The story of “Our Last Hour” (Sir Martin Rees) has a latest twist. Since CERN cannot muster a single scientific argument or a single renowned scientist to defend its use of force against scientific evidence, it recruited a gang of anonymous science kids to defend its cause by pretending to ask a scientific question which, if taken seriously, would have destroyed the scientific reputation of their only planet-widely visible adversary.
The Telemach theorem, which pits Einstein against CERN, was to be discredited, not by scientific argument but by luring its proponent into taking a pseudoscientific question disguised as a genuine concern seriously: If the size ratio between two fingers says something about the ratio between two little guys, what is the ratio between one finger and one guy?
The media cannot understand, of course, but every citizen on the planet will. Science has lost its credit by visibly misleading the planet – unless CERN apologizes immediately for its onslaught on everyone’s life. The two fingers become a world-wide symbol.
It is not pseudoscientific to ask questions about equations that are pure crap because of poor or non-defined variables.
But it is complete pseudoscientific to construct conspirancy theories to avoid the answer to this questions.
“Korean Two Fingers”? That’s it, now he’s barking mad.
For the benefit of the billions of people who — according to Rossler’s (and, apparently, Anthony’s) delusional fantasy — are following this discussion holding their breath, let me just summarize what it is about. In this latest incarnation, the discussion has been going on for over a month, but most of the material can be found in the comments to Rossler’s July 6 post “CERN by Not Updating Its Three-Years-Old Safety Page Compromises the Quoted Scientists”.
The question we are trying to get to the bottom of is the correctness of eq.(1) of the so-called “Telemach theorem”, which, adapted to the case of two stationary clocks in the Earth’s gravitational field, can be formulated as:
T_up = T_down / (1 + Phi/c^2) (1)
where I just renamed T_tip -> T_up and T_tail -> T_down, and written explicitly the redshift factor z as Phi/c, where Phi is the gravitational potential. I am sure that Rossler won’t object to that.
Now, the problem is that this equation appears to be in flat contradiction with the equation for the gravitational redshift that can be found in any textbook and scientific article, starting from eq.(30a) of Einstein’s seminal paper of 1907:
sigma = tau * (1 + Phi/c^2) (30a)
which is best described by Einstein’s own words (kindly translated from German by TRMG):
“If a clock showing local time is located at point P of gravitational potential Phi, then, according to Eq. (30a), its reading [that’s sigma — my addition] will be (1+Phi/c²) times greater than the time tau, i.e, it runs (1+Phi/c²) times faster than an identical clock located at the coordinate origin.”
At first sight, it looks like the relation between the time reading upstairs and the time reading downstairs is the opposite in Einstein’s equation w.r.t. Rossler’s equation. However, Rossler claims that this is not the case, because the times T_up and T_down in his equation are not the same thing as the times sigma and tau in Einstein’s equation.
Therefore, we asked Rossler for a precise (i.e. mathematical) definition of the variable T in his equation, and this is where the true madness started. Rossler put forward a number of hand-waving and mutually contradictory definitions: T was, alternatively, a “time period”, “something like a frequency”, “the duration of a second”, “measured in seconds”, “a local period”, “a temporal wavelength”, and so on.
In order to sort out this mess, and to define T in terms of another variable that is already defined in a non-ambiguous manner, we asked Rossler the question he now finds so outrageous:
“what is the relation between the variable T_up in your eq.(1) and the variable sigma in Einstein’s eq.(30a)?”
At first he did not seem to be so offended by the question, and he answered in a triumphant way that the relation is
T_up = K/sigma,
where K is an irrelevant constant that can be “fairly enough” put equal to 1. This leaves us with T_up = 1/sigma.
It was quickly pointed out to Rossler that, while this definition would indeed make his eq.(1) consistent with Einstein’s eq,(30a), it would at the same time kill eq.(2) of “Telemach”. Indeed, eq.(2) is derived from the assumption that the speed of light c is equal to L/T, where L is a length and T is the variable appearing in eq.(1). If T = 1/sigma, where sigma is a time, then T has the dimensions of a frequency (i.e. 1/time), and c=L/T would have the wrong dimensions (i.e. length*time instead of length/time).
Having painted himself in a corner, Rossler tried to get out of it in the most comical way, claiming that sigma is not a time but rather a frequency. This was however too much of a stretch even for him: faced with the quote of Einstein above, he had to retract and concede that sigma is indeed a time.
Next in the list of Rossler’s evasions was the attempt to backpedal on the relation between T and sigma. He stated that the relation sigma = 1 / T_up should not be read as a strict equality, but rather as a “proportionality” or perhaps a “wavy equality” (whatever that means). Then he stated that sigma is also “proportional” (or “wavily equal”) to T_down. Asked how sigma, a time, could be at the same time “wavily equal” to 1/T_up and T_down, two quantities that obviously have different dimensions, he promised to come back later and explain that dimensions are not really important.
Now Rossler appears to have decided that it is not in his interest to provide a definition of T at all, and puts up this conspiracy theory according to which evil CERN is trying to lure him into answering a pseudoscientific question. But I am sure that by now every citizen of the world is curious to know the answer, and joins me in asking Rossler:
what is the relation between the variable T_up in your eq.(1) and the variable sigma in Einstein’s eq.(30a)?
Well done, PassingBy, looks like a reasonable but heavily pushed effort to lay out what you “anonymous science kids” (as Rossler called you, evidently very accurately, and still declining to explain why you are all anonymous instead of proudly flying the flag of your personal name above your comments, so you would have to take responsibility for your irresponsibility in eg giving poor Rossler a false UN Security Council address, calling him rude names, and so forth) are saying.
The only thing you leave out is why Rossler got infuriated with you in his last exchange, and vowed not to respond to you any more until you apologized. Given his unprecedentedly full answers to TRMGs unprecedentedly full enquiry, I thought we were getting somewhere until then.
Now he has been alienated, which is a pity, unless it is a pretense, as you will undoubtedly imply. I don’t think it is a pretense, but I await an explanation. It must hold the key to who is right. At the moment it seems to boil down to you imagining you have proved that Rossler has reversed a key equation of Einstein’s paper, but he apparently feels otherwise.
Have to say that your views of what Rossler is maintaining in response to your inquiries seem so contemptuous of any possibility that he is not wrong that objective onlookers have a hard time taking them seriously enough to wade through line by line, but this objective onlooker will try when there is time.
But why not write in a way which is calm, polite and openminded? It would be much more persuasive to those that are too busy to do more than skim this stuff. Why is it necessary to heap scorn on someone you scorn? It isn’t.
Therefore you must be biased in some way, which makes it hard to take you seriously, because it suggests you are not considering all possibilities, and speak from group think, Biblical inspiration, assignation to stop Rossler, and other emotional impetus which interferes with what scientists used to do, which is search for truths in Nature.
Anthony, preaching again? I told you that it’s pointless, you might as well save your time.
Who knows why Rossler “got infuriated”, who knows what goes on inside his head. But you are right, I think it’s all an excuse to avoid providing a straight answer on the definition of his “T”.
Have you fully appreciated his latest conspiracy theory? He now claims that the question about the relation between T_up and sigma is an elaborate trap, because the question is bogus and his credibility would be undermined if he took it seriously. Do you buy this crap? Besides, if that was the true goal of the question I would have already succeeded: as I detailed above, Rossler gave not just one, but several (mutually contradictory) answers to the question. But no, I really am interested in a clear definition of T, in order to be able to decide whether eq.(1) or eq.(2) of “Telemach” are wrong. As usual, TRMG put it very well yesterday:
“I want you to define your symbols T unambiguously in terms of well-known physical quantities like local times or frequencies. This means no wavy equality signs, no undetermined proportionality factors, no private jargon like “temporal wavelength.” Just tell us what T is.”
Finally, what is this delirium about Koreans? Has Rossler gone completely insane?
If time runs more slowly further down in a gravitational field (Einstein 1907), all clocks have a proportionally longer period down there. [For those who prefer symbols: T(downstairs) : T(upstairs) = t(upstairs) : t(downstairs) = 1+z ; z = redshift > 0, t = time, T = period.] My Telemach theorem, which proves the unsafety of the LHC experiment, is based on this obvious fact.
The latter fact was disputed over hundreds of entries by the CERN-defending scientific crowd with the following argument: I could not be believed because of my being unable to define a fixed ratio between the period downstairs and the time upstairs. [ “T(downstairs) : t(upstairs)”. ] This ratio is undefined and undefinable.
I hope the andrological analogy which I drew is not offensive. (The Korean result, by the way, appears to be sound.) I am very grateful that it gives the planet an occasion to laugh in the darkest hour of its history (unless CERN can prove it was not reckless which I still hope will be possible).
Ah, can you give explicitly the dimension of the T now?
Ah, and you have proven nothing about the LHC.
You know, you have shown clearly that you have not written a scientific paper but a piece of pseudoscientific crap with non-defined equations which are therefore meaningless and so on.
You have nowhere in your “theorem” addressed anything specific about particle physics. You have not even started to deal with things like hawking radiation (I am btw quite sure that you have not even understood the hawking machanism at all). You have inconsistencies in the very beginning of your “paper”. IF T is a period with the dimension of a frequency it follows that your eq2 must be wrong because L/T is not longer a velocity.
It’s strange that it becomes a world-wide simbol, I don’t find any big reason to become it. But nevertheless success is ciming to it.
Quote: “IF T is a period with the dimension of a frequency it follows that your eq2 must be wrong because L/T is not longer a velocity.”
Thank you, you are right: L is a period with the dimension of a spatial frequency, T is a period with the dimension of a temporal frequency. Nevertheless L/T = c.
Ok, now T means period again, not frequency anymore.
Rössler: “If time runs more slowly further down in a gravitational field (Einstein 1907), all clocks have a proportionally longer period down there. [For those who prefer symbols: T(downstairs) : T(upstairs) = t(upstairs) : t(downstairs) = 1+z ; z = redshift > 0, t = time, T = period.] My Telemach theorem, which proves the unsafety of the LHC experiment, is based on this obvious fact.”
This is not only wrong, it hardly makes sense. The clock’s period *is* a certain amount of time, namely the time it takes the clockwork to return exactly to a given previous state. Because of time dilation, for a fixed clock this interval varies with the position of the observer, but every observer can express it in terms of his own local time (as given by a local clock at rest with him).
If all observers use identical ideal clocks, then simply T(upstairs) = T(downstairs), where each T is the period of the observer’s local clock measured in the respective observers own local time. This is the definition of identical ideal clocks, so the fact that Rössler calls “obvious” is simply not true. Of course nothing prevents any observer from using a different clock with a different period, but this fact has nothing to do with time dilation, and there cannot be any law relating the periods of entirely abritrary periodic processes that can be chosen to serve as clocks.
“The latter fact was disputed over hundreds of entries by the CERN-defending scientific crowd with the following argument: I could not be believed because of my being unable to define a fixed ratio between the period downstairs and the time upstairs.”
Well this was not exactly what we were asking, let alone was it our argument in more than 100 comments. We were asking for a definition of the symbols Rössler uses in terms of well-known physical quantities—any physical quantities, not for a ratio to a *specific* physical quantity, but anyway.
” [ “T(downstairs) : t(upstairs)”. ] This ratio is undefined and undefinable.”
No, of course it’s not. You can give the lower clock’s period in the local time downstairs, in which case T(downstairs) = tau (in Einstein’s notation), and thus
t(upstairs) = sigma = (1+z) tau, defines a ratio
T(downstairs)/t(upstairs) = 1/(1+z).
Of course, in this case t(upstairs) is *not* equal to the period of an identical clock at rest there, but it’s exactly 1+z times that period.
Thank you, you are right: L is a period with the dimension of a spatial frequency,
That is ad hoc introduced bullshit bingo.
So give the dimensions. What is a spatial frequency?‘
Now even L is a “period”??? Your private dictionary is getting funnier and funnier… So what is the dimension of L? Length or 1/length?
Anyway, you just declared that “T is a period with the dimension of a temporal frequency” (BTW, congratulations for being able to contradict yourself within the same sentence). That is, you just declared that the dimension of T is 1/time. In that case, I don’t see how c=L/T can have the dimension of a velocity. Alas, stating “Nevertheless L/T = c” in a very assured tone is not sufficient to make it true…
But wait, weren’t you supposed to come back to me and explain why dimensions don’t matter? This would be a good time to do so…
Dear children:
Please, ask an advisor to help you.
answering Rossler, of course
I think that is what you are trying to do?
Rossler: please ask a doctor to help YOU
Quote TRGM: “T(downstairs)/t(upstairs) = 1/(1+z).”
Are you serious?
Ah, and advisor. Thanks for confirming that the last thing you want is to be disproved.
Quote TRGM: “T(downstairs)/t(upstairs) = 1/(1+z).”
Are you serious?
You can not even see the consequences of your own equations? And you want to be a scientist?
Rossler: of course TRMG is serious. That equality (i.e., a reshuffling of Einstein’s eq.30a) is what one gets if one picks a side in your egregiously self-contradictory statement “T is a period with the dimension of a temporal frequency” and assumes that T is a period (the period of a clock donwstairs, in this case).
If one picks the other side of your statement, and assumes that T has the dimensions of a frequency, then your eq.(2) is in trouble because c=L/T has the wrong dimensions.
You can play dumb as long as you like, but you will not make this contradiction go away.
Rössler: “Are you serious?”
What do you ask me? It’s Einstein’s equation (30a), not mine.
Now according to today’s definition T(downstairs) it represents a period of the lower clock, doesn’t it? Or is this question to offensive for you?
You can play dumb as long as you like, but you will not make this contradiction go away.
But he has proved the unsafety of the LHC :D
“Anthony, preaching again? I told you that it’s pointless, you might as well save your time.”
So irritating, your misuse of words. I am not preaching, which implies some kind of religious morality, I am merely asking for clarity in what you are trying to say. As kids trying to show up Rossler, you will only succeed if you can get your words and math straight, and avoid glib insults which understandably make Rossler disinclined to deal with your emotionally motivated misunderstandings and contradictions.
In particular, you need to get your facts straight about whether he means an algebraic equation expressing the exact relation between two values or a statement of the existence of two values where we don’t know the precise algebraic relationship between them. According to his latest statements above he is holding to the latter form and not the former.
You may debunk what he says if you like, but it would be useful to deal with that rather than something he doesn’t maintain. And it would be helpful if you could express yourself more cogently.
At the moment you are looking more and more like the Ptolemaic barking dogs defending the stupidities of HIV/AIDS “science”, who muddy the waters with embroidering their inane beliefs with complications designed to baffle outsiders and defeat the rational critique of their opponents.
At least you are (more or less) talking physics, though. However, one wonders if you are too young to realize fully how much of current texts in cosmology and subatomic physics are provisional by definition. The whole point of mentioning Ptolemy is that it was a great example of how complicated theorizing which was later shown to be wrong could be constructed nonetheless to give the right observational answers.
How much of current collider analysis will be revised? Given that it has no predictive power in the current situation, as all acknowledge, perhaps quite a lot. Why does this matter here? Because maybe you should respect Rossler’s ideas a little more than you do by your simply comparing it with current texts and saying they conflict.
Is this preaching? Perhaps it is if you recognize a morality in science, which is to cooperate in the service of truth, rather than attack in the service of politics.
However, if you can show that Rossler is contravening simple physics as you seem to believe you can, please carry on — intelligibly, though. He certainly sounds as if he knows what he is talking about and is not conceding anything, as he has said he will be glad to do if objections prove valid.
And a man who is always civil in the face of baying hound dogs gives a very good impression.
Dear Anthony,
pls let me help try and put things in the perspective.
What TMRG, PassingByAgain and Hansel are complaining about is, according to my perception, a recurring trait of Dr. Roesslers reactions to critical review:
Some time ago Dr. Roessler explicitly ([1], [2]) encouraged “young scientists” to try and falsify his theories.
Because his proposals were presented in prosa, some bloggers (including myself) asked for a precise mathematical deduction of his findings [1].
(Btw. — speaking for myself only — with the intention to exclude any misunderstandings or “re-definitions” like those in this discussion from the very beginning.)
While eagerly waiting for Dr. Roessler assembling his maths I “dared” asking for the meaning of the closely related “gothic-R” differential of his; Dr. Roessler had claimed [2] for his theory that “The constant-c finding was first deduced in the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity” in [Dr. Roesslers] “gothic R” theorem of 2007″
Then the “odyssey” began:
It took Dr. Roessler 3 (three) attempts even to explicate the dimension of his very own “finding” sort-of coherently.
What I’m still waiting for (well, not really) is him specifying two quantitities for the presumably most trivial of tasks — this is, integrating his “d gothic-R” and getting a scalar observable out of it.
This should be considered in view of the fact that there had already been harsh theoretical criticism of his “gothic-R” been presented; foremost one analysis co-authored by the Director of Albert-Einstein-Institute [3] and one provided by an anonymous, but obviously competent, internet user [4].
Imo Dr. Roessler has been granted plenty of chances for substantiating his theorems; if he doesn’t take them the issue is obviously not that pressing as he wants readers to believe. Or is it?
I hope this was helpful.
With kind regards,
S.
[1] Prof. Otto E. Rössler | “Erneuter Aufruf an die wissenschaftliche Jugend der Welt: Kann jemand einen Fehler in dem nachfolgenden Text finden?”. Achtphasen Blog, 2011. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2011/01/29/p…ufruf_an_d
[2] Prof. Otto E. Rössler | ““Calling on Young Scientists: Who Can Find an Error in the Present Text?”. Achtphasen Blog, 2011. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2011/01/30/p1946
[3]Domenico Giulini and Hermann Nicolai. “On the arguments of O.E. Rössler”. 2008. Available from World Wide Web: http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact…ent-en.pdf.
[4]User “Ich”. “Entfernungen in der Schwarzschildmetrik”. 2008. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.achtphasen.net/miniblackhole/Ich/Schwarzschild.pdf.
BTW: Nicolais objections are still valid as Rössler has not changed anything of the math in his paper (because he can not deal with the math? this would fit to his difficulties to define even simple equations…)
Dr. Roessler even tries to “falsify” Stokes theorem, which could well be considered THE very core theorem of calculus.
On the other hand he often refers to Birkhoff’s theorem (or, to be more precise, to his “preception” of Birkhoff’s theorem).
I find this remarkable, because Birkhoff’s theorem along with tensor transformation props alone suffice for rendering his “new physics from gothic-R” null and void.
Regards,
S.
There are many things he never understood. But as long as he is believing to be a real genius and all other people are stupid nothing will change.
Anthony, we finally learn that you are as big a conspiracy-theory nutter as Rossler. In particular, you appear to be one of those people who deny the link between HIV and AIDS. Weirdos like you have been in power for ten years in South Africa, and caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths by promoting garlic as a cure for AIDS. A demonstration, if that was ever in doubt, that crackpottery is not always harmless and benign. But this would be matter for a different blog…
…coming back to Rossler, I’m starting to believe that he’s not just one person, but rather a collective enterprise. Each day a new Rossler impersonator shows up to clean up the mess left by his predecessor, and tries out a new line of reasoning (only to end up in a deeper mess, it appears). Anyway, let me recap the day for our 6.9 billion readers.
Today’s incarnation of Rossler claimed that the reason why he cannot write down a relation between the variable T_up in his eq.(1) and the variable sigma in Einstein’s eq.(30a) is that T_up is a “period” while sigma is a “time”, therefore the two quantities are of different nature and cannot be compared. What Rossler means by “period” — as opposed to “time” — remains a mystery after more than a month of discussion. The mystery was certainly NOT clarified by Rossler’s latest self-contradictory sentence: “T is a period with the dimension of a temporal frequency”.
It might also be worth mentioning that Rossler tried this line before: “Sigma is a time, tau is a time; L_tail is a time interval, L_tip is a time interval.” (Otto E. Rossler on July 18, 2011 8:11 am in the “Compromises” thread). Even there, why a “time interval” should be something intrinsically different from a “time” remained anybody’s guess.
Anyway, this line of reasoning had a particularly short life today. TRMG quickly retorted that
“The clock’s period *is* a certain amount of time, namely the time it takes the clockwork to return exactly to a given previous state.”
As such, he continued, the period of the lower clock is subject to Einstein’s eq.(30a), just like any other time interval. In particular, if T is the period of the lower clock measured in the local time downstairs, and t is the period of the lower clock measured in the local time upstairs, then t = (1+z) * T.
At this point, Rossler manifested incredulity at this (quite trivial) application of Einstein’s eq.(30a), then he disappeared.
Is anyone still thinking that his only wish was to become disproved? :D
I think Rossler is a sock puppet for CERN. He does such a great job of destroying his own credibility, and the credibility of the Anti-LHC cause…in fact, I find it very hard to imagine a better way to discredit the anti-LHC cause than Rossler’s antics. CERN could not hire a better publicist for its cause than Rossler.
Either that, or Rossler is not serious, and is only doing all this as a joke…
In any case, Rossler’s tactics almost look like they were specifically designed by a crack team of publicists to discredit his so-called theories!!!
Talk about self defeating!
Roger
After hundreds of snarling comments about Rossler’s Eq. 1 through several posts, the pack of curs on this thread continue to gnaw and bite at their little bone of contention. In so doing, they demonstrate the point of Rossler’s current post, that CERN “recruited a gang of anonymous science kids to defend its cause by pretending to ask a scientific question…”
Whether by assignment or self-selection, the volunteers come from the community of CERN supporters, most of whom may have career goals tied to accelerators. It’s obvious that, except for Anthony, none the commentors here have any genuine interest in safety concerns regarding the LHC nor in any of Rossler’s ideas or theorems regarding black holes. The only purpose in concentrating on his Eq. 1 was to bog down the discussion and block it from developing into any serious examination of the important safety issues which, if taken seriously, would threaten the future operations and career opportunities afforded by CERN and the LHC.
The analysis by the CURS (CERN’s Unruly Rascals) has been so inept and fatuous that it would be inadequate to describe the readout of a slow clock versus a normal clock, or even to interpret a standard conversion formula for distance (m = k * 1.6). The purpose of the concentration on Eq. 1 had nothing to do with any interest in time or relativity or truth but was merely a vehicle to needle and harass Dr. Rossler, in an effort to discredit him and any safety concerns about the LHC.
In so doing, normal civilities were dropped by the CURS in favor of crude insults, imperious demands, and expressions of contempt. Those who behaved so rudely would commonly be ejected from civilized meetings as boorish hecklers. But of course the attitude of disdain is the real message behind the feigned interest in an equation — for every answer by Rossler has been met with yet another insult, never a word of thanks or even a thoughtful comment.
So carry on CURS, and continue to demonstrate with your frat-boy insolence what Rossler so keenly observed as the absence of humane values or concern in CERN’s selfish push to ever higher luminosities and energies in total disregard for the feelings, cares, or lives of the rest of humanity.
“Anthony, we finally learn that you are as big a conspiracy-theory nutter as Rossler. In particular, you appear to be one of those people who deny the link between HIV and AIDS. Weirdos like you have been in power for ten years in South Africa, and caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths by promoting garlic as a cure for AIDS. A demonstration, if that was ever in doubt, that crackpottery is not always harmless and benign. But this would be matter for a different blog…”
Good example of total ignorance of a debate in science leading someone on the basis of general knowledge from inadequate sources to bray the newspaper level/uncorrected journal study-level received wisdom like a donkey at twilight, believing himself well informed and any challenge to his ignorance by definition incorrect. Well done, PassingBy, a fine specimen.
As you say, informing you of the actual state of affairs in that field is not for these pages. But it does serve as an example of how at least one opinion of yours rests on inadequate research, yet is trumpeted abroad without caution, so it calls into question your competence at thinking about and double checking anything else you are told, including physics, and the possibly flimsy and ill thought out basis for your participation in any scientific debate.
The fact that HIV=AIDS is a theory which is so illfounded that every intelligent newspaper reader still able to think about what they read should see its blatant inconsistencies with reality does not mean Rossler is a good scientist, but it does show us that you are an unreliable assessor of ideas, since you does not use critical thinking when you read about the silliest theory in disease, but just repeat bad information as if you were a typical newspaper reporter.
But of course you are obviously young and should not be blamed for not yet learning what grown up are up to. Maybe you should start your political education with Inside Job, the documentary that won the Oscar this year. Should give you an improved notion of how the world can be led by the nose by incompetent and crooked men in high position, aided and abetted by supposedly objective academics, in that case economists at Harvard, Columbia, etc.
Its entertaining, too, by the way. Don’t be afraid of being bored.
AnthonyL: “As you say, informing you of the actual state of affairs in that field is not for these pages. But it does serve as an example of how at least one opinion of yours rests on inadequate research, yet is trumpeted abroad without caution, so it calls into question your competence at thinking about and double checking anything else you are told, including physics, and the possibly flimsy and ill thought out basis for your participation in any scientific debate.
The fact that HIV=AIDS is a theory which is so illfounded that every intelligent newspaper reader still able to think about what they read should see its blatant inconsistencies with reality does not mean Rossler is a good scientist, but it does show us that you are an unreliable assessor of ideas, since you does not use critical thinking when you read about the silliest theory in disease, but just repeat bad information as if you were a typical newspaper reporter. ”
I already wondered what would be the reason for constantly trying to mingle this discussion with your HIV denial nonsense, even though your pet peeve is obviously completely off-topic here. And now all that’s behind it is constructing a desperately lame pretext for not believing us? Oh dear.
Right, you cannot trust our critical judgment when it comes to comparing two equations, because probably we are just too biased in favor of elementary algebra, relativity, and all this ptolemaic dog barking, which is much too profane to live up to Rössler’s brilliance. After all this stuff really takes much more objectivity than can be expected from our confusing, indigestable comments, you were rightfully too busy to read anyway.
Ok, now you found your ultimate kooky excuse to continue your unconditional Rössler admiration, and you’re spared from the burden to understand anything we write for all future. Good bye.
Anthony: why don’t you infect yourself with HIV to prove your point?
But, most importantly: WHERE IS ROSSLER? Nobody here is interested in the sermons of his fanboys, who have by now abandoned any pretense of discussing physics.
A Short Disproof of TRMG’s Claim
I use simplified symbols (Td for period downstairs, tu for time upstairs, etc.).
We agree that Td/Tu = tu/td = K (whereby K = 1+z = 1 + Phi/c^2).
The question to solve is:
Td/tu = Tu/td = ?
You claim that ? = 1/K.
I find that ? = K*Tu/tu, because ? = Td/Tu*Tu/tu = K*Tu/tu.
Hence it is not true that knowing the period on one level determines the speed of time on the other.
A “disproof” based on the assumption that I agree with your equation?
Rössler: “We agree that Td/Tu = tu/td = K (whereby K = 1+z = 1 + Phi/c^2). ”
No, we don’t. I only agree to the second equation. If Td is supposed to be the clock’s period, then of course the first equation isn’t true, as I already said above. Next try, please.
@AnthonyL: How about Darwin? Also an illfounded theory?
And, BTW, Rössler, what a buffoonery is it to attempt to disproof my claim anyway? I only substituted a single variable into Einstein’s equation. There is nothing to disproof about that.
So you stick to (quote): “Td/tu = Tu/td = .… = 1/K”?
“So you stick to (quote): “Td/tu = Tu/td = …. = 1/K”?”
Oh god. I stick to Td/tu = 1/(1+z).
I cannot stick to the second equation because I never claimed it was true. If you take the upper time tu to equal one clock period Tu, then of course
Tu/td = 1+z.
To all posters on this forum:
I recommend that these discussions all stop, now!!!
I certainly won’t be making any more posts here!!!
Nobody’s being persuaded, and they keep going around and around in ever smaller circles. All efforts to debunk Rossler are a waste of time, since he doesn’t admit Hansel and TRMG’s rather straightforward algebra (and as far as I can tell, Hansel and TRMG are 100% correct!)
Rossler and his supporters have no credibility in the Physics community, and have as much chance of stopping the LHC as the Chicago Cubs have of winning the World Series for the next ten years in a row. There is no point in debunking Rossler, since he has no credibility or influence at all (with CERN, European policy makers, the UN Security Council, President Obama, or anybody else) and , and is therefore “mostly harmless.” Best to ignore him.
I extend the scope of my comment to Rossler’s supporters, too. “CURS???” The credibility of Rossler and his supporters is quickly dropping to zero. You guys are not convincing…give it up.
What ever happened to “JTankers,” by the way? Haven’t seen him around in these discussions for a couple of years…
By the way, I am not associated with CERN, and am not even a physicist, and my career focuses more on chemistry than on physics. I can understand the math easily enough (advanced degree in engineering), and TRMG and Hansel are right…but you can’t make a horse drink water if he does not want to.
Rossler will never admit he is wrong, since that would put an end to his campaign in a hurry. To admit he is wrong (even though his equations are trivially wrong, as is pretty obvious) would end his discussion immediately, so this is the last thing he wants to do!
I’m no expert, but my naive understanding is that Anthony LaVere’s defense of HIV not causing AIDS seems to be undermined by the success of the antivirals in stopping HIV from developing into full blown AIDS, and the fact that anti-HIV advice in South Africa seems to have caused many deaths.
Goodbye,
Roger
So you stick. Thank you.
Dear Colleague Roger:
Do you say anyone has found an error in my Telemach paper?
Please, show me — for nothing else is and has ever been at stake here.
P.S. The stick-entry was a direct answer to TRGM (Roger interloped).
OMG, you really dare to ask this question about the error in your paper when at the same time it was shown that your equations are wrong and you were not able to repair them?
Dear professional CERN defender Hansel without a face: You ought to know that claims are no disproofs. Or can you correct my results so that your version can be juxtaposed to mine and a decision can be made by anyone as to who is right?
There is nothing to repair in your crap paper. It is inconsistent and far away from being a proof for something.
It certainly has nothing to do with hawking radiation.
Rossler, *I* can “correct [your] results so that [my] version can be juxtaposed to [yours] and a decision can be made by anyone as to who is right”:
PassingByAgain: T_up = T_down * (1+z)
Rossler: T_up = T_down / (1+z)
anybody can see that the first equation agrees with standard textbooks (and experiment) while the second doesn’t. End of story.
And not the first end of this story. ;)
well, I never claimed originality ;-)
earlier comments at
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern’s-last-media-gag-…ent-page-1
dammit, the link above doesn’t work. Try this:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern%E2%80%99s-last-media-g…ment-87916
wrong again! this is my last try:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern%E2%80%99s-last-media-g…ment-87916
OK, the link immediately above works :-)
Hansel: You expressed an opinion — fine. There are other opinions. Do we have tine for opinions?
This referred to Hansel 6:46 am.
Let me come back to TRGM3:25 am — since I got no answer to the information that a proven-false information is still being adhered to.
Dr. TRGM stands in high esteem with me (if I am guessing right about the real name) because a namesake once impressed me by being sharper than me. Is there a chance for a private exchange of more detailed arguments?
Rossler: you still have to address TRMG’s simple statement:
“The clock’s period *is* a certain amount of time, namely the time it takes the clockwork to return exactly to a given previous state.”
As such, the period of a clock is subject to Einstein’s eq.(30a) just like any other time interval.
In particular, if T_down is the period of the downstairs clock measured in the local time downstairs, and t_up is the period of the *downstairs* clock measured in the local time upstairs, then t_up = (1+z) * T_down. This is the equation that — God knows why — made you wonder whether TRMG was serious.
On the other hand, if T_down is the period of the downstairs clock measured in the local time downstairs, and T_up is the period of an identical *upstairs* clock measured in the local time upstairs, then T_up = T_down. That’s the definition of identical clocks.
Do you disagree with any of the above statements?
Quote: “As such, the period of a clock is subject to Einstein’s eq.(30a) just like any other time interval.”
You are speaking from my soul.
The phrase (quote) “measured in the local time downstairs” is false. In the local time, all clocks are unchanged on any level.
But thank you for your fair questions.
Oh, again the try to shift to private channels. Afterwards Rössler will deliver one of his famous private interpretations of this intransparent exchange.
NO, Rössler. You are the one who wanted a “safety conference” to discuss your “theorem” in the public. And you can not expect that there will be different questions about your simple equations at a safety conference. No one there will stop to think critically only because it is the the great Otto Rössler presenting his “theorem”.
“The phrase (quote) “measured in the local time downstairs” is false. In the local time, all clocks are unchanged on any level.”
And why are you claiming a kind of absolute, “ontological” redshift? :D
Dear Hansel: I want nothing more than critical thinking about my results.
Please, do give an argument that stands.
Now to our laughing qustion: I do not postulate anything. People who say so have not read (or pondered) what I said.
(By the way: did you notice that the smile means two completely different things in the two entries with a Smiley above?)
Rössler: “Quote: “As such, the period of a clock is subject to Einstein’s eq.(30a) just like any other time interval.”
You are speaking from my soul.”
Nevertheless you just called my application of Eq. (30a) to exactly this case a “proven-false information.”
“I want nothing more than critical thinking about my results. ”
What can be more critical in a scientific discussion than asking for defintions etc if they are NOT well defined?
And what can be more non-scientific to avoid clear answers to the question?
“The phrase (quote) “measured in the local time downstairs” is false. In the local time, all clocks are unchanged on any level.”
Can you probably be more specific? A phrase cannot be false, only a statement can be. So could you please answer PassingByAgain’s question in the sensethat he asked it:
“Do you disagree with any of the above statements?”
Rossler, you say:
“The phrase (quote) “measured in the local time downstairs” is false.”
What do you mean by that? Why would that phrase be false? Are you claiming that it is not possible to measure the period of a clock in the local time of the point where the clock is located? If the period of a clock is a time interval just like any other time interval, it can certainly be measured in local time. In TRMG’s words, the period of a clock is the amount of local time that it takes for the clock to return exactly to a given previous state.
“In the local time, all clocks are unchanged on any level.”
more incoherent nonsense. What is this supposed to mean?
And yes, please, answer my question while you are at it:
“Do you disagree with any of the above statements?”
(see PassingByAgain on July 21, 2011 7:45 am)
So let me repeat, because I think Rössler got confused along the way about which statements we actually adhere to and to which we don’t. We have Einsteins
sigma = (1+z) tau, with sigma and tau both local times.
Now we assume identical clocks each with a period of exactly T measured in local time. Then according to
“…the period of a clock is subject to Einstein’s eq.(30a) just like any other time interval,”
which speaks from Rössler’s soul, as he assures us, we get, by trivial substitution
sigma/T = 1+z, if T is the lower clocks period and
tau/T = 1/(1+z) if T is the upper clock’s period.
Now it’s these substitution which Rössler obviously imagines to have disproved.
Correction: The 2nd & 3rd to last lines should’ve read:
“sigma/T = 1+z, if *tau=T* is the lower clocks period and
tau/T = 1/(1+z) if *sigma=T* is the upper clock’s period.”
But it was probably clear anyway.
“I’m no expert, but my naive understanding is that Anthony LaVere’s defense of HIV not causing AIDS seems to be undermined by the success of the antivirals in stopping HIV from developing into full blown AIDS, and the fact that anti-HIV advice in South Africa seems to have caused many deaths.” — Roger
You may be no expert but at least you are a thoughtful reader. No, the apparent improvement in HIV drugs simply correlates with the use of less and less dangerous drugs over the years. The CDC reports the same numbers dying annually in the US from “HIV/AIDS” as before (17,000).
This is not the place to discuss it. www. scienceguardian. com has written up this topic among others for seven years. The Harvard claim that anti-HIV advice in South Africa has resulted in many more deaths is merely paradigm peddling. If the paradigm is not a premise, the opposite conclusion is reached.
@AnthonyL: How about Darwin? Also an illfounded theory? — Me
Silly.
“And now all that’s behind it is constructing a desperately lame pretext for not believing us? Oh dear.” — PassingBy
A valid reason for not assuming that your confused and inarticulate objections to Rossler are valid, in fact. I wish you were better able to make your ideas clear, PassingBy. It is disappointing that you are so challenged. If Rossler’s ideas are so wrong in a simple way you should be able to show it. Instead, onlookers like Roger have given up waiting for the coup de grace.
Maybe TRMG can do it. But you have to understand that while your inability doesn’t mean you are wrong, it forces us to keep an open mind on Rossler.
Sorry, it was TRMG who used the “lame” line, not PassingBy. Both on the same level holding opinions on topics they haven’t researched properly, it seems.
It looks as if there is no hope for any satisfactory resolution here, then, as Roger said. We were all hoping for Alsatians chasing Rossler, and all we got are Pekinese.
(Transferred from other thread)
This is now page 2 of the Korean Two Fingers thread.
Insert page 1,2 etc for X in
lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern’s-last-media-gag-the-korean-two-fingers-gang/comment-page-X#comment-87969
to get the page of the comment thread you want.
Anthony, I insist that you should stop trying to hijack the thread with your HIV/AIDS crackpottery and give Rossler an excuse to avoid answering the questions about clocks. But I really really cannot resist asking again the one question you did not answer so far:
Why don’t you infect yourself with HIV to prove your point?
Think about how famous you would become: the guy who single-handedly disproved the link between HIV and AIDS…
So Darwin is silly?
AnthonyL: “A valid reason for not assuming that your confused and inarticulate objections to Rossler are valid, in fact. I wish you were better able to make your ideas clear, PassingBy. It is disappointing that you are so challenged. If Rossler’s ideas are so wrong in a simple way you should be able to show it.”
Your assumptions in this regard are quite irrelevant. Since you either didn’t even read the objections you call confused and inarticulate, or never at least specified what remained unclear to you by just asking a simple question, it is no wonder that you didn’t understand anything. And, given your own neglects, no sane person could possibly imagine that your failure to understand implies our failure to have shown that Rössler is trivially wrong. To understand the arguments in a debate you are allegedly interested in is your own responsibility, no one else’s. If your usual way of acquiring knowledge in a field is by applying the method you proudly demonstrated here, which is to suspect evil group think as soon as two or more people agree on a subject, and just shut your ears to what they say, it is a straightforward consequence that you end up as a kook of all trades.
“Maybe TRMG can do it. But you have to understand that while your inability doesn’t mean you are wrong, it forces us to keep an open mind on Rossler.”
No, foremost it is your inability to understand, and if you are serious, it forces you to roll up your sleeves and finally work through the arguments by yourself, and possibly ask specific questions about what you don’t understand. Nothing’s going to make it easier than that for you, sorry. Or alternatively you can remain conveniently ignorant and just continue to be impressed by Rössler’s pseudiscientific gibberish, while flattering yourself on being “objective” and “openminded.” No one cares.
“Why don’t you infect yourself with HIV to prove your point?”
Classic example of unscientific argument which doesn’t hold on any basis, period. If I infected myself with HIV and skipped along blithely unharmed, what would that prove? Have you even heard of the label “anecdotal”? Have you heard of the claim that HIV takes an average of ten years to suddenly attack you? Would we have to wait for twenty years before it served as one example, still anecdotal? Have you ever studied any science at all? This silly post suggests not.
“So Darwin is silly?”
No, Me, you are. Silly. Very silly. If you don’t know that Darwin makes sense on every basis, you are very, very silly. Jim Watson views Darwin as more important as Christ, he told Charlie Rose, because his idea made sense of the entire natural world, that previously had to be explained with fairy tales. If you want to say that Darwin is incomplete, however, that’s another story. Science is quietly trying to elucidate mechanisms beyond Darwin to explain speciation without letting creationist fairy tale peddlers in the back door. He himself acknowledged not all was explained by natural selection, and spent much time trying to fathom evolution’s further mysteries. His wife meanwhile was standing over him with a rolling pin telling him not to alienate her Church (OK I speak metaphorically).
“to suspect evil group think as soon as two or more people agree on a subject, and just shut your ears to what they say, it is a straightforward consequence that you end up as a kook of all trades.” — TRMG
Hey, TRMG, witty stuff! Except I have never said you are evil, just a peddler of group think who can’t effectively stop Rossler peddling what you say is “pseudoscientific gibberish”. True, I have a life which tells me after initially overestimating what you wrote not to do the work of making sense of it, when that is surely your responsibility. Every time we get the intemperate stuff it makes it even more tiring in the current US heatwave to contemplate doing it for you.
Of curse you plead that it is lack of scientific knowledge or mental inertia or prejudice that makes us lazy in this respect, but you know, if you have ever read anything in a newspaper or book and blamed yourself rather than the writer or his/her editor , you are a very fine, humble man. Not many like you.
Most people blame the writer or editor. But maybe you go to a film and if you find it boring you blame yourself!
You are an example to us all. What is your real name? I should like to quote your philosophy.
Anthony: “If I infected myself with HIV and skipped along blithely unharmed, what would that prove? Have you even heard of the label “anecdotal”? Have you heard of the claim that HIV takes an average of ten years to suddenly attack you? Would we have to wait for twenty years before it served as one example, still anecdotal?”
Well, if you are indeed the Anthony Liversidge who writes on scienceguardian, you seem to have made this HIV/AIDS crackpottery the cause of your life. Therefore you could infect yourself just to show that you really mean the bullshit you are peddling around, and you are not just seeking attention by crying conspiracy. And it appears that you’ve been in this business for twenty years already. If you had infected yourself ten years ago, you would have had all the time to let HIV do its job and to volunteer your body for scientific research… Again, think about how famous you would be now!
Anyway, I really don’t want to distract Rossler from the questions on clocks, so I’ll take the liberty of repeating TRMG’s post (incorporating the addendum that he posted subsequently):
TRMG on July 21, 2011 8:55 am
So let me repeat, because I think Rössler got confused along the way about which statements we actually adhere to and to which we don’t. We have Einsteins
sigma = (1+z) tau, with sigma and tau both local times.
Now we assume identical clocks each with a period of exactly T measured in local time. Then according to
“…the period of a clock is subject to Einstein’s eq.(30a) just like any other time interval,”
which speaks from Rössler’s soul, as he assures us, we get, by trivial substitution
sigma/T = 1+z, if tau=T is the lower clocks period and
tau/T = 1/(1+z) if sigma=T is the upper clock’s period.
Now it’s these substitution which Rössler obviously imagines to have disproved.
Sigma is a frequency and T a period of a clock. You seem to claim that there exists only one clock and only one period.
now you are back to “sigma is a frequency”? have you been drinking? Let me quote your own words:
Otto E. Rössler on July 18, 2011 2:21 am
Sorry. The quote “Sigma is a frequency with Einstein” is nonsense – my fault.
I apologize for two mistakes. First, I got carried away two days ago, after reading (on p. 456 of Einstein’s 1907 paper) that tau is a “time element” (Zeitelement) even though tau and sigma are a “time” everywhere else in his paper, into believing that this was the central meaning of sigma and tau. Then I made the genuine mistake of transposing “time element” in my mind into “frequency” which is absolute nonsense. I take this back with apologies.
“Sigma is a frequency ”
No, sigma is a time.
Next try.
For real scientists this is already the proof that you have not even a theorem, Rössler. A person who can not even define simple equaions like this without becoming totally confused has nothing like a ” theorem”.
I apologizefor my intermediary blunder which has nothing to do with my results in the Telemach paper. Would you be so kind to acknowledge this fact?
Which blunder? The one of (Otto E. Rössler on July 17, 2011 9:58 am) or the identical blunder of (Otto E. Rossler on July 21, 2011 2:02 pm)? My theory of the multiple Rosslers gathers steam…
Anyway, let’s pretend that nothing happened, and go back to TRMG’s post. Do you disagree with any of these two equations?
sigma/T = 1+z, if tau=T is the lower clocks period and
tau/T = 1/(1+z) if sigma=T is the upper clock’s period.
“you seem to have made this HIV/AIDS crackpottery the cause of your life. ” — PassingBy
No, but I watched HIV/AIDS crackpottery (the standard claim) develop from the very beginning, and it remains one of the greatest piles of BS (bad science) in the history of biology, of disease, of received wisdom, and of memes that are accepted uncritically by grad students such as yourself. Another one is the distortion of cancer theory over the last 30 years. Science is now littered with bad ideas supported by venal professors and their grad students, but these are the greatest currently, so they serve as prime specimens.
The issue is whether you have a reflex skepticism of anti-conformist ideas or whether you have a thoughtful skepticism, where discussion with people like Rossler can be fruitful and reach a persuasive conclusion, especially when it matters to the degree that the future of the Earth is at stake.
I support your efforts wholeheartedly for that reason and am trying to get you to perform better, but judging from your inability to see why injecting myself would prove nothing of relevance to that paradigm debate it is pretty hopeless.
Anthony, please, I already told many times you that nobody cares about your sermons. You have never contributed anything relevant to the discussion on Rossler’s equations, which is all that matters here. At first TRMG took you somewhat seriously and wasted his time spelling things out for you, but by now it’s clear even to him that you simply won’t try to think for yourself. You are not going be convinced until Rossler himself concedes defeat? Suit yourself, but please do so in silence, right now you are just injecting noise in the discussion. You see, now Rossler got distracted by your walls of text and he repeated a blunder that he had already made four days ago. If you have specific questions about the equations or the definitions of the variables feel free to ask, otherwise please do not disturb.
going back to TRMG’s equations, hopefully without further interruptions:
sigma/T = 1+z, if tau=T is the lower clocks period and
tau/T = 1/(1+z) if sigma=T is the upper clock’s period.
Rossler, do you disagree with any of them?
“You are not going be convinced until Rossler himself concedes defeat? ”
Or until you present your physics in an intelligible manner to the audience, PassingBy, and also debate in the scientific spirit, which is cooperative, not in the antagonistic manner which demands “conceding defeat” from a man who told you he was actively seeking disproof of his theorem, and who readily owns up to mistakes, not caused by me, by the way, defending him as civil and constructive, at least, and urging you all to do the same, but much more likely caused by this endless yapping trouser tearing dachshunds act repeating the same trivialities over and over, when the relevant principle of T up compared with T down was agreed to by both parties 400 posts ago, regardless of mistakes in common understanding of terms and algebraic equations versus structural relations, or whatever the mixup is.
I hope that your irresponsibly anonymous posting does not conceal the motive of impressing your tutors by defending CERN because it is not going to win you a graduate degree, nor any concession of defeat from Rossler. Why don’t you concede defeat and that the basic principle of 30a is agreed on and move on to undermining his Telemach theorem as he requested, or state now why specifically you consider it beyond rational assessment, as you and others imply all the time?
If any man presents you with a theorem that isn’t founded on acceptable physics surely you can tell the world why and how it is misleading?
going back to TRMG’s equations, hopefully without further interruptions:
sigma/T = 1+z, if tau=T is the lower clocks period and
tau/T = 1/(1+z) if sigma=T is the upper clock’s period.
Rossler, do you disagree with any of them?
Dear PasserByAgain:
Einstein called sigma a frequency. Why not stick to recognizable symbols? (As long as we mean different things with the same symbols, there can be no progress.)
I introduced Tu and Td and tu and td yesterday, for periods T and times t, downstairs d and upstairs u. Can we not use them?
Einstein called sigma a time. He never defined it as a frequency.
You are lying.
The reason why there is no progress is your avoidance to give a clear definition of your variables.
Just a random quote mentioning sigma from §18 of “On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from it”:
“Wir wollen jetzt die Beziehung aufsuchen, welche zwischen der Zeit τ und der Ortszeit σ eines Punktereignisses besteht.”
“We are now going to look for a relation between the time tau and the local time sigma of point event.”
“I introduced Tu and Td and tu and td yesterday, for periods T and times t, downstairs d and upstairs u. Can we not use them?”
Yes of course: tu = sigma, td = tau, and, since both clocks are assumed to be identical, Tu = Td = T measured in the respective local time.
Corrected translation: “We are now going to look for a relation between the time tau and the local time sigma of a point event.”
Rossler: “Einstein called sigma a frequency. Why not stick to recognizable symbols?”
Sorry, but Einstein’s description of his eq.(30a) leaves no doubt that sigma and tau are times, not frequencies:
“If a clock showing local time is located at point P of gravitational potential Phi, then, according to Eq. (30a), its reading [that’s sigma — my addition] will be (1+Phi/c²) times greater than the time tau, i.e, it runs (1+Phi/c²) times faster than an identical clock located at the coordinate origin.”
So I have to ask again: are you sure that you are the same Rossler who declared:
(Otto E. Rössler on July 18, 2011 2:21 am)
“Sorry. The quote “Sigma is a frequency with Einstein” is nonsense – my fault. I apologize for two mistakes. First, I got carried away two days ago, after reading (on p. 456 of Einstein’s 1907 paper) that tau is a “time element” (Zeitelement) even though tau and sigma are a “time” everywhere else in his paper, into believing that this was the central meaning of sigma and tau. Then I made the genuine mistake of transposing “time element” in my mind into “frequency” which is absolute nonsense. I take this back with apologies.”
I notice that the Rossler of July 18 sports an umlaut while you don’t. Are there really multiple Rosslers?
Hi, TRMG :-)
Hansel 2:11: please. This is a very important point.
I read to you (in case you can read German): “Wir wollen jetzt die Beziehungen aufsuchen, welche zwischen der Zeit tau und der Ortszeit sigma eines Punktereignisses bestehen.” On page 456 of Einsteins 1907paper.
“We now want to look for the relations which hold true between the time tau and the local time sigma of a point event.”
I agree with TRGM’s statements if she insists on T being the same locally (which is not the point of interest to focus on for us). But then sigma and tau are also locally the same, are they not?
At the moment we all seem to converge.
Einstein is evidently not writing about a frequency. You are wrong.
This statement is not very helpful. What are you driving at?
Rössler: “I agree with TRGM’s statements if she insists on T being the same locally (which is not the point of interest to focus on for us). But then sigma and tau are also locally the same, are they not?”
What does that even mean? The equality of all clock’s periods is a consequence of their being identical. Identical clocks of course do not imply identical local times. sigma equals tau only at the origin, nowhere else.
Yes, thank you. For sigma and tau there seems to be no disagreement between you and me.
But clocks that tick more slowly — the periods downstairs — do have longer periods in comparison. For example, by sending a light signal up and down and up again, the two parties find that this “Einstein synchronization,” 1) allows them to define a common time as is well known. But it, 2) also allows them to say that within this artificial common time, there is a one-to-one mapping between a larger number of unit intervals upstairs and a smaller number of unit intervals downstaiors.
Nothing else I ever wanted to say. Can you give me a better way to express this? It would helpful to everyone.
Could your most recent incarnation please clarify what Present-Rössler’s interpretation of sigma is, before we continue? It is getting very confusing lately, because “2:08 am”-Rössler firmly believed sigma to be a frequency. And then, less than 1/2 hour later, “2:31 am”-Rössler complacently quoted Einstein defining sigma as local time. Do you think frequency and local time are the same thing? This would explain a lot of confusion I think.
It is both. It has the dimension second/second. :D
I am too stupid to find my 2:08 am text.
Hm, don’t you remember? Then I think this corroborates PassingByAgain’s many-Rösslers-interpretation again.
Here is what you wrote:
“Dear PasserByAgain:
Einstein called sigma a frequency…”
lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern’s-last-media-gag-the-korean-two-fingers-gang/comment-page-2
You also said the same thing earlier.
“Otto E. Rossler on July 21, 2011 2:02 pm
Sigma is a frequency”
Then in the meantime you apologized for this blunder, just to repeat it again later. So, what is going on?
This is indeed a lot of fun. Here is a summary of Rossler’s multiple personalities:
* Otto E. Rössler on July 17, 2011 9:58 am
No, sigma is a frequency with Einstein.
So the rest of your syllogism breaks down.
* Otto E. Rössler on July 18, 2011 2:21 am
Sorry. The quote “Sigma is a frequency with Einstein” is nonsense – my fault.
I apologize for two mistakes. First, I got carried away two days ago, after reading (on p. 456 of Einstein’s 1907 paper) that tau is a “time element” (Zeitelement) even though tau and sigma are a “time” everywhere else in his paper, into believing that this was the central meaning of sigma and tau. Then I made the genuine mistake of transposing “time element” in my mind into “frequency” which is absolute nonsense. I take this back with apologies.
* Otto E. Rossler on July 21, 2011 2:02 pm
Sigma is a frequency and T a period of a clock. You seem to claim that there exists only one clock and only one period.
* Otto E. Rossler on July 21, 2011 3:19 pm
I apologizefor my intermediary blunder which has nothing to do with my results in the Telemach paper. Would you be so kind to acknowledge this fact?
* Otto E. Rossler on July 22, 2011 2:08 am
Einstein called sigma a frequency. Why not stick to recognizable symbols? (As long as we mean different things with the same symbols, there can be no progress.)
* Otto E. Rossler on July 22, 2011 2:31 am
(…)
“We now want to look for the relations which hold true between the time tau and the local time sigma of a point event.”
Yes, Rossler, would you please tell us what is going on? How many of your clones are fighting for the keyboard ?
Thanks PassingByAgain, I was also considering to post this little summary for the fun of it. ;-)
And he doesn’t even seem to remember his contradictory statements from just a few hours ago. That’s somewhat worrying.
BTW, note that this is the guy who, in Anthony’s immortal words,
“certainly sounds as if he knows what he is talking about“
(Anthony L on July 20, 2011 8:17 am)
To TRMG: You are right . I made the same blunder twice. (I had the word “time” in mind when I said frequency this morning. Please, forgive me.) Misquoting Einstein is a blemish.
Fortunately, there can be no question what Einstein said. That I never wnted to say something else, you all know.
Please be co-operative.
We now have returned to this point:
“We now want to look for the relations which hold true between the time tau and the local time sigma of a point event.”
Can we continue from here?
Rossler: OK, let’s continue from here and — to limit the risk of further blunders — let’s adopt your preferred symbols.
To start with, let’s define all of the symbols:
- Tu is the period of the upstairs clock measured in the local time upstairs
- Td is the period of the downstairs clock measured in the local time downstairs
- tu is a generic time interval measured in the local time upstairs
- td is the same time interval measured in the local time downstairs
Now, two important facts:
- Einstein’s eq.(30a) states that: tu = (1 + z) * td
- If the two clocks are ideal and identical to each other, Tu = Td = T
Now we can apply Einstein’s eq.(30a):
If we denote by tu the period of the *lower* clock measured in the local time *upstairs*, and td = Td = T the period of the lower clock measured in the local time downstairs, we get:
tu = T * (1 + z)
On the other hand, if we denote by td the period of the *upper* clock measured in the local clock *downstairs*, and tu = Tu = T the period of the upper clock measured in the local clock upstairs, we get:
td = T / (1 + z)
Rossler, do you disagree with any of these statements?
Sorry, too much cut-and-paste. The last patagraph reads:
On the other hand, if we denote by td the period of the *upper* clock measured in the local time *downstairs*, and tu = Tu = T the period of the upper clock measured in the local time upstairs, we get:
td = T / (1 + z)
“You are lying.” — Hansel (sans Gretel, in pursuit of a witch, he thinks).
Gawd. When will you grow up?
When will Rössler start to act like a scientist?
Readers should know that Lifeboat removes posts, it appears — unless there is some hidden way for posters to do so.
PassingBy just wrote a cheery greeting to TRMG — “Hi TRMG (Smiley)” — and it has gone. Poof.
Sorry, it reappeared at the end of the last batch of 50 comments at
lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern%E2%80%99s-last-media-gag-the-korean-two-fingers-gang/comment-page-2#comment-88088
The exchange expanded too rapidly into this page 3, though PassingBy is certainly making himself clear at last.
Like AnthonyL I amvery grateful for PasserByAgain’s fair offer.
I need a little bit more time.
Dear Mr. PasingByAgain:
I am very obliged to you. So I am sure is TRMG.
I have a preliminary question concerning your second dotted line in a pair of lines. Quote:
”- If the two clocks are ideal and identical to each other, Tu = Td = T ”
I would find it essential to add here: “as long as the two clocks are both located on the same level.”
Would you be ready to also ponder the case in which Tu and Td are different?
Thank you again,
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rossler
Rossler:
NO, it would be INCORRECT to add “as long as the two clocks are both located on the same level.” Let’s recap once again to clear the confusion in your mind:
- The period of a clock is the amount of time it takes for the clockwork to return exactly to a given previous state.
- Tu is the period of the upstairs clock measured in the local time upstairs.
- Td is the period of the downstairs clock measured in the local time downstairs.
- If the two clocks are ideal and identical to each other, Tu = Td = T
there is nothing to add here. Upstairs and downstairs are different levels in the gravitational potential (as the names suggest). If the two clocks are ideal and identical, the period of the clock upstairs measured in the local time upstairs is equal to the period of the clock downstairs measured in the local time downstairs. That’s indeed the definition of identical clocks.
Dear anonymous American friend:
Very interesting (you got up very early).
Quote: “the period of the clock upstairs measured in the local time upstairs is equal to the period of the clock downstairs measured in the local time downstairs. That’s indeed the definition of identical clocks.”
I see here a very important misunderstanding which you seem to share with many young (and perhaps not only young) researchers watching this blog. I would call it “the misunderstanding of Einstein synchronization.”
Algebra is misleading if applied too early – before having drawn a picture. Two clocks at different heights – two horizontal lines – can be connected by light signals. You can draw a letter M and a letter W that mutually intersect – like XXX, but the three letters being glued together as it were. Then you have a “bijection across times” here. What is surprising is that the two times can be bijectively related without being running at the same speed. (Dieter Fröhlich and I at first did not believe our eyes in 1998.)
Less time passes on the lower level than on the upper one — “in the same time”. (If you take the upper time as a new label everywhere, you have the so-called Einstein synchronization.) But this synchronization is only a definition that can be helpful for some purposes, it has nothing to do with the lived reality of the clocks in question.
If you translate the picture obtained into algebra, you will see that local unit times (period lengths) differ upstairs and downstairs. A longer sequence of such intervals is mapped bijectively onto a shorter one downstairs. On an idealized neutron star, clocks lowered there would be running half as fast. So the above bijection across heights applies between 2 full seconds, above, and 1 full second, bellow, and so on continually forever.
Hence as far as physics is concerned, “Tu unequal Td.” Right?
Can we continue from here?
P.S. It should be 4 X’s, not three, pardon me.
No, we cannot continue from there. As far as physics is concerned, if the two clock are identical then their period, measured in their respective local time, is the same. Otherwise they would not be identical clocks.
You keep referring to a figure in an unpublished 1998 paper which nobody but TRMG could access. However, TRMG already explained profusely why your picture is incorrect in the post from “Five Fateful Coincidences” that I attach below.
TRMG on July 5, 2011 1:09 am
Since the preview still doesn’t work I don’t know if the following will be useful to anyone. I have access to the fulltext and looked at the “geometric proof.”
“Therefore, I gave my last geometric proof above, with the reference to Fig. 1 in my 1998 paper.
It proves all your arguments wrong. But you say not a single word about it.”
No, it proves that you can’t distinguish time dilation from an artifact of your own diagrammatic representation.
Presumably the periods of the wavy lines *define* the units of the time axes (no other indication of such units is given), and, yes, the diagram makes the units of the lower axis look 4 times larger as the units of the upper one. But they are longer *only in cm on the paper*! (I could draw a picture of me appearing taller than the Eiffel Tower, but I wouldn’t mistake it for reality.) I realize that you *have* to draw it that way, or otherwise the propagating light rays could not be parallel straight lines. But this is of course owing to the very real gravitational light deflection occuring. You could as well have decided to draw the the light signals as exponential functions (the way they look like in the Rindler metric), which would be a different diagram representing the same situation, only with the units of both axis being equally long.
Still, one period of the lower wavy line must consume the same amount of seconds on the lower axis as the upper wavy line’s period consumes on the upper axis. Otherwise the signals could not be “locally equivalent” as the caption states.
Now what does your own diagram say about the relative times t_1 and t_2? It says t_2 = t_1/(1+z) in contradiction to your Eq. (1) again. You can see this by following the diagonal light-like lines upwards. One period (unit) on the lower axis ends up being 4 periods (units) on the upper axis, amounting to a redshift of z=3. Or in numbers again: T_down = 1, T_up = 4, and hence
T_down = T_up/(1+z).
Roessler: you mean the same Dieter Froehlich who, after years of you “teaching”, had to leave the university without his degree? And he wasn’t your only victim if I remember correctly…
Dear PassingByAgain:
You refuse to give me an answer to my results explained to you in much detail and being totally uncontroversial: Why?
Other people whom you call upon can speak for themselves. But here it is you who is asked to spell out what you do not understand, or why you cannot accept a certain element of my self-explanatory picture, given to you above.
Of course it woukd be fine if TRGM could give an independent statement of her own. But this would not help you in any way if you cannot give a reason for your rejection of my statement which was only meant as a step in a hoped-for longer and deeper discussion with yourself.
So, please, be so kind as to tell me what is the scientific reason which forces to reject what I said, and at what point exactly it is that you disagree with the above text.
Thank you.
Rössler: “If you translate the picture obtained into algebra, you will see that local unit times (period lengths) differ upstairs and downstairs. A longer sequence of such intervals is mapped bijectively onto a shorter one downstairs. ”
No, you won’t. Your algebra translation doesn’t take into account the choice of coordinates you adopt, which implies a position dependent metric coefficient g_00. For this reason the difference in the unit periods depicted in your WM diagram is a pure coordinate effect. The distances you read off your diagram correspond to coordinate time tau (in Einstein’s notation again; in our’s tau = td), but they are not equal to the measured local time.
To be specific: on the lower axis, the wavy line’s period is 4 times larger than the period on the upper axis, but only in coordinate time tau = td, viz. td_down = 4 td_up, for the upper and lower period respectively. *But* at the same time the upper metric coefficient sqrt(g_00) = 1/(1+z) is 4 times greater than the lower one. Now PassingByAgain assumed that both periods Tu and Td are given in the respective local times, which are, according to Eq. (30a), T_up = 4* td_up, and T_down = td_down. Thus
T_down = td_down = 4 td_up = T_up.
When measured in local time, the periods of identical clocks are thus equal.
***
By the way, T_up = T_down seems to contradict the final formula in my earlier comment quoted by PassingByAgain, but only because we changed notation in the meantime. Previously I interpreted T_up and T_down not as periods of identical clocks, but as “local times,” which we now denote by td and tu.
Nevertheless there is a minor error in one of my paragraphs I think I should correct:
“You could as well have decided to draw the the light signals as exponential functions (the way they look like in the Rindler metric), which would be a different diagram representing the same situation, only with the units of both axis being equally long. ”
The part “only with the units of both axes being equally long” is wrong. Even in the Rindler metric this wouldn’t be the case. Only if the metric coefficients were constants, it would be, which, however, requires an inertial frame. But then Rössler’s depiction of the time axes would be plain wrong. Since the observers are accelerated, their time axes should be hyporbolas instead of straight lines when described in an inertial frame.
Also, Rössler, if you want to continue to use as an argument a diagram that not everyone involved in this discussion is familiar with, you should be able to reproduce its relevant statements here.
I am verygrateful for this long text from TRGM and am looking forward to understanding it.
In the meantime I expect PasserByAgain to give me an answer of his own (unless he flags this option).
Rossler: I am not going to give you any opinion on an imaginary picture from an unpublished article that I have no access to, and which is far from being “explained to [me] in much detail and being totally uncontroversial”. Either you provide the picture, or you explain what you mean without referring to the picture.
The problem is again that Rössler thinks in terms of absolute time frames. He has not thought about the fact that in the local time a second is a second. :D
Very interesting, dear TRGM.
The essential sentence is
(Quote) “The distances you read off your diagram correspond to coordinate time tau (in Einstein’s notation again; in our’s tau = td), but they are not equal to the measured local time.”
There is a misunderstanding here which I need to dissolve: It is the measured local time that I was talking about, nothing else. (You assumed me to be more sophisticated than I am.) I was just picturing two astronauts (of an advanced nuclear-chemical life form stable enough to withstand the immense gravity on a neutron star (as described by Robert Forward) to communicate with each other using electromagentic signals, with time being slowed down by a factor of (say) 2 downstairs.
So this is nothing but phenomenology, not equations-derived textbook teaching. Being more primitive, it is perhaps more important for once, I do not know.
Second, your important phrase,
(quote) “When measured in local time, the periods of identical clocks are thus equal,“
I would totally subscribe to.
By the way, I did not quote my 1998 publication in my text above for PasserByAgain. I only drew a picture in words for him.
It is an honor for me to be allowed to participate in this triangular discussion, if I may say this.
Rossler: right, you “drew a picture in words”…
If a picture is absolutely needed to understand what you mean, then please provide the picture. If what you mean can be expressed in coherent sentences, then please express it in coherent sentences without referring to an imaginary picture. Your “picture in words” is a nonsensical jumble and I don’t see how I could make any meaningful statement about it. Anyway you can take your time for what I am concerned, I will be away for the rest of the afternoon.
P.S. if your imaginary 1998 picture is “totally uncontroversial”, how comes that the paper was not published in a peer-review journal, and — as we now learn from “Me” — the student who signed it failed to get his PhD?
Rössler: “There is a misunderstanding here which I need to dissolve: It is the measured local time that I was talking about, nothing else. ”
No misunderstanding then. This is exactly what I assumed, and the reason why your statement
“If you translate the picture obtained into algebra, you will see that local unit times (period lengths) differ upstairs and downstairs. ”
is false, as I showed by translating your picture into algebra. You are confusing the coordinate times that you read off your diagram, and in which only the periods are 4 times larger downstairs, with the local times measured by the observers. Otherwise, when talking about local times, you’d have to agree that for identical clocks Tu=Td.
“Second, your important phrase,
(quote) “When measured in local time, the periods of identical clocks are thus equal,”
I would totally subscribe to. ”
Nevertheless you disagreed to this just 2 hours ago. You wrote:
Otto E. Rossler on July 23, 2011 4:08 am
“Hence as far as physics is concerned, “Tu unequal Td.” Right? ”
in response to PassingByAgain who unequivocaly posited that
“- Tu is the period of the upstairs clock measured in the local time upstairs.
- Td is the period of the downstairs clock measured in the local time downstairs.”
So you’re contradicting yourself again here.
“– the student who signed it failed to get his PhD?”
Because friends like El Naschie were not allowed to examine the thesis. ;)
“Roessler: you mean the same Dieter Froehlich who, after years of you “teaching”, had to leave the university without his degree? And he wasn’t your only victim if I remember correctly…”
As noted earlier, a dachshund (or even a mastiff) peeing on Rossler’s trouser leg will not prevent him from driving his Ferrari (or bumper car as you apparently would have it).
This kind of crass calumny is not part of a decent scientific debate, and calls Me into even greater question as a grown up physicist than before. In the first place, if a student’s failure to get a degree reflected the bad physics of his tutor, he is surely an ass to depend on it, and secondly, the university examiners would surely quickly arrange for the departure of the teacher. If you are suggesting this kind of story kindly state the facts in detail and the references where others can check them, or stop trolling here.
In almost every way your group behavior still matches the behavior of the defenders of the absurd HIV=AIDS faith who make it their business to try and derail critics on the Web by infesting their comment threads with specious objections and diversions on a trivial level instead of dealing with the main problems the claim has.
Outside observers wait for you to emerge from similar behavior here and stop harassing Rossler with quarrels on a trivial level about definition of terms and clocks when your agreement on the basic principle of time dilation in a gravitational field was established 700 posts ago, and start attacking his Telemach fort with cannonballs as he requested.
Can you demonstrate that his Telemach theorem is crackpottery or not?
We already did! The fact that you and Roessler don’t accept it, means nothing — because you noth don’t matter. And for the rest of your post: not even worth an answer as you have once again demonstrated, that you have nevet seen a university from inside! Oh, and yes, Roessler and his wife got fired from the university, despite his claims here, he is not a member of the faculty there! You are a lousy journalist, do some research! But interestingly you and Roessler think highly of Murdoch. Your msin source of information I assume, fair and balanced?
Me, your posts are pure drivel. How old are you? 15?
Anthony: “Outside observers wait for you to emerge from similar behavior here and stop harassing Rossler with quarrels on a trivial level about definition of terms and clocks when your agreement on the basic principle of time dilation in a gravitational field was established 700 posts ago, and start attacking his Telemach fort with cannonballs as he requested.”
You really don’t get it. We are “quarreling at a trivial level about definitions of level and clocks” because that is the level at which Rossler misunderstands the issue, as his continuous flip-flops on the definition of the variables in his own equations attest. He *claims* to agree on the basic principle of time dilation, but then he draws nonsensical (and self-contradictory) consequences out of it. And we *are* throwing cannonballs at Telemach: we’ve been arguing for 700 posts that its eq.(1) is incorrect, which brings down the entire building. I am sorry for you if you don’t find this satisfactory, but by now I do not particularly care about your general opinion. I am just begging your again to limit your interventions to precise questions or comments on the equations, to avoid derailing this already difficult discussion.
Momentarily, this link to my picture that everyone needs is open (see the second pageof the paper, p. 371).
http://books.google.de/books?id=gzV49fwsReUC&pg=PA370&#…38;f=false
p371 is not displayed via that link, which ends in a word which bodes ill for searchers for Rossler’s picture.
Professor Rossler, do you not have another picture to offer other than the one ubiquitous on the Web? Is this your effort to provide one? Please correct the link, then, or offer another one. Those who believe that your efforts to force CERN into review are in the right direction deserve one that looks less like Alfred E. Neuman.
PassingBy bleats once again that a harmless observer who points out that after 700 posts he has not laid a glove on the ever dancing Rossler, who floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee, should cease comment unless the point is drawn from his ever growing failure to make a concise and deadly point that would deal an upper cut to the ever frustrating butterfly.
Well I don’t have one, since there are better things to do in life than to disentangle what is meant from this mess, other than to say, Bravo! to PassingBy for his determined effort to stick with what he is trying to say after 700 posts of abject failure to make his point stick.
After 800 posts no doubt we will be in the same position of cheering on as PassingBy swipes at thin air with mighty swings as he is tapped on the nose by the ever evasive Rossler, now revealed as the Muhammed Ali of theoretical physics.
Gawd, Me has now revealed what may be an underlying motive here for the attention of a prominent older man.
PS One has to admire Rossler for his evident superiority of mind and scientific attitude, as revealed by his liberal willingness to admit when he absentmindedly makes an error on a thread on the Web.
Also his viva voce panel, who have admitted their own errors rapidly too, or at least PassingBy has.
Here are some quotes from the Book of Wisdom which may be relevant:
A small mind is obstinate. A great mind can lead and be led. — Alexander Cannon.
Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know. — Montaigne
If you make people think they are thinking, they’ll love you; but if you really make them think, they’ll hate you. — Don Marquis.
A barking dog is often more useful than a sleeping lion. — Washington Irving.
Rossler: the picture is not visible. Aren’t you the author of the picture? Can’t you just post the .jpg file (or whatever other format you have) in the blog?
Anthony: again, you are wasting everybody’s time. Give some meaningful contribution to the discussion on Rossler’s equations or please shut up.
Note: I am asking for a photo of Rossler, as well as the diagram.
Sorry I was absent — this yellow link works perfectly here still, at this moment in time.
I am too stupid to put a picture on the web myself — apologies!
May I repeat my simple description of two horizontal lines, referring to the time axes in their own frames of two observers, and the light rays between them. Why do you not understand the simplicity?
TRGM and PasserByAgain have disappointed me by not understanding a word.
Don’t you know the story of the young man who stands at the bottom of a TV tower, having a pocket laser with him and having mounted a mirror up on top, measuring the up-down light return times?
If the person has a counter as well, it suffices to measure the time after a hundred or more up-down transitions so that simple clocks suffice for the experiment.
And he has a buddy who is on the top of the TV tower, with the same equipment and a mirror placed on earth.
Both measure different light return times.
This is all I presuppose. And my results follow directly from this experiment. Still no understanding because not algebraic enough?
There is a bijection between the two time’s axes, and the natural unit periods turn out to be longer downstairs than upstairs. Who dares object still? I would be very much interested.
Rossler: I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry if this disappoints you. You must put your ramblings into equations (with well-defined variables) if you want us to assess them, or provide us with a diagram in case your secret knowledge is so esoteric that it can only be communicated via images.
But perhaps your disciple Anthony (the smartest physicist in this discussion, if I remember your words correctly) understands your “picture in words”. He could draw the diagram for you and put it in some accessible website…
Meanwhile, we might go back to my summary post of July 22, 2011 8:12 am, and you could clarify for us the contradiction between the following two statements of yours:
1) Otto E. Rossler on July 23, 2011 4:08 am
“Hence as far as physics is concerned, “Tu unequal Td.” Right? ”
(in response to my post that said:
“- Tu is the period of the upstairs clock measured in the local time upstairs.
- Td is the period of the downstairs clock measured in the local time downstairs.”)
2) Otto E. Rossler on July 23, 2011 6:20 am
Second, your important phrase, (quote) “When measured in local time, the periods of identical clocks are thus equal,” I would totally subscribe to.
“But perhaps your disciple Anthony… ”
PassingBy, do you really think I am a disciple of Rossler?
In that case you can’t distinguish between someone who asks for proper scientific discussion in a cooperative manner aimed at working out the best semblance of the truth, and someone trying to win an antagonistic debate with challenges, insults and an inability to distinguish between what matters and what doesn’t.
Only when I see one sentence from you dealing with Rossler in a civil and cooperative manner will I be able to take you seriously, because otherwise it is impossible to grant you the respect you keep pleading for.
I believe I speak for anyone hoping for a positive outcome to this exchange.
earlier posts at http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern%E2%80%99s-last-media-g…ent-page-3
Dear PasserByAgain:
Why not reply to my clear last long statement? I see fear in your eyes.
I already replied, I post it again below in case you are too dumb to use the link to the previous comment page. Anyway the summary of my reply is: I am not even trying to argue with the voices and the images inside your head. Put down your statement in a coherent mathematical form, as is the norm in discussion about physics, and we can talk about them.
PassingByAgain on July 24, 2011 2:14 pm
Rossler: I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry if this disappoints you. You must put your ramblings into equations (with well-defined variables) if you want us to assess them, or provide us with a diagram in case your secret knowledge is so esoteric that it can only be communicated via images.
But perhaps your disciple Anthony (the smartest physicist in this discussion, if I remember your words correctly) understands your “picture in words”. He could draw the diagram for you and put it in some accessible website…
Meanwhile, we might go back to my summary post of July 22, 2011 8:12 am, and you could clarify for us the contradiction between the following two statements of yours:
1) Otto E. Rossler on July 23, 2011 4:08 am
“Hence as far as physics is concerned, “Tu unequal Td.” Right? ”
(in response to my post that said:
“- Tu is the period of the upstairs clock measured in the local time upstairs.
- Td is the period of the downstairs clock measured in the local time downstairs.”)
2) Otto E. Rossler on July 23, 2011 6:20 am
Second, your important phrase, (quote) “When measured in local time, the periods of identical clocks are thus equal,” I would totally subscribe to.
“Why not reply to my clear last long statement?”
Rössler, because it again completely misses the mark. Yes, we know about the story of observer dependent radar distances, that you are telling there. But this has never been the point of contention. Despite your firm believe that this fact alone proves your claim about prolonged clock periods downstairs, this is a pure illusion. You just fell for your own picture puzzle here, because you are not aware of the implications you make by simply drawing everything in the form of straight lines in an accelerating reference frame. I even explained to you where the error lies specifically, to which you replied with self-contradictory statements again.
“I see fear in your eyes.”
LOL, dream on!
Quote: “Despite your firm believe that this fact alone proves your claim about prolonged clock periods downstairs, this is a pure illusion.”
I am very willing to learn why! That you are of this opinion I have by now realized, but I suppose you have a communicable reason for this — one that everyone will understand once you have spelled it out in an easily intelligible form. If I am too stupid, a tolerant by-stander could act as a translator of what you mean — okay?
P.S. I learned very much from Robert Houston’s long text.
Rossler: [sigh] lacking the mysterious picture that supposedly clarifies everything, let’s try once again to put order in your mental mess for what appears to be just another version of the gravitational-redshift experiment. You write:
“Don’t you know the story of the young man who stands at the bottom of a TV tower, having a pocket laser with him and having mounted a mirror up on top, measuring the up-down light return times? If the person has a counter as well, it suffices to measure the time after a hundred or more up-down transitions so that simple clocks suffice for the experiment.
And he has a buddy who is on the top of the TV tower, with the same equipment and a mirror placed on earth. Both measure different light return times. This is all I presuppose. And my results follow directly from this experiment.”
So the two observers measure different intervals of local proper time for, say, 100 bounces of the light ray. Now please tell us, which of the two observers measures the largest interval of local proper time between , say, bounce #1 and bounce #100? The one upstairs or the one downstairs?
Rössler: “I am very willing to learn why! That you are of this opinion I have by now realized, but I suppose you have a communicable reason for this – one that everyone will understand once you have spelled it out in an easily intelligible form. ”
Indeed I have, and I already communicated it: Your diagram does not represent an inertial coordinate frame, or otherwise the time axes would not have been straight lines (since the observers are accelerated). Since you draw them straight, you implicitly introduce position-dependent metric coefficients g_00. You seem entirely unaware of this; at least you never even address the choice of coordinates and its implications in the paper. Now in spite of this carelessness you claim that “It is the measured local time that I was talking about, nothing else.” But that’s simply not true. If you had talked about locally measured time, you would have had to explicitly take into account the value of g_00 at the observer’s position, because “locally measured time = sqrt(g_00) * coordinate time.” But you just neglected to do so. Instead you are reading off the time intervals directly of your diagram, which means you’re talking about coordinate times, not locally measured times. That makes your conclusions about the relation between the clock’s periods entirely arbitrary. You could have obtained any fraction you wanted simply by changing the coordinate system. So interpreted, your Eq. (1) is void of content.
BTW, I don’t really see the point in having a public discussion about the features of this figure, that obviously still no one except the two of us has even seen, and I’m not really interested in a private conversation with you. If you want to continue discussing the diagram, please do what you have been asked for, and make it universally available, or at least give an independent account of what you think it shows and why.
We have a new wonderful question: (Quote): “So the two observers measure different intervals of local proper time for, say, 100 bounces of the light ray. Now please tell us, which of the two observers measures the largest [number of unit] interval[s] of local proper time between , say, bounce #1 and bounce #100? The one upstairs or the one downstairs?”
I hand this question along to everyone to aswer, hoping my clarification [in bracketts] is acceptable.
(I also have my own answer, but the latter is less important than yours. Mine reads: The upper observer measures a larger number of proper unit time intervals having been consumed on his own level. But I do not want to influence anyone else’s judgment.)
NO WAY: your “clarification”, “the largest number of unit intervals of local proper time”, does not make any sense. Answer the question that I asked, please:
So the two observers measure different intervals of local proper time for, say, 100 bounces of the light ray. Now please tell us, which of the two observers measures the largest interval of local proper time between, say, bounce #1 and bounce #100? The one upstairs or the one downstairs?
On a second thought, I can allow you your “unit intervals of local proper time” (let’s just call them “seconds”).
The moral of the story is: you agree that the upstairs observer measures a larger interval of local proper time (or, if you prefer, counts a larger number of “unit intervals of local proper time”) between the first and the last bounce of the light ray than the downstairs observer.
In symbols, t_up > t_down.
This is just another trivial application of Einstein’s eq.(30a), and it is in contradiction with eq.(1) of Telemach which implies t_up < t_down. It seems to me that we are back to the starting point…
Thank you for coming around.
Now the last difference of opinion between the two of us is your last sentence (quote) “it is in contradiction with eq.(1) of Telemach which implies t_up < t_down”.
This you will now have to show since in my mind, Telemach says the opposite (T_up < T_down). Take care.
Rossler: only in your mind is “T_up < T_down” the opposite of “t_up < t_down”. We are back to the definition of your mysterious “T”…
After all your excitement for laser pointers and mirrors, I see no progress with respect to the situation that we already discussed hundred times: two identical clocks located at different levels in the Earth’s gravitational field.
I am waiting for you to correct your position. For it is logically mistaken as far as I can see.
But I have to make you a compliment: we are close to agreeing to disagree. This is allowed in good science.
And: I do strongly hope that you will get helped by other readers, since now everything is on the table. Other readers can judge whether they would support you (with your in my mind false opinion) or me (with my in your mind false opinion).
pray, what would be logically mistaken in my position?
You have to describe it in words to see the difference to my opinion.
…unless of course you are referring to the mistaken assumption that Telemach predicts anything at all (it doesn’t, unless your define in a coherent way your mysterious “T”)
“You have to describe it in words to see the difference to my opinion”
HUH?
What I meant is that you have to decompose what physically happens. in your mind, and lay the mental pictures side by side into a kind of file.
This is geometry, not algebra, but of course the same good old logic eventually. Only that it involves many more steps than a purely algebraic argument usually does.
And: I am grateful that you forced me to say such things which I had not known before.
Sorry, I am not at all interested in discussing your “mental pictures” or whatever else goes on in the recesses of your mind.
If you think that a diagram is absolutely necessary to explain what you mean, just provide the bloody diagram. But I would advise you to first read again section 7.3 of the Misner, Thorne & Wheeler textbook. It explains in terms that should be accessible to you that, in presence of a gravitational field, you cannot draw the axes of your diagram and the light rays as straight lines without ending up in contradiction with the experiment (this is what TRMG tried unsuccessfully to explain to you many times, if I’m not mistaken).
PassingByAgain: “It explains in terms that should be accessible to you that, in presence of a gravitational field, you cannot draw the axes of your diagram and the light rays as straight lines without ending up in contradiction with the experiment (this is what TRMG tried unsuccessfully to explain to you many times, if I’m not mistaken).”
There actually *is* a coordinates system that makes the accelerated observer’s world lines and the light rays straight as well, but it is a little exotic. The coordinate axes coincide with upward and downward directed light rays, instead of time and space, as in Rössler’s diagram, and it, of course, requires position-dependent metric coefficients all the same, because it’s no inertial frame. In fact, the metric coefficient at the observers’ positions is exactly of the same value as in Rindler coordinates. So even if he had that in mind, which I doubt, or otherwise he would certainly have said so, his conclusions about the clock periods would be erroneous in exactly the same sense, as I said above.
Very interesting for by-standers who still do not have the courage to interfere.
Here dogmatic reflexes are being reproduced while fleeing the simple question I posed.
What I showed to exist is a “bijection across time lengths.”
It is valid in the quivalence principle as well as more generally. But why not stick to the simplest case and answer my question?
Rossler: “bijection across time lengths”? Did you just make that up?
And what would be your question? Does it refer to your mysterious diagram? If that is the case I cannot answer without seeing the diagram first (and please don’t give me any more crap about “mental images” or “pictures in words”). TRMG, on the other hand, has seen the diagram in your unpublished 1998 paper, and has already answered (thrice) explaining to you why it is incorrect. What do you want now?
I never gave a mysterious diagram — you are making mysterious statements of not wanting to understand.
You forbid physicists to make simple measurements and interpret them because they did not take into account the complicated equations that you dogmatically thought come first (rather than second).
I want to know whether or not you object to the fact that people between two height levels in an accelarting rocket and/or on a gravitating planet can make up-dowm and down-up measurements and put them into a single graph and draw conclusions.
And please, don’t tell me that straight lines connecting points between two locally one-dimensional graphs are forbidden by general relativity. You make yourself the laughingstock of the physics community.
acceelerating
Rossler: yes, two people at different levels can draw diagrams and draw conclusions. A few posts above you and I drew a very well-defined conclusion even without drawing diagrams: the upstairs observer measures a longer interval of proper time between two bounces of the light ray than the downstairs observer, i.e. t_up > t_down. This is a trivial application of Einstein’s equation and is in apparent contradiction with eq.(1) of Telemach, unless you perform some fancy redefinition of the variable T that you have consistently refused to explain.
As to the straight lines, read TRMG’s text above: you can do it if you only if you introduce position-dependent metric coefficients. Apparently you DON’T introduce them, otherwise you should take their presence into account when drawing your conclusions. Therefore you ARE in the situation described by section 7.3 of the MTW textbook, trying to draw a parallelogram one of whose sides must be longer than the other (i.e., you are in contradiction with experiment).
Quote: “the upstairs observer measures a longer interval of proper time between two bounces of the light ray than the downstairs observer, i.e. t_up > t_down.”
So there never was a difference of opinion between us.
Rossler: there seems to be no difference of opinion about Einstein’s eq.(30a), which predicts t_up > t_down (although your position on that equation has oscillated wildly in the past, and I don’t doubt that it will keep oscillating in the future). However, only in your dreams is Einstein’s eq.(30a) compatible with Telemach’s eq.(1).
Do you need a magical diagram to explain how you go from “t_up > t_down” to “T_up < T_down”, whatever the “T” in your equation means? Then please provide the diagram, otherwise this discussion cannot progress. But if the diagram looks anything like the one of your 1998 paper that only TRMG could access, he/she has already explained to you that it is incorrect. Incidentally, you promised that you would “try to understand” TRMG’s argument, but never offered a counter-argument to it. Wouldn’t this be a good time to reply to TRMG?
Dear TRGM:
I apologize that I replied to you in my last posts to PasserByAgain only in a tangential and indirect fashion.
I therefore repeat that your argument is, while certainly well-intended, misleading if you claim one has to assume validity of a specific type of metric before allowing light rays to be exchanged empirically with results supported by undisputed evidence.
I do not question the validity of the metric which you suppose. I only stress again that my bijection-type argument can be discussed in any metric. And is valid at face value.
So in my eyes you did not touch, either on its validity nor on its content. As regards the content, you come close to appearing not to want to understand almost as if you were arguing out of ideological reasons. But you must have a reason for being so negatively oriented. Can you tell me the real reason?
Thank you that I dared trust you enough to ask you this direct question.
Rössler: “I therefore repeat that your argument is, while certainly well-intended, misleading if you claim one has to assume validity of a specific type of metric before allowing light rays to be exchanged empirically with results supported by undisputed evidence. ”
Huh? No, indeed, you don’t need to assume a metric before you are allowed to switch on a flashlight. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Can you now answer to something I actually said, preferably in form of a statement that is not completely loony?
BTW, the point here was that your claim, “Hence as far as physics is concerned, “Tu unequal Td.” Right? ” is *not* supported by evidence. In fact it’s plain wrong, for reasons explained above.
“I do not question the validity of the metric which you suppose. ”
Not explicitly, but you obviously have no clue of what the use of that metric is, either. Otherwise you wouldn’t disregard it completely while pretending to talk about locally measured times.
Now you accept the existence of a bijection across time axes — thank you.
Rossler: “Now you accept the existence of a bijection across time axes – thank you.”
HUH? Where did you read that? Could you please try to provide answers that bear at least a faint relation with the questions that are asked?
Rössler: “Now you accept the existence of a bijection across time axes – thank you.”
LOL, there are infinitely many bijections between any two axes. So what? Trying to impress the audience by throwing around some fancy mathy jargon? Nice try.
Now, can you now answer to something I actually said, preferably in form of a statement that is not completely loony?
You did not understand what I mean by a bijection across heights using light signals — come on.
If you meant something other than a 1-to-1 correspondence between both time axes, then it’s irrelevant drivel. If you did mean that, it’s just irrelevant.
Dear TRMG,
dear PassingBy,
FYI — if Dr. Roessler talks about “T” he OF COURSE does not mean the “ordinary” T (used in physics, nevertheless), but a somewhat different “T”. Of Course!
How dare you expect the ordinary from him? ;)
If Dr. Roessler talks about “L” he OF COURSE does not mean the ordinary “L” (used in physics, nevertheless), but a somewhat different “L”.
If Dr. Roessler talks about “Gausss-Stokes theorem of electrostatics” (his phrasing, not mine) he OF COURSE does neither mean
- Gauss’ theorem
- nor Gauss’ law (Maxwell I)
- nor Stokes theorem in its multitude of flavors
- nor sth. else from ED or calculus known to ordinary mortals
but OF COURSE a somewhat different theorem only known to the illuminated.
If he talks about “Birkhoff theorem” he OF COURSE does mean the well-known theorem about EFE solutions (which in fact counters his beloved “new physics from a new chart”) but a a somewhat different “Birkhoff theorem”.
Now make an educated guess what happened to bijective mapping.…
;)
SCNR
Best regards,
S.
Illogical comment from TRGM and hate mail from Hamburg — the resemblance of a substantial criticism has broken down.
Now the world would like to know who these competent critics were.
“Hate mail”???
Am I somewhere mistaken?
So “T” IS just usual time and “L” IS usual length in your equations?
As all Telemach readers know, dear Colleague Holger, T is temporal period and L is spatial period.
Well, I was about to ask you what are the dimensions of a “temporal period” and a “spatial period”, but then I felt revulsion at the thought of starting the same argument all over again for the twelfth time. Let’s face it, this discussion is stuck, due to your consistent refusal to explain in mathematical terms how you go from Einstein’s result for the gravitational time dilation, i.e. t_up > t_down, to the seemingly contradictory eq.(1) of your Telemach theorem, i.e. T_up < T_down (as argued in the comments above, a good starting point would be a non-ambiguous definition of your “T”).
You claim that your reasoning is “geometrical” as opposed to “algebraic”, and that an inaccessible diagram in an unpublished 1998 paper of yours would explain everything. Then, please, publish the bloody diagram if you want to restart the discussion! Have a look at the latest post of the Lifeboat blog, “The Darwin Escape”. It does contain two pictures, therefore it must be possible to embed a picture in the text. Why don’t you write a new post in which you just show the diagram and explain what you think it proves? If it’s too complicated for you, ask for somebody’s help. I suppose that the administrators of the blog would be willing to give you the necessary explanations.
Dear PassingByAgain:
I will try my best, and this usually takes time. So let me remind myself in the meantime that mathematics has other ways to convey information thhan pictures.
Could you in the meantime answer me why you do not accept my very simple mental picture that two people standing at different heights in a gravitational field can exchange light signals while using their local time pieces?
I think everyone on this blog understands my explanation of what applies here. (My graph does describe the same situation.)
Namely that a larger number of unit periods above is covered by a return light ray reflected from a mirror downstairs, than aplies to the number of time units covered by an up-down returning light ray, observed downstairs.
In this sense — when brought into comparison by light rays sent — , the time intervals downstairs are longer because they cover more upper time in a unit downward time.
“Slower clocks in general have longer periods than faster clocks.”
But I hope you do not find me impertinent for insisting on the importance of this fact — that seconds run more slowly downstairs. (And then also meter sticks become longer, and mases smaller and charges.) But we are still hemmed-in into the first element of this logical chain in our discussion here. The motivation for which I still do not understand.
But I am stupid as no one knows better than myself.
@Roessler: Your continous claim that “everyone” understands you and agrees with you is complete rubbish. You have developed your own “World of Physics”, incl. language — that noone else understands. But I agree with you last sentence.…
So I was right when I emphasized that “T” and “L” in your equations do refer to sth “different” and not to their regular meaning physics.
So what is it you complain about?
Btw — in your Telemach article you described “T” as “temporal wavelength” and “L” as “spatial wavelength”.
Now, according to your own words, T shall denote “temporal period” and L shall denote “spatial period”.
Why not a single attempt to show that I am wrong?
My stupidity has nothing to dow ith the question posed to you and the world: find a disproof (or as Popper said: Falsify!).
Otherwise you are nothing but conscious filibusters for CERN.
@Rössler: please stop your poorly disguised agitation and propaganda. No one here is filibustering for CERN or paid by them or whatsoever. If anyone is on a crusade, it is you, a crusade against science and scientists, politicians and an administration, or anyone else who doesn’t agrees with your views on how things should work.
Would you mind explaining to us mere mortals, what use any further discussion with you would have, as long you refuse to use commonly agreed terms or provide the rest of the world with a detailed and coherent definition of the terms used by you.
As it has shown here and elsewhere, you’re claims are proven wrong many times, something you again refuse to accept. You think that no one has falsified you – which is your opinion and everyone is entitled to her or his opinion. But please also accept the opinion of others that your claims are have no ground, and certainly no scientific basic.
I was at a conference in Southern France he last week and had a chance to meet some of your former colleagues as well as people who had the pleasure of having this discussion with you in person. Apparently you never were able to define your arguments in a mathematical or physical format. This is amazing, giving the fact you claim to only make these brutal and agitating accusations to save the world. If the future of the world is your concern, you should clearly spend more time to present your claims in an understandable and scientific matter.
There is a reason that math is the appropriate language of physics — because it doesn’t leave room for interpretation and misunderstandings. Many od us would love to entertain a intellectually challenging discussion on these issues with you, but so far there is nothing to discuss. But you could start by answering ome easy questions, to enlighten us:
1) Is “T” a “temporal period” as you are writing here, or is “T” a “temporal wavelength” “as you are writing in your Telemach paper?
2) What is the dimension of “T”?
3) Is “L” a “spatial period” as you are writing here or is “L” a “spatial wavelength” “as you are writing in your Telemach paper?
4) What is the dimension of “L”?
Once you can answer is these questions, we will go on. Until then, there is no basis for further discussion.
Peter H.
PS: I have also contacted Prof. Juergen Parisi, the co-author of your unpublished paper with the infamous chart that will explain everything. Unfortunately he hasn’t responded yet, but if I get hold of the chart, I will publish it here. I also asked him if he agrees that your article proves that CERN is planning to destroy the world.
This blog really needs a spell check.… ;-)
Peter: “… if I get hold of the chart, I will publish it here.”
Wait a minute, I can do that. I have the pdf and just figured out that gimp is able to process it. I don’t know why I didn’t think of trying that earlier.
So now I extracted the figure including caption from the pdf (jpg, 37KB), but I have no idea how to post it.
I just uploaded it at tinypic. Hope posting this link will work. But don’t expect anything spectacular. ;-)
tinypic.com/view.php?pic=nnla3o&s=7
@TRMG: Many thanks, very interesting. And yes, a bit disappointing, at first sight, this looks like someone doesn’t even understand the Doppler-effect.
I will need to think a bit about it, and a discussion with Prof. Parisi might also help. He is the dean of the physics department at a German university, so he hopefully can translate this in a language commonly understandable.
Peter,
some months ago I had a discussion with Dr. Roessler quite similar to the current one.
I “dared” asking him about his “gothic-R”; more precisely, what would be the meaning of a scalar resulting from integrating a “d gothic-R” and about what’d be an appropriate interval for integration.
It took Dr .Roessler several attempts just to get the dimension of the resulting scalar (sort-of) consistently, and I’m still waiting for his choice of integration limits (well, not really “waiting” for it).
So when I saw his formulation of his Telemach (non-)theorem re-published here I tried to guess how many “circles” a discussion might have to traverse:
- he could let the rocket accelerate forward or backwards as it suits him
- he could have it point towards or away from a mass while at rest
- he could combine both for leveraging the — well — “intristic entropy” of his “findings” even further
- he could be tempted to fumble around with the dimensions (sic!); I estimated 24 permutations, but, amazingly enough, there obviously are even more.
Along with “Schroedinger cat effects” (“Telemachs” definition apparently DOES change whenever you look at it) your chance t o “catch it” is much worse than 1/32.
So if against all odds, someone catches it, that guy must be part of giant conspiracy. Sure thing. Period.
Quod erat roesslerandum.
;) SCNR
Best regards.
Holger
Will I be allowed to ask who Peter Howell is?
@Roessler: Is it more imprtant to you to know who the person is you are talking to, or ist it more important to save the world from being destroyed and therefore answering some simple and reasonable questions outlined before?
Dear Peter Howell:
I am genuinely interested.
I will tell ou once you answered the questions laid out before. But I am a professor of physics if that’s what you’re after. And it doesn’t change a thing.
Peter: It would be awesome if J. Parisi chimed in; great idea to contact him. Rössler’s competence seems quite exhausted by now anyway. Although it would appear as a miracle to me if someone really succeeded to make sense of that paper.
Also, looking at Rössler’s diagram again, I think that I took it way too seriously. Note how the wavelength of the upper wavy line seems completely unrelated to anything else in the diagram. They could have drawn it any other way, and it would be just as little as plausible as that. But these sine curves are the essential parts! If they left them out, there would be no indication of time dilation left in the figure at all. It could be just two observers at relative rest in Minkowski space. The only elements hinting at something non-trivial are also the ones that are completely random.
Excellent, thanks to TRMG we can finally all see the mysterious 1998 diagram:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/nnla3o.jpg
It shows light rays bouncing up and down between two time axes t1 and t2. No units whatsoever are shown on the axes. The interval t_up between two bounces upstairs covers four “periodic time signals”, while the interval t_down between two bounces downstairs covers only one “periodic time signal”. So far so good, this is just a trivial application of Einstein’s eq.(30a), corresponding to t_up > t_down.
What gets Rossler excited is the fact that in this diagram the
“periodic time signal” on the lower axis (t2) is *drawn* as if it was four time longer than the “periodic time signal” on the upper axis (t1).
The first obvious question induced by the diagram is: what are the time axes t1 and t2 showing? It cannot be local proper time, otherwise the two “locally equivalent periodic time signals” would have the same length on paper (that is the meaning of “locally equivalent”). Therefore t1 and t2 must be showing coordinate times, with arbitrary units chosen in such a way that one second of proper time on t2 looks, *on paper*, like four seconds of proper time on t1. But if t1 and t2 show arbitrary coordinate times, no physical consequences can be drawn from the diagram, unless one takes into account also the effect of the metric (which is different on the two axes).
In summary, I see nothing different from what TRMG was describing, and I fully concur with his/her conclusions: this diagram does not prove anything.
I cannot find Dr. Peter Howell on the Internet (too many namesakes).
The information about your background is essential for me to be able to answer you in a fitting way. Please, be so kind as to reveal your identity? Can we neet?
Prof. Roessler, the beauty of physics and its language math is, that all statements are clear without ambiguity and independent from the audience. So my background will have influence on your answers. In fact, the questions at hand are “a or b” questions, with the two potential answers already given, so it shouldn’t mater if I am black or white, gay or hetero, girl or boy, old or young, ….
So why are you avoiding a discussion and retreat into side conversations? We are not having this exercise for your personal amusement – we want to save the world, don’t we?
And no, we will not meet. You make public accusations, you defend yourself in public.
Peter H.
Obviously I meant “… my background will have NO influence on your answers…”. Apologies.
Very disapppointing: The only scientist who ever entered into a public discussion about my results concerning the safety of CERN refuses to mention a single publication of his own as proof of his scientific identity since there are none on the web.
Nevertheless you show much more courage than Evans or Nicolai or t’Hooft who all copped out. So I can understand your fear of being recognized as the sole scientist on the planet who visibly defends CERN.
This scientist’s only weapon is verbal claims that I “could not define” what I wrote in a paper which everybody can look at and judge on his or her own — and which was never disporoved. It is true that wavelength and period are not the same thing, but they stand in a fixed relationship with each other. These verbal games sound like science but are just camouflage to hide the fact that you cannot muster a counterattack.
But science is beautiful: It is possible to have an honorable fight. Plese, start to enter the ring — the lights are on: What is wrong with Telemach himself? No one will be more grateful than me if you can give a counterproof.
“What is wrong with Telemach himself?”
Everything, but we are still considering Eq. (1), which is obviously derived somehow from Fig.1 of your paper. So would you please stop weaseling out of addressing the criticism made about it?
Go to PassingByAgain’s comment from July 28, 2011 2:32 am right above for starters. Also please explain how you know how to determine the upper wavy line’s wavelength in the diagram. It looks like just a random number to me.
Thank you for asking about the picture. The waves of course represent unit wavelengths in time (or clock periods). Since arbitrary ratios are possible, the best way to illustrate is to youse a simple integer ratio. As valid for the surface of a not yet discovered quark star on the bottom line.
Then a bijection across clock speeds occurs. It illustrates Einstein’s clock-redshift result. Nothing more, nothing less. I am totally surprised that such a simple fact (Eq. 1 only reflects it) can cause so much disorientatiom amongst the younger generation.
Can you explain to me why? (The fact that it is not in the textbooks is not a sufficient explanation to me.)
Let λ € IR \ {0}
f(x) = λ x is a bijective mapping.
g(x) = (1/λ) x is also a bijective mapping.
Thus, the existence of a bijective mapping is without consequence for both the falsehood of your eq (1) and the validity of TRMG’s critics.
And, coming to your “proves-it-all” diagram, the oscillation depicted could without loss of generality be considered the oscillation of an atom, e.g. “bijectively mapped” to state-transitions of a Cs atom; its 9,192,631,770-fold commonly known as “a second” in physics.
Thus 1 second at the bottom “maps to” several seconds at the top thus contradicting your eq(1) in the most direct of manners.
Thus, your line of reasoning is — again — not even self-consistent.
Rossler: you somehow forgot to answer my question about the axes t1 and t2, I’ll take the liberty to reprint it for you:
The first obvious question induced by the diagram is: what are the time axes t1 and t2 showing? It cannot be local proper time, otherwise the two “locally equivalent periodic time signals” would have the same length on paper (that is the meaning of “locally equivalent”). Therefore t1 and t2 must be showing coordinate times, with arbitrary units chosen in such a way that one second of proper time on t2 looks, *on paper*, like four seconds of proper time on t1. But if t1 and t2 show arbitrary coordinate times, no physical consequences can be drawn from the diagram, unless one takes into account also the effect of the metric (which is different on the two axes).
Excerpt from my paper (on http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/05/osama-bin-cern):
“ T_tail = T_tip *(1+z), (1)
where z+1 is the local gravitational redshift factor that applies in the Rindler metric (Einstein called it 1+Phi/c^2, Phi being the gravitational potential [7]).
With Einstein’s result put into this simple form, one is immediately led to expect a spatial corollary: If all temporal wavelengths T are increased, the very same thing is bound to hold true for the spatial wavelengths L of the same light waves …” (End of excerpt)
Fresh quote from Solkar above: “Thus 1 second at the bottom ‘maps to’ several seconds at the top — thus contradicting your eq(1) in the most direct of manner.”
I do hope that everyone is agreeing with the first part of this quote from “Solkar” because this is exactly the meaning of Eq.(1) of my paper, as reproduced above.
But I do also hope that everyone is contradicting the second part of his quoted statement.
quote
“I do hope that everyone is agreeing with the first part of this quote from “Solkar” because this is exactly the meaning of Eq.(1) of my paper, as reproduced above.” /quote
No, it’s exactly the inverse.
That’s what also TRMG told you some zillions of posts before.
Rossler: stop claiming that black is white, and please answer the question about your diagram. What are THE UNITS on the time axes t1 and t2? Are the axes showing local proper time or not? If not, what are they showing?
And don’t forget the questions of Peter Howell.
Please, do read again my quote from my paper and then tell me what you do not understand.
But, please, do at long last find somebody who finds a fault with my results — the time is running and running and you are filibustering to the chagrin of the planet, as Anthony L made it all too clear.
Rossler: you are not answering my question, the quote from your “paper” does not say anything about the time axes t1 and t2 of your 1998 diagram:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/nnla3o.jpg
You claim that the diagram explains how you go to Einstein’s eq.(30a) to the seemingly contradictory eq.(1) of Telemach. Then the least you can do is explain what the diagram means. So, again:
What are THE UNITS on the time axes t1 and t2? Are the axes showing local proper time or not? If not, what are they showing?
P.S. I am sorry that you lost one of your fanboys on the other thread, anyway I see that Robert Houston is trying to make up for it…
No, Anthony L is a decent man and trying to uphold the face of his own profession which you are helping lead astray.
Read my paper and stop telling the whole world you — an anonymous bragger — have difficulty understanding it. Ask Professor Nicolai or Professor t’Hooft whether they are smarter than you, but not me. I am not smarter than you. only fed up with dishonesty.
Rössler: “Thank you for asking about the picture. The waves of course represent unit wavelengths in time (or clock periods). Since arbitrary ratios are possible, the best way to illustrate is to youse a simple integer ratio.”
The question was: how does your diagram prove a particular ratio of both wavelengths given the redshift z? If arbitrary ratios are possible without changing any of the other doodads in the diagram, they’re completely dispensable, because this ratio is all we wanted to read off of it.
Dear TRGM — you never said whether I diagnosed you correctly as my esteemed female colleague from the Frankfurt Institute — please stop pretending not to understand: Different height levels have different temporal wavelengths. From a continuum of possibilities, it would be a mistake not to draw a rational–number special case to illustrate the underlying map.
But I hope you have read my last answer to PasserByAgain. You are close to bearing the same blame.
Rossler: do I understand correctly that you are now openly *refusing* to answer questions about your diagram?
LOL, now he’s losing it completely. Rössler, I read you paper. Are there any other parts of it you want us to beat you on the head with?
PasserByAgain: Stop playing the idiot. I know you are none — why then pretending?
“Dear TRGM – you never said whether I diagnosed you correctly as my esteemed female colleague from the Frankfurt Institute: ”
That’s true, because I find your confused speculations rather amusing, and didn’t want to disrupt them. By the way, did you ever think of asking your esteemed colleague if she is posting here, if that interests you so much?
“please stop pretending not to understand: Different height levels have different temporal wavelengths.”
I perfectly understand that this is wrong, and never pretended otherwise.
Dear TRMG: So you are not — which gravely relieves me. Sometimes it loked as if a bit of inspiration came from Frankfurt, but it is now gone. Please, drag along one of your teachers to excuse your behavior before the world. The world gets the maximum possible negative imprssion of the status of relativistic research in Germany from your behavior.
Obviously you are unable to drag one of your teachers to the fore. Good bye.
Rossler: YOU introduced the diagram in the discussion many posts ago, and repeatedly tried to post a useless google link to it. YOU claimed that this diagram explains how you go from Einstein’s eq.(30a) to the seemingly contradictory eq.(1) of Telemach. YOU even tried to give me a “picture in words” for it (remember? “draw an M and a W, you get XXX, no wait it’s XXXX…”).
Now, thanks to TRMG’s kind effort, we can finally see the diagram and try to understand what (if anything) it proves. I am asking you a question with a specific, well-defined physical meaning:
What are THE UNITS on the time axes t1 and t2? Are the axes showing local proper time or not? If not, what are they showing?
And, as far as I see, you openly refuse to answer claiming that you are “fed up with dishonesty”. Who’s playing the idiot here?
P.S. Take your time to think up your answer, I’ll be away for a while.
Your second statement interloped.
Quote: “I perfectly understand that this is wrong, and never pretended otherwise.”
Okay: You have said it. Good bye.
(This was meant for TRMC, dear next interloper.)
PassingByAgain: drag along one of your teachers if you have one and stop playing the imbecile — sorry. It is the good name of a whole country and a whole science hat is here at stake — and you are continuing as if not understanding.
But otherwise you would never have entered this filibustering game on behalf of CERN’s in the first place. So it makes sense. CERN can obviously live with the added blame — there is a bigger one it lives with for many months in a row now as every reader knows all too well. Good by, PasserByAgain.
Only one person is filibustering here: Otto E. Rössler. He avoided for more than 600 comments to answer very simple, but important questions about serious inconsistencies in his so called paper.
He does not want to be disproved. On the contrary he wants to stay on the stage forever.
Rossler: do I understand correctly that you refuse to continue discussing your 1998 diagram and eq.(1) of your Telemach “theorem” with either me or TRMG?
Poor guy, who will you talk to if we leave?
Hansel,
let’s put it this way — Dr. Rössler did not answer the questions intentionally. He indeed desperately tries to keep things vague by skipping mandatory definitions.
But unintentionally, by jumping onto that “mapping” topic above, he “confessed” that the T in his eq (1) is measured in seconds.
So, given a redshift (1+z) > 1 he wants to “map”
T_tail = x . 1[s] –> (1 + z) . x . 1[s] = T_tip
(“–>” denoting “maps to” and “.” denoting multiplication)
which effortlessly yields
(1 + z) . T_tail = T_tip T_tail = T_tip / (1 + z)
proving his eq.(1) wrong and his respective “findings” null and void.
CORRECTION
The bot skipped an equivalence sign between this
(1 + z) . T_tail = T_tip
and this
T_tail = T_tip / (1 + z)
equation.
This is shown not the first time in this (and not only this) thread.
Telemach is wrong. To put it mildly it is a non.-scientific mixture of wrong (experimentally disproved) equations, non-sequitur-arguments and nonsensical crap.
Cannot anyone — I suggested names of your teachers — offer an alternative formulation to Eq.(1) of the Telemach paper which replaces it because it is more correct? This is called falsification in science.
Any one on the planet is called upon to help you. The paper to falsify can befound on “Osama bin CERN” on Lifeboat. I apologize that all of this is so dranatic.
“Cannot anyone – I suggested names of your teachers – offer an alternative formulation to Eq.(1) of the Telemach paper which replaces it because it is more correct?”
T_tip = (1+z) T_tail.
Here you are!
Summing up, the critics TRMG provided at the very beginning of this “odyssey” are valid.
It would be naive to expect that Dr. Roessler had the courage to finally accept that fact; I’m neither going to wait for that nor spend any more time on this.
Prof. Roessler, the problem is that you are stating “1+1=3″, and now are asking for someone to come up with an alternative formulation of this “to be more correct”. Easy: “1+1=2″. Unfortunately the remainder of your paper relies on “1+1=3″ so you are falsified.
I am not getting into the rest of your ramblings today, but the feedback from your co-authors so far is not supporting your case, quite the opposite. I am waiting for one more clarification, before posting results here in more detail.
BTW: do you mind if I am going to use your diagram in my seminar? Honestly I think my students can learn quite a lot from it when it comes to scientific formalism and the need for it. Thank you in advance.
Peter H.
TRMG: T is a period!
Dimension?
And if T is a period, what is L/T then? It can not be a velocity…
Right — think yourself.
It is your “paper”. It is your mess.
You are accusing scientists. It is your job to fix your crap.
Rossler: I am quite puzzled by your open refusal to answer a simple and well-defined question about your 1998 diagram:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/nnla3o.jpg
Allow me to repeat myself here: YOU introduced the diagram in the discussion many posts ago, and repeatedly tried to post a useless google link to it. YOU claimed that this diagram explains how you go from Einstein’s eq.(30a) to the seemingly contradictory eq.(1) of Telemach. YOU even tried to give me a “picture in words” for it (remember? “draw an M and a W, you get XXX, no wait it’s XXXX…”). Now, thanks to TRMG’s kind effort, we can finally see the diagram and try to understand what (if anything) it proves.
I am asking you a question with a specific, well-defined physical meaning:
What are THE UNITS on the time axes t1 and t2? Are the axes showing local proper time or not? If not, what are they showing?
Is there any reason in the world why you should refuse to answer? Perhaps in the meantime you realized that the diagram is incorrect?
here is the link to the previous comment page:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern%E2%80%99s-last-media-g…ent-page-5
Oh yes, it would be interesting to see his detailed derivation from Einsteins equation to eq1 in “telemach” with the help of this diagram.….
mathematically and with precise definitions of course…I guess we will never see something like that.
Long silence again.
Everybody is waiting for TRMG.
Rössler:” Everybody is waiting for TRMG.”
Huh? So you’re really imagining how I’m desperately chewing over your latest brain teaser right now?
“TRMG: T is a period!”
Wow. Yeah, hang on, I’m still struggling with that. Why don’t you finally answer PassingByAgain’s questions in the meantime?
No, Rössler, everybody is waiting for your scientific explanation (please in a precise mathematical way as it was usual in good science in the last 300 years) how you come from Einsteins equation to your eq 1.
And there is a long silence again…
Dear anonymous young physicists, please stop nettling me with pseudo-questions.
I do sympathize with your panicking: There are those professional books, foremost among them George M. Wald’s excellent “General Relativity” of 1984, which tell you that the “t” in the Rindler metric is the same at the tip and the bottom of a long Rindler rocket and hence also in black-hole theory (witness Fig. 6.8 on p. 151, specifically the two pointing arrows marked “t = const”).
Therefore it must have come as a shock to you that all of this beautiful mathematics is unphysical, as the Telemach theorem proves.
Professor Rindler himself responded very kindly; whether or not he will elaborate I do not know.
What is appalling is that the whole intermediary generation of established relativists is unable to respond. This has not happened before in the history of physics. Only anonymous barking – not a single authoritative voice.
We all know what this means: the worst tragedy in the history of science – unless one of my silent adversaries at last succeeds in doing the whole world and me the favor of coming up with a counterproof to my so reluctantly offered theorem.
Science is expressing what you know and being given the chance to be corrected. For nature is after us as an enemy: Francis Bacon was right.
Stop talking bullshit, show how you come from Einsteins equation to yours.
And no, until you are not even able to define simple equations like eq 1 the Telemach proves exact nothing. It is pure delusional to think so.
Rossler: PSEUDO-QUESTIONS?
Please tell me what would be “pseudo” in the simple question that you are systematically trying to avoid: in your 1998 diagram
http://oi55.tinypic.com/nnla3o.jpg
What are THE UNITS on the time axes t1 and t2? Are the axes showing local proper time or not? If not, what are they showing?
Is there any reason in the world why you should refuse to answer? Perhaps in the meantime you realized that the diagram is incorrect?
I never refused to answer anything. These are two local time axes, and they describe the situation of two people living at different height levels using their own local time pieces. Everybody knows this since it was expressed many times on this forum..
If you do not know what this means in terms of the terminology of the theory of general relativity, someone else might be able to tell you.
I feel you are misleading every reader — forgive me for being surely misled into having this impression.
“I never refused to answer anything.”
That is either the joke or lie of the year.
Rossler: “These are two local time axes, and they describe the situation of two people living at different height levels using their own local time pieces.”
Very well, then the diagram looks incorrect. If the two “periodic time signals” are “locally equivalent”, and if each axis shows the local time of the respective observer, then the two signals should be drawn with the same length. Otherwise they are not “locally equivalent”.
Unless of course you are using different units in the two axes, which would make the diagram meaningless anyway (as was pointed out by TRMG, you can draw yourself the same size as the Eiffel tower, but this does not make you 300 meters tall).
So please, complete your answer: what are the units on the axes t1 and t2? Do the axes have the same units? More explicitly, does one cm on the axis t1 correspond to the same amount of local proper time as one cm on the axis t2?
Dear PassingByAgain,
You did not read my entry regarding Wald’s book p. 151 and my exchange with Ridndler?
Otherwise you would know that two clocked observers at different heights CAN indeed exchange signals in their own local time frames, with the consequences drawn by myself and Telemach and every student of the world who is allowed to think for himself.
(You respond like a medieval scholasticist: Shutting out experiment in favor of a false dogma. Maybe someone else can explain it to you?)
I did read the entry you mention: rambling sentences devoid of coherent meaning, concluding with a ridiculous “as Telemach proves”. What should I make with that?
We are trying to understand your 1998 diagram here:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/nnla3o.jpg
YOU claimed that the diagram explains how you go from Einstein’s result to Telemach’s eq.(1), so the least you must do now is clarify what the diagram shows. Or have you decided to throw it in the bin?
There, again: what are the units on the axes t1 and t2? Do the axes have the same units? More explicitly, does one cm on the axis t1 correspond to the same amount of local proper time as one cm on the axis t2?
I said it often but you cannot hear or read: It is the local time, upstairs and downstairs, nothing else, which is drawn in the diagram. (The local proper times, if you prefer that technical term.)
The seconds pass faster upstairs than downstairs. Is this so hard to understand for an anonymous physicist?
Or do I have to begin to fear that you represent the voice of the whole physical profession on the planet, dear Mr. NN?
“You did not read my entry regarding Wald’s book p. 151 and my exchange with Ridndler?
Otherwise you would know that two clocked observers at different heights CAN indeed exchange signals in their own local time frames, with the consequences drawn by myself and Telemach and every student of the world who is allowed to think for himself. ”
Rössler, that’s just ridiculous. Nobody denies that two observers can exchange light signals and measure propagation times in local time. It just doesn’t lead to the conclusions you’d like to draw from it, as we easily discovered by thinking for ourselves. Regarding your mention of Wald’s diagram, I’m not sure what parts of it you imagine to be false. I think you confused local time and coordinate time. Here is the diagram: i55.tinypic.com/atreb6.jpg
And here’s what you wrote about it:
“There are those professional books, foremost among them George M. Wald’s excellent “General Relativity” of 1984, which tell you that the “t” in the Rindler metric is the same at the tip and the bottom of a long Rindler rocket and hence also in black-hole theory (witness Fig. 6.8 on p. 151, specifically the two pointing arrows marked “t = const”). ”
t=const. are the axes of constant coordinate time in the Rindler spacetime. t does not denote local time. Of course, for each event at the lower observer’s position you can find a corresponding event at the upper observer’s position with the same *coordinate time*, since it is covering the whole Rindler wedge. That’s what makes t a useful coordinate to begin with. But fact that you can define axes of constant coordinate time is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. You can do that in any coordinate system.
Now the observer’s local time axes are the hyperbolas, labelled x=const, intersecting the t=const. axes. Their arc lengths between both intersecting points are the local times passed at the repsective position and they are *not* the same for the upper and the lower observer according to Wald’s diagram.
“I said it often but you cannot hear or read: It is the local time, upstairs and downstairs, nothing else, which is drawn in the diagram.”
Then, as PassingByAgain just explained to you, the lower sine curve’s period would be 4 times longe than the lower one measured in local time, which would make both signals locally distinguishable, in contradiction to what the caption of your figure states.
“… between both intersection points…”, Sorry.
Rossler: still no straight answer to the question: “DO THE AXES HAVE THE SAME UNITS?”
But let’s assume that your sentence above: “It is the local time, upstairs and downstairs, nothing else, which is drawn in the diagram.” means “YES”.
Then the diagram is incorrect. If the two signals are “locally equivalent”, then the amount of downstairs proper time covered by the lower signal is equal to the amount of upstairs proper time covered by the upper signal. If the two axes have the same units, the two signals must be drawn with the same length.
Sorry again, it should be
“Then, as PassingByAgain just explained to you, the lower sine curve’s period would be 4 times longer than the UPPER one measured in local time,”
BTW, many thanks to TRMG for making the picture in Wald’s textbook available:
http://i55.tinypic.com/atreb6.jpg
I suspect that now Wald’s textbook will follow Wheeler’s in the dustbin of this discussion. After all we know the drill:
1) Rossler claims that some textbook supports his position;
2) Somebody fetches the textbook and points out that it does not support Rossler’s position at all;
3) Rossler forgets that the textbook ever existed and evades all questions related to it.
Pretty much the same as what’s happening with the magical 1998 diagram…
First, thanks go to TRGM for Wald’s picture.
Second (quote): “Nobody denies that two observers can exchange light signals and measure propagation times in local time.” Thanks for that.
Third (quote): “the lower sine curve’s period would be 4 times longe than the lower one measured in local time, which would make both signals locally distinguishable” Thanks again, this is the T of Telemach.
That is all what I ever said: The measured time intervals after a roundtrip signal are smaller downstairs, so that a unit period downstairs covers more than one unit period upstairs, of two equally built clocks upstairs and downstairs.
I am completely unable to understand your denying that. And so over weeks and months in a row.
If you no longer deny it, your crusade against my Eq.(1) of Telemach which says the same thing would be overcome at last.
Rossler writes:
“Third (quote): “the lower sine curve’s period would be 4 times longe than the [upper] one measured in local time, which would make both signals locally distinguishable” Thanks again, this is the T of Telemach.”
…then the T of Telemach is rubbish. Can’t you even see when people point out your contradictions? The caption of your picture says that the two signals are “locally equivalent” (i.e. they cover the same amount of local proper time) but in the picture they are “locally distinguishable” (i.e. they cover different amounts of local proper time). Which one is incorrect, the caption or the picture?
Rössler: “That is all what I ever said: The measured time intervals after a roundtrip signal are smaller downstairs, so that a unit period downstairs covers more than one unit period upstairs, of two equally built clocks upstairs and downstairs. ”
No, this is not what you always said, and it’s quite puzzling that you suddenly think it is. And after all, it is very evidently not what your Eq. (1) states, because the smaller quantity in it pertains to the upper clock, not the lower one, as we relentlessly told you. So there must be an interpretative twist along the way from this most recent statement of yours to your Eq. (1). And the cause of it is most pobably your own dubious diagram.
To put it another way, your Eq. (1) obviously does *not* refer to the *number* of unit periods, of which there are more upstairs, as you just said. So it must refer to something else, or simply be wrong.
Amazing. They see the picture and cannot interpret it, trying to pitch words against each other.
The clock periods are longer downstairs than upstairs, everyone sees it, but a religion is being made out of wrong interpretations of what is lying before everyone’s eye.
Very, very strange. This was the reason humanity had fights in the middle ages. Interpretations instead of the facts that were the same before veryone’s eyes.
Here the denial of Telemach is the obvious and only goal. To defend CERN’s irresponsibility. And so of course anonymously, so that afterwards it has been “no one” (oudéis) as Ulysses, the father of Telemach, called himself after his cruel deed).
Poor Telemach.
“The clock periods are longer downstairs than upstairs, everyone sees it, but a religion is being made out of wrong interpretations of what is lying before everyone’s eye.
Very, very strange. This was the reason humanity had fights in the middle ages. Interpretations instead of the facts that were the same before veryone’s eyes. ”
Rössler, would you cut that crap out please? We see that the lower period is longer in your diagram. And you just stated—contradicting the caption of that very same figure, but nevertheless—that this length refers to local time. The only problem we have with that, is that it makes the diagram plain wrong. That is a fact, not an interpretation, the interpretation was yours.
“That is a fact, not an interpretation” — is the cutest counterargument I ever heard.
“That is a fact, not an interpretation” – is the cutest counterargument I ever heard. ”
Rössler, please ask your nurse to read it to you again, because you missed the point. The argument was that two signals cannot be “locally equivalent” if their periods differ in local time. Do you understand that?
Previous comments here are at
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern%E2%80%99s-last-media-g…ent-page-5
where you put lower numbers at the end ie 4 3 2 and 1
Thank you, Anthony.