Blog – Page 12409

I am aware that the a-priori probability of my being right with the above statement is negligible – were it not for the fact that my results stay un-disproved for 4 years as natural corollaries to Einstein’s “happiest thought.”

(To witness: Einstein saw that on a lower floor, all clocks are slowed-down. I was able to add that they also are proportionally enlarged in size and reduced in mass and in charge. From this corollary it follows that “black holes” – hoped to be produced at CERN – arise more readily; do not Hawking-evaporate; are undetectable at CERN; and grow exponentially inside earth.)

All my competent critics – including Hermann Nicolai of the Albert-Einstein-Institut and Nobel laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft – fell silent long ago. But notwithstanding the proof of danger and detector blindness lying on the table, CERN went ahead for more than a year risking “panbiocide” (Hilgartner) through inadvertently planting an at first undetectable bomb into earth.

The planet is now in the wake-up phase. In this phase, an added danger arises: a Khmer-rouge-like world-wide reflex against science and Europe. This danger it would be wise to keep under the rug – were it not for the fact that CERN has announced to boost up the risk next year.

Therefore, dear CERN and Europe: please, apologize to the planet. Or else prove me wrong, as no one hopes for more dearly than I do.

… against the publicly offered scientific proof that they risked and plan to further risk the survival of every human being. This is not a defamation but an accusation.

I ask them to defend themselves. If they do not do so, the whole world sees that they are guilty. I apologize that I am bringing them in this precarious situation if they cannot answer. The whole world sees their predicament. I would love nothing more than to help them out of it. Their cooperation is all I am asking for. Please, dear colleagues at CERN, cooperate with me in my trying to rescue you.

If you treat me as an enemy, the message to the world thereby generated is tantamount to publicly pleding guilty. Your seeming claque is a claque on the march to jail and to the end of science. Why are you so collectively blind to choose this road of non-defending yourself in the only language that can help, that of science?

… but it also represents the benevolent side of humanity.

I therefore herewith publicly ask UNESCO as an Austrian citizen with Jewish ancestors to convoke the scientific safety conference necessary to exculpate CERN.

I am the only friend CERN possesses on the globe through my insisting on their exculpation if possible. For the indictment against CERN reads: “Attempted Panbiocide.”

The proposed scientific safety conference has as its only aim the finding of evidence that my proof of danger is false. My proof implies that the miniature black holes officially attempted to be generated by CERN will shrink the earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time: if one of them is slow enough to stay inside earth as is bound to happen after a certain period of operation which may or may not have been exceeded already. CERN is blind to its own success (if it occurred) for refusing to install the detectors needed in light of the new result. Instead they did their best to produce black holes for about a year with increasing luminosity.

CERN still refuses to contradict my results, brough to their attention almost 4 years ago and published more than 3 years ago, by refusing to quote them in their own scientific publications. No one can understand this “Austrich policy” in violation of the ethics of science.

Please, dear UNESCO:

Do your best to exculpate CERN (and Europe) by giving the world a chance to learn that the danger seen by me and my colleagues (those who confirmed my results or arrived at them independently) is non-existent which requires falsification.

The necessary safety conference first demanded 3 ½ years ago (“PetiontoCERN”) was publicly advised by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011.

Sincerely yours,

Otto E. Rössler

Chaos researcher, University of Tübingen, Germany

Occupy is faceless but benevolent.

My scientific colleagues are faceless but malevolent: They refuse to try to defuse my results but agree to an experiment being continued that if those results are correct is pangeocidal.

The worst scandal of history and no public voice on my side: Can Occupy save the planet by asking for clarification?

1) Black holes can be charged — in contrast to my relativistic disproof (Telemach theorem)

2) Black holes can evaporate — in contrast to my relativistic disproof (Telemach theorem)

3) Black holes can grow in superfluid neutron star cores — in contrast to my quantum disproof

4) Black holes cannot grow exponentially inside earth — in contrast to my chaos proof

The background:
I showed 4 years ago that CERN’s LHC experiment is geocidal with a high probability.

The situation:
No one found a counterproof so far but CERN refuses to let me give a talk before them or to admit the scientific safety conference publicly requested 3½ years ago, and by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011.

I went before the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity 3 years ago. I am presently before the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly: No quiver so far.

I see no other way but public name-calling: I accuse my colleague professor Heuer, director of CERN, of risking the planet and hence “being worse than a Nazi” if he continues. I am allowed to say that. This is especially frightening.

Our colleague Richard J. Cook independently arrived at my results. A high-ranking member of a National Academy found an even nobler version independently. Many colleagues are on my side.

So why not interrupt the presently climaxing experiment (these very days) and admit the conference? I feel I must speak out in the name of any mother and father of the planet. Can really no one help?

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)