Newton was the first to realize that a physical body on the moon weighs less there than on earth. This being so despite the fact that its mass presumably remains constant.
Einstein was the first to realize implicitly that the mass of a body is not the same on the moon as on earth (it is larger). This is because only the total mass-energy of a body (rest mass plus kinetic energy), not rest mass energy alone, is conserved in free fall in accordance with the Birkhoff theorem of general relativity. Since the earth’s surface has a lower gravitational potential than the moon’s, the body’s rest mass energy content is lower on earth. Unlike what holds true for weight, this fact is not locally manifest.
Therefore, much like the weight of a body in Kiloponds, its mass in Kilograms also must never be given alone but always supplemented with the specific coordinates (or the absolute gravitational potential) of the place at which this measure was found.
How about the famous International Second? Since Einstein’s 1907 paper, we know that “non-universality” applies to time. The Second - defined by a certain number of atom-specific light wavelengths in time - is gravitational-potential-dependent.
How about the famous International Meter? The meter is defined by a certain number of atom-specific light wavelengths in space. If the Second is nonconstant, the meter can only be constant if c is non-constant - namely, inversely proportional to the local second without this being manifest locally. This postulate is the accepted canonical doctrine for almost a century. However, it unfortunately presupposes that the Kilogram were an absolute constant, whichit is not as we saw. Hence the Meter, like the Second, is NOT a universal constant. In return, c has become universally (and not just locally) constant in the vacuum.
If the Ur-Kilogram is non-constant as shown, also the International Ur-Coulomb is non-constant, for charge and mass stand in a fixed ratio locally in accordance with Einstein’s principle of general covariance.
If the ratio “Meter over Second” is a universal constant [c], then there exists a second universal constant: the ratio “Coulomb over Kilogram” [d]. The latter comes in several particle-type specific subvarieties and can be called specific absolute charge.
The two new absolute constants described, c and d, are automatically accompanied by four canonical conservation laws: “Kilogram times Second” (action), “Kilogram times Meter” (cession ), “Coulomb times Second” and “Coulomb times Meter.” The latter two come in several particle-specific varieties. “They have no names so far (pulsion, gression). They probably will prove quantized like action and cession.
Conclusion: Just as, along with the specification of the weight of a body, the place at which this weight holds true needs to be indicated according to Newton, so the same thing henceforth needs to be done whenever specifying the mass of a body - in terms of the Ur-Kilogram. The same holds true for the length of the Ur-Meter, and hence for all distances in the cosmos. And the same holds true for the charge of the Ur-Coulomb. And the same holds true for the duration of the Ur-Second, for which alone this kind of relativity has been known before, for 103 years.
Remark 1: This paper replaces the German-language first version of two days ago.
Remark 2: We plan to put this simple paper on Wikipedia so it can be used by everyone. (For J.O.R.)
 O.E. Rossler and C. Giannetti, “Cession, twin of action” (La cesión: hermana gemela de la acción).
2010-12-11 | achtphasen | 23:18:51
"Neophobic Appositional Science - German Relativists Try to Shrink the Planet in All Innocence"
The ultimate reason is anonymous refereeing. Radically new scientific ideas can no longer be published. A recent dialog on Achtphasen between the present author and an anonymous member of the scientific establishment ("Hansi") reveals this to the eye: anything novel is ridiculous and despicable because “we know the rules".
The new insight which caused all the bruhaha is gravitational space dilation, first discovered by Paul Marmet in general relativity and quantum mechanics. It implies - this is Tubingen - that black holes cannot evaporate and are uncharged: a minor scientific discovery.
Unfortunately it is new. As such it upsets incredibly much ingrained knowledge: Charge conservation survived for almost two centuries. So it is no wonder the editor of the scientific journal who had accepted the paper got fired before it went to the printer by pure coincidence.
This sounds like an ordinary scientific war - cute to watch for bystanders. Unfortunately, the new result totally upsets the safety equation of the largest and most prestigious experiment of history - the “big bang experiment” designed to create the “god particle.” Some 80 percent of the world’s research physicists are attached to it in one way or another.
No wonder the “scientific safety conference” called for in early 2008 to dismantle the new danger-proving result was not installed. If jumps are ruled out from possibly occurring in science, the confidence shown is heartening.
Unfortunately, jumps have occurred and do occur occasionally. Whether this jump is real is undecided. The main elements were found independently by other groups (George W. Cox, Richard J. Cook). The decisive new point, unchargedness of black holes, was so far acknowledged only by Cox. Thus there is no reason to worry?
Of course not if majority premonition is granted. Unfortunately this is not the case. So what is the situation?
The situation is that the most dangerous experiment of history is still allowed to continue by a world-wide scientific consensus, reached behind closed doors. A flawed, never updated for more than two years, “safety report” penned by insiders is sold to the world’s media and politicians as a warranty of risklessness. The mentioned first global truth curfew followed. Only the German head of state stepped down shortly after having expressed his reliance on the tainted safety report. No one knows the reason for his decision up to this day and probably no one ever will. He is an honorary professor of the university of Tubingen and a man of honor.
The whole scientific community hates me for crying unsafe. But any other scientist would have done the same thing in my place. Is the atmosphere poisoned too much, or can the scientific safety meeting still be convoked?
I believe that the world has deserved to be treated honorably. Or could really nothing better happen to the youthful majorty of the planet than to be protected from the truth?
(For J.O.R., November 24, 2010)
The probability is not very high as of yet: It is in between one hundredth of 8 percent and a full 8 percent, depending on undisclosed data. But a grim determination makes itself felt to make sure the peak will be consummated.
Let me explain why. “It cannot be that a new result exists.” For new results have allegedly never been found by an individual in recent history except by Einstein, and he has passed away. However, not even this is true: The result in question was found by Einstein. He only dismissed it at the time because quantum mechanics was not yet born, which reinforces this particular way of reading his equation as the only one in accord with physical reality.
I am one of the few people who also have an equation named after them which fact could be seen as a reason to listen to me, but I mention this only tongue-in-cheek, of course, because no one can be compared with Einstein. But I was blessed with finding a tiny new implication in his equation singled out by quantum mechanics as physically valid.
Shall I first describe it? You can skip this paragraph if you already trust me. The prevalent interpretation of Einstein’s “happiest thought” on which I rely is that light ascending in a gravitational field gets redshifted (slowed-down in its frequency) “on the way up.” This interpretation is widely held because it is very intuitive in Newtonian terms: a stone sent up is known to lose energy. In reality, however, the light in Einstein’s case already starts out energy-deprived downstairs - only the locally valid clock-slowdown there (also discovered by Einstein) masks this fact from being perceptible downstairs. This looks like an esoteric distinction between two seemingly equivalent descriptions. But the survival of the planet hinges on it.
No specialist in general relativity contradicts this finding (of mass-energy being reduced downstairs counterfactually), but they all keep silent because no one asks them. And also because they are shy since the implied new features of black holes (with their well-known infinite clock slowdown on the outer surface) frighten them. From an a priori point of view, the many new consequences that follow if the clock slowdown is indeed accompanied by a proportional increase in both wavelength and size, appear quite foreign. So the specialists wait to be asked. Both sides - the specialists and the journalists - are afraid to become famous with something unfamiliar to them. This only points to their good education and decency. But for this very reason, “ordinary citizens” must step in to make the issue a topic by their asking publicly what is the case.
Is it true or not that the properties of black holes are totally altered by the new size change result implicit in the Einstein equation?
No one ever objected to the new result. Objections came only to mistaken interpretations of the new result - so as if it contradicted the Einstein equation which is impossible since it follows from it as we saw. But do the new features indeed so radically alter the properties of black holes that an experiment designed with the old properties in mind suddenly becomes unsafe? The safety equation of the LHC happens to be totally altered.
When the potential outcome of a scientific experiment suddenly possesses radically new properties, common sense demands that the experimental activity be briefly interrupted until the consequences of the altered situation have been discussed in a scientific safety meeting (the fastest possibility). This is all that I ever asked for, for 31 months in a row.
While all of this is rational and simple, you cannot expect a colossus to respond fast under pressure of time. An experiment with ten thousand highly motivated subcontractors cannot be stopped even for a short while to wait for a scientific verdict. They are bound to continue on the basis of previous knowledge. And of course it is also quite improbable that a new fundamental result of pertinent importance would alight during the few years of operation.
But exactly this has happened. So future historians - if they exist - will find this a very interesting situation to study. We live in exciting times. A big ocean-liner cannot be stopped for a week, just as the proverbial mouse is funny because his friend, the elephant, allegedly complies instantly.
So what the planet needs is a keen receptive press. Or a single highly perceptive journalist. But they would risk their career investigating this. Journalists have learned not to believe in the improbable, even though only the improbable makes them famous like Woodward and Hoffmann.
Does this mean the planet must live on with 1 percent of an 8 percent probability of extinction right now, and the full 8 percent in the near future because the experiment will continue in ramped-up form? I doubt it. Rational facts like those presented cannot be ignored forever.
The LHC people fortunately announced a winter break after the current switch-over to another experiment (with risks of its own voiced by other critics). Therefore, my request to hold a scientific safety meeting before the experiment is taken up again so as to reach the full 8 percent danger level can no longer rationally be denied. For the delay caused by this “thinking pause” happens to be zero this time around. It is like stopping for a brief prayer: the benefit-cost ratio is infinite, as Pascal said.
So..... Take care everyone. (For J.O.R., Nov. 17, 2010)"
Ich habe zwei neue Beweise hierzu:
I) Der erste Beweis benützt die rotverschiebungsproportionale Massenverminderung aller frisch aufsteigend gebildeten Photonen (und aller mit ihnen lokal interkonvertiblen Elementarteilchen) weiter unten im Schwerefeld. Dass die Photonen schon massenvermindert im Bezug auf oben (rotverschoben) unten aufsteigen und nicht erst so oben ankommen, ist weitgehend unbekannt, aber doch eigentlich wohlbekannt und leicht zu zeigen. Jedenfalls stehe ich mit dieser Ansicht nicht alleine (vgl. Frolov und Novikov 1998 ).
Diesen vorläufigen Schluss zog Einstein auf der Basis der konstanten transversalen Distanz in einer sich quer wegbewegenden Lichtuhr in der speziellen Relativitätstheorie, welche ja dem Äquivalenzprinzip alleine zugrundeliegt.
Das gotische-R-Theorem  zeigte all dise Dinge formal viel vornehmer in der Schwarzschildlösung auf - als formale Implikation einer bisher aus unerfindlichen Gründen übersehenen neuen kanonisch erlaubten Observablen gotisch-R. Diese steht übrigens nicht allein, es gibt eine weitere, die aber nichtphysikalisch ist (ähnlich wie die bisher allgemein benützten Variablen r und R).
Doch ich wollte nicht so viel reden. Viele Details wurden auch schon von dem Erfinder des GPS gesehen, sowie von anderen Physikern des letzten Jahrzehnts des letzten Jahrhunderts. Als letztes muss ich natürlich das (hier als “Telema” bezeichenbare) Resultat von Richard J. Cook nennen , der mir als persönliche Mitteilung schrieb, dass er sich freue, wenn deutsche Relativisten an seiner Theorie Anstoß nähmen, weil das die Wissenschaft voranbringe. Dieses Kompliment mache ich nun explizit Ihnen.
Ihr Otto E. Rössler (Für J.O.R.)
 O.E. Rossler, “Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: “[gothic] R theorem” demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric.” http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf
 O.E. Rossler, “Telemach helped Ulysses save Penelope – T-L-M-Ch helps Einstein save earth” http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2010/08/19/p1772
 V.P. Frolov und I.D. Novikov, “Black-Hole Physics - Basic Concepts and New Developments.” Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998, p. 19.
 M. Abramovicz, “Black Holes and the centrifugal force paradox, Scientific American, March 1993, Vol. 298, p. 26 - 31.
 R.J. Cook, “Gravitational space dilation.” http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2811
2010-11-29 | achtphasen | 19:34:54 |
Sehr geehrter Herr Rössler,
sagen Sie gibt es denn in Tübingen nicht einen Physiker, der Ihnen mal stundenweise die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie beibringt oder sind Sie daran gar nicht interessiert?
Ich warte also immer noch auf eine kompetente Antwort. Auch jeder andere Physiker, der sich stark genug fühlt, darf Ihnen dabei helfen.
Ich mache experimentelle Voraussagen, die Sie zu widerlegen aufgerufen sind.
Sie sind vielleicht für das Überleben des Planeten entscheidend.
Ihr Otto E. Rössler