Re: [Fis] [FIS] A Curious Story

2017-01-24 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Dear  Otto: 

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Otto E. Rossler  > wrote:
> 
> 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? 
> (Understanding is sometimes more important than surviving -- right? Forgive 
> me the pun.)
> 
> I am very grateful for the discussion,
> take care, everyone,
> Otto

I will offer some opinions that are related to the  “public” philosophy of 
science policy.  At the end, I will raise a question about the philosophy of 
epistemic mathematics as it manifests itself in the epistemology of physical 
“models” of natural phenomenological events.

My personal experience with the interface between “doing” experimental 
molecular biology and “doing” legally-enforcable public health standards lasted 
over a decade during my service in the US  Public Health Service.  

The vast gaps between specific experimental evidence and the subsequent 
emission of a public statements by senior government officials necessarily 
require a shift from the study of nature to the projections of future social 
behaviors.  The simple example of what I speak is the biological evidence for a 
physical-chemical structure to cause cancer in animals and the removal of that 
particular physical-chemical structure from commerce.  Vinyl chloride is one of 
many such examples where the professional communities preformed a “Risk 
Analysis” that resulted in restricting Vinyl Chloride usage.  In the early 
1980’s I was one of the founding members of the Society for Risk Analysis which 
seeks to illuminate the murky areas between scientific information and public 
policy.   

see: http://www.sra.org  
Risk analysis is broadly defined to include risk assessment, risk 
characterization, risk communication, risk management, and policy relating to 
risk. Our interests include risks to human health and the environment, both 
built and natural. We consider threats from physical, chemical, and biological 
agents and from a variety of human activities as well as natural events. We 
analyze risks of concern to individuals, to public- and private-sector 
organizations, and to society at various geographic scales. Our membership is 
multidisciplinary and international.

Of course, the biological example is remote from the issues of risk analysis 
for CERN experiments, but many parallels exist.   The SRA journal articles may 
provide you deeper insights into "what is going on" behind the public facades.

With regard to your specific concern 
> Can anyone in this illustrious round offer an excuse or explanation for this 
> historically unique phenomenon?

I suggest that at least three principle possibilities exist:

1. Senior CERN officials have evaluated you assertions and rejected them as 
implausible. 

2. Senior CERN officials have evaluated your assertions and accepted the 
mathematical truths but consider the risk to be so minuscule that this risk 
(and your logic) can be ignored.

3. Senior CERN officials have evaluated your assertions and accepted your 
conclusions and have no plausible counter-arguments to the calculated levels of 
risk. Therefore, silence.

I would note that as public officials, senior CERN officials are keenly aware 
of the potential of a detailed risk analysis of experiments could endanger the 
continued public funding of CERN.

The reason the situation is “curious”, as you so adroitly express the current 
stalemate, is because of the deep, deep, deep traditions of the scientific 
community to insist upon the free thought, free speech, free discussions on 
matter of public policy, public risk analysis, …

Thus, I see this “curious” behavior as a political problem that can be 
addressed by seeking a political solution that respects scientific traditions 
and hence, to motivate senior CERN officials to act honorably in the best 
interests of all.


Now, for a comment about epistemic mathematics.  These thoughts are remote from 
the specific issues regarding the risk of local black holes.  These are generic 
w.r.t. the nature of scientific information its communication through logically 
distinctive symbol systems.

For my research on health risk analysis, I undertook a detailed study of the 
origin of scientific units of measure. By way of background, economic units of 
measure are 

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-20 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

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 j

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-11 Thread Otto E. Rossler
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 <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
 To: Otto E. Rossler <oeros...@yahoo.com> 
Cc: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com>; Louis H Kauffman 
<lou...@gmail.com>; FIS Webinar <fis@listas.unizar.es>; Pedro C. Marijuan 
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
 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 p

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-11 Thread Otto E. Rossler
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 <u...@umces.edu>
 To: Otto E. Rossler <oeros...@yahoo.com> 
Cc: fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
 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 <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 b

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-11 Thread Robert E. Ulanowicz
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 <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>
> 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> |
> | Para:  | PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <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> 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, th

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-11 Thread Otto E. Rossler
I conform with Geörgyi's tale.

  From: Gyorgy Darvas <darv...@iif.hu>
 To: fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> 
Cc: Otto E. Rossler <oeros...@yahoo.com>; Louis H Kauffman <lou...@gmail.com>; 
Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
 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 <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> 
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> |
| Para:  | PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <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> 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 plan

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-11 Thread Gyorgy Darvas

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 <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

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-11 Thread Otto E. Rossler
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? 
(Understanding is sometimes more important than surviving -- right? Forgive me 
the pun.) 
Can you kindly distribute this response of mine?
I am very grateful for the discussion,take care, everyone,Otto


  From: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com>
 To: Louis H Kauffman <lou...@gmail.com> 
Cc: fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
 Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:42 PM
 Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
   
Dear Louis, Pedro and FISers,

I have been knowing Otto for about a litle less than 10 years now.
What I have learned from him is that he has a very subtle sense of humor and 
wisdom.
What I conclude about this issue with CERN's LHC is that he wishes nothing 
more/less than an a priori theoretical proof that the black hole experiments 
will not lead to a collaps of the Earth.
He would be more than happy if somebody provides this proof and his concerns 
about our future appear ungrounded, so that the experiments can continue 
without any fear about the possible end of humanity. But as he said, nobody has 
done this until now. Nobody has taken these concerns seriously. The key 
question for us is why do we allow such experiments without having such a 
proof? Why do we play with fire in our own kitchen without being sure that we 
can deal with its breakout? If the accident occurs, then it will be too late to 
prevent the danger, unless we have a time machine, which is not the case at the 
moment, I am afraid.

So, I think that Otto's appeal can be considered as a challenge not less 
important than the one with the proof of Fermat's last theorem.
While there was no danger from keeping this problem unsolved for 300+ years, we 
may have a real problem now.
So, why not trying to administer science for being performed in a reasonable 
way: to not place the horses (experimental science) before the cabin 
(theoretical science) - which is the case with LHC?
Otto only wishes to say: "We should not do such experients, until we have a 
theoretical proof or at least to have a computer simulation demonstrating that 
the chance of having such a disaster is diminishing." And even if this is the 
case, we should carry a referendum over 4+ billion people on Earth on wether to 
allow such experiments or not. They are not only an issue ofr a government or 
of an over-excited community of physicists. Please correct me if I am wrong, 
Otto. 
   
I hope this helps.

All the best.

Plamen




On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Louis H Kauffman <lou...@gmail.com> wrote:

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> 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> |
| Para:  | PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> |

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-11 Thread Otto E. Rossler
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> 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> |
| Para:  | PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <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> 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.
   --- 
  
 
   
 __ _

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-10 Thread Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
Dear Louis, Pedro and FISers,

I have been knowing Otto for about a litle less than 10 years now.
What I have learned from him is that he has a very subtle sense of humor
and wisdom.
What I conclude about this issue with CERN's LHC is that he wishes nothing
more/less than an a priori theoretical proof that the black hole
experiments will not lead to a collaps of the Earth.
He would be more than happy if somebody provides this proof and his
concerns about our future appear ungrounded, so that the experiments can
continue without any fear about the possible end of humanity. But as he
said, nobody has done this until now. Nobody has taken these concerns
seriously. The key question for us is why do we allow such experiments
without having such a proof? Why do we play with fire in our own kitchen
without being sure that we can deal with its breakout? If the accident
occurs, then it will be too late to prevent the danger, unless we have a
time machine, which is not the case at the moment, I am afraid.

So, I think that Otto's appeal can be considered as a challenge not less
important than the one with the proof of Fermat's last theorem.
While there was no danger from keeping this problem unsolved for 300+
years, we may have a real problem now.
So, why not trying to administer science for being performed in a
reasonable way: to not place the horses (experimental science) before the
cabin (theoretical science) - which is the case with LHC?
Otto only wishes to say: "We should not do such experients, until we have a
theoretical proof or at least to have a computer simulation demonstrating
that the chance of having such a disaster is diminishing." And even if this
is the case, we should carry a referendum over 4+ billion people on Earth
on wether to allow such experiments or not. They are not only an issue ofr
a government or of an over-excited community of physicists. Please correct
me if I am wrong, Otto.

I hope this helps.

All the best.

Plamen





On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Louis H Kauffman <lou...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>
> 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> <alexhan...@gmail.com>
> Para: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
> <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> 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 

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-10 Thread Terrence W. DEACON
How many readers recall the fear that preceded the first test of a fission
bomb, and then later of a fusion bomb, that such an explosion could ignite
the earth's atmosphere? Sound familiar?
I can even recall the reasoning that led some to argue that reaching the
speed of sound in the atmosphere would  cause any object (aircraft) to
shatter as though striking an immovable solid object.

I don't mention these cases to say that one should always ignore such
worries, but rather to explore the abductive and statistical reasoning
processes that we often use to make such decisions.
This is loosely related to the reasoning that causes lottery ticket
purchases to soar as both the probability of winning plummets as the prize
value grows. The psychology is well studied and yet the empirical science
side of this issue is not. We have a very minimal understanding of how to
assess the "probable significance" of alternative unproved theoretical
predictions. This is of course an issue of understanding the referential
and normative aspects of information.

— Terry


On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:06 AM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <
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]
> *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
>
>


-- 
Professor Terrence W. Deacon
University of California, Berkeley
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-10 Thread Louis H Kauffman
Dear Pedro,
Ok. Can we have the text of Professor Rossler’s proof that these mini-black 
holes
> cannot Hawking evaporate 
> grow exponentially inside matter?
It would be very interesting to debate the details.

I find on the web:
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.pdf 


http://www.science20.com/big_science_gambles/blog/interview_professor_otto_rössler_takes_lhc-31449
 


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2650665/Legal-bid-to-stop-CERN-atom-smasher-from-destroying-the-world.html
 


http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/NicolaiComment-en.pdf
 


Best,
Lou Kauffman


> On Jan 5, 2017, at 5:06 AM, 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 
> 
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-07 Thread PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
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