Nov 28, 2011

Call for an Instant Paradigm Change to Save Your Family and Planet

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

This is the first time that an instantaneous “paradigm shift” — abandonment of a reigning scientific consensus — is of vital importance for everyone. We have three months’ time left to achieve this goal while the menacing machine is under overhaul.

What is the subject matter that I am talking about? It is Einstein. More specifically, it is his “happiest thought” as he always called it. It consists in travelling in one’s mind in a constantly accelerating rockettship, and as such proves even more fertile than has been thought for a century. The implied new change of size, mass, and charge (independently discovered by professor Richard J. Cook of the Airforce Academy Colorado Springs) implies that an artificial black hole grows exponentially fast inside earth after eluding every detector when freshly produced by CERN in fulfillment of its high-flying intentions.

The proof is contained in a paper which is now “in print” again in a scientific journal after the journal that had accepted it for publication three years ago got closed-down to theoretical-physics topics retroactively, on the occasion of the retirement of its founding editor who promptly got publicly libeled by the competing journal “Nature.” The founding editor is now a presidential candidate for Egypt in recognition of his scientific achievements.

Why is the result in question so uniquely sensitive? On the one hand, this is because it may save your family, which is good news for everyone. On the other, it implies that a certain nuclear machine needs re-evaluation before it is too late, which is bad news for CERN. The scientific “safety conference” called for by the Cologne Administrative Court on the 27th of last January still goes unheeded by the United Nations which treasure their “observer status” at their sister organization, CERN. In the absence of my paper being in print, it was formally possible for the UN to screen CERN from criticism by disallowing the world’s press to report on a topic which lies before the UN Security Council for many months. This situation has changed with the paper being in print in a scientific journal.

But did the resistance shown up until now not come from the most honorable people who stuck to the accepted paradigm of 4 years ago? This is correct. So why worry? It is because of the new implications of the Einstein equivalence principle of 1907 that now suddenly cannot be ignored any longer. This fact lets Einstein outshine every other scientist for the second century in a row.

The loud silence of the physics community when CERN refused to double-check on the new scientific evidence can no longer be maintained now, for formal reasons. CERN’s public attitude of considering double-checking to be more dangerous than the danger thereby to be eschewed, is suddenly open to worldwide ridicule. Giordano Bruno got incinerated out of dogmatism 411 years ago. Today’s dogmatism is ready to incinerate the whole planet in order to punish a singly dissident who, in addition, is even no longer alive. Bruno would have chuckled about this confirmation of his worst fears.

Germany once consciously risked the onslaught of the atomic bomb by dismissing Einstein. To date, the whole planet consciously risked the onslaught of the black-hole bomb by dismissing Einstein. Only a presidential candidate stood by Einstein — the above-mentioned editor who also is the inventor of the physical E-infinity theory which is the first proposal for an encompassing (exo) description of all of Nature. Einstein would have been delighted about either feat. The whole world looks to Egypt with gratitude.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. EQ says:

    Oh yes, a real scientist does not need to cite galileo or bruno. A real scientist would write down the derivations directly.

    a real scientist.

    not Rössler.

  2. EQ says:

    Was it not John Baez who revealed first the crackpottery of Mohamed El naschie?

    Fortunately one can still read it here:

    really a great physicist.

  3. EQ says:

    There is much more in the web proving El Naschie a notorious crank. Want to see it, Otto? :D

  4. PassingByAgain says:

    What happened to all of Kilgore’s comments? They suddenly disappeared…

  5. P. Howell says:

    @EQ: lifeboat/Roessler censorship at work. So much about free speech and open minds.

  6. Robert Houston says:

    Dr. Rossler wrote, “The proof is contained in a paper which is now “‘in print’ again in a scientific journal after the journal that had accepted it for publication three years ago got closed-down…”

    Congratulations on its acceptance by the journal. If at this point the paper is not actually published but rather “in press”, I would suggest that proper caution should be exercised and the details (name of journal, etc.) be withheld until actual publication, for obvious reasons.

  7. EQ says:

    Oh, it is probably a journal st up by one of Rösslers old guys. This is the only explanation why a disproved and pseudoscientific piece like this could be published.

    Everyone has seen that Rössler is not able to pass even the beginning of a double checking, also known as “peer review”.

  8. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The fact that a CERN member became aggressive on this blog is a good sign. I hope he is able to muster a scientific argument which would then place him way above his colleagues in the eyes of the world.

    No one understands the silence from CERN.

  9. P. Howell says:

    So far the only one on this blog who has been agressive is you Otto E. Roessler; a medical doctor with no education in physics but history in partnering with people convicted of scientific fraud.

    Was it you or Prof. Kilgore who compared scientits with Hitler and therefore poked fun of the millions ictims of Nazi Germany?

    Prof. P. Howell

  10. EQ says:

    Rössler is by the way lying when he writes the Nature libeled El Naschie. El Naschie and Rössler (as a witness) themselves have proven Natures article to be correct. For instance that thgeere was no proper double checking, known as peer review, in Naschies journal was admitted by Naschie and apparently also by Rössler.

    In fact cranks like Rössler or Naschie need this lack of double checking also known as peer review because not a single paper of them would survive a careful review (as it was proven in Rösslers case on this blog).

    So im some way Rösslers call for double check is nothing than a lie. If he wanted to be checked, he culd submit his crap to a scientific journal. He have not done so or he is hiding the results of the reviews.

  11. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Peter: As a professional psychologist I had expected you to know the difference between a warning voice — which sometimes must be sharp if the obvious “idiots” do not respond — and aggression.

    If I, a Jew, am trying to save Jewish lives — and with them all others — it is strange to be called an anti-Semite by an English colleague.

    Most of all, people who are asked to, please, give a reason why they are refusing to double-check on undisproved evidence that they are doing something horrible, can never be defended by any one in his sane mind: Or can they?

  12. EQ says:

    You are not a Jew.

  13. Otto E. Rossler says:

    You must know better than me.

  14. EQ says:

    And concerning antisemitism, perhaps you can repeat for the readers here the reasons your friend El Naschie was mentioning for not getting the nobel price.….

  15. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Good that you ceased to insist. Now you are again quoting a racist hate blog, which I ask you to stop doing.

  16. EQ says:

    The (racist) hate blog is your blog.

  17. EQ says:

    We know better than you. We know your family. Your father was one of the first nazis, member of the SS and so on.

    He was certainly not a jew. You made this up to justifiy push your role as a victim in your crusade against the scientific community. Your infamous strategy is not new.

  18. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Your racist hate statements are amusing since they obviously come from a German colleague, albeit of younger age.

    But it is appalling for the planet to see that this is the last official defensse line of CERN’s who were asked with angels’ tongues and conditional tongues (“not to continue unless first proving that what they are doing is NOT criminal”) to give a reasonwhy they are so NAKEDLY sure that what they are doing is innocent.

  19. EQ says:

    There is nothing racistic in my statements. It is you well known strategy to insult any person contradicting you as a racist, nazi or whatsoever.

    And please stop your ridiculous and delusional statements about your fight with CERN here on this blog. There is nothing like that. (But this delusion is at least a little bit amusing)

  20. EQ says:

    Ah, if you want to see some racist hate statements, should I cite some of your father? He was really good at that.

  21. EQ says:

    Or should we cite El Naschie? :D

  22. Otto E. Rossler says:

    It would be so nice if the “scientific” opinions offered by my anonymous young colleague could be backed-up by a trace of a physical fact.

    Is really no one at CERN a little bit stronger?

  23. EQ says:

    LOL. Rössler is the guy who has never shown up with a scientific argument. He is the guy avoiding any double checking or review :D . He is the guy who never answered a question about his “equations” and so on.

  24. Otto E. Rossler says:

    CERN refuses to quote scientific proofs offered to it and known by it. You have the chance to be their stand-in. Try and stop moaning like a baby — anoynmity is no safeguard against being blamed before the whole world for demonstrated lack of substance and — if not showing up — cowardice.

  25. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I forgot to say that my colleague, Dr. William Kilgore, is the most daring scientist in the world so far despite the fact that he used the same abusive verbiage as you do: because he showed his face bravely.

    CERN now has a hero. Maybe the hero will be available for comment? An open enemy is all I ever asked for. For I desperately want to be rescued from this nightmare of not being contradicted when I say: “Forgive me, Sir, but you are just busy murdering children to the best of anyone’s judgment” and the International Court of Crimes Against Humanity sees no reason to help me prove the innocence of the accused — which is all I ever asked for (along with the Cologne Court).

    And all it takes is find a counter-proof to Telemach. Maybe CERN possesses it for a long time — and just uses my naive activities to keep its name in the foreground of the world’s and Durban’s agenda. If being called “murderers” is their last chance to garner anyone’s interest, I clearly must be on their payroll.

  26. EQ says:

    HEy, Rössler, stop insulting scientist by calling them your colleagues.

  27. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Shall I call them your colleagues, young man?

    But I beg you: Tell me why you are sure Telemach is false. Please. I can still retract my Gothic-R paper in case you have something to say.

  28. EQ says:

    You know it already. There is no need to repeat it again and again (only in case of you suffering of dementia )

    The gothic R was disproved completely years ago by Nicolai et al and the user ICH (apparenty you were not able to read his disproof, but thats your problem)

  29. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Lies out of ignorance. Ask Nicolai, young man.

  30. EQ says:

    There is no lie. The critics are still valid, Rössler.

    There is no new physics in your “finding”. Several experts, at least the user ICH, have told you that. You are the one lying here. Probably because you have never understood the critique.

  31. EQ says:

    In fact you should read again the critical reviews of your crap, e.g. Nicolai. They are pointing aóut very clearly why your R is not leading to new concequences (and of course, the user ICH said the same about his correction of your stuff. This correction was indeed more a disproof than a correction)

  32. Otto E. Rossler says:

    So you are unable to contact professor Nicolai.

  33. EQ says:

    Nicolai says nothing else.

    You know that, old liar.

  34. Robert Houston says:

    One can see the dark side of CERN, the arrogance and inhumanity, in the gutter-style comments of its crank proponent EQ (alias “Hansel”). The chronic badgering and verbal abuse from this smear-monger are a discredit to the collider community that he seeks to defend.

    Fortunately, scientists are no longer burned at the stake as was Giordano Bruno or sentenced to perpetual house arrest as was Galileo, both condemned for heresy by the Inquisition for having espoused the truth. But the Dark Age mentality that martyred them continues in the vehement personal attacks on dissenting scientists who dare to deviate from the orthodox dogma of CERN and its scientific cronies.

    Under the guise of sophistication, CERN functions as an unconvicted criminal organization which recklessly endangers the lives of 1.8 billion children — as well as their parents — in its selfish pursuit of discovery and career funding. That it is allowed to carry on its potentially catastrophic LHC experiments without oversight from any outside regulatory body such as the IAEA is an outrage to humanity.

    independent of Dr. Rossler, CERN’s own scientists admit that the LHC may produce black holes that could destroy the world in 27 years (B. Koch et al. ArXiv. org, 2008, v. 1 ), or strangelets that, if stable and negatively charged (as CERN’s 2008 LSAG report admitted possible), could result in a “chain reaction” and “the planet would end in a supernova-like catastrophe” (A. Dar et al. of CERN’s theory division, Physics Letters B 470:142–148, 1999).