No, they do not use string theory Mr Roessler. And still you have to prove their “fraudulent behavior”.

As far as everyony can see you are just screaming around wrong and offending statements. This proves you being a serious scientist and a man of character.

Even according to your own criteria for counterproofs you have not shown anything like that. You have neither drawn different conclusions from the same assumptions in a scientific / mathematically rigorous and non-ambiguous (ok, we know that for a crank like you the latter might be really difficult..), nor have you shown in a similar scientific way that the assumptions might be wrong.

So far you have not even shown that you know their assumptions. Your few comments about the alleged content and arguments of the GM paper imply in fact that after 4 years you still do not know what you are talking about. Good examples are your nonsenical claims they would use linear growth models or string theory.

It is quite amusing to see again that the only reply you can write is pure unbased agitation against the scientists.

This paper is deriving nothing. The assumption they make in their formulas are just that – assumptions. Their “results” were disproved in 2008. The authors fear to respond like hell ever since.

Such “scientists” are the religious leaders of a planet gone crazy: It is so rewarding to give credit to these high-paid magicians who did not write a single new report for four years in the very field for which they are being paid as CERN’s “lsag” – LHC Safety Assessment Group.

The fraudulence displayed by CERN is nowhere more palpable than here. The whole world is led to believe that they needed not reply to disproof of their claims. Of course, Stephen Hawking also keeps silent. But: he has an excuse! I am asking the planet: What is the excuse of Giddings and Mangano?

I wrote them a kind letter two days ago. Instead of answering just let Tom reproach for not having prevented my mentioning his name as a co-recipient of my E-mail to them.

Maybe they are right with their unfounded claims. I wish nothing more than that. But anyone who says they are right can do so only by adding “this is my personal heartfelt belief for which I am ready to die but for which I do not have the slightest shred of evidence.”

Not a single string theorist on the planet supports them – even though this purely speculative field is the only quantitative evidence they adduce.

Also not a single serious scientist on the planet defends CERN. For he or she would have to say why the proofs of danger are wrong. Ask the media people if they know of a single supporter of CERN’s in terms of a counterargument to Telemach or to the exponential quasar-growth theorem or to the neutron-star quantum guardian angel theorem.

Ask nobelist Riccardo Giacconi why he despises “the theoreticians.” They cut the money to finish his biggest discovery, the ultra-distant ultrahigh-redshift X-ray quasars. The big-bang superstition which he would have disproved reflects the allegedly “healthy” state of but a single research community still allowed on the planet in the field, with common prejudice replacing the infinite humility and openness to the new – the benefit of the doubt – that is the only hallmark of a healthy science.

There is not a single serious scientific defender of the big bang on the planet, but all media “know the truth.” The previous pope asked Stephen Hawking’s promise – not to become a Christian but: “to never give up his allegiance to the big-bang.” A myth, in other words, which has nothing to do with religion, as Saint Augustine proved in a more rational age (that an eternity can have been created a moment ago).

Modern science, as represented by CERN, is not science but collective superstition; the Aztecs were more rational.

I exempt every single hardworking scientist who works in an “uninfected” field of which there are still many left. Only the “big unified fields” – like “astrophysics-cum-elementary-particle-physics-cum-cosmology” – are fraudulent. They serve other needs of humankind than that for the truth.

Not a single journalist on the planet registers the fact that the custom of proof and disproof as a method of progress has been abandoned in most but not all high-paid fields, by the custom of consensus-based proceeding in both research and publishing. This is exactly the Aztec method.

Pure superstition, but very satisfactory to onlookers. A collective autodafé aspired-to as the new baptism of a whole planet: Poor humankind. Einstein’s friend Leo Szilard saw it all coming.

After Roessler is pregnant with the frivolous promise lifeboat could invite him to somewhat called as his safety conference, he won’t depending on persons regading his bullshit too critical. Sometimes, after Tom loosed his illusions talking to CERN on an equal footing, Otto will return performing the next rabbit out of his hat.

You have proven that you are not interested in the planet but in yourself being on the big stage.

However, the task of adressing the GM arguments will not vanish only because you flee again in this ridiculous anonymity-discussion. :D

The point is that he not even think of the possibility that his “accretion model” (of course there is nothing like a serious model from Otto, but lets name it this way) could be utterly wrong. Probably the high density interior of a whithe dwarf is sufficient enough to slow the bh down and capture it?

In the end he will conclude that from the fact that massive and much denser objects with long lifetimes are indicating danger, not safety. :D

So, Otto, again the only way to maintain your scaremongering would be to formulate a sound counterargument against GM (mathematically rigorous) and present a alternative model, of course on a sufficient mathematical basis.