Comments on: A Friend Tells Me to Specify My Scientific Credentials

By: eq

eq — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:57:44 +0000

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.

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:05:31 +0000

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.

By: ergtrezh

ergtrezh — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:48:45 +0000

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.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:31:44 +0000

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

By: eq

eq — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:13:36 +0000

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…

By: 3245345

3245345 — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:03:36 +0000

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…

By: eq

eq — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:17:24 +0000

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.

By: eq

eq — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:06:36 +0000

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.….‘?

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:01:53 +0000

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!

By: eq

eq — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:49:34 +0000

BTW, you were right. I AM Nicolai.