First a clarification on a common missinterpretation:
Common missinterpretation is, that stars (galaxies) behind a black hole, should be infinitly far away from us, if gothic-R-theoreme would describe the nature of black-holes correctly; as it is demonstrating an infinite space around the singularity;
and as this missinterpretation is obviously wrong, it comes, that common conclusion is, that measurable distance of galaxies behind observed black-holes would prove gothic-R-theoreme describing nature of black-holes wrong …
But such a ‘disproof‘ of relevance of gothic-R-theoreme is based on a severe misunderstanding, as gothic-R-theoreme is ‘only’ stating:
that around the ‘point’ where the singularity resides, there would be an infinite space, which gives the observable effect of dilation of the speed of light, if watched from outside).
But as this infinite space is contained by a finite surface: the event-horizon, the black hole isn’t of infinite space, when watched from the outside!
So, in my eyes, gothic-R-theoreme seems to be a very reasonable interpretation of the nature of black-holes, relativating our common archaical view on space and time, which still today (for physicists also) keeps space and time newtonian-like steady and the really new finding, Professor Rossler has computed, is, that space itself, inside the event-horizon of a black-hole, becomes the object of dilation.
(Please do not hesitate to correct my sentences, if they are inaccurate!)
So an infinite space, with his own space-like parameters, would be contained by a finite surface, which resides into ‘our’ spacetime.
Thus, the black-hole would have, beneath it’s event-horizon, other space-like parameters than the space-like parameters needed to describe our ‘common‘ space’; the space of ‘our’ cosmos. But the latter parameters remain still absolutly sufficient to describe the surface of the black-hole: the event-horizon.
[*]
Having clarified this common misunderstanding, i still can’t see the relevance of gothic-R-theoreme as a ‘proof’, that there wouldn’t be any Hawking-Radiation, as this radiation (if it really exists) would be a phenomenon, which’s cause isn’t located behind the surface (event-horizon) of the black-hole, but beyond … and thus, in my (simple) understanding, this theorized Hawking-radiation couldn’t be affected by space-dilation beneath the horizon of the black-hole at all.
To make it clear: i can’t see why such an infinte space behind the finite event-horizon would affect a phenomenon (if this Hawking-radiation phenomenon really exists), which is computed to be caused by quanta-theoretical effects (omitted annihilation of respective particles/antiparticles of vacuum-fluctuations) beyond the event-horizon.
So i agree, that even though the corrected version 2 of gothic-R-theoreme is obviously undisprovable in it’s mathematics, and thus, at least, could describe the nature of black-holes correctly, this new understanding of space-dilation behind the event-horizon doesn’t change the classical understanding of effects, which black-holes have on the space around (beyond) the event-horizon.
But there is another point, where i completly agree with Prof. Rossler, and which has become omitted by Prof. Giulini and Nicolai neglecting all relevance of Rossler’s warning:
An infinite space beneath the event-horizon will infinitly diminish the (electro-magnetical) charge of any black hole, as all charges falling into the black-hole would become infinitly attenuated and thus become 0.
Thus the safety of Earth is still relying either on the never observed Hawking-radiation being (hopefully) effectivly radiating away lhc-created micro-black-holes in ultra-short time span (Femto-seconds).
Relying on this widely accepted but never observed and therefore doubtable immediate radiation of micro-black-holes has been CERN’s only security argument to explain the postulated safetyness of experimentators intention to fabricate micro-black-holes on Earth ‘en masse‘, and so until summer 2008!
If Hawking radiation fails to protect Earth from lhc-initiated catastrophy, then there isn’t but only this huge calculation, which Profs. Giddings and Mangano presented the world in summer 2008 (obviously as an answer on Prof. Rossler without mentioning him at all). This accretion-rate-estimation over billions of years,
in which they computed, that hypothetically stable and uncharged micro-black-holes couldn’t for sure accrete more than some few kilogram of Earth’ matter over billions of years [sic], which successfully passed the peer-reviewing process in scandaleously short time span, must anyhow be considered as - at least - doubtable, as some parameters of their calculations are lacking evidence:
As soon as the accretion of the first particle of a nucleus (for example a single quark) starts, this quark begins to spiralize around the micro-black-hole - or vice versa the micro-black-hole starts to spiralize around the quark:
Ja, es gibt nur diese unendlich große klitzekleine Oberfläche eines Mini
Schwarzen Loches. Drin gibt es nichts, und auch außen nur eine lediglich "fast
unendlich große" Oberfläche über endliche Zeiträume. Dennoch ist "von außen" das
ganze Ding (wenn man eine Kugelschale darum legt) vielleicht nur 10 hoch minus
21 Meter im Durchmesser, also klitzeklitzeklein.
Seine Anziehungkraft ist maximal schwächlich, wenn man nicht in einen Abstand
von z.B. 10 hoch minus 20 Metern zu ihm gerät, was sehr selten passiert für ein
Quark (zum Beispiel).
Aber beim ersten Mal schon wird dann solch ein geladenes Teilchen zum
Hineinspiralisieren gezwungen. Dabei wird die 10 hoch 38 (oder hier "nur" 10
hoch 34) mal grüßere Anziehungskraft des im Eingefangenwerden begriffenen Opfers
wirksam. Es sorgt dann dafür, dass der Einfangprozess mit neuer Effizienz
weitergeht. Das habe ich in "Spiritual" beschrieben. Was von Giddings und
Mangano bekanntlich bewusst verschwiegen wurde und wird (weshalb ich sie seit
langem unwidersprochen des Betrugs bezichtigen durfte und darf und muss, was mir
sehr, sehr leid tut).
Erläuterung von Prof. Rössler per e-mail 12. Juli 2010
which would change the assumed quasi-linear geodesic movement of the micro-black-hole through the vast microcosmical emptiness of Earth’ matter, with the effect, that the micro-black-hole will stay connected with this and it’s neighboring quarks (and gluons) until this nucleus will be completly accreted … !!!
I hope Prof. Otto E. Rossler will invest the time to answer on my recapitulation of my understanding of his theoreme and on my layman-estimation(s) which part of his warnings are still of high relevance in security-discussion:
gothic-R-theoreme as a ‘proof’ that black-holes must be electro-magnetically neutral
and which not:
gothic-R-theoreme as a ‘proof’ that Hawking-radiation would be infinitivly delayed and thus being inexistent
.
Marc Fasnacht
———————-
[*] I like this view on space as relative itself very much - i intuitivly agree, as this relativaty of space itself (and not ‘only’ of things into spacetime, and spacetime in toto, fits with some experiences of mine in deep meditation.
Of course, this congruence with some of my personal yoga-experiences isn’t of any but of only subjective relevance in this exhaustive and endless discussions on safety with watch-blogging pseudo-scientists … but it might explain, where my motivation to dive that deep into Rosslers quest to challenge the physicist-community came from.
Main motivation to stay more than 28 month in this discussions on LHC, which eventually could initiate catastrophy, is the huge mass of uncertainty which one finds starting to inform himself on potential risks due to the experimentation at LHC, which might become summarized under the term “matter- or spacetime-transforming chainreactions".
A complete documentation on such risks is in preparation.
2010-07-24 | achtphasen | 15:35:21 | 
| 5 comments
Permalink
2010-07-25 | 00:46 Permalink
2010-07-25 | 16:25 Permalink
2010-07-25 | 19:33 Permalink
2010-07-28 | 07:19 
"Now when are we going to hear about the issues that Rössler takes with Bruhn,
Nicolai et al? I mean - the specifics, not only that these papers are 2 years
old, etc.! I would like to hear from Rössler the specific mistakes he finds in
Bruhn's calculations. And what exactly is wrong with Nicolai's and Giulini's
arguments? Am I wrong or are we going to wait for this until
"Sankt-Nimmerleinstag"? And then the question is why? Why is Rössler not being
upfront with his criticism? Because he doesn't understand? Because there are no
mistakes in Bruhn's, Nicolai's and Giulini's arguments? Or ist it because he
just doesn't want to open Pandorra's Box? Apperently you are doing this for the
sake of the good - then this shouldn't be too much to ask for. And it would
provide the basis for further SCIENTIFIC investigation into this topic. And not
some Mantra-like repetition of weird ideas and non-fact based accusitions.
Think about it!
Me"
