The reason for the current planet-wide abandonment of major progress lies in the re-acquired belief in clairvoyance – of which anonymous peer review is a symptom. Einstein would ridicule the latter as a “dogma-generating superstition.” While in the early 17th century, the innovators were burnt on the stakes, to date the censors choose instead to burn themselves along with their children and planet.

NO BIG BANG

The expansion theory got disproved in 1929 by Hubble’s friend Zwicky. A remaining gap was closed in 1943 by Chandrasekhar, but the two apparently never met. The final cornerstone is the discovery of a “second statistical mechanics” besides Thermodynamics, called Cryodynamics. It can be used to break the decades-old impasse of hot fusion and hence solve earth’s energy problems.

NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVES

Originally taken back by Einstein, these waves in spacetime were laid to rest by the global constancy of the speed of light c, implicit in the “L” of the T-L-M-Ch theorem (Rossler-Cook) which revives the power of Einstein’s “happiest thought,” the equivalence principle.

NO HAWKING RADIATION

Stephen Hawking’s ingenious idea of black hole evaporation got toppled by the same letter “L” in the Telemach theorem.

THE VOICE OF THE DOLPHINS

Leo Szilard was the first to call for the help of cetacean intelligence, after having been unable to prevent his brainchild, the bomb, from being dropped in 1945.

Next, a female co-worker of John C. Lilly’s took the first steps empirically, but got ostracized into scientific nonexistence.

Finally, Lilly’s good friend Gregory Bateson approved of a paper by the present author published in the San Diego Biomedical Symposium 1975, entitled “A proposed treatment of early infantile autism…” which showed how to tap the higher intelligence and humor of cetaceans and other savants.

THE CERN COVER-UP

On January 27, 2011, CERN stood before a court in Cologne listening to the final advice given to it: To admit a “safety conference” before continuing the nuclear collisions of the LHC experiment. Instead, CERN keeps shooting sharp up to this day while keeping the fact of this official admonition made to it in time a planet-wide secret.

The planet’s media pretend not to know better than the “cleaned version” distributed on Wikipedia, for example.

A PLANET-BORNE QUESTION

In the name of the planet’s cetaceans – dolphins and their relatives including the highest-brained creature known, the sperm whale – and all other savants, I herewith ask the planet’s public to insist on honesty being restored in the face of un-disproved black-hole mediated terminal danger by posing the following question to CERN:

“WHY did CERN cover up the received public admonition to admit the logically necessary safety conference before its continuing with the LHC experiment?”

suprised? everything is in context. all energy and mass is affected by its relationship to its environment. Duh?

Not locally, though. The “Komar mass” is a famous example from 1959 whose generality went unappreciated. Locally, it is unchanged; from above, it is reduced. Telemach is a belated homage to my beloved late Arthur Komar.

Stephen Hawking’s ingenious idea of black hole evaporation got toppled by the same letter “L” in the Telemach theorem.

Yes. The TeLeMach theorem is an elaboration of Einstein’s 1907 time-dilation theorem found to hold true in the rear of a constantly accelerating rocketship (abbreviated for simplicity by “T”). This is the first letter of Telemach. The new corollaries described in the more complete modern theorem pertain to length L, mass M and charge Ch, respectively.

With the new L described independently by R.J. Cook in his paper on the arxiv titled “Gravitational space dilation” (that is, L, as he called it), suddenly Hawking’s error — to forget that the downward-bound twin particle in a quantum fluctuation takes an infinite time in the eyes of its outward-bound partner to reach the horizon (so it can and must return in time to re-unite with its twin) — becomes unmistakable. For now it is not only the travel time that becomes infinite (which is often “transformed away” by false but ingrained re-scaling assumptions), but also the spatial distannce to be covered by the inward traveller that has become infinite.

This important correction of ingrained false interpretations of the Schwarzschild metric has been found over the decades by many more or less sophisticated authors but only Cook and Telemach seem to have a chance to win the confidence of the younger generation. The obvious reason: no colleague on the planet has a counterargument to offer. All luminaries hope that the new mental disease will go away if they hide in full visibility. Such a strategy is too transparent to be acceptable to a hard-working newcomer.

This at least is my hope: That one young scientist will say: “I do request a counterargument if I am to be convinced of the falsity of Telemach.”

“Locally, [the Komar mass] is unchanged; from above, it is reduced.”

Explain to me one thing: why would someone who likes to emphasize his genuine interest in scientific truth, keep making such ridiculously wrong statements, whose falsity he could learn in a second from wikipedia. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komar_mass)

The Komar mass does NOT change in dependence of one’s point of view. It is an absolute constant in a stationary spacetime, which can be directly deduced from the fact that it is expressible as a space integral over time-independent quantities (see the wikipedia article). It gives a notion of total mass in spacetime.

You are either too stupid to understand any of the concepts you keep rambling on about, or simply not interested in whether what you say is true or false.

You are so pathetically dumb. Don’t you see that you are once again replying to an automated spam message? But please go ahead, keep talking to the Air Conditioner…

So you seem to have understood every word I wrote: What is your own response: Can you falsify Telemach?

“Locally, [the Komar mass] is unchanged; from above, it is reduced.”

Explain to me one thing: why would someone who likes to emphasize his genuine interest in scientific truth, keep making such ridiculously wrong statements, whose falsity he could learn in a second from wikipedia. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komar_mass)

The Komar mass does NOT change in dependence of one’s point of view. It is an absolute constant in a stationary spacetime, which can be directly deduced from the fact that it is expressible as a space integral over time-independent quantities (see the wikipedia article). It gives a notion of total mass in spacetime.

You are either too stupid to understand any of the concepts you keep rambling on about, or simply not interested in whether what you say is true or false.

“ridiculously wrong” is not a scientific statement unless substantiated.

The anonymous writer here explicitly denies that the Komar mass is height-dependent — as measured with the famous “long weightless rope” described in Robert M. Wald’s authoritative textbok “General Relativity.”

non-substantiated is your bullshit as indeed explicitely stated by the highest german court.

“ridiculously wrong” is not a scientific statement unless substantiated.

Reading the wikipedia article I cited, or Wald’s book, which you cited, does not provide enough substantiation for you? Would you please identify the formula in the above article which you think defines the Komar mass and discuss its “height dependence”?

If you lower a given mass on a frictionless rope, its pull will (compared to that expected) decrease in proportion to the local redshift valid for you. This is the M of Telemach. This the Komar mass.

Thank you for asking.

“This the Komar mass. ”

No it’s not. The last formula in the wikipedia article I referred to defines the Komar mass. As you can learn from Wald’s textbook (Eq. 11.2.9) it is independent of the surface S in the vacuum. In particular, in the Schwarzschild metric, this integral gives the same value for any sphere centered around the singularity regardless of its radius r, which is another way of saying “it is independent of the height.” Thanks for demonstrating that you do not care for the truth of even the most trivial of your statements.

Uh, does that mean Rössler does not knwo what he is talking about?

Dear TRMG:

I described the Komar mass as characterized in Wald. Obviously there is a difference of interpretation between the two of us.

I know – from Telemach – that what I said is correct. And you did never dispute Telemach (even thoug never understanding it up until now). Now, there are TWO things that must converge if either is correct.

Please, tell me how come the weight of a stone suspended from an ideal rope onto a neutron star (with idealized redshift one, that is factor two) gives only half the value that is to be suspected from the local weight?

And forgive me that my mind is working analogically, not digitally, but this difference of temperament is while being a nuisance, sometimes very helpful in jointly arriving at a deeper understanding.

“I know – from Telemach – that what I said is correct. ”

Thats a substantiated argument. No everyone has to BELIEVE that.

“I described the Komar mass as characterized in Wald. Obviously there is a difference of interpretation between the two of us.”

No you did not, and this is not a matter of interpretation. Either the Komar mass depends on r or it doesn’t. Wald says (and proves) that it doesn’t. So you’re wrong. The Komar mass has nothing to do with Telemach’s M.

This is, of course, arguably only a minor issue. But it’s telling that you cannot even bring yourself to admit an error even if it is most obvious. One of the defining characteristics of crackpots.

The clown is maximally perceptive.

The aim in science is to be shown to be wrong. This is why a “theorem” (like Telemach) is presented: Not to be believed, but to be shown to be wrong. Because only if that fails has new knowledge been acquired.

The sentence you quoted had this aim: To make Telemach vulnerable. This is the anti-dogmatic nature of science tthat is so hard to appreciate. Okay?

What is the sense of this safety conference if Rössler will never admit even obvious errors?

Mr Rössler is not behaving anti-dogmatic if he thinks that arguments like “I know from this or that that I am right” would be sufficient.

It looks to me more like pure dogmatism.

Dear TRMG:

We have arrived at a genuine difference of opinion. You claim that the Komar mass does not do what Telemach provably predicts. In this case I would have to give up believing in the Komar mass as being correct (as long as Telemach stays undisproved).

Since I would be very reluctant to do so, we apparently need outside help.

Do you know anyone who could help us?

No, he said that you are not dealing with the Komar mass and that you also do not know what the komar mass is.

Nice try, Rössler

He did not only say it, he proved it.

Rössler: The outside help is provided by Wald, which you cited in an attempt to argue from authority, but obviously never bothered to read yourself.

Wald also proves that the Komar mass is independent of r. Why don’t you conclude thus that Telemach must be incorrect as long as Wald’s proof remains unrefuted? Do you believe cherry-picking the statements that happen to agree with your preconceptions and dismissing all others is the sciency way to do things?

eq has no place here even as a “claque” since he still did not take back his racist verbal crime against my friend on this website.

to call El Naschie a crackpot is neither racist nor wrong.

Everyone can check this easily by looking at his ridiculous numerology stuff.

“Wald also proves that the Komar mass is independent of r.”

Please, quote the sentence!

I do not tolerate my friends being abused out of openly displayed hatred against me.

The next crackpot criteria: change of topics.

Nice try, Rössler. But this will not help you with the Komar mass. And El Naschie remains a crackpot — it does not matter whether I hate you or not. Again nice try.

It is a proof, not a sentence. It is based on the fact that the integrand of Eq. (11.2.9) (the last formula of the wikipedia article on Komar mass) is a closed 2-Form in the vacuum, from which the proposition follows via Stokes’ theorem. The proof can be found on page 289 of Wald’s book.

Also — if Telemachs true, than how come the changes it would cause in GPS calculations and planetary orbits are not seen? Its effects would be comparable in magnitude to General Relativity’s corrections…thus, it would preduct a different “relativistic precession” for Mercury’s orbit, and also different corrections for GPS satellites.

Do the calculations.

RIchard M. Nixon

US President (deceased)

Eight Level, Hades

“if Telemachs true, than how come the changes it would cause in GPS calculations and planetary orbits are not seen?“

Telemach predicts exactly what is being seen. No one ever claimed it contradicts observation. You confound this with Professor Nicolai’s no longer maintained false assertions against the gothic-R theorem.

(It is interesting that you risk a row with a famous family — why?)

Dear TRMG: The mass you are referring to here was indeed mentioned by Komar as the total mass, and is constant as an asymptotic value. It is not the local mass with the rope to measure its weight that I was referring to. Right? To the best of my knowledge it is the latter that is canonically called “Komar mass”. Do you disagree?

Wow, I shut down my laptop for an afternoon and I miss all the fun. TRMG walking all over Otto again…

Back to the Komar mass, Otto! Do you still claim that it depends on r? In that case, can you point out a flaw in the argument of the Wald textbook? If you can’t, you are left with only two choices:

1) the M of Telemach is not the Komar mass

2) Telemach makes a wrong prediction about the Komar mass, therefore it is disproved

which one do you prefer?

Oh I hadn’t seen the last comment. Obviously you are going for the first option… It’s clear by now that “the best of your knowledge” does not mean much ;-)

TRMG is expected to make his or her appearance. (I still would like him to be Trigemina — but this beside the point.)

In the meantime you can answer the questions from Passingbyagain. Will you?

If not, why?

Rössler: “The mass you are referring to here was indeed mentioned by Komar as the total mass, and is constant as an asymptotic value.”

It is constant. Period. “As an asymptotic value” is only one of these sciency-sounding, but meaningless phrases you like to add to your statements to make them appear more impressive than they are.

“It is not the local mass with the rope to measure its weight that I was referring to. Right? To the best of my knowledge it is the latter that is canonically called “Komar mass”. ”

No. What is referred to as Komar mass is the quantity “mentioned by Komar” that was intended to define the total mass within a certain class of spacetime geometries. It deserves a special name in honor of the first one “mentioning” it, because “total mass” is a difficult concept in General Relativity, which is not well-defined under all conceivable circumstances.

On the other hand, the local quantity you are referring to is simply called “mass,” and it is not difficult to define at all. It is given by the relation between local energy and momentum E² = p² + m². It also does not depend on one’s point of view, which is even easier to prove. (It is a Lorentz scalar.) The only thing that changes with height is the weight itself, which is, of course, not the same as “mass.”

Thank you for your reply.

I was referring to Eq.(11.2.5) of Wald which was a step on the way towards Komar’s invariant.

In accord with a remark made to me once by a colleague, I pointed to a partial result on the way to your (and Wald’s) final Komar mass as being much more deserving of this honoring name.

The future will tell which definition will get the larger acceptance.

Unless — of course — you succeed in your aim to find fault with Telemach which would make me and everyone else much more happy. For then the CERN experiment would suddenly lose the ominous character that so far no one was able to lift.

Rössler has no arguments. The comment above is only silly evasive chatting around the fact that TRMG has disproven him again. And shown that he does not know what he is talking about — not for the first time.

But for fanatical believers among the critics it might be still sufficient, Otto. Don’t worry :D

“I was referring to Eq.(11.2.5) of Wald which was a step on the way towards Komar’s invariant.

In accord with a remark made to me once by a colleague, I pointed to a partial result on the way to your (and Wald’s) final Komar mass as being much more deserving of this honoring name.”

OMG, really, start reading the text. Eqs. (11.2.5) and (11.2.9) only differ by a factor of 4 pi, which represents just the conventional difference between total flux and source. So, except for sign, Eq. (11.2.5) defines the total flux of gravitational force, which must be compensated by a distant observer to hold a unit mass sphere in place, while Eq. (11.2.9.) defines its (the gravitational force’s) source. The latter is thus the quantity correctly identified as total mass.

But both quantities are independent of r, of course. You can read this just below Eq. (11.2.8.)

“Consequently, applying Stokes’ theorem […] to the volume bounded by any two spheres S and S’ in the exterior vacuum region, we see that the integral on the right-hand side of equation (11.2.5) is independent of the choice of S […]”

Even if you think that it is the total flux (not divided by 4 pi) that deserves the name Komar mass, which would be rather peculiar, that doesn’t change the fact that it is independent of r.

“Eq. (11.2.5) defines the total flux of gravitational force, which must be compensated (for) by a distant observer to hold a unit mass sphere in place“

Thank you for saying so.

But why are you claiming that this very force were independent of r?

Please, explain.

Strawman.

The *total flux* of this force, which is given by Eq. (11.2.5), is independent of r. The Komar mass is just this total flux divided by 4 pi. This is all clearly explained in Wald’s text. Did you even read it, or are you still just picking random formulas out of it?

He tries to create a maximum of confusion. The normal Otto-way. Probably he will define the new Otto-Komar-mass now — without a clear definition of course.

We all know that the knowledge of the textbook must be wrong if Rössler either does not understand it or it does not fit in his private theories.

(I am so stupid that I try to understand — I know this is unbelievable.)

But I thank TRMG for sticking to our important context. Birkhoff is responsible for this context and interpretation of the force field of an isolated gravitating body as being independent of the contraction-or-not of the mass inside a given sphere.

However, this is not the context of a mass lowered by a rope onto a gravitating body which is the one we are interested in here. And which is described by Telemach as well as by the more important “second” Komar result.

Do you say that the (by the redshift factor) reduced pull on the rope in question compared to the locally measured pull, is a reality or not?

In other words: Do you seriously claim that the mass of a body, lowered in an energy-dissipating fashion down to a redshift=2 idealized neutron star, stays constant along the way rather than being reduced by a factor of 2 (in contrast to what Wald and Komar and Cook & I are saying) ?

Again you just keep rambling on, making no sense whatsoever. This has nothing to do with Birkhoff’s theorem, because we are talking about static spacetimes, while Birkhoff’s theorem is concerned with time-dependent spherical spacetimes.

Before I answer any question of yours: Do you still claim that the Komar mass is height dependent? Do you still claim that, when you are talking about a height dependent mass, you are referring to Eq. (11.2.5) in Wald’s text?

Now you just invented a “second” Komar result. What does it state? How is it proved?

“In other words: Do you seriously claim that the mass of a body, lowered in an energy-dissipating fashion down to a redshift=2 idealized neutron star, stays constant along the way rather than being reduced by a factor of 2 (in contrast to what Wald and Komar and Cook & I are saying) ?”

Where do Wald or Komar claim that a mass lowered on a rope is reduced in accordance with the redshift factor? You are just making stuff up. Did you forget that I have Wald’s book right in front of my eyes? Please quote the respective passage.

Quote (Wald, p. 158):

“Thus, the magnitude of the force exterted at infinity differs from the force exerted locally by the redshift factor.”

You obviously never heard about the difference between “force” and “mass,” but that’s almost beside the point. Your claim was that a certain quantity (you called it “mass,” but obviously meant something else) decreases when lowering a body on a rope. Neither the “force exerted at infinity,” nor the “force exerted locally,” i.e. the body’s weight, *decrease* when the body is lowered. Both increase.

So, you said that one quantity decreases. Wald states that two quite distinct quantities differ from each other. If you don’t even understand that both statements have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, it is no wonder that you are hopelessly confused.

Also you didn’t answer my questions: Do you still claim that the Komar mass is height dependent? Do you still claim that, when you are talking about a height dependent mass, you are referring to Eq. (11.2.5) in Wald’s text?

P.S. I forgot about the “second” Komar result. What does it state? How is it proved?

I asked you a constructive question: “In other words: Do you seriously claim that the mass of a body, lowered in an energy-dissipating fashion down to a redshift=2 idealized neutron star, stays constant along the way rather than being reduced by a factor of 2 (in contrast to what Wald and Komar and Cook & I are saying) ?”

It suffices if you say yes or no. Thank you very much.

Of course I do very seriously maintain that the mass of a body does not change when it is moved downstairs. Now provide the evidence for your claim that Wald and Komar disagree with me. So far you haven’t. Instead you came up with a quote that, although undeniably true, was stating something completely different.

And now that I kindly answered your question, would you please return me the favor?

Do you still claim that the Komar mass is height dependent? Do you still claim that, when you are talking about a height dependent mass, you are referring to Eq. (11.2.5) in Wald’s text?

But I fear answering yes or no will not suffice in this case, because I gave you detailed reason why none of this can be true.

And: what is the “second Komar result”? And how is it proved?

“But I fear answering yes or no will not suffice in this case”

Well, to be more precise, “no” will suffice.

The first part of this thorough ass-kicking is here:

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/05/big-bang-gone-gravitational…ent-page-1

“Of course I do very seriously maintain that the mass of a body does not change when it is moved downstairs.”

Please, explain your “of course” since you contradict Telemach. I feel offended if you don’t.

Telemach is not the issue right now. Your statements about Komar mass etc. are. First, I want to know whether you are finally going to provide any evidence that Wald or Komar are supportive of your idea of a height-dependent mass.

Moreover, do you still believe that the Komar mass or the total gravitational flux (Wald’s Eq. 11.2.5) through a sphere in vacuum depend on the sphere’s radius r?

Finally, are you going to explain what’s behind the mysterious “more important ‘second’ Komar result”? Does it even exist, or did you just make it up in an attempt to fake some famous support for your pseudoscience?

If you prefer to wuss out on answering these questions you might as well honestly admit that.

These questions are misleading. I gave you all the evidence to answer your questions for yourself.

You never challenged that rest mass M, while locally appearing unchanged, is compared to far outside reduced locally in proportion to the redshift factor. Komar’s result of the reduced pull, exerted by a lowered mass on a massless string by the same factor, conforms with my finding, so I am trying to give him part of the honor. If you can demonstrate that I was not completely correct in my attribution of this finding to him (I am not the only one to do so), you will perhaps be able to find a better fore-runner. This would make me unhappy, but evidence goes beyond preliminary evidence. My historical eveidence here is preliminary even though supported by Wald’s book if I read it correctly.

Telemach’s M is still fascinating you. I thank you for this fact.

Roessler: how do you envisage to participate in a “safety conference” if you constantly refuse to answer questions?

Poor me: I have a theorem that the questioner you refer to ridicules without ever presenting a counterargument. I insist on his behaving honestly.

If you have a question, I shall do my best to answer it. For you have no record of malign maneuvering so far.

For the record: I am not poor!

As for your statement: you are contradicting Kumar and Wald, so the question why you still believe in your “theorem” is very valid. And please start to show some dignity.

Sorry this was a colloquial expression that I could not resist — I have much respect of you.

I do not contradict Komar or Wald. Someone who says so has to prove that assertion.

Please, help me find someone who can disprove my theorem. Thank you for not saying that you already “know” it is false. Unless, of course, you can defend this assertion which would be great.

Rössler: “These questions are misleading.”

How is that possible? They directly address two statements you made that were demonstrably nonsensical, namely

“Locally, [the Komar mass] is unchanged; from above, it is reduced.”

and

“[In the above statement] I was referring to Eq.(11.2.5) of Wald which was a step on the way towards Komar’s invariant,”

If questioning these statements is misleading, why did you bother to write this inane nonsense in the first place? And if they are not relevant to the overall point you were trying to make, it should be even easier to admit that you were wrong. There is only one plausible explanation for your irrational refusal to admit even the most trivial errors.

“You never challenged that rest mass M, while locally appearing unchanged, is compared to far outside reduced locally in proportion to the redshift factor. ”

Does “Lorentz scalar” sound familiar? I probably mentioned it somewhere earlier in this thread.

“Komar’s result of the reduced pull, exerted by a lowered mass on a massless string by the same factor, conforms with my finding,”

No, it doesn’t at all. It still looks like you don’t even know the difference between mass and force, or, for that matter, the content of Newton’s second law. Instead of continuing to spout whatever nonsense just comes to your mind, wouldn’t it be wiser to pause for a while and correct your past blunders? I gave you several occasions to do so, but you still do not give the impression that you care much about the truth of any of your statements as long as you think they sound impressive enough to the ignorant.

Why the tone?

Tell me why you mentioned the Lorentz scalar.

After you answered my previous questions. Do you still maintain any of these statements:

“Locally, [the Komar mass] is unchanged; from above, it is reduced.”

and

“[In the above statement] I was referring to Eq.(11.2.5) of Wald which was a step on the way towards Komar’s invariant.”?

This is your chance to prove your genuine interest in scientific truth (albeit on a very trivial level). You just have two answer two very straightforward questions about a topic you brought up yourself. But something tells me you will let this one pass too.

Do YOU say the Komar mass is identical to a postulated Lorentz-scalar that is also sometimes called mass, my dear sparring partner?

I explained to you the difference in my comment on May 19, 2012 12:55 pm in this thread. So why do you even have to ask? Another pathetic attempt to sidestep answering my questions? I’m still waiting…

As usual, Rossler tried to impress the crowd by blabbering about some sciencey-sounding concept (the Komar mass), but he couldn’t be bothered to understand first what it means. Now that TRMG called his bluff, he writhes and wiggles in the vain hope of getting off the hook. Again, sad and comical at the same time…

Misleading statement: TRMG has no text at the time he mentions. One minute before, he did not write what he says here

(Original text: “• TRMG on May 19, 2012 10:54 am

’I described the Komar mass as characterized in Wald. Obviously there is a difference of interpretation between the two of us.‘

No you did not, and this is not a matter of interpretation. Either the Komar mass depends on r or it doesn’t. Wald says (and proves) that it doesn’t. So you’re wrong. The Komar mass has nothing to do with Telemach’s M.

This is, of course, arguably only a minor issue. But it’s telling that you cannot even bring yourself to admit an error even if it is most obvious. One of the defining characteristics of crackpots.“

End quote.)

And he is evading again. He obviously tries to maintain that the Komar mass were a Lorentz scalar. Although he does not dare say so since I proved — Telemach theorem — that it is not. And actually no one else says so.

Rossler, are you drunk? Here is the comment by TRMG:

TRMG on May 19, 2012 12:55 pm

Rössler: “The mass you are referring to here was indeed mentioned by Komar as the total mass, and is constant as an asymptotic value.”

It is constant. Period. “As an asymptotic value” is only one of these sciency-sounding, but meaningless phrases you like to add to your statements to make them appear more impressive than they are.

“It is not the local mass with the rope to measure its weight that I was referring to. Right? To the best of my knowledge it is the latter that is canonically called “Komar mass”. ”

No. What is referred to as Komar mass is the quantity “mentioned by Komar” that was intended to define the total mass within a certain class of spacetime geometries. It deserves a special name in honor of the first one “mentioning” it, because “total mass” is a difficult concept in General Relativity, which is not well-defined under all conceivable circumstances.

On the other hand, the local quantity you are referring to is simply called “mass,” and it is not difficult to define at all. It is given by the relation between local energy and momentum E² = p² + m². It also does not depend on one’s point of view, which is even easier to prove. (It is a Lorentz scalar.) The only thing that changes with height is the weight itself, which is, of course, not the same as “mass.”

And while we are at it, let me repeat TRMG’s questions (in their latest iteration):

TRMG on May 28, 2012 8:52 am

(…) Do you still maintain any of these statements:

“Locally, [the Komar mass] is unchanged; from above, it is reduced.”

and

“[In the above statement] I was referring to Eq.(11.2.5) of Wald which was a step on the way towards Komar’s invariant.”?

I can not see any evasive behaviour in TRMGs statements in contrast to Rösslers…

quote Rössler

“since I proved — Telemach theorem — that it is not.“

end quote

The Komar mass does not appear in your “theorem” — and you have proven nothing there. The “M” is still not properly defined bacause you are apparently confused about even basic physical concepts.

Look — the Komar mass belongs to general relativity, the Telemach mass belongs to special relativity with acceleration included. The general relativists have their own disputes about the Komar mass. I was happy to see that the latter mass apparently corresponds to the new mass in Telemach. If it does not — which I doubt -, it would be so much worse fo the Komar mass because it then has then to be replaced by the more important Telemach mass. (Not so for the Birkhoff mass; people here seem to confuse the Komar mass with the Birkhoff mass, but this as I said is their own business.)

However, since there is so much weak suppor there for weak TRMG (“weak” referring to cowardly made statements behind a mask — the use of a mask by the way apparently amounts to a new invention in the history of physics), I have a question to ask from their apparent boss — TRMG:

Dear Ms./Mr. TRMG: You obviously support, with your repeated claims as to the invariance (“Lorentz-scalar nature”) of local rest mass, the following conjecture:

TRMG-CONJECTURE:

“m-photon[downstairs] identically equal m-photon[upstairs].“

(Hereby the “photon” is supposed to be produced by the same type of atomic clock upstairs and downstairs, respectively, and m refers to the mass-energy of the photon.)

Please, be so kind as to confirm or disconfirm that this is your opinion. Thank you.

If Telemach has nothing to do with general relativity or the Komar mass why did you suggest the opposite?

Why do you oppose your own old claims when it becomes to obvious that your whole construction is weak and partly not even existing?

TRMG has asked you questions, answer them. At a safety conference, you also can not avoid the answers.

Thankyou.

Telemach follows also from general relativity, as I showed in my gothic-R paper.

It is only (much) easier to derive in the equivalence principle of special relativity.

It is the aim of the disinforming anonymous sparring partners here that lay people like you but with a good soul are being misled the way yiou now responded.

Therefore I am very gratefuly for your interjection.

The only guy who is totally confused about basic concepts like mass, weight is Otto Rössler who also reveales himself as being a classical crank because instead of admitting to be wrong he just declares proven knowledge to be wrong which than has to be replaced with unfounded, non-defined, claoudy prosaic nonsense like “telemach”.

If this would be really the science of the future I would expect the worst for the progress of humans.

So far you never answered the old question of TRMG and others how Telemach is exactly related to your (wrong) R-“paper”.

Perhaps we can add this to the two question which you have still not answered.

You are faster than light with your response. You obviously belong to the same group or are identical with one of the persons addressed by me. For you refuse to understand what I say in the same way.

I cannot explain why no real people (not bribed by CERN or the German relativistic mafia) are daring to open their mouths here.

Thank you for asking “how Telemach is exactly related to your (wrong) R-“paper”.

The word “wrong” can only be used behind a mask, as the planet can see. Anonymous people have no honor and cannot be called names. When I call you a “mafia” and guess that you come from Germany, this has nothing to do with any real people, of course. Although I would be too glad of a real person would ask me to take back my reproach of no German relativist daring to behave like a real scientist.

.

There is notghing to understand in your statements because they are rarely adressing precise questions in a scientific precise way and are most of the time evasive nonsense.

It is obvious even for a layman here that your have never answered properyl to TRMG. It is obvious that you try to hide behind diffuse clouds of sciency-sounding words which are in fact without any substance.

It is quite interesting that you prefer always to talk about anonymity and so on instead of the arguments at a certain point of a discussion. It happens usually when it becomes to obvious that you have big gaps concerning even somthing like basic concepts. Before this point you are normally not interested in the identity of persons — which clearly indicates that you have no scientific arguments or knowledge at all. Otherwise it would be not necessary to talk again and again about such scientific issues as ” a german relativistic mafia” etc which is nothing else than a personal attack.

However, there are two precise questions asked by TRMG about the Komar mass introduced by YOURSELF ;) referring to a book also introduced in the context by yourself. It is quite interesting to observe how desperately you try to avoid a precise answer.

And again no answer to the quite old third question.

Look, TRMG did not read Wald.

But why do you pretend not to understand what I say?

Please, let TRMG answer my question. It is more important than cheap polemics. I apologize for having been drawn into the latter. It was too tempting to check if there really is no person with an argument around here.

Oh, TRMG did not read Wald?

Interesting because it is obviously you who have not read the book (and other books) carefully enough…

It is still on you to answer the questions. And by the way, as you were again only talking about (highly relevant, of course :D ) anonymity, bribed persons and reativistic mafia, there is nothhing in your last posts worth to waste any time on it.

So again, answer TRMGs questions which are now on the table for nearly one week.

” It is more important than cheap polemics. ”

ROFL, extremely funny thatespecially YOU wrote about polemics after your last postings :D

The still open questions:

TRMG on May 28, 2012 8:52 am

(…) Do you still maintain any of these statements:

“Locally, [the Komar mass] is unchanged; from above, it is reduced.”

and

“[In the above statement] I was referring to Eq.(11.2.5) of Wald which was a step on the way towards Komar’s invariant.”?

Still no courageous physicist around?

Otto has no answer to the questins. He still tries to read Wald :D

Rossler, don’t you see how embarrassing this has become? Eighty comments ago, you could have simply admitted that you had misunderstood Eq.(11.2.5) of Wald, and you could have got off the hook by claiming that your M is not the “Komar mass”, but rather the “Otto mass”, the “Rossler mass” or whatever you like. Mistakes and corrections do happen in a scientific discussion, it’s no big deal, and one more undefined variable wouldn’t have made your “Telemach” more of a train wreck than it already is. But no, a crackpot can never admit a mistake, no matter how trivial. Now you are reduced to the ludicrous claim that “TRMG did not read Wald”, when it’s clear to everybody here that TRMG quotes directly from the book when he/she writes to you, and — most importantly — that he/she understands it far better than you do. It’s time to put an end to this sorry spectacle. Cut your losses, admit your mistakes on the Komar mass and move on. Start a new thread in which you accuse CERN of eating babies for breakfast, and try to change the topic. Right now you are in a dead end.

I just asked for the greater authority of Hawking.

As if Hawking really wasted his time on your blog…

Answer TRMG’s questions instead:

TRMG on May 28, 2012 8:52 am

(…) Do you still maintain any of these statements:

“Locally, [the Komar mass] is unchanged; from above, it is reduced.”

and

Rossler, one cannot expect others to voluntarily spend their time reviewing your work when you won’t even answer the questions that are already being directly posed to you. Why should others like Hawking expect a different result then those already pointing out errors and asking questions? Every question you don’t answer here is another reason why further discussion from CERN with you would be pointless.

Oh no: No one wants to hear from me why TRMG did not read Wald, including himself.

But all are clairvoyant, as possibly well-paid anonyous children of an Institution that cannot bring itself to contradicting the given published proof that it is evil-doing. Presumably out of calculating that the damage would be even greater if they started to defend themselves.

So, please, forgive me that I am still waiting for master TRMG.

But since you asked for a nice paper:

http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/doublepe.pdf

(…) Do you still maintain any of these statements:

“Locally, [the Komar mass] is unchanged; from above, it is reduced.”

and

Dear Passenger:

Please: TRMG is unable (so far) to answer the following question posed to him. Maybe he did not understand, so I say it in more words:

Does a photon emitted by a locally stationary atom, downstairs, which has locally the same frequency as its twin generated analogously upstairs has, have the same energy down there as its twin has upstairs?

I say that the lower one’s energy is reduced compared to upstairs by the local redshift factor. This is not the standard answer apparently though (although the question for some reason appears to be new).

Or do you or does anyone else have a reference?

If he can prove that the answer is yes, he (and all of you) have won and I shall acknowledge defeat.

The question of yours was never relevant. It is an obvious attempt to evade questions about the Komar mass which was introduced by yourself together with the Wald book to impress laymen with sciency-sounding nonsense.

TRMG has shown that you have not understood the book and the concept. Therefore you go back to old,l nonsensical questions. A good scientists would have admitted to be wrong but nothing like that could be expected from a really classical crank like you.

So answwer the questions from TRMG, perhaps he will answer then yours (even though he already answered the bullshit thousands of times)

If you cannot help your best man, you are ruining his image.

Just Answer his questions. We will see then who will ruin his “image”.

So far you are only confirming your image of a crackpot who avoids any serious discussion.

Please, TRMG, rescue your supporters.

earlier comments at lifeboat.com/blog/2012/05/big-bang-gone-gravitational-waves-gone-hawking-radiation-gone-the-dolphins-confront-cern/comment-page-2

Rossler: strange as it may seem to you, most people don’t spend 24 hours a day on your blog. I suppose that TRMG is busy, or perhaps just fed up with your evasions. Anyway, you write:

“Does a photon emitted by a locally stationary atom, downstairs, which has locally the same frequency as its twin generated analogously upstairs has, have the same energy down there as its twin has upstairs?”

Of course the answer is yes. The frequency (f) and the energy (E) of a photon are related by E = h*f , where h is the Planck constant. Therefore, if the frequency of the photon downstairs (as measured downstairs) is equal to the frequency of the photon upstairs (as measured upstairs), then the energy of the photon downstairs (as measured downstairs) is equal to the energy of the photon upstairs (as measured upstairs). But you write:

“I say that the lower one’s energy is reduced compared to upstairs by the local redshift factor.”

What new nonsense are peddling now? Are you claiming that the Planck constant is not constant? Or that the energy of the photon is not E=h*f? Finally, you write:

“If he can prove that the answer is yes, he (and all of you) have won and I shall acknowledge defeat.”

Please, go ahead ;-)

Thank you.

lifeboat.com/blog/2012/05/big-bang-gone-gravitational-waves-gone-hawking-radiation-gone-the-dolphins-confront-cern/comment-page-2

Sorry — I could not do it, either.

Rössler: “Does a photon emitted by a locally stationary atom, downstairs, which has locally the same frequency as its twin generated analogously upstairs has, have the same energy down there as its twin has upstairs?

I say that the lower one’s energy is reduced compared to upstairs by the local redshift factor. This is not the standard answer apparently though (although the question for some reason appears to be new).”

This mess can probably be construed as a sloppy description of ordinary energy redshift, which of course can only “appear to be new” to someone as ignorant as Rössler. (Of course his description characteristically omitted the crucial part, namely that the energy of the *same* photon has to be measured by two separated observers in order to appear redshifted. On the other hand, there don’t even have to be two photons.) As I said it’s all rather sloppy and PasingByAgain offers another, but equally reasonable, reading of Rössler’s question. Nevertheless, it is completely beside the point, because Rössler’s claim wasn’t concerned with energy. It was about “Komar mass” or “rest mass,” none of which has anything to do with the energy of a photon or is subject to any redshift. Both Komar mass and rest mass are invariants. Of course the problem from the beginning has been that Rössler has a rather fuzzy understanding of these basic concepts and usually confuses everything.

Anyway, Rössler, after we cleared things up for you again, are you finally able to take a stance on your previous statements?

“Locally, [the Komar mass] is unchanged; from above, it is reduced.”“[In the above statement] I was referring to Eq.(11.2.5) of Wald which was a step on the way towards Komar’s invariant.”?

and

Do you still believe they are true?

Hi TRMG! I guess that the interpretation of Rossler’s babble hinges on the meaning of his “locally”. You may well be right that Rossler was just trying to describe the usual gravitational redshift, but I wouldn’t underestimate his potential for spouting nonsense. Perhaps Rossler himself — after providing his long-due answers to your questions on the Komar mass — will clarify what he meant…

(Of course his description characteristically omitted the crucial part, namely that the energy of the *same* photon has to be measured by two separated observers in order to appear redshifted. On the other hand, there don’t even have to be two photons.

So again it was demonstrated that Otto Rössler has not understood the most basic concepts of GR. The conclusion is that no one will be able to “disprove” him because he simply transformshis lack of knowledge into revlutionary new physics.

Maybe it helps a little bit if I here offer for everyone’s perusal the following brief text:

—————————————————

Gravitational Redshift implies Photon Mass is proportionally Reduced Locally along with Particle Masses

Otto E. Rossler

Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tübingen, Germany

(June 1st, 2012)

Gravitationally redshifted photons have a proportionally reduced mass-energy. This fact, valid when capturing the photon from far outside, is not manifest at the photon’s point of origin downstairs in the gravitational field. For the local clock slowdown lets the photon frequency appear normal down there. If these photons are transformed locally into matter (like positronium), the atom generated necessarily inherits the reduced mass-energy content of the two photons that gave rise to it. Therefore, all masses “locally-at-rest” are reduced by the gravitational redshift factor in a counterfactual fashion as far as the inhabitants can tell.

Traditionally, however, “rest mass” is defined in general relativity as being an invariant. The term rest mass here refers, not to the local rest mass in the above sense, but rather to the sum of the latter plus all the potential energy released into local kinetic energy when the particle in question got lowered from far above. This convention makes sense from an outside perspective: the obtained sum is an invariant (as Birkhoff and Komar showed). However, the accepted convention of calling this invariant mass “rest mass” entails vital consequences. It led the relativist community to refuse even to discuss the recently published Telemach theorem ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/82752272/Rossler-s-Telemach-paper ). This paper demonstrates the redshift-proportional nature of the above-given photon-mass-proportional definition of local rest mass, in the context of the Einstein equivalence principle. The same definition holds true also in general relativity, however, as several quoted authors showed.

All of this appears to be nothing but insisting on a super-pedantic definition of “rest mass” since there is no dissenting about the underlying facts. Unfortunately, through an accident of history, a currently running experiment appears safe if the traditional (if misleading) definition of “rest mass” is employed, and presents an acute risk to the physical persistence of the planet if the improved definition is employed. So a mere semantic distinction proves existential for once. The experiment in question attempts to produce artificial black holes on earth. The new definition of “rest mass” entails that the hoped-for black holes are, 1) more likely to be generated, 2) non-Hawking evaporating and 3) uncharged. By virtue of the last two points taken together, the hoped-for product in addition proves to be undetectable for the detectors used. None of the three implications holds true if the old definition of rest mass is dogmatically adhered to.

Hence it amounts to a surrealist tragedy – or tragicomedy – that the newly falsified belief in Hawking radiation and black-hole chargedness cannot be understood by the scientific community at the present time “through an accident of nomenclature.” On the basis of the standard nomenclature, the profession is led to believe that the Telemach theorem is not even worth discussing “because it contradicts an accepted fact in general relativity – that the rest mass is an invariant”. If rest mass is invariant, the letter M in TeLeMaCh is false and there is no danger.

Is TOTAL mass conserved, of which local rest mass is only a non-invariant component, or is textbook rest mass conserved? Atlas shrugged. Shall the planet laugh or weep? (For J.O.R.)

Confused nonsense again.

Answer the questions instead of producing additional bullshit-“papers”.

This appears to me to be a interesting paper to point to:

http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/doublepe.pdf

Wait, you believe the “traditional” definition of rest mass includes potential energy and that this is what makes it an invariant, while your definition of rest mass, which argues from conservation of the energy of a photon, somehow excludes potential energy, which subjects it to gravitational redshift?

That’s hilarious, because now you have everything precisely backwards.

Also, do you really believe that a change in definition has the power to alter the truth of statements or the existence of phenomena like Hawking radiation?

“The new definition of “rest mass” entails that the hoped-for black holes are, 1) more likely to be generated, 2) non-Hawking evaporating and 3) uncharged. […] None of the three implications holds true if the old definition of rest mass is dogmatically adhered to. ”

OMG, yes, you really do. You think if you change one definition, suddenly “three implications” become true. Do you even know how crazy that is? The only implication of your abuse of nomenclature is that no one, above all yourself, really understands what you are talking about.

TRMG again tells the whole world he is unable to understand.

Is there still not a single scientist with a face to show up?

I count on the youngest generation to see their chance.

To understand what? The “traditional” definition of rest mass, or what you believe to be the “traditional” definition of rest mass. These are, as usual, not the same thing.

BTW, you wrote: “the obtained sum is an invariant (as Birkhoff and Komar showed).”

Does that mean that you do not believe the Komar mass depends on the observer anymore? And, thus, you revoked your claim that

“Locally, [the Komar mass] is unchanged; from above, it is reduced.”

Or did I not understand that either?

Concretely: Do you agree that stationary Cesium atoms at the bottom of the Harvard tower give off the same frequency if measured locally, as is given off by them upstairs if again measured locally?

Your second posting interloped. (Do you still say that Komar did not describe the redshift-proportional reduction of weight of a mass suspended from a long massless string in defiance of Wald?)

But first the Cesium question.

Why do you always answer with a counter question? Is it so hard to give a straight answer to questions about your own statements? It looks like you are more interested in obscuring things rather than clarifying them.

“Concretely: Do you agree that stationary Cesium atoms at the bottom of the Harvard tower give off the same frequency if measured locally, as is given off by them upstairs if again measured locally?”

This supports PassingByAgain’s reading of your question above. And, yes, I agree with his answer. If measured by a local observer, both frequencies are the same. Now, why do you think this is important? Do you disagree? Do you, by any chance, think this answer is at odds with energy redshift?

Thank you for your perceptive last-but-third question (why is this equality important).

It is important because of Einstein’s gravitational redshift. Is the locally unchanged photon frequency at the bottom of the Harvard tower the same frequency as measured from above? (I expect you to say no.)

“(Do you still say that Komar did not describe the redshift-proportional reduction of weight of a mass suspended from a long massless string in defiance of Wald?)”

I do believe that the Komar mass is not equal to the weight of a mass lowered on a string in a gravitational potential (although the latter is subject to redshift, but, also, different from the rest mass, of course). The Komar mass is essentially the flux of gravitational force through a closed surface. And you would believe the same if you actually read and understood Wald, as opposed to stupidly repeating the claim that I contradict him. Should I quote him directly again?

We are still standing at the foot of the Harvard tower at the moment. Let us continue this dialog first.

Always the same bullshit: every person that disproves Rössler “does not understand”.

:D

“Thank you for your perceptive last-but-third question (why is this equality important).

It is important because of Einstein’s gravitational redshift.”

And why would gravitational redshift be important to this discussion? You are aware that you claimed something entirely different, are you?

“Is the locally unchanged photon frequency at the bottom of the Harvard tower the same frequency as measured from above?”

An observer above does not measure the same frequency on the same photon as the local observer at the place of its emission. That’s called gravitational redshift. You do not need two photons for that, just two observers. I already told you. Now are you getting at something with these questions?

The question is if Rössler will ever grasp the role of the observer in realtivity. So far it seems he missed that point completely.

Poor Otto.

“Let us continue this dialog first.”

No, you repeatedly claimed that I contradicted Wald, without ever offering any evidence for that and despite a lot of evidence to the contrary. I think it is time that you either correct that omission or take back your claim.

Otto behaves like a crackpot. Instead of admitting his errors he treies to change the subject.

poor Otto.

“An observer above does not measure the same frequency on the same photon as the local observer at the place of its emission.”

Thank you, TRMG, that we agreed on that. Now if the local people make gold (or positronium) out of their local photons: What is the mass of this gold? Is it the same as when you had made gold upstairs out of the same number of locally equal photons?

Otto still does not get it.

“What is the mass of this gold? Is it the same as when you had made gold upstairs out of the same number of locally equal photons?”

Yes, of course it is. The mass is the same in both cases, as are the total lepton number, the total baryon number, the total charge etc. Energy is subject to redshift, the other quantities, including mass, are not. You can re-baptize any quantity to “energy,” as you apparently try to do, but this is not how scientists produce new results. It is how laymen introduce confusion into a discussion.

A definition introduces a name for a thing. Changing it, alters the name only, but not the thing. It does not make the respective quantity start behaving differently than under its old name, e.g. to become observer-dependent or redshifted, when it wasn’t already before. If I started calling you “papa smurf,” you would not suddenly turn blue, would you?

P.S. I forgot to ask you again to support your claim that I contradicted Wald, or to be honest and admit that you made that up.

Rössler probably again confused about which observer is measuring at which position.…

It’s so much fun to see how Rossler is painting himself in a corner… Just to reduce the margins for his further equivocations, let me summarize again:

1) the mass of the matter produced upstairs via the conversion of photons emitted by cesium atoms located UPSTAIRS is EQUAL TO the mass of the matter produced downstairs via the conversion of photons emitted by cesium atoms located downstairs.

2) the mass of the matter produced upstairs via the conversion of photons emitted by cesium atoms located DOWNSTAIRS is SMALLER THAN the mass of the matter produced downstairs via the conversion of photons emitted by cesium atoms located downstairs.

Both statements are trivial. The first just reflects the fact that the laws of physics do not depend on the position (a cesium atom is a cesium atom everywhere), and the second is a direct consequence of the usual gravitational redshift (the photons lose part of their energy when traveling from downstairs to upstairs, thus they are converted in less mass upstairs than they would be downstairs). I am really curious to see where Rossler thinks he’s going from here…

TRMG (quote): “Energy is subject to redshift, the other quantities, including mass, are not.” (I add: You are referring here to gravitational, not translational redshift.)

Allow me to ask you to explain what has become of the second, equal, amount of mass dissipated when your gold nugget fell onto the z=1 neutron star assumed. Out of that mass, a second gold nuggest of the same size and weight could be manufactured locally (if you believe in Robert Forward’s nuclear-chemical intelligent life forms). Is the sum of both masses equal to the outside mass, or is each of the two masses equal to the outside mass?

You must be drunk again. What makes you think that mass is “dissipated” when an object falls in a gravitational potential? BTW, stick to the example of the Harvard tower, don’t introduce more confusion in this discussion.

He is a crackpot, he has to confuse everyone here because he must hide his defeat.

“TRMG (quote): “Energy is subject to redshift, the other quantities, including mass, are not.” (I add: You are referring here to gravitational, not translational redshift.) ”

Well, no, as a matter of fact I was referring to any kind of redshift.

“Allow me to ask you to explain what has become of the second, equal, amount of mass dissipated when your gold nugget fell onto the z=1 neutron star assumed. Out of that mass, a second gold nuggest of the same size and weight could be manufactured locally (if you believe in Robert Forward’s nuclear-chemical intelligent life forms). Is the sum of both masses equal to the outside mass, or is each of the two masses equal to the outside mass?”

You are still confusing mass and energy. The sum of the rest-energies of both nuggets equals the rest-energy of the original nugget. But the sum of their masses is twice the mass of the original nugget. This does not lead to any violation of energy conservation, since the energy of each nugget downstairs, as measured by an observer above, is

E = m/(1+z) = m/2.

So their sum equals m, which is the rest energy of the original nugget as measured by the same observer. (The other observer measures a different energy, but agrees that it does not change during the process.) This should in no way surprise you, since the nuggets were created (probably discarding anti-matter, and thus losing some energy) out of photons entirely, whose total mass is zero.

Let me rephrase the crucial sentence to avoid misunderstanding:

Instead of “the equal amount of mass dissipated” I should have said more explicitly “the other amount of energy equal to the mass’s own energy dissipated”.

So my amended text of 7:08 am now reads:

——————————–

TRMG (quote): “Energy is subject to redshift, the other quantities, including mass, are not.” (I add: You are referring here to gravitational, not translational redshift.)

Allow me to ask you to explain what has become of the the other amount of energy equal to the mass’s own energy, dissipated when your gold nugget fell onto the z=1 neutron star assumed. Out of that mass, a second gold nuggest of the same size and weight could be manufactured locally (if you believe in Robert Forward’s nuclear-chemical intelligent life forms). Is the sum of both masses equal to the outside mass, or is each of the two masses equal to the outside mass?

———————–

PassingByAgain, I think he is imagining the following process:

1) start with a mass m at rest (far) above

2) drop it to z=1.

3) At arrival its total energy still equals m, because of energy conservation.

4) Stop the mass, so it possesses rest-energy only, which equals m/2. Then there is a surplus of energy equal to m/2, from which a second equal mass can be created in place, which must be at rest too.

Of course he confuses things by omitting any distinction between mass and energy again.

I apologize again for having come one message too late. Can I first ask TRMG to confirm that he maintains his answer of 7:37 am after after the above correction made at 7:43 am?

This correction just shows — once again — that you are systematically confusing mass and energy. Anyway, TRMG has just answered you question.

Two messages too late, it turns out.

Three now. Please, come back, TRMG.

“Instead of “the equal amount of mass dissipated” I should have said more explicitly “the other amount of energy equal to the mass’s own energy dissipated”.”

You are quite correct. And I already answered your question in this sense: Neither is there a gain nor a loss of energy from creating an equal mass downstairs, after the first one has been dropped. The sum of both energies m/2 + m/2 equals the original energy m.

P.S. as I also said in my first answer these energies are all measured by the observer above.

I subscribe to the following sentences of TRMG:

“1) start with a mass m at rest (far) above

2) drop it to z=1.

3) At arrival its total energy still equals m, because of energy conservation.

4) Stop the mass, so it possesses rest-energy only, which equals m/2. Then there is a surplus of energy equal to m/2, from which a second equal mass can be created in place, which must be at rest too.”

The same for the following quote of TRMG:

“Neither is there a gain nor a loss of energy from creating an equal mass downstairs, after the first one has been dropped. The sum of both energies m/2 + m/2 equals the original energy m.”

So, in other words, these questions were entirely pointless. What on earth were you trying to get at?

May I remind you that your original statement was concerned with Komar mass, not photon energy etc.? Have you realized that you cannot jump from a (correct) statement about redshifted photon energy to a completely unrelated (and false) statement about Komar mass or rest mass?

You see: You just said several times above that the gold nugget’s mass m once it has fallen down onto onour agreed-upon neutron star, is m/2.

I said *energy*. Can’t you even read?

Look, if the nuggets mass is m, then its rest-energy, as measured by the above observer, equals E=m/2. That’s what I wrote several times above.

Now explain to me why you do not believe that a nugget with a total mass energy while at rest on the neutron star of m/2 has rest mass m/2 there?

Are you kidding? This would mean that the rest energy E, as measured by the above observer, equals the rest-energy measured by a local observer (the latter equals the rest mass m). But you just agreed to my point 4) above, which states that they are related by E = m/(1+z).

Previous comments see here:

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/05/big-bang-gone-gravitational…ent-page-3

Otto, your confusion about observers, energy and masses is almost offending.

Go to school and learn the basics!

And Otto: Not evreything you do not understand makes it a revolutionary new findig.

Looking at your crackpot-record of publications that must be the most difficult for you to learn.

I humbly ask TRMG to elaborate on his statement of 8:19 am.

Do not forget to admit that your Komar-nonsense was indeed nonsense.

Let’s recapitulate:

TRMG: “Look, if the nuggets mass is m, then its rest-energy, as measured by the above observer, equals E=m/2. That’s what I wrote several times above.”

Rössler: “Now explain to me why you do not believe that a nugget with a total mass energy while at rest on the neutron star of m/2 has rest mass m/2 there?”

The rest mass always equals the rest energy measured by a local observer. If it was equal to m/2 too, then a local observer would measure the same rest-energy as the observer above. Although the rest-energy measured by the latter is twice as large due to energy redshift.

BTW, I take your renewed refusal to name any of Wald’s statements which I allegedly contradicted as a tacit confession that this was just a fabrication.

“Although the rest-energy measured by the latter is twice as large due to energy redshift. ”

should be

“Although the rest-energy measured by the latter is *half* as large due to energy redshift. ”

Quote: “The rest mass always equals the rest energy measured by a local observer. If it was equal to m/2 too, then a local observer would measure the same rest-energy as the observer above. Although the rest-energy measured by the latter is twice as large due to energy redshift. ”

Again I could not agree more.

I had understood what you meant before you said so — and repeat my agreement.

“I had understood what you meant before you said so — and repeat my agreement.”

This either means that you didn’t understand it correctly, or you finally abandoned a major tenet of “Telemach,” namely your idea of a redshifted rest mass, because it clearly contradicts what you just agreed to. Which is it?

Please, explain yourself:

You agreed that the mass-energy content of a body at rest downstairs on the neutron star is halved in a counterfactual manner. Right?

Rössler, perhaps you should THINK about the term relativity…

Probably not. For one thing, if part of the problem with your opinion is a confusion between mass and energy, it doesn’t appear particularly prudent to me to insist on calling any of these quantities “mass-energy.”

Second, neither energy nor mass is halved during any of the processes described earlier. The former is *relative* in a way that an observer far above measures half the energy of an observer at z=1 of the same particle. So, there are two energies here to consider, one for each observer, and both are conserved. But there is only one mass, about which both observers agree.

Not quite. You are here contradicting yourself: The outer observer finds the locally normal appearing rest-mass m on the neutron star to be m/2.

You said so yourself. Nothing else Telemach ever said.

I have a concrete proposal to make: Could you be so kind, after now understanding what I had meant, as to re-write my above little paper “Gravitational Redshift implies that Photon Mass is proportionally Reduced Locally along with Particle Masses” so that it fits your own way of describing the same facts?

Thank you very much.

“Not quite. You are here contradicting yourself: The outer observer finds the locally normal appearing rest-mass m on the neutron star to be m/2.

You said so yourself. Nothing else Telemach ever said.”

No, I didn’t say anything like that. I said the upper observer measures a lower energy as the local observer, while both agree about the mass. You probably believe that there is a contradiction, because you are for some reason unable to distinguish between mass and energy.

“Could you be so kind, after now understanding what I had meant, as to re-write my above little paper “Gravitational Redshift implies that Photon Mass is proportionally Reduced Locally along with Particle Masses” so that it fits your own way of describing the same facts?”

No. It is completely unclear what you are trying to say. If you insist that mass is relative to the observer, we certainly don’t agree about the facts. If you only believe this to be true for energy, then you don’t have anything worth publishing.

Thank you for this sentence (“I said the upper observer measures a lower energy than the local observer, while both agree about the mass.”)

No, they do not agree on the mass: As you said yourself, the upper observer sees only m/2 down there.

“No, they do not agree on the mass: As you said yourself, the upper observer sees only m/2 down there.”

Are you stupid? I said the *energy* measured by the upper observer equals m/2. Where do you think did I claim the same for mass?

I just posted an answer (mini-paper).

AGain Otto is twisting TRMGs words, trying to declare agreement where no agreement between his nonsense and science could be.

To say TRMG was contrdicting himself when he is definitely not is offending and the opposite of a honest discussion. Shame on you, Crackpot-Otto.

Again you have proven that you are not interested in learning about your errors and correcting them. You are not interested in a honest scientific discussion.

However, this discussion is again a proof of your failure.

Rössler, you have to apologize to TRMG concerning two issues now: The unfounded statement he would contradict Wald and Komar (proven to be wrong) and your offensive forgery of his statements about mass and energy.

Guys, Roessler has proven for the last 5 years that he is unwilling and uncapable of engaging in a scientific discussion. Just let him (and the blog here) die.

Prof. Peter Howell

TRMG now has to explain why mass-energy and mass are different things in his opinion. He can do this on the new thread if he wishes to avoid clairvoyant psychologists as his only claque.

P.S. to EmptyQuestioner: I gave the TiredMachineGun (TRMG) the page number he had overlooked in Wald. I can repeat it if he wishes so.

He has not overlooked anything in the Wald ;) — and it is quite possible that you knwo this, liar.

He has already explained the solution to your example several times. If you can not understand it or if you lack the knwolegde, it’s your problem not his. And for sure not the problem of any scientist at CERN or anywhere else.

EmptyQuestioner: Did I previously point to page 158 in Wald’s book? Best wishes from your old Otto

I think TRMG will smile about this ridiculous evasive statement ;)

“TRMG now has to explain why mass-energy and mass are different things in his opinion.”

Since any effort directed at you is a waste, I content myself with quoting Wald again.

Eq. (6.3.12) (see below) defines, in Wald’s words, the “total energy (including gravitational potential energy) *per unit rest-mass* of a particle […] relative to a static observer at infinity, since it is the energy that would be required of such an observer in order to put a unit rest mass particle in a given orbit.” (emphasis mine) The first equality there gives a general expression valid in any stationary spacetime, the second equality specializes to the Schwarzschild metric, where the mentioned particle follows a geodesic. Now it follows directly from what Wald says that rest mass and total energy cannot be the same for this observer, since otherwise this ratio would be identical to 1, which it isn’t. As mentioned earlier, this definition has nothing at all to do with “Komar mass.”

“Did I previously point to page 158 in Wald’s book?”

Yes you did, but you should have read it first. For an answer see my comment on May 21, 2012 10:45 am on comment page 1

_____

P.S. Eq. (6.3.12) reads

E = –g_ab xi^a u^b = (1- 2M/r) t’ ,

where xi is a timelike Killing field tangential to the observer’s world line and u is the 4-velocity of the particle and the derivation of t is taken with respect to the particle’s proper time.

derivation -> derivative

Dear TRMG:

Thank you for coming back.

Wald in his untopped bok “Genral Relativity ” of 1984 shows on p. 158 how from the constant Komar mass of a closed shell (which I prefer to call Birkhoff mass) it follows that the force of gravity exerted onto a small body locally, as measured by means of an extended weightless string from above, “differs from the force exerted locally by the redshift factor.”

I in accord with some other people I am incontact with (including the specialist who first introduced me to the Komar mass) prefer to call the non-locally measured mass, implicitly defined by the named string measurement enabled by Komar, the “Komar mass.”

If this is a reason to look down on me I shall have to live with this. But of course I will always be grateful to be informed about new details I did not know.

Take care,

Otto

P.S. I thought it might interest everyone that one of us recently obtained the following automated E-mail:

The Guest Book for Arthur Komar will go offline soon. The Legacy.com Guest Book for Arthur Komar will remain online until 6/4/2012, after which it will no longer be available to read or add an entry. The Legacy.com team wants you to be aware of this should you wish to visit, print, or sponsor the Guest Book to keep it online… to continue to add entries on anniversaries, holidays, and other occasions. … Visit the Guest Book http://www.legacy.com/guestbook/syracuse/guestbook.aspx?n=ar…c_gbexpire…

This message is, of course, only meant for personal friends.

By now I count at least three different physical quantities you prefer to call “Komar mass,” among which are rest mass, energy, and force. The real problem is, of course, not your abuse of terminology, but your belief that by renaming energy to “mass” you have proved something about the physical quantity mass.

Oh no — I know this inability of TRMG’s : Directly before the synthesis lies before his face, he retreats into a splintering of the mental picture.

Either it is a weakness which often occurs with very bright people — which would imply hope — or he is one of those poor scientists who cannot integrate their diverging ingenious abilities.

Please, dear TRMG: Do jump over the fence! Synthesis is possible after all, trust me.

From another blog today in case you did not see it:

Otto E. Rössler on June 3, 2012 4:37 am

(A remark directed at the best anonymous physicist so far)

Dear TRMG:

The gravitational twin paradox (which houses the above paper [tiled “mini-Paper”]) implies that the clocks on the lower-level floor are slowed and that, therefore, their locally normal appearing photons are mass-energy reduced. This was conceded by you.

Why then should anyone say that this fact does NOT imply that all other normal-appearing local masses are equally mass-energy reduced?

I believe that no one says so any more including yourself.

However, you, dear TRMG, seemed to insist on our last blog [further above] that the named reduced “local mass-energy content” must NOT be called “rest mass.“

Rather, you claimed if I understood correctly that the rest mass (which only APPEARS constant locally as we saw) IS constant there even to outside observers. So notwithstanding the conceded fact that the same mass is “mass-energy reduced.”

Therefore all that still needs to be solved — it appears to me — is a problem of nomenclature.

Right, dear TRMG?

Dear Dr. TRMG:

Forgive me that I apparently completely misunderstood the intention of your learned response of 4:41 am today:

By your quoting page 139 of Wald’s book (with Equation 6.3.12) — which shows as you put it that “rest mass and local mass [of a body] cannot be the same” — you effectively conceded that the main result I had presented to you in a maximally simple special case (that of the equivalence principle) finds your full support.

This fact makes me blush. I do not know how to apologize for my harsh and as I realize unfair words to you today. If you forgive me, we would be friends. So I can only say: please, do. Accept my heartfelt apologies. Please, forgive me.

I’m stumped. Rössler, are you trolling or just too stupid to read? The next time you quote me, at least try copy&paste.

Forgive me.

Thats the crackpot-style.

The only thing you have to do, Otto, is to admit that your nonsense was again disproved.

Dear anonymous colleague TRMG: Thank you nonetheless for having understood what I said and for approving of it recognizably if grudgingly.

It would be much more helpful, of course, if you — or anyone else — were able to defuse Telemach rather than presenting half-hearted (and later seemingly disowned) affirmations. For as you know all too well: what I am yearning for is a first good enemy.

I realize you are unable to contribute to my next two blogs: I would not mind if you came back in the absence of a stronger voice. Revenge accepted?

Rossler, please, stop playing dumb. TRMG has neither “conceded” nor “approved” any of your nonsense. Your attempt to give that impression by deliberately misquoting him is at the same time silly and pathetic. Did you really think that nobody would notice when you replaced “total energy” with “local mass” in the quote from TRMG’s comment of June 3, 2012 4:41 am?

Sorrry, it was a copying error: “Local mass” fits much better to clinch my argument!

I had not realized this was what TRMG had been cryptically alluding to. Thank you for providing this missing piece and thereby helping the dialogue.

So you are not playing dumb — you ARE dumb, or drunk. Or perhaps (as I had reason to suspect in the past) there are several people writing here under the name of “Otto Rossler”.

Read the recent comments again: TRMG wrote “total energy” (as opposed to “rest mass”) in his comment of June 3, 2012 4:41 am. But when you quoted TRMG in your comment of June 3, 2012 2:58 pm, YOU replaced “total energy” with “local mass”, precisely because it “fits much better to clinch your argument”. This is why TRMG was reacting angrily in the comment of June 4, 2012 9:48 am. Are you really that stupid, or are you just playing silly games?

Rössler has prven that he is a crank not interested in honest discussion or serious science — and obviously not in becoming disproved.

Dear Passenger: I apologized. Okay?

You are faking statements in order to suggest support of your position when there is clearly nothing like that and you think an apology is enough?

You are lying here in public — behind a mask. Why?

Roesler shows all signs of sociopathy and (partly) psychopathy. As I stated before, it is impossible to have discussions with people like him, as his unethical actions obvious to anyone, are not even recognized by himself. He therefore is somewhat “innocent” for his actions.

Prof. Peter Howell

I am not lying, you have admitted it yourself. It was proven above that you change postings by misquoting them.

A “copying error” — good joke. Who should believe that? :D

Oh no: play it honrorably, dear hdc! And didn’t you realize that I had detracted from my own argument by the stupid misquote?

Professor Peter Howell shows he cannot remain within the boundaries of his own profession. I have sympathy for that trait.

Rossler, you write: “And didn’t you realize that I had detracted from my own argument by the stupid misquote?”

HUH? it’s exactly the other way round! You misquoted TRMG, pretending that he/she had written “local mass” instead of “total energy”, because “local mass”, in your own words, “fits much better to clinch your argument”. When will you stop playing dumb?

Or perhaps this is your latest strategy? Making up the physics and misquoting textbooks is no longer enough for you. To sustain your delusion that “Telemach” has not been disproved, you now have to pretend that people on this blog wrote the very opposite of what they have actually written. And who cares if everybody can go through the old comments and just point out your lies? Keep denying the evidence no matter what, and maybe your bubble of madness will not burst…

Please, state what you wanted to say, dear Passenger: Please, do give the counterargument you say exists. I am sometimes slow, but I promise I shall recognize it in both senses of the word if you found it at last.

(And stop using foul language since this only proves you cannot do better.)

And: Is TRMG really female and — perhaps — identical with Trigemina whom I admire?

“Stupid misquote” — who should believe this from a proven liar?

You have done this quite often in the past, trying to change the meaning of ouor opponents statements constructing support for your nonsense where clearly no one was supporting you.

I promise I shall recognize it

Empty words. In the end Passingbyagain and others will be declared to be dogmatic / stupid / anonymous/ whatsoever — you always find a reason for ignoring disproofs. Your behavior is well known, Rössler!

Rössler, you asked me to explain the difference between “mass-energy” and “mass.” Of course, since you are resistant to any good advice you insist on using the ambiguous term “mass-energy,” which is the cause of your whole confusion. Obviously you also forgot your initial motivation to ask me that questions, because you seem absolutely satisfied with a completely imaginary answer, that nobody gave and nobody asked for, about some imaginary difference between “rest mass” and “local mass,” which doesn’t exist.

Anyway, I answered (your original) question in terms of the only meaningful interpretation of “mass-energy” that is also relevant to the discussion, namely: “rest energy measured by a fixed observer.” (BTW, I forgot to mention in my answer that in order to obtain the rest energy from the total energy you have to consider the case t’=1. So the rest energy, as measured by a distant observer, *per unit mass* equals (1-2M/r).)

So, it is confirmed by Wald, whose authority was accepted by you, that rest energy measured by the above observer does not equal the body’s mass. This clearly invalidates the basis for your purported observer dependent mass, since you argue from the total energy of photons, which is converted into *rest energy* of atoms, which then is simply, and erroneously, equated with the atom’s mass. This is not only a matter of terminology, since mass and rest energy are different *things*, not just different names for the same thing.

Perhaps now that the importance of that distinction is hopefully clear to you again, you should give my, or rather Wald’s, answer a third reading. And then, maybe, attempt the first serious answer.

Dear TRMG:

I am very grateful for your taking so much time. Let me go directly to the main point. Quote: “your purported observer dependent mass”.

This I never said or meant. The local observer observes the normal rest mass (if I may use that term in the frame in which it actually applies).

Now an important misunderstanding has been cleared, so I feel. Does this change anything in your opinion? (I for one see no real difference between how I understand you and what I want to convey.) Thank you once more for your help.

And there’s the other guy impersonating “Otto E. Rössler” again.

“Quote: “your purported observer dependent mass”.

This I never said or meant.”

Except the last time on June 2, 2012 1:32 pm in this thread, where you wrote: “The outer observer finds the locally normal appearing rest-mass m on the neutron star to be m/2. […] Nothing else Telemach ever said. ”

So the local observer measures mass m, the outer observer measures mass m/2. But of course this was the opinion of June-2-Rössler. June-5-Rössler never said that mass depends on the observer.

“The local observer observes the normal rest mass (if I may use that term in the frame in which it actually applies). ”

Yes, that’s one half of your story. What mass does June-5-Rössler think the distant observer measures? Please try to answer before the next incarnation of you gets access to the keyboard.

But Telemach is a well defined “theorem” without self-contradictions…of course :D

Poor Roessler!

Dear TRMG:

I do not understand your question. To me, everything you quote seems consistent: The local observer measures m, the far-outside observer measures m/2, on our idealized neutron star.

Where is the problem. We both agree on that. Or at least should — right?

Rössler, be careful not mtaking the statements of your other incarnations to be TRMGs. :D

To everyone here you seem to be quiote confused.

Would this not be a beautiful chance for you to bring order into the confusion?

BTW, I fortgot to mention it, you again have contradicted yourself. The June-7-Rössler again speaks about a observer dependent mass while an earlier version of Rössler stated clearly in a reply to TRMG:

““Quote: “your purported observer dependent mass”.

This I never said or meant.””

So what? :D

It is your confusion and the only way to bring order in it would be to learn, Otto.

You have to learn but first to admit that you lost the debate (not the first time) as everyone here can see..

I never said locally observer-dependent mass. For to the local observer, the mass of a body locally at rest is always constant. The same mass is different for other observers. What makes you so confused about that?

Oh, now the game of invention of new terms that in fact never appeared in the discussion before…what boring.

You were clearly speaking of a observer-dependent mass and at the same time you were denying it. It is clearly shown in the quotes above, you can not hide it. So what, Rössler? Will the June-7-Otto resolve this or add more confusion to it?

First there is a mistake in my comment on June 5 12:01.

For a particle at rest t’ = 1/sqrt(1 — 2M/r), not 1, which is just an expression of time dilation. Then it follows that the rest energy, as measured by a distant observer, *per unit mass* equals sqrt(1-2M/r), as it should. Note that this means that the rest energy as measured by a distant observer includes (the negative) potential energy.

Sorry for adding to the confusion.

“The local observer measures m, the far-outside observer measures m/2, on our idealized neutron star.”

So, you’re back at believing in an observer-dependent mass? Then my comment on June 5 12:01 still applies, with the appropriate correction of today.

“Where is the problem. We both agree on that.”

What? You think I agree? Is there any of your multiple personalities who remembers what happened the last 200 or so comments on this thread? If so, let him grab the keyboard.

To repeat: The problem is that mass does not depend on the observer. Rest energy does depend on the observer, but both quantities must not be equated for a distant observer, because for him rest energy equals mass plus potential energy.

Otto E. Rossler on June 7, 2012 2:50 am writes: “The same mass is different for other observers.”

That’s it: today’s Rossler believes that the distant observer measures a reduced *rest mass* (as opposed to a reduced *rest energy• for a body sitting on the neutron star. He does not (or pretends not to) understand the difference between the two concepts. What’s the point of even trying to discuss the fine details of general relativity with such an ignorant clown?

BTW,

Otto E. Rossler on June 7, 2012 2:50 am

“I never said locally observer-dependent mass. ”

I never talked about “locally observer dependent mass”. The locally is an addition of yours. Again you tried to change the meaning of other statements by setting up strawmen.

Dear TRMG:

Thank you for: “Note that this means that the rest energy as measured by a distant observer includes (the negative) potential energy.” (Then he agrees that the local observer sees something different.) I do not believe we have any difference of opinion.

Another example: “mass does not depend on the observer. Rest energy does depend on the observer, but both quantities must not be equated for a distant observer, because for him rest energy equals mass plus potential energy.” Again I agree.

Take care, Otto

““Note that this means that the rest energy as measured by a distant observer includes (the negative) potential energy.”(Then he agrees that the local observer sees something different.)”

Not “something” different. I was more specific. He sees a different *rest energy*.

“I do not believe we have any difference of opinion.”

Yes we do. You believe that an analogous statement is true for an entirely different physical quantity, namely (rest) mass. I disagree. You even asked me to explain the difference between rest energy and mass, which was the point of my quoting from Wald’s book. But PassingByAgain is right, you seem either unable or unwilling to grasp the difference between these two concepts.

“Another example: “mass does not depend on the observer. Rest energy does depend on the observer, but both quantities must not be equated for a distant observer, because for him rest energy equals mass plus potential energy.” Again I agree. ”

Your opinions seem to change by the hour now, which reminds me of our discussion of time dilation, and is, I believe, always symptomatic of your cognitive dissonance reaching its climax. If mass does not depend on the observer, then all observers (including the local and the distant observer) agree about the mass of a particle. Are you sure you want to subscribe to that view? Then what is the content of equation (3) of “Telemach”?

There is love in this man:

http://www.google.de/imgres?um=1&hl=de&sa=N&b…ved=1t:429,r:8,s:60,i:237

What do you say to Dr. Penner’s brave attempt?

The crackpot again tries to change the topic.

The long Otto-silence again. :D

Quote (TRMG): “If mass does not depend on the observer, then all observers (including the local and the distant observer) agree about the mass of a particle. ”

I do not understand the gist of your argument here. Why not stick to facts none of us can disagree about? I gave you some. Let me go slowly: Birkhoff showed that the effective (gravity-generating) mass of a body that you let fall from a larger height is invariant. Komar said similar things. We agree on that (I believe).

Then imagine a lower-level observer. The same mass-carrying body can be arrested on his floor as it were. To him, the rest mass — the mass he can measure on this body that is now at rest relative to him — is unchaged compared to what the higher-up observer measured when the same massive body was at rest relative to him. I think you will not disagree.

But then we have a problem, right?

The body having come to rest relative to the lower-level observer no longer has the full “total mass” (“mass-energy”?) it possessed up there. For part of that mass (or energy) was dissipated when the mass was arrested down there. We even had the example of z=1 when the two local masses, that of the body come to rest itself and that of its re-collected kinetic energy, were both equal.

You did not bear with me on that previous occasion because you did not reply. Can you do so now? Specifically: Can you re-formulate the problem into a technical language you understand and can stick to, so that I can try and understand what you mean in that language?

Are you sure you want to stick to your interpretation of the Komar mass again? Are you sure you want still use these non-defined and diffuse terms like “mass-energy” instead of proper defined physical terms?

Are you sure that you still do not mix up observers ? (Thats obviously your biggest problem — you have a problem with relativity, you want to create a “absoluttivity ” theory :D )

And by the way, the first question which would be the base for following discussions you still avoid to answer: is mass obsever-dependent or not?

There is a real question coming from anonymous eq for once:

“Is mass obsever-dependent or not?”

I gave the answer above. I repeat: Locally it is not, far away it is. Did you not read what I wrote above? You have the choice between contradicting me or agreeing. Why the fear to out yourself with an opinion for once?

Take care, Otto E. Rossler

You apparently have never understood the question from TRMG…Did you not read what he wrote??

What do you think is the meaning of a question if one asks you about observer dependency in the context of relativity? Do you think TRMG was asking about “locally observers”? Again you include words which were not asked and not relevant for the question.

So, again, read the last statements from TRMG and others and answer the question: Is mass dependent on the observer? So far we had two opposite answers from two Otto Rösslers here. If both Rösslers were the same person they are contradicting themselves and were not able to resolve it. Everyone can read that in the last ~50 comments…

TRMG already told you that much of your confusions stems from the fact that you are not able to understand the terms mass or energy. In the last answer you again wrote something completely non-defined — perhaps you should start with clear and precise definitions of your terms instead of writing again diffuse phrases.

Quotation of the last TRMG-posting:

““[TRMG]: mass does not depend on the observer. Rest energy does depend on the observer, but both quantities must not be equated for a distant observer, because for him rest energy equals mass plus potential energy.”

[Rössler:] Again I agree. ”

[TRMG]: Your opinions seem to change by the hour now, which reminds me of our discussion of time dilation, and is, I believe, always symptomatic of your cognitive dissonance reaching its climax. If mass does not depend on the observer, then all observers (including the local and the distant observer) agree about the mass of a particle. Are you sure you want to subscribe to that view? Then what is the content of equation (3) of “Telemach”? “”

So far you have not given any substantiated answer to that. You simply repeat your confusion. So on the one hand you agree to the observer-independent mass, on the other hand you conrtradict yourself. Perhaps you should define your terms more precisely… and start to THINK.

Oh no: You both, eq and TRMG, refuse to understand by creating disinformation.

Can you say a word to the angular-momentum proof of Telemach given yesterday?

I repeat it in even clearer terms here:

————————————————————————-

“Angular-momentum Conservation Confirms Telemach“

Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, D-72076 Tübingen, F.R.G.

Friction-free clocks (rotating wheels) that are transported towards a lower level in gravity (or in the equivalence principle) rotate more slowly down there in accord with Einstein’s gravitational clock slowdown (“gravitational twin paradox”). They therefore must also be enlarged down there in order to conserve their angular momentum J.

To witness, take an ideal bicycle wheel with

J = m * r^2 * omega = const., (1)

where m denotes the wheel’s mass, r its radius and omega its rotation rate.

The 3 predictions made by Telemach [1] hold true on an idealized neutron star (with a unit redshift valid on its surface). Down there on the neutron star’s surface, m is halved, r doubled and omega halved. Thus, J is exactly conserved!

This is a test which any correct interpretation of general relativity (and the Rindler metric) must pass. The currently favored interpretations flunk this test. Therefore they are in for an overhaul. Telemach points the way.

I thank Heinrich Kuypers for his cooperation. (For J.O.R.)

References

[1] O.E. Rossler, Einstein’s equivalence principle has three further implications besides affecting time: T-L-M-Ch theorem (“Telemach”), African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research 5, 44 — 47 (2012). http://www.scribd.com/doc/82752272/Rossler-s-Telemach-paper

———————————–

There is nothing like a proof for Telemach as here the same confusion of yours about observers and what which observer measures is the base of your “proof”. As long as you have not understood what several people try to teach you for years now about observers and terms in relativity. In fact you are refusing to write at least proper defined postings and this enhances your confusion again and again.

BTW, as a proven liar you are the last person who should accuse others with someting like disinformation.

Poor speechless hdc-eq. Really no one able to say a word?

It would be useless to repeat it all over again. Why do you not answer the last question and why are you avoiding it so obviously?

Without changing or introducing new examples of your confusion, there is no reason for that unless you have resolved the problems with the older statements.

Not a single scientist around.

Rössler: “Quote (TRMG): “If mass does not depend on the observer, then all observers (including the local and the distant observer) agree about the mass of a particle. ”

I do not understand the gist of your argument here. Why not stick to facts none of us can disagree about?”

This would be a good advice if I was talking to a rational person, but so far you have not shown the slightest reluctance to dispute even the most obvious facts, or assume contradictory statements about these facts.

It starts with your description of Birkhoff’s theorem which is just absurdly wrong (Birkhoff didn’t show that gravitational mass is invariant. He did show that a particular vacuum solution, namely the Schwarzschild metric, is unique under certain conditions.) But fortunately, for once, your confusion doesn’t matter since Birkhoff’s theorem is completely unrelated to this discussion. I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

“Then imagine a lower-level observer. The same mass-carrying body can be arrested on his floor as it were. To him, the rest mass — the mass he can measure on this body that is now at rest relative to him — is unchaged compared to what the higher-up observer measured when the same massive body was at rest relative to him. I think you will not disagree.

But then we have a problem, right?”

Well, I don’t.

“The body having come to rest relative to the lower-level observer no longer has the full “total mass” (“mass-energy”?) it possessed up there. For part of that mass (or energy) was dissipated when the mass was arrested down there. We even had the example of z=1 when the two local masses, that of the body come to rest itself and that of its re-collected kinetic energy, were both equal.

You did not bear with me on that previous occasion because you did not reply. Can you do so now? Specifically: Can you re-formulate the problem into a technical language you understand and can stick to, so that I can try and understand what you mean in that language?”

Yes I did. The problem is your confusion of two terms of that “technical language” namely, “energy” and “mass.” You were just successfully demonstrating this by blithely interchanging them again in the preceding paragraph. Mass doesn’t get dissipated during the process you described. If the body is stopped below, it loses some of its energy, namely kinetic energy, but its mass stays the same of course. I already explained the difference to you and why it matters to your argument. Maybe you should go back reading what I wrote.

It would e helpful to other readers if you cared repeating what you had written before when referring to it if it is not in the same thread. (I certainly make similar mistakes and appreciate similar help.)

Forgive my delayed answer. The last paragraph is the content-rich one. You say “If the body is stopped below, it loses some of its energy, namely kinetic energy, but its mass stays the same of course.”

I agree. And I ask you to contradict me if I here adduce again the example of the idealized neutron star with z = 1 (that is, a halving of the local speed of time). In this case the kinetic energy set free on landing just suffices to build a second stone of the same local weight. Do you agree?

Thank you.

P.S. I cordially invite TRGM to find the hoped-for flaw in my maximally primitive (special-relativistic) “Minipaper” on: http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/06/rest-mass-nonconservation-i…-minipaper

I do agree with all of the ideas you’ve offered to your post. They’re really convincing and can certainly work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. Could you please lengthen them a little from subsequent time? Thank you for the post.

I appreciate your surprising support, dear anonymous colleague. I shall try to follow your advice. I am momentarily busy updating my post “Complexity decomplexified” which gives — perhaps — a kind of stereoscopic view.