Re: Gravity and electricity
hanson
in news:42B71560...@hate.spam.net... ... ahahaha...
ahahaha.... AHAHAHAH.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... So, Alan
Schwartz, a few days ago you showed a vivid interest in my ass
crack, and now you advise me to "Shove that up your ass, hanson",
referring to the intellectual property that you have stolen... Not good,
Al. Bad scene for your reputation to exhibit such a yearning for my
ass. Your anal fetish is not my bag, and hence your thirsty attempts
will remain an unreachable quest and an unattainable goal for you.
To make matters worse it appears to be an ongoing thing with you
trying to keep on bragging with the same stolen property, see in:
news:4277CCA2...@hate.spam.net... and my post making
you gently, politely, courteously and urgently aware of it in:
news:m%Ude.6366$BE3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...AHAHAHA.... Al, I always gave
you the benefit of the doubt when you cajole and brag how gifted
you are. I thought you referred to your intellectual prowess and not
to your giftedness as a petty thief. Now, I begin to side with Prof.
Richard Schultz who sees you as a liar.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
All these events, Al, do cast a long shadow onto your participation
in the results of the upcoming/ongoing (???) Eotvoes experiment.
Long, Al.... LONG... like in.... AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha....
in news:42B71560...@hate.spam.net... ... ahahaha...
>> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>> news:42B6EE84...@hate.spam.net...
[Orion wrote:]
>> >> Is there a possible connection between gravity and electricity?
>> > [snip]
>> >
[Al]
>> > No, not even if you are wearing Kaluza-Klein jeans.
>> > Uncle Al
>> >
[hanson]
>> idiot. There is a connection of/by/with/thru and between gravity
>> & electricity and all things that are residing within the cosmos.
>> Even if YOU can't see it because you are stuck in your
>> worn-out and archaic Kaluza-Klein jeans... ahaha... AHAHA...
>> Al, listen:.... AHAHAHAHA...... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....
>> Past history says that it cranks you.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>> ahaha... ahahanson
>
[Al]
> Gravity and electromagnetism are handled by entirely separate
> potentials. .....
>
[hanson]
idiot.
AHAHAHAHA..... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ahahaha...
More honestly, you should have posted that you and your
plagiarized stuff below are also handled by different potentials,
namely D.Sweetser, the author and you Alan Schwartz, the
plagiarizer...... AHAHAHAHAHA.... Maybe your plagiarized
postings do impress some fools, but don't try to impress me
with that stuff below, about which you have only a very faint inkling
about it may mean. Besides, your only semi-own thought above
is pompous self- aggrandizement. At least state in your future
plageriarizations that "G & EM MAY or CAN be handled..." but
don't use ARE that implies "ONLY" ...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA..
In the real world, including physics and math, there are always
very many ways to skin the cat... I'd go along with what Sweetser
has said, (which you have plagiarized to appear to be as gifted
as he is) if the issue would be about events taking place in the
neighborhood of E-(15 to 18)... just beyond the extreme borders
of the current state of metrology. But Sweetser makes a great
syncopated orchestration, a mensa style menstruation about events
that require metrological sensitivities of E-(35 to 41). Not surprisingly
he makes large Shakespearian cape waving assumptions that have
nothing to do with EM vs G and ends up with the grand and gifted
conclusion that: "m d^2 R/dt^2 = -GmM/R^2" which is nothing else
then Newton's m*a = -GmM/R^2... a thing they teach at the start
of high school physics... ahahaha... AHYAHAHAHA... ahahaha....
AHAHAHA... and you gifted idiot, you Al, steals it and runs around
with it bragging.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
>
--------- [Al's plagiarized post begins] -----------
> Gravity and electromagnetism are handled by entirely separate
> potentials. Fundamental forces arise from irreducible tensors, but
> the proposed unified field strength tensor is asymmetric and
> reducible.
>
> Classical gravitational potential has units of mass/length. Classical
> electromagnetic potential has units of charge/length. Mass and charge
> are separate, independent qualities of particles as seen by the
> electron. If time is reversed on a Feynman diagram, the sign of its
> charge reverses to become a positron while its mass is unchanged.
> Field equations are free to be normalized. By choosing the potential
> as a normalizing factor, the choice of units for the potential does
> not matter:
>
> Box^2 A_u / |A_u| = 0
>
> The units of this field equation depend only on the operator Box^2.
> If A_u is complex-valued, then A_u/|A_u| is a way to represent
> U(1),the symmetry group of electromagnetism. The box operator acts on
> A_u,not on A_u/|A_u|, so I am not entirely clear on what this
> observationmeans.
>
> The second rank tensor A^u;v is reducible. It can be broken into the
> antisymmetric second rank electromagnetic field strength tensor F^uv,
> and the symmetric field strength tensor .5 (A^u;v + A^v;u). It has
> been shown that a symmetric second-rank tensor is the minimum rank
> tensor able to depict curved spacetime. This proposal is consistent
> with that observation.
>
> An objection to working with a reducible tensor is one could imagine
> almost any arbitrary collection of tensors stapled together to form
> the reducible tensor. Completeness argues against this stance. The
> asymmetric tensor A^u;v is not an arbitrary tensor. Instead, it is
> the complete expression of a covariant differential operator acting on
> a 4-potential. The complete covariant derivative of a 4-potential can
> be split into two irreducible and thus two fundamental fields: F^uv,
> the accepted field for electromagnetism, and a symmetric second rank
> tensor which might be connected to gravity. The completeness approach
> is in contrast to many current efforts which start from an irreducible
> representation, then call upon spontaneous symmetry breaking. It may
> be worthwhile to seriously consider the complete covariant derivative
> of a 4-potential that happens to be reducible for unifying gravity
> and electromagnetism.
>
> Two tested equations of gravity are Newton's law of gravity and the
> Schwarzschild metric of general relativity. Newton's gravitational
> force law is accurate enough to guide most, but not all, spacecraft.
> Subtle corrections are required due to the finite speed of light. The
> weak field tests of general relativity have been confirmed. This
> unification proposal must generate both types of equations within
> experimental accuracy.
>
> The complete relativistic force law has two irreducible parts, and
> thus separate fundamental field strength tensors and charges:
>
> F^u = m (A^u;v + A^v;u) / (2 |A^u|) d X_v/dtau
> + kq(A^u,v - A^v,u) / (2 |A^u|) d X_v/dtau
>
> The electromagnetic field strength is normalized to the potential, but
> is otherwise identical to the standard Lorentz force. Where in the
> gravitational force term is Newton's gravitational constant G? It
> will emerge from a dimensionless gravitational source term in the
> symmetric tensor.
>
> A particular potential must be chosen for a detailed study of this
> force law. The potential must solve the field equations. The
> potential 1/r solves the Laplace equation. That potential is relevant
> to both classical gravity and electromagnetism under certain
> conditions. Now the field equations are based on the d'Alembertian
> operator, and time must be included with the distance r. One natural
> way to do this is to use the interval tau. The potential, A^u =
> (1/tau^2, 0, 0, 0) solves the field equations:
>
> d(1/(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2))/dt = 2 t/tau^4
> d(1/tau^2)/dx = 2 x/tau^4
> d(1/tau^2)/dy = 2 y/tau^4
> d(1/tau^2)/dz = 2 z/tau^4
>
> d (2t/tau^4)/dt = 8 t^2/tau^6 - 2/tau^4
> d (2x/tau^4)/dx = 8 x^2/tau^6 + 2/tau^4
> d (2y/tau^4)/dy = 8 y^2/tau^6 + 2/tau^4
> d (2z/tau^4)/dz = 8 z^2/tau^6 + 2/tau^4
>
> d^2 A_0/dt^2 - d^2 A_0/dx^2 - d^2 A_0/dy^2 - d^2 A_0/dz^2
> = 8 (t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2)/tau^6 - 8/tau^4
> = 0
>
> Weak gravitational fields hardly bend spacetime at all. For small
> deviations from background, it is common practice to investigate a
> linear restoring force. A simple restoring force for this potential
> would be:
>
> 1/tau^2 = 1/((T + t GM/(2 c^3 T))^2 - (R/c + r/c GM/(2 c^2 R))^2)
>
> where small t and r are the variables, and the spring constants
> are GM/(2 c^3 T) and GM/(2 c^2 R) respectively. Note this will
> only work locally for small amounts of time t and space r, not
> globally.
>
> What needs to be calculated is (A^u;v + A^v;u)/(2 |A^u|) for the
> potential A^u = (1/tau^2, 0, 0, 0) assuming the above linear restoring
> force. Spacetime has already been assumed to be nearly flat. By
> assuming Euclidean coordinates, the connection is zero and standard
> derivatives can be used in place of the covariant derivative.
>
> d (1/((T + t GM/(2 c^3 T))^2 - (R/c + r/c GM/(2 c^2 R))^2)) /dt
> 1/|1/tau^2|
> = -GM/(c^3 tau^2) as t, x, y, z -> 0
>
> d (...) /dx 1/|1/tau^2|
> = GM/(c^3 tau^2) as t, x, y, z -> 0
>
> d (...) /dy 1/|1/tau^2|
> = GM/(c^3 tau^2) as t, x, y, z -> 0
>
> d (...) /dy 1/|1/tau^2|
> = GM/(c^3 tau^2) as t, x, y, z -> 0
>
> Write out the relativistic force, trying to get all the signs right.
>
> ,v = (d/dt, -d/dx, -d/dy, -d/dz)
> A^u = (1/tau^2, 0, 0, 0)
> dX_v/dtau = (dt/dtau, -dx/dtau, -dy/dtau, -dz/dtau)
>
> F_u = m (A^u;v + A^v;u)/(2 |A^u|) dX_v/dtau =
>
> = m (-GM/(c^3 tau^2) dt/dtau, GM/(c^3 tau^2) dx/dtau,
>
> GM/(c^3 tau^2) dy/dtau, GM/(c^3 tau^2) dz/dtau)
>
> m (-GM/(c^3 tau^2) dt/dtau, GM/(c^3 tau^2) dx/dtau, classical
> conditions, dt/dtau = 0, t = 0, and |tau| = R/c. Assuming radial
> symmetry, the force equation simplifies to:
>
> F^u = m (0, GM/R^2 dR/dtau)
>
> Calculate dR/dtau if |tau| = R/c:
>
> R/c = (t^2 - tau^2)^.5
>
> dR/dtau = -tau/R
>
> If d^2 R/dtau^2 =~ d^2 R/dt^2, then:
>
> m d^2 R/dt^2 = -GmM/R^2
>
> This is Newton's law of gravity.
>
--------- [Al's plagiarized post ends] -----------
>
[hanson]
Original author is not Al Schwartz but Doug Sweetser.
www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-08/msg0043615.html -
a.. From: swee...@world.std.com (Doug B Sweetser)
a.. Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 03:54:42 GMT
a.. Message-ID: <H12A9...@world.std.com>
a.. http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2004-04/msg0060435.html
a.. From: Doug Sweetser <swee...@alum.mit.edu>
a.. Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:30:28 +0000 (UTC)
a.. Message-ID: <c60l8m$t1c$1...@pcls4.std.com>
a.. Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
-----------------------------------------------
> Shove that up your ass, hanson.
> Uncle Al
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahaha... you mean,
Al, you are so embarrassed that you try to fence it
and get rid of your stolen goods here?....ahahahaha.....
At minimum, Al, you the mucho self-proclaimed gifted
and self-anointed one, should have shown at least
whereto the EM charge went and disappeared to in
your heisted loot. It's nowhere to be seen, Al... OR,
is it buried after all in m*a = GmM/r^2... ahahahaha...
like I said in my post above, and like so very many
other folks begin to suspect?.... AHAHAHAHAHA...
Thanks, for all the laughs, Al, you gifted petty thief...
ahahahaha...ahahahanson
Uncle Al
[snip]
> in news:42B71560...@hate.spam.net... ... ahahaha...
> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAH.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
[snip]
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...AHAHAHA....
[snip]
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
[snip]
> AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha....
[snip]
> in news:42B71560...@hate.spam.net... ... ahahaha...
> AHAHAHAHA..... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ahahaha...
[snip]
> AHAHAHAHAHA....
[snip]
> ...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA..
[snip]
> ahahaha... AHYAHAHAHA... ahahaha....
> AHAHAHA...
[snip]
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
[snip]
> [hanson]
> AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahaha...
[snip]
ahahahaha...
[snip]
> AHAHAHAHAHA...
[snip]
> ahahahaha...ahahahanson
Do you think hanson has a text file he cuts and pastes, or does he
type it out new each time?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Fucking idiot. He's laughing at your stupidity and lying ways.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Ron Jones
> hanson wrote:
> [snip]
> [snip]
>
>> ahahahaha...ahahahanson
>
> Do you think hanson has a text file he cuts and pastes, or does he
> type it out new each time?
Lets hope he types it afresh. They he'll wear out the A and H keys... :-)
--
--
Ron Jones
Don't repeat history, see unreported near misses in chemical lab/plant
at http://www.crhf.org.uk
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'" :
Isaac Asimov:
Ian St. John
He uses Microsoft Word.
hanson
news:amogb1phpid04ishk...@4ax.com...
> In article <42B848D2...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>hanson wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAH.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>>[snip]
>>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...AHAHAHA....
>>[snip]
>>> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>>[snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha....
>>[snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHA..... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ahahaha...
>>[snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHAHA....
>>[snip]
>>> ...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA..
>>[snip]
>>> ahahaha... AHYAHAHAHA... ahahaha....
>>> AHAHAHA...
>>[snip]
>>> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>>[snip]
>>> [hanson]
>>> AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahaha...
>>[snip]
>>ahahahaha...
>>[snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHAHA...
>>[snip]
>>> ahahahaha...ahahahanson
>>
>>Do you think hanson has a text file he cuts and pastes, or does he
>>type it out new each time?
>
> Fucking idiot. He's laughing at your stupidity and lying ways.
> Louis Savain
>
ahahaha... I don't think Al is getting the meaning nor the chirality
of ahahaha.. AHAHAHA ... Hence for Al and the other inquirers
who wonder about that highly mesmerizing ...ahaha...AHAHA...
I am preparing a FAQ about ... ahahaha... AHAHAHA..
ahahaha... ahahanson
hanson
Bravo, Al! As usual, you lead the parade with your inquiry:
Here's the == FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== for you in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Thanks for the laughs, Al
... AHAHAHA... ahahaha......ahahahanson
>
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42B848D2...@hate.spam.net...
hanson
news:111938343...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> Uncle Al wrote:
>> hanson wrote:
>> [snip]
>> [snip]
>>
>>> ahahahaha...ahahahanson
>>
>> Do you think hanson has a text file he cuts and pastes, or does he
>> type it out new each time?
>
> Lets hope he types it afresh. They he'll wear out the A and H keys... :-)
>
....maybe, maybe not, BUT,
Here's the == FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== for you in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Thanks for the laughs, Ron
... AHAHAHA... ahahaha......ahahahanson
hanson
wrote in news:UI_te.4083$EP2....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:42B848D2...@hate.spam.net...
>> hanson wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAH.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>> [snip]
>>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...AHAHAHA....
>> [snip]
>>> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>> [snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha....
>> [snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHA..... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ahahaha...
>> [snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHAHA....
>> [snip]
>>> ...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA..
>> [snip]
>>> ahahaha... AHYAHAHAHA... ahahaha....
>>> AHAHAHA...
>> [snip]
>>> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>> [snip]
>>> [hanson]
>>> AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahaha...
>> [snip]
>> ahahahaha...
>> [snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHAHA...
>> [snip]
>>> ahahahaha...ahahahanson
>>
>> Do you think hanson has a text file he cuts and pastes, or does he
>> type it out new each time?
>
[AsstrolloIan]
> He uses Microsoft Word.
>
[hanson]
Is that your recommendation? Are you sure? Is that what your
astrological charts tell you?. Maybe it's time for you to read
the == FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== as in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Thanks for the laughs, Ian
... AHAHAHA... ahahaha......ahahahanson
Uncle Al
> >
> [hanson]
> ahahaha... I don't think Al is getting the meaning nor the chirality
> of ahahaha.. AHAHAHA ... Hence for Al and the other inquirers
> who wonder about that highly mesmerizing ...ahaha...AHAHA...
> I am preparing a FAQ about ... ahahaha... AHAHAHA..
> ahahaha... ahahanson
Idiot.
Uncle Al
>
> "Ron Jones" <r...@ronjones.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:111938343...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> >> hanson wrote:
> >> [snip]
[snip]
> === The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA"
[snip
"ahaha... AHAHAHA"
[snip]
> ... AHAHAHA... ahahaha......ahahahanson
Idiot.
Uncle Al
ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== as in
[snip]
> === The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA"
[snip]
"ahaha... AHAHAHA"
[snip]
> ... AHAHAHA... ahahaha......ahahahanson
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
[snip]
about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...==
[snip]
> === The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" i
[snip]
"ahaha... AHAHAHA"
[snip]
> ... AHAHAHA... ahahaha......ahahahanson
> > [snip]
Idiot.
hanson
Here study this: ---- it's time for you to read the
== FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== as in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Al, listen: ahahahaha....... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42B8A15F...@hate.spam.net...
hanson
== FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== as in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Al, listen: ahahahaha....... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42B8A1B2...@hate.spam.net...
hanson
== FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== as in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Al, listen: ahahahaha....... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42B8A187...@hate.spam.net...
hanson
== FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== as in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Al, listen: ahahahaha....... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42B8A202...@hate.spam.net...
Richard Schultz
: Idiot.
Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
So when is that paper coming out in Phys Rev D? Before or after you
explain how d-orbital participation explains the geometry of PH3?
Before or after you explain how the existence of magnetic monopoles
is forbidden by the Maxwell Equations?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"A mensch takes personal responsiblity for his actions. When demonstrated to
be empirically wrong a mensch admits error and becomes a better mensch."
-- "Uncle Al" Schwartz, in article <41D0A0BA.BCF76...@hate.spam.net>
hanson
news:d9aqov$1kr$3...@news.iucc.ac.il...[Rich]
> Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
>
uA is a very gifted person, self-anointed of course. But uA has, to his
credit, a vast number of such intellectually blinding 1 word posts.
Google shows 251,000 web hits for == uncle Al + idiot. ==
Google shows 18,300 group hits for == uncle Al + idiot ==
uA is almost as smart Archimedes Plutonium, but Archie made it into
the "Discovery Magazine". uA Schwartz did NOT. Maybe because of
uA's dietary habits...... hahahahahaha..... see below.
[Rich]
> So when is that [uA] paper coming out in Phys Rev D? Before or after
> you [uA] explain how d-orbital participation explains the geometry of PH3?
> Before or after you explain how the existence of magnetic monopoles
> is forbidden by the Maxwell Equations?
>
[hanson]
I am afraid that this will not be possible for uA Schwartz, as he
appears to suffer from debilitating nutritional consequences
from his latest invention that he pushes: *** Al's DIET ***:
news:42B85FF2...@hate.spam.net... : Says uA:
"Pour some vegetable oil into your toilet. Does it spread to
cover the water, you loathsome jackass? Now add some torn
lettuce, pee into the slop, and have yourself a nice veggie dinner
-- Uncle Al".
...hahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA...
uA apparently start his dinners with a prayer that consists of a
single word that he chants: "idiot"..... So, he, uA, says in his post.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Traveler
"Attila the Bum" <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Richard Schultz wrote:
>> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> : Idiot.
>>
>> Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
>
>No, Richie, you _don't_ see.
>
>None of what you spew is required
>here.
>
>> So when is that paper coming out in Phys Rev D? Before or after you
>> explain how d-orbital participation explains the geometry of PH3?
>> Before or after you explain how the existence of magnetic monopoles
>> is forbidden by the Maxwell Equations?
>
>[snip crap ...]
>
>Talking like a physicist, avoiding
>topics related to what you claimed
>to have learned in school.
>
>Richie, are you an inorganic chemist
>or not?
>
>
> Atty (Now, about MgO ... hydrates?)
ahahaha... Me thinks Attila is Uncle Dickhead in disguise. ahahaha...
ahahaha...
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
:> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
:> : Idiot.
:>
:> Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
:
: Uncle Al is a bit off the mark here. Hanson is not an idiot per se,
: especially when compared to the like of some others in this group.
:
: Hanson is more of a ranting psychotic.
That's why I killfiled him (Hanson). For all of his claims of superior
intelligence, Uncle Al has yet to figure out what a kill file is.
In this particular case, I did not mean to say that Hanson is necessarily
*not* an idiot: only that if Uncle Al allows himself the right to respond
to a post with a single word, then he should allow other people the same
right. Like when he's wrong (as he is so frequently), I don't see why
he should object to people responding with the single word "wrong."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
And when I found the door was shut,
I tried to turn the handle, but --
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
A lot can be forgiven of people who *do* provide accurate and useful information
to genuine non-trivial questions.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
tadchem
Richard Schultz wrote:
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : Idiot.
>
> Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
Uncle Al is a bit off the mark here. Hanson is not an idiot per se,
especially when compared to the like of some others in this group.
Hanson is more of a ranting psychotic.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Attila the Bum
Richard Schultz wrote:
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : Idiot.
>
> Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
No, Richie, you _don't_ see.
None of what you spew is required
here.
> So when is that paper coming out in Phys Rev D? Before or after you
> explain how d-orbital participation explains the geometry of PH3?
> Before or after you explain how the existence of magnetic monopoles
> is forbidden by the Maxwell Equations?
[snip crap ...]
hanson
news:3htekoF...@individual.net...
>> : Richard Schultz wrote:
>> :> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> :> : Idiot.
>> :>
>> :> Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
>> :
>> : Uncle Al is a bit off the mark here. Hanson is not an idiot per se,
>> : especially when compared to the like of some others in this group.
>> : Hanson is more of a ranting psychotic.
>>
>> That's why I killfiled him (Hanson). For all of his claims of superior
>> intelligence, Uncle Al has yet to figure out what a kill file is.
>> In this particular case, I did not mean to say that Hanson is necessarily
>> *not* an idiot: only that if Uncle Al allows himself the right to respond
>> to a post with a single word, then he should allow other people the same
>> right. Like when he's wrong (as he is so frequently), I don't see why
>> he should object to people responding with the single word "wrong."
>
[Dirk]
> A lot can be forgiven of people who *do* provide accurate and useful
> information to genuine non-trivial questions.
>
[hanson]
....... ahahaha... this is too much.... AHAHAHAHA... Schultz trying to
bite off Al's limp beytsim, while from the bleachers they cajole and
argue in their total impotence about my mental status, and proudly
announce that they kill-filed me, yet apparently hanging onto every
drop of my wisdom I post.... and then they profusely discuss me.....
ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... Enter Dirk, like old Merlin... & thus he
spoke... like the Grand wizard of yore himself... I like that too!
Thanks for all the laughs, guys!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Richard Schultz
: A lot can be forgiven of people who *do* provide accurate and useful
: information to genuine non-trivial questions.
Well, since in the (latest) case where Uncle Al was demonstrably wrong, I
did provide a detailed explanation, while Uncle Al refused (as usual) even
to *attempt* to defend his claim, and misrepresented the reference that
I gave him after he asked for it, I'm going to assume that it's not him
to whom you are referring.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I have periodic attacks of pragmatism...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> In sci.chem Dirk Bruere at Neopax <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>
> : A lot can be forgiven of people who *do* provide accurate and useful
> : information to genuine non-trivial questions.
>
> Well, since in the (latest) case where Uncle Al was demonstrably wrong, I
> did provide a detailed explanation, while Uncle Al refused (as usual) even
> to *attempt* to defend his claim, and misrepresented the reference that
> I gave him after he asked for it, I'm going to assume that it's not him
> to whom you are referring.
Actually, I only really care about info that's destined for my consumption.
Caveat emptor.