditionally respected as potential seers? Is it not at the very least worrying that a fairly cogent crackpot (if that is what the respected Professor from Tubingen is) is seriously worried about the potential of this vast toy y’all have built near Geneva? Especially since you take him seriously enough to try and end his alerts?

    Robert, I merely pointed out that if an equation tells us that Td is larger than Tu, then if Td is less than Tu, the equation is wrong. If you are saying that Td is time elapsed on the downstairs clock, then Td is indeed less than Tu, and the equation is wrong. This is because Td=Tu*x means that Td is larger than Tu. So Td=Tu*x is wrong.

    I was merely giving you an out, since you stated that the units of time downstairs were longer than the units of time upstairs, so you could change the meaning of the terms in the equation, and say they referred to the length of the units of time. If this was the case Td=Tu*x would be correct.

    However I don’t believe that “longer units of time” would be a true statement in the physics of relativity, ie that the units downstairs are longer in duration and that is why the clock downstairs clocks fewer of them. Is that the way relativity works? I don’t know, but it seems wrong. Anyhow wrong or not it would make the form of the equation Td=Tu*x correct, because that is what the equation means — that Td is a bigger quantity than Tu.

    Seems that TRMG is coming to our assistance here.

    “The physical quantity time t, i.e. the very same entity that relativity predicts to be dilated, is obtained by the number of units, say N, *times* the duration of one of these units, say T, viz t = N*T. If the number N changed inversely proprtional to the duration of the unit, as you and Rössler maintain by means of Eq. (1), then the physical quantity would remain unchanged. In other words, t_tip = t_tail.” — TRMG

    It is hard to see that this makes any sense at all. Does your Rossler Eq 1 state that Tu=Td? I thought the form was Td=Tu*(1+z). That’s why I was saying it was incorrect if Td was smaller than Tu, which if it refers to the time clocked, it is.

    Since it is impossible to find the original equation in this Lifeboat mess where all previous comments vanish in chunks of fifty, and Professor Rossler has posted a score of posts without proper topic titles, or at least not ones which describe the issues dealt with in the comments, perhaps you can say where and what Eq 1 is, and why, and whether TRMG’s comment is correct.

    The distinguished professor of theoretical physics and chemistry from Berlin, Max Planck, SUNY-Buffalo, Tubingen, Guelph, UC Los Alamos, Virginia, Denmark, and Santa Fe appears to be unwilling to sort it out, possibly owing to the rather disrespectful appellations launched by the CERN mice here.

  63. TRMG says:

    Anthony, I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

    ““The physical quantity time t, i.e. the very same entity that relativity predicts to be dilated, is obtained by the number of units, say N, *times* the duration of one of these units, say T, viz t = N*T. If the number N changed inversely proprtional to the duration of the unit, as you and Rössler maintain by means of Eq. (1), then the physical quantity would remain unchanged. In other words, t_tip = t_tail.” – TRMG

    It is hard to see that this makes any sense at all. Does your Rossler Eq 1 state that Tu=Td? I thought the form was Td=Tu*(1+z). ”

    I used capital T’s and lower-case t’s to refer to different things. T is the variable appearing in Rossler’s Eq. (1), for which Td=Tu*(1+z) holds and which he and Houston claimed to denote the local duration of one unit of time. t is the total local time passed, ie. t=N*T, where N is the number of units counted by the clock. This product N*T is the definition of the physical quantity time. (Maybe I shouldn’t have used capital T to refer to the units of time, but it’s the identifier Rössler used and I didn’t want to add to the confusion by introducing one further variable.) How t_up = t_tail, follows from Rössler’s ideas is again explained below.

    Anthony wrote: “However I don’t believe that “longer units of time” would be a true statement in the physics of relativity, ie that the units downstairs are longer in duration and that is why the clock downstairs clocks fewer of them. Is that the way relativity works? ”

    No, it is not. In fact that’s not how anything would work in physics. So you are quite right in not believing this to be a true statement. The variables in physical laws always represent physical quantities, never units of measurement. The reason why the downstairs clock counts fewer units of time is not that these units are longer there, but that it is located at a position where less time has passed. Both statements could not be more different in meaning, but Rössler is pesistently confusing them. The latter statement about passed time is completely independent of the units in which you chose to express t numerically. You can use whatever units you like for any of the local times—e.g. seconds for the upper clock and the time between two of Galileo’s heartbeats for the lower one, in which case there is no simple algebraic relation between both of them and the gravitational potential. Yet this doesn’t affect the relation between the physical quantities t_up, t_down, of which the one referring to the lower time is always less.

    Here is how this works in detail: Relativity predicts the respective local proper times to be related by

    t_down = t_up/(1+z).

    This clearly states that the local time downstairs is less than the local time upstairs (between to pairs of simultaneous events). This is explained and summarized in Eq. (30a) of Einstein’s “Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen” [1] (where z = Phi/c²). There is no mention of units of time in this equation at all, but only of local times (“Ortszeit”).

    How can you determine whether this equation is true? You can set up two identical (!) clocks at different positions, that count units of equal length of time and compare the numbers, say N_down and N_up. What you get is

    N_down = N_up/(1+z),

    which looks like the previous equation except that it refers to numbers of time units, not to time itself. But since the clocks count units of equal length of their respective proper time, which fact we know from their being identical in every relevant physical aspect, you can obtain the passed local time from the measured number of units by multiplying with the duration of one unit u, i.e.

    t_down = N_down*u = (N_up*u)/(1+z) = t_up/(1+z),

    corroborating the prediction of relativity as expressed in the first equation.

    This is plain and simple so far. Now Rössler’s confusion gives rise to complicate matters significantly. He is completely ignorant about the first equation, which is fundamental; but he readily (and rightly) accepts the second one, that refers to numbers of time units, as an experimental fact. He then tries to explain this phenomenon by means of his Eq. (1), T_down = T_up*(1+z), which is purely his invention, but which he mistakes to be identical, if not formally, at least in essence, to Eq. (30a) of [1]. But his Eq. (1) not only is not identical, but in clear contradiction to Eq.(30a) if you accept the experimentally verified relation between the N’s, because it leads to t_up = t_down, via

    t_down = N_down*T_down = [N_up/(1+z)] *[T_up*(1+z)] = N_up*T_up = t_up.

    in disagreement with the first equation I wrote above. I hope you can follow these steps and see the pattern here: Rössler’s equation (1) is the only one that doesn’t fit.

    _________
    [1] wikilivres.info/wiki/%C3%9Cber_das_Relativit%C3%A4tsprinzip_und_die_aus_demselben_gezogenen_Folgerungen/V

  64. TRMG says:

    “How t_up = t_tail, follows from Rössler’s ideas is again explained below”

    Should read “t_tip = t_tail” or “t_up = t_down.”

  65. eq says:

    Thanks for again demonstrating the confusion in the pseudoscience of Otto E. Rössler.

    This clear proof that Telemach is wrong already in the first simple equation will be ignored by Otto,. of course.

  66. AnthonyL says:

    This is rather a magnificent exposition, TRMG, which I will study carefully. I must admit that the relativity of time all seems more like Alice In Wonderland than reliable kitchen sink physics, but as we all know it works out in predictions, allegedly, or is it just in interpretation of phenomena? I am not even sure I know what time is any more, except that my experience of time’s flow is that it speeds up as one grows older, for some reason. I believe this has been established in a scientific study –that the subjective experience is generally that. What is the objective meaning of time, though? Very hard to say, at my stage of understanding. It seems to be totally abstract yet applies to concrete things. Clocks may go faster in a different place from where they go slower. From anyone less than Einstein this would have been dismissed as crackpot, would it not? I mean, what if Professor Rossler of Berlin, Max Planck, SUNY-Buffalo, Tubingen, Guelph, UC Los Alamos, Virginia, Denmark, and Santa Fe had come up with this? Would he have been laughed out of court? But he would have been as right as Einstein, surely.

    If time speeds up or slows down according to the parameter of place, where is it infinitely fast, and where is it entirely frozen? I hope that my careful examination of your post above will reveal this.

  67. TRMG tries to be consistent but cannot think. Still this is something no one can be held responsible for. We all are stupid apes as you know. My own inabilities are such that I am asking the whole world for help. So I am in this sense the stupidest person of history for my needing so much assistance.

    But this desperate try by a member of Nicolai’s group who dares not show his face is really a tragedy. He cannot understand — and takes the whole world of science hostage with this — that two watches placed side by side (or otherwise connected by back-and-forth light signals which is the case in question, but let us stick to the two standing side by side) do what they do.

    TRMG’s claims are — to the best of my capabilities — not up to describing the two adjacent clocks.

    I and everyone else would be grateful if he could repeat his claims in the face of this simple situation.

  68. eq says:

    Again you are not able to answer the clear proof of your confused nonsense.

    TRMG is of couorse describing the two clocks and he made a very clear point why your “equation” and thinking is not appropriate.

    You should go back to school and learn how to do science.

  69. eq says:

    Rössler, dont forget: answering with personal insults like “cannot think” without any demonstration why this should be the case you are not acting scientific. You are acting like a old crackpot who does not want to be disproved.

  70. eq says:

    I should add that in Rösslers answer there is not a single counterargument against TRMGs clear proof of Rösslers stuff being nonsense.

  71. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear TRMG: The phrase “because it leads to t_up = t_down” is false.

    Your answer to Anthony’s deep question
    “If time speeds up or slows down according to the parameter of place, where is it infinitely fast, and where is it entirely frozen?“
    will help.

  72. eq says:

    You have to show that it is false.

    TRMG has derived his result. Will you show us why his result is wrong? Or will you again avoid any clear answer?

    No, the question is meaningless.

  73. eq says:

    As I have predicted, when it comes to proving the statements Rössler strangely leaves the “discussion”.

    What a great scientist! How funny a safety conference must be if he would act in the same way there. :D

  74. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Everyone is waiting for TRGM’s response.

  75. eq says:

    He is waiting for your response. So far there is nothing with the same level of scientific argumentation.

    He has shown that you are wrong. From your side there is only the usual statement that he was wrong together with the personal insulting statement that he was not able to think.

    You have to show his error. Up to now you have not done so.

    You have to deliver. No one lese.

  76. Otto E. Rossler says:

    He can’t deliver you are saying in his name. Sorry for the readers of this blog.

  77. TRMG says:

    Rössler, stop trolling. There was a trivial proof immediately after the proposition whose falsity you proclaim.

    “t_down = N_down*T_down = [N_up/(1+z)]*[T_up*(1+z)] = N_up*T_up = t_up”

    If you don’t believe that, you have to reject one of these equalities. Which is it?

  78. Hansel says:

    Yes, the world is waiting, Rössler? What is wrong in TRMGs proof?

    Perhaps all derivations proving you wrong are false by definition? :D

  79. Otto E. Rossler says:

    “t_down = N_down*T_down = [N_up/(1+z)]*[T_up*(1+z)] = N_up*T_up = t_up”

    Is this what the Max-Planck-Institute for Gravitation Physics is proclaiming instead of Telemach?

  80. TRMG says:

    Given that Eq. (1) of Telemach was featured prominently in the second equation, your question is, well, rather stupid (in, BTW, more than one respect). Probably you have difficulties grasping the concept of reductio ad absurdum.

  81. Otto E. Rossler says:

    You are evading. Do you really believe in this quote of yours of 3:08 pm yesterday?

    Does my colleague professor Nicolai stand behind your formula? How about having a look at two alarm clocks of differing speeds standing beside each other, dear Hansel alias EP alias TRMG alias (hopefully not) Nicolai?

  82. TRMG says:

    You’re probably confusing Hansel’s comment with my comment at 1:20 pm, which was referring to an earlier comment in which I wrote that your Eq. (1) “leads to t_up = t_down, via

    t_down = N_down*T_down = [N_up/(1+z)] *[T_up*(1+z)] = N_up*T_up = t_up.”

    And, yes, I still think that your Eq. (1) implies t_up = t_down because I still don’t know to which of these equalities you could possibly object, and you seem reluctant to reveal that.

    “Does my colleague professor Nicolai stand behind your formula?”

    Do you really think I was proposing “t_up = t_down” as a true statement? This is not “my” formula, but a false implication of your Eq. (1), which was employed in the second step, where I substituted T_up*(1+z) for T_down. This means, by reductio ad absurdum, that Eq. (1) is false too, since every other step seems quite uncontroversial. Are you seriously not getting this?

  83. eq says:

    After seeing Rösslers show here I doubt that he was really the inventor of “his” attractor. The mathematical abilities shown here are not in agreement with that.

  84. Otto E. Rossler says:

    “Do you really think I was proposing “t_up = t_down” as a true statement?”

    Oh no.

  85. eq says:

    Where is your counterproof of the reductio ad absurdum of your “theorem”?

    Will you tell the world that all you have to say is “thats wrong”? Where is the flawthe implication of your equation as it was clearkly shown by TRMG?

  86. eq says:

    “the flaw in the …”

  87. Robert Houston says:

    I appreciate TRMG’s explanations of his views. He states that it’ a “reductio ad absurdum” to say that, in terms of overall duration, “t_up = t_ down”. But this is not at all absurd — it’s just obvious. At some point the clocks are compared and display different times. But in overall duration, they both endured equally to that point. Therefore, their duration was coextensive.

    The difference is that the slowed clock would show a lesser count of elapsed units, such as hours. Its hour takes longer than the hour shown on the faster clock. If the z is 1, as in TRMG’s early example, then 1 hour downstairs has a duration coextensive with 2 hours upstairs. Such an enlargement (or dilation) is the meaning of time slowing down. In professional audio processing, the slowdown of a recording is called “time-stretching.” As everyone knows, a “slowpoke” takes longer to do the job. Similarly, the slowed clock downstairs takes longer to complete an hour than the faster clock upstairs.

    The confusion probably comes from the understanding that to those lower in the rocket whose time is slowed, it seems to proceed normally. Einstein used special symbols in depicting this local phenomenon. However, time dilation refers not just to the slowdown alone but to “an observed difference of elapsed time between two observers…” (Wikipedia). This comparison is what Dr. Rossler’s formula #1 was accurately showing.

    In criticizing it, TRMG switched the definitions for the left and right T. On the right, T_tip was correctly evaluated as 1 unit, such as an hour, so that when multiplied by 1+z it became 2 units (if z=1). Instead of treating T_tail on the left also as 1 unit, albeit with a different relative duration, TRMG et al. treated it as an X whose count was to be defined as a function of the right-side of the equation. This was a dubious interpretation of a formula, for the standard custom is to treat the symbol on the left of a formula as a single unit, when no coefficient is shown. Flouting these basics, TRMG reversed the meaning Dr Rossler’s formula, T_tail = T_tip * (1+z), to mean that 2 hours downstairs equals 1 hour upstairs (if z=1). In other words, according to TRMG, A=B*2 would mean that 2A = 1B. ( Because T_down and T_up are different symbols referring to different amounts of relative duration, they are just as different as A and B.)

    The TRMG interpretation is false for it ignores the basic rules of transposition in elementary algebra (a multiplier, such as *2, if switched to the other side of an equation must be changed to a divider: /2). Applied to standard formulas, the identical interpretation that TRMG applied to Rossler’s formula would yield false results. For example, TRMG would have to interepret Q = P * 2 to mean that 2 quarts equal 1 pint. M = K * 1.61 would then mean that 1.61 miles equals 1 km, and so on. This is the reduction to absurdity that the TRMG misinterpretation would entail. Interpreted properly, in the same way as such standard formulas, Rossler’s formula was absolutely correct.

  88. EQ says:

    Oh My god, Houston, you have definitely proven that you have no idea how math is working.

  89. The “mathematics” little EQ/Hansi is talking about is mere dogmatics without thinking — the same trap that the middle ages got caught in.

    Imagine: the task to compare two clocks of differing clock speeds placed together being too hard for a whole lavishly funded Institute. The only intelligence they display is not revealing their faces. This latter fact proves their souls are still intact and eager to be freed from their self-imposed trap. For they know about the tragedy they are potentially contributing to actively. Everyone of us must have a loving pity with them.

  90. eq says:

    Meaningless blabla, Rössler. We are still waiting for the counterproof against TRMGs proof of the absurdity of your equation.

    Instead you are talking about non-thinking…so come on. Show us “dogmatics” where the error is in TRMGs proof.

    So far I see only one dogmatic here, Rössler, and that is you. You insist on blind believing in your “theorem”…Bad luck to meet scientifically/sceptically thinking users. :D

  91. Is there no specialist who is better at imagining two clocks side by side?

  92. eq says:

    You have not understood TRMGs comment?

    Or again the strategy of avoiding any kind of clear statement? :D

  93. TRMG says:

    Interesting, Houston. Did you notice the tacit disagreement with Rössler you involved yourself in now? Rössler says “The phrase ‘because it leads to t_up = t_down’ is false.” You say it’s obvious. Do you think you can clarify this point?

    “He states that it’ a “reductio ad absurdum” to say that, in terms of overall duration, “t_up = t_ down”. But this is not at all absurd – it’s just obvious. At some point the clocks are compared and display different times. But in overall duration, they both endured equally to that point. Therefore, their duration was coextensive.”

    No, the overall duration, i.e. number of units multiplied by one unit’s duration, is different for both clocks. This is the whole point of time being relative. The statement that time is relative is not even vaguely equivalent to saying that two clocks count different numbers of their respective different units of time. If subjected to time dilation, two clocks will still show different amounts of time even if their respective units are equal. This is why it is legitemate to say that time itself passes differently in both places, as opposed to two clocks merely running at different speeds. It is t_up and t_down that obey the equation t_down = t_up/(1+z). Look here:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Outside_a_non-rotating_sphere

    The symbols “t” there denote “proper time.” If you follow the relevant link, you will discover this to be the physical quantity that coincides with my definition of t_down and t_up. They are not equal in reality.

    “Einstein used special symbols in depicting this local phenomenon. However, time dilation refers not just to the slowdown alone but to “an observed difference of elapsed time between two observers…” (Wikipedia).

    Right, a difference in elapsed *time*. Elapsed time equals number of hours times duration of one hour. t_down is not equal t_up. Since Rössler’s equation implies otherwise, it is false.

    “In criticizing it, TRMG switched the definitions for the left and right T. On the right, T_tip was correctly evaluated as 1 unit, such as an hour, so that when multiplied by 1+z it became 2 units (if z=1). Instead of treating T_tail on the left also as 1 unit, albeit with a different relative duration, TRMG et al. treated it as an X whose count was to be defined as a function of the right-side of the equation. ”

    Not true. You are making things up. I treated T_up and T_down to refer to exactly one local unit of time, as this was the latest interpretation you and Rössler were trying to attribute to his equation. (Even though, previously, Rössler endorsed different interpretations and intended T_tip and T_tail to represent proper times, frequencies, or whatnot, which means that they could identify an arbitrary number of units. Probably you lost track of which of Rössler’s mutually contradictive explanations of his own theorem is currently in use?)

    “The TRMG interpretation is false for it ignores the basic rules of transposition in elementary algebra (a multiplier, such as *2, if switched to the other side of an equation must be changed to a divider: /2). ”

    And where would I have committed this blunder? You just said that the result of my calculation was obvious; I agree in the sense that it is an obvious, but false, implication of Rössler’s formula. Now you’re saying it contains a basic algebraic error, but you do not point it out.

  94. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Smoke screens. Anonymous fearful TRMG has no consistent position that he could utter in a compact, disprovable form.

    This fits his fear to be recognized by other scientists.

    These people simply bet that a danger of 4 percent earth evaporation leaves them enough leeway to bet. It hopefully will. But the betters willl become known eventually in their evil role. I offer you again to talk to me or show your face publicly. That not a single scientist is able to disprove the danger incurred is a tragedy.

    Take care, Otto

  95. eq says:

    TRMGs position is consistent. Your position with no clear definition of variables and daily changes of this non-definitions is not consistent.

    Again there is no answer or counterproof against TRMGs clear demonstration that your equation is utterly wrong. Instead you invent a new probability with many meaningless blabla.

    In several months the probability will reach 100%, isn’t it? :D

  96. eq says:

    Ah, and of course TRMGs position is presented in a disprovable form. So it is on you, show that his reductio ad absurdum of YOUR equation is wrong. Show his error.

    And stop this ridiculous blabla.

  97. AnthonyL says:

    Apologies to TRMG, I have been prevented from reading your post Oct 27 3.30 am properly by other responsibilities but will do so tomorrow. The darn comment procession is about to turn over 100 and lose all this series and the Title (Nazis etc) is not even on the first listing page, but I have it bookmarked.

  98. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Where is TRMG’s position in a dsprovable form? He even ridicules everyone who takes him seriously. No one seems to realize the evil nature of CERN and its anonymous allies.

  99. eq says:

    Rössler, are you stupid? TRMG has presented the argument in a preise mathematical form (unlike you). Scroll up to his last two and three postings and you will find it.

    Unbelievable. This Rössler-guy wants to be a scientist while being unable to read simple postings.

  100. eq says:

    Before I forget: Rössler, meaningless blabla about evil natures of CERN etc is not a counteproof of TRMGs reductio ad absurdum of your “theorem”.

  101. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I am very disappointed that you or one of your aliases or TRMG whoever that is wrote me and the world that you “of course” had not meant what you had written.

    I give you a last chance to tell what you mean, in a formula that (a) is clear and (b) is meant seriously.

  102. Peter Howell says:

    Rössler: how about you coming up with a formula that (a) is clear and (b) is meant seriously. Would be a primer for you. So far you have only stated your personal opinion as fact, w/o proof whatsoever.

    But you are a grat agitator.

    Prof. P. Howell

  103. EQ says:

    Oh, Rössler, TRMG has formulated his argument in a precise mathematical form. You know his derivation as you have cited it already in a posting before.

    Up to know there was not a single serious or clear answer from you but the usual defamation of CERN.

  104. Peter Howell says:

    I continue to wonder if Roessler believes in his claims and postings (than he is indeed a mad man), or if he is just on a personal crusade against scientists and the increasing awareness, that none of his work or his legacy will be remembered as it is all crank. Than he is just a poor old man. He is certainly not a humanist.

    P. Howell

  105. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I never defamed CERN. I only openly ask them to defend themselves against the publicly offered scientific proof that they risked and plan to further risk the survival of every human being. This is not a defamation but an accusation.

    I ask them to defend themselves. If they do not do so, the whole world sees that they are guilty. I apologize that I am bringing them in this precarious situation if they cannot answer. The whole world sees their predicament. I would love nothing more than to help them out of it. Their cooperation is all I am asking for. Please, dear colleagues at CERN, cooperate with me in my trying to rescue you.

    If you treat me as an enemy, the message to the world thereby generated is tantamount to publicly pleding guilty. Your seeming claque is a claque on the march to jail and to the end of science. Why are you so collectively blind to choose this road of non-defending yourself in the only language that can help, that of science?

  106. AnthonyL says:

    “TRMG on October 27, 2011 3:30 am wrote:
    Anthony, I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

    TRMG, I may have misunderstood what you wrote, but I am still baffled by your explanations. You seem to be saying (with me) that the nub of the problem is that Houston cannot say that units of time vary in length ie duration, yet in your explanation you hold that the units of time do vary in length or duration.

    ““The physical quantity time t, i.e. the very same entity that relativity predicts to be dilated, is obtained by the number of units, say N, *times* the duration of one of these units, say T, viz t = N*T. If the number N changed inversely proportional to the duration of the unit, as you and Rössler maintain by means of Eq. (1), then the physical quantity would remain unchanged. In other words, t_tip = t_tail.” – TRMG

    That would seem to be very true, even trivial, but it seems to involve holding that the duration of the units varies. But this is how Houston thinks about it, which you seem to suggest is wrong. Therefore there seems to be some distinction in your mind between saying units of time vary in duration or length, and measuring time in terms of units of length which do not vary.

    Which is it? If the time on the clock downstairs is shorter ie fewer hours or minutes or seconds registered than the time registered on the clock upstairs in hours or whatever, and the duration of the units in the same in both places, then there must be fewer of them clocked downstairs than upstairs. Upstairs we might have 1000 seconds clocked, and if there is an intercom, and we ask what it shows on the clock downstairs, we might get told 999 seconds. Is this the correct way to think about it?

    If it is the correct way to think about it, then we have fewer seconds downstairs, and the equation must be in the form Td=Tu/(1+z). The units of measurement of time in both places must be equal.

    Houston however chooses to think of the units of time measured downstairs as being longer in duration ie bigger than the ones upstairs, so if you clock 1000 seconds upstairs you will clock fewer of the same seconds downstairs, ie 999. I thought that this must be wrong because it implied to me some absolute time marching on overall by which you could say that the seconds downstairs were longer than the ones upstairs, and Einstein’s point is surely that time is always relative, never absolute. You don’t have an absolute time clock somewhere to measure the duration of seconds somewhere as “shorter” or “longer” than the seconds somewhere else.

    I had suggested to Houston that he could view his equation Td= Tu(1+z) as referring to the seconds clocked downstairs being longer than the seconds clocked upstairs rather than the number of seconds clocked downstairs which are in fact fewer than the seconds clocked upstairs (which would imply Td=Tu/(1+z)).

    However, I thought that this would be wrong because it contradicted Einstein by implying there was an absolute time somewhere to measure the duration of seconds by depending on where you were.

    That fits in with your understanding, correct?

    You continued with this which seems to agree with me:

    “I used capital T’s and lower-case t’s to refer to different things. T is the variable appearing in Rossler’s Eq. (1), for which Td=Tu*(1+z) holds and which he and Houston claimed to denote the local duration of one unit of time. t is the total local time passed, ie. t=N*T, where N is the number of units counted by the clock. This product N*T is the definition of the physical quantity time. (Maybe I shouldn’t have used capital T to refer to the units of time, but it’s the identifier Rössler used and I didn’t want to add to the confusion by introducing one further variable.) How “t_tip = t_tail” or “t_up = t_down” follows from Rössler’s ideas is again explained below.

    Anthony wrote: “However I don’t believe that “longer units of time” would be a true statement in the physics of relativity, ie that the units downstairs are longer in duration and that is why the clock downstairs clocks fewer of them. Is that the way relativity works? ”

    No, it is not. In fact that’s not how anything would work in physics. So you are quite right in not believing this to be a true statement. The variables in physical laws always represent physical quantities, never units of measurement. The reason why the downstairs clock counts fewer units of time is not that these units are longer there, but that it is located at a position where less time has passed. Both statements could not be more different in meaning, but Rössler is pesistently confusing them. The latter statement about passed time is completely independent of the units in which you chose to express t numerically. You can use whatever units you like for any of the local times — e.g. seconds for the upper clock and the time between two of Galileo’s heartbeats for the lower one, in which case there is no simple algebraic relation between both of them and the gravitational potential. Yet this doesn’t affect the relation between the physical quantities t_up, t_down, of which the one referring to the lower time is always less.”

    All that seems to match my understanding as stated above.

    You continued:

    “Here is how this works in detail: Relativity predicts the respective local proper times to be related by

    t_down = t_up/(1+z).

    This clearly states that the local time downstairs is less than the local time upstairs (between two pairs of simultaneous events). This is explained and summarized in Eq. (30a) of Einstein’s “Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen” [1] (where z = Phi/c²). There is no mention of units of time in this equation at all, but only of local times (“Ortszeit”).

    How can you determine whether this equation is true? You can set up two identical (!) clocks at different positions, that count units of equal length of time and compare the numbers, say N_down and N_up. What you get is

    N_down = N_up/(1+z),

    which looks like the previous equation except that it refers to numbers of time units, not to time itself. But since the clocks count units of equal length of their respective proper time, which fact we know from their being identical in every relevant physical aspect, you can obtain the passed local time from the measured number of units by multiplying with the duration of one unit u, i.e.

    t_down = N_down*u = (N_up*u)/(1+z) = t_up/(1+z),

    corroborating the prediction of relativity as expressed in the first equation.

    This is plain and simple so far.”

    That continues to agree with what I said above in all respects, I believe.

    You continued:

    “Now Rössler’s confusion gives rise to complicate matters significantly. He is completely ignorant about the first equation, which is fundamental; but he readily (and rightly) accepts the second one, that refers to numbers of time units, as an experimental fact. He then tries to explain this phenomenon by means of his Eq. (1), T_down = T_up*(1+z), which is purely his invention, but which he mistakes to be identical, if not formally, at least in essence, to Eq. (30a) of [1]. But his Eq. (1) not only is not identical, but in clear contradiction to Eq.(30a) if you accept the experimentally verified relation between the N’s, because it leads to t_up = t_down, via

    t_down = N_down*T_down = [N_up/(1+z)] *[T_up*(1+z)] = N_up*T_up = t_up.

    in disagreement with the first equation I wrote above. I hope you can follow these steps and see the pattern here: Rössler’s equation (1) is the only one that doesn’t fit.

    _________
    [1] wikilivres.info/wiki/%C3%9Cber_das_Relativit%C3%A4tsprinzip_und_die_aus_demselben_gezogenen_Folgerungen/V ”

    Here you introduce a little confusion by not stating right here what the “first equation” is or what the “second equation” is, or what Equation 30 (a) is, specifically, so we have to go back to see what you mean.

    (1) The first equation is t_down = t_up/(1+z).

    (2) The second equation is N_down = N_up/(1+z),

    (3) Einstein’s Eq. (30a) is apparently t_down = t_up/(1+z) where z = Phi/c².

    All three seem to be saying more or less the same thing.

    You say Rossler accepts (2) as experimental fact but then wants to say
    his Eq. Rossler (1), T_down = T_up*(1+z), explains all, when in fact it contradicts Eq (1) t_down = t_up/(1+z).

    Houston seems to be saying that Eq. Rossler (1), T_down = T_up*(1+z) works because it means Time units down are longer than Time units up and therefore the count of them is fewer ie 999 seconds instead of 1000 in the same time period. So his T is the length of a time unit not the number of time units clocked.

    You are saying that this doesn’t work, because time units are the same all over? That is a generally accepted premise in EInstein’s explication, is it not?

    You finish by pointing out that if the time downstairs td = the number of units times the length of the units = Nd*Td
    this is the same as saying
    t_down = [N_up/(1+z)] *[T_up*(1+z)]
    (because according to Rossler Eq. Rossler (1), Td = T_up*(1+z)
    and according to your second equation Nd=Nup/1+z).

    Fair enough.

    That resolves into = Nu*Tu which resolves into tu. So time up equals time down, which contradicts Einstein.

    You do seem to have presented Rossler with a certain difficulty here, unless he believes that time units downstairs are bigger than time units upstairs, as Houston holds.

    Can we not hear from the great man, now we have established this fly in the ointment?

    Houston seems to think it is not a difficulty at all, though. He writes that td=tu, no problem.

    “Robert Houston on November 1, 2011 9:50 pm
    I appreciate TRMG’s explanations of his views. He states that it’ a “reductio ad absurdum” to say that, in terms of overall duration, “t_up = t_ down”. But this is not at all absurd — it’s just obvious. At some point the clocks are compared and display different times. But in overall duration, they both endured equally to that point. Therefore, their duration was coextensive.”

    Is this correct, Bob? Isn’t t the time as clocked on the clock, and different in the two places, up and down? Your t would appear to be some absolute time, which is not admissible according to Einstein, who holds that all time is relative, and never absolute.

    Houston continues: “The difference is that the slowed clock would show a lesser count of elapsed units, such as hours. Its hour takes longer than the hour shown on the faster clock. If the z is 1, as in TRMG’s early example, then 1 hour downstairs has a duration coextensive with 2 hours upstairs. Such an enlargement (or dilation) is the meaning of time slowing down. In professional audio processing, the slowdown of a recording is called “time-stretching.” As everyone knows, a “slowpoke” takes longer to do the job. Similarly, the slowed clock downstairs takes longer to complete an hour than the faster clock upstairs.”

    Here Houston appears to be saying the hours downstairs are longer than the hours upstairs, so take longer to clock, therefore fewer are clocked. This is OK to say in relative terms, surely, even if it is not true in absolute terms. At least, the first part of the statement is false (the hours downstairs are longer than the hours upstairs), but the second part is true (fewer are clocked). Is that right? It does seem to start contradicting common sense, which is that both things are the same — if you clock fewer units in the same time as another clock, then you have clocked less time. Does Einstein really say that these two things are different — that units of time are not longer when fewer units are clocked? If he does, that is why relativity is baffling to non physicists!

    Houston continues: “The confusion probably comes from the understanding that to those lower in the rocket whose time is slowed, it seems to proceed normally. Einstein used special symbols in depicting this local phenomenon. However, time dilation refers not just to the slowdown alone but to “an observed difference of elapsed time between two observers…” (Wikipedia). This comparison is what Dr. Rossler’s formula #1 was accurately showing.”

    But Rossler’s equation Eq. (1), T_down = T_up*(1+z) suggests that T_down is MORE than T_up, Bob, if T is defined as elapsed time measured by a local clock. And you know that T_down is LESS than T_up.

    Houston continues: “In criticizing it, TRMG switched the definitions for the left and right T. On the right, T_tip was correctly evaluated as 1 unit, such as an hour, so that when multiplied by 1+z it became 2 units (if z=1). ”

    Fair enough, T_tip is MORE than T_down, as we all know — the upper astronauts grow white beards and die in the time it takes for the ones below to shave a few times.

    Houson continues: “Instead of treating T_tail on the left also as 1 unit, albeit with a different relative duration, TRMG et al. treated it as an X whose count was to be defined as a function of the right-side of the equation. This was a dubious interpretation of a formula, for the standard custom is to treat the symbol on the left of a formula as a single unit, when no coefficient is shown. ”

    Bob, an equation by definition counts 1 of any term A B or C etc included in it unless it states 2A 3A etc. In the case of Rossler’s equation, everyone reads it Eq. (1), T_down = T_up*(1+z) as 1x T_down= 1x T_up* (1+z), Inserting the 1s makes no difference whatsoever to the meaning of the equation.

    Houston continued: “Flouting these basics, TRMG reversed the meaning Dr Rossler’s formula, T_tail = T_tip * (1+z), to mean that 2 hours downstairs equals 1 hour upstairs (if z=1). ”

    Where did TRMG do that? T_tail = T_tip * (1+z) means that T_tail is twice T_tip (if z=1). TRMG stated the opposite was true, stating the equation was T_tail==T_tip/(1+z), and that Rossler’s T_tail = T_tip * (1+z) had the whole thing backwards.

    Houston continues: “In other words, according to TRMG, A=B*2 would mean that 2A = 1B. ( Because T_down and T_up are different symbols referring to different amounts of relative duration, they are just as different as A and B.)”

    Where did TRMG say that? I believe TRMG like anybody else subscribing to normal algebraic meanings would say that A=2B means that A is twice as big as B.

    Houston continued: “The TRMG interpretation is false for it ignores the basic rules of transposition in elementary algebra (a multiplier, such as *2, if switched to the other side of an equation must be changed to a divider: /2). Applied to standard formulas, the identical interpretation that TRMG applied to Rossler’s formula would yield false results. For example, TRMG would have to interpret Q = P * 2 to mean that 2 quarts equal 1 pint. M = K * 1.61 would then mean that 1.61 miles equals 1 km, and so on. This is the reduction to absurdity that the TRMG misinterpretation would entail. Interpreted properly, in the same way as such standard formulas, Rossler’s formula was absolutely correct.”

    On the contrary, TRMG said it was Rossler who had reversed the proper formulation, with Rossler’s T_tail = T_tip * (1+z), and he provided the correct formulation, T_tail==T_tip/(1+z), which agrees with your belief (which is everone’s belief including Einstein’s) that T_tail is LESS than T_tip. LESS time passes in the tail relative to time elapsed in the tip.

    TRMG states the whole situation correctly above (amid a few wobbles) when he says

    “If subjected to time dilation, two clocks will still show different amounts of time even if their respective units are equal. This is why it is legitimate to say that time itself passes differently in both places, as opposed to two clocks merely running at different speeds.”

    Your simile of having a slow clock in your kitchen which runs slowly is not the same thing as dealing with the relativity of time, Bob. There are no slow clocks in relativity, they all run very accurately. It is time itself which dilates.

    Anyhow let’s note that no one has answered my question, if clocks run at different speeds in different places, where is the clock that runs as infinite speed, and where is the clock that stops entirely?

    Surely this is not beyond TRMG or Hansel to answer and put this philosophical conundrum to rest, thereby saving Einstein from being exploded at long last, and on Rossler’s Lifeboat blog no less.

    That he has inspired this ultimate challenge to his wild haired predecessor in the pantheon of distunguished physicists is surely a great tribute to Rossler’s abilities.

  107. TRMG says:

    “TRMG on October 27, 2011 3:30 am wrote:
    Anthony, I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
    TRMG, I may have misunderstood what you wrote, but I am still baffled by your explanations. You seem to be saying (with me) that the nub of the problem is that Houston cannot say that units of time vary in length ie duration, yet in your explanation you hold that the units of time do vary in length or duration.”

    Why, of course. Accepting tentatively as true the statement you want to refute is the proper course of argument per reductio ad absurdum. So I assume that time units vary just as Rössler proposes, not because I think this is a true statement, but because I want to draw a conclusion from it which is (or should be) even more obvioulsy false, i.e. t_up = t_down. This was the fundamental point of the argument. How could you have missed that?

    “Which is it? If the time on the clock downstairs is shorter ie fewer hours or minutes or seconds registered than the time registered on the clock upstairs in hours or whatever, and the duration of the units in the same in both places, then there must be fewer of them clocked downstairs than upstairs.”

    Well, this is but a verbose tautology. The main-clause is already completely included in the if-clause. Did you really mean that?

    “(1) The first equation is t_down = t_up/(1+z).
    (2) The second equation is N_down = N_up/(1+z),
    (3) Einstein’s Eq. (30a) is apparently t_down = t_up/(1+z) where z = Phi/c².
    All three seem to be saying more or less the same thing.”

    Except that they don’t. (1,3) are statements about proper time, and are universally true in the Schwarzschild metric and the Rindler metric whereas (2) is a statement about numbers of time units and requires the auxiliary assumption that time gets measured in equal units to become true. Confusing both kind of statements is, in the present context, a potential minefield.

    “You say Rossler accepts (2) as experimental fact but then wants to say
    his Eq. Rossler (1), T_down = T_up*(1+z), explains all, when in fact it contradicts Eq (1) t_down = t_up/(1+z). ”

    Yes, this is exactly what I am saying.

    “Houston seems to be saying that Eq. Rossler (1), T_down = T_up*(1+z) works because it means Time units down are longer than Time units up and therefore the count of them is fewer ie 999 seconds instead of 1000 in the same time period. So his T is the length of a time unit not the number of time units clocked.

    You are saying that this doesn’t work, because time units are the same all over? That is a generally accepted premise in EInstein’s explication, is it not?”

    No, I say this doesn’t work because it is tantamount to absolute time: t_down = t_up, and thus violates Einstein’s t_down = t_up/(1+z). You just acknowledged that; now you apparently forgot it again. Very odd.

    “You finish by pointing out that if the time downstairs td = the number of units times the length of the units = Nd*Td
    this is the same as saying
    t_down = [N_up/(1+z)] *[T_up*(1+z)]
    (because according to Rossler Eq. Rossler (1), Td = T_up*(1+z)
    and according to your second equation Nd=Nup/1+z).
    Fair enough.
    That resolves into = Nu*Tu which resolves into tu. So time up equals time down, which contradicts Einstein.

    You do seem to have presented Rossler with a certain difficulty here, unless he believes that time units downstairs are bigger than time units upstairs, as Houston holds. ”

    What? No. Not “unless,” but “because.” It is precisely this belief which causes the trouble. You just noticed that it played an essential role in the argument and even identifed the step in which it was used. Now you are suggesting that Rössler could somehow avert the conclusion, which contradicts Einstein, by assuming the very premise on which it was based? This makes no sense.

  108. I very much appreciate these long discussions. Can one of you put the conclusion arrived at subjectively into a short theorem?

  109. Hansel says:

    Blabla, perhaps you can answer, Ottolein? You can not draw the conclusion yourself, great scientist?

    You can not defend your wrong equations? :D

  110. Hansel says:

    The conclusion, little Otto, is: Your equation is wrong. It is not in agreement with nature, not in agreement with Einstein. You have no understanding of general relativity.

    That is the conclusion. I should add that this conclusion is not new but at least 3 years old.

  111. If you cannot understand the Telemach theorem, ask someone to explain it to you. Then you might bestrong enough to replace it by a better one.

  112. EQ says:

    Again only blabla?

    There is the reductio ad absurdum of YOUR eq1. Disprove it or shut up!

  113. Hansel says:

    And again he fled. :D

    I am absolutely sure that we will see never

    - a consistent and unequivocal definition of the Ts and their connection to the quantities in general relativity

    - a consistent and clear answer to TRMGs reductio ad absurdum.

    Instead Rössler will state again and again that no one can think. Except his blind followers of course.

  114. AnthonyL says:

    Replying to TRMG on November 7, 2011 3:07 am
    “TRMG on October 27, 2011 3:30 am wrote:
    Anthony, I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
    .….“I assume that time units vary just as Rössler proposes, not because I think this is a true statement, but because I want to draw a conclusion from it which is (or should be) even more obviously false, i.e. t_up = t_down. This was the fundamental point of the argument. How could you have missed that?”

    AL now: Well, I don’t think I missed it. I stated it. But let me state it again as simply as possible: You say that Houston can’t say that the clock below registers less time than the clock above for the reason that the time units it counts below are “longer in duration” than the ones counted by the clock above — so the clock below ticks more slowly. He is not allowed to say that that is the reason.

    But the clock above records 1 hour say when the clock below records 1/2 hr. May I on behalf of all the oppressed hacks in the world, as well as all the chambermaids, all the taxi drivers, all the Aunt Sadies and even possibly all the Houstons of the world (I think) remark that this looks very like saying the clock below counts one while the one above counts two, and therefore the unit of time below being one-half-hour the unit of time above looks very like double the duration, at one hour, or two half-hours. ie one unit of time below seems to be longer by double than the one unit of time above, since both those durations clock the same above and below?

    Now I instinctively sense that this is not Einsteinian, because it implies an absolute time clocked somewhere else, when all time is relative. I sense therefore that it should be more a matter of saying that the units of time are the same, but the ones below are twisted by the spatial distance between them in space-time into being equivalent to two of the ones above. How one imagines this works is beyond me because I am not a physicist who has worked with this stuff, but that appears to be to my dim perception to be what you are saying.

    Even so, how can one possibly explain to me or the chambermaid or Houston (if he is saying the duration of units above and below is different, which I understand him to be saying, and Rossler to be saying too) that this simple view is wrong? The outcome is the same right?

    I just don’t know how to explain it, and I thought you might. But the only explanation you are offering at the moment is that if what they say was true, then td=tu, which is obviously doesn’t.

    Sorry about my verbose tautologies and parade of marching lockstep trivialities but you make the mistake of thinking I am arguing with you in some way, when I am merely following you panting and stumbling as you hop and skip up the mountain far ahead of me.

    You shouldn’t be impatient with your students, TRMG, when they sit at your feet, laboriously taking notes, licking the pencil tip every few seconds, and then show you the notes and ask you whether they have it straight! :-)
    .….….
    TRMG on October 27, 2011 3:30 am: AL continued ““(1) The first equation is t_down = t_up/(1+z).
    (2) The second equation is N_down = N_up/(1+z),
    (3) Einstein’s Eq. (30a) is apparently t_down = t_up/(1+z) where z = Phi/c².
    All three seem to be saying more or less the same thing.”

    TRMG on October 27, 2011 3:30 am :Except that they don’t. (1,3) are statements about proper time, and are universally true in the Schwarzschild metric and the Rindler metric whereas (2) is a statement about numbers of time units and requires the auxiliary assumption that time gets measured in equal units to become true. Confusing both kind of statements is, in the present context, a potential minefield.”

    AL now: There we are, just what I thought. But Alas, I have to ask, what is “proper time”? You mean time as opposed to space? You mean time as opposed to the incorrect Houston idea of time, as stretchable units? But I thought you just said that time units did NOT vary?? (first para above) Now you say time measured in equal units is needed to make the statement (2) The second equation is N_down = N_up/(1+z) true. You mean a false assumption is needed to make a false equation true? Or that a possible assumption is needed to make a possible equation true?

    So are you saying that assumption is impossible and wrong, or that it can be made, if you like?

    TRMG on October 27, 2011 3:30 am continued: AL: “You say Rossler accepts (2) as experimental fact but then wants to say his Eq. Rossler (1), T_down = T_up*(1+z), explains all, when in fact it contradicts Eq (1) t_down = t_up/(1+z). ”

    TRMG on October 27, 2011 3:30 am:Yes, this is exactly what I am saying.”

    AL now: Good.

    TRMG on October 27, 2011 3:30 am continues: AL: “Houston seems to be saying that Eq. Rossler (1), T_down = T_up*(1+z) works because it means Time units down are longer than Time units up and therefore the count of them is fewer ie 999 seconds instead of 1000 in the same time period. So his T is the length of a time unit not the number of time units clocked.

    You are saying that this doesn’t work, because time units are the same all over? That is a generally accepted premise in EInstein’s explication, is it not?”

    TRMG on October 27, 2011 3:30 am: No, I say this doesn’t work because it is tantamount to absolute time: t_down = t_up, and thus violates Einstein’s t_down = t_up/(1+z). You just acknowledged that; now you apparently forgot it again. Very odd.”

    AL now: Must be some misunderstanding here. I certainly acknowledge t_down does not equal t_up. The clocks show different times, Einstein tells us this. Then I understood you to be saying this was not because time units varied in length but because of Einstein’s theory that velocity or acceleration or position in space or space-time or some other outrage to common sense so dictates. And that this relation is expressed as t_down = t_up/(1+z).

    OK so just say again, are time units the same all over this map or not? If they are and Houston is wrong to say they are of different duration up and down, then why can’t I say it, and believe that Einstein says it too? Or is Houston right after all?

    TRMG on October 27, 2011 3:30 am continues: AL: “You finish by pointing out that if the time downstairs td = the number of units times the length of the units = Nd*Td
    this is the same as saying
    t_down = [N_up/(1+z)] *[T_up*(1+z)]
    (because according to Rossler Eq. Rossler (1), Td = T_up*(1+z)
    and according to your second equation Nd=Nup/1+z).
    Fair enough.
    That resolves into = Nu*Tu which resolves into tu. So time up equals time down, which contradicts Einstein.

    You do seem to have presented Rossler with a certain difficulty here, unless he believes that time units downstairs are bigger than time units upstairs, as Houston holds. ”

    TRMG on October 27, 2011 3:30 am: What? No. Not “unless,” but “because.” It is precisely this belief which causes the trouble. You just noticed that it played an essential role in the argument and even identifed the step in which it was used. Now you are suggesting that Rössler could somehow avert the conclusion, which contradicts Einstein, by assuming the very premise on which it was based? This makes no sense.”

    What ?! I meant unless or because, as in if, ie unless or because or if he believes that time units downstairs are bigger or longer than time units upstairs. Which you now are saying again is wrong, right? Because that is “the belief which leads to trouble” etc.

    So you are telling us that the time units are the same below and above, and the clocks tick off different times elapsed for some other reason.…

    That is what I was checking.

    But now I feel I have to check it again.

    (2) The second equation is N_down = N_up/(1+z) is right, but only if units of time are not different in duration up and down?

    And Houston and Rossler have it that time units are different up and down, and they cannot have their way, because it resolves to td=tu?

    I write this out with all due respect TRMG, aware that you have a life, and may not have time to respond, but I hope I have made the thing clear, and have got it right, and that we have identified what you think is wrong about Houston and Rossler’s understanding, and that is the objection that Rossler has to deal with.

    If you agree, then possibly you can also enlighten me as to where time slows to a standstill? And where it is infinitely fast?

    I would imagine that

  115. AnthonyL says:

    Oops that should read: I imagine that since tu>td time would clock infinitely fast at the tip of an infinitely long rocket traveling at the speed of light, but where is time infinitely slow? At the tail of infinitely long rocket which is completely stationary? In a black hole?

    What a pity EInstein didn’t write a sequel to Alice in Wonderland.

  116. AnthonyL says:

    Oops 2: Or should that be time infinitely slow at the tip? If space and time are interchangeable in the Einsteinian manner, the more space the less time, right?