**“A Constantly Receding Mass at Constant Distance Has a Lower Rest-mass and Charge”**

Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tubingen, Germany

This “extended gravitational redshift theorem” (EGRT) is unfortunately new even though it is true as far as anyone can tell up until now. The physics community is currently betting the planet on claiming that this result were not true. It would be gracious if a single physicist stood up saying why he thinks the theorem is not true. (For J.O.R.)

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

Dear TRMG:

The gravitational twin paradox (which houses the above 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 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?

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

I have the right to say: hdc is an idiot if he cannot put together what he thinks is a counterargument. Where is the counter-proof you are claiming to exist? Everyone will be grateful if you can paste it together. Please, do so or stop whining. Thank you, dear anonymous sparring partner.

I have the right to say: Roessler is an idiot if he cannot put together 1 and 1 and see that he has ben refuted many, many times. Please, do so or stop spamming the internet.

Rössler, you can name me an idiot or not, it does not change anything about the facts that you are indeed mixing up observers and terms like energy or mass. Evidence can be found in even every discussion on this blog and at other places. A good example is your last dicsussion with TRMG.

It does not matter whether you accept these facts or not. You are disproved, everyone can see that.

That you name the nonsense “Rössler-Einstein-theorem” and so on despite the fact that there are major objections against it proves once more your crackpottery.

It is cute if an anonymous bloggers says “you are indeed mixing up observers and terms like energy or mass.” This was my aim: to mix them up in a new (and hopefully more consistent) fashion.

If everyone can see that I am disproved because I said something new: could you give a more specific reason, too?

You may have realized that the real scientist on this blog — TRMG — has not yet come back again. Maybe we should both wait for him?

I have never been refuted, dear Peter Howell. But it would be great if you could help us all find such a person if you have so many friends in the establishment who are obliged to you. Thank you for giving it a try.

Roessöer, you very well have been refuted, you just don’t except it. Can we agree on this?

Rossler, you write “You may have realized that the real scientist on this blog — TRMG — has not yet come back again. Maybe we should both wait for him?”

But why should TRMG be bothered to come back again? Whenever you are cornered and cannot answer TRMG’s objections, you just pretend that TRMG wrote something completely different and that he/she actually agrees with you. I couldn’t blame TRMG if he/she had lost interest in this futile discussion…

“you just pretend that TRMG wrote something completely different and that he/she actually agrees with you. I”

Or he declares him being stupid / dogmatic (actually he tried that already in the last comments here). Or he refuses to accept the arguments because of the anonymity. The last point becomes always important when Rössler has lost the debate completely :D

“It would be gracious if a single physicist stood up saying why he thinks the theorem is not true.” — Otto E. Rössler

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

The purported “theorem” is not a theorem because it rests on no axioms, and is not proven in a framework of such axioms. Those are the requirements of a theorem. The demonstration that it is not true is trivial for someone versed in General Relativity. The Rindler coordinates describe a space-time geometry where the Riemann tensor is zero — this is the flat space-time of special relativity. Even if you have one observer who is has constant proper acceleration and is naturally entitled to use the Rindler coordinates, his use of a particular (imaginary, man-made) coordinate system does nothing to affect the physics, geometry or lengths of objects. Specifically, just because the Rindler observer cannot follow worldlines of objects that go to the Rindler horizon does not impede the rest of the universe to extend those worldlines as coordinate free constructions in the geometry of flat space-time.

Having begun with physical nonsense, the TLMCH paper [Rössler2012] builds on it, but that does not render any part of it less nonsensical. Then, if we do as Rössler asks and apply the Equivalence Principle, it refutes [Rössler2007], [Rössler2008], [Rössler2009] the various unpublished drafts of the purported gothic-R “theorem.”

But I promised Rössler a complete dissection of [Rössler2012] — by the time one has finished the abstract one cannot accept that the journal has the slightest bit of editorial integrity — it is a sham journal of some vanity press willing to take money for the pretense of respectability. Completing this review requires some rather heavy lifting because Rössler ignored much of the math of the Rindler coordinates.

Fortunately, two Physics Ph.D.s have agreed to allow me the time to develop my review. I shall let you know when it is complete.

Reply by the author:

My theorem is based on axioms as stated: Those of special relativity. The first implication of those axioms – T – is well accepted for 105 years. I showed that T has three new corollaries. I gave the explicit reasons for that.

Dr. Penner’s claim that I contradicted special relativity because I contradict the Rindler metric is very perceptive but mistaken.

The Rindler metric makes assumptions that go beyond special relativity. Those assumptions, although ingenious, do not jibe with Telemach. Telemach therefore unfortunately contradicts my friend Wolfgang Rindler’s metric. But it does NOT contradict special relativity.

Thank you for having tried, dear colleague. A question if I may: Would you agree to engaging in an oral discussion since this would be much less time-consuming? Or are other scientists ready to join-in now that the ice of global scientific silence has been broken by one courageous scientist?

Again the usual bullshit. Empty words, invitation for a phone call in order to hide the disproof and so on.

And of course the dogmatic statement that Telemach must be correct (while the problems start already with the still not defined equation 1)

And by the way, your “theorem” is still based on your personal problems with observers and terms like mass or energy as demonstrated quite often and actually in the discussion with TRMG (where you changed, as usual, your opinion from one posting to the next — what proves again that you will never admit anything which proves you being a crackpot).

Rossler, are you by chance trying to evade the discussion with TRMG on the other thread, now that you painted yourself in a corner? Here is the question that you still have to answer:

TRMG on June 5, 2012 1:57 pm

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.

I did not know that the gravitational redshift was a implication of special relativity.

Thanks to the June-6-Rössler. Probably the June-7-Rössler will say something different again, who knows?

“I did not know that the gravitational redshift was a implication of special relativity.” (Scilicet: With acceleration included, as in French’s famous textbook.)

Dear eq: Thank you for learning this news from me.

You should rather try to resolve your self-contradictions quoted above.. It seems you are trapped in your own web of mixed observers, definitions, non-definitions, cloudy / meaningless terms etc…

:D

Why not try and make sense out of all that? I promise you it is possible.

Let me Specify and Correct my Previous Statement about Wolfgang Rindler’s beautiful Metric

============================================================================================

The Rindler metricis, of course, not at variance with my own results as I wrongly supposed two days ago. I am his ardent reader for almost 40 years and he is responsible for much of what I believe to understand. Like Einstein, Rindler is always right. He just overlooked one little fact which I would not have been able to see without him: that the mere “projection effects” delineated by his metric have “ontological” implications. Or maybe he did not overlook them after all; his personal reply to my sending him the Telemach theorem was very encouraging if non-technical. Perhaps the present joint public discussion with Professor Penner will stimulate him to give us his kind advice?

Specifically, the merely observationally increased unit time intervals T, valid on the lower levels of the linearly aligned long fleet of rocketships described by the Rindler metric, reflect an ontological change. This means that the change of clock rate on the lower level is not a mere observational “projection effect” – as everyone would have guessed – but rather is genuine. This fact is known under the name “gravitational twin paradox” in the literature on general relativity, but it can be demonstrated as well in the Rindler metric. By implication, the proportional size increase L, observable in the longitudinal direction in the Rindler metric as a projection effect from the lower level to the upper level, reflects an ontological change, too. And the observational decrease in mass-energy M, of the photons produced on the lower level (and hence of all stationary masses down there that either produce these photons or are can be produced by them), likewise reflects an ontological change. And the locally mass-proportional charges Ch, sported by the very same massive particles down there, suffer an ontological change as well.

Not the mutual proportionality (or reciprocal proportionality, respectively) of T and L and M and Ch is the new “scandal”: The latter rather lies with the ontological nature of these 4 mutually interlocked local features valid with respect to a higher level. Rindler himself does not appear to be opposed (although this might be a misinterpretation of his politeness) to the 4 implications that his own metric shares with the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity (which I had first pointed to in a groping preprint of 2007).

Let me emphasize once more the by definition limited importance of the new trias (L, M, Ch) added to Einstein’s ontological implication (T). The three corollaries L M Ch to the gravitational twin paradox implicit in T, are implications of the Rindler metric, too. (I here once more apologize for my not yet having understood this full parallelism two days ago.)

I hope that no one will be upset by the new implication found both in general relativity and the Rindler metric. My most convincing argument: Who cares about mere “interpretations” anyway — interpretations that leave the equations themselves unscathed? Neither Einstein nor Rindler are in for an overhaul.

The described three corollaries to Einstein’s “gravitational time dilation” T – that is, “gravitational space dilation” L (Cook), “gravitational mass reduction” M (Cook), gravitational charge reduction Ch (Telemach with precursor) – are all three nothing but “interpretational additions” to the unchanged formalisms of the Rindler metric and the Scharzschild metric of general relativity.

The surprise therefore lies in the fact that all 4 letters taken together – T L M Ch – represent a “revolution without change of formalism”: A revolution based on mere re-interpretation. There appears to exist no precedent in the history of physics.

If you like, you can call the new level of understanding achieved with Telemach “Onto-relativity.” The most surprising direct implication of ontorelativity is “universal constancy of the speed of light c” implicit in L. (It is — if you wish — not surprising as such in the Rindler metric which is based on special relativity with its constant c. ) An immediate observational corollary of this in the case of generalrelativity, however, where T L M CH are uncontsted, too, is “absence of gravitational waves” (which were never quite believed-in by Einstein). If so present investments into the empirical verification of these waves can be used for other planet-wide endeavors if Teelemach is correct. In the same vein, expensive attempts at verifying Hawking radiation which likewise ceases to exist in the wake of TeLeMaCh, have become redundant under the same condition. And the new unchargedness theorem for black holes implicit in Ch lets a re-design of the detectors used in the famous LHC experiment look indispensable before the latter can be continued.

Is the discovery of 3 new implications of the most famous theory of physics – Einstein’s adorned with Rindler’s – not a reason for the scientific community to be positively excited about?

“his personal reply to my sending him the Telemach theorem was very encouraging if non-technical. ”

Publish it, otherwise no one will believe you that as your special handling with the truth and quotations is well known.

It does not help, by the way, to speak again of non-defined nonsensical terms as “mass-energy”. Your confusion with mixed terms and defintions was never a good start to build a “theorem”…as it was recently shown (for the xth time) by TRMG in the recent discussion with you quoted by passingby above.

In principle you simply repeating the already rejected nonsense again. You have not even tried to resolve the self-contradictions and flaws pointed out by several people before (again, most recently by TRMG) and prefer again to ignore it and start again with the same bullshit again after a few days of waiting. You are a true crackpot…

One is never quite happy with one’s own texts (11:28 am yesterday):

How is the new redshift-proportional longitudinal size increase of a departing object explained in special relativity?

Answer: Under synchronous pulsing, the object appears longitudinally increased by its redshift factor.

Like Lorentz contraction, this effect does not interfere with local isotropy (therefore the departing object is isotropically enlarged in ontorelativity).

(Note that ontorelativity applies only under conditions of sustained acceleration.)

Congratulations! After “endophysics” and “cryodynamics”, you have just made up another branch of pseudoscience: “Ottorelativity”… ;-)

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/05/big-bang-gone-gravitational…n#comments

Otto is quite silent there now. I think every reader should read the comments there to draw own conclusions about the substance and logic od knowledge of Roessler.…and of yorse about his honesty.

Angular-momentum Conservation Confirms Telemach

========================================

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

Friction-free clocks (rotating wheels) that are brought downstairs rotate more slowly there in accord with Einstein’s gravitational clock slowdown. They must therefore be enlarged in order to conserve their angular momentum J. Take an ideal bicycle wheel with J = m * r^2 * omega = const., where m is mass, r the wheel’s radius and omega the rotation rate.

The 3 predictions made by Telemach on an idealized neutron star (m halved, r doubled, omega halved) exactly conserve J. This is a test which any correct interpretation of general relativity and the Rindler metric must pass. The currently favored interpretations flunk this test. (I thank Heinrich Kuypers for cooperation. For J.O.R.)

Repeating the same bullshit once ‚ore together with your flaws like the mixed observers and so on does not answer the still open relevant questins, Rössler.

It would be better first to resolve your confusion about terms like mass,energy and observers in relativity than repeating the same nonsense again and again in new “papers”, Roessler. It is quite interesting and tells a lot bot your honesty that you try to ignore the open questions in the other thread quoted above. Your behavior is not the behavior of a scientist than a crank who will never admit any errors and repeat the same pseudoscience (probably enriched with even more confused sciency-sounding terms) again and again in order to avoid any further discussion about the obvious flaws.

There are no open questions unless you can list them — one suffices at a time. (Anoymity combined with aggression gives a bad impression of the poster.) Please, show me an error so I can do something about it. For all I seek is truth whereby I crave nothing more than to be proven wrong in view of the otherwise accepted infinite danger. Time is running out!

Can you say something about angular momentum conservation? Apparently no one can. Even Professor Penner — the only courageous scientist so far — has retreated?

Oh, Rössler, have you already forgotten this confusion of yours about mass, energy or observers?

You remember this confusoion of yours about whether mass is observer dependent or not? TRMG and others are still waiting. And as this confusion of yours is in fact the core of what you call your “results” the answer is highly relevant also for the new nonsense presented above.

And stop talking about seeking the truth as long as you avoid to give any answers like it is shown in the above linked discussion with TRMG.

It is quite dishonest to ignore something like that and to pretend, there were n open questions, no problems, no contradictions or objections and so on.

However, what could one expect from a crackpot like you whose behavior is already well-known? We all know that you are unable to realize your flaws and ae not interested in something like scientific truth or a real discussion of your nonsense…

No answer to my little note coming in?

Always the same :D You prefer to ignore inconvenient arguments and statements..not for the first time. Quite classical crackpot-behavior.

However, answer the questions in the thread with TRMG. The link is pasted above. Everyone here can see that you are avoiding answers there, everyone can see that you are confused about relevant terms. Despite that you prefer to repeat the stuff again and again without ever resolving the basic problems which were clearly shown by TRMG and others (also not for the first time,).

The discussioon there is also relevant for your last nonsensical example. Your “results” are based always on the same confusion about basic conceptrs in relativity.

Please, repeat the question you are so interested in.