Eotvos / Parity experiment PROBLEM
hanson
> We've had some social sabotage in the parity Eotvos experiment.
>
[hanson]
... What, WHAT, what?... Details, Al!... What happened?
THIS is NEWS, man!
hanson
Attila the Bum
SERVER ERROR prompts me to once again ...
GOOGLE: "social sabotage" ~312 hits
Mark (... either code for Sildenafil citrate
or for judicial activism or both :-)
Attila the Bum
GOOGLE: "social sabotage" ~312 hits
Mark (... either code for Sildenafil citrate,
Uncle Al
Why don't we wait for August and see how the thing turns out? Don't
invest in defective production.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Joshua Halpern
> Attila the Bum wrote:
>
>>hanson wrote:
>>
>>>"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote yesterday in sci.chem
>>>
>>>>We've had some social sabotage in the parity Eotvos experiment.
>>>>
>>>
>>>[hanson]
>>>... What, WHAT, what?... Details, Al!... What happened?
>>>THIS is NEWS, man!
>>>hanson
>>
>>SERVER ERROR prompts me to once again ...
>>
>>GOOGLE: "social sabotage" ~312 hits
>>
>> Mark (... either code for Sildenafil citrate
>> or for judicial activism or both :-)
>
>
> Why don't we wait for August and see how the thing turns out? Don't
> invest in defective production.
>
josh halpern
Uncle Al
~100 days to final empirical results for the full parity Eotvos
experiment. That is the only pertinent input. It can null, and
General Relativity (metric gravitation) is again validated. It can
give a net signal and GR is unambiguously falsified, falling to
affine/teleparallel gravitation. The full parity Eotvos experiment
cannot be a near-miss given the results of the first hemiparity
experiment
Theoreticians and gas bags hate definitive results. Uncle Al exults
in definitive results, win or lose. 400+ years of Equivalence
Principle testing have brough forth 100% perfect nulls within
experimental error,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22
Uncle Al is assured of achieving no less than the gold standard of
performance in the art. The big question is, will he do better?
There persists a clean 50% chance that he will do better. In rough
numbers,
10 parts-per-trillion sensitivity in 30 days.
1 part-per-trillion sensitivity in 60 days.
0.1 part-per-trillion sensitivity in 90 days.
There is a signal above noise expected at the 60 day mark, but let's
not get overmuch full of ourselves. The proper thing to do is collect
the data, analyze it at the end, and see what we have without observer
bias.
Then, we will know.
Richard Schultz
: Uncle Al is assured of achieving no less than the gold standard of
: performance in the art. The big question is, will he do better?
The funny part is that if a *false* positive result turns out to be due to
systematic error, he's already told us that it won't be his fault.
: There persists a clean 50% chance that he will do better.
I'd love to see how you came up with that number. I'm guessing that it's
the same kind of statistical "reasoning" that can be used to prove that
the sun won't rise tomorrow.
: In rough numbers,
: 10 parts-per-trillion sensitivity in 30 days.
: 1 part-per-trillion sensitivity in 60 days.
: 0.1 part-per-trillion sensitivity in 90 days.
:
: There is a signal above noise expected at the 60 day mark,
Since your theory makes no prediction of the size of the purported effect,
there is no way that you can possibly know that.
: but let's not get overmuch full of ourselves. The proper thing to do
: is collect the data, analyze it at the end, and see what we have
: without observer bias.
This is about the only intelligent thing that I have ever seen you post.
: Then, we will know.
Best of luck to you and your team.
-----
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."
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : Uncle Al is assured of achieving no less than the gold standard of
> : performance in the art. The big question is, will he do better?
>
> The funny part is that if a *false* positive result turns out to be due to
> systematic error, he's already told us that it won't be his fault.
The Eotvos balance is run by respected academics I have never met. If
you don't like disinterested academic experts, Schultzy, whom do your
trust? Since you thereby exclude yourself, we cannot trust your
opinion. Hey Schultz - do your really believe they would jeoperdize
their professional standing by reporting less than a statistically
certain result? After Ephraim Fischbach's "Fifth Force" scandal? If
it's OK with you, Schultz, I went for Chinese rather than Jews. Jews'
time has passed.
I have a backup academic Eotvos group, too. Belt and braces
("suspenders" to the lower classes). If this thing scores there will
be awesome grant fundings released. Huge numbers of heavily cited
publications will result. There would be so many questions to be
explored - what are the minimal necessary and sufficient conditions
required of an Equivalence Principe-violating parity test mass? Would
a merely chiral test mass work? Polycrystalline masses?
Is NASA trashed by decoupling inertial and gravitational mass at
will? Will parity masses conserve angular momentum? If gravitation
has a demonstrable parity anomaly then space is anisotropic.
Noether's theorem then no longer enforces conservation of angular
momentum for parity masses.
If it doesn't work, the kid gets his degree anyway. One may not
reasonably hold a grad student to higher standards than Galileo,
Newton, Bessel, Zeeman, Dicke, Shapiro, Adelberger... all of whom
looked for Equivalence Principle composition violations and all of
whose results were null within experimental error.
> : There persists a clean 50% chance that he will do better.
>
> I'd love to see how you came up with that number. I'm guessing that it's
> the same kind of statistical "reasoning" that can be used to prove that
> the sun won't rise tomorrow.
Classical gravitation is either metric or affine/teleparallel. Either
the Equivalence Principle is true or it is not true. That's all you
or somebody better gets, Schultz, for ANY theory of gravitation.
There is no third choice. 50:50, acey-deucy, +/-, 1/0, even-odd,
yes/no. No prior observation in any venue at any scale biases the
results - although a not quite null from the first hemiparity
experiment was wonderful motivation to run the full parity Eotvos
experiment and the Weak Interaction is strictly left-handed. The
Chicoms were awfully eager to get this thing rolling after that first
experiment. They were onto it like affective trauma counselors at an
Oklahoma City bombing, hebephiles attending the evidence phase at a
McMartin Pre-School trial, or moels surfing
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.uncut
Single crystal electronic-grade optically left-handed quartz of the
required thickness is remarkably difficult to obtain. Uncle Al was
all over this planet seeking left-handed quartz in a size adequate for
the experiment. This includes quartz growers, optics fabricators,
instrument makers, geology academics, New Age jewelers, mining
companies, lascas suppliers, and rock hounds. Whatever the Chinese
did to make it happen, I prefer being on this side of their request.
(If anybody wants a small left-handed quartz plate 0.72 inches in
thickness for a kilobuck FOB vendor, post the request. The US
government has tens of tonnes of perfect natural quartz stockpiled as
a strategic material but, in their own words, "it literally takes an
act of Congress to get quartz from us." One can only wonder about
Bush the Lesser and his boys stripping down, oiling up, and madly
dancing around giant quartz crystals every full moon.)
> : In rough numbers,
>
> : 10 parts-per-trillion sensitivity in 30 days.
> : 1 part-per-trillion sensitivity in 60 days.
> : 0.1 part-per-trillion sensitivity in 90 days.
> :
> : There is a signal above noise expected at the 60 day mark,
>
> Since your theory makes no prediction of the size of the purported effect,
> there is no way that you can possibly know that.
You are wrong. Around 100 ppt is too big not to have been noticed in
other venues. Parity-violating energy difference (PVED) calorimetry
studies allow a 10 ppt EP parity violation without question. The full
parity Eotvos experiment in quartz maxes out every geometric variable
for parity-divergent test masses. It has 500X more net active mass
than the best composition Eotvos experiment and 110,000X more net
active mass than the best pseudoscalar interaction Eotvos experiment
(currently being run - null output). The hemiparity Eotvos experiment
was borderline non-null. I predicted a 3 ppt difference/average EP
full parity anomaly from the very beginning. 1 ppt would be more than
six-sigma and reportable. 0.1 ppt is Eotvos balance threshshold
sensitivity. That would be adequate for a modest "lookee-here!" page
in "Physical Review Letters."
Space is uniformly left-handed by empirical observation of other
parity violations. Given opposite directions in definition of optical
vs. geometric chirality, commercially grown optically right-handed
quartz, space group P3(2)21, is geometrically left-handed. That is
the configuration that should happily fit into left-handed space -
perhaps a tiny bit better than achiral mass re a left foot and a left
shoe vs. a sock. Optically left-handed quartz, space group P3(1)21,
is geometrically right-handed. That would not fit at all. It would
bring forth a large signal. The full parity Eotvos experiment will be
the algebraic difference of the two, or the sum of the absolute valus
of the two anomalies - if any. Then, the second hemiparity Eotvos
experiment of left-handed quartz vs. fused silica to confirm.
Hey Schultzy - do you wear shoes? Compare the energetics of inserting
your left foot into a left or right shoe. Shall we say 10X
difference?
> : but let's not get overmuch full of ourselves. The proper thing to do
> : is collect the data, analyze it at the end, and see what we have
> : without observer bias.
>
> This is about the only intelligent thing that I have ever seen you post.
You don't get around much. If you had any stones at all you'd see
whether Hydride Sponge chelated (-)C(CN)3 or other sterically
unhindered stabilized anions to result in an isolable pentavalent
carbon atom. Triphenylmethide seems kinda crowded, Meldrum's acid
seems kinda kinked. You lab does Schlenkware and glovebox work. A
confirming x-ray structure for an isolable pentavalent carbon
intermediate would kickstart your career, admittedly as an organiker.
The horror, the horror...
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> : Then, we will know.
>
> Best of luck to you and your team.
The Eotvos rotor will enjoy a *perfect* classical null - balanced to
within a microgram, first and second order moments of inertia
identical to ppm relative; identical chemical composition, density,
and macroscopic form on both sides; single crystal test masses with
identical binding and interfacial energies. It should be the most
perfect null output achievable in any experiment of this kind. The
two gold-plated sides are externally utterly indistinguishable,
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/m6_2.html
A loaded Eotvos rotor
with one possible exception. That is the experiment's purpose, to
look for an unambiguous parity anomaly in gravitation. We'll know by
first week in August if it nulls, and possibly sooner if it does not.
An entire universe dedicated to large scale synthesis of element 26 is
not without its ironies.
Uncle Al
> > This is about the only intelligent thing that I have ever seen you post.
>
> You don't get around much. If you had any stones at all you'd see
> whether Hydride Sponge chelated (-)C(CN)3 or other sterically
> unhindered stabilized anions to result in an isolable pentavalent
> carbon atom. Triphenylmethide seems kinda crowded, Meldrum's acid
> seems kinda kinked. You lab does Schlenkware and glovebox work. A
> confirming x-ray structure for an isolable pentavalent carbon
> intermediate would kickstart your career, admittedly as an organiker.
> The horror, the horror...
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/rawmat.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/cn3.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/guanid.png
Or a Proton Sponge variant. Guanidine is probably too delocalized
to party usefully.
This old box is on its last legs.
fellow
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:zLd7e.5709$lP1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
As I see it, the experiment doesn't just test for a violation of the the
equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, but that the ratio of one to
the other is the same for the test masses.
All matter consists of electrons, neutrons and protons for which the
evidence so far is in favour of these three particles having gravitational
to inertial mass in the same ratio, correct?
So. What other "mass" in this experiment is being looked for which could
violate this constant ratio?
Yeah, I'm an idiot. I know. ;)
John Decker
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goooooooooo...Uncle Al, sis-boom-bah, fight, fight, fight, Give me a cheer for
Uncle Al....
http://fightmusic.com/mp3/big10/Michigan__Hail_To_The_Victors.mp3
JD
Uncle Al
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:zLd7e.5709$lP1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote yesterday in sci.chem
> > > We've had some social sabotage in the parity Eotvos experiment.
> > >
> > [hanson]
> > ... What, WHAT, what?... Details, Al!... What happened?
> > THIS is NEWS, man!
> > hanson
>
> As I see it, the experiment doesn't just test for a violation of the the
> equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, but that the ratio of one to
> the other is the same for the test masses.
Sure. If the ratio is not exactly 1 to 13 decimal places, that is an
EP violation. That's "unequal" if it happens. The two *local* masses
in free fall would have different magntiudes of accelerations, or
pursue non-parallel fee fall trajectories. Real world divergence of
the gravitational field (quadrupole or tidal forces) is removed from
measurablity by locality.
> All matter consists of electrons, neutrons and protons for which the
> evidence so far is in favour of these three particles having gravitational
> to inertial mass in the same ratio, correct?
Sure, but you are nowhere near complete in your list. What about
varying chemical or gravitational binding energies? Those are
negative masses,
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
> So. What other "mass" in this experiment is being looked for which could
> violate this constant ratio?
>
> Yeah, I'm an idiot. I know. ;)
Not an idiot at all. Everybody since Galileo hasn't done any better.
The last unexamined "different" kind of mass is simple when you see
the answer: Does a left hand fall identically to a right hand? Is
space chiral? Will it display a distereomeric interaction with
opposite parity test masses? Test mass geometry is a good challenge
of spacetime geometry!
All properties in physics are tied to symmetries, 1:1, by Noether's
theorem and other strong correspondences. If you want a list of all
possible pure and fundamental properties, you start by listing all
symmetries,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21
Internal symmetries, by definition, cannot couple to translation or
rotation (certainly not to first order). Nevertheless, let's list a
lot of divergent properties - the most property one test mass can
have, not the difference in amount between two test masses,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b34
Except for parity (an external property that *does* couple to
translation and rotation and is a rare non-Noetherian symmery-property
couple), it all looks rather crappy. Alas, parity is chirality along
all coordinate axes simultaneously, and there was no way to measure or
calculate chirality. How do you know when you have two intense and
maximally divergent parity test masses for testing?
Starting in 1999 it *was* possible to exactly calculate the parity of
a set of points if their coordinates are known. All atoms in a
periodic crystal have known coordinates (close enough real world,
too). Thinking about the math and calculating a couple of dozen
reasonable x-ray crystal structures, quartz is hot stuff,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzsparse.png
711 points, end of graphed data is 4.44x10^17 atoms
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
90,386 points in the same intevral.
CHI=0 is achiral. CHI=1 is perfect theoretical parity divergence.
Right-handed quartz is commercially grown on huge scales for
electronics. Left-handed cultured quartz can be obtained. Fused
silica has the same chemical composition (lower density) but is
achiral. We now have three experiments:
1) Right-handed quartz vs. fused silica
2) Right-handed quartz vs. left-handed quartz
3) Left-handed quartz vs. fused silica
(1) has been done. It did not give a clean null, but the net output
was not statistically significant. (2) is having its left-handed
quartz test masses fabricated as you read this. We expect it to kick
off by 01 May and finish by 01 August. (3) is the check on any
non-null result in (2).
We'll know whether a left hand and a right hand fall identically by
early May. Existing theory and observation support both outcomes
exactly equally. Either experimental result is 100% OK. If there is
a reproducible net output,
1) General Relativity is founded upon a falsified postulate.
Affine/teleparallel gravitation takes over. Calculated answers are
the same either way. GR is easier to calculate and is retained as a
heuristic.
2) Lattice quantum gravitation is wrong.
3) 80% of M-theory is wrong.
4) Space is empirically anisiotropic.
5) Lorentz Invariance is falsified.
6) Angular momentum need not be conserved for parity test masses.
Push come to shove, day to day physics applied to the real world
remains unchanged. Theoreticians go apeshit. Big money flows to
Eotvos balance groups. Uncle Al gets smooched by Oprah and the King
of Sweden.
How confident is Uncle Al that it will go his way? You can purchase a
model of the first CHI=1 molecule laser-etched in a 3" leaded crystal
cube. The URL will be posted when the parity Eotvos experiment goes
high order. If it implodes, what the heck - nice paperweight.
Possibly a limited edition of the 3" cube; smaller versions for the
mob with no limit on numbers fabricated.
Uncle Al
> In article <425EB7D1...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al says...
> >Richard Schultz wrote:
> >> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >The Eotvos rotor will enjoy a *perfect* classical null - balanced to
> >within a microgram, first and second order moments of inertia
> >identical to ppm relative; identical chemical composition, density,
> >and macroscopic form on both sides; single crystal test masses with
> >identical binding and interfacial energies. It should be the most
> >perfect null output achievable in any experiment of this kind. The
> >two gold-plated sides are externally utterly indistinguishable,
> >
> >http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/m6_2.html
> > A loaded Eotvos rotor
> >
> >with one possible exception. That is the experiment's purpose, to
> >look for an unambiguous parity anomaly in gravitation. We'll know by
> >first week in August if it nulls, and possibly sooner if it does not.
> >An entire universe dedicated to large scale synthesis of element 26 is
> >not without its ironies.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Goooooooooo...Uncle Al, sis-boom-bah, fight, fight, fight, Give me a cheer for
> Uncle Al....
>
> http://fightmusic.com/mp3/big10/Michigan__Hail_To_The_Victors.mp3
Sssssh! It has to hang quietly for 90 days. Then, GROUPIES!!!!
Either way we crack a fifth of Lagavulin. BTW, Uncle Al is Moo U
(East Lansing) not Jew U. (Ann Arbor).
Gregory Toomey
> Uncle Al gets smooched by Oprah and the King
> of Sweden.
Hmmmm!
When I tell my 83 year old mother that bosonic string theory says she lives
in 26-dimensional universe, you don't need to be a Nobel laureate to know
there are big problems with current physical models.
gtoomey
Puppet_Sock
> ~100 days to final empirical results for the full parity Eotvos
> experiment. That is the only pertinent input. It can null, and
> General Relativity (metric gravitation) is again validated. It can
> give a net signal and GR is unambiguously falsified, falling to
> affine/teleparallel gravitation.
There are plenty of metric theories that can step into the breach,
should there actually be a breach. Various dual metric theories.
Several others. I'm sure Moffat would love it if your experiment
came out non-null. He might be in Sweden the year after you.
It will be interesting one way or the other.
Socks
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
>
> Is NASA trashed by decoupling inertial and gravitational mass at
> will? Will parity masses conserve angular momentum? If gravitation
> has a demonstrable parity anomaly then space is anisotropic.
> Noether's theorem then no longer enforces conservation of angular
> momentum for parity masses.
And how would that be utilised?
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> >
> > Is NASA trashed by decoupling inertial and gravitational mass at
> > will? Will parity masses conserve angular momentum? If gravitation
> > has a demonstrable parity anomaly then space is anisotropic.
> > Noether's theorem then no longer enforces conservation of angular
> > momentum for parity masses.
>
> And how would that be utilised?
More studies are needed.
Uncle Al
Theory is a disaster. Everything and its opposite are predicted with
no empirical observations extant to prune the weeds. At least we'll
be able to discard some of it of the Equivalence Principle has a
parity anomaly. We'll know soon enough.
Jan Panteltje
<John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in <d3n6k...@drn.newsguy.com>:
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Goooooooooo...Uncle Al, sis-boom-bah, fight, fight, fight, Give me a cheer for
>Uncle Al....
>
>
>http://fightmusic.com/mp3/big10/Michigan__Hail_To_The_Victors.mp3
ANYBODY deserves better music then that.
tj Frazir
don't.
Up is a gain in mass just like Einstein told you.
The gain in mass is proportional to evry atom .
The gain in mass is pushing the atom to less.
More mass is one one side of the atom than the other as its parts
change mass at C wile in orbit . The center of the atom is where all te
parts of the atom are falling twards but more mass is falling from one
direction than the other.
DUMBASS
YOU dont nead a fucking rocket you nead a brain !!
idiot..
you dont understand what einstein said because your a stupid fucker.
tj Frazir
G is equal the gain in mass.
The gain in mas is identical to F ( f-ma)
the gain in mass pushes the atom.
The GAIN in mass moves all atom with no exceptions. KE is the gain in
mass.
LOOK stupid.. if the nutron sat at the center of a balloon and you push
the balloon and deform it then there will be more balloon on one side
of the nutron than the other.
einstein could not explain G so you would understand it .
He failed to understand how stupid you are.
hanson
news:21833-426...@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net...
> [uncle Al] wiegh the gain in mass on a scale idiot.
> G is equal the gain in mass.
> The gain in mas is identical to F ( f-ma)
> the gain in mass pushes the atom.
> The GAIN in mass moves all atom with no exceptions.
> KE is the gain in mass.
> there will be more balloon on one side
> of the nutron than the other.
> He failed to understand how stupid you are.
>
...... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA... tj Frazir, you have been awarded
a full doctor-ship [unpaid, because you have too much money]
at Ravencrag* in the department for the "Intellectually Overbread
for Intelligence". Ravencrag hopes that your professioal acumen
will develop therapies to bring such IOFI inmates back to the
reality of the working world.
Congratulations, Dr. Fraser, Captn. of the 7 hi-Seas & an Icebreaker.
ahaha... ahahanson
PS:
* = http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/cobrajal.htm#Ravencrag
tj Frazir
drove flew sailed walked ran all over da place.
except france..fuck france.
I did go accross the boarder into frence water to pump the bilge dry
next to the hair pit beach.
Sharks follow us around the med ¿
A great white bit a captain in 1/2 and swam the aria for a year
unchallanged ..I jumped in with a stun gun and a butcher nife and cut
its fins off and they are on the grill.
I had a amonia jug inside a roast , swam over and bit it then got
stunned on the head to keep its jaws clenched on that jug wile I ripped
its gut sack open ..I swam back till it stopped the death rattel and
cut its fins off ..evry shark left.
sharks dont like to be on my diet.
eat a shark and toss boss shark parts around and all the sharks leave
town.
that 2000 pound shark had 50 pound fins.
I cut the back one off and it bled like a fountain.
All the sharks went to the bottom and got still.
The biggest shark in the med was dinner and 40 sharks just hid and
listened. Sharks only fear shark eaters. Eat the big one and all the
sharks go away.
Sharks are not stupid.
Schoenfeld
Your result, either way, will be efficiently waste-basketed upon
critical review for reasons which have already been disclosed to you.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > John Decker wrote:
> > > In article <425EB7D1...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al says...
> > > >Richard Schultz wrote:
> Your result, either way, will be efficiently waste-basketed upon
> critical review for reasons which have already been disclosed to you.
Those who know nothing should reply in kind. Are ya feeling the heat,
stooopid Schoenfeld? The empirical answer will arrive by 01 May.
Watcha gonna say then, stooopid Schoenfeld - "the dog ate my metric
field theory"?
A reproducible non-null Equivalence Principle violation test of any
kind busts physics wide open - Nordtvedt effect, Eotvos balance,
Bremen drop tower, stratospheric balloon drop capsule-in-capsule,
falling interferometer,
http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99144e.html
dual differential falling interferometer, Gravity Probe-B, microSTEP,
Galileo Galilei,
http://eotvos.dm.unipi.it/nobili/
levitated dual sphere superconducting gravimeter, pseudoscalar
probe...
Hey stooopid Schoenfeld, if you were mucking the millrace at Sutter's
mill, Coloma, El Dorado County, CA on 24 January 1848 all we would
hear is your pissing and moaning about lifting the heavy yellow
rocks. James Marshall was smarter than you would be. Hell, pre-meds
are smarter than you could be.
You are nothign Schoenfeld. Empirical reality will be revealed
without and despite you.
tj Frazir
or what " Uncle Al " thinks .
Ill go with the Dr Einstein gain in mass proven by a scale .
Not the crap some idiot that calls himself Uncle ,,maybe he's MJ stunt
double.
Richard Schultz
:> The funny part is that if a *false* positive result turns out to be due to
:> systematic error, he's already told us that it won't be his fault.
:
: The Eotvos balance is run by respected academics I have never met.
Then why are you attempting to claim any kind of credit should their
experiment turn out to have a non-null result?
: If you don't like disinterested academic experts, Schultzy, whom do your
: trust? Since you thereby exclude yourself, we cannot trust your
: opinion. Hey Schultz - do your really believe they would jeoperdize
: their professional standing by reporting less than a statistically
: certain result?
Yes. It happens all the time.
: I have a backup academic Eotvos group, too.
Presumably also people whom you have never met and who have never heard
of you.
:> : There persists a clean 50% chance that he will do better.
:>
:> I'd love to see how you came up with that number. I'm guessing that it's
:> the same kind of statistical "reasoning" that can be used to prove that
:> the sun won't rise tomorrow.
:
: Classical gravitation is either metric or affine/teleparallel. Either
: the Equivalence Principle is true or it is not true. That's all you
: or somebody better gets, Schultz, for ANY theory of gravitation.
: There is no third choice. 50:50, acey-deucy, +/-, 1/0, even-odd,
: yes/no.
Which proves definitively that you have not got a clue about statistics.
Either the sun will rise tomorrow, or it won't. But I'd say that the
relative likelihood of the two outcomes is not even close to 50:50.
: Single crystal electronic-grade optically left-handed quartz of the
: required thickness is remarkably difficult to obtain. Uncle Al was
: all over this planet seeking left-handed quartz in a size adequate for
: the experiment.
Why were you doing the legwork for this team of academics whom you have
never met?
:> : There is a signal above noise expected at the 60 day mark,
:>
:> Since your theory makes no prediction of the size of the purported effect,
:> there is no way that you can possibly know that.
:
: You are wrong. Around 100 ppt is too big not to have been noticed in
: other venues.
Once again, your *theory* (or at least the rant that is posted on your
web site) makes *no* prediction of the size of the effect. Experiments
have placed a strict *upper limit* on the size of the effect, and are all
consistent with zero. If the effect exists, but only at a level of 1 part
in 10^17, your experiment will not find it. Claiming that "signal above
noise" is expected once the noise level decreases to a certain level means
that you know what the size of the signal is. And you don't know that.
-----
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."
maison.mousse
Richard Schultz a écrit dans le message ...
SNIP
>in 10^17, your experiment will not find it. Claiming that "signal above
>noise" is expected once the noise level decreases to a certain level means
>that you know what the size of the signal is. And you don't know that.
>
>-----
>Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Does any one know the results of or if the "STEP" tests have been run.
Satellite Test of the Equivalence Principle (STEP) 10-18
( US-European joint program to test one of the most fundamental ideas
in all of physics, the equivalence of gravitational and inertial
mass. )
This follows the
Adelberger 1990 10-12 Torsion Balance tests that confirmed equivalence.
JOL
tj Frazir
99.9 % don't understand what gravity is .
How does gravity move mass DUMBFUCK ¿¿
Einstein told you but you still dont understand a gain in mass is
identical to F .
YOUR a fucking dumbass.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> :> The funny part is that if a *false* positive result turns out to be due to
> :> systematic error, he's already told us that it won't be his fault.
> :
> : The Eotvos balance is run by respected academics I have never met.
>
> Then why are you attempting to claim any kind of credit should their
> experiment turn out to have a non-null result?
Because he put forward the rationale for doing the expt in the first place?
Thomas Johnson
Richard Schultz wrote:
> :> : In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> :> : There persists a clean 50% chance that he will do better.
> :>
> :> I'd love to see how you came up with that number. I'm guessing
that it's
> :> the same kind of statistical "reasoning" that can be used to prove
that
> :> the sun won't rise tomorrow.
I predicted that there is life on Pluto. Therefore there is a 50%
chance that life exists on Pluto. I used this *fact* to convince the
new China Space Agency to send a probe to Pluto to investigate.
Remember this is the same "logic" that stated that his paper was
accepted for publication.
If we can believe Mr (dropout) Schwartz on anything, it appears that at
least 2 journals and 4 referees disagreed with that statement.
They also disagree that the work merits publication.
The fact that Mr. (dropout) Schwartz has any credit whatsoever is a sad
statement on how far sci.physics has devolved over the last 10 years.
Thomas
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Sci.physics is a pit full of retards, trolls, cranks and the mentally ill.
I gave up on it some time back.
Thomas Johnson
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>
> > In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > :> The funny part is that if a *false* positive result turns out to
be due to
> > :> systematic error, he's already told us that it won't be his
fault.
> > :
> > : The Eotvos balance is run by respected academics I have never
met.
> >
> > Then why are you attempting to claim any kind of credit should
their
> > experiment turn out to have a non-null result?
>
> Because he put forward the rationale for doing the expt in the first
place?
>
The author list of a paper doesn't include everyone who ever worked in
the field. Instead, it is supposed to include those names of people
instrumental to the work presented in that particular paper.
*If* this experiment actually happens and this isn't just another of
Mr. Schwartz' tall tales--and that is a big IF:
the appropriate credit for Mr. Schwartz would be a reference at the end
of either:
[number] A.M. Schwartz, unpublished.
or
[number] A.M. Schwartz, private communication.
Mr. Schwartz has presented his proposal to use chiral single crystals
in at least 3 public forums: (1)his website, (2) usenet and (most
importantly) (3) the APS meeting. Use of the idea is now free for
anyone.
Consider this, does Prof. Adelberger include Eotvos as a co-author on
his papers? Eotvos' work is decidedly incorporated into his
experiments. Does any paper that uses relativity include Einstein as
an author?
The fact that Schwartz is trying to imply he is actively collaborating
with the Chinese team is a sign that the whole thing is in his
imagination.
Thomas.
GR_GR
>
>> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> :> The funny part is that if a *false* positive result turns out to be
>> due to
>> :> systematic error, he's already told us that it won't be his fault.
>> : : The Eotvos balance is run by respected academics I have never met.
>> Then why are you attempting to claim any kind of credit should their
>> experiment turn out to have a non-null result?
>
>
> Because he put forward the rationale for doing the expt in the first place?
>
Simply ignore Schultz, or at most ridicule him. He is suffering from an
acute case of sour grapes.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
As was E=MC^2 the moment it was published.
Irrespective, it's priority that counts.
Who has done work comparable to Al previously on this topic?
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> :> The funny part is that if a *false* positive result turns out to be due to
> :> systematic error, he's already told us that it won't be his fault.
> :
> : The Eotvos balance is run by respected academics I have never met.
>
> Then why are you attempting to claim any kind of credit should their
> experiment turn out to have a non-null result?
It's wholly my created and calculated parity Eotvos experiment,
idiot. They are labor, equipment, budget, and experience. Their
payoff is riding in the parade's first float, if and when. How can
you devote four years to whining like an old woman, Schultz, and not
remember about what you are whining? Look up the word "anile."
First you complain the experiment is tainted by collusion, now you
complain the experiment is tainted by independence. We all sit in our
leather armchairs awaiting your final utterance (talk about irrational
optimism), that the parity Eotvos experiment it tainted by empirical
success.
You are the perfect t'ain't, Schultz- t'ain't pussy, t'ain't bung; its
the t'ain't! There rest of us say "perineum."
> : If you don't like disinterested academic experts, Schultzy, whom do your
> : trust? Since you thereby exclude yourself, we cannot trust your
> : opinion. Hey Schultz - do your really believe they would jeoperdize
> : their professional standing by reporting less than a statistically
> : certain result?
>
> Yes. It happens all the time.
We have higher standards.
> : I have a backup academic Eotvos group, too.
>
> Presumably also people whom you have never met and who have never heard
> of you.
An hour of face-time with those primary researchers at the 2004 APS
national meeting in Denver, CO after I presented my paper. They are
currently looking for polarized test mass pseudoscalar interactions.
The full parity Eotvos experment in quartz has 110,000 times the
active mass of their blob. It's their Eotvos balance. Either they
made the right call or they will be terrifically miffed. Free will is
a bitch goddess.
You are a bitter boy. Uncle Al suggests a ride on the Berkeley horse
for you,
http://wiki.tatet.ru/en/Berkeley_Horse.html
[snip whining]
The empirical data will be collected and analyzed by ~01 August 2005.
It makes no difference if the One True Church accepts or declines a
look through the telescope.
Potte
How about this guys.
If the Eotvos/Parity expe produces null result and Uncle Al didn't
go to Sweden. Let him get the title "Mother of all crackpots" and
he must change his nick from Uncle Al to Crack Al or QueenofCrackpots".
If the Eotvos/Parity expe produces non-null result and Uncle Al
wiped out 80% of M-theory and go to Sweden. Let's each contribute
$10 and build him a giant statue like Saddam.
How about that :)
I mentioned "Mother of all crackpots" above because all crackpots
have hypothesis waiting to be proven or disproven. Uncle Al has one
too where he expects a non-null results. He used scientific funding
to prove his theory. What if all the crackpots used school funding
to test their theories. Get it. So if Uncle Al expe produces null.
He's wasting our time just like all the crackpots here and even
waste money for it. So let's call him "Mother of all crackpots"
come August if the result is contrary to his wishes".
Potte
Thomas Johnson
One one side, you have Mr Schwartz. He has proposed samples. He has
also put forth an extremely overlong discussion of the chirality of the
crystals that is completely useless. The CHI he calculates is a number
no one wants or can use. So, he spent a long time, and a lot of other
people's computer time, to prove that chiral crystals are chiral.
Yawn. Here is a problem for the reader: show a chiral crystal which
does not have CHI=1 (minus some insignificant number) in the bulk. In
10 seconds you can do more than Schwartz did with months of computer
time.
On the other side, you have multiple teams (UW, Irvine, China, Taiwan,
plus teams in the past) who have spent decades studying the subject.
You have Adelberger who not only thought of, but actually tested chiral
samples before Schwartz proposed single crystals. These teams *may*
actually spend months of time and thousands of dollars to test chiral
single crystals.
So, Schwartz didn't have the idea of testing chiral samples first and
isn't a part of doing the experiment. His basic idea is now part of
the public record. Where would you put him in your paper? If the work
gets done, Schwartz has a beef if he isn't cited. If he were put on
the paper as a co-author, it would be Christmas in August for Alan.
This isn't the usual usenet pounding on the goofball. This is a very
reasonable way to operate.
Read qz.pdf. Read the appendix on Green's functions. That one section
demonstrates that Schwartz doesn't understand the basics o the physics
he is putting forth. The rest, the chirality calculation, is useless
nonsense. Poorly performed, poorly presented.
Thomas.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> How about this guys.
> How about that :)
> Potte
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Right or wrong, Al has an experiment others deem worthy of doing.
Where's your's?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Thomas Johnson
A few months back Mr. Schwartz was getting attention for the "final"
diamond synthesis attempt.
Richard Schultz wrote:
> Which proves definitively that you have not got a clue about
statistics.
He has a great clue about some statistics. There was a very high
probability that people were going to start asking questions about the
diamond project about now.
Instead, he has succesfully shifted attention to a future deadline and
a different project.
I wonder what he will do to shift attention away from the quartz/eotvos
experiment as we approach Aug. 1?
Thomas.
Robert Kolker
> The empirical data will be collected and analyzed by ~01 August 2005.
> It makes no difference if the One True Church accepts or declines a
> look through the telescope.
You are in a win win position. If you find the EP is wrong, aside from a
trip to Stockholm, physics is set upon the paths of righeousness. If
you are wrong and the EP is upheld you can go on and use GTR secure in
the knowlege that the other Al, was probably right. You are living in
truly wonderful times. Enjoy the experience.
I assume you will keep us posted on the outcome be it postive or
negative. I can hardly wait to see what the outcome will be. Damn it
all! I luv living in interesting times.
Bob Kolker
Schoenfeld
Did you swallow, groupie?
Uncle Al
NIST rewrote its commercial stereochemistry software after
[6.6]chiralane arrived in my e-mail and their flagship programming
crashed and burned. Tell NIST Uncle Al is a pile of crap. You don't
know the difference between parity and chirality. You don't know the
difference between chiral unit cell contents and crystal lattice
parity divergence. Le Coupe du Roi, fool.
"...who have spent decades studying the subject." 420 years,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22
No extremal opposite parity test masses have ever been run, not even
once, before this work. There was no way to calculate geometric
parity divergence until 1999. Adelberger is clueless about structural
chemistry as is everybody else in the gild. I talked for an hour with
Adelberger and his main man. You don't know shit from Shinola,
"Thomas Johnson." Adelberger ran MACHINE SCREWS, left- vs.
right-threaded. That was beneath contempt.
There was no way to calculate an extended crystal lattice until Uncle
Al - and I'm not releasing the proprietary software that prepares the
data file for QCM fast execution (thousands of atoms) or the software
that allows quadrillions of atoms to be calculated. Do you think
otherwise, little man? Calculate CHI for GaPO3 to a billion atoms
without Uncle Al. That is a solid 40 seconds work in my PC.
You whine and denigrate the work of two dozen choice people over more
than four years. You contribute nothing, critic troll. You spew and
fume and bullshit without a single literature citation in support.
Listen up, schmuck: We *already* have a non-null result from the
first hemiparity Eotvos experiment. It's the first Equivalence
Principle non-null output anywhere any time under any circumstances.
The full parity Eotvos experiment will be completed by 01 August. It
would have a larger non-null output, and defensibly an order of
magnitude larger. It will be followed by the other hemiparity Eotvos
experiment. The sum of the two hemiparity Eotvos experiments is the
full parity Etovos experiment. It is self-checking.
It's in the bag, you fool. Either the next experiment has a clean
null output or it has a handsomely validated large non-null output.
Nothing you can say and nothing you can do will perturb it in the
slightest. The journal that publishes an Equivalence Principle
empirical parity anomaly and its theoretical justification - my paper,
unchanged - will have the largest impact factor of *any* scholarly
journal, FOR DECADES. Tens of thousands of papers will come gushing
out as fast as academic fingers can burn LaTeX. GR, Lorentz
Invariance, conservation of angular momentum, and QM - all gone with
the empirical EP parity anomaly. Nothing will remain except
heuristics. All theory across physics must be rewritten, with every
paper citing my papers.
All you can hope for now, little man, is that the full parity Eotvos
experiment is a clean null. That happens to be the historic gold
standard of performance. The pooch cannot be screwed.
macro...@internetcds.com
tj Frazir
.eh eh.
Uncle idiot sucks at physics.
So does sam but sam is not on tryal here.
They dont know the sise of the parts of the atoms and dont understand
how gravity moves things.
They dont quite understand a gain in mass.
I dont fucking understand engish ..they dont understaand me.
The Ghost In The Machine
<now...@nowhere.com>
wrote
on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:59:29 -0400
<CO-dnQOUQ_f...@comcast.com>:
The main problem I have with all this are the boundary conditions.
For example, Newton's laws approximate GTRs when space is
inertial and v << c. (More formally, if one uses Newton,
one gets an error of approximately gamma = 1 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which is approximately 1 + (1/2)(v^2/c^2) for v << c.
Once Uncle Al's results are verified (I wouldn't be a
peer, admittedly), one might hopefully have a series
of conditions where GTR =~ affine (?) (within a certain
calculable error).
In a way, affine is not replacing GTR, but augmenting it,
in much the same manner as GTR augments Newton. However,
one must know the approximate boundaries.
And of course if GTR is *not* augmented, then we still have
the boundaries, as there is always error in an experiment.
A small error, hopefully -- but AIUI gravity's exponent
has been measured to be 2 ± 10^-17 or thereabouts, but
not exactly 2.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Richard Schultz
: First you complain the experiment is tainted by collusion, now you
: complain the experiment is tainted by independence.
This is another one of your ever-increasing list of lies. I never said
that the experiment is "tainted by collusion." I don't even know what
that phrase is supposed to mean.
: We all sit in our
: leather armchairs awaiting your final utterance (talk about irrational
: optimism), that the parity Eotvos experiment it tainted by empirical
: success.
Yawn.
:> : If you don't like disinterested academic experts, Schultzy, whom do your
:> : trust? Since you thereby exclude yourself, we cannot trust your
:> : opinion. Hey Schultz - do your really believe they would jeoperdize
:> : their professional standing by reporting less than a statistically
:> : certain result?
:>
:> Yes. It happens all the time.
:
: We have higher standards.
*You* certainly do not. All one has to do is to read through your various
usenet rants to discover what passes for a standard of proof in your mind.
I remember about a decade ago, a team of particle physicists reported some
wonderful discovery. Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly what they
claimed to have discovered, but I do remember that they claimed that their
results was *six standard deviations* from a null result. Guess what?
They had to retract their result when they found out that there was an
unexpected source of systematic error.
: The empirical data will be collected and analyzed by ~01 August 2005.
: It makes no difference if the One True Church accepts or declines a
: look through the telescope.
This implies that they were working on the experiment before they ever
heard of you (assuming that they have heard of you).
-----
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
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
Richard Schultz
:> : The Eotvos balance is run by respected academics I have never met.
:> Then why are you attempting to claim any kind of credit should their
:> experiment turn out to have a non-null result?
:
: Because he put forward the rationale for doing the expt in the first place?
stole the idea from them.
-----
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
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
GR_GR
> How about this guys.
>
> If the Eotvos/Parity expe produces null result and Uncle Al didn't
> go to Sweden. Let him get the title "Mother of all crackpots" and
> he must change his nick from Uncle Al to Crack Al or QueenofCrackpots".
No. A null result does not make Al a crack pot any more than the people
who performed the experiment.
You obviously have problems with the definition of a crack pot.
>
> If the Eotvos/Parity expe produces non-null result and Uncle Al
> wiped out 80% of M-theory and go to Sweden. Let's each contribute
> $10 and build him a giant statue like Saddam.
>
> How about that :)
>
> I mentioned "Mother of all crackpots" above because all crackpots
> have hypothesis waiting to be proven or disproven. Uncle Al has one
> too where he expects a non-null results. He used scientific funding
> to prove his theory. What if all the crackpots used school funding
> to test their theories. Get it. So if Uncle Al expe produces null.
> He's wasting our time just like all the crackpots here and even
> waste money for it. So let's call him "Mother of all crackpots"
> come August if the result is contrary to his wishes".
...
Yup, you obviously have no idea what makes a crack pot.
GR_GR
And yet another person with a terminal case of sour grapes.
GR_GR
> In sci.chem Dirk Bruere at Neopax <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>
> :> : The Eotvos balance is run by respected academics I have never met.
> :>
> :> Then why are you attempting to claim any kind of credit should their
> :> experiment turn out to have a non-null result?
> :
> : Because he put forward the rationale for doing the expt in the first place?
>
> According to him. Perhaps according to the "respected academics," he
> stole the idea from them.
Prove it, Mr. Sour Grapes.
Richard Schultz
:> According to him. Perhaps according to the "respected academics," he
:> stole the idea from them.
:
: Prove it, Mr. Sour Grapes.
I don't have to prove it any more than you have to prove that "Sour Grapes"
is a better explanation for my behavior than the one that I have proposed.
-----
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
-----
GR_GR
> In sci.chem GR_GR <n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> :> According to him. Perhaps according to the "respected academics," he
> :> stole the idea from them.
> :
> : Prove it, Mr. Sour Grapes.
>
> I don't have to prove it
Sure you do. Otherwise it will remain an unfounded assertion by a petty
schmuck with a bad case of sour grapes.
Richard Schultz
I have long realized that reading comprehension is not high on the list
of your skill set. But since you claim to be some kind of student of
science, perhaps you could give us evidence that your explanation for my
behavior is a better explanation of the facts than mine is.
GR_GR
> In sci.chem GR_GR <n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
> : Richard Schultz wrote:
> :> In sci.chem GR_GR <n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> :> :> According to him. Perhaps according to the "respected academics," he
> :> :> stole the idea from them.
>
> :> : Prove it, Mr. Sour Grapes.
>
> :> I don't have to prove it
>
> : Sure you do. Otherwise it will remain an unfounded assertion by a petty
> : schmuck with a bad case of sour grapes.
>
> I have long realized that reading comprehension is not high on the list
> of your skill set.
Whatever.
In any event, you are obviously suffering from a severe case of sour grapes.
Al's success raises your bile, and thus you care nothing of the science.
How ever did you get to where you are in life?
> But since you claim to be some kind of student of
> science, perhaps you could give us evidence that your explanation for my
> behavior is a better explanation of the facts than mine is.
The onus is not on me to prove your vacuous statement about Al
"stealing" from other "respected academics."
I do not have to posit a theory as to your pathetic behavior, but will
simply rely on empirical observation that indeed you are an asshole with
a terminal case of sour grapes.
Prove me wrong, Mr. Sour Grapes.
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.chem GR_GR <n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
> : Richard Schultz wrote:
> :> In sci.chem GR_GR <n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> :> :> According to him. Perhaps according to the "respected academics," he
> :> :> stole the idea from them.
>
> :> : Prove it, Mr. Sour Grapes.
>
> :> I don't have to prove it
>
> : Sure you do. Otherwise it will remain an unfounded assertion by a petty
> : schmuck with a bad case of sour grapes.
>
> I have long realized that reading comprehension is not high on the list
> of your skill set. But since you claim to be some kind of student of
> science, perhaps you could give us evidence that your explanation for my
> behavior is a better explanation of the facts than mine is.
The worthless idea that cannot possibly be valid was heinously stolen
from a number of academic groups - internationally! - that spent
$thousands upon it. Hey Schultzy, at least be credible and citable
(if not certifiable) in your psychoses. Whine that it was stolen in a
CIA black op from your fellow Israelite David Avnir who in turn
discovered it in a chink in the Wailing Wall. Now you've got the
Chinese connection, too.
Hey Schultzy - intergalactic space alien veterinary proctologists
doing their practicum at Earth traded Uncle Al the secret of the
cosmos for a liter of all-organic butternut squash soup with added soy
filler. The joke is on them! Terrestrial protein amino acids are
left-handed. (Glycine got circumcized.)
Schoenfeld
Uncle Al wrote:
[remove]
Given that you stole and patented someone elses work (US
5,859,057) in the past, one casts a suspicous leer on the remainder of
your activities. Furthermore, a cursory review of your abomination of a
website and despicable posting history reveals an unsavory character
indeed, one worthy of condemnation by default.
Schoenfeld
Did you swallow, groupie?
Uncle Al
Hey stooopid Schoenfeld, one need merely demonstrate a useful
synergistic interaction (non-linear summation of individual effects)
non-obvious to one skilled in the art. That's what it did, stooopid
Schoenfeld. Brilliantly so.
The USPTO was after us for years with questions about claimed roach
repellent technology and its applications. The published natural
effect persists for 3-5 days. Our synthetic invention field-tested
for 10+ months with one application. That's a novel and proprietary
synergistic effect, stooopid Schoenfeld. (Clearing the roaches out of
two Hispanic carnecerias in East LA is not merely superior technology,
it's a full fucking miracle from God herself). We then filed an
action stipulating that if USPTO examiners could not figure it out
given the application and dialog thereafter, the invention passed the
qualification for not being obvious to one skilled in the art. The
patent was promptly granted. Yer empirically stooopid, Schoenfeld.
BTW, if your public allegations re slander and/or libel laws incur me
derivative monetary loss, Schoenfeld, my legal counsel will serve you
with civil action seeking compensatory and treble punitive damages
plus fees. It's the money honey, and yours is as green as anybody's.
Thomas Johnson
Uncle Al wrote:
> BTW, if your public allegations re slander and/or libel laws incur me
> derivative monetary loss, Schoenfeld, my legal counsel will serve you
> with civil action seeking compensatory and treble punitive damages
> plus fees. It's the money honey, and yours is as green as anybody's.
What Schoenfield wrote was out of bounds. But, you would have a hell
of a time proving any damages in the best of cases. What are you going
to say, some potential customer reads sci.physics and was turned off
because of his opinion? A stretch at best.
You case is far from the best. This patent is basically worthless.
You would have been better off spending the money involved fixing up
your car--or on a roullette wheel.
Let's see, no one ever has used it or really had an interest in it.
You make claims of how useful it was in tests, and how the USPTO was
interested in those results. Odd that they didn't end up in your
patent. It would have made it stronger if you had included that in the
teaching section. However, it is very likely all a lie, so you
couldn't put it in the patent.
You have stated a number of times about how S.C. Johnson were looking
at the patent for application/license. However, since they have an
aversion to making billions of dollars, they passed on the opportunity.
Instead, you were taking it offshore. That's the basic story, right?
Here is why this project of yours is a lie. Ever hear of a
non-disclosure agreement (NDA)? Companies don't like their competition
to know what they are doing, so if they work with an inventor they
first have the inventor sign an NDA. Blathering all over usenet would
be considered a breach of an NDA (duh). The company you were
supposedly working with would have your butt in court faster than you
can say "I'm really smart" (something you can obviously say really
fast. Doesn't make it true, either).
So, you weren't about to license this to some company. It was a lie.
It is this pattern of lies about your projects that make one discount
your tales of collaborations with Adelberger and China.
Thomas.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > BTW, if your public allegations re slander and/or libel laws incur me
> > derivative monetary loss, Schoenfeld, my legal counsel will serve you
> > with civil action seeking compensatory and treble punitive damages
> > plus fees. It's the money honey, and yours is as green as anybody's.
>
> What Schoenfield wrote was out of bounds. But, you would have a hell
> of a time proving any damages in the best of cases. What are you going
> to say, some potential customer reads sci.physics and was turned off
> because of his opinion? A stretch at best.
You don't know anything about MBA-motivated litigation. When we
secure an ass gratis we roast ham.
[snip whining crap]
You make an uninteresting groupie. Worship in silence.
Thomas Johnson
would consider it something of a victory to get someone so angry. I
don't quite see it that way, but that does seem to be your style.
Uncle Al wrote:
> The journal that publishes an Equivalence Principle
> empirical parity anomaly and its theoretical justification - my
paper,
> unchanged - will have the largest impact factor of *any* scholarly
> journal, FOR DECADES. Tens of thousands of papers will come gushing
> out as fast as academic fingers can burn LaTeX. GR, Lorentz
> Invariance, conservation of angular momentum, and QM - all gone with
> the empirical EP parity anomaly. Nothing will remain except
> heuristics. All theory across physics must be rewritten, with every
> paper citing my papers.
Amongst all the nonsense in your post, this stands out. It doesn't
need comment: one can just stand back and be amazed.
By the way, you seem to be in disagreement with the referees. This is
either because (a) they can't understand your greatness or, (b) the
paper is not of high scientific quality. It is obvious that we hold
different opinions on the matter.
You had a moderately clever idea suggesting crystals as chiral samples.
Too bad you try to pretend to have done more than you did. It is as if
you put a bandaid on someone and are now claiming you are Christian
Barnard.
Thomas.
p.s. you should be more in suck-up phase with Adelberger right now.
Calling him "beneath contempt" isn't a path to co-authorship.
Joshua Halpern
> Richard Schultz wrote:
>
>
>
>>:> : There persists a clean 50% chance that he will do better.
>>:>
>>:> I'd love to see how you came up with that number. I'm guessing
>
> that it's
>
>>:> the same kind of statistical "reasoning" that can be used to prove
>
> that
>
>>:> the sun won't rise tomorrow.
>
>
> I predicted that there is life on Pluto. Therefore there is a 50%
> chance that life exists on Pluto. I used this *fact* to convince the
> new China Space Agency to send a probe to Pluto to investigate.
First they hang the guys stupid enough to fall for this, then they come
looking for you.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
> :> systematic error, he's already told us that it won't be his fault.
> :
>
> Then why are you attempting to claim any kind of credit should their
> experiment turn out to have a non-null result?
>
> : trust? Since you thereby exclude yourself, we cannot trust your
> : opinion. Hey Schultz - do your really believe they would jeoperdize
> : their professional standing by reporting less than a statistically
> : certain result?
>
> Yes. It happens all the time.
>
>
> Presumably also people whom you have never met and who have never heard
> of you.
>
> :> : There persists a clean 50% chance that he will do better.
> :>
> :> I'd love to see how you came up with that number. I'm guessing that it's
> :> the same kind of statistical "reasoning" that can be used to prove that
> :> the sun won't rise tomorrow.
> : Classical gravitation is either metric or affine/teleparallel. Either
> : the Equivalence Principle is true or it is not true. That's all you
> : or somebody better gets, Schultz, for ANY theory of gravitation.
> : There is no third choice. 50:50, acey-deucy, +/-, 1/0, even-odd,
> : yes/no.
> Which proves definitively that you have not got a clue about statistics.
> relative likelihood of the two outcomes is not even close to 50:50.
>
> : Single crystal electronic-grade optically left-handed quartz of the
> : required thickness is remarkably difficult to obtain. Uncle Al was
> : all over this planet seeking left-handed quartz in a size adequate for
> : the experiment.
>
> Why were you doing the legwork for this team of academics whom you have
> never met?
>
> :> : There is a signal above noise expected at the 60 day mark,
> :>
> :> Since your theory makes no prediction of the size of the purported effect,
> :> there is no way that you can possibly know that.
> :
> : You are wrong. Around 100 ppt is too big not to have been noticed in
> : other venues.
>
> Once again, your *theory* (or at least the rant that is posted on your
> web site) makes *no* prediction of the size of the effect. Experiments
> have placed a strict *upper limit* on the size of the effect, and are all
> consistent with zero. If the effect exists, but only at a level of 1 part
> in 10^17, your experiment will not find it. Claiming that "signal above
> noise" is expected once the noise level decreases to a certain level means
> that you know what the size of the signal is. And you don't know that.
Professor I have good news to report, there is no noise
And?
Alas, there is no signal either.
josh halpern
Thomas Johnson
Uncle Al wrote:
> You don't know anything about MBA-motivated litigation. When we
> secure an ass gratis we roast ham.
>
What an MBA you would make. I am sure that you would recoup court
costs in Uncle Al v Schoenfield. He strikes me as having very deep
pockets.
Mr. Schwartz, I have written a number of patents. It is precisely that
which made me research your case. I saw one of your posts on your
diamond project, and I was amazed that someone could be so stupid as to
make the statements you have made on the subject.
First, your most broad first claim would be "using a molten salt acid
as a medium for growing diamonds". Stating it in public kills that.
Second, every speculation made by anyone else is something you can't
patent.
Third, the US is "first to invent", not "first to file". So if someone
else made your idea work, you could still fight them if you had the
concept first and were making due diligence towards the invention.
However, all your statements about how your management won't support
the project kills your claim of continuously working on the project.
If you weren't fired for your usenet posts on this subject, you would
certainly have been shut up by your management. Since this didn't
happen, we can only conclude that the project is a fake. Of course,
this is an easy conclusion based on years of no results.
It's your M.O. Schwartz. You make huge claims that can't be verified,
then huge excuses when the due dates you give pass without a verifiable
result. What is the excuse going to be for no diamonds this year?
Remember, it has to be such that no one can really prove you wrong.
Personally, I doubt that you even have a job. If you do, it is likely
some very menial tech position where you are not counted on for any
real innovation. You just don't have it in you.
Thomas.
Richard Schultz
: The onus is not on me to prove your vacuous statement about Al
: "stealing" from other "respected academics."
I hope that your thesis advisor is aware of your tendency to quote things
out of context and by doing so distorting their meanings. I raised as
a *possibility* that the "respected academics" whom Uncle Al claims never
to have met will claim that they came up with the idea first and that he
stole it from them. That happens all the time in science. Sometimes these
claims are obviously true, and sometimes, it's unlikely that it will ever
be clear exactly what happened. Just consider E.J. Corey's recent decision
to claim that 40 years ago, Woodward got the idea for what would eventually
become the Woodward-Hoffman rules from him (Corey), never acknowledging his
contribution, and that in essence, the Nobel prize that Woodward and Hoffman
won was stolen from him. Since Woodward is long dead, all that Hoffman can
say is that Woodward never mentioned Corey's name to him.
: I do not have to posit a theory as to your pathetic behavior, but will
: simply rely on empirical observation that indeed you are an asshole with
: a terminal case of sour grapes.
:
: Prove me wrong, Mr. Sour Grapes.
Here's a very simple empirical test. I have over the past few years
pointed out a number of occasions on which Uncle Al was mistaken about
something, and on others, provided evidence that he has deliberately lied.
Uncle Al himself has posted that one quality of a "mensch" is his willingness
to admit it when he is wrong. So here's an experiment you can try: find
a *single* example of a case where I pointed out an error made by Uncle
Al, or of a lie that he told, in which he retracted his statement.
Your inability to find one (and you will not be able to find one -- trust me)
will be evidence for my explanation, namely, that while I respect his
abilities as a technician and admit that his knowledge of organic chemistry
is far greater than mine ever will be, his propensity to make errors in
subjects with which he is unfamiliar and (much worse in my opinion) his
tendency to tell lies when the facts are not on his side mean that a naive
reader (in the sense of one who has little experience with usenet) should
be very careful in accepting anything out of hand that Uncle Al says.
Furthermore, as someone who was trained to be a scientist, I find a person
who deliberately lies about scientific findings to be of questionable
morality at best.
Now the question that remains unanswered in my mind is what kind of
mental illness possesses you to want to be such a person's tochis-lecker
in chief? And if Uncle Al is as smart as you think he is, how do you
manage to ignore his pathological need to "prove" it by such means as
repeatedly responding to posts of people like Archimedes Plutonium (to
the point of posting what was probably an actionable slander) posting his
Minesweeper scores?
-----
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
-----
Richard Schultz
: Uncle Al wrote:
:> BTW, if your public allegations re slander and/or libel laws incur me
:> derivative monetary loss, Schoenfeld, my legal counsel will serve you
:> with civil action seeking compensatory and treble punitive damages
:> plus fees. It's the money honey, and yours is as green as anybody's.
:
: What Schoenfield wrote was out of bounds. But, you would have a hell
: of a time proving any damages in the best of cases. What are you going
: to say, some potential customer reads sci.physics and was turned off
: because of his opinion? A stretch at best.
Take a look at what Uncle Al wrote in the article archived at
http://tinyurl.com/ahg5g. It's going to be hard for him to prove that
he lost any business when he openly expressed his opinion that due to the
costs of EPA testing, he wouldn't be selling his cockroach repellant in
the U.S. at all.
-----
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."
Y.Porat
ps Al
one thing for you to remember:
old catto sayed:
all th e people that you was stepping on them down- on your way up
will meet you at the corner -- on your way *down*!
something to think about .......
Y.Porat
----------------------------
GR_GR
Great... another case of sour grapes.
GR_GR
> In sci.chem GR_GR <n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> : The onus is not on me to prove your vacuous statement about Al
> : "stealing" from other "respected academics."
>
> I hope that your thesis advisor is aware of your tendency to quote things
> out of context and by doing so distorting their meanings. I raised as
> a *possibility* that the "respected academics" whom Uncle Al claims never
> to have met will claim that they came up with the idea first and that he
> stole it from them.
Nice back track there, Mr. Sour grapes.
> : I do not have to posit a theory as to your pathetic behavior, but will
> : simply rely on empirical observation that indeed you are an asshole with
> : a terminal case of sour grapes.
> :
> : Prove me wrong, Mr. Sour Grapes.
>
> Here's a very simple empirical test. I have over the past few years
> pointed out a number of occasions on which Uncle Al was mistaken about
> something, and on others, provided evidence that he has deliberately lied.
And why do you care so much to follow Al around pointing out "mistakes"
and the such? Sour grapes.
Thank you for adding a data point for the case that you are an asshole
Jan Panteltje
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in <4264510A...@hate.spam.net>:
>Thomas Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Uncle Al wrote:
>> > BTW, if your public allegations re slander and/or libel laws incur me
>> > derivative monetary loss, Schoenfeld, my legal counsel will serve you
>> > with civil action seeking compensatory and treble punitive damages
>> > plus fees. It's the money honey, and yours is as green as anybody's.
>>
>> What Schoenfield wrote was out of bounds. But, you would have a hell
>> of a time proving any damages in the best of cases. What are you going
>> to say, some potential customer reads sci.physics and was turned off
>> because of his opinion? A stretch at best.
>
>You don't know anything about MBA-motivated litigation. When we
>secure an ass gratis we roast ham.
>
>[snip whining crap]
>
>You make an uninteresting groupie. Worship in silence.
LOL
Almost choked on this.
hehe tears in eyes.
Richard Schultz
:> In sci.chem GR_GR <n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
:> : The onus is not on me to prove your vacuous statement about Al
:> : "stealing" from other "respected academics."
:>
:> I hope that your thesis advisor is aware of your tendency to quote things
:> out of context and by doing so distorting their meanings. I raised as
:> a *possibility* that the "respected academics" whom Uncle Al claims never
:> to have met will claim that they came up with the idea first and that he
:> stole it from them.
:
: Nice back track there, Mr. Sour grapes.
Here is what I said in article <d3vchr$hr1$2...@news.iucc.ac.il>:
#:> Then why are you attempting to claim any kind of credit should their
#:> experiment turn out to have a non-null result?
#: Because he put forward the rationale for doing the expt in the first place?
# According to him. Perhaps according to the "respected academics," he
# stole the idea from them.
I am not backtracking. I am (unlike you) accurately reporting what I said.
I suggest that you look up what the word "perhaps" means.
:> : I do not have to posit a theory as to your pathetic behavior, but will
:> : simply rely on empirical observation that indeed you are an asshole with
:> : a terminal case of sour grapes.
:> : Prove me wrong, Mr. Sour Grapes.
:> Here's a very simple empirical test. I have over the past few years
:> pointed out a number of occasions on which Uncle Al was mistaken about
:> something, and on others, provided evidence that he has deliberately lied.
: And why do you care so much to follow Al around pointing out "mistakes"
: and the such? Sour grapes.
I don't "follow him around" -- I only report on the mistakes (there is
no need for quotation marks, as the mistakes that I pointed out are
demonstrably deviations from reality) that I happen to see. And I explained
why, although it is clear, alas, that you have no idea why lying is a
bad thing. If you understood why someone *might* consider lying immoral,
even if you do not, then you might understand why someone *might* be tempted
to point out those lies to the unwary.
: Thank you for adding a data point for the case that you are an asshole
: with a terminal case of sour grapes.
Perhaps it is overly naive of me, but I believe that most of the people who
read our respective posts will not have much difficulty in understanding
the philosophical differences that separate us. Especially since you deleted
without response my question about why *you* think it is so important to
be Uncle Al's toady-in-chief.
-----
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"
GR_GR
> In sci.chem GR_GR <n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
> : Richard Schultz wrote:
> :> In sci.chem GR_GR <n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> :> : The onus is not on me to prove your vacuous statement about Al
> :> : "stealing" from other "respected academics."
> :>
> :> I hope that your thesis advisor is aware of your tendency to quote things
> :> out of context and by doing so distorting their meanings. I raised as
> :> a *possibility* that the "respected academics" whom Uncle Al claims never
> :> to have met will claim that they came up with the idea first and that he
> :> stole it from them.
> :
> : Nice back track there, Mr. Sour grapes.
>
> Here is what I said in article <d3vchr$hr1$2...@news.iucc.ac.il>:
>
> #:> Then why are you attempting to claim any kind of credit should their
> #:> experiment turn out to have a non-null result?
>
> #: Because he put forward the rationale for doing the expt in the first place?
>
> # According to him. Perhaps according to the "respected academics," he
> # stole the idea from them.
>
> I am not backtracking.
Sure you are.
> :> : I do not have to posit a theory as to your pathetic behavior, but will
> :> : simply rely on empirical observation that indeed you are an asshole with
> :> : a terminal case of sour grapes.
>
> :> : Prove me wrong, Mr. Sour Grapes.
>
> :> Here's a very simple empirical test. I have over the past few years
> :> pointed out a number of occasions on which Uncle Al was mistaken about
> :> something, and on others, provided evidence that he has deliberately lied.
>
> : And why do you care so much to follow Al around pointing out "mistakes"
> : and the such? Sour grapes.
>
> I don't "follow him around"
Sure you do.
> -- I only report on the mistakes
Bullshit, Mr. Sour grapes. You pop into various threads of his to snipe
and whine.
Don't you have work to do at your university?
Don't you have to teach (shudder) or do research (laugh)?
You obviously have too much time on your hands if you have the time to
follow Al around bitching about what he does.
>
> : Thank you for adding a data point for the case that you are an asshole
> : with a terminal case of sour grapes.
>
> Perhaps it is overly naive of me,
No... you know exactly what you are doing... most assholes like yourself do.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"GR_GR" <n...@colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:d42o7s$3p$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> Thomas Johnson wrote:
>> Uncle Al wrote:
...
>> Personally, I doubt that you even have a job.
>> If you do, it is likely some very menial tech
>> position where you are not counted on for any
>> real innovation. You just don't have it in you.
>
> Great... another case of sour grapes.
Wine vinegar anyone? ;>)
Let this wash over you. Uncle Al can defend himself if he sees a
need to do so. These guys simply "pick on" what they see as
naive UA groupies. Once you stop the "tit for tat", they walk
away grumbling. They *have* to have the last word.
David A. Smith
Richard Schultz
: Don't you have work to do at your university?
Don't you have work to do at yours? Why do you spend so much of your
precious time following *me* around?
: Don't you have to teach (shudder) or do research (laugh)?
It's funny that you should say that. Uncle Al, once upon a time, was
fond of telling the world that Angewandte Chemie is a much better journal
than J. Am. Chem. Soc. As it happens, I have submitted one paper to
Angew. Chem., and it was accepted. How many papers has your hero had
published there?
: You obviously have too much time on your hands if you have the time to
: follow Al around bitching about what he does.
You obviously have too much time on yours if you have the time to
follow me around bitching about what *I* do.
: No... you know exactly what you are doing... most assholes like yourself do.
I do know exactly what I am doing. Unlike Uncle Al, I am limiting my
interaction with people who show clear signs of serious mental illness.
<plonk>
-----
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
-----
GR_GR
> In sci.chem GR_GR <n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> : Don't you have work to do at your university?
>
> Don't you have work to do at yours?
Oh.. I guess you mean to say that you have tenure... and thus you think
you don't have to do anything of any use.
> Why do you spend so much of your
> precious time following *me* around?
This is about you, Mr. sour grapes, not me.
I will be the first to admit that I could be making better use of my time.
How about you?
> : Don't you have to teach (shudder) or do research (laugh)?
>
> It's funny that you should say that. Uncle Al, once upon a time, was
> fond of telling the world that Angewandte Chemie is a much better journal
> than J. Am. Chem. Soc. As it happens, I have submitted one paper to
> Angew. Chem., and it was accepted. How many papers has your hero had
> published there?
Oh... I touched a nerve there. Why don't you go and do some more
research rather than wasting your time following Al around? Can you
answer that or will you sidestep the issue again, Mr. Sour Grapes?
> : You obviously have too much time on your hands if you have the time to
> : follow Al around bitching about what he does.
>
> You obviously have too much time on yours if you have the time to
> follow me around bitching about what *I* do.
So I take it you agree that you have better things to do than follow Al
around?
If you can see the negative in what I do, you should be able to see it
in what you do. Or are you of the college of "do as I say not as I do?"
> : No... you know exactly what you are doing... most assholes like yourself do.
>
> I do know exactly what I am doing.
Like I said... most assholes like yourself do.
> Unlike Uncle Al, I am limiting my
> interaction with people who show clear signs of serious mental illness.
>
> <plonk>
Humm..... I wonder how I should take that "plonk" then.....
umm.... thanks?
Schoenfeld
GR_GR wrote:
[remove]
I'm sure you'll get homo'd real good by your boyfriend tonight for all
your effort here, disgusting cum-filled groupie.
Creighton Hogg
It's hard to take your insults seriously when you use "homo"
as a verb.
Thomas Johnson
Richard Schultz wrote:
> Take a look at what Uncle Al wrote in the article archived at
> http://tinyurl.com/ahg5g. It's going to be hard for him to prove
that
> he lost any business when he openly expressed his opinion that due to
the
> costs of EPA testing, he wouldn't be selling his cockroach repellant
in
> the U.S. at all.
So, 2 years ago he was "going offshore". Well, I for one am glad that
he was able to find someone to manufacture his roach repellant. It
sure has made life in the third world better. Since Alan hasn't been
bragging about all the money he is making on this, we must assume that
he is donating the profits back to help the third world. He will
probably be the first person to win a Nobel Peace Prize the same year
that he wins the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Don't knock it--that has just as much probability as him winning the
Physics prize for qz.pdf.
Alan was never working with S.C. Johnson, he was never going offshore.
He never tested it on a carniceria. He had a moderately clever idea,
and proved that the USPTO will grant a patent with no proof that it
actually works.
Thomas.
Thomas Johnson
Y.Porat wrote:
> all th e people that you was stepping on them down- on your way up
> will meet you at the corner -- on your way *down*!
If Alan ever goes "up" this will be a concern for him.
Thomas.
Richard Schultz
: Alan was never working with S.C. Johnson, he was never going offshore.
: He never tested it on a carniceria. He had a moderately clever idea,
: and proved that the USPTO will grant a patent with no proof that it
: actually works.
The USPTO never required a working model, except in the case of perpetual
motion machines. And in fact they have granted a patent for a perpetual
motion machine. I could get the exact citation if you're interested.
-----
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've lost my harmonica, Albert."
Richard Schultz
: Let this wash over you. Uncle Al can defend himself if he sees a
: need to do so. These guys simply "pick on" what they see as
: naive UA groupies. Once you stop the "tit for tat", they walk
: away grumbling. They *have* to have the last word.
In my case, that does not appear to be the case, since I have once again
killfiled Mr. Varney (at least until the next time he changes his login).
He is welcome to make whatever comments he wants to in response to my posts
without having to worry that I will reply, care, or even notice.
-----
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
-----
Thomas Johnson
Uncle Al wrote:
> We then filed an
> action stipulating that if USPTO examiners could not figure it out
> given the application and dialog thereafter, the invention passed the
> qualification for not being obvious to one skilled in the art.
By the way Mr. Schwartz, statements like this demonstrate that you are
making it up as you go along.
In a patent, one has to present enough information to "teach" the
invention to someone of moderate skill in the art. You argued that
even given the application *and* futher explanation, people can't
"figure it out". Oops, that would invalidate the patent.
Thomas.
Thomas Johnson
First, there are these groupies who jump to defend Alan's honor. Many
of them have made statements about how they don't understand qz.pdf,
but they will take offense at any statment against it.
It is a matter of faith--believing that which one can not see or
understand. This is odd since many of these same people will join in
with Scwhartz when he attacks people of religious faith.
Second, there is Alan himself. He seems to definitely enjoy the
admiration, even though he will treat some of the groupies with
absolute contempt. It must be an empty existance, knowing that the
only acclaim you can get for your work is from those who don't
understand it.
Thomas.
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.chem GR_GR <n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> : Don't you have work to do at your university?
>
> Don't you have work to do at yours? Why do you spend so much of your
> precious time following *me* around?
>
> : Don't you have to teach (shudder) or do research (laugh)?
>
> It's funny that you should say that. Uncle Al, once upon a time, was
> fond of telling the world that Angewandte Chemie is a much better journal
> than J. Am. Chem. Soc. As it happens, I have submitted one paper to
> Angew. Chem., and it was accepted. How many papers has your hero had
> published there?
>
> : You obviously have too much time on your hands if you have the time to
> : follow Al around bitching about what he does.
>
> You obviously have too much time on yours if you have the time to
> follow me around bitching about what *I* do.
>
> : No... you know exactly what you are doing... most assholes like yourself do.
>
> I do know exactly what I am doing. Unlike Uncle Al, I am limiting my
> interaction with people who show clear signs of serious mental illness.
Aw Schultzy, your fear stinks. You are drowning in elegant esoteric
confabulation with metal carbonyls about which nobody will ever give a
rat's ass, punching all that computer time with all those QM
calculations, big basis sets, spectrometry... It's like a girl
discovering her Harry Potter flying broom with its vibrating handle
can do some really neat stuff with her crotch while the batteries
hold, and then learning that her big sister is getting head. In the
meanwhile, the whole of physics could pivot about some quartz hanging
in a vacuum chamber. Rocks, Schultzy, common rocks could get the big
bold headlines everywhere on Earth for a long, long time.
Tell us, Schultzy, what do you fear most? That what could be the
defining moment in science for the next century sprang forth from a
trivial question ANYBODY could have asked? That Uncle Al has a full
fat 50% chance for fast track invitation to an 11 December party in
Sweden and you are academically buried for rest of your life? That
the whole thing was done by volunteers who never met, never filed any
paperwork, never kissed superiors' ass, had no expectation of
reimbursement and enthusiastically pitched in anyway... That they
pretty much don't care one way or another about the final result
because it was a fun thing to do? Or is your big snit that you cannot
understand it at all?
That's it, isn't it? qz.pdf is kinda obscure in its parts and pretty
much 100% of pertinent personnel say it's a bunch of hooey. Yet a
respected academic group is pursuing it on the strength of a single
e-mail from a stranger who is not in their gild. Worse, the first of
the two minor experiments gave an output hovering hard by the edge of
success and now, AND NOW the major experiment is coming on-line.
"The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
What does it feel like to be impotent, Schultz? You can piss and moan
and rant and rave and the experiment will be executed regardless by
folks who embrace the science not the scientist. By 01 August or
thereabouts the empirical answer will be obtained. There is a clean
50% chance the Eotvos rotor will have hung in absolute isolation for
90 days with no periodic torsional movement to one part in ten
trillion difference/average. That is the expectation, the safe place
to put your bet, after 400+ years of Equivalence Principle
challenges. Nobody has ever done better. Nobody would be surprised.
You are defective as a scientist, Schultz, when you publicly declare
not looking through Gailileo's telescope would banish Jupiter's moons.
There is clean 50% chance the Eotvos rotor will have hung in absolute
isolation for 90 days with a periodic torsional movement to as much as
3 parts-per-trillion difference/average, 30X Eotvos balance theshhold
sensitivity. No observation in any venue at any scale in the past
400+ years would be contradicted. Abundant orthodox physical theory
exists that supports such a result. Physics will discard now
falsified theory, demoting it to a heuristic for ease of computation
in all but the aberrant case, and move on.
Here's the bottom line, boy:
1) If the full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz nulls within
experimental error, no harm no foul. It's physics as usual. The
chemist does other things. The mathematician gets a citation.
Physics knows by demonstration that extremal parity pair test masses
fall identically within experimental error, as do all chemical
compositions. Einstein is still the golden boy.
2) If the full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz does not null
within experimental error, Einstein was wrong. Among other heady
developments, Uncle Al will enjoy excerpting your Usenet posts when he
starts his dinner lectures with an audience chuckle.
Hey Schultzy, would you rather a goy - a schvartze! - was riding this
race? Wait a second... Snigger.
Thomas Johnson
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear GR_GR:
>
> "GR_GR" <n...@colorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:d42o7s$3p$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> > Thomas Johnson wrote:
> >> Uncle Al wrote:
> ...
> >> Personally, I doubt that you even have a job.
> >> If you do, it is likely some very menial tech
> >> position where you are not counted on for any
> >> real innovation. You just don't have it in you.
> >
> > Great... another case of sour grapes.
>
> Wine vinegar anyone? ;>)
>
> Let this wash over you. Uncle Al can defend himself if he sees a
> need to do so.
There is no need to "defend" himself. He isn't in court or a fight.
Keep some perspective--this is usenent, not the real world.
I will agree that Schwartz can raise the volume in a flame-war until
the other side quits. However, when presented with discussions which
demonstrate technical flaws and inconsistencies with his work, he tends
to go quiet.
> These guys simply "pick on" what they see as
> naive UA groupies.
Typically, I don't really care to deal with his groupies. If you want
to admire Schwartz, you have my pity. That isn't even the typical
usenet insult--I seriously pity anyone who looks up to Schwartz for his
technical ability. Qz.pdf is truly that bad.
> Once you stop the "tit for tat", they walk
> away grumbling.
Actually, we go away laughing. Schwartz really is that funny. His
lies and poor attempts at science area really laughable. His attention
grabbing projects (roach repellant, diamonds, eotvos experiment) are
filled with obvious lies.
> They *have* to have the last word.
I guess you are correct, I just put in what may be the last word. I
feel properly chastised.
Schwartz likes attention--any attention. He knows that no matter how
clear the arguments are that his work is bunk, people like you will
come to express support. In the end, I have brought more attention to
Schwartz. He's gotta love that.
Thomas.
Schoenfeld
Uncle Al wrote:
[remove nonsense]
Silly crackpot, reality works the same for everybody. Eventually it
will work the same for you.
GR_GR
> In sci.chem "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> : Let this wash over you. Uncle Al can defend himself if he sees a
> : need to do so. These guys simply "pick on" what they see as
> : naive UA groupies. Once you stop the "tit for tat", they walk
> : away grumbling. They *have* to have the last word.
>
> In my case, that does not appear to be the case, since I have once again
> killfiled Mr. Varney (at least until the next time he changes his login).
> He is welcome to make whatever comments he wants to in response to my posts
> without having to worry that I will reply, care, or even notice.
Well Mr. Sour Grapes, you have made the same mistake as others like
Porat, Schoenfeld and Frazir have. You mistake is assuming that all
people who post from CU are Mike Varney.
Perhaps they want to be, but they are not.
GR_GR
DING Savian, DING!
Schoenfeld
You need a come back, idiot groupie, not a cummed back.
Schoenfeld
You aren't to take any of my posts seriously (including this one).
Attila the Bum
Thomas Johnson wrote:
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> > Dear GR_GR:
> > These guys simply "pick on" what they see as
> > naive UA groupies.
>
> Typically, I don't really care to deal with his groupies. If you
want
> to admire Schwartz, you have my pity. That isn't even the typical
> usenet insult--I seriously pity anyone who looks up to Schwartz for
his
> technical ability. Qz.pdf is truly that bad.
>
> > Once you stop the "tit for tat", they walk
> > away grumbling.
>
> Actually, we go away laughing. Schwartz really is that funny. His
> lies and poor attempts at science area really laughable. His
attention
> grabbing projects (roach repellant, diamonds, eotvos experiment) are
> filled with obvious lies.
Is this the Thomas J. Johnson
who at one time posted to Usenet
from the address tjohnson@orion.
ac.hmc.edu ?
Under the hotmail address there's
not much to support statements in
this current thread. Adding in
what can be found under the orion...
address leaves me sceptical of your
boasts.
Googling the name and part address
doesn't supply anything of value.
Are you the computer nerd; in what
capacity? Have you criticized Dear
Uncle's use of the language when
he waxes geekish regarding the
computational methodology and hardware
in thencontext of the Eotvos project.
Seems to me, this might be the only
place you would have the credentials
giving you some credibility.
Have you a need to correct my floozy
logic and provide concrete details?
Mark (Hi chum. Wanna go fishing fur sharks? :-)
Joshua Halpern
It's the diamond Kool-Aid cockroach acid test....
josh halpern
hanson
news:1113925765.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Schultz wrote:
> > Take a look at what Uncle Al wrote in the article archived at
> > http://tinyurl.com/ahg5g. It's going to be hard for him to prove
> > that he lost any business when he openly expressed his opinion
> > that due to the costs of EPA testing, he wouldn't be selling his
> > cockroach repellant in the U.S. at all.
>
> So, 2 years ago he was "going offshore". Well, I for one am glad that
> he was able to find someone to manufacture his roach repellant. It
> sure has made life in the third world better. Since Alan hasn't been
> bragging about all the money he is making on this, we must assume that
> he is donating the profits back to help the third world. He will
> probably be the first person to win a Nobel Peace Prize the same year
> that he wins the Nobel Prize in Physics.
>
> Don't knock it--that has just as much probability as him winning the
> Physics prize for qz.pdf.
>
> Alan was never working with S.C. Johnson, he was never going offshore.
> He never tested it on a carniceria. He had a moderately clever idea,
> and proved that the USPTO will grant a patent with no proof that it
> actually works.
> Thomas.
>
..... ahahaha... but, Thomas your notions sound only like a
partial analysis & evaluation of Al's posts. Please do assign
SOME entertainment value to uncle Al's gauche gems that
he brings, as his main contribution, to this crazy 24/7 cyber
party. Uncle Al makes as many people laugh as he does
make others angry. That then unfortunately does amount
to a wash-out in the greater scheme of things and may be
regarded as a parallel and analog to/of Al's much cursed US
zero-goal education, but being provided here on the Usenet
by Al himself into a dimension, a cyber world, where indeed
many posters feel that their personally posted opinions are
crucial for making history and determining policy....
I enjoyed your posts, Thomas, but don't beat on Al too bad,
otherwise he'll go away crying & of the much fun with him. Al,
the poor sod, is under tremendous self-inflicted "expectation"
pressures which may make him act more weird then usual...
Ciao, ahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
news:426533F7...@hate.spam.net...
> Hey Schultzy, would you rather a goy - a schvartze! -
> was riding this race? Wait a second... Snigger.
>
.......ahahahaha... no, no, Al, YOU ought to "Wait a second"
& THINK & realize that you are beginning to experience now
the real world en toto, with *All* its pertinent components.
Your perceived/hoped for intellectual achievement means
NOTHING if you play it only in your own personal vacuum.
Physics is, whether you like it or not, a social enterprise
wherein it may help your cause a very great deal to label
almost all other posters as goys, idiots, Schvartzers & wogs.
Now, that you are with your own convictions on the rack which
you usually reserve for all your goys, idiots, Schvartzers and
wogs, it will help you a great deal to justify your stance since
(in your words) you are "severely gifted" dude that is "socially
maladroit"... but that no-one can "imagine what it is like for
the Gifted to be immersed in a society of people" of goys,
idiots, Schvartzers & wogs, .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
However, it is my hope that you will achieve a non-null status
and that you will continue to operate and post unchanged as
uncle Al, even if nothing happens. So, Al, carry on by Al means...
... ahahaha... ahaha... ahahanson
PS: For the resulting and lasting, extremely painful neuropathies
that arose from your crisping in the Grignard-Mag fire, are you
still on narco/analgesics therapy?
Full news:426533F7...@hate.spam.net... from Al
Thomas Johnson
hanson wrote:
> I enjoyed your posts, Thomas, but don't beat on Al too bad,
> otherwise he'll go away crying & of the much fun with him. Al,
> the poor sod, is under tremendous self-inflicted "expectation"
> pressures which may make him act more weird then usual...
> Ciao, ahahaha... ahahahanson
I have read enough of Schwartz' old posts to realize that it would be
impossible to get him to go away crying. Schultz was able to get him
to sorta leave sci.chem alone for some time, but as long as he has a
soapbox Schwartz will use it.
I took it as a game to see how many of Schwartz' pet projects could be
proven fake. He tries hard to make his stories untestable. Too bad he
just doesn't make sense.
diamond project--fake
licensing/developing the cocroach patent--fake
chiral eotvos "theory"--fake
chiral eotvos project with Adelberger--fake
Chiral eotvos project with Jun Luo--ongoing?
Sure, a group in China is on the verge of a history making experimental
result. Instead of publishing it in a journal and/or making a press
release to the Chinese state press, they chose to let Schwartz--a guy
that they have never even spoken with--announce it on usenet. Sure.
That's what I would do.
Anyway, Schwartz has already made his "does it burn" post. From
reading his past tirades, that is basically his "Checkers" speach.
I.e. this thread has run its course. Someone in the future can read
this after Alan's 5th, "final", eotvos anouncement. That should come
somewhere around 2010, right after his 10th "final" attempt at the
diamond synthesis. A whole new group of people will slavishly follow
him, believing the unproven lies. A few others will point out his
obvious lies. Schwartz still will have accomplished nothing. The
names will change, but the rest will remain the same.
Thomas.
Richard Schultz
: Tell us, Schultzy, what do you fear most? That what could be the
: defining moment in science for the next century sprang forth from a
: trivial question ANYBODY could have asked?
Why should I fear that? And why should you think that I would fear that,
since I have stated on more than one occasion that I think that your idea
is interesting and that the experiment is worth doing?
On the other hand, what do *you* fear most? That you might have to admit
that you are not infallible? That you might have to admit that your
constant desire for attention -- *any* attention, negative or positive --
is indicative of immaturity at best and mental illness at worst? If
not, then why is it that in spite of your own definition of a "mensch,"
you have not once even acknowledged a single one of the instances in which
you have been caught in a mistake (e.g. not knowing the difference between
"exothermic" and "endothermic") or a lie (e.g. misrepresenting your sources
about the Wisconsin cryptosporidium outbreak or your claim that no federal
agents were killed in the Oklahoma City bombing)?
: That Uncle Al has a full fat 50% chance for fast track invitation to an
: 11 December party in Sweden
Once again, I will try to explain to you the statistical fallacy in which
you are indulging. Just because an experiment has two possible outcomes
does *not* mean that the two outcomes are equally likely. In your case,
a rational estimate of the probabilities indicates that your chance of
getting a Nobel prize is very small, since there is no evidence in favor
of the theory that you postulate, your theory cannot predict the size of
the effect you seek, and even if the experiment were to produce a positive
result, there is no evidence that the people who are doing the experiment
have any intention of recognizing your contribution.
: and you are academically buried for rest of your life? That
: the whole thing was done by volunteers who never met, never filed any
: paperwork, never kissed superiors' ass, had no expectation of
: reimbursement and enthusiastically pitched in anyway... That they
: pretty much don't care one way or another about the final result
: because it was a fun thing to do? Or is your big snit that you cannot
: understand it at all?
How many papers have you published in _Angewandte Chemie_? Remember, that
was *your* criterion, not mine, for excellence as a chemist.
: That's it, isn't it? qz.pdf is kinda obscure in its parts and pretty
It is written by someone who obviously has no knowledge of how scientific
papers are presented, and by someone who either does not understand the
subject himself or has no idea how to explain it to others. As others
have pointed out, your calculation of CHI is completely irrelevant to
the rest of the paper. That's just one example. I've read more than
my share of scientific papers that have been poorly written or are
obviously incorrect. Yours is the only one that I've seen that reads
like the rantings of a schizophrenic, I am sorry to say.
: much 100% of pertinent personnel say it's a bunch of hooey. Yet a
: respected academic group is pursuing it on the strength of a single
: e-mail from a stranger who is not in their gild. Worse, the first of
: the two minor experiments gave an output hovering hard by the edge of
: success and now, AND NOW the major experiment is coming on-line.
You still don't seem to understand what the term "stastically significant"
means, nor why statistical significance is only *one* criterion used to
determine whether a result is valid.
: You are defective as a scientist, Schultz, when you publicly declare
: not looking through Gailileo's telescope would banish Jupiter's moons.
I'm not sure why it's so important to you that I be the objective
correlative of your own fears of inadequacy, but if you want to continue lying
about me and what I've said, please feel free to go ahead. To paraphrase
the famous fictional detective Phillip Marlowe put it, it's boring,
but it doesn't hurt my feelings any.
GR_GR
> hanson wrote:
>
>>I enjoyed your posts, Thomas, but don't beat on Al too bad,
>>otherwise he'll go away crying & of the much fun with him. Al,
>>the poor sod, is under tremendous self-inflicted "expectation"
>>pressures which may make him act more weird then usual...
>>Ciao, ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
> I have read enough of Schwartz' old posts to realize that it would be
> impossible to get him to go away crying. Schultz was able to get him
> to sorta leave sci.chem alone for some time, but as long as he has a
> soapbox Schwartz will use it.
>
> I took it as a game to see how many of Schwartz' pet projects could be
> proven fake. He tries hard to make his stories untestable. Too bad he
> just doesn't make sense.
>
> diamond project--fake
Don't know, so won't comment.
> licensing/developing the cocroach patent--fake
See above.
> chiral eotvos "theory"--fake
In your dreams.
> chiral eotvos project with Adelberger--fake
Actually, not.
> Chiral eotvos project with Jun Luo--ongoing?
I see you have the sour grapes nearly as bad as the other Asshole...
umm... Schultz.
Schoenfeld
Schoenfeld wrote:
> Uncle Al wrote:
> [remove]
>
> Given that you stole and patented someone elses work (US
> 5,859,057) in the past
This statement is false.
Schoenfeld
Uncle Al wrote:
> BTW, if your public allegations re slander and/or libel laws incur me
> derivative monetary loss, Schoenfeld, my legal counsel will serve you
> with civil action seeking compensatory and treble punitive damages
> plus fees. It's the money honey, and yours is as green as anybody's.
It did not occur to me at the time of that posting that google group
archives and usenet mirror sites would provide high google page rank to
your patent number and that post. In the improbable event that a
potential investor is lured onto that statement, my rebuttal post
should clarify any questions raised by the original post. Although, my
recollection at the time of the posting was that of a statement made by
none other than yourself a few years back saying something along the
lines that the work leading to your patent came largely from someone
else. Since I could not find such a post on the usenet archives after
several attempts to find it, I thus conclude that my recollection was
erroneous.
I seriously doubt though, that anyone takes this newsgroup remotely
serious.