It is a strange experience to have stumbled across the global c – the fact that the pre-1911 Einstein was right – as it is confirmed by quantum mechanics: “Objects downstairs are enlarged.”
This almost boringly simple insight entails that for 9 years in a row, CERN’s cosmic-record symmetric high-energy particle collisions are geocidal with non-small odds.
I have made the strange experience that
· no one contradicts my published proof of planetary danger for 9 years
· CERN responds visibly by being no longer able to renew its official planetary safety report LSAG (for “Large-Hadron-Collider Safety Assessment Group”) for 9 ½ years
Imagine yourself being in the situation to be able to save all life and no one objects in print for 9 years, but the offender continues in plain sunlight.
I by happenstance saw John Huston’s famous 1966 movie “The Bible” today for the first time. It was the last movie that my young son (almost 8) had watched on TV on the day of his deadly accident. He had asked me afterwards “would you also do everything that Good demands of you?” and I had answered “no.” He looked disappointed.
I see in this coincidence a hint: I should not stop reminding the world of c-global’s power to save everyone.
The blood of Jonas is my witness. John Huston is incredibly strong. Maybe a single reader will now be alerted to asking the CERN question: “Why not renew the official planetary safety report LSAG from 2008?”
I got no answer from CERN. Is it you who dares go public?
October 4, 2017, Saint Francis Feast Day
I am afraid that no physicists have taken trouble to openly challenge, prove or disprove Prof. Rossler's calculations and warnings, despite his sincere appeals to the physics community for more than 9 years, may mean either the vested interests in the CERN experiments too strong or a total bankruptcy of humanity and morality in the physics community. Alternatively speaking, such no reactions may be a rather general tendency that the people seriously concerned have to keep silence, given the prevailing reductionism and "Money is might that makes right".
Dear Kensei:
Your response motivated me to publish the following text: https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Planetary_IQ_Issue
Thank you for your maximally fair question.
c-global is an anachronism -- a return to the pre-1911 gravitational view of Einstein.
This long outdated view happens to have been correct.
Two reasons for that:
FIRST, Einstein did not have quantum mechanics as of yet (it lay 20 years in the future). The latter theory implies that all masses downstairs are reduced by the gravitational redshift factor. (Ask any specialist: no one seems to know this fact, right?) Reason: All locally generated photons have less energy. Hence the atoms created out of them by quantum creation-annihilation are proportionally reduced in their mass.
Hence all atoms downstairs are linearly blown up by the gravitational redshift factor relative to above, via the Bohr radius formula of quantum mechanics.
SECOND, the equivalence principle of Einstein of 1907 says that (and explains why) the just seen size increased is optically masked relative to above. To see this requires looking very carefully down once more. Then the bottom, even though horizontal everywhere locally speaking, is everywhere locally slanted relative to the tip. For a horizontally progressing light front downstairs is doing so on a locally slanted course, relative to the tip. This is a corollary to Einstein's derivation of the gravitational redshift factor itself (by a constantly applying recession of the bottom relative to the tip).
This fact now implies the local slanting as a corollary to Einstein's local receding. It is new. It explains Einstein's own correctly seen fact that light is necessarily "creping" downstairs when watched from the tip.
Thus, the Einstein-creeping is caused by a slant of the horizontally propagating light front (ray) downstairs at every point, relative to the tip. Hence c is actually NOT reduced downstairs, as Einstein had reluctantly seen himself being forced to conclude -- in violation of the axiom assumed at the outset that the rocketship is entirely described by the laws of special relativity with its
by definition global c.
The just-mentioned non-sequitur, by the way, explains the so far unexplained historical fact that Einstein could not (at any rate did not) touch on the topic of gravitation for 3 1/2 years until mid 1911.
But in the absence of the mentioned fact from quantum mechanics, the ice on which Einstein was walking was too thin to allow him to add the above "relative slantedness argument" to his already large enough list of absolutely revolutionary ("absurd" according to the knowledge of the time as well as common sense) arguments.
Did I answer your question to some extent? Do I have to say more about the ramifications?
Thank you once more for your unprecedentedly fair question.
I am not shore if I understand. :( But I love to do. Because I think I can perhaps understand Bergyl better if I do. If I had been a child, how would you explained what you have written above?
Dear Solveig:
I cherish your question (although I do not knowthe word Bergyl).
It is all about a "stupid" (since merely factual) question.
The question is: Was the young Einstein (before he turned 32) right?
I say yes and could show this in many papers and texts, but no one in the scientific establishment cares enough to even try to prove me wrong.
On the other hand, supposing that the young Einstein was right: Then what I said is true.
Is this a little bit clear?
Take care,
Otto
.
It is more clear. Thanks.
As a young mother with 2 small children at home, I also studied physics from home. Same with mathematics. When I started working it was with data. So I do not know today's academic terminology in physics and do not have access to the academic environment. But it is also possible that I can think "outside of the box" more easily.
Not strange that you have not heard about Bergyl. A little fairy show me that 3D structure , with all it's rules. http://bergyl.no/en/ People can experience this physically. But some must show them.
I think it may contain many of the answers physicists ask today.
But no physicists have so far wanted to look at it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication