He lost the debating battle with me but does not correct his prior public statements that reflect a state of debate prior to our only verbal discussion that took place in March 2009.

I would very much like to hear from him why he upholds the impression, both before his own scientific institution (the Max Planck Institute of Gravitation Physics or “Albert Einstein Institut”) and cooperating scientific institutions like KET and CERN, and before the whole world: that he could prove my Telemach theorem wrong even though he never came up with any criticism. The scientific journal to which I submitted the theorem via his desk also never responded although doing so is a professional duty.

I agreed with him in our only discussion that the new “non-conservation of charge” implicit in my result is revolutionary if correct. So it would be his first duty to respond to my disproof of his (admittedly high-caliber) counterargument, given in a still assailable form that very afternoon and in finished form the next morning. It constitutes the main finding (the “Ch”) in the Telemach theorem.

TeLeMaCh means that T and L and M and Ch all change by the gravitational redshift factor (in the last two cases it is the reciprocal). T is time, L length, M mass and Ch charge. Telemach greatly profited from that fateful discussion 2 ½ years ago without which he might never have seen the light of day. So I am greatly indebted to Professor Nicolai.

Even greater, however, is my obligation to tell the world that Professor Nicolai has nothing to offer any more to support his outdated claim that my results were false. A scientist who refuses to take back outdated claims violates the rules of the trade, the rules of honor and the rules of responsibility toward the scientific community. In the present case, in addition the whole world is put at risk because CERN is misled into believing that Telemach were false on the authority of the leading physicist of the Albert-Einstein-Institute, the only oneof its kind on the planet.

Please, dear venerated colleague Hermann Nicolai: do care to reply at long last. The world is hanging on your lips in two senses of the word.

No one can take the responsibility for the whole world on his shoulders and then refuse to give a reason for doing so. I do not say you cannot possibly have a good reason — you may possess the insight that the whole establishment credits you with possessing. I only say: Please, dear colleague, Professor Nicolai, do not hide your privileged reason any longer from the least worthy of the world’s inhabitants, me, and everyone who listens to me. I would love to believe that you are right but I cannot do so without your giving me and the world a hint.

I am fighting a fight that can cost me my scientific reputation, begging for the privilege to be falsified.

The public does not realize this. That I have challenged the brightest minds of the planet to prove that the scientific proof I have offered contains a flaw. No one comes up with a counterproof. Also I am not alone.

My proof implies that that director-general Heuer of CERN is actively trying to kill everyone on the planet out of ideological blindness. The risk is being doubled at CERN during the present month, and is planned to be tripled once more next year. Even now it can already be too late if my presented proof holds water.

The most appalling phenomenon is not the evil nature of the accused ones but the blindness of the press. They totally forgot that science is about truth and that, if no scientist stands up and says “I can prove Rossler wrong and this is my evidence,” Rossler is right.

Authority does not exist in the face of the truth. I can save you and your child. Please, give me the benefit of the doubt.

I admire Stephen Hawking. He did not receive me so far.

I proved that Hawking radiation does not exist because Einstein was right.

Therefore the Geneva experiment is maximally dangerous: It is going to shrink the earth to 2 cm in a few years’ time with a sizable probability unless stopped immediately.

It may already be too late but the bulk of the danger can still be avoided.

Dear planet, please choose: either death or life: either Hawking or me.

My rehabilitation of Fritz Zwicky’s “dynamical friction” as an explanation of the Hubble redshift law ( http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=n…amp;ref=no ) only increases the importance of the new Perlmutter-Schmidt-Riess redshift law.

What is changed is only the interpretation: from “lower expansion rate at that early time” towards “lower mass density at that high distance.”

In case you accept this alternative interpretation of your own revolutionary finding as a possibility worth giving the benefit of the doubt, you thereby greatly help CERN accept the scientific safety conference made necessary by another result from our group. The latter states that the famous gravitational clock slowdown is accompanied by a matching change in size, mass and charge. Professor Richard J. Cook of the Air Force Academy independently found the first two points and supports the third.

I apologize for the publicity and urgency. It is because CERN is during the remaining weeks of this month doubling the total luminosity of its experiment so that the implied risk to the planet’s getting evaporated in a few years’ time is going to reach a sizable value within a few weeks.

The public at large has forgotten that revolutionary results have inconspicuous origins. Your endorsement of the possibility-in-principle that this uncontested result deserve the benefit of the doubt will make all the difference of the world. Forgive me that I turn to you while asking Sweden’s king to kindly help in the communication since only days remain.

The whole world complied with the Nazi murder. The whole world complies with CERN’s assault on everyone. It is the same world that lets the people in humanity’s cradle starve.

I re-read René Fülöp-Miller’s book Saint Francis. The Now, Color and the Smile are infinite miracles. I thank the Lord in your place.

And today we say Thank You to Steve.

Three years ago, the head of the most prestigious relativistic institution when I asked him to give me an appointment said simply “no” – explaining me in 20 long minutes why he could not do so (because the consensus in his institute about my paper would then possibly no longer be uniform).

I thought this was a personal flaw. No it is obvious that physics as a whole has ceased to be a science and been transformed into an ideology – the deadliest of all time.

It is no wonder that journalists are not being treated any better than me: as non-persons. My comparison with another dark age appears to be much more fitting than I had feared.

Not a single physicist on the planet dares think on his own or show courage – what would he or she have to lose by talking with a dissident who publicly offers evidence he desperately wants to have disproved owing to its potentially lifesaving character?

The “Accelerated Expansion” Nobel prize of today is an example, too. The observations honored are more than worthy. But the label is a lie. That hypothesis has long been disproved. I hope my three colleagues can forgive me that I ask them to mention in their acceptance speeches that they are only responsible for new facts and that the interpretation is just an — according to the opinion of a minority — long since falsified hypothesis.

Please, der UNO, dear president Obama, dear premier Wen, dear dalai, dear pope: do dare ask for counterevidence to the proof of danger – in a tiny little safety conference – IMMEDIATELY.

By now the world knows that the media do not report on the unrefuted proof that the European LHC experiment is going to shrink the planet to 2 cm in a few years’ time with a sizable probability.

But the media do also contain some women in the lower echelons. And women do not always show a hierarchy-determined allegiance to their leader but do sometimes give priority to their child.

Is there not a single mother on the planet who gives priority to her child’s survival being safeguarded over her job security?

INDIGNEZ-VOUS, LES MÈRES DU GLOBE!

The Large Hadron Collider experiment at the European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN), the most expensive peaceful experiment of history, has lost its scientific justification after two of its 3 raisons d’etre are gone. Specifically, the two reasons for its design mentioned in the title can no longer be searched for now that the new statistical-mechanical discipline of cryodynamics has demonstrated their nonexistence [1].

The third major reason for the operation of the LHC experiment — the attempt to create artificial miniature black holes and to study their Hawking evaporation — ceased to make scientific sense 3 years ago when two papers implying the non-existence of Hawking radiation were published [2,3].

However, at the same time the probability of a success of the experiment regarding the production of miniature black holes got a large boost. This is a bit embarrassing in view of the fact that this success cannot possibly be detected by the outdated sensors CERN installed [3]. Thus the experiment ceases to be a scientific experiment when started defiantly (as this later happened).

However, would its success (to be made about twice as likely during the present month’s experiments [4]) not represent a major advance even if this success can become manifest only in about 5 years’ time [3]? The answer is a sounding yes: a few scientists will then rejoice. But so not in public and so not for long because shortly thereafter, the planet will be absorbed into a 2-cm black hole. “Panbiocide” is the technical term (C.A. Hilgartner).

But this must be a joke? So far, this danger [3] while going unquoted by CERN remains unfalsified. The whole planet therefore merrily intones “Oh you dear Augustin CERN” to Marx Augustin’s original melody of 1679 [5].

References

[1] O.E. Rossler and F. Kuske, “Cryodynamics — The new second thermodynamics demonstrated numerically,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1389, 959–961 (2011). http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/1389/959/1

[2] O.E. Rossler, “Abraham-solution to Schwarzschild metric implies that CERN miniblack holes pose a planetary risk,” in: Vernetzte Wissenschaften – Crosslinks in Natural and Social Sciences (eds. P.J. Plath and E.C. Hass), pp. 263–270. Berlin: Logos Verlag, July 2008. http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.pdf

[3] O.E. Rossler, “A rational and moral and spiritual dilemma,” in: Personal and Spiritual Development in the World of Cultural Diversity, Vol. 5 (eds. G.E. Lasker and K. Hiwaki). Tecumseh: The International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, July 2008. http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf

[4] A. Rydd and M. Ferro-Luzzi, “Experiment’s desiderata,” slide No. 8, http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=1&sess.….fId=144632

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqqtR-yBKqE&feature=youtu.be
(More cultural: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLdwTtdl2cQ)

“I do not understand the Telemach theorem but I feel it is too simple to be possibly correct; yet please, do not mention my name.” ‘t Hooft and Hawking join-in in the loud silence.

Hereby the existence of a highly sophisticated version of Telemach, found independently by a high-ranking academic, is kept from the media. It is known to CERN and would take years to discuss. I therefore support his continuing on outside the limelight.

Dear, venerable CERN: Please, make a 4-week pause immediately to give Telemach a chance to be put to rest. Nothing would make his father and the planet more happy. I publicly offer a bet to Stephen Hawking that he will not succeed in this task. If I lose I shall write a preface to his next book.

A big institution that does not object that what it is doing can evaporate the earth in a few years’ time cannot refuse answering much longer.