Friday, June 25, 2010

Showcase: Otto E. Rössler's crackpottery


Commenters in my post Otto E. Rössler's student Hans H. Diebner are amused by a PDF of two Rössler papers. From the titles to the abstracts and all the way through to the references there is much unintentional humor.


"ElNaschie’s fractal E-infinity theory offers itself as an independent test bed" Rössler helpfully points out.

It is hard to imagine that Rössler is serious when he tells us that his paper was "submitted simultaneously to Science, Nature and Z. Naturforsch. to get the best criticism of [sic. in] the world, with the publishing rights going to the one who accepts first." If he's not joking he's completely insane.

View this on Scribd

Thanks to readers for contributing these further Rössler links:

Gravitational slowing down of clocks implies proportional size increase

Hubble expansion in static spacetime (CSF)

Post-quantum relativity (CSF)

Energy-nonconservation in Physics? (CSF), for which a conventional account can be found in Baez's Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?

A reader finds no record of a PhD by Kuypers and speculates that Rössler's former student, years of whose whose time Rössler has wasted, is an astronomy teacher in Düsseldorf.

Wie ein bisher übersehenes Einsteinresultat das LHC-Experiment maximal gefährlich erscheinen lässt

Rössler complains that the third referee refused to accept this stuff as a phd thesis:

Ich verstand das zunächst nicht. Warum meinem Doktoranden vor drei Jahren von der Fakultät der Titel für seine Doktorarbeit verweigert wurde, obwohl er und ich die Beziehung zur Hawkingstrahlung (der nun nicht mehr möglichen “Verdampfung") noch gar nicht gesehen hatten, sondern nur die Raumvergrößerung. Der unnötigerweise von der Fakultät herangezogene dritte Gutachter, der überraschend die Benotung verweigerte (die beiden anderen Noten waren Einsen), war zufällig ein Spezialist für Hawkingstrahlung.


PhD theses must be reviewed by three referees in Germany.

More hallucinations from crackpot Rössler: http://www.achtphasen.com/.

A reader describes this Watchblog LHC-Widerstand thread on RelativKritisch as follows:


...the persons there concentrate on Rösslers LHC nonsense and the illusions on his blog. They seem not to know that Rössler tried to publish the same relativity crackpot stuff for years in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. Also, they seem not to know that Rösslers relativity nonsense is supported by Zeitschrift für Naturforschung editor Jürgen Parisi.

Perhaps someone should inform them about El Naschie Watch...


A reader finds excellent new crackpottery from Otto E. Rössler. No Big Bang, No Safe Black Holes: Please, Dear CERN, Start to Listen. This is just from July 3. The references are a promising source of possible crackpot co-authors and crackpot journals.

Related post:



Translate English to Arabic
محمد النشائى El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائى محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى
StumbleUpon.com

9 comments:

  1. Here is more of Rössler, his doctorate Kuypers and Zeitschrift für Naturforschung Editor Jürgen Parisi:

    Lecture notes in physics 503 (Springer Verlag 1998), p. 370

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p5u236175862j273/?p=3a4e1e2ebf6b40d49ba12b993075d5c2&pi=7

    In searching for a potentially nonunique mapping between regions of high and low redshift, something simpler was found instead: A proportional size increase in a high-redshift region. Unlike special-relativistic effects, where slowed-down (departing) objects shrink in size, a size increase occurs in a gravitational potential. As the horizon of a black hole is approached, the rest of the universe when watched from there shrinks in size to zero. More general implications have yet to be derived.


    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJ4-4MX4VPP-K&_user=616146&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2007&_alid=1381995053&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5300&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=19&_acct=C000032323&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=616146&md5=2c3342af7134b53fcc74fbbbc1aa0b9e

    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
    Volume 33, Issue 3, August 2007, Pages 770-775
    Hubble expansion in static spacetime

    A recently proposed mechanism for light-path expansion in a static spacetime is based on the moving-lenses paradigm. Since the latter is valid independently of whether space expands or not, a static universe can be used to better see the implications. The moving-lenses paradigm is related to the paradigm of dynamical friction. If this is correct, a Hubble-like law is implicit. It is described quantitatively. A bent in the Hubble-like line is predictably implied. The main underlying assumption is Price’s Principle (PI3). If the theory is sound, the greatest remaining problem in cosmology becomes the origin of hydrogen. Since Blandford’s jet production mechanism for quasars is too weak, a generalized Hawking radiation hidden in the walls of cosmic voids is invoked. A second prediction is empirical: slow pattern changes in the cosmic microwave background. A third is ultra-high redshifts for Giacconi quasars. Bruno’s eternal universe in the spirit of Augustine becomes a bit less outlandish.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJ4-42WP6GH-3&_user=616146&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2001&_alid=1381995053&_rdoc=13&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5300&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=19&_acct=C000032323&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=616146&md5=709d0840410862f9054458823fa4b861

    Post-quantum relativity
    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
    Volume 12, Issue 9, July 2001, Pages 1573-1576

    Special relativity puts constraints on clocks including atoms. So does quantum mechanics. Which theory gets the upper hand in case of conflict? It is suggested that redshifted atoms are bigger in all directions in accord with the quantum picture, even though special relatively makes the same prediction only in one direction. The resulting hypothetical “quantum relativity” is testable. It is related in spirit to ElNaschie's Cantorian Image unification of all forces.



    Longitudinal corollary to the transverse mass–energy relation of special relativity

    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
    Volume 22, Issue 4, November 2004, Pages 753-756

    Ives' identity which links the different gamma factors of special relativity can be used to show that Einstein's famous E=mc2 law is the quadratic (transverse) special case of a more general first-order longitudinal law E=mcv/2.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find this here amusing

    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
    Volume 10, Issue 1, January 1999, Pages 159-162
    Energy-nonconservation in Physics?


    In the above paper, Rössler concludes from his completely erroneous crackpot methods that conservation of energy would be violated in general relativity.

    The amusing thing is that such a result actually follows from correct physics, see for example this article by John Baez as an introduction:
    http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems that in the end, Heinrich Kuypers didn't get a PhD from Tübingen University. At least, he doesn't show up in the list of doctorates of the university, and there is no thesis by him in the German national library (usually, a copy of each thesis accepted at a German university should be found there)

    https://portal.d-nb.de/opac.htm?query=per%3Dkuypers+and+hss%3Ddiss

    Moroever, there is a physics and astronomy teacher of his name at a school in Düsseldorf, maybe this is Rössler's former student?

    http://www.lehrer-online.de/768971.php

    It may well be so that Rössler has wasted a few years of this guy's lifetime with this "thesis project" which I can hardly imagine any physics department would have accepted...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Updated. Thank you, readers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. indeed, Rössler complains here that the third referee refused to accept this stuff as a phd thesis. He also says that the first two referees gave the best grade for that. Perhaps, Rössler himself was the first, and Parisi was the second referee who would have accepted this crackpot stuff.

    Fortunately, phd theses must be reviewed by three referees in germany.....

    http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2009/12/11/p1423
    quote from rössler:
    "Ich verstand das zunächst nicht. Warum meinem Doktoranden vor drei Jahren von der Fakultät der Titel für seine Doktorarbeit verweigert wurde, obwohl er und ich die Beziehung zur Hawkingstrahlung (der nun nicht mehr möglichen “Verdampfung") noch gar nicht gesehen hatten, sondern nur die Raumvergrößerung. Der unnötigerweise von der Fakultät herangezogene dritte Gutachter, der überraschend die Benotung verweigerte (die beiden anderen Noten waren Einsen), war zufällig ein Spezialist für Hawkingstrahlung."



    By the way, on this site, one can find more hallucinations from crackpot rössler: http://www.achtphasen.com/

    This already has some sort of watchblog here, http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1286

    but the persons there concentrate on rösslers lhc nonsense and the illusions on his blog. They seem not to know that roessler tired to publish the same relativity crackpot stuff for years in chaos solitons and fractals. Also, they seem not to know that rösslers relativity nonsense is supported by Zeitschrift für Naturforschung editor Jürgen Parisi.

    Perhaps someone should inform them about el-naschie watch...

    ReplyDelete
  6. A link to this post might be appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here is a new crackpot text of Rössler.

    http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2010/07/03/no_big_bang_no_safe_black_holes_please_d


    It contains numerous references of even more journals that published Rössler's crackpot science. The reference list also contains many new co-authors of Rössler.

    Perhaps a closer look at the journals and Rössler's co-authors that are mentioned in the reference list would be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous, I added the link to the end of this post. But I've read it and it's so good it deserves its own post.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Apparently he's now dabbling in zoology:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715000954

    ReplyDelete