Jan 13, 2012

Africa Stands behind the Planet

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

The “African Journal of Mathematics” has accepted to publish the “Telemach” paper this month. This is a world-historical event. For the paper proves on the basis of Einstein’s “happiest thought” as he always called it that black holes have radically new properties which make their production at CERN much more likely, but at the same time un-detectable by its instruments and maximally dangerous. If a single one gets stuck inside earth, the latter will be shrunk in a few years’ time into a 2 cm miniquasar – a beautiful chaotic attractor in real space.

The danger level already reached last year is planned to be quintupled during 2012. But CERN does not admit the “safety conference” requested by a Cologne court on January 27, 2011. Nor does it allow the media to report.

So Africa did something forbidden for once by its hopefully saving the world at the last minute, since now the media can no longer be told that the result were false because unpublished.

Europe’s keeping the world media silent will probably continue. But the world’s citizens have a chance now to look for themselves. Every person’s life is now not only coming from Africa but perhaps also saved by Africa.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Visitor says:

    The danger level already reached last year is planned to be quintupled during 2012.

    What is the base of this? A few weeks ago you were not aware of the required data and now you are? :D

    Publishing in a fraud journal is still not published. Your paper is is crap and flawed (shown countless times even on this blog), it does not matter whether it is published in a strange journal probably with the help of your crank-friends or not.

  2. Tom Kerwick says:

    “The African Journal of Mathematics is an international journal for mathematical research of highest rank.” — Dr. Joshua A. Leslie, Chair of the Department of Mathematics at Howard University.

  3. Visitor says:

    Yeah, if he says so…very convincing. Surely you can prove this highest rank.… :D

    That the Telemach paper is n fact of lowest quality is obvious, it was shown several times in comments on this blog. A serious review process would have asked the same questions and perhaps even more — so probably El Naschie was the reviewer, the old crackpot friend of Otto.

    Of course this does not change the fact that Roesslers paper is still irrelevant for any issue related to particle physics or the LHC. There is no disproof of Hawking radiation. To say there could be no HR because nothing can escape the BH (thats Roessler in short form) is not adressing the quantum effect hawking radiation which is famous because it shows a way for black holes to lose energy/mass even though nothing can escape classically.

    There are more flaws in the paper, a review that apparently did not mention them is in fact worthless.

  4. Tom Kerwick says:

    Given the reputible status of the journal, I don’t think anything needs to be proved in that regard, least of all to a faceless Visitor. There is no proof of HR, it is an unproven theory and so Rossler’s paper is surely relevant. It should be debated. If you wish to find a flaw in the conclusions to the paper you would perhaps be better advised to consider accretion rates.

  5. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear all
    It would be very nice to see a single mathematical explanation or better an explanation of an experimental proof that Prof. Rössler‘s theories would be wrong here on lifeboat. I can not remember any comment like this. You can tell me if I am wrong.
    Congratulations to Prof. Rössler.
    Best regards to all.

  6. GaryChurch says:

    Tom, you seem like an intelligent person, thought I have met a few people, even in academia, who were not what they seemed.
    If you think CERN is dangerous, that is a point to make- and I am not saying it is impossible, just highly improbable considering no dangerous result has ever been observed in particle colliders. The sun could just as well supernova- even though a star of such mass has never been observed to do so.
    I strongly believe there are FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS to spend heartbeats on that debating whether mad otto is the true prophet of the apocolypse. I suggest you watch Alec Baldwin’s incomparable performance on Saturday Night Live concerning the dangers of commercial air travel. He is an American Treasure.
    C’MON TOM! Let’s correspond about something that matters and stop wasting time on this idiot.

  7. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Why such hatred without a single counterargument, dear Gary?

  8. PassingByAgain says:

    Who is in the editorial board of this “journal”? Does it even have a website? Was there any peer review? All I could find is the following:

    But it only contains a link to an empty page. The sentence quoted by TK, on which he bases the “reputible” [sic] status of the journal, appears to belong to one of its editors (whom you would not be expect to declare “my journal is crap”… ;-)

  9. PassingByAgain says:

    whoops: “whom you would not expect to declare…”

  10. Visitor says:

    That the journal published this crap of Roessler is indeed a proof that it is no high ranking journal, no high quality journal and apparently a journal without any serious review.

    Oh, Tottoli, the point is that currently there is nothing like a “theory of Rossler”. He was clever enough to be not too precise, to give no derivations, no exact statements or predictions. It is the typical strategy of a crank to keep everything as vague as possible and to avoid any kind of clear answer to questions (all of this can be seen in the comment sections of former Roessler postings on this blog)…so in the end of course he remains “not disproved”.

    A journal publishing this stuff has damaged its reputation irreversibly.

  11. Visitor says:

    “Given the reputible status of the journal,”

    Ah? Can I see some proofs for the reputible status? The publication of Rosslers Telemach is not really proving this status.

  12. PassingByAgain says:

    Well, you might start from the highly professional look of the journal’s webpage ;-)

  13. Visitor says:


  14. Tom Kerwick says:

    Its website seems to be down at the moment — though not everything of merit is online. With editor/endorsement listed above as Dr Joshua A Leslie of Howard University, according to the University of Buffalo listing, that’s credibility. Back to Prof Otto Rossler’s latest revision of his Telemach theorem, after reviewing it, I believe it is a credible debunk of Hawking Radiation theory. However, I do not agree with the accretion rates referred to in it’s conclusion (which are unrelated to the theorem).

  15. Visitor says:

    Leslie has surely never seen the Telemach crap and Kerwick is in dact currently destroying his credibility concerning issues related to the LHC or physics in general

  16. TRMG says:

    Tom Kerwick: “Back to Prof Otto Rossler’s latest revision of his Telemach theorem, after reviewing it, I believe it is a credible debunk of Hawking Radiation theory.”

    Which shows that you are just as ignorant about the relevant physics as the proud author of the latest African J Math article. Where does Rössler even address quantum effects? (That black holes don’t radiate according to Einstein’s classical theory is old news and would thus be irrelevant to Hawking radiation even if Rössler’s way to arrive at this conclusion had not been completely wacky.) Why does he maintain in Sec. 4 of his article that the “L”-distance is coextensive with his “gothic-R-distance,” when clearly it is not? Note that, according to Rössler’s own words, their equality is essential to his argument. (Obviously your “review” didn’t include a simple formula check?)

  17. PassingByAgain says:

    Kerwick, clearly you are not familiar with the whole concept of scientific publication. For your convenience, these are a few top-tier journals in the field of particle physics:

    And this is African J Math:

    To establish the reputation of a journal, you don’t need to rely on the words of one editor. There are objective metrics such as the impact factor, or you can just have a look at the citation rate of recently published articles. Can you point us to some recent articles in the mysterious “African J Math”?

    P.S. Hello, TRMG!

  18. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The fear on the part of the German establishment of the truth is palpable in the above anonymous assaults on a whole journal and a whole continent.

    I apologize for this behavior in the name of Europe if I may.

  19. Visitor says:

    The “journal” is apparently if low quality and the continent is not the journal.

    Nice try, Roessler.

  20. Visitor says:

    Again you avoid to adress the objections given in TRMGs posting. Instead you talk about psychological nonsense…great! :D

  21. PassingByAgain says:

    My wild guess (and I’m fully ready to stand corrected) is that African J Math does not exist yet, and that the Telemach “paper” will appear on issue number one. If that is the case, the “journal” is off to a very bad start… ;-)

    Rossler, please answer the question on which Kerwick fell silent. Can you point us to any recent articles published in the mysterious “African J Math”?

  22. Visitor says:

    Yes, Roessler. Prove the high rank of the journal!

  23. Mike says:

    Herman Nicolai stated that the Gothic R Theorem mis-predicts planetary orbits. Can Otto Rossler give a demonstration (i.e. a calculation) directly stating, in a well defined series of steps, why this is not so?

    Otto — please do not insult my intelligence stating that Nicolai’s analysis is “not relevant” or “disproven” or “ad hominem” or “incorrect.” And if this applies to Gothis R, and not to Telemach…please explain how and why with clearly defined equations.

    And DO NOT state that it was disproven elsewhere — state it here, step by step.

    If you cannot DEMONSTRATE this, NOT STATE IT — DEMONSTRATE IT WITH EQUATIONS HERE and maybe a Mathematica integration — then it will be utterly impossible for anyone to take you seriously.

  24. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Mike:
    You got misled by the other anonymous posters (the mischievous ones are all from Potsdam) who pretend not to know my answer. The wonderful equation which answers all wishes of Professor Nicoali stems from a paper published even before he made his own (false) claim. I said that very often on this blog and each time quoted “Ich“‘s great paper on the web, titled “Entfernungen in der Schwarzschildmetrik”.
    He is the best general relativist I ever met and am very much obliged to him.
    I hope this will not cause a run against him analogous to the run against a scientific journal and a whole continent here — I am very embarassed about this dishonorable behavior.

    (All apparently aimed to cover-up CERN’s crime. But I hasten to add that CERN is exculpated as soon as anyone finds the counterproof that I urge to be found for 4 years. Thank you for seeing the importance of clarification. My best enemy is my best ally. Please, continue.)

  25. Visitor says:

    Yes, of course I am from Potsdam. :D You are clever, Roessler. :D

    “ICH” has stated directly below his equation that your interpretation was physical nonsense. Perhaps ypou should cite it completely, because ICH is definitely not the supoorter of your strange physics as you suggest here. “ICH” in fact confirmed the central critique of Nicolai and others that there is no new physics in a reformulation of a metric. Your personal central dogma was completely disproved by “ICH”.

  26. Visitor says:

    “ICH” also stated very clearly at several times that your “new findings” do not change anything concerning Hawking radiation.

  27. TRMG says:

    Although Rössler denies this, it was shown by Nicolai and others that his “gothic-R” paper uses a conformally rescaled version of the (2-dimensional) Schwarzschild metric, which gives correct orbits for light rays, but not for massive bodies like planets. Rössler never addressed this issue or even understood the problem, as his latest irrelevant reply again demonstrates. His rather obscure attempts to answer this criticism suggest that he imagines to somehow remedy the problem by extending the false 2-dimensional metric to 4 dimensions, which—as should be fairly obvious—cannot possibly work. So again the problem is not our refusal to acknowledge Rössler’s answer but that, as usual, it makes no sense at all.

    For further information see: Giulini, Domenico; and Nicolai, Hermann (August 2008). On the arguments of O.E. Rössler

    P.S. Hello PassingBy. Good to be here again. ;-)

  28. Visitor says:

    The “ICH”-paper to which Roessler refers:

    Unfortunately in german.

  29. Tom Kerwick says:

    Visitor/TRMG/PassinByAgain — hold more credibility and put an identity to your posts. Regarding my casual comment earlier that met with some agitated response — I do not know the African Journal of Mathematics but on a quick google I found a reference which seemed to indicate it is a credible journal. I found no citation during the same process that it is not, other than the fact that its website is down. That besides, I consider Telemach to be an interesting theorom. I must admit I haven’t had the time as yet to review it in depth (I reviewed it briefly earlier this week only) but I believe it justifies a response, not from a faceless troll, but from an academic who is willing to put his name to a response paper to it.

    Furthermore (and I apologize to Prof Rossler in this regard if I wrongly discredit you — you understand your reasons far better than I do), but I believe your ideas on accretion rates are non-intuitive. I don’t see why you associate electrogravitational engine (quasar) behavior with that of MBH existence. Papers published by CERN have assessed theoretical MBH accretion rates based on HR being ineffective, and whilst these seemed to fall down on the fact that they assumed a single MBH rather than aggregating MBH, I believe it is a better starting point. The crux of my opinion is that Telemach may warrant scientific debate, but even if it is proven correct, the debate on MBH accretion rates is another hurdle to be overcome before anyone can claim such collisions are hazardous.

  30. TRMG says:

    Tom Kerwick: “That besides, I consider Telemach to be an interesting theorom.”

    Well, it obviously didn’t interest you enough to check a simple factual claim made by Rössler, namely that two spatial distance functions are equal. If I were you, I would mind my own credibility.

  31. Ed Sweet says:

    Let me get this straight — somebody demonstrated that “Telemach” gives the wrong results when used to calculate planetary orbits? And Professor Rossler never acknowledged this mistake, or correctly responded to it?

    If this is so, why does this discussion go on? This looks like a pretty clear refutation of Telemach…if this is so, case closed. End of subject.

    Why doesn’t Rossler give math contradicting this claim, if he still belieces in Telemach???

    I’m truly confused.

  32. Ed Sweet says:

    Maybe I’ll write a program using Telemach (versus Newtonian gravity, and versus General Relativity) to calculate the orbits of the planets, and see what works…

  33. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Mr. Sweet:

    Thank you for your enthusiasm and freshness.

    Telemach is too simple for such questions as you propose above. (The long disproved claims of Nicolai of almost 4 years ago which he himself had given up 3 years ago because he tried a much better counter-argument which I could disprove, so that he keeps dead silent ever since.) Telemach shows that the gothic-R theorem must have been correct because Telemach proves the same results (on Length, Mass, Charge) in a much simpler and therefore harder to misunderstand and very much easier to disprove if false). This is why it was invented.

    You will realize that the representatives of the German relativistic school here (nameless unfortunately) have no counterproof to Telemach. Like no one else has.

    But I believe you could find some interest in it. For example, you could enquire amongst the metrological community why they keep silent. The idea of their having to re-calculate all astronomical distances, for example, could generate a little bit of excitement.

    Also you might have the first concrete idea how to re-calculate the electric and magnetic properties of neutron stars, given the fact that charges on their surface are by about a third smaller than so far presupposed.

    I have the feeling that the excitement of science returns — nothing is more fun as some of you know. Thank you for contributing — everyone.

  34. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Ed Sweet, dear Visitor Ed Sweet you tell “…End of the subject”. But I could ask the same way: Why does nobody have a mathematical proof that the gothic R-theorem would be OK for gravitational lensing but would work for gravitational lensing but not for the trajectories of celestial bodies?
    A layman and physicist-understandable calculation and explanation or proof would be the best. Thank you. Best regards, Niccolò

  35. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Sorry for the double-phrase.

  36. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    And sorry to Prof. Rössler I have found his mathematically explained Telemach now on
    Dear Visitor where exactly is the error? Can you explain?

  37. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Visitor was the first to dare attack my disproof of Hawking radiation. II would be glad to see his argument.

  38. Visitor says:

    ““Tom Kerwick: “Back to Prof Otto Rossler’s latest revision of his Telemach theorem, after reviewing it, I believe it is a credible debunk of Hawking Radiation theory.”

    Which shows that you are just as ignorant about the relevant physics as the proud author of the latest African J Math article. Where does Rössler even address quantum effects? (That black holes don’t radiate according to Einstein’s classical theory is old news and would thus be irrelevant to Hawking radiation even if Rössler’s way to arrive at this conclusion had not been completely wacky.) Why does he maintain in Sec. 4 of his article that the “L”-distance is coextensive with his “gothic-R-distance,” when clearly it is not? Note that, according to Rössler’s own words, their equality is essential to his argument. (Obviously your “review” didn’t include a simple formula check?)”

    Where is the quantum mechanical argument against HR, Roessler? Where is it? t must be somewhere out there if you talk again and again about having a disproof of hawking radiation.. but apparently you know nothing about the relevant physics so you are not even able to see your failure :d

  39. Visitor says:

    The citation is from TRMGs posting above.

  40. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Visitor so can you explain, why the mathematically explained Telemach on “scribd” would be wrong and show us the error or do you have a (mathematical) proof or perhaps better an explanation of an experimental proof for Hawking radiation? Best regards, Niccolò

  41. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    And why is HR not anymore on the public safety site of CERN?

  42. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Visitor I think I do not have the same version of Telemach like you. Your argument concerning section 4 sounds interesting. But anyway we do not have a proof of Hawking Radiation, right? I hope for further (and honest) clarifications from both sides. Best regards to all, Niccoló

  43. Visitor says:

    Tottoli, are you stupid?

    Nowhere in Rosslers work is anything like a quantum mechanical argument against hawking radiation. The point is that Roessler does not even have a disproof. On the other hand Hawking radiation is connected to some well-tested theories, additional there is some experimental evidence for it (was already cited somewhere on this blog in old Roessler postings, he was never able to bring a reasonable counterargument, it is verly likely that he do not know anything about HR except that it has something to do with black holes)

  44. Visitor says:

    I apologize for the stupid.

  45. PassingByAgain says:

    I am still waiting for evidence that “African J Math” exists. Rossler, can you point us to any articles published there?

  46. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Visitor, dear all
    Please can someone tell me which version of TeLeMaCh we discuss here? Is it the one on “scribd”? Hawking radiation: “Connected to some well tested theories and experimental evidence”? I still say that there is no proof of Hawking radiation, therefore it is not anymore on the public safety site of CERN. With respect to this fact I think to remember other publications on arxiv also. (The full LSAG report is a very different issue because it should be revised since a long time anyway.) You tell that there is no quantum mechanical argument in Prof. Rössler‘s publications against Hawking radiation but why should quantum mechanics not be consistent with the theories of Einstein in this case? Can you tell what do you mean specifically or would it take too long? Do the arguments around time delay in (relation to outside) at the horizon of mini-black holes not suffice? Without HR (which is delayed) it is difficult to say whether there is a mechanism which would decrease the time delay, I think. It would be difficult to tell a difference between the properties of a big black holes and a mini-BH, except its mass. African J. Math: Let‘s wait until the new paper will be published this month. But now to the other unsolved questions “On the arguments of O.E. Rössler”. For example who can tell why the revised Gothic r Theorem (which is mathematically correct) would yield wrong results when computing geodesics such as the trajectories of celestial bodies?
    Thank you for the (to my mind) quite nice discussion, perhaps we will achieve something this time :-). Thanks to the moderation also. Best regards, Niccolò

  47. Hansel says:

    Tottoli, Einsteins theory is in principle a classical theory as TRMG pointed out already. In the view of this theory nothing can escape the black hole.
    Hawking radiation is a quantum mechanical effect and therefore it needs more than a physical meaningless reformulation of a metric to disprove it. There is nothing relevant for hawking radiation in any of Roesslers “papers”.

  48. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Hansel
    The same words again? So can you explain exactly and solve the problem? No proof or specifics? Thank you and best regards, Niccolò

  49. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    And Hansel you say “to disprove it” but there is no proof of HR, so it is not a quantum mechanical effect but just a theory.

  50. Hansel says:

    Apparently you have not understood. Hawking radiation predicts a loss of energy of black holes even though nothing can escape them in the classical view as expressed in general relativity. What Rössler does is to say: “there is no hawking radiation because general relativity forbids this evaporation of black holes”. He does not adress the speciality of hawking radiation, his argument is in principle only this: “there is nothing!”.

    As long as he is not dealing with the current understanding of the relevant theories leading to hawking radiation effects he has nothing like a disproof of hr. There is not problem to solve for anyone but Rössler.

    The disproof of Rösslers R and the nonsense behind it was already linkes above, the “ICH-paper. And of course in the papers by Nicolai et al. The contents are still valid as Rössler is still claiming the same crap today — in fact he has not even understood the core of the critique as his current new posting shows.

  51. Hansel says:

    The relevant question here was something different, Rössler should prove that this journal exist and show some citations/articles.

  52. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Hansel
    I know — infinitely time delayed virtual particles, an infinite distance, an infinite redshift and therefore no loss of anything. Again: HR should be proved first, to have a chance to disprove it. Who is responsible and who must show a proof? The experimenters with their new physics (which would be responsible for any damage) or the critics? And do you think that only the question concerning the African journal is relevant? What about the questions concerning the paper of Prof. Nicolai? Best regards, Niccolò

  53. Hansel says:

    You should not take Rösslers “interpretation” of GR to seriously. IOt was already shown to be wrong (Nicolai, “ICH”). There is still no argument against HR in your first sentence as I have pointed out several times now. Repeating the argument which was already revealed as being irrelevant above is not really a good idea.

    Hawking radiation is furthermore connected to present well-tested theories (introduction Giddings & mangano for arguments for HR). Even if not observed directly (although there are some experiments showing hawking effects) it is likely to exist. And again: that Rössler has no argument against it is a fact,

  54. TRMG says:

    Niccolò Tottoli: “For example who can tell why the revised Gothic r Theorem (which is mathematically correct) would yield wrong results when computing geodesics such as the trajectories of celestial bodies?”

    This follows from two of Rösslers claims that were never revised: 1) The observable radial distance is the gothic-R distance

    dR = dr/(1-2m/r).

    2) c is globally constant in the sense that

    dR/dt = const.

    along light rays. Both require a metric of the form

    ds² = dt² — dr²/(1-2m/r)² + (some angular-dependent terms),

    which is simply wrong, no matter how Rössler deigns to extend it to 3 spatial dimensions, i.e. how he defines the parenthetical terms depending on the angles. For radially propagating light rays, for which ds² = 0, this metric predicts the same geodesics as does the Schwarzschild metric, but for massive bodies, for which ds² > 0, it obviously does not. Rössler does not understand this issue at all and has been ignoring it for years. He simply denies that this metric would be a consequence of propositions 1) and 2), even though that is easy to prove in General Relativity.

    Also, nothing about this metric agrees with anything he puts forward in his Telemach paper; e.g. from 1) it follows that

    L_tail = (1+z)² * L_tip,

    while Telemach’s Eq. (2) holds that

    L_tail = (1+z) * L_tip.

    Nevertheless he writes in Sec. 4 of the Telemach paper that it is imperative for both distance functions to be equal.

  55. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Hansel I think it is just revised since “Ich”.

  56. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear TRMG thanks a lot for your explanations. I will read your comment and think about it later, because I have to go now. Perhaps Prof. Rössler or someone else can say something helpful and honest. Best regards to all, Niccolò

  57. Dear TRMG:

    If I had invested so much thought into wrestling with two difficult papers, I would be grateful if the author offered me to meet with him by phone or in person and try to come to a synthesis or an agreement to disagree.

    How can you defend your long-standing refusal to do so?

    Take care,

  58. Hansel says:

    “1) The observable radial distance is the gothic-R distance”

    This is by the way not the view of “ICH”, he stated that very clearly in his paper. On the other hand it is apparently still the opinion of Rössler.

  59. Hansel says:

    Niccolò Tottoli on January 15, 2012 6:03 am

    Dear Hansel I think it is just revised since “Ich”.

    The disproof of the gothic R by “ICH” does not change anything concerning hawking radiation but all concerning Rösslers strange physics.

  60. Hansel says:

    Otto, there is no need for private conversations hidden for the public.

  61. Dear Hansel/TRGM: I said nothing about privateness. Scientific dialogue is always open by definition. If you are ready, I am ready. I hope you do not cop out again, Otto

  62. Hansel says:

    Nice try, Rössler.

    There will be no phone call, no private, non-transparent discussion. Answer TRMG in the open or shut up.

  63. I answer even a swine with a mask in the open. But he did not ask a scientific question because a scientific question consists in making a scientific statement and then asking whether it is correct or not in the opinion of the discussion partner.

    What is the scientific question the little man behind the mask wants to be answered?

  64. Hansel says:

    A short look to Telemach reveals that you do not know what a scientific statement is. :D

    Above there is an answer of TRMG to Tottoli. That is the post after you wanted to phone TRMG — but that is not the rules of the game. If you have something to say to this posting say it here in the open or shut up. It does not matter really as you are disproved several times anyway (Nicolai, ICH, TRMG, Bruhn .…). Thats all.

    BTW, where is your proof that your journal exist? Link, articles? Editors?

  65. You had it before your nose and did not recognize it today.

    But please, answer me a question: What is your explanation for the fact that your superiors do not allow you to take off your mask, and why are they hiding behind you? (Forgive me if the question is too direct.)

  66. Hansel says:

    Oh, I had it in front of my nose?

    So where is it? Why is it that difficult for you to give a simple link or reference? Why this silly show?

  67. This is an intelligence test, dear Hansel.

  68. Hansel says:

    So far you have failed in the test. :D

    Above we had posted already two links to two journals (both are not really of good reputation as far as one can see). So the question was for hours, which one of them is the strange journal willing to destroy its credibility by accepting your pseudoscience?

    So far you have failed the simple test. It seems less intelligent and even a little bit childish that for several hours a you are not able to give the correct link, a credible reference.

  69. Hansel says:

    We are also still waiting for a scientific response to TRMGs last posting which showed as many papers and postings before your complete failure in general relativity :D

  70. No paper ever proved Telemach or the gothic-R paper wrong.

    You will become famous if you find the flaw, as you know very well, my young friend.

    Do me the favor to tell Professor Nicolai that he must defend his guarantee given behind closed doors to the largest scientific community of the planet that my theorem is false. I predict that Hawking will not endorse him.

  71. Hansel says:

    The problem is that you never understood the counterproofs. Your talking about the 3D-version of ICH shows that very clearly. You have not even understood the statements from ICH. :D

    In fact Nicolai, Bruhn, ICH have disproved the R. The Telemach is flawed and was disproved several times in discussions on achtphasen and lifeboat.

    It is still a fact that your “theorems” are absolutely irrelevant concerning hawking radiation. There is not a single line in your work adressing the quantum effect predicted by Hawking AND others.

  72. Hansel says:

    Where is your statement about TRMGs last posting, Rössler?

  73. Hansel says:

    TRMG on January 15, 2012 6:02 am

  74. This is for once a brave statement — thank you for it.

    Please, give the counter-theorem to Telemach (gothic R is too difficult) in a formal way, titled: Counter-theorem. I will be so grateful.

    Being stupid is allowed: please, enlighten me. Are two lines sufficient? You may take more if needed. Thank you.

  75. Hansel says:

    Why should anyone write the xth version of Nicolai, ICH, bruhn et al when it is clear from the beginning that you

    - will never accept anything disproving your pseudoscience (shwon countless times before)

    -are not able to understand the counterproofs, regardless if presented in a prosaic or formal way.

    The case is already closed, Rössler. If one has to give formal counterproofs then it is you. Where is your formal counterproof of Nicolai (ICHs paper is not a counterproof of Nicolai as it in fact repeats the critique of Nicolai) or Bruhn or TRMG above (and at other places on this blog) — we never saw anything like that.

    So when will you start to work instead of writing again and again new boring and stupid posts on lifeboat?

  76. Hansel says:

    For the beginning give a formal reply to TRMG on January 15, 2012 6:02 am.


  77. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear TRMG, dear all
    I feel that your comment is very straight. Also, I feel that I like it but I need time to really understand. If all would be in words I probably would. Perhaps I will reply later, if I can. At first sight it seems not to look too difficult. To my mind it would be a good idea, if you would have a private e-mail contact with Prof. Rössler. (Or with me via facebook.) I think that we are both discreet. I will not tell anything about black holes anymore until I will understand your comment.
    Thank you very much.
    Sincerely yours, Niccolò Tottoli

  78. Hansel says:

    “To my mind it would be a good idea, if you would have a private e-mail contact with Prof. Rössler.”

    NO!. Rösser wants to have a public conference, then he should discuss in the open, not behind phone calls or private emails. It is more than strange that Rössler wants to avoid the public as soon as someone gave again the evidence that his arguments are in fact pseudoscience.

  79. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Hansel and Prof. Rössler
    I hope with all my heart that something real will be achieved here. Peace and all the best to both of you and all. Thank you.
    Sincerely yours, Niccolò

  80. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Hansel we are all people, ok? Why not let them have their own decision? Best wishes. Niccolò

  81. Hansel says:

    Think about the strangeness of Rössler demanding a public conference and his wishes to hide behind phone calls, emails and so on as soon as someone shows his flaws. :D

    (The result is well known: he is disproved but claims in public to be not disproved. As the other participant usually leaves the discussion there is almost always no objection against this summaries from Rössler. )

  82. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Hansel
    A public safety conference would be still important. I cannot say something about black holes until I will understand the answer of TRMG but as you know I can say much about the cosmic ray argument or about other facts, for example that there was never an independent safety assessment and so on, etc. My comments with respect to these things have been not answered in most cases here. No comment at all with respect to the great document “GM-answer” of “LSR”. Why is this so? Best regards, Niccolò

  83. Dear Hansel: Did I not ask you repeatedly to talk with me, either in private or publicly, in person? And that I would refer the public version?

    Why do you tell something else here? Are there two people behind the same pseudonym here?

  84. Hansel says:

    No, Rössler, you were asked repeatedly. So where are your answers?

  85. Hansel says:

    “And that I would refer the public version?”

    Liar. It is always the other way around. As soon as someone has given an argument destroying your “science” you want to phone the person. We have seen this several times on this blog and on many other blogs before.

  86. Dear Hansel:

    I understand that this is your honest opinion even though the opposite statements made under your name can be read on this blog.

    You are right above that an argument “destroying my science” would be very important to learn about. Not just for me.

    What you presented, unfortunately, was never such an argument (nor did your alias TRGM succed in this). I wanted to give you a chance to explain your way of reasoning so we could jointly find out where you went astray or else where I went astray in misunderstanding you if you succeed in making your intention intelligible to me and it in addition survives (which I do not exclude).

    Since the latter aim is allegedly your own, your refusing to talk to me in any form, honestly without a mask so a genuine communication can arise, is a very serious matter.

    You seem not to know what this entails for you. Others know and are misusing you by keeping you in the dark. Taking child soldiers is the worst sin in real life. An analog is realized here: you are not a child, but are being treated as a minor. You do not see this. Forgive me for telling you. Maybe you saw Berhard Wicki’s movie “The Bridge” (it was one of my worst cinema experiences as a highschool student).

    Take care, Otto

  87. Hansel says:

    Rössler, give the name of the journal and a statement to TRMGs posting above. A formal one.

    So far you never replied in a scientific way to statements like that. So obviously you are not qualified /competent even to evaluate arguments which are indeed destroy your “science”.

    Now we are waiting for the first formal reply of Otto E Rössler. A world historical event, really. ;)

  88. Hansel says:

    I forgo before to mention that additional to your desire to hide yourself behind phone calls etc you are usually chatting around meaningless stuff, e.g about phsychological damages of the other participants or masks and so on.

    We know that already, Rössler. There is no need to show your strategies for avoiding clears formal answers any longer. :D

  89. Tom Kerwick says:

    All, if I may clarify on behalf of Otto, the revision of his Telemach theorem to appear in the African Journal of Mathematics is more recent to that on scribd, re new fundamental constant etc, so I suggest await for the publication before a final judgement on it. Also if not to tease too much to those who have not read it yet, I commend Otto on his humility in stating that Telemach’s youthful and exotic character lets it still appear possible that he belongs more to Homer than to science. Let’s hope the paper gets the exposure it yearns for, so as to take this unfortunate debate to a conclusion. Also if someone can provide a link to the journal please do so (there seems to be many of similar name such as The other one I referenced to earlier seems to be a dead link.

  90. PassingByAgain says:

    Rossler would be in the best position to provide a link to the journal, but for some bizarre reason he refuses to do so…

  91. Dear Tom:
    Thank you for pouring oil on the waves and for your official question. The reference you gave is the correct one.
    Take care, Otto

  92. PassingByAgain says:

    So this is the unfortunate journal that will disgrace itself by publishing the Telemach “paper”?

    What can I say, those guys must be really desperate for the $550 handling fee… ;-) (see bottom of the linked page)

  93. Anthony L says:

    The handling fee is waived for those who cannot pay it,which may be taken as proof of their real motive which is admirably to publish papers of great interest despite the poverty of some of the contributors:

    Publication of an article in the African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research is not contingent upon the author’s ability to pay the charges. Neither is acceptance to pay the handling fee a guarantee that the paper will be accepted for publication. Authors may still request (in advance) that the editorial office waive some of the handling fee under special circumstances.

  94. Peter Howell says:

    Let me do the “I told you so dance”…;-)

    Roessler is paying an internet only self-publishing firm to print his paper. This is not a scientific journal. But good enough for Tom and the rest of the Roessler cult.

  95. PassingByAgain says:

    Anthony, no serious scientific journal relies on fees from the authors to cover its costs. The reason is so obvious that I won’t ever bother explaining it to you…
    And poor contributors who wrote good papers can publish them for free in any of the top-tier journals that I listed in an earlier post.

  96. Tom Kerwick says:

    Peter Howell — I would like to point at you specifically in as to why you consider me a follower of anothers opinion rather than a leader of my own which happens to overlap.. Might I ask what are your credentials? I wonder about your stature as a scientist when you fail to advertise it alongside your opinion.

  97. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear TRMG, dear all
    Your interesting reply (January 15, 2012 6:02 am) is printed in my hands. I just try to understand the issue step by step, therefore let me ask you only one question to begin, please.
    So is it generally true that dR/dt=constant along light rays?
    Thank you very much for your help.
    Sincerely yours, Niccolò Tottoli

  98. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Ok one more question: What means s ? Thanks.

  99. Anthony L says:

    Yes, paying up indicates a boundary. But there is no reason to assume a priori that it means an article is complete rubbish, at least not for certain. There is a percentage likelihood, but it is not 100%. Anyone outside the groupthink that rules fields nowadays can still be right and is usually blocked rather strenuously by those in position in the game of paradigm musical chairs, at least till the music starts up ie outsiders review the situation.

    But I agree that genius is usually recognized by really experienced editors who value the truth and are politically independent. The question these days is, Where are they?

  100. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Intuition is a gift of God, but it is not always reliable and leads to the truth. Theories must not refer to reality and the reality may not always be explained with theories. Various theories contradict each other, because they are based on different assumptions. In physics this is sometimes the case also. Truth is transformed into an error and in some cases the error into the truth again. Hawking radiation and the velocity of neutrinos are mentioned as two examples.
    Regarding the experiments of CERN it is important to know, that there are various important differences between the cosmic ray collisions and the collisions at the LHC. Therefore the general safety argument of CERN/LSAG “that it happens all the time on earth” is invalid and untrue.
    The safety report “LSAG” of CERN should be revised since many years and an open and continuous safety assessment with the critical scientists should be held, to discuss many issues.

  101. AnthonyL says:

    Tottoli you seem to be up to speed on all this material, congratulations. Like Houston, you set a very good example. You have actually read what CERN has said, unlike most here. What was your motive?

    My research has found that most people do not read the literature of the topic they discuss in science, which is why bad ideas can rule far past their date of expiry.

  102. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Anthony L. My only motivation is the safety of all creatures and the continuation of history. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Niccolò