Comments on: Noether’s Theorem + Equivalence Principle = c-global (part IV, coda)

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:02:38 +0000

Sorry, I meant: https://ottorossler.wordpress.com

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:27:51 +0000

I forgot to mention my co-authored book “Chaotic Harmony.”

And I would like to mention ottorossler on WordPress.com as an opportunity for further exchanges.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:23:52 +0000

I apologize for having used a false word. Okay?

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 22:47:28 +0000

Don't be silly Otto - I wasn't trying to hide anything from view. I was referring to the centre-of-mass energy of collisions ;-). I'll decline entering debate on HR 'dogma' - as you know, I am more interested in analogy and observation as a safety reassurance.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:09:44 +0000

Center-of-mass collisions on a celestial body was the key word which you try to hide from view. (This makes CERN’s endeavor unique in the cosmos as you know.)

But it is interesting that you return to Hawking Radiation (HR) as CERN’s real dogma on which it bets the planet.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:19:07 +0000

Well firstly, the world is not holding its breath in anticipation. This is outsider debate. About collision energies — you are the one misunderstanding — These collisions occur ON celestial bodies — that is clear from the point of impact. It is their products which pass on through — Hence the follow-on analysis on the capture of the products which is the only difference in the LHC case. I should also point out that HR is just as applicable to ’ almost-finished black holes’ — You just moved the goalposts. In this regard, no actual disproof (of HR) is presented in any case.

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:22:08 +0000

This is a misunderstanding, dear Tom.
FINISHED black holes exist nowhere in the universe, as is known since 1939. (Only Hawking does not seem to know this.)
But owing to Birkhoff’s theorem, almost-finished black holes are just as dangerous as finished ones; so that always pointing to that formal distinction would be misleading.
Okay?
Second: Center-of-mass collisions ON a celestial body (my words) did not refer to what you apparently understood (passing through it).
I thus see no discrepancy between our two views here.

Only you for some reason feel assured by a 7 years old statement of safety.
You obviously seem to expect that this was a defensible position.
Everyone would be maximally interested to learn from you and CERN how come.
I mean such a consensus never existed before in the history of science.

So can you, please, explain this consensus between you and CERN and the UN and the unified media of the globe?
The world is holding its breath in anticipation.

Your answer will make this blog famous.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:31:33 +0000

1/ “So black holes are never finished in finite outer time.“
2/ “will now with a certain probability produce miniature black holes “
You are contradicting yourself with the above two statements. What your theory actually suggests is that black holes, and miniature black holes, cannot exist.

As regards “unheard-of center-of-mass collision energies on one celestial body”:

We have higher center-of-mass collision energies all the time when typical UHECR impact on metallic asteroids, i.e basic p-Fe collisions, the center-of-mass energy involved works out at: Sqrt ((100,000,000,000,000,000,000 eV) x 2 x (55.845 x 931,494,061 eV)) = 3,225,501,072,284,583 eV = 3,225.5 TeV. That’s far higher than the 1,066 TeV center-of-mass energies in Pb-Pb collisions planned at CERN — and this using just typical figures for UHECR impacts.

For the arguments that the products of these evade gravity capture, I refer you back yet again to the more complex study of CR exposure on white dwarf & neutron stars:

Discussions on the Hypothesis that Cosmic Ray Exposure on Sirius B Negates Terrestrial MBH Concerns from Colliders. Thomas B. Kerwick. 20th May 2014.
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1208.0005
http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1208.0005v6.pdf

Neutron Star Safety Assurance Concerns to Particle Collider Operation of TeV-Scale p-p Collisions. Thomas B Kerwick. 23rd September 2014.
http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0077
http://vixra.org/pdf/1406.0077v4.pdf

Micro Black Holes — Hypothetical Terrestrial Flux and a Re-Visitation of Astrophysical Safety Assurances. Thomas B Kerwick. 20th Feb 2015.

http://vixra.org/abs/1503.0066
http://vixra.org/pdf/1503.0066v1.pdf

And the heavier G&M analysis: Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes. Steven B. Giddings, Michelangelo M. Mangano. 23rd Sept. 2008.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3381v2.pdf