Otto E. Rossler | LHC Experiment Based on Fraudulent Science

"point (2) is false if quantum mechanics is right."


Hello Professor Rössler,

unfortunatley this is incorrect as no partial unification of gravity and eletrostatics is present: Even if neutron stars are superfluid regarding electromagnetic effects, they are not regarding gravity.


"(1) Any mini-black holes generated by the LHC experiment can only grow linearly"

In fact in the early stage, the growth is even far below linearity as due to their smallness hardly no matter is around which could be absorbed by the mini-black holes.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

Mr. Roessler,
equation (4.3) of the Giddings+Mangano paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381

reads
dM/dt = pi rho v rc^2(M)

It has an explicite mass dependence on the right side. As you know very well, this equation does describe non-linear growth.


Best regards
Mac Mag

überflüssig zu sagen, dass Rösslers Behauptung, die Quantenmechanik würde automatisch im Falle ihrer Richtigkeit einen Schutz für Neutronensterne gewährleisten, bisher nicht untermauert wured. Außer Rösslers heißer Luft dazu findet sich da nichts.
Insofern ist es schon ziemlich dreist und unverschämt, von einer "fraudulent science" zu reden, wenn der eigene Beitrag so von Täuschungen und, gemessen an vergangenen Diskussionen und Nachfragen den genannten Punkt betreffend, Lügen an die Öffentlichkeit durchsetzt ist.
Das wars also wieder mal mit dem wiederholten Versuch Rösslers, durch starke Ausdrücke unverdiente Aufmerksamkeit zu erhalten.
Herrn Fasnacht ist dies ja alles ziemlich egal, solange es aus dem berufenen Munde des großen Ottos kommt. Das spricht für sich.

Liebe Leute

Sorry, dass ich hier wieder reinplatze.

Ich bin mir einfach nicht sicher. Und die Zeit drängt bekanntlich. Ob Prof. Rössler diese "neue Widerlegung" von "ICH" wirklich ganz gelesen hat oder ob es keine Widerlegung war ?

Otto Rössler wird zwar nochmal schauen auf "Relativkritisch", aber am effektivsten wäre, wenn "ICH" oder jemand der weiss wie, diese eventuelle Widerlegung zu Rösslers revidiertem Theorem hier möglichst kurz und bündig bringen würde.

Prof. Rössler hat mir zuerst die folgende Mail geschickt und später aber nochmals "nachgehakt" (- vielleicht ein Missverständnis ?)
----------------------
Lieber Niccolò:

Danke für das wichtige Zitat.

Das ist eine bloße Meinungsäußerung ("ich sehe das Theorem als
erledigt an") und hat keinerlei Beweiswert.

Ich habe darauf auch schon einmal geantwortet (an Herrn Kannenberg vor
ca. 4 Wochen). Warum werden Meinungen immer als Beweise ausgegeben?

Dass ich "Ich" schätze, weißt Du. Leider habe ich von ihm nie wieder gehört.

Dein Otto.

P.S. Du könntest ihm diesen Brief schicken - ruhig auch öffentlich.

Please keep discussion in this blog-entry in english, because there are many risk-concerned people reading here, that are not speaking german.

Further non-english-comments won't be published.

I am chagrained that my reference to two unquoted papers on the part of CERN is still still not answered by an attempt at falsification by CERN. Selective quotation is a crime in science. Opinions - as expressed above by some authors - are nice(is there really an exponentiual growth term as nececessary in Giddings and Mangano?). But they do not replace a scientific response. They therefore actually harm CERN's stance against ther own good intentions.

"Das ist eine bloße Meinungsäußerung ("ich sehe das Theorem als erledigt an") und hat keinerlei Beweiswert."

Hello Professor Rössler, hello Mr. Tottoli,

please remember that the discussion has been continued in this thread:

http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30479#30479
"Diese lichtschnellen Bezugssysteme sind in der SRT genauso undefiniert wie unendlich schnelle Systeme im Galileischen System. Die hineinkonstruierten Unendlichkeiten machen eine sinnvolle Definition irgendeines physikalischen Geschehens zur Unmöglichkeit."

Let me translate this statement of the user "Ich":
"These frames of reference at a speed of c are as undefined in special relativity as infinite fast frames of reference in the Galilean System. The infinities constructed into the theorem result, that definitions of any physical action making sense are impossible."

Thus I recommend this statement of the user "Ich" as an initial point of discussion.


Please note that these issues are of academic interest as neither for the safety of the LHC nor for the stability-discussion of objects collapsing into a Black Hole not finishing this collaps in finite time (e.g. Mini Quasars, other ?) the Gothic-R-Theorem is required.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

Der Mr Roessler,

what about an scientific response regarding the gravitational superfluidity of neutron stars from your side?

Thanks

"But they do not replace a scientific response."

Hello Professor Rössler,

I fully agree: A scientific response should be given to a scientific theorem. Could you please name the scientific journal(s) that have peer reviewed and published your objections against LHC ?

Thank you very much and best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

peer reviewing and publishing in scientific journal(s) has been shown impossible in this LHC-case, as it happened again with Dr.Plaga's paper, peer-reviewer and journals ARE part of the critizised community, which alone decides what shall be considered worth to get published.

There is evidence to say, that any scientific paper publishing calculations of (possible) catastrophic events as a result of collider-experimentationing at the "new-frontiers" of until these days unperturbated compactified extra-dimensions wouldn't have a chance to get published.

So please stay in discussioning here with Prof.Rossler who in his lifetime did at least some more relevant publications in "scientific-journals" as any of yours, before risking his great scientific-reputation showing with his gothic-R-theoreme, that Hawkings-Radiation as CERN's safety-arument against risks of mass-productioning micro-black-holes at LHC in truth could't be the security-guarantee as what it was presented as; ... until summer08.

Hawkings-Radiation isn't but an interesting theoreme, which was abusive propagated as a security-guarantee.

In fact i do agree with you, Ralf Kannenberg, that Prof.Rosslers theoreme is not that important to be proven wrong - but please continue anyway proving him wrong if, may-be, you are able to.

I realy do agree, that the gothic-R-theoreme is not as important to be proven wrong as it was until summer 08 ---> today it would be of much more importance, to proof, that Drs. Giddings&Manganos calculations about billions of years needed until a few thousand gramms of Earth's matter should get accreted by non-hawking-radiating mbhs should be prooven to be correct before colliding hadrons with energies that in fact could create a mikro-black-hole per second.

The big question is: Who possibly could know all the security-relevant parameters that must be hidden in those compactified extra-dimensions?

Hidden parameters which could introduce not 'only' extra-gravitational forces but, as an example, also extra-explosive ones.

"peer reviewing and publishing in scientific journal(s) has been shown impossible in this LHC-case, as it happened again with Dr.Plaga's paper, peer-reviewer and journals ARE part of the critizised community"


Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

thank you very much for this clear statement. It would be interesting to know if Professor Rösslers shares this opinion of yours.


"Hawkings-Radiation isn't but an interesting theoreme, which was abusive propagated as a security-guarantee."

It still is an excellent safety argument and I cannot remember that it was ever used as "safety guarantee". Thus no "abuse" can be seen.


"but please continue anyway proving him wrong if, may-be, you are able to."

I have never tried to do so and I do not see any reason why I should do this: It is neither required for LHC regarding safety reasons nor for the stability of particle agglomerates like Mini Quasars that collaps into a black hole in infinite time. Thus it an academic issue which I leave to the specialists involved in such topics.


"today it would be of much more importance, to proof, that Drs. Giddings&Manganos calculations"

You can read the proof in the safety report or in some referenced paper; if you disagree you are free to write a paper claiming something else, send it to a peer review and release it to some scientific journal. It is not difficult to get a justified corrgiendum published.


"Hidden parameters ..."

This is the reason why I prefer robust astronomical arguments for safety arguments.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

aside the fraudulence of declaring 0%-risk arising by intentional production of 1 mbh per second on average it is fraudulent to use longlivity of some super-novae-remnants as an allegation against any risk arising by mass-productioning of slow-velocity-mbhs on Earth.

there are NO astronomical arguments robust enough to proove, that colliding quarks head-on into another and thus breaking the 'new frontiers' of (until these days) hidden extradimensions would in any case be harmless.

further it's just not fair towards the rest of the planet and future generations to sharing out multitudes of falling-out collision-products into Earth, where they, moving slowly through the very fabric of our existance, could permanently emit the unknown (what ever this unknown might eventually be like: explosion(s), radiation, nihilisation, time-distorsion or any other unforseen effect(s)).

as extra-dimensions never have been studied in any laboratory, all parameters of how to calculate effects due to compactified extra-dimensions are unclear.

as an example: it wouldn't break the second law of thermo-dynamics if some extradimensional hidden parameters would cause super-nova-(big-bang-)like explosions on Earth, because, hidden into these seemingly tiny curled extra-dimensions, there indeed could be concentrated the primordial energies that made our known 4d-universe expand.

might be this tiny-curled-extradimensions could be the very same uncurled dimensions of whole parallel-universes - exactly as the dimensions of our universe could be curled in parallel-universes.

new frontiers could evidentually bring new risks - and that is why a prudent experimentator would prudently develop a safer telescope into the smallest to safely 'watch' into those expected new-dimensions.

the lhc has been designed in the eighties of the last century - only in the nineties of the last century were the string-theories thought and calculated, which propose, that curled into compactified extradimensions could indeed be whole universes ... and this should have brought clearly into discussion, that collider-experiments at energies (and densities) never reached before, should no longer be propagated - but instead of making collisions happen, there should be careful observance of those collisions, that are happening in nature's safe-mode trough CR, where the resulting products of collisions are 'travelling' at the speed of light, which - following Einstein - is the absolut limit of velocity, and thus could be the very protective barrier against emitation of extra-universal energies (of what kind ever) into our 4d-reality.

"it is fraudulent to use longlivity of some super-novae-remnants as an allegation"

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

these are strong words .... could you please provide a scientific argument confirming your statement ? And furthermore - could you please quantify your estimation "some" supernova-remnants - I assume you mean neutron stars and possibly white dwarfs, depending from the scenario to exclude ?


"there are NO astronomical arguments robust enough to proove"

Again: could you please provide a scientific argument confirming your statement ?


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

An experimentator is going to litter our 4d-reality with the fall-out of it's ambitious entrepreneurship, fooling the audience with allegories as the famous one with those two mosquitoes ... and I should provide scientific papers to confirm, that unforseen effects of colliding into unknown topologies of unknown universes, which could, following string-theories, be curled into exactly those quarks, they are intentionally going to break with the most powerful collider ever, could eventually have any unforseeable outcome ...

No, Mr.Kannenberg, as far as I know, there are no scientific papers discussing ANY risks of smashing togerher curled universes. As far as I know, there are not even some ethical considerations about one species right to smash the universe(s) of others. In fact, since quite a long time, I am wondering what String-Theorists eventually do think about risking entire universes to collapse.

Such questioning will be part of XXI-century science, if there will be any XXI-century.

"as far as I know, there are no scientific papers discussing ANY risks of smashing togerher curled universes."

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

let me try another approach to this issue:

1. How is the safety-argument concerning negatively charged strangelets provided by the lifetime of the moon affected by this issue mentioned above ?

2. How is the safety-argument concerning black holes provided by the Hawking Radiation affected by this issue mentioned above ?

3. How is the safety-argument concerning black holes provided by the lifetime of white dwarfs affected by this issue mentioned above ?

4. How is the safety-argument concerning black holes provided by the lifetime of neutron stars affected by this issue mentioned above ?


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

i was just, once again, thinking of Buddha' sentence about grains of sand, each one including thousands of worlds.
... Buddha is said to have been talking about this issue some centuries earlier than string-theorists did partially might-be accurate calculations resulting in quite similar equations, eventually by hazard.

but as there are probably no peer-reviewed papers discussing 'above mentioned issue', it might be unwise continuing discussion on such strange ideas.

thank you, Ralf Kannenberg, for listing some of those astro-hokus-pokus safety-topics instead.

"thank you, Ralf Kannenberg, for listing some of those astro-hokus-pokus safety-topics instead."

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

once more I expect a proof from you that these topics are "astro-hokus-pokus", as this clearly is a defamation.

I am waiting, Mr.Fasnacht !


Best regards, Mr.Fasnacht .......

...
Hello Mr.Fasnacht,
... I am waiting, Mr.Fasnacht !
Best regards, Mr.Fasnacht .......

who is this Ralf Kannenberg mentioning my name thrice?
first followed by a comma
second by an empty space and an exclamation mark
and last by seven points?

as a guest he should and could behave as a guest - but on the contrary, since 20 month he is dominating discussions by misleading them to non-topics, mostly trying to moderate debattes towards his preferred non-relevant issues.

Do you agree with me, Mr. Kannenberg, that smashing together other universes dimensions could eventually lead to total collapse of those unknown parallel universes that are hypothized by some string-theories; the same string-theories that are describing curled extra-dimensions as possibly beeing curled into nuclei of our 4d-universes matter.

Do you agree, that bringing whole universes to collapse should be considered - without any polemics! - as universocaust, even though total-collapsing of parallel-universes wouldn't be intended, of course?

"Do you agree, that bringing whole universes to collapse should be considered - without any polemics! - as universocaust"

No Mr.Fasnacht, I do not agree: your wording is inadequate and "with" polemic.


Full of abhorrence, Ralf Kannenberg

Ralf Kannenberg, you just wrote, you'd be full of abhorrence (probably against me) ... this seems to be quite normal, at least these days.

But are you realy without any empathic compassion at all towards those eventually crashed down universes?

"probably against me"

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

not against you personally, but against the words you are using.


"this seems to be quite normal, at least these days."

No. I emphasize that for me such is neither normal nor ever intended.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

So, fine, thank you!

but what about those eventually existing parallel-universes connected to those extradimensions, which in our universe are assumed to be curled up exactly into those quarks that shall crash at the lhc?

wouldn't those eventually existing parallel-universes at least get 'stressed', if not destroyed entirely?

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

interesting point; please leave it to me why I do not want to give any assessment regarding this. - Thus go to some court of your confidence and try to stop LHC by legal means, arguing that operation might destroy some parallel universe.

I am really curious how they will react to this !


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

Mr. Fasnacht, The physical vacuum itself is fluctuating all the time. Quark-antiquark pairs are created and annihilate, guons split and re-unite again ... In your picture, Nature herself is frenetically creating and destroying parallel universes as I'm writing these lines. MacMag

Yes! and as i am writing my lines, nature again is creating and destroying parallel universes (if string-theories should be an accurate description of natures fundamentals).

And as well when nobody ever will write any more lines, nature would perpetually continue creating and destroying parallel universes - just the densities make some difference.

So, two of the ultra-most universe destroying places, ever, of this (our) 4d-cosmos, could be located 100m beneath earth's surface, nearby Geneva.

As i do not like parallel-universes anger beeing attracted towards my back-yard, i start hoping those amazing theories wouldn't be anything but just some fancy fantasies.

"just the densities make some difference"

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

maybe. Another potential risk for parallel universes might arise from gravitationwave experiments as ultracold detectors are required. These detectors are much colder than a usual place in universe and even much colder than the cooled parts of the LHC. Thus some superfluid event(s) might occur flowing directly into a parallel universe causing resonances which might result in full destruction.

Indeed: On this "level" you cannot provide any safety arguments.


By the way: When you are really afraid of any harm to some parallel universe and their inhabitants, earth needs to be destroyed immediately to exclude any harm to other universes by mankind activity.


Stultification ? No: only consecutive arguing.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

There might be an attempt to achieve a security assessment by arguing that it is very unlikely that our civilisation is the first one in this multiverse being able to trigger unintended parallel universe destruction; thus as our universe has not been destroyed yet any "more progressed" civilisation with a "sufficiant similar" evolution to ours has not triggered such an event yet; but for such an argument you need to make assumptions whose quality is uncertain.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg