Menu

Blog

Nov 24, 2011

“Alethophobic CERNiots”

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Alethophobia is “fear of the truth.” To choose to rather die than learn the truth is the ultimate example. The latter case is only topped by the decision to rather commit panbiocide (extinction of all life) than double-check. This is CERN’s feat for 4 years which led it to shooting sharp for one year, with the intrinsic delay between shooting and shrinking the earth being of the order of magnitude of 5 years.

But CERN is an honorable institution! Would it then prevent dissemination of the fact that a court requested the logically necessary safety conference last January?

They may have their reasons, so I hear you say in the comforting company of the loud silence shown by the world media and the upcoming world climate conference of the IPPC at Durban, South Africa.

Therefore it is perhaps of some interest to the planet’s media that CERN is cheating scientifically. Its last hundreds-of-authors long papers both exhibit scientific fraud. One has to do with the planetary danger of black-hole production, the other transports CERN’s claim to have falsified Einstein. Let me give the two-fold evidence here.

Scientific fraud # 1: “No black holes have been found.” This is the message of the big paper No. 1, …………………. This message is most comforting – were it not for the fact that the paper leaves unquoted a relevant paper published in July 2008 (among others that are mostly still on the Internet) which proves that the detectors at CERN are blind to freshly generated black holes: …………………………………

If “Armageddon consciously embraced” is too sensitive a topic for your nerves, then the second CERN paper offers a respite.

Scientific fraud # 2: “Einstein’s speed limit exceeded and hence causality gone.” This is the message of the big paper No. 2, ……………………(second version). This message is as bombastic as a claimer as the first was as a disclaimer. It leaves unquoted the only paper which proves that an analogous result — differing only in magnitude — is a direct implication of Einstein’s theory: …………………………………….

By withholding this information from the reader, CERN deprived itself of the chance to pinpoint the error made by them which — as shown in the suppressed paper — lies in the faulty use of the Global Positioning System (G.P.S.). There is hearsay information now that CERN is planning to implement a light-based control experiment as suggested in the suppressed paper.

With its policy of “open non-quotation,” CERN has made itself vulnerable to the public reproach of scientific fraud. Putting billions of dollars into an experiment with blind detectors is the ultimate fraud in the eye of a tax payer. Maybe this eye is more vigilant than the eye of a doting mother or father given reason to fear CERN’s activity more directly.

Now let us all see whether the world media and the IPPC continue to be effectively bribed by CERN in a situation of global financial crisis.

(Note: Since I have to leave acutely for a court hearing in a somewhat related context, I shall finish this post on my return. The media will no doubt be able to fill in the 4 links in the meantime. Otherwise please wait.)

35

Comments — comments are now closed.


  1. Hansel says:

    You have no paper about black hole physics and no paper concerning the neutrinos. It was shown countless times that “telemach” is full of flaws (btw the world is still waiting for your derivation of some equations). Your neutrino paper is a good example for bad pseudoscience as there is no derivtion, no calculation, no discussion of errors and so on — it does not meet the most basic scientific standards. …there is not even a founded reason to name this an “analoguous result”. This “paper” is certainly not worth to be mentioned in any discussion of the recent experiments.

  2. Hansel says:

    Instead of wrting stupid new postings you should better invest your time in answering the open questions.
    for example:
    - Derivation of your eq1 from Einsteins equation and the connection between them.

  3. EQ says:

    “ as shown in the suppressed paper ”

    There is nothing “shown”. To show something needs equations, clear assumptions and defintions. Further a discussion of errors as it already was mentioned. Nothing of that can be found in your “paper” which is therefore not worth to be reviewed or published.

  4. There’s that five years again. So, in 2016 I call for a change of subject!!

  5. I Learned in London Today That the Continuum Hypothesis Is Uniquely True

    This result due to W.H. Woodin makes the mathematics of my friend M. ElNaschie the first candidate for a complete exo description of the universe. They explain why spacetime is four-dimensional, for example. The tragedy of “Nature” having defamed him thereby turns into a fundamental debate about the unhealthiness of the dogmatically adhered-to review system. But most of all, the world of physics suddenly sees light at the end of the tunnel. Einstein would be delighted and so would be Boltzmannn.

  6. P.S. I overlooked the time new shift of one hour in California (so that the word “today” should be replaced by “yesterday”).

  7. EQ says:

    Nature has not defamed him. On the contrary you yourself have proven them right as you (and he himself of course) were admitting that there is no proper reviewing in CSF.

    Thet is also the explanation why your poor pseudoscientific papers were published there. Papers like that without any scientific sound and quantitative content could only published by using the crackpot collaboration between you ans El Naxschie.

  8. EQ says:

    I doubt that Einstein would be delighted by the work of your numerology-friend.

  9. Doubting is allowed in science. In fact it is the root of all progress.
    Smearing is not.

    No media interest as of yet in the four references I did not have the time to put in above?

  10. EQ says:

    Doubting in fact is the root of peer review, It is a proecess to ensure high quality in journals. In general your “paper” would have faced the exactly same questions as asked here on this blog if subjected to peer review.

    El Naschies work is mainly pseidoscience, numerology, Your work is nof even lower quality, This neutrino-“paper” is a good example. If it is rejected during the peer review this is obviously not becuase of dogmatics but because of poor quality as was pointed oút briefly on this blog.

  11. EQ says:

    BTW, El Naschies defense is really the most stupid strategy I have ever seen. To prove the position of the other side in court by calling you as witness is funny :D

  12. Hansel says:

    It is completely stupid to confirm the content of the Nature article. El Naschie said that this article was damaging his reputation and now he is confirming every sentence, at least by calling the wellknown crackpot Rössler as a witness. Especially Rösslers case proves Nature right because if you look at his past articles in CSF there is not a single one which would have survived a proper review (because of poor quality)

  13. “story doesn’t add up”: Is this the Republican candidate who would show here an unfailing allegiance to the many CERN dignitaries who are as sure as he is that double-checking in case of a proof of danger is stupid?

    No one was so far able to explain this fear of the safety belt to me. Steve seems to be less sure of this strategy in the meantime – am I right? Please, educate me, dear Steve, in case Mr. Kilgore is an acquaintance who understands you better than I do.

  14. EQ says:

    Oto never answers questions. :D

  15. The fear amongst the CERN defenders is palpably growing.

    For is there a weaker argument than to fear having a look more than the risk incurred by not looking?

    The whole planet is about to wake up to this charade.

  16. Is Fermi-Lab now co-responsible, dear colleague Dr. Gilmore?
    I would apprecciate a first scientific counterargument.

  17. P. Howell says:

    It’s useless to continue the debate. Roessler is unwilling and uncapable to have a scientific discussion. Let him die silently. Nobody is reading this blog anyway and no scientist is taking lifeoat serious anymore.

    Prof. P. Howell

  18. Hansel says:

    The only thing worth to discuss is the astonishing stupid strategy of El Naschie in the case against Nature. :D I have never seen something that stupid before. :D

  19. CERN’s refusal to double-check is lauded by these authors, one of them a professional pyschologist. Is it preposterous if I ask you, dear colleague, why you are of this enlightening opinion?

  20. Hansel says:

    Your case ist at least only psychological interesting, Rössler. This magalomania manifested in your behaviour is astonishing.

  21. PassingByAgain says:

    Hansel, El Naschie’s strategy is best discussed at El Naschie Watch. I fully agree with Howell above, it’s time to let Rossler and his toadies fade away into the oblivion they deserve.

  22. EQ says:

    Kilgores comments were deleted.

  23. P. Howell says:

    @Lifeboat: Deleting comments you don’t like, is just adding to the suspicion, that you have something to hide. Oh, and yes, it’s really bad behaviour — like they do in North Korea.

    Prof. Peter Howell

  24. Psychologist Peter Howell has been asked an informative question above.

  25. EQ says:

    You were asked much more informative questions before. There was the beginning of a double check, known as review, on this blog and you failed.

    Now you are deleting postings. Interesting, Rössler.

  26. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I never deleted a posting.

  27. PassingByAgain says:

    Then who deleted Kilgore’s comments? and why?

  28. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I would suggest the reason is not hard to find why a wiser person intervened.

    Did you use the time of silence to come up with a falsifiable statement in support of CERN, dear young anonymous colleague?

  29. EQ says:

    This is delusional. Rössler really thinks he has a “theorem”.

    There is nothing than hot crackpot-air. Rössler. Proven countless times.

  30. EQ says:

    What was the reason to delete Kilgore, Rössler?

  31. P. Howell says:

    It would be good to learn who the moderator of this board is and what the criteria for posting here are. Prof. Kilgore asked a harmles question on who is apointing bloggers.

    Prof. P. Howell (increasingly suspicious about lifeboat)

  32. EQ says:

    Hey, obviously someone wants to transform the blog here into a crackpot-meeting room. Why not inviting El Naschie to blog here next to Rössler?

  33. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Getting suspicious is the profession of a psychiatrist. And I sympathize with Peter: One ghost driver is a much more likely diagnosis than many doing the same thing in the other direction. This is a historical situation — and he was one of the first to smell it.

  34. EQ says:

    LOL, nothing is “historical” here.