1) No Hawking radiation

2) No point charges

3) No Ur-meter, Ur-kilogram, Ur-unit-charge

4) No gravitational-waves equation

5) No Reissner-Nordström metric

6) No Kerr metric

7) No wormholes

8) No singularities

9) No big bang, cosmic background, inflation, cold dark matter, cosmological constant

10) An eternally recycling cosmos

Three consequences follow in order of increasing importance:

i) The raw data of the Planck mission must be rescued from adaptation to outdated dogma

ii) The LHC experiment must be stopped imediately since its sensors are blind to earth-eating black holes generated there

iii) This is the planet of the apes (orangutans are the highest hominid intelligence according to the brain equation of 1974) – so please, be careful. Only humans can be kind so far

Amazing post and very interesting stuff you got here! I definitely learned a lot from reading through some of your earlier posts as well and decided to drop a comment on this one!

Dear lovely Bat: I always knew that these creatures are the most advanced flyers also in their minds. No one has tested so far whether they are mirror-competent but they are likely to share this with the highest primates — they even have midwifery.

But if I can give you any specific information about one of my — as any specialist sees — very risky new insights above, it would be an honor to me. And I am sure I would learn very much from the exchange.

It seems that there are LHC-tests at the moment, to start the experiment with increased energy soon.

LHC status:

http://www.lhc-facts.ch/index.php?page=onlinelhc

Good luck to all and the world.

http://www.lhc-facts.ch/index.php?page=online

Thank you for the informatiom that CERN has started.

In defiance of rationality and morality.

Wow, you are SO stupid. Don’t you even understand that the first comment is just spam, an automated comment aimed at selling you some cricket bat?

On a second thought, what else should we expect from the guy who just gave 500$ to some Nigerian scammers to get “Telemach” published in their “journal”?

“Thank you for the informatiom that CERN has started.”

Well to be precise still in the process of starting up right? I believe the first beam was scheduled for the 14th.

The Armageddon will not be televised!

Pinky, the shrinking cheese-cake fan

Pinky and the Passenger exhibited an amazing degree of sharpness. The planet would be so served if they tried to find a flaw in Telemach’s ten new features.

Man, Otto,

Did it ever occur to you that your “paper” (which is how you do call your trashy writing) is such full of errors, invalid definitions, and imprecise and hence wrong reasoning that no physicist would discuss it seriously?

Did it ever occur to you that explaining those errors to you is impossible since you lack the mathematical background to understand the counter proofs?

For example, otto, you call for a disproof, and this implies you want to see an argument that is mathematically rigorous. However, when such an argument is given, then you say that it would not be “intelligible” to you…

Imagine some loon is saying he has a proof that 2+2=5. Now a mathematician comes with highly advanced set theory and proves that 2+2=4. (Indeed set theory is needed to PROVE this rigorously). Then the loon answers that the proof would not be intelligible to him…

It is clear that the mathematician has no reason then to discuss with the loon.

Otto, to fully understand the numerous flaws in your trashy writings, you would have to hear the following lectures: special relativity, with excersises and exams, differential geometry 1 with excercises and exams, differential geometry 2 with excersises and exams, general relativity 1 with excersises and exams, general relativity 2 with excersises and exams.

Before you have not completed that (and this would take you 2 years) it is simply impossible to give you an answer that you could understand.

Since you want a rigorous disproof, but this disproof would require advanced differential geometry whose mathematical proofs you obviously do not understand.

In fact, Otto, such a disproof of your trashy writings was already given by commenters here, but you, Otto, told that this would not be “intelligible” to you.

Fortunately, it is not necessary that you, Otto, understands that disproof. The only thing that is necessary is: That all physicists and mathematicians who know the mathematically rigorous proofs of differential geometry can read and understand these disproof.

In fact, this is the case. All physicists who have heard a rigorous mathematical lecture on differential geometry can immediately spot your numerous errors.

There is, however, no reason for physicists and mathematicians, to discuss with persons like you, Otto, who do not know and do not want to learn the necessary mathematical basics to get to such an understanding.

So, before you do not have completed the following lectures (with exams):

differential geometry 1 with excercises and exams,

differential geometry 2 with excersises and exams,

general relativity 1 with excersises and exams,

general relativity 2 with excersises and exams.

there is no point in talking to you Otto.

As your writings show, you obviously do not know even how one has to define certain quantities (like velocities, for example) in a curved space such that they are un-ambiguous. There is really no point in talking to a person with a lack of knowledge like you, Otto.

By the way:

Non rigorous and errorrneous writings like yours will never get accepted in major journals. Since archimedes, mathematics requires absolute rigor, Since Newton, physics also does.

As long as you, Otto, do not even know how to define all your quantities in a mathematically rigorous way, you are off the topic and can not be taken seriously.

You, Otto, can now hunger yourself to death, jump out of the window, or burn yourself to death. Alternatively, you can shoot yourself or someone else with a gun, or you can place a bomb at cern or somewhere else, or just write more trash on lifeboat.

But Otto, as long as your writings, as every physicists can see, are that full of errors and of lacking mathematical rigour, (in your writings even almost all definitions are, in fact, mathematically incosnsistent), no one will discuss with you, talk with you or take you seriously at all.

A counterexample is all the world is waiting for. One line suffices.

You have proven dozens of times that you are not qualified even to understand the simplified versions of the statements disproving your — for years now, by the way.

It is scientific misbehaviour to publish an essentially unchanged crap-paper like the gothic R despite the fact that there are at least three reviews proving it wrong.

You have given plenty of them in the posting above yourself.

Things like: if spacetime is nearly flat (the word nearly flat could be made more rigorous but a mathematical definition for this would be needed which otto does not understand) and governed by Einstein’s field equation, then Einstein’s field equations reduce to a gravitational wave equation, or that the Kerr metric is a valid solution of Einstein’s field equation, or that the rindler metric is a valid solution of Einstein’s field equation, all this can be rigorously proven, from Einstein’s equations, just like 2+2=4.

By listing what apparently follows from your writings, you have given the counterexamples yourself.

the words “rindler metric” in the above text should be replaced by the words “Reissner-Nordström metric”

Let me answer with a constructive question:

Can you prove that the gravitational waves equation remains valid if c is globally constant (as follows from Telemach and the gothic-R)?

If so I shall need to know your name because we then have to cooperate.

P.S. This answer was meant for rtz4z.

The problem is, that you have not shown anything in your paper.

Rigorous disproofs of your “material” by other commenters have been written here. Those thisproofs can be read and understood by any physicist.

No one can show anything from invalid material.

Again, it is irrelevant, whether Otto Rössler understands those disproofs that were given here. It suffices that any physicist understands them.

Therefore, it is simply wrong from Otto Rössler to write: “as follows from Telemach”. Since this paper was already disproven by others.

Furthermore, Einstein’s equations predict that there is nothing at all like a globally constant velocity in curved spacetime.

Hence Otto is in direct conflict with Einstein’s field equations, which have been tested successfully.

Furthermore, a velocity always is the quotient of the infinitesimal length of two infinitesimal curves, one in space and the other one in time. So even the concept of a ” global velocity” does not make sense, especially not in a curved spacetime.…

You use novelty as a counterargument. Why not say: This theorem is wrong for that and that reason, without quoting those facts as a “reason” that are no longer valid if the theorem is correct.

Apparently you never encountered a new result in your life before. All you can do is quote dogmas. THINKING HELPS, says HP. Not rote learning.

But thank you that you tried.

Otto he has given the counterargument. As many before. Novelty is not always real novelty. Sometimes its just bullshit of pseudoscientists delusional about their own understanding.

But thanks for showing your total self-immunization against any argument. If someone comes up disproving you, you will counter this always with ad hominem arguments like “they can not think”. Great.

Of course Otto answered not a single line of the previous post in a scientific way. His only argument is, as usual, “they cannot think”. “They cannot see my genius”.

But thats no argument. Poor Otto :D

The Golm group still cannot name “the counterargument” they allegedly have.

Anyone who has proposed a theorem is morally bound to show “total self-immunization” until someone can give a counter-theorem, my dear anonymous defender of dethroned dogma.

It is a pity that you believe having a theorem implies being a genius. Previously this was called ordinary science. Show the world a theorem of your own. It takes courage to make oneself vulnerable. And do dare drop your mask, dear Golmians.

Your immunization is not sceintific but the immunization of a classicval crackpot. You never responded to any argument scientifically.

It was always the a kind of ad hominem like “they cannot think”. Sometimes it was even a straight lie, like your statement, people like ICH wold have supported your bullshit which was never the case.

You have not even a scientific theorem. What you have presented is too bad even for a first year student.

of course all the old stuff like the solutions of the EInstein field equations like Reissner-Nordström, kerr and so on are wrong — because this ridiculous nondefined nonsequitur-masterpiece named “Telemach” can not be wrong. of course there are no grav waves (what about the nobel prize for the indirect evidence for grav waves? — of course –WRONG! everyone can see the crystal-clear mathematical reasoning of Rössler where he delivers an alternative explanation for that :D ). Of course there is no hawking radaition. Everyone knows that Hwaking forgot to think about the fact that classical nothing can escape the black hole. There was never a quantum mechanical argument behind Hawking radiation. Therefore the masterpiece of general relativity theory, Telemach, completely disproves hawking radiation.

Additionally Rösslers expertise in metrology is simply amazing.

So in the end all scientists on the world are dogmatic non-thinkers. A widespread brain disease. That is the only explanation that no one so far has acepted this masterpiece of Telemach, the new theory of everything as implied in the posting above.

(BTW, otto, have you defined the variables of your equations now? :D still not? oops :D )

Rössler: “Why not say: This theorem is wrong for that and that reason, without quoting those facts as a “reason” that are no longer valid if the theorem is correct.”

Those allegedly invalidated reasons partly consist of other theorems. Do you think science progresses by proving theorems that contradict older, likewise proven, theorems?

And, BTW, there are independent counterarguments, namely the lack of self-consistency in your own statements. You never answered those. (But don’t ask me to point them out to you again. I did that previously, even repeated them in full length, but it never provoked any meaningful reaction from you and is unlikely to do so now.)

“This theorem is wrong for that and that reason, without quoting those facts as a “reason” that are no longer valid if the theorem is correct.”

Probably your disproof is simply wrong and the facts are still valid.

Really a great method, Otto. You declare all the prven stuff wrong and therefore no one can disprove you. great.

I should add that this method of Otto is in fact pure dogmatism. It is way to state simply “I am right and therefore no one can disprove me because if I am right, they have no arguments. If they nevertheless quote something I have disproved they are dogmatic non-thinkers”.

But, to do it this way is in fact the real dogmatism. I

Still no counter-theorem (only verbal flak without substance).

The world is waiting for you to deliver, dear Mr. Anonymous with more than one hood.

As said many times, it is worthless to discuss any longer with a proven dogmatist like you, Otto.

The reasons are explained above. Any argument given so far was either declared as being “non-thinking” or you did not even replied.

Why don’t you answer? Were those theorems that you think are now invalid proven, or not?

BTW, what is a “counter-theorem” anyway? There is no such thing as a counter-theorem to a theorem. A theorem is a statement that is proven. You cannot, in the absence of logical inconsistencies, prove two statements that contradict each other. You can only point to flaws in at least one of the proofs, which you have never done.

Still no counter-theorem — only empty psychological polemics. A tragedy since it comes from the only place in the world that has put its name at stake that the CERN experiment were safe.

A counter-theorem consists in a proven statement that either makes the same assumptions as the offered theorem and reaches a different conclusion, or roves that one of the assumptions of the theorem was false.

Since Telemach is based alone on special relativity, applied to a constantly accelerating system, it will be hard to question its assumptions.

If ypou want to cotradict it, you must show that either T or L or M or Ch does not follow from the assumptions made.

Now it is your turn, dear TRMG.

“A counter-theorem consists in a proven statement that either makes the same assumptions as the offered theorem and reaches a different conclusion, or roves that one of the assumptions of the theorem was false.”

The interesting point is that Telemach does not meet your own criteria for a counter theorem regarding the theorems it shoould have disproved. For example where is your quantum mechanical argument against Haking radiation? This example is already highly sophisticated when compared to the more basic inconsistencies shown in Telemach log before.

Rössler: “A counter-theorem consists in a proven statement that either makes the same assumptions as the offered theorem and reaches a different conclusion, ”

This would imply a logical contradiction, assuming both proofs are correct. It would show that general relativity, as a mathematical theory, is inconsistent, but it wouldn’t establish the truth or falsity of any of both statements.

“or roves that one of the assumptions of the theorem was false.”

Ok, this case is irrelevant then, because none of us questions the validity of relativity.

“Since Telemach is based alone on special relativity, applied to a constantly accelerating system, it will be hard to question its assumptions. ”

The same could be said about, let’s say, charge conservation or the stokes theorem, which rest on even weaker assumptions, and are, if I understand correctly, among the theorems you consider invalid now.

“If ypou want to cotradict it, you must show that either T or L or M or Ch does not follow from the assumptions made. ”

btdt. For the time being, let’s focus on the points above.

Dear pseudoscientist Otto,

if you have disproved proven spultions of the Einsteinian field equations you are standing against General relativity itself unless you have not shown that the proofs for the R-N or Kerr Metric were wrong.

eq wrote:

if you have disproved proven spultions of the Einsteinian field equations you are standing against General relativity itself

that is the point i was going to make with my posting:

Furthermore, Einstein’s equations predict that there is nothing at all like a globally constant velocity in curved spacetime.

Hence Otto is in direct conflict with Einstein’s field equations, which have been tested successfully.

Actually, otto claims things that are in contradiction to the properties of Einsteins field equations.

He now replies:

Quote:

You use novelty as a counterargument. Why not say: This theorem is wrong for that and that reason, without quoting those facts as a “reason” that are no longer valid if the theorem is correct.

end quote.

but that is wrong. I use experimental tests as arguments.

Otto claims that properties of einsteins field equations must be wrong.

Yust those equations have been experimentally tested.

What otto seems constantly to forget is, that the strength of mathematics and physics lies in its core feature: that it can never be disproven, once it is established. For example, Einstein has not disproven newtonian mechanics. On the contrary, Einstein had to show, that his theory of relativity reproduces newtonian mechanics in all aspects where newtonian mechanics could be applied at that time.

so, unless rössler shows that his “model” does not reproduce! the kerr or rm metric or gravitational waves, he is automatically wrong, since relativity is tested in that energy region where those solutions hold.

Rössler always seems to forget that one can not simply disprove experimentally tested theories like general relativity.

by the way otto, you should also add the sentence:

“planetary orbits differ from the ones predicted by relativity”

to the list off features of your “model” in the posting above

“If you want to contradict me, you must show that either T or L or M or Ch does not follow from the assumptions made. ”

I made an error in my last post: the sentence:

so, unless rössler shows that his “model” does not reproduce! the kerr or rm metric or gravitational waves, he is automatically wrong, since relativity is tested in that energy region where those solutions hold.

should be:

so, unless rössler shows that his “model” does reproduce! the kerr or rm metric or gravitational waves, he is automatically wrong, since relativity is tested in that energy region where those solutions hold.

no Otto, if you want to contradict Hawking, R-N. K and others you have to show that their proofs were wrong and that their conclusions are not following from the assumptions made.

You have done nothing like that. Therefore all the points made above in your post are pure crackpottery.

Dear Professor Nicolai:

Thank you for your learned answer.

As just mentioned on the other blog, here the admittedly unusual situation has arisen that my Telemach theorem relies solely on special relativity (not even on the slightly more general Rindler metric, which I still had to adduce in our last discussion held two years ago).

So the essence of your new highly apppreciated question apppears to be:

Is it possible that special relativity contradicts in one point general relativity, so that the range of validity of general relativity would have to be reassessed in some areas (like when the inclusion of charged particles or rotation is at stake)?

By posing this question, you kindly attest to the great importance of Telemach — in case you and/or someone else indeed remain unable to find a flaw with it.

I very much apprecuate your high-caliber intervention.

Take care,

Sincerely yousr,

Otto E. Rössler

P.S. “I recognize the lion from his roar.”

P.S. This refers to the second but last entry.

Now Tlemach is a SRT-thing?

:D ROFL

Otto, if you want to contradict Hawking, R-N. K and others you have to show that their proofs were wrong and that their conclusions are not following from the assumptions made.

You have done nothing like that. Therefore all the points made above in your post are pure crackpottery.

Rössler: “If you want to contradict me, you must show that either T or L or M or Ch does not follow from the assumptions made. ”

And the only way, in your opinion, to accomplish this is to show that the theory of relativity is either inconsistent, or rests on false assumptions? At least this is what you implied above.

Also note that by your own standard the only way to contradict Hawking Radiation is to show that it does not follow from the assumptions made in Quantum Field Theories on curved space time, which you never even attempted to do. Unless you apply a double standard in favor of your own assertions, it does not suffice to state that Hawking Radiation contradicts “Telemach.”

P.S. Sorry, I had meant “three years ago,” not “two years ago.”

So Otto, in the end you have contradicted general relativity…because that is the real conclusion if one took your bullshit seriously.

“Also note that by your own standard the only way to contradict Hawking Radiation is to show that it does not follow from the assumptions made in Quantum Field Theories on curved space time, which you never even attempted to do.”

Exactly what I was mentioning before.

So, Otto, again: Where is your quantum mechanical argument against hawking radiation?

If you have nothing like that, remove the item from your list.

The long Otto-silence again.

Professor Nicolai can explain to you where the Rubicon lies: It is not the compatbility between quantum mechanics and general relativity that is the point where peace has to be made, it is the compatibility between (parts of) general relativity and special relativity.

I would be very much interested in his esteemed opinion.

That is ridiculous and demonstrates once more your complete lack of knowlegde in the field.

Take me as a Chinese room. My theorem is easy to understand. If it is true, many things follow. If you hate them (which I consider a mistake, but I may be wrong), try to dismantle it. Do not look at me and my stupidity.

So to conclude — you are still not wrong but now there is a problem between the SRT and GRT, which no one before ever has realized.

and of course all of a sudden Telemach is based on the SRT and not the GRT while you are talking about gravitational effects all the time which are not part of the SRT.….wow, Rössler, you are really the greatest man ever. Instead of admitting to be wrong the whole science since Einstein is wrong. Even Einstein himself probably. :D

otto, there is no theorem to be undestood. Everyone with at least a little knowledge has seen in the last hours that you are not even knowing what you are talking or writing about.

So remove your silly list, you have not disproved anything of the items shown there.

Good bye.

Telemach was always based on the equivalence principle of special relativity, as I had expected you were aware of.

You insist on your conclusion that there is a incomaptibility between GRT and SRT?

:D

Otto,

game over. It’s obvious you have no answer to your judges. Meanwhile, please tell us the relationship your father stood to Albert Ludwig Herrmann.

Yes game over. Otto has completely dismantled himself. He does not know what he is / was talking about.

First he talks about general relativity. No he escapes to special relativity as he realized that he comes into troubles. Now he found a new “result”: incompatibility of GRT and SRT.

I see already legions of physicists loud laughing.

Dogmatists are ready to kill everyone — sorry. Why are you not happy if someone shows that GR must be interpreted in a way that no incompatibilities with SR arise? As soon as that happens, a mistake has been made. Einstein was very careful avoiding such mistakes. Most he eliminated or skirted. A few remained (which then are responsoble for some of the ten points above).

Do you really think there is anything perfectly finished in science? GR is too precious to be done such violence — please, believe me.

This reply was to 10:40

Otto,

is it true, you sometimes defined the speed of light in relation to the diameter of someone’s head?

You will find no one laughing, my dear child. Ask Professor Nicolai.

Otto, here is only one dogmatist. YOU.

You are the one declaring everything else wrong. You are the one saying that no one can use anything known to disprove your “theorem” because it was already disproved by it…you are the one setting your “theorem” to be correct by definition. That is a classical dogma.

Your actual struggling with special and general relativity proves that. Tele,mach could not be wrong, that is your dogma. For this dogma you sacrifice everything. :D

Otto, yes or no? You’re the one person to answer my simple question. Nicolai can’t.

Otto E. Rossler on March 10, 2012 10:46 am

Meaningless blabla. Nothing else again.

BTW, where is your quantum mechanical argument against HR?

Where is your disproof of the R-N metric?

Where is your disproof of the Kerr metric?

and so on. Currently your so called disproof of this theorems did not meet your own critera for disproofs. So, please, show the so far hidden disproofs :D

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/03/telemach-implies/comment-page-1

Link to page 1

Do not forget, Otto:

TRMG on March 10, 2012 7:10 am

Rössler: “If you want to contradict me, you must show that either T or L or M or Ch does not follow from the assumptions made. ”

And the only way, in your opinion, to accomplish this is to show that the theory of relativity is either inconsistent, or rests on false assumptions? At least this is what you implied above.

Also note that by your own standard the only way to contradict Hawking Radiation is to show that it does not follow from the assumptions made in Quantum Field Theories on curved space time, which you never even attempted to do. Unless you apply a double standard in favor of your own assertions, it does not suffice to state that Hawking Radiation contradicts “Telemach.”

Otto, one important request of your judges:

“ergtrezh on March 10, 2012 6:35 am

by the way otto, you should also add the sentence:

“planetary orbits differ from the ones predicted by relativity”

to the list off features of your “model” in the posting above”

Please, just do this!

And, i still wait for your answers to my simple questions (Albert Ludwig Herrmann, your definition of light speed). Remember?

Dear children: Sweet barrage.

You think I am an oracle, which greatly honors me. But it completely misses the simple gift I offered: To please, return to the safe side.

The safe side is the equivalence principle and special relativity. Rindler is a great man. People do not appreciate any more how much he did (even the word horizon is due to him).

When you introduce constant acceleration in a long rocketship, Rindler-Bell style, you get interesting mutual “distortions” as you can call it. Redshift is one of them (“gravitational redshift”).

Once you can reproduce it, not with formulas but with pictures, from which the formulas then follow trivially, you have safe ground under your feet. Then you can start looking around you. And you discover that the redshift does not stand alone.

The redshift is caused by your not seeing the simultaneity that really holds true downstairs, but a “projective simultaneeity” (or pseudosimultaneity) that nowhere exists down there. But for you it is what you see and can measure (observe), WYSIWYG. In this slanted (even curved) simultaneity, the people downstairs acquire strange new properties — like slowed-down clocks. But it is more properties than that. They — to you — change size and mass and charge. Not to themselves. But you cannot hug them in their own simultaneity as it were. They look strangely distorted to you.

These laws are the stuff general relativity is made of eventually. But it pays to be so painstakingly exact in your analysis.

Suddenly Einstein is no longer so far away. His ballpark proves to be still fertile. It is much fun. And it even has tangible implications, like the ten points above.

But certainly more. You can found an anti-Rossler saloon in which you try to come up with better (because overlooked up until now) implications of the new “curved” way of looking at special relativity. A more neutral name would be “3-point special relativity.”

Eventually, the Schwarzschild metric could be retrieved. With ICH’s major improvement included (which as you know foresaw and answered constructively Professor Nicolai’s preliminary objection). But the new things that no one has seen yet will be more important.

OMG. A new result. How surprising.

:D

That kind of incompatibility was clear to me.

And as you pointed out, Rössler is apparently going into something different.

No, I am of course not Nicolai. But it is funny that Rössler really thinks he is talking to the world audience here.. :D

It is nice to watch Nicolai address his own putative other self…

I am very grateful for the quotation:

“In fact, from what i have read, it seems that rössler wants to define a version of relativity that preserves all the results of special relativity, even in the presence of gravitational fields.”

This is an impression that can only arise if a more direct discussion is shunned — a politics which can by now perhaps be abandoned?

I only re-inthroned the equivalence principle into its traditional role — as the root of GR and as a locally valid approximation everywhere.

IF Telemach stays unassailable in its own admittedly very limited context, then the implied local validity of T (never questioned in GR to the best of my knowledge) entails an equally implied local validity of L and M and Ch.

Thank you for the high level of sophistication brought into the discussion.

No way Rössler, if you want to discuss than only in public.

No private communication. No hidden, nontransparent phone calls, mail discussions and similar stuff.

BTW, where is your quantum mechanical argument against HR?

Where is your disproof of the R-N metric?

Where is your disproof of the Kerr metric?

and so on. Currently your so called disproof of this theorems did not meet your own critera for disproofs. So, please, show the so far hidden disproofs :D

1) A discussion in which one partner is dishonest about his identity is no real scientific discussion. I offered you a personal discussion only to preserve your own anonymity before the public.

2) I never challenged Hawking’s quantum mechanics, dear eq.

3) The Reisnner-Nordström metric happens to involve charged black holes, whose existence was disproved by Telemach. I challenge you to repair R-N.

4) The Kerr metric falsely assumes finite rotation rates of the horizon in violation of Telemach.

“And so on.” Please, start saying something against Telemach if you want to spare the theory of general relativity as it is presently taught a public blemish — which is none of my intentions. And please, forgive me: I would never be so assertive in my style were there not this danger lurking in the background if I am right.

Otto rössler wrote:

the implied local validity of T (never questioned in GR to the best of my knowledge) entails an equally implied local validity of L and M and Ch.

end quote…

otto, according to gr, at each point one locally has the minkowski metric.

Which means, locally, clocks do not! go slower but thick by the same rate as everywhere.

The rate of the clocks ticking with different speeds in gravitational fields comes only apparent after an integration of the worldline, which means oe has a macroscopic time interval and not an infinitesimal small one.

And it is then, when you do that integration in the presence of a gravitational potential, when the curvature of space becomes important and SRT immediately looses all its results.

So, if you use your T in gravitational fields you can not use the SRT anymore.´Therefore, your paper is entirely wrong.

Deedee:

You claim in effect that the clocks at the rear end of a constantly accelerating rocketship are not ticking more slowly. Right?

You thereby deny the graviatational twins paradox and hence one of the deepest fruits of Einstein’s mind. Right?

No, Otto, he said something completely different. As usual you did not understand but that is your personal problem, not the problem of the community or the planet.

BTW:

hwaking radiation is a quantum effect. You need a quantum mechanical argument to disprove it. So where is your argument? In principle you contradict your first point on the list by not challenging hawkings quantum argument.

Second and third, the metrics are proven theorems, they are proven solutions of the Einstein field equations. Accordinbg to your own criteria you have no counterargument to them. To say they are wrong because Telemach is correct is pure dogmatism with Telemach as the dogma. That is not scientific thinking. So again,

BTW, where is your quantum mechanical argument against HR?

Where is your disproof of the R-N metric?

Where is your disproof of the Kerr metric?

If Telemach should be correct there must be a flaw in the proofs. Show it or shut up.

otto wrote:

Deedee:

You thereby deny the graviatational twins paradox and hence one of the deepest fruits of Einstein’s mind. Right?

end quote

no, the gravitational twin paradox works with macroscopic, that is not local times. For the gravitational twin paradox, indeed you can also throw most results of SRT away, since it involves macroscopic time distances, where SRT does not hold.

SRT holds in general relativity only locally, that is it holds on such small time intervals that no clock is able to measure.

In any case where gravitational potentials are present and clocks in such a potential measure a macroscopic time interval, you can throw all results of the special relativity away.

Your error, otto lies in the assumption that you could have macroscopic time intervals that can be measured with clocks in gravitational potentials and still use properties of the special theory of relativity, which does not hold for such a situation.

It is a pity that EQ claims to support the error made by Deedee.

Telemach is not a dogma but an implication of Special Relativity (with acceleration). If you deny that you deny special relativity unless you can prove that Telemach does not follow from the latter. So a very simple question lies on the table.

Hawking rests on two feet. It is the other foot that is wrong according to Telemach, not the quantum foot.

The other questions I already answered at 8:19 am above.

P.S. Two texts by wr intervened.

“w…r” wrongly claims that special relativity) does not explain the equivalence principle.

Or does he really uphold (quote): “Your error, otto lies in the assumption that you could have macroscopic time intervals that can be measured with clocks in gravitational potentials and still use properties of the special theory of relativity, which does not hold for such a situation” ??????????????????????????

the equivalence principle of special relativity holds indeed in general relativity only for pointlike events, this are time intervals that are indeed such small that no clock can measure them.

The equivalence principle of special relativity means that the laws of nature are the same in every inertial system.

In general relativty, an inertial system shrinks to a single point.

If you now have a distance in time measured by a clock in a gravitational potential, you do not have a single point in time but some interval with a length.

And then, all results of special relativity do indeed not apply any more, since they are no quantities that belong to a specific inertial system anymore.

You, otto, in your paper, do not take the the necessary care.

You argue with clocks measuring time intervals in gravitational fields, but you overlook that then, the physical quantities you obtain do not belong anymore to an innertial systen where the laws of special relativity could be applied.

And Indeed, the equivalence principle of general relativity is something entirely different from the equivalence principle of special relativity.

Oh, it is the other foot, not the quantum foot.

Again you are saying that general relativity is wrong?

Are you sure that you still have an overview the implications of your statements?

Again:

where is your quantum mechanical argument against HR?

Where is your disproof of the R-N metric?

Where is your disproof of the Kerr metric?

According to your own standards for counterproofs you have to deliver.

“The other questions I already answered at 8:19 am above.”

No, you answered in fact nothing. In fact you said “Telemach is correct by definition and therefore this other metrics must be wrong”. But that is not an argument.

It ws proven that this old metrics were solutions of the Einstein equation. So you have to show still the errors in the proofs before you can state anything about them.

So according to your own standards stated yesterday you have to deliver. Just to say they must be wrong because Telemach is correct is dogmatism and has nothing to do with serious science.

3–3: Quote: “then, the physical quantities you obtain do not belong anymore to an innertial systen where the laws of special relativity could be applied”

A beautiful “counterargument” that applies as well to the equivalence principle…

eq has nothing to say, as everyone was afraid of. Is there really only dogmatic weaklings left in the beautiful field founded by Einstein? You have been asked to dismantle a theorem, my friends!

It is plain that no one of you — and the planet? — has the guts to submit a response to the African Journal of Mathematics.

Rössler, its the other way around. You have apparently nothing to say that would prove the points in your ridiculous list.

It is obvious that you have lost the overview over the implications of your statements. You are not even aware of the fact that you are contradicting Einstein / GRT all the time.

To set Telemach being correct by definition as you are doing all the time is NO disproof of the metrics. This kind of argument you are using above is dogmatism in its purest form.

So far you have not shown the flaws in the older proofs while the number of flaws in your crap becomes uncountable.

So, what was again the second foot of hawking radiation?

P:S:To mention this fraud journal is embarassing. Nothing else.

Of course Otto answered nothing to the last comment of 333.…as usual. He does not understand a single word in the context of general relativity.

That at least was proven (again) in this comment section.

No theorem ever was easier to disprove if false. The silence of Nicolai, Hawking and Wald is a deadly triad.