Nov 28, 2013

The Telemach Puzzle in General Relativity

Posted by in category: particle physics

(a) A very short Proof of the Telemach Theorem

Step 1: Photons’ temporal wavelength T is increased and time is proportionally slowed down – downstairs in gravity and at the bottom of a constantly accelerating long rocketship – without this change showing up locally (Einstein 1907).

Step 2: Every photon’s spatial wavelength L is proportionally increased downstairs. Hence the speed of light c = L/T is a global constant.

Step 3: Along with the reduced photon mass-energy (step 1), the rest mass M of all particles down there is reduced proportionally via quantum mechanics’ creation-annihilation. This fact confirms the global c via the Bohr-radius formula of quantum mechanics.

Step 4: Charge Ch is reduced in proportion to M because their ratio is locally conserved. This holds true for all particle classes.

Hence “ T and L go up and M and Ch go down by Einstein’s gravitational redshift factor ” (Telemach Theorem).

(b) A “friendly crisis” induced by Telemach

T-L-M-Ch implies that results of general relativity that contradict this four letters rule cease to be physically valid. The Einstein equation therefore needs to be “re-interpreted” so as to yield all four results directly (and not just the first). In particular, “black holes” possess radically new properties.

Young Telemach goes unchallenged in the literature for almost two years. Help from the general-relativistic community is cordially invited.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    Telemach fails where it assumes light has mass, in contradiction with General Relativity. The wavelength of the light experiencing less time does shift frequencies, but light is a wave that never has mass. The mass of light is an alternative to General Relativity, where Gravity is mass bending Time and Time is expanding Space in the region; or in the case of the Special Relativity example, Time is contracting Space.

  2. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for your original contribution, dear colleage John Tarver. My friend John Wheeler proposed the “Geon” in general relativity which unfortunately is dynamically unstable. It rested on the widely accepted assumption that photons with their intrinsic energy do have an equivalent mass owing to E = m c-square. However, the problem is nontrivial indeed because of Wheeler’s famous “delayed choice” paradigm that you perhaps had in mind. Here, the final observer of a photon can determine whether it took one way around a galaxy or not. In that case, ideas like yours acquire a new weight.

  3. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    On the contrary Otto, the mass of the photon is an alternative explanation to the 1919 photographs that prove General Relativity. If we imagine that light has mass attracted by the gravity of the sun, then we need not consider mass bending Time and Time is expanding Space in the region. Of Course that was satisfactory to the Nobel committee, but it was intended by Einstein to make fools of relativity deniers.

    Unfortunately Einstein did not expect so much boundless stupid.

  4. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    Here is the deal Otto, General Relativity is Maxwell’s Equations with Time taken independent of Space into a 4th dimension, but if Time is independent of Space then there is no homogeneous space-time and no basis for a big bang. So an alternative reality was funded in the 1930’s, for the good of humanity.

  5. Larry Foard says:

    “Mass of photon” I give you a box, it may contain either a bunch of photons of energy E bouncing on perfect mirrors, or a dust grain of mass M where E = MC^2. You are allowed to weigh the box and test its inertial properties.

    You will be unable to distinguish mass from energy by any measurement designed to measure mass.

    This thought experiment tells us that the concept of “relativistic mass” is indeed valid. Photons have relativistic mass, that relativistic mass is measurable as part of the rest mass of a system which contains photons.

    P.S. Someone will quote definitions of mass. I’ll say work it out for yourself, misconstruing the applicability of definitions isn’t science.

  6. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Now we all need a counterproof to TLMCh — messieurs et mesdames.

  7. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    Electromagnetic energy, described completely by Maxwell’s Equations, is of a different form than mass, which must be considered under the more General form called Relativity, as is obvious to the most casual observer.

    Pretty easy one Otto, and out of the park.

  8. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    On a more basic Newtonian level, your thought problem fails by merely accelerating the box and measuring the energy required, to discover if the box is carrying any delta mass inside.

  9. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    In the 1935 it was understood that there was a big problem with the big bang, but the God particle was proposed to repair that flaw. If in the beginning there were only electromagnetic energy (Maxwell) and then some particle was the first mass (General relativity) then the big bang might have happened. This particle was later derived by Higgs as a mathematical contrivance called the Higgs’ boson and later a particle with similar properties was generated by particle physicists using protons that already have mass, called the Higgs’ bozo.

    You are at CERN right doc?

  10. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear colleague, I have posed a very simple question which happens to be very important if answered correctly.
    You have a fresh view on everything which is nice to see. Forgive me that I need an adversary here. Can you help me accrue more of such? The problem is that Telemach requires a thorough re-formulation of general relativity as far as its physical consequences — not its beauty — are concerned.

  11. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    The problem is that CERN is confused into believing the photon is real. The photon is a political compromise Einstein made with the Nobel Committee, as an alternative to General relativity; in order to pay a divorce settlement. If CERN continues in this direction I expect to see Europe watering her crops with Gatorade within a decade.

  12. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    Here is a link you may enjoy Doc, General Relativity and some trig (spiral) just eliminated Dark Matter entirely:…tter-16446

  13. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    Is seems disrespectful to remove my posts after I helped you Doc.

  14. wayne says:

    otto you must think they have already created the mbh so why still post on here

  15. Otto E. Rossler says:

    (John Tarver’s first post before my first reply and Larry’s last before my last reply have disappeared.)
    Dear Wayne: thank you for your question. Telemach implies that black holes possess radically new properties.
    I feel it would be nice to see that the specialists do not contradict my proof. So not because I want to be right, but only because I thereby serve the same cause they devoted their lives to.
    In addition – but I should perhaps not say this – I also still hope that the counterproof that I am hoping for can quell the fear which stands in the room. The fear that the new properties of black holes are indeed true. For if they are true, the effects of the previous round of the experiment could still be fatal since at least 5 years must go by before the first ill symptoms become apparent. And in connection with that ongoing danger, I dearly wish that the NEXT round of the experiment (which will increase the danger by a factor of about three) will not start before the LHC safety report of 2008 has been updated. There may exist even more important new pertinent results than mine that need to be addressed. I do not think that anyone on the planet understands that the safety report of the most energetic events in earth’s history is NOT updated in time.
    But perhaps you can help me see a counterargument. That is all I need. Is this explanation acceptable to you?

  16. wayne says:

    sorry to ask this but what percent or chance was there in your mind that there was to create a mbh in the lets say past 3 years because from what i can see the danger as you put it started when they started the lhc back up again in 2011 sorry if i bother you im no good at this

  17. wayne says:

    im just a simple normal man i have no clue about blackholes i wish i could prove you rong but i cant i see people on here calling you a crackpot and i beleave its very unfair as you are just trying to get the proof that its safe and to me theres no harm in trying to do that as for cern i think they need to update it not that i beleave you otto but because it needs to be done. ps i think you yourself dont beleave the danger to b that high but as i c it even if the danger is small u have every rite to address your concerns

  18. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you, Wayne, I could not have expressed it better.
    (The danger could be a few percent as a worst-case estimate.)

  19. wayne says:

    thats fine otto your just a good man trying to do what you think is rite all be it you may be wrong but i welcome you views on it all as for a few percent so your saying after all these collisons there is still a very high chance blackhole have not appered yet and one more thing could you please exsplain how you get to the percent in which you talk about… sorry about my spelling i just really want to know about all off this if you could take abit of your time to exsplain to a none scientist

  20. wayne says:

    it would b a great help to me in trying to understand

  21. wayne says:

    would be very nice if you could exspalin

  22. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    What is being done in science is the black hole is now seen by many as an empty black body radiator; as should have been the case eighty years ago. You might as well be claiming Santa Claus was at your house, as to claim the photon is real doc. Telemach is a nice thought problem, but the assumptions made are false.

  23. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Wayne:
    The Telemach theorem is nothing but a major new ingredient of general relativity. This is why I put it before the public eye above – to initiate a dialog within the general-relativistic community. However, Telemach at the same time does change the safety of the LHC experiment – which is the topic you and the other discussants above are focusing on. So I try to answer your question here. Forgive the delay.
    Regarding the safety question, only order-of-magnitude estimates can be made. The reason lies in the fact that no one knows what the size of an electron is. The electron is the pivot on which everything depends. The electron was previously assumed to be point-shaped. The new fact, taught by Telemach, is that the electron cannot be point- or almost point-shaped any longer, because it would then be a mini-black hole and as such be uncharged by Telemach. Therefore the “Planck length” which is the smallest physical length known of about 10-to-the-minus-40 meters, can no longer be the diameter of the smallest black hole in physics. The latter’s diameter must be bigger and the mass smaller. The Planck mass is about 0.001 grams or the mass of ten-to-the-20 protons (ten-to-the-17 TeV as one proton has a mass of about 0.001 TeV). While it goes without saying that the mass of the previously smallest black hole, the Planck mass, is unattainable by terrestrial particle colliders, lower masses are obtainable. The lowest mass that is sufficient for a black hole is presently unknown. This value may or may not be attainable on earth. No one has any idea how many orders of magnitude less than the Planck mass are chosen by nature as being sufficient for her smallest black hole.
    Pre-LHC collider experiments reached collision energies of less than 1 TeV (or about 1000 proton masses). This value is 17 orders of magnitude below the Planck mass. These old-time collisions were apparently innocuous. This fact means that about 17 orders of magnitude remain eligible for the creation of a minimum-mass black hole. Of those 17 orders, only the lowest ranks are realizable on earth. In the absence of any better estimate, we have to assume that each of the 17 eligible orders of magnitude has the same probability to be successful. Hence the recently used, and currently planned to be doubled, range of the LHC experiment (7−14 TeV) has according to current best knowledge an intrinsic probability of the order of 1/17 or 5 percent to be successful in producing black holes on earth. The latter, however, cannot be registered by CERN’s detectors for being uncharged (and not Hawking-radiating) by virtue of Telemach. That is, the experiment is blind to its own success. This “risk of success” is a nightmarishly high risk that needs to be discussed publicly before the experiment is continued at larger energies in about one year’s time. The Cologne Administrative Court said so already on January 27, 2011.
    I made similar statements before on and on…ent-page-1 .
    And please, Wayne, do not assume that I were an enemy of CERN’s. I only ask it to be conscientious with its 5 years old safety report. I would love to be proven wrong. The best way to disprove the danger is to disprove Telemach. This fact, on the other hand, apparently silences the relativistic community. So I ask everyone’s help to find an error in Telemach and/or Olemach.

  24. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    General Relativity predicts that if a black hole is a large mass then the Time attracted to that mass to form Gravity would cause Space to expand and the speed of light to increase relative to our Earth local space-time observer standpoint, not stop.

    I commend all those who are trying to repair our current black hole model.

  25. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    Here is the conflict between the Theory of General Relativity and the black hole notional hypothesis: Take for example the homogeneous space-time fabric of space and then Higgs’ boson introduces mass and General Relativity. Further, let us consider that in one of these fabric of space-time squares is a mass that attracts Time and expands Space, the light is now traveling through this larger piece of Space faster relative to our Earth observer than it was when it entered. Light goes faster where there is Gravity, it does not stop. Stupid is boundless.

  26. rachel says:

    Dear otto you say first ill symptoms what would they be. You also say 5 year it could be 10 or 20 you don’t no

  27. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Yes, the exact doubling number of an exponentially growing mini-black hole inside earth is not known, because its initial mass is not known. And its doubling times in different stages are not known exactly. But any exponentially growing effect is bound to make itself palpable after a short finite time — it cannot be many years.
    Second, the first symptoms depend on the depth of the location, all depths being equally probable. I thought for a while that it would be a jet, like that from a micro-quasars. But such a miniminiquasar has never existed before. So the destruction of the atmosphere as an early symptom is perhaps not the most likely first possibility, but I have no better offer to make at the moment. Earthquakes would proably not be a very early symptom. But any first symptom would mean that it is too late even to send a colony capable of long-term survival onto the moon.

  28. rachel says:

    So you just came up with 5 years and all this depends on if the lhc even has anoth power in the first place and then of corse you have string theory which in itself is not proven and extra dimension open to the lhc are a long shot at best

  29. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — first dialog I saw from you with an audience here for a while now. I see you are still perpetuating the same old concerns of yours. I hope you are keeping well this festive season. — Tom.

  30. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I cordially return your kind wishes, Tom.

  31. rachel says:

    Or am I wrong dear otto

  32. Otto E. Rossler says:

    What you mentioned are long shots as you say. Unfortunately, the Telemach theorem which I use is not a long shot but an unchallenged implication of the equivalence principle (and the Schwarzschild metric). It moreover is described on pages 141–142 in Julian Schwinger’s book “Einstein’s Legacy” as I recently saw.
    It would be great if you could find anyone to challenge it.

  33. rachel says:

    I’ve read the lhc safty report and they state in there that u have a misunderstanding of geral relativity and then there’s hawking who’s specialised on black holes his whole life the chances of him being wrong is small u say five percent chance of the worst case that leaves 95 percent that it wnt

  34. mike says:

    5% chance leaves 95% it will not

  35. mike says:

    and your telemach theorem as been proven false in the lhc safety report they say you have no understanding of what your talking about and u make up your own gr

  36. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Would you board a plane with your family under that condition?
    Why do you say that a 2008 report quotes a paper written 4 years later?

  37. mike says:

    by boarding the plane in the first place you are taking a risk all im saying is the reason knowone is challengeing you result is because you are changing the rules of known physics and saying one of the best scientist in the world is wrong when he as been studying blackhole his hole life were as you havent

  38. Otto E. Rossler says:

    thank you for consenting with the plane argument. Your second point is also fair: I do challenge the champion in the field whom I admire very much — just like you. And I do feel very humble while doing so.

  39. Otto E. Rossler says:

    And I do congratulate Peter Higgs for his Nobel prize today.

  40. mike says:

    im just saying the chances of you being rite are slim hawking as studied blackhole his whole life so there a very gd chance he knows what he is on about and nearly every scientist supports his claim and no1 seems to support yours i read in 1 of your post u dint think the danger started till 2011 when they increased the lomisty but most scientist to this date still think the lhc will not have anoth power to make them in the first place taking into accout its not very likely at all we will c extradimensions or string theory as theres a very low chance that its even true

  41. Otto E. Rossler says:

    You have every right to apply probability theory to my being right or not without looking at my results.
    Only this is not what science is about. New results are never a priori probable. To base an experiments on rejecting a new result without having a counterargument is allowed in politics, but not in science.
    In medicine there is an important rule: “Rare diseases are rare.” Nevertheless it does not represent the best guide for a doctor who is confronted with a new patient.
    Do you know a scientist who could be contacted by name to explain why he does not believe or understand Telemach?

  42. mike says:

    dont you agree tho mr rossler that the chances that the lhc even has anoth power in the first place is very very slim and also string itself is very speculative at that

  43. Otto E. Rossler says:

    5 percent cannot be excluded as long as Telemach stands.
    String theory is not involved in any way in this. The point is the new unchargedness of black holes. The colleagues who decided to ignore this result for 5 years are asked to give a public reason at last.
    Can you help in this regard?

  44. Tom Kerwick says:

    Mike — if I may interject with a point which is not new — even regardless of Telemach one can cast doubts on HR theory (see appendix 2 here for a summary in baby speak for you, so to praise Hawking and his theories on such as infallible would be foolish.

    That is not to say the LHC is in any way a concern — Although MBH were one of the intended products of LHC collisions, a disproof of HR would simply negate the possiblity that MBH can be created with such collisions — something we know from astronomical observation, explored somewhat in the G&M 2008 paper, and looked at in further depth in recent years.

  45. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — I hope you don’t mind my little interjection.
    Kind Regards –Tom.

  46. mike says:

    and this all relies on there being extra dimensions am i rite by saying that that itself is a very big longshot ino im no scientist but i think all the ways ive ready on how the lhc can create them are very speculative and proberly false but from what ive read the part about the wd a ns is a very valid proof that they cant be created or b dangerous

  47. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear friends — now I would have to repeat that Telemach unfortunately implies a vastly increased probability of black hole creation at CERN.

  48. rachel says:

    People at cern no what there doing the scientist there are more qulifide than u and no a lot more about it from what I’ve seen they have stated that ur proof is a mess and would hold up and then the wd proof is the best proof of safty like tom as shown

  49. Otto E. Rossler says:

    “they have stated that your proof is a mess”:
    Thank you for saying that: Can you point me to this scientific quotation if it exists?

  50. rachel says:

    In the g&m report it talks about ur claims and says u have a missunderstanding of gr and ur proofs are unfounded and basicaly false. Now I don’t no if your rite or not but what u are saying is from when the lhc started up we have 5 years left so basical 2015 we are all doomed in ur words not mine

  51. mike says:

    he never said the world is gonna end in 5 years he just stated theres a chance that the lhc could destroy the planet if micro blackholes are created at cern so within 5 years of when 1 gets created which pro has not happened yet but theres a gd chance when it starts back up again in 2015 as otto as put many times correct me if im wrong otto or rachel

  52. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Please, do not overreact: 5 percent is 5 percent, not 100.
    What I do not understand is why you here — like my colleagues at CERN — see such a big advantage in NOT checking on a result, or in NOT having a safety conference, or (as the only thing I am asking for) in NOT having a renewal of the LHC safety report after more than 5 years?
    Science consists in looking, not in closing ones eyes, right?
    Thank you for this important dialog.

  53. rachel says:

    Sorry if I have affended you in any way what you say on here scears me so bad ino the odds off the lhc doing what u say are very small but to me when I have young kids when said said 5 years I thout u ment from 2010 sorry otto

  54. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Rachel: 5 or ten years (like 5 and ten percent) cannot be distinguished in this probabilistic shadow area of rough estimates And you are the first scientist to show a motherly reaction in this field. I had always hoped that reason (to please, debunk a worthy-to-be debunked risk) would start to be listened to. I obviously was unable to create the right sympathetic atmosphere. It was always combative males (who argue by insinuating an alleged stupidity on the other side rather than with the other’s heart) that I addressed, not the caring more “female” hearts. And of course I also did not want to create panic, especially not amongst children.
    So I would be very much in favor of a not “too public” debate with my silently opposing colleagues. Only scientific should it be. Even if supposing a worst-case probabilistic scenario, the latter has NOT yet reached the level of threat that existed before the Bay of Pigs showdown which was fully ended yesterday by Obama. Humankind is used to having to be brave.

  55. John P. Tarver, MS/PE says:

    Cut the crap doc, you don’t want any discussion.

  56. mike says:

    otto you say 5 or 10 years for the world to end if a blackhole is created but the chances of 1 being created is soooo slim that theres no point even thinking about it every1 at cern as stated that its very unlikley that they will created a blackhole so why are you still strying to get it stopped ty

  57. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Good to learn that you know that the chances are “so slim.“
    This is what I do not understand:
    That after having been given a a proof to the contrary, everyone argues as if that proof did not exist.
    Please, try and give me a hint about your counterproof, dear Mike.


  58. rachel says:

    My point is u scare people that do not no about all this stuff radom people siting at home thinking everyday that there children mite not grow up yet if what you say is rite they there no chance that they will grow up as they have already ran a lot of collisons so they are thinking that they will not see there kids grow up and your spreading that fear because like I said from what your saying the planet is already doomed

  59. Otto E. Rossler says:

    No no no: The danger is less than 5 percent, or even less!
    Only the planned doubling should be done only after a prior renewal of the 5 years old saftey report.
    That is all I am saying. And that I want to be shown to be wrong at long last. Because of the kids!

  60. rachel says:

    But in your post u don’t put it likw that the way it is put is like we only have a few year left on this planet and it scares people please have some thought for people who this scares I’ve heard of people who killed themselfs when the lhc first started up because of people like u making ur claim and its not on I’m not against you I promise but please be morer thoughtfull my friend is scared to deff that he 2 year old will not see 5 or 6 because of your claims

  61. Otto E. Rossler says:

    No no no. I am trying to protect the young by asking for a rebuttal of the dangerwhich so far goes uncontradicted by the scientific community. It is “only” a few percent.
    But the mothers should know that a group of scientists that does not contradict this danger with counerarguments must be brought to doing so — if they can. I need your help for that. A renewal of the safety report of 2008 is all that I ask for. Humakind has an indelible right to this report.
    You seem to be the only person who sees this with her heart so far.

  62. rachel says:

    So ur main worry is when they reboot it back up at full power when is that

  63. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Yes. This is to happen in late 2014 or January 2015.
    So there is plenty of time for the — immediately necessary — renewal of the scientific safety report.

  64. rachel says:

    I agree there then they should update there safety report. And otto I just want you to know I am not against you in anyway I think what you ask for is the least cern should do u have a merry xmas friend to you and your family

  65. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Rachel, I wish you the same.
    Thank you from my heart.

  66. Jack says:

    Dear Mr Rössler,
    I’ve read some of your papers in the last weeks, in i really liked your research in the chaotic field.
    When I read your last works I became somehow confused and i could not follow your interpretations on the Schwarzschild Metric.
    I know your rewritten formula you found, it is a well know help in gravitational lensing, what i didn’t understand is still why you implicate your findings in this way at such a small order of magnitude (r_bh«planck length)?
    My suggestion would be that there are also quantumeffects which are taking influence on mini black holes.
    I mean your math seems to be correct, but for me it seems like your used tools are f.e. constructed to measure the size of melons while you originally wanted to measure melon seeds.
    Don’t you think that you need a combination of QM and GR (which results in something like the well know Quantumgravitaion to work with Mini BH?

    I think in future it might be also important to proof things like Energy conservation, how your theory behaves by applying transformations (eg. invariances) etc. to airtight your theories for the users of this blog.

    Best regards,

  67. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Jack:
    Thank you for your constructive letter.
    You are absolutely right that eventually, the new results in gravitation need to be combined with quantum mechanics.
    What I so far tried to do is correcting only the relativistic half (which already suffices to rule out Hawking radiation, for example).
    The new “global-constancy of c” transform of the full Einstein equation which follows from Telemach and Olemach has yet to be written down explicitly. Perhaps you would be interested in trying to do this?
    I believe that the new transform will fit together with quantum mechanics much more smoothly.

    Best regards,

  68. james.p.tanner says:

    Hi otto I see that some people on here a a little affraid about all of this I’m one of them could u or would you help me understand a few thing first off is there a chance they have already created a Mbh second is your main worry when they reeboot it back up and third will the cern people every stop if they knew even 50% that it could create them and last thing is there a chance that they could not be created at all

  69. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Hi, James:
    First, your last point: There is a chance of 95 percent that they could NOT be created.
    Second, there is a chance of (hand-waving) 5 percent that they were created (since CERN’s sensors cannot register non-evaporating mBHs).
    Third, I am guilty of believing in my undisproved results. A third person — working at CERN, say — has the right to judge my results probability-wise, since the scientific reception of qualitatively new results takes many years on average. This yields another factor of 0.05.
    So to the average citizen, the danger is only 1/20-squared or 1/400.
    Therefore you can probably relax. Only if you have a reason to trust me is the issue more serious.
    On the other hand, even 1/400 is way too much if the risk is planetary evaporation within 5 or more years. But this again is a personal opinion of mine.
    Best wishes, Otto

  70. james.p.tanner says:

    Thank you for that 95percent is pritty gd odds lol but then 5 percent is still pritty high do you think if they did create one we would b seeing the signs by now also I thank you for helping me understand

  71. james.p.tanner says:

    Also one more thing if you beleaveing in ur results then why arnt you saying the chances are 100 precent

  72. annette marsh says:

    It scears me so bad I am pregnant and it upsets me I’ve only just learned about this a few weeks ago please otto and don’t lie tell me the truth will I not see my little girl grow up or is there a high chance I will not

  73. Otto E. Rossler says:

    No no no, a non-excludable risk of 5 percent is fairly low for an individual.
    The unusual point is only the collective side. Every individual comes along with similar risks since time immemorial. I wish your baby all the happiness of the world.

  74. annette marsh says:

    Thing is its not a happy world when you have people doing this without lookin at ur proofs they may be wrong but who are they to do it why not av a vote of the human kind see what we all think not just people from cern

  75. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I can understand CERN.
    It takes years usually until a major new result (like constant-c general relativity) is accepted. For such a long time they cannot wait. So they gamble on the low likelihood of such a major new result being eventually confirmed.
    They act according to the old medical maxim “rare diseases are rare.” The only thing they forget is the infinite size of the accident that is at stake in case the rare disease strikes.

  76. annette marsh says:

    and like you said its below 5 percent and not likely anytime soon am i correct i see u say ur worry is when they got to high power in 2015

  77. annette marsh says:

    am i rite in saying this haha when in 2015 is the lhc starting again and what power will it be at thank you otto aswell nice to no my babys going to grow up xx

  78. annette marsh says:

    could you answer this otto

  79. doc.t.d.elderton says:

    hi there mr rossler from what ive been reading on all your post the people here are write in saying that you have said the world is already in alot of trouble from mbh so if im correct what you said is the world screwed and theres no hope for anyone because they already ran the lhc and you think that a mbh as already been formed in the lhc

  80. doc.t.d.elderton says:

    and countless people are saying how afraid they are because of what you have been saying about how you think the world is ending in a few years time. p.s i hope you are happy with yourself little kids woman afraid for there lifes because of what you are claiming

  81. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The risk is still low — < 5 % — and will possibly be doubled on resumption of th experiment next year. But so only if my results remain un-falsified. So by far the most efficient way to calm down planetary anxiety is to falsify my results.
    Why CERN refuses to do so for 6 years — and especially after my much simplified publications of last year — I do not know. Updating a safety report should not be something to be afraid of, or should it?

  82. doc.t.d.elderton says:

    but what is the point in updating it and you going on about it when in your eyes you already think its too late and dear annette please do not let thins get to you i hope all the best for you and you child

  83. doc.t.d.elderton says:

    you are useing people fear to help you out with cern dont you care one bit that when your telling them theres only a few years left to live that its all lies

  84. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Everyone will be safe if an error can be found in the new globally-constant-c result in the equivalence principle and by implication general relativity.
    Dispelling all danger surely is the best policy, is it not?

  85. doc.t.d.elderton says:

    so your saying if an error cant be found that 5 goes to a 100

  86. doc.t.d.elderton says:

    i give up lets look at it this way theres a 5% chance that a astroid could strike earth in the next hour why not make a big deal of that the reason is because u know like i do 5% is really small in the bigger scale of things

  87. annette marsh says:

    Now I’m really affraid otto u said there’s a low chance precent this elderton man says u say its 100 percent chance I’m 15 weeks pregnant what’s the point in bringing a baby into this world

  88. I came here to understand now I’m worse than I was befor

  89. rachel says:

    Annette sorry but I have to jump in there is every reason to bring a baby into this world don’t talk so silly and mr elderton why are you attacking mr rossler he’s neva once said he beleaves a mbh is in the planet just that there a 5 percent chance that they could have been creating them otto how are you doing hope you have got somewere with cern oh and if what I said is wrong feel free to correct me

  90. rachel says:

    I hope u and ur family are doing gd and enjoyd ur xmas n new year

  91. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for your kindness.
    It is true that 5 percent for a developing baby is a risk that is not very much more than for the average for all developing babies.
    They all deserve the utmost love from everyone.
    Still I would like someone to be able to reduce the 5 percent (plus-minus) down to zero (plus-minus). Everyone has a right to get a response to this efect from the organization that does not contradict to this risk for 6 years. I deeply cherish my colleagues at CERN and therefore kindly ask them once more to take the trouble to renew their safety report.

  92. rachel says:

    Bring your baby into this world hun and give it all the happy in the world stop worring and look after u and your child 5 percent is not much yeah its still there but not worth u talking like that. Otto how are you doing hope lifes treating u and your family good all the best x

  93. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Be blessed.

  94. stanley says:

    do you think cern as already created these black holes you talk about otto

  95. Otto E. Rossler says:

    No, I can exclude this — up to a remaining probability of about 5 percent. So the oxygen masks of Earth Flight Number One will most likely not be dropped (like any other useless symbol). Even better, I dearly hope that once the scientific silence of CERN is broken after 6 years’ time, this number can be drastically reduced.

  96. stanley says:

    ? so you dont think they have created one yet could you use terms that i could understan please p.s i love reading all this stuff on here

  97. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you. Unless they can disprove the 5 percent risk — the worst of planetary history — it unfortunately stays put.

  98. stanley says:

    So why when I asked I’d you beleave they have already created them u said no ?

  99. stanley says:

    Otto E. Rossler on December 18, 2013 9:53 am
    No no no: The danger is less than 5 percent, or even less!
    Only the planned doubling should be done only after a prior renewal of the 5 years old saftey report.
    That is all I am saying. And that I want to be shown to be wrong at long last. Because of the kids!

  100. stanley says:

    Did you not say that

  101. Otto E. Rossler says:

    This is what I always said.

  102. stanley says:

    Oh I just see you saying its five percent then u say its lower then its five again just abit cunfuseing

  103. Otto E. Rossler says:

    It would be nice if CERN could show it is less than five percent — right?

  104. stanley says:

    Yes it would but 5 percent for the whole planet is a low proberbilaty so I see why u said no when I asked if you thought they had already created them but still its 5 percent that we dnt want to b there

  105. stanley says:

    How long do you think it will take to reach the power were they could create one of these mbh you speak of

  106. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for the former remark.
    As to the second: They may have had this power already — this is the 5 percent guess that so desperately needs improvement.

  107. stanley says:

    Yes ino that otto I’m just saying 5% is still low when we think about it on a bigger scale thatwhy I said do you think they have already created one and you said no and I say that the odds are against them not of created one at this time but yes altho I don’t think there’s much to worry about at this point in time and I think you see it the same there’s still all be it pritty low percent that you speak off

  108. stanley says:

    My question would b do u think they already have on the odds side of things

  109. Otto E. Rossler says:

    5 percent that they already did, and about the same that the planned continuation will.
    Unless a flaw in the new black-hole theory published starting in 2008 can be found.

  110. stanley says:

    So what ur saying we as a planet are screwed even tho the odds are against it

  111. stanley says:

    Here it goes and this is not ment in a nasty way at all maby just maby cern as looked at ur theroy and they think its wrong maby its not worth there time trying to debunk it because its a wast of every1s time now u know as I do cern no about ur results u come up with and I know 100 percent if they thought for even a second you was rite they would stop the lhc and not carry this on they wouldn’t risk it at all nearly every scientist on this planet most of which are smarter and more advanced in the area say its safe then there’s u and only u still talking about the dangers that no1 seems to think is there I’ve seen online and in papers cern have publised there safty garantys but u seem 2 find flaws in everything but ur own flaws that aint there asin white dwafs newtron stars that’s a solid as solid comes seems like u listne 2 no1 but urself and your result there’s more chance your results are wrong than there’s they no a lot more about this than u ever could I asked u yesterday day do you think they have alrady created one you said no that’s becuz u no the odds are againt them being created for instance the lhc mite not have anoth power even at 14 tev u dnt no this yet u seem to go on like u do just take a step back and look at what’s going on around you I mean to create them in the first place u need extra dimensions and that’s a mess as it is

  112. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I like this well thought-through argument, dear Stanley.
    It is absolutely correct that my results on black holes (published for example in about ten papers last year) are not “mainstream” since they (it is actually only one in essence) conradict the current consensus.
    In the old days, one of the representatives of the reigning paradigm would have taken the trouble to give a reason why they do not agree with the proof offered — beyond saying that it is “new.“
    If you find something you are too weak to prove wrong yourself, which shows with certainty that there is an iceberg approaching the Titanic, you consider it your duty to find someone who tells the captain.
    Science works that way: many geese are roaming the meadow, and sometimes one of them finds a sensational new plant. It could be a mirage. The goose then does its best to convince the others that they should taste it, too.
    In case the fruit can save everyone’s life, it does not appear to be a rational strategy to say: “We do not listen to a new result even if it can save our own and everyone else’s life.“
    It is not THAT rare, after all, that something new is being found in science which contradicts the contemporaneous consensus. If it harbors a chance to do good to everyone’s existence, why not bother to find a counteragument because it is too good to be true?

  113. stanley says:

    ok you say theres a five percent chance now with all honesty otto do you think that five percent as materalised at this point in time

  114. stanley says:

    or are you more worry about 2015 when they restart it back at 14tev

  115. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I want the 5 percent to be disproved at last!

  116. stanley says:

    U dint answer my question

  117. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Any extension of the high-energy collisions increases the factual risk proportionally. And an extension with about twice the energy does so of course even more.

  118. stanley says:

    Its 5 percent otto 5 percent that’s very low odds you no as I do your answer is no but u just can’t bring yaself to admit it first off string theroy needs 2 be correct in order for mbh to even b created slim chance of that being rite and then there ur proofs that I’ve seen proved wrong by cern in a report by 2 men is it nicole the same of one why do you keep this up oh and allso the white dwarf and ns safty aspect aswell there all good safty claims why do you not accept any one of them but u say u are rite

  119. stanley 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.

    Nicolai reviewed Otto Rössler’s research paper on the safety of the LHC and issued a statement highlighting logical inconsistencies and physical misunderstandings in Rössler’s arguments.] Nicolai concluded that “this text would not pass the referee process in a serious journal give it up stop trying to make people who do not have a clue about all this scear them and upset there lifes ive read people killed themselfs b4 the launch why beacause of your claims your resposible for there deaths and you still do it today telling people they only have 5 years to live otto i dont no how the hell you live with yourself god himself should pass judgement on you for the way you make women and children affraid for there lifes

  120. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Stanley, now I m disappointed. You ignore 6 years of work of mine.
    Are you really advocating that rational thinking is not allowed because if no counterargument comes some persons might get panicky?
    6 years without safety report — you are the only person in the world who supports this scientific and moral sin publicly, although you wisely hide your identity. Please, make an apology.
    Or even better: find me an adversary with a face!

  121. stanley says:

    you have had your counterargument in the wd saftey claim and the ns and also the lsag report but u seem to discount what they say as wrong but you say your rite

  122. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Strange to take a 6 years old safety report as the last word — belief in clairvoyance is a new feature of a scientist. You give a strange role model unless you recant. The whole group of scientists at CERN has its only voice in “Stanley” right now.
    Maybe someone can assist you?

  123. stanley says:

    A saftey report that is well thought out and after even more researc is a solid as it goes on the terms of safe but like I said u discount anything than and real scientist say and make it about what you think when the chances of you even being rite is well let’s say 1percent that’s me being nice take a step back otto look at all the proofs of it being safe solid facts like the wd safety and ns and the lsag report which is solid and stop trying to upset people

  124. Tom Kerwick says:

    Published Jan 2014. The Application of Astronomical Observation to LHC/Collider Safety.

  125. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you, Tom. Nothing is better than nothing-at-all.
    But I am sure you would like me and most everyone be very happy about an update at last of the only LHC safety report of 2008. Right?

  126. Tom Kerwick says:

    Not with any great urgency. I should clarify to readers, that the above technical note and the peer reviewed papers it refers to have already considered Otto’s claims, and concluded that there is 0% risk from MBH production at CERN and other similar facilities.

  127. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I am a bit disappointed that you defend the refusal by CERN to renew their 6 years old safety report. Imagine another safety-responsible institution did the same.
    I did not see any response to my work in any published paper defending CERN. I would appreciate getting a link in this
    And: I am glad if you personally have little concern. However, this is for believing in an unrealistically large size of miniature black holes, I am afraid. What minimum diameter do you give them at present?

  128. Tom Kerwick says:

    No such assumption is made on micro black hole size in determining safety. We have been here before — many times:

    “It has been suggested [1] that a smaller initial MBH radius could result in a longer stopping distance in white dwarfs, though to date there has been no credible challenge to the derivation of stopping distances as determined in the G&M 2008 paper, in which is it derived to be inversely proportional, not to the radius, but to the mass density near the capture radius.” (

  129. Otto E. Rossler says:

    There are no refernces in your paper — can you help?

  130. Tom Kerwick says:

    There are 7 references in the Technical Note (last page — page 6), and 20 references in the link to my other paper just posted (last page — page 16). If you are not seeing the references, perhaps you have a cached version and need to reload/refresh the link (there were many revision updates while under peer-review). If questions — please email me.

  131. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Yes, this seems to be the case.

  132. stanley says:

    Otto is your prediction of 5 years the worst case and if you say 5 years then we are all messed up in a few years what’s the proberbillity that this threat as already come into place if and a big if they can even make mbh in the first place is 5 year a fact or could it be more and 5 years is the worst case u think off

  133. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Ten years is just as likely as five.

  134. stanley says:

    So 5 is just the worst case also I think tom as some valid points and his paper seem to make a lot of sense

  135. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Tom is the only scientist who is (1) gifted and (2) not under cover.

  136. stanley says:

    Spot on with his work that he’s done on mbh and wd

  137. Otto E. Rossler says:

    As you know, there is no all-clear signal involved.
    Also a single dove makes no spring: Why do you — anonymously — support the for six years refused renewal of the “Safety Report” from CERN?

  138. stanley says:

    I don’t support cern I’m just saying tom as put a lot of work into this and between him and cern they have come up with 0% risk involved u tell me why u refuse to accept that and why if u say so it is wrong