Chirality and isotropy
Edward Green
this is one of those curiousity things tempered by the desire to rub
somebody's face in it. Somebody who might style himself "Uncle Al",
and is shortly to revolutionize gravity, or so he says. Under these
conditions, perhaps it is understandable that he lashes out viciously
at the merest hint that he might be flinging it.
To wit: chirality and isotropy. Subject offhandedly remarks that a
space with chiral characteristics is clearly anisotropic, which would
thus falsify one of the postulates of SR: so he hopes to kill off all
of Einstein at one blow! The crackpot.
Not quite so fast, I say: I'm not sure if that is true. Not sure, he
rants, how dare you question the great Al if you are merely not sure!
I act as if I were sure and that's enough!
Well, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced by thought
experiment that my hunch was right. A standard laboratory solution of
optically active molecules (oh, the irony) is both chiral and isotropic
-- and we could thin it out to a near-ideal gas if we were afraid some
subtle long range ordering were at work, destroying the isotropy.
Ok, great. What I don't know is is the properly impressive tensorial
mathematics to express this insight in. How about a tensor expressing
specific optical rotation as a function of orientation, which would
produce a magnitude of rotation independent of angle? What is the
standard machinery?
mountain man
news:1124843855....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
...[trim]...
> To wit: chirality and isotropy. Subject offhandedly remarks that a
> space with chiral characteristics is clearly anisotropic, which would
> thus falsify one of the postulates of SR: so he hopes to kill off all
> of Einstein at one blow! The crackpot.
...[snip]...
Crackpot Patrol Officers in sci.physics are automatically
precluded from the registration process at crank.dot.net.
I thought you knew this protocol - decades ago Ed.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
Autymn D. C.
What happened to testing chiral lattices?
monika hohlmeier
> Ok, great. What I don't know is is the properly impressive tensorial
> mathematics to express this insight in. How about a tensor expressing
> specific optical rotation as a function of orientation, which would
> produce a magnitude of rotation independent of angle? What is the
> standard machinery?
Chirality transforms as a pseudoscalar, that is as a tensor of rank 0 under
rotations and gets multiplied by -1 upon any improper operation, that is a
combination of rotations and parity.
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> Somebody who might style himself "Uncle Al",
> and is shortly to revolutionize gravity, or so he says. Under these
> conditions, perhaps it is understandable that he lashes out viciously
> at the merest hint that he might be flinging it.
He lashes out viciously at everything. It's just his way. It's like that
Dilbert strip: (from memory)
Dogbert (narrating): The best approach to any problem is, by an amazing
coincidence, the only approach you know.
Engineer: This is clearly an application of the Whosawitchit Least-Squares
Linear Regression Method, which I know so well.
Tough guy: Nonsense. We just have to kick some hineys, that's all.
[etc.]
I'm more like the least-squares guy. Actually, if there'd been a teacher
saying that better education was the answer, that'd be me.
> Subject offhandedly remarks that a
> space with chiral characteristics is clearly anisotropic, which would
> thus falsify one of the postulates of SR: so he hopes to kill off all
> of Einstein at one blow! The crackpot.
I'm no fan of Uncle Al, but you've failed to notice the difference between
him and a crackpot: he proposed an experiment and publicly predicted the
outcome, and if the outcome is not as he predicted, he will change his mind.
Every scientist dreams of revolutionizing their field. That's not what
distinguishes real science from pathological science.
> Not quite so fast, I say: I'm not sure if that is true. Not sure, he
> rants, how dare you question the great Al if you are merely not sure!
> I act as if I were sure and that's enough!
>
> Well, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced by thought
> experiment that my hunch was right. [...]
You seem to think it's a big deal to prove Uncle Al wrong. Uncle Al is
frequently wrong. My area of expertise is different from his, but he has
claimed on several occasions, for example, that Maxwell's equations can't
accommodate both electric and magnetic monopoles. I responded once and
politely pointed out that this wasn't true, but a month or so later he said
it again. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't see my
response.
There was also this:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d5ecae8191af7470
I'm not convinced his ideas about chiral gravity are even self-consistent,
much less correct, but I'm not expert enough to tell.
-- Ben
hanson
news:1124843855....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
[hanson]
ahahaha.. AHAHAHA... Ed, why are you taking urinAL so seriously?
He is just pissing as usual... being an uptight mooch... who is
trying hard to exhibit that he is to be taken as serious.. ahahaha..
Someone told him that it [1] was Green's function. Some else told
him that it was [1] a combo of thermodynamics + Bekenstein bound
that was doing it. Al's own excuse then was (perhaps justifiably so)
that --- "Somebody ought to look" --- ... which is reasonable. .....
Which they did and looked... AND apparently much earlier than he
did... and they had the hardware to do so... which he doesn't have....
HOWEVER, to his credit, Al made a good spiel with and over it,
trying to give everybody (like you) the impression that he was the
inventor and originator of this inquiry... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
like with his cockroach repellent & his kg-sized gem class diamonds.
So, let's see whether "his" Chinese Group will mention him as a
contributor and/or coauthor of THEIR work, or whether his gag here is
simply an encore for his compulsive need to be a great inventor/scientist
... who failed... (in cyber space to boot)... ahahaha... AHAHAHA.... IOW,
Al is simply exhibiting his own quintessential fear of him being an idiot!...
AHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahanson
Uncle Al
>
> Ok... let me be honest: this isn't one of those pure curiousity things:
> this is one of those curiousity things tempered by the desire to rub
> somebody's face in it. Somebody who might style himself "Uncle Al",
> and is shortly to revolutionize gravity, or so he says. Under these
> conditions, perhaps it is understandable that he lashes out viciously
> at the merest hint that he might be flinging it.
Hey stooopid - it is an empirical experiment and it is in progress.
Those among us who are professionals in the discipline call it "doing
science."
Ciufolini & Wheeler, "Gravitation and Inertia" (Princeton University
Press: Princeton, 1995), pp. 117-119
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
The results of the parity Eotvos experiment dictate the sequelae. A
kid gets his physics PhD regardless. To criticize is to volunteer.
If you cannot mount a technical objection you have nothing. Uncle
Al's postings are overflowing with literature citations crushing poud
idiots with delusions of adequacy like yourself. As below.
> To wit: chirality and isotropy. Subject offhandedly remarks that a
> space with chiral characteristics is clearly anisotropic, which would
> thus falsify one of the postulates of SR: so he hopes to kill off all
> of Einstein at one blow! The crackpot.
Metric gravitation (General Relativity) is parity-even. Lorentz
Invariance demands spatial isotropy. Parity is chirality along all
directions simultaneously. Chirality as such only requires mirror
image point sets - one privileged axis - not be superposable by
translation and rotation,
J. Mol. Phys. 43(6) 1395 (1981)
All parity point sets are chiral point sets. Not all chiral point
sets are parity point sets. You cannot paint a broad smear then use
your perfidy to support your critic troll's conclusions.
If opposite geometric parity test masses do not locally fall
identically in vacuum,
1) then the Equivalence Principle (EP) is reproducibly empirically
falsified by whatever means and General Relativity has a demonstrated
invalid founding postulate. Bye-bye without further argument.
Weitzenböck's affine/teleparllel gravitation is validated and takes
over.
2) A parity EP violation as such demands Lorentz Invariance
violation through spatial anisotropy,
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html
> Not quite so fast, I say: I'm not sure if that is true. Not sure, he
> rants, how dare you question the great Al if you are merely not sure!
> I act as if I were sure and that's enough!
Provide a counterexample with refereed literature citations. The
universe doesn't give sparrow's fart about your "feelings."
> Well, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced by thought
> experiment that my hunch was right.
You are an idiot by empirical demonstration.
> A standard laboratory solution of
> optically active molecules (oh, the irony) is both chiral and isotropic
Bullshit. No chiral point set can be isotropic. If it were isotropic
then it would be identical to its mirror image reflected along all
axes and it would not be chiral. Idiot. Do you have any idea at all
what "isotropic" means? No. You spout noise.
> -- and we could thin it out to a near-ideal gas if we were afraid some
> subtle long range ordering were at work, destroying the isotropy.
Hey stooopid - optical activity is meaningless as a measure of
chirality.
Helv. Chim. Acta 86 905 (2003)
Tell us how Howard Flack doesn't know about structural chirality vs.
gyrotropy, he having sourced the Flack Paramter for quantifying it by
empirical measurement.
Look at an optical rotatory dispersion curve of a chiral species in
solution - see the nulls vs. lambda?
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kis/schools/life_sciences/life_sci/quinn/teaching/ls0102/aminoacids2/ord.gif>
alpha-Quartz in parity space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 has no
detectable gyrotropy 56.16 degrees from crystallographic [0001],
J. Appl. Cryst. 19 108 (1986)
Silver thiogallate, AgGaS2 in non-polar *achiral* tetragonal space
group I-42d (#122), has immense optical rotatory power: 522
degrees/millimeter along [100] at 497.4 nm
J. Appl. Cryst. 33 126 (2000)
Stressing a lump will give you optical rotation. A medium in a
magnetic field gives you optical rotation. Optical rotation does not
imply chiral structure. Individual atoms in near-vacuum gas phase -
mercury, thallium, lead, bismuth - display measurable optical
rotation,
http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0207627
Mendeleev Commun. 13(3) 129 (2003)
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~budker/PubList.html
Phys. Rev. Lett. 82(12) 2484 (1999)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(17) 3719 (1998)
Rep. Prog. Phys. 60(11) 1351 (1997)
Phys. Rev. A 52(3) 1895 (1995)
Am. J. Phys. 56 1086 (1988)
> Ok, great. What I don't know is is the properly impressive tensorial
> mathematics to express this insight in. How about a tensor expressing
> specific optical rotation as a function of orientation, which would
> produce a magnitude of rotation independent of angle? What is the
> standard machinery?
J. Chem. Phys. 65(4) 1522 (1976)
Fucking imbecile.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Edward Green
> Edward Green wrote:
> > Subject offhandedly remarks that a
> > space with chiral characteristics is clearly anisotropic, which would
> > thus falsify one of the postulates of SR: so he hopes to kill off all
> > of Einstein at one blow! The crackpot.
>
> I'm no fan of Uncle Al, but you've failed to notice the difference between
> him and a crackpot: he proposed an experiment and publicly predicted the
> outcome, and if the outcome is not as he predicted, he will change his mind.
>
> Every scientist dreams of revolutionizing their field. That's not what
> distinguishes real science from pathological science.
You failed to notice the invisible wink after "crackpot". ;-)
(I treated that one with lemon juice).
> > Not quite so fast, I say: I'm not sure if that is true. Not sure, he
> > rants, how dare you question the great Al if you are merely not sure!
> > I act as if I were sure and that's enough!
> >
> > Well, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced by thought
> > experiment that my hunch was right. [...]
>
> You seem to think it's a big deal to prove Uncle Al wrong. Uncle Al is
> frequently wrong. My area of expertise is different from his, but he has
> claimed on several occasions, for example, that Maxwell's equations can't
> accommodate both electric and magnetic monopoles. I responded once and
> politely pointed out that this wasn't true, but a month or so later he said
> it again. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't see my
> response.
I have no problem with him being wrong either. I'm often wrong myself.
For example, I just carelessly suggested that there is no physical
quantity actually conserved in "parity conservation", and that the term
was a misnomer. Well, I was corrected, and shown how to construct such
a quantity: from the quantum hamiltonian. So I was wrong.
Al thought I was wrong here too, but for the wrong reason: a long
passage he cribbed (to choose the politest word) to support his claim
that Noether's theorem applied, in fact supported the opposite view.
Caught with his hand in the till, he covers his indiscretions with
insults. Who lacks humility had better be right.
But, here I am wasting precious time demonstrating that Al draws no
causal relation between knowing what he is talking about and arrogant
certainty, when I could be reflecting about the relation between
conserved quantities and Lagrangians and Hamiltonians. The parity
example suggests something like Noether's theorem might indeed be
applied to discrete symmetries classically as well. I wonder.
Uncle Al
A critic troll brainfarts. No contribution, only complaint. No
references URL or literature, no mathematics, no input to the
discussion, no enlightenment, no hint of intelligence. Nothing but
anile kneejerk spasm befitting a particulary inferior undergrad
assignment in spew emulation. Having pissed upon a skyscraper wall,
the critic troll rears back and exhorts the crowd to admire both his
spoor and the manly implement that emplaced it.
Hey stooopid - it is an empirical experiment and it is in progress.
Those among us who are professionals in the discipline call it "doing
science."
Ciufolini & Wheeler, "Gravitation and Inertia" (Princeton University
Press: Princeton, 1995), pp. 117-119
http://www.mazepath.com/unclea l/eotvos.htm#b22
http://www.mazepath.com/unclea l/qz.pdf
The results of the parity Eotvos experiment dictate the sequelae. A
kid gets his physics PhD regardless. To criticize is to volunteer.
If you cannot mount a technical objection you have nothing. Uncle
Al's postings are overflowing with literature citations crushing poud
idiots with delusions of adequacy like yourself. As below.
> To wit: chirality and isotropy. Subject offhandedly remarks that a
> space with chiral characteristics is clearly anisotropic, which would
> thus falsify one of the postulates of SR: so he hopes to kill off all
> of Einstein at one blow! The crackpot.
Metric gravitation (General Relativity) is parity-even. Lorentz
Invariance demands spatial isotropy. Parity is chirality along all
directions simultaneously. Chirality as such only requires mirror
image point sets - one privileged axis - not be superposable by
translation and rotation,
J. Mol. Phys. 43(6) 1395 (1981)
All parity point sets are chiral point sets. Not all chiral point
sets are parity point sets. You cannot paint a broad smear then use
your perfidy to support your critic troll's conclusions.
If opposite geometric parity test masses do not locally fall
identically in vacuum,
1) then the Equivalence Principle (EP) is reproducibly empirically
falsified by whatever means and General Relativity has a demonstrated
invalid founding postulate. Bye-bye without further argument.
Weitzenböck's affine/teleparllel gravitation is validated and takes
over.
2) A parity EP violation as such demands Lorentz Invariance
violation through spatial anisotropy,
http://www.physics.indiana.edu /~kostelec/faq.html
> Not quite so fast, I say: I'm not sure if that is true. Not sure, he
> rants, how dare you question the great Al if you are merely not sure!
> I act as if I were sure and that's enough!
Provide a counterexample with refereed literature citations. The
universe doesn't give sparrow's fart about your "feelings."
> Well, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced by thought
> experiment that my hunch was right.
You are an idiot by empirical demonstration.
> A standard laboratory solution of
> optically active molecules (oh, the irony) is both chiral and isotropic
Bullshit. No chiral point set can be isotropic. If it were isotropic
then it would be identical to its mirror image reflected along all
axes and it would not be chiral. Idiot. Do you have any idea at all
what "isotropic" means? No. You spout noise.
> -- and we could thin it out to a near-ideal gas if we were afraid some
> subtle long range ordering were at work, destroying the isotropy.
Hey stooopid - optical activity is meaningless as a measure of
chirality.
Helv. Chim. Acta 86 905 (2003)
Tell us how Howard Flack doesn't know about structural chirality vs.
gyrotropy, he having sourced the Flack Paramter for quantifying it by
empirical measurement.
Look at an optical rotatory dispersion curve of a chiral species in
solution - see the nulls vs. lambda?
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kis/schoo ls/life_sciences/life_sci/quin
n/teachin...>
alpha-Quartz in parity space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 has no
detectable gyrotropy 56.16 degrees from crystallographic [0001],
J. Appl. Cryst. 19 108 (1986)
Silver thiogallate, AgGaS2 in non-polar *achiral* tetragonal space
group I-42d (#122), has immense optical rotatory power: 522
degrees/millimeter along [100] at 497.4 nm
J. Appl. Cryst. 33 126 (2000)
Stressing a lump will give you optical rotation. A medium in a
magnetic field gives you optical rotation. Optical rotation does not
imply chiral structure. Individual atoms in near-vacuum gas phase -
mercury, thallium, lead, bismuth - display measurable optical
rotation,
http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/ 0207627
Mendeleev Commun. 13(3) 129 (2003)
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ budker/PubList.html
Phys. Rev. Lett. 82(12) 2484 (1999)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(17) 3719 (1998)
Rep. Prog. Phys. 60(11) 1351 (1997)
Phys. Rev. A 52(3) 1895 (1995)
Am. J. Phys. 56 1086 (1988)
> Ok, great. What I don't know is is the properly impressive tensorial
> mathematics to express this insight in. How about a tensor expressing
> specific optical rotation as a function of orientation, which would
> produce a magnitude of rotation independent of angle? What is the
> standard machinery?
J. Chem. Phys. 65(4) 1522 (1976)
Attila the Bum
Uncle Al wrote:
[ahahahahSNIP}
Hey stooopid - optical activity is meaningless as a measure of
> chirality.
Huh? Is there some weird language
twist here? Optical rotation is a
function of the nature of an "optical"
isomer what's got chirality, AFAIK.
What do you mean by "measure"?
[SNIP again, heh]
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Atty (More roaches, anyone?)
Zigoteau
Hi, Uncle Al,
I'd just like to take you up on one point.
> > A standard laboratory solution of
> > optically active molecules (oh, the irony) is both chiral and isotropic
>
> Bullshit. No chiral point set can be isotropic.
Yes, but we're not talking crystals here. Crystallography is
fascinating, but not everything is a crystal. I think Edward is correct
that a solution of a chiral substance - say glucose - is isotropic. A
medium is isotropic if its properties are the same no matter how you
rotate it. Sure, an individual molecule held rigidly is going to be
anisotropic, but in solution they are moving all over the place and
whirling around randomly. This means that there is a lot of thermal
noise in the local properties, but the statistics of that noise: mean,
variance, and correlation between different points in time and space,
is unchanged by rotation. Isotropic.
> If it were isotropic
> then it would be identical to its mirror image reflected along all
> axes
No, reflection is not rotation. The determinant of the matrix of a
rotation is +1. The determinant of the matrix of a reflection is -1.
> and it would not be chiral. Idiot. Do you have any idea at all
> what "isotropic" means? No. You spout noise.
Al, we know and love you for your many qualities, but people in glass
houses shouldn't throw stones.
It's almost Friday, and you said you were going to get some results
this week. The suspense is killing me!
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> [ahahahahSNIP}
>
> Hey stooopid - optical activity is meaningless as a measure of
> > chirality.
>
> Huh? Is there some weird language
> twist here? Optical rotation is a
> function of the nature of an "optical"
> isomer what's got chirality, AFAIK.
NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. YOU ARE TOO FUCKING STOOOPID TO READ.
Silver thiogallate, AgGaS2 with non-polar *achiral* tetragonal space
group I-42d (#122), has immense optical rotatory power: 522
degrees/millimeter along [100] at 497.4 nm.
ACHIRAL, you hopeless idiot, ACHIRAL. And it has a measured optical
rotation of 522 degrees/millimeter.
> What do you mean by "measure"?
Idiot. Too stooopid to know, too stooopid to learn,
J. Appl. Cryst. 33 126 (2000)
Helv. Chim. Acta 86 905 (2003)
--
Uncle Al
>
> Hi, Uncle Al,
>
> I'd just like to take you up on one point.
>
> > > A standard laboratory solution of
> > > optically active molecules (oh, the irony) is both chiral and isotropic
> >
> > Bullshit. No chiral point set can be isotropic.
>
> Yes, but we're not talking crystals here. Crystallography is
> fascinating, but not everything is a crystal. I think Edward is correct
> that a solution of a chiral substance - say glucose - is isotropic. A
> medium is isotropic if its properties are the same no matter how you
> rotate it. Sure, an individual molecule held rigidly is going to be
> anisotropic, but in solution they are moving all over the place and
> whirling around randomly. This means that there is a lot of thermal
> noise in the local properties, but the statistics of that noise: mean,
> variance, and correlation between different points in time and space,
> is unchanged by rotation. Isotropic.
>
> > If it were isotropic
> > then it would be identical to its mirror image reflected along all
> > axes
>
> No, reflection is not rotation. The determinant of the matrix of a
> rotation is +1. The determinant of the matrix of a reflection is -1.
Point taken. Parity Eotvos experiments are done with single crystal
test masses. Calculating quantitative chirality or parity devergence
- Petitjean, Avnir, or anybody else - requires knowing where the
points are relative to the parity inversion.
Chirality exists on three levels - the formula unit, the crystal
structure, and the space group. Quartz has all three. In field-free
unstressed homogeneous solution only the first can generate gyrotropy
- and there will be wavelengths at which light does not rotate, plus
gyrotropy summed over all all wavelegths will exactly cancel.
> > and it would not be chiral. Idiot. Do you have any idea at all
> > what "isotropic" means? No. You spout noise.
>
> Al, we know and love you for your many qualities, but people in glass
> houses shouldn't throw stones.
>
> It's almost Friday, and you said you were going to get some results
> this week. The suspense is killing me!
The medium as above is optically chiral. Take a transparent vertical
cylinder of corn syrup. Illuminate it from below with white light
passed through a linear polarizer. Observe through the side through a
linear polarizer. Rotate your polarizer. It's a wonderful demo
called the "Barber Pole."
It may be mechanically isotropic averaged macrscopically, but it sure
as Hell is optically anisotropic locally. Gyrotropy adds.
tj Frazir
MORON ..
Untill you understand Gravity or try to.
Untill you understand quantom .
YOUR just a dumbass .
YOU dont want to unserstand gravity.
I dont think Uncle DUMBFUCK has the brains to understand gravity.
Uncle dumbass dont understand space.
Atoms move them selves moron.
The orbital paths of the atoms parts move the center of Gravit from the
center of mass .
F is identical to the distance from the center of mass to the center of
gravity.
Over idiot AL's head even more...
Dark Energy is the photons from outssid the universe with no
wavlength at c .
Matter in motion takes up space in motion
and cuts an empty void in dark energy.
Uncle MORON understands NONE of this.
UNCLE fuckhead dont understand ANYthing and talks shit .
Uncle dumbfuck thinks photons have the mass to knock neutrons out of
orbit HA HA.
Uncle jackass dont know shit about gravity space or time.
yet uncle asshole thinks he does .
Quantum Mirror
tj Frazir wrote:
> AL Unkie alice ..
> MORON ..
> Untill you understand Gravity or try to.
> Untill you understand quantom .
> YOUR just a dumbass .
> YOU dont want to unserstand gravity.
> I dont think Uncle DUMBFUCK has the brains to understand gravity.
> Uncle dumbass dont understand space.
> Atoms move them selves moron.
> The orbital paths of the atoms parts move the center of Gravit from the
> center of mass .
> F is identical to the distance from the center of mass to the center of
> gravity.
> Over idiot AL's head even more...
> Dark Energy is the photons from outssid the universe with no
> wavlength at c .
> Matter in motion takes up space in motion
> and cuts an empty void in dark energy.
> Uncle MORON understands NONE of this.
> UNCLE fuckhead dont understand ANYthing and talks shit .
> Uncle dumbfuck thinks photons have the mass to knock neutrons out of
> orbit HA HA.
What do they orbit?
Zigoteau
Hi, Uncle Al,
For crying out loud! You have been brainwashed by that most secret and
enigmatic of sects, the crystallographers. You have been initiated into
their arcane texts. Sun Myung Moon or David Koresh could do no worse.
> Point taken. Parity Eotvos experiments are done with single crystal
> test masses. Calculating quantitative chirality or parity devergence
> - Petitjean, Avnir, or anybody else - requires knowing where the
> points are relative to the parity inversion.
>
> Chirality exists on three levels - the formula unit, the crystal
> structure, and the space group. Quartz has all three.
AFAICS those three are just different ways of expressing exactly the
same level. The atoms making up quartz are not chiral. Quartz is,
because of the way those atoms are arranged in space. The space group
is just the essence of the crystal structure. OK, I'll grant you that
the mirror image of SiO2 is 2OiS. Is that what you mean by the formula
unit being chiral?
> [Corn syrup] may be mechanically isotropic averaged macrscopically, but it
> sure as Hell is optically anisotropic locally. Gyrotropy adds.
Corn syrup is isotropic. Period. All of its properties are isotropic.
Name me one which is not. The dielectric tensor is diagonal. The
gyromagnetic tensor is diagonal. If you rotate the coordinate system,
the gyromagnetic tensor does not budge. Now if you reflect your
coordinate system, the dielectric tensor is unchanged, but the
gyromagnetic tensor changes sign. Chirality means the absence of a
plane of mirror symmetry. The change of sign of the gyromagnetic tensor
on any reflection means that there is no plane of mirror symmetry. Corn
syrup is isotropic *and chiral*.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Zigoteau
Physics textbooks on electromagnetism tend to ignore chirality as being
a chemist's thing; chemistry textbooks likewise, because it's too much
like physics and the math is too hard. I have found a treatment on the
web at:
http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/ch03.pdf
You will find the gyromagnetic tensor I have been talking about on p68,
Equation 3.3.1, symbolized chi. I have also seen reference to the
gyroelectric tensor, but AFAIK it differs from the gyromagnetic tensor
at most by a factor.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Attila the Bum
You presented no citations in the post
to which I responded.
_You_ read some papers and expect all
to know what you [think] you know.
And you're talking about a small sub-
set of optically active subatances.
How small, moron?
Atty (Atty feel nonplussed; think
Uncle Al slowly being poisoned
by his own web-site |-)
Uncle Al
>
> Hi, Uncle Al,
>
> For crying out loud! You have been brainwashed by that most secret and
> enigmatic of sects, the crystallographers. You have been initiated into
> their arcane texts. Sun Myung Moon or David Koresh could do no worse.
Geometric chirality is about structure. A periodic crystal is
self-similar and every atom can be assigned coordinates (in
principle). We wear high heels through the crystallography to avoid
getting the slops on our socks. "8^>) Ultimately a structure is
grown as solid spheres in angstrom radius increments, 3 A radius to
about 1100 atoms (a server-day), and Petitjean's full QCM laboriously
grinds out CHI, COR, and DSI for each sphere. If you are an SI
pedant, we grow them in 10 nm radial increments.
If CHI zooms to 0.9 and more, COR=1 uniformly or very quickly (only
the graph theory identity element), and DSI=0 (self-similarity) then
we have the most extreme ideal degenerate theoretical case. 1100
atoms in QCM requires about 8 server-hours. Given QCM qualification,
BigCHI will do 30 million atoms/second thereafter in a PC, CHI without
the diagnostics and non-ideal corrections. Computation time vs.
radius goes as radius^2. There is tremendous structure in CHI
fluctuation vs. radius. Results are unform out to very large radii
and atom numbers (fourteen atoms to 4.44x10^15 atoms for quartz).
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzsparse.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/chite4.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tedense.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bzdense.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/pddense.png
All the atoms are local in the weak field approximation. A crystal
lattice is not a structureless continuum. A sufficiently small radius
increment will not include more atoms. This rapidly becomes moot for
larger radii. For tellurium,
radius, A atoms CHI
6.600 35 0.925898595932599449
6.750 37 0.916076327670358636
33.025 4461 0.994769456367395955
33.050 4463 0.994231585438433640
35500.000 5521777030222 0.999999997714734942
35500.500 5522010358896 0.999999993730166355
39999.500 7898734121707 0.999999995749075050
40000.000 7899030315563 0.999999995095353862
> > Point taken. Parity Eotvos experiments are done with single crystal
> > test masses. Calculating quantitative chirality or parity devergence
> > - Petitjean, Avnir, or anybody else - requires knowing where the
> > points are relative to the parity inversion.
> >
> > Chirality exists on three levels - the formula unit, the crystal
> > structure, and the space group. Quartz has all three.
>
> AFAICS those three are just different ways of expressing exactly the
> same level. The atoms making up quartz are not chiral.
Individual gas phase atoms are homochiral from left-handed Weak
Interaction neutral current exchange between nucleus and electrons.
Z_0 exchange varies as about Z^5. Enantiomers are then not pure
inversions. The effect is barely detectable when sitting an epsilon
off an absorption line in a multi-pass long pathlength cell of Hg, Tl,
Pb, or Bi vapor.
> Quartz is,
> because of the way those atoms are arranged in space. The space group
> is just the essence of the crystal structure. OK, I'll grant you that
> the mirror image of SiO2 is 2OiS. Is that what you mean by the formula
> unit being chiral?
The SiO4 tetrahedron is distorted. It is not superposable upon its
miror image reflected by a plane normal to x, y, or z (or
crysatllographic a, b, c if you like local coordinates). Petitejean's
CHI is really more of a global measure.
Radius Atoms CHI
3.600 14 0.842411994688901327
3.700 16 0.817897894284299863
3.800 22 0.769939801764042268
3.900 24 0.741965173150762702
4.000 24 0.741965173150762702
4.100 26 0.910753036498925573
4.200 26 0.910753036498925573
...
6.500 86 0.845236694364914560
6.600 90 0.835201871772416133
6.700 96 0.863255269949098059
6.800 108 0.921733249170566879
Avnir's analysis is extremely local. He arrives at the same
conclusion,
"Pressure and temperature effects on the degree of symmetry and
chirality of the molecular building blocks of low quartz" Acta Cryst.
B60 163 (2004)
"Quantitative Symmetry and Chirality of the Molecular Building Blocks
of Quartz " Chem. Mater. 15 464 (2003)
HOWEVER... A chiral formula unit is *no guarantee* that the crystal
structure or the space group will be chiral. The limiting case is Le
Coupe du Roi, cutting a sphere (apple) with four slices into two
identical homochiral pieces. It is our experience that every
structure in the quartz group, P3(1,2)21, (quartz, tellurium, benzil,
etc.) qualifies in QCM. Cinnabar bearing a slight distortion failed,
as did TeO2 in parity space groups P4(1,3)2(1)2.
> > [Corn syrup] may be mechanically isotropic averaged macrscopically, but it
> > sure as Hell is optically anisotropic locally. Gyrotropy adds.
>
> Corn syrup is isotropic. Period. All of its properties are isotropic.
> Name me one which is not. The dielectric tensor is diagonal. The
> gyromagnetic tensor is diagonal. If you rotate the coordinate system,
> the gyromagnetic tensor does not budge. Now if you reflect your
> coordinate system, the dielectric tensor is unchanged, but the
> gyromagnetic tensor changes sign. Chirality means the absence of a
> plane of mirror symmetry. The change of sign of the gyromagnetic tensor
> on any reflection means that there is no plane of mirror symmetry. Corn
> syrup is isotropic *and chiral*.
Chirality is absence of a plane of symmetry, an inversion point of
symmetry, and any other improper axis of symmetry (e.g., S_4 as a
baseball seam, and higher axes).
That depends on your length scale, your probe, and your time slice. A
chiral crystal will not be isotropic. A melt or solution of resolved
homochiral species may or may not be isotropic even at large scales
over long times with achiral probes - liquid crystals.
The parity Eotvos experiment is strictly limited to single crystal
test masses that rapidly asymptote with radius to Petitjean's CHI=1,
perfect theoretical parity divergence. The OP's crude attempt to blow
smoke has failed. The parity Eotvos experiment does not concern green
eggs or ham.
Uncle Al
Nice reference! "Because the propagation medium is not isotropic we
need to start with the source-free Maxwell's equations..." "8^>)
The parity Eotvos experiment is strictly concerned with mass
distribution is space (nuclear coordinates) and not with electronic
polarizations. 0.0274% of quartz is electron mass - and much of that
averages to nuclear coordinates (certainly the unhybridized s-orbital
electrons). Structural thermal ellipoids (directed into lattice
voids) are generally normal to polarization ellipsoids (directed along
bonds). Sodium bromate and chlorate are isomorphous and have almost
identical unit cell dimensions. If you grow one epitaxially upon the
other you get a constant structure acroww the composition boundary but
sudden opposite optical rotation.
Circular birefringence, gyrotropy, natural optical activity, optical
rotation, etc., are not diagnostic of structure. If n is refractive
index, (n-1) integrated over the whole spectrum must equal zero. As
optical rotation of palen-polarized light is [/_\(n) times length] for
opposite circular polarizations of light, optical rotation must sum to
zero over the whole spectrum. Optical activity is positive on one
spectral side of an absorption line and negative on the other
(anomalous dispersion). It overall cancels.
OTOH, if you wish to assume a first order coupling between
electromagnetism and gravitation in a narrow part of the EM
spectrum... you can add the Faraday effect to gravitation and be deep
in crank territory.
The idiot OP blew smoke. He tossed in a line or two of irrelevancies
and then sat back laughing as erudite debate commenced. Don't take an
idiot's bait. Confine your efforts to the relevant topic.
Uncle Al
Idiot. Too stooopid to know, too stooopid to learn. Read the
papers. Here is a nice link for those too lame to visit a library.
Lays it all out nice and rigorous, with historical perspective and
everything. Are you too stooopid to use Adobe Acrobat Reader?
http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf
NOT "optically active." Maximally non-superposable geometric parity
inversions of mass distribution in bodies with finite moments of
inertia. There, Uncle Al said it and has no regrets for having done
so.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
Attila the Bum
tj Frazir
Uncle idiot dont understand gravity.
Uncle idiot refuses to understand gravity or emf or quantom .
T Wake
"tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20317-430...@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
> nonsense
You are a boring, lying moron.
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> I have no problem with him being wrong either. I'm often wrong myself.
> For example, I just carelessly suggested that there is no physical
> quantity actually conserved in "parity conservation", and that the term
> was a misnomer. Well, I was corrected, and shown how to construct such
> a quantity: from the quantum hamiltonian. So I was wrong.
>
> Al thought I was wrong here too, but for the wrong reason: a long
> passage he cribbed (to choose the politest word) to support his claim
> that Noether's theorem applied, in fact supported the opposite view.
Yeah, I read that thread and I agree that he wasn't making much sense.
But then, he posts so many articles here that there's no way he spends much
time on each one. I assume he mainly scans for keywords and then cuts and
pastes a response. Your name is obviously one of his keywords, and I'd like
to know why, because I've never seen you post anything that I wouldn't post,
and I'd rather not get on his bad side...
-- Ben
hanson
"Ben Rudiak-Gould" <br276d...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:deqin7$vg$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> Edward Green wrote:
>> I have no problem with him being wrong either. I'm often wrong myself.
>> For example, I just carelessly suggested that there is no physical
>> quantity actually conserved in "parity conservation", and that the term
>> was a misnomer. Well, I was corrected, and shown how to construct such
>> a quantity: from the quantum hamiltonian. So I was wrong.
>> Al thought I was wrong here too, but for the wrong reason: a long
>> passage he cribbed (to choose the politest word) to support his claim
>> that Noether's theorem applied, in fact supported the opposite view.
>
> Yeah, I read that thread and I agree that he wasn't making much sense.
> But then, he posts so many articles here that there's no way he spends much
> time on each one. I assume he mainly scans for keywords and then cuts and
> pastes a response. Your name is obviously one of his keywords, and I'd like to
> know why, because I've never seen you post anything that I wouldn't post, and
> I'd rather not get on his bad side...
> -- Ben
>
ahahaha... Ben, you just made Al's weekend.. who going to celebrate
and say: "Another one down!".... "about 3 billion more to go" ... but
"uncle Al will be the last one standing".... and they all "will agree
with uncle Al in the future".....ahahaha... [the last two quotes are
actually Al's].... Thanks, for the laughs. Ben, are you always that
easily intimidated?... even at such crazy cyber parties like this one
here?..... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Schoenfeld
hanson wrote:
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... this is a winner.. this is a keeper... ahahaha
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
Lay off the meth, druggy.
hanson
you big time, "Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com>... ahahaha...
....Could you repeat what I said that was so effective that it makes
you take to more drugs? .... ahahaha... Schoenfeld, you are baring
and exhibiting your drug habits quite openly and overtly ... ahahaha..
It shows, Schoenfeld, here and in all your other posts... ahahaha..
hahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> hanson wrote [ not referring to Schoenfeld as winner at all]:
> > ahahaha... AHAHAHA... this is a winner.. this is a keeper... ahahaha
> > ahahaha... ahahaha... even at such crazy cyber parties like this
> > ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> Lay off the meth, druggy.
>
>
>>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... look at those three pinko-green
>>> class 3 enviros, beatoff artists, jerking each other off...
>>> with their Left hands, [with Schoenfeld leading the circle].
>>> AHAHAHA.... and they're cuming over each other in their
>>> mental masturbations with orgasmic ejaculations of
>>> hatred and doom for the US... ... AHAHA.. ahahaha....
>>> ahahaha.... ahahanson
Edward Green
> The idiot OP blew smoke. He tossed in a line or two of irrelevancies
> and then sat back laughing as erudite debate commenced. Don't take an
> idiot's bait. Confine your efforts to the relevant topic.
What bait? I merely asked for the mathematical machinery to
demonstrate, or fail to demonstrate, my hunch. I believe Zigoteau in
fact provided it:
Zigoteau wrote:
> Corn syrup is isotropic. Period. All of its properties are isotropic.
> Name me one which is not. The dielectric tensor is diagonal. The
> gyromagnetic tensor is diagonal. If you rotate the coordinate system,
> the gyromagnetic tensor does not budge. Now if you reflect your
> coordinate system, the dielectric tensor is unchanged, but the
> gyromagnetic tensor changes sign. Chirality means the absence of a
> plane of mirror symmetry. The change of sign of the gyromagnetic tensor
> on any reflection means that there is no plane of mirror symmetry. Corn
> syrup is isotropic *and chiral*.
Instead of saying "Oh, he was right after all, I goofed", you continue
with your insultocomicon and try to cover yourself ... oh, but a liquid
crystal can have long range order, and be anisotropic (true, but this
doesn't mean all solutions have long range order, and I suggested
considering an ideal gas of chiral molecules), ... oh, maybe
macroscopically the solution is isotropic, but locally ... (locally,
the mathematical description preserves the compatibility of chirality
and isotropy right down to a point, physically, one we get to the scale
of molecules, the solution isn't even homogeneous -- so?).
I jokingly refered to you as a "crackpot" because of your efforts to
unseat relativity, but you are indeed picking up crackpot traits --
even mild criticism can send you into anaphylactic shock. I didn't say
"Look, Al goofed on this elementary point, so his whole structure comes
tumbling down", but maybe that's what you feared, from your reaction.
Or is it that it is I who mentioned it, whom you have already denied
standing to? If I'm as much of a fool as you claim, then you're really
in deep kimchee, baby.
If I'm blowing smoke, you own the smokehouse.
Zigoteau
Hi, Uncle Al,
> > http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/ch03.pdf
> Nice reference! "Because the propagation medium is not isotropic we
> need to start with the source-free Maxwell's equations..." "8^>)
I have a sort of feeling that you are under the impression you have
scored a point there. If so, you are mistaken. In the form Orfanidis
has written those equations, the effect of all the sources has been
bundled up into the terms D and B. That form of Maxwell's equations is
generally applicable for linear media, isotropic or anisotropic.
I also have a sort of feeling that you do not realize that a crystal
can never be isotropic. Sure, there are crystals, like diamond, with
cubic symmetry, that are optically isotropic. However they are not
isotropic. The three vectors a, b and c of the unit cell specify
particular directions in space that are not invariant under rotation of
the crystal. Measurements of diamond using visible light will never
detect this anisotropy, because they depend only on second-order
tensors, mainly the dielectric tensor epsilon, but X-ray measurements
readily pick up the orientation in space even of a cubic crystal. In
distinction, normal liquids, including corn syrup, are totally
isotropic.
Edward will confirm that there are times I have criticized some of his
posts, and he was then not best pleased. Now I'm criticizing yours. I
am hoping for a reasoned response. I realize that you are excited by
the gravity experiment, but it would also be nice if you could stick to
the point and cut out the irrelevant waffle.
Was it Ben who took up my point of a long time ago that your
"collaborators" have not seen fit to mention your name anywhere as part
of their team? I think that, for you, it would perhaps be best if the
Eotvos experiment turns out to be null. You are fooling yourself if you
think they are going to give you credit. Science these days is no
longer played by gentlemen, but according to the rules laid down by
Clausewitz. If you want to understand the modern scientific community,
study the wonderful Second Reich, that Hitler was trying to recreate,
and of whose methods you appear to approve. It was neither Holy, nor
Roman, nor an Empire. Its constituent lands pledged allegiance to God,
cultivated the fine arts, signed mutual nonaggression pacts with
whoever was foolish enough to trust them, and then when the political
climate was judged propitious, kicked ass.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
srp
1125310677.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Was science ever played by gentlemen !
André Michaud
Uncle Al
>
> Hi, Uncle Al,
>
> > > http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/ch03.pdf
> > Nice reference! "Because the propagation medium is not isotropic we
> > need to start with the source-free Maxwell's equations..." "8^>)
>
> I have a sort of feeling that you are under the impression you have
> scored a point there. If so, you are mistaken. In the form Orfanidis
> has written those equations, the effect of all the sources has been
> bundled up into the terms D and B. That form of Maxwell's equations is
> generally applicable for linear media, isotropic or anisotropic.
>
> I also have a sort of feeling that you do not realize that a crystal
> can never be isotropic. Sure, there are crystals, like diamond, with
> cubic symmetry, that are optically isotropic. However they are not
> isotropic. The three vectors a, b and c of the unit cell specify
> particular directions in space that are not invariant under rotation of
> the crystal. Measurements of diamond using visible light will never
> detect this anisotropy, because they depend only on second-order
> tensors, mainly the dielectric tensor epsilon, but X-ray measurements
> readily pick up the orientation in space even of a cubic crystal. In
> distinction, normal liquids, including corn syrup, are totally
> isotropic.
Matter is continuous or discontinuous depending upon your scale of
measurement. Symmetry breaking will occur in discontinuous media at
scale. It is commonly, glibly said that parity is chirality plus a
180-degree rotation.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b3
That is true in a continous medium with continuous rotations.
However, matter is discrete at atomic dimensions and rotations can be
quantized. Chirality and parity can be different. All parity bodies
are chiral bodies. Not all chiral bodies are parity bodies. This is
particulary evident in Petitjean's CHI and its diagnostics COR and
DIS.
Making a chiral set of four or more points in 3-space is a trivial
exercise. Organikers do it ad nauseam by removing a point, mirror
planes, and improper axes from a molecule. It occurs as extended
regular periodic lattices. You couldn't build a molecule with CHI
greater than 0.7. An entire French chemistry department worked on
that for more than year. They made it to CHI=0.68 because they did
not know how to look. Twistane is CHI=0.72, and that is about as high
as any small molecule in the CAS database goes. Parity divergence of
single formula units is irrelevant to periodic single crystal
macroscopic body geometric parity divergence.
In the gravitational case, the Equivalence Principle, we know by
empirical experiment that all compositions of matter fall
identically. Atomic mass makes no difference at all to 10^(-13)
difference/average. Solid BeH2 with average formula weight 3.676
falls identically to uranium at 238.03. In the parity Eotvos
experiment all atoms have the same unit mass for calculation. Si and
O are the same within a factor of 1.8 anyway. Tellurium is
homoatomic. Only nuclear positions in space relative to the overall
center of mass are considered.
I have submitted multiple identical structures to QCM. Rotation in
space and atom labeling do not change CHI in theory and in practice.
CHI is also independent of scale; however, CHI fluctuation vs. radius
depends on the ratio of parity emergent scale to overall radius. 13
platinum balls with density 21.09 g/cm^3 plus tiny glue drops to give
a CHI=1 constuct 2 cm in diameter are not the same as a 2-cm diameter
solid sphere single crystal of quartz. In the balls case as lattice
you get CHI fluctuations with a surface radial increment of around 0.6
cm. In the quartz case you get CHI fluctuations with a surface radial
increment of around 10^(-23) cm. A proton's Compton wavelength is
about 10^-13 cm. Degree of unit cell aggregation is important.
> Edward will confirm that there are times I have criticized some of his
> posts, and he was then not best pleased. Now I'm criticizing yours. I
> am hoping for a reasoned response. I realize that you are excited by
> the gravity experiment, but it would also be nice if you could stick to
> the point and cut out the irrelevant waffle.
You cannot resist being waffled by a malicious poster. My posted
analysis is specific to the parity Eotvos experiment.
> Was it Ben who took up my point of a long time ago that your
> "collaborators" have not seen fit to mention your name anywhere as part
> of their team? I think that, for you, it would perhaps be best if the
> Eotvos experiment turns out to be null. You are fooling yourself if you
> think they are going to give you credit. Science these days is no
> longer played by gentlemen, but according to the rules laid down by
> Clausewitz. If you want to understand the modern scientific community,
> study the wonderful Second Reich, that Hitler was trying to recreate,
> and of whose methods you appear to approve. It was neither Holy, nor
> Roman, nor an Empire. Its constituent lands pledged allegiance to God,
> cultivated the fine arts, signed mutual nonaggression pacts with
> whoever was foolish enough to trust them, and then when the political
> climate was judged propitious, kicked ass.
Nobody in the profession will publicly disclose the parity Eotvos
experiment until it is concluded. It is too heterodox given 420 years
of prior art and publication, it is an organiker's proposal not a
physicist's, and the experimentalists cannot calculate the test
masses' quality factor. Remember the Fifth Force? Scandal. Did you
ever try to explain structural chirality to a physicist? As a class
they cannot see stereograms in 3-D. Why would they need to?
I cannot be excluded from a non-null result. Any participant who
tried that would be roasted to deep char.
1) I am all over the Web and Net with explicit prior claims dating
to 2000 including extensively mirrored sci.physics.research
Google
"Uncle Al" Eotvos 876 hits
Google groups
"Uncle Al" Eotvos 4140 hits
2) Petitjean would not tolerate it. Competing academic physics
groups (two spares) would not tolerate it. They'd scream bloody
murder to all the journals and professional societies that got
snookered.
3) I submitted the paper to multiple journals in late 2004/early
2005. Simultaneous co-discovery won't fly - they already have the
whole thing with only my name on it and mention of experiments in
progress.
4) I gave a public presentation at the 2004 APS national meeting in
Denver, CO. It's in the literature.
5) A rogue researcher cannot rationalize the experiment. While the
calculated values of CHI, COR, and DSI are independent of input file
format, computation times are not. BigCHI does 30 million
atoms/second in a PC given QCM validiation of structure. QCM does
1100 atoms in a mainframe-day. 10 points improperly input would
require the age of the universe to calculate. The efficient file
structure requires chemical plus custom software to create. My
programmers are incorruptible and Petitjean won't sell out.
6) Ace in the hole. It's not paranoia if it comes true.
Avnir's semi-empirical quantitative chirality approach is limited to
coarse mesh analysis. He can do a few unit cells' worth of atoms. I
calculated quartz to 444 quadrillion atoms in about 150,000 CPU-hrs
mostly donated by AMD Developer's Center and a 168-Pentium cluster
operating out of Canada. That is a visible ball.
<http://www.iupac.org/projects/2000/2000-025-1-800.html>
"The layers under development are:
2) stereochemical - includes conventional C-atom sp2 and sp3
stereochemistry"
"Analysis of a Set of 2.6 Million Unique Compounds gathered from the
Libraries of 32 Chemical Providers," A. Monge, A. Arrault, C. Marot
and L. Morin-Allory, presented at the 10th Electronic Computational
Chemistry Conference, April 2005
Chiralane caused a rewrite of the stereochemistry assigment module.
Steve Stein at NIST was perceptibly surprised.
If the parity Eotvos experiment is a reproducible empirical
falsification of the Equivalence Principle, only a single person is
guaranteed to appear on a Swedish dias early one December to receive
the Nobel Prize in Physics for falsifying General Relativity plus
inflicting contingent damage across the rest of physics. He won't be
a physicist. You cannot fabricate a successful conspiracy that would
allow otherwise - China and the US, a conspiracy at the highest levels
of national security, are not good friends
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1098961-6,00.html>
and finding a loophole in gravitation whispers "stardrive." If you
can drop an asteroid on a problem your diplomats will do all the
talking.
Richard Schultz
: 3) I submitted the paper to multiple journals in late 2004/early
: 2005. Simultaneous co-discovery won't fly - they already have the
: whole thing with only my name on it and mention of experiments in
: progress.
It is a violation of scientific ethics to submit the same work to more
than one journal. Therefore, your claim to have submitted the paper to
"multiple journals" is either a lie, an admission of unethical behavior,
or a euphemistic way of telling us that your paper was rejected by all
of the journals to which you submitted it. Why don't you share the
referees' comments with us, or better yet, tell us in which journal your
paper is going to be published so that I can inform the editors that the
paper consists of previously published material (it's word for word a
reproduction of material appearing on your web site)?
-----
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
-----
"I have, if you will forgive the expression, known several bastards
with very high IQs."
--J. Bronowski
Robert Kolker
>
> It is a violation of scientific ethics to submit the same work to more
> than one journal.
Not so. If it is turned down at one publication, it can be submitted to
another.
Bob Kolker
brian a m stuckless
```SNiP```
> -- Parity divergence
> of single formula units is irrelevant to periodic single crystal
> macroscopic body geometric parity divergence.
> -- Did you ever try to explain structural chirality to a physicist?
> As a class they cannot see stereograms in 3-D. Why would they need
> to?
>
> I cannot be excluded from a non-null result.
> 1) I am all over the Web and Net with explicit prior claims dating
> to 2000 including extensively mirrored sci.physics.research
>
> "Uncle Al" Eotvos 876 hits
>
> Google groups
> "Uncle Al" Eotvos 4140 hits
>
> 2005. Simultaneous co-discovery won't fly - they already have the
> whole thing with only my name on it and mention of experiments in
> progress.
> 4) I gave a public presentation at the 2004 APS national meeting in
> Denver, CO. It's in the literature.
> 6) Ace in the hole. It's not paranoia if it comes true.
> Steve Stein at NIST was perceptibly surprised.
> -- for falsifying General Relativity plus
> inflicting contingent damage across the rest of physics.
> Uncle Al
LiTTLE iMPs distinguish RiGHT and LEFT "no feelings".!!
tj Frazir
disk.
The disk by its self DOES NOT fall at the rrrate evrything else dose
,,and with the coil undr it wount fall fast enouph to say its falling
at all.
ORBITAL paths on the atoms parts.
F is identical the distance from te center of evry atoms mass to the
center of evry atoms G.
UNCLE DUMBASS USED A CRYSTAL.
anyone with a brain would use a SC.
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : 3) I submitted the paper to multiple journals in late 2004/early
> : 2005. Simultaneous co-discovery won't fly - they already have the
> : whole thing with only my name on it and mention of experiments in
> : progress.
>
> It is a violation of scientific ethics to submit the same work to more
> than one journal.
Serially submitted, critic troll, serially submitted. Shall I say it
again, critic troll? Serially submitted.
Hey Schultzy - not more than one of us knows how things are hanging in
PR China. The full parity Eotovs experiment finshes within about two
weeks. You may be eating crow. You may be eating a whole murder of
crows, beaks included.
Jan Panteltje
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in <43147F75...@hate.spam.net>:
>Richard Schultz wrote:
>>
>> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> : 3) I submitted the paper to multiple journals in late 2004/early
>> : 2005. Simultaneous co-discovery won't fly - they already have the
>> : whole thing with only my name on it and mention of experiments in
>> : progress.
>>
>> It is a violation of scientific ethics to submit the same work to more
>> than one journal.
>[snip crap]
>
>Serially submitted, critic troll, serially submitted. Shall I say it
>again, critic troll? Serially submitted.
>
>Hey Schultzy - not more than one of us knows how things are hanging in
>PR China. The full parity Eotovs experiment finshes within about two
>weeks. You may be eating crow. You may be eating a whole murder of
>crows, beaks included.
A strangelet may hit the experiment.
hehe
As 2 the 2 weeks, does Al know Chinese use a different calender.
Silly joke, but then again, the strangelet would be confirmed
by a the detection of a little shockwave in california some seconds after ....
So, after the zero result, back to the diamond mines?
srp
"Zigoteau" <zigo...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1125310677.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> "collaborators" have not seen fit to mention your name anywhere as part
> of their team? I think that, for you, it would perhaps be best if the
> Eotvos experiment turns out to be null. You are fooling yourself if you
> think they are going to give you credit.
You seem not to be aware of the law, like most physicists.
In practically all countries, prior public publication, even if not in
formal
journals, always was upheld in court as proof or copyright ownership.
It was already ill advised for them not to mention Al as the originator
of the idea. He can succesfully sue them (and win, to their public shame)
in just about any court for plagiarism if they deny him credit.
André Michaud
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
Here's a hint should you ever decide to improve those reading
comprehension skills: you should read the entire post before responding
to one sentence contained therein.
-----
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
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Eric Gisse
Uncle Al wrote:
[snip]
>
> and finding a loophole in gravitation whispers "stardrive." If you
> can drop an asteroid on a problem your diplomats will do all the
> talking.
The seductive whisper of a stardrive is the only reason I care about GR
at all. It is also why I enjoy reading about your work. But, the
prospect of inserting a little hellfire under everyone by getting two
chunks of quartz to fall a little bit differently is also mighty
amusing in of itself.
You made an excellent point a long time back, a parity violation in an
obscure realm of physics is not without precedent. Here's hoping. Hope
doesn't change the outcome, but one can only hope.
Zigoteau
Hi, André,
> > You are fooling yourself if you
> > think they are going to give you credit.
> You seem not to be aware of the law, like most physicists.
>
> In practically all countries, prior public publication, even if not in
> formal journals, always was upheld in court as proof or copyright.
> ownership
> It was already ill advised for them not to mention Al as the originator
> of the idea. He can succesfully sue them (and win, to their public shame)
> in just about any court for plagiarism if they deny him credit.
I'm sure you're right about the law. But the law is an ass.
Uncle Al is broke. He won't be able to afford to take them to court,
because his ex-wife has just taken him to the cleaners.
I have seen it done. You may claim it is ill-advised, but it is common
practice. Within the scientific community, you have powerful people,
who sit on committees and divide up the pie. They blackball people they
don't like. They are typically scientifically mediocre. They blackball
people whose ideas they have expropriated and claimed as their own.
Uncle Al's sole 'publication' is a conference abstract. Have you read
the manuscript on his website? It is unreadable and unpublishable, with
logical errors in its argument. By rooting around in the literature, I
am sure that the parity Eotvos team will be able to come up with
half-a-dozen references that they can claim are 'prior art'. Note that
they don't call it 'chiral Eotvos'. They will be able to muster up
half-a-dozen expert witnesses, who will be suitably rewarded for their
trouble, to swear on oath, backed up with references, that the idea was
common years ago. They will be perfectly truthful in claiming that Al
has had nothing to do with the implementation of the experiment. Do you
think that a judge or jury will be able to understand the least little
bit of it?
Lawful or not, the parity Eotvos team have already shown which
direction they are heading by leaving Al's name off the list.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Zigoteau
Chen was talking about parity violations in teleparallel theories of
gravity way back in 1987:
http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/v25/481.pdf on p484, between
equations 3 and 4
Ideas of gravitation parity violation have been current in China for at
least a decade, and it is in China that they have been verified
experimentally, by my clients.
M'lord, the plaintiff is a barbarian with a big nose who gets his hands
dirty. His proposal 5 years ago was about chirality, not parity.
Chirality is a concept to do with chemicals, which as everyone knows
are unnatural and cause pollution. This has nothing to do with the
refined concept of my clients, who let their fingernails grow long and
work in the pure realm of ideas with crystals and their health-giving
energy fields.
M'lord, how much funding has the plaintiff ever been awarded? Not a
penny. He has not published one single paper in a refereed journal. He
publishes on - ahahahahanson - Usenet! I cannot bring myself to
describe to you some of the depraved pictures he has on his (ugh!)
website. My clients, on the other hand, have been awarded 5 billion
yuan over the last ten years for scientific research by the State
Research Council for Advanced Concepts, and have published a total of
537 serious papers.
M'lord, I even have reason to think that the plaintiff believes in -
shock, horror - evolution (gags into handkerchief).
M'lord, the plaintiff is wasting our precious time. Throw this ragged
crank out."
Jan Panteltje
<zigo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1125478879.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Not bad, not bad at Al!
Now we could put in some Kafka too.
Al'd better buy a LOT of Chinese Tshirts to get away with this one :-)
srp
>
>Hi, André,
Hi
> > > You are fooling yourself if you
> > > think they are going to give you credit.
> >
> > You seem not to be aware of the law, like most physicists.
> >
> > In practically all countries, prior public publication, even if not in
> > formal journals, always was upheld in court as proof or copyright.
> > ownership
> > It was already ill advised for them not to mention Al as the originator
> > of the idea. He can succesfully sue them (and win, to their public
> > shame)
> > in just about any court for plagiarism if they deny him credit.
>
> I'm sure you're right about the law. But the law is an ass.
>
> Uncle Al is broke. He won't be able to afford to take them to court,
> because his ex-wife has just taken him to the cleaners.
>
> I have seen it done. You may claim it is ill-advised, but it is common
> practice. Within the scientific community, you have powerful people,
> who sit on committees and divide up the pie. They blackball people they
> don't like. They are typically scientifically mediocre. They blackball
> people whose ideas they have expropriated and claimed as their own.
Well, well! Such comments coming from an outsider would have been
distractedly shoved off as so much ranting, but unless you deliberately
live up to your handle's semantic implications, they do shed quite a
telling light on how the top layer of the community is perceived by its
own membership.
No wonder some worthy western physicists now chose to publish in
little known Russian journals, where integrity and ethics is still the norm,
rather than attempt to deal with such a rat pack, to make certain that
their valuable findings will not be lost to future generations.
> Uncle Al's sole 'publication' is a conference abstract. Have you read
> the manuscript on his website? It is unreadable and unpublishable, with
> logical errors in its argument.
I have not followed the case that closely.
> By rooting around in the literature, I
> am sure that the parity Eotvos team will be able to come up with
> half-a-dozen references that they can claim are 'prior art'. Note that
> they don't call it 'chiral Eotvos'. They will be able to muster up
> half-a-dozen expert witnesses, who will be suitably rewarded for their
> trouble, to swear on oath, backed up with references, that the idea was
> common years ago. They will be perfectly truthful in claiming that Al
> has had nothing to do with the implementation of the experiment. Do you
> think that a judge or jury will be able to understand the least little
> bit of it?
There is no need for deep understanding by a judge (no jury is involved
in such cases). Only positive determination of plagiarism, to speak of only
that aspect. Ideas are constantly stolen, and some courts are highly
specialized to deal with such matters.
Even if I did not follow closely, I know that there is ample unmodifiable
evidence in the Google archive of many newsgroup of the unfolding
of the case, all admissible in court.
> Lawful or not, the parity Eotvos team have already shown which
> direction they are heading by leaving Al's name off the list.
If the experiment pan out and they dont give credit, even if he doesnt
sue, public knowledge will forever cast a very long shadow on their
own names.
André Michaud
Uncle Al
>
> "M'lord, learned members of the Jury,
> Chen was talking about parity violations in teleparallel theories of
> gravity way back in 1987:
>
> http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/v25/481.pdf on p484, between
> equations 3 and 4
>
> Ideas of gravitation parity violation have been current in China for at
> least a decade, and it is in China that they have been verified
> experimentally, by my clients.
It's a lovely reference laying out contingencies of
affine/teleparallel rather than metric gravitation. Now spare
yourself the self-evident designation of "fool" by locating a
suggested reduction to practice in your proffered citation.
Why cite a 1987 reference when we can go back to the 1932 and before?
Metric gravitation is parity-even with tensors, affine gravitation is
parity-odd with pseudotensors. Einstein is a subset of Weitzenböck.
The test is whether the superset is needed, and the only physical test
belongs to Uncle Al. Results to arrive within three weeks.
A Poincaré group gauge theory can be equivalent to the Einstein-Cartan
theory of gravitation. Einstein-Cartan theory operates in
Riemann-Cartan spacetime U^4 - a paracompact, Hausdorff, connected,
C^(infinity), and oriented four-dimensional manifold on which are
defined a local Lorentz metric "g" and a linear affine connection
"capital gamma." Curvature and torsion tensors can be obtained from
"capital gamma" on U^4:
1. If the torsion tensor vanishes, Riemann-Cartan spacetime becomes
pseudo-Riemannian spacetime, V^4 (General Relativity's description of
gravitation);
2. If the curvature tensor vanishes, it becomes Weitzenböck
spacetime, A^4 (in which the teleparallel gravitational
energy-momentum pseudotensor is anti-symmetric to parity
transformation);
3. If both tensors vanish, it becomes Minkowski spacetime, M^4.
Is any of this news to you? One hopes not. It is old as the hills.
Einstein considered and dicarded teleparallel approaches. So? Theory
is hot air until ti can be falsified. The parity Eotvos experiment is
inevitable in concept - it is the only untested possibility
remaining. It's reduction to practicee is brilliant work.
As to your whining about credit denied... Petitjean's QCM for
calculating geometric parity divergence is in the public domain.
BFD. Any researcher who counterdemonstrates the Equivalence Principle
with a parity violation must present a rationalization for the
empirical experiment and justify further non-random experiments. Only
Uncle Al can calculate real world lumps. QCM required two
RS6000/Power3 CPU-weeks to calculate 11,000 atoms of tellurium.
BigCHI does 30 million atoms/second in a personal computer single CPU;
CHIpir parallel CPU clusters of arbitrary size. Alas, going from AM
to BigCHI requries chemistry. It's Uncle Al or nothing. His
programmers are incorruptible.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
Quartz to 444 qaurtllionatoms, 0.22 mm diamter solid sphere.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
You suggest a reduction to practice to allow an empirical choice
between metric and affine gravitation. There are at least three cases
where the two theories are disjoint:
1) Physically spinning bodies. Gravity Probe B is the most
sensitive local test of that to date - two pairs of antiparallel
gyroballs in their stationary housing, the whole if it in orbital free
fall. Alas, a few thousand rpm is not relativistic where a difference
would be detectable. Neutron star binaries with millisecond pulsars
still do not spin fast enough.
2) Polarized spin bodies (magnets).
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/cpt01.pdf>
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/spin1.html
Gravitation acts on mass. Though there may be 10^22 net polarized
spins in the test masses, that is only a ppm or less vs. total mass.
The would be no signal to be seen at contemporary sensitivity limits.
Magnetic neutron stars fall by the book.
3) Bodies with opposite geometric parity. That is Uncle Al's
parity Eotvos experiment. Physics does not have theory to calculate
parity divergence. Until 1999 neither did mathematics,
J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf
Chem. Mater. 15 464 (2003)
Acta Cryst. B60 163 (2004)
Now if you have some clever way of your own to differentiate metric
from affine graviiation, don't be shy about sharing it. To criticize
is to volunteer. If not, keep your pie hole shut. General
Relativity's predictions are perfect within experimental error in all
venues at all scales,
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
and weak field GPS and strong field binary neutron pulsars.
Uncle Al's parity Eotvos experiment is
1) the first geometric parity test of metric vs. affine
gravitation,
2) has an active mass/total mass of 99.97%. The next best historic
ratio is 0.192%. A 500-fold increased concentration of net active
property is good physics.
3) running. The historic gold standard of output is a null
result. Get on your hind legs and harangue the mob as to how Uncle
Al's parity Eotvos experiment can do worse than that.
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.chem Robert Kolker <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> : Richard Schultz wrote:
>
> :> It is a violation of scientific ethics to submit the same work to more
> :> than one journal.
> :
> : Not so. If it is turned down at one publication, it can be submitted to
> : another.
>
> Here's a hint should you ever decide to improve those reading
> comprehension skills: you should read the entire post before responding
> to one sentence contained therein.
An axiomatic system is only as strong as its weakest axiom. When a
malicious poster spins lies and then deductions from them, one need
only expose the lie and not the argument contingent upon it.
Wrestling with a pig in shit covers you both - but the pig LIKES it.
The three-month full parity Eotovs experiment in quartz will be
completed within three weeks. At the end it either has a null output
- the historical gold standard for all EP challenges - or a net
signal, and General Relativity is wrong.
Uncle Al cannot pause to further argue trivialities and play the
Dozens. He's got a whole bunch of slides to finish for a booked talk
on Saturday. You are invited to guess the topic. It's paid
admission, BTW, and not open to the general public.
Uncle Al
Of course.
Academic research is played close to the vest until results are
disclosed and reviewed. Industrial research is trade secret until
publicly protected or abandoned. No member of either group will prior
cite an outsider lest the experiment fail and fingers be pointed for
having accepted outside wash. Funding demands protection of the
funder.
The parity Eotvos experiment is unfunded. It has been publicly
disclosed and impartially archived from its first glimmers as the
(probably) insufficient chiral Eotvos experiment. The full idea is
set forth in January 2005 and archived in Google Groups.
1) Nobody can claim intellectual prior art. There wasn't any
calculated reduction to practice possible until quantitative math
arrived in 1999. The raw theory dates to at least 1932. so?
2) Nobody can claim independent co-discovery. The math is
privileged and so is the programming for its calculation. It required
several Profoundly Gifted minds in several independent disciplines a
very long time to assemble it all.
3) Nobody can claim prior results. It's a three-month experiment
to full sensitivity. Uncle Al's run has three weeks to go. Nobody
can beat that even if they had the necessary apparatus and fabricated
parity divergent test masses.
Uncle Al knows the maximum magnitude of an allowed non-null output
from interim results. Uncle Al will arrive with the mostest firstest
without doubt. An amateur posseur would be poo-pooed. A professional
hoping to steal exclusive rights would be soundly discredited and lose
tenure for willful violation of ethics.
How many Eotvos balance groups do the critic trolls think exist?
Three in the US, two in China, one each in India and Russia. That's
pretty much it. The things are a million bucks each and they cannot
be run at low latitudes. If you have one and you don't publish its
results, you must be resident in Dreamland.
Zigoteau
Hi, André,
> > I have seen it done. You may claim it is ill-advised, but it is common
> > practice. Within the scientific community, you have powerful people,
> > who sit on committees and divide up the pie. They blackball people they
> > don't like. They are typically scientifically mediocre. They blackball
> > people whose ideas they have expropriated and claimed as their own.
>
> Well, well! Such comments coming from an outsider would have been
> distractedly shoved off as so much ranting, but unless you deliberately
> live up to your handle's semantic implications,
Mais bien sûr, je l'ai choisi exprès. Tout comme David Bowie et tout
un tas d'autres gens.
> they do shed quite a
> telling light on how the top layer of the community is perceived by its
> own membership.
I am sure you will find a whole range of perceptions. However my
perception is that the current climate encourages fraud and all sorts
of malpractice. Hendrik Schoen was just the tip of the iceberg.
> > By rooting around in the literature, I
> > am sure that the parity Eotvos team will be able to come up with
> > half-a-dozen references that they can claim are 'prior art'. < . . . >
>
> There is no need for deep understanding by a judge (no jury is involved
> in such cases). Only positive determination of plagiarism, to speak of only
> that aspect. Ideas are constantly stolen, and some courts are highly
> specialized to deal with such matters.
But Al admits himself that people have talked in the open literature
about possible parity violation in gravitational theory, not just since
1989, but since 1932. After I found the 1989 reference, I fairly
rapidly found a 1991 paper also talking about gravitational parity
violation.
> Even if I did not follow closely, I know that there is ample unmodifiable
> evidence in the Google archive of many newsgroup of the unfolding
> of the case, all admissible in court.
Evidence of what? Certainly not of word-for-word plagiarism.
> > Lawful or not, the parity Eotvos team have already shown which
> > direction they are heading by leaving Al's name off the list.
>
> If the experiment pan out and they dont give credit, even if he doesnt
> sue, public knowledge will forever cast a very long shadow on their
> own names.
No it won't. It will never even get to the middle pages of the
newspapers most people read. Most scientists currently have very short
memories, and anyway they go with the money.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Zigoteau
Hi, Uncle Al,
I don't want to be annoying, well, no more than you do, anyway, but I
hope you have seen that André agrees with me. It is reasonable of you
to ask your collaborators to publicly acknowledge your contribution,
for example on their website. I think it would save aggro later on if
you insist on it now, when there is nothing much to get excited about.
If and when the excitement does arrive, you will then have set the
precedent.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
tj Frazir
The MORON dont understand gravity.
Energy under presure is space.
Mass in motion takes up space at c.
Mass cuts a void in energy under presure.
Dark Energy is photons at c without a wavelenth from outside the visible
universe hubble constant.
Gravity is low energy presure.
Falling is the fact the center of a masses gravity is not at the center
of mass .
The obiting parts of the atom in an eliptical orbit ( gain in mass )
move the center of gravity from the center of mass .
Obital path is what motion is ,,no atom can move unless the orbiting
parts change thier paths. No motion due emf or any means is posible
unless the orbit paths are effected so te atom moves its self.
TELL US UNCLE DUMBFUCK why does a supperconductor hover ???????????
How does a superconductor float on emf field ?
Ill tell your dumb ass in addvance moron ..
orbiting paths in the sc atoms in emf field flatten and are not
elipical so the conductor wount fall.
Orbital paths is why the sc floats on emf field.
Uncle stooooopid wount understand any of this.
Uncle dumbass dont understand gravity and refuses to understand becase
he is in love with his stupid idias .
Fuck you uncle dumbass ,,for calling people stuupid ... as if you had
a brain in your dictionary !!!
Uncle moron is an intelectual fraud.
POINT OUT a mistake fuckhead ,,I dare you to disscuss gravity for real
just once !!!!!!
tj Frazir
srp
> Hi, André,
>
>
> > > I have seen it done. You may claim it is ill-advised, but it is common
> > > practice. Within the scientific community, you have powerful people,
> > > who sit on committees and divide up the pie. They blackball people
> > > they
> > > don't like. They are typically scientifically mediocre. They blackball
> > > people whose ideas they have expropriated and claimed as their own.
> >
> > Well, well! Such comments coming from an outsider would have been
> > distractedly shoved off as so much ranting, but unless you deliberately
> > live up to your handle's semantic implications,
>
>
> Mais bien sûr, je l'ai choisi exprès. Tout comme David Bowie et tout
> un tas d'autres gens.
I thought as much. A tongue in cheek handle is definitely the way to
go for freedom of speech in such an exclusive community. The future
will tell however where the limits of such freedom lies.
> > they do shed quite a
> > telling light on how the top layer of the community is perceived by its
> > own membership.
>
> I am sure you will find a whole range of perceptions. However my
> perception is that the current climate encourages fraud and all sorts
> of malpractice. Hendrik Schoen was just the tip of the iceberg.
I agree.
Makes you doubt that the community can be trusted to properly identify
and deal with any real fundamental headway. What are the alternatives ?
> > > By rooting around in the literature, I
> > > am sure that the parity Eotvos team will be able to come up with
> > > half-a-dozen references that they can claim are 'prior art'. < . . . >
> >
> > There is no need for deep understanding by a judge (no jury is involved
> > in such cases). Only positive determination of plagiarism, to speak of
> > only
> > that aspect. Ideas are constantly stolen, and some courts are highly
> > specialized to deal with such matters.
>
>
> But Al admits himself that people have talked in the open literature
> about possible parity violation in gravitational theory, not just since
> 1989, but since 1932. After I found the 1989 reference, I fairly
> rapidly found a 1991 paper also talking about gravitational parity
> violation.
Nothing new under the Sun of course. But it seems to me that Al definitely
was the driving force behind the current attempt.
> > Even if I did not follow closely, I know that there is ample
> > unmodifiable
> > evidence in the Google archive of many newsgroup of the unfolding
> > of the case, all admissible in court.
>
>
> Evidence of what? Certainly not of word-for-word plagiarism.
I seem to recall that "plagiarism" covers way more ground that
simple word for word copy. But I am no expert. I simply am convinced
that he would have a case.
> > > Lawful or not, the parity Eotvos team have already shown which
> > > direction they are heading by leaving Al's name off the list.
> >
> > If the experiment pan out and they dont give credit, even if he doesnt
> > sue, public knowledge will forever cast a very long shadow on their
> > own names.
>
> No it won't. It will never even get to the middle pages of the newspapers
> most people read. Most scientists currently have very short memories, and
> anyway they go with the money.
In my view, if the experiment pans out, nobody will be able to keep such
details hidden. History never took kindly to highway robbers.
André Michaud
Richard Schultz
: An axiomatic system is only as strong as its weakest axiom. When a
: malicious poster spins lies and then deductions from them, one need
: only expose the lie and not the argument contingent upon it.
I challenge you to name a single lie that I have posted, using the
common understanding of a "lie" as a statement made in the knowledge that
it is untrue and with the intent to deceive the listener. I have challenged
you to retract the lies that *you* have told enough times for me to
suspect that the "malicious poster spin[ning] lies" is Uncle Al.
: The three-month full parity Eotovs experiment in quartz will be
: completed within three weeks.
Is this "three weeks" anything like the "next month" in which kg-sized
diamonds will appear -- a "next month" that has lasted a decade?
: Uncle Al cannot pause to further argue trivialities and play the
: Dozens. He's got a whole bunch of slides to finish for a booked talk
: on Saturday. You are invited to guess the topic. It's paid
: admission, BTW, and not open to the general public.
My guess would be that it's either a talk about secrets of Tahitian Oral Sex
or a music quiz that's received a positive review from a former Doobie
Brother.
-----
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
-----
"This is some sort of shared joke that I'm not part of."
"You *are* a part of it -- you're the butt."
Richard Schultz
:> It is a violation of scientific ethics to submit the same work to more
:> than one journal.
: Serially submitted, critic troll, serially submitted. Shall I say it
: again, critic troll? Serially submitted.
Once again living up to his reputation as sci.chem Court Jester, Uncle Al
deletes as "crap" the hypothesis that his paper has been rejected from
every journal to which he's submitted it. Why *won't* you tell us in which
journal your work will appear -- or, failing that, at least tell us
what the referees said so that future generations will be able to laugh
at them for their lack of foresight? Besides your being a liar and a
coward, I mean.
: Hey Schultzy - not more than one of us knows how things are hanging in
: PR China.
One of us knows from an independent source that Professor Luo specifically
denies that you have anything to do with the experiment. And that given
your proven track record of difficulties with telling the truth, he also
knows which one of the two of you to believe.
: The full parity Eotovs experiment finshes within about two
: weeks. You may be eating crow. You may be eating a whole murder of
: crows, beaks included.
Since I have never said anything untrue about "your" experiment, and have
no stake whatsoever in its success or failure, I have no idea what sort of
crow you think that I might be eating. It's true that I have pointed out
that your hypothesis is unfalsifiable and hence unscientific, but my
statement is true even if the experiment should produce a non-null result.
-----
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
-----
"Gentlemen, Ciccolini here may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot,
but don't let that fool you -- he really is an idiot."
Richard Schultz
: I don't want to be annoying, well, no more than you do, anyway, but I
: hope you have seen that Andr? agrees with me. It is reasonable of you
: to ask your collaborators to publicly acknowledge your contribution,
: for example on their website.
Why? He certainly doesn't list *them* as co-authors (see, for instance,
http://www.helleniccalendar.com/rg2005).
But I think that we have to be fair to Uncle Al -- he has, after all, been
quite busy lately, as a quick visit to http://www.famoushotdogs.com
will verify.
-----
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
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Attila the Bum
Richard Schultz wrote:
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> : Richard Schultz wrote:
> : Hey Schultzy - not more than one of us knows how things are hanging in
> : PR China.
Ain't me. Ain't Schultzy. Must be you :-)
> One of us knows from an independent source that Professor Luo specifically
> denies that you have anything to do with the experiment. And that given
> your proven track record of difficulties with telling the truth, he also
> knows which one of the two of you to believe.
Gosh. Two facts:
(1) there may really be an
experiment in progress; and
(2) you believe whatever you're
told.
Ahicahicahicastupidhick! Morphed into
a new reality about "cold fusion"; you
quit being a cheerleader long ago, boy.
Atty (I think you're beautiful and
intelligent! Do I get some? :-)
[snip ...]
Uncle Al
If it works, I am the lead researcher. If it doesn't work, who cares
either way?
Richard Schultz
: If it works, I am the lead researcher.
Funny how Professor Luo doesn't seem to agree with you. Or do you
mean "lead" as in "Pb" (i.e. you're the one who found out the most
convenient source of Pb for the experiment)?
-----
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
-----
"Apparently, you take me for a complete fool."
"Yeah -- more or less."
Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit"
tj Frazir
From: GravityPhysics
gravity.
Energy under presure is space.
Mass in motion takes up space at c.
Mass cuts a void in energy under presure. Dark Energy is photons at c
without a wavelenth from outside the visible universe hubble constant.
Gravity is low energy presure.
Falling is the fact the center of a masses gravity is not at the center
of mass .
The obiting parts of the atom in an eliptical orbit ( gain in mass )
move the center of gravity from the center of mass .
Obital path is what motion is ,,no atom can move unless the
posible unless the orbit paths are effected so te atom moves its self.
tj Frazir
atom...HA HA HA
2 ,,uncle dumbass thinks he will violate the equivalance princable HA
HA HA
3 ,,uncle jackass dont think internal mass is equivalant to
gravitational mass HA HA HA
4.. unkee boanhead don't understand quantom physics and dont want to.
Na Na na Na na
Re: Chirality and isotropy Uncle DUMBASS Al
Group: sci.physics Date: Wed, Aug 31, 2005, 5:18pm From:
Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir)
tj Frazir
Hay wounderdummy ,,
Do atoms move them selves down the energy slope ?? Is F identical to
the distance from the center of the atoms mass to the center of the
atoms gravity ?????????
Unkeee ass dont like it when I post.
I toss all the dirt he tosses back on his raunchee ass.
Unckee dont wana play wif meeee ¿¿
AUHHH I ert unkee asses fealings again aaawwwwww .
smerk : ))
hanson
"Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:df59lf$j8i$3...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In sci.chem Zigoteau <zigo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : I don't want to be annoying, well, no more than you do, anyway, but I
> : hope you have seen that Andr? agrees with me. It is reasonable of you
> : to ask your collaborators to publicly acknowledge your contribution,
> : for example on their website.
>
> Why? He [Al] certainly doesn't list *them* as co-authors (see, for
> instance, http://www.helleniccalendar.com/rg2005). wherein it says:
::::::::::::::::::::
== Orange County Mensa presents IMPACTED WISDOM ==
on Friday, September 2, 2005 1:00 p.m. –
"Screwing Around with Einstein" - Uncle Al (Pacific)
General Relativity assumes everything falls identically in vacuum.
Will Einstein be crushed by eight quartz crystals not falling down?
Uncle Al's experiment is running in Huazhong University of Science
& Technology as you read this. (30 minutes.)
::::::::::::::::::::
>
[hanson]
"Uncle Al's experiment"?.... ahahaha... "His" experiment ?... with or
by quartz crystals that are NOT falling down?... Wow!... this story
is getting better and better... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA....
In the ongoing debate as to wether Al is in, out, on the fringe or
just looking in or on... to the experiment, googleing shows
47 hits for: Huazhong University of Science & Technology + uncle Al
::::::: yields some gay uncle Go, a uncle Vanja... but no uncle Al
0 hits for : "Huazhong University of Science & Technology" + "uncle Al"
2 hits for: Huazhong university of Science & Technology + "uncle Al"
:::::: yields 2, but those 2 are Al's Self-propaganda
627 hits for: Huazhong University of Science & Technology + Schwartz
:::::: yields Andrew, AB, Silvia, PJ, Lilian, Tony, M, Deborah, JT, Rosie,
Mischa, Steve, Justin, DT, .... but...... *** NO*** Al or Alan Schwartz....
>
So, Al, even if they leave you out in the cold, consider that it was YOU
and none of them Chinese, really nobody else than you, that made
and did the loud, effective and highly entertaining marketing for them.
That has enormous value. You gotta see it in that light and celebrate
but not in that menstruating way you've advertised it above, Al. It just
doesn't sound very gifted, nor like wisdom and much less impacted.
... ahahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, Al,
ahahaha.... ahahanson
Attila the Bum
hanson wrote:
> AHAHahahaha... this is too much guys... HAHAHA... hahahaha....
> "Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
> news:df59lf$j8i$3...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> > In sci.chem Zigoteau <zigo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > : I don't want to be annoying, well, no more than you do, anyway, but I
> > : hope you have seen that Andr? agrees with me. It is reasonable of you
> > : to ask your collaborators to publicly acknowledge your contribution,
> > : for example on their website.
> >
> [Schultz]
> > Why? He [Al] certainly doesn't list *them* as co-authors (see, for
> > instance, http://www.helleniccalendar.com/rg2005). wherein it says:
> ::::::::::::::::::::
> == Orange County Mensa presents IMPACTED WISDOM ==
> "Screwing Around with Einstein" - Uncle Al (Pacific)
> General Relativity assumes everything falls identically in vacuum.
> Will Einstein be crushed by eight quartz crystals not falling down?
> Uncle Al's experiment is running in Huazhong University of Science
> & Technology as you read this. (30 minutes.)
> ::::::::::::::::::::
> >
> [hanson]
> "Uncle Al's experiment"?.... ahahaha... "His" experiment ?... with or
> by quartz crystals that are NOT falling down?... Wow!... this story
> is getting better and better... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA....
> In the ongoing debate as to wether Al is in, out, on the fringe or
"whether".
Or "weather", like Katrina?
Mother Nature tears herself
a new one?
> just looking in or on... to the experiment, googleing shows
>
> 47 hits for: Huazhong University of Science & Technology + uncle Al
> ::::::: yields some gay uncle Go, a uncle Vanja... but no uncle Al
> 0 hits for : "Huazhong University of Science & Technology" + "uncle Al"
> 2 hits for: Huazhong university of Science & Technology + "uncle Al"
> :::::: yields 2, but those 2 are Al's Self-propaganda
> 627 hits for: Huazhong University of Science & Technology + Schwartz
> :::::: yields Andrew, AB, Silvia, PJ, Lilian, Tony, M, Deborah, JT, Rosie,
> Mischa, Steve, Justin, DT, .... but...... *** NO*** Al or Alan Schwartz....
> >
> So, Al, even if they leave you out in the cold, consider that it was YOU
> and none of them Chinese, really nobody else than you, that made
> and did the loud, effective and highly entertaining marketing for them.
> That has enormous value. You gotta see it in that light and celebrate
> but not in that menstruating way you've advertised it above, Al. It just
> doesn't sound very gifted, nor like wisdom and much less impacted.
> ... ahahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, Al,
> ahahaha.... ahahanson
Lookin' good, baby, like there's
an experiment in progress.
Who cares about the "politics",
it's the results that count.
Gimmie data!
Atty (... in NYC ... more morons
per cubic foot than anywhere
else :-)
hanson
news:1125589733.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[hanson]
>> In the ongoing debate as to wether Al is in, out, on the fringe or
>
> "whether".
> Or "weather",
>
... ahahaha... AHAHAHA.... touché, bro!.... ahahaha...
unless you buy the line that I did it purposely to get
your Atty... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laugh, Mark,
hanson (....you explain this to the children)
>
>:
Uncle Al
[snip]
> Who cares about the "politics",
> it's the results that count.
> Gimmie data!
Amen. Given success they can do as many experiments they wish, but
they cannot justify even the first one without a calculatable
theoretical framework. Mine, all mine.
Locked and loaded. Results to follow.
Zigoteau
Hi, Uncle Al,
> Amen. Given success they can do as many experiments they
> wish, but they cannot justify even the first one without a
> calculatable theoretical framework. Mine, all mine.
I realize that you have immobilized half the supercomputers on the
planet over the last year with your calculations of Petitjean's CHI
parameter, but you have failed to demonstrate any connection with
gravity. Is that what you mean by a calculatable theoretical framework?
Have fun on Saturday.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Autymn D. C.
lie -> lige
lying -> lyging
Henry Lemington-Wholeflavors
Anally retentive moron.
tj Frazir
Nbdhar vontobin geesn vos net.
Kobhnet hu"dden muzkt VOS NETZ
Autymn D. C.
You're the one who sent me a picture of naked women with their behinds
facing, and are the author of some dumb blog called Cherenkov
Radiation, David Taylor.
Henry Lemington-Wholeflavors
Make that anally retentive lying moron.
Autymn D. C.
> Make that anally retentive lying moron.
I am not a fool but I am lying in bed as I write this. So the word you
meant was lyging, even though I never do lige. Note that David is the
pathological liar who posed as a psychologist troll starting the thread
that Uncle Al has Asperger's syndrome.
-Aut
Math Freak
> 2) Nobody can claim independent co-discovery. The math is
> privileged and so is the programming for its calculation. It required
> several Profoundly Gifted minds in several independent disciplines a
> very long time to assemble it all.
Hmm. This sounds bad. And I say it without knowing what
you're talking about!
You're utterly inexperienced in physics. Doing physics
is not going through every textbook and paper that
falls into your hands. In fact it almost has nothing to
do with texts and papers. It begins right after going
past them. You live right there, just before the
beginning of it begins. Living within that
infinitesimal width is same as being dead!
What jackasses non-physics fields create out of
students. A sure outcome.
--
"khabar rA gereftand va tuye bugh kardand."
- Anvar KhAme'i
Uncle Al
[snip]
> You're utterly inexperienced in physics. Doing physics
> is not going through every textbook and paper that
> falls into your hands. In fact it almost has nothing to
> do with texts and papers. It begins right after going
> past them. You live right there, just before the
> beginning of it begins. Living within that
> infinitesimal width is same as being dead!
[snip]
Gibberish. Who is running your experiments?
Math Freak
> Math Freak wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> You're utterly inexperienced in physics. Doing physics
>> is not going through every textbook and paper that
>> falls into your hands. In fact it almost has nothing to
>> do with texts and papers. It begins right after going
>> past them. You live right there, just before the
>> beginning of it begins. Living within that
>> infinitesimal width is same as being dead!
> [snip]
>
> Gibberish. Who is running your experiments?
I. Mostly modeling. Yes all those "independent
disciplines". Only a nonphysicist boasts about ordinary
chores of doing physics the way you do. An utterly
inexperienced person as far as doing physics is
concerned. I went past that in the last months of the
undergraduate period. The light at the end of tunnel
showed itself then. Aeons ago. You're 50+ and talk
about it like Advanced Placement highschool kids do.
Profoundly Gifted minds! Give us a break.
Everytime a Maleki looked into the works of our
"gifteds"-to-be, he cut them into pieces and put them
back together in the form of shaved jackasses. I did it
often enough to fucking quit physics all together.
Physics is not ZioNazism you assholes.
--
"Az AnjA mAndeh az injA rAndeh."
Thomas Johnson
Uncle Al wrote:
> Serially submitted, critic troll, serially submitted. Shall I say it
> again, critic troll? Serially submitted.
Which to anyone who knows anything means "serially rejected". Funny
how he finally got that out of you.
Also, looking back at your posts on the review process of your
paper--just a hint, don't brag that the journals had to try multiple
times to find referees who would read the paper.
Again, for those who have done this, that means that the first referees
they tried refused to waste their time on the paper. Once you have
paid your dues, you can skim a paper and tell the editors to take it
back. Generally, this is done when a paper is really bad.
> Hey Schultzy - not more than one of us knows how things are hanging in
> PR China. The full parity Eotovs experiment finshes within about two
> weeks. You may be eating crow. You may be eating a whole murder of
> crows, beaks included.
Interesting choice of words, Schwartz. "No more than one of us..."
What part of your subconcious made you write it so that you aren't
lying? Since neither of you knows, the statement remains accurate.
Thomas.