I feel that this easy-to-verify fact is worth reporting by the media.
I admit I am biased because I found a so far un-refuted proof of a concrete danger of unimaginable proportions. So if I publicly ask CERN to update, everyone can say: “He writes this to get his will at last.”
Therefore I apologize for this partisanship of mine and ask other, less personally engaged persons to ask the neutral question of whether or not it is desirable to have an update on CERN’s safety report from early 2008.
by Otto E. Rössler, Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
Abstract: An unfamiliar result in special relativity is presented: non-conservation of rest mass. It implies as a corollary a resolution of the Ehrenfest paradox. The new result is inherited by general relativity. It changes the properties of black holes. (June 21, 2012)
Rest mass is conserved in special relativity in the absence of acceleration. Under this condition, the well-known relativistic increase of total mass with speed is entirely due to the momentum part of the total-mass formula, so rest mass stays invariant as is well known. However, the presence of acceleration changes the picture. Two cases in point are the constant-acceleration rocketship of Einstein’s equivalence principle of 1907, and the rotating disk of Einstein’s friend Ehrenfest 5 years later.
First the Einstein rocket:
If light emitted from a point close to the tip of the constantly accelerating rocketship arrives with its finite speed at the bottom, it is blueshifted there because the bottom has in the meantime picked up a constant upwards speed. This at first sight absurd implication of special relativity was spotted by Einstein in 1907 in a famous mental tour de force. The arriving photons possessed their higher frequency from the beginning. Since they were at equilibrium with the local masses at their point of origin (think of positronium-annihilation generated photons being used), all masses at their height of origin are increased by the pertinent blueshift factor with respect to the same masses residing at the bottom. The converse argument holds true in the other direction for the redshift of photons from the bottom arriving at the tip, and for the correspondingly lower relative rest mass of all stationary particles at the bottom.
Second the Ehrenfest disk:
If light emitted from a more peripheral point of the constantly rotating disk arrives at the motionless center, it is redshifted by the transverse Doppler-shift factor discovered by Einstein in 1905. Much as in the previous case, the emitted photons are locally inter-transformable with solid rest mass. The implied local decrease in rest mass entails a proportional size increase via the Bohr radius formula of quantum mechanics (the parallel size change went unmentioned in the preceding case). But this is not the end of the story: Simultaneously, Lorentz contraction holds true at the light-emitting point on the rotating disk. The two local size change factors – that of the transverse Doppler shift and that of Lorentz contraction – happen to be each other’s inverses. Since they thus cancel out (the ratio is unity), the rotating disk remains perfectly flat. This prediction, deduced from special relativity with acceleration included, solves the Ehrenfest paradox.
To conclude:
Rest mass is not conserved in “special relativity with acceleration included.” Rest mass decreases more downstairs (or outwards, respectively) in proportion to the so-called gravitational (or rotational, respectively) redshift factor. This proposed new result in special relativity is bound to carry over to general relativity. Indeed the gravitational-redshift proportional reduction of rest mass has been described in general relativity by Richard J. Cook (in his 2009 arXiv paper “Gravitational space dilation”). The non-constancy of rest mass despite the fact that it appears locally un-changed has a tangible consequence: it affects the properties of black holes. The implications are incisive enough to let a currently running attempt at producing black holes on earth appear contraindicated from the point of view of planetary survival. This fact makes it desirable to find a flaw in the above chain of reasoning. (For J.O.R.)
No scientist on the planet claims to be able to prove my “Telemach theorem” wrong (you find it by adding the second keyword “African”). Only anonymous bloggers express malice against it. The anonymous writers’ attitude is a logical consequence of the fact that CERN and Europe openly continue in defiance of my (and not only mine) results. This allegiance shown is no wonder: most everyone is ready to defend their own trusted government. And is it not unlikely indeed that a revered multinational organization like CERN should make a terminal blunder of this magnitude?
In the remaining half year of operation of CERN’s nuclear collider, before the planned 75-percent up-scaling scheduled to take two years’ time, the cumulative yield of artificial BLACK HOLES will grow by a factor of about 4 if everything works out optimal. So the cumulative risk to the planet will be quintupled during the next 6 months. This is all uncontested.
Of course, most everyone is sure that I have to be wrong with my published proof of danger: That black holes, (i) arise more readily than originally hoped-for by CERN, (ii) are undetectable to CERN’s detectors and (iii) will, with the slowest specimen generated, eat the earth inside out after a refractory period of a few years. “This is bound to be ridiculous!” is a natural response.
This attitude is something I cannot understand. I predict that no one will understand it in the near future. The logically necessary safety conference (see my Honey-I-shrunk-the-earth “petitiontoCERN” of April 2008) cannot possibly be considered to be more frightening than the danger that it is meant to dispel. How can anyone defend the decision not to have a look???
There must be a few readers seeing this post. Can you, my dear few, find a journalist of standing who dares ask his own readers whether or not they support the globe-wide decision not to report? For example, some lonely individual is responsible for putting this text familiar to me: http://www.traxarmstrong.com/2011/12/20/young-telemach-saves-planet/ anonymously on the Internet. There are nice people around! What is needed is a medium like the New York Times to take up the story of “The Biggest Cover-up of History Committed out of Fear the Message Is true.”
Imagine: fearing the readers’ scorn for belated reporting more than having to watch one’s children die. No one says he or she is sure Rössler is wrong. So why suppress this fact?
http://www.change.org/petitions/every-government-on-the-plan…en-refuted
Mr. Ben Rattray has enabled the planet to learn about the huge danger incurred by the currently running – and till the end of 2012 three times more black holes-spouting – LHC experiment. This despite the fact that CERN’s detectors cannot detect their most anticipated products and the fact that they grow exponentially inside earth once one of them gets stuck inside. In that case, only a few years separate us from earth being a 2-cm black hole.
Please, ask around whether anyone can name a physicist who contradicts the published proof (Telemach theorem: http://www.scribd.com/doc/82752272/Rossler-s-Telemach-paper ). This physicist is automatically the most important living physicist today. Finding him and learning about the strength of his argument is the only aim of the present appeal to every citizen of the world. To help in dismantling the danger before it has risen by a factor of three.
Thank you. He or she who can contradict me most is my best friend. And yours. Let us search for this human being.
“A Constantly Receding Mass at Constant Distance Has a Lower Rest-mass and Charge”
Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tubingen, Germany
This “extended gravitational redshift theorem” (EGRT) is unfortunately new even though it is true as far as anyone can tell up until now. The physics community is currently betting the planet on claiming that this result were not true. It would be gracious if a single physicist stood up saying why he thinks the theorem is not true. (For J.O.R.)
Hawking could save us all if he spoke up.
A pope knealt before Hawking to make him re-confirm the big bang. I kneel before Hawking to make him re-confirm Hawking radiation.
Then we are all safe.
… theorem and still do so on CERN’s website ( http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/Safety-en.html ):
Dear colleagues, please, try and dismantle my much simpler, and hence both more powerful and more easy-to-disprove if false, “Telemach theorem” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/82752272/Rossler-s-Telemach-paper ).
The latter again proves the likely pan-biocidal nature of the currently running LHC experiment. For it shows that black holes have radically new properties: They are stable, almost frictionless at first, undetectable by CERN’s detectors, and exponentially growing inside matter – thus forming a perfect slow bomb for planet earth. The theorem waits to be dismantled for 2 years (the former does so for 5 years).
I grant you, my esteemed 11 colleagues, 11 days to deliver – either on the CERN website of 2008, revised, or in case CERN denies you access, on this blog. If none of you manages to deliver a counter-proof to Telemach during this time, I shall accuse all of you of actively supporting the worst terrorist act of history, presently in progress. Acting in good faith – as you no doubt will pledge – offers no excuse as you were alerted in time. And please, do forgive me that I did not give you the occasion to revoke your testimony earlier.
I now wait in anticipation that one (or more) of you will deliver a cogent counterproof. If so, the planet is safe again. And I shall apologize for the spirit of urgency that I created in fulfillment of my Hippocratic oath.
In case CERN halts its experiment before the 11 days are over, I extend the 11-day deadline by so many days as CERN announces the halt to last.
Thank you, dear Professors (in the order you are quoted by CERN)
Academician Vitaly Ginzburg (Nobel Laureate in Physics, Lebedev Institute Moscow),
Sheldon Glashow (Nobel Laureate in Physics, Boston University),
Frank Wilczek (Nobel Laureate in Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology),
Richard Wilson (Mallinckrodt Professor emeritus of Physics, Harvard University),
Steven Hawking (Lucasian Professor emeritus of Mathematics, Cambridge University),
Edward Kolb (Astrophysicist, University of Chicago),
Sir Roger Penrose (Rouse Ball Professor emeritus of Mathematics, Oxford University),
Sir Martin Rees (UK Astronomer Royal and former President of the Royal Society London),
Academician V.A. Rubakov (Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow),
Gerard ‘t Hooft (Nobel Laureate in Physics, CERN Scientific Policy Committee), and
Hermann Nicolai (Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Potsdam).
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rössler, chaos theorist, University of Tubingen
The reason for the current planet-wide abandonment of major progress lies in the re-acquired belief in clairvoyance – of which anonymous peer review is a symptom. Einstein would ridicule the latter as a “dogma-generating superstition.” While in the early 17th century, the innovators were burnt on the stakes, to date the censors choose instead to burn themselves along with their children and planet.
NO BIG BANG
The expansion theory got disproved in 1929 by Hubble’s friend Zwicky. A remaining gap was closed in 1943 by Chandrasekhar, but the two apparently never met. The final cornerstone is the discovery of a “second statistical mechanics” besides Thermodynamics, called Cryodynamics. It can be used to break the decades-old impasse of hot fusion and hence solve earth’s energy problems.
NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVES
Originally taken back by Einstein, these waves in spacetime were laid to rest by the global constancy of the speed of light c, implicit in the “L” of the T-L-M-Ch theorem (Rossler-Cook) which revives the power of Einstein’s “happiest thought,” the equivalence principle.
NO HAWKING RADIATION
Stephen Hawking’s ingenious idea of black hole evaporation got toppled by the same letter “L” in the Telemach theorem.
THE VOICE OF THE DOLPHINS
Leo Szilard was the first to call for the help of cetacean intelligence, after having been unable to prevent his brainchild, the bomb, from being dropped in 1945.
Next, a female co-worker of John C. Lilly’s took the first steps empirically, but got ostracized into scientific nonexistence.
Finally, Lilly’s good friend Gregory Bateson approved of a paper by the present author published in the San Diego Biomedical Symposium 1975, entitled “A proposed treatment of early infantile autism…” which showed how to tap the higher intelligence and humor of cetaceans and other savants.
THE CERN COVER-UP
On January 27, 2011, CERN stood before a court in Cologne listening to the final advice given to it: To admit a “safety conference” before continuing the nuclear collisions of the LHC experiment. Instead, CERN keeps shooting sharp up to this day while keeping the fact of this official admonition made to it in time a planet-wide secret.
The planet’s media pretend not to know better than the “cleaned version” distributed on Wikipedia, for example.
A PLANET-BORNE QUESTION
In the name of the planet’s cetaceans – dolphins and their relatives including the highest-brained creature known, the sperm whale – and all other savants, I herewith ask the planet’s public to insist on honesty being restored in the face of un-disproved black-hole mediated terminal danger by posing the following question to CERN:
“WHY did CERN cover up the received public admonition to admit the logically necessary safety conference before its continuing with the LHC experiment?”
On a casual read of the appraised work of Duncan R. Lorimer on Binary and Millisecond Pulsars (2005) last week, I noted the reference to the lack of pulsars with P < 1.5 ms. It cites a mere suggestion that this is due to gravitational wave emission from R-mode instabilities, but one has not offered a solid reason for such absence from our Universe. As the surface magnetic field strength of such would be lower (B ∝ (P ˙P )^(1÷2)) than other pulsars, one could equally suggest that the lack of sub millisecond pulsars is due to their weaker magnetic fields allowing CR impacts resulting in stable MBH capture… Therefore if one could interpret that the 108 G field strength adopted by G&M is an approximate cut-off point where MBH are likely to be captured by neutron stars, then one would perhaps have some phenomenological evidence that MBH capture results in the destruction of neutron stars into black holes. One should note that more typical values of observed neutron stars calculate a 1012 G field, so that is a 104 difference from the borderline-existence cases used in the G&M analysis (and so much less likely to capture). That is not to say that MBH would equate to a certain danger for capture in a planet such as Earth where the density of matter is much lower — and accretion rates much more likely to be lower than radiation rates — an understanding that is backed up by the ‘safety assurance’ in observational evidence of white dwarf longevity. However, it does take us back to question — regardless of the frequently mentioned theorem here on Lifeboat that states Hawking Radiation should be impossible — Hawking Radiation as an unobserved theoretical phenomenon may not be anywhere near as effective as derived in theoretical analysis regardless of this. This oft mentioned concern of ‘what if Hawking is wrong’ of course is endorsed by a detailed G&M analysis which set about proving safety in the scenario that Hawking Radiation was ineffective at evaporating such phenomenon. Though doubts about the neutron star safety assurance immediately makes one question how reliable are the safety assurances of white dwarf longevity – and my belief has been that the white dwarf safety assurance seems highly rational (as derived in a few short pages in the G&M paper and not particularly challenged except for the hypothesis that they may have over-estimated TeV-scale MBH size which could reduce their likelihood of capture). It is quite difficult to imagine a body as dense as a white dwarf not capturing any such hypothetical stable MBH over their lifetime from CR exposure – which validates the G&M position that accretion rates therein must be vastly outweighed by radiation rates, so the even lower accretion rates on a planet such as Earth would be even less of a concern. However, given the gravity of the analysis, those various assumptions on which it is based perhaps deserves greater scrutiny, underscored by a concern made recently that 20% of the mass/energy in current LHC collisions are unaccounted for. Pulsars are often considered one of the most accurate references in the Universe due to their regularity and predictability. How ironic if those pulsars which are absent from the Universe also provided a significant measurement. Binary and Millisecond Pulsars, D.R. Lorimer: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0511258v1.pdf
Hawking radiation is dead ever since the Telemach result and its precursors surfaced on the web. No one ever defended Hawking including his own heroic voice.
The same holds true for CERN’s detectors. They are blind to its most touted anticipated success – black hole production – by virtue of the said theorem. Again not a single word of defense.
This is why a court asked CERN and the world for a safety conference on January 27, 2011.
The press cannot continue shielding the world, and Lifeboat must be relieved from its having to carry the burden of informing an otherwise lifeboat-less planet, singlehandedly.
