Jan 11, 2012

Where Does the TV Screen Come from?

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

We all are given one, totally private, at this very moment. This kind of thinking – causal thinking – got almost lost.

Inside the screen, everybody is active, forgetting the screen. This insight is more important than what I have to say inside our screens.

Nevertheless I feel like mentioning that I attended a beautiful talk today by a charming lady scientist who is a high-ranking member of CERN. I loved every word. In the public discussion afterwards, she was asked by a Tübingen citizen unknown to me about the black-hole danger. She expressed in two sentences that they are possible but would have been detected. She did not know about the 4 years old proof that the detectors cannot detect them and that Hawking radiation – which she mentioned as the reason for their detectability — does not exist according to the un-disproved Telemach theorem (now in print in an international math journal).

The most beautiful science, with a loving heart, can if consciously endowed with a blind spot – refused scientific dialog – not flourish. You cannot believe how beautiful the cathedral of the LHC is. Is a beggar allowed entry into one corner?

The TV screen is the real cathedral. Forgive me that I talked about less important things.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. W. Kilgore says:

    ” I talked about less important things.”

    That is no surprising news, Otto.

  2. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    I like the posts of Prof. Rössler because they are very often amusing and smart.

  3. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    One question: Does CERN still have holidays? It seems so to me because their speakers do not tell a lot. Best regards to all.

  4. Anthony L says:

    “The un-disproved Telemach theorem (now in print in an international math journal)”.

    Professor, please give the full reference.

    CERN has a very beautiful Harvard physicist Lisa Randall on its cheering squad. She appears from her current best selling book to be completely unread in the safety arguments and their holes in current terms. But that doesn’t prevent her from assuring the audience of Charlie Rose that it is quite safe, thank you.

    I never argue with a woman, that is one of the eternal verities of life.

  5. Anthony L says:

    PS My reason of course is that they are always right. If you doubt this you have not been married any length of time.

  6. Dear AnthonyL: As you admitted, women are more intelligent but, unfortunately, kinder. Sometimes to the wrong males.

    President-elect of the German Physical Society Professor Johanna Stachel’s lecture was better than any I had ever heard. Maximally competent in the things told. And she is a kind person — I later talked to her. I genuinely admire her.

  7. Anthony L says:

    The secret to women is to combine strength with slavery ie be strong enough to sire fine children and protect her but slavish to her every whim. Chaucer, the man who started the English literary tradition, said it first, in Wife of Bath. The witch who won the princess for the prince by whispering is his ear the secret of what all women want, told him “To command our man.” The king and queen awarded him the hand of the princess, as agreed. But he had promised to do the witch a favor in return and she insisted he marry her. Very disappointing, but he was a gentleman, a type rare today (one surviving known example is Professor Roessler of Tubingen, another is Tom Berwick here.) Luckily after he did his best on the wedding night he woke up to find himself beside a woman even more beautiful and kind hearted than the princess.

    But Prpfessor, you neglect to answer my question above.

  8. Anthony L says:

    Sorry, Tom Kerwick. The most distinguished poster on Lifeboat.

  9. Visitor says:

    Must be a bad math journal without any kind of double check if this piece full of undefined and non-derived disproved equations (ok, most of it is even more vague prosa, not even math) is published there.

    Probably the continuation of the pseudoscience-numerology connection with avoidance of revie processes and so on of El Naschie, Roessler… worthless.

  10. Anthony L says:

    How do you know that it was not edited by the Tubingen sage for publication in the math journal? Presumable people who edit math journals are sticklers for mathematical formulations, otherwise they surely can’t stay in business very long.

    Have you read it, or are you simply jumping the gun?

  11. Visitor says:

    It was never modified before although there was a lot of disproving critical postings.. after reading Roesslers postings on this blog and elsewhere before there is absoltely no reason to assume that he has learned to write a proper scientific paper now.

    But you have mentioned it, yes, serious editors of real math journals would be critical, perhas even more than the commenters of Roessler on this blog. So if the article is published even though it is clear that the “paper” is of lowest quality, even lower than undergraduate work, you can make your own thoughts about the quality of the journal.

    Good luck with your first steps into the world of critical thinking!

  12. Tom Kerwick says:

    Thank you Anthony — a misspelling and I suddenly share a namesake with a crazy man like Andrew Berwick. I think there are many distinguished posters on Lifeboat, and I am but a new arrival. I read the latest version of the Telemach theorem — it’s an interesting work, though I don’t entirely agree with some of the conclusions therein. I do believe it carries some merit however, though as to whether the African Journal of Mathematics it features in also carries much merit, I do not know, and whether or not it mostly features undergraduate work. Perhaps someone can elaborate.

  13. Anthony L says:

    “Good luck with your first steps into the world of critical thinking!” — Hansel (Visitor)

    Hansel, you are most irritating with your schoolboy cracks, even though — perhaps because — they are so silly. Do you even deserve entry into a civilized discussion? One wonders. Where is the critical thinking in your own stream of offerings? I recall only puerile insults. Perhaps you can elaborate on where critical thinking has appeared in your posts. Refresh our memory.

    I don’t recall it ever being absent in mine, despite what you say, since they are usually far longer than your own, because I like to look into a topic thoroughly, and actually think critically ie objectively consider the merits of some view that doesn’t initially fit with my preconceptions.

    How do your own little casual wisecracks rate on this scale? They could be written by a simple computer algorithm whose only programmed objective was to take down Rossler, without bothering with specifics.

    Is this true? Is “Visitor” or your other pseudonyms simply a little auto-commenter you have written. I would suggest that you transfer your genius for writing tiny apps of this kind to actually thoughtfully assessing what Rossler says, or in your opinion, omits.

    This is what is known as “critical thinking”, a phrase you misuse.

    And why all the pseudonyms in offering you pseudo thoughts? Are you ashamed of yourself, and hiding behind a series of false names in order to avoid public responsibility for your work?

    If so, maybe this is why they are shallow and impolite. I suggest you enter your real name, like a man, and state your thoughtful views, like a man, and not a mouse.

    You are a man, aren’t you? And not a mouse? It is hard to tell.

  14. AnthonyL says:

    Apologies for the Widmerpool quality of the above post.

  15. Dear Anthony: Is the revision in your sense? Take care, Otto