Moderate climate critic Richard A. Muller emphasized before the American Congress that a fair presentation of any warning-type scientific results presupposes a fair treatment of the stance of the skeptical majority. I therefore herewith present my Armageddon scenario (of 8 percent within perhaps 5 years) to the American Congress in the requisite, maximally vulnerable manner; in 4 points.<\/p>\n
Point # 1 \u2013 lack of publication in refereed journals \u2013<\/p>\n
Correct. My seminal paper of 2007 remains unprinted \u2013 even though it was accepted for publication by a refereed journal. The reason: the journal got closed down. Although it was re-opened recently under its old name, its scope was reduced so as to no longer cover theoretical physics. The journal\u2019s name: \u201cChaos, Solitons and Fractals.\u201d<\/p>\n
Point # 2 \u2013 alleged falsity of my first major result \u2013<\/p>\n
The result (a \u201cgravitational space dilation\u201d paralleling gravitational time dilation) was independently described in 2009 by Professor Richard J. Cook of the American Air Force Academy.<\/p>\n
This result is not really contentious since the traditional interpretation of general relativity and the Einstein equivalence principle makes the same quantitative predictions about measurable data. Only that the traditional interpretation (a locally undetectable reduction of the speed of light in proportion to the gravitational redshift) is replaced by a simpler one (global constancy of the speed of light) which would have greatly pleased Einstein.<\/p>\n
Point # 3 \u2013 alleged falsity of my second major result \u2013<\/p>\n
The result (\u201cgravitational mass-energy reduction\u201d) is well-known to hold true for locally emitted photons. The implied proportional mass-energy reduction of any locally at rest particle and body was independently described by Cook. It to my knowledge stays uncontested. The traditional notion of the \u201cKomar mass\u201d has essentially the same meaning.<\/p>\n
Point # 4 \u2013 alleged falsity of my third major result \u2013<\/p>\n
The result (\u201cgravitational charge reduction\u201d) is revolutionary. It was confirmed by Cook (personal communication 2011). It is a new implication of Einstein\u2019s equivalence principle and the general theory of relativity. It follows from point 3 via general covariance.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n
Rather than go on with implications, I stop with this third result because it is a scandal. It contradicts 95 years of post-general-relativity physics (\u201cReissner-Nordstr\u00f6m metric\u201d) and 150 years of electromagnetism (\u201cGauss-Stokes theorem\u201d). Such a revolution is maximally rare. It is bound to have major implications.<\/p>\n
There is no response from the part of the profession. The LHC experiment \u2014 which is made maximally unsafe by the new results \u2014 is being quietly continued. Hate blogs (\u201crelativ-kritisch\u201d and \u201cElNaschiewatch\u201d) are needed to keep the media quiet.<\/p>\n
I would like to ask the American Congress to launch an investigation into lack of circumspectness of the American physical organizations and science media, in the face of revolutionary new results suppressing which endangers the American people.<\/p>\n
Professor Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher, University of Tubingen, Germany (For J.O.R., May 23, 2011) <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Moderate climate critic Richard A. Muller emphasized before the American Congress that a fair presentation of any warning-type scientific results presupposes a fair treatment of the stance of the skeptical majority. I therefore herewith present my Armageddon scenario (of 8 percent within perhaps 5 years) to the American Congress in the requisite, maximally vulnerable manner; [\u2026]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":145,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-existential-risks","category-particle-physics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1839","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/145"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1839"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1839\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}