Thursday, July 12, 2012

Post judgment sockpuppet theater

This post serves to archive the comments of El Naschie's sockpuppets on the Nature thread Nature Publishing Group wins long-running libel trial and on Otto Rössler's Lifeboat Foundation post CERN Found 2 out of 3 Needed Pieces of Evidence for the Higgs – A Bargain? Pro El Naschie comments are colored green. My comments are red.

NATURE

2012-07-08 04:59 AM Rajeev Sindan said:

I must admit that I have a great deal of sympathy and admiration for Mohamed El Naschie. His heroic stance against the financial and connections might of Nature/Macmillan is admirable and even has something metaphysical about it. He reminds me of Joseph K, the hero of Kafka’s ‘The Trial’. The judgment reminds me of the nightmarish back doors and alleys of the same novel by Kafka. I cannot understand where Mrs. Sharp’s conscience was on vacation when she found that Nature’s article is defamatory and yet ordered some six million pounds or so costs against the Claimant. Maybe she was vacationing in ‘The Castle’. In this case I hope she will not wake up one day and find that she is the victim of Kafka’s ‘Metamorphosis’.

2012-07-09 11:49 AM Hassan Selbi Hassan Selbi said:

Dear Marco van de Weert: Let us leave the personal and ethical aspects of the case aside and concentrate on the science for a while please.

What worries many people most is that the court is not the proper place to discuss the pure scientific aspects of the case, and Prof Turok in his own words said in court that he is not an expert on El Naschie's work.Therefore, as far as I can see, this scientific aspect is still unsettled and cannot be settled by a court judgement.

I request Nature and its editors to be courageous enough to invite unbiased expert scientists to discuss the pure scientific aspects of El Nascchie's work by publishing devoted articles on its pages to show the flaws in his arguments, if there are any.This is more in the interest of science than publishing "factual true and correct but defamatory" articles in a prestigious journal whose main task has always been publishing scientific facts since it was first established. Unless this is done by Nature in public, there is no escape from the possibly justifiable claim of a "conspiracy" at work.

2012-07-09 12:54 PM Marco van de Weert said:

Dear Hassan Selbi: the article that El-Naschie complained about did not claim his science was false.The court judgment also does not make any claims on the scientific content of his work. Therefore, you have nothing to worry about.

2012-07-09 01:27 AM Hassan Selbi Hassan Selbi said:

Dear Marco van de Weert: No, both the article in Nature and the court judgement claim this. Please go back to the article and the court judgement report to see this for yourself. Statements like "poor quality" and "no scientific content", etc, etc are examples testifying to such claims. On top of this, the whole affair has cast doubt on the scientific aspect of El Naschie's work whether the Nature article was originally intended for this purpose or not.

What I am requesting Nature and its editors to do is an easy task that Nature has been doing always. So, why not do it in this controversial case?

2012-07-09 04:06 AM Hassan Selbi Hassan Selbi said:

Dear Friends: Again, I would like to deal with the scientific aspects of this case here and leave the other personal, ethical and other aspects for now. I would like also to add that I personally have read some of El Naschie's papers and, as a mainstream physicist, can't claim that I have fully understood them. But I still feel that there is something in those and, possibly, his other papers that warrant what I am requesting Nature and its editors to seriously do, i. e., publishing purely scientific critical reviews of those papers by unbiased scientific experts on Nature pages.

In support of this request, please let me cite the following as an example: For a single recent observation that makes any unbiased person look more seriously into El Naschie’s ideas, please go to the link: http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/StrangeQM/Hardy.pdf in which you find a discussion of Hardy’s test of Quantum Mechanics as presented by Prof Daniel Stayer, in an addendum to his book “The Strange World of Quantum Mechanics”. Prof Stayer is a well-known physicist who has observed the appearance of the golden mean in Hardy’s test of Quantum Mechanics in a way that has never been observed before or elsewhere. This observation was perplexing to him and he stated this clearly in the above addendum to his book some time ago. Now, I am personally astonished that El Naschie was able recently, using his fractal geometric ideas, to give an explanation for this. I haven’t seen anybody else or any other theory or pseudo-theory that has been able to give such an explanation. And what I am calling for again is a pure scientific discussion of the ability of El Naschies’s arguments to give this explanation for the appearance of the golden mean in quantum mechanics. There may be some deep arguments going on that may warrant investigating El Naschie’s ideas that look like numerics on the surface, or it may be a mere coincidence and “fishy”, to use the word used by Mrs Sharp in court. Whatever the outcome, the final say should be accepted if it is done in a pure scientific way in Nature, thus, putting an end to this saga without touching on any personal aspects of El Naschie, his family, his friends, his possibly wrong ethics, etc.

2012-07-10 02:19 AM Marco van de Weert said:

Dear Hassan Selbi,

"No scientific content" does not occur in either the original article in Nature or the court judgment. Sharp, in her judgment, explicitly states: "It has not concerned the qualities of the Claimant as a scientist generally, or the substantive merits of his theories which are matters which could and should be capable of being addressed (if not resolved) within the scientific community by ordinary scientific discourse and debate."

Also, in summarizing Professor Turok's testimony, she writes: "Given the scope of the action, he did not as he said himself address the ultimate correctness or otherwise of the Claimant’s ‘E-infinity theory’, but in accordance with the Defendants’ pleaded case considered whether those 58 papers exhibited the qualities (for example, of coherence, clarity and novelty) which are to be expected in any scientific paper, whatever theory it is expounding or discussing."

Even further down she also states: "It is not concerned with the correctness or validity or otherwise of any theory espoused by the Claimant, matters which, given the subject-matter of them, might well not be justiciable in any event." and "As the Defendants submit there is a clear distinction between questioning a theory’s validity, and criticising an author for not setting it out coherently or clearly stating what it is so it can be understood."

It is this failure to make a coherent and clear case is what results in the claim of "poor quality". That, in turn, makes it impossible to investigate El-Naschie's ideas in a scientifically meaningful manner.

2012-07-10 04:14 AM Hassan Selbi Hassan Selbi said:

Dear Marco van de Weert:

As you emphasize, Mrs Sharp said:

"It has not concerned the qualities of the Claimant as a scientist generally, or the substantive merits of his theories which are matters which could be and should be capable of being addressed (if not resolved) within the scientific community by ordinary discourse and debate."

This is good. So, let us go to scientific discourse and debate, and this is what I am simply calling Nature to do with the same enthusiasm that it has shown regarding the other aspects of the case. So, why are you personally so reluctant?

There is nothing impossible in investigating any idea, whether it is coherent and clear or not, in a scientifically meaningful manner. The dependence on the opinion of one, two or even three "experts" is known to be not enough sometimes, let alone doing this in a court environment for a controversial issue like the present one, even when judging issues of coherence and clarity of scientific works.

2012-07-10 06:16 AM Marco van de Weert said:

Dear Hassan Selbi, it is impossible to investigate an idea when it is not coherent or clearly presented.

Suppose I tell you here that I have a hypothesis that predicts the existence of 42 elementary particles, of which most have been detected, and some have not. I also predict that a few will be found in the near future. Discuss!

Now, if you were a physicist with understanding of the many hypotheses in the field of physics, you'd note that my ideas are one of many. But most importantly, you'd note that whereas most of those others are described in mathematical formulas and follow with predictions of how such elementary particles would behave, whereas my hypothesis completely lacks this mathematical background. You would probably object to that and ask me to provide this background.

I will then answer you "there are two pertinent papers that do so, go find them yourself!"

Will you still be interested in discussing with me any further?

2012-07-10 06:46 AM Hassan Selbi Hassan Selbi said:

In parallel with my call to Nature, I also call Mohamed El Naschie, if he can, to prepare a new detailed presentation of all his scientific ideas and claims with all clarity and coherence that make the scientific aspects readable to experts and non-experts alike and in a way he hasn't done before. I would suggest that he writes and publishes a detailed book dealing with alll aspects of his theory, including the required background mathematics, the tenants and premises of his theory and the derivation of its consequences on the basis of a clear scientific logical system. This is timely and would represent a civilized way of responding to the claims of incoherence and unclear previous presentations. This would be more in the interest of science and scientists than responding to the type of claims made in the Nature article, where Nature has gone farther than its speciality for the first time to publish "factual, true and correct but defamatory" non-scientific articles.

I have the feeling that Nature will not find a new case to do this again, as it hasn't in its long past history. This case is an exception for reasons the future will definitely uncover.

2012-07-10 07:03 AM Hassan Selbi Hassan Selbi said:

Dear Macro van de Weert: You are exaggerating the claim that El Naschie hasn't given any mathematical background for his work and that he hasn't followed a clear logical system. It may be the mere fact that his basic idea is very simple that your example here doesn't apply as you try to imply, with the purpose of casting shadow on the whole case.

Anyway, I am calling El Naschie to respond with the publication of his new detailed book.

2012-07-10 11:47 AM Marco van de Weert said:

Dear Hassan Selbi, I wish I were exaggerating, but his papers simply lack coherence and are poorly substantiated. Most of it even look like outright numerology.

Also, Nature regularly publishes news articles relevant to science. The article on El-Naschie really is nothing special. Well, other than that El-Naschie decided to sue for libel.

2012-07-10 02:09 AM Hassan Selbi Hassan Selbi said:

Dear Macro van de Weert: I may agree with you that as a mainstream physicist, I myself found that El Naschie's papers lack coherence in a first read. This may be expected in a field which is highly unconventional and uses nonstandard mathematics and analysis, where no notions of Lagrangians, Hamiltonians, differential equations, integration, etc. do really exist. But this lack of coherence is only superficial once the main idea of Cantor sets and its depth and strength for quantum physics are realized. I may also agree with you that there may exist plenty of what may look as numerology and numerical coincidences on the surface, but the huge number of such instances cast doubt on the belief that only numerical coincidences are at work. To the contrary, the mere observation of such a huge number of, let us say for the moment, numerical coincidences calls for investigating whether there is a deeper principle at work or not that warrant the use of Cantor sets in quantum physics. When you convince yourself about the mysteries of Cantor sets, you may convince yourself also that what El Naschie has done with these sets in quantum physics may look only mere numerology on the surface, but deeper down there is a new principle at work that is certainly strange to conventional mainstream physics. In this connection, the fact that the ideas of El Naschie may look very strange to many mainstream physicists at present may be likened to the treatment of Cantor's strange ideas by many mainstream mathematicians at the time of Cantor. As a result, I hope I am not exaggerating when I say that El Naschie's ideas are slightly ahead of his time at present and require serious unbiased investigation, and the future will certainly prove this or the contrary.

As for the fact that Nature frequently publishes news articles relevant to science, I totally agree with you, and I certainly see that this is very good. However, this "factual, true and correct but defamatory" article published by nature that led to a libel case lasting for about three years is not a "responsible science news" article that can be of "public interest", unfortunately. Science news articles have to do with science and scientific discoveries and do not conventionally deal with matters that lead to shameful libel cases in courts. The later kind of articles is the specialization of ordinary newspapers. Thus, Nature has published this article, whether its contents are correct or not, outside its known area of specialization, and this should be admitted.

Thank you.

2012-07-10 06:28 AM Hassan Selbi Hassan Selbi said:

Dear Marco van de Weert: In continuation of my last comment, I would like to declare that your comments here have been so far purely scientific and unbiased and belong to a civilized style of discourse much needed in controversial cases like the present one. I also thank you for giving me the impetus to carry on completing my personal comments here despite the unhealthy discouraging environment that have surrounded the whole affair. With this spirit, and to keep the discussion scientific as much as possible again, please allow me to add the following points that, I hope, summarize my unbiased scientific point of view as a humble physicist belonging to the so called present mainstream, who has looked into El Naschie's controversial work with an unbiased eye: 1- Despite the observation by many that El Naschie's ideas as presented in his papers are possibly incoherent and unclear, there is something deep in these ideas that needs to be seriously investigated as supported by the many consequences that follow from them that cannot be all numerical coincidences as a result of pure numerology as some people claim. 2- The lack of coherence in these ideas is only superficial and is attributed to the unconventional mathematics and nonstandard techniques used in the analysis related to the exploitation of these ideas to obtain their physical consequences. It is possible that El Naschie may have not succeeded so far to find a full mathematical framework for this purpose. However, this does not undermine the observation that deep in these ideas there is a correct principle at work, which could be the mysterious role played by Cantor sets in quantum physics and their contradictory but acceptable properties. 3- It is possible that there may exist a more sound and complete mathematical formulation of El Naschie's ideas than what has been presented by him in his papers so far. However, this possibly requires the cooperation of many talented mathematicians and physicists to achieve in a way that hasn't been done so far. But such a conjectured mathematical formulation may also not exist in a form different than presented by El Naschie so far, and physicists who believe in his ideas at present or in the future have to accept this situation at face value as a limitation of their reality. 4- The work of Prof Tim Palmer of Oxford University on the role of fractal geometry in quantum mechanics has many things in common with El Naschie's ideas. This is so despite the fact that the first was presented in fractal state space while the second in fractal space-time. These are only superficial terminologies which seem different on the surface, but the underlying core geometry is fractal in both cases. The difference between the two works lies, however, in the fact that Palmer has insisted on not using Cantor sets and their mysterious properties as the building blocks of his fractal geometry, which makes his model less subject to criticism by mainstream physicists, but suffers from limitations in its predictability power so far, and will remain so unless he resorts to the use of Cantor sets as building blocks of his core fractal geometry. 5- The non-commutative geometric approach of Alain Connes to quantum physics can be considered as a possible more general fundamental mathematical basis for El Naschie's work. However, despite the sound and original nature of this approach, its predictability power is again limited unless somehow the fractal geometry of Cantor sets is introduced in this approach at some stage somehow. Also, it seems that there is more in this approach in its general form than needed for physical predictions, which makes it more complicated, especially where physical insight into the nature of reality is what is required.

In my humble opinion, the above points, and there are others, warrant the cooperation of many mathematicians and physicists to investigate in an unbiased manner whether the core ideas presented by El Naschie are correct and deserve putting them on more sound mathematical and physical grounds or are completely wrong and should be dismissed forever. I am also of the opinion that the dismissal of his libel case in court by Mrs Sharp should have nothing to do with such pure scientific aspects as you claim, hopefully. Or, was all this affair originally intended to cast doubt on the scientific aspects as well and destroy them forever for some unknown cause? I hope not.

Thank you.


[At this point Nature closed comments.]




LIFEBOAT

Otto E. Rössler on July 4, 2012 3:42 pm

Please, dear Lifeboat: Do not erase this post. Thank you.

Peter Howell on July 4, 2012 11:29 pm

Roessler: you are disgusting. Again, congratulations to the 10,000 real scientists at CERN as well as Prof. Higgs, who is a very nice and humble man.

Lifeboat: you have become a freak show.

eq on July 4, 2012 11:52 pm

In contrast to Rössler Higgs has done real science, a good piece of theoretical physics on a level Rössler is not even able to see…

Rössler on the other hand has probably stolen even the one or two papers on his record which can be taken as serious science…at least it seems to be not realistic that this mathematical analphabet seen on this blog here was able to write a more or less mathematical based paper on his own…

paul mann on July 5, 2012 2:19 am

hold on kids, so far what cern has pubished is a spike on photons at 130 gigas. Since the Higgs is such a messy set of equations that we do not even have its mass, we have adscribed that spike to the Higgs, which MUST be discovered. This is a rigged choice. Further on, even if it is discovered there is NO explanation how it gives each mass the mass it has. So it is NOT the theory of mass. At best it will explain some details of the weak interaction theory

Bernd on July 5, 2012 7:17 am

I wonder how easy it is to generate both, enthusiasm and fear over the media.

Brandon E. Larson on July 5, 2012 9:23 am

Pull the plug on this outfit. Anyone who continues to donate to the Lifeboat Foundation at this point is a fool. It is nothing more than a public forum for kooks and trolls.

rpenner on July 5, 2012 4:44 pm

Please show us the sausages.

http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/2011/06/show-me-sausages.html

Tom Kerwick on July 6, 2012 2:29 am

Otto’s interview on Al Jazeera. I thought it was strange that Peter Woit chose to deny the possibility of MBH rather than defend HR: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/07/2012759585764599.html

eq on July 6, 2012 3:34 am

It is strange that there are still people out there considering Otto to be a kind of expert in this field…

he is obviously not even an expert for his own “kindergartn physics”

Otto E. Rössler on July 6, 2012 4:24 am

Thank you for your most sensible remark made, Tom

Ayten Aydin on July 6, 2012 5:47 am

I am curious to see what of Peter Higgs thought on the query raised by Otto Rossler, at the top.

eq on July 6, 2012 6:00 am

Peter Higgs is a real scientist who will never come in touch with a crank like Otto.

Ok, we know also that Rössler has become a kind of stalker the last years.

lsd on July 6, 2012 10:55 am

“I thought it was strange that Peter Woit chose to deny the possibility of MBH”

That’s not really strange. The theories which probably predict something that could be called a mini-black hole are rather speculative.

It seems more strange that Otto here is so convinced about these speculative particles…so far he has not even presented a logical theory why these particles should be created in a particle collider…On the one hand he does not accept some prerequisites of mbhs (this s simply his “counterproof” against GM, which is nonsense ‚of course) but needs exactly these concepts if he want to continue his anti-science campaign.

lsd on July 7, 2012 12:25 am

http://www.nature.com/news/nature-publishing-group-wins-long.….al-1.10965

The judgement against El Naschie:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1809.html

Why is this interesting? El Naschie is one of Rösslers crackpot friends, Rössler himself “published” his already rejected “R-theorem” in a new crackpot journal edited by Naschie. So everyone can draw now his own conclusions about that after reading the judgement…

lsd on July 7, 2012 2:43 am

online again:

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081126/full/456432a.html?s=news_rss

Otto E. Rossler on July 7, 2012 4:20 am

lsd is happy that a scientist in the old tradition was mistreated with lies for the quality of his journal by a competitor. I was once proud to have been published by Nature. Now Nature has lost her good name – unless she backs up.

Do you earnestly propose that all members of the Royal Society be stripped of their centuries-old right to singlehandedly accept papers — including their own — for publication in the Proceedings of the Royal Society?

.

lsd on July 7, 2012 4:34 am

I am not surprised about your inabilitiy to read the judgement. Otherwise you would have written something different than this nonsense above. The “quality” of Naschies journal, his review proecesses and of course his revolutionary theories are well-documentated there.

Nature has not lost, El Naschie has lost. In the judgement there is evidence for Naschie being a crackot, a fraud and liar.

BTW: The old tradition never was to publish unfounded nonsense, to lie to the public about review processes that never took place and so on.

lsd on July 7, 2012 4:37 am

Ah, Otto, you are again lying as the evidence shows clearly that there are no lies about your crackpot friend…on the other hand, that Naschie told lies again and again is definitely proven as everyone can easily read in the dtailed judgement.

But the judge was also bribed, like the media, isn’t it? :D

H.M.Voynich on July 7, 2012 5:17 am

If it is a fact that doubling tha data doubles the risk, then the probility must always be 0, or it will exceed 1 by getting more data at some point. Because no p can be higher then 1, you just stated that it must be 0.

lsd on July 7, 2012 6:05 am

Do not criticize Otto Rösslers private probability theory :D

Marvin on July 7, 2012 9:17 am

I am a journalist who covered this affair and came extra from a gulf state. After attending a three week trial with the exception of odd days I formed the definite conviction that the whole thing was a set up to destroy the reputation of a great Muslim scholar, thinker and a scientist apart from being a famous structure engineer by zionists and imperialists and those who destroyed Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and now trying to destroy Egypt and syria and steal the oil riches of Saudi Arabia. Prof. Mohamed el nashaie made an application in my presence for the case to be transferred to the criminal court in the Old Bailey. Mrs. Sharp the judge who was handpicked by nature’s solicitors refused the application. She also refused to discuss the plagiarism committed against prof. El naschiei the year 2008. In essence the Zionist establishment wanted to hijack his theory and when he objected they decided to destroy him. He made no secret of these things in court. You should read his closing speech and learn about the shameful details. You should read about the south African Neil Turok who was bribed by nature to pretend he is an expert on el naschie’s work and in fact he isn’t.turok is a friend and member of the group that hijacked elnaschie’s work in scientific American in 2008. He is a dealer wheeler involved in many financial scandals connected to the institute he now directs, the perimeter institute.he replaced the honorable dr. Howard burton who is the founding director and he refused to misappropriate government funds in the millions of dollars. The entire affair is messy and disgusting. My definite feeling is that the shameful truth will come out.


Peter Howell on July 7, 2012 10:47 am

Hi El-Naschie, why not posting under your real name?

lsd on July 7, 2012 11:35 am

Oh yes, it is all a jewish conspiracy!!!! He got it!!

The question is now what Otto wants to say to this anti-semitic conspiracy theory written by his friend here…

(The truth about El Naschies “work” is quite precisely written down in the judgement. No person with ability to think rationally can deny the fact that he is an extraordinary crank proposing numerology nonsense for years, lying about review processes that never took place and so on.…)

Otto E. Rossler on July 7, 2012 2:10 pm

Forgive me, but the question raised by my Telemach theorem is whether or not anyone can find a counterproof to the implied prediction that black holes have radically new properties. So a reassessment of any experiment that was designed to produce them (besides the triumphant Higgs) follows as a logical necessity. No one can disagree with me about this.

I would like to add that I adhere to the religion of Martin Buber (while retaining my youthful membership in the third order of Saint Francis if this is of anyone’s concern). My Egyptian friend whom I defended would never have written the above long text. This does not mean that I take political sides. The risk to the planet which objectively exists if I am right automatically bridges all lesser concerns. Science functions only under peaceful conditions. Please help me, everyone, by finding the flaw in Telemach.

lsd on July 7, 2012 3:10 pm

t is well known that your so called friend is kind fond of anti-semitic propaganda. The probability that this jew-hater and liar above is indeed a sockpuppet of your crackpotfriend is definitely higher than 8 percent…

Peter Howell on July 7, 2012 3:35 pm

Anyone interested in learning about the flaws in Roessler’s “theorem” just read the comments on this blog. There are too many to name here. Roessler is dismantled similar to his friend El– Naschie. All-together, this has been an excellent week in science!

Pinky, the armageddon-mouse on July 7, 2012 11:33 pm

@lsd Hi! Rössler seem to have no problems with anti-semitic agitators. He once labeled Konrad Lorenz a “friend”. The same guy who supported the Nuremberg “racial laws”. see: http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/01/attempto-let-me-give-it-a-try

BTW, @Marvin The “oil riches of Saudia Arabia” are also exploited by the absolutistic regime and its wahabite elite.

The armageddon will not be televised! Pinky

rpenner on July 8, 2012 12:51 am

“My Egyptian friend whom I defended” — Otto Rössler

If you read the judgment, Rössler’s testimony was described (as “Professor Roessler”) by Mrs. Justice Sharp as unhelpful to El Naschie. Paragraphs 346 and 378 establish that Rössler led the Nature journalist to believe El Naschie had evaded peer-review. In summary, while the 2008 Nature article was clearly defamatory to El Naschie — those defamatory bits were justified by being strongly supported by evidence, i.e. “true.”

Each element was extensively weighed and found to be true, specifically: ”(a) The Claimant abused his position as Editor-in-Chief by publishing in Chaos Solitons and Fractals (‘CSF’) an excessive number of articles written by himself. (b) The Claimant’s articles tended to be of poor quality. ©Whilst CSF was under the Claimant’s editorial control his articles had been subject to (at best) very poor peer-review before publication in CSF. (d) CSF’s Impact Factor may have been inflated by an excessive rate of citation of the Claimant’s articles in CSF during his editorship. (e) There were reasonable grounds to suspect that the Claimant’s imminent retirement as Editor-in-Chief was connected to these aforesaid faults as Editor-in-Chief. Alternatively, if the Article meant and was understood to mean that the Claimant was dismissed or forced to retire because of his faults as Editor-in-Chief, then it is true in that meaning also. (f) The Claimant was cavalier about his academic and professional affiliations, having falsely claimed to be a distinguished fellow of the Institute of Physics at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, and having made other suspect claims to impressive academic affiliations. If, which is denied, the Article meant that the Claimant had claimed affiliations to which he knew he was not entitled, the Defendants will contend that the Article was also true in that meaning. (g) There were reasonable and serious grounds for suspecting that the Claimant used, or caused others to use, fictitious names in order to respond to enquiries about his editorial practices.”

See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1809.html See also summary: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2955371#post2955371

Hassan Selbi on July 8, 2012 12:53 am

Even though I still think that El Naschie’s theory is still not complete, I am convinced that it is only the beginning of revolutionary ideas that are needed to put physics on the right track. Judgement in court cannot touch on this fact. There may be mistakes by El Naschie here and there regarding his publication attitude, but the future will tell that his ideas will constitute the bases for a new physics in the long run. No body has so far shown the flaws in his ideas and the court and Turok are not qualified to do so. Nature may be one of the proper places for such scientific discussion. I invite Nature and its editors to be courageous enough to start such a pure scientific discussion to shows these scientific flaws if any on both scientific and philosophical grounds. Misprints and misnomers in his papers are not of much interest, as well as the number of his papers or the way they have been reviewed, or his affiliations. What matters most is the science in these papers, and scientists would like to see this science discussed far away from a Jason style. If Nature cannot do this, then this will add more to the conviction of many that there is a conspiracy at work. This would be strengthened by the fact that most of the court judgement is more or less an edited version of the elnaschiewatchwatch blog.

The way things have unfolded and the insistence of some on attacking El Naschie in person in the Jason style makes no doubt that the Jason gang is the same as the Nature gang and the High Court gange. The future definitely will uncover the truth, the real truth.


rpenner on July 8, 2012 1:07 am

Hassan Selbi: The flaws in El Naschie’s papers are not limited to a few misprints — the quality of the 58 papers from 2008 is so low that “Any citation of papers of such poor quality was excessive, and they should not have been cited by the Claimant or any other author writing in CSF.” — Mrs. Justice Sharp, paragraph 212 Professor Turok never claimed to be qualified to discuss the tenants of El Naschie’s ideas — he merely stated that said tenants were never discussed nor incorporated by reference in any of the 58 articles from 2008. Turok’s objections were:

“the 58 papers or articles contained the following defects: * A failure to define terminology and concepts, including in particular a failure to present the principles and equations of “E-infinity theory” and the predictions which are said to be deduced from it; * Strongly expressed conclusions, unsupported by any, or any intelligible process of logical reasoning; in particular, the repeated unexplained reliance on numerical coincidences in support of the assertion that the Claimant’s “E-infinity theory” is correct; * Statements which are meaningless or obscure, even to a readers with expertise in the field of theoretical physics; * Statements which are simply wrong; * Elementary errors of spelling and grammar; * A lack of any, or any substantial, contribution of new knowledge to the field; * An excessive degree of citation of other articles written or co-written by the Claimant, in particular in order to justify assertions which should have been supported by self-contained argument or references to the work of independent authors (the articles published by the Claimant in CSF in 2008 contained approximately 301 citations of his own articles in CSF, including citations of “in press” articles: i.e. those articles which were due to be, but which had not at the material time, been formally published); * The use of those articles to advertise other articles by the Claimant.” And Mrs. Justice Sharp found that there was strong factual basis for these claims in paragraphs 120, 121 and following.

Hassan Selbi on July 8, 2012 2:17 am

rpenner: You are partly repeating the same thing that Turok has said regarding the scientific aspects of El Naschie’s work and you are at the same time saying that Turok never claimed to be qualified to discuss the tenants of El Naschie’s work. Don’t you think that you are contradicting yourself? You are repeating what the judge has concluded, where she is not qualified and cannot be qualified to judge the scientific part of any dispute like the present one, with the help of Turok, the non-expert, or anybody else.

Turok, to give at least a fair opinion, should have read all El Naschie’s papers dating back to the 1990, but he hasn’t. And the judge, to represent justice, shouldn’t have judged the scientific aspects of El Naschie’s work on the basis of what Turok, the non-expert, have said in court. That is very simple fair logic, isn’t it?

Please be fair. What matters to me here is the scientific part of El Naschie’s papers. I am not saying that El Naschie’s theory is correct. But in a situation of controversy like the present one, it is natural to expect a pure scientific discussion of the flaws in his ideas. That is what I am calling for. And I repeat, if Nature and its editors are courageous enough, let them bring Turok or anybody else to present such a discussion in their Journal, without touching on the personal aspects of the matter.

Please do not repeat what has been concluded by the judge in court on the basis of what Turok has said, and you are saying he is not an expert on the tenants of El Naschie’s work.

What I am calling for is very simple and fair. Nature should now invite one or more scientist to present a scientific discussion of the flaws in El Naschie’s scientific ideas. The court judgement cannot be accepted as a substitute for such a discussion as this has never happened in the history of science, except at the time of Galileo.

I repeat, if Nature fails to do so, then I personally will still be skeptical that a covert conspiracy has been at work and your arguments, which are a repitition of what Turok the non-expert has said in court, do not convince many people, and the personal aspect of the matter prevails.

Thank you


rpenner on July 8, 2012 3:43 am

No, I’m not contradicting myself. I would be contradicting myself if any of the 58 papers actually stated the tenants of El Naschie’s belief system and proceeded to derive physical predictions on the basis of cognizable arguments. According to Prof. Turok, who is an expert in reading papers that do that, El Naschie’s papers don’t do that. When Turok and Defense asked for clarification of where, if anywhere, the tenants were laid out coherently, they got no usable answer. (paragraph 42)

El Naschie is the one who asked the judge to decide these scientific matters, so it is special pleading and inconsistent for any El Naschie supporter to claim that the judge was unqualified. The judge knew that she was no expert and allowed each side to present three impartial expert witnesses. El Naschie’s expert witnesses (according to Mrs. Justice Sharp in paragraphs 38 – 45) were not impartial, did not address the material and in Mrs. Thorsen-El Naschie’s lacked the necessary relevant expertise. Prof. Turok, like the other defense experts, was unaware of El Naschie’s work.

El Naschie’s work back to the 1990’s was not at issue in the case, because El Naschie was suing Nature’s publsher on an article critical of the 58 articles published by El Naschie in 2008. No valid purpose in the trial would have been served in Prof. Turok reading hundreds of other papers when (paragraph 42) no one on El Naschie’s side could tell him where the tenants of El Naschie’s work were written.

Again, El Naschie’s editorial practices reduced CSF to a sham journal that diminished the reputations of all associated with it. Thus none of the articles published by El Naschie in CSF can be considered “scientific.” Paragraphs 201 – 205 demonstrate that other articles were subject to editorial malfeasance. El Naschie took full responsibility for this (paragraph 304).

It’s unfair to compare El Naschie to Galileo. For Galileo, reality mattered and communicating to people to mattered. Indeed, the church prosecuted Galileo partly because Galileo produced evidence and arguments that the common man could follow.

It’s unfair to compare El Naschie to Newton. For Newton, reality mattered and communicating to gentlemen of learning mattered. Indeed, Newton’s original books on physics and gravitation were used for centuries as textbooks, both in Latin and in vulgar translation.

It’s unfair to compare El Naschie to Einstein. For Einstein reality mattered and communicating to people mattered. Indeed, Einstein’s 4 famous papers of 1905 are still widely read today, over 100 years later. Einstein also wrote a famous pop-physics book for the masses in 1920.

If reality mattered to El Naschie, then why did he invent so many fake names to send correspondence from the various email accounts? (paragraphs 286, 311, 371, 372) If communication mattered, then why did he ignore questions? (paragraphs 13, 42)

What I am calling for is very simple and fair: El Naschie should be held accountable to all the standards of actual scientists _and_ quickly, publicly and transparently pay Nature’s costs for this unnecessary lawsuit that El Naschie brought against Nature as directed in paragraph 383. So it follows that if the world doesn’t understand El Naschie’s tenants and logic, the burden is on El Naschie to communicate them.

Burden of proof is the essential part of fairness in arguments, and if El Naschie hadn’t evaded his burden of proof by self-publishing, the peer-review process would have forced him to actually move ideas from brain to paper and hopefully to someone else’s brain.

Hassan Selbi on July 8, 2012 4:31 am

rpenner: To be frank with you, what makes me think that there may be a conspiracy at work, is this personal orchestrated large scale attack on El Naschie, that is mixed-up purposely in a foggy style, on his scientific ideas that has been going on for some time now. An example is what has been appearing on the shadowy elnaschiewatch blog where deeply personal matters related to him, his family and his friends are discussed as never before on the Internet or elsewhere in the history of science or even pseudo-science

The possibility that Nature, elnaschiewatch blog, and possibly even the court lately, are part of this conspiracy may have evidence in the now confirmed observation that the court judgement report contains more or less edited versions of the content of elnaschiewatch blog. The court is not even ashamed from referring to this shadowy elnaschiewatch blog as a source in the judgement report . People who will read that judgement report will certainly observe this link between all these things. So, there must be something “fishy” going on, to use the same word used by Mrs Sharp in the judgement report.

Otherwise, how can one explain this orchestrated attack on El Naschie in person, even if his ideas are assumed to be wrong? Has he made any harm to anybody with excessive publication of wrong or badly written papers or with his, let us assume, unethical attitude to be attacked personally together with his family and fiends?

Nature is not exempt from taking part in this conspiracy unless, as I suggested, it takes the necessary steps to publish a crystal clear scientific non-personal discussion of the flaws in El Naschie’s papers, and this should be done very fast. Nature cannot be cleared from some kind of association with the elnaschiewatch blog unless it apologizes and refrains from using the same language used on this blog in its articles that touch on personal matters, even if what has been published by El Naschie is scientifically flawed or unethical.

As for the court, there is more than one evidence that something “fishy” again must have been going on in this trial. The fact that judge Eady has been replaced by judge Sharp is one instance. The removal of the criminal aspects of the case by the court is another instance. The very long time that the trial has taken to reach a judgement is a further instance. All this cannot be justified, even if we accept that El Naschie“s ideas are wrong and non-ethical.

rpenner: If you are a fair person that belong to the scientific community and not to any shadowy community, please join me in calling Nature and its editors to start a pure scientific discussion to prove that El Naschie’s ideas are flawed or wrong in part or totally and should be rejected for ever. This would be more in the interest of science than discussing the personal aspects of El Naschie, his family, his relations, his ethics, the misprints and misnomers in his papers, etc. This would also put the scientific aspect of the matter to rest, whether in favor of his scientific ideas or not. This is a very basic simple endeavor that can easily be fulfilled by Nature if it wanted to, and would be more fare if done by unbiased competent specialized scientists in the fields of High Energy Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Fractal Geometry and other fields of relevance to El Naschie’s work. In this way, and only in this way and not in a foggy court judgement, the editors can save the prestigious Nature from being suspected as part of a conspiracy against a person who hasn’t done any harm to anybody with the mere publication, and let us assume flawed excessive, papers.

Thank you.

Hassan Selbi on July 8, 2012 6:37 am

rpenner: You should be careful in your claims and logic here. You are mixing up matters, possibly without being aware, as a result of some personal attitude. I hope, however, that this attitude is not a prejudice of some sort. This is unusual for me when dealing with a scientist or a scientific matter, unless there is some hidden causes that again touch on personal matters for some reason or another that I cannot uncover from this sort of dialog that is unfortunately anonymous.

I didn’t compare El Naschie to Galileo. You should go back to my statement and read it carefully. I never mentioned Newton or Einstein in this discussion either.

Your claim that the tenants of El Naschie’s ideas have not been stated in the 58 papers of El Naschie is only based on the Turok’s opinion and is not accurate. And you are contradicting yourself again by saying that Turok is “an expert on reading papers that do that”, where you said in your earlier comment that he never said he is qualified to discuss the tenants of El Naschie’s ideas. How can a person who is not an expert in these tenants know that such tenants are not stated in the papers? And is it designed so that only Turok, who is a not an expert as he says, can have the final say from now on?

Turok should have gone back to the references to find those tenants and understand them, but he hasn’t. I am sure he would have understood those tenants and belief system if he wanted to. The mere fact that he hasn’t done so adds weight to the belief that there may have been a conspiracy going on. And why Turok the non-expert was brought as a so called scientific witness? Weren’t there other scientists who would have done the job better being more related to the field, which involves fractal geometry and number theory, but possibly they have declined? This all points to a possible conspiracy again, unless Nature and its editors quickly and clearly show the opposite by publishing a pure scientific discussion of El Naschie’s ideas and their flaws by unbiased expert scientists having nothing to do with El Naschie’s personal aspects, his family, his friends, etc.

The tenants are very simple and they are stated in many earlier papers. They are based in fractal geometry, and in its simplest form portrayed by Cantor sets. They involve the assumption of a hierarchical random fractal Cantor set for the geometry underlying quantum mechanics from which follows many simple facts by the logic of number theory and not numerics as you claim. Connes’s noncommutative geometric approach to Quantum Mechanics can also be considered as another mathematical foundational ground for many of the ideas of El Naschie in a more rigorous fashion that is not all needed to obtain the main results in Quantum Mechanics and High Energy Physics.

Again, do not misunderstand me or try to lead readers to misunderstand. I am not saying that these tenants, and there associated belief system and the conclusions drawn from them, are completely acceptable. I am calling Nature to invite some specialized scientists to discuss these tenants and what follows from them including the logic that was used to derive the consequences. This should be a pure scientific discussion that has nothing to do with personal aspects or prejudices in the nervous style I am observing here.

Let me raise your attention to a single recent observation that makes any unbiased person look more seriously into El Naschie’s ideas. Please go to the link: http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/StrangeQM/Hardy.pdf in which you find a discussion of Hardy’s test of Quantum Mechanics as presented by Prof Daniel Stayer in an addendum to his book “The Strange World of Quantum Mechanics”. Prof Stayer is a well-known physicist who has observed the appearance of the golden mean in Hardy’s test of Quantum Mechanics in a way that has never been observed before or elsewhere. This observation was perplexing to him and he stated this clearly in the addendum to his book. Now, I am personally astonished that El Naschie was able using his fractal geometric ideas to give an explanation for this. I haven’t seen anybody else or any other theory or pseudo-theory that has been able to give such an explanation. And what I am calling for again is a pure scientific discussion of the ability of El Naschies’s arguments to give this explanation for the appearance of the golden mean in quantum mechanics. There may be some deep arguments going on that may warrant investigating El Naschie’s ideas that look like numerics on the surface, or it may be a mere coincidence and “fishy” again. Whatever the outcome, the final say should be accepted if it is done in a pure scientific way not touching on any personal aspects of El Naschie, his family, his friends, his possibly wrong ethics, etc. as it is usually done in the elnaschiewatch blog’s style and which many try to advocate with prejudice due to some hidden undeclared causes.

May God bless us all with his mercy and rids us of our sins and personal prejudice for the benefit of humanity.

Thank you.


Brandon Larson on July 8, 2012 12:31 pm

I see the sock puppets have been pulled out. Why are the real people on here still feeding the trolls?

Otto E. Rossler on July 8, 2012 1:02 pm

I would like to know WHY my esteemed young colleague is so sure there is no danger.

rpenner on July 8, 2012 5:27 pm

This planet has nearly 7 thousand million people on it. El Naschie seeks to promote his name and perhaps his ideas far and wide on this planet. Thus if there is a back reaction, it is logical to suspect El Naschie’s own efforts are the central organizing principle. Claiming that there is a “conspiracy” without evidence that this explanation better rooted in reality and parsimony is poor scholarship and reasoning.

El Naschie asked a judge to decide if Nature was justified by saying the patently defamatory things it said and implied about El Naschie — in every case the judge ruled on the evidence that Nature was justified. El Naschie himself selected “experts” which were not impartial and did not respond to the reports of the defense experts. Furthermore, the judge ruled that Nature’s journalism and the supervision was responsible and in the public interest.

Nature was reporting on Elsevier’s decision to end El Naschie’s reign as Editor-in-Chief. Elsevier would be in a better position than anyone to know about CSF’s quality and editorial policies, all of which were the responsibility of El Naschie. El Naschie’s behavior was causing harm to those who published in CSF, to Elsevier, to university libraries who paid for CSF and to the state of scientific publication. That El Naschie has critics does not excuse El Naschie from responsibility if negative comments about his behavior are factual. Thus the central organizing principle in what you label as a “conspiracy” is El Naschie.

El Naschie’s behavior ? critics ? Elsevier non-renewal ? Nature article ? Nature article upheld in court

Thanks to the court case, now even more people have been exposed to reports of El Naschie’s behavior. The court publication gave detailed fact-based criticisms of El Naschie’s publications and behavior. That they echo the criticisms of some blog is explained most simply if both are based in reports of a single reality.

As El Naschie already had a chance to respond to Nature article in a venue of his choosing, Nature owes him nothing. Indeed, El Naschie should completely pay for Nature’s expenses as ordered by the court before the topic comes up again.

I wish Elsevier all the luck in the world in the reformation of the reputation of CSF a a journal with high editorial standards, peer review and transparency.

Hassan Selbi on July 9, 2012 1:46 am

rpenner: You are echoing again what has been said by Nature, its editors and solicitors and what the court has decided.

What I am concerned with here is the pure scientific aspect of the case which hasn’t been, and can not be, settled in court as it all depended on what Turok, the non-expert as you say, has testified. You reasoning is also based on the incorrect premise that a court rule is always right. This is not always the case. There is plenty of injustice in the world that you surely know about. Remember also that the original case was about plagiarism and it was only the court which has changed the course of the trial.

Let us leave the personal aspects of the matter aside rpenner as I am repeatedly suggesting to you. What I am calling for is a pure scientific discussion of El Naschie’s scientific claims and let experts clearly prove without doubts that all what he has advocated is scientifically incorrect. The court and the elnashiewatch blog is certainly not the proper place to do this, and do not tell me again that you see otherwise.

Nature can invite scientific unbiased experts to do so on its pages. So, why are you afraid of such a discussion where it could end in the interest of Nature and the scientific community?

Also, be aware that your statement “?.. they echo the criticisms of some blog is explained most simply if both are based on reports of a single reality” in fact cast doubts on the court and its decision. Go and read that blog if you are not associated with it or you haven’t read it already to see the reality you are talking about. I am not convinced and I do not sense but prejudice again for covert non-scientific reasons.

God bless.


Otto E. Rössler on July 9, 2012 3:02 am

Let me enter the following comment by Hassan Selbi which somehow did not make it into the system:

“rpenner: I didn’t compare El Naschie to Galileo. You should go back to my statement and read it carefully. I never mentioned Newton or Einstein in this discussion either.

Turok should have gone back to the references to find those tenants and understand them, but he hasn’t. I am sure he would have understood those tenants and belief system if he wanted to. The mere fact that he hasn’t done so adds weight to the belief that there may have been a conspiracy going on. And why Turok the non-expert was brought as a so called scientific witness? Weren’t there other scientists who would have done the job better being more related to the field, which involves fractal geometry and number theory, but possibly they have declined? This all points to a possible conspiracy again, unless Nature and its editors quickly and clearly show the opposite by publishing a pure scientific discussion of El Naschie’s ideas and their flaws by unbiased expert scientists having nothing to do with El Naschie’s personal aspects, his family, his friends, etc.

The tenants are very simple and they are stated in many earlier papers. They are based in fractal geometry, and in its simplest form portrayed by Cantor sets. They involve the assumption of a hierarchical random fractal Cantor set for the geometry underlying quantum mechanics from which follows many simple facts by the logic of number theory and not numerics as you claim. Connes’s noncommutative geometric approach to Quantum Mechanics can also be considered as another mathematical foundational ground for many of the ideas of El Naschie in a more rigorous fashion that is not all needed to obtain the main results in Quantum Mechanics and High Energy Physics.”


Akmad Kamal on July 9, 2012 7:54 am

I would like to see rpenner stand against the occupation and destruction of Iraq with the same enthusiasm and speedy response as he has done in favor of Nature and science here. Or is he going to play double standards again?


Peter Howell on July 9, 2012 8:36 am

What has Iraq to do with science?

lsd on July 9, 2012 8:50 am

What have El Naschie and his sock puppets to do with science?

Ahmad Kamal on July 9, 2012 9:12 am

The connection between Iraq and science should be clear to you, unless you belong to the Jason gang who only know the phrase “sock puppets”.

Ahmad Kamal on July 9, 2012 9:35 am

You should know what Iraq and its destruction has to do with science, unless you are a member of the Jason Gang who do not know but the phrase “sock puppets”.


Peter Howell on July 9, 2012 11:05 am

I am just a humble professor at Cambridge, even when I was young, I never been member of a gang. So could you please enlighten me what science and the war in Iraq have in common?

Ahmad Kamal on July 9, 2012 11:50 am

Dear Prof Peter Howel: Science and the destruction of the reputation of a scientist as judged by rpenner here, and the occupation and destruction of Iraq and the humiliation of its people, and its scientists in particular, that have been going on for years now, are both the result of double standards and twisted logic that are similar to what is advocated by rpenner and the like. If rpenner is really reacting here on ethical grounds, his same ethics should also push him to stand against the destruction of Iraq and Iraqi scientists with the same speed and enthusiasm, and the comment was an invitation for him to do so. And by the way Professor, you may have misunderstood. I didn’t say that you are a member of a gang. My apologies if you felt that this was implied.


rpenner on July 10, 2012 12:57 am

Otto E. Rössler @ Original Post: “This risk is presently at about 4 percent already.” rpenner on July 5, 2012 4:44 pm: “Please show us the sausages.”

The above was a request to demonstrate a calculation of the differential risk per proton-proton collision from axioms and assumptions. If one is to take the so-called ‘R-theorem’ (aka the so-called ‘gothic-R theorem’) of Rössler seriously, all black holes are an infinite distance away and cannot gain mass in finite time. It seems that any such ‘Rössler-holes’ are much safer than GR black holes which the LHC lacks the ability to create. The whole point of theorems being reliable in mathematics requires a statement of the axioms and a clear, meticulous and well-communicated line of logical reasoning. Even so, a theorem founded on unphysical axioms is unreliable in predictions of the phenomena of reality.

Tom Kerwick on July 6, 2012 2:29 am: “I thought it was strange that Peter Woit chose to deny the possibility of MBH” lsd on July 6, 2012 10:55 am: “It seems more strange that Otto here is so convinced about these speculative particles…so far he has not even presented a logical theory why these particles should be created in a particle collider”

Then perhaps you didn’t understand the question. Only a completely unevidenced theory of quantum gravity allows for creation of analogues of GR black holes to be formed in any particle physics experiment. And as Christopher Hitchens wrote back in 2003, “Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor.….arest.html

Quirin Schiermeier on November 26, 2008: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081126/full/456432a.html Mrs. Justice Sharp on July 6, 2012: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1809.html Daniel Cressey on July 6, 2012: http://www.nature.com/news/nature-publishing-group-wins-long.….al-1.10965

Otto Rössler has tied his credibility to that of El Naschie-run vanity presses, and not the scholarship of academics actually used to doing the math of “Fractal Geometry” or even run-of-the-mill differential geometry. Thus if El Naschie’s judgement and credibility is trashed, Rössler’s work is left to stand solely on its own merits independent of any endorsement of El Naschie’s clique. Thus the burden of proof that the axioms are physics, that the logic is sound and that the argument is well-communicated falls back to Rössler — effectively by association with such a substandard vanity press, Rössler’s recent work returns to its true status as material that has not been vetted by appropriate peer review and can be ignored until it has been shown to be novel and well-reasoned additions to human knowledge.

Otto Rössler on July 7, 2012 4:20 am: “a scientist in the old tradition was mistreated with lies for the quality of his journal by a competitor”

None of that is in evidence. Documents from Elsevier demonstrate that they made the decision to not renew their contract with El Naschie “because of his faults as Editor-in-Chief” as far back as a report dated October 18, 2006. (paragraphs 215 – 241, especially 227, 223 and 235) Quirin Schiermeier’s article appears only in late 2008 due to a few weeks research. Indeed, the one who lied or authorized lies was shown to be El Naschie whose email correspondence has been “bizarre” (paragraphs 286 – 317, especially 311 and 317). Likewise, Mrs. Justice sharp disagrees that the “old tradition,” whatever Rössler means by that, is relevant. (paragraphs 113 – 114)

Moreover Hassan Selbi (July 8, 2012 6:37 am) vigorously disputes that El Naschie compares himself to Galileo or Newton, so whose “old tradition” do you mean.

Otto Rössler on July 7, 2012 4:20 am: “Do you earnestly propose that all members of the Royal Society be stripped of their centuries-old right to singlehandedly accept papers — including their own — for publication in the Proceedings of the Royal Society?”

Citation requested, because such a claim cannot be based on your personal experience nor is currently in evidence. Not only is that not listed as a right ( http://royalsociety.org/about-us/fellowship/ , http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/.….atutes.pdf ) but even if it were true it would be completely inapposite to the role of the editor of scientific journal. Indeed, standing order 62 puts the responsibility on the Editor, not the Fellow/Author ( http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/.….Orders.pdf ).

Otto E. Rössler on July 7, 2012 2:10 pm : “No one can disagree with me about this.”

I disagree. Please learn to write better arguments in the future and avoid attempts to shift the burden of proof. “Telemach” is nowhere a theorem.

rpenner on July 10, 2012 1:00 am

Hassan Selbi on July 8, 2012 12:53 am : “I invite Nature … to start … a pure scientific discussion to show[ flaws if any in El Naschie’s incomplete theory]. … What matters most is the science in these papers …” Hassan Selbi on July 8, 2012 2:17 am : “if Nature and its editors are courageous enough, let them bring Turok or anybody else to present such a discussion in their Journal … What I am calling for is very simple and fair. Nature should now invite one or more scientist to present a scientific discussion of the flaws in El Naschie’s scientific ideas. ” Hassan Selbi on July 8, 2012 4:31 am : “please join me in calling Nature and its editors to start a pure scientific discussion to prove that El Naschie’s ideas are flawed or wrong in part or totally and should be rejected for ever” Hassan Selbi on July 9, 2012 1:46 am : “What I am calling for is a pure scientific discussion of El Naschie’s scientific claims and let experts clearly prove without doubts that all what he has advocated is scientifically incorrect.”

That’s an inappropriate role for a journal to play. Journals should only publish scientific papers, not incomplete rambling arguments and self-promotion. By evading peer-review, El Naschie failed his own cause. Turok complained of ‘a failure to define terminology and concepts, including in particular a failure to present the principles and equations of “E-infinity theory” and the predictions which are said to be deduced from it’. In a whole year of 58 papers, El Naschie nowhere presented the tenants of his idea and related those tenants to reality. Thus there is no science in these papers. (paragraphs 120, 131 – 135) Anyone who has read Newton or Galileo would know this is not the way those giants shared their great ideas with the world.

What is fair is for El Naschie to pay Nature for the costs El Naschie’s wholly unnecessary lawsuit brought upon Nature (as ordered by the court in paragraph 383). What is fair is for El Naschie to actually exercise his freedom of speech to convey any coherent argument he has rather than try to stifle Nature’s freedom of speech when they publish true facts and inferences which turned out to be factual.

Hassan Selbi on July 8, 2012 2:17 am : “The court judgement cannot be accepted as a substitute for [scientific] discussion as this has never happened in the history of science, except at the time of Galileo.”

Untrue. Everytime a court deals with medical malpractice, engineering negligence or (in the US) Constitutionality of altering the scientific curriculum to insert religion, the court weighs expert testimony to come to scientific judgement. This case was not about the correctness of El Naschie’s central ideas — indeed such ideas were never identified — it was about whether Nature defamed El Naschie by reckless untrue statements. The statements were judged neither reckless nor untrue. El Naschie’s behavior and performance was every bit as bad as the article made out.

Most relevant to this blog, both in the US and in Germany, courts have been asked to rule on the (possibly) scientific arguments of Wagner and Rössler. In the UK, a court was asked to rule on the claim that chiropractors advocated “bogus” medicine.

Hassan Selbi on July 8, 2012 6:37 am : “Your claim that the tenants of El Naschie’s ideas have not been stated in the 58 papers [in CSF in 2008] of El Naschie … is not accurate.”

If you are saying that the complete axioms and equations of “E-infinity theory” are present in any one of the journal articles, please provide a citation and quote. This directly contradicts paragraph 131 and even El Naschie’s “expert” witness Dr. Marek-Crnjac was unable to coherently explain “E-infinity theory” by referring to the 2008 articles or any earlier articles. (paragraph 42)

rpenner on July 8, 2012 3:43 am: “No, I’m not contradicting myself. I would be contradicting myself if any of the 58 papers actually stated the tenants of El Naschie’s belief system and proceeded to derive physical predictions on the basis of cognizable arguments. According to Prof. Turok, who is an expert in reading papers that do that, El Naschie’s papers don’t do that. When Turok and Defense asked for clarification of where, if anywhere, the tenants were laid out coherently, they got no usable answer. (paragraph 42)”

Hassan Selbi on July 8, 2012 6:37 am : “you are contradicting yourself again by saying that Turok is “an expert on reading papers that do that”, where you said in your earlier comment that he never said he is qualified to discuss the tenants of El Naschie’s ideas. How can a person who is not an expert in these tenants know that such tenants are not stated in the papers? And is it designed so that only Turok, who is a not an expert as he says, can have the final say from now on?”

You are being obtuse. I said what I said. If what you said was a principle, no one could learn anything from reading any new report since they were not expert in the tenants being presented to them for the first time. Thus you denigrate the Koran as well as scientific papers.

Hassan Selbi on July 8, 2012 6:37 am : “The tenants are very simple and they are stated in many earlier papers. They are based in fractal geometry, and in its simplest form portrayed by Cantor sets. They involve the assumption of a hierarchical random fractal Cantor set for the geometry underlying quantum mechanics from which follows many simple facts by the logic of number theory and not numerics as you claim. Connes’s noncommutative geometric approach to Quantum Mechanics can also be considered as another mathematical foundational ground for many of the ideas of El Naschie in a more rigorous fashion that is not all needed to obtain the main results in Quantum Mechanics and High Energy Physics.”

None of this is useful. As someone who does number theory, has gotten royalty checks for fractals, and is better read on quantum mechanics, general relativity and particle physics than you, I can say with authority that the above paragraph is nothing but advertising copy and is nowhere a coherent statement of principle. In your second sentence you just said Connes’ approach is universal superior to that of El Naschie, so nothing is lost by kicking El Naschie to the gutter. Via parsimony, the PDF you link to shows Hardy’s test nowhere needs fractal geometry to calculate; Indeed the ratio you mention was calculated with classical Euclidean geometry. Thus, of itself, El Naschie’s numerical coincidence of producing this number doesn’t actual demonstrate he is informing you about reality.

Hassan Selbi on July 9, 2012 1:46 am : “You (sic) reasoning is also based on the incorrect premise that a court rule (sic) is always right.”

Statistically, a great percentage of court rulings are mostly correct. Thus any one court ruling has the presumption of being correct. That is my working hypothesis because lots of time was invested by El Naschie to commission this result. As of yet, nothing has case doubt on the court’s decision. It appears, having no facts on your side, that you nakedly assert the greatness of El Naschie and imagine that everyone that doesn’t share this opinion is part of some conspiracy. This is ludicrous and unconvincing.

Hassan Selbi on July 9, 2012 1:46 am : “your statement “?.. they echo the criticisms of some blog is explained most simply if both are based on reports of a single reality” in fact cast doubts on the court and its decision.”

I have taken your suggestion to read the blog and I have come to the conclusion that no, it doesn’t cast doubt on any part of the court decisions. The El Naschie Watch blog frequently has objectionable tone and some entire posts seem rooted in misogyny. But a large part of its criticism of El Naschie seems completely based in empirical fact. The court decision is immaculately reasoned and founded on fact and the opinion of impartial experts. The judge is certainly a stranger to both El Naschie and Mr. Quirin Schiermeier. Indeed, Schiermeier does not seem to have known about El Naschie prior to November 2008.

Judges, scientists, journalists and editors have to maintain scrupulous standards in their freedom from self-delusion and reasoning. By his own admission, El Naschie considers such matters unimportant when applied to himself — (paragraphs 109, 195; see also paragraphs 112 – 118, 161 – 205).

My apologies to Peter Howell, but I can’t find anything objectionable about your posts.

lsd on July 10, 2012 1:33 am

“Peter Howell on July 9, 2012 8:36 am

What has Iraq to do with science?”

Probably the “zionist conspiracy” :D

Rössler, you can be proud of your anti-semitic crackpot friend.

Otto E. Rössler on July 10, 2012 4:13 am

Can this blog not return from politics to science?

(Science for once is infinitely more important than politics.)

Pinky, the armageddon-mouse on July 10, 2012 11:00 pm

Mr. Rössler!

You wrote: “Science for once is infinitely more important than politics.”

This is nonsense!

Your “Austrian friend” Konrad Lorenz was doing so called “science” in accordance with his racist views and active Nazi-membership. See especially the period he worked in Königsberg/Królewiec.

It is a pity that in the after-war period there was no “K. Lorenz-watch”, instead many sycophants supported this criminal.

You never answered any comment on this issue. It is embarrassing for you, isn’t it?

Pinky, mouse in regular occupation

Tom Kerwick on July 11, 2012 1:36 am

Earlier comments here: http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….1#comments

Derrick on July 11, 2012 4:10 am

This is in answer to the blog by Quirin Schiermeier ’ I was sued for libel under unjust law’ posted in Nature. The blog is not accepting any comments that are critical of him. Hi Quirin, I would love to believe you but I have just washed my hair or was it something similar which Betty Davis said. Seriously I have great difficulty in believing your version of the story. Oh dear. In fact lots and lots of oh dears. You want us to believe that your company has spent 2.5 million bucks to save the neck of — excuse me– a minor journalist on its staff. More generally what you have written contradicts even the judgment which Nature/McMillan bought for this horrendous sum of money. El Naschie has your witness statement published together with his closing statement as well as Natures letter in which they ask him to withdraw his case in return for certain favors which he has rejected in a sarcastic letter befitting Tom and Jerry. What I do find totally irresponsible is to spend this horrendous amount of money pretending it has a lot do with the reform of libel law. Not even a toddler would buy this. If the Defense of Nature had any merits except the million dollars of Nature/McMillan you wouldn’t have had to wait for three years. The media Judge who initially resided on this case towards the end needed seven months to turn the trial into something else in order to be able to give Nature/McMillan the verdict they wish. It is extremely difficult for anyone to believe anything else. Your editor in chief Dr. Philip Campbell who allowed you to publish your article in the first place refused to appear in Court as a witness. This for me is the ultimate proof that your story cannot be true. Of course I use the word proof in the same loose manner you use it. If you want us to give you some credibility then why haven’t you spoken about the man who commissioned you to write the defamatory article in the first place, Dr. John Baez from Riverside University in California. Why didn’t you say that he commissioned you to write this article as a revenge for his publisher and collaborator Dr. Renate Loll from Utrecht University who published the article behind the entire defamation in Scientific American in 2008. If you want anybody to believe you then you should explain your relationship with Christoph Drosser who put you in contact with the proprietor of an infamous blog called elnaschiewatch. Libel law in England is very clear. The onus is on you not on El Naschie that the bags of lies you have published are true. For 2.5 million bucks Nature/McMillan was able to change the law for you. The judge has said they are not judging anything related to the scientific quality of El Naschie’s work and yet in the same breath they quote what another associate of Renate Loll namely Dr. Neil Turok of the Perimeter Institute has said about his work. Amazingly Neil Turok is the boss of Renate Loll and a man deeply involved with Nature apart of financial scandals connected to the Perimeter Institute in Canada. You know very well that initially there was another Judge residing on this case who was removed and replaced by Judge Sharp. The first Honorable Judge was removed because of the way he criticized Nature for its willingness to spend millions on basically nonsense instead of simply apologizing. All this hoopla about libel reform is just a smokescreen which might be credible in Bavaria where you come from but will not convince us in Florida where I come from although we may both be slightly backward. On the whole good try but I cannot believe you. Best of luck with your next defamation case.


Peter Howell on July 11, 2012 4:21 am

And your point is?

Otto E. Rossler on July 11, 2012 6:53 am

Dear Pinky, my admired youthful mouse:

I met Konrad Lorenz in 1966, and he was a very helpful, maximally kindly person, and a caring thinker. We together realized that “metabolic adaptation” (Darwin) has a twin, “positional adaptation,” which later gave rise to the brain equation.

There is a book 12 years after his death, by two people hating him because of his Nazi party membership past, Taschwer and Föger’s “The Other Side of the Mirror” of 2001. They had never met him. The same authors 2 years later, after studying his literary remains, wrote a second book about him, titled “Konrad Lorenz — A Biography.” It reveals many things I had not known; including the fact that he had used a gun once in his lifetime, which he had not told me (and which you will find to have been brave if tragic). And also how he died. They had been moved in their thinking and their hearts by merely studying documents left over from a person they had started out hating. And of course he had been and remained a pseudo-Darwinian idiot in some elements of his thought; which fact might explain why my proposal to turn mirror-competent bonding hominids into persons, arisen in discussions with him, always appeared “too difficult to understand” to him. (But not to his friend Gregory Bateson who told me he was happy about “Konrad’s Nobel.”) Here the whole of humankind has now proved for 37 years (the date of the main publication) that it is equally prejudiced as Lorenz was. Margaret Howe is the only exception so far (she was earlier and not allowed to continue – otherwise she might have converged on using the bonding drive as the heart-opening key). To date, almost all of humankind is mistreating young children in allegedly humane collective institutions, not wanting to hear that this is the reason for the alarming global increase in the rate of childhood autism. René Spitz – brought to my attention by Konrad Lorenz – and Mary Ainsworth and John Bowlby appear to be forgotten.

Forgive me my love for people and sperm whales. And magpies… When I say that the planet should check a proof of a so far unrecognized deadly danger, I mean it. It would be great if there were a single mouse on the planet whose heart I could move.

Tawfiq Sabbar on July 11, 2012 11:32 am

Dear Prof Peter Howell, This post was originally intended to discuss CERN and the Higgs. However, I still find it appropriate to give you here my version of an answer to your question in connection with Derrick’s comment since Quirin Schiermeier has also touched upon the subject of mini back holes and his blog is not accepting any comments not in his favor.

To put plainly, the arguments raised by Derrick here show that there is a conspiracy at work in this libel case. This is most probable since Derrick’s arguments seem to be supported by documents that have been published. In the same connection, it is legitimate to ask: What are the ethical grounds in current British law for judging a “factual, true and correct but defamatory” article as “responsible journalism” and of “high order of public interest”, especially when published by a prestigious scientific journal like Nature outside its speciality, in an area of news reporting that hasn’t been covered by this same journal before?


rpenner on July 11, 2012 12:39 pm

Derrick wrote: “Libel law in England is very clear. The onus is on [the Nature journalist QS] not on El Naschie that the bags of lies [QS] have published are true.”

Wrong tense. The onus _was_ indeed on QS and Nature. Now the matter has been decided. Indeed, El Naschie’s case was so bad that El Naschie wanted out of the case, but refused to agree that Nature was entitled to its lesser legal costs of the time. That’s the first principle of English law — the loser pays. In the US Federal system, even completely meritless parties typically only end up billed for their opponents photocopying.

Derek wrote: “Your editor in chief Dr. Philip Campbell who allowed you to publish your article in the first place refused to appear in Court as a witness. This for me is the ultimate proof that your story cannot be true.”

Citation required. It is entirely normal for persons unconnected with a dispute to seek to avoid to appear as witnesses. It is up to the judge to decide if they are in fact unconnected. Whatever the nature of this alleged “refusal” it does not demonstrate anything. Your inference skills are not up to par with the successful physics undergraduate.

Derek wrote: “The first Honorable Judge was removed because of the way he criticized Nature for its willingness to spend millions on basically nonsense instead of simply apologizing.”

Citation required. Judges hand off cases to other judges for a wide variety of reasons. Indeed, an earlier ruling of the previous judge nowhere sides with El Naschie. ( http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1468.html paragraphs 6, 9, 17, 21, and especially paragraph 25. )

Tawfiq Sabbar wrote : “This post was originally intended to discuss CERN and the Higgs.”

Mendacious bloviation. You have no first hand information on either.

Derrick wrote : “he commissioned you to write this article as a revenge“ Tawfiq Sabbar wrote : “there is a conspiracy at work”

Parsimony again suggests that the unifying principle is El Naschie’s behavior and the social dynamic of crank magnetism. Derek and Tawfiq Sabbar have not argued for the existence of collaboration and conspiracy — they have merely asserted it without details.

Tawfiq Sabbar wrote: “supported by documents that have been published.”

Ah. Citation required.

Pinky, the armageddon-mouse on July 11, 2012 11:23 pm

Mr. Rössler!

It’s irrelevant if he was a „very helpful, maximally kindly person“ to you. All you wrote do not get to the decisive point.

Lorenz was a member of the „department for racial policy“ of the NSDAP and NOT just a „follower“, who was forced and therefore … being a poor victim himself. This would be corruption of historical facts.

Lorenz never ever revoked his racist statements which were warranting the mass murders of the Shoa. Lorenz was not just a „pseudo-Darwinian idiot“. He supported the mass killings of Nazi-fascism with pseudo-science. We are not talking about just being rude to other people and loving dogs or geese instead.

In 1988 he said in Munich: „Es zeigt sich, daß die ethischen Menschen nicht so viele Kinder haben und die Gangster sich unbegrenzt und sorglos weiter reproduzieren.“ Und: „… gegen Überbevölkerung hat die Menschheit nichts Vernünftiges unternommen. Man könnte daher eine gewisse Sympathie für Aids bekommen.“

The essence translated: „Gangsters have more children than ethical people“. You can guess who he thinks of describing „gangsters“ and „ethical“ people. AND: „Nothing is done against overpopulation – one could get sympathy for AIDS.“

I would say „lifeboat bizarre“.

Pinky, having sympathy for Inglourious Basterds

Peter Howell on July 12, 2012 12:32 am

Well, Roessler’s father too was a leading member of the Nazi party (since the early 1920s, long before people were ‘forced’ to join). So no wonder Roessler is having sympathy with Lorenz, (un)conscious agreement with common believes.

Peter Howell on July 12, 2012 12:34 am

To all of El-Naschie’s sockpuppets: the conspiracy you talk about is called science and common sense.

hdc on July 12, 2012 1:14 am

This Rössler-crackpot is not even up to date concerning research in autism as shown in his repeated unfounded nonsense. And of course again there must be a conspiracy or kind of to explain that his revolutionary “therapy” was never applied.

Concerning El Naschie it is allmost amusing how his sock puppets try to hide the facts about the case.

Otto E. Rossler on July 12, 2012 1:41 am

Dear Pinky:

You do not get the point. Virtually no one in Germany could foresee the insane turn towards the holocaust before May 1941. This lack of clairvoyance at the time is, of course, no solace at all.

Currently, however, you are indirectly supporting an ongoing, recognizable (but refused to be disproved), attempt at what C. Andy Hilgartner calls “panbiocide.”

This blindness of our esteemed Pinky – and a good part of humanity – is, unfortunately, indeed a recognizable consequence of the last world crime, the Shoa.

Can we really not do anything in order that the most tragic trait of humankind – to eradicate humankind – finds an end, my dear Pinky?

Please, do support my call for a single visible scientist saying why he is opposed to the offered proof of danger being dismantled so the planet can breathe freely again.

And thank you for your engagement.

PassingByAgain on July 12, 2012 2:51 am

“Virtually no one in Germany could foresee the insane turn towards the holocaust before May 1941.”

you are as ignorant of history as you are of physics (or perhaps you are a closet Nazi). Try to google “Kristallnacht”…

a distant star on July 12, 2012 2:53 am

What do you expect of the son of a fanatic anti-semitic Nazi?

Sabbar Tawfiq on July 12, 2012 3:38 am

Nature’s website blogs related to the libel case are currently not accepting any comments not in their favor. Not even those those that try to discuss the libel article in the most civilized way for an impartial discourse. Such comments have actually been censored lately. What does this show? So, excuse me for a while to qoute the following from their latest editorial about the libel case:

” … the antiquated libel laws of England and Wales, which contributed to making El Naschie’s feeble claim so difficult and expensive to fight.”

I find this statement very difficult to by, and I have the feeling that many sensible impartial people may probably do the same. It is the unsubstantiated claims in the Nature libel article which made the case difficult for the defendants to defend. And the long time that the case has taken is a result of change of judges for one reason. This change of judges, is possibly indicative of some backdoors pressure that has been excreted on the court. This all reminds me of the corrupt judicial systems in some third world countries. But to happen in a top country of law and justice such as Britain is a real shame.


Otto E. Rossler on July 12, 2012 4:20 am

Please, my dear friends, does anyone have any idea how to dispel the danger?

a distant star on July 12, 2012 4:34 am

the judgement proves very clear that the only claims without substance were the claims of El Naschie. natures claims have been proven to be correct and true.

the article written by QS is an extraordnary example of good journalism, highlighting scientific misbehavior.

a distant star on July 12, 2012 4:43 am

“It is the unsubstantiated claims in the Nature libel article which made the case difficult for the defendants to defend.”

this is obviously not the case as everyone can see by reading the quite detailed judgement. In some way it is quite amusing how the sock puppets of El naschie try to change the facts here…

bTW, another sock puppet claimed that El naschie had published the statement of QS as well as his closing speech…interestingly it can be found nowhere…



Sabbar Tawfiq on July 12, 2012 8:06 am

Dear Friends: The “quite detailed judgement” this star is referring to is the judgement by a court that seems to have been corrupted by NPG and its connections pressure to save its reputation whatever the cost on the part of Britain and its judicial system. Reading this very detailed judgement report this star is referring to, you can see for yourselves how the devil lies in these details and their wording which has taken very long time to achieve and for this purpose. For, how come there is no positive point on the side of the claimant whatsoever, which is in contradiction to many statements by the earlier judge Mr Eady who has been replaced for mysterious reasons!!!

P.S. The earlier statements of judge Eady have been published. See earlier comments please.


a distant star on July 12, 2012 8:16 am

It is not possible to change the truth by inventing nonsenical conspiracy theories like “the judgement was corrupted” .

Nothing has been published before completely…there were a sock puppet referring to something but the complete statement as well as the circumstances were not mentioned. on the other side, reading about that in the judgement again reveeals again the lies of the sockpuppets here.

a distant star on July 12, 2012 8:43 am

And I assume here that the reasons for the change of the judge are less myterious as the sock puppet here suggests.

Sabbar Tawfiq on July 12, 2012 9:11 am

Dear Friends: You see now how this “Jason sock puppet” star admits that changing Judge Eady was only “less mysterious” and not totally mysterious. You also see how this enthusiasm and speedy Gonzales style of these kinds of “Jason sock puppets” in trying to falsify by all unethical means any impartial statement of fact that can be made testifies without doubt to the connection between this elnaschiewatch blog and this case.


rpenner on July 12, 2012 1:32 pm

a distant star on July 12, 2012 8:43 am : “I assume here that the reasons for the change of the judge are less myterious as the sock puppet here suggests“ Sabbar Tawfiq on July 12, 2012 9:11 am : “[a distant star] admits that changing Judge Eady was only “less mysterious” and not totally mysterious”

Native English speakers recognize that “a distant star” is rejecting your argument from ignorance, not supporting it. This is why the 2008 Nature article was necessary, because anything short of baldly calling El Naschie a meritless failure would fall on deaf ears.

Sabbar Tawfiq, I am still waiting for you to support your claims with fact-based argument. If it wasn’t for Hassan Selbi’s post on the early page, I would not have known which “Jason” you meant.

Otto E. Rössler and Hassan Selbi, you have also made unsupported claims about the Royal Society and El Naschie’s publications. Please provide support for said claim that every member of the Royal Society may accept any paper for publication. Please provide a specific citation of a paper where El Naschie actually coherently describes E-infinity theory — the reference Dr. Marek-Crnjac could not provide (paragraph 42). If you cannot support your claims, perhaps you should retract them. Unlike Nature in the middle of the lawsuit, I will not charge you for retracting unevidenced claims.

Peter Howell, in that you have not said anything objectionable, may I ask a personal question? Do you like blue cheese? Recently, I have become fond of Bleu des Basques. Cheers.

Robert Ink on July 12, 2012 3:52 pm

To whom it may be comncerned: It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. — William G. Mcadoo But it’s hella fun to try.

And, brevity is the soul of wit.

hdc on July 12, 2012 10:16 pm

@rpenner: concerning the royal society, it should be stated that neither Rössler nor El Naschie are fellows of the RS, so Rösslers “argument” does not even apply here even if it would be correct.

Otto E. Rossler on July 13, 2012 12:56 am

“But it’s hella fun to try. ” I liked that one. When, then, does no one start?

hdc on July 13, 2012 1:02 am

You have not even understood the comment, poor Rössler.

O course it was done already. It is irrelevant whether you with your limited knowledge and lowest scientific standards accept it or not.

Otto E. Rossler on July 13, 2012 1:16 am

hdc fails to give the evidence and hides his name from the world. I find that combination cute. hdc on July 13, 2012 1:47 am

You have shown several times that you do not care about evidence when shown to you,. either because you are really stupid or because you follow your personal dogma of circular reasoning meaning that your “result” must be correct because it is in contrast to existing proven knowledge and can therefore in principle not be disproved — you are simply ruling out the possibility of being wrong.

BTW, Rössler, you were asked to give evidence for your claim concerning the Royal society…



Otto E. Rossler on July 13, 2012 2:37 am

“hdc is a liar.” Please, deliver at last.

hdc on July 13, 2012 2:56 am

Deliver the evidence. And then go to the old comments sections, a lot of people here have shown that you are utterly wrong, for exmple TRMG, passingby and many more…

You never disproved anything of that. Never. You simply prefer to fall silent, change the topic, change to the personal level, or start again from the very beginning. You are simply a dogmatic ignorant person, fulfilling all the criteria of a crackpot. Thats all.

And now deliver the evidence for your claim about the Royal society. If you can not, you are again a proven liar, a man who make things up all the time and speculates no one would take the effort to check the claims…

Robert Strayer on July 13, 2012 3:16 am

Back to science please.

I’ve read in an earlier post (possibly the earlier part of the comments to this blog that is now archived on the link given by the administrator) how the Cantorian fractal space-time theory, which is causing much of the contoversy here and elswhere, explains the deep reasons behind the appearance of the golden ratio in QM; the appearance that was first demonstrated in Stayer’s analysis of Hardy’s test. I also heard somebody in this blog saying that there is no need for fractal geometry or Cantorian fractal space-time geometry or ideas to explain this fact, and that the explanation is straightforward and can be done on purely Euclidean geometrical grounds. Was it Robert Penner who said this or somebody else? Anyway, there is here a real challenge to anybody who said this. Let him show us in a clear and concise way how can he do this, or where has he seen this before. It is clear that what is required is not to show that this golden ratio arises in Hardy’s test from a conventional quantum mechanical treatment. That is an acceptable matter of fact now as has been shown by Styer. What is required is to explain the real physical and mathematical reasons that are at play behind this fact, no more and no less.

And, please let us stay on the scientific side again for humanity’s sake.


hdc on July 13, 2012 3:27 am

The next sock puppet of the numerology crackpot.

Robert Strayer on July 13, 2012 4:01 am

Please listen to me hdc for a while. For your information I do not totally believe in the numerology that has been possibly done in this business and I am still critical of it. But you have to give people the chance to answer to the challenge raised in the way they like. Let us see what the answer is. It is highly possible that there may exist an explanation within the realm of Euclinean geometry as Robert Penner said, and that will put this purely scientific issue to rest, and also serve the cause of explaining that to people in the dark at present.


Tom Kerwick on July 13, 2012 4:11 am

If I can attempt to swerve the commentary away from a meta-crackpottery debate back to the topic of Prof Rossler’s post: Have the finds in relation to the Higgs Boson been worth the cost? One will concede that the industry has provided employment to thousands for decades and fueled infrastructual advancements which resulted in secondary products such as the internet over which we communicate, but will a greater knowledge of the Higgs in itself and a more complete understanding of the standard model provide any advantages to humanity? What will further investment achieve?

It is a question of great relevance, not for whether or not the LHC should continue to operate, as running costs are relatively low compared to what has already been invested in it?—?but on whether the International Linear Collider would be worth the investment to construct and operate? Have particle physicists had their day in the sun with the Large Hadron Collider? Is it time to weigh up the financial cost.…

I understand Otto’s request was to discuss the cost of risk?—?though we could talk in circles forever about the cost of alleged risk (or no risk) and get nowhere, but the financial cost is a more tangible metric… It is a societal question?—?as it is the tax payer who ultimately foots the bill?—?not the nobel laureates.… Where will the kick back be coming from?

bernd on July 13, 2012 7:08 am

Yes Robert, politics is important for those who like to sell journals. I like to talk about and learn about the Higgs Ratio and the Golden Boson or vice versa. What about a new discussion dear Otto?

hdc on July 13, 2012 7:18 am

If you look carefully at the content of Ottos original post above you find nothing like science but politics. There is nothing abut the Higgs?—?only the usual quite political/personal Otto-nonsense.

bernd on July 13, 2012 8:11 am

Well, he is the boss of this S&M club here.

rpenner on July 13, 2012 9:24 am

Tom Kerwick?—?construction of the LHC required development of new equipment and new ways of networking computers together. It required the maturity of international cooperation. You say “cost” but I see “investment.”

Robert Strayer?—?There is a close link between Euclidean geometry of the plane and the mathematics of complex numbers as used in quantum mechanics. Hassan Selbi on July 8, 2012 6:37 am provided a link to a purely quantum mechanical calculation which involved no “fractal geometry” or “Cantorian fractal space-time theory” but instead complex arithmetic based on an angle chosen for it’s Euclidean geometric connection to the golden ratio. p_r = cos^2 ( angle/2 ) = 1/golden ratio (between equations 10 and 11 on page 8). The reasoning is clear and are based on the axioms of quantum mechanics without any “fractal” concepts, which are?—?at best?—?superfluous.

You can find Hassan Selbi’s post and its quite visible URL on the previous page of comments that Tom Kerwick has linked to.

Bernd on July 13, 2012 9:43 am

RPenner– I guess that both considerations are related but one could be formulated more general while containing the other.

Robert Strayer on July 13, 2012 10:29 am

Prof Robert Penner: You seem to have misunderstood the whole issue of the emergence of the golden ratio in Hardy’s test of QM. No body said there is a problem in this type of calculation you are citing which is purely quantum mechanical and involves complex arithmetic. But what I understood is that this emergence of the golden ratio in this way has left Styer, and possibly others, perplexed and in need of a deeper explanation. In other words, this has rang a bell and Styer was begging for an explanation of this emergence of the golden ratio in Hardy’s test of QM which may hide some deeper reality underneath. As Hardy’s test of QM is directly related to entanglement, this deeper reality which Styer indirectly pointed at should have strong reflections on understanding the strangeness of quantum mechanical entanglement, which is archytypal of all strangeness in quantum mechanics that the original title of Styer’s book testifies to. In other words, what Styer was after is an explanation of this emergence of the golden ratio in Hardy’s test of QM outside the realm of the conventional quantum mechanical calculations using complex numbers and Euclidean geometry that he presented in the addendum to his famous book and you are citing here. It seems that what Hassan Selbi was pointing out is the recent observation within the Cantorian fractal geometric approach to QM that the emergence of this ratio in Hardy’s test of QM is a direct cosequence of this Cantorian fractal geometry, a geometry which also explains the otherwise very strange entanglement phenomena, that are really perplexing and very strange if looked upon through an Euclidean geometric eye and complex arithmetic, as it is the case in conventional formulations of QM.

I hope that Prof Robert Penner gets the point right this time, and show the readers of this blog who are interested in science, where if any, has he seen another explanation for this emergence of the golden ratio from a deeper reality as legitimately asked for by Styer.

Robert Strayer on July 13, 2012 10:58 am

Prof Robet Penner: Please go the link

http://www.scirp.org/fileOperation/downLoad.aspx?path=JQIS20.….pe=journal

where you can find what looks to be a simple presentation of the idea how the Cantorian fractal geometry as a model for quantum mechanical reality can explain this emergence of the golden ration in Hardy’s test of QM for the first time without resorting to complex arithmetic in a Euclidean geometric setting that suffers from ambiguities as far as physical reality is concerned. There may exist other more detailed presentations of this same idea and its reflections on the explanation of the strangeness of the entanglement phenomena in the quantum world. Compare this with Styer type of calculations as presented in the addendum to his book. Please take your time to not misunderstand again, as I am not saying that these Cantorian fractal geometric calculations may not have some still existing ambiguous parts that need to be resolved. But in all cases, I do not see any numerics in these very simple probabilistic arguments based on a fractal geometry that encompasses the golden ratio in its main substratum.


rpenner on July 13, 2012 11:54 am

The number 1/golden ratio is one of the simplest possible irrational numbers with continued fraction representation: [0,1,1,1,1,1.…]. Likewise it is a root of one of the simplest quadratic equations: x = 1÷(1 + x). Thus it doesn’t need an “explanation for this emergence”?—?it’s endemic in all of geometry and algebra.

Indeed Styer himself derives the above quadratic term as a factor of the unnumbered cubic equation between 9 and 10 on page 8. The math is so pedestrian Styer feels no need to number it. See this for yourself:

Start with 1÷(1 + x) = x Multiply both sides by (x +1): 1 = x^2 + x Subtract 1 from both sides: 0 = (x^2 + x?—?1) Multiply both sides by (x?—?1): 0 = (x?—?1)(x^2 + x?—?1) So of course the same quadratic term has the same roots. Nothing mysterious about that.

In the paper this cubic comes from the geometry of maximizing the quantity p in equation 7. The (non-fractal) geometry of this can be seen by supplying “plot (1 –x)(1 –y) x y / ( 1?—?x y ), {x,0,1}, {y,0,1}” to Wolfram Alpha. Likewise, this can be solved with: “maximize (1 –x)^2 x^2 / ( 1?—?x^2 ), {x,0,1}”

Indeed, that’s all Styer was trying to do?—?“there’s a cute result that comes from asking what happens if we look for the experiment that gives the largest possible value for p” (page 7)

Many thousands of pages of numerological claptrap have been written about the “significance” of the golden ratio showing up in various places. It’s everywhere when you have simple equations and the coincidence of it showing up again and again speaks to those with little math experience. Here, Robert Strayer and M. S. El Naschie do not distinguish themselves from this company.

There is no “there” there.

Robert Strayer on July 13, 2012 12:21 pm

Robert Penner: Your are invited then to read the book by Alexy Stakhov, “The Mathematics of Harmony”

http://w3.gazi.edu.tr/~naimtuglu/The%20Mathematics%20of%20Harmony/Book.pdf

hoping that you will look at it this time not with your pure mathematical eye that is leading you to this confusion.

Robert Strayer on July 13, 2012 1:21 pm

rpenner: The simple very well-known purely mathematical presentation that you give here, which only touches on the surface, is going to be reported to Styer to see what he says about such opinion from his physics point of view, and whether it gives any extra information in the context he has clearly stated about the golden ration in Hardy’s test of QM in the addendum to his book. You will be informed about his opinion, hopefully on this blog, when he sends any reply and you are still interested. In the meantime, please read other two comments in this blog about the same issue, that are still waiting moderation probably because they contain links to external webpages, when they are released.

Bernd on July 13, 2012 1:28 pm

Dear RPenner:

The golden ratio can have a very tricky nonlinear origine, maybe if a rather complex system meets some symmetry points. Did you want to show “It’s everywhere when you have simple equations and the coincidence of it showing up again and again speaks to those with little math experience.” ?

Should 38. 50 points for “the golden ratio showing up in various places”. be added to the historic crackpot index at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html ?

Then Baez and probably even some nobel laurates may get at least 50 points, see e.g. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/golden.html

I don’t know if El Naschie’s work makes sense. Mabe it falls into this category you propose. But there is also some counter-evidence simply due to its popularity. Can you show mathematically that El Naschie was misusing the Golden Ratio for his purposes (that I don’t know either)?

Bernd

Robert Strayer on July 13, 2012 1:36 pm

Blog Admin Mr Kerwick: Please release my two comments posted tn reply to rpenner that are still in the moderation queue. They do not contain any critical non-scientific material, and the links they cite only refer to pure scientific material published on Internet. Thank you.


Peter Howell on July 13, 2012 2:14 pm

@rpenner: not so much blue cheese?—?but red wine… ;-)

If Roessler could just bring ONE single real physicist here who endorses his ‘ideas’ (and no, Walter Wagner and Luis Sancho are not physicists!). But he can’t. So his claim that it needs just one to contradict him is (again) proven wrong?—?there is not a single scientist who supports him.

Now whom would you trust to look after your children?—?the millions of scientists not supporting Roessler, orRoessler, demanding in an almost fascist way that the world has to follow his sayings. Didn’t Tom Cruise just got a divorce because of being too close to this behaviour?

Otto E. Rössler on July 13, 2012 2:44 pm

Asking to be given the benefit of the doubt is being identified with fascism?

And: Would you really stop exuding prejudices if I mentioned to you all the good physicists who are on my side? I doubt it. But in my place you certainly would not mention them, too.

rpenner on July 13, 2012 3:18 pm

Robert Strayer, Thank you for proving my point. Equations 8?–?13 of El Naschie’s JQIS20110200003_85088149.pdf are a garbled relabeling of Styer’s equations on pages 7 and 8 as seen in Hassan Selbi’s earlier Hardy.pdf URL. The grossly incompetent bafflegab does not obscure that this is naked plagiarism from someone who is not competent to manipulate probabilities.

Here’s a hint: If p is the probability of something happening and (1-p) is the probability of something not happening, the probability of it happening and not happening is not (1-p)p, but instead zero because happening and not happening are not independent of each other.

This is the level of editorial (in)competence we’ve come to expect from the self-publishing clique that couldn’t even proof-read the abstract to this unscientific paper (two different symbols for the same number) or get the title of the PDF correct (“Quantum Entanglement as a Consequence of a Cantorian Micro Spacetime Geometry” vs. “Modelling the Financial Value of the Maroochy River to Property Values: An Application of Neural Networks”).

Peter Howell on July 13, 2012 10:55 pm

Roessler as usual refuses to give answer?—?because he cannot.

Robert Strayer on July 13, 2012 11:58 pm

The last comment by rpenner in the previous part of this blog has triggered me to read that PDF file. What I see is that rpenner is confused again, and confusing others, as he is naively reading and impartially reacting through his classical eye and his classical common sense. Read this excerpt from that PDF file carefully please: “Let us create the maximum local muddle possible resulting from denying classical common sense and calculate the probability of being all of the above at the same time …” till the end, and do not only cite parts of it.

rpenner is also invited to read further about non– classical probabilities in a fractal geometric setting. It is suggested that he reads for Tomasz Kapitiniak and his school and Tim Palmer, FRS as well. His classical reasoning and naive classical common sense will only lead him to confusion and to confuse others. This is similar to the confusion that classical physicists found themselves in at the turn of the last century when they faced the new quantum mechanical reality that was contradicting any naive classical common sense of the kind rpenner has fallen into here.


Tom Kerwick on July 14, 2012 2:46 am

Robert Strayer?—?your comment in the moderation queue is now released, above?—?though I thrashed the other as a duplicate post. Earlier comments here: http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….1#comments http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….2#comments

eq on July 14, 2012 3:07 am

“mentioned to you all the good physicists who are on my side?”

If there are so many high rank scientists on your side. mention them!

Chen on July 14, 2012 4:05 am

Non-classical probability as discussed here and which rpenner is denying belongs to fuzzy logic. Here is a link:

http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1.….cs_techrep

There is a close similarity between this fuzzy logic of the non-classical probability discussed above and fractals. See above link for more

Chen on July 14, 2012 6:04 am

Additional information for rpenner about the fuzzy probability logic that one should use in the example leading to the probability p(1-p) not being zero, even if one is talking about two occurrences of an event that are not independent. Please go to: http://www.du.edu/nsm/departments/mathematics/media/document.…./m0412.pdf There are many other places which discuss fuzzy logic and fuzzy probability also. This simple way of thinking about the joint probability of the occurrence of an event and its nonoccurence is naive when considering fuzzy statements related to measurements on fractals which are fuzzy by nature. The whole idea is that this fizziness is what models the quantum non-classical behavior. It seems that rpenner has forgotten that the probability dealt with here is non-classical as result of the essentially fuzzy statements that are natural in the fractal environment they are embedded in. This is the source of the confusion.


Bernd on July 14, 2012 6:34 am

But Hardy gets with the standard linear superposition of states and Entanglement given by standard boundary conditions his spooky results. Or correct me please. Why do we need the fuzzy description and fractals? Must some highly non-linear processes of this type operate beyond Quantum Mechanics or is it pure speculation?

Bernd

rpenner on July 14, 2012 10:07 am

Chen — your two links do not show what was required. El Naschie’s 2011 claim is about “transfinite” probability theory, not fuzzy probability theory. Likewise, Robert Strayer, my reading is more than complete enough.

El Naschie follows the part Robert Strayer quotes with: “Following the multiplication theorem or the intersection rule, the total entanglement probability would be P_1 = d_1 (1 — d_1) d_2 (1 — d_2)” — which does not follow from the axioms of transfinite set theory. (Indeed, if one takes El Naschie at his word, P_1 = 0, but there are reasons to not take El Naschie at his word.) The whole section is mendacious gibberish leading up to the wholly improper introduction of equation 11, which is identical to Styer’s equation 7 in his 2000 paper.

The actual multiplication rule of probability an event happening and not happening is the product of the event happening times the conditional probability of the event not happening conditioned on knowledge of the event happening. And from transfinite set theory, this latter probability is zero. Thus P(A∩A̅) = P(A)×P(A̅|A) = P(A)×0 = 0.

Chen, Robert Strayer, why do you attempt to defend the indefensible? Transfinite set theory is well-known, over 100 years old, and widely regarded as a foundation of nearly all mathematical thought (including fractals). If you are falling for this bosh, you can’t have advanced very far as mathematicians. And if you aren’t advocating for El Naschie on the basis of the merits of his papers, why are you even expressing opinions?

Rössler — you still owe us an explanation about your extraordinary claim about the rights of members of the Royal Society.

Tawfiq Sabbar — you still owe us a citation of where Justice Eady was removed from this case for his anti-Nature stance. I can’t even find evidence of the alleged anti-Nature stance.

Rober Strayer on July 14, 2012 10:45 pm

And the confusion of the naive classical way of thinking is still going on. Please read the derivations till the end. Go on to read the alternative derivation of the entanglement probability based on the transfinite fractal geometry. See how the golden ratio comes out again. This has also been discussed by others who got the same conclusions. This cannot be all coincidence as rpenner claims. Robert Strayer on July 15, 2012 1:32 am

And the confusion caused by this naive classical common sense goes on. Please cite the other part of the story and do not cite what you like and leave what you do no like about Hardy’s test and quantum entanglement. There are also calculations based on transfinite fractal geometry in that PDF file as well, and not only those based on the probability logic, which show how and why this golden ration emerges in quantum entanglement as depicted by Hardy’s test. These calculations have been confirmed by other people. Palmer also dealt with his explanation of quantum entanglement on the basis of his fractal geometric approach to QM, but he stopped short of explaining the (golden ratio)^5 probability because his fractal geometry lacks the details. As far as one knows, Palmer is still working on his approach and, in his opinion, sooner or later he will reach the same conclusion as that obtained from the transfinite geometric approach but from a different perspective. It is impossible for a person who cannot distant himself from personal matters to be impartial and discuss scientific matters on pure scientific basis. One has to remember that “The fear of God is the fount of wisdom” and discuss matters wisely and calmly away from this nervous style that may reflect personal conflicts for no clear reason but possibly being wrong in a scientific matter. Chen on July 15, 2012 5:08 am

“Fuzzy”, “noncommutive” and “transfinite” are all inked together in the present context. Please go to: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0102078v1.pdf which is an article by P. G. Sidarth, and read it carefully to see the intended meaning in the present case, and do not try to get things out of the present context. For more on the physics aspects and the physical, not pure mathematical, reasoning behind these concepts as used here ( i.e., fuzzy, noncommutative, transfinite, etc. ) please consult the magnificent books by P. G. Sidarth: 1– “Chaotic Universe” here http://books.google.com.eg/books/about/Chaotic_universe.html.….edir_esc=y and, 2-“Thermodynamic Universe” here http://books.google.com.eg/books/about/The_Thermodynamic_Uni.….edir_esc=y

Do not try to mix-up things on purely limited mathematical ground, as there is more physics here than the purely mathematical arguments you can imagine. Your “Quantum Geometry” may turn out at the end as no more than an emergent geometry on the surface of the deep down fuzziness and transfiniteness, which may turn out also to be the only physical reality. The future will show that ignoring this reasoning at present is the main cause behind the difficulty in formulating a successful mathematical theory in fundamental physics. On these grounds, and with the type of limited mathematical reasoning you are advocating, you also cannot be a successful mathematician when it comes to real fundamental explanations in physics. And in the same context, Laurent Nottale’s scale relativity theory is also an emergent manifestation of the deep down transfiniteness, and that has been shown by different people. However, in contrast to your “Quantum Geometry”, Nottales’s theory has been more successful since it has retained much of the fractal nature of the underlying transfinite geometry of space-time. Go and check that for yourself, but please again keep your prejudices out of the way.

Chen on July 15, 2012 5:34 am

It is also the appropriate place here to add that Tim Palmer, in his Proc. Roy. Soc. paper cited previously,

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/465/2110/3165.short

is justified in concluding that all attempts at unifying gravity with quantum physics, that have so far ignored the fractal nature of the geometry underlying QM, are possibly misguided. This statement of Palmer, which is very clear and transparent, was made in the same context used here.

Bernd on July 15, 2012 6:50 am

Thank you Chen. Everybody knows that theories ‘at the edge’ contain inconsistencies and weak proposals?—?including the standard model and string theory. Obviously El Nashie made something wrong?—?not only that he was colliding with big publishers. But what is so special about El Nashie’s work? Is it so far away from the (highschool) standard that only a few can follow? “Not even wrong?” Or is it trivially based on a over 100 year old theory that is irrelevant, not new, or was applied totally wrong? Ignoring technical and strategical errors, is at the core of his work a diamond or bullshit? Reading some hysteric blogs one could get the impression that it is even dangerous, which produces as a side effect a lot of promotion.


Peter Howell on July 15, 2012 9:08 am

Interesting how Chen, Strayer and others mixing up ‘prejudices’ with ‘already known facts’. Similar to Roessler, ignoring existing facts and evidence seems to be the only way to keep critics of their ‘new thinking’ away.

Chen on July 15, 2012 10:38 am

“Shall we now only eat blue cheese, or drink with it red wine?”

Excuse me, but only this last one is mine.

Chen on July 15, 2012 10:00 am

“Civilized society is perpetually menaced with disintegration through this primary hostility of men towards one another.”

“Just as no one can be forced into belief, so no one can be forced into unbelief.”

“Men are strong so long as they represent a strong idea; they become powerless when they oppose it.”

“Opposition is not necessarily enmity; it is merely misused and made an occasion for enmity.”

“What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books.”

“The first requisite of civilization is that of justice.”

These are not mine, but Sigmund Freud’s. Please feel free to understand them the way you like. There is no problem as far as I am concerned, even if you feel they are in your favour.

Chen on July 15, 2012 10:42 am

P.S. My last comment should be read after reading my earlier comment which is still in the moderation queue for some reason. I request blog Admin Mr Kerwick to kindly release it so that comments can be read in their right context. Thank you.

Tom Kerwick on July 15, 2012 11:38 am

Chen — your earlier comment is now released from the moderation queue. It seems our askimet auto-spam detector is misbehaving a bit of late. Nice quotes. Peter Howell on July 15, 2012 12:37 pm

All nice and good, but we have left the field of science and have entered the sunny fields of beliefs and dreams.

Bernd on July 15, 2012 4:14 pm

Dear Otto,

I guess you know Burra Gautam Sidharth very well. “We now consider the well known theory of Quantum SuperStrings and also an approach in which an electron is considered to be a Kerr-Newman Black Hole, with the additional input of fuzzy spacetime…“ … “The fuzzyness which is closely tied up with the non commutative feature is symptomatic of the breakdown of the concept of the spacetime points and point particles at small scales or high energies. …”

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0102078v1.pdf

You know that non-commutative operations and spins are fascinating me. If relevant or not, discussing something like this is somehow missing your approach.

Bernd

Otto E. Rossler on July 16, 2012 12:33 am

Dear Bernd: Thank you for the input. I have to confess that I always try to avoid to “multiply principles” in violation of Occam’s razor. New axioms are infinitely costly. Newton put it this way: “Hypotehses non finge” — I do not conjure-up hypotheses. It is the biggest sin in physics. It ultimately explains the new superstitious dogmatism (neoscholasticism) governing what was once a science. So I would ask you to say concretely which point in Sidarth’s (you know he has the most beautiful name of the world) work you want me to look at. Thank you very much. Otto

Otto E. Rossler on July 16, 2012 12:34 am

fingo — sorry.

Bernd on July 16, 2012 1:10 am

Please give me some hours.

Non-commutativity and non-abelian concepts should sharp any good razor.

Can’t remember any meaning of this name. My context is Hermann Hesse.

Chen on July 16, 2012 3:11 am

Also, all of us should learn a lesson from history, and the history of science in particular. There was no idea that has remained correct forever as possibly wrongly imagined at the time of its conception. This has been a trend in science and will remain. If so, then what remains is possibly that beautifully expressed in the core of this quote from Robert Rosen (1934−1988):

“Ideas do not have to be correct in order to be good; its only necessary that, when they do fail (and they will), they do so in an interesting way.”

This should convince us to keep very far away from being dogmatic; all of us. Thank you all.

Otto E. Rossler on July 16, 2012 3:25 am

I just sent this letter to Amnesty International:
— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — —

AI IS HUMANITY’S LAST CHANCE

I herewith declare as if under oath that I have published scientific proof that the currently running LHC experiment risks the planet on a short-term basis (5 years?) with a sizeable probability (5 percent?) to have it shrunk to a 2-cm black hole.

I add that no scientist stands up to contradict my proof.

Public evidence: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/07/2012759585764599.html (at minutes 9, 11, 12:35).

Bernd on July 16, 2012 5:58 am

Or did you thought about “sit hard” like insist/persist on/in your place/position/opinion as a symbol of protest?

Bernd

rpenner on July 16, 2012 6:40 am

Rössler — not even M.S. El Naschie believes you — He was just using you to help citations records of his journal. Your claims contradict themselves. You say proof, yet put question marks on numbers that could only come from calculations in that alleged proof. You never described how a black hole event horizon could simultaneously be “infinitely far away” and that the black hole can grow in finite time — the contradiction between the two surely demonstrates that you have misunderstood GR. As to the advanced hypotheses that allow black holes to form at the TeV scale, you have not demonstrated that any class of them is true based on evidence, because you are incapable of working with physics at that level.

Back in 2008, you told papers that black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months and you never presented that “chaos theory” calculation. You are the boy who cried wolf — the pseudomathematician who cried theorem.

rpenner on July 16, 2012 6:50 am

XKCD on “winning” an argument :

http://www.xkcd.com/1081/

eq on July 16, 2012 6:57 am

Yes, Rössler, where is the proof for your probabilities? Where is the mathematical rigorous proof of your nonsense at all?

Do you even know what is required for a theorem? or a scientific proof?

It does not seem so.

Otto E. Rossler on July 16, 2012 7:31 am

Oh no, dear Mr. rPenner: You confuse hard results and probable outcomes that are dependent on them. Only the former are “calculable facts”, the latter cannot be but soft estimates. Fortunately, though, non-scientists have much experience in handling probabilistic dangers, so they understand exactly what is meant. But thank you for also asking a scientific question.

No one — not even able craftsmen in the mathematics of general relativity like yourself — has ever tried, it appears to me, to follow in his or her mind what was known to Oppenheimer and Snyder in 1939 already: How a black hole is formed (our topic proper for which I am grateful).

There is this beautiful figure in Misner-Thorne-Wheeler’s “Talmud” (as my friend Art Winfree called it) of 1973 titled “Gravitation” — that heavy book published by Freeman — which makes it all clear (Fig. 25.5, p. 667): It shows the eigen-time curve for the falling astronaut to reach the horizon (say: 2 days), and the at first parallel but then flattening-out towards infinity time curve valid for outside observers like ourselves on earth.

The former curve looks like a quarter-circle or like the upper portion of a head, right-hand half. The second looks like a (half-) hat that fits exactly on the top but then flattens out into an infinitely extended horizontal rim — a mega-sombrero as it were: right?

Please, do me and the others of us who see this, the favor of kindly explaining in so many words what this latter curve means in your own opinion. Then I shall try to say what it means in my words.

And, please, be so kind as to omit cheap polemics as this is not a psychological but a scientific battle — right? (The fact that I am a so-called professor and you would no doubt deserve such a position much more should not stand in the way of our becoming the best friends by really talking tacheles with each other. Okay? Chen on July 16, 2012 7:36 am

Please allow me to cite some examples from the history of science witnessing to the claim above just to keep our dogma away again. I know for sure that most of you know this, but there may be some merit:

- Newton’s ideas on space and time have failed, but in a very interesting way leading to most of relativistic physics.  –  Classical physics has failed, but in a very interesting way again leading to most of quantum physics.  –  … .  –  … . So, there is no problem that String Theory and its cousins may have been found “Not Even Wrong” so far, and thus has failed again in a very interesting way that is leading now to new ideas. Leaving dogma and prejudice aside again, it is a suggestion that a “transfinite fractal non-commutative geometry” is a possible successor that warrants the efforts of many scientists investigating, correcting it here and there to give it a better shape if possible until it gives way to new more successful ideas. This again will surely be not the end of the story, but would be more in the interest of science than discussing non-scientific matters. And please remember, that “all great discoveries were made by mistake”, and the wheel will run whether we like or not.

rpenner on July 16, 2012 9:16 am

Acceptance of that physics (a diagram from MTW) rejects both your “gothic-R theorem” and the “Telemach theorem.” You can’t have it both ways.

Acceptance of GR, likewise rejects the speculative notion that TeV black holes could form at the LHC or that the TeV-scale black hole would be dangerous.

You are like a medical doctor recommending amputation for a “skin cancer” that is nothing more than dirt on your spectacles. When asked for a second opinion, you rub your lenses with a dirty rag and then pronounce that the cancer has spread to more limbs.

Bernd on July 16, 2012 9:28 am

Otto,

on page 668 the book is turning “from pure radial motion to motion endowed with angular momentum”. Here we have in Schwarzschild r simply w^2r^3 = M, the metric itself has no spin. The extention to a spinning metric is the Kerr metric as a generalization of the Schwarzschild metric (Wikipedia): “The Kerr metric (or Kerr vacuum) describes the geometry of empty spacetime around an uncharged axially-symmetric black-hole with an event horizon which is topologically a sphere. The Kerr metric is an exact solution of the Einstein field equations of general relativity …”

“According to the Kerr metric, such rotating black-holes should exhibit frame dragging, an unusual prediction of general relativity. Measurement of this frame dragging effect was a major goal of the Gravity Probe B experiment. Roughly speaking, this effect predicts that objects coming close to a rotating mass will be entrained to participate in its rotation, not because of any applied force or torque that can be felt, but rather because of the curvature of spacetime associated with rotating bodies. …“ The black hole is rotating in a hierarchy of rotations: galaxy, solar system, earth … . Thus one can be sure that the black hole itself will rotate. The resulting geodesic in-spiralaling has usually more than one rotation axes, there are many, a kind of higher-dimensional precession. Here non-commutativity of rotations already comes in producing highly non-linear effects (rotated rotations on curved and rotating surfaces) …

The probably that a black hole has no spin goes in reality to zero. Otto, this looks like chaos or even hyper-chaos, Mr. hyper-chaos.

Bernd

eq on July 16, 2012 9:30 am

Probaby Otto should click on rpenners name :D

Bernd on July 16, 2012 10:04 am

Otto, only the Higgs won’t rotate — or not?

rpenner on July 16, 2012 10:30 am

Bernd — one of the problems with a TeV-scale black hole is that there is a quantum of angular momentum, so for black holes below a certain side any finite amount of angular momentum is “too much” and you lose the event horizon — the “dangerous” feature of black holes.

eq on July 16, 2012 10:39 am

Where is the expert for skin cancer,.. ah, PROF. DR. Rössler ? :D Otto E. Rossler on July 16, 2012 11:15 am

Dear Mr. rPenner: Please, be so kind to reply to my question and do not escape into generalities that presuppose the question that you do not answer having been settled. Thank you. (The others are kindly requested to have patience in the meantime. Thank you.)

eq on July 16, 2012 11:18 am

I predict thnat Otto Rössler will be (again) the one escaping into generalities and psychological bullshit as soon as rpenner will point out (again, as many others have done before) the flaws in Ottos “theorems”.

Bernd on July 16, 2012 11:49 am

RPenner,

This is highly interesting that the angular momentum quantum comes in here. It is exactly the non-commutative part.

But do I understand you correct, you both are frustrated: one would like to have bigger black holes while the other is afraid of monster black holes?

Bernd

eq on July 16, 2012 12:09 pm

Rössler, you have not even proved that these black holes will become created and despite that you are taking about probabilities of 5% and similar.

You are not really in the position to ask questions here.. :D rpenner is correct when he calls you a pseudomathematician

Otto E. Rossler on July 16, 2012 1:00 pm

rPenner has been asked to remain in our dialog.

eq on July 16, 2012 1:13 pm

Rössler, you have not even proved that these black holes will become created and despite that you are talking about probabilities of 5% and similar.

Is that serious science?

You are not really in the position to ask questions here.. :D rpenner is correct when he calls you a pseudomathematician

Bernd on July 16, 2012 2:07 pm

eq: “You are not really in the position to ask questions here“ Really?

Tom Kerwick on July 16, 2012 4:38 pm

EQ– if I can take an angle at you, Rossler does not need to prove black holes can become created, this work has already been done by G&M, down to sub-keplerian rates of capture over the lifetime of the LHC. How Otto can extrapolate a probability of 5% from this when G&M did not is I agree bizarre though. Perhaps one means to suggest a 5% probability of confidence in the math that such MBH unexpectedly created would evaporate. Tho astronomical phenomenae & common sense suggest otherwise.

rpenner on July 16, 2012 7:19 pm

Tom — Actually, G&M did not prove black holes could be created. They made some parameterized assumptions that such black holes could be created and would not evaporate and would be neutral and maximally dangerous to favor the side that they opposed. This is what judges do when they are asked to grant summary judgement on a motion — they assume that the answers to open questions favor the non-moving party. Having made every assumption they could think of in favor of the hypothesis of scary TeV-scale black holes, they demonstrates that their existence (a question) was incompatible with being dangerous to human civilization (a separate question) and therefore persons that allege that they can both exist and be dangerous are in error.

The G&M black holes were, pound-for-pound, far more dangerous than TeV-scale classical GR black holes because classical GR black holes have radii at least a billion-billion times smaller and are predicted to have vanishing small capture cross-sections with Standard Model matter.

hdc on July 16, 2012 10:45 pm

How Otto can extrapolate a probability of 5% f

The funny point is, he can’t do that. He just made it up, invented some figures. There was never a serious calculation or model based of rational assumptions which could probably have explained the probabilities.

As G&M have definitely not proved anything about the creation of these black hole particles Otto still has to present a model or theory for that…So far he simply made things up, mixed it with a few sciency sounding buzzwords and calls the complete nonsense “science”. It is clear to everyone that no rational thinking scientist would ever waste his time with this crackpot-gish-gallop. There is no conspirancy or something like that against Otto, its simply his poor reasoning if his “theorems” cold even be called “reasoning”.



Bernd on July 17, 2012 1:07 am

Dear Otto,

my part is almost finished here. Curiosity will win and sooner or later produce black holes or space time turbulences with advanced concepts. This will take maybe 100 years. Then there will be a debate on a higher level. People will always need technologies to produce better propulsion types for many reasons. And they dream about gravitational waves and new type of weapons and how to make money with it. Maybe warp drives of the Alcubierre type will be the most facinating attractor. Space-time engineering will start at particle colliders and then move to laboratories. It could reach a similar status like nuclear engineering now.

Your intuition still works but obviously many years ahead of our technical skills. And if you would have those skills I could imagine that you won’t show them since you are already in the anals, you don’t need it like others. I guess you will stay a primary reference for this problem especially posthum.

Best, Bernd

Tom Kerwick on July 17, 2012 1:25 am

Richard — Perhaps my choice of words fail me more than my interpretation of G&M. Yes — G&M explored the hypothesis. In order to do so one could suggest they accept a probability that MBH can become created, though to explore the improbable outcome and to prove that the improbable can occur is quite different. I was suggesting that Otto does not have to prove MBH can be created to explore the improbable outcome, though to suggest a 5% risk he would, as otherwise he is touting a percentage risk built on that said improbable outcome… And that is if one chooses to agree with him in the first place — which of course we and the general consensus do not. Tom Kerwick on July 17, 2012 1:26 am

Earlier comments here: http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….1#comments http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….2#comments http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….3#comments

Otto E. Rossler on July 17, 2012 1:34 am

I appreciate rPenner’s and Bernd’s remarks.

Curiosity is something wonderful, right?

Hawking found a way to ensure that humankind does not get extinct even with too dangerous technologies — by expanding to other planets at a rate a bit higher than the self-generated extinction rate. (See his booklet “George’s Secret Key to the Universe”.)

What is unusual is only that an extant proof that a specific technology being pursued today is acutely dangerous to date in this sense — before the Hawking cascadehas ben brought into place — so that exactly the one thing that Hawking wants to spare us arises prematurely.

(Should I add that I would not be very happy with our planet going under even if a space-station on Mars were already installed?)

What I do not understand is rPenner’s resistance to being told what I have in mind: That of course the horizon s quite close if you dive in — but that, when you cross it, at that moment in the outside universe an infinity of time has already passed. In an infinite outer time, eithet the universe as a whole might have gone, or at least arbitrarily many encounters with other (unfinished) black holes must have occured. This fact most likely will have prevented you from entering yours. But you will not have been aware of these interfering cataclysms, because in your infinitely frozen state — time being retarded much more then for a frozen body on earth -, you will not experience being extinguished before crossing the horizon.

In other words: The outside time is what counts in the universe, not the allegedly equally valid time of the infalling observer. A false relativism has accrued here over the decades. With physically — not mathematically — false transformations being uncritically accepted.

eq on July 17, 2012 1:41 am

When Rössler is talking about probabilities of this magnitude he has to present a rational model behind it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so far there is nothing, absolutely nothing in Ottos texts which would substantiate his figures…

As said, he just made the numbers up…he invents them out of thin air…

On the other hand, if he builds on theories predicitng black holes he has to name these theories and, of course, also to accept their assumptions and predictions about these hypothetical particles (as these black hole particles are certainly not the same entities as the big ones in outer space). He does nothing like that what again shows he is nothing like a pseudoscientist or crank who loves to get public attention without being really interested in scientific discussions.

eq on July 17, 2012 1:44 am

otto, you are obviously still thinking in terms of a kind of absolute time frame.. and by the way, the inconsistencies pointed out already by Nicolai et al and recently by penner are still there. poor otto., eq on July 17, 2012 1:48 am

And please do not lie to the poublic when telling them you were still in agreement with Einstein or relativity theory. You are certainly not. Otto E. Rossler on July 17, 2012 1:57 am

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

No. Just someone who tries to understand. They are always simple if correct. Try it out: it is easy, dear eq.

eq on July 17, 2012 2:01 am

No, Otto. That extraordinary claims need extraordninary evidence is a basic rule of science. It applies to all great minds of the past, from Galileo to Einstein.

Do you really want to question that?

And now present the world your long hidden models about black hole creation and your calculations about probabilities and so on. or, to say it in different words, start to behave like a scientist!

Peter Howell on July 17, 2012 2:33 am

eq: Roessler hasn’t been acting as a scientist for his whole life, what makes you think he will start at the age of 72? Do you really think anyone will get a straight answer from Roessler? He spent almost 5 hours with Prof. Heuer from CERN, and refused to answer any questions or to give any evidence for his claims. He was demanding blind believe and following in his findings — and 99.9% of people look through that (but there are still the Bernds of the world, so good for Roessler).

I am off to my summer break, have a great summer everyone, I will check back in in September (but doubt that anything will be different here).

Peter

Bernd on July 17, 2012 3:19 am

Dear Otto,

My final comment: Regarding dangerous applications and curiosity it’s almost the same trouble with my kids. I see a natural sense for “the dog could bite” but not for “a bike could crash badly”. So there is for some kids (not all) a kind of maximum affinity and minimum respect approaching powerful tools that could get out of control. And once they think they have it under control (say, only 50% chance of an accident) they show it proudly to their friends.

Bernd

eq on July 17, 2012 3:19 am

“what makes you think he will start at the age of 72? ”

Nothing, I am aware of his record and past “achievements”…and after I and others have seen his performance here it is quite probable that he has stolen even the few papers in some way which meet scientific standards…It seems to be quite unlikely that a person who can not even derive the ridiculous equations of his Telemach nonsense has written papers containing differential equations on his own…

Otto E. Rossler on July 17, 2012 3:25 am

eq claims that “extraordinary claims” are defined by extraordinary inability to understand on the part of listener. I would disagree.

Peter Howell shows the planet, when saying a colleague “hasn’t been acting as a scientist for his whole life,” that he is not a psychiatrist. I wish him peaceful holidays to regain strength.

Otto E. Rossler on July 17, 2012 3:28 am

Dear Bernd: Yes. But children know there is someone in the background who holds a loving hand over them. Take care, all of you, Otto

eq on July 17, 2012 3:50 am

No, Otto, I simply repeated the basic law of science as it was valid since the beginning of modern science. Whoever claims to have found a revolutionary new result has the burden of proof. If someone claims to have a proof that mini black holes could be created with a high probability to eat the planet in short time he has of course to give evidence appropriate to this extraordinary claim…So far there is nothing like that from your side, there is nthing what could convince even a highschool student with basic knowledge of physcis and a sceptical mind.

So, we are sceptical, Otto.

When you are talking about probabilities of this magnitude you have to present a rational model behind it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so far there is nothing, absolutely nothing in your texts which would substantiate your numbers…if we have overseen it, show it instead of writing another empty text full of psychology like the last ones.

On the other hand, if you build on theories predicting microscopic black holes you have to name these theories and, of course, also to accept their assumptions and predictions about these hypothetical particles (as these black hole particles are certainly not the same entities as the big ones in outer space). You do nothing like that.

So, it was your turn from the beginning.

eq on July 17, 2012 4:02 am

It is by the way extraordinary that Otto spent 4 year with agitation and propaganda instead of dlivering the extraordinary evidence required.

Otto E. Rossler on July 17, 2012 4:30 am

I have proven all of my results, my dear eq. Your inability to understand interests no one as long as you are too cowardly even to reveal your name.

Only “liar physicists” — as far as their names are concerned — dare contradict me. Can you explain this fact to the poor lay audience of the planet?

Or — maybe — I am making up all these statements that appear here under your pseudonym myself, to stir up more interest among the fascinated-cum– frightened lay audience of the planet? Imagine: Not a single real physicist contradicts the danger that lies on the table. Is this not something?

Thank you for deepening the mystery so effectively!

Otto E. Rossler on July 17, 2012 4:40 am

A general remark: I never met Professor Heuer – he always refused to do so and disallows me to give a talk at CERN up to this day.

Now no response whatsoever comes from CERN to my statements on Aljazeera made as a substitute for the denied floor at CERN. Imagine another politician being accused of similar misbehavior!

eq on July 17, 2012 4:44 am

You have proven nothing and delivered nothing what could be called at least scientific on a rudimentary level.

reminder:

When you are talking about probabilities of this magnitude you have to present a rational model behind it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so far there is nothing, absolutely nothing in your texts which would substantiate your numbers…if we have overseen it, show it instead of writing another empty text full of psychology like the last ones.

On the other hand, if you build on theories predicting microscopic black holes you have to name these theories and, of course, also to accept their assumptions and predictions about these hypothetical particles (as these black hole particles are certainly not the same entities as the big ones in outer space). You do nothing like that.

So, it was your turn from the beginning.

And now show us your probability calculations.…or admit that you have just made them up what would be of high scientific standard. CERn would have to reply to that immediately, of course. :D

Peter Howell on July 17, 2012 4:59 am

A final one: Roessler is right, I meant Prof. Landua not Prof. Heuer. Doesn’t change the outce of their 2 meetings and the content of my posting.

BTW: we still wait for a single scientist to show up supporting Roessler.

Otto E. Rossler on July 17, 2012 5:04 am

I ask everyone to congratulate me for this new text by “eq.“ Who is he? Bets are welcome.

eq on July 17, 2012 5:07 am

And now kidding, Otto?

Still searching for a way to evade your scientific homework? :D

Otto E. Rossler on July 17, 2012 5:54 am

Disprove my published proof, dear mirror image! Everyon is getting interested: Is this just a show?

eq on July 17, 2012 6:24 am

It was evidently shown that your poor pseudoscientific nonsense is definitely not a scientific proof of something.

you have to show the calculations for probabilities like the 5%. You have stated such things in public so the world wants to see these models now.

Or were these warnings with 2/4/5/5/16/12,5264562% probabilities nothing like fraudulent behavior as there is nothing behind it?

The show is over, we want see!

Which theory are you using for the creation of black holes? What are these theories predicting about these black holes?

eq on July 17, 2012 6:27 am

Everyone is getting interested: Was Otto E. Rössler just lying to the public when throwing in values like the 5% allegedly derived from some well-founded calculations?

Was it all the big show of a notorious liar and crackpot?

Otto E. Rossler on July 17, 2012 6:30 am

An information of common interest:

I today got this letter from amnesty international: — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –

Subject: [Website: contact us] Call for help to AI and Mr. Salil Shetty Sent by: webmaster@amnesty.org Dear Professor Rössler

Many thanks for your e-mail. Unfortunately, your query appears to fall outside the remit of Amnesty International.

If you wish to check which kinds of cases AI can deal with, please check our Web page located at:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are

Sorry we are not able to be of further assistance in this matter. Kind regards Communications Team

— — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — -

eq on July 17, 2012 6:31 am

That is their polite way to say that they are not supporting the pseudo.science-based cases of notorious scaremongerers.

Otto E. Rossler on July 17, 2012 6:35 am

Another point of public interest:

Quote from Chad Orzel, “How to Teach Physics to Your Dog,” Scribner, NY 2009, p. 26: “The seventytwo-year gap between Einstein’s proposal [photons] and its final acceptance tells you something about the stubbornness of physicists confronted with a new idea. It can be as difficult to separate a physicist from a cherished model as it is to drag a dog away from a well-chewed bone.” http://dogphysics.com/Chapter_1_Sample.pdf

eq on July 17, 2012 6:47 am

Sweet, the Galileo-gambit again. What surprising.

The argument does not apply always, Otto! It proves nothing about your stuff…and by the way, while Einsteins work meets the criteria of good scientific work to support his claims this is evidently not the case concerning your “work”.

if Einstein would have thrown around numbers without any proof like you, Rössler, no one would talk about him today.

eq on July 17, 2012 6:57 am

Another point is that physicists apparent “stubbornness” is nothing else than sceptical thinking. In science no one believes simply because someone says this or that…it is obvious that Rössler wants to change this. He wants a new kind of science in which everyone believes him blindly without demanding to see the evidence.

rpenner on July 17, 2012 8:15 am

Tom — Thank you for that clarification. I didn’t want someone to take your summary of G&M at face value. Thanks for the change up from “Prof. Dr. Robert Penner” and similar addresses. No one’s yet guessed “Rachel”, “Rabbi” or “Zaphod” yet. One fellow I let call me “Charlie” for years — I just hoped that it wasn’t military slang for Viet Cong and he was on the edge of a breakdown. :)

eq — Thank you for introducing the term Gish gallop to describe the practice of making many claims and ignoring the need to support them in an invalid attempt to shift the burden of proof in a public forum.

Peter — Prof. Landua must have the patience of an Internet site moderator — or a saint.

Otto — Now that Peter has said you were right on one item of fact, could we get from you one of the following: 1) A clarification of the claim that members of the Royal Society evade peer review ( My readings tend to indicate that the Royal Society began the practice of editorial review “hundreds of years ago”. ) 2) A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months. 3) A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed? 4) An essay explaining how science is supposed to increase human knowledge if the burden of proof upon the claim maker is ignored. (Adoption of alternate rules have been tried and you wind up with multiple contradictory “authorities” and then religions wars of Pope vs. Anti-pope, etc.)

“Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens, 2003

How are we going to advance, Otto, when you are so very coy with assumptions, calculations and communicable reasoning, and so very promiscuous with authoritarian pronouncements? Should we just ignore you as Christopher Hitchens advocates?

eq on July 17, 2012 9:11 am

…as logic and science advocate… ;)

Otto E. Rossler on July 17, 2012 1:53 pm

Dear Mr. rPenner:

Quote: “the burden of proof upon the claim maker is ignored.”

This is untruthful. I gave a paper which contains all necessary proofs and more ( http://www.academicjournals.org/ajmcsr/PDF/pdf2012/Feb/9%20Feb/Rossler.pdf ) and not a single scientist with a recognizable name contradicts me. You seemed to make an exception appearing to be my esteemed colleague from physical chemistry. But then you copped out.

I am ready to reenter if you deliver at the point where you quit. Thank you very much. Otto E. Rössler

hdc on July 17, 2012 10:25 pm

You are simply a liar, Otto. The “paper” contains no proofs. It contains not even basic science, as tehre are no defintions, no clear derivations from clear assumptions. For example, for more than a year now you were not even able to derive your equations there from Einsteins original equations or to give at least sufficient definitions of the terms mentioned there. And now I have not even started to write about the inconsistencies and misunderstandings.…

Most important, not a single one of rpenners four points is anwered in this “paper” (it is not even published according to ethical standards)

To remind you, the four points:

Otto — Now that Peter has said you were right on one item of fact, could we get from you one of the following: 1) A clarification of the claim that members of the Royal Society evade peer review ( My readings tend to indicate that the Royal Society began the practice of editorial review “hundreds of years ago”. ) 2) A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months. 3) A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed? 4) An essay explaining how science is supposed to increase human knowledge if the burden of proof upon the claim maker is ignored.

You go to public with your numbers implying there would be a detailed calculation ot proof behind it — we want see it.

You go to public with scaring senarios about black holes again implying a rational calculation or theory behind it — we want to see it.

Come on!

hdc on July 17, 2012 10:27 pm

“I am ready to reenter ”

The joke of the day because you never entered in first place…your whole discussion strategy is to avoid any serious discussion as can be seen easily in the last 30 – 60 comments here.

eq on July 18, 2012 12:27 am

Otto Rössler said:

Otto E. Rossler on July 16, 2012 3:25 am

“I herewith declare as if under oath that I have published scientific proof that the currently running LHC experiment risks the planet on a short-term basis (5 years?) with a sizeable probability (5 percent?) to have it shrunk to a 2-cm black hole.”

note the “as if under oath”… quite strong statement. Therefore it is quite reasonable to ask, for example, for this proof of a “sizeale probability” (point two in rpenners list).

If he can not deliver it was probably more perjuring…

eq on July 18, 2012 12:29 am

actually it was point three, not point two:

3) A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?

Otto E. Rossler on July 18, 2012 11:32 am

Dear later readers: Is it not a pity?

eq on July 18, 2012 12:49 pm

So it is proven that you lied to the public when scaring people with ivented numbers based on non-existing proofs.

Your pseudoscientific gish gallop is no proof.



Otto E. Rossler on July 19, 2012 1:14 am

After a proof of danger, in general only estimates can be offered.

eq on July 19, 2012 1:44 am

That is simply nonsense. And an rather evasive statement…if there would be a really rigorous proof you should be able to back up your numbers.

You were stating “as if under oath” probabilities of 5%. There is nothing behind it and therefore you are violating scientific and ethical standards.

So, you have to deliver the base for your “estimates”. the public wants to know — even for estimates there must be more substantiation than simply making numbers up.…

eq on July 19, 2012 1:49 am

Do not forget:

“1) A clarification of the claim that members of the Royal Society evade peer review ( My readings tend to indicate that the Royal Society began the practice of editorial review “hundreds of years ago”. ) 2) A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months. 3) A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?”

The last point is in some way already answered by your evasive behavior. There is simply nothing which could rationalize your numbers in a scientific rigorous way — therefore you should apologize for lying to the world about that.

Otto E. Rossler on July 19, 2012 3:44 am

Why do you defend the necessity of not disproving a danger? (Only anonymity permits such obviously harmful behavior in a public place.)

Of course you believe in your own clairvoyancy. But why tell all children of the planet that you don’t care for them — by pretending that a proof of deadly danger (Telemach) is harmless as long as the danger called attention to cannot be specified to within one percent?

I cannot rule out at the time being that the danger is in the range of ten percent right now, and is going to be doubled by CERN during the rest of the year. But — of course — I cannot prove these numbers with error bars. No one wants to know how exactly a gun presently pointed at him or her is aimed.

Can you defend CERN’s refusal to update its safety report for 4 years, dear well-meaning young colleague “eq”?

Otto E. Rossler on July 19, 2012 4:02 am

By the way, this is a very nice description of the Higgs (the only no longer correct statement is that “electrons have zero volume”): http://vimeo.com/41038445

eq on July 19, 2012 4:08 am

What I and others defend are scientific and ethical standards which are violated by you, Rössler.

Why do you reply again with psychological ullshit instead of answering the questions about your alleged “scientific proof”?

Why do you request that anyone should believe your statements without being sceptical about them?

The basic rule of science is to be sceptical and therefore extraordinary claims like yours require extraordinary evidence to support them. When you state there would be a rather high probability and accuse CERN of being irresponsible then you have to show your models/calculations when asked for it. Even estimates can be connected to a rational reasoning and if you state there would be a probabiluty in the percent-range you have to give rational and logical stringent reasoning supporting this. Otherwise no one has to waste his time with this as it is on the exactly same level as statements like ” there is a ~5% chance that world will end tomorrow morning 6:34 am”. I guess no one would take this serious, especially when the asnwer for the proof would be “it’s only an estimate”.

so instead of chatting around you should become constructive in the end and answer the points made by rpenner. If there is really a rigorous proof, it should be easy for you to bring it here.

reminder:

2) A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months. 3) A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?”

Additional:

1) A clarification of the claim that members of the Royal Society evade peer review ( My readings tend to indicate that the Royal Society began the practice of editorial review “hundreds of years ago”. )

No one believes you blindly, you have to prove every statement you made!

eq on July 19, 2012 4:18 am

““I cannot rule out at the time being that the danger is in the range of ten percent right now, and is going to be doubled by CERN during the rest of the year. But — of course — I cannot prove these numbers with error bars””

Even estimates can be connected to a rational reasoning and if you state there would be a probabiluty in the percent-range you have to give rational and logical stringent reasoning supporting this. Otherwise no one has to waste his time with this as it is on the exactly same level as statements like ” there is a ~5% chance that world will end tomorrow morning 6:34 am”. I guess no one would take this serious, especially when the asnwer for the proof would be “it’s only an estimate”.

So, why 2 – 10 or more percent? Where is the model calculation / logical stringent reasoning supporting the assumption of such a high probability? What are the parameters going into the model/calculation, what are the assumptions made, what are the operations done on the input parameters?

Additional, and this alone should made everyone sceptical about your honesty, you change these numbers in nearly every post — so one would guess that either there is indeed a model behind it or, more likely, you just invent a number to gain attention by scaring the people. This is simply unethical and non-scientific behavior

Come on, Otto!



Otto E. Rossler on July 19, 2012 5:30 am

Quote: “Why do you request that anyone should believe your statements without being sceptical about them?”

All I ask is for someone to refute my published proof (Telemach — shall I give you the reference again?), dear still anonymous eq.

Your claim that a proof of danger would need special accuracy is the opposite of the truth. Everyone knows that by instinct. Please, ask the children’s forgiveness.

eq on July 19, 2012 5:50 am

There are scientific standards for scientific proofs which are not met by “Telemach”. It is, to be precisely, a kind of vague pseudoscientific gish-gallop full of non-defintions, non-derivations but a lot of non-sequitur reasoning as was cleary shown to you many times before. Whether you accept this facts or not does simply not matter for the truth.

(BTW, “Telemach” is not even published. Publication in a scam-journal is not a publication according to all ethical standards. It is obvious that there was no kind of review. )

“Your claim that a proof of danger would need special accuracy is the opposite of the truth.”

You simply want to introduce arguments like ” there is a ~5% chance that world will end tomorrow morning 6:34 am” into science. You siply want to evade the standards of science and rationality here. In principle you are asking for blind believe in your statements which is certainly not scientific. As I had mentioned before:

“Even estimates can be connected to a rational reasoning and if you state there would be a probabiluty in the percent-range you have to give rational and logical stringent reasoning supporting this. ”

And therefore the same questions apply again:

“So, why 2 – 10 or more percent? Where is the model calculation / logical stringent reasoning supporting the assumption of such a high probability? What are the parameters going into the model/calculation, what are the assumptions made, what are the operations done on the input parameters?”

If you talk about probabilities of this magnitude you have to give extraordinary and strong evidence to support this. You can not expect the community will believe you in something simply because you say it.

eq on July 19, 2012 5:52 am

“Your claim that a proof of danger would need special accuracy is the opposite of the truth.”

In fact the opposite is true. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary strong evidence. Statements like the LHC will destroy the planet with a probabiltiy in the range of a few per cent” is extraordninary and needs more evidence than you have shown.

Otto E. Rossler on July 19, 2012 6:18 am

All your claims are probabilistic (Journal may not be good enough, etc.).

Can’t you see that such arguments are worthless if the ship’s boy on Titanic’s deck shouts “I see an iceberg — please check!”

Your and CERN’s refusing to check is very frustrating.

Take care and say so in my name also to CERN.

eq on July 19, 2012 6:42 am

No, my claims are proven and evidently true. Even a short look at the “Telemach” thing in this “journal” reveals the poor quality of the review process, if there was such a process…

additionally your gish-gallop was checked and rejected many times, even on this blog. Whether you accept that or not does not matter, the facts are clear…(For example a few people are waiting for more than a year now for your clear and preicise derivations of your equaions there or for some clear definitions…)

you can not expect that anyone will waste his time on your stuff until you have not shown up the hard evidence, the proof for your probabilities which you are using to accuse CERN of a kind of mass murder and so on. Whoever states something like that has to show the calculations and models and assumptions behind it, especially when stated together with some accusations as defamatory as yours against the CERN-scientists.

You simply want to undermine scientific standards and ethics. There is no way to avoid the need for stringent and logical reasoning, for hard evidence…otherwise I could say “tomorrow the world will end because of the existence of the cat of my neighbour with a proability of perhaps 5%” and demand a investigation of my statement by the greatest scientists in the world.…and because I “predicted” the end of the world in the statement I would not have to give any further evidence.

That is exact your level and you can not really expect that anyone on the planet would take this serious.

So again:

You have to deliver:

2) A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months. 3) A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?”

At some point you have to show your stuff or to admit that in fact there is nothing.



Otto E. Rossler on July 24, 2012 1:38 am

I gave all proofs. There lies no counterproof on the table.

If you have one, give it as a theorem, please. I apologize for being unable to see one in your injunctions. If this is my own fault, others will be grateful to you, too, if you can formulate a counter-proof to Telemach. It will make you famous. You will even no longer have to hide your face. Thank you.

Tom Kerwick on July 24, 2012 2:42 am

Earlier comments here:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….1#comments
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….2#comments
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….3#comments
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/07/cern-found-2-out-of-3-neede.….4#comments

hdc on July 24, 2012 2:47 am

You gave no proofs — what you gave was a pseudoscientific non-sequitur gish-gallop. You were not even able to prove your (poor and obvious wrong ) equations being correct…no definitions, no derivations, a lot of empty words and prosaic bullshit.

If something is definitelyx no scientific proof its your “paper”.

As you are claiming extraordinary things you have the burden of proof and therefore you have to deliver:

2) A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months.

3) A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?”

It is quite amusing and says a lot about your honesty that you are evading these questions for years now.

Otto E. Rössler on July 24, 2012 3:45 am

“You gave no proofs” is a nice rhetorical statement — my compliments.
However, if my proof is so easy to disprove as you claim: why not give it a try?

I am afraid everyone sees that you are doing CERN a very big disfavor here by giving the impression as if you were paid by them to saw disinformation. This is a very bad example to offer to the younger generation: Propaganda is not science, my dear eq.

hdc on July 24, 2012 3:58 am

Otto, instead of this non-scientific bullshit and poor statements about motivations, all done in order to hide your complete lack of hard evidence supporting your claims, you should invest your time in answering the questions. It is obvious that you are tyring to disinform the public here.…

There is no rational reason for your avoidance of the questions and therefore scientific standards.

So again you have to deliver:

2) A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months.

and

3) A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?”

Your request to believe your statements blindly is not science, but pure dogmatism.

PS: Of course your “proof” (which is in fact no proof) was refuted many times, I even repeated a few of the critical points above. Perhaps you can answer the public why you never derived your equations from Einstein oriiginal ones when asked. And this is only one of many open questions.…

PS 2: What is the danger actually? 5,67%? :D

Otto E. Rössler on July 24, 2012 4:12 am

Did you ask CERN’s approval before continuing with the open disinformation?

hdc on July 24, 2012 4:35 am

No, Otto. I am still waiting for the pay-cheque from CERN — strangely they are paying much less than I should deserve according to your postings. :D

Precise questions are the opposite of disinformation. Calling questions clearly pointing to crucial parts of your claims are surely no disinformation. On the other hand, to avoid answers to these questions by suggesting they were already answered is clearly a kind of disinformation. If there are somewhere the detailed calculations asked for, just give them. So far no one on the planet has ever seen something like that from you.

To remind you:

A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months.

and

A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?”

Otto E. Rössler on July 24, 2012 5:12 am

This CERN supporter requires exact probabilities to be given before he accepts the fact that his house has already caught fire.

“Count Bobby” is the right nickname for him.

hdc on July 24, 2012 5:46 am

Oh, Otto, the question seems to difficult for you.

A detailed calculation means not necessary the number has to be exact in the end — it means you have to show up your model behind your extraordinary probabilities. What inputs are there, what are the assumptions, operations, and so on.

That was asked, ans someone like you who throws extraordinary high probabilities like 5% in the discussion should be able to show very strong evidene supporting it.

So, there is no way to avoid it. You introduced the numbers, you never could expect from anyone in the community to leave this un-questioned. You can still apologize and admit to have violated ethical and scientific standards by just inventing the number.

hdc on July 24, 2012 5:48 am

And again, the first question asks especially for a proof that there is fire.

Detailed calculations again mean a scientific model with precise defintions and assumptions etc.

Otto E. Rössler on July 24, 2012 1:36 pm

“And again, the first question asks especially for a proof that there is fire.”

Thank you for this statement. Telemach is waiting for your counter-proof.

eq on July 24, 2012 3:11 pm

Telemach is far away from being a serious scientific paper or a “theorem” (perhaps you should present the world your definition of a theorem — I think that could be quite amusing). For instance, it lacks still proper defintions, clear and precise derivations of the equations and so on.

So far it is a pseudoscientific gish-gallop with vague prosa..It is well known that you deliver up to three contradicting defnitions even for the quantities in your first equation when asked for it in discussions…short: your behavior was the clear opposite of being scientific but exactly fulfilling the definition of a crank.

So, if you want to have attention you should work on answers to the questions:

To remind you:

A detailed calculation to support the claim (made in 2008) that LHC-generated black holes would consume the Earth in 50 months.

Which is nothing else than a substantiation of your claim. As already mentioned, so far there is in fact nothing that could be called scientific even on a rudimentary level.

and, do not forget, as you are supporting your defamatory statements with high and extraordinary probabilities:

A detailed calculation to support any of the various the claims made of “probability” — You outputted a number, what where the inputs and what were the operations performed?”

The interesting point is, why you try to avoid especially the last point so strangely with evasive statements of poorest quality.

rpenner on July 25, 2012 8:25 am

(In a July 24 posting, Rössler used the word criminal. Here is my response and explanation of why I don’t see a point in continuing.)

I do not know Otto Rössler personally. But after watching him repeatedly make scientific and numeric and mathematical claims about the chances of something happening and the time for something happening and about certain claims being theorems and never answering questions about assumptions, calculations, axioms and reasoning, I have come to the strong, if provisional, opinion that he is only a self-promoting pseudomathematician and often prone to making up stories to make himself seem more important. If Otto Rössler were any type of scientific expert there would be no need to ask these questions because scientific methodology and any proper peer review of Rössler’s work both would have required him to answer these basic questions as part of the burden of proof of someone making original claims.

Due to these as-yet unjustified and therefore scientifically irresponsible claims, reportedly a girl in India committed suicide in 2008. In some jurisdictions it is a criminal act to shout “Fire!” in a theater because of the high chance of panic and injury. Similarly in an actual case of evacuating a ship to the lifeboats, panic-mongering is counter-productive. Rössler is not solely responsible for the media firestorm that flared up in 2008 but he was all too happy to pour the fuel on the fire.

Science has to be a precise, useful and communicable description of nature. Rössler only claims precision but has not communicated how he has any idea how his claims usefully relate to nature and therefore has neither communicated a scientific model of nature nor demonstrated that his claims are useful in any scientific manner. Instead of demonstrating where the claims come from Rössler cements my inference that he simply makes up baseless stories by not answering basic questions that would have been asked very early on if he had not evaded peer review.

In this posting, I think Rössler has jumped from pseudomathematician to pseudolawyer and should be ignored for similar reasons. If his claims were based in evidence and communicable reasoning it should be easy to explain them and in four years this self-styled soi disant prosecutor has not built a case and denied that he has the burden of proof. A CERN researcher has spend hours with Rössler and no part of his thinking has been elucidated. Perhaps Rössler’s most productive step would to consult with an expert of the mind and try and work out why he has been unable to explain the reasoning behind any of his many claims. I am not of the provisional opinion that the reason is some sort of superhuman genius unique to Rössler.

I expect this to be my last posting, because nothing more needs to be said.

Otto E. Rossler on July 28, 2012 12:05 pm

I apologize for having given a theorem. Mr. Penner is not able to say why it is wrong, but he uses folk psychology to publicly discredit its author. It is a good idea to quit if he is really unable to understand.

And I ask again everyone who can come up with a counter theorem to Telemach to do so. And I apologize if I ever refused to answer a scientific question from Mr. Penner. In this case I ask his forgiveness and pledge for him to kindly repeat it.

This does not hold for every questioner here becaus many like Mr. Penner publicly show their personal prejudices but do not give a guarantee that the hundredth attempt at explaining a simple fact to them has any purpose to it.

Friendly criticism is, however, the bread and butter of science. Anyone who has a friendly criticism to offer is cordially invited to utter it, no matter whether being anonymous or not. I shall do my best to reply to him or her.

I also did not yet give up on my hope that Mr. Penner will come back to the scientific dialog that he had engaged me in early on. And I am sure he is very competent doing so.

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

29 comments:

  1. El Naschi answers to Schiermeier in the comments of a Blogpost which Rössler addressed to Higgs?
    Makes perfect sense ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why do you think that "Marco van de Weer" in the Nature thread is a sockpuppet? To me his comments sound genuine and based on a correct reading of Mrs Sharp's verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BTW the first comment by MvdW (the one "Hassan Selbi" was replying to on 2012-07-09 11:49 AM) seems to have disappeared...

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you need to be more careful with the green ink.

    Everything between the lines "rpenner on July 10, 2012 1:00 am" and "lsd on July 10, 2012 1:33 am" is rpenner's long reply to Hassan Selbi's posts of July 8 and 9. Hassan Selbi's bits are all carefully quoted and prefaced with a reference to the earlier comments. (at least in original)

    I am also of the opinion that "Marco van de Weert" is nowhere objectionable and don't see evidence that he is either supporting El Naschie's behavior or even weakly opposing El Naschie's behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  6. PassingByAgain, and Richard - thank you, I will review and fix.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fixed, and latest comments from Lifeboat added. Please let me know if you see more errors.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Updated with hdc on July 12, 2012 10:16 pm. Readers, please let me know of needed updates.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am proud to be called a jason sock puppet :D :D

    ReplyDelete
  10. Haha. Cheers, Hdc. We are a shoestring operation fueled not by money but by righteousness. El Naschie Watch cannot afford sockpuppets. :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. rpenner repeated what I've already said on this blog: El Naschie and his sockpuppets are just making things up - the judgment of Mr Justice Eady (Paragraph 25 especially) contradicts their conspiracy theory claim, i. e., the judge was removed because he criticized Nature which was willing to continue with the costly trial instead of simply apologize. :D

    ReplyDelete
  12. Updated. (100 Lifeboat comments.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jason, you should put some space between some neighbouring comments (the copy/paste process glue them together).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Its 104 comments now.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Updated to 107 Lifeboat comments and added vertical space between adjacent comments in about 70 cases. The comments of "Bernd" are not consistently colored because sometimes he sounds like a sock puppet, e.g., when he says "Can you show mathematically that El Naschie was misusing the Golden Ratio for his purposes (that I don’t know either)?" and sometimes he doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Updated with Rpenner's comment 108.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Please pardon this late answer to the question of PassingByAgain July 12, 2012 10:10 AM and to RichardJuly 12, 2012 1:57 PM as to why I mistook Marco van de Weer for an El Naschie sockpuppet and initially had his comments green.

    First, his challenges to Hassan Selbi I took to be straw men set up to be knocked down. Second, he went out of his way to find and quote the parts of the judgment in which Mrs Sharp denies judging the science. Third, his ASCII versus Unicode (or whatever the "’" problem was) confusion suggested that he shared a word processor and household with sockpuppet Rajeev Sindan, who is obviously El Naschie himself. In his last post Marco clears himself to my satisfaction, but it was not obvious. I accept that I was wrong, so this is just to explain my confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Updated through comment 117.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you! Updated to comment 149, but unfortunately the sock puppets seem to have departed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Seems to be the case...now its otto again who plays the role of the arrogant professor against rpenner...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Except professors _explain_ things -- I have never observed one simply assert things as Rössler does.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Updated to 188 comments, but sock puppets have not returned.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Almost 200 comments: ironically that's what Otto is begging for.

    ReplyDelete