Comments on: Nil Nocere, Dear CERN !

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Thu, 10 May 2012 21:54:43 +0000

Dear Tom:

Quote: “You can be assured that the position of Prof. Nicolai — and of the scientific community in general — on your interpretations of general relativity will not have changed.”

Good point: They presumably do not understand Telemach (which is a million times simpler than the gothic-R theorem) either.

But don’t you agree that what the world needs is a counterproof to a given proof that it is being risked? You sound here as if “opinions” were enough for you, dear Tom? (This is of course a rhetorical question since I have a very high regard for you as you know.)

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Thu, 10 May 2012 21:30:41 +0000

You can be assured that the position of Prof. Nicolai — and of the scientific community in general — on your interpretations of general relativity will not have changed. That is not to say that MBH radiate — consider over some discussed phenomenological evidences…

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Thu, 10 May 2012 21:12:59 +0000

Dear Tom: This uncautious, never published Internet comment is 44 months old and has nothing to do with Telemach. The paper which is addressed has since been both revised and published in a scholarly journal.

Please, help me get a statement from Professor Nicolai on Telemach. The whole planet is waiting.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:58:38 +0000

http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/NicolaiComment-en.pdf
“To conclude: this text would not pass the referee process in a serious journal.” Prof. Dr. Hermann Nicolai, Director, Max Planck-Institute on such speculations…

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:03:59 +0000

Hermann Nicolai never said anything about Telemach. I asked him many times. No one ever dared say a negative word about the Telemach result to the best of my knowledge.
Please, quote by name those who made the slanderous remarks that you were propagating. Otherwise they misused you deliberately.
And please, stop publicly doubting the competence of peer-reviewed journals. This can only be done by anonymous cowards — you are a bright star by contrast.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:17:52 +0000

Otto — my understanding was not based on slanderous anoymous remarks but by a comment attributed to Dr Hermann Nicolai on your wikipedia page, and a general sentiment expressed by the LSAG in previous correspondence, though your wikipedia page seems to have since been revised not to mention this. If Telemach has been correctly peer reviewed, I would advise you champion the physicists who have reviewed and endorsed your work. It is not my intention to argue — just responding.

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Thu, 10 May 2012 12:49:33 +0000

Please, dear Tom: The Telemach paper was peer reviewed.
I do not understand this arguing of yours: only because anonymous posters made slanderous remarks you should not repeat them. Right?

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Thu, 10 May 2012 12:42:00 +0000

Otto- it is theoretical science. A requirement for peer review is not a requirement for fact, but for endorsement of opinion. Without such it is just individual sentiment.

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Thu, 10 May 2012 11:47:47 +0000

Dear Tom: You should not have said that. You give the open impression here not to know that science has to do with facts and not opinions.
This is a “documentum paupertatis” for which you should apologize. Okay?

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Thu, 10 May 2012 10:34:00 +0000

Otto - my understanding is that your opinion that 'not a single scientist ever contradicted Telemach' is your individual sentiment. The more general opinion is that 'it would not pass peer review' and as it did not those scientists you approached on reviewing Telemach and declined inherently disagree with it. In reality, not a single scientist seems to endorse Telemach, which is quite the opposite to your sentiment.