Comments on: CERN Cannot Continue the LHC Experiment

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:58:01 +0000

Following Tom Kerwick’s suggestion, this is a test to see if I am still unable to post.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:38:10 +0000

Mr Kilgore- if I may further highlight the stupidity of some of your remarks here - 'Tom, its amazing. You claim for scientific standards? ROFL' in what context do you think it is amazing that I endorse peer review? If this relates to my dissertation of the subject matter of LHC safety, I would like to clarify to you that I was quite humbled that the LSAG took the time to review this, for example, whom were as kind as to correct me on a few mistakes I made therein and to quote verbatim 'we certainly endorse the first two paragraphs of page 73. We also share the sentiment that it is the scientists' responsibility to debate and keep open the scrutiny of whatever possible implication of their research'. Is that peer enough for you? I also have strove to get my recent short paper on hypothetical MBH flux reviewed on arXiv, so again why are you amazed? If you are indeed Mr Kilgore (I doubt), I advise you smarten up.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:23:29 +0000

Mr Kilgore — I take you to account on two comments — ‘Neither it will be responsive to impostors like Tom’. Actually the LSAG have been quite responsive to me for a number of years so I’d advise you just represent your own petulent self and not others — if you are who you claim to be. ‘Tom, … a long list.’ I don’t know what you refer to as ‘a long list’ nor an ‘imposter’ as I never claim to anything more than I have in my arsenal.

A Master’s of Engineering qualification of highest rating from the University of Limerick for example should be sufficient credential for one to be treated with a bit more respect than you offer — or my work in microwave radio — though I guess as a scientist you have issue with more practical minded engineering peers, which I would consider quite unprofessional of you.

Actually, I am not even sure why you have a problem with the opinion I offered re decency.

You seem quite an agitated individual — and in as so far as the recent dissertation closer to the subject area, I do not hide anything in this regard — and allowed it to be shared in the public domain. Try discussing the science instead, or vent your sleuth arrogance elsewhere.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:44:03 +0000

Strange utterance by a government scientist.

By: William Kilgore

William Kilgore — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:50:32 +0000

Otto, you are not only an old stupid crackpot. It’s amusing how your network deals with agonizing rubbish, as well with serious frauds. You, Tom, … a long list.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:45:00 +0000

Dear Colleague: Is this the new way to deal with colleagues at the two scientific institutions that you are defending here: your own and CERN?

Are you really adamant that an “old stupid crackpot,” as you call me under your own name in public, is ALWAYS wrong? Especially if he obviously means maximally well?

By: William Kilgore

William Kilgore — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:30:57 +0000

Otto, again

CERN is in a comfortable position not to answer to an old stupid crackpot. Neither it will be responsive to impostors like Tom.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:17:39 +0000

Very interesting comments from both physicists, anonymous TRMG and William Kilgore (International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, ICTS).

Both have no other argument than to see that the results on which the survival of the planet hinges if tru,e are new. Novelty is then equated with falsity.

This is a non-surprising illustration of the dogmatic side which science always had to it.

TRGM simultaneously does not dispute that he is the mouthpiece of Professor Hermann Nicolai, leading physicist at the Albert-Einstein Institute at Golm in Germany. Why is Professor Nicolai refraining from giving his criticism himself — if he has any?

The whole world is waiting for him to open his mouth. He was the only scientific defender of CERN’s before Telemach — which owes its existence in part to a scientific discussion with him. No one would be better qualified to counter Telemach if possible. It would be both illuminating and fair if he stated his position after Telemach.

By: William Kilgore

William Kilgore — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:05:43 +0000

“The supposedly peer reviewed papers should be refuted scientifically, not defamed. Where is the common decency here.”

Tom, its amazing. You claim for scientific standards? ROFL
But, as you declared yourself as a webmaster of lifeboat.com puts light on the scene. Now we know, liefeboat.com is not even a trojan horse to science, but a melting pot of pseudoscientists and academic impostors.

Thx for clarifying your position.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:27:56 +0000

TRMG — I’ve looked at it before, and as an outsider to general relativity but familar with the concepts, came to the conclusion that either Otto is thinking outside the box and I don’t get it, or he is thinking outside of the box because he doesn’t get it. Draw your own conclusions…