Institute or Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle A, 72076 Tübingen, F.R.G.

Abstract
CERN’s apparent superluminality result can be partially explained subluminally.
(October 24, 2011)

Simultaneity on a rotating sphere is non-unique — forming not a circle but a helix at a given latitude — as is well known, cf. [1 ] and references quoted there.

The neglected deviation from global simultaneity — being incorporated by design in the Global Positioning System employed by CERN [2] — is 0.1032 microseconds or 30 meters for an equatorial circle [1]. On the mean longitude of Geneva and Gran Sasso, the full-circle deviation is about half as large: 0.05 microseconds or 15 meters.

Since the latitudinal separation between Geneva and Gran Sasso (7.3 degrees) covers only the fiftieth part of a circle, the applicable deviation is 50 times smaller: 1 nanosecond or 0.3 meters. The sign is the same as that found empirically by CERN, but the magnitude of the deviation measured by CERN is 60 times larger than predicted: 60.7 nanoseconds or 18 meters [2]. Thus, CERN’s result has been qualitatively confirmed from first principles for the first time, but so with only 2 percent of its size.

Experience teaches that once a mistake has been found in the design or interpretation of an experiment, further errors along the same line are likely to be unearthed. Whether or not there is a chance to quantitatively compress the improved new result by a factor of 60 is, of course, open.

A minor possibility of improvement is as follows. CERN failed to measure the light flight time between two long parallel rods of 35km length, one erected above the neutrino cannon at CERN and the other above the detector in the Gran Sasso. Two ultrahigh balloons could do the job in principle; or else a chain of alpine mirrors could be used as a substitute necessitating a more complicated discussion. This proposal was made because experience tells that radically new measured data ought to be compared with measured data directly. A second experimental proposal offers itself: To repeat the experiment in the U.S., not in the same but in the opposite (East-West) direction. In this case the rotation-specific apparent superluminality will predictably give rise to a matching subluminality. Finally, I dare mention that the present experiment — unlike other current experiments at CERN – deserves planet-wide support for its ingenuity and innocuousness.

To conclude, a partial subluminal explanation for the newest CERN experiment has been offered. I thank Eric Penrose and Walter Wagner for discussions. (For J.O.R.)

References

[1] O.E. Rossler, D. Fröhlich, N. Kleiner and F.J. Müller, Nonunique simultaneity on isochrones of the rotating disk: a timeloop in special relativity? Journal of New Energy 6(4), 210–214 (2002).

[2] T. Adam, N. Agafonova, A. Aleksandrov, O. Altinok, P. Alvarez Sanchez, S. Aoki, A. Ariga, T. Ariga, D. Autiero, A. Badertscher, A. Ben Dhahbi, A. Bertolin, C. Bozza, T. Brugiére, F. Brunet, G. Brunetti, S. Buontempo, F. Cavanna, A. Cazes, L. Chaussard, M. Chernyavskiy, V. Chiarella, A. Chukanov, G. Colosimo, M. Crespi, N. D’Ambrosios, Y. Déclais, P. del Amo Sanchez, G. De Lellis, M. De Serio, F. Di Capua, F. Cavanna, A. Di Crescenzo, D. Di Ferdinando, N. Di Marco, S. Dmitrievsky, M. Dracos, D. Duchesneau, S. Dusini, J. Ebert, I. Eftimiopolous, O. Egorov, A. Ereditato, L.S. Esposito, J. Favier, T. Ferber, R.A. Fini, T. Fukuda, A. Garfagnini, G. Giacomelli, C. Girerd, M. Giorgini, M. Giovannozzi, J. Goldberga, C. Göllnitz, L. Goncharova, Y. Gornushkin, G. Grella, F. Griantia, E. Gschewentner, C. Guerin, A.M. Guler, C. Gustavino, K. Hamada, T. Hara, M. Hierholzer, A. Hollnagel, M. Ieva, H. Ishida, K. Ishiguro, K. Jakovcic, C. Jollet, M. Jones, F. Juget, M. Kamiscioglu, J. Kawada, S.H. Kim, M. Kimura, N. Kitagawa, B. Klicek, J. Knuesel, K. Kodama, M. Komatsu, U. Kose, I. Kreslo, C. Lazzaro, J. Lenkeit, A. Ljubicic, A. Longhin, A. Malgin, G. Mandrioli, J. Marteau, T. Matsuo, N. Mauri, A. Mazzoni, E. Medinaceli, j, F. Meisel, A. Meregaglia, P. Migliozzi, S. Mikado, D. Missiaen, K. Morishima, U. Moser, M.T. Muciaccia, N. Naganawa, T. Naka, M. Nakamura, T. Nakano, Y. Nakatsuka, D. Naumov, V. Nikitina, S. Ogawa, N. Okateva, A. Olchevsky, O. Palamara, A. Paoloni, B.D. Park, I.G. Park, A. Pastore, L. Patrizii, E. Pennacchio, H. Pessard, C. Pistillo, N. Polukhina, M. Pozzato, K. Pretzl, F. Pupilli, R. Rescigno, T. Roganova, H. Rokujo, G. Rosa, I. Rostovtseva, A. Rubbia, A. Russo, O. Sato, Y. Sato, A. Schembri, J. Schuler, L. Scotto Lavina, J. Serrano, A. Sheshukov, H. Shibuya, G. Shoziyoev, S. Simone, M. Sioli, C. Sirignano, G. Sirri, J.S. Song, M. Spinetti, N. Starkov, M. Stellacci, M. Stipcevic, T. Strauss, P. Strolin, S. Takahashi, M. Tenti, F. Terranova, I. Tezuka, V. Tioukov, P. Tolun, T. Tran, S. Tufanli, P. Vilain, M. Vladimirov, L. Votano, J.-L. Vuilleumier, G. Wilquet, B. Wonsak, J. Wurtz, C.S. Yoon, J. Yoshida, Y. Zaitsev, S. Zemskova, A. Zghiche et al. (117 additional authors not shown), Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam, http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 (Sept. 22, 2011).
[Main result, quoted from the abstract: “An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) ×10–5.”]

(Paper simultaneously submitted to Nature and Science)

Neither Robert M. Wald – long the biggest name in general relativity because of his superhuman book of 1984 – nor Wolfgang Rindler – the revered grandmaster of the Einstein equivalence principle – contradict me nor does Hermann Nicolai – my official adversary – do so any longer in the open. While on the other side professor Richard J. Cook and two more world-class specialists in and outside Europe share my results.

Is this impressive list not reason enough to let the scientific safety conference take place at last?

Somehow it is cute that the three first-mentioned scientists do not let pressure be put on them: “Nothing is more imposing than being unimposable,” my friend Konrad Lorenz used to say. But the seeming silence is the loudest of history because the responsible gentlemen simultaneously keep their iron grip on an open faucet. Their lips are compressed while the MG rattles – the most visible coward act of history. This unless by happenstance an error in the critics’ results can still be uncovered – which to facilitate is the only aim of the “safety conference” refused by CERN for 3 ½ years.

Imagine: To be cleared from the worst reproach of history is what CERN abhors the most. They are going to have a very hard time to explain this before the future. With each passing day, they are bringing themselves and science and Europe and Christianity closer to the brink of history, even if the planet eventually survives which will not be known for years to come.

P.S. The danger is currently still below 3 percent.

A public talk delivered yesterday evening in the series “Cafe philo” of the Tübinger Zimmertheater. During the first half I briefly summarized some of my “old” results on chaos and the competition between deterministic chaos and quantum mechanics (“explicable” chance versus “primary” chance). Then elements of my forthcoming paper “Hun Tun versus Big Bang” were presented along with the implied explanation why the week has seven days. Then the new physics Nobel prize stood center stage. The honor given to Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess represents a timely recompense for the denial of the same prize to Edwin Hubble, the discoverer of the Hubble redshift law. His linear redshift law of 1928 grew longer and longer over the decades. The first wiggle was found 70 years later by the 3 researchers. The distance versus redshift line now points slightly upwards at its tip.

Fritz Zwicky’s 1929 – confirmed by nobelist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar 14 years later – “dynamical friction” explanation of the Hubble law was re-discovered in Tübingen in 2003. It also provides a natural explanation of the Perlmutter-Schmidt-Riess phenomenon as shown in 207: Instead of the currently accepted conglomerate of assumptions — an initially explosive inflation followed by a retarded expansion phase followed by a very long period of constant expansion -, nothing but a stationary possinly unbounded fractal universe is assumed. It implies an at its end more and more wiggly Hubble line of which we now see the first pointing-up deviation. Since not a single new hypothesis is involved, this finding offers a superior explanation to all observed phenomena — including the new Perlmutter-Schmidt-Riess Hubble law.

The old bolometric measurements of our local cosmic temperature (about 4 absolute degrees) made by nobelist Charles Guillaume in 1896, and the apparently ultra-high-redshift ultra-distant X-ray quasars, discovered by nobelist Riccardo Giacconi in 2005, were next alluded to when I mentioned Siegfried Zielinski’s new comparative science of “Variantology,” in which alternative historical scenarios are followed up to prevent scientific progress from going astray.

After a break with wide-open windows, the audience wanted to hear about the LHC. The latter had been defended before in the “Schwäbisches Tagblatt” by my Tübingen colleague Werner Vogelsang. I started out on Francis Bacon’s early insight that nature is trying to outwit humankind, being our worst enemy. The fight against disease is no longer in the foreground of public consciousness in privileged countries. But much like penicillin in the past, so a new finding about black holes apparently makes all the difference of the world. My American colleague Richard J. Cook, pupil of Edward Teller’s, is squarely on my side, on the basis of his independent results. Also every Tübinger knows about “Schwärzloch” (“Blackhole”) already – a 900 years old hamlet 3 kilometers to the West featuring an “angel of one-half life size” in half-relief according to G. Dehio’s art guide. The new Schwarzloch result reads: “black holes are uncharged.”

The new property of black holes is an overlooked implication of Einstein’s early findings. It makes the “LHC” nuclear experiment at CERN near Geneva in Switzerland “blind” to its own most hoped-for success: black hole generation. Black holes are undetectable by the instruments available at CERN. CERN’s published result that “we did not find any black holes” jence unfortunately is devoid of content. But the new features of black holes do make a success of the LHC experiment much more likely. And their growth rate inside matter, once one slow enough to stay inside earth has been produced (which unavoidably occurs at some point) is no longer modest as CERN claims but rather exponential. Therefore but a few years suffice to let the earth be eaten inside out with nothing but a 2-cm black hole remaining. Nature’s own sister mini black holes necessarily have a very high intrinsic velocity — so that they can only get stuck in an ultra-dense neutron star. Unfortunately for humankind but fortunately for the nuclear-chemical life forms present on neutron stars (according to Robert Forward), nature has endowed neutron stars with a special quantum mechanical protection law.

At least 5 independent features of nature collude posing a “trap” to humankind, as all presently available safety arguments turn out to fizzle each for an independent reason. Such a situation is unheard of in history. CERN refuses to quote any of these results published 3 years ago. It no doubt is a subjectively forgivable form of self-righteousness which lets CERN refuse the scientific safety conference demanded 3 ½ years ago and requested anew by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011. The issue is before the United Nations Security Council but is apparently being being blocked there. This led to a remark from the audience that the popular “Stuttgart 21” street demonstrations against a new train-station are a bit naïve in comparison.

The probability of earth being shrunk to 2 cm in a few years’ time is going to be increased to 3 percent during the remainder of the present month by CERN if no new information applies. This fact makes the safety conference maximally urgent. To encourage the audience to ask public questions themselves, I reminded them of my own weak status in politics – that I was declared insane by the state 15 years ago for having revealed a new law in the lecture hall (involuntary out-of-field professorships) which fact had led to police being sent into my lecture hall for months in a row. This confession of mine lifted the atmosphere back to an up-beat level: Everybody tried to contribute a constructive thought. Now I hope that this brief report has a good influence on the reader so that either the necessary stop can be accomplished immediately or the salient counterargument against the implied danger can be found.

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!