Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear Dr. Zou: Most interesting.I enclose a recently submitted manuscript for your perusal. Cordial wishes,Otto E.Rossler - Who can program the Einstein Rocketship? Otto E. Rossler1 and YaëlKolb1,2 1Faculty of Science,University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tübingen, Germany 2University of Design (HfG), Lorenzstrasse 15, 76135Karlsruhe, Germany Abstract Acomputer-game version of the famous Einstein equivalence principle of 1907 isproposed. Surprising implications predictably follow. The idea appears worthchecking by the computer-game community as a contribution to science. (March 12, 2018) The Einstein rocketship of 1907 [1] consistsof a constantly accelerating vertical paper strip (interpreted as the interiorof a roaring rocketship) and an internal light ray that is continually emittedvertically along the strip from the bottom to the tip. Einsteinfirst solved this typical computer-game problem in his mind, to in this waypredict out of the blue sky the famous “gravitational redshift”: The ascendinglight ray on arrival at the tip is slowed in its frequency by a negativeDoppler effect (like the sound of a departing ambulance) because the point oforigin of the vertical light ray is constantly falling back from the tip duringthe time it takes the light to arrive although the distance remains unchanged.This at the time absurd prediction enables accurate car navigation to date. Thejust described “Einstein task” is only the first step (one-dimensional case).It has never been simulated even though this is of course possible and indeeddesirable. The young Einstein thereafter in the same 1907-paper looked also atthe two-dimensional case: How does a horizontal light ray that hugs the floorof the rocketship appear from the tip when made visible towards above throughsome smoke in the air? This mental image would later become the “light clock” –a laser pulse inside a glass tube with reflecting ends and a bit of glitterinside to make the ticking visible to the outside world. Programmingthis 2-D game to make it totally transparent, too, is a bit more difficult butis bound to teach something new. While the light pulse is progressinghorizontally down there, the bottom is constantly falling back from the tipwhile keeping its distance as we saw. Therefore, the horizontally advancinglight pulse downstairs necessarily does so in a locally downwards-slantedfashion relative to the tip. This is a first post-Einsteinian Einsteinianprediction (PEEP). Megaconsequences follow suit if the PEEP can be successfully programmed rather thanremaining a mere mental fantasy. For it logically follows that the light pathdownstairs is increased in its length relative to the tip owing to its beingslanted everywhere locally relative to the tip, but this without appearingshortened due to the slant. For special relativity which governs the gadgetenforces preservation of optical width inside the rocketship. Hence theslowdown visible from the tip, seen in Einstein’s mind in 1907, reflects thefact that all objects downstairs are invisibly to above enlarged in sizerelative to the tip by the gravitational redshift factor. This prediction – iftrue – entails that the speed of light downstairs is actually non-reduceddespite appearances. If theproposed computer game confirms this new prediction made whilst anticipating it,surprising consequences follow suit. One of them reads: “No Big Bang” anymore becausethe speed of light is rendered a global constant again by the computer game. Notethat mutually very distant points in the universe now can no longer recede fromeach other at super-luminal speeds as is being assumed at present. So the proposed “Einstein computer game”(ECG) is a surprisingly serious playful proposal in the realm of games. Itwould be especially great if it could get implemented right away by utilizingan already existing game portal like “gamelab” [2]. The race is on. We thankWolfgang Rindler, Susan J. Feingold and Andrei Ujica for stimulation. ForJ.O.R. References [1] A.Einstein, On the relativity principle and the conclusions drawn from it. Jahrbuchder Radioaktivität und Elektronik 4, 411-462 (1907), in German. http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/GR&Grav_2007/pdf/Einstein_1907.pdf [2] https://code.org/educate/gamelab On Monday, March 19, 2018, 7:26:52 AM GMT+1, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote: Dear colleagues The era of large-scale or big production of knowledge and small-scale or normal production of knowledge is about to come. Author: Zou Xiaohui Time: 2018-03-19 08:57:37 In the age of mobile networks where information and knowledge exponentially grows, any one of a small WeChat group and a circle of friends can detonate the spiritual world of any individual. This is incredible in ancient times. Therefore, it is already lagging behind to rely on the 2,000-year-long knowledge production method to do spiritual product
Re: [Fis] End of the NY Lecture
My condolations, dear Pedro,Otto On Monday, February 5, 2018, 2:16:16 PM GMT+1, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ wrote: Dear FISers, Like in previous years, we conclude the Opening Lecturewithin the first week of February. Many thanks to John Tordayand all the participants--maybe he is willing to pen some concludingcomments. Otherwise we will be heading towards a new session. Best regards --Pedro PS. By the way, withthe New Year I have entered into an interesting academic state:retirement!! ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Math, math, math!
Well said, dear Koichiro,Otto From: Koichiro Matsuno To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Math, math, math! On 14 Nov 2017 at 6:21 AM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote: I provide what is required by truly scientific reviewers, i.e., testable mathematical predictions. [KM] Any mathematical proposition, once confirmed, can stand alone. There is no doubt about mathematical reality in the eternal present accessible in the present tense. Also, our folks interested in historical sciences including biology and communication at large often refer to something not in the present via the present tense. In any case, we are historical beings. That must look quite uneasy to mathematicians. One loophole for making it tolerable to the mathematicians might be to admit that the mathematical notion of a trajectory of observable parameters does survive in the finished record but the future trajectories may remain unfathomable at the present. Despite that, historical sciences can raise the question of what could be persistent and durable that may be accessible in the present tense, though somewhat in a more abstract manner compared to the record of concrete particulars. Koichiro Matsuno -Original Message- From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of tozziart...@libero.it Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:21 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] Math, math, math! Dear FISers, My so called pseudoscience has been published in not dispisable journals, for a simple reason: I provide what is required by truly scientific reviewers, i.e., testable mathematical predictions. Sent from Libero Mobile ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] A general question about your experience on this list.
nice. From: Jeremy Sherman To: fis Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 7:25 AM Subject: [Fis] A general question about your experience on this list. I've not been active on this list though I've looked in on it from time to time. I'm curious to know if members can remember a time when they experienced a fundamental shift in their assumptions, methodology or questions through interactions on this list. If you're willing to share what that shift was I'd welcome a brief description. Also if you have any insights into why you had that shift, for example, what someone said. Thanks, Jeremy ShermanAuthor, Neither Ghost Nor Machine: The emergence and nature of selves.___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!
I do not contradict Györgyi. From: Gyorgy Darvas To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?! David: The nature of evolution is such that symmetries emerge and disappear (change). Gyuri http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Scie/ScieDarv.htm http://epistemologia.zoomblog.com/archivo/2007/11/28/symmetry-breaking-in-a-philosophical-c.html Darvas, G. (1998) Laws of symmetry breaking, Symmetry: Culture and Science, 9, 2-4, 119-127 http://journal-scs.symmetry.hu/content-pages/volume-9-numbers-2-4-pages-113-464-1998/ ; Darvas, G, (2015) The unreasonable effectiveness of symmetry in the sciences, Symmetry: Culture and Science, 26, 1, 39-82.http://journal-scs.symmetry.hu/content-pages/volume-26-number-1-pages-001-128-2015/ ; http://journal-scs.symmetry.hu/purchase/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284341950_THE_UNREASONABLE_EFFECTIVENESS_OF_SYMMETRY_IN_THE_SCIENCES On 2017.02.28. 19:01, Dave Kirkland wrote: Dear Arturo Tozzi and FISers Thank you for your very interesting ideas. For me they raise more questions: Why did the number of cosmic symmetries ever start diminishing? Could the whole process be eternally cyclical? I like your respectful use of capital letters. My mind boggles. Best rgds David On 24 Feb 2017, at 15:24, tozziart...@libero.it wrote: Dear FISers, hi! A possible novel discussion (if you like it, of course!): A SYMMETRY-BASED ACCOUNT OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION After the Big Bang, a gradual increase in thermodynamic entropy is occurring in our Universe (Ellwanger, 2012). Because of the relationships between entropy and symmetries (Roldán et al., 2014), the number of cosmic symmetries, the highest possible at the very start, is declining as time passes. Here the evolution of living beings comes into play. Life is a space-limited increase of energy and complexity, and therefore of symmetries. The evolution proceeds towards more complex systems (Chaisson, 2010), until more advanced forms of life able to artificially increase the symmetries of the world. Indeed, the human brains’ cognitive abilities not just think objects and events more complex than the physical ones existing in Nature, but build highly symmetric crafts too. For example, human beings can watch a rough stone, imagine an amygdala and build it from the same stone. Humankind is able, through its ability to manipulate tools and technology, to produce objects (and ideas, i.e., equations) with complexity levels higher than the objects and systems encompassed in the pre-existing physical world. Therefore, human beings are naturally built by evolution in order to increase the number of environmental symmetries. This is in touch with recent claims, suggesting that the brain is equipped with a number of functional and anatomical dimensions higher than the 3D environment (Peters et al., 2017). Intentionality, typical of the living beings and in particular of the human mind, may be seen as a mechanism able to increase symmetries. As Dante Alighieri stated (Hell, XXVI, 118-120), “you were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge”. In touch with Spencer’s (1860) and Tyler’s (1881) claims, it looks like evolutionary mechanisms tend to achieve increases in environmental complexity, and therefore symmetries (Tozzi and Peters, 2017). Life is produced in our Universe in order to restore the initial lost symmetries. At the beginning of life, increases in symmetries are just local, e.g., they are related to the environmental niches where the living beings are placed. However, in long timescales, they might be extended to the whole Universe. For example, Homo sapiens, in just 250.000 years, has been able to build the Large Hadron Collider, where artificial physical processes make an effort to approximate the initial symmetric state of the Universe. Therefore, life is a sort of gauge field (Sengupta et al., 2016), e.g., a combination of forces and fields that try to counterbalance and restore, in very long timescales, the original cosmic symmetries, lost after the Big Bang. Due to physical issues, the “homeostatic” cosmic gauge field must be continuous, e.g., life must stand, proliferate and increase in complexity over very long timescales. This is the reason why every living being has an innate tendency towards self-preservation and proliferation. With the death, continuity is broken. This talks in favor of intelligent life scattered everywhere in the Universe: if a few species get extinct, others might continue to proliferate and evolve in remote planets, in order to pursue the goal of the final symmetric restoration. In touch with long timescales’ requirements, it must be kept into account that life has been set up after a long gestation: a childbearing which encompasses the cosmic birth of fermions, then atoms, then stars abl
Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!
Dear David: No symmetry ever started diminishing. Take care,Otto From: Dave Kirkland To: "tozziart...@libero.it" Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?! Dear Arturo Tozzi and FISersThank you for your very interesting ideas. For me they raise more questions:Why did the number of cosmic symmetries ever start diminishing?Could the whole process be eternally cyclical?I like your respectful use of capital letters.My mind boggles.Best rgdsDavid On 24 Feb 2017, at 15:24, tozziart...@libero.it wrote: Dear FISers, hi! A possible novel discussion (if you like it, of course!): A SYMMETRY-BASED ACCOUNT OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION After the Big Bang, a gradual increase inthermodynamic entropy is occurring in our Universe (Ellwanger, 2012). Because of the relationships between entropyand symmetries (Roldán et al., 2014), thenumber of cosmic symmetries, the highest possible at the very start, is decliningas time passes. Here the evolution ofliving beings comes into play. Life is aspace-limited increase of energy and complexity, and therefore ofsymmetries. The evolution proceedstowards more complex systems (Chaisson, 2010), until more advanced forms oflife able to artificially increase the symmetries of the world. Indeed, the human brains’ cognitive abilitiesnot just think objects and events more complex than the physical ones existingin Nature, but build highly symmetric crafts too. For example, human beings can watch a roughstone, imagine an amygdala and build it from the same stone. Humankind is able, through its ability to manipulatetools and technology, to produce objects (and ideas, i.e., equations) with complexitylevels higher than the objects and systems encompassed in the pre-existingphysical world. Therefore, human beingsare naturally built by evolution in order to increase the number of environmentalsymmetries. This is in touch with recentclaims, suggesting that the brain is equipped with a number of functional and anatomicaldimensions higher than the 3D environment (Peters et al., 2017). Intentionality, typical of the living beingsand in particular of the human mind, may be seen as a mechanism able toincrease symmetries. As Dante Alighieristated (Hell, XXVI, 118-120), “you were notmade to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge”. In touch with Spencer’s (1860) and Tyler’s (1881)claims, it looks like evolutionary mechanisms tend to achieve increases in environmentalcomplexity, and therefore symmetries (Tozzi and Peters, 2017). Life is produced in our Universe in order torestore the initial lost symmetries. Atthe beginning of life, increases in symmetries are just local, e.g., they arerelated to the environmental niches where the living beings are placed. However, in long timescales, they might beextended to the whole Universe. Forexample, Homo sapiens, in just 250.000 years, has been able to build the Large HadronCollider, where artificial physical processes make an effort to approximate theinitial symmetric state of the Universe. Therefore, life is a sort of gauge field (Sengupta et al., 2016), e.g.,a combination of forces and fields that try to counterbalance and restore, invery long timescales, the original cosmic symmetries, lost after the Big Bang. Due to physical issues, the “homeostatic” cosmicgauge field must be continuous, e.g., life must stand, proliferate and increasein complexity over very long timescales. This is the reason why every living being has an innate tendency towardsself-preservation and proliferation. With the death, continuity is broken. This talks in favor of intelligentlife scattered everywhere in the Universe: if a few species get extinct, othersmight continue to proliferate and evolve in remote planets, in order to pursuethe goal of the final symmetric restoration. In touch with long timescales’ requirements,it must be kept into account that life has been set up after a long gestation:a childbearing which encompasses the cosmic birth of fermions, then atoms, thenstars able to produce the more sophisticated matter (metals) required formolecular life. A symmetry-based framework gives rise to two oppositefeelings, by our standpoint of human beings. On one side, we achieve the final answer to long-standing questions: “why are we here?”, “Why does the evolution act in such a way?”, an answer that reliefsour most important concerns and gives us a sense;on the other side, however, this framework does not give us any hope: we arejust micro-systems programmed in order to contribute to restore a partially“broken” macro-system. And, in case wesucceed in restoring, through our mathematical abstract thoughts andcraftsmanship, the initial symmetries, we are nevertheless doomed to die:indeed, the environment equipped with the starting symmetries does not allowthe presence of life. REFERENCES1) Chaisso
Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!
Very nice, dear Pedro,Otto From: Pedro C. Marijuan To: 'fis' Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?! Dear Arturo and colleagues, Very interesting piece, indeed. It has strongly reminded me Teilhard de Chardin's views on the Omega Point of cosmic maximal complexity--although this was for him not a pessimistic outcome but a brilliant and up-beating prospect for all humankind. His eclectic views were bitterly rejected by most of the scientific and religious establishment of his time (no wonder that particularly by evolutionary biologists); but the arrival of Internet, as well as today's multi-level selection approaches, and the works of some quantum information scientists (Tipler, Deutsch) have vindicated his brave, Quixotic figure. Late Popes of the Catholic Church (Benedict XVI) have also vindicated his whole intellectual legacy. I have some minor problems with the present essay, but substituting some of the excessively teleological "purposive" terms about life (perhaps all of them?), and using instead a more austere description of organizational facts who knows! If life contains a unitary principle, I think it is more subtle, and cannot be expressed in unilateral physical terms such as maximum entropy production, symmetry restoration, free energy maximization, etc. Well, symmetry and information have more clout and hidden complexity, so I express not a rejection but some uneasiness regarding too direct "orthogenetic" views on biological and social evolution. My further suggestion --could it be a good idea that you change Monod's style "unpleasantness" (Oh, we the accidental discover that we are alone in the cosmos!) and point towards some of Teilhard's and Vernadsky's noosphere and the Omega Point? You would have several curious items to choose... More opinions?? Best wishes to all--Pedro El 24/02/2017 a las 16:24, tozziart...@libero.it escribió: Dear FISers, hi! A possible novel discussion (if you like it, of course!): A SYMMETRY-BASED ACCOUNT OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION After the Big Bang, a gradual increase in thermodynamic entropy is occurring in our Universe (Ellwanger, 2012). Because of the relationships between entropy and symmetries (Roldán et al., 2014), the number of cosmic symmetries, the highest possible at the very start, is declining as time passes. Here the evolution of living beings comes into play. Life is a space-limited increase of energy and complexity, and therefore of symmetries. The evolution proceeds towards more complex systems (Chaisson, 2010), until more advanced forms of life able to artificially increase the symmetries of the world. Indeed, the human brains’ cognitive abilities not just think objects and events more complex than the physical ones existing in Nature, but build highly symmetric crafts too. For example, human beings can watch a rough stone, imagine an amygdala and build it from the same stone. Humankind is able, through its ability to manipulate tools and technology, to produce objects (and ideas, i.e., equations) with complexity levels higher than the objects and systems encompassed in the pre-existing physical world. Therefore, human beings are naturally built by evolution in order to increase the number of environmental symmetries. This is in touch with recent claims, suggesting that the brain is equipped with a number of functional and anatomical dimensions higher than the 3D environment (Peters et al., 2017). Intentionality, typical of the living beings and in particular of the human mind, may be seen as a mechanism able to increase symmetries. As Dante Alighieri stated (Hell, XXVI, 118-120), “you were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge”. In touch with Spencer’s (1860) and Tyler’s (1881) claims, it looks like evolutionary mechanisms tend to achieve increases in environmental complexity, and therefore symmetries (Tozzi and Peters, 2017). Life is produced in our Universe in order to restore the initial lost symmetries. At the beginning of life, increases in symmetries are just local, e.g., they are related to the environmental niches where the living beings are placed. However, in long timescales, they might be extended to the whole Universe. For example, Homo sapiens, in just 250.000 years, has been able to build the Large Hadron Collider, where artificial physical processes make an effort to approximate the initial symmetric state of the Universe. Therefore, life is a sort of gauge field (Sengupta et al., 2016), e.g., a combination of forces and fields that try to counterbalance and restore, in very long timescales, the original cosmic symmetries, lost after the Big Bang. Due to physical issues, the “homeostatic” cosmic gauge field must be continuous, e.g., life must stand, proliferate and increase in complexity over very long timescales. This
Re: [Fis] A curious tale and QBism
okay, Bruno.Otto From: Bruno Marchal To: fis Webinar Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] A curious tale and QBism Hello Hans, On 02 Feb 2017, at 16:32, Hans von Baeyer wrote: Thank you Pedro for mentioning my new book. Actually, there is a connection between my book and the curious tale. QBists look at the future as a web of interlaced personal, numerical probability estimates, with no certainties anchored in REAL mechanisms. The probability that CERN will blow up the world is small enough to be negligible for most people, but not for all. The thing QBists reject as in principle unattainable is ABSOLUTE certainty, which many lay people and some physicists (Einstein was among them) continue to long for. I am not absolutely certain about this. (grin). Nor am I sure that Einstein defended absolute certainty (an epistemological notion). He defended determinism (a metaphysical or theological notion), which is neutral on what human or other creature can know, believe, know-for-sure or predict, If we discard, like Feynman, the reduction of the wave postulate in quantum mechanics, we come back to a purely deterministic physics, but this does not enforce *any* certainty for any human, at least concerning physical prediction. I tend to think that in the tiny "constructive" part of arithmetic (known as sigma_1 arithmetic: it allows only existential quantifiers), we can have something akin to certainty. It is hard to doubt that 3+4 = 7, for example, or that it exists some number n such that n + 4 = 7. Bruno Hans Christian von Baeyer ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] A curious tale and QBism
Dear Andrej, my respect,Otto From: Andrei Khrennikov To: Hans von Baeyer ; "fis@listas.unizar.es" Cc: "qbism.fu...@gmail.com" Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] A curious tale and QBism Dear Hans, Thank you for mentioning QBism. It can be treated as the quantum alternative for classical Bayesian inference. In this connection, it is good to mention that classical Bayesian PU suffers of the well known Cromwell problem: if prior probability is zero it would always be zero, if it is 1 it always be 1... Quantum update of probability does not suffer of this problem, zero probability can be updated to nonzero, the same can happen for the probability one. See our paper in attachment, it was published in Journal of Mathematical Psychology. yours, andrei From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Hans von Baeyer [henrikrit...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 4:32 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] A curious tale and QBism Thank you Pedro for mentioning my new book. Actually, there is a connection between my book and the curious tale. QBists look at the future as a web of interlaced personal, numerical probability estimates, with no certainties anchored in REAL mechanisms. The probability that CERN will blow up the world is small enough to be negligible for most people, but not for all. The thing QBists reject as in principle unattainable is ABSOLUTE certainty, which many lay people and some physicists (Einstein was among them) continue to long for. Hans Christian von Baeyer ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] [Sadhu Sanga] Physics hype ...
Dear Andrew and Alexander:
I thought you might be interesting in the enclosed preprint.Heavy objections
would be especially welcome.
Take care,Otto
http://environmental-safety.webs.com/Deterministic_Thermo_Cryo.pdf
From: Andrew Fingelkurts / BM-Science
To: 'Diego Lucio Rapoport' ;
online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com; squ...@gotsky.com; 'Jeremy Dunning-Davies'
Cc: 'fis' ; bjf...@sciences.demon.co.uk;
cont...@howgravityworks.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] [Sadhu Sanga] Physics hype ...
#yiv7640747892 #yiv7640747892 -- _filtered #yiv7640747892
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7640747892
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7640747892
{font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7640747892
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7640747892
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7640747892
{font-family:timesnewromanpsmt;} _filtered #yiv7640747892
{font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv7640747892
#yiv7640747892 p.yiv7640747892MsoNormal, #yiv7640747892
li.yiv7640747892MsoNormal, #yiv7640747892 div.yiv7640747892MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv7640747892 h2
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:18.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv7640747892
a:link, #yiv7640747892 span.yiv7640747892MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7640747892 a:visited, #yiv7640747892
span.yiv7640747892MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7640747892 p
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv7640747892
p.yiv7640747892MsoAcetate, #yiv7640747892 li.yiv7640747892MsoAcetate,
#yiv7640747892 div.yiv7640747892MsoAcetate
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv7640747892
span.yiv7640747892Heading2Char {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;}#yiv7640747892
span.yiv7640747892BalloonTextChar {}#yiv7640747892
span.yiv7640747892gmail-m-3111890092566990028m-333452906427818m-7548684774114207021apple-converted-space
{}#yiv7640747892 span.yiv7640747892EmailStyle22 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7640747892
span.yiv7640747892EmailStyle23 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7640747892
.yiv7640747892MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv7640747892
{margin:2.0cm 42.5pt 2.0cm 3.0cm;}#yiv7640747892 div.yiv7640747892WordSection1
{}#yiv7640747892 Dear All, In relation to the below mentioned “any non-linear
thermodynamical system actually increases to develop a singularity which is
followedby the reorganization of the system through negative entropy, following
the destruction of the system in its previous form” we would like to comment
that exactly the same principle is observed in the nested hierarchy of the
brain electromagnetic field that supports the nested hierarchy of mentality and
consciousness in particular (for a complete description and discussion, please
see http://www.bm-science.com/team/art76.pdf) Greetings,Andrew and Alexander
From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Diego Lucio
Rapoport
Sent: Monday, 23 January, 2017 05:28
To: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com; squ...@gotsky.com; Jeremy
Dunning-Davies
Cc: fis; bjf...@sciences.demon.co.uk; cont...@howgravityworks.org
Subject: Re: [Fis] [Sadhu Sanga] Physics hype ... Dear ColleaguesReturning to
the issue discussed by Dr Rich Norman of the validity of the second law of
thermodynamics in relation to biology where negative entropy drivessystems to
self-organize, I would like to comment that any non-linear thermodynamical
system actually increases to develop a singularity which is followedby the
reorganization of the system through negative entropy, following the
destruction of the system in its previous form.
This is related to the non-orientability -say Mobius strip- of the compactified
complex number system as discussed in
https://www.academia.edu/30485983/Klein_Bottle_Logophysics_Self-reference_Heterarchies_Genomic_Topologies_Harmonics_and_Evolution._Part_I_Morphomechanics_Space_and_Time_in_Biology_and_Physics_Cognition_Non-Linearity_and_the_Structure_of_Uncertaintyand
the implications to chemistry, biology, cognition, metamathematics, genomics
and evolution are discussed in
https://www.academia.edu/30546256/Klein_Bottle_Logophysics_Self-reference_Heterarchies_Genomic_Topologies_Harmonics_and_Evolution._Part_II_Non-orientability_Cognition_Chemical_Topology_and_Eversions_in_Nature
https://www.academia.edu/30518156/Klein_Bottle_Logophysics_Self-reference_Heterarchies_Genomic_Topologies_Harmonics_and_Evolution._Part_III_The_Klein_Bottle_Logic_of_Genomics_and_its_Dynamics_Quantum_Information_Complexity_and_Palindromic_Repeats_in_EvolutionBest
regardsDiego Rapoport
w). Thank you for starting this topic, Dr. Ford. Your piece is correct by my
estimation, and fits quite exactly with many statements in our new book. [Are
you familiar
Re: [Fis] Fw: A Curious Story
Dear Joseph: Quote: "It is no longer valid to say that electrons are dimensionless points; experiments now establish a radius of the order of 10 to the -22 meters. If they are 'point-shaped' in the sense of being effectively spherically symmetrical, their putative fate as black holes seems irrelevant." What I meant is: They would be uncharged. Hence they cannot be point-shaped. So I see no dissensus between us. Thank you,Otto From: Joseph Brenner To: fis Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 11:03 AM Subject: [Fis] Fw: A Curious Story Dear All, I am sorry but I am still not satisfied with the evolution of this discussion to date. I am still looking forward to some explicit comment on my initial question of why mini black holes would not evaporate. I note that both Alex and Bruno asked the same question, before we have seen Gyorgy's comment. I can confirm from my own small experience as an organic chemist that entities can be created in the laboratory that not only do not exist in nature but could not be produced by 'Nature' on its own. The reactants, reaction vessels, temperatures and pressures to produce certain fluorochemicals and fluoropolymers could not be brought together in the same place and time without human intervention. In contrast, I see nothing in the discussion here of mini black holes that, first, suggests they could be the consequence of intentionally prepared states, with large energies 'brought together' in such a way that, second, their development would not follow known paths. I do not claim that I could follow the detailed mathematical physics of the demonstration of the existence of a "5% probability" that such states would not evaporate. But I and probably others of you much better could still follow a scientific discourse on the basis of some background and internal structure. For example, the following statement from one of Otto's notes seems to me to be a non sequitur: "If black holes are always uncharged, electrons cannot be point-shaped as is usually assumed because they would then be black holes and hence uncharged. They are bound to have a finite diameter large enough to prevent them from becoming black holes and hence be uncharged." It is no longer valid to say that electrons are dimensionless points; experiments now establish a radius of the order of 10 to the -22 meters. If they are 'point-shaped' in the sense of being effectively spherically symmetrical, their putative fate as black holes seems irrelevant. Would it still be possible to see some such new statements regarding both formation and evolution of mini black holes? The reference article (Szilamandee) simply repeats the statements we have seen, albeit in an interesting poetic context. Thank you. Joseph - Original Message - From: Otto E. Rossler To: Gyorgy Darvas ; fis Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 10:49 PMSubject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=szilamandee From: Otto E. Rossler To: Gyorgy Darvas ; fis Cc: Louis H Kauffman ; Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story I conform with Geörgyi's tale. From: Gyorgy Darvas To: fis Cc: Otto E. Rossler ; Louis H Kauffman ; Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story Dear All,I follow O. Rössler's concerns for a few years.As a physicist (who is probably not the best specialist in the black hole physics), I do not want to involve in detailed physical explanations and mathematical proofs for information specialists, not certainly specialised in physics. According to me, there is a misunderstanding that makes the story curious.Stellar black holes are a result of a gravitational collapse. That collapse takes place, when the mass of the star exceeds a critical value; it is a result of the locally high gravitational field. that gravitational field is stronger than the electromagnetic field that (in a very simplified picture) keeps the electrons revolve in a distance around the nucleus. In the course of that gravitational collapse the electron shells of the atoms fall in the nucleus. The properties of the black holes are defined for them. The star becomes very small in size, but has a strong gravitational field, and behaves like described in the bh literature. Cause: high gravity; effect: collapse, emergence of a bh. One can produce single atom collapse in extreme laboratory circumstances. Why not? However, that single (or few) atom collapse will not produce a gravitational field exceeding the critical value; since its mass is much less than the critical. The reason is that it was "created" not by a self-generated gravitational collapse. Therefore, it will not "eat" matter in its environment. According to the
Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=szilamandee From: Otto E. Rossler To: Gyorgy Darvas ; fis Cc: Louis H Kauffman ; Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story I conform with Geörgyi's tale. From: Gyorgy Darvas To: fis Cc: Otto E. Rossler ; Louis H Kauffman ; Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story Dear All, I follow O. Rössler's concerns for a few years. As a physicist (who is probably not the best specialist in the black hole physics), I do not want to involve in detailed physical explanations and mathematical proofs for information specialists, not certainly specialised in physics. According to me, there is a misunderstanding that makes the story curious. Stellar black holes are a result of a gravitational collapse. That collapse takes place, when the mass of the star exceeds a critical value; it is a result of the locally high gravitational field. that gravitational field is stronger than the electromagnetic field that (in a very simplified picture) keeps the electrons revolve in a distance around the nucleus. In the course of that gravitational collapse the electron shells of the atoms fall in the nucleus. The properties of the black holes are defined for them. The star becomes very small in size, but has a strong gravitational field, and behaves like described in the bh literature. Cause: high gravity; effect: collapse, emergence of a bh. One can produce single atom collapse in extreme laboratory circumstances. Why not? However, that single (or few) atom collapse will not produce a gravitational field exceeding the critical value; since its mass is much less than the critical. The reason is that it was "created" not by a self-generated gravitational collapse. Therefore, it will not "eat" matter in its environment. According to the lack of distance between the nucleus and electron shell(s) around it, these "atoms" (sic!) are called mini-black-holes. However, they do not behave like the stellar black holes over the critical mass. The name is only an analogy, marked by the prefix "mini-". Cause: not high gravity; effect: no critical mass, no more attraction of other masses around it than before its collapse. Regards, Gyuri On 2017.01.11. 11:33, Otto E. Rossler wrote: I like this response from Lou, Otto From: Louis H Kauffman To: Pedro C. Marijuan Cc: fis 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 wrote: From Alex Hankey Mensaje reenviado | Asunto: | Re: [Fis] A Curious Story | | Fecha: | Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530 | | De: | Alex Hankey | | Para: | PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ | 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 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] 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.” Thi
Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Dear Bruno: You are the same fair mind as ever. Rare contacts never destroy friendships.Since you asked, I have a new result, it is due to Einstein up until 19011, but was given up by him at the time through an oversight (his mind had been "seared" by thinking too much bout the equivalence principle, he once said).So his earlier view was right: c-global.Accordingly, if light takes infinitely long down to, and back up from a black hole's surface as this is known, the distance also is infinite.But for some reason, everybody pretends that things can reach horizons in finite outer time.it is because everyone thinks mathematical transformations were physically allowed. The movie "Interstellar" showed that one can age more slowly still fairly far from a black hole (the father figure in the plot). But the fact that if you touch down virtually to the horizon itself to return soon, you necessarily arrive in an effectively infinitely far away future (the ultimate twins paradox), has escaped the specialists up to this day (ask Kip Thorne who is happy with this inconsistency). Since he is my age I cannot quarrel with him. Thanks for the gesture,take care, Otto From: Bruno Marchal To: Otto E. Rossler Cc: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov ; Louis H Kauffman ; FIS Webinar ; Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story Dear Otto, On 11 Jan 2017, at 12:05, Otto E. Rossler wrote: Dear Plamen: I love your response.But: it misses my point: The fact that I have provided a proof since 9 years' time (often published) as to why the experiment represents a sizeable risk. Everyone in physics is invited to invalidate my proof. I am not against taking unknown risks in science. I am only opposed to acting against known risks. But as convincing as this may be, it is still not my main point. My main and real point is: CERN refuses to update its official safety report LSAG for exactly as long. But there is an even more disturbing point. IF an organization openly refuses to contradict evidence of committing a crime (even the biggest of history), it is very very strange in my own eyes at least that no one in the world, from the media to the profession, from Europe to Africa to America to Asia, is even able to spot this fact as deserving to be alleviated or at least publicly discussed. Can anyone in this illustrious round offer an excuse or explanation for this historically unique phenomenon? Is it really unique? I'm afraid it might be a rather common attitude. As a different example, we know, since a very long time that the prohibition of drugs does not work at all: it augments the consumption of drugs, in the worst unqualified conditions, and benefits immensely, and *only* to the international crime and terrorism. Concerning hemp all the papers showing that there is a serious danger have been shown, since long, containing elementary errors in logic and statistics, or having delirious protocols, but prohibition continues, and the number of people suffering directly from it has grown and is quite huge. All the literature is available, but nothing changes. I could say much more on this, as I have studied the human-lies phenomenon and the drugs fields is a nest of human lies, but it is now a bit of topic (but not quite unrelated to information and communication, through the notion of (purposeful) misinformation,miscommunication and propaganda). I think that the prospect of blowing up the planet is just a non-concern for some lobbies, and that with fake religion we just accepted fake science, and that there is no more free markets nor free-thinking because all powers are concentrated into the hands of few bandits, dispersed in rotten clubs, rotten politicians working for petrol or pharma interests, etc. I am alas very well placed to know that a part of the academical world is itself hostage of those bandits. So I am not so much astonished that nobody will give attention to anything going against the special interest of a small community of very influent people, influent by force and not by reason. It is not so much astonishing, as we have not yet transformed, accomplished the Enlightened Period. All sciences have come back to Academy, except the most fundamental one (theology), with the result that it stays in the hand of the charlatans. We are just still in the Middle-Age, and the only difference is that it is a nuclear Middle-Age, which is indeed a bit frightening. We are just not rational (yet?). Having said this, I would also be happy to understand how some small black hole could not evaporate. The math still eludes me. Of course, I am not an expert in particle physics, and I cannot pretend to even been convinced, through pure personal insight , why black holes exist and should evaporate "in reality", as opposed to simplification where the math is feasible, but where m
Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Thank you very much, dear Bob (if I may call you so) for your open letter which could as well have come from Dirac himself (whom my wife and I once met when we attended the same conference in Miami). I realize I have a little contribution to make with my suggested answer for you: c-global implies that black holes are necessarily uncharged. (Important innovations like c-global if its proof happens to be flawless, always have many implications.) If black holes are always uncharged, electrons cannot be point-shaped as is usually assumed because they would then be black holes and hence uncharged. They are bound to have a finite diameter large enough to prevent them from becoming black holes and hence be uncharged. Thus, the main qualitative element of string theory (bored-openness of space) suddenly has an empirical basis. The question that poses itself now is where to suspect the size of electrons to lie. There are quite a few orders-of-magnitude that potentially qualify. All we know for sure empirically is that ther diameter lies below ten to the minus 23 meters or so, right? If some form of string theory thus is proven to be implemented in nature (if you are ready to equate "unexplicable finite diameter" with this perhaps to grandiose name), one has to make probabilistic guesses as to where their size lies. For each order of magnitude, one can in the absence of any better hint assume the same probability. This leaves you about 6 scale steps. This size factor at the same time most likely increases the size of micro black holes beyond the classical radius. Here one now has to choose between the CERN energy and the Planck energy (which mass energy can be said to guarantee that a particle is a black hole because its corresponding photon has a wavelength smaller than the Schwarzschild radius of its mass energy). So we have only about six orders of agnitude to choose from. If you then give, in the absence of any better hint, each order of magnitude the same weight in between the proton mass and the Planck mass, and subtract the orders of magnitude covered empirically at CERN beyond the proton rest mass, you come up roughly with a probability of 5 percent that the CERN energy already reaches the black hole threshold. I hope this reply was not too confused and hand-waving. For some reason, string theorists have retreated from public visibility ever since the CERN controversy began. You may wonder about the above because this type of doing theoretical physics is different from the familiar one. Here one tries to exclude things, not prove things. But it is a beautiful new type of scientific endeavor, or so I feel. Can you forgive me the built-in "handwavingness" in the above? Take care,Otto P.S. I acknowledge here a discussion I had with Heinrich Kuypers 12 years ago. From: Robert E. Ulanowicz To: Otto E. Rossler Cc: fis Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story Dear Prof. Roessler: My training in quantum physics lies over a half-century in the past, so I cannot add or detract from the specifics of this issue without exposing my ignorance. I can only respond as an engineer with a devotion to the field of dimensional analysis. I note that the Planck constant and the gravitational constant deal with phenomena that are roughly some 43 orders of magnitude apart. Common engineering practice holds that dimensionless constants that differ by more than 5 orders of magnitude can be neglected in treating the problem a hand. Either the phenomenon in question is so fast that it is always in equilibrium with respect to more pertinent dynamics, or so slow that it takes on the guise of a boundary constraint. This is why I have always been skeptical of natural small black holes. It seems to me that in order to include the two constants into a dimensionless ratio of order one, one would have to combine them with characteristic distance and mass parameters of very large magnitudes -- such as those of galactic or cosmic scale. Such combination might be interposed artificially, of course, but I wouldn't expect the resultant bhs to behave like galactic systems. I know this sounds like ignorance or witchcraft to trained physicists, but engineers often have to evaluate and deal with systems for which the governing dynamics cannot be specified -- and dimensional analysis usually provides quite a reliable gauge. Respectfully, Bob Ulanowicz > I like this response from Lou,Otto > > From: Louis H Kauffman > To: Pedro C. Marijuan > Cc: fis > 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 ma
Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
I conform with Geörgyi's tale.
From: Gyorgy Darvas
To: fis
Cc: Otto E. Rossler ; Louis H Kauffman ;
Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Dear All, I follow O. Rössler's concerns for a few years. As a physicist (who
is probably not the best specialist in the black hole physics), I do not want
to involve in detailed physical explanations and mathematical proofs for
information specialists, not certainly specialised in physics.
According to me, there is a misunderstanding that makes the story curious.
Stellar black holes are a result of a gravitational collapse. That collapse
takes place, when the mass of the star exceeds a critical value; it is a result
of the locally high gravitational field. that gravitational field is stronger
than the electromagnetic field that (in a very simplified picture) keeps the
electrons revolve in a distance around the nucleus.
In the course of that gravitational collapse the electron shells of the atoms
fall in the nucleus. The properties of the black holes are defined for them.
The star becomes very small in size, but has a strong gravitational field, and
behaves like described in the bh literature.
Cause: high gravity; effect: collapse, emergence of a bh.
One can produce single atom collapse in extreme laboratory circumstances. Why
not? However, that single (or few) atom collapse will not produce a
gravitational field exceeding the critical value; since its mass is much less
than the critical. The reason is that it was "created" not by a self-generated
gravitational collapse. Therefore, it will not "eat" matter in its environment.
According to the lack of distance between the nucleus and electron shell(s)
around it, these "atoms" (sic!) are called mini-black-holes. However, they do
not behave like the stellar black holes over the critical mass. The name is
only an analogy, marked by the prefix "mini-".
Cause: not high gravity; effect: no critical mass, no more attraction of other
masses around it than before its collapse.
Regards,
Gyuri
On 2017.01.11. 11:33, Otto E. Rossler wrote:
I like this response from Lou, Otto
From: Louis H Kauffman
To: Pedro C. Marijuan
Cc: fis
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
wrote:
From Alex Hankey Mensaje reenviado
| Asunto: | Re: [Fis] A Curious Story |
| Fecha: | Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530 |
| De: | Alex Hankey |
| Para: | PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ |
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
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]
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 wo
Re: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story
great From: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov To: tozziart...@libero.it Cc: fis Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story Well, these are only citations. What if all of them are wrong? What if the data that were measured are incorrect? We have had this many times in human history. Titanik was considered unsinkable. Bismark too. But both went down to the seaground. Where is the mathematical proof or the computer simulation? Best, Plamen On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:32 PM, wrote: "The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. [Any concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis." Prof. Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Boston University, Prof. Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Prof. Richard Wilson, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard University "The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens." Prof. Steven Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University "Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the moon with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed up the moon. The universe doesn't go around popping off huge black holes." Prof. Edward Kolb, Astrophysicist, University of Chicago "I certainly have no worries at all about the purported possibility of LHC producing microscopic black holes capable of eating up the Earth. There is no scientific basis whatever for such wild speculations." Prof. Sir Roger Penrose, Former Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics, Oxford University "There is no risk [in LHC collisions, and] the LSAG report is excellent." Prof. Lord Martin Rees, UK Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society of London "Those who have doubts about LHC safety should read LSAG report where all possible risks were considered. We can be sure that particle collisions at the LHC cannot lead to a catastrophic consequences." Academician V.A. Rubakov, Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, and Russian Academy of Sciences "We fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced at the LHC." R. Aleksan et al., the 20 external members of the CERN Scientific Policy Committee, including Prof. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics. http://press.cern/ backgrounders/safety-lhc -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Androidmartedì, 10 gennaio 2017, 06:09PM +01:00 da Louis H Kauffman lou...@gmail.com: 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 wrote: From Alex Hankey Mensaje reenviado | Asunto: | Re: [Fis] A Curious Story | | Fecha: | Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530 | | De: | Alex Hankey | | Para: | PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ | 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 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] Enviado el: miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51 P
Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
e: 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] 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 http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi n/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 __ _ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/fis __ _ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story
From: "tozziart...@libero.it" To: fis Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:32 PM Subject: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story "The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. [Any concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis." Prof. Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Boston University, Prof. Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Prof. Richard Wilson, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard University "The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens." Prof. Steven Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University "Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the moon with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed up the moon. The universe doesn't go around popping off huge black holes." Prof. Edward Kolb, Astrophysicist, University of Chicago "I certainly have no worries at all about the purported possibility of LHC producing microscopic black holes capable of eating up the Earth. There is no scientific basis whatever for such wild speculations." Prof. Sir Roger Penrose, Former Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics, Oxford University "There is no risk [in LHC collisions, and] the LSAG report is excellent." Prof. Lord Martin Rees, UK Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society of London "Those who have doubts about LHC safety should read LSAG report where all possible risks were considered. We can be sure that particle collisions at the LHC cannot lead to a catastrophic consequences." Academician V.A. Rubakov, Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, and Russian Academy of Sciences "We fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced at the LHC." R. Aleksan et al., the 20 external members of the CERN Scientific Policy Committee, including Prof. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics. http://press.cern/backgrounders/safety-lhc -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Androidmartedì, 10 gennaio 2017, 06:09PM +01:00 da Louis H Kauffman lou...@gmail.com: 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 wrote: From Alex Hankey Mensaje reenviado | Asunto: | Re: [Fis] A Curious Story | | Fecha: | Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530 | | De: | Alex Hankey | | Para: | PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ | 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 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] 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 bibl
Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
I like this response from Lou,Otto From: Louis H Kauffman To: Pedro C. Marijuan Cc: fis 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 wrote: >From Alex Hankey Mensaje reenviado | Asunto: | Re: [Fis] A Curious Story | | Fecha: | Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530 | | De: | Alex Hankey | | Para: | PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ | 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 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] 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 http://listas.unizar.es/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor
