Lifeboat Foundation

41

Comments — comments are now closed.

1. Tom Kerwick says:

   November 25, 2012 at 8:35 am

   I presume the LSAG didn’t get back to you yet on that email you sent them a few weeks ago?

2. Otto E. Rössler says:

   November 25, 2012 at 9:47 am

   Ypu are unfortunately right, dear Tom.

3. NY says:

   November 25, 2012 at 9:52 am

   [IP: 79.216.147.166 Deutsche Telekom AG, Hessen/Germany]
   well, no wonder when the opening statement reads: ’ dear nazis worse than hitler…’

4. Otto E. Rössler says:

   November 25, 2012 at 10:08 am

   Dear NY: It is disquieting that you are defending an undenied attempt at killing all human beings as philosemitic. I happen to be Jewish and ask you to apologize. Thank you for doing so.

5. NY says:

   November 25, 2012 at 10:56 am

   you are not jewish, you are a liar and a disgrace for lifeboat.

6. Otto E. Rössler says:

   November 25, 2012 at 12:29 pm

   Anonymous antisemitism to defend CERN’s refusal to update? Please, do rather give us the numbers I asked for — or else be so kind as to call on Professor Giddings and Dr. Mangano to answer my letters. You may be the only person on the planet who can help — okay?

7. NY says:

   November 25, 2012 at 12:38 pm

   a nazi calling me antisemit — what a despicable bing you are.

8. Otto E. Rössler says:

   November 25, 2012 at 1:38 pm

   This is a scientific blog — I feel ashamed for you, my friend.

9. Peter Howell says:

   November 26, 2012 at 12:03 am

   @NY: don’t waste your energy. No real scientist talks to Roessler anymore (therefore the silence of my colleagues at Cetn), so neither need you to. Also you are wrong w/ calling him a disgrace for lifeboat — he represents it well.

   PH

10. Peter Howell says:

    November 26, 2012 at 4:13 am

    Tom Kerwick: why delete my posts? And why making IP adresses public? Roessler has called Cern worse than Hitler. You just prove that you and lifeboat fully support him. Will tell your Jewish employer.

11. Tom Kerwick says:

    November 26, 2012 at 4:28 am

    Peter — the above IP address was inserted to partially de-anonamise troll behavior — as a trial measure. As for your post — this was temporarily deleted while I considered the authenticity of your post (due to your IP address and claim to have colleagues at CERN — which is news to me) — we’ve had problems with false identities here before. If you want a login account so your comments authenticate as you let me know. I do not support Rossler’s views — please. If you followed views I express on Lifeboat you would know this.

12. Otto E. Rössler says:

    November 26, 2012 at 6:29 am

    Peter Howell says that if I say that “someone who does not contradict to a published scientific proof that what he is doing will with a non-small probability kill all humanm beings within a few years time, is worse than Hitler”, this statement of mine is a valid reason for him to call someone else’s “Jewish employer” to defame him for being my friend:

    Then only one thing is obvious: this Mr. Peter Howell of CERN who says so in public is an antisemite of dangerous proportions.

13. Peter Howell says:

    November 26, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Tom: You have just proven that what NY and I said was spot on. A ‘Blockwart’ mentality at its best. Roessler’s antisemitic rants are just the tip of the iceberg. I shouldn’t have come back, things got even worse here.

    PH

14. Samantha Atkins says:

    November 26, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Otto,

    Where is your evidence that anyone at CERN is intent on killing all human beings or that there is any real danger that anything they are doing will do so? There is no non-small probability that I am aware of of any such thing. As most people know well bringing up Hitler is a near instant communication killer. Bringing up anti-semitism when called on it certainly supports a hypothesis of ranting more than one of reasonable communication.

15. Otto E. Rossler says:

    November 27, 2012 at 12:33 am

    Thank you, dear Samantha, for your decisive question:
    No one at CERN is intent on killing anyone, of course.
    They “only” all think that they can shoulder the risk of doing so, by refusing to check the proof given to them and the world that this is what they are doing.
    Do you think it is impossible for someone to do evil of he “knows” that he is such a harmless guy?
    I feel someone who looks on with a good conscience while risking the life of everyone is worse than a Hitler. The stupidity of having a good conscience when refusing to look is in no way more excusable than knowing to be cruel.
    Driving without brakes is a punishable crime, too, when you are being caught. Is really no one able to see reality from the point of view of the future any more on this planet?
    Please, help me, Samantha. Calling the only Jew who really loves Jacob and Israel an “antisemite” is very paradoxical in my eyes.
    Please, be so kind as to believe me. Why should I lie when trying to save your life?

16. Otto E. Rossler says:

    November 27, 2012 at 12:40 am

    if he knows (not of he knows)

17. Tom Kerwick says:

    November 27, 2012 at 4:23 am

    As to the question on luminosities, I don’t have figures for increases over the next few weeks though they will be far far below observed astrophysical phenomena. I put the most recent LSAG response to me on the concern I had raised in mickeymousespace last week: http://www.myspace.com/stopcern/blog/546481227 I am surprised they have not got back to you on what was in fact a polite and humble request, and not with the bombastic language that you use here. Perhaps they just know you too well at this stage.

18. Otto E. Rossler says:

    November 27, 2012 at 6:15 am

    Dear Tom:

    Thank you for having alerted me to the most recent official safety comment on the part of CERN’s after 4 years of official silence. Quote from your quote:
    “[As to] the discussion between you and Roessler, included in your paper. We will not comment on the latter, since this appears biased by some basic misunderstanding of what is known and solid, and of what is a plain conjecture.”

    This is the only defense that CERN was able to produce over more than 4 years: To say that in their opinion, a scientifically published proof is a “conjecture” and for this reason deserves no response on the part of those who jeopardize the world in the open on the basis of this single word.

    Very very strange: all of CERN unable to communicate as the most autistic persons of history. Unable to see that all mothers deserve to be told a tiny little bit more as to why they need not worry.

    I apologized to CERN for my loud voice. But I did not realize that this loudness was the only excuse they have. I am the one who gave it to them! What would you do in my place?

    The wolf got accused for having killed the rabbit. He said: “the rabbit started it all – he always moved his nose up and down.”

    Am I really responsible for CERN’s actions, dear Tom?

19. Tom Kerwick says:

    November 27, 2012 at 7:11 am

    A conjecture should be reasonable to consider when weighed against an unverified theory (Hawking Radiation). Hence the pursuit I took to astronomical phenomenology to disassociate safety debate from a need to question the theory — I think by my actions you can infer that I do not agree the question should have been dismissed on the grounds of conjecture. Though it can be dismissed on the grounds of astronomical phenomenology with which the LSAG revisited due to conclusions drawn in my recent paper on the topic.

20. Otto E. Rossler says:

    November 27, 2012 at 8:25 am

    I wish you to be right with your points. But they are not exhaustive — giving only one person a subjective security. Which is of course a good thing in its own right.
    I thank you for trying to be fair, that is, balanced.

21. Tom Kerwick says:

    November 27, 2012 at 8:49 am

    Thanks Otto. I think it serves best to take it from there to discuss rather than revert back to earlier arguments and use of bad analogies. In either case though, I’ve said my bit.

22. Otto E. Rossler says:

    November 27, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    Dear Tom, you are buying CERN’s old claim that no other factors determine black hole braking in stars than the ones they already considered.
    This is betting on no new factors being possibly involved. This in a literally far-fetched very indirect safety argument at that. Would you really recommend this strategy?
    I gave one important new factor. You never took it up: that slow passage through a star makes for a markedly different absorption rate than a fast passage (key word “cold neutrinos” in atomic fission).
    You retired on repeating your belief in the giant diameters of micro black holes, postulated out of the blue by Giddings and Mangano 4 1/2 years ago.
    But perhaps I did not understand a cogent counterargument of yours?
    Thank you for telling me — if necessary again (asking twice is allowed in science, isn’t it?). I appreciate your kind patience.

23. Bjørn Fossmoen says:

    November 27, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    I think it will be at least (fb−1) 25 before 21. des.

24. Otto E. Rossler says:

    November 28, 2012 at 12:57 am

    Thank you. What percentage is this compared to the already accumulated 7- and 8-TeV luminosity?

25. Tom Kerwick says:

    November 28, 2012 at 2:14 am

    Otto — there appears to be ample margin for error on any such overlooked factors. Concerning the question of smaller MBH radii due to velocity on hypothesized transient in WD — To repeat — stopping distances are derived to be inversely proportional, not to the radius, but to the mass density near the capture radius. Have you a disproof on this?

26. Otto E. Rossler says:

    November 28, 2012 at 2:33 am

    Yes to your first point (there is “ample margin for error on any such overlooked factors”). This is the proof that relying on their absence is reckless, right?

    Second: What do you mean by “mass density near the capture radius”? What is its quantitative relation to the Schwarzschild radius?

27. Tom Kerwick says:

    November 28, 2012 at 2:41 am

    I pointed you to the sections in the G&M paper before — ref earlier blog comments on WD. I don’t have the time to discuss right now or a desire to involve back in cyclical debate.

28. Otto E. Rossler says:

    November 28, 2012 at 2:47 am

    So you are unable to answer my question?

29. Tom Kerwick says:

    November 28, 2012 at 3:00 am

    No it means you are unable to figure anything out for yourself. Read G&M. Mass density near the capture radius — the mass density of the WD in which the hypothesized MBH are transient — No relation to Schwarzschild radius. The MBH can be considered point-like.

30. Otto E. Rossler says:

    November 28, 2012 at 5:52 am

    Oh, you mean the mass density of white dwarfs having an effect on the frequency of almost-encounters between a quark and a passing-through micro-black hole?

    Apparently I still do not get your point: Can you forgive me?

31. Bjørn Fossmoen says:

    November 28, 2012 at 11:41 am

    The above information is estimated cumulative values for 2012.
    I do not think that the peak luminosity delivered per day will be higher towards 2013. It increased approximately from 5% to 15% from 7 to 8 Tev, but varies from day to day. To find the exact values ​​are terrible mathematics in lack of information.
    I can not quite understand how the peak luminosity per day can increase without higher energy. Can you Otto ?

32. Bjørn Fossmoen says:

    November 28, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Sorry Otto, you asked for overall luminosity. That is even more difficult to find out.

33. Otto E. Rossler says:

    November 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Dear Björn: Thank you very much for your most valuable information.

34. Bjørn Fossmoen says:

    December 1, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Vel, Otto, Jeg tror ikke at du, eller noen andre, hadde særlig utbytte av den informasjonen. Jeg mener du fortjener respekt for dine meninger og for motet til å ha dem. Historien har vist at en etablert sannhet ikke varer særlig lenge og at det er outsidere som til slutt forandrer ting.
    Fysikk bygger riktignok på et empirisk grunnlag, men konklusjonen i andre enden kan være feilaktig. Usikre variabler er momenter som kan påvirke sluttresultatet. Det vet jeg litt om.
    Arroganse er den værste fienden til kreative tanker. Vi har et språk som kalles matematikk, men også det kan til en viss grad utvikles og tilpasses for å støtte en konklusjon som er tatt på forhånd. Så er spørsmålet, hvorfor er det slik, og svaret er vel at vi er alle mennesker, med alt hva det innebærer.
    Hawking radiation og hans vakum fluktasjoner, hvor den ene partikkelen blir fanget av event horisonten er etter min mening feilaktig. Men min mening teller ikke, så da kan jeg vel få ha den i fred uten å bli latterligjort.
    Hadde jeg vært en anerkjen kapasitet i fysikk så hadde jeg blitt slaktet. Akkurat som Otto.
    En annen ting, er den desperate letingen etter mørk masse i galaksene og andre steder. Vi trenger ikke mørk masse eller energi for å forklare universets økende ekspansjonstakt. Igjen etter min mening, trenger vi en romdimensjon til, i tillegg til de 3 vi har for å beskrive universet krumning. Siden vi er 3 dimensjonale vesner er vi kke i stand til å oppfatte den, men unverset kan ikke være krumt uten. Universets naturlige tillstand er ikke krumt, men flatt, i den forstand at det tilstreber 3 dimensjoner. Derfor er det en akselrerende ekspansjon. Ikke at det øker i volum. men at det mister krumning. Dette blir litt enkelt forklart, jeg kan ikke skrive en avhandling her.
    Går vi tilbake til unversets begynnelse så var krumningen enorm. Problemet er å forstå hvorfor, men jeg jobber litt med saken. uten at nødvendigvis kommer noen vei. Men det er i hver fall artig.

35. Otto E. Rossler says:

    December 1, 2012 at 11:48 am

    (Microsoft translation from Norwegian:)
    “Well, Otto, I don’t think that you, or anyone else, had in particular benefit from the information. I believe you deserve respect for your opinions and for the courage to wear them. history has shown that an established truth does not last very long and that there are outsiders who finally change things. Physics is based on an empirical basis, admittedly, but the conclusion on the other end may be flawed. Uncertain variables are elements that can influence the end result. I know a bit about. Arrogance is the worst enemy of creative thoughts. We have a language called maths, but also it can to some extent be developed and adapted to support a conclusion that is taken in advance. So the question is, why is it like this, and the answer is that we are all human beings, with all that that implies.
    Hawking radiation and vacuum fluktasjoner, where one particle gets caught by the event horizon is in my opinion. But my opinion doesn’t count, so then I can surely get have it in peace without being latterligjort. I had been a prominent legal capacity in physics so I had been slaughtered. Just like Otto. Another thing, is the desperate search for the dark mass in galaxies and elsewhere. We don’t need mass or dark energy to explain the universe’s expansion rate is increasing. Again in my opinion, we need a space dimension, in addition to the 3 we have to describe the universe curvature. Since we are 3 dimensional creatures, we are not able to understand it, but unverset can’t be krumt without it. The universe’s natural tillstand is not krumt, but the flat, in the sense that it aspires to 3 dimensions. Therefore, it is a rapidly accelerating expansion. Not that it increases in volume. but it loses its curvature. These are some simple explained, I can’t write a dissertation here.
    We go back to the beginning of the curve unversets so was enormous. The problem is to understand why, but I’m working a bit on it. without necessarily going anywhere. But in each case, the fun.”
    Dear Björn: Thank you very much. There are some new results in cosmology which my group obtained recently. Maybe there will be an occasion to share them with you.
    Take care, Otto

36. Bjørn Fossmoen says:

    December 1, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    Thank‘s. You to. Just a correction in the translation. That one particle of vacuum fluctuations are caught in the event horizon and the other escape, is in my opinion wrong.
    I rest my case.

37. Otto E. Rossler says:

    December 1, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    I agree absolutely.

38. Dolores says:

    January 3, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    Gargamelle is the one to the left in your picture,I beveile. But I always liked the larger one to the right better, probably because it looks like a spaceship out of a 50s SF flick, maybe a precursor to the lunar landers. What’s that one called?

39. Otto E. Rossler says:

    January 4, 2013 at 2:53 am

    A misplaced comment is always better than none — have a good new year.

40. Meri says:

    February 10, 2013 at 2:27 am

    I’m not quite sure how to say this; you made it extmreley easy for me!

41. Otto E. Rossler says:

    February 10, 2013 at 2:37 am

    Please, speak your mind.