No scientist on the planet claims to be able to prove my “Telemach theorem” wrong (you find it by adding the second keyword “African”). Only anonymous bloggers express malice against it. The anonymous writers’ attitude is a logical consequence of the fact that CERN and Europe openly continue in defiance of my (and not only mine) results. This allegiance shown is no wonder: most everyone is ready to defend their own trusted government. And is it not unlikely indeed that a revered multinational organization like CERN should make a terminal blunder of this magnitude?
In the remaining half year of operation of CERN’s nuclear collider, before the planned 75-percent up-scaling scheduled to take two years’ time, the cumulative yield of artificial BLACK HOLES will grow by a factor of about 4 if everything works out optimal. So the cumulative risk to the planet will be quintupled during the next 6 months. This is all uncontested.
Of course, most everyone is sure that I have to be wrong with my published proof of danger: That black holes, (i) arise more readily than originally hoped-for by CERN, (ii) are undetectable to CERN’s detectors and (iii) will, with the slowest specimen generated, eat the earth inside out after a refractory period of a few years. “This is bound to be ridiculous!” is a natural response.
This attitude is something I cannot understand. I predict that no one will understand it in the near future. The logically necessary safety conference (see my Honey-I-shrunk-the-earth “petitiontoCERN” of April 2008) cannot possibly be considered to be more frightening than the danger that it is meant to dispel. How can anyone defend the decision not to have a look???
There must be a few readers seeing this post. Can you, my dear few, find a journalist of standing who dares ask his own readers whether or not they support the globe-wide decision not to report? For example, some lonely individual is responsible for putting this text familiar to me: http://www.traxarmstrong.com/2011/12/20/young-telemach-saves-planet/ anonymously on the Internet. There are nice people around! What is needed is a medium like the New York Times to take up the story of “The Biggest Cover-up of History Committed out of Fear the Message Is true.”
Imagine: fearing the readers’ scorn for belated reporting more than having to watch one’s children die. No one says he or she is sure Rössler is wrong. So why suppress this fact?
When is this clown going to be thrown off of this blog?
“If you are not working towards something, then you are nothing” (Adam Brecke).
That’s pretty moving music. You’ll find your own black angel’s death song over here: http://frequency-ireland.webs.com/ — the intro video takes voice samples from CERN critics including our friend Otto and Dr Wagner. Please note that music can be viewed as theatre and political art, but not an endorsement of views. Enjoy the free heat.
“No one says he or she is sure Rössler is wrong.”
Lots of people do on this blog. In some comments on another post, that have since been deleted, I pointed out you are wrong by never fixing the problems people find in your work. You turn one problem into two.
I wrote a lot of good comments that have been deleted. I suppose that is one way to deal with problems and allow you to say there is no one disputing your work.
Dear Keith (if you are Keith Curtis):
I am disappointed of you here: You pretend anonymous opinions were sufficient for you to base life-and-death decisions upon them.
Please, show me the single scientist who says he can prove Telemach wrong with a counter-theorem.
Also, please, send me the good comments you wrote so I can post them for you — I have no rights to erase anything.
Take care, Otto
Otto — regarding your suggesting “No one says he or she is sure Rössler is wrong.” I have stated this on may occasions and I am hardly a faceless troll. I am your friend that you choose not to understand. However, I cannot derive it to you.
Dear Tom:
It is rare in life that another person says “I am your friend.” I accept it and am moved.
Do forgive me that I obviously did not understand where you said you are sure I am wrong.
Please, say it again or copy it. I need your help in this step.
I am most grateful for your 3 lines, dear Tom.
Otto
Otto — I refer to the WD safety assurance in G&M. While I grant that this derivation is affected by the theorized MBH radius, and I have conceded that a smaller MBH radius would have an impact on this — I am sure that regardless of how small an MBH radius you apply the WD will still capture. I can’t afford the distraction to debate the issue again with you this week as I rather unfortunately have more important personal matters to tend to at the moment. Perhaps you can attempt derive it yourself.
Quote: “ I am sure that regardless of how small an MBH radius you apply the WD will still capture.“
I shall come back to my disproof I gave once you have more time.
The idea though: compare with lepton diameter. If the black holes are as small as a lepton (electron, quark) or — as is empirically undistinguishable in the absence of charge — a neutrino, then the capture rate is no larger than that of neutrinos.
If you can show that even neutrinos generated by the LHC in equal numbers would get stuck inside earth (pardon me: White Dwarfs), then you have won this debate between friends.
I wish you all the luck of the world and of heaven with your personal matters this week. Take care, Otto
“You pretend anonymous opinions were sufficient for you to base life-and-death decisions upon them.
Please, show me the single scientist who says he can prove Telemach wrong with a counter-theorem.”
There are many people who have pointed out flaws in your work, only some are anonymous. The important point is your mistakes, not their names. Anyone who systematically reads through the comments to your posts will see you frequently ignore the points the critics make, change the topic, etc.
You are not Keith Curtis, I presume?
Why do you make statements into the blue that are not true?
No scientist ever offered a counter-proof to Telemach. And all counter-arguments to gothic-R made by scientists with a real name to them I countered effectively so the original proponents fell silent.
Thus what you are saying here is plain false. This is why I need to know whether it is my esteemed younger Lampscus colleague Keith Curtis who is writing under this pseudonym.
Take care,
Otto
Rossler wrote: “The idea though: compare with lepton diameter. If the black holes are as small as a lepton (electron, quark) or — as is empirically undistinguishable in the absence of charge — a neutrino, then the capture rate is no larger than that of neutrinos.”
wow, only on this blog can you find so much ignorance and nonsense condensed in just three lines of text… Please, Otto, enlighten us: what would be — in your head — “the diameter of a neutrino”???
Interesting that suddenly people get excited, isn’t it?
Not surprising that you are not answering.
Thank you for asking: Do you — or does anyone else — know a lower empirical size limit than 10^(−24) m for either neutrino, electron or quark, found in neutrino measurements? (Note that I do not exclude that neutrinos are point-shaped.)