Parity Eotvos experiment, post-Denver.

17 views
Skip to first unread message

Uncle Al

unread,
May 3, 2004, 6:45:27 PM5/3/04
to
Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at the
Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,

http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/about.cfm
2004 American Physical Society National Meeting, Denver.
http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/abs/S690006.html
The abstract
http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/tocD.html#SD9.006
The program
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
The formal proposal (data not most recent)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
A huge pile of stuff with a few hundred clickable footnotes. The
Devil lays in the details. Live with the unfinished part about
Green's function. It's pinned tight with recently calculated data.

20 minutes after said talk's conclusion, the parity Eotvos experiment
was entered into collaboration with a respected academic research
group. We now sort out the details, quid pro quo.

WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only way
to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
May 4, 2004, 5:26:32 AM5/4/04
to
Uncle Al wrote:
> Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at the
> Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
>
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/about.cfm
> 2004 American Physical Society National Meeting, Denver.
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/abs/S690006.html
> The abstract
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/tocD.html#SD9.006
> The program
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
> The formal proposal (data not most recent)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
> A huge pile of stuff with a few hundred clickable footnotes. The
> Devil lays in the details. Live with the unfinished part about
> Green's function. It's pinned tight with recently calculated data.
>
> 20 minutes after said talk's conclusion, the parity Eotvos experiment
> was entered into collaboration with a respected academic research
> group. We now sort out the details, quid pro quo.
>
> WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only way
> to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."

Congratulations! And good luck!


Bye,
Bjoern

Ed Keane III

unread,
May 4, 2004, 11:05:38 AM5/4/04
to

"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4096CB87...@hate.spam.net...

Congradulations!

Will there be a betting pool?


John Sefton

unread,
May 4, 2004, 11:43:49 AM5/4/04
to

I'm betting that long before
Al performs his stupidity (probably
while hiring as many bumboys
as possible), push gravity will be
proven and in use for locomotion
(clandestine use by covert gov't
organizations has probably been
happening for many years).
Disinformation and distraction is
what Bumboy Al is into.
When the axis shifts, I hope the
mexicans kick you off the raft.
I know Airforce 1 will be asking
pretty-please to land in Canada-
won't be any usable States left.
Poetic justice.
John

Uncle Al

unread,
May 4, 2004, 4:09:15 PM5/4/04
to

Already in place. First prize is a trip to Sweden in late autumn.
Stakes are reputation vs. results.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Franz Heymann

unread,
May 4, 2004, 4:42:08 PM5/4/04
to

"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4096CB87...@hate.spam.net...
> Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at
the
> Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
>
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/about.cfm
> 2004 American Physical Society National Meeting, Denver.
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/abs/S690006.html
> The abstract
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/tocD.html#SD9.006
> The program
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
> The formal proposal (data not most recent)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
> A huge pile of stuff with a few hundred clickable footnotes. The
> Devil lays in the details. Live with the unfinished part about
> Green's function. It's pinned tight with recently calculated data.
>
> 20 minutes after said talk's conclusion, the parity Eotvos
experiment
> was entered into collaboration with a respected academic research
> group. We now sort out the details, quid pro quo.
>
> WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only
way
> to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."

Congratulations and the best of luck with the experiment.

Since Vajk might be a little shy of giving you his good wishes as
well, I will give them to you by proxy.

Franz


Torbjörn Svensson Diaz

unread,
May 4, 2004, 5:15:27 PM5/4/04
to
On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:45:27 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote
in <4096CB87...@hate.spam.net>:

>Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at the
>Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
>
>http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/about.cfm
> 2004 American Physical Society National Meeting, Denver.
>http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/abs/S690006.html
> The abstract
>http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/tocD.html#SD9.006
> The program
>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
> The formal proposal (data not most recent)
>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
> A huge pile of stuff with a few hundred clickable footnotes. The
>Devil lays in the details. Live with the unfinished part about
>Green's function. It's pinned tight with recently calculated data.
>
>20 minutes after said talk's conclusion, the parity Eotvos experiment
>was entered into collaboration with a respected academic research
>group. We now sort out the details, quid pro quo.
>
>WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only way
>to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."

Congratulations!


--
/Torbjörn Svensson Diaz

Please visist this site. http://www.againsttcpa.com/

Uncle Al

unread,
May 4, 2004, 6:26:33 PM5/4/04
to
Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:4096CB87...@hate.spam.net...
> > Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at
> the
> > Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
[snip]

> Congratulations and the best of luck with the experiment.

"8^>)



> Since Vajk might be a little shy of giving you his good wishes as
> well, I will give them to you by proxy.

Vajk?

Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th

unread,
May 4, 2004, 6:55:14 PM5/4/04
to
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in
news:4096CB87...@hate.spam.net:

Way to go Uncle Al!.

Klazmon.

Bill Hobba

unread,
May 4, 2004, 7:17:06 PM5/4/04
to

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c78v6v$qcd$1...@titan.btinternet.com...

Of course my congratulations and best of luck as well.

Thanks
Bill

Eric Gisse

unread,
May 4, 2004, 8:05:51 PM5/4/04
to
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<4096CB87...@hate.spam.net>...

[snippy]



> WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only way
> to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."

YAY!

Notice the silence being emitted from our local compactified dementias...

Bill Vajk

unread,
May 4, 2004, 11:35:09 PM5/4/04
to

Schwartz has no need of anyhting from me.

If he actually has managed to convince someone to run the experiment
then all well and good and I'll wait for the published results. I've
never seen anything from Schwartz other than vaporware.

"Couldn't this time be different," asked the little boy who
cried wolf?


Michael Varney

unread,
May 5, 2004, 1:30:40 AM5/5/04
to

"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:S_idnVf1kOB...@comcast.com...

He did, and they will. But please... continue to whine and pout, Vajk the
vacuous.

> I've
> never seen anything from Schwartz other than vaporware.

And nobody has seen anything of worth from you, Vajk.


Bill Vajk

unread,
May 5, 2004, 9:38:16 AM5/5/04
to
Michael Varney wrote:

> "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> news:S_idnVf1kOB...@comcast.com...

>>I've


>>never seen anything from Schwartz other than vaporware.

> And nobody has seen anything of worth from you, Vajk.

If you knew anything, child, you'd understand it is
a case of "you had to be there." LOL

Greg Neill

unread,
May 5, 2004, 11:00:55 AM5/5/04
to
"John Sefton" <jo...@petcom.com> wrote in message
news:4097BA35...@petcom.com...

>
> I'm betting that long before
> Al performs his stupidity (probably
> while hiring as many bumboys
> as possible), push gravity will be
> proven and in use for locomotion
> (clandestine use by covert gov't
> organizations has probably been
> happening for many years).
> Disinformation and distraction is
> what Bumboy Al is into.
> When the axis shifts, I hope the
> mexicans kick you off the raft.
> I know Airforce 1 will be asking
> pretty-please to land in Canada-
> won't be any usable States left.
> Poetic justice.
> John
>

Your jealousy is showing. It's not pretty.


Bill Vajk

unread,
May 5, 2004, 11:07:19 AM5/5/04
to
Greg Neill wrote:

First there would have to be something to be
jalous of, wouldn't you say? Are you actually
implying there is?

Silly boy.

Message has been deleted

Franz Heymann

unread,
May 5, 2004, 3:31:14 PM5/5/04
to

"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:S_idnVf1kOB...@comcast.com...

You are quite right. You have nothing to offer him except
congratulations and you were too much of a churl to do that. And you
are right. Hr does not need them. He can stand on his own feet.


>
> If he actually has managed to convince someone to run the experiment
> then all well and good and I'll wait for the published results. I've
> never seen anything from Schwartz other than vaporware.

You are getting to be boring. This is the third time in one session
that you have used that word. How about learning a new one?


>
> "Couldn't this time be different," asked the little boy who
> cried wolf?

You are out of steam.

Franz


Franz Heymann

unread,
May 5, 2004, 5:51:10 PM5/5/04
to

"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:J7WdnVG_4O2...@comcast.com...

Yes. And you are. It shows.

Franz


Bill Vajk

unread,
May 5, 2004, 5:53:57 PM5/5/04
to
Franz Heymann wrote:

> "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> news:S_idnVf1kOB...@comcast.com...

>>Schwartz has no need of anyhting from me.

> You are quite right. You have nothing to offer him except
> congratulations and you were too much of a churl to do that.

Congratulations? For what precisely, pray tell? Did he
achieve what he set out to do? Perhaps/apparently. When
a student achieves what is expected of them do you run
up and congratulate them? Heck no, it was expected after
all. If a student achieves what is expected of the average
student and you didn't expect him to succede, and you
congratulate him, then I view that as an insult, because
you're telling that student they exceeded your expectations.

But of course being the loser you are you haven't a clue.

> And you
> are right. Hr does not need them. He can stand on his own feet.

You seem to think so. That's an opinion without foundation
in fact.

>>If he actually has managed to convince someone to run the experiment
>>then all well and good and I'll wait for the published results. I've
>>never seen anything from Schwartz other than vaporware.

> You are getting to be boring. This is the third time in one session
> that you have used that word. How about learning a new one?

When the shoe fits...... In any case, I'm not here engaging
in discussion for your personal entertainment. You are quite
welcome to tune out, indeed in your case I invite it.

>>"Couldn't this time be different," asked the little boy who
>>cried wolf?

> You are out of steam.

Your opinions are devoid of value.

Bill Vajk

unread,
May 5, 2004, 6:08:11 PM5/5/04
to

>>Greg Neill wrote:

Go chat with James Driscoll, you two are
well matched.

Greg Neill

unread,
May 5, 2004, 6:29:22 PM5/5/04
to
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:EtydncLjfYt...@comcast.com...

You grow greener with every post. And your
attempted barbs are pitiful. Just pitiful.


Michael Varney

unread,
May 5, 2004, 6:48:18 PM5/5/04
to

"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:6Vdmc.41522$ZJ5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...

They are, aren't they?


Bill Vajk

unread,
May 5, 2004, 7:11:16 PM5/5/04
to
Greg Neill wrote:

> "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> news:EtydncLjfYt...@comcast.com...

>>Franz Heymann wrote:

>>>"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
>>>news:J7WdnVG_4O2...@comcast.com...

>>>>Greg Neill wrote:

>>>>>Your jealousy is showing. It's not pretty.

>>>>First there would have to be something to be
>>>>jalous of, wouldn't you say? Are you actually
>>>>implying there is?

>>>Yes. And you are. It shows.

>>Go chat with James Driscoll, you two are
>>well matched.

> You grow greener with every post. And your
> attempted barbs are pitiful. Just pitiful.

Your projection is horiffic.

I am at retirement age and am looking forward
to that busiest period of my life, doing the
sorts of things I didn't have time for till
now, and a country life besides.

You're an idiot, and even worse, a fool. Is the
wolfpack circling again? LOL Keep on circling, it
is one another's behinds you have your noses in.
Be careful no one stops too suddenly. :-)

Greg Neill

unread,
May 5, 2004, 8:34:38 PM5/5/04
to
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:RO-dnXD--JI...@comcast.com...

> Greg Neill wrote:
>
> > "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> > news:EtydncLjfYt...@comcast.com...
>
> >>Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> >>>"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:J7WdnVG_4O2...@comcast.com...
>
> >>>>Greg Neill wrote:
>
> >>>>>Your jealousy is showing. It's not pretty.
>
> >>>>First there would have to be something to be
> >>>>jalous of, wouldn't you say? Are you actually
> >>>>implying there is?
>
> >>>Yes. And you are. It shows.
>
> >>Go chat with James Driscoll, you two are
> >>well matched.
>
> > You grow greener with every post. And your
> > attempted barbs are pitiful. Just pitiful.
>
> Your projection is horiffic.
>
> I am at retirement age and am looking forward
> to that busiest period of my life, doing the
> sorts of things I didn't have time for till
> now, and a country life besides.

One would have hoped that by retirement age, one
would have outgrown petty jealousies. Apparently
not everyone manages that evolution. Oh, and the
shade of green I alluded to was envy green.

>
> You're an idiot, and even worse, a fool. Is the
> wolfpack circling again? LOL Keep on circling, it
> is one another's behinds you have your noses in.
> Be careful no one stops too suddenly. :-)

Absolutely pitiful.


Bill Vajk

unread,
May 5, 2004, 9:07:06 PM5/5/04
to

Greg Neill wrote:

> One would have hoped that by retirement age, one
> would have outgrown petty jealousies. Apparently
> not everyone manages that evolution. Oh, and the
> shade of green I alluded to was envy green.


You have been stamped, folded, mutilated, and disposed
of in precisely the manner you deserve. Like the jackass
you appear to be you simply don't know when to quit so
I'll help you this one last time by finishing with you.

Greg Neill

unread,
May 5, 2004, 9:11:28 PM5/5/04
to
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:b9adnaLORp8...@comcast.com...

Bwahahahahahaha!

At least you retain some small modicum of humor value.
Let that be a comfort to you.

And now, piss off.


Michael Varney

unread,
May 5, 2004, 10:06:37 PM5/5/04
to

"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:b9adnaLORp8...@comcast.com...

LOL! It is funny to see you twist and turn there, Vajk.
Greg has your number.


|-|erc

unread,
May 6, 2004, 2:11:19 AM5/6/04
to

> Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at the
> Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
.....

> A huge pile of stuff with a few hundred clickable footnotes. The
> Devil lays in the details. Live with the unfinished part about
> Green's function. It's pinned tight with recently calculated data.
>
> 20 minutes after said talk's conclusion, the parity Eotvos experiment
> was entered into collaboration with a respected academic research
> group. We now sort out the details, quid pro quo.
>
> WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only way
> to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."
>

Good! Now that's over you can stop talking like you're reciting minutes.

Herc

Mike

unread,
May 6, 2004, 7:26:30 AM5/6/04
to
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<4097F86B...@hate.spam.net>...

Congradulations. I hope you make the trip. It's about time someone
does that. It's long overdue. EP is not a founding principle of GR as
it has been claimed. A dream or 'fantasy experiment' cannot serve as a
physical principle. You need solid empirical support far beyond Eotvos
type setups. Transformation from local Cartesian frames to locally
curved space-time as shown by Chinese researchers violates EP and
general covariance. Your work will provide the empirical support
needed. GR will remain a heuristic, a footnote in some text books.
Time to explore a true relativistic dynamics ans abolish covered
absolutism presented with a Relativity mascara. It's long overdue,
long, long overdue.

Mike

Mark Fergerson

unread,
May 6, 2004, 2:45:03 PM5/6/04
to
|-|erc wrote:

As Unc said, this was just foreplay. After the
experiment's done (and the data's analyzed [preferably on
something other than Intel]) the _real_ hoohaw begins.

Mark L. Fergerson

Bill Vajk

unread,
May 6, 2004, 2:57:34 PM5/6/04
to
Mark Fergerson wrote:

> As Unc said, this was just foreplay. After the experiment's done (and
> the data's analyzed [preferably on something other than Intel]) the
> _real_ hoohaw begins.
>

Gack! He's already insufferable.

Michael Varney

unread,
May 6, 2004, 3:29:36 PM5/6/04
to

"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:6LidnZMCgY8...@comcast.com...

And you are retarded. Your point was?


Franz Heymann

unread,
May 6, 2004, 4:58:37 PM5/6/04
to

"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:6Vdmc.41522$ZJ5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...

Be kind to him. He does try his best, poor though that may be.

Franz


Franz Heymann

unread,
May 6, 2004, 4:58:38 PM5/6/04
to

"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:b9adnaLORp8...@comcast.com...

Wanna buy a cheap book on good repartee?

Franz


Franz Heymann

unread,
May 6, 2004, 4:58:39 PM5/6/04
to

"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:SImdnS9ze-3...@comcast.com...

> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> > "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> > news:S_idnVf1kOB...@comcast.com...
>
> >>Schwartz has no need of anyhting from me.
>
> > You are quite right. You have nothing to offer him except
> > congratulations and you were too much of a churl to do that.
>
> Congratulations? For what precisely, pray tell? Did he
> achieve what he set out to do?

It rather looks like that. Contrary to your expectations.

> Perhaps/apparently. When
> a student achieves what is expected of them do you run
> up and congratulate them? Heck no, it was expected after
> all.

(a) Uncle Al is not a student. He is a first class physicist with a
personal character which I don't particularly like.
(b) You did not expect him to give a well-received talk.

> If a student achieves what is expected of the average
> student and you didn't expect him to succede, and you
> congratulate him, then I view that as an insult, because
> you're telling that student they exceeded your expectations.

He did succeed your expectations.


>
> But of course being the loser you are you haven't a clue.

I haven't lost anything except respect for you.


>
> > And you
> > are right. Hr does not need them. He can stand on his own feet.
>
> You seem to think so. That's an opinion without foundation
> in fact.
>
> >>If he actually has managed to convince someone to run the
experiment
> >>then all well and good and I'll wait for the published results.
I've
> >>never seen anything from Schwartz other than vaporware.
>
> > You are getting to be boring. This is the third time in one
session
> > that you have used that word. How about learning a new one?
>
> When the shoe fits...... In any case, I'm not here engaging
> in discussion for your personal entertainment.

That is the only reason why I am discussing anything for you. Your
intellect and integrity do not allow ,ore meaningful discussions.

> You are quite
> welcome to tune out, indeed in your case I invite it.
>
> >>"Couldn't this time be different," asked the little boy who
> >>cried wolf?
>
> > You are out of steam.
>
> Your opinions are devoid of value.

I am offering them to you free of charge, so you have no commplaint.

Franz


Franz Heymann

unread,
May 6, 2004, 4:58:40 PM5/6/04
to

"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:RO-dnXD--JI...@comcast.com...

> Greg Neill wrote:
>
> > "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> > news:EtydncLjfYt...@comcast.com...
>
> >>Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> >>>"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:J7WdnVG_4O2...@comcast.com...
>
> >>>>Greg Neill wrote:
>
> >>>>>Your jealousy is showing. It's not pretty.
>
> >>>>First there would have to be something to be
> >>>>jalous of, wouldn't you say? Are you actually
> >>>>implying there is?
>
> >>>Yes. And you are. It shows.
>
> >>Go chat with James Driscoll, you two are
> >>well matched.
>
> > You grow greener with every post. And your
> > attempted barbs are pitiful. Just pitiful.
>
> Your projection is horiffic.
>
> I am at retirement age

What have you been doing for a living? Selling used cars?

> and am looking forward
> to that busiest period of my life, doing the
> sorts of things I didn't have time for till
> now, and a country life besides.

I wish you a happy retirement and I hope that you will now cease
posting vituperation and start posting physics instead.
Or, even better, stop posting anything at all. Your contributions
won't be missed, except as comedy stuff.

[snip the sort of stuff Greg Neill was complaining about]

Franz

Will Janoschka

unread,
May 4, 2004, 10:40:29 PM5/4/04
to
On Tue, 4 May 2004 22:26:33, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

> Vajk?
>

Watsa Vajk?
-will- :@)

Bill Vajk

unread,
May 6, 2004, 5:46:13 PM5/6/04
to
Franz Heymann wrote:

>>Greg Neill wrote:

If it is yours it is obviously a virgin
in every sense.

Bill Vajk

unread,
May 6, 2004, 6:04:56 PM5/6/04
to
Franz Heymann wrote:

> "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message

> news:SImdnS9ze-3...@comcast.com...


>
>>Franz Heymann wrote:
>
>>Congratulations? For what precisely, pray tell? Did he
>>achieve what he set out to do?

> It rather looks like that.

Ahhh, "it rather *looks* like that? We have a self aggrandizing
report and you fall all over yourself on that basis?

> (a) Uncle Al is not a student.

If he's not a student then he's worthless in science, which
is an idea I've been promoting for some time now. So we
agree on *one* thing.

> He is a first class physicist

Nope. Wrong. He is a chemist with a chemist's education
so far as I am able to discern.

> with a personal character which I don't particularly like.

So finally, we agree on *two* things.

> (b) You did not expect him to give a well-received talk.

Whose reports are you reading? It is the brave and competent
parson who takes up the collection AFTER the sermon. I've
heard promises out of Schwartz for years now, and none of them
have actualized. Why would I think this any different? When I
see something in print from a recognizable authority I'll
be right there offering congratulations, whether the experiment
supports his theories or not, because overcoming his personality
failures to the point of the experiment being run would be a
major milestone worthy of note.

snip

>> In any case, I'm not here engaging
>>in discussion for your personal entertainment.

> That is the only reason why I am discussing anything for you. Your
> intellect and integrity do not allow ,ore meaningful discussions.

On the contrary, you, like many others in this newsgroup, consider
your emotions much more important than facts. Here, in this case,
and in this thread, lies a very clear example.

>>Your opinions are devoid of value.

> I am offering them to you free of charge, so you have no commplaint.

Certainly true. I was offering information you already knew
for benefit of the peanut gallery


Mark Fergerson

unread,
May 6, 2004, 7:23:40 PM5/6/04
to
Uncle Al wrote:

> Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at the
> Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,

Brevity is the soul of somethingorother.

<snip>

> The formal proposal (data not most recent)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf

> A huge pile of stuff with a few hundred clickable footnotes. The
> Devil lays in the details. Live with the unfinished part about
> Green's function. It's pinned tight with recently calculated data.
>
> 20 minutes after said talk's conclusion, the parity Eotvos experiment
> was entered into collaboration with a respected academic research
> group. We now sort out the details, quid pro quo.

So now that the foreplay is concluded and home plate in
sight, suddenly you have volunteers for your team.
Excellent. Better than pitchforks and torches...

> WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only way
> to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."

Speaking of that Unc, I really wish you'd get over your
so-called aversion to theory and make some predictions of
possible applications (other than "sliding down the shaft of
twisted spacetime", which reminds me uncomfortably of Cmdr.
Grimes' adventures as chronicled by A. Bertram Chandler).

Any effect, no matter how "laboratory scale", can be
amplified into technology given suitable materials. Are you
totally convinced that differential parity cannot be so
exploited? Ah, well; I suppose one must leave something as
an "exercise for the student".

Mark L. Fergerson

Uncle Al

unread,
May 6, 2004, 7:52:10 PM5/6/04
to
Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
[snip]

> Any effect, no matter how "laboratory scale", can be
> amplified into technology given suitable materials. Are you
> totally convinced that differential parity cannot be so
> exploited? Ah, well; I suppose one must leave something as
> an "exercise for the student".

The fractional uncoupling of inertial and gravitational mass has
thermodynamic constraints. I'm not greedy. If somebody can figure
out how to make a spaceship that weighs nothing at sea level or
accelerates to within an epsilon of lightspeed with a gentle push,
more power to 'em. To recap...

There were two divergent lines of eleven squat maraging steel igloos
marching down the engineering bay. Each pair was rotated at odd
angles to all the others: One pair each for the three spatial
dimensions, one pair for time, and one pair each for the seven
compactified dimensions of M-theory sullenly glared at the flight
engineers. Each igloo enclosed a huge naturally facted single crystal
of hydrothermally cultured berlinite. The paired igloos held
geometric parity pairs of crystals. Each optically left-handed
crystal in crystallographic space group P3_1_21 (_subscript_) was
opposed by its parity twin P3_2_21 optically right-handed crystal.
Each face of each foot-thick crystal was plasma-polished to atomic
precision like the finest astronomical telescope mirror. Shakedown
cruises for real world calibration were nasty.

Each mammoth crystal was piezoelectrically and mechanically subjected
to a complex tesselation of reciprocal pressures and torques just
short of material failure - the Instron Chiral Drive. (Everybody knew
general relativity was wrong because it conflicted with quantum
mechanics. Einstein was eventually experimentally falsified by a
footnote with parity Eotvos experiments.) Subtle asymmetries in the
torsional structure of teleparallel spacetime allowed for some serious
interdimensional ass hauling if the boojum was tickled just right.

Black space suddenly looked horribly wrong as the ship began to slip
through progressively decompactified dimensions in exponentiating ICD
starflight. A newbie on her first slide down the glistening haft of
Weitzenböck spacetime swallowed most of a long long scream. It gives
Uncle Al a techno-woodie just thinking about it. Will the crew have
problems parallel-dimension parking?

Give the vessel a nice friendly name, like the Chelsea La Fea (if it's
military, the Hillary Ramrod Clinton.) Consider each crew station
having an ominous opening called the "V-Port." You could have a nice
biological side effect like everybody barfing into their console
V-Ports as the dimensionality of thought isn't quite compensated from
relative microgram imbalances of the single crystal pillars. Don't
eat a newbie big breakfast before your first flight, because when you
re-enter real space your nether bung will be hovering hard by your
incisors demanding exit. Alas, if one of the brittle berlinite
crystals cracks from the stress... Baikonur sleighride! And don't
stand behind the thing when the clutch pops SOP, "behind" being kinda
relative as these things go, because "behind" won't be there any more.

It's too good not to be true, but who bells the cat?

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
May 6, 2004, 8:02:27 PM5/6/04
to

Uncle Al wrote:


> It's too good not to be true, but who bells the cat?

Al, Al, you are tripping out. Wait until the hen lays the egg before you
cackle like a rooster. And even if the equivalence principle is a little
bit wrong, it doesn't necessarily mean we are going to exceed the speed
of light anytime soon.

Bob Kolker

Bill Vajk

unread,
May 6, 2004, 9:08:45 PM5/6/04
to

So Franz, did your little troll, including your originating
the crosspost to rec.org.mensa, work out as you planned?

Better?

Worse?

Is this something new with you, or is it I just hadn't
been paying close attention to your doings? I am forced
to admit that you make a far better troll than you do a
physicist! Now there's something worthy of my
congratulations.

So congratulations!

See. I give credit where credit is due. LOL

=================================================================

Michael Varney

unread,
May 6, 2004, 9:16:42 PM5/6/04
to

"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:AfKdnRPrCtU...@comcast.com...

>
> So Franz, did your little troll, including your originating
> the crosspost to rec.org.mensa, work out as you planned?

You did a fine job of showing you are an ignorant dolt, Vajk.

> Better?
>
> Worse?
>
> Is this something new with you, or is it I just hadn't
> been paying close attention to your doings? I am forced
> to admit that you make a far better troll than you do a
> physicist! Now there's something worthy of my
> congratulations.

Quit projecting your inadequacies on other people, Vajk.
How many Mensa members have you blown today?


> So congratulations!
>
> See. I give credit where credit is due. LOL

And take credit where it is due as well.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WorkHarder.html


Sam Wormley

unread,
May 7, 2004, 12:07:01 AM5/7/04
to
Bill Vajk wrote:
>
> So Franz, did your little troll, including your originating
> the crosspost to rec.org.mensa, work out as you planned?
>

Bitter Bastard Bill

Bill Vajk

unread,
May 7, 2004, 12:14:55 AM5/7/04
to

Fuck off fool.

Michael Varney

unread,
May 7, 2004, 3:16:54 AM5/7/04
to

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:409B0B63...@mchsi.com...

The Vulgar Viperous Vacuous Vajk.


John Schoenfeld

unread,
May 7, 2004, 9:32:17 AM5/7/04
to
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:

> How many Mensa members have you blown today?

Don't your type condone this style of behaviour?

Bill Vajk

unread,
May 7, 2004, 10:06:17 AM5/7/04
to
John Schoenfeld wrote:

> "Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:

He's duplistic on his best days.

Michael Varney

unread,
May 7, 2004, 10:09:18 AM5/7/04
to

"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:7IWdnaX_L8B...@comcast.com...

It is amusing when cranks like Helland and Vajk discuss things. *smirk*


The Ghost In The Machine

unread,
May 7, 2004, 12:12:00 PM5/7/04
to
In sci.physics, Mark Fergerson
<nu...@biz.ness>
wrote
on Thu, 06 May 2004 11:45:03 -0700
<3Jvmc.12164$k24.11670@fed1read01>:

Intel should have fixed that divide-by bug by now. :-) As it is,
I'm not sure Intel has the best performance. It might have
the best price/performance (though I have my doubts).

--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Mark Fergerson

unread,
May 7, 2004, 12:19:27 PM5/7/04
to
Robert J. Kolker wrote:

Relax Bob, I asked for a pipe dream and Unc unlimbered a
six-foot Stilson.

Me, I'm wondering if BECs can exhibit chirality...

Mark L. Fergerson

Franz Heymann

unread,
May 7, 2004, 12:40:32 PM5/7/04
to

"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:AfKdnRPrCtU...@comcast.com...

>
> So Franz, did your little troll, including your originating
> the crosspost to rec.org.mensa, work out as you planned?
>
> Better?
>
> Worse?

Look up the records without making a mistake. I never originated any
crosspost to anything anywhere ever. I don't believe in crossposting.
Please apologise when you have found your mistake.

I am waiting for you to correct your latest lie.

[snip irrelevancies]

Franz

Franz Heymann

unread,
May 7, 2004, 12:40:32 PM5/7/04
to

"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:4sBmc.232$4p5....@news.uswest.net...

>
> "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> news:AfKdnRPrCtU...@comcast.com...
> >
> > So Franz, did your little troll, including your originating
> > the crosspost to rec.org.mensa, work out as you planned?
>
> You did a fine job of showing you are an ignorant dolt, Vajk.
>
> > Better?
> >
> > Worse?
> >
> > Is this something new with you, or is it I just hadn't
> > been paying close attention to your doings? I am forced
> > to admit that you make a far better troll than you do a
> > physicist! Now there's something worthy of my
> > congratulations.
>
> Quit projecting your inadequacies on other people, Vajk.
> How many Mensa members have you blown today?

The idiot can't even follow attributions back to see who originated
the crossposting to rec.org.mensa.


>
>
> > So congratulations!
> >
> > See. I give credit where credit is due. LOL
>
> And take credit where it is due as well.
>
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WorkHarder.html

Franz


Franz Heymann

unread,
May 7, 2004, 12:40:33 PM5/7/04
to

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:409B0B63...@mchsi.com...

He is also too stupid to follow back the attributions to see who
actually originated the crossposting to rec.org.mensa.

Franz


Franz Heymann

unread,
May 7, 2004, 12:40:34 PM5/7/04
to

"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:H--dnbhC28C...@comcast.com...

Have you checked who originated the crossposting to rec.org.mensa?
If so, where is your apology?

Franz
>


Uncle Al

unread,
May 7, 2004, 1:32:41 PM5/7/04
to
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In sci.physics, Mark Fergerson
> <nu...@biz.ness>
> wrote
> on Thu, 06 May 2004 11:45:03 -0700
> <3Jvmc.12164$k24.11670@fed1read01>:
> > |-|erc wrote:
[snip]

> Intel should have fixed that divide-by bug by now. :-) As it is,
> I'm not sure Intel has the best performance. It might have
> the best price/performance (though I have my doubts).

Neither Intel Pentiums nor Xeons can be run as an efficient cluster:

1) Memory management is on mobo not on CPU. The mobo is only 800
MHz and it is distant from the CPU. Lightspeed is a foot/nanosecond.
2) Memory bandwidth is *divided* amongst CPUs.
3) On-CPU caching is small.
4) CPUs communicate catch-as-catch-can.

AMD Opterons are flat out amazing:

1) Memory management is on CPU. It runs at multiple GHz and
without plumbing delays.
2) Memory bandwidth is *added* amongst CPUs.
3) On-CPU caching is huge.
4) CPUs communicate via coherent HyperTransport. 800-series
Opterons have continuous near-zero latency.

For a one-CPU mobo, Intel can outperform AMD by about 5% on select
diagnostics, mostly from its higher clock speed. In a cluster of 8 or
more CPUs, every clock cycle will give you up to 60% more throughput
in AMD than in Intel. That is in real world running of our CHIpir
program.

We found that 16 Opteron-848s lost 1% CPU throughput/(CPU added)
compared to a single 848. As we had been running in a pair of
slightly slower Opteron-244s (plus an Athlon to handle system
overhead), we got more than 100% performance/CPU in the cluster
overall. The 16 Opteron-848 cluster compared favorably with
projections for a 160+ Xeon processor farm that was graciously
volunteered for a shorter runtime.

The Intel Itanium is a bastard CPU. If you have that kind of money,
cluster G5s like Virgina Tech did.

The world will be going 64-bit soon enough. Intel CPUs will not
simultaneously run 32-bit and 64-bit programming, nor is their 64-bit
operation wholly x86 compatible. Intel Athlon-FX and Opterons are
designed to run 32- and 64-bit codings simultaneously, and they are
wholly x86 compatible.

Uncle Al gets a techno-woodie imagining WordStar executed in an
Opteron.

Vibhu AV

unread,
May 7, 2004, 2:37:14 PM5/7/04
to
I am following the "Parity Eotvos experiment" thread from a
semi-layman's viewpoint.

Can someone explain what will the outcome of this experiment mean to
GR in particular?

If the experiment is successful in showing a equivalence principle
(EP) violation, would it mean GR is wrong? Would it mean that all the
predictions based on GR, for example, blackholes, don't exist? Or
would it mean GR is still correct, albeit in limited circumstances
just like Newton's theory is right in limited situations? If so, what
will the limiting factor be?

Conversely, what would it mean if the experiment failed to show a
violation of the EP? Would it simply mean that the math/proof is
incorrect? Or something was overlooked? I guess it would be one more
proof that GR is (still) correct.

Nothing personal - I am interested one way or the other, and am just
curious.

Vibhu.

Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<4096CB87...@hate.spam.net>...


> Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at the
> Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
>

> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/about.cfm
> 2004 American Physical Society National Meeting, Denver.
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/abs/S690006.html
> The abstract
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/tocD.html#SD9.006
> The program
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf


> The formal proposal (data not most recent)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf

Uncle Al

unread,
May 7, 2004, 3:59:36 PM5/7/04
to
Vibhu AV wrote:
>
> I am following the "Parity Eotvos experiment" thread from a
> semi-layman's viewpoint.
>
> Can someone explain what will the outcome of this experiment mean to
> GR in particular?
>
> If the experiment is successful in showing a equivalence principle
> (EP) violation, would it mean GR is wrong? Would it mean that all the
> predictions based on GR, for example, blackholes, don't exist? Or
> would it mean GR is still correct, albeit in limited circumstances
> just like Newton's theory is right in limited situations? If so, what
> will the limiting factor be?

If the EP is violated by local parity pair test masses, GR will still
work admirably for anything except parity pair test masses. As this
is an entirely artificial situation that does not occur naturally, GR
will continue to be the calculation engine of choice for gravitation -
albeit as a heuristic and not as theory.

The newly discovered exceptions will then be vigorously pursued. We
will learn new things.

> Conversely, what would it mean if the experiment failed to show a
> violation of the EP? Would it simply mean that the math/proof is
> incorrect? Or something was overlooked? I guess it would be one more
> proof that GR is (still) correct.

If the parity Eotvos experiment nulls, we have new and powerful
evidence that gravitation is metric not affine, that Einstein not
Weitzenboek was right. The staus quo remains quo.



> Nothing personal - I am interested one way or the other, and am just
> curious.

Euclid postulated that through a point not on a given line only one
line could be drawn parallel to the given line. This is not good or
bad, nor can it be proven. The sum of the interior angles of any
Euclidean triangle is then 180 degrees exactly. There are no mistakes
in Euclid; it is entirely self-consistent.

Take a globe of the Earth. A segment of the equator will furnish the
base of a triangle. Two lines of longitude will be the other two
sides, the North Pole will be the apex. Since all lines of longitude
intersect the Equator at right angles... a triangle drawn on the
surface of the Earth must contain more than 180 degrees as the sum of
its interior angles. It can have up to and including 540 degrees as
that sum.

Euclid is a special case of more general geometry. Euclid is not
complete. You cannot accurately survey or navigate with Euclid. You
need more. Newton is very good stuff day to day. If you are way down
small, massive, or very fast you need more.

Einstein postulated that all local bodies fall identically in vacuum,
the Equivalence Principle. Spacetime curvature, General Relativity,
and metric gravitation then immediately follow as irrevocably as
Euclid's 180-degree triangles did. However, Weizenboek ignored the
Equivalence Principle entirely. He used spacetime torsion to create
affine gravitation. All of metric gravitation's predictions are
exactly duplicated within affine gravitation, then affine gravitation
has some extra predictions.

If you could furnish two local test masses that reproducibly fell
differently in vacuum, General Relativity would be demonstrated to
have been founded on a falsified postulate. It would be *wrong* even
though it has never made a disproven prediction. Its founding
postulate would be real world invalid. A huge swath of physical
theory would then fall aside, as Newton was superceded by Einstein.
M-theory in particular would severely contract, perhaps to something
usably predictive.

Every imaginable composition contrast - and there are some wild and
hairy Noether's theorem-based ones, as well as bundled contrasts - has
been tested, now to one part in two trillion difference/average.
Every test without exception has been a perfect null within
experimental error. Is the Equivalence Princple thus empirically
validated?

No.

Test mass geometry, specifically opposite parity test masses, have
never been tested. Test mass geometry is a natural test of spacetime
geometry. There was no way to pin a quantitative number on parity
(chirality along all coordinate axes simultaneously)

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/invert.gif

That changed in 1999. Given the coordinates of all the atoms in a
test mass, we can quantitate its parity divergence vs. its parity
inversion on a normalized scale of CHI=0 (achiral) to CHI=1 (perfect
parity divergence).

J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
Petitjean's landmark paper
http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf
Review of the field
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/petit.htm
A gentle introduction to quantitative chirality (so he tells me)

We can calculate the position of every atom in a periodic crystal. We
can rigorously calculate CHI in software given those coordinates. We
can thus identify the most extremal parity pair test masses.

As of May, 2004 the following are true:

1) A bleeding edge state-of-the-art Eotvos balance can now detect
EP violaton to one part in ten trillion.

2) Test masses of identical chemical composition and macroscopic
form fabricated from left-handed vs. right-handed alpha-quartz, one
centimeter diameter spheres, have CHI=0.999999999999998426. This is
acceptably close to CHI=1 exactly. 3-cm diameter spheres get an extra
9 in the string.

3) We are going to test whether local extremal parity pair test
masses fall identically in vacuum.

4) If they violate the Equivalence Principle, Einstein was wrong
and Weitzenboek was right. Physics will undergo a sudden, violent sea
change. Progress will be made thereafter, possibly with NASA or
weaponization applications.

There are two more very delicious outcomes!

1) Left- and right-handed parity pair bodies need not not fit
symmetrically into affine spacetime. Given a left shoe, your left and
right feet will not have equal but opposite interactions. Most or all
of the anomaly vs. ordinary matter may then be vested in only one
handedness.

2) CHI is normalized by the body's angular momentum tensor,
reaching its maximum possible value when all three moments of inertia
of a body are identical. Thus a sphere of quartz would fall
differently than a needle. This is tremendously disturbing - though
it does have empirical precedent in the Sagnac effect in ring laser
gyroscopes. The Sagnac effect is a spacetime topological probe
proportional to the scalar product of area and angular velocity
vectors, and inversely to perimeter length (proportional to subtended
area and compactness). Wouldn't that be interesting new gravitational
physics?

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
The formal proposal (data updated)

Bill Vajk

unread,
May 7, 2004, 6:13:12 PM5/7/04
to
Vibhu AV wrote:

> I am following the "Parity Eotvos experiment" thread from a
> semi-layman's viewpoint.

> Can someone explain what will the outcome of this experiment mean to
> GR in particular?

> If the experiment is successful in showing a equivalence principle
> (EP) violation, would it mean GR is wrong? Would it mean that all the
> predictions based on GR, for example, blackholes, don't exist? Or
> would it mean GR is still correct, albeit in limited circumstances
> just like Newton's theory is right in limited situations? If so, what
> will the limiting factor be?

Neglecting all the blather that normally accompanies this
subject matter in this newsgroup, there is a very important
core issue involved.

If the parity Eötvös experiment provides anything other than
a null result, it could mean that the variation in the order
of assemblage of matter at the atomic level alters the results
and that our understandings that the essential characteristics
of matter attach at the subatomic level is incorrect.

Given that the elements comprising quartz fall identically to
the way that a naturally occurring quartz crystal falls, and
the crystal form is a simple, while ordered, arithmetic sum
of the parts, in order achieve a non null result to Al's
experiment it would mean that all the parts would have to
add up differently in a chiral crystal version than they do
in the naturally occurring one. Not bloody likely that.

Reduced to this central idea the problem Schwartz has presented
is simplified and easily understood.

> Conversely, what would it mean if the experiment failed to show a
> violation of the EP? Would it simply mean that the math/proof is
> incorrect? Or something was overlooked? I guess it would be one more
> proof that GR is (still) correct.

That doesn't mean that something else might not eventually
come along and upset parts of GR, but it seems unlikely. A
failure to disprove is not a supportive proof.

> Nothing personal - I am interested one way or the other, and am just
> curious.

IMO part of the problem when these sorts of issues arise is that
a lot of folks want to attack the problem from the top down
while neglecting the essentials which start at the bottom and work
their way up.

Bill Vajk

unread,
May 7, 2004, 6:15:22 PM5/7/04
to
Franz Heymann wrote:

>>Better?

>>Worse?

> [snip irrelevancies]

> Franz

First things first, then you agree that your posting
was an intentional troll.

Thank you.

Michael Varney

unread,
May 7, 2004, 6:54:51 PM5/7/04