Lifeboat Foundation

69

Comments — comments are now closed.

1. Mike says:

   September 5, 2011 at 1:21 pm

   I am asking this as a curious onlooker.

   If Telemach says both charge and mass decrease in a black hole (and Rossler says both Charge and Mass do indeed decrease, and go to zero, in a black hole), and charge’s long range force is the electrical field…wouldn’t the loss of mass cause an analogous loss of the long-range gravitational field?

   In other words, doesn’t this mean that black holes should have no long range gravity, and hence no accreting power, rendering the Earth safe? And doesn’t this conflict with astronomical observations of black holes indeed having gravity?

   If my analogy is wrong, will someone please tell me why…

2. Otto E. Rossler says:

   September 5, 2011 at 3:01 pm

   Absolutely correct, dear Mr. Mike — if it were the the TOTAL mass that the “m” of Telemach refers to.

   However, m is only the local rest mass energy m of an in-fallig particle according to the Telemach theorem The total mass energy of the same particle is conserved (and hence so is that of the black hole). This is because the kinetic energy of the in-falling body goes up by exactly the smame amount by which its rest mass energy goes down. This fact is sometimes called “Birkhoff’s theorem.”

   Charge, in its turn, is always proportional to the local rest mass energy and hence likewise approaches zero on the way down.

   What I call “local rest mass energy” is, by the way, sometimes called the “Komar mass” — after the late Arthur Komar who published his result in 1959 and passed away only a few weeks ago. (This fact I first learned from a young colleague who wants to remain anonymous.)

   Allow me to thank you from my heart for your most perceptive question.

   The latter is a counter-remark I would have expected from a specialist. I would bet that some specialists saw the problem. But they all keep silent owing to a strange planet-wide conformism in physics — a field once a platform of exchange for the whole of humankind rather than for lobbyists only who keep silent on a whiff.

3. Steve Nerlich says:

   September 7, 2011 at 3:53 am

   I think contemporary physics says black holes would retain charge. Also rest mass (I assume proper mass) by definition does not change — although relativistic mass may measurably change from the perspective of an observer in a different frame of reference

4. Otto E. Rössler says:

   September 7, 2011 at 6:43 am

   Dear Steve:
   You are absolutely right. This is what standard physics said before Telemach.
   If one somehow knows for sure that the end of progress has been arrived at in physics, one can bet one’s life on this belief.
   This is why the middle ages have returned — but with a much higher risk than 600 years ago.
   Thank you for allowing me to call you Steve,
   Otto

5. Robert Houston says:

   September 7, 2011 at 6:36 pm

   Steve Nerlich believes that “contemporary physics says black holes would retain charge.” But the standard view apears to be just the opposite. All sources agree that both the basic (Schwarzschild) black hole and the Kerr black hole have no charge — that’s even part of their definition. Stellar black holes are also regarded as essentially neutral. According to Wikipedia, “it is not expected that black holes with a significant charge will be formed in nature.”

   Black holes with charge (Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr-Newman types) are theoretical constructs which may not even occur in nature. Moreover, if a mini black hole somehow acquired a charge, the conventional view is that the mBH would immediately be neutralized by the Schwinger mechanism, as well as by accretion of the opposite charge.

6. Otto E. Rössler says:

   September 8, 2011 at 1:56 am

   Dear Robert Houston:

   This is very difficult stuff. Hawking radiation and Schwinger radiation are quantum concepts that cannot be consistently combined with gravitation theory up until now.

   If mini black holes were charged (before having accreted more charge and thereby becoming less charged relative to their mass as you correctly see), their initial being charged would still stop them inside matter. So the fact that earth still exists would show CERN cannot produce them either, as RobDegraves correctly said on May 9 2009 in a blog.

   Unfortunately, the Ch of Telemach is new. This fact explains why no physicist on the planet dares to agree openly because he or she would then have to justify themselves why they do not conform with dogma.

7. Anthony L says:

   September 8, 2011 at 3:13 pm

   So are they initially charged, Professor? You believe they will be? Why wouldn’t that dissipate then, as added charge would?

8. Otto E. Rössler says:

   September 9, 2011 at 2:24 am

   The point is that black holes are absolutely free of charge because any infalling charge (along with its rest mass energy) approaches zero very fast while the particle’s total mass energy remains unchanged.

9. Hanselllll says:

   September 9, 2011 at 1:24 pm

   Consider a black hole created by the collision of two protons.

   According to Rössler the black hole is uncharged and the charge of the former particles has vanished in a real fantastic way.…. interestingly this fantastic new changes of fundamental physical laws were always found by Rössler when he needed it to keep on his catastrophy campaign against science.

10. Gretel says:

    September 9, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    My roommate and I hare having an agrument — it’s almost coming to blows!

    It is about this:

    If Telemach predicts that mass reduces charge, would a deuterium nucleus have a slightly smaller charge than a hydrogen nucleus, since it has about twice the mass of a hydrogen nucleus? This would affect its spectrum.

    If Telemach is true, would this effect be too small for precision spectroscopy to detect (i.e. the gravity field of a nucleus is probably small)? Or would it be enough to see? Somebody please tell me, and show me precise calculations showing the magnitude of this effect.

    If I’m right (that it’s too small for a precision spectroscope to detect), my roommate will buy me a Lobster dimmer at Morton’s in Chicago.

    Gretel

11. Pete says:

    September 9, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    My airhead roommate Gretel says that the gravity field of an atomic nucleus is too small for Telemach to have an effect on its charge. I think it will, and would show up in spectroscopy as different from predictions. Especially a big nucleus like Uranium. Someone please prove my ditzy roommate wrong so I won’t have to buy her a lobster dinner at Morton’s.

    Pete

12. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 10, 2011 at 12:46 am

    Dear Gretel:
    The gravity of an atom neither changes its mass nor its charge — the lobster is yours.
    The change of mass of Telemach refers only to masses falling-in onto a superheavy body (black hole).
    Nevertheless the two of you laid your finger on a very interesting point: Can the contribution to the mass of an electron due to its charge be measured?
    Here the answer is yes in principle.

13. Pete says:

    September 10, 2011 at 3:37 am

    You might not have understood my question…lobsters are expensive.

    An atomic nucleus is dense…and an atom is mostly empty space, the electrons orbiting. Therefore, if an atomic nucleus is very dense, local gravity at the nucleus is higher than that experienced by the electrons. Therefore, the (dense) nucleus would experience a greater charge loss than the remainder of the (mostly empty space) atom, and this effect might create a charge imbalance as you go to heavier atoms.

    What is Telemach’s “1+Z” term at the edge of a Uranium nucleus (local gravitational redshift) vs. the “1+Z” at the edge of the electron shell? It would be different for Hydrogen, Deuterium, Uranium…Please show me detailed calculations, not general statements like “only applies to masses falling onto dense bodies.”

    A lobster dinner at Mortons is $250.00 US (about 200 Euros) so a lot is riding on this.

    Also, wouldn’t the space distortion predicted by Telemach cause features on Earth to be locally larger becsuas of the gravitational field (7 miles per second vs. 186000 miles per second as an approximation for the “1+z” term, being 7/186000, or 1/25000…adding a factor that needed to be accouned for in GPS satellite navigation — the “1+Z” of the satellites would be different from the “1+z“of the points on the Earth’s surface, since satellites orbit higher in Earth’s gravitational field?

    A small effect to be sure, but GPS already accounts for tiny General Relativistic and Special Relativistic time dilation effects, which add up to measurable distances over time.

    Pete

14. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 10, 2011 at 4:48 am

    Quote (Pete): What is Telemach’s “1+Z” term at the edge of a Uranium nucleus (local gravitational redshift) vs. the “1+Z” at the edge of the electron shell? It would be different for Hydrogen, Deuterium, Uranium…Please show me detailed calculations, not general statements like “only applies to masses falling onto dense bodies.”

    Dear Pete:

    As you may know, gravitational effects inside atoms, while existing, are many many orders of magnitude below having any potentially measurable effects.

    As many orders of magnitude as lobsters are beyond your purse. Please, allow Gretel to invite you.

    Take care,
    Otto

15. Hansel says:

    September 12, 2011 at 4:54 am

    Ah, the effecty are very weak then. Then explain please how you calculate th4e amzing fast accretion of matter by black holes that must be even smaller.

    If this BHs are uncharged and therefore not interacting by electromagnetism then you have to explain how a micro black hole with a negligible gravitation can accrete matter fast enough to eat a plant like the earth with a much lower density than other stellar objects in the timeframe of a few years.

    Giddings and Mangano have given detailed explanations and calculations for worst case accretion mechanisms. Something like that is still missing from your side which is at least a little bit strange for person claiming to have some proofs and so on.

16. Hansel says:

    September 12, 2011 at 4:58 am

    “What I call “local rest mass energy” is, by the way, sometimes called the “Komar mass” – after the late Arthur Komar who published his result in 1959 and passed away only a few weeks ago. (This fact I first learned from a young colleague who wants to remain anonymous.) ”

    BTW, this is complete bullshit. It is clear that you not know what you are talking about. It is not surprising that no real scientist wants to waste his time with a buzzword-crackpot like you, Rössler.
    Additional information for the reader:
    http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2011/09/rossler-calls-el-…3688879781

17. Otto E. Rössler says:

    September 12, 2011 at 5:48 am

    Dear Pete:
    Maybe you can say something yourself — the question really is interesting and important.

18. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 13, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Poor Hanselllll

19. Robert Houston says:

    September 13, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    Giddings and Mangano of CERN strangely neglected to estimate an accretion time for a black hole given one extra dimension (i.e., a 5-dimensional model). Subsequent to their draft report, three German physicists who support the LHC presented equations showing that if “the LHC produces a…black hole which gets stuck” in the earth, then “with one extra dimension, the earth would be accreted into the black hole in 27 years” (B. Koch et al. at ArXiv.org, 7/22/2008, v.1).

    Quite independent of Dr. Rossler, their result was the exact midpoint of his estimate of “50 months to 50 years.” Of course, it had to be covered up. Thus, the entire section plus an accompanying figure were omitted without explanation from their published paper.

20. Otto E. Rössler says:

    September 14, 2011 at 1:56 am

    Thank you, Robert Houston. All publications of CERN’s since 2008 avoid quoting maximally relevant published scientific results which fact disqualifies the latter from being scientific.

    No comments from the scientific community to the “Pete problem”? Is it not maximally exciting scientifically?

21. Hansel says:

    September 14, 2011 at 2:11 am

    Oh, Robert Houston, the great physicist. The case you mentioned is already ruled out by nature itself as the observed orbits of planets etc are not in agreement with it.

    The case was calculated in the paper of Bleicher et al without having any relevance for reality.

    And Rössler, it would be nonscientific to quote rubbish like yours in real papers. You have not even reached the level of an undergraduate student in theoretical physics.

22. Hansel says:

    September 14, 2011 at 2:13 am

    Ah, Rössler, no comment to my question above?
    Are you afraid to think your crap to the logical conclusion?

23. Otto E. Rössler says:

    September 14, 2011 at 2:40 am

    So we have a first response from the part of the scientific community, made a bit hedingly behind a mask: “crap.”

    Any other response?

24. Hansel says:

    September 14, 2011 at 3:05 am

    The response is exactly the same you got already from Nicolai et al.

25. Hansel says:

    September 14, 2011 at 3:39 am

    BTW, Rössler:

    If this BHs are uncharged and therefore not interacting by electromagnetism you have to explain how a micro black hole with a negligible gravitation can accrete matter fast enough to eat a plant like the earth with a much lower density than other stellar objects in the timeframe of a few years.

26. Otto E. Rössler says:

    September 14, 2011 at 5:33 am

    I was tempted to say “there are no scientists any more, only technicians,” when the Nicolai school suddenly came up with an intelligent question: “you have to explain how a micro black hole with a negligible gravitation can accrete matter fast enough.”

    Is it asking too much if I refer you here to my two 2008 publications which a moment ago were still declared crap by you?

    Not quoting is a deadly sin in science — the most deadly one possible as the planet now sees.

27. Hansel says:

    September 14, 2011 at 6:14 am

    Your old paper explains nothing and was already disproved by Nicolai et al. Their conclusion was pretty the same — crap.

    answer the question.

28. Otto E. Rössler says:

    September 14, 2011 at 6:49 am

    Technicians cannot distinguish between content and form — is this the explanation for the whole tragedy? Mister Niolai missing the form he expects from his students and hence refusing to think in dialog?

    Could be.

29. Otto E. Rössler says:

    September 14, 2011 at 8:01 am

    Forgive the polemics from my part: you posed a serious question which fact I appreciate very much.

    Very rarely, after hours or weeks, the almost frictionless mini black hole circling inside earth, at not much less than 11 km/sec, comes close enough to a nuclear quark to gravitationally interact with it, pulling it eventually below the Zel’dovich distance. Perhaps you can give a sharper estimate. Then we have a charged particle in the process of being eaten. As long as it is already trapped but not yet swallowd down into the high-redhift region, it for a short while increases the attractive strength of the miniblack hole by more than 30 orders of magnitude (or even more if nuclear forces ar taken into account as well). This totally changes the situation. From now on, further charged particles (e.g. electrons) are being pulled towards the miniblack hole. Hereby a disk-shaped attraction region is formed which at first is of oscillating polarity. Magnetic effects are also included. How long the transition from uncharged miniblack hole to self-organized minimini-quasar will take is unknown but — most likely — not very long. From then on, exponential growth applies. The latter does not take very long to devour the earth as you will concede.

    Thank you and your colleagues for having asked.

30. Hansel says:

    September 14, 2011 at 8:31 am

    Thats bullshit. “very rarely” — you should be more precise. Why is the black hole sircling in the earth at all? You as an expert should know that the non-symmetric collisions produce at the LHC (there is nothing like a perfect head on collision due to the structure of the proton, the collision angle etc. Furthermore a collision at all is already unlikely and only a small fraction of protons hits other protons) more likely products with much higher velocities than 11km/s. Thats one point. It needs more than to write “very rarely, after a few weeks perhaps..” to deal with the detailed and precise accretion models given in real scientific papers. Or to disprove them. On the contrary you are obviously not even aware of the real conditions in the experiment. It needs more to explain why the BH is staying in the earth while not interacting with matter.

    NExt, what is the gravitational cross section of a black hole of this size? Comparison of nuclear forces? Gravitation against the strong force? What is needed to remove a quark out of a nucleus? What about the size of a nucleus, the distances in the atom (very small, only a very small portion of the space there — how likey is it that the black hole interacts with it when the gravitation is extremely wek and the BH not interacting via electromagnetic forces?)

    Poor Rössler, not even aware of the parameters he need to consider. Poor Rössler, if this is all he can deliver to “prove” his catastrophic scenario.

31. Hansel says:

    September 14, 2011 at 8:34 am

    BTW I bet that you have no idea about the accretion models and rates used and calculated by G&M. As a hint it is not linear.

32. Otto E. Rössler says:

    September 14, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    Thank you for showing that pretending that in the unknown precise data were available would be counterproductive, and for demanding more details.

    This is exactly what is needed in the face of new results (here Telemach). We — the two of us — are deplorably at a loss regarding further implications of Telemach.

    This is exactly why a safety conference is needed. Driving in the dark is a sin. Would your Institute be willing to make a mini-conference to exclude that Telemach has the safety-relevant consequences that you and I cannot exclude at the time being?

33. Hanselllll says:

    September 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    There is no need for a conference to conclude that crap is irrelevant concerning the LHC and the related physics. It was shown severla times.

    Additionally your answers (better: non-answers) have shown that you know nothing about the needed calculations and that you are not even aware of the conditions of the experiment at all. You do not know what parameters and problems xou would have to deal with for a proper model of accretion.

    so in the end it is clear: If you want to be heard by any scientist, write a proper paper which fulfils scientific standards, including clear derivations, precise defintions and so on.

    If you can’t do this, shut up. However, that you can’t discuss scientifically or write a precise paper was alread proven, e.g. on this blog in several comment sections.

34. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    A fall-back into psychology: No miniconference?

    Did you check with professor Nicolai?

35. Robert Houston says:

    September 14, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    Is Hanselllll the excited state of Hansel? Why the dualism? Assuming they’re the same, it’s obvious that his main way of supporting CERN is to lace each comment with profanity and insults. The essential message is that of a heckler: personal contempt, not civil discussion. Moreover, most of his purported “scientific” points are rubbish that has already been discredited by CERN’s own scientists and safety reports.

    Hansel has claimed, for example, that a microscopic black hole could not consume a planet, and wrote that “Giddings and Mangano have given detailed explanations…” But when these CERN analysts studied “the time for the…evolution…to the mass of the earth” of such a black hole, they found that for some conditions, “these times are too short to provide comfortable constraints” (p. 13). Most of Earth’s future would be erased.

    Furthermore, three CERN-affiliated physicists — independent of Dr. Rossler — calculated that “the lifetime of the earth could be shortened to less than 30 years after the LHC produced its first black hole in one extra dimension” (B. Koch, M. Bleicher, H. Stockerl, ArXiv.org, 7/22/2008, v. 1). Hansel claimed that such a result “is already ruled out by nature itself as the observed orbits of planets etc are not in agreement with it.” But nature with its cosmic rays cannot produce a mini black hole slow enough to remain on a planet — only a collider can. (Note that Nature’s black holes are uncharged, according to Wikipedia.)

    Ignoring CERN’s safety studies, Hansel then claimed that any black holes produced by the LHC would be moving “with much higher velocities than 11km/s” — Earth’s escape velocity. The point is that a few could be slowed below that by the unnatural opposing speed collisions in the LHC. This was already determined by G&M and admitted in CERN’s public safety report. It states (p. 2) regarding neutral microscopic black holes: “Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth.”

    A safety conference and outside review of the LHC are clearly in order, as Dr. Rossler rightly maintains.

36. Hanselllll says:

    September 14, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    Oh Houston, when will you begin to understand instead of wordpicking only?

    Yes, in principle there could be an almost perfect collision — but this is very very unlikely. Nearly all of the produced particles are faster than 11km/s. However, because of this the paper deals not only with the earth but with much heavier and denser stellar objects. White dwarfs for example. Or neutron stars. (And no, neutrinos are not the same as massive particles like a micro black hole. Furthermore if they are supposed to interact as strong as Rössler said above they MUST interact with dense matter like that in white dwarfs and neutron stars…)

    ah, before I forget, micro black holse produced by two charged particles like protons are of course very likely charged. If Rössler claims the opposite he should tell the audience where the charge is going. He should also explain why only the charge is vanishing and not the mass which must be the case if someone took his crap-physics serious.

37. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 15, 2011 at 2:50 am

    It is comforting that no counterarguments to double-checking remain — but at the same time CERN is busy to raise its danger-determining luminosity to twice the present one in the coming 6 weeks.

    The Telemach theorem proves that CERN is flying blind. Why do all governments and the world’s press make the biggest cover-up of history?

    I repeat my public request to Professor Dr. Hermann Nicolai to defend himself.

38. Hansel says:

    September 15, 2011 at 3:02 am

    According to you CERN is always doubling the luminosity “in the upcoming six weeks”. Interesting. :D How often have they doubled now? Can you give the actual number? :D

    Telemach proves nothing, not even itself. It does not even meet lowest standards of logical reasoning. Instead of answering to the serious questions you prefer to repeat the same old rubbish combined with some propaganda.

39. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 15, 2011 at 4:17 am

    This is the worst possible propaganda anyone could make for CERN on the planet.

    Forgive me.

40. Hansel says:

    September 15, 2011 at 5:34 am

    So you can not give a number or something.

    Thanks, that is the proof you are not even familiar with the LHC on a basic level. But of course you need a safety conference *ROFL*

41. Roger says:

    September 15, 2011 at 9:21 am

    What makes Professor Rossler think that his “Telemach” would fare any better at a safety conference than it has in this forum, and on Achtphasen, and with Nicolai et. al.? Since it so reliably gets shot down here, you would think that a panel of outside physicists hired to evaluate safety…would shoot it to pieces in under 20 minutes.

    Also — as Hansel asks, if charge vanishes, why does mass not vanish? And if distance goes to infinity, near the black hole (albeit on microscopic scales), how can the black hole attract anything (Professor Nicolai asked this, too)?

    And wouldn’t the length increase near massive bodies per Telemach (35 miles per second is 1/5000 th of light speed — the speed of Mercury’s orbit, so the “z+1″ effect would be 1 in 5000, adding up to thousands of miles out of millions by Mercury) heve the following effects:
    1.) Additional precession effect on Mercury’s orbit, different from General Relativy’s prediction?
    2.) An effect on sensitive GPS satellite position formulas, which already rely on General Relativity — the absence of this effect in GPS calculations, you would expect, would disprove Telemach.

    And what about the fact that your accretion scenario, with charged particles getting pulled from atomic nuclei onto a black hole, making a charged mini-quasar — be invalidated since the charged particles would get neutralized by Telemach when they get to the area where lengths increase due to Telemach effects — and particles get pulled into mini-black holes VERY QUICKLY. In other words, youe “Mini-Quasars” would NEVER accumulate charge. They would stay neutral, per Telemach, rendering them incapable of accretion.

    And if they can hold charge…they would hit a few particles after formation, stay charged, and STOP in white dwarf stars, thus rendering the existence of white dwarf stars untenable.

    In otherwords, I have just identified a few effects in nature that flatly contradict Telemach.

42. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 15, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Very good questions, dear Roger “Who?”

    You see, Telemach never got shot down. Hot-tongued polemics must never be confounded with a counter-proof to a theorem. The fact that not a single scientist raises his or her voice against Telemach is absolutely abnormal in history when something vital is at stake. And the fact that the opinion media of a whole planet hold a press curfew even though not a single renowned voice has raised an objection is equally astounding.

    You have put forward intelligent questions which the safety conference that was asked for by the Cologne Administrative Court 8 months ago no doubt would address with pleasure (if you wish I shall return to them).

    But asking questions — as you no doubt know — is nice but a counterproof is something else. A scientist who does not insist on a counterproof before any administration acts against his proof in a way that jeopardizes human lives is not a scientist.

    And a CERN that hides scientific counterevidence published in time in all its publications while openly acting in defiance of it is, unfortunately, not scientific — if you forgive me my putting pressure on you and everyone in science again.

    You are one of the very few people with a senior voice who speak up in favor of CERN — although even you do not dare use your own – doubtlessly respectable — name: Why?

    It is because the world might remember later when it is too late. So, please, forgive me that this heartful thanks to a high-level courageous critic sound critical, dear nicest defender of CERN’s ever. I shall cherish your reply.

    P.S. Since I just attended the church service in honor of my passed-away friend Valentin Braitenberg, I use the occasion to say thanks to him here. He liked to talk of a “thought puppet” that deserves to be turned around and looked at in every possible way. He was the only one who dared ask me how I felt after the violent death of my young son. I look forward to seeing both again.

43. Hansel says:

    September 15, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Telemach never got shot down.

    It did as the equations are wrong, nondefined. Your were for example never able to give a precise defintion of the variables in the first equation. Never. And this was only one of the many points which are pure pseudoscience and unfounded reasoning in this piece of crap.

    If you are stating that there never was somethzing like a serious objection or finding of major mistakes then you are revealing yourself as either insane or as the liar of the century.n

44. Hansel says:

    September 15, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Questions are already completely disproving you because you were never able to answer a single one.

    Poor Rössler, it is time to apologize for comparisons like that you made on the 11th of September. Thats the only thing the world wants to hear from you.

45. Hansel says:

    September 15, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    if charge vanishes, why does mass not vanish?

46. Roger says:

    September 15, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    Professor Rossler,

    Just amazing how you completely failed to answer any of my questions…I knew you would do that. You even neglected the bone I threw you, in the form of an obvious mistake of calculating Telemach’s “1+Z” as the ratio of V/C, and not the proper formula of sqrt(v^2/c^2). Didn’t even point it out, but it makes no difference — my calculation prove that both GPS and planetary precession would be different from observations if Telemach were true, thus disproving it.

    Too bad — the only way you can keep Telemach alive is to publish counter calculations showing I am wrong!! Otherwise, you forfeit all of your credibility. I might have made a mistake, but nobody will know it unless you publish your results, with formulas!!

    Or I might just be making this up…you’ll never know unless you do the calculations yourself…aren’t you curious???

    If you knew who I really am, you would be…well…quite surprised. But I won’t give you that satisfaction, since you so slickly sidestepped answering any of my clear, precise and specific questions.

    Roger

47. Robert Houston says:

    September 15, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    After admitting his comment was error-ridden, Roger now claims it was “clear, precise”.

    Previously, he asserted that mini black holes “would stay neutral, per Telemach, rendering them incapable of accretion.” This too was erroneous, for neutral mini black holes were shown to be capable of accreting the planet in the calculations of Giddings and Mangano of CERN, as well as those of the three German physicists I mentioned. The latter did not even consider charge in their equations for the accretion rate of an LHC “black hole which gets stuck in…the earth.” Yet they found that “with one extra dimension, the earth would be accreted into the black hole in 27 years” (B. Koch et al. ArXiv.org, 7/22/2008, v. 1).

    Both Roger and Hansel resorted to the dense star argument, unveiled by CERN in 2008. But as its analysts G&M admitted, neutron stars and white dwarfs are shielded by powerful magnetic fields, up to a trillion times stronger than Earth’s, which may deflect or weaken cosmic rays so they can’t form black holes. In addition, the known superfluidity of neutron stars was ignored in CERN’s safety reviews, thus rendering the reviews inadequate. As Dr. Rossler has pointed out, such a superfluid state may render neutron stars transparent to the transit of mini black holes.

    This and other holes in its safety rationales need to be investigated, not ignored by CERN.

48. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 15, 2011 at 11:36 pm

    Dear (non-) Roger:

    I do not understand your haughty sarcasm — I had announced I would reply.

    You naively assume central collisions. The best you can hope for is a highly non-central one. What you thereby get is a charged anthraconium atom whose lifetime is determined by quantum mechanics in analogy to that of a Wheeler positronium.

    The necessary parameters are not all known. Your optimism that this charged object will not lead to an accretive cascade is — so far — entirely unjustified.

    What was your other main point?

49. Hanselllll says:

    September 16, 2011 at 12:58 am

    Houston, the superfludidity ha no effect on the accretion, the density matters. Neither you nor Rössler have pesented a really revolutionary model of gravitational superfluidity.

    Furthermore the magnetic fields are not neglected by G&M as you were told more than one time. This reveals once more that you are nothing like a mindless wordpicker and propagandist.

50. Hanselllll says:

    September 16, 2011 at 1:02 am

    Uh, Rössler, again throwing around with buzzwords you do not even understand?

    BTW: You were the one always claiming that there must be perfect central collisions as you need them for the scenario of very slow or nearly non-moving collisionsproducts.

51. Hansel says:

    September 16, 2011 at 2:00 am

    “As Dr. Rossler has pointed out”

    No, he did not.

    He said that there must be a strange property like “gravitational /strong/weak force- superfluidity” but to be precise he NEVER pointed anything out abouth this.

    On the contrary all counterarguments against him were much more founded than all statements made by him.

    @Rössler: the question still remains open:

    if charge vanishes, why does mass not vanish?

52. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 16, 2011 at 2:18 am

    Beside false claims suddenly a concrete question:

    Rest-mass energy M goes down in the first place. This is why charge Ch goes down being proportional to the former.
    (You ever read Telemach?)

53. Hansel says:

    September 16, 2011 at 3:43 am

    No, you are always talking about a constant ratio between *mass* and charge (which does not exist). That was the reason for the strange venishing of the charge.…

    So, the question remains still open. I know already your next steps, you will invent some new words to get out of this without ever being able to define this words or to bring them in connection to known physical observables.

    Again it is obvious that you have never read something about the gravitational redshift carefully enough. That is one of the many things Telemach *really* has proved.

54. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 16, 2011 at 5:03 am

    You misunderstand because you never read Telemach:
    The constant ratio between mass and charge applies only at rest (or in the free-falling inertial system). The mass M therefore is the local rest-mass energy.

    And “constant ratio between mass and charge” of course is particle-type specific. It would be illogical to misunderstand this as “universal across particle classes.”

55. Hansel says:

    September 16, 2011 at 5:16 am

    Exactly what I had expected. You are changing the words and of course all ws meant totally different. No, Rössler, you were always talking about “mass”. Not rest mass energy or something similar.

    If you meant something different, reading your misleading paper would not help. But that is your strategy, correct? You are mixing up words and terms intentionally so no one can catch you. Consequently you are avoiding any kind of precise definition or derivation.

    Define “total rest mass energy”. And derive the “constant ratio with charge”.

    And by the way, it is not long ago that you were proposing this constant ratio between mass and charge as new physical constant.

56. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 16, 2011 at 6:01 am

    You stick to your illogical interpretation since electrons and quarks are known to have the same charge and different mass to every 13-year old.
    And the many new constants of nature described in my paper you also overlooked.

    Does no one know how to bring Hermann Nicolai to respond to me and the world in the form of the United Nations’ General Assembly?

57. Hansel says:

    September 16, 2011 at 6:37 am

    What is the charge of a quark?

    The illogical interpretations of general relativity are on your side. That was proven long ago, also on this blog. It is a fact.

58. Hansel says:

    September 16, 2011 at 6:39 am

    I forgot to say: again of course not a single answer to my questions. Instead of that some meaningsless blabla which was also completely wrong.

59. Hansel says:

    September 16, 2011 at 7:36 am

    You were even proposing a new constant with the dimension charge/mass in your paper.

    So again the question, you are assuming that charge must decrease because the mass decreases.

60. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 16, 2011 at 11:15 am

    No, I am not assuming that charge must decrease because massdecreases: I proved it to invite you and others to find a counter-proof.

    Do you know Hermann Nicolai or do you not?

61. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 16, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Sorry, quark was to be antiproton.

62. Hanselllll says:

    September 17, 2011 at 2:18 am

    There is no proof for the charge decrease. There is also no proof for anyhing in your “paper”. It starts with a wrong equation, to give at least one well-known example.

    So again there is the question, if charge is decreasing because mass is decreasing why is only the latter vanishing in your strange world? Why is there a black hole at all? If you think xour misunderstanding of GR to the logical ending there should be not a single black hole in the universe.

63. Hanselllll says:

    September 17, 2011 at 2:21 am

    I Forgot: What is the luminosity now? is it already doubled? Or tripled?

    You are claiming to be an expert, so show us the proof that you are not talking obvious nonsense about the current conditions at the LHC. It seems strange to me that the luminosity will be always drastically increased in the next few weeks following your respective posting.

64. Otto E. Rössler says:

    September 17, 2011 at 2:28 am

    Thank you for at last asking the right question: “if charge is decreasing because mass is decreasing why is only the latter vanishing?”

    The total mass-energy is conserved. Only the locally valid rest mass-energy is decreasing. The famous 1959 Komar mass (Arthur Komar passed away only a few weeks ago — I had tried in vain to get in contact with him in time).

65. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 17, 2011 at 4:40 am

    Skepticism is good but understanding is better. You still did not try to understand TeLeMaCh.

    I used such a complicated expression (“locally valid rest-mass energy”) because when I say “local rest mas,” all the specialists immediately believe I mean the rest mass they treat ion their books which “as everybody knows” is a constant.

    Telemach shows that this is not so — or more specifically that more complicated distinctions than custonary so far need to be made.

    This is a fascinating future in the field of general relativity. Only unfortunately it develops too slowly as our very very slowly advancing dialogue is proof of. (You know that I am grateful, although such remarks of mine have always caused an immediate backlash so far.)

    u

66. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 17, 2011 at 4:57 am

    A smile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU

67. Hanselllll says:

    September 17, 2011 at 7:22 am

    Komar- mass is something different as you are presenting here.

    What was again the actual luminosity, Rössler? You are always talking about it being doubled or tripled in the next few weeks. So, tell us,. what is the actual value ? you are the expert, show it!

68. Otto E. Rossler says:

    September 17, 2011 at 8:48 am

    It is always the same reference, provided by CERN, to which I am referring: ref. [12] of
    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/black-holes-are-different-%…ty-council

69. Hanselllll says:

    September 17, 2011 at 9:53 am

    So you have no actual numbers?

    Thats poor, Rössler!