Friday, September 2, 2011

Rössler calls El Naschie his friend

Rössler has put up seven new posts on Lifeboat Foundation since we last checked in with him.


September 2, 2011. “All Physicists“ Stand Behind CERN’s Suicide Experiment – but None with His Own Name says only

Dear planetary citizens, dear Security Council: This fact is psychological dynamite. Please, find at least a single witness who testifies on behalf of CERN. Otherwise this is the end, if not of the planet, of the United Nations.

So far there are no reader comments.


August 31, 2011. Open letter by a Lifeboat Member to the UN Security Council

I feel that I must repeat my kind request to you

he says. There are eight comments. Otto's supporters liken CERN to Nazis, Moonies, and shock-administering subjects of the Milgram psychology experiment.


August 30, 2011. I am the Scientist Who Proved That CERN Attempts to Kill You. Rössler begins

CERN continues even though the matter is before the UN Security Council.

on the basis of his having sent a stupid email to a dubious UNSC address. Among the twelve comments are ones from Hansel and PassingByAgain poking fun at Otto. Anthony L defends him. The quote in the headline graphic comes from this amusing thread.

I myself tried to post to this thread but Rössler has banned me.


August 28, 2011. Short Statement Humbly Expected from the United Nations Security Council. All Otto says here is

“The SCUN finds no fault with the proposal of a scientific safety conference made by the Cologne Administrative Court regarding the LHC.”

Not a single reader has deemed it worthwhile to respond to Otto's attempt to put words in the SCUN's mouth.


August 25, 2011. In Open Letter to the Dalai Lama, Rössler implores the Buddhist religious leader

Since your mind is a unique bridge between the Eastern and the Western world view, you are the only institution on the planet which with authority can demand the necessary scientific safety conference. Even though this particular now and this particular existence is not everything, the sparing of suffering is a holy vocation.

There are seven reader comments, beginning with one from PassingByAgain, who ridicules poor Otto with the succinct taunt

And where did you send this? perhaps at Dalai.Lama@tibet.com?

alluding to an earlier open letter Otto sent to a made-up email address for the UN Security Council that was suggested to him as a joke.


August 24, 2011. In Why Do My Alarmist Results - One Percent Armageddon - Not Cause a Stir?, Says Gandhi Rössler reproaches the news media for not publicizing his warnings.

They have – much as in an authoritarian society – voluntarily decided to keep a lid on it all.

His title says "alarmist" but he means "alarming". The ten reader comments are respectful and credulous.


August 22, 2011. How Can I Convince the World That It Is Reasonable to Double Check? has twelve reader comments. Rössler begins

Despite some nominations I am just a stupid scientist who found evidence that the currently running LHC experiment in Geneva jeopardizes the planet with a probability of 3 percent, with the largest part of this number still avoidable if the LHC is stopped immediately.

and rehashes his Telemach story. He has become quite repetitive.


Posts about Otto E. Rössler:


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

45 comments:

  1. You wrote
    "I myself tried to post to this thread but Rössler has banned me."

    Jason,

    you may consider yourself knighted!
    Welcome to THE "club", "Sir" Jason! :D

    Some time ago I experienced that a comment of mine in the Rössler blog, all of a sudden, had to be "moderated".
    (It was never published, imagine that... :D )

    Did you experience a similar effect, or did it plainly
    tell you "YOU'RE BANNED!" ?


    Best regards,

    Solkar

    ReplyDelete
  2. HAHA Congratulations to you too Solkar! The message in my case is that I am "spam filtered".

    He's unwise to block us. Readers love fighting. He's giving up traffic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's a question I would like to ask...and get a clear, consistent answer to...I am asking this to you guys, and not asking this to Rossler, because of the "entropy" in his answers, and his well known evasiveness.

    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...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Anonymous, you must be the Mike who left the same question on Otto's 2 September post at Lifeboat. Otto has answered you. With a little luck one of the regulars will show up and respond to him there.

    And if, like Solkar and me, Otto has banned them, they will surely be aware they can respond here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Although I'm not banned, I don't feel like commenting over there at crazytown anymore. So I'm happy to speak out here. ;-)

    As for Rössler's answer to Mike, his throwing around of buzzwords like "Komar mass" and "Birkhoff theorem" is of course just bluff. He clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Most of it, including his abusive reference to the Birkhoff theorem, was exhaustively debated on his former supporter's blog achtphasen.net, I think, approximately one year ago. Some of the discussion was also recapped here on the blog. You will probably find some information in the links at the bottom of the blog post above. Rössler has since shown no indication as to his understanding of this criticism, but often repeated this nonsense as if nobody ever countered it.

    Komar mass can now probably be added to Rössler's list of misunderstood buzzwords. It is impossible to make sense of what he's saying about it in his reply. The Komar mass gives a notion of total mass of a gravitating system. It thus makes no sense whatsoever to speculate about its depending on the local gravitational field, as Rössler maintains. Komar mass is just not a local concept, but can be obtained by a space integral. So whatever Rössler has in mind when pontificating about the "local rest mass energy of an infalling body going down," it can't possibly be the Komar mass. He even himself denies talking about total mass. So again, he is just thoroughly confused.

    This renders Rössler's answer worthless. Therefore, I think, regarding your questions, you have discovered a new inconsistency in Rössler's claims that, to my knowledge, nobody has noticed before. (Not that it really matters anymore, though, but still, well done.;-) ) Rössler says that mass and charge of infalling bodies decrease in equal measure, going to zero as soon as the horizon is reached. He concludes from this that no black hole can be charged, but he doesn't conclude by analogy that black holes can't have mass, and are thus in effect non-existent. Even though clearly the same reasoning should apply in both cases.

    Why the inconsequence? You need to know that Rössler is not a scientist in the sense that he starts from a hypothesis and follows it logically to its conclusions open-mindedly. He starts with a sensationalist conclusion, that gets him the attention he craves, and then tries to mimic something like an argument by piling up a helter-skelter collection of non-sequiturs as post hoc rationalization. Now Rössler is obviously savvy enough to know that if black holes can be charged, they will also be harmless even if stable, as shown by the cosmic ray argument. So he would like all his black holes uncharged. But he also would like them existing for obvious reasons. Since in the latter case his pseudo argument doesn't fit his favored conclusion, he just omits it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great explanation, TRMG. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Otto E. Rössler on September 9, 2011 2:43 am

    Art is deeper than science. Children love strawberries. Taste, color and the Now are metaphysical gifts. Love can be returned. We are not afraid. Ubammu.

    [from the thread "Until the Telemach Theorem Has Been Refuted I Herewith Order SCUN* to Close CERN**"]

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Ubammu" I learn through Google is the first word of The Lord's Prayer in the Hausa language, and it means "our father". I don't know if that's Otto's intended meaning. Really, he seems to be just trolling at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think one should proceed on Rössler et al. much more strictly:

    Rösslers "Telemach"-nonsense has been refuted by TRMG:
    http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2011/08/rossler-not-answering-simple-question.html

    Period.

    No need to prolong that debate
    - by pointing to unanswered questions
    - showing alternative refutations.

    Rössler always happily takes any chance for keeping his nonsense circulating.

    So we should not grant him such.

    His Telemach has been refuted. Period.
    His ℜ-theorem has been refuted. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I noticed that another person (or couple!) has started asking him questions on the Garbage Scow Blog...betting a lobster on his answer. And he, of course,continues to waffle and not answer directly, just like Solkar said he always does.

    Solkar is right -- Rossler follows the "any publicity is good publicity" theory, and uses even the best, most insigntful questions to dodge answering and continue the B.S. ing and shed heat and not light.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rössler repeatedly called this blog a recist website.
    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/my-dear-theoretical-physics-colleagues-at-cern-and-across-the-planet#comments

    ReplyDelete
  12. news from Rössler:
    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/my-journalist-friend-thinks-i-have-no-chance-against-two-well-funded-hate-blogs

    I think that he has good ideas on how to take over the world.

    Pinky and the Prain.

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/my-journalist-friend-thinks-i-have-no-chance-against-two-well-funded-hate-blogs

    He refers to "Karl Hiltpolt’s and John Baez’s public assaults". What's he talking about? Can you give me links? I take it that he's not referring to El Naschie Watch as a "well-funded hate blog" this time, but blogs by those two. Is that correct?

    It's probably getting to be time for another Rössler post.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Baez has attacked Chaos solitons and fractals, a journal where rössler could publish articles on the LHC.

    Karl Hiltpolt is the pseudonym from the anonymous webmaster of the famous relativ-kritisch website

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ahh, thank you for explaining. Baez's criticism of CSF, which he took down after legal threats from El Naschie, is of course preserved on this very blog.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment is just hilarious:

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/my-journalist-friend-thinks-i-have-no-chance-against-two-well-funded-hate-blogs

    AntonyL wrote on September 29, 2011 10:44 am:
    Dr Rossler, your reaction to someone who disagrees with you, indeed, who flatly contradicts you, is to like them? This runs counter to the grain of most of humanity. It shows you are a true human being, willing to love all of us despite the fact there are many who contradict you.

    Since this is the characteristic of the greatest prophets of religion such as Buddha, and Jesus, with the notorious exception of Mahommed, sorry to say, this suggests that you may be destined for sainthood in the future if your Warning to the Earth is successful.

    end quote...

    Rössler wrote on September 29, 2011 11:42 am:
    Rossler on September 29, 2011 11:42 am
    Dear Anthony:
    I knew you are a sweet soul. But I also appreciate the ingenious irony in your remarks. If only the CERNians and the SCUNians could appreciate it.
    Take care,
    Otto
    end quote

    AntonyL wrote on September 29, 2011 12:08 pm:
    Thank you Dr Rossler, but in this case I don’t see any irony in what I said
    end quote.



    By the way, Me, THE BRAIN, is now banned and my comments have been deleted.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJPFSNu_QNs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGUqwaORfbU

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anyone banned by Otto is welcome to post their comments on El Naschie Watch. (I'm banned too.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Now capture this (but better put aside the coffee mug and fasten seat belts):

    Otto E. Roessler via http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/all-scientists-asked-by-the-media-say on Sep 30, 2011
    "Dear, venerable CERN: Please, make a 4-week pause immediately to give Telemach a chance to be put to rest. Nothing would make his father and the planet more happy. I publicly offer a bet to Stephen Hawking that he will not succeed in this task. If I lose I shall write a preface to his next book"

    WOW!
    What an HONOR for Stephen Hawking, isn't it?
    A preface provided by THE ONE AND ONLY Otto E. Roessler HIMSELF ....

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbHRtKgWEjc

    ReplyDelete
  20. new rössler paper out. This time an AIP conference proceeding from 2011:
    O.E. Rossler and F. Kuske, “Cryodynamics – The new second thermodynamics demonstrated numerically,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1389, 959-961 (2011). http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/1389/959/1

    As the american institute of physics is not a crackpot institution, can someone review this?

    Is rössler really able to do ordinary physical research these days?

    ReplyDelete
  21. > As the american institute of physics is not a crackpot institution, can someone review this?

    AIP conference proceedings are distinct from their journals and notoriously unrefereed, with much crackpottery.

    OR has a follow-up on cryodynamics here:
    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/dear-chinese-government
    (which mentions "Anaxagoras thus was both the inventor and the grandmaster of transfinite mathematics (before Bruno, Cantor, Mandelbrot and El Naschie)")

    ReplyDelete
  22. What an esoteric bullshit. But what I find most shoking are the references.

    Especially this here:

    [7] K. Sonnleitner, F. Kuske, O.E. Rossler (in preparation); K. Sonnleitner, Ph.D. thesis (to be submitted).

    Means that Rössler still has phd's.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b26BD5KjH0&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iw1KobfPwk#t=2m55

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbFvAaO9j8M#t=3m20

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InWewbTRFpE&feature=related

    I don't know if the rest of his mentioned bullshit was listet on this blog:


    2] O.E. Rossler, “Example of an Axiom-A ODE.” In: Chaos, Fractals and Dynamics (P. Fischer and W.R. Smith, eds.). New York: Marcel Dekker 1985, pp. 105-114..

    [3] O.E.Rossler, “Long line attractors.” In: Iteration Theory and Its Functional Equations (R. Liedl, L. Reich and Gy. Targonski, eds.), Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1163, 149-161 (1985).
    [6] O.E. Rossler, “Anaxagoras’ idea of the infinitely exact chaos.” In: Chaos in Education (George Marx, ed.), pp. 99-113. Veszprem: National Center for Educational Technology 1987.


    [8] O.E. Rossler, “Macroscopic behavior in a simple Hamiltonian system.” In: Dynamical Systems and Chaos (L. Garrido, ed.), Lecture Notes in Physics 179, 67-77 (1983).

    [11] O.E. Rossler, H. Kuypers, H.H. Diebner and M.S. El Naschie, “Almost-black holes: an old-new paradigm.” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 9, 1025-1034 (1998).
    [12] H. Kyupers, Atoms in the gravitational field: Hints at a change of mass and size (in German). Ph.D. thesis (submitted to the Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy of the University of Tubingen, September 2005); O.E. Rossler, Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: “Â-theorem“ demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric (submitted to Chaos, Solitons and Fractals), revised version January 2009 (www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf).
    [13] O.E. Rossler, Prebiological evolution viewed as a growing automaton, in: “Chemical automata in homogeneous and reaction-diffusionn kinetics.” In: Physics and Mathematics of the Nervous System (M. Conrad, W. Güttinger and M. DalCin, eds.), Lecture Notes in Biomathematics 4, 399-418 (1974), pp. 407-408.

    [16] O.E.Rossler, D. Fröhlich, R. Movassagh and A. Moore, “Hubble expansion in static spacetime.” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 33, 770-775 (2007).

    ReplyDelete
  23. the title of this phd thesis in preparation seems to be:


    10. K. Sonnleitner, “StV4: A symplectic time-reversible Störmer-Verlet algorithm of the 4th
    order for Hamiltonian multi-particle systems, with worked applications (gas, T-tube
    model).“ German-language PhD dissertation, University of Tubingen, submitted July
    2010.

    ReplyDelete
  24. and here is the pdf of this phd thesis:

    www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/StV4-universell.pdf

    Indeed, rössler is listed as first advisor of this submitted thesis.


    Can someone who has expertise in this review that?

    ReplyDelete
  25. @"The Brain"
    regarding
    www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/StV4-universell.pdf
    mentioned in your October 3, 2011 1:23 AM post

    I don't consider looking at this "submitted" PhD thesis with a magnifying glass efficient - there were two
    (Roessler, of course, disregarded, as usual)
    expert reviewers assigned which are paid (by German tax-payers) for conducting such reviews.


    What's obvious for me is

    a) it's still been referenced as a "submitted" PhD thesis - that somehow implies that the proceedings have not ended yet
    - the recap of Hamiltonian Mechanics on p. 1-28 is for teh betetr part superfluous; either the reader already knows Hamiltonian Mechanics or she/he does not belong to the desired audience; a PhD thesis is not intended to substitute a lecture.

    The "T_Tube" is kind of a Roessler "pet", so I only look at pp 25-28 (pdf pp. 35-38) and pp 82-84 (pdf pp 92-94) in more detail:


    b) q_i, p_i are modeled ∈ ℝ² and then, by taking the dot product with respective unit vectors, restricted to the constraints enforced by the tubes.
    That's overly laborious and sort-of clumsy; simply using the concept of generalized co-ordinates taking q_i, p_i ∈ ℝ would have been appropriate.

    c) on p. 25 (pdf p.35) the reflective "potential" of the boundaries is modeled as ∝ 1/(1-(e_i . q_i)²) acting on point-like masses; it's partly smooth for q_1 (and thus not vanishing on the free path of the particle).
    That's deftly more "handy" than a Heaviside(Dirac-δ) function acting as potential(force) on solid bodies for simulating SOFT reflection and that COULD indeed very well be a good approximation, but the effect of this simplification needs to be quantified(!)

    d) Fortunately, the author does away with the "soft" potential mentioned above when it comes to numerical considerations, which are at the core of his thesis - p 83 (pdf p. 93).
    But it seems questionable, why the author
    -- first introduces an approximative model
    -- but, when it finally comes to the numerics, skips that and chooses a procedural approach.

    Summing up - telling from and restricted to the parts of the thesis I had - superficially! - looked at - it very much appears to me that the author had had, prior to starting working on his thesis, very limited experience with analytical mechanics.


    With kind regards,

    Solkar

    ReplyDelete
  26. Solkar, That is what I also thought.

    However, at the end of this thesis, there are statements, which seem to be completely crap.

    For example:

    p. 108:

    Nach allgemeinem Volksglauben soll ein gewisses Funktional (die “Entropie“) über
    lange Zeiten andauernd wachsen. Wie kann das (bei Rücklauf in den
    Ausgangszustand) sein?

    p. 111:

    Natürlich kann man bei zwei Teilchen keine Gleichgewichtsverteilung erwarten.
    Dennoch wäre ein Befund, bei dem das Äquipartitionsprinzip (das Herz der MaxwellVerteilung) verletzt ist, im Hinblick auf die numerisch derzeit noch nicht zugängliche
    größere Fragestellung relevant

    p. 110:
    Ein “Gas aus Sternen“ spielt z.B. in der Theorie der Kugelsternhaufen eine große
    Rolle. Der große Theoretiker in diesem Bereich war Subrahmanian Chandrasekhar,
    zur jüngeren Zeit ist Piet Hut zu nennen. Ein berühmtes Problem ist hierbei der
    “Core-Collapse“, der noch nicht verstanden ist.

    p. 111:
    So entstand das T-Rohr-Beispiel: Es dient der Erzielung verlässlicher
    quantitativer Abschätzungen hinsichtlich der Erkundung eines neuen qualitativen
    Verhaltens bei Vielteilchensystemen, das der Maxwell-Verteilung widerspricht.


    and:


    Wir befinden uns hier mitten im Herzen
    der Statistischen Mechanik. Ungewohnt ist nur, dass an die Stelle eines
    äquipartionierenden (gleichverteilenden) nun ein anti-äquipartionierendes
    (disproportionierendes) Verhalten getreten ist.

    So entstand das T-Rohr-Beispiel: Es dient der Erzielung verlässlicher
    quantitativer Abschätzungen hinsichtlich der Erkundung eines neuen qualitativen
    Verhaltens bei Vielteilchensystemen, das der Maxwell-Verteilung widerspricht.

    ReplyDelete
  27. what is going on, I can not post equations here?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well, apparently, the author wants to prove with his thesis, that in a gas with gravitational interaction, the entropy does not rise but falls, since the equipartition theorem would not hold.

    This is utter nonsense, as we will see below:

    ReplyDelete
  29. For every canonical ensemble, one has a distribution function

    rho_k(q1,p1)=Z^(-1)exp^(H1(q1,p1)/(kT))

    where

    Z=int d\Gamma_1 exp(-H1(q1,p1)/(kT))

    is an integral over the phase space Gamma_1 with H_1 as the hamiltonian, k as Boltzmanns konstant and T as the temperature.

    An average of a quantity Average(A) is ten

    Average(A)=int d \Gamma1 rhok(p1,q1)A(q1,p1)

    Now we compute the average

    Average(sum_i p_i frac(\partial H)(partial p_i))

    for a hamiltonian with gravitational interaction

    ReplyDelete
  30. The hamiltonian of the gravitational interaction (which is attractive rather than repulsive), has have potential energy of

    V=-GmM/r

    where m,M are the masses of the two interacting bodies, g is the gravitational constant and r is their distance.

    Apparently, V does not depend on p, and so, the only nonzero factors in

    frac (partial H_1(p_i,q))(partial p_i) come from the kinetic energy E_kin.

    For the kinetic energy, one can assume the general quadratic form

    E_kin=sum_i,k a_ik p_i p_k,

    where a_ik=a_ki

    Then,

    sum_i p_i frac(\partial E_kin)(partial p_i)=2E_kin.

    The Hamiltonian of the gravitationa potential fullfills, due to its negative sign, the 1/r dependence, and the kinetic energy with the above quadratic form, the requirement that

    exp(-H(p,q)/(kT))

    approaches zero for large r.

    Hence, with partial integration, we get

    Average(sum_i p_i \frac(\partial H)(partial p_i))

    =sum_i Z^(-1)\int d Gamma_i p_i \frac(\partial H)(\partial p_i) exp(-H(p_i,q_i)/(kT))

    = sum_i
    Z^(-1)\int d\Gamma_i p_i \frac(partial exp(-H(p_i,q_i)/(kt)))(partial p_i) (-kT)=3NkT

    Which is the equipartition theorem.

    Obviously, the equipartition theorem holds for all systems with gravitational interactions. This contradicts the bullshit written in that thesis.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Now we will proove the entropy in gravitational systems can only rise, too.

    Interstellar gas clouds contract due to gravitational attraction. Their potential energy lowers and because of energy conservation, their kinetic energy increases. Since the equipartition theorem holds in all systems with gravitational interactions, the clouds will get hotter. The hot clouds emit photons, lower their energy and contract even more. As a result, the gas will become even hotter.

    That the gas clouds are getting hot also follows from the negativity of the specifical heat in systems with gravitational interactions below the instabillity.

    The point that, with lowering energy, temperature rises gives the basis for the formation of stars.

    The Energy of a photon in a photon gas is kT whereas the entropy of a photon gas is the product of the number of photons and Boltzmann's konstant.

    Hence, the light emitted by stars contains much energy, but not much entropy.

    Photons that are produced by a star get involved in various scattering processes.
    Such scattering processes happen in the star itself, but also at places outside of the star. E.g on planets that can be reached by the starlight.

    For example, if photons get to the earths atmosphere, one photon with a temperature of 6000k may be converted in 20 photons, each with a temperature of 300K. During this proces, the entropy of the photons rises around a factor of 20.

    All in all, the entropy in the local system of the star, as well as the entropy in local systems of the planets that are illuminated by the star, raises enormemously.

    As a consequence, there is no "cryodynamics" or "cooling", even if Rössler and his doctorate claim that this would be the case. The everlasting raise of the entropy is not just a popular belief. It is an accepted, tested, and well founded fact. Even if Rössler's doctorate writes the contrary.

    However, in course of the enormemous raising of the entropy due to the photon scattering processes that are induced by the gravitational instabillity, there may exist local sub-systems, where entropy is, in fact, lowered.

    The raise of the entropy during the photon scattering processes is in fact that large, that it allows the local building of highly ordered structures, like crystals and rocks, or even complex and highly advanced lifeforms.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuZ7NoIz0Zc#t=1m28

    ReplyDelete
  32. Again concerning www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/StV4-universell.pdf p 111

    --- QUOTE ---
    "So entstand das T-Rohr-Beispiel: Es dient der Erzielung verlässlicher quantitativer Abschätzungen hinsichtlich der Erkundung eines neuen qualitativen Verhaltens bei Vielteilchensystemen, das der Maxwell-Verteilung widerspricht."
    --- END QUOTE ---

    That's very clumsy German, I'll try my best to get the sentiment right:

    --- MY TRANSLATION ---
    That's how the T-Tube example emerged - it serves the purpose of obtaining reliable, quantitative, estimates regarding the exploration of new, qualitative, behavior with respect to multi-particle systems, which contradicts Maxwell-distribution.
    --- END MY TRANSLATION ---

    Well...
    the "T-Tube" scenario does BY DESIGN supress any collision of the two "oscillating" bodies; whereas the theory of ideal gases has particle collisions as its core component.

    Aside of that, the "T-Tube" scenario is highly artificial; a great part of the attractive or repulsive force is "absorbed" by the constraints posed by the frictionless(!) "T-Tube" tubes; thats not a model for what-so-ever 3+X DOF real gas filling a roughly convex volume.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Again concerning
    http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/StV4-universell.pdf

    There's also a reference frame issue with the T-Tube "scenario", arising from restricting the effect of the inner forces to the components collinear to the tube-axes.

    Let Σ_T be the frame along the tubes as used in the thesis, Σ_C the center of mass frame (mass of the tubes disregraded) and Σ_L the lab frame.

    Let O_^a_b (that an "Ohh", not a "Zero") denote the position of the Origin of frame "Σ_a" in coords of frame "Σ_b".

    Due to to the lack of external forces we get
    d/dt O_^C_L = 0 (S1)

    But there is a the shift of the CM in the Σ_T frame
    d/dt O_^C_T ≠ 0 almost everywhere (S2),
    respectively
    d/dt O_^T_C ≠ 0 almost everywhere (S3)

    In the Σ_L frame that will result in the T-Tube apparatus "tumbling" around its c.o.m. if it has sufficient DOF in the Σ_L.

    Question is, whether, or, more precisely, "under which conditions",
    d²/dt² O_^T_C (S4)
    vanishes or not; that is to be checked for assessing the respective Hamiltonian system.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hehe, on Lifeboat, rössler currently makes one post each day.

    In this new one, he now does not attack large organizations. Instead, he gets personal:

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/the-world-has-forgotten-that-science-is-a-fight

    Rössler writes:

    "My proof implies that that director-general Heuer of CERN is actively trying to kill everyone on the planet out of ideological blindness"

    Is this defamantion not juristically illegal?

    I mean, if a professor at some university would slander me as a killer, I would certainly sue him for this.

    One knows rössler's postal adress. Germany has very good laws against slander.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Germany

    I think someone should sue rössler for this.

    By the way, it is time for a new rössler post.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The german law that seems perfectly to be applicable for rösslers case is this here:


    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cble_Nachrede

    Die Üble Nachrede nach § 186 StGB (D), § 111 StGB (A) ist eine Form der Beleidigung, die sich von dieser jedoch in der Begehungsform unterscheidet. Bei der Üblen Nachrede wird insbesondere eine ehrverletzende Tatsachenbehauptung unter Strafe gestellt. Entscheidend ist, dass diese nicht „erweislich wahr“ ist.

    „Wer in Beziehung auf einen anderen eine Tatsache behauptet oder verbreitet, welche denselben verächtlich zu machen oder in der öffentlichen Meinung herabzuwürdigen geeignet ist, wird, wenn nicht diese Tatsache erweislich wahr ist, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Tat öffentlich oder durch Verbreiten von Schriften (§ 11 Abs. 3) begangen ist, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.“

    ReplyDelete
  36. @"The Brain"

    "Otto E. Rössler"???
    Who's that? :D

    (Pls see my September 10, 2011 1:09 AM post for explanation.)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Interestingly, also so called juristical persons, that is companys, states or scientific organizations like cern are persons in the sense of german law, who could sue rössler because of his writings.

    I also think that rössler should be ignored. However, since he has a chair in Tübingen and still takes phd students, I think he should be sued for his defamations.

    rössler gets his money each month by german government that aquired it from its hard working taxpayers. Someone like rössler should not be allowed to slander other people as it comes to his liking.

    Moreover, as far as I know, rösslers behavior has already led to a criminal record (vorstrafe) for him. Perhaps he needs some years in jail to understand that what he does is simply a criminal act. At least germany, prisons merely exist to teach such things.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "rössler gets his money each month by german government that aquired it from its hard working taxpayers" That is a valid point. And they have their hands full with Greece already! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  39. Assume, Rössler would slander some rich company, e.g. Microsoft, instead of Cern.

    I'm sure, Rössler would have been stopped long ago.

    In germany, one can get not only penalties but 2 years in prison, and without any internet connection, for "Üble nachrede".

    Moreover, in case a german court is confronted by a criminal who does not want to stop his behavior, german law allows for many things.

    For example, a court can assess, whether a person is insane or not. If a criminal is insame, the court can commit him to a psychiatry until he is cured, and this may be longer than some time in prison...

    Another interesting way of dealing with rössler would be a warning note, send by a lawyer.

    These warning notes are an interesting item of germany's civil law.

    If someone is supposed to have done some kind of infringement, a lawyer can send a warning note to the person in question. The infringer must then sign a letter of obligation that he stops his behavior. If the infringer refuses to sign, the entire thing goes to court.

    However, even if the infringer signs the obligation letter, he must pay the salary of the lawyer. This is usually around 1000 euros or more for each letter of obligation.

    In case of otto, signing those letters would mean that almost each post by him on lifeboard would cost otto 1000 euros....

    ReplyDelete
  40. @ The Brain,

    there is an exemplar just clarified by german court at Freiburg, concerning the fraud of physicist Jan Hendrik Schön. Schön lost his Ph. D. cause of "Unwürdigkeit".

    ReplyDelete
  41. The retraction of a phd can only be done by the university that has given the title to the person in question.

    I find it strange that the University of Tübingen has not tried to retract Rössler's phd but as they won't do that, it is up to those who are defamed by rössler to bring him to court.

    usually, the easiest way to stop defamation via internet is by civil law with a warning note. If Rössler would not sign, he would be confronted with a lawsuit whose costs rössler alone would have to pay if he looses. If that procedure only would happen several times, rössler would be in such financial depts that he could not longer afford a pc with internet connection.

    The other way would indeed be the ordinary criminal law. As Rössler's defamations are intense and continuing, and since cern is a major science organization, there is a "public interest" in the prosecution (öffentliches Interesse an der strafverfolgung) of rössler.

    The latter is of importance, since it is often necessary for a german district attorney, before he starts the criminal court proceedings for rather "simple" acts like defamation which do not involve any violence.

    However, to start criminal investigations in case of defamation (übler nachrede) either Heuer himself, or cern as juristical person must press charges against rössler.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think this is not a good idea because Rössler gets the public stage he wanted. In my opinion he tries to provoke exactly this kind of reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  43. In the past, rössler has tried to prevent losing money by all costs. He even turned up at the lecture hall, giving a nonsensical lecture, because he did not want to pay the replacement lecturer.

    Rössler also has successfully achived that no investigation of his mental health was conducted by the government of baden württemberg.

    Finally: defamation over the internet is not just a simple defamation, since internet posts are read by large groups of people.

    For this reason, the charges Rössler would have to pay would be large.

    Defamation can bring Rössler 2 years in prison without any internet connection.

    Maybe that for the first time, rössler would just have to pay some fee.

    However, in case he continues his behavior, one can sue him again. And the judge will then consider how rössler must be punished that he stops his behavior.

    I do not think that Rössler wants to be in prism for 2 years without any internet connection.

    I do not think that Rösslers goal is to live with criminals and without a computer for 2 years.

    It is also common for a german court, to asses the mental health status of such persons. In the past, rössler has successfully avoided this. I do not think that rössler wants his mental health assessed.

    In case rössler is mentally ill, a court could even order him into a closed psychiatry, releasing him only after he is reliably cured.

    I do not think that rössler wants this.

    These guys are professionals that are used to deal with persons like rössler. To get some law in here is neccessary. It is the only way to bring rössler into contact with people who know how to talk with people of his kind.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This is an example, how rössler actually behaves before a court:

    He has fear like a child and does not even want to appear when it is clear that he has lost:

    http://www.tagblatt.de/Home/nachrichten/nachrichten-newsticker_artikel,-Der-Professor-und-das-Chaos-_arid,72799.html

    Da will er dann plötzlich gar nicht mehr kommen und hat Angst vor den Richtern!

    Der Anrufer auf der Poststelle des Verwaltungsgerichts Sigmaringen klang bestimmt. "Der Termin findet nicht statt ", teilte er der verdutzten Mitarbeiterin mit. Doch die Kammer hielt sich nicht an diese Anweisung. Die anberaumte Verhandlung fand gestern Vormittag statt, in Abwesenheit des Klägers.

    Das war jener Anrufer, der Tübinger Professor Otto Rössler. Der 69-jährige Spezialist für Chaosforschung hatte das Gerichtsverfahren selbst in Gang gebracht

    ReplyDelete