Parity calorimetry, interim results
Uncle Al
We've got a nibble.
Validation requiries statistically significant justification of four
observations:
1) The enthalpy of fusion of 2 mm single crystal benzil is not
equal to that of powdered racemic benzil.
2) The enthalpies of fusion of single crystal benzil in space
groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 are unequal.
3) The differential enthalpy of fusion of enantiomorphic benzil
single crystals sinusoidally varies with time of day.
4) The sinusoidal variation of differential enthalpy of fusion of
enantiomorphic benzil single crystals exhibits a 6-hr phase shift when
sample orientation is changed from N-S to E-W.
"The future is all around us waiting in moments of transition to be
born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future
or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in
pain."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Jerry
> We've got a nibble.
>
> Validation requiries statistically significant justification of four
> observations:
>
> 1) The enthalpy of fusion of 2 mm single crystal benzil is not
> equal to that of powdered racemic benzil.
This first criterion is completely meaningless. Conventional chemistry
predicts a difference between crystalline and racemic forms.
> 2) The enthalpies of fusion of single crystal benzil in space
> groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 are unequal.
> 3) The differential enthalpy of fusion of enantiomorphic benzil
> single crystals sinusoidally varies with time of day.
> 4) The sinusoidal variation of differential enthalpy of fusion of
> enantiomorphic benzil single crystals exhibits a 6-hr phase shift when
> sample orientation is changed from N-S to E-W.
(sigh)
> "The future is all around us waiting in moments of transition to be
> born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future
> or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in
> pain."
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
Sue...
> We've got a nibble.
>
> Validation requiries statistically significant justification of four
> observations:
>
> 1) The enthalpy of fusion of 2 mm single crystal benzil is not
> equal to that of powdered racemic benzil.
> 2) The enthalpies of fusion of single crystal benzil in space
> groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 are unequal.
> 3) The differential enthalpy of fusion of enantiomorphic benzil
> single crystals sinusoidally varies with time of day.
> 4) The sinusoidal variation of differential enthalpy of fusion of
> enantiomorphic benzil single crystals exhibits a 6-hr phase shift when
> sample orientation is changed from N-S to E-W.
>
> "The future is all around us waiting in moments of transition to be
> born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future
> or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in
> pain."
Yeah... There is plenty of pain for folks that don't see
the forest for the trees:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
-- C. P. Kouropoulos
Sue...
>
> --
> Uncle Al
Uncle Al
Don't be a lightweight pundit,
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0205089
Table at end of paper
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0108005
Contemporary physical theory is a perturbative Yang-Mills
non-predictive steaming pile of mathematics that is elegantly rescaled
each time an experiment draws near (e.g., Super-Kamiokande and proton
decay half-life; gravitational 1/r^2 dependence deviation and
compactified dimensions; CAST and solar axion emission).
We are experimentalists. Theory can rationalize our reproducible
observations with bear skins and stone knives if it wishes, as
necessary. As for empirically falsified theory,
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman.
First, we look. In process.
dlzc
On Dec 28, 11:04 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> We've got a nibble.
>
> Validation requiries statistically significant justification
> of four observations:
>
> 1) The enthalpy of fusion of 2 mm single crystal benzil
> is not equal to that of powdered racemic benzil.
> 2) The enthalpies of fusion of single crystal benzil in
> space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 are unequal.
> 3) The differential enthalpy of fusion of enantiomorphic
> benzil single crystals sinusoidally varies with time of day.
I'd be interested in seeing temperature / humidity controls on the
space these determinations were made in in the final paper, as well as
mass balance on gas exchanged to the space.
> 4) The sinusoidal variation of differential enthalpy of
> fusion of enantiomorphic benzil single crystals exhibits a
> 6-hr phase shift when sample orientation is changed from
> N-S to E-W.
I'd be intersted in seeing what magnetic shielding was implemented for
this determination in the final paper.
David A. Smith
Uncle Al
>
> Dear Uncle Al:
>
> On Dec 28, 11:04 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > We've got a nibble.
> >
> > Validation requiries statistically significant justification
> > of four observations:
> >
> > 1) The enthalpy of fusion of 2 mm single crystal benzil
> > is not equal to that of powdered racemic benzil.
> > 2) The enthalpies of fusion of single crystal benzil in
> > space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 are unequal.
> > 3) The differential enthalpy of fusion of enantiomorphic
> > benzil single crystals sinusoidally varies with time of day.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing temperature / humidity controls on the
> space these determinations were made in in the final paper, as well as
> mass balance on gas exchanged to the space.
None of that obtains. Samples are in SOP crimp-sealed aluminum
carriers. Standard DSC determination. All variables are inert or
cancel except sample enantiomorphic space group (or racemate) and
geographic orientation, time of day, time of year. More than a gram
of powdered racemic benzil went along for the ride - enough for 50
independent DSC calibrations. No wiggle room anywhere.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#b2
> > 4) The sinusoidal variation of differential enthalpy of
> > fusion of enantiomorphic benzil single crystals exhibits a
> > 6-hr phase shift when sample orientation is changed from
> > N-S to E-W.
>
> I'd be intersted in seeing what magnetic shielding was implemented for
> this determination in the final paper.
Magnetic shielding is irrelevant directly and through racemate
calibration; the samples are physically local. Everything exogenous
is irrelevant. Folks have been running DSCs for more than 40 years.
Folks have been doing PVED studies for 20 years - zero net output.
It's scut industrial lab work performed by trained professionals not
blue sky academic elegance done by grad students. We're going where
everybody has gone before - powdered benzil is a DSC calibrant. We're
possibly more clever at it for finding a presumptive loophole.
Melting points below agree to 0.02% relative. /_\H(fusion) wanders
1.3% relative. Official calibration standards are not taken lightly,
Europe or NIST. We require validation not merely by net difference
(signal) but by signal modulation vs. time of day and modulation phase
vs. sample geographic orientation. DSC accuracy skew is a static
value verified by calibration - that is precise to 0.1% by the book
and by empirical observation. No wiggle room anywhere.
Pure Appl. Chem. 78(7) 1455–1476 (2006)
"Calibration standards for differential scanning calorimetry"
http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2006/pdf/7807x1455.pdf
Benzil
Melting point, 94.85°C
Enthalpy of fusion, 110.6 ± 0.5 J/g (23.26 ± 0.10 kJ/mole)
<http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Units=SI&cTG=on&cIR=on&cTC=on&cMS=on&cTP=on&cES=on&cTR=on&cPI=on&cDI=on&ID=C134816>
Benzil (enthalpy of phase transition)
Melting point, 94.872°C
Enthalpy of fusion, 112.05 J/g (23.556 kJ/mole)
1995 CRC Handbook, Section 6
Benzil
Melting point, 94.86°C
Enthalpy of fusion, 111.97 J/g (23.54 kJ/mole)
Mark Thorson
>
> dlzc wrote:
> >
> > I'd be intersted in seeing what magnetic shielding was implemented
> > for this determination in the final paper.
>
> Magnetic shielding is irrelevant directly and through racemate
> calibration; the samples are physically local. Everything exogenous
> is irrelevant. Folks have been running DSCs for more than 40 years.
> Folks have been doing PVED studies for 20 years - zero net output.
> It's scut industrial lab work performed by trained professionals not
> blue sky academic elegance done by grad students. We're going where
> everybody has gone before - powdered benzil is a DSC calibrant.
> We're possibly more clever at it for finding a presumptive loophole.
Have you run a non-chiral single crystal
of some similiar compound to see if the
same time-dependent variation occurs?
Mark Thorson
>
> We've got a nibble.
>
> Validation requiries statistically significant justification of four
> observations:
>
> 1) The enthalpy of fusion of 2 mm single crystal benzil is not
> equal to that of powdered racemic benzil.
That shouldn't come as a surprise, should it?
The powder would have more adsorbed gases and
water due to its higher surface area. I don't
believe vacuum baking would be sufficient to
remove all of it. And would not the powder
be more stressed than a single crystal?
That would also contribute to DSC, right?
hanson
news:47753AB6...@hate.spam.net...
>
[rect-Al]
> We've got a nibble.
> Validation requiries statistically significant justification of four
> observations:
> 1) The enthalpy of fusion of 2 mm single crystal benzil is not
> equal to that of powdered racemic benzil.
>
The manufacturers of tubing for turbine blades could have told
you that --- The many green gizmo and med gadget producers
could have told you that there is a big difference in the enthalpy
of fusion between xx and powdered stuff... ahahahaha...
>
[rect-Al]
> 2) The enthalpies of fusion of single crystal benzil in space
> groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 are unequal.
>
... of course they are unequal. Their geometry and hence the
internal EM forces, and hence their cryst. phase energies are
different which is well known. It's hardly due to grav. influences
which are ~40 magnitudes smaller
>
[rect-Al]
> 3) The differential enthalpy of fusion of enantiomorphic benzil
> single crystals sinusoidally varies with time of day.
>
... ahahaha.. just as your weaseling buzz-word-playing does vary
sinusoidally with the time of the day....
>
[rect-Al]
> 4) The sinusoidal variation of differential enthalpy of fusion of
> enantiomorphic benzil single crystals exhibits a 6-hr phase shift when
> sample orientation is changed from N-S to E-W.
>
... ahahaha.. just as your weaseling buzz-word-playing does
vary with the phase of the moon and shifts in the wind... ahaha...
>
[rect-Al]
> "The future is all around us waiting in moments of transition to be
> born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future
> or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in
> pain."
>
So, last but not least and again you resorted not only to your usual
meaningless buzz wording but you **plagiarized** again. It's from
G'kar, Babylon 5, [written by J. Michael Straczynski] and posted
by Lidiya on 11/29/07 in www.genderlife.com/forum/ubbthreads
amongst many others... ahahahaha...
>
Al, if any other poster would have posted what and like you have
done here you would have labeled him/her multiple times with "idiot"
which is your iconic word of choice. Do you get the drift, git?
>
But all in all I give you credit for having tried to "look", as you say, &
you having spent the $500 bucks for it. -- But next time though, when
another brain fart of yours plagues you... instead, consider to spend
the $500 on bunch of cheap hookers to clear your mind... ahahahaha....
Happy New Year, you sui-blessed Schmuck... ahahaha.. ahahanson
Uncle Al
You gotta be kidding. The whole of calorimetry and thermodynamics
with it would be worthless if it did. Pull a CRC and go to "Enthalpy
of Fusion". Enough examples?
PVED studies conducted with extreme care were 100% nulls.
Mendeleev Commun. 13(3) 129 (2003)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41(24) 4618 (2002)
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:47753AB6...@hate.spam.net...
:
: We've got a nibble.
Keep going, a nybble is half a byte or four bits.
Two bits will get you a hair cut. You can even
select which one.
[snip shit]
[snip more shit]
[snip rest of river of shit]
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> >
> > We've got a nibble.
> >
> > Validation requiries statistically significant justification of four
> > observations:
> >
> > 1) The enthalpy of fusion of 2 mm single crystal benzil is not
> > equal to that of powdered racemic benzil.
>
> That shouldn't come as a surprise, should it?
> The powder would have more adsorbed gases and
> water due to its higher surface area. I don't
> believe vacuum baking would be sufficient to
> remove all of it. And would not the powder
> be more stressed than a single crystal?
> That would also contribute to DSC, right?
Any difference powder vs. 2 mm lump disappears when it is lump vs.
lump. Powder calibration is to get /_\H(fusion) statistical precision
and to overlap the two instruments' absolute accuracy (re static
background). We don't care about dynamic signal accuracy as long as
there is tight precision. All exogenous variables cancel when the
difference is taken, accuracy cancels. There is only one possible
source for a time-varying difference with proper phasing vs.
geographic sample orientation. Zero wiggle room.
You can't argue it away. Nominally identical samples cannot have
divergent differential normalized outputs slaved to time of day and
geographic orientation unless there is the boojum. An EP parity
violation by the book suffices to state our case. We're interested in
the characteristic. Other folks can chase mantissas.
When gnuplot does the trig fit to the full set of differential data,
we'll know. If there is a real world difference at all, Day 1 data
say it is small. PVED studies are 100% nulls and there are no
empirical violations of General Relativity within experimental error
at any scale in any venue. Anything 24-hr oscillatory bigger than
0.18 J/g enthalpy of fusion, 1.3x10^(-15) difference mass/mass, is fat
city. An Eotvos balance goes to 10^(-13) difference/average
mass/mass.
We'll see. All we know from Day 1 is that the parity calorimetry
experiment doesn't cleanly null and it doesn't cleanly not null.
Dense sampling vs. time of day and repeated calibraition are
required. A net signal rises up from the noise swamp or it sinks into
it.
Larry Snyder
define? No one does an experiment with out some idea of the nature of the
discovery. What is your theory/conjecture?
Larry
Bob
>
> Validation requiries statistically significant justification of four
> observations:
>
> 1) The enthalpy of fusion of 2 mm single crystal benzil is not
> equal to that of powdered racemic benzil.
> 2) The enthalpies of fusion of single crystal benzil in space
> groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 are unequal.
> 3) The differential enthalpy of fusion of enantiomorphic benzil
> single crystals sinusoidally varies with time of day.
> 4) The sinusoidal variation of differential enthalpy of fusion of
> enantiomorphic benzil single crystals exhibits a 6-hr phase shift when
> sample orientation is changed from N-S to E-W.
>
> "The future is all around us waiting in moments of transition to be
> born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future
> or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in
> pain."
Uncle Al seems to be telling us that he is passing a peach pit. When he
get done, he'll have .... a peach pit. <yawn>
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Larry Snyder" <lsn...@pacific.net> wrote in message
news:13naucu...@corp.supernews.com...
...
> Just read postings of attack dogs.
Science requires challenge, and validation. Not all the
responses were by "attack dogs".
> I am curious. What are you trying to define? No one
> does an experiment with out some idea of the nature
> of the discovery. What is your theory/conjecture?
GR cannot handle variations based on chirality locally, unless it
all balls up as scalar mass somehow. Looking at / for anomalous
behaviors that show GR incorrect allow us to formulate
alternative theories (some of which UA has in mind already, you
could seach on this newsgroup "we should look" or his website for
these).
David A. Smith
Eric Gisse
> We've got a nibble.
Let the games begin.
[...]
Uncle Al
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:47753AB6...@hate.spam.net...
> >
> > We've got a nibble.
> >
> > Validation requiries statistically significant justification of four
> > observations:
> >
> > 1) The enthalpy of fusion of 2 mm single crystal benzil is not
> > equal to that of powdered racemic benzil.
> > 2) The enthalpies of fusion of single crystal benzil in space
> > groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 are unequal.
> > 3) The differential enthalpy of fusion of enantiomorphic benzil
> > single crystals sinusoidally varies with time of day.
> > 4) The sinusoidal variation of differential enthalpy of fusion of
> > enantiomorphic benzil single crystals exhibits a 6-hr phase shift when
> > sample orientation is changed from N-S to E-W.
> >
> > "The future is all around us waiting in moments of transition to be
> > born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future
> > or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in
> > pain."
> Just read postings of attack dogs. I am curious. What are you trying to
> define? No one does an experiment with out some idea of the nature of the
> discovery. What is your theory/conjecture?
> Larry
They're cute as loose turds on fresh snow, aren't they?
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
this adventure
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.pdf
overall technical gobbledygook
We seek to empirically falsify General Relativity, perturbative string
theory; isotropic vacuum, Lorentz invariance, BRST invarinace, and
conservation of angular momentum at their founding postulates. The
whole of physics, empirically wrong by less than one
part-per-trillion, would need be rewritten. No prior observation in
any venue at any scale would be contradicted.
Too much fun! More fun still if it sustains after all data are in.
The smart money is on orthodox physics... but look what Thurston did
to Euclid, Reimann, Bolyai and Lobechevsky (*EIGHT* primary geometries
of three-space!).
Mark Thorson
>
> We seek to empirically falsify General Relativity, perturbative string
> theory; isotropic vacuum, Lorentz invariance, BRST invarinace, and
> conservation of angular momentum at their founding postulates.
It's necessary to falsify conservation of angular momentum?
festu...@btinternet.com
Dear Uncle AI
You have an impressive understanding of Physics and maybe experience.
No one is seeking to falsify General Relativity or any other proven
theory.
But black holes don't use Newtonain physics. Its not precise enough.
Fusion does not depend on size. It depends on extreme packing
densities, thats when gravity starts to work.
Please dont cloud my brain with you amazing complex equations and
experimental descovery in a test tube lab.
Go outside for once and take a look outside, take a deep breath and
start talking in easy to comprehend English.
Thank you.
Eric Gisse
Physics isn't done in English, it is done in mathematics.
>
> Thank you.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<festu...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:05120d30-ee1e-477a...@75g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
...
> No one is seeking to falsify General Relativity or
> any other proven theory.
General Relativity is not proven. General Relativity has a
domain of applicability that is pretty broad, but we have found
some edges. Uncle Al is looking for more edges. "Proofs" are
for logic and philosophy, not for the hardy world of the
lumberjack.
...
> Please dont cloud my brain with you amazing
> complex equations and experimental descovery
> in a test tube lab.
You don't want to cloud your brain with equations? There will be
a load of context around those equations, and that is where
attention must be paid. The operations that get from equation to
equation invoke assumptions, and this is also where attention
must be paid.
> Go outside for once and take a look outside,
> take a deep breath and start talking in easy to
> comprehend English.
I find a lot of people outside, breathing the fresh air. They
are called commuters, campers, transients, and homeless. It does
not improve their ability to get our butts off this planet.
I just wish I thought that disproving GR at the atomic-bonding
level was going to do that... maybe it will highlight another
step / road between the discrete and the continuous.
David A. Smith
hanson
news:764243e3-2776-4cb1...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> fetus aka festusby...@btinternet.com wrote:
>> Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
Uncle Al wrote:
We seek to empirically falsify General Relativity,
>
[hanson]
ahahaha ...hear hear!... To ALL Einstein Dingleberries!
Take heed, all you Einstein Dingleberries! uncle Al is at it!
He hopes to offer you a cure for your Einstein Dingleberryism.
Follow his advice and stop clankering with your REL shit.
>
Follow Al like Al followed Einstein's advice, who said and
urged his Einstein Dingleberries already ca. 1920:
== "NOT search at the same, now well lit places, where he,
Einstein, had been working". --- More here about Einstein's
Anus Mirabilis (= Albert's sphincter where his EDs do worship):
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9e824b27dab62a0d >
Einstein's conscience finally caught up with him, when he was
fessing up about the con of REL, one year before he puffed,
when/where he said to Besso in 1954:
::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
::AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
::AE:: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>
[fetus]
Dear Uncle AI
Go outside for once and take a look outside, take a deep
breath and start talking in easy to comprehend English.
>
Physics isn't done in English, it is done in mathematics.
>
AHAHAHA...Cheesus-H-fucking-Christ, dude. What you just
said is worse than Einsteinian Dingleberryism of the 1st kind.
Physics is "physical". It's hard & dull work done in the lab!
Physics is measuring/comparing things and events to our
arbitrarily chosen, anthropic standards.
>
Math is there to tell stupid fucking stories about that work,
brain farts which are called theories that are lapped up by
Einstein Dinglenberries... who need 'em as their Bible.
Max Planck told you that more that century ago. Saids he:
>
=P= "Experiments are the only means of knowledge
=P= at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination."
[Max Planck, ~1894]
>
Thanks for the laughs and happy 2008, Eric and you all
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Tom Roberts
>> Uncle Al wrote:
>>> We seek to empirically falsify General Relativity, perturbative string
>>> theory; isotropic vacuum, Lorentz invariance, BRST invarinace, and
>>> conservation of angular momentum at their founding postulates.
>
> theory.
You got it wrong: Uncle Al is indeed trying to "empirically falsify"
general relativity and those other theories.
No physical theory is ever "proven" -- science is not logic or math. But
theories can be refuted by an experiment that disagrees with their
prediction(s). This last is what Uncle Al is trying to do -- a process
known as science.
Tom Roberts
festu...@btinternet.com
My appologies Guys.
I thought you were having an important discussions on Fusion power or
on how to solve our current energy crisis.
Einstein bashing is not very interesting and quite futile.
What do you intend to gain from it?.
Thank you
.
Eric Gisse
Come back when you have the knowledge necessary to at least recognize
the topic of discussion, then we'll deal with your many confusions.
>
> Thank you
> .
Ken S. Tucker
> festusby...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >> Uncle Al wrote:
> >>> We seek to empirically falsify General Relativity, perturbative string
> >>> theory; isotropic vacuum, Lorentz invariance, BRST invarinace, and
> >>> conservation of angular momentum at their founding postulates.
>
> > No one is seeking to falsify General Relativity or any other proven
> > theory.
>
> You got it wrong: Uncle Al is indeed trying to "empirically falsify"
> general relativity and those other theories.
What is "those other theories" ?
Last I read Al's looking for "torsion"
connections, AND that won't disprove
GR, on the contrary, it will improve
the theory.
I admit, I'll definitely need to rethink
the Principle of Equivalence though.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Jerry
> festusby...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >> Uncle Al wrote:
> >>> We seek to empirically falsify General Relativity, perturbative string
> >>> theory; isotropic vacuum, Lorentz invariance, BRST invarinace, and
> >>> conservation of angular momentum at their founding postulates.
>
> > No one is seeking to falsify General Relativity or any other proven
> > theory.
>
> You got it wrong: Uncle Al is indeed trying to "empirically falsify"
> general relativity and those other theories.
A basic problem that I have with Uncle Al's experiment is that
the theoretical motivations behind it are totally unclear.
Despite repeated challenges, Uncle Al has not provided me with a
single citation to a peer-reviewed paper asserting that some
alternative gravitational theory or other predicts a coupling
between gravitation and GEOMETRIC parity. It does appear that
alternative theories such as Einstein-Cartan and teleparallelism
predict a coupling between gravitation and angular momentum in
the form of SPIN parity. The strength of this coupling is so weak,
however, that no experiment in the near or intermediate future is
likely to detect it.
A negative result of Al's experiment, therefore, will not serve
to disprove Einstein-Cartan nor teleparallel gravity. There is
simply no connection between these alternative theories of
gravity and Uncle Al's experiment.
What of a positive result?
A strong theoretical motivation for attempting to find parity-
violating energy differences between right and left-handed
crystalline forms which might manifest themselves in differential
calorimetry experiments, is that such violations are predicted
as a result of the weak interaction. Estimates of the magnitude
of such energy differences generally indicate that differential
calorimetry in its current state of development is not sensitive
enough by multiple orders of magnitude for detecting parity
violation due to the weak interaction. Nevertheless, an experiment
such as Uncle Al's is still worthwhile to perform, since the
theoretical estimates may be wrong. Overlooked factors may make
it actually possible to detect parity violation by means such
as those being employed by Uncle Al.
Several decades of work attempting to detect parity violating
energy differences in left-right crystalline forms, however,
have yielded clear negatives. Despite his assertions of being
unique, Uncle Al is following well-traveled ground.
Uncle Al has performed his experiment at a time of year and at
a geographic latitude corresponding to conditions which would
maximize a differential signal from an Eotvos balance. He has
given no convincing justification whatsoever that such conditions
should do anything to increase his odds of detecting a parity
violating signal in a differential calorimetry experiment.
In summary, a negative result would say nothing about gravitation,
and a positive result would contradict decades of work by other
experimentalists, besides saying nothing about gravitation.
> No physical theory is ever "proven" -- science is not logic or math. But
> theories can be refuted by an experiment that disagrees with their
> prediction(s). This last is what Uncle Al is trying to do -- a process
> known as science.
Jerry
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c1c92105-8914-4731...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 30, 11:32 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> festusby...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >> Uncle Al wrote:
> >>> We seek to empirically falsify General Relativity, perturbative string
> >>> theory; isotropic vacuum, Lorentz invariance, BRST invarinace, and
> >>> conservation of angular momentum at their founding postulates.
>
> > No one is seeking to falsify General Relativity or any other proven
> > theory.
>
> You got it wrong: Uncle Al is indeed trying to "empirically falsify"
> general relativity and those other theories.
A basic problem that I have with Uncle Al's experiment is that
the theoretical motivations behind it are totally unclear.
Despite repeated challenges, Uncle Al has not provided me with a
single citation to a peer-reviewed paper asserting that some
alternative gravitational theory or other predicts a coupling
between gravitation and GEOMETRIC parity.
Wait until the lies, damned lies and statistics are crunched.
And wait... and wait...
Of course a hypocrite such as yourself cannot model
Sagnac using SR, either.
Uncle Al
And Pyrex, 316SS.... and Alamagordo, NM "8^>)
blackhead
> We've got a nibble.
>
> Validation requiries statistically significant justification of four
> observations:
>
> 1) The enthalpy of fusion of 2 mm single crystal benzil is not
> equal to that of powdered racemic benzil.
> 2) The enthalpies of fusion of single crystal benzil in space
> groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 are unequal.
> 3) The differential enthalpy of fusion of enantiomorphic benzil
> single crystals sinusoidally varies with time of day.
> 4) The sinusoidal variation of differential enthalpy of fusion of
> enantiomorphic benzil single crystals exhibits a 6-hr phase shift when
> sample orientation is changed from N-S to E-W.
>
> "The future is all around us waiting in moments of transition to be
> born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future
> or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in
> pain."
>
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
When will you have the full results?