I happen to know a tiny bit more about one lower-case letter, little c.
Since Einstein, everyone knows how important little c, the speed of light in the vacuum, is.
No one ought to be surprised that c now turned out to have exactly the universal value that the young Einstein believed in during the most famous 2 ½ first years of the theory of relativity.
I could prove this fact 7 years ago and in many other ways since in the scientific literature, and no one contradicts me in print or in public.
Of course, such a revolution is tantalizing but it is not ridiculous. The scientific community proudly bets the future of the planet on their refusal to read and discuss my results.
This amounts to a giant honor to a scientist. But it is unbearable when one sees how the “children” are running into their own catastrophe out of an unscientific conceitedness.
This is pure dogmatism – dogmatism of betting the elder Einstein against the younger one.
I see here a blatant discrimination of the brightest physicist of all time – before he overlooked a tiny little thing which I explained in detail.
I humbly ask the United Nations’ Security Council to kindly set up a panel to defeat c-global if it can.
Until this panel has reached a decision, CERN must be stopped from restarting and doubling its energy.
Such a thing has never happened before. But there was never such a situation before. It is an emergency that the young Einstein is dogmatically believed to have been dumber than the older Einstein. The contrary has been proven. No one is able to disprove the resurrected c-global. I challenge everyone. No one dares contradict me.
Young physicists across the world: Since the issue is so important, and at stake is the image of the less than 28 and ½ years old Einstein, I herewith can safely promise a Nobel prize to the first who proves the young Einstein wrong in accord with the opinion of the elder one.
But I bet that this is not possible. The youth of the planet should now spontaneously divide itself into two fractions, one that sides with the young Einstein and one siding with the elder Einstein.
But so please with arguments, not statements of faith.
Listen, young girls and boys: You can save the world by proving that the young Einstein was right because then the CERN experiment is potentially genocidal.
And every reader: Please, forgive me that I am old but still trying to think as if being young. You are better at that. I need your help. The greatest help would be if you gave your full force to disproving me and the young Einstein. No one could do that before. So it will make you famous.
Cheers, Otto
dear otto you saying than if you are not proved wrong then the planet will be gone along with everyone on it . but thats not true because even if you are rite there is still a very low chance that the planet will be destroyed i have seen in your post you say 5 percent chance of it so please dear otto stop going on in your posts blogs that if cern fire up the lhc then without a doubt the planet is going to be destroyed because this is not true state truth please not lies
Hogwash crack pottery u r losing support posting it.
I once quoted a paper by Jack Sarfatti and had a high opinion of him.
What is his objection content-wise to my post?
Again — Sample blog comment to you previously, contradicting these claims.
“Rossler argues that he is able to conclude, based on his reinterpretation of the Schwarzschild metric, that Black Holes do not emit Hawking radiation and willous danger: instead of decaying by radiation, they would exist eternally and would have suffcient time to gradually devour their environmentIn what follows, we will sketch and analyze his argument. We will see that his argument concerns only the General Theory of Relativity (GRT), and makes no logical connection to LHC physics;
• the argument is not valid;
• the argument is not self-consistent
The counterarguments presented here are independent from those discussed in the recent report by Giddings and Mangano, arXiv:0806.3381[hep-ph]. The present text should thus be seen as complementary to that reportWith respect to the optical metric, this mathematical fact is uncontested. Yet, it is claimed by Rossler to be a new insight, though it has been well known to experts for a long time. It is a standard tool in the sense of an auxiliary construction, e.g. in the theory of gravitational lensing. In essence, Rosslers add-on is to promote this formal fact to a new physical principle and to say: The optical distance is in fact equal to the real geometrical distance.
1 He motivates this principle with the claim that the speed of light when defined with respect to the optical distance has the same value c everywhere, and relates it to a superficially similar claim made by Max Abraham in a dispute with Einstein in 1912, which however was based on different assumptions and has become obsolete.
2 In this “optical geometry”, bodies near the black hole horizon become arbitrarily large and the black hole itself cannot be understood any longer as a localizable object of finite extension.
If we take all this seriously for a moment, we face immediately the following questions
How can something that is ininitely far away (and also something that is ininitely large) be created in a ?nite amount of time, and have an effect onus? Should Rossler not conclude in the same way that Black Holes cannot be created in the first place? But what about astronomical data showing signatures of black holes, e.g. in the center of our galaxy?
2. The energies of the cosmic rays that constantly bombard our atmosphere are (after transformation into the center-of-mass system) many orders of tude higher than the energies that can be reached with the LHC. However we have no hints that they produce Black Holes – why not? A possible answer could be that on the earth we are not in the center-of-mass system of the cosmic radiation. A Black Hole produced by cosmic rays would traverse the earth at high speed, and would thus have no time to cause any damage. This requires however the Black Hole to be a localizable object in space, from which we can be more or less far away. However in Rossler’s interpretation ¨this is exactly not the case, since the Black Hole is always ininitely far away from us. Therefore, the answer that is meaningful in the framework of the usual interpretation no longer makes sense in Rossler’s interpretation
It is well known and uncontested that the optical metric is a structural ingredient of GRT, with the meaning of an auxiliary construction, which has proved especially successful when computing the trajectories of light rays in space. In the same way, it can even be employed for the effective calculation of some properties of the movement of massive bodies (e.g. the computation of the centrifugal force).
However it is unequivocally wrong and meaningless to claim, as Rossler does, that it would be the only geometrical framework that governs every physical process.For example, it would lead to predictions for the planetary orbits that are badly wrong. Rossler’s arguments thus rest on a generalization of optical geometry that ¨is not only unfounded but demonstrably wrong. Therefore, it may not be surprising that beyond his ad-hoc assertion, he is unable to construct a reproducible, logical connection between optical geometry and Hawking radiation. Moreover, such a connection would have to conform to fundamental principles of GRT, such as the invariance of physical laws under any choice of local coordinates: the prediction that a black hole radiates does not depend on any particular notion of spatial distance in the space-time geometry determined by the Schwarzschild solution.
Moreover, and as was shown above, Rossler’s arguments are not even self consistent.
Domenico Giulini
Hermann Nicolai”
It is unscientific to counter published results with 7 years older unpublished stuff.
What is your motivation, dear Tom?
Otto — as a moderator here I am re-posting a sample 2-year-old counter-argument, to provide context for benefit of the reader — a counter-argument equally valid today. We’re taking a soft approach with you of not adding disclaimers as before, or deleting as spam, except where deemed necessary. You should not have issue with the counter-argument being posted alongside your claims.
Of course not, dear Tom. Forgive me that I deeply dislike unpublished 7 years old arguments by colleagues since this is not science — to go back before the current level. But I appreciate your motivation and am grateful to Lifeboat for giving the world a forum for the early Einstein’s “claim” which is defended here with a proof.
Everyone is invited to prove the less than 28 1/2 years old wunderkind wrong. No one will be more grateful than CERN.
From: Otto E. Rossler
To: James Gillies ; “rolf.heuer@cern.ch” ; “bkm@un.org” ; “delisting@un.org“
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 5:53 PM
Subject: Scientific Result
—-
Dear Dr. Gillies:
Thank you for your letter. It is kind that you sent me a few publications reflecting current knowledge yet without direct connection to the scientific question that I had asked Director Heuer to kindly answer.
The references you sent also fail to take into account my main result: c-global.
The latter result was presented to CERN in early 2008 for its upsetting its safety. It was more recently the subject of several confirmatory publications in refereed journals.
The CERN consortium has so far decided to ignore these results, a fact of which your letter is confirmation of.
Allow me to inform you of my latest public statement Public Lecture to the Youth of the World
It would be gratifying if you or one of your colleagues — or even Professor Heuer himself — would care to defend CERN’s stance of behaving as if my regularly published and never disproved results did not exist, given the undisputed impact they have on the safety of the LHC. The latter’s official safety report LSAG is refused by CERN to be updated for 7 years in a row in reflection of the fact that no one at CERN can find a counterproof to my safety-relevant results. .
Now, every young physicist on the planet is called upon to help you up scientifically.
I herewith renew my consent given in early 2010 to give a talk before the CERN Young Scientists.Please, tell me if the young scientists at CERN are still disallowed to have me speak before them.
And, please,inform me immediately when CERN decides to start collisions before the United Nations Security Council has given it green light to do so.
Thank you very much for this courtesy,
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rossler
——–
From: James Gillies
To: Otto E. Rossler
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Wissenschaftliche Frage (Scientific question)
—-
Dear Professor Rossler,
There is a large scientific literature you can consult regarding the scattering of elementary particles in configurations where gravitational effects become important. See for example:
Classical and quantum cross-section for black hole production in particle collisions
Sergey N. Solodukhin (Munich U.). Jan 2002. 14 pp.
Published in Phys.Lett. B533 (2002) 153–161
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0201248.pdf
Gravitational bremsstrahlung in ultra-planckian collisions
Dmitry Gal’tsov, Pavel Spirin (Moscow State U.), Theodore N. Tomaras (CERN & Crete U.). Oct 2012. 38 pp.
Published in JHEP 1301 (2013) 087
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.6976.pdf
Radiation Problem in Transplanckian Scattering
Paolo Lodone, Vyacheslav S. Rychkov (INFN, Pisa & Pisa, Scuola Normale Superiore). Sep 2009. 40 pp.
Published in JHEP 0912 (2009) 036
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.3519.pdf
The gravitational S-matrix: Erice lectures
Steven B. Giddings (UC, Santa Barbara).
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.2036.pdf
I trust some of these documents, and those quoted in the respective bibliographies, will help you address your questions.
Regards,
James Gillies
———
On 16 Mar 2015, at 17:41, Otto E. Rossler wrote:
—
Dear Professor Heuer:
Allow me to ask you whether or not you can recommend to me a member of CERN who can advise me on the following scientific question:
“The interaction of quarks and gluons with near-point shaped black holes that are passing through, either slowly or at ultra-relativistic speeds, predictably implies radically different cross sections.”
Thank you very much,
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rossler
———–
Otto, it is a well-established reality that you use hyperbolic language to promote your concern. You do this because you believe that your concern doesn’t get the attention it deserves and you want to draw attention to it. There is room for a debate over how much that approach is or isn’t valid or advisable but to take this approach and then revert back to demands for scientific purism when facing critique is a bit disingenuous.
Perhaps if I may pose a different question, in your opinion what is the minimum body of literature needed to justify a demand for action on the scale of shutting down the LHC? 1 publication in a high impact journal? 5, 10? Is there a minimum level at which a body like the UN could safely say “I’m sorry but we just don’t have enough evidence to justify action?
Bill, why do you call a proven result a “concern”? All I am asking for is to contradict c-global if anyone can.
As long as c-global stands, CERN is openly committing a crime by ignoring it in actions that are potentially genocidal in its light.
It would be great if you would give c-global a look yourself. I am eagerly waiting for a counter-proof. This is not a difficult stuff, only an unfamiliar one. Please, help CERN and me by proving c-global wrong.
And: Thank you for having replied. You are the first representative of the youth of the world who took a heart.
Otto, I am a criminologist/sociologist not a physicist so I don’t have the qualifications to give a rigorous evaluation of your claim on the merits. What I do have qualifications to evaluate are questions relating to how concerns are voiced and how that affects the response and questions relating to what standards of evidence are needed to justify action.
You claim that your result is a proven one that is enough to justify action and yet the question remains what standard are you using that allows you to reach that conclusion? So again with my previous question: what is the minimum body of literature needed to justify a demand for action on the scale of shutting down the LHC? 1 publication in a high impact journal? 5, 10? Is there a minimum level at which a body like the UN could safely say “I’m sorry but we just don’t have enough evidence to justify action?
Thank you very much, dear Bill. This helps me a lot.
As to your question: In science, a single line of proof, either in formulas or in words, suffices. Take Semmelweis. He had his evidence of a reduced death toll after antisepsis. Some results are like that. c-global is a very simple result. It only happens to be unfamiliar.
When no colleague can contradict a proof, you can rely on it. That is why physics became so powerful. The big discoveries are always simple.
Otto — If you could counter the casual claim attributed to Domenico Giulini and Hermann Nicolai above that your argument is neither valid nor self-consistent, it would reflect better on you. You should also consider where your connection drawn between a c-global and LHC risk may be flawed given the weight of analysis from astronomical observation & measurement which show your conclusions are way off the mark.
Bill — to answer your question on weight of literature — it is surely a matter of quality not quantity — In the hypothetical scenario, 1 single publication in a reputable high impact journal which raises a legitimate concern should suffice. That, in my humble opinion ;-).
Two nice points and more, thank you.
1) Giulini and Nicolai do not address my simplified proofs of c-global. They are in a quagmire and never published as you know.
2) The “high-impact journal” part is a bit misleading for the reader since jump-like novel results almost never make it into a high-impact journal.
(An example: My little recent note in esj which if true is important got at first seriously considered by the highest-impact journal in physics but then suddenly got rejected without sending the reviewers comments.)
3) Your own indirect white-dwarf based evidence is very elegant and nice.
But it makes specific assumptions which are questionable following the discovery of cryodynamics. And also in view of open questions in chromodynamics.
Specifically, it is open how the cross section of miniminimini black holes inside atomic nuclei depends on the speed of the miniature black hole at both ends (at almost c as in nature, and at near-zero speed when human-made).
In other words: taken as “indirect evidence for safety” it is not strong enough to make the existence of humankind dependent on it. I believe you do not disagree.
But you clearly are the only physicist — and you are one if Dirac was one — on the planet who ever tried to defend CERN with an argument. This is a big congratulation going to Lifeboat.
Come on. I’ve yet to see anyone on here lay out the math of what the argument is about, translated into Leyman’s terms, slowly but surely, line by line, and figure out what the key differences are in the competing theories. What is agreed on and what is not agreed upon and why. Let it be figured out with cooperation instead of constant BS accusations.
This is what CERN, or any one of their scientists, should have done from the beginning, if even without media attention. Sat down with Otto and let him lay out the math and for them to help figure it out with him. It’s people’s inability to listen that is the problem. Even if he turns out to be wrong, at least it’s an amusing subject and everyone involved is bound to learn something valuable.
Below, astronomical observation & measurement laid out in simplest of terms —
Micro Black Holes — Hypothetical Terrestrial Flux and a Re-Visitation of Astrophysical Safety Assurances. Thomas B Kerwick. 20th Feb 2015.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1503.0066v1.pdf
The safety analysis based on astronomical observation and measurement above remains uncontested without an elaboration to the ‘open questions’ in chromodynamics affecting this, and some maths to ‘cryodynamics’. Have you taken it any further than this? — http://lifeboat.com/blog/2013/07/short-summary-of-a-new-idea-cryodynamics
Kash — There is little or no maths involved in ‘c-global’ — if you seek a dressdown in laymans terms I refer you back to the comments attributed to Giulini , Nicolai . explaining why the basis is neither valid nor self-consistent.
Dear Tom: As I said above, these two authors got disproved at the time in their difficult general-relativistic arguments and never objected.
Since then, the new equivalence-principle-based c-global was published which, if it is flawed, is a thousand times easier to disprove. But there is no such proof in sight so far.
Okay?
Otto — I have not seen any logical ‘disproof’ forthcoming from you to the above. As regards to Giulini , Nicolai , I would interpret ‘never objected’ with ‘ignored your rebuttal’. Though you will always have your own opinions — I know that.
Why do you stick to long oudated never published statements rather than acknowledge that here a simple several times published proof exists for years which never got contradicted up until now?
Tom and Otto, I certainly agree that the quality of the work is very important and that isn’t not just a question of quantity. So if we have 1 single publication in a reputable high impact journal we know that at least we have those behind the project, plus the journal, plus those doing the peer review all saying that this is something that should be viewed. This assures a level of quality and certainly should generate a response at the very lest and perhaps a pause in the program. I would note that in my opinion the response, in this case from CERN or a defender, doesn’t necessarily need to be published before we can say that the research program can resume.
Otto, objecting to the “high impact Journal” requirement might work if you compensated with volume in other 2nd tier journals but certainly is a requirement that needs to be in place if we are talking about one single project. Shutting something like the LHC down isn’t a small thing, and the standard for calling for a pause must be rigorous enough that we are not constantly hampered by safety concerns while trying to push research. As if often true, balance is important to consider here. Bottom line, in my opinion the nature of the exchange and relevant literature in question is NOT enough to justify shutting down the LHC. Of course you will have a differing option but hopefully you will see why judging the literature based on weight (either quality of publication or value) is important to considering when a research program must go on hold or not.
Thank you, dear Bill:
Everything you say is well-balanced and reasonable — in an ordinary case.
Therefore, please check also my new text from this morning, http://lifeboat.com/blog/2015/04/why-not-check-said-semmelweis
I cannot believe that lifeboat acted like a paid agent from CERN by deleting the text just mentioned.
It read:
Apr 10, 2015
“Why not check?” said Semmelweis (Edit)
Posted by Otto E. Rössler in category: Uncategorized
This was Semmelsweis’ kind request: to avoid unnecessary dying of young mothers, like that of Buddha’s mother 2 1/2 millennia before.
Here CERN plans to do a vaginal investigation of the planet while refusing to first check whether the probe is not laden with a deadly germ.
Is the planet too feebleminded to request from a surgeon to prove his hands are clean before an operation?
7 Years Without Safety Report — and now an announced doubling of energy beyond that of any other spot in the whole universe!
Is there not a single non-white physicist ready to speak out? It is your mother, guys, after all.
P.S.: Forgive me the blunt words — does anyone have a more diplomatic voice to simultaneously defend his mother and avoid colonial associations in the face of 7 years of public refusal of a duty that no little or big firm anywhere else could have dared to shun?
I am just coming from Mieciu Langer’s funeral with more than 300 mourners, saying my condolences to alt. nobelist Felicia Langer and the family also in the name of Avi Primor.
Other mourners told me a joke at his grave:
“I had not known it is so easy to see you all again very soon.”
Wait, I thought UHECR collisions have far more energy than the LHC. I read an article about the LHC a few days ago that said the collision energy that will be produced hasn’t been seen since the big bang. Other sources say these are not unprecedented collisions. Which is true?
Thank you.
The point is that Center-of-Mass collisions of so high energies as CERN artificicially creates them have never before occurred at any other place in the cosmos.
A few facts to counter yet another subterfuge — Cosmic rays have been observed impacting Earth at energies over 100,000,000 TeV — actually even higher. This equates to centre-of-mass energies of over 500 TeV for p-p collisions equivalents, or over 4,000 TeV for the Pb-Pb equivalent — far higher than collisions energies at CERN. Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays: http://hires.physics.utah.edu/reading/uhecr.html
Thank you, Tom, for agreeing with what I said.
Why do you not help me press CERN to update their 7 years old Safety Report before almost doubling their for any stationary place in the universe unprecedented energies?
Otto — I did not agree with what you said. In fact, I explicitly disagreed with what you said. Collisions of similar and higher centre of mass energies have occurred many many times before in the cosmos — even here on little old goldilocks Earth.
As for suggesting CERN update their safety report — I’ve always said I would be in favour of this — and have enquired about this before. On last communication I was notified that they do not plan to update their own earlier documents. I’m ok with that too.
No, you are misunderstanding me, Tom.
In the past, you knew that center-of-mass collisions can create slow-moving black holes, and that only these are a threat to a celestial body.
It is gratifying that you are “okay with” CERN not updating their by more than 7 years outdated Safety Report.
To say this honors you greatly as as a person because you are not afraid of outing yourself.
But at the same time, you thereby openly support a stategy that no responsible individual on the planet can condone. In fact, you are the perfect CERNian yourself: a model CERNian.
I am very apprehensive that in this way, CERN has taken control over Lifeboat in the most important issue of history, the shortest-term survival or not of humankind. With a threat of annihilation in the percentage range.
CERN refuses to contradict the published proof of this fact. So do you.
I cannot believe that anyone on the planet could agree with this irrational trust in the king or whomever.
But thank you for having outed yourself, Tom.
Take care, Otto
P.S.I: I cannot rule out that you are right. No proof offered is infinitely water-tight. But that is not the issue: YOU cannot rule out that I am right. And that is the question of interest to every mother and father on the planet.
WHY NOT ASK CERN TO OFFER NEW SAFETY EVIDENCE AFTER 7 YEARS?
????????????????
P.S.II: I thank you in the name of our planet that you revealed that CERN indeed plans NOT to update its by 7 years outdated safety report before creating the hottest temperature on any celestial body in the history of the universe.
SO EVERY CITIZEN AND JOURNALIST FROM NOW ON MUST KNOW THAT CERN IS GOING TO STICK TO ITS REFUSAL TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST THE ACCUSATION BASED ON REGULARLY PUBLISHED HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THAT IT IS RISKING EVERY CHILD’S LIFE WITH A PROBABILITY IN THE PERCENTAGE RANGE.
I cannot imagine that CERN can live with this unprecedented public label coming from a colleague and being contradicted by no partisan or nonpartisan colleague.
Wait — So these LHC collisions are hotter temperatures than anywhere else but have less energy than cosmic ray collisions? I would really like clarity on this.
It’s annoying to read articles from mainstream/reputable sources suggesting the LHC will create “temperatures not seen since the big bang” while other equivalent sources say these types of collisions are commonplace, everyday events in the cosmos(UHECR collisions in the atmosphere, for instance). Someone please explain if unprecedented high temperatures and unprecedented collisions would mean the same thing or somehow be different.
Kash — although CERN define these energies in terms of temperature, the concept of temperature is really only applicable when you involve a large numbers of particles. In astrophysics we do not define such collisions in terms of temperature for this reason.
If you want to equate the two in this manner — if you just consider “temperature” as a measure of average energy per particle, then the energy of a particle in the LHC is roughly for every 1 TeV, a temperature increase of roughly 1016 K.
What they mean at CERN is that the collision energy has the same average energy per particle as would occur at temperatures that do not exist in the Universe today — and not since the time of the supposed Big Bang. However — similar and higher energies do occur for UHECR collisions with planetary bodies in the Universe all the time even to this day. We just don’t typically draw the analogy of temperature with these collisions.*
*Following a query to me from an individual confused by this comment — here is some further explanation for novice readers: There are a lot of ways to give such particles energy — one way is to accelerate them , and smash them together at high speed (like when cosmic rays hit things or in particle colliders) and another is just to heat them up with temperature — which is far less efficient. Another way of measuring the energy of these collisions then is therefore by comparing to what temperature would be required to achieve the same. Now — that is actually the whole point of the LHC — they create this ‘artificial’ temperature to simulate the early hot universe — The same process occurs all the time when cosmic rays hit things — we just don’t call it temperature — we just refer to the amount of energy involved. I hope this helps.
Yes. The point in our context is that such spots of maximally high local energies do not exist anywhere else in the cosmos as a center-of-mass energy.
When they occur in the universe, they are in a maximally fast (close-to-the-speed-of-light) motion.
Well they do. The products from UHECR collisions may be maximally fast , but the centre-of-mass energy of those collisions is still far higher (and so not unprecedented), as explained in earlier comments. The maximally fast nature of those products of course are well known, and the only reason for all the analysis of capture rates in NS & WD.
CERN plans to create the hottest stationary spot in the universe on our earth, so you agree.
WHY do you think that this does NOT warrant an update of its 7 years old safety report?
they have already made these collisions at 8 tev so surly they have already made the hottest collisions
As long as space-time can take the abuse of 13 TEV at such a tiny point rather than only 8 TEV, we’ll be ok. It does seem a bit like an interrogator using torture methods to force someone to give up their secrets though. The use of violence here is, even just philosophically, what is most concerning.
mark,
you are right.
But doubling that makes for an uncalculable further risk.
Also, since the fabric of space-time is said to be expanding at the speed of light via dark energy, how would it be farfetched to suggest that a powerful enough collision could unleash it in our dimension of space-time? They even say they’re trying to unlock other dimensions.
My hope is that 13 TEV isn’t powerful enough to worry about but CERN appears to think it’s powerful enough to break some kind of barrier. It seems a little foolish to “play with fire” in this way.
Refusing to discuss proven risks is a little bit more than foolish — is it not?
The only person to say this about black holes is you otto you keep going on proven this proven that but everyone knows that notthing you talk about when you say micro black hole are a threat is proven all your paper none of them have been proven. Yes you have put a point across saying that the lhc could create dangerous black holes but in no way has this ever been a proven fact. Here’s a fact for you otto you are not a physicist yet there are hundreds of physicist at cern of which not one see you claim as any good even better there are thousands of physicist around the globe all of which don’t have a bad word safety wise when it comes to the lhc if even one did I’m sure they would raise the alarm bells in the correct maner
Poor friend. I understand that you don’t believe in scientific records of individuals. But if someone says he can save your child, and no one on the planet says the danger does not exist:
Do you really look into the horse’s (guy’s) mouth in such a case?
there you go again your saying you can save a child life like this is fact that the child will die if the lhc go on when this is not the case
No no no: It is only a proven risk of a so far apprroximate size of up to several percent.
But no one would embark on such a plane. Why do you want to?
Otto, would you kindly link to whatever you consider to be the most well respected/most stringently reviewed publication that backs up your theory? Essentially I am asking for the most authoritative publication for you side by virtue of the level of outside review it had to pass to be published.
Dear Bill, forgive me the delayed answer.
I first wrote for you the new mini-summary on lifeboat today ( http://lifeboat.com/blog/2015/04/many-people-have-ceased-to-…ackard-say ). It presents the main point in a naked form which anyone who loves to think from scratch about anything may cherish — so I tell myself.
As to your context-free statistical question: The cumulative impact factor of my about 20 pertinent publications is above ten. So one publication in a very high-impact outlet can be said to be matched.
May I add one more word? It is not my results that matter most — it is the fact that CERN refuses to update its 7 years old official safety report LSAG that should worry the planet. Right?
Where are the previous 50 entries gone?
Otto you ever thought that you may be putting alot of fear into innocent people who read this article people who have children wife’s and they might be leave what you say and give up on life one girl as already killed herself and like it or not it was because you went public with what you and only you seem to think is the truth so in essence you played the major roll in her death now stop with all of this telling everyone on lifeboat that when cern starts the lhc back up that it will be the end it’s wrong and I don’t understand why people who run this site allow you to put fear into men women and children so the fact is people see you say when the lhc starts it’s there last day and do stupid things and take there life’s it’s all on you otto ino I’m being a little bit harsh but it’s the truth thank you think about this
Whoa, that’s BS that they got removed.
The lack of an update to the safety report is not in and off itself a problem, no. Thanks for the estimate for your publications although I was asking a different question but that is still related. Out of those publications how many directly made the assertion that the LHC could cause a planet destroying event? (Not theory that back said conclusion but that actually make the claim) If any did what was the nature of the publication?
As to the comments this happened before. They are still there, it’s just that the link to go back to page 1 of comments is missing.
> Where are the previous 50 entries gone?
Otto — apologies — it is an automated archive feature of the current Lifeboat blogs, if a post reaches over 50 comments, the earlier comments get archived. The earlier comments can still be found here —
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2015/04/public-lecture-to-the-youth…1#comments
Mark Myres -
Just another drop in the ocean. Here’s a sample comment/scenario I found this week:
“Hello, I am sorry to bother everyone in this forum, but it seems to be the most knowledgeable one. I have a family member who has gone severely ill, sold most of his belongings and quit his work in fear the world will be ending soon. He has subscribed to a few “Physics Theorists” such as Otto Rossler and Nicollo Totolli. Unfortunately he has turned me on to these fears and they are beginning to take over my life as well.” http://www.sciforums.com/threads/lhc-pb-pb-collisions-mbh.145495/
Lifeboat policy’ at present is not to vet scientific opinion :-/. Admin here of individual posts & comments here is voluntary, and can be difficult. Where do we go. Censorship also introduces other problems.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
I apologize deeply.
What would you do in my place?
I am the ship’s boy. I sighted an iceberg.
Now everyone tells me I should shut up since the captain relies on a Safety Report that is 7 years old and got written before the iceberg was sighted. And the use of binoculars got forbidden.
And the opinion that I were alone is not correct. I quoted many scientists in my about 20 pertinent papers who are on my side.
Only it would not help if they showed up. It would ruin their careers in view of the open refusal to defend his silence shown by the ship’s Captain at CERN. The largest superpower that ever exiisted in science.
I would very much appreciate an advice that is Salomonic. Such a situation has existed only once on the planet — before the trinity test. But that was in time of war. A 7 years old “Safety Report” if accepted by a planet shows something about the planet.
I cannot believe that no one understands this (if this were to be so). Why start hating yourself instead of helping everyone by turning to the media and doing something helpful rather than destructive. THINKING HELPS.
You are more intelligent because you are younger. I am a stupid Semmelweis who wishes nothing more than to be shown to be wrong.
It’s funny that Rössler isn’t following his own advice and starts thinking. The only reason why CERN should (and certainly would) update the safety-report is for new findings that would imply a re-assessment. But there are no such new findings!
And before you start Mr. Rössler: no, you haven’t seen the iceberg. Your so called “prove” doesn’t hold for 2 minutes. You were never able to publish any of this in a reputable journal, instead you “self-published” it in dubious journals like “African Journal of Mathematics”, where everything gets published, as long as the author pays for it (what was the amount you paid? $150 per page?).
Now to the core of the issue: Rössler has been proven wrong many times, and any junior year student can pull his claims apart. Just browse this blog to find some of these exercises, but Tom has already posted some of them. However, Rössler doesn’t accept this. For seven years he continues to claim that no-one contradicted him, which is just a lie.
Why he does this is to anyone’s guess. The money here in Tübingen is on a good portion of vanity.
So, all calm down, the world will not be destroyed and no one should sell their belongings. Kiss your kids goo night and sleep tight.
This is not a scientific reply, but an ad hominem statement — unfortunately without rational basis.
This is CERN — thank you for giving your best, Thomas Ganz, officer on deck explaining why having a look would be counterproductive.
Future historians will be grateful if they exist.
You are illusional — the post was neither ad hominem nor am I associated with Cern. But thanks for agreeing with my points!
Dear Thomas Ganz:
It is wonderful that you claim my recent results had been proven wrong 8 years ago.
Would you be able to sketch the counterproof?
I am sure you can count on the help of CERN.
No one would be more grateful than me.
Take care,
Otto