I started to publish on general relativity in 1992 with about 20 papers to my credit since. I hereby brought in a differential-topological viewpoint, a sister field in which I have about 10 times more publications.

Chaos theory gives you a “feel” for nontrivial dynamical behavior. Poincaré had founded both disciplines and Birkhoff continued in both. My friend Edward Lorenz of chaos fame was a pupil of Birkhoff’s. The differential-topological perspective is in some respects broader than the differential-geometric one of traditional general relativity. Chaos theory in addition is a “barefoot science“ which allows important results to be gathered with simple geometrico-topological means and low-priced computers.

My most recent paper in the field, titled “Telemach,” is maximally simple but arrives at powerful consequences (including several new unit actions in physics). Two of its 3 new elements had already been seen by other authors. It moreover simplifies a sophisticated result obtained 5 years ago in the context of the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity; It toppled the venerable law of charge conservation in physics. I owe the simpler derivation in part to a fruitful conversation with my colleague Hermann Nicolai three years ago. It was he who opened up my eyes to the power of the new charge non-conservation in physics.

The main Tübingen insight in general relativity arose in a course held jointly with Dieter Fröhlich in 1997: If clocks are slower-ticking on a lower floor in gravity as known, what about the topology of the “1-D map” formed by light rays shuttling back and forth between two different height levels: is it chaotic (non-unique) or is it just a bijection? The latter answer – no chaos – took us by surprise. In its wake we slowly accumulated “neighboring” results. The latter proved to hold true even in the context of Einstein’s earliest seminal insight – the equivalence principle – which now is Telemach’s home.

That Telemach has so startlingly many new consequences – including new quantized actions in physics – took us by surprise. That he in addition can save the planet from the worst blunder of history is a side effect that is very hard to handle: we need help with that.

I hope the planet can forgive the Tübingen school for insisting on rationality. If my Swabian voice sometimes appears too foreign, I humbly request the help of more circumspect personalities who have experience with filling a political role. Or does saving the planet from a suicidal blunder exceed the definition of “politics”?

Every scientist can look at my two papers. What is so scarce is time – if CERN starts to continue without first admitting the logically necessary safety conference as it already starts doing. This is why I asked Netanyahu, Obama and Putin for their kind help during the past few days. I today turn to Hu Jintao with deep respect. China just published my gothic-R paper.

could you give us references of your publications in physics, relativity, geneeral relativity, chaos theory, differential topology, differential geometry, please?

Please give the references in the following format:

names of the authors, page number, journal name (or name of the series in which it was published), publisher (publishing house), year of volume in which it was published.

You write you have published in differential topology. Could you please give a precise difinition of how a topology is defined (in your own words), and could you give us examples how topology can be useful for analysis of differential functions. Moreover, could you list some important mathematical proofs in the field of differential topology?

Interesting, a self claimed expert who claims to publish in differential topology can not answer the simple question what a rigorous definition of topology is.

So, we can assume that otto is a liar, and generally throws up words that he does not understand himself just to make him appear more credible for stupud laymans who belive his lies.

Why is such a liar not thrown out at the university of Tübingen? Lecture halls should not be open to liars and conmen.

The two papers of mine quoted above are:

Einstein’s equivalence principle has three further implications besides affecting time: T-L-M-Ch theorem (“Telemach”), http://www.academicjournals.org/ajmcsr/PDF/pdf2012/Feb/9%20Feb/Rossler.pdf,

and:

Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: “R-theorem” demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric, Fractal Spacetime and Noncommutative Geometry in Quantum and High Energy Physics 2, 1–14 (2012),

preprint on: http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf

An annotated publication list with summaries up until 2001 is on the Internet.

none of that material has anything to do with what you claim to be an expert in: differential topology.

now can you give us a rigorous definition of topology and some basic proofs where topology is useful in analysis?

furthermore, we are still waiting for the complete list of your publications in differential topology and general relativity.…

Look: It is you whose knowledgeability is being challenged to dismantle a proof that lies on the table, my dear Hermann Nicolai, not my own knowledgeability in your — admittedly elegant — subspecialty.

So it is proven that Otto is an impostor, a person throwing around fancy words without even being able to give the definition. Thats probably impressing for laymen, but not for people with at least a little bit of real knowledge. You have not even seen that that was the reason for the questions?

You started with “proving” your credibility using fancy words. Now the experts want to see the background.

Or do you want to admit straightaway that your text was in fact pure propaganda for laymen without scientific education??

You can not define the terms, isn’t it? Your collection of fancy words above was nothing than a bluff for laymen, right?

The world is waiting for a counter-theorem, not folk psychology, from the only Institute of the planet that is (still) allowed to bear Einstein’s name.

No one expectects the co-workers’ flak to come up with a counter-theorem. But that Professor Nicolai himself is unable to step forward is worth a news item.

Again no answer from the great topology expert?

So then…It is a proven fact that you are an impostur.

I am Prof Hermann Nicolai, of course.

I am also Father Christmas and the Osterhase.

No, you pretend to defend Professor Nicolai, but the effect is disastrous on him.

He knows how highly I estimate his learned side. But sometimes reproduction or low-radius creativity is not enough. The world is expecting him to deliver. Give him my best regards.

You are delusional :D

So, what about answering the questions?

2342354wer on March 8, 2012 10:30 am

You write you have published in differential topology. Could you please give a precise difinition of how a topology is defined (in your own words), and could you give us examples how topology can be useful for analysis of differential functions. Moreover, could you list some important mathematical proofs in the field of differential topology?

Should be easy for you. Show that you understand your own words. Probably you can gain some credibility from that…for the planet, don’t forget that.

BTW, you were right. I AM Nicolai.

The one who is being examined before the whole world is not the theorem-giver, but the brave youth who claims he can challenge the theorem. Come forward, dear courageous self-declared adversary, no matter what your name, and deliver!

Hey, otto, you were the one writing a whole post about your scientific credibility. Now there are only ridiculous little questions and you avoid even those?

So, you do not want to use this little chance to show serious scientists that you are a person worth to discuss with?

There must be a reason why you spend so much time in writing down your avoidance while you surely could have answered the question straightaway.….‘?

Of course the theorem giver is examined. Especially if he claims to have a revolutionary new theorem.

That is the root of science, dear Otto. being sceptical and examine everything by asking questions. Already forgot that?

And now show the world that you are the expert you prentend to be in your posting above.

I personally am also interested in the entire list of publications that Rössler in general relativity. please, otto, list all publications in relativity in the following format: name of the authors, journal or series in which it was published, page number, publishing house, year of publication.

Rössler claims to publish general relativity articles. However, I did not found much, in fact, I found zero publications of him in the established relativity journals…

Being a serious scientist worried about the planet it should be easy for Otto to give us the list..It would of course improve his credibility. So there is not a single rational reason to avoid this again…

I am waiting, and so is the whole planet, for Professor Hermann Nicolai’s learned response.

I found however, publications where rössler uses the word “topology”.

They are, if i correctly remember, his articles on the rössler attractor and an article of “hyperchaos”. Now the question is: why does rössler use in scientific articles words which he does not understand. And obviously, in those articles, rössler confuses the word topology which function graph. The next question is now: how did such papers slipped through the editorial offices… Perhaps they where refereed by friends?

could it be that some of those papers where accepted by rössles friend and editor of ZNA parisi http://www.znaturforsch.com/a.htm, whith whom otto writes articles against special rrelativity theory?, see e.g. here:

Jürgen Parisi and Otto E. Rössler (2003) Superluminality Paradox in Special Relativity. Physics Essays: June 2003, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 254–258.

then even rösslers chaos papers would be an example of scientific misconduct.

Forgive me if I say that there is a finite probability that this defamatory blog entry was written by Professor Hermann Nicolai himself.

I ask him to apologize in the name of the writer who caused this impression.

Defamatory?

Not really. You were waving around with fancy words like differential topology to “prove” yourself being a real scientist and to impress the laymen. But then you were asked for the meaning of these words. And suddenly you avoided even to give the shortest defintion of your “own subject”.

That looks like the typical behaviour of an impostor. That you publish in journals of people like Naschie who are proven impostors and cranks underlines that.