Parity Eotvos experiments--a few facts
Thomas Johnson
China, and that he is once again straying from the truth. So, I will
post a few comments about what I know to be true and untrue.
Back in April I contacted Prof. Luo to alert him to some of Schwartz'
statements. The following is what I found out from that
communication.
True:
1) Prof. Luo is performing experiments on quartz. I don't know if he
is doing it now, as Schwartz says, but he is planning/doing the
experiments
2) Scwhartz did contact Prof. Luo to suggest the experiment.
False:
1) Schwartz is an active member of the research collaboration. The
only contribution from Schwartz is the initial suggestion and the
supposed result that an output of 3E-12 could be obtained. This
"result" is not supported by anything presented by Schwartz.
2) Schwartz' calculations of CHI form the basis for the analysis of the
experiment. Prof. Luo will provide the analysis.
3) Schwartz is going to fly to China to serve on the thesis committee
for the student doing the experiment. Given the above, this doesn't
make sense.
4) Schwartz is in constant contact with Prof. Luo. At the end of the
email, Prof. Luo made it clear that "NO need to contact further"
(capitalization on NO a direct quote from the email). Perhaps Schwartz
has made amends, but I doubt he could have inserted himself into the
team given all the above. At best, he might hear some news. However, I
would doubt it.
I know this will not shut Schwartz up. Also, there will be those who
will always believe Schwartz no matter how much he lies.
Thomas.
Sam Wormley
> I see that Schwartz is making a lot of noise about the experiment in
> China, and that he is once again straying from the truth. So, I will
> post a few comments about what I know to be true and untrue.
>
Why do you think any of us care about your "take" on things?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> I see that Schwartz is making a lot of noise about the experiment in
> China, and that he is once again straying from the truth. So, I will
> post a few comments about what I know to be true and untrue.
History will be the final judge.
Why should I care about your conjecture?
<snip>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Thomas Johnson
If you wish, you may call me a liar and believe that I never contacted
Prof. Luo. Or you may state that I am misrepresenting what I read.
I was only cc'd on the email. The email was sent to Schwartz.
So, since I am directly stating that Alan Schwartz has knowingly lied
in the way he represents the facts of this experiment, I have to
respect your right to call me out as a liar as well.
Thomas.
Richard Schultz
Umm, because Uncle Al is a known liar, and that Mr. Johnson has
provided evidence that Uncle Al's China story is yet another lie?
Or are you one of those people who consider the truth to be yet another
trivial diversion from more important matters?
-----
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?"
Henry Lemington-Wholeflavors
Richard Schultz wrote:
> In sci.chem Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> : Thomas Johnson wrote:
> :> I see that Schwartz is making a lot of noise about the experiment in
> :> China, and that he is once again straying from the truth. So, I will
> :> post a few comments about what I know to be true and untrue.
>
> : Why do you think any of us care about your "take" on things?
>
> Umm, because Uncle Al is a known liar, and that Mr. Johnson has
> provided evidence that Uncle Al's China story is yet another lie?
> Or are you one of those people who consider the truth to be yet another
> trivial diversion from more important matters?
The "more important matter" is the actual outcome of the experiment.
This is more important than attempts to smear people.
Mark Thorson
>
> I know this will not shut Schwartz up. Also, there will be those who
> will always believe Schwartz no matter how much he lies.
>
> Thomas.
Who are you, really? A Google search shows that nearly
all of your 50 postings have been for the purpose of
attacking Uncle Al. Are you trying to avoid besmirching
your real identity when you use the thomas_j...@hotmail.com
account?
Traveler
<thomas_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think you're missing an important fact... ahahaha... Wormley kisses
Uncle Dickhead's ass all the time. In fact, kissing ass is his job on
usenet. Same with Dick Van de merde and a bunch of others. But then
again, so does Uncle Dickhead. Next time you communicate with him, ask
him when was the last time he kissed John Baez's ass? ahahaha... Baez,
too, is an ass kisser. He would not be getting paid to play with his
little useless math puzzles if he was not a professional ass kisser.
ahaha... You are dealing with a shitload of inveterate and shameless
ass kissers, all of them. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Peer review has always been synonymous with ass review. It's an
incestuous system that engendered such monstrosities as time travel,
wormholes, dimensions curled up into fucking little balls, etc... It's
pathetic and funny at the same time.
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Traveler
Thomas Johnson
Henry Lemington-Wholeflavors wrote:
> The "more important matter" is the actual outcome of the experiment.
> This is more important than attempts to smear people.
1) If the real spirit was to concentrate on the actual outcome of the
experiment, there would be no discussion in these forums until the
paper is published or a public announcement is made. However, we have
and, I expect, will see many posts by Schwartz assigning "glory".
2) It isn't a smear if it is the truth.
3) Schwartz has already noted that any attempt by Prof. Luo's group to
deny him credit would be wrong. If Schwartz thinks he is due more
credit than he really is, isn't he smearing Prof. Luo?
Thomas.
Sam Wormley
> In sci.chem Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> : Thomas Johnson wrote:
> :> I see that Schwartz is making a lot of noise about the experiment in
> :> China, and that he is once again straying from the truth. So, I will
> :> post a few comments about what I know to be true and untrue.
>
> : Why do you think any of us care about your "take" on things?
>
> Umm, because Uncle Al is a known liar, and that Mr. Johnson has
> provided evidence that Uncle Al's China story is yet another lie?
> Or are you one of those people who consider the truth to be yet another
> trivial diversion from more important matters?
I am way more concerned about the empirical results of observation
and experiment in the pursuit of understanding how nature works
rather than the personality defects or attributes of the posters
in these newsgroups.
Thomas Johnson posting(s) contribute not to that understanding (in
my opinion).
Thomas Johnson
Sam Wormley wrote:
> I am way more concerned about the empirical results of observation
> and experiment in the pursuit of understanding how nature works
> rather than the personality defects or attributes of the posters
> in these newsgroups.
>
> Thomas Johnson posting(s) contribute not to that understanding (in
> my opinion).
If I may be bold--
In the Eotvos experiments a null result contributes to the
understanding, even though it is not the "glory" result.
Likewise, pointing out that a theory is irrelevant to the subject
contributes to the understanding. The "CHI" calculations are
irrelevant to the experiment in consideration. I have stated this
before. Why is adding the fact that an expert in the field--the
experimenter in this case--also considers it irrelevant such a problem?
Thomas.
Al Zenner
news:rDsSe.307024$x96.105498@attbi_s72:
> Richard Schultz wrote:
>> Umm, because Uncle Al is a known liar, and that Mr. Johnson has
>> provided evidence that Uncle Al's China story is yet another lie?
>> Or are you one of those people who consider the truth to be yet another
>> trivial diversion from more important matters?
> I am way more concerned about the empirical results of observation
> and experiment in the pursuit of understanding how nature works
> rather than the personality defects or attributes of the posters
> in these newsgroups.
> Thomas Johnson posting(s) contribute not to that understanding (in
> my opinion).
Dear Sam:
"...more concerned..." "...than the personality defects..."
Unfortunately your shield is as severely tarnished as others here:
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
You have confessed that you established and maintain this web page.
Thomas Johnson's posting(s) contribute precisely to the same extent
as your web page does. It is hardly fair to demean Johnson for his
conduct which in this respect it clearly emulates your own. You're
simply in conflict whether or not uncle al actually belongs on your
crank list, that's all.
I appreciate your posts when you stick to business and avoid involving
yourself in the various cults of personality for which usenet is famous.
Something happens to an individual when they extend themselves to judging
and demeaning persons rather than sticking to judging ideas.This is the
downfall of many a good man.
Sam Wormley
Point taken--However, my point was that *my* interest is the
empirical results of observation and experiment in the pursuit
of understanding how nature works (and sharing that knowledge
in postings).
Johnson's sole purpose in postings appears to be attacks on
Uncle Al's character---And I've raised the issue.
The crank list at edu-observatory.org/cranks.html merely serves
*me* in being more efficient in sorting thru the crank crap.
Thomas Johnson
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Johnson's sole purpose in postings appears to be attacks on
> Uncle Al's character---And I've raised the issue.
Let me point out that I received the information noted above in this
thread in April. As also noted, this was an email sent to both
Schwartz and myself. Even though Schwarts knew that I was in on his
secret, he continued to write posts which misrepresented his
participation in the collaboration.
Instead of attacking his character, I chose to place a post stating
merely
"Mr Schwartz is misrepresenting his participation".
If you have the time, check Mr. Schwartz' posts before and after that
one. The tone changed significantly. No more discussion of how he was
in charge. No more characterizing the collaboration as:
"It's wholly my created and calculated parity Eotvos experiment, idiot.
They are labor, equipment, budget, and experience."
It was only as Schwartz started making these sort of claims again that
I started this thread.
Are all of my posts character attacks? Many of my previous posts have
centered on the failings and misrepresentations of Schwartz'
calcluations.
E.g. Schwartz has repeatedly claimed that he can predict 3
parts/tillion effect from quartz.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/65ba00d10e2fa3f5/e1dd7f96a8e5d639?lnk=st&q=mazepath+difference%2Faverage+predicted&rnum=3&hl=en#e1dd7f96a8e5d639
I point out that it is impossible to do so based on the work presented
in qz.pdf. Is that an attack on character? If so, could you point out
where in Schwartz' formalism one could calculate this number? If it
can be done, why is it not listed as a result in qz.pdf?
Is sci.physics limited to those who agree with Schwartz, those who
won't respond to Schwartz and all the rest are those who attack his
character? Is pointing out that he can't predict 3ppt
difference/average a personal attack?
Is checking the veracity of his claims with the source a character
attack?
Thomas.
Jan Panteltje
<az...@zenner.com> wrote in <Xns96C6E5...@63.223.5.248>:
>Thomas Johnson's posting(s) contribute precisely to the same extent
>as your web page does. It is hardly fair to demean Johnson for his
>conduct which in this respect it clearly emulates your own. You're
>simply in conflict whether or not uncle al actually belongs on your
>crank list, that's all.
>
>I appreciate your posts when you stick to business and avoid involving
>yourself in the various cults of personality for which usenet is famous.
>Something happens to an individual when they extend themselves to judging
>and demeaning persons rather than sticking to judging ideas.This is the
>downfall of many a good man.
mm let's test that.
Sam's contributions to sci.physics are:
quoting old news (and sometimes recent news).
Strong political bias against GW Bush politics in science.
Strong ideas about what is 'wrong' (even if it is not).
A nasty habit of writing about things (quoting) that he has no clue about.
And ONE original idea (the freezing frog, I thought: hey he is making progress,
an original idea, but it lacked logic reasoning, so was shot down).
And he likes to call people cranks.
So, the news part is interesting, so I read the postings.
But I have many news sources.
The political part is my view also, but not exactly.
I know Al if a joke on himself, and likely will be back in the diamond mines
soon.
I like Shultz's reasoning, it makes sense.
And I do expect a null result for that experiment in China, but even if
not, then it will have to be run again in other places in other ways by other
groups before it has any meaning and acceptance.
And Al has NO theory WHY it should be non zero (except a reference to Wolfram's
site where the math is completely unrelated to what Al claims).
I did an other experiment yesterday (not related to this), I do not write
about it, it was null anyways, things should be re-done more accurately though.
Maybe old engineering idea in my mind: If it does not do a LOT then what use
can it be.
Well...
So Al should perhaps do some experiments himself too.
We have not heard from him, is he under water or in the superdome?
The point is likely all you guys are OK, with each your own special thing.
I do not think there are any real cranks, although hanging on to a theory
that has been proven false is a waste of energy IMO.
You can hang on to 1 + 1 = 3, and correct all posters..... lots of work.
There are plenty of unexplained and new areas where we can 'philosophize'.
Note to self: 'Should I post this?'
SEND NOW
Al Zenner
> Point taken--However, my point was that *my* interest is the
> empirical results of observation and experiment in the pursuit
> of understanding how nature works (and sharing that knowledge
> in postings).
No doubt that's true. There is an obvious divergence between desire
and performance, and I'm merely pointing that out. I sincerely
appreciate your efforts when you achieve your stated desire.
> Johnson's sole purpose in postings appears to be attacks on
> Uncle Al's character---And I've raised the issue.
I don't disagree with your take, however despite uncle al's obvious
intelligence there is a lot of meat to carve on. It is clear to any
newcomer that uncle al wishes to draw fire, and so he does. I am led to
wonder what the relationship is that you, with a stated primary desire
to be involved in science, instead bother to involve yourself with al's
detractors. Are you two family or something?
> The crank list at edu-observatory.org/cranks.html merely serves
> *me* in being more efficient in sorting thru the crank crap.
OK. I think I understand this completely. You have a computer on which
you post to usenet using Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.4.1 (X11/20050719)
but you don't have space on that machine to store your personal crank
list so you put it on a remote system with public access and made sure
the whole world knew about it.
Yes, by George, I think I've got it.
My question is how do I skip over the personality battles and read only
the physics articles I am here to read when everyone seems to get into
these silly arguments?
Sam Wormley
The trouble is that these newsgroups become a community.... a community
of all posters... a community with its virtues and faults... personalities
and patterns. We (me too) all should strive to focus strictly on the
physics.
Richard Schultz
: Point taken--However, my point was that *my* interest is the
: empirical results of observation and experiment in the pursuit
: of understanding how nature works (and sharing that knowledge
: in postings).
:
: Johnson's sole purpose in postings appears to be attacks on
: Uncle Al's character---And I've raised the issue.
If Uncle Al is lying about the "empirical results," does that not affect
your assessment of the degree to which he has increased our understanding
of nature?
Richard Schultz
:
: The "more important matter" is the actual outcome of the experiment.
If Uncle Al is determined to be a habitual liar, how can you trust
any claim he makes about the actual outcome of the experiment?
: This is more important than attempts to smear people.
I might be more inclined to believe this statement if you had once reacted
in that manner to any of Uncle Al's attempts to smear me.
-----
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."
Sam Wormley
> In sci.chem Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> : Point taken--However, my point was that *my* interest is the
> : empirical results of observation and experiment in the pursuit
> : of understanding how nature works (and sharing that knowledge
> : in postings).
> :
> : Johnson's sole purpose in postings appears to be attacks on
> : Uncle Al's character---And I've raised the issue.
>
> If Uncle Al is lying about the "empirical results," does that not affect
> your assessment of the degree to which he has increased our understanding
> of nature?
>
Certainly--why don't we wait for the data collection, analysis and
publication come out before hanging anybody, if at all.
Al Zenner
> The trouble is that these newsgroups become a community.... a
> community of all posters... a community with its virtues and
> faults... personalities and patterns. We (me too) all should strive
> to focus strictly on the physics.
Thanks for accepting my comments in the intended spirit. Yes, and I
think there are times when silence is the most difficult course, but
at those times silence usually presents the greatest available reward.
Shush Al!
Ok.
Al Zenner
news:dffpjv$vvk$1...@news.iucc.ac.il:
> If Uncle Al is lying about the "empirical results," does that not affect
> your assessment of the degree to which he has increased our
> understanding of nature?
I'm interested in any emperical results Uncle Al has posted. Could
you please give me pointer to one, or several?
Nomen Nescio
Q1. What part of General Relativity breaks down if m_g and m_i are not equivalent? In SIMPLE terms, what happens? In Scientific American or Nova terms, what will have been proved or disproved? How does this manifest itself in the real world? "Black holes cant exist" or something like that?
It wont affect things like Voyager, Magellan, Pathfinder interplanetary probes, will it?
What are some major (but simplified) consequences? Which major GR derived theories will have to be discarded?
Q2. If they actually do claim a NON-null result, will it be easy to publish or will the major journals treat it differently and maybe request independent verification first? As editor, what would YOU do? Maybe ask Luo to let an independent group examine the test masses and lend them to an independent group with an Eotvos balance?
Jan Panteltje
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in <TGKSe.308682$x96.187643@attbi_s72>:
Certainly--why don't we wait for the data collection, analysis and
> publication come out before hanging anybody, if at all.
>
I'd say: 'Hang him first'.
We can then always have discussions later.
donsto...@hotmail.com
Jan Panteltje
donsto...@hotmail.com wrote in
<1125913389....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>Are you positive it was a sunny day? Never make ASSumptions.
In the movie you were saved by your friend shooting the rope.
In reality you have no friends.
Richard Schultz
:
: I'm interested in any emperical results Uncle Al has posted. Could
: you please give me pointer to one, or several?
has posted on any subject. He did mention that the preliminary "hemiparity
Eotvos" experiment gave a null result, but he didn't provide the actual
numbers at any point.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"A mensch takes personal responsiblity for his actions. When demonstrated to
be empirically wrong a mensch admits error and becomes a better mensch."
-- "Uncle Al" Schwartz, in article <41D0A0BA.BCF76...@hate.spam.net>
maison.mousse
Richard Schultz a écrit dans le message ...
>In sci.chem Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>:
>: I'm interested in any emperical results Uncle Al has posted. Could
>: you please give me pointer to one, or several?
>
>I am not aware of any experimental results (on any subject) that Uncle Al
>has posted on any subject. He did mention that the preliminary "hemiparity
>Eotvos" experiment gave a null result, but he didn't provide the actual
>numbers at any point.
>
>-----
>Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
>
What exactly does the word "hemiparity" mean?
JL
Uncle Al
[snip]
> What exactly does the word "hemiparity" mean?
A hemiparity Eotvos experiment is a parity test mass run against the
identical achiral (racemic is not good enough) chemical composition.
The parity Eotvos experiment in quartz consists of three runs:
1) The full parity experiment: Space group P3(1)21 geometrically
right-handed optically left-handed single crystal quartz test masses
(same rectus/dexter/droitier/rechts/destrimano/deasil sense of
chirality because defined in opposite directions) against space group
P3(2)21 geometrically left-handed optically right-handed single
crystal quartz test masses
(sinister/arister/gauche/links/mancino/widdershins chirality).
2) Hemiparity control experiment 1: Space group P3(1)21 single
crystal quartz test masses against amorphous fused silica test masses.
3) Hemiparity control experiment2: Space group P3(2)21 single
crystal quartz test masses against amorphous fused silica test masses.
(2)+(3) must algebraically add to (1). (2)+(3) also eliminate an
"extended" interaction between the opposite chirality quartz test
masses. (2)+(3) also give you an error envelope. P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21
quartz is the perfect classical null - within their gold plating they
are externally physically indistinguishable. Fused silica has a lower
density, thus requiring the usual Eotvos experiment corrections for
mass balance and moments of inertia equalization. Slightly undersize
the fused silica and thicken the gold plate. All compositions of
matter empirically fall identically. If
d_0 = crystal quartz density
d_1 = fused silica density
d_2 = gold plate density
R = radius of quartz test mass
(R-a) = radius of the fused silica test mass
a = thickness of gold shell on the (R-a) undersized fused silica test
mass
a^3 - 3Ra^2 + 3(R^2)a - [(d_0 - d_1)/(d_2 - d_1)]R^3 = 0
As with a single sock or shoe tried on both feet, the hemiparity
results are either identical nulls (a sock fits equally well on both
feet) or one "near normal" interaction (a left shoe on a left foot has
a slightly lower energy good fit than a sock on a left foot) plus one
very disparate interaction (a left shoe on a right foot). Given the
chiral 100% left-handed Weak Interaction, one might expect P3(1)21
quartz to be the boojum. Alas, P3(2)21 quartz is the 2200 tonnes
grown/year commercial product so a quick and dirty run doesn't obtain.
Our observation is that the P3(2)21 quartz vs. fused silica hemiparity
Eotvos experiment gave a dirty null - non-zero but not statistically
significant. The full parity Eotvos experiment has less than two
weeks to completion. A significant non-null signal will be verified
by running the P3(2)21 quartz vs. fused silica hemiparity Eotvos
experiment. Either
1) Most of the net signal is associated with P3(1)21 quartz, or
2) Another small/null signal is obtained.
Since the fused silica test masses are already qualified by the first
hemiparity experiment, it's interesting either way.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Attila the Bum
Thomas Johnson wrote:
> I see that Schwartz is making a lot of noise about the experiment in
> China, and that he is once again straying from the truth. So, I will
> post a few comments about what I know to be true and untrue.
>
> statements. The following is what I found out from that
> communication.
That's weird. I spoke with Luo just
the other while teleconferencing. Your
alleged e-mail must have been fielded
by a no-nothing grunt.
> True:
>
> 1) Prof. Luo is performing experiments on quartz. I don't know if he
> is doing it now, as Schwartz says, but he is planning/doing the
> experiments
Now, AFAIK
> 2) Scwhartz did contact Prof. Luo to suggest the experiment.
Yeh.
>
> False:
>
> 1) Schwartz is an active member of the research collaboration. The
> only contribution from Schwartz is the initial suggestion and the
> supposed result that an output of 3E-12 could be obtained. This
> "result" is not supported by anything presented by Schwartz.
More weirdness, given the computational
results on the UA's Web-site ... those
aren't dust-bunnies, kids :-)
> 2) Schwartz' calculations of CHI form the basis for the analysis of the
> experiment. Prof. Luo will provide the analysis.
UA's calculations predict the experiment;
no experimantal data analysis there.
Really weird.
> 3) Schwartz is going to fly to China to serve on the thesis committee
> for the student doing the experiment. Given the above, this doesn't
> make sense.
Dead-on there, pal, and the student is
paying the airfare :-)
> 4) Schwartz is in constant contact with Prof. Luo. At the end of the
> email, Prof. Luo made it clear that "NO need to contact further"
> (capitalization on NO a direct quote from the email). Perhaps Schwartz
> has made amends, but I doubt he could have inserted himself into the
> team given all the above. At best, he might hear some news. However, I
> would doubt it.
That's probably supposed to read
"N20, need to contact further";
poor English writing skills, here.
> I know this will not shut Schwartz up. Also, there will be those who
> will always believe Schwartz no matter how much he lies.
Jealous again, eh, Thomas? A pity. :-)
>
> Thomas.
Atty (Atty determine that two bodies
dropped from top of castle wall at
same time have different decent rates
as a function of mass and wind
resistance. _Kubla Kahn Journal
of Campfire Science_, 32(7), 939-
957, 436 A.D.)
Helmut Wabnig
wrote:
>.............
>All compositions of
>matter empirically fall identically.
Is there a logical reason why they should differ?
Atoms grouped together give a lump of material,
regardless of their geometrical order.
* * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * *
or that way:
* *
* *
* *
* * *
*
* *
Image that as a collection of individual independent atoms.
In fact, the crucial argument whether large objects fall at the same
rate as small objects is reduced to that logical principle.
By what mechanism would the chiral atoms interact which each other?
w.
Attila the Bum
Maybe someone knows if racemic
crystal is more dense than a crystal
of one single isomer.
Atty
Thomas Johnson
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Certainly--why don't we wait for the data collection, analysis and
> publication come out before hanging anybody, if at all.
A quote from Uncle Al Schwartz:
"I cannot be excluded from a non-null result. Any participant who
tried that would be roasted to deep char."
Who is Schwartz talking about? How many "participants" have been
named?
I must have missed the Sam Wormley response that this was a premature
statement by Mr. Schwartz.
This does bring up an interesting test--
Can Schwartz name another author on the future publication? He has
repeatedly talked about the "kid" getting his Ph.D. What's his/her
name?
Thomas.
Thomas Johnson
Richard Schultz wrote:
> In sci.chem Henry Lemington-Wholeflavors <cwoc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> :
>
> : The "more important matter" is the actual outcome of the experiment.
>
> If Uncle Al is determined to be a habitual liar, how can you trust
> any claim he makes about the actual outcome of the experiment?
You are talking about people who still believe that Schwartz is
actually doing diamond synthesis experiments. Each year it is the
same pattern--months of hype, delays in the experiment which allow for
a longer period of hype and then lame excuses as to why it didn't work.
By the way, I missed it this year. What was the excuse? Does
"management" still have a problem making huge amounts of money?
Thomas.
Attila the Bum
"management" was invited it
for a devil solvent and diamonds
buffet, schultzy?
Uncle Al
Not with each other, with spacetime - if spacetime has a chiral
component. Newton 1/r^2 would obtain unchanged. Nobody knows how
chiral bodies (single crystal maximal parity, with CHI=1) fall.
Nobody has ever looked. In two weeks we will have looked.
Any free falling body in vacuum traverses a minimum energy
trajectory. (A photon falls with twice the expected Newtonian
acceleration.) Paired opposite extremal parity test masses to our
specifications falling in chiral spacetime will also each and all
pursue minimum energy trajectories. However, the interaction of
chiral mass with chiral space will be diastereomeric and the two
minimum energy trajectories will not be identical. If space is
achiral there will be no parity anomaly.
A body can be chiral on several levels,
1) macroscopic configuration
2) formula unit
3) crystal structure
4) space group
Petitjean's work (and Avnir's, for that matter) identified quartz as
an extremal case. There are few materials that beat it in any
parameter, and nothing is overall better.
We'll see. We'll know in two weeks.
Thomas Johnson
Uncle Al wrote:
> We'll see. We'll know in two weeks.
>
at which point we will sadly say goodbye to Uncle Al.
There are those of us who remember what Sci.physics was like 10+ years
ago, and now see what the likes of Schwartz have done to it. To us,
the irony of that post is pretty thick.
Of course, Schwartz swore he was leaving sci.chem "for good".
He's also claimed to have a Ph.D.
He's also claimed to have given sight to the blind
He also claimed....(insert your own favorite Uncle Al lie here)
Thomas.
Uncle Al
Hey Schultzy... suppose it is a boy?
Traveler
>> By what mechanism would the chiral atoms interact which each other?
>
>Not with each other, with spacetime - if spacetime has a chiral
>component. Newton 1/r^2 would obtain unchanged. Nobody knows how
>chiral bodies (single crystal maximal parity, with CHI=1) fall.
>Nobody has ever looked. In two weeks we will have looked.
What an ineducable moron you are, Uncle Dickhead! Spacetime is an
abstract math concept. Nothing interacts with it for the simple reason
that it does not exist. Why is that so hard for you to understand,
moron?
Somehow you managed to find enough ass kissers to kiss your worthless
ass. I can't believe anybody fell for your stupid con game. In two
weeks, you will be shown for what you are, a cretin. I could have told
them that. But that won't stop you. You're already thinking up your
next stupid con game, aren't you? ahahaha...
One more thing. What does John Baez's ass smell like today, Uncle
Dickhead? ahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Phew! Physics is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Eric Gisse
Traveler wrote:
> Uncle Dickhead wrote:
>
> >> By what mechanism would the chiral atoms interact which each other?
> >
> >Not with each other, with spacetime - if spacetime has a chiral
> >component. Newton 1/r^2 would obtain unchanged. Nobody knows how
> >chiral bodies (single crystal maximal parity, with CHI=1) fall.
> >Nobody has ever looked. In two weeks we will have looked.
>
> What an ineducable moron you are, Uncle Dickhead! Spacetime is an
> abstract math concept. Nothing interacts with it for the simple reason
> that it does not exist. Why is that so hard for you to understand,
> moron?
[snip]
Casimir effect.
Thomas Johnson
Assume you put 1/2 the effort into doing something real that you put
into all the B.S. in this project.
Well, you probably would have accomplished something good enough that
you wouldn't have to make things up. Ironic, eh?
If/when the paper comes out and you are in the acknowledgements, will
you admit to the lies or will you cry out in fake frustration about how
you were robbed?
Traveler
Particles interact with other particles, period. And certainly not
with math constructs. This means that we are moving in an ocean of
"wall-to-wall" particles. We are immersed in energy. One day, we'll
learn how to tap into this source of energy and we'll kick ourselves
in the ass for having been so dumb to listen to chicken-shit dickheads
like Uncle Al.
Besides, the law of causality requires that no effect/change can
happen without a cause. The very fact that we observe motion is
irrefutable proof that we are constantly interacting with other
particles. That's right. Aristotle all over again! It makes no
difference if a million stupid physicists foam at the mouth in unison
while claiming that motion is acausal. So get a fucking clue. And stop
kissing ass, goddamnit! ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
The Ghost In The Machine
<jow...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 6 Sep 2005 18:08:03 -0700
<1126055283....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
I'm not sure if that's a property of space, or a property of matter
in empty space, but it's rather an interesting effect, and might
be Yet Another Reason Why My Theoretical Capacitor (Disproving
Feerguy9's Ridiculous Assertions If You Remember Him At All) Won't
Even Begin To Work Correctly. :-)
I have to agree that spacetime is an abstract concept, but the
force is there, regardless.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Eric Gisse
I have always wanted to see a test of the speed of light tested such
that the path of the photons goes through a nontrivial length of
Casimir plates.
Things like the Casimir effect, which makes "nothing" do "something",
absolutely fascinate me.
TomGee
Why do you support UA the biggest racist in physics so unequivocally
without questioning a single point which Johnson makes?
You're an idiot for thinking no one cares, slug, and you're a fool for
loving schwartzy so, in spite of his hateful ways. Remember that one
who sleeps with dogs awakes with fleas.
TomGee
the actual outcome of any valid experiment. Characterizing Johnson's
report as smear tactics requires some evidence from you, his accuser.
Without any reasonable arguments from you, you stand as an ass-kisser
to Schwartzy assigned as his first expendable line of defense for his
atrocious lies.
The actual outcome of an experiment is not the most important matter of
it, as you put it. The validity of it and the conclusions from it are
more important.
TomGee
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Richard Schultz wrote:
> > : Thomas Johnson wrote:
> > :> I see that Schwartz is making a lot of noise about the experiment in
> > :> China, and that he is once again straying from the truth. So, I will
> > :> post a few comments about what I know to be true and untrue.
> >
> >
> > Umm, because Uncle Al is a known liar, and that Mr. Johnson has
> > provided evidence that Uncle Al's China story is yet another lie?
> > Or are you one of those people who consider the truth to be yet another
> > trivial diversion from more important matters?
>
> I am way more concerned about the empirical results of observation
> and experiment in the pursuit of understanding how nature works
> rather than the personality defects or attributes of the posters
> in these newsgroups.
>
>
No you're not, sluggy, your response to Johnson's post said nothing
about observation or experiment. Your average post shows you are most
concerned with supporting those of UA's ilk than with empirical
research.
>
> Thomas Johnson posting(s) contribute not to that understanding (in
> my opinion).
TomGee
Sam Wormley wrote:> > news:rDsSe.307024$x96.105498@attbi_s72:
> >
> >
> >>Richard Schultz wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Umm, because Uncle Al is a known liar, and that Mr. Johnson has
> >>>provided evidence that Uncle Al's China story is yet another lie?
> >>>Or are you one of those people who consider the truth to be yet another
> >>>trivial diversion from more important matters?
> >
> >
> >
> >> I am way more concerned about the empirical results of observation
> >> and experiment in the pursuit of understanding how nature works
> >> rather than the personality defects or attributes of the posters
> >> in these newsgroups.
> >
> >
> >
> >> my opinion).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "...more concerned..." "...than the personality defects..."
> >
> > Unfortunately your shield is as severely tarnished as others here:
> >
> > http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
> >
> > You have confessed that you established and maintain this web page.
> > Thomas Johnson's posting(s) contribute precisely to the same extent
> > as your web page does. It is hardly fair to demean Johnson for his
> > conduct which in this respect it clearly emulates your own. You're
> > simply in conflict whether or not uncle al actually belongs on your
> > crank list, that's all.
> >
> > I appreciate your posts when you stick to business and avoid involving
> > yourself in the various cults of personality for which usenet is famous.
> > Something happens to an individual when they extend themselves to judging
> > and demeaning persons rather than sticking to judging ideas.This is the
> > downfall of many a good man.
> >
> >
>
> Point taken--However, my point was that *my* interest is the
> empirical results of observation and experiment in the pursuit
> in postings).
>
>
But Zenner's report shows that to be an outright lie. By saying,
"point taken", doesn't that confirm your lie?
>
>
> Johnson's sole purpose in postings appears to be attacks on
> Uncle Al's character---And I've raised the issue.
>
>
No, IMO, any researcher is duty-bound to report on any apparent
discrepancies regarding an experiment. You're raised the issue in
support of a character which is the same as yours, except perhaps for
the racist part.
>
>
> The crank list at edu-observatory.org/cranks.html merely serves
> *me* in being more efficient in sorting thru the crank crap.
>
>
And that is pure crap, crank. Do you really think you're fooling
anyone with it?
TomGee
Schwartzy after the publication.
Jan Panteltje
<lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1126073954.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>Jan, I say let's hang the slug first, then tar n feather racist
>Schwartzy after the publication.
>
What facinates me ATM is that the outcome today Wed Sep 7 10:59:56 CEST 2005
as I read here a statement by UA: 'in 2 weeks we will know', does almost exactly
match what he wrote Sep 1, 12:02 am in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/1faedd7c647947fc/ed75dbae12c3916c?q=uncle+2+weeks&rnum=2#ed75dbae12c3916c
: The full parity Eotovs experiment finshes within about two
: weeks. You may be eating crow. You may be eating a whole murder of
: crows, beaks included.
So, the question is now:
Does this experiment cause time insertion (as opposed to time deletion)?
And how is this 'time insertion' related to diamonds?
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>I have to agree that spacetime is an abstract concept, but the
>force is there, regardless.
If there is a force, there are interactions. And if there are
interactions, there are particles. Draw your own conclusion or forever
keep on kissing ass. ahahaha...
The Ghost In The Machine
<1126069208.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Another piece of the weirdness of the Universe, I guess. :-)
[.sigsnip]
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> Things like the Casimir effect, which makes "nothing" do "something",
>> absolutely fascinate me.
>
>Another piece of the weirdness of the Universe, I guess. :-)
It's only weird if you don't understand it. And you don't understand
it because your assumptions are wrong. But if weirdness and mystery is
what you are really in love with, then you will never understand.
That's because, as soon as you understand, the weirdness disappears.
If you love understanding, you automatically hate mysteries and vice
versa.
The Ghost In The Machine
<trav...@nospam.net>
wrote
on Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:14:31 -0400
<rqpth1hleus232ls8...@4ax.com>:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 04:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>I have to agree that spacetime is an abstract concept, but the
>>force is there, regardless.
>
> If there is a force, there are interactions. And if there are
> interactions, there are particles. Draw your own conclusion or forever
> keep on kissing ass. ahahaha...
Spacetime is an abstract concept. Particles are not.
As for interactions -- fermionic interactions are well-known. :-P
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
The Ghost In The Machine
<11uth1dfbr5j4l4v5...@4ax.com>:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>> Things like the Casimir effect, which makes "nothing" do "something",
>>> absolutely fascinate me.
>>
>>Another piece of the weirdness of the Universe, I guess. :-)
>
> It's only weird if you don't understand it. And you don't understand
> it because your assumptions are wrong. But if weirdness and mystery is
> what you are really in love with, then you will never understand.
> That's because, as soon as you understand, the weirdness disappears.
> If you love understanding, you automatically hate mysteries and vice
> versa.
So how does your particle jump theory explain this effect?
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Uncle Al
*Everybody* would like to see it. By excluding vacuum modes you
increase ligthspeed (on paper) - the Scharnhorst effect,
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107091
http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010055
Phys. Lett. B236 354 (1990)
Phys. Lett. B250 133 (1990)
J Phys A26 2037 (1993)
Andrew Gould (Princeton, Inst. Advanced Study). IASSNS-AST-90-25
There is a perceptable problem with measuring light velocity normal to
and within a ~100 nm gap. One supposes measuring the optical
pathlength vs. the physical gap for staged values in discrete (vacuum)
etalons or Casimatter might do it. Nasty fabrication problem either
way.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/casimir3.htm
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>So how does your particle jump theory explain this effect?
Personally, I have my doubts about the Casimir effect having anything
to do with the material composition of the "vacuum". For one, it
requires conductive plates; so electricity and electrons are
definitely part of the effect. Second, the small distances involved
make it highly suspect because we already know of molecular forces
that work at very small distances. I have a feeling that the effect
would probably disappear at temperatures close to absolute zero. In
sum, the effect is not as well understood as some would like to
believe. And all the crap about vacuum fluctuation and virtual
(voodoo) particles is just that, crap.
Attila the Bum
(BUT, density crystal racemic isomer ~20,300. Hah!) --
http://journals.iucr.org/b/issues/1997/05/00/bk1251/bk1251.pdf
If you're asked for input, enter "guest" and your e-mail
address, where appropriate. Hitting "Cancel" also
works. I found:
Acta Cryst. (1997). B53, 838-842 [doi:10.1107/S0108768197005703]
Application of Wallach's Rule in a Comparison of the X-ray Crystal
Structures of the Racemate and the (S) Enantiomer of
(1-Hydroxy-3-phenyl-2-propenyl) Dimethylphosphonate
V. J. Blazis, K. J. Koeller, N. P. Rath and C. D. Spilling
Synopsis: X-ray structure determination of the racemate and the (S)
enantiomer of (1-hydroxy-3-phenyl-2-propenyl) dimethyl- phosphonate
provides an example of validating Wallach's rule. The calculated
density of the racemate was found to be 6.1% greater than the (S)
enantiomer.
Or this, via GOOGLE: wallach's rule ~565 hits
(OR, "wallach's rule" ~ 41; racemic crystals tend
to be denser than ....) --
http://journals.iucr.org/c/issues/2000/11/00/gg1022/gg1022.pdf
Acta Cryst. (2000). C56, 1391-1393 [doi:10.1107/S010827010001129X]
Racemic and chiral
1-[N-(chloroacetyl)carbamoylamino]-2,3-dihydro-1H-inden-2-yl
chloroacetate
M. Eishima, S. Ohba, M. Suzuki, C. Nagasawa and T. Sugai
Abstract: In the racemic crystals of (1S,2R)- or
(1R,2S)-1-[N-(chloroacetyl)carbamoylamino]-2,3-dihydro-1H-inden-2-yl
chloroacetate, C14H14Cl2N2O4, (I), the enantiomeric molecules form a
dimeric structure via the N-HO cyclic hydrogen bond of the carbamoyl
moieties. In the chiral crystals of
(-)-(1S,2R)-1-[N-(chloroacetyl)carbamoylamino]-2,3-dihydro-1H-inden-2-yl
chloroacetate, C14H14Cl2N2O4, (II), the N-HO intermolecular hydrogen
bond forms a zigzag chain around the twofold screw axis. The melting
points and calculated densities of (I) and (II) are 446 and 396 K, and
1.481 and 1.445 Mg m-3, respectively.
Formula: Racemic and chiral C14H14Cl2N2O4
Atty (Ooooooooh! Atty being bad again,
like blind man with erection in donut
shoppe :-)
Helmut Wabnig
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:39:04 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
>wrote:
>>.............
>>All compositions of
>>matter empirically fall identically.
>>.........
>
>
>Is there a logical reason why they should differ?
>Atoms grouped together give a lump of material,
>regardless of their geometrical order.
>
>
>* * * * * * * * * * *
> * * * * * * * * * * *
> * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>or that way:
>
> * *
> * *
> * *
> * * *
> *
> * *
>
>Image that as a collection of individual independent atoms.
>In fact, the crucial argument whether large objects fall at the same
>rate as small objects is reduced to that logical principle.
>
>
>By what mechanism would the chiral atoms interact which each other?
Ok, not necessarily with each other.
Imagine a (large) random aggregated collection of atoms:
* * * * * * * * * * * ** * *
* * * *** * * * * * * ** * * * * *
** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ** * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * ** * *
** * * * * * * * ** * * * ** * * * *
* ** * * * * ** ** * * ** * * * * ** * * *
* * ** ** ** * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *
Now take a felt pen and draw right handed spirals
until every dot comes to lie in a spiral together
with other dots, infinitely
many spirals, no single dot remains without connection to
other dots. Then draw left handed spirals.
They cancel each other in "chirality", net chirality is zero.
Next exercise:
>
> * *
> * *
> * *
> * * *
> *
> * *
Imagine a page full with such spiral (chiral) aggregates.
Clearly certain left handed spirals will nicely fit.
Larger spirals will collect their dots with larger intermediate
empty line, but still any size and number of spirals will eventually
be collecting all the dots, as we did before on the random
distribution. In fact, the spirals are ident to the random pattern,
just with some dots missing in between, make that clear to yourself.
Now draw (with your felt pen) right handed spirals,
you will find enough spirals which line up all the dots eventually,
as we did before on the random pattern.
That WE perceive patterns, does not mean that Nature does the same.
The similarity of a SHAPE with things familiar to us does not imply
a working funktioning principle, e.g. the esoteric habit giving
things a pyramidal shape and then awaiting miracle effects like
razor blade sharpening in the center of the pyramid.
FORM (shape) is not FUNCTION.
When we arrange a certain number of atoms in a certain pattern
eg. chiral, left or right, then it does not automatically guarantee
an effect, except when those atoms would interact which each other,
as it is the case with optical chirality in sugar.
That is a totally different scenario when we arrange atoms which
don't have any relation with each other, just because they are
distributed non-randomly for our eye, they will not produce an effect,
IMHO.
I predict a Zero result.
w.
Attila the Bum
it's a 50/50 deal, could go either way.
Something has to explain how life
came to be, with it's many chiral
components. You gotta answer?
Atty (One, with the sewer system,
hoping to bond with the
universe :-)
Uncle Al
>
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:45:04 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <EmailAddress>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:39:04 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
> >wrote:
> >>.............
> >>All compositions of
> >>matter empirically fall identically.
> >>.........
> >
> >
> >Is there a logical reason why they should differ?
> >Atoms grouped together give a lump of material,
> >regardless of their geometrical order.
Qualified test masses for the parity Eotvos experimnet have
exceptionally deep ab inito mathematical roots that can be reproduced
in a real world reduction to practice.
Point connectivity (atomic bonding) is irrelevant. Scale is
irrelevant. Extent is irrelevant - though aggregation of a periodic
lattice vs. its unit cell *does* make a difference. The unit cell
contents may or may not be chiral - it is uncoupled to global
chirality (e.g., Coupe du Roi). Periodic lattices rapidly go
asymptotic to either CHI=0 or CHI=1. Only mass distribution in space
(atomic nucleus coordinates) matters.
1) Given: A zero curvature geometry containing a countable set of
points. Each point is unlabeled and has unit mass (Equivalence
Principle - all compositions of matter fall identically by measurement
and are thus fundamentally indistinguishable). All moments of inertia
of the set are finite. Is that general enough for you? We don't
limit ourselves to three dimensions. Chiralty is strictly a function
of geometry. Chirality by composition is ignored.
2) Determine the center of mass of the set. That is the coordinate
system origin.
3) Assign each point unique coordinates. I don't care what
coordinate system you use as long as it has a unique origin. This is
Set G.
4) Invert the signs of all coordinates (easiest in a Cartesian
system). If you have angular coordinates, do the obvious with pi.
This is Set U.
5) Coincide the origins of Set G and Set U by translation.
6) Rotate one Set through its Eulerian angles about the coincident
origins until the sum of the distance squared between each
corresponding pair of points - one point from each Set, each point and
its inversion - is a global minimum.
7) If the globally minimized sum is zero (exact superposition),
neither Set G or Set U is chiral. If the globally minimized sum is
not zero, both Set G and Set U are chiral.
The preceding is the ab initio determination of chirality or
achirality.
8) Calculating CHI (quantitative normalized parity divergence),
"d" is the number of Euclidean dimensions
"D^2" is the globally minimal sum of the N squared-distances between
the set and its parity inversion for a fixed pairwise correspondence
with coincident centers of mass.
"T" is the geometric inertia of the set
CHI = d(D^2)/4T
CHI will be in the interval [0,1] and identical for both sets.
J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.freeware.html#QCM>
<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.download.qcm.readme>
Output values are independent of input file format. Runtime is
strongly coupled to input file format. In the worst case (*.xyz
format for coordinates only), 10 points would require the age of the
universe to calculate. Best file format case for ten points requires
less than a second.
QCM, the software for calculating CHI, begins with graph theory to
define two additional diagnostics:
COR - local graph theoretic correlations among adjacent points plus
global correlations (ask the mathematician). This is not point group
symmetries. The most stringent case is COR=1, the identity element
only. Even a small molecule can hit COR=20,000 and larger.
DSI - Direct Symmetry Index. Here's an extensive exposition of DSI,
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
You go figure it out. The most stringent case is DSI=0.
All qualifying periodic lattices in the parity Eotvos experiment have
COR=1 and DSI=0 at or by 3-5 A radius (about a dozen atoms). Those
values never increase through a radius sufficient to contain 1100+
atoms (a CPU-day), sampled at 1 A radius increments. If this
maximally extremal case obtains, BigCHI can crunch CHI alone for
successively larger lattice radii at 30 million atoms/second in a PC.
BigCHI efficiently grows its own lattice given crystal structure data
- a,b,c; alpha,beta,gamma; and all atom fractional coordinates within
the unit cell.
Whether CHI of a periodic lattice is sparsely sampled vs. radius or
densely sampled vs. radius,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzsparse.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
the growth of CHI with radius is the same within crystal structure
experimental error. The fitted line slope should be -2 exactly, by
theory. The intercept depends on the lattice. If QCM qualfies the
lattice, CHI growth with radius is fastest with smallest lattice
volume/atom and an equidimensional unit cell.
A small fraction of randomly located lattice imperfections average to
no effect at all.
The "noise" in the graphs is not noise. As the sampling radius
expands though the discontinuous lattice (atom or not atom), the mass
distribution within the sphere and the overall moments of inertia
jiggle. Calculation is in verified compiled long_double_precision
(Borland not Microsoft). Output looks like
Lump CHI DSI COR
---------------------------------------
SiO4 0.000238 0.658392 2
SiO4Si4 0.606391 0 1
unit cell 0.408110 0 1
Radius, A Atoms CHI
------------------------------------------------------
3.600 14 0.842411994688901327
3.700 16 0.817897894284299863
25.000 5230 0.990320214786476936
25.500 5530 0.994827027749089882
500.000 41698194 0.999979573074739409
510.000 44250714 0.999972420252889185
40000.000 21349691001074 0.999999999417511992
40500.000 22160353750354 0.999999997855720220
700000.000 1.1442100008649e+17 0.999999999991349301
710000.000 1.1939514449624e+17 0.999999999996509030
1050000.000 3.8617087529320e+17 0.999999999996153180
1100000.000 4.4400685456532e+17 0.999999999994286032
Quartz is beautiful. It achieves COR=1 and DSI=0 by 3.1 A, Si(OSi)4.
SiO4 by itself is chiral. Quartz is chiral at the unit cell, crystal
structure, and space group levels - parity pair space groups P3(1)21
and P3(2)21. It has a very small lattice volume/atom. It is
commercially grown as large single crystals to stringent industrial
standards. Those diagnostics are accurate, validated predictors of
piezoelectric device performance dependent upon crystal lattice
structural perfection and absence of impurities.
We'll know in about a week.
Richard Schultz
[re: the perennial diamond synthesis experiment]
: By the way, I missed it this year. What was the excuse? Does
: "management" still have a problem making huge amounts of money?
Actually, what is more puzzling than the opinions of "management" -- and
even more puzzling than Uncle Al's complaints about "management" when as
far as anyone can tell, he *is* management -- is why on the one hand,
"management" would let him patent his cockroach repellant independent of
his company, but they won't let him peddle his diamond factory to a
venture capitalist willing to buy out "management's" share. If they really
believed that it won't work, they should be thrilled to sell it to a
sucker who thinks that it will.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"This is some sort of shared joke that I'm not a part of."
"You *are* a part of it -- you're the butt."
Richard Schultz
: Message-ID: <431E0569...@hate.spam.net>
: From: Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
: Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:08:57 -0700
: We'll see. We'll know in two weeks.
: Message-ID: <4322273A...@hate.spam.net>
: From: Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
: Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:22:18 -0700
: We'll know in about a week.
Well, since one week from 9 September was last Friday, and two weeks from
6 September is today, I can only conclude that today is the latest possible
date for the conclusion of the experiment. That means that we can expect
an imminent announcement from Uncle Al that he successfully produced
kg-sized Eotvos diamonds.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"A mensch takes personal responsiblity for his actions. When demonstrated to
be empirically wrong a mensch admits error and becomes a better mensch."
-- "Uncle Al" Schwartz, in article <41D0A0BA.BCF76...@hate.spam.net>
Y.Porat
he is a disturbed incurable personality
and as such he cannot be a pioneering scientist
and he is mostly a damage to this ng
the only benefit you can get from him is finding data on the net
and parroting it.
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Jerry
> Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:45:04 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <EmailAddress>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:39:04 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
> > >wrote:
> > >>.............
> > >>All compositions of
> > >>matter empirically fall identically.
> > >>.........
> > >
> > >
> > >Is there a logical reason why they should differ?
> > >Atoms grouped together give a lump of material,
> > >regardless of their geometrical order.
> [snip graphic exposition]
>
> Qualified test masses for the parity Eotvos experimnet have
> exceptionally deep ab inito mathematical roots that can be reproduced
> in a real world reduction to practice.
>
> Point connectivity (atomic bonding) is irrelevant. Scale is
> irrelevant. Extent is irrelevant - though aggregation of a periodic
> lattice vs. its unit cell *does* make a difference. The unit cell
> contents may or may not be chiral - it is uncoupled to global
> chirality (e.g., Coupe du Roi). Periodic lattices rapidly go
> asymptotic to either CHI=0 or CHI=1. Only mass distribution in space
> (atomic nucleus coordinates) matters.
Please explain to me where Bilge went astray, when he argued
that a positive result in the geometric parity Eotvos experiment
would imply a violation of conservation of energy. Do you
need me to provide the link?
As I and several others have asserted, a positive result in the
geometric parity Eotvos experiment falsifies not merely the EP,
but practically all of known physics.
The geometric parity Eotvos experiment does not constitute a
valid test of affine gravitation versus GR. A positive result
is virtually impossible, being in violation of multiple
classical conservation laws, while a negative result does not
invalidate affine gravitation, since affine gravitation simply
does not predict coupling of gravitation to geometric parity.
If I am wrong in my above assertion, please cite the exact
published, peer-reviewed paper which makes such a prediction,
and quote a sufficient chunk from the paper to convince me
to make the fifteen minute trip to the university library to
look up your source.
Please do not attempt to sidestep the issue by discussing
coupling of affine gravitation with spin parity or spinning
masses. I agree that there is a well-established body of
theoretical work predicting such coupling. I am interested
strictly in reviewing any work which predicts coupling of
gravitation with geometric parity.
Jerry
RP
Jerry wrote:
If I'm not mistaken that would be the very point of the experiment, i.e.
to find out whether or not there is a coupling between the two. He
doesn't predict a *specific* relationship, at least not in a form that
anyone else can decipher, he does however seem to expect there to be a
coupling to some extent for reasons that very few seem to comprehend. He
seems to consistently say that "if experiment shows an asymmetry, then
the empirical evidence will imply a coupling of gravitation to
chirality, in which case of course GTR is [supposed to be] falsified,
for yet other unknown reasons.
The wide open opportunity to find an unexpected and unexplainable
experimental result afforded by the lack of a modern experiment of this
nature thus far, seems to be the only real inspiration for the
experiment. OTOH, his entire speculative argument is based upon so many
other speculative arguments, that the probability of it being a sound
and empirically justifiable argument decreases in inverse proportion to
the number of citations included in his paper. It may all make perfect
sense to Al and his so-called genius level associates, but the above is
how it appears to many of the lowly IQ-140 level lurkers such as myself
who have heard every angle of this stuff for what's going on about 50
years now.
Can we get a consensus on this?
Asbestos underwear on :)
Richard Perry
Jerry
Well, of course GTR would be falsified! GTR is a part of known
physics, and a positive result in the parity Eotvos experiment
would falsify practically all of known physics.
> The wide open opportunity to find an unexpected and unexplainable
> experimental result afforded by the lack of a modern experiment of this
> nature thus far, seems to be the only real inspiration for the
> experiment. OTOH, his entire speculative argument is based upon so many
> other speculative arguments, that the probability of it being a sound
> and empirically justifiable argument decreases in inverse proportion to
> the number of citations included in his paper. It may all make perfect
> sense to Al and his so-called genius level associates,
Genius? Al has bragged about his IQ scores, which are high but
do not strike me as exceptional. Not that high IQ implies anything
except an expert ability to take IQ tests.
His Minesweeper scores, however, are fantastic, and indicative
of his ability to, ahem, play Minesweeper...
> but the above is
> how it appears to many of the lowly IQ-140 level lurkers such as myself
> who have heard every angle of this stuff for what's going on about 50
> years now.
5 years.
> Can we get a consensus on this?
>
> Asbestos underwear on :)
Jerry
Richard Schultz
: The geometric parity Eotvos experiment does not constitute a
: valid test of affine gravitation versus GR. A positive result
: is virtually impossible, being in violation of multiple
: classical conservation laws, while a negative result does not
: invalidate affine gravitation, since affine gravitation simply
: does not predict coupling of gravitation to geometric parity.
Actually, it's even simpler than that: a negative result would not
invalidate affine gravitation because his "theory" makes absolutely no
prediction of the magnitude of the effect. Thus after each negative result,
he can argue that if the apparatus had been an order of magnitude more
sensitive, the result would have been positive. ("Each negative result"
meaning a negative result obtained on an apparatus an order of magnitude
more sensitive than the previous one had been.)
-----
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."
brian a m stuckless
A NET energy state *CANNOT* be increased & decreased
at ONCE (at the SAME time) ..in the SAME CALCULATiON.
1. [ Observe LEFT side OVER / ( no BOTTOM bracket) ].
2. [ SAVEs considerable email LiNE CHARACTER space ].
3. [ PROPER NOTATiON of {mph}*ls is {m_photon}*l_s ].
4. [ Where: m_photon is the EQUiVALENT photon mass ].
5. [ And EQUiVALENT photon mass m = e_photon / c^2 ].
6. [ All Voltage*CHARGE is Volt*Amp*sec, ENERGY eV ].
The GUESS FRAME of REFERENCE for the GUESS equation..
(Planck MASS Mp)*(Planck LENGTH lp)
Mp*lp
= {mph}*ls
= me*a*ao
= me*wls
= Moo*wls / a^2
= me*wlc / 2*pi
= me*re / 2*pi*a
h / 2*pi*c
= k*{e} / 2*pi
= #*{e} / pi*c
= hbar / c
=G*Mp^2 / c^2
= eR*loo / 2*pi*c^2
= eH*loo / 4*pi*c^2
= Moo*loo / 4*pi
= a^2*me*loo / 4*pi
= Moo*ao / a
= [mph]*r1 / nA
= m1*r1 / nA
= pA / nA*c
And EiTHER equal to.. = eV / nA*fA*c
[or] equal to.. = - m1*v1^2 / 2*nA*fA*c .!!
$ information flux quantum
MOLAR constant Ra = Na*k = F*k / {e} = Cg*[S] = 2*(pi + 1).
[Ra / 2*pi = (pi + 1) / pi = (h + 2*hbar) / h = Rx / hbar].
Then: .. (h + nA*hbar) / h
= (2*pi + nA) / 2*pi
= 2*pi*Ri / h
= Ri / hbar
= ni*Na*k / 2*pi
= ni*Ra / 2*pi ..Planck STATiSTiCAL flux.!!
And:.. Ra*(PLANCK TEMPERATURE Tp)
= ni*Ra*(Planck TEMPERATURE UNiT Tp)
= (kinetic energy)*(Planck Tp)*[entropy] / LaGrangian
= (Planck Tp)*[entropy]*(complexity)
= (Tp)*[S]*Cg .!!
THEREfore: 10^29*F*hbar*Tp = 1*(Kelvin TEMPERATURE degK).!!
$ quantum scale invariance
GUESS SERiAL index, of OBSERVED scale invariance follows:
(h + nA*hbar) (2*pi + nA) (X + nA*Y)
-- -- -- -- = -- --- -- = -- -- -- = Ni
h 2*pi X
Planck h ; LOCAL scale ; Each WAY BEYOND... .!!
This will fit a range of FUNDAMENTAL Physical Constants..
GENERALLY, any CASE for which the quantity, X = 2*pi*Y .!!
1. The QUANTiTY wlc is >COMPTON wavelength< of electron.!!
2. The QUANTiTY Moo, >HARTREE energy eH divided by c^2<.!!
3. The QUANTiTY # is the >MAGNETiC flux QUANTUM< Constant.
[ PLANCK h = 2*pi*hbar = k*{e}*c = 2*pi*Qx / 10^20*(e)^4 ]
4. The QUANTiTY Qx is GUESS >STEFAN BOLTZmann Constant<.!!
$ AMBiENT matters REST
THERE is no AMBiENT MEDiA included in GENERAL RELATiViTY.!!
And i am REACHiNG OUT because the "ambient matters", duh.!!
$ ambient matters
AMBiENT MEDiA are COMPOSED of MOLAR PARTiCLES (mol part).!!
Boltzmann's constant k -> jOULE / (mol part) / degKelvin.!!
The (mol part) here is a MOLAR PARTiCLE of AMBiENT MEDiA.!!
MOLAR PARTiCLEs are *NOT* included in GENERAL RELATiViTY.!!
Boltzmann's constant k -> jOULE / (mol part)*degK
-> kg*meter / Amp*second
-> jOULE*sec / Amp*meter.
The GUESS STANDARD AMBiENT = Uo*Eo*(mol part)
= Uo*Eo*MOL / Na
= 1*(mol part) / c^2
-> (mol part)*(sec)^2 / m^2
-> electromagnetic CHARGE / degK
-> Amp*sec / degK ..MEDiUM.!!
THESE units SEEM odd first..
[ Amp*m -> (mol part)*degK*sec ], and soon u 2 will c.!!
QUOTH EinsteiN
"Not made by parts that follow a timeline..." does NOT say,
[*NOT made up of MOLAR PARTiCLEs, at all*, at all ..duh.!!]
The GR-Tivity GR gtr *COUP* (STiLL) deny EinsteiN's LAW.!!
EinsteiN's LAW is NOT relativistic:
A. --[ ANY energy e / c^2 = EQUiVALENT mass ]--;
B. --[ ANY mass m = EQUiVALENT energy / c^2 ]--.
i.e.
1. REST mass m_o = e_o / c^2 ..is NOT relativistic.
2. ABSORBED photon mass E_o / c^2 NOT relativistic.
*RELATiViSTiC* only applies with a VELOCiTY, duh.!!
So EinsteiN's LAW also iNCLUDEs the RELATiViSTiC.!!
THAT is the GREAT *BEAUTY* of EinsteiN's LAW.!!
[GPSbob.wpd]; GPS & c^2 / f_b
The relative difference in the rate of a clock in a circular orbit of
EARth compared to a clock 'in' a Very Low Orbit (VLO) 'at' EQUiVALENT
radius as EARth (NOT "on" EARth's surface ..as some scientists say):
The GPS ATOMiC clock PREset Factor is 4.46 x 10^-10
= (Very Low Orbit period tb) / (t1 - tb)
= GPS orbital AMBiENT density / SURFACE AMBiENT density d3
= (GPS AMBiENT particle COUNT/m^3) / Loschmidt's Constant ..no
= (1.20 x 10^16 molpart/m^3) / (2.69 x 10^25 molpart/m^3)
= (v1^2 - vb^2) / 2*c^2
= (rA*gA - r3*g3) / 2*c^2
= G*M1*[{1/(n1 - 1)*rA} - {1/(n3 - 1)*r3}] / c^2
(fA - fb) / fb
= [{G*M1 / {(n1 - 1)*rA}} - {G*M1 / {(n3 - 1)*r3}}] / c^2.
1. CAViTY n=0 only & always in GR & Newton Tivity (BOTH ..no AMBiENT).
2. The GUESS Kinematic ViSCOCiTY & DiFFUSiON factor = c^2 / fb
= G*M1*[{1/(n1 - 1)*rA} - {1/(n3 - 1)*r3}] / (fA - fb).
3. v1^2 = G*M1 / (n1 - 1)*rA = rA*gA.
4. Vb^2 = G*M1 / (n3 - 1)*r3 = r3*g3 ..Note delta ALTiTUDE, (rA - r3).
5. The CAViTY n of n1 & n3 of mass m1 includes any m1 LATTiCE VACANCY.
M1 = Mass of EARth (here).
G = Gravitational Constant.
r3 = radius of EARth or rocket VLO.
rA = radius of orbiting clock's orbit.
v1 = 2*pi*rA/t1 = orbital speed of orbiting clock.
vb = 2*pi*r3/t3 = speed of the EARth clock (ECi frame).
v1^2 = rA*g = (vescape)^2 / 2*(n - 1) = G*M1 / (n - 1)*rA
[ m1*c/h=nL/wl=fL/c=pL/h=nA/2*pi*rA=eV/h*fA*rA=pA/h*rA ].
COSmic reLiEF U_o c.
("`-/")_.-'"``-._
\. . `; -._ )-;-, `)
Yours sincerely, \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-'
```brian a m stuckless - O - _.- _..-_/ / ((.'
TiME 05:24iPMtue20sep2005; / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.!
p.s.
(n - 1) = (mD - m1) / m1 = Fine Structure VARiABLE,
--where mD is EQUiVALENT AMBiENT DisCHARGE mass from m1
--and where (n) = mD / m1 ..provides the + or - sign.
No more is more.
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | |
The BiG | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_|
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
_.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.
RP
One question for you. What's with the schizophrenic typing?
Do you honestly expect us to read that crap? F for unreadability.
OOps, that was two questions.
RiCHard PErrY
Schoenfeld
RP wrote:
> One question for you. What's with the schizophrenic typing?
> Do you honestly expect us to read that crap? F for unreadability.
> OOps, that was two questions.
>
> RiCHard PErrY
ime ko01 t0o
*¨¨`)
¸¸.·´ ¸.·*¨¨`)
(¸¸.·* ¸ .·*
¸¸.·*
(¸¸.~~> SCHOE/\/FELD
brian a m stuckless
No more is more.
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | |
The BiG | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_|
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
_.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.
Richard Schultz
: RP wrote:
:> One question for you. What's with the schizophrenic typing?
:> Do you honestly expect us to read that crap? F for unreadability.
:> OOps, that was two questions.
:>
:> RiCHard PErrY
: ime ko01 t0o
Where's B1FF when you really need him? Or at least Robert McElwaine?
-----
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
-----
If you can keep your expectations tiny
You'll go through life without being so whiny.
-- Matt Groening
Quantum Mirror
Jerry wrote:
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Helmut Wabnig wrote:
<snip>
> The geometric parity Eotvos experiment does not constitute a
> valid test of affine gravitation versus GR. A positive result
> is virtually impossible, being in violation of multiple
> classical conservation laws, while a negative result does not
> invalidate affine gravitation, since affine gravitation simply
> does not predict coupling of gravitation to geometric parity.
GR is based on the EP and results in causual gravity linked to
spacetime curvature. If parity shows a difference in EP then gravity
cannot be caused by curvature alone. This leaves affine gravitation as
a possibility and rules out GR. That is what is meant when he says a
test.
> If I am wrong in my above assertion, please cite the exact
> published, peer-reviewed paper which makes such a prediction,
> and quote a sufficient chunk from the paper to convince me
> to make the fifteen minute trip to the university library to
> look up your source.
The original GR paper by Albert Einstien.
> Please do not attempt to sidestep the issue by discussing
> coupling of affine gravitation with spin parity or spinning
> masses. I agree that there is a well-established body of
> theoretical work predicting such coupling. I am interested
> strictly in reviewing any work which predicts coupling of
> gravitation with geometric parity.
I won't do any dancing.
> Jerry
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > The geometric parity Eotvos experiment does not constitute a
> > valid test of affine gravitation versus GR. A positive result
> > is virtually impossible, being in violation of multiple
> > classical conservation laws, while a negative result does not
> > invalidate affine gravitation, since affine gravitation simply
> > does not predict coupling of gravitation to geometric parity.
>
> GR is based on the EP and results in causual gravity linked to
> spacetime curvature. If parity shows a difference in EP then gravity
> cannot be caused by curvature alone. This leaves affine gravitation as
> a possibility and rules out GR. That is what is meant when he says a
> test.
Please do not confuse geometric parity with spin parity.
Affine gravitation does not couple with geometric parity.
A positive result of the geometric parity Eotvos experiment
not only rules out GR, it rules out affine gravitation and most
of classical physics, being inconsistent with conservation of
energy, conservation of angular momentum, etc. etc.
However, affine gravitation does couple with spin parity.
> > If I am wrong in my above assertion, please cite the exact
> > published, peer-reviewed paper which makes such a prediction,
> > and quote a sufficient chunk from the paper to convince me
> > to make the fifteen minute trip to the university library to
> > look up your source.
>
> The original GR paper by Albert Einstien.
The original GR paper does not discuss affine gravitation.
> > Please do not attempt to sidestep the issue by discussing
> > coupling of affine gravitation with spin parity or spinning
> > masses. I agree that there is a well-established body of
> > theoretical work predicting such coupling. I am interested
> > strictly in reviewing any work which predicts coupling of
> > gravitation with geometric parity.
>
> I won't do any dancing.
...and what do you mean by that?
Jerry
Puppet_Sock
> I believe we've already discussed this --
> it's a 50/50 deal, could go either way.
There is no real reason to assign any probability
estimate to the outcome of the experiment. Having
no data whatever is not the same as 50/50.
If I was forced to bet, I would bet on a null result,
but would make the smallest bet possible.
> Something has to explain how life
> came to be, with it's many chiral
> components. You gotta answer?
Sure. It's called spontaneous symmetry breaking. It's an
everyday observation in engineering. Consider a cylinder
shaped beam supporting a building. If you over load the
beam, eventually it snaps. It does this by spontaneously
choosing a direction to bend in, thus breaking its symmetry,
and at the same time itself.
At a fundamental level, it can happen because of small
perturbations that mean the symmetry is not exact.
This is typical of buildings. Or it can happen because
quantum mechanics randomly picks a direction to move.
This is observable in nuclear interactions, for example.
At some point, some pre-cursor to a living critter formed
with left handed DNA. It happened to be the one that got
copied more famously. Its offspring out competed the right
handed versions. Result, we get left handed DNA.
Socks
Richard Schultz
: Attila the Bum wrote:
:> I believe we've already discussed this --
:> it's a 50/50 deal, could go either way.
:
: There is no real reason to assign any probability
: estimate to the outcome of the experiment. Having
: no data whatever is not the same as 50/50.
Actually, it's not a case of "no data whatever." It's a case of Uncle Al
and his minions not understanding that just because there are two possible
outcomes, it doesn't mean that the odds of each outcome are necessarily
1/2. If I jump out of a window, I could fall to the ground, or I could
not fall to the ground -- but the relative odds are *very* far from 50/50.
Despite the story about the guy in the restaurant on an upper floor of
a skyscraper.
-----
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
-----
NunYa Bidness
>the only benefit...
You're an idiot.
Uncle Al
Conservation of mass-energy is Noether-coupled to homogeneity of
time. Conservation of angular momentum is Noether-coupled to isotropy
of space, which is what the parity Eotvos experiment tests. How many
times must I post the same link until you can find an Operation Head
Start reject to read it to you?
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21
> As I and several others have asserted, a positive result in the
> geometric parity Eotvos experiment falsifies not merely the EP,
> but practically all of known physics.
Yes - it all goes down, but only at parts-per-trillion
difference/average amplitudes and only then for extremal parity
masses. If the full parity Eotvos experiment has a statistically
significant non-null output, only theory is in trouble. We still use
Newton, don't we? Newton's physics is wrong - lightspeed is not
infinite. There would be a certain abundant flow of grant funding to
explore the new observation of an EP parity anomaly.
> The geometric parity Eotvos experiment does not constitute a
> valid test of affine gravitation versus GR. A positive result
> is virtually impossible, being in violation of multiple
> classical conservation laws,
No. A net signal empirically falsifies General Relativity via
Equivalence Principle counterdemonstration, falsifies Lorentz
Invariance, and falsifies conservation of angular momentum - but only
at parts-per-trillion difference/average ampltiudes, and only for
extremal parity test masses. Pull your head out and wipe your face.
The full parity Eotvos experiment is the empirical observation.
Physics must be consistent with its observables. The universe doesn't
give a sparrow's fart about your opinions.
> and the while a negative result does not
> invalidate affine gravitation, since affine gravitation simply
> does not predict coupling of gravitation to geometric parity.
A null result validates metric gravitation, which is a subset of
affine gravitation with the Equivalence Principle being true. Learn
some physics.
> If I am wrong in my above assertion, please cite the exact
> published, peer-reviewed paper which makes such a prediction,
> and quote a sufficient chunk from the paper to convince me
> to make the fifteen minute trip to the university library to
> look up your source.
There must always be a FIRST paper. Tell us how many citations were
listed at the end of
Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891-921 (1905)
You cannot argue against the reproducible results of empirical
experiment. Are you a Roman Catholic still pissed off at Galileo and
his telescope looking at Jupiter's moons? As for metric vs. affine
gravitation,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0501017
For that matter,
"Large parity-violation effects in heavy-metal-containing chiral
compounds"
Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 42(11) 1293-6 (2003)
BFD. It's all over the place, readily observed in all weak (and, of
course, Weak) interactions,
http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html
<http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/fortson/chiral.html>
Phys. Rev. Lett. 86(6) 971 (2001)
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~budker/PubList.html
That nobody looked at gravitation - the weakest interaction by far -
is not Uncle Al's problem. It's Uncle Al's solution. The answer is
the answer when it arrives from PR China. If you do not accept it you
will be left behind by civlization. Go for a faith-based intiative.
> Please do not attempt to sidestep the issue by discussing
> coupling of affine gravitation with spin parity or spinning
> masses. I agree that there is a well-established body of
> theoretical work predicting such coupling. I am interested
> strictly in reviewing any work which predicts coupling of
> gravitation with geometric parity.
Geometric parity cannot be measured; it has no units. Geometric
parity must be calculated. The ab initio calculation requires knowing
nothing but the relative positions of points in a set. That requires
atomic nuclei in a periodic single crystal in the real world. No such
calculation existed prior to 1999,
J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html>
<http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf>
This is the first exploration of possibly new physics. Let the full
parity Eotvos experiment decide. Though you may enjoy being a
subsidiary dog pulling the sled, always seeing the same assholes,
Uncle Al prefers being the lead dog and enjoying new observations,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/montana.jpg
Burn, baby, burn.
Richard Schultz
: The answer is the answer when it arrives from PR China.
You said two weeks ago that the answer would be arriving in two weeks.
This is beginning to sound a *lot* like your perennial diamond project.
-----
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
-----
Uncle Al
Fair enough - ya gotta look. Theory then follows on a leash. The
problem is, "look at what?" What is a measure of geometric chirality
of mass distribution along all coordinate axes? What is the most
extremal obtainable good case to be used for the first look?
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
The mathematician and the crystallographer are satisfied single
crystal quartz, enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21, is an
extremal good solution. The touchie-feelie chemist has no
objections. The three-month full parity Eotvos experiment has been
run. We await the results sent from PR China.
The truth is out there.
> The wide open opportunity to find an unexpected and unexplainable
> experimental result afforded by the lack of a modern experiment of this
> nature thus far, seems to be the only real inspiration for the
> experiment. OTOH, his entire speculative argument is based upon so many
> other speculative arguments, that the probability of it being a sound
> and empirically justifiable argument decreases in inverse proportion to
> the number of citations included in his paper. It may all make perfect
> sense to Al and his so-called genius level associates, but the above is
> how it appears to many of the lowly IQ-140 level lurkers such as myself
> who have heard every angle of this stuff for what's going on about 50
> years now.
>
> Can we get a consensus on this?
Let the experiment decide. An observed statistically significant net
signal is inarguable. Independent others can then obtain independent
other samples of quartz, independently reproduce the experiment, and
science goes on from there. We want to know what is necessary and
sufficient. What is an adequate predictive model, preferably a
no-brainer no-calculation heuristic?
Every organiker knows one cannot achieve Sn2 displacement from an
aromatic ring except in severely biased cases (e.g., 2,4-dinitrophenyl
fluoride). It was an article of faith, it was theoretically
consistent, it was proven in the lab, and it is trivially accomplished
under mild conditions with palladium catalysis. A grad student
screwed up...
> Asbestos underwear on :)
Zylon undershorts - and change regularly or use Spectra instead.
Uncle Al
[snip]
> His Minesweeper scores, however, are fantastic, and indicative
> of his ability to, ahem, play Minesweeper...
[snip]
20 seconds slower than than world-class action. 70-second times are
achievable.
If you want diamonds you go looking in kimberlite and lamproite. You
won't find them in granite (pegmatites are good for other stuff).
Poor Cornell University - oftentimes you don't find diamonds in
kimberlite, either.
Let the experiment decide. Results are due.
Richard Schultz
: Fair enough - ya gotta look. Theory then follows on a leash. The
: problem is, "look at what?" What is a measure of geometric chirality
: of mass distribution along all coordinate axes? What is the most
: extremal obtainable good case to be used for the first look?
What is the expected deviation from a null results in the most extremal
obtainable good case? How to actual imperfections in the crystals used
affect that expectation?
-----
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."
Attila the Bum
Richard Schultz wrote:
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : Fair enough - ya gotta look. Theory then follows on a leash. The
> : problem is, "look at what?" What is a measure of geometric chirality
> : of mass distribution along all coordinate axes? What is the most
> : extremal obtainable good case to be used for the first look?
What part of "first look" don't you understand,
Schultzy dear?
> What is the expected deviation from a null results in the most extremal
> obtainable good case? How to actual imperfections in the crystals used
> affect that expectation?
Schultzy has adopted a new word "extremal".
Still exhibiting moronic traits, unfortunately.
> -----
> 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."
Right, Schultzy, you don't even have a clue ....
Atty (OK, She's nuts, and you're the john.
Have you no shame? :-)
Quantum Mirror
Jerry wrote:
> Quantum Mirror wrote:
> > Jerry wrote:
> > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > > Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > The geometric parity Eotvos experiment does not constitute a
> > > valid test of affine gravitation versus GR. A positive result
> > > is virtually impossible, being in violation of multiple
> > > classical conservation laws, while a negative result does not
> > > invalidate affine gravitation, since affine gravitation simply
> > > does not predict coupling of gravitation to geometric parity.
> >
> > GR is based on the EP and results in causual gravity linked to
> > spacetime curvature. If parity shows a difference in EP then gravity
> > cannot be caused by curvature alone. This leaves affine gravitation as
> > a possibility and rules out GR. That is what is meant when he says a
> > test.
>
> Please do not confuse geometric parity with spin parity.
> Affine gravitation does not couple with geometric parity.
It's not me that is confused.
> A positive result of the geometric parity Eotvos experiment
> not only rules out GR, it rules out affine gravitation and most
> of classical physics, being inconsistent with conservation of
> energy, conservation of angular momentum, etc. etc.
>
> However, affine gravitation does couple with spin parity.
>
> > > If I am wrong in my above assertion, please cite the exact
> > > published, peer-reviewed paper which makes such a prediction,
> > > and quote a sufficient chunk from the paper to convince me
> > > to make the fifteen minute trip to the university library to
> > > look up your source.
> >
> > The original GR paper by Albert Einstien.
>
> The original GR paper does not discuss affine gravitation.
No but it couples space-time curvature to gravity.
> > > Please do not attempt to sidestep the issue by discussing
> > > coupling of affine gravitation with spin parity or spinning
> > > masses. I agree that there is a well-established body of
> > > theoretical work predicting such coupling. I am interested
> > > strictly in reviewing any work which predicts coupling of
> > > gravitation with geometric parity.
> >
> > I won't do any dancing.
>
> ...and what do you mean by that?
"sidestep the issue" thats dancing around an issue.
Thomas Johnson
Richard Schultz wrote:
> : Message-ID: <431E0569...@hate.spam.net>
> : From: Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
> : Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:08:57 -0700
>
> : We'll see. We'll know in two weeks.
>
> : Message-ID: <4322273A...@hate.spam.net>
> : From: Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
> : Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:22:18 -0700
>
> : We'll know in about a week.
>
>
> Well, since one week from 9 September was last Friday, and two weeks from
> 6 September is today, I can only conclude that today is the latest possible
> date for the conclusion of the experiment.
How many deadlines has Schwartz missed? At least 6 for the diamond
project, where each year brings a new "final" attempt. He was supposed
to make announcements in early August, then in the third week of
August, then 2 weeks ago. Claiming he will make an announcement is
standard fare from him. It keeps him in the attention of others.
Think, men, think! (who hears an out of tune version of minuet in G?)
Does it make any sense that the possible biggest announcement of the
new millenium for science would be made by Schwartz? Hmm, Prof. Luo
has spent thousands of dollars and months of his team's time to get a
result. Does he publish it? Does he alert the press? Or, does he
email Schwartz so that it can be announced on Sci.physics?
Luo was rightfully embarassed and annoyed at Schwartz for his comments
in April, when he claimed that the project was "wholy his". Do you
think Prof. Luo would chose Schwartz as the spokesman for the project?
Remember
1) Schwartz is not a member of the collaboration. He sent some emails
mentioning the idea that he had already put in the public domain.
Prof. Luo is under no obligation to make Schwartz a co-author. He is
certainly not under obligation to use the junk CHI calculation.
2) Schwartz' qz.pdf is a pile of rubbish, not a theory.
3) Schwartz has a history of lying. E.g. Where is his Ph.D. from?
> That means that we can expect
> an imminent announcement from Uncle Al that he successfully produced
> kg-sized Eotvos diamonds.
Put it in Uncle-Al speak:
He grows diamonds as big as his balls.
Thomas.
Thomas Johnson
Richard Schultz wrote:
> : Message-ID: <431E0569...@hate.spam.net>
> : From: Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
> : Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:08:57 -0700
>
> : We'll see. We'll know in two weeks.
>
> : Message-ID: <4322273A...@hate.spam.net>
> : From: Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
> : Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:22:18 -0700
>
> : We'll know in about a week.
>
>
> Well, since one week from 9 September was last Friday, and two weeks from
> 6 September is today, I can only conclude that today is the latest possible
> date for the conclusion of the experiment.
How many deadlines has Schwartz missed? At least 6 for the diamond
project, where each year brings a new "final" attempt. He was supposed
to make announcements in early August, then in the third week of
August, then 2 weeks ago. Claiming he will make an announcement is
standard fare from him. It keeps him in the attention of others.
Think, men, think! (who hears an out of tune version of minuet in G?)
Does it make any sense that the possible biggest announcement of the
new millenium for science would be made by Schwartz? Hmm, Prof. Luo
has spent thousands of dollars and months of his team's time to get a
result. Does he publish it? Does he alert the press? Or, does he
email Schwartz so that it can be announced on Sci.physics?
Luo was rightfully embarassed and annoyed at Schwartz for his comments
in April, when he claimed that the project was "wholy his". Do you
think Prof. Luo would chose Schwartz as the spokesman for the project?
Remember
1) Schwartz is not a member of the collaboration. He sent some emails
mentioning the idea that he had already put in the public domain.
Prof. Luo is under no obligation to make Schwartz a co-author. He is
certainly not under obligation to use the junk CHI calculation.
2) Schwartz' qz.pdf is a pile of rubbish, not a theory.
3) Schwartz has a history of lying. E.g. Where is his Ph.D. from?
> That means that we can expect
> an imminent announcement from Uncle Al that he successfully produced
> kg-sized Eotvos diamonds.
Put it in Uncle-Al speak:
G. R. L. Cowan
>
> In sci.chem Puppet_Sock <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : Attila the Bum wrote:
>
> :> I believe we've already discussed this --
> :> it's a 50/50 deal, could go either way.
> :
> : There is no real reason to assign any probability
> : estimate to the outcome of the experiment. Having
> : no data whatever is not the same as 50/50.
>
> Actually, it's not a case of "no data whatever." It's a case of Uncle Al
> and his minions not understanding that just because there are two possible
> outcomes, it doesn't mean that the odds of each outcome are necessarily
> 1/2. If I jump out of a window, I could fall to the ground, or I could
> not fall to the ground -- but the relative odds are *very* far from 50/50.
Based on many experiments.
What if no relevant experiment had ever been done?
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
Thomas Johnson
Uncle Al wrote:
> The answer is
> the answer when it arrives from PR China.
To be precise--the answer was already there before anyone looked.
In this case, the answer will be known when someone measures it and
analyzes the data. Maybe it is already known, maybe the schedule you
have claimed is false--I haven't checked.
Whatever the organization of the experimental team is, it is becoming
clear even to the sci.physics crowd that you aren't driving this. You
will know at the pleasure of the good Prof. Luo. Will that be before
the paper is submitted? Will Alan M. Schwarts (Fake Ph.D) be an
author? Smart money is on "prbbably not" and "definitely not".
> This is the first exploration of possibly new physics. Let the full
> parity Eotvos experiment decide. Though you may enjoy being a
> subsidiary dog pulling the sled, always seeing the same assholes,
> Uncle Al prefers being the lead dog and enjoying new observations,
Leaders know the results first. "Principal investigators", as you have
called yourself, know the results as soon as the grad students tell
them. You seem to have put yourself in the, well, sniffing position
rather than the seeing position.
Thomas.
Jerry
Uh, "sidestepping" is EXACTLY what you and Al are both doing.
Maybe it is a reading comprehension problem.
L e t m e t y p e r e a l l y s l o w l y .
1) Uncle Al claims that affine gravitation couples with
geometric parity.
2) I asked Al to provide a citation to a published, peer-
reviewed paper to provide theoretical backing for his assertion.
3) Al provided references to papers proposing coupling of affine
gravitation with spin parity and rotating masses.
4) You provided a reference to Einstein's definitive GR paper
coupling gravitation with space-time curvature.
T h e r e i s s o m e t h i n g w r o n g h e r e .
Jerry
Thomas Johnson
Jerry wrote:
> Uh, "sidestepping" is EXACTLY what you and Al are both doing.
> Maybe it is a reading comprehension problem.
>
> L e t m e t y p e r e a l l y s l o w l y .
>
> 1) Uncle Al claims that affine gravitation couples with
> geometric parity.
> 2) I asked Al to provide a citation to a published, peer-
> reviewed paper to provide theoretical backing for his assertion.
> 3) Al provided references to papers proposing coupling of affine
> gravitation with spin parity and rotating masses.
> 4) You provided a reference to Einstein's definitive GR paper
> coupling gravitation with space-time curvature.
>
> T h e r e i s s o m e t h i n g w r o n g h e r e .
>
> Jerry
Standard fare from this group. When cornered, Schwartz et al. will
quote citations and copy and paste bits of his website.
Most people seem to just look at it and say, "Looks like science, I
don't have the time to check".
Ask Schwartz how CHI in a bulk crystal is connected to anything in the
experiment in question (or any experiment) and you get much the same
chaff thrown up.
Thomas.
Jerry
> Standard fare from this group. When cornered, Schwartz
> et al. will quote citations and copy and paste bits of
> his website.
>
> Most people seem to just look at it and say, "Looks like
> science, I don't have the time to check".
>
> Ask Schwartz how CHI in a bulk crystal is connected to
> anything in the experiment in question (or any experiment)
> and you get much the same chaff thrown up.
Thought you might be amused by a HUGE BLUNDER that Al
just committed:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1acbaaf35a3aceb7
It's funnier (or sadder) in context of the immediately
preceding messages.
Jerry
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
:> Actually, it's not a case of "no data whatever." It's a case of Uncle Al
:> and his minions not understanding that just because there are two possible
:> outcomes, it doesn't mean that the odds of each outcome are necessarily
:> 1/2. If I jump out of a window, I could fall to the ground, or I could
:> not fall to the ground -- but the relative odds are *very* far from 50/50.
:
: Based on many experiments.
: What if no relevant experiment had ever been done?
That still does not make the odds 50/50. It makes the odds impossible
to calculate. Based on the most relevant experiments that *have*
been done, however, one can certainly *estimate* that the odds of a
non-null result in Luo's experiment are small.
-----
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
: How many deadlines has Schwartz missed? At least 6 for the diamond
: project, where each year brings a new "final" attempt. He was supposed
: to make announcements in early August, then in the third week of
: August, then 2 weeks ago. Claiming he will make an announcement is
: standard fare from him. It keeps him in the attention of others.
:
: Think, men, think! (who hears an out of tune version of minuet in G?)
Come to think of it, East Lansing is only about 145 miles (as the crow
flies) from Gary, Indiana.
: Does it make any sense that the possible biggest announcement of the
: new millenium for science would be made by Schwartz?
But Uncle Al is the smartest person on the planet. I thought that
everyone knew 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
-----
Igor
RP wrote:
> Jerry wrote:
>
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> >
> >>Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> >>
> > valid test of affine gravitation versus GR. A positive result
> > is virtually impossible, being in violation of multiple
> > classical conservation laws, while a negative result does not
> > invalidate affine gravitation, since affine gravitation simply
> > does not predict coupling of gravitation to geometric parity.
> >
> > published, peer-reviewed paper which makes such a prediction,
> > and quote a sufficient chunk from the paper to convince me
> > to make the fifteen minute trip to the university library to
> > look up your source.
> >
> > coupling of affine gravitation with spin parity or spinning
> > masses. I agree that there is a well-established body of
> > theoretical work predicting such coupling. I am interested
> > strictly in reviewing any work which predicts coupling of
> > gravitation with geometric parity.
> >
>
> If I'm not mistaken that would be the very point of the experiment, i.e.
> to find out whether or not there is a coupling between the two. He
> doesn't predict a *specific* relationship, at least not in a form that
> anyone else can decipher, he does however seem to expect there to be a
> coupling to some extent for reasons that very few seem to comprehend. He
> seems to consistently say that "if experiment shows an asymmetry, then
> the empirical evidence will imply a coupling of gravitation to
> chirality, in which case of course GTR is [supposed to be] falsified,
> for yet other unknown reasons.
>
> experimental result afforded by the lack of a modern experiment of this
> nature thus far, seems to be the only real inspiration for the
> experiment. OTOH, his entire speculative argument is based upon so many
> other speculative arguments, that the probability of it being a sound
> and empirically justifiable argument decreases in inverse proportion to
> the number of citations included in his paper. It may all make perfect
> sense to Al and his so-called genius level associates, but the above is
> how it appears to many of the lowly IQ-140 level lurkers such as myself
> who have heard every angle of this stuff for what's going on about 50
> years now.
>
> Can we get a consensus on this?
>
>
> Richard Perry
But parity violation is not new to physics. We've been aware of the
chirality of the weak interaction for many years now, and physics is
still functioning. If the equivalence principle is ever disproven, it
would only be the end of the equivalence principle, not the rest of
physics.
As far as this violating conservation of energy, we could still define
a total conserved energy, but not as a single scalar quantity. It
would need to be have both a scalar and a psuedo-scalar component to
make it work. But the combined total should still be conserved, at
least locally.
Richard Schultz
: Ask Schwartz how CHI in a bulk crystal is connected to anything in the
: experiment in question (or any experiment) and you get much the same
: chaff thrown up.
And ask him what his "theory" predicts the size of the deviation from
a null result will be, and you'll get the following answer:
Y.Porat
probably another incarnation of
the old crook Al
what is your real full name crook?
=============
Y.P
------------------------
jmfb...@aol.com
sch...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>: The answer is the answer when it arrives from PR China.
>
>You said two weeks ago that the answer would be arriving in two weeks.
>This is beginning to sound a *lot* like your perennial diamond project.
That's it! Richard, you remind me of Jean Paul Marat.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Leaders know the results first. "Principal investigators", as you have
>called yourself, know the results as soon as the grad students tell
>them. You seem to have put yourself in the, well, sniffing position
>rather than the seeing position.
Who the fuck cares who is a head and who a tail? As Uncle
continued to post his endeavours here, I learned how some
of the science biz, as in the _work_, gets done. I asked
him to continue to post so I could follow what was going on.
I don't give a shit who gets credit; I was, and still am,
interested in all this stuff gets done. Even more interesting
is the wallclock time it takes.
Now, it seems to be that you work in a lab-based environment
so you already have all of this knowledge. I don't. And
every crank in these newsgroups believe that all scientists
can do everything perfectly immediately. This running
commentary about the status of the investigation may have
disabused some kids of this belief. If it has taught even
one kid about how science work gets done, all of this
(what you think of as) boasting will be worth it.
/BAH