… 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?
You are not using the language of science. In this case you would have answered the reductio ad absurdum of your wrong equations in Telemach directly in a clear mathematical form.
Instead you are talking meaningless nonsense about evil natures of CERN and others. Youare an agitator, an propagandist, not a scientist.
If you have a counter-theoren, please present it as such. The signature “EQ” will then become famous.
CERN is not treating you as an enemy by totally ignoring you. We would all be feeling a little unloved if that logic were correct.
This is sweet of you to say, Steve. But you misjudge the situation in my humble opinion. If you say the cigarette I am lighting is causing everyone in the room to die and I ignore it, you will certainly feel that I am treating you as an enemy. Or am I wrong?
Professor, surely before anyone has to present a counter-theorem, they may request an answer to a simple criticism of an equation in your work?
If they are right and your equation is wrong it would amount to debunking your entire theorem, would it not, since it then would be unsoundly based?
Or is your theorem somehow independent of their objection?
Since Professor Rossler has apparently overlooked my request here, I have laid it out at
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/11/stupi-cern-stupi-europe-stu…ment-95206
where I am confident he will respond when he has time.
Answer to: November 9, 2011 8:00 am:
Quote: “Or is your theorem somehow independent of their objection?”
Of course it is, thank you for asking. Misinformed objections do not make for a counter-theorem. Not understanding is never an argument. Saying: “I am too weak to understand what you say” is all the physics community musters up until now. (Exempting the good scientists who are on my side, of course.)
Forgive me that I insist on a proof, not a confession of inability to understand by people who are so fearful that they even refuse to sign their alleged counterarguments.
You have the credentials as a professional journalist: Why do you not openly ask professor Nicolai or professor ‘t Hooft or even the so far silent most competent professor Robert M. Wald for a statement? Or professor Richard Cook from the Air Force Academy. He is not a coward.
And then report to the world if they continue to have a Perry-block (I found Perry himself heroic, by the way): That these top scientists refuse to answer, and that the interpretation that they are too weak to answer is one of the possible interpretations of their behavior.
The other, of course, is that my results are too stupid. But then one of the stars of science mentioned ought to be able to say so and tell where the weak point in my never commented on Telemach theorem lies.
No one would be happier than me if you were able to elicit a counterproof.
“Of course it is,”
How unexpected.- Bt again without a proof. Perhaps enough for Houston,. but certainly not for critical thinkers.
So again: Prove it!
What is your objection to my T-theorem, your honrable anonymity from the country responsible for not admitting the scientific safety conference?
wrong (Rössler):
Tdown = Tup*(1+z)
correct (Einstein):
Tdown=Tup/(1+z)
And now it is your task to show that this has no influence on your Teledingsbums
First equation: The period downstairs — the “temporal wavelength” — is longer than upstairs. And so is the spatial wavelength (as I also showed in my Telemach paper that you are attacking without hope).
Second equation: Einstein spoke of time, not period.
Therefore the two equations are identical if the wrong interpretation is avoided (which I have reason to fear you and your anonymous cronies decided to misuse long ago to gain time before the world’s spineless journalists).
There is nothing like a “temporal wavelength”. In fact this is another word for absolute time, Rössler.
So define the connection between the physical quantitiy “time” and your buzzword.
And, if T is not a time, what is then the dimension of your Equation L/T=c?
I also showed in my Telemach paper
No, there you showed nothing., To show something is to derive or define it. There is no defintion of your buzzword “temporal wavelength”.
Is there no scientist on the planet who can help Hansi understand the Telemach paper? This seems to be a real emergency case of inability to understand.
On the other hand: If all the scientists of the world are unable to come up with a counter theorem, poor Hansi is the only one who at least sees the importance of the question. So I really am grateful to him. (Maybe I engaged him?)
Rössler, stop talking bulshit, answer the questions.
it seems you can not do that. Poor Otto. I thought the stuff was urgent…apparently it is not :D
Define “temporal wavelength”.
define the dimension of T.
What dimension has the T in your “proof” for the “spatial wavelength” based on L/T=c? And additionally what is the dimension of c?
It is sweet to see that Hansi tries to teach me physics, but what is at stake is to prove a theorem wrong, not me to be stupid.
Maybe he decides to allow me to talk to him at long last?
Rössler, answer the questions. If you do not need to be taught physics it should be easy for you…or is it not?
It is interesting that you never gave an answer to exactly these questions. All we have heard so far was something about “stupid, malevolent idiots” and so on.
Rössler:
Define “temporal wavelength”.
define the dimension of T.
What dimension has the T in your “proof” for the “spatial wavelength” based on L/T=c? And additionally what is the dimension of c?
Now Hansi is openly lying and playing crazy. I find it sweet.
Please, forgive me, but I did offer to talk to you, did I not?
It is obvious that the polite Rössler tries to provoke some impolite response…Nice try, but that does not work, Otto.
Asking questions is not lying and surely not playing crazy. How desperate are you?
And now please answer the scientific questions:
Define “temporal wavelength”.
define the dimension of T.
What dimension has the T in your “proof” for the “spatial wavelength” based on L/T=c? And additionally what is the dimension of c?
“Please, forgive me, but I did offer to talk to you, did I not?”
No private and non-transparent talk, Rössler. You wanted the public stage, here it is.
The world is waiting for your answers.
If you dare talk with me openly before the world, so much the better. I admire you for this sudden strength shown. It implies that we both have a name so the people know who says what. Science unfortunately has to do with truth: agreed?
Asnwer the questions.
The name of a person is not important. I do not even knwo exactly whether the person behind the mask “Otto E. Rössler” here is really the crackpot from Tübingen although the probability is very high.
In science the name is not important. The arguments and answers are.
The world is waiting, Mr. “Otto E. Rössler”.
There will be no answer, dear EQ.
Rösslers strategy is well known as “aussitzen” in Germany.
EQ, isn’t that rather like asking a man if he beats his wife hard or gently?
There are those here who do not believe that Professor Rossler is a “crackpot”, and even if he was, would prefer you not to use that assumption as a premise of what you comment.