You are therefore a proven liar.

Besides it is obvious you have not even understood the principles of science.

This is obviously false. Finding a truth is not useless if the unsuccessful paths chosen by others are not simultaneously described and analyzed in detail.

Nevertheless it is the first time that anyone asks for this SECONDARILY very important element as well. It shows that logic is returning into the discussion.

Finding the truth is always much easier than understanding why someone else went astray. But it is very illuminating eventually to see where the decisive error occurred.

Where is the point where everyone went astray? I put it into the fact that they all overlooked (because Oppie did not put his finger on this) that not only the passage downstairs takes an infinite amount of time — seen from the outside — to arrive there, both for astronauts and for light, but also the passage back upstairs does.

This symmetry is very easy to overlook when you know at the same time that an astronaut takes only two days according to his own wristwatch for both travels, and a light ray not time at all according to its own wristwatch if it could be given one.

So it could happen that Hawking overlooked that “from the point of view of the twin particle in the pair of shortlived virtual particles, the partner takes an infinite amount of time to reach the horizon [so nothing prevents himt from returning after a short finite time according to the twin particle’s clock].

Got the point? It was the temporal symmetry that went unrecogniozed for 73 years.

I fully agree.

BTW, if asked what precisely he would accept as a “counter-theorem,” Rössler imagined something that starts from the same premises, but arrives at a different conclusion, or, alternatively, a falsification of the premises, which in this case would be special relativity or the equivalence principle.

Disregarding the second option as highly unrealistic, the first one would be completely useless unless you also spot the flaw in the logic in either of the alleged proofs, which means that is really all you have to do in the first place.

“eq.(1) of Telemach is incorrect”

if true (and countless bytes have been wasted trying to explain to Rossler why this is the case) then the theorem is disproved. Rossler’s insistence that someone provides a “counter-theorem” betrays his lack of understanding of how science works. If you can point out a flaw or inconsistency in the “theorem”, then the theorem is dead, there is no need for “counter-theorems”.

The world. Megalomaniac Rössler identifies himself with nothing less than the “world”.

This defines new standards of delusional crackpottery

Poor Rössler!