Dec 31, 2011

Dear Little Planet (and other Writings)

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

[Disclaimer: This contribution does not reflect the views of the Lifeboat Foundation as with the scientific community in general, but individual sentiment — Web Admin]


Dear Little Planet


An old man is speaking to you. I have thought about Einstein for 50 years. I found one new thing – that his happiest thought was even happier (c is globally constant). The whole profession is jealous and furious. Nobel prizes must be given back they fear. Worse, a currently running experiment is suicidal. Every journalist on the planet knows about this fact in case I am right.

Black holes are unstoppable bombs.

Little humankind does not want to hear that. They want to continue with their wishful quarrels without caring about the primacy of responsibility, much like abandoned children.

It is the responsibility of the mothers in charge – the journalists – who have abandoned their planet. They find it acceptable if the establishment fears truth (double-checking) more than death and panbiocide. For they could insist on an inquiry. Instead, they keep silent. They appear not to love the planet on which they are allowed to play the role of the priest.

I conclude with the voice of prayer: Dear Father-Mother, whose name is holy, please, enlighten your children to seeing that truth is vital. I always evaded the duty to talk in your name since I was 13. I put the planet into your hands.


High-Ranking Physicists on the Planet Are Jealous Hoping Telemach Is Not True


– not because the world goes under with a sizeable probability if he is,

– but because they would appear stupid if the theorem named after Ulysses’ son is true.

Thus the planet is being consciously risked by my esteemed colleagues ‘t Hooft and Niolai, to mention only two first-leaguers.

I hear you say there must be good colleagues on my side too. This is correct. Since they get into trouble without tilting the scales if I give their names, I mention only my revered colleague Richard J. Cook of the Colorado AF Academy for his being more knowledgeable in the new field of globally-constant-c general relativity than the Tübingen group.

I herewith re-iterate my pledge to the world’s media to arrange for the necessary safety debate regarding the LHC danger. They can do so and it is their duty to do so. One high-ranking journalist must exist who is able to smell the truth.

This does not mean that I was looking down on the average crowd in the mold of the believing citizens of North Korea whom I do not blame. They are no different than human groups everywhere. Almost no one can flee the spell of majority belief.

To take the hint: I asked Kim Jong Un three years ago for help. I today re-iterate my pledge. Perhaps the planet is given a second chance in defiance of the dictatorship of the Western media.

The children let starve in North Korea are on my side. I know how it is if your child dies.


Hush Little World Press Don’t You Cry, Your Planet Is Bound to Die


All of Norway is debating today whether a rationally acting individual who followed a recklessly inhumane agenda should be given the benefit of a psychiatric diagnosis that exempts him from punishment.

I herewith propose to extend this public debate to a related case involving thousands of rationally acting (in their own minds) scientists at CERN, some of them Norwegian.

There are two differences between the two cases: 1) The crime is incommensurable if the second proves equally successful. 2) There is a remaining minor chance that a fact hitherto overlooked will retroactively exonerate the CERN physicists.

Does their having charged ahead for more than a year, unmoved by the un-falsified proof that what they are doing will kill the planet in a few years’ time with a sizeable probability, make the CERN scientists accomplices of the Norwegian patient, or does it not?

What Would You Do if You Had Proof That a Group Is Attempting to Shrink the Earth?

Horst Eberhard Richter’s passing away leaves a major hole in your group. Allow me to step in for him despite my smallness.

In his and your name I, Dr. med. Otto E. Rösser, declare to the world that presently, CERN is preparing to continue a nuclear experiment that will shrink the planet to 2 cm in perhaps 5 yearss’ time with a percentage-range probability.

All I am requesting in the name of IPPNW is the “safety conference” demanded last January the 27th by the Cologne Administrative Court.

The planet is lucky that the noble IPPNW already exist: So Cologne is not alone.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. AnthonyL says:

    Suggested New Year’s Resolution for all 300 scientists involved with the LHC and their faithful guerilla defenders here on Lifeboat and in the media:

    “We will this year behave like professional scientists and refer to reason and evidence before proceeding with our experiments willy nilly.”

  2. AnthonyL says:

    PS Professor, what is the meaning of your finding that c is globally constant, and how was it arrived at, if you can tell us in words rather than mathematics, for consumption and benefit of the public at large whose future is at stake with the LHC operation.

    I(f c is the speed of light, I was under the impression that it was globally constant even with Einstein, but I speak from ignorance.

    How is that a new discovery of yours?

    Meanwhile, the view of black holes as vaginas is certainly compelling, artistically, and as a description of the attitude of the superannuated adolescents at CERN. I understand the French are so averse to such an image that they refuse to use the term black hole, is that right?

  3. Thank you for referring to my friend John Wheeler’s incredible impishness when he dared propose the name “black hole.” It took decades to become accepted in France (but long since is). It is considered as something highly desirable by CERN since they do their best to produce them even though their instruments have been proven to be unable to see them.

    But I do not want to skirt your important question: Einstein discovered and mentioned in his 1907 paper that c is not constant in an accelerating rocketship, and 5 years later replied to his concerned mentor Max Abraham that he would not respond to the latter’s enticement to repair this inconsistency if possible.

    It is a miracle that Einstein was able to work around this weak point in his superhuman effort to make his general theory of relativity congeal. The latter – in the Schwarzschild solution – is so perfect that it actually formally contains the global constancy of c, as I showed in my 2007 paper on the gothic-R theorem.

    The Telemach paper on Lifeboat, submitted to “Einstein online” in an earlier version, which conforms in 75 percent with results given in the paper “Gravitational space dilation” by Richard J. Cook, contains an accessible proof. It returns to the seminal context of Einstein’s 1907 paper. Einstein had correctly seen that if you look down from the tip of his inexhaustible rocketship to the bottom, you not only see clocks in a lazy state but even light is crawling transversally there. This even though locally, everything is unchanged down there.

    This fact that c is visibly reduced from above explains, for example, why light emerging from the surface of a black hole takes an infinite time for the seemingly short way up, as is well known.

    So c is crawling into a standstill much as in certain quantum media in the laboratory? The profession is convinced of that and is ready to bet the survival of the planet on this false conviction.

    The solution, implicit in Telemach, is that space is proportionally expanded downstairs in Einstein’s rocketship (or on the surface of a neutron star or black hole). But so in a way which is invisible in transversal directions from above!

    I struggled many years (since 1998) with the problem. The salvation came when I saw that an analogous problem is well known in special relativity as taught in high schools: the famous Lorentz contraction. Every object that is in fast motion is shortened in the longitudinal direction in special relativity. But locally – if you travel along – you do not notice the change. You still are your old self, in all three directions of space. But objectively, you are shortened to the by-standing observer as we saw. You appear flattened (laterally unchanged while longitudinally shortened), but you really aren’t. It is the same thing downstairs in the rocketship – or on a neutron star (where the factor is about two) or on the black hole’s horizon (where the factor is infinite). Although space is homogeneously expanded there (so that light takes twice as long in the transverse direction on a neutron star), this is NOT because the speed of light is changed there. The latter is unchanged similarly as in the case of the Lorentz contraction. What is changed is — besides the increase in all lengths – the projection! The observed crawling leaves the locally everywhere isotropic size change intact so that c is globally constant.

    I wonder if my readers can understand this. What is sure so far is that no one who invested many man years into following the finest worked out details of general relativity can force himself or herself into starting anew on so basic a level. They simply are bound to hate me (and my friends).

    I sympathize with them, and so should you. But they never gave me an occasion to explain this in a way they could follow. The “accent” which I have when saying such things is absolutely repugnant to them.

    Still, if I am right (and Richard J. Cook and some others), this has vital consequences for theoretical physics and for Hawking’s beautiful theorem which he can no longer uphold. Everything about black holes is changed, physically speaking. Imagine: an infinitely large volume of space, enveloping a tiny black hole! One has to dig into this constant-c theory very deeply – which takes much time.

    The connection to our topic is that the people at CERN do not want and cannot afford – financially – to wait that long. So they need to trigger their bomb as long as the money is still flowing. Everyone automatically sympathizes with this fact.

  4. W. Kilgore says:

    “if you can tell us in words rather than mathematics”

    Anthony, it would be desireable Otto would give us the math behind his parascience instead.

  5. AnthonyL says:

    Kilgore, before mathematics come the spatial and time relations as visualized in the original mind, if the mind is sufficiently high level in its operations. Mathematics follows, often in a strenuous process of nailing down the details which sometimes can be very difficult to complete without someone pointing out a flaw. Thus Fermats Theorem was finally solved by Andrew Wiles after years of wrestling with it and wouldn’t you know, someone pointed out a problem and he had to labor another year or two for fix it.

    Even now his solution seems unlikely to be what Pierre de Fermat had in mind, since it exploits a modern result unknown in Fermat’s time (actually Wiles’s own proof of the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture for semistable elliptic curves, from which Fermat follows).

    On the other hand, Pierre didn’t utter a peep about his own famous solution “too big to write in the margin” (of an earlier text by the 3rd Century Greek Diophantus) in the last thirty years of his life, so it seems likely that he found a flaw in it, too, himself.

    Everyone should know the original form in which Fermat posed the problem, which was not algebraic so much as visual, in its first thought, as regards cubes. It was

    “Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.”

    which means, for those here who don’t know Latin, an unfortunate lack in modern education, particularly in America, means

    “You can’t split a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power into two fourth powers, or in general any power to infinity into two like powers, beyond the square. I have discover a marvelous proof of this matter, but there is no room in this margin to give it.”

    First its images, then words, then mathematics. The former is where great minds such as Einstein or Professor Rossler reside, on the peak of the mountain, as it were, seeing farther than anyone, while lesser minds reside on the flanks of the mountainside and the ordinary folk who comes up with picayune objections, they live in the fields and vineyards at the base of the mountain. Call these groups A, B and C.

    In the case of the LHC, which is typical in this respect, Group C tries to pick apart the conceptions of an A thinker (Professor Otto Rossler) because they are loyal to the guys on level B that they imagine for some reason reside at the peak, which they do not, which is proved by their work, which is full of inconsistencies, which are visible on the A level, but not on the C level.

    Professor Rossler, you have finally made a clear statement of your position, which all of us visitors to the A level much appreciate.

  6. AnthonyL says:

    Apologies for the very un-Latinate instances above where the verb does not agree with the subject.

  7. I am grateful that the three posts were returned after an unknown period of being blotted out.

  8. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The Greek comment today sounds very sympathetic, but I have to apologize that I could barely follow the gist — but I am sure it is pertinent.