Dec 14, 2011

As CERN Accepts the Worst Reproach of History, the Latter Sticks to Their Advisor

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Professor Hermann Nicolai is the only public voice on the planet defending CERN against my scientific results, with his 3-year-old, long-refuted counterclaims on the Internet that he refuses to take back. His denial of dialog (only the day before yesterday again) enables CERN to do the same and continue. In view of the severity of the accusation accepted by CERN (“attempted panbiocide”), I dare publicly compare my responsible colleague Nicolai with a Himmler playing a musical instrument in a concentration camp.

I shall take the comparison back as soon as he exculpates himself. I apologize that I see no other way to get him to respond to my given proof of the danger consciously incurred by CERN.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Hansel says:

    Wennd das alles ist, was Rössler liefern kann, braucht er sich über fehlende Antworten nicht wundern.

    Oft gehörte Beschimpfungen entlarven Rösslers miesen Charakter, ersetzen aber keine Argumente.

  2. Sven says:

    Am Anfang war das ja mal ganz amüsant, was Rössler hier so postete aber inzwischen ist es nur noch peinlich… Und jetzt noch der obligatorische Nazivergleich (siehe’s_law )…
    Kann nicht mal jemand den Account hier löschen?

  3. W. Kilgore says:

    “Himmler playing a musical instrument in a concentration camp”

    Shame on you! Prisoners in concentration camps were forced to play music to other prisoners waiting for their death in gas chambers. You’re cracy. Totally.

  4. jtankers says:

    Diese Seite ist existenzielle Sicherheit gewidmet, und das ist genau das, was Dr. Rössler diskutiert. Meinungsfreiheit existiert nicht, um beliebte Rede zu schützen.

  5. Robert Houston says:

    The Earth has never faced a menace so great as CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. The number of potential victims is 140 times the 50 million who perished in World War II — about 11 million of whom were executed by Himmler, according to Wikipedia.

    The criminal negligence of CERN in failing to hold any safety conference or safety review since 2008, or even to discuss the concerns of its critics, makes its operation of the LHC an act of reckless endangerment threatening all mankind and future generations. This cabal of arrogant, mad scientists should be closed down by civilized nations — and by NATO if necessary — before it unleashes destructive black holes and strangelets that could annihilate the world.

  6. AnthonyL says:

    Professor Rossler’s note of desperation, and Robert Houston’s measure of the size of the risk that CERN is undertaking, reflects their estimate of the credibility of the papers and pronouncements of those who have analyzed the situation, including the scientists of CERN. Are the conCERNed skeptics hysterical and wrong in their evaluation of the crisis, or are they right and reasonable?

    The answer to this question is that they seem to be only too justified in their anxiety. One reason is that in the case of Houston it is the papers and pronouncement of the scientists at CERN that form the bulk of his references. In other words, he is accepting the authority of CERN physicists and pointing out that if you read them thoroughly you will find statements and calculations in their public papers and reports that predict precisely the dire consequences that conCERNed critics fear.
    Professor Rossler has his own analysis estimating a high risk that the conseuqnces will be frightful, which some here have tried to pick holes in as far as details are concerned, but have not demonstrated that his overall view is any more flawed than the predictions of CERN have proved so far. The search for the Higgs boson which is the main outcome of the CERN LHC energy escalation is so far rather fruitless, though we were told yesterday that there were “hints” in “lumps” observed in the data which may yet prove out.

    The significant observations that others should take into account are those emanating from Lisa Randall, the personable Harvard physicist whose career would be boosted to the stratosphere if the Higgs appeared, but also, she say, if it doesn’t appear, since that result would be equally “spectacular”, as she informed Denis Overbye of the New York Times (published on Monday).

    One things has become fairly clear to outside observers. The theories which they hope that the LHC may prove or at least support are possibly just as much fantasy as Professor Rossler’s, possibly more so. There is nothing to choose between them until more data comes through. They are all fantasies of concrete interpretation of mathematics which seems beautiful (Higg’s mathematics, mainly.)

    On the other hand, if the fantasies of the critics turn out to be correct, the result will be very ugly. Given that possibility, it is indeed deplorable that CERN should be so irresponsible as not to proceed more cautiously. The supposedly alarmist cries of Rossler and Houston are in fact perfectly justified by the insider statements made at CERN, as well as the complete lack of any basis to prefer their safety assurances and the theories of even their best thinkers over those of outsiders. In fact, the safety record of CERN already suggest that they can’t keep it together even on the simple engineering level, since they have blown up their own machine twice before getting it to run properly.

    The difference here is that we cannot repair the Earth once it is swallowed up by a black hole, a strangelet or — and this is a possibility reckoned by one theorist — the Higgs boson itself, which might create a new galaxy right in the heart of Geneva.

    The CERN cheerleaders here who throw brickbats at Rossler and those who know his conCERN is justified are not better than the defenders of the castle in Monty Python’s movie who throw dead cows over the parapets at the righteous King Arthur in search of the Holy Grail.

    One wonders whether any of them have wives and children, or are they just willing to sacrifice them along with the population of the planet just to see what happens?

  7. Peter Howell says:

    And another new low for Roessler and lifeboat. But Roessler must know, his father was a leading Nazi and friend of Himmler, so he will meet both of them in hell. As for Roessler’s fans: your hate on science is clearly an expression of unconsciously realizing what a failure your own life has been. Same for Roessler btw. It must kill him that he failed so miserably in life: no scientist taking him serious, his university fired him, nothing positive he will be remembered for.

    Prof. Peter Howell

  8. No, my father hated Himmler. He actually carried his pistol with him in case he would ever meet him because he considered him responsible for the evil things that went on. Fate prevented him from ever being cruel a single time in his life.

    Science is my life. What I fight against is only bad science, and so only if it is combined with fraud. This is what kills science — believing in dogmatism as you support it, my dear would-be psychologist (if you forgive me the term since I am sure you have a sound professional side to you as well).

    And the Eberhard-Karls-University (after which I was named with my second name because it had made my father a university docent) never fired me, by the way.

  9. Peter Howell says:

    Oh Roessler, you “wish-you-woudl-be-a-scientist”. You are questioning my profession? You, who hs no professional credibility at all? Oh, and your father was a leading Nazi, no matter what lies you keep spreading around. Assume he made you run around in Nazi uniforms as a kid? Oh, and the university of Tuebingen DID fire you and you were not allowed to teach there — remember? You are indeed a seriously disturbed person — driven by hate and recognition of personal failure.

  10. Hansel says:

    What a lie again. The old Rössler was a fanatical Nazi already in the 1920s, even long before the rise to power of the party could be imagined. He was also a fanatical antisemite. There is no doubt about that.

    and, Rössler, your life is full of pseudoscience, not science.

    The University of Tübingen is probably not really aware of Rösslers pseudoscience record. Probably no one there has ever examined your papers full of vague buzzword bingo carefully enough. The episode about your Phd-student whose thesis was rejected after the university had asked a external expert to examine the thesis is a first proof that something is going wrong there. I think if someone would carefull examine Rösslers papers over the last decades he would find a lot of crap published without peer review (exteral double checking) with the help of his old crackpot friends (e.g. El Naschie).

    @P. Howell: No, Rössler was not fired, but this is nearly impossible as he is a german public servant. The sentence means much less than Rössler wants to show.

  11. Hansel says:

    If someone wants to see bad pseudoscience he should look up Rösslers Telesomething or his “R-theorem”.

    That are fine examples of the work of a scientific crank

  12. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Hansel (or EQ?)
    I have sent you a response.…ment-97954
    ps.: Shouldn‘t we be a bit more friendly and talk about the important (and therefore more interesting) points?
    Best regards to all.

  13. AnthonyL says:

    May I have the honor of noting that for all who wish to peruse the sometimes extensive threads that have accompanied Professor Rossler’s previous posts, that the way to retrieve previous 50-Comment-sections which have vanished from the main url of each post, is to add the phrase “/comments-page1#” at the end of the main url, which will lead you to see the first page with its 50 Comments. If you change the number to eg “/comments-page2# it will lead you to the second block of 50 Comments, and so on.

    Sorry but to this objective observer (ie I wait to see if Rossler’s anxiety over the LHC escalation can be countered by good reasoning and references, which I haven’t seen so far here) the posts above by “Professor Peter Howell” seems to show exactly the opposite of what it states ie the “hate” seems to be on the side of the poster, not on those he accuses.

    I hope that Pinky and the Brain will resume posting hilarious comments if we must have unreason here, rather than this “hate” filled rejection of Professor Rossler’s appeals, which are after all motivated by conCERN for the planet.

    Actually there was a certain brilliance underlying Pinky’s apercus here which may well have included strong reasons for adopting his viewpoint, but they were too brilliant to be intelligible.

  14. Peter Howell says:

    @“AnthonyL”: So calling someone Himmler or Hitler is done because you respect these people or because you hate them= Anthony, you once again turned my world upside done — or should I call you Stalin to show my respect for you?


  15. AnthonyL says:

    Sorry, that phrase to add to the url should be “/comment-page-1” “/comment-page-2“etc.

  16. AnthonyL says:

    @Peter Howell Calling someone Hitler or Himmler refers to their fascist tendencies to order things without regard to the public interest or its spokesmen. It doesn’t express any hate for those so labeled or for science. Not per se. Rossler is standing up for the interest of the planet and its people in face of what he reckons a dire threat. He doesn’t write “hate”. You do, as far as I can see. Why not post something constructive adding analysis or information, instead of ad hominem stuff? Rossler is always polite to you and others. This allows a debate without boiling everyone’s brain in harsh words. Even Hansel is amusingly cheeky, rather than nasty, even though he is quite rude, though not as brilliantly amusing as Pinky.

  17. “Too brilliant to be intelligent” is a quotable phrase, although easily too aggressive.
    After Niccolò Tottoli’s kind reminder I feel I need to excuse myself for the fact that I see the reason for the catastrophic development to lie in a single person’s refusal of dialog.
    I will be happy to accept other critics’ counterarguments and respond to them if I can. But there is none so far who dared come up with refutable counterarguments. So he is my “favorite enemy” if you so wish – the only real friend that a real scientist has. For he only wants to come closer to the truth, which is only possible by means of dialog – totally honest dialog.
    I owe the hardest point of my Telemach theorem, the Ch (or Q) for charge, to professor Nicolai having been kind enough to talk with me together with three colleagues for hours in front of a blackboard. My intuition that the new infinite distance towards the horizon would suffice to arrive at an infinite reduction in the number of the field lines of a down-falling charge, he mercilessly refused to accept – and justly so.
    Without him, I would not have seen the decisive point on the next morning – which I had mentioned in my talk before the blackboard but not yet seen as being decisive: the fixed (by general covariance) local proportionality between rest mass and charge.
    So I owe Telemach to professor Nicolai. This is why I sent the paper to his journal for publication and why I would like to invite him to be a co-author.
    I cannot exclude that he knows why Ch is false. But then he ought to be so kind to share his knowledge with me and the world.
    My hunch is that the reason for his unhappiness is more superficial: He may “know in his guts” from his rich knowledge of the formalism of general relativity that even my first conclusion – “M” (the reduction by a factor of almost two of the mass energy content compared to the outside world of any mass brought to rest on the surface of a neutron star) – is mistaken. So perhaps despite the same behavior shown by the well-known Komar mass (which admittedly is usually understood in less concrete terms). And if it were true that he does not even accept the M of TeLeMaCh, I have no chance to bring him to accepting the Ch.
    But maybe he is less dogmatic than I fear – for example, because R.J. Cook gave a much more sophisticated demonstration of M – and so is ready to re-embark onto the question of Ch.
    I dare mention the example of Richard J. Cook also because he had denied in his big learned paper “Gravitational space dilation” on the arxiv that Ch (his Q) behaves like M, but then acknowledged in a letter that I had been right with my covariance argument, so that he would take back his previous stance on Q.
    This is, as everybody will confirm, a rare case of fairness shown on the battlefield of science. But having been in the pleasant scientific atmosphere exuded by my discussion partner at Golm when we met in person, I hope he can understand that I long for a return onto the friendly battle field that we had.
    And I ask the world’s forgiveness that I – and with me the world – crucially need this act of grace that I know I do not deserve but which I nonetheless have the courage to ask for from my favorite enemy and therefore best friend in science.