By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:52:37 +0000

Oh no, my dear revered Samantha: You talk as if this was an ordinary refereeing task on hand here: Is the given proof of the usual standard type, with nothing radically new involved (since that takes always quite a while to verify definitively for the future)?
In a case like this, the principle of reversal of the burden of proof applies. Not I have to prove that I am right (after haviung done my best to do so), it is everyone else’s duty to show that I am wrong.
I am the young ship boy who saw the iceberg. The officers have the duty to take out their glasses and check.
Right?
The best consensus you quote is not meant seriously by you: A consensus which refuses to check a proof of danger is the stupidest thing of history.
I so much admire you. Please, forgive me for having told you what I think you missed putting into regard.
Thank you from my heart, Otto

By: Samantha Atkins

Samantha Atkins — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:27:17 +0000

There is no way to prove such a negative. It can be and has been pointed out that your model that predicts these things is rather non-standard. Unless it is supported by successful predictions and successfully explaining existing data better than more successful models why would it be taken seriously? There were for instance scientists that thought the first atomic explosion would start a chain reaction that might destroy the entire planet. They happened to be wrong. Should not only nuclear weapons but also nuclear power have been put on hold until they could conclusively disprove the possibility on theoretical grounds? Or perhaps until the possibly oh so dangerous experiments could be tried off-planet? Or did we need to move forward with the best consensus science of the day?

Comments on: Open Letter to CERN

By: Otto E. Rossler

By: Samantha Atkins