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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.