And I ask again everyone who can come up with a counter theorem to Telemach to do so. And I apologize if I ever refused to answer a scientific question from Mr. Penner. In this case I ask his forgiveness and pledge for him to kindly repeat it.

This does not hold for every questioner here becaus many like Mr. Penner publicly show their personal prejudices but do not give a guarantee that the hundredth attempt at explaining a simple fact to them has any purpose to it.

Friendly criticism is, however, the bread and butter of science. Anyone who has a friendly criticism to offer is cordially invited to utter it, no matter whether being anonymous or not. I shall do my best to reply to him or her.

I also did not yet give up on my hope that Mr. Penner will come back to the scientific dialog that he had engaged me in early on. And I am sure he is very competent doing so.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0007224
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/09600779/2001/00000012/00000001/art00196
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0004152
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0011040
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0009014
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0104016
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0002019
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0101104
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0305035
http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle.fullcontentlink:pdfeventlink/contentUri?format=INT&t:ac=j$002fijnsns.2006.7.4$002fijnsns.2006.7.4.451$002fijnsns.2006.7.4.451.xml
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0107266
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0001134
http://www.cima.uevora.pt/FullText/Ramos-Martins-Severino-Ramos%20(2006)%20CSF%2027%201%20@%20Noncommutative%20topological%20dynamics.pdf

Good luck rpenner.

I do not know Otto Rössler personally. But after watching him repeatedly make scientific and numeric and mathematical claims about the chances of something happening and the time for something happening and about certain claims being theorems and never answering questions about assumptions, calculations, axioms and reasoning, I have come to the strong, if provisional, opinion that he is only a self-promoting pseudomathematician and often prone to making up stories to make himself seem more important. If Otto Rössler were any type of scientific expert there would be no need to ask these questions because scientific methodology and any proper peer review of Rössler’s work both would have required him to answer these basic questions as part of the burden of proof of someone making original claims.

Due to these as-yet unjustified and therefore scientifically irresponsible claims, reportedly a girl in India committed suicide in 2008. In some jurisdictions it is a criminal act to shout “Fire!” in a theater because of the high chance of panic and injury. Similarly in an actual case of evacuating a ship to the lifeboats, panic-mongering is counter-productive. Rössler is not solely responsible for the media firestorm that flared up in 2008 but he was all too happy to pour the fuel on the fire.

Science has to be a precise, useful and communicable description of nature. Rössler only claims precision but has not communicated how he has any idea how his claims usefully relate to nature and therefore has neither communicated a scientific model of nature nor demonstrated that his claims are useful in any scientific manner. Instead of demonstrating where the claims come from Rössler cements my inference that he simply makes up baseless stories by not answering basic questions that would have been asked very early on if he had not evaded peer review.

In this posting, I think Rössler has jumped from pseudomathematician to pseudolawyer and should be ignored for similar reasons. If his claims were based in evidence and communicable reasoning it should be easy to explain them and in four years this self-styled soi disant prosecutor has not built a case and denied that he has the burden of proof. A CERN researcher has spend hours with Rössler and no part of his thinking has been elucidated. Perhaps Rössler’s most productive step would to consult with an expert of the mind and try and work out why he has been unable to explain the reasoning behind any of his many claims. I am not of the provisional opinion that the reason is some sort of superhuman genius unique to Rössler.

I expect this to be my last posting, because nothing more needs to be said.

So far it is a pseudoscientific gish-gallop with vague prosa..It is well known that you deliver up to three contradicting defnitions even for the quantities in your first equation when asked for it in discussions…short: your behavior was the clear opposite of being scientific but exactly fulfilling the definition of a crank.

So, if you want to have attention you should work on answers to the questions:

To remind you:

A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months.

Which is nothing else than a substantiation of your claim. As already mentioned, so far there is in fact nothing that could be called scientific even on a rudimentary level.

and, do not forget, as you are supporting your defamatory statements with high and extraordinary probabilities:

A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?”

The interesting point is, why you try to avoid especially the last point so strangely with evasive statements of poorest quality.

Thank you for this statement. Telemach is waiting for your counter-proof.

Detailed calculations again mean a scientific model with precise defintions and assumptions etc.

A detailed calculation means not necessary the number has to be exact in the end — it means you have to show up your model behind your extraordinary probabilities. What inputs are there, what are the assumptions, operations, and so on.

That was asked, ans someone like you who throws extraordinary high probabilities like 5% in the discussion should be able to show very strong evidene supporting it.

So, there is no way to avoid it. You introduced the numbers, you never could expect from anyone in the community to leave this un-questioned. You can still apologize and admit to have violated ethical and scientific standards by just inventing the number.