May 24, 2012

I herewith Challenge my 11 CERN-supporting Colleagues who in 2008 Defamed my Gothic-R …

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

… theorem and still do so on CERN’s website ( ):

Dear colleagues, please, try and dismantle my much simpler, and hence both more powerful and more easy-to-disprove if false, “Telemach theorem” ( ).

The latter again proves the likely pan-biocidal nature of the currently running LHC experiment. For it shows that black holes have radically new properties: They are stable, almost frictionless at first, undetectable by CERN’s detectors, and exponentially growing inside matter – thus forming a perfect slow bomb for planet earth. The theorem waits to be dismantled for 2 years (the former does so for 5 years).

I grant you, my esteemed 11 colleagues, 11 days to deliver – either on the CERN website of 2008, revised, or in case CERN denies you access, on this blog. If none of you manages to deliver a counter-proof to Telemach during this time, I shall accuse all of you of actively supporting the worst terrorist act of history, presently in progress. Acting in good faith – as you no doubt will pledge – offers no excuse as you were alerted in time. And please, do forgive me that I did not give you the occasion to revoke your testimony earlier.

I now wait in anticipation that one (or more) of you will deliver a cogent counterproof. If so, the planet is safe again. And I shall apologize for the spirit of urgency that I created in fulfillment of my Hippocratic oath.

In case CERN halts its experiment before the 11 days are over, I extend the 11-day deadline by so many days as CERN announces the halt to last.

Thank you, dear Professors (in the order you are quoted by CERN)

Academician Vitaly Ginzburg (Nobel Laureate in Physics, Lebedev Institute Moscow),
Sheldon Glashow (Nobel Laureate in Physics, Boston University),
Frank Wilczek (Nobel Laureate in Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology),
Richard Wilson (Mallinckrodt Professor emeritus of Physics, Harvard University),
Steven Hawking (Lucasian Professor emeritus of Mathematics, Cambridge University),
Edward Kolb (Astrophysicist, University of Chicago),
Sir Roger Penrose (Rouse Ball Professor emeritus of Mathematics, Oxford University),
Sir Martin Rees (UK Astronomer Royal and former President of the Royal Society London),
Academician V.A. Rubakov (Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow),
Gerard ‘t Hooft (Nobel Laureate in Physics, CERN Scientific Policy Committee), and
Hermann Nicolai (Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Potsdam).

Sincerely yours,

Otto E. Rössler, chaos theorist, University of Tubingen


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Tom Kerwick says:

    “Black holes produced in cosmic-ray collisions with bodies such as neutron stars and white dwarf stars would be brought to rest. The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes.” Otto — I’d advise you clarify why you feel this conclusion in the text you referenced above is insufficient to quell your concerns.

  2. Thank you, Tom, for the concise question.

    1) Neutron stars are not a security argument

    Neutron stars would indeed hold fast to miniature black holes created on their surface. Whether or not this is possible depends on details of their magnetic field; let us assume it is possible. Stuck in the crust, they would then grow for a while until falling into the superfluid core. Once there, they would float but could not grow any more. The calculations required to prove this are quantum mechanical ones. The theory of super-high density “hot” superfluidity is very beautiful and very difficult and not my closest field. Therefore it is a very good idea to seek advice here in the sense of finding a specialist who can defuse my published conclusion — uncontradicted for 4 years — that superfluidity precludes the growth (in particular exponential growth) of tiny black holes inside neutron stars. If anyone can show this existing security gap to be closed, then I will give up my resistance to the LHC.

    2) White dwarfs are not a security argument for a different reason

    White dwarfs must be effectively unable to catch natural-born near luminal miniature black holes generated by near-luminal particles (many orders of magnitude more energetic to be equivalent to CERN’s) on their surface, as you say. The rate of such maximally energetic nucleons is unknown but let us assume it is finite over a finite time. Then the resulting near-luminal miniature black holes — which are uncharged by the Telemach theorem — must not get stuck inside in almost all cases since otherwise not very many white dwarfs would be left as you say. This constraint allows us to roughly calculate a maximum diameter for collision-borne black holes. I so far estimate that a diameter of not much more than ten to the minus 24 meters results from this constraint. If you can prove that this size — the classical maximum size of a neutrino — is markedly exceeded by the black holes hoped to be generated at CERN – by invoking a so far lacking proof from string theory, for example –, then again safety is guaranteed since otherwise, white dwarfs could not be around in large numbers.


    The just-named physical profession profits the most from the Telemach theorem: String theorists. For the Ch of Telemach implies that charged elementary particles cannot be point-shaped (since they would then be black holes and hence uncharged). So “some mechanism” preventing electrons from being point-shaped exists empirically – the first proof that string theories are not without an empirical basis. A protagonist in that field wrote an illuminating book last year, Lisa Randall with “Knocking on Heaven’s Door.” As I discovered only after publishing the above appeal today, Lisa Randall writes on p. 177 after her discussing many pertinent safety issues on the basis of the (unfortunately deliberately outdated-from-the-beginning) LSAG safety report of CERN, a very sympathetic phrase which shows that she has the personal format presupposed above for 11 male colleagues:

    “But just in case [black holes pose any danger], I’ll promise to take full responsibility if the LHC creates a black hole that gobbles up the planet.”

    My deep respect, Professor Randall!

  3. P.S. I asked Professor Heuer of CERN to kindly forward the present link to the 11 scientists addressed by name in the above public appeal.

  4. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — it was not a question, it was just advise to you for the benefit of the passing reader. I am of course already familiar with your position on these — as you are with mine, which is more balanced on the WD safety assurance. I will leave for others to discuss…

  5. AlphaNumeric says:

    Mr Rössler , do you think the 11 people you have named have nothing better to do with their time than jump through hoops for you? They are all busy people, with other demands on their time, and are not at your beck and call. Those who have something to say about the LHC have said it, many times and obviously they have not come down on your side.

    If you really think your work can stand up to scrutiny then why don’t you send it to reputable journals? ‘t Hooft has been an editor of such a journal, thus has access to a great many people who ARE willing to give their time to review new material. Rather than posting demands on a website I’m sure none of them read, hoping that via a sequence of third parties they will somehow hear of your demands, you could immediately get your ‘theorem’ to the right people in the community to review it by getting it published in a reputable, high impact journal, not some back water journal which looks like a scam/joke journal.

    Reputable journal publication would mean you can say it indeed been reviewed by people qualified and competent in the relevant areas, rather than demand people do it because it hasn’t yet. It would also mean the journal then provides resources and connections to spread your work to the community in such a way to make you NOT seem like a, quite frankly, nut yelling at the sky. The fact no one has put much effort into addressing your regular rants and claims of theorems is because, again quite frankly, you are somewhat of a non-entity to such people. Of course I wouldn’t deny the contributions you’ve made to things like some areas of dynamical systems, but that doesn’t make you competent in other areas of mathematical physics automatically.

    If any of the 11 people you list do hear of your demands then if they have any sense they will ignore you. Why? Because if you’re not willing to be intellectually honest enough to go through channels provided for the review and dissemination of new work, instead demanding others jump through hoops for you, then giving you a response only serves to feed your exaggerated self importance.

    After all, if YOU honestly think you have some irrefutable argument why the LHC is a death machine then it’s clearly worth you putting in the effort to get your work into a reputable journal. Much less effort than setting up this website and it’s associated group. The fact you expend your time and month in the manner you do, ignoring courses of action which would accomplish much more for much less effort makes it seem like you don’t really believe what you’re saying, you’re just putting on a show to give yourself more feelings of self importance.

    If you got the work into a high impact reputable RELEVANT journal then it would come to the attention of relevant people and then arguments like “It’s been about for 2 years, no disproof!” might be reasonable. The fact you don’t appear on any relevant researcher’s radar and thus none of them read your work negates the “It’s 2 years old and not refuted!”. Continuing with such a line of argument would only serve to put yourself into a less favourable light than you already are. If the sterotypical view researchers have of you is some LHC doom sayer then even if someone mentioned you had a GR paper it’s going to be quite a small number of said researchers who think you’re even worth giving the time of day to in regards to GR, especially since what you are known for in terms of research is quite different. Get your work into a reputable relevant high impact journal and it’ll be right in front of people’s faces. Jumping up and down on a blog challenging people who are quite a bit above your station to jump through hoops for you puts you in the same category as Myron Evans of ‘ECE Theory’. He too thinks he’s got some massive work others are too blind to see. He too has issues with ‘t Hooft who denied his work further publication due to it being utter nonsense. He too spews out results in areas he’s not educated in (he was a chemist), taking his blog’s high traffic to mean everyone is working on his work (it’s actually people going to see how wacky he is). Trust me, you don’t want to look like him but that’s how it seems with this blog and your demands of people with better things to do.

    If you honestly think there is a real threat to all life on Earth you should be willing to jump through some hoops. Demanding others do it when you’re unwilling just smacks of hypocrisy and dishonest.

  6. anonymous referee says:

    I know that Otto Rössler submitted his “telemach” paper to at least one reowned physics journal, since I was choosen as an anonymous referee for this article and I wrote a report some time ago.

    I assume that Otto Rössler also got the report which I have send to the editors. Of course, since his paper was / is full of errors and ramblings, I had to reject it.

    It is up to Ottp Rössler to publish the reports that he got from of the reowned journals.

    I find it a bit amazing that Otto Rössler writes blog posts describing his article as if it would not have been refuted or disproven by scientists.

    This is not true.

    Otto Rössler received at least one rejection for his article from a reputed physics journal.

    I do not know. whether Otto Rössler writes such blog posts as the one above just because he is angry about the rejections that he got from the reowned journals–

    Anonymous referee

  7. Quote: “do you think the 11 people you have named have nothing better to do with their time than jump through hoops for you?”

    I always feel good in the presence of assertive clairvoyants. Nevertheless your logic that people must refuse to be saved by non-noble persons (like me) may not be shared by everyone. I for one have a much higher opinion of the 11+1 scientists you address.

  8. Dear courageous Anonymous interloper (sorry I had not seen your text when answering Alpha):
    Please, publish your rejection letter which I never received to the best of my knowledge. For nothing is and was more important to me than to encounter a counter-proof. If you have one, please do not hold it back for one more minute. 11+1 reputable scientists plus the whole CERN family and the bravely silent International Press Club will be in your debt. And I shall humbly apologize to all these venerable institutions and persons.

  9. AlphaNumeric says:

    I don’t know what post you were reading Otto, if I may be so bold as to call you that, we’re all doctorates here.…. My point was that since such people ARE held in high regard and thus have plenty of other things to do with their time do you really think you demanding on this blog they do things for you is really going to reach their attention?

    You say you have a high opinion of them but I somewhat doubt that. Your comments about the supposed negligence and apathy of the community in not standing up to CERN show you obviously think there’s something amiss with such people. Furthermore the demanding tone and belief your postings will reach their ears (or rather, eyes) shows you believe your status to be pretty high for such things to occur.

    I can’t help but notice you ignored much of my post. Have you submitted your work to a reputable high impact journal? If so, which ones? What did they say? If not, why not, given you think this is literally life and death for the entire planet? I ask precisely because I am not a clairvoyant (but good job on the ad hom) and since you haven’t explained why your work has such low impact and poor circulation in the community I had to raise the point. Perhaps you didn’t wish to respond to such points because the answer is embarrassing, if what ‘anonymous referee’ says is accurate? But I wouldn’t know, I cannot read your mind, I can only hypothesis given my experience with other people proclaiming their supposed accomplishments and demanding things of the community which doesn’t even know of them. Seriously, look up Myron Evans, you and he share a lot of traits.

    When your actions better reflect your assertions and you behave a little less like someone with an exaggerated view of his own importance perhaps people will take you a little more seriously? Demanding things of people who have actual relevant research to do and positions of responsibilities is not a terribly good reflection on you. There’s plenty of channels for communication with specific people or the community at large. Starting a blog and yelling at the sky is not one of them.

  10. There is a basic misunderstanding here, dear Alpha (this seems to be your first name — right?):

    You presuppose this was an ordinary scientific dispute, and there was all the time of the world available. It is your prerogative to think so, of course. But unfortunately, this time does not exist if I am right.

    Is there someone who can prove that I am not right — please? Thank you all. If I am right, I need the help of the 11 scientists I turned to above. I am sure there is one amongst them who understands.

  11. anonymous referee says:

    I have contacted the editors who received my report. They said they have a policy not to answer to authors whose submissions are, due to errors in their papers, of such a low value that they can not be taken seriously.

    The editors wrote me that they have this policy to reduce email traffic with people who lack basic mathematical skills and knowledge of physical concepts. They write that exchange with such authors would be pointless, since, at least in the near future, due to their lack of knowledge, such authors will not be able to write an error free article that can be published.

    It is upon the authors, to learn the basic mathematical methods and physical concepts needed for doing active research on a physical theory.

    A journal devoted to scientific research can not take the position of a mathematics and physics teacher at a college or a university. For this reason, the journal decided generally not to reply to authors whose submissions are of extremely low quality.

    Unfortunately, the article of Otto Rössler was, because of its mathematical errors and of its misunderstanding of physical concepts, of such a low quality that Otto Rössler is among the persons which the journal won’t reply to.

    Due to the author’s lack of mathematical skills and knowledge of physical concepts, the journal considers Otto Rössler to be unable to write a physical research paper of acceptable quality, at least in the near future.

    Hence, answering Otto Rösslers submissions would be worthless, as it would not lead to publishable articles in the near future.

  12. anonymous referee says:

    I personally find otto Rössler much more funny than Myron Evans.

    For example, has Myron Evans ever written nonsense like:

    Ratjen, W. & O.E. Rössler: Clifford Algebra Applied to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Towards a Science of Consciousness Conference, Tucson 2004, Abstract book

    Rössler, O.E.: An estimate on Planck’s constant. In: Erdi, P. (ed.): Dynamical Phenomena in Neurochemistry: Theoretical Aspects. Budapest: Publications of the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1985, pp. 16–18.

    Above “publications” are so worthless and stupid that they are just quite funny

  13. Otto E. Rossler says:

    This self-declared anonymous referee promised to give us the alleged anoymous referee report. Everyone is waiting for him to deliver.

  14. anonymous referee says:

    Otto Rössler wrote:
    This self-declared anonymous referee promised to give us the alleged anoymous referee report
    end quote.

    No, I did not write anything like that.:

    I wrote:

    I assume that Otto Rössler also got the report which I have send to the editors. Of course, since his paper was / is full of errors and ramblings, I had to reject it.
    end quote.

    If a journal decides that it wont send the referee’s report to the author Otto Rössler because the journal’s editors think communicating with Otto Rössler would be pointless, as Otto Rössler is lacking the necessary mathematical and physical skills that are required to write research papers on some theory, then I fully accept the decision of the journal. I certainly would not oppose the decisions of the editorial board. Why should I do this? Referee reports are written for the editors of the journals and for authors who then can correct their papers. However, someone who lacks basic mathematical and physical knowledge obviously can not profit from a rejection letter, as this letter would use mathematical and physical descriptions which the author of the rejected article obviously would not understand.
    Similar to journal editors, a referee is not a replacement for a mathematics or physics teacher at a college or an university. It is up to Otto Rössler, to learn the basic mathematical skills and physical concepts that are needed to write research articles.

    It is not up to journal editors or referees to teach Otto Rössler physics.

  15. Otto E. Rossler says:

    My dear self-declared Teacher: thank you for publicly refusing to teach me the errors allegedly contained in my paper but not named by you. They are just as real as your identity here.

    So indeed one of the ten 2008 challengers (Professor Ginzburg passed away — he is now our guardian angel) is going to be needed to spare all of them the fate which their more courageous colleague Randall asked for. I pledge to exempt her for her charming honesty.

  16. Roger E. Smith says:

    You’re insane.

  17. Please, specify, Mr. Smith.

  18. Keith Curtis says:

    Otto, you are sometimes illogical. The anonymous person never offered up his rejection letter to you. And yet you later claim he “promised to give us the alleged anoymous referee report” which he had clearly never done. Even within this thread it is easy to spot the holes in your work. I don’t know exactly why you are sometimes irrational, but there is a term for it — quack. A team of architects designing a large building need to be sure that all of them are doing a correct job or the whole thing will collapse. Do you see an analogy between you and this blog?

  19. Dear Mr. Keith Curtis:
    Thank you for having been able to predict that Mr. anonymous referee would not come forward with what every reader had a right to expect: congratulations.
    Would you be able to give a reason why you see the never refuted danger in a clairvoyant pink light? I do not exclude in any way that you see the point I and everyone else have been unable to spot so far. Please, elaborate.
    Sincerely yours,
    Otto E. Rössler

  20. Keith Curtis says:

    I didn’t predict anything, I only reminded you of what has already happened, and that there is something wrong when you make things up.

  21. I must have annoyed you somehow. Please, tell me how I can un-annoy you, so to speak.

  22. Keith Curtis says:

    You could “un-annoy” me by noticing and admitting your mistakes. I’ve pointed out one here twice already. You don’t acknowledge it, you just change the subject as if you are incapable! I find it very curious! You could also answer my question. Did you notice the question mark?

    I would like if you quit being a quack ( with wrt the LHC. Imagine there is a real threat from the LHC, but you are distracting everyone with your debunked work that no one notices. The world could be in danger, and your false alarms distract others who might find real risks.

  23. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Keith — an official knife in the back from your mouth?

    Please, apologize for the word “quackery” and, please, substantiate the word “debunked” if you can.

    You are the first scientist of the world who backs CERN with his own name and at his own risk. This makes you the bravest living scientist: The first who has a vested interest to prove CERN is not doing an evil thing. You are their savior if you can substantiate what you dared say here. I admire your courage for I do need open enemies as the best friends I can think of.

    I hope you are strong enough to deliver — or else to apologize. I know we have similar interests in AI.

    Take care, Otto

  24. Keith Curtis says:

    I believe anyone who has read the comments to your posts on this blog can see how you’ve been debunked. It is especially easy because you don’t even attempt to refute many things, you just change the topic.

    For an example again here: The anonymous person never offered up his rejection letter, yet you claimed he had. I point out your mistake, and you ignore it: neither admitting your mistake nor attempting to defend yourself.

    I have relatively recently learned the proper meaning of the word Quack, and I believe strongly it applies to you. One of the characteristics is that because you don’t have the facts on your side, you are forced to change the topic. You do it on technical topics, and you do it here. So it is your avoidance behavior which is the convincing evidence to me. I don’t know if avoidance is always a part of quackery, but it seems to be related.

  25. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Oh no. I said everyone had the right to expect that the anonymous claimant was going to prove he was not lying by giving the evidence. You apparently knew better from the beginning which makes one wonder.

    Second, you here out yourself as being in your heart an omniscient psychologist. You prove you did not understand a word but you claim possession of the truth. And derive from this the right to publicly degrade another person you never met. This is not allowed by law.

    Nevertheless I have to thank Keith Curtis that he had the courage to come back. Now everyone expects you, Keith, to either apologize or retire from commenting.

  26. Keith Curtis says:

    1. You said he “promised” to release the letter when he hadn’t.

    2. I don’t need to be “omniscient” to know someone is a quack here. I just need to be “minimally observant.”

    3. I never said I didn’t “understand a word” yet “claim the truth”. You just convince yourself I must know nothing to be critical of you.

    4. My main point is how you avoid responding to what people bring up and instead change the topic, which you are again doing here.

    5. I am not degrading you, I am describing you using a historically valid term that has been applied to scientists.

    6. You are wrong to say this is illegal.

    7. When you say “everyone” expects me to “apologize or retire”, you are confusing your wishes with everyone’s.

    Even your short comments have many mistakes.

  27. Your English is better, but your manners are not. Ihad planned to laude you on your book. We do have common interests. A pity.

  28. Keith Curtis says:

    My manners are sufficient. This is about science, falsifiability, ignoring criticism, etc. These are important topics. Refusing to admit and fix holes in your work would be like a programmer refusing to fix bugs in his code.

    The proper attitude is Knuth’s, who paid people who found bugs in his code. In Otto’s case, he would go bankrupt because he never fixes them. I’ve never met a programmer who didn’t want to fix his bugs. I find this curious and damaging.

    I’d also remind you that there can be actual risks to humanity out there from the LHC and other places. So when you keep repeating refuted materials, you are taking away time and energy from those other risks.

    You are afraid the LHC might kill us all. I’m afraid that you are distracting people who could be working on actual, unrefuted risks. You could kill us all!

    My book is years old, so I wasn’t holding my breath waiting for you to compliment it. If I believed someone is a quack, then I would not be enthused about receiving them. I think you could be useful if you started hacking Python! It is easier to just fix bugs in someone else’s code who refuses to do so without having a year-long debate. It is easier to determine if a code change fixes a crash, etc.

  29. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Keith is obviously a naive believer. Proof: He says my materials were “refused.” I challenge him — and everyone else — to come up with a single scientist who says so.

  30. KeithCu says:

    I said it was “refuted.” It however was also refused as the anonymous referee has reported on this blog.

  31. Dear Keith: There never were any bugs in what I said. If there was one, please present it.
    And your claim of “refutation” is a lie unless you give the hard evidence which use of this word in science presupposes.
    Only anonymous kids can afford being mean in the open. Of you, I insist on an excuse if you want to remain excellent. Cordially, Otto

  32. KeithCu says:

    Here is an example of “bugs” in what you’ve written:

    “You are mixiing up observers, mass and energy. Poor Roessler, you have not even started to understand basic principles of relativity.”

    If one reads through your posts and the comments, there are many bugs / refutations in your work that people point out. Any independent observer, such as me, can see your work has been refuted. The comment above is just the most recent, but there are others. Pointing this out doesn’t make me a liar.

  33. hdc says:

    There are also elaborated longer forms of my comment in older commentary sections…it is always the same strategy, at a certain point when it has become to obvious that Otto has no arguments/no knowledge(understaood nothing he has done two things: either stop to answer combined with creating new nonsensical postings or to change the meaning of the opponents statements by misquoting, trying to suggest that clearly contradficting statements would support his nonsense (this can be seen actually here:…front-cern)

  34. Why do people refuse to look at my results, trying instead to show that I am a stupid person. I assure you that I am much stupider than you think.

    But here it is your own stupidity — not to be interested in finding out whether CERN is committing a crime on your family — that is at stake.

    Is really my nose more interesting to you than your own survival?
    Accruing indirect evidence is a possible strategy: But not so when your own survival is at stake. Then it is a sign of unsurpassable ignorance to do so (sorry: but anonymous persons have waived their person rights). This publicly touted weakness of yours enables me to say what everyone has a right to hear: Self-outing idiots are the last thing that a world that is being threatened at gun point needs.

    If you can show the threat does not exist — fine: This is what you are kindly asked to do and what the world is expecting you to address. It is nice if you can tell yourself that I am stupid. But is this really the life insurance you seek? Can a stupoid child like me not have stumbled across a truth that touches upon your own survival?

    Take care and make peace with me — by finding the flaw that I am asking the world to find in despair. The fact that you responded proves ou are much more engaged, of course, than all the silent bystanders. Thank you for having triggered this response which shows, I hope, that I am grateful to you.

  35. hdc says:

    The people have looked at your “results” and they have pointed out the errors countless times. They also draw the conclusion that you might be stupid, but the dominating impression is that you are a classical crackpot who declares every non-understanding to be a revolutionay “result”. You are simply mixing observers and quantities in a nonsensical manner as was shown to you quite often now. In principle your asnwer was always something like “they are not able to grasp my result” and so on which is not scientific but a quite dogmatic style (Rössler is correct, the others must be wrong/stupid/dogmatic/…).

    BTW, no real scientist ever named a theory after himself which is another criteria for crackpottery and/or megalomania.

  36. I accept the statement that any innovator is a crackpot for a long time. Most people are unable to clarify that issue for a long time. How about giving it a try, dear hdc? Would it not be nice to be able to prove that the theorem is false?

    And: thank you for taking notice that the theorem stems from Einstein originally.

  37. KeithCu says:

    Otto: “If you can show the threat does not exist — fine: This is what you are kindly asked to do and what the world is expecting you to address.”

    This has been done many, many times!! Not only do you not fix your bugs, you still act like no one else has found any yet, that the bug database doesn’t exist. It is amazing and very interesting. I think you should spend some time with scientific professionals of the mind who can document this behavior and explain it.

    They are looking are your results. The problem is: your results have flaws. The problem is: you refuse to look at the bugs / problems in your work.
    People are interested in CERN and other risks to humanity. Because your work has been shown flawed, you are not currently involved in this topic. You are distracting those who are. You could get us killed Otto. There are real risks to look after, not those of your invention.

  38. These ar unsubstantiated claims made by a non-nonanonymous writer. There presently lies a real counterclaim on the table as you might have seen.

  39. KeithCu says:

    There are plenty of reasons for anonymity. That isn’t relevant. What is proper is for you to fix the work you’ve already presented. It seems like what you should created one paper, and kept working on it until it was correct. You produce many papers with the same flaws. The critiques of yours all fall into a few categories. I have some idea of what your bug list looks like, even if you pretend it doesn’t exist. There are basically just a few bugs in your work, but they are the same ones over and over, and they do have vast implications for the results, but that is not your primary concern. I suggest you at some point re-read your old posts here, and the comments. Your brain might notice some patterns about the critiques.

  40. Otto E. Rossler says:

    “I have some idea of what your bug list looks like“
    Dear Keith: thank you for this announcement. Can you give me the list?
    Thank you very much. Otto

  41. KeithCu says:

    It would take hours for me to compile your buglist. I would do it by reading / re-reading the comments here made about your posts. I suggest you do it as you will learn a lot about your work, and maintaining issue lists is a part of the job. I’d like to see what you come up with!

  42. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Oh nio — copping out is not what I expected fom you, Keith.

  43. hdc says:

    Copping out is what you do all the time when faced again and again with arguments cracking your “theorem”…So you are in fact the last person who shoould complain about that.

  44. KeithCu says:

    This isn’t a cop-out. I told you already where the bugs are: go through the comments on your posts on this blog. If you read through enough, you will find patterns. My job is also not to do your laundry. Compiling the list is just a part of the process of fixing things, so if you won’t do that, then you won’t do the other parts.

    You’ve got the accusation backwards. Demanding i do your work is a cop-out. I’m working on my own tasks, why should I be responsible for yours? While doing this, you will learn about your own work. Why would you ask me to do this when it is your work, reputation, etc. on the line? This is too important for you to entrust to anyone else which is why it was a mistake to ask.

  45. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I only demanded from you to substantiate your view — pardon me, misunderstandings. If you cared to list them, you would realize they are all empty. I would help you see it, but I cannot do it myself since it is too hard to make sense out of misunderstandings if it is your own stuff that they do not get, each in a different way. If there really is a gem among them, you have a better chance to see it than I do.
    But of course, this is too much to ask from a a friend.
    Take care, Otto

  46. KeithCu says:

    I suggest you read through all the comments here again in a systematic way and you will find that the criticisms of your work are not all empty! I can assure you of that fact, but you must do the reading to understand it fully.

  47. AlphaNumeric says:

    Otto, you said in your reply to me : “You presuppose this was an ordinary scientific dispute, and there was all the time of the world available. It is your prerogative to think so, of course. But unfortunately, this time does not exist if I am right. ”

    That’s an obviously flawed argument. You have been touting your Gothic R ‘theorem’ for YEARS. In all that time have you not gotten a review from a journal? Have you not sent it to journals whose job it is to review and then disseminate noteworthy work? You clearly think there’s time to be involved in this website, collect money, write other papers. If you honestly think there isn’t time to even send your work to a journal for proper evaluation can I assume you not longer bother to go to work? That you no longer pay into a pension? That you don’t bother to pay your taxes? After all, if there isn’t enough time to even send off your work then there’s clearly no point in doing anything aimed at your future, right? Why give money to the government when you could spend it on making your last days more enjoyable, as the LHC will kill us all before the tax man comes for you, right?

    Somehow I doubt you have stopped paying taxes or are burning through your savings like there is, literally, no tomorrow. As such your “I don’t think there’s enough time” argument is completely inconsistent with your behaviour.

    You have provided a disingenuous answer to an entirely relevant question. Your actions of demanding other people jump through your hoops is also disingenuous, seeing as you can’t address even the most basic of questions from us. You’ve had people point out mistakes in your work or the work of people like El Naschie but you don’t listen. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if you’d also pulled the “You’re not a sufficiently competent researcher, you cannot critique my work” card here or there, you strike me as possessing that sort of mentality to people evaluating your work. I say that because I’ve seen enough internet hacks in my time to know the signs and also because of how you demanded 11 very well known physicists, as if to say “My level of work demands the attention of this highly regarded people”. Why them? Some of them aren’t even into GR research but other areas of physics. Clearly you didn’t pick each of them for their relevant knowledge, you picked them because of their standing. It says a lot about how you view your work, even when you have no justification for that view.

    It is somewhat of a shame you are doing all of this; the misrepresentations, the irrational and disingenuous demands, the avoidance of direct questions. Years ago your name was associated to interesting contributions to various areas of mathematical physics. Now you’re becoming more and more of a joke. Is this how you wish to be remembered, as someone who descended into dishonesty and quackery, like so many other people who jump up and down on the internet about their ‘insights’ into Nature which go unrecognised by the research community? By making an ever increasingly large amount of irrational noise you bring your negative image to more and more people’s attention. You may claim to have good intentions but your actions are failing to bear that out.

  48. Otto E. Rossler says:

    “Irrational noise” is a nice term, thank you for it, dear anonymous psychologist who knows physics so much better than Professor Penner.

  49. AlphaNumeric says:

    I’m not a psychologist and haven’t claimed to be. But that doesn’t mean I’m not able to make comments about the behaviour and mindset of people I interact with. I am, however, a theoretical physicist by education and doctorate. I have also seen plenty of people with similar disingenuous motives as you online. As I said before, the fact you picked those 11 people on the grounds of their stature rather than the relevance of their mathematical physics skills to your ‘theorem’ says a lot.

    As for ‘Professor Penner’ (he isn’t a professor and doesn’t claim to be), he and I know one another. I have great respect for the time and effort he puts into methodically covering the various pseudo-scientific claims people like Walter Wagner and yourself make about CERN. He demonstrates more patience than I and a good grasp of physics principles (which is more than can be said for the majority of CERN doom sayers). I don’t think he’d have any issue saying I know a fair bit more physics than he, in fact he’s said it in the past.

    Anyway, this is all by the by. We aren’t here to talk about Rpenner’s scientific capabilities, we’re here to talk about yours. Would you care to address the point of my last post, rather than changing the subject? If you have no time to go through a journal process why have you got the time to be involved with this website and write other ‘papers’? Are you paying your taxes? Are you still going to work to get a pay cheque? Are you still putting money aside for later in life? If you are then your actions show your answer was a lie.

    Rather it was an excuse to try and avoid facing up to how you haven’t been willing to go through proper, relevant channels. A journal would send your work to the best qualified people to review it. While I’m sure Wilson is capable of doing some GR stuff he’s a quantum field theorist really so he isn’t the best person to demand evaluate your work. Perhaps you pick people like him for a second reason, over and above his reputation and your possible misguided view of self importance. Since GR isn’t his thing if he did look at your work and disagree you’d be able to play the “GR isn’t your thing, you’re not fit to evaluate my work” card. Of course if you submit your work to a reputable relevant journal you cannot make this excuse, as you don’t know the reviewer(s) but you do know they’ll be well read in relevant relativistic methods, unlike such people as Wilson.

    It’s easy to stick to forums and blogs, jumping up and down about how no one has addressed your claims. Firstly you can just ignore people and secondly you can always say “You aren’t competent enough, I need an expect to understand my work!”. As I mentioned, I’ve seen enough people do precisely that on many physics orientated forums, hence why I don’t put it past you. Neither of those options are available if you submit to a reputable relevant journal.

    If you find such a conclusion mildly insulting then so be it but this is a pattern in physics internet quackery and so far you’ve matched a lot of that pattern. Questioning the safety of massive experiments is something which must be done but there’s a line between honest concern and just wanting to make a spectacle because you want attention or have delusions of grandeur. You have done good research, don’t mar that by becoming the guy who stands on street corners holding a sign “The end is nigh!”.

  50. Otto E. Rossler says:

    You claim anonymously that Dr. Penner was a lesser physicist than you are, but you have nothing to offer but layman’s psychology (not even realizing that I might not be joking with my warnings). There is not a single element of physics in your presentation and you openly ignore my maximally simplified proof given above.

    If it is true that Dr. Penner is the famous physical chemist of the same name, or if he is at least the author of the text he signed: Would you do me the favor of asking him to come back to where he left us here?

    For unlike you, I do have a very high opinion of him. And he has the chance to repair your image by not copping out himself. Take care, dear colleague with the hidden face.

  51. eq says:

    If one looks at the low quality of your elaborations the assumption that you are probably joking is quite reasonable.

  52. Otto E. Rossler says:

    There is even a chance that you could understand what I said if you tried? But thank you for keeping up the discussion with banter.

  53. hdc says:

    There is nothing to understand. If one subtract your empty words about this or that person and your diffuse non-defined interpretations of some theories, nothing remains.

    Facing the destruction of the planet your elaborations are of exceptionally low quality. If you want to persuade scientists you should invest more time in writing well-defined texts instead of publishing the same empty nonsense again and again.

  54. Otto E. Rossler says:

    “Facing the destruction of the planet your elaborations are of exceptionally low quality.”

    This is one of the nicest counterarguments against the danger ever raised: I humbly agree.

  55. AlphaNumeric says:

    Otto said : ” There is not a single element of physics in your presentation and you openly ignore my maximally simplified proof given above.”

    There are documents on ArXiv which already address your misconceptions and mistakes. You’ve been doing the rounds for years, I do not expect you to listen to me or anyone else in regards to why your grasp of general relativity is not as good as you believe. Instead I’m highlighting the dishonest way you conduct yourself. One such way is, as said, your repeated demands people address your ‘theorem’ while ignoring it has already been addressed by others long ago. A second way is the completely disingenuous answer you gave as to why you haven’t submitted your work to a journal. You clearly have the time. Your refusal to acknowledge the completely vapid nature of your excuse, despite being answered repeatedly, is testament to your lack of honesty.

    Otto said : “For unlike you, I do have a very high opinion of him.”

    Perhaps you have a higher view of him than you do the 11 people to demanded respond to you. You obviously think they have nothing better to do with your time but address your work, work you refuse to send to a journal. You have the time to develop this website and write papers and demand busy people to review your work, even when it’s not in their area of expertise, but you haven’t the time to ask a journal to review it? So while you fain respect for some people your actions say otherwise.

    Besides, he doesn’t call himself Dr Penner. He signed his comment to you R. Penner.

    Otto said : “And he has the chance to repair your image by not copping out himself. Take care, dear colleague with the hidden face.”

    His actions have nothing to do with my image. And I don’t think you’re in a position to call people cop outs when you haven’t even acknowledged the fact your excuse for not sending your work to a journal was completely dishonest. Or how your list of 11 people isn’t based on scientific relevance but based on renown within the community. It shows you aren’t after a proper scientific evaluation of your work, hence why I know nothing I say can convince you you’re mistaken. Rather your actions are to try to maximise attention you’ll get. If papers on ArXiv retorting your Gothic R ideas isn’t enough you aren’t going to listen to someone on a blog, regardless of what I say or my credentials. Instead I’m content to say out loud various things which show the lack of honest sincerity in many of your actions. Don’t get me wrong, I have a great deal of respect for your contributions to things like dynamical systems. It’s just the same can’t be said about your Gothic R work and the way you act in regards to it.

  56. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear anonymous colleague:

    Quote: “There are documents on ArXiv which already address your misconceptions and mistakes.“
    For this information I am maximally grateful. I shall try to find them — I really thought Dr. Penner (I still give him this honor) was the first scientist to dare try a rejoinder to Telemach. I am very sorry that he does not reply to the answers I gave.

    The rest of your letter is less important accusations that one would not readily expect from a colleague, so I postpone my answer to them. But I would be maximally grateful if you could help me find the two (or more?) papers you saw if I understood you correctly.

    Science is giving each other the benefit of the doubt. Did you or anyone else ever respond to Telemach on arXiv?

    Best wishes to you, Otto E. Rossler

  57. Otto E. Rossler says:

    P.S.: I checked this morning and found nothing — can you help?

  58. Otto E. Rossler says:

    There is nothing on Google to confirm AlphaNumeric’s assertion.
    So I have to conclude this was deliberate disinformation — unless you contradict me.

  59. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Let me add that I find it comforting that my learned adversary expected — as everyone would — that there “ought to be” a covering of the gothic-R and the Telemach theorems on the important archive called arXiv.

    What he did not know is that my gothic-R paper was rejected by the arxiv 3 years ago. So I am not as astonished as he no doubt is. But thank you for your initiative, dear AlphaNumeric.

  60. rpenner says:

    Hello. I’d just like to point out to Sysop Tom and Otto Rössler that what AlphaNumeric says about being a better physicist and mathematician than I should definitely be credited. AlphaNumeric, for example, gets paid to do physics, while I fly to Hawaii to watch anti-LHC arguments fail in court at the earliest judicial hurdle — establishing that there is a controversy for the courts. AlphaNumeric has years more experience with the detailed calculations of general relativity and particle physics both. AlphaNumeric also has nifty post at the bottom of the first page of the comments so I’d like to remind you that those posts may be seen there:…ent-page-1

  61. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I answered to Alphanumeric before there (Otto E. Rössler on May 25, 2012 10:57 am):

    Quote: “do you think the 11 people you have named have nothing better to do with their time than jump through hoops for you?”

    I always feel good in the presence of assertive clairvoyants. Nevertheless your logic that people must refuse to be saved by non-noble persons (like me) may not be shared by everyone. I for one have a much higher opinion of the 11+1 scientists you address.