Dear Otto and colleagues,
Thanks for the curious story and sorry that my absorption in low level
administrative themes has knocked me down-down during these weeks. But
not being a physicist, and even not a third rate aficionado, I can
contribute very little to the exchanges. At least I will try to remark a
couple of lateral aspects:
First, when I heard about this story, I was amazed how hysterical the
web records were. On the one side, the tabloid style comments and the
malicious personal attacks, and on the other side the offended,
irritated scientists. That your opinion deserved a "Charge of the Nobel
Brigade" with all those big names hurried together to smitten any
possible doubt, was sort of humorous. Wasn't from Horace that saying of
"vociferant montes et parturient ridiculus mus"? My impression is that
all those hyperactive new media have deteriorated the exchange and
maturation of scientific opinion. The fate of your position on those
hypothetic risks was irrationally discounted.
And about the theme itself, I join one of the initial comments on the
energy of singular cosmic rays, probabilistically having to cause such
microscopic destructive black holes in The Moon and somewhere else. The
wide swaths of the cosmos we watch today do not show sudden instances of
planet or star disappearance. As many thousands and millions of those
are well followed nowadays without reports of sudden destruction: can
this "stable" cosmos be an extra argument in the discussion? Let me
improvise some further views: Black holes relate "quite a bit" to
information matters. The controversy between Hawking, Penrose, etc.
about the fate of the quantum information engulfed seemingly emitted is
not the end of the story I think. If everything should make functional
sense in an integrated "organismic" cosmos, the functionality of black
holes is really enigmatic. They just become a reservoir of dark matter
for gravity? In this point our common friend Michael Conrad (1996)
put"/when we look at a biological system we/ are looking at the face of
the underlying /physics of the universe/." Thereupon, I have always
thought about the similarity between cellular proteasomes (protein
destructing machines) and the cosmic (destructive) black holes. But the
former RECYCLE and emit single amino acid components for reuse, and then
would the latter provide only residual gravity? Lee Smolin said
something bold: they recycle too, and produce "baby universes" with
slightly altered laws of nature. Our planet final blimps would have some
more fun incorporated (with the big IF, of course)...
Best wishes
--Pedro
lEl 11/01/2017 a las 11:33, Otto E. Rossler escribió:
I like this response from Lou,
Otto
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Louis H Kauffman <lou...@gmail.com>
*To:* Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
*Cc:* fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:09 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Dear Folks,
It is very important to not be hasty and assume that the warning
Professor Rossler made is to be taken seriously.
It is relatively easy to check if a mathematical reasoning is true or
false.
It is much more difficult to see if a piece of mathematics is
correctly alligned to physical prediction.
Note also that a reaction such as
"THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND
SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.”.
Is not in the form of scientific rational discussion, but rather in
the form of taking a given conclusion for granted
and using it to support another opinion that is just that - an opinion.
By concatenating such behaviors we arrive at the present political
state of the world.
This is why, in my letter, I have asked for an honest discussion of
the possible validity of Professor Rossler’s arguments.
At this point I run out of commentary room for this week and I shall
read and look forward to making further comments next week.
Best,
Lou Kauffman
On Jan 9, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote:
From Alex Hankey
-------- Mensaje reenviado --------
Asunto: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Fecha: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530
De: Alex Hankey <alexhan...@gmail.com> <mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com>
Para: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND
SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.
On 5 January 2017 at 16:36, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote:
Dear FISers,
Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions.
I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity.
But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and
counter-arguments...
Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!
--Pedro
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:* Otto E. Rossler [oeros...@yahoo.com <mailto:oeros...@yahoo.com>]
*Enviado el:* miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
*Para:* PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
*Asunto:* NY session
----------------------
*A Curious Story*
Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany
Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would
then make it even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone
says “I can save your house from a time bomb planted into the
basement” and you respond by saying “I don’t care.” This curious
story is taken from the Buddhist bible.
It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a
lunatic person claiming that he alone can save the planet from a
time-bomb about to be planted into it. In that case, there would
be no reason to worry. On the other hand, it could also be that
you, the manager, are a bit high at the moment so that you don't
fully appreciate the offer made to you. How serious is my offer
herewith made to you today?
I only say that for eight years' time already, there exists no
counter-proof in the literature to my at first highly publicized
proof of danger. I was able to demonstrate that the miniature
black holes officially attempted to be produced at CERN do possess
two radically new properties:
* they cannot Hawking evaporate
* they grow exponentially inside matter
If these two findings hold water, the current attempt at producing
ultra-slow miniature black holes on earth near the town of Geneva
means that the slower-most specimen will get stuck inside earth
and grow there exponentially to turn the planet into a 2-cm black
hole after several of undetectable growth. Therefore the current
attempt of CERN's to produce them near Geneva is a bit curious.
What is so curious about CERN's attempt? It is the fact that no
one finds it curious. I am reminded of an old joke: The professor
informs the candidate about the outcome of the oral exam with the
following words “You are bound to laugh but you have flunked the
test.” I never understood the punchline. I likewise cannot
understand why a never refuted proof of the biggest danger of
history leaves everyone unconcerned. Why NOT check an unattended
piece of luggage on the airport called Earth?
To my mind, this is the most curious story ever -- for the very
reason that everyone finds it boring. A successful counter-proof
would thus alleviate but a single person’s fears – mine. You, my
dear reader, are thus my last hope that you might be able to
explain the punch line to me: “Why is it that it does not matter
downstairs that the first floor is ablaze?” I am genuinely curious
to learn why attempting planetocide is fun. Are you not?
For J.O.R.
---------------
______________________________ _________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
--
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD(M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
____________________________________________________________
2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
