Thursday, October 13, 2011

Otto wields the Banhammer

Our last blog post on Otto Rössler probably set a record for comments. These are technical, substantive, and mostly due to Solkar and The Brain. Rössler has banned those two antagonists, as he has banned me, from posting on Lighthouse Foundation.


These are the Lifeboat Foundation posts from Rössler since we last checked in with him on September 2.

Otto shows no sign of letting up, in fact his rate of posting is increasing.


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

34 comments:

  1. Otto Rössler's October 13 post has attracted 40 comments, up from 3 when I originally posted. Hansel challenges the apocalypse-monger effectively, so he may be courting a ban.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hansel on October 15, 2011 12:46 am asks "Deleting posts is fun, Otto?" and Otto E. Rossler on October 15, 2011 4:01 am responds "I never deleted a post." Which we know to be false.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The whole October 13th post of Roessler, including his comments, is a dunghill of bunt lies by Roessler.

    - Prof Nicolai did NOT lose that debate with Roessler; in fact he shred his ℜ to pieces

    - "User ICH" did not "reformulate" Roesslers ℜ-theorem, he showed that Roesslers dℜ is NOT a substitute for the usual radial element of the Schwarzschild metric.

    With utmost goodwill, it yields a new, highly unpractical ("Lambert-W" function) chart of teh Schwarzschild metric.
    New charts to old metrics can, however, NEVER yield new physics - that's due to tensorial formulation of GR.

    - From the answer to a question I had directed to Prof Nicolai some time ago concerning that mysterious "2009 talk" one can get that Rössler did NOT give a "seminar talk" at the German Albert Einstein Institute on that occasion

    ReplyDelete
  4. You should post this there as the final summary.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Solkar can't. Otto has banned him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The bans are not permanent as far as I know. It seems to me that it is more a software bug.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I will try again to post there and report my result.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My result:

    "Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it immediately.

    You may want to contact the blog admin via e-mail to notify him.
    "

    Of course the "blog admin" never does "restore it immediately". Conclusion: I am banned.

    ReplyDelete
  9. (Edited and re-posted)
    This

    What Could I Do to Get the Vital Safety Conference Going?
    "Neither Robert M. Wald – long the biggest name in general relativity because of his superhuman book of 1984 – nor Wolfgang Rindler – the revered grandmaster of the Einstein equivalence principle – contradict me nor does Hermann Nicolai – my official adversary – do so any longer in the open contradict me[...]"

    is almost cute; roughly interpreted:
    No one cares for me any more thus I'm right!!!
    Sure thing, Otto... :D

    ===

    Btw - Roessler apparently likes to refer to [Wa84]; unfortunately, that book is way beyond his comprehension:

    A) In chapter 2 [Wa84], tensor maths is covered in-depth (btw - in excellent didactic style). Including contraction, of course.
    Roessler, however, apparently still thinks that even new charts of old metrics could yield new physics...

    B) Roessler often strangely refers to the "Rindler metric" when talking about *curved*(!) spacetime. Unfortunately, footnote 8 on [Wa84] p.149 reads
    "In fact, the curvature of the Rindler metric vanishes"

    C) Last time he "referred" to [Wa84], Roessler apparently had a vision of "charged blackholes" creeping out of pp 432-434 of that book:
    "Also können Schwarze Löcher selbst geladen sein.
    Dies ist in einem Anhangskapitel des berühmten mathematischen Lehrbuchs “General Realtivity” von Robert M. Wald von 1984 im Detail ausgeführt (Seite 432-434).
    "

    Naturally, [Wa84] has a full coverage (40 pgs) of black holes (+30 pgs about singularities), BUT at those very pp 432-434 there's absolutely NOTHING about black holes, let alone their chargedness.
    Pp 432-434 belong to "APPENDIX B" ("Differential Forms, Integration, and Frobenius's Theorem") chapter 2 ("Integration").
    And that chapter deals with...
    now make an educated guess!

    Right! "Integration of differential forms" - imagine that... ;)
    Especially about the most generalized flavor of Stokes's theorem.

    ---

    C) is a role-model for an Roesslers very special "scientific" method

    - After he stumbled across that chapter he permanenty added "Gauss-Stokes" to his buzzword-armory.
    - And that chapter was also "well" suited for bluffing people lacking maths skills - the formalism of calculus of differential forms is sort-of cryptical, so he had a good chance that even IF one of his "believers" would "dare" taking a deeper look at the sources behind their masters voice, they would be deterred by the cryptical look of that chapter.
    (Not implying that the average Roessler follower could do any higher maths; but just in that, unlikely, case... :D)


    [Wa84] Robert M. Wald, General Relativity, Physics/Astrophysics (University of Chicago Press, 1984).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Strange, Jason. In my case sometimes I am banned, sometimes not....sometimes my comments are all awaiting moderation and appear later, next time I also have this spam filter message.

    That is an ugly blog.

    ReplyDelete
  11. (Not implying that the average Roessler follower could do any higher maths; but just in that, unlikely, case... :D


    They can't. Look at this Houston guy who chas not even grasp the meaning of an equation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rössler has added two more posts.

    What Could I Do to Get the Vital Safety Conference Going? - October 20, 2011. With 14 comments. Solkar linked to this one in his comment above.

    “Chaos, Cosmos and LHC” - October 19, 2011. No reader comments.

    In the October 20 one, Hansel is hounding him in real time. I am amazed he's not banned yet. Indeed, moments ago he linked to Solkar's big comment above. Otto calls El Naschie Watch a well-financed racist hate site, so Hansel is asking for trouble. It will be interesting to see if Hansel's link is allowed to remain.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hansel will stop now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Are you banned? Or just being cautious.

    ReplyDelete
  15. OK Hansel, I see the exchange. You are bowing out voluntarily.

    It's up to 22 comments so far; up from 14; up from 3.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hansel, if you are not banned, perhaps you can post one final question to Otto, and you can say I'm asking:

    Have you banned Jason, Solkar and The Brain? They cannot post.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It will be interesting to see how Rössler reacts to Howells last post there. He was mentioning the Nazi-baclground of Rösslers father.

    The father was a follower of the Nazis already in the 1920s - in Austria.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have tried to post your question but it seems I am banned now. At least until tomorrow

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hah! I bet you are banned permanently. Thank you for trying, and for all your efforts over there.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am not sure. Up to now my bans were not permanent - even after setting links to elnaschiewatch.

    I think the question will appear tomorrow. If not - ok, it was time to finish anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The question is published now with a little delay of one day ;)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Asking a notorious liar and con-man like Otto Rössler any question is not a conclusive course of action (with the exception of formal trials, of course).

    Simply stating facts puts him in zugzwang.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Zugzwang is a good word for a good concept. I had to look it up.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hansel, thank you for posting the question whether Solkar, The Brain and I are banned. I'm surprised it was allowed.

    Otto probably won't answer it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. offtopic
    @Jason
    An minimalist example illustrating that chess-concept:

    White: King e6, pawn e5
    Black: King e8

    Black to move (1. - K-d8 od 1. - K-f8) will have to allow White gaining control over the promotion square e8 (2. K-f7+/- resp. 2. K-d7+/- and the pawn will be promoted: e5-e6-e7-e8Q).

    ReplyDelete
  26. Otto has published a new paper for Nature AND Science:

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/%e2%80%9ctwo-percent-explained%e2%80%9d-cern-overlooked-that-simultaneity-is-non-global-on-rotating-earth

    This guy is a genius.

    ReplyDelete
  27. http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/%e2%80%9ctwo-percent-explained%e2%80%9d-cern-overlooked-that-simultaneity-is-non-global-on-rotating-earth

    Submitting to multiple journals simultaneously is rude. Even if the paper is good. Does he not know, or not care?

    ReplyDelete
  28. It will impress the stupid guys there. Houston for example.

    The "paper" is crap, nothing someone should spend any time on.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Putting "paper" in marks is overly appropriate; more often than not I wonder
    "And? Wtf IS the paper Roessler is talking about?"
    when I see a new Roessler stuff, before I realize his "brief" is meant to be "a paper".

    Wtf do these guys never look at a truly physical, peer-reviewed, research paper and at least TRY to adapt the methods

    - DEFINING variables before using them
    - FIRST deducing an analytical formulation and only AFTER THAT going numerical
    - Typesetting their stuffproperly, e.g. with LaTeX
    ok, I know, those "geniuses" are much to busy and important for spending time on stuff like this, but if LaTeX is good enough for Nobel laureates it might be good enough for notorious "Nobel candidates" as well..,
    - ...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Submitting the same paper to multiple journals simultaneously is not just rude, it's unethical: see, e.g., http://publicationethics.org/case/repetitive-duplicate-submission-multiple-journals-and-redundant-publication

    For most major publishers, simultaneous submission also violates the agreement the author has to accept upon submission. Thus, even if the paper happens to be the best thing since sliced bread, it can't be published because the author has falsified said legal agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Rössler admires El Naschie and additional a Naschie-fan appeared

    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/11/stupi-cern-stupi-europe-stupi-netanjahu-stupi-ahmadinejad#comments

    Perhaps someone wants me to leave a comment on that?

    ReplyDelete
  32. If you don't mind, pls tell Otto
    "That WE order him in the name of Augustin Louis Cauchy to stop talking about maths because he, Otto, has forfeited the right to do so!"

    Pls note - putting the "WE" in caps and adding an exclamition mark is of UTTERMOST importance. :D

    (I, btw, neither have the faintest clue why that phrase would make any sense, nor why I'd be entitled to saying so, but I'm confident that for Roessler it will make plenty of sense... :D)

    ReplyDelete