Results: full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz.
Uncle Al
experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
An excerpt:
>> We admit that you first bring forward the idea about the possible violation of the parity Eotvos experiment and we believe nobody denies it, but the practical experiment is another thing completely. Hence, if we achieve an experimental result, as the doer, we certainly have the first priority to choose whether we interpret it by ourselves independently or discuss with you, not determined by your part!
http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html
Credit was awarded to Tsung Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang who created
the theory, not to Chien-Shiung Wu et al. who arranged for and
conducted the experiment.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Proposal dating to before 1999.
I Cc'd and Bcc'd my reply to the heads of all academic Eotvos groups,
the Gifted volunteers in the parity Eotvos experiment project, the
APS, and a few well-chosen physics blogs.
Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
blood filling the gutters.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
pant...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al wrote:
> Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
> blood filling the gutters.
Try to see the *relativity* of it all.
When I drive a diesel, I am not really concerned that Diesel was thrown
overboard
so industry could advance and use his engine without him (having to pay
him patents).
(Well that is the way I heard the story).
There *could* be political reasons for the US to support you in this,
but China has a much more powerful economics atm. and probably dictates
US (on this).
If there is a non null result only the practical implications would
interest me, think 'what can it do for me'.
Not 'who did it first'.
You also see this with the lightbulb, The English have Swan inventing
it, the Americans Edison.
This is often the case.
But if the lightbulb is kaput I throw it away....
So maybe you are into it for the money.. it is easier to get a good
photo copier.
When you go that way.. you mention, better get a job in politics, it
pays well.
LOL
Greysky
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:43386823...@hate.spam.net...
Oh Unkey, are you really so naive as to think these guys will actually give
you any credit at all even for the merest origination of an idea, if they
indeed have demonstrated parity non-conservation? Remember, you are only a
chemist. I would be willing to bet they would feel it a great honor on their
part if they allowed you to wipe their asses after a shite attack. No way
they are gonna share a Nobel with you, dude. Physics is full of precedence
and is littered with the corpses of rubes who thought otherwise. The only
blood running in the gutters will be yours after they bankrupt you, leaving
behind nothing but an embittered old man. But, I wouldn't worry about it. I
think they haven't found squat.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
Thomas Johnson
Uncle Al wrote:
> http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html
> Credit was awarded to Tsung Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang who created
> the theory, not to Chien-Shiung Wu et al. who arranged for and
> conducted the experiment.
That is because Yang and Lee had a real theory. Your calculation is
useless. If you had ever tied CHI to some actual theory, maybe. If
you had actually calculated an output, rather than just asserted on
newsgroups that you "predict" a 3 part/trillion effect.
You embarass yourself by forwarding this to the other experimental
teams.
Thomas.
Jason Stanidge
Calm down, Alan. There's thousands of people that are aware of your
contribution, amateurs and professional alike. Thank god for Google, huh?
Quantum Mirror
Uncle Al wrote:
> The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
> experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
> have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
Let me get this straight. They had already sent you results at 10^(-11)
and a note saying you had the idea but the experiment is ours to do and
interpret as we see fit. After a time (How much time?) they sent you
another email saying they had stopped the experiment at 10^(-10)? Did
they give any logical reason for ending the experiment? Are you sure
the email was from Luo and not someone posing as the Luo group?
Uncle Al
We ask ourselves: Why would anybody steal something of no value? I
think the Equivalence Prnciple has an experimentally accessible parity
violation.
Quantum Mirror
You embarrass yourself by being so one sided as to call 8 years of
work, ideas, hands on development of the software for modeling and
testing, writing letters to journals for the experimental proposal, and
personal contacts to anyone that would listen and had access to test
equipment a calculation. I think you work for the Luo group and are
their propaganda agent for this newsgroup.
Thomas Johnson
Jason Stanidge wrote:
> Calm down, Alan. There's thousands of people that are aware of your
> contribution, amateurs and professional alike. Thank god for Google, huh?
Assume that Schwartz is telling the truth--unfortunately, Prof. Luo is
in the right. He doesn't need to use Schwartz' "analysis".
What parameter in qz.pdf is useful in analyzing a non-null result?
None.
What would Prof. Luo do, put in a long description of calculating CHI?
Thomas.
Thomas Johnson
Give one result of Scwhartz' calculations that would be useful in
analyzing a non-null result.
Here's a hint--he didn't do anly "modeling and testing". He calculated
a useless number, one that could have been was obvious without a
computer.
If you don't understand it, why are you defending it?
Thomas.
Thomas Johnson
Convenient. You can always claim that you could have been a contender.
Thomas.
tj Frazir
moron .
Traveler
>Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
>blood filling the gutters.
ahahaha... How does 10^-11 constitute a non-null result? What are the
margins of error? ahahaha...
This is all bullshit, of course. The molecular arrangement of atoms in
matter has nothing to do with the fundamental properties of the atoms
or their constituents.
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Quantum Mirror
A statement is not even close to scientific proof. Why don't you give
facts and figures? You can't just say he calculated a useless number.
Give us some proof blowhard! If it is calculations the reason it is
useless can be demonstrated by numbers! Where are your numbers?
> If you don't understand it, why are you defending it?
I understand it perfectly. I tried 3 years ago to help Uncle AL find a
distributed programmer so we could get the calculations running on
hundreds of machines but to no avail. You are the one that does not
understand any more than blowhard propaganda!
Thomas Johnson
Quantum Mirror wrote:
> A statement is not even close to scientific proof. Why don't you give
> facts and figures? You can't just say he calculated a useless number.
> Give us some proof blowhard! If it is calculations the reason it is
> useless can be demonstrated by numbers! Where are your numbers?
1) He calculated CHI for bulk crystals. CHI=1 or 0 for bulk crystals.
Why spend months of CPU time calculating what is already known?
2) He never links CHI to the experiment or any theory. Explain how
Prof. Luo could use CHI to analyze his results.
3) Scwhartz claims to be able to "predict" a 3 part/trillion signal. It
isn't in his work. He used this "prediction" when he approached Prof.
Luo to do the experiment. Please, show how he can calculate it using
his (or any) methodology. You would be doing Schwartz a favor.
> > If you don't understand it, why are you defending it?
>
> I understand it perfectly. I tried 3 years ago to help Uncle AL find a
> distributed programmer so we could get the calculations running on
> hundreds of machines but to no avail. You are the one that does not
> understand any more than blowhard propaganda!
You tried to help him waste CPU time. See (1) above.
If you understood what Scwhartz had accomplished and what he was
claiming to accomplish, you would realize that there is a big
disconnect. There is a reason why his paper was rejected by multiple
journals. Scwhartz even noted in the newsgroups that the referees
didn't see a connection to the experiment.
Thomas.
Eric Gisse
Uncle Al wrote:
> The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
> experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
> have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
Congratulations. You just smashed four centuries of experiment and a
century of theory, it is a beautiful sight to see. Physics is about to
have a fire lit under its' ass. Let the games begin.
Hmm, should I stop studying GR?
[snip]
> Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
> blood filling the gutters.
When can we expect the published paper detailing this?
Anyway, Thank you for the work, Al. I want a stardrive in my lifetime -
twiggering the nature of mass is a helluva start.
Traveler
>
>Uncle Al wrote:
>> The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
>> experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
>> have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
>
>Congratulations. You just smashed four centuries of experiment and a
>century of theory, it is a beautiful sight to see. Physics is about to
>have a fire lit under its' ass. Let the games begin.
>
>Hmm, should I stop studying GR?
>
>[snip]
>
>> Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
>> blood filling the gutters.
>
>When can we expect the published paper detailing this?
>
>Anyway, Thank you for the work, Al. I want a stardrive in my lifetime -
>twiggering the nature of mass is a helluva start.
You're an ass-kissing idiot. The only non-null result is your
stupidity.
Eric Gisse
Traveler wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2005 18:30:17 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Uncle Al wrote:
> >> The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
> >> experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
> >> have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
> >
> >Congratulations. You just smashed four centuries of experiment and a
> >century of theory, it is a beautiful sight to see. Physics is about to
> >have a fire lit under its' ass. Let the games begin.
> >
> >Hmm, should I stop studying GR?
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
> >> blood filling the gutters.
> >
> >When can we expect the published paper detailing this?
> >
> >Anyway, Thank you for the work, Al. I want a stardrive in my lifetime -
> >twiggering the nature of mass is a helluva start.
>
> You're an ass-kissing idiot. The only non-null result is your
> stupidity.
You are only upset because no-one kisses your ass.
scm...@gmail.com
experiment.
Uncle Al, please post the whole mail from Luo if you want people here
to judge fairly.
SC
Quantum Mirror
Thomas Johnson wrote:
> Quantum Mirror wrote:
> > A statement is not even close to scientific proof. Why don't you give
> > facts and figures? You can't just say he calculated a useless number.
> > Give us some proof blowhard! If it is calculations the reason it is
> > useless can be demonstrated by numbers! Where are your numbers?
>
> 1) He calculated CHI for bulk crystals. CHI=1 or 0 for bulk crystals.
> Why spend months of CPU time calculating what is already known?
>
> 2) He never links CHI to the experiment or any theory. Explain how
> Prof. Luo could use CHI to analyze his results.
>
> 3) Scwhartz claims to be able to "predict" a 3 part/trillion signal. It
> isn't in his work. He used this "prediction" when he approached Prof.
> Luo to do the experiment. Please, show how he can calculate it using
> his (or any) methodology. You would be doing Schwartz a favor.
I Don't have a breakdown of the calculations performed by the software
and I seriously doubt you have them. I must admit I thought the
original software was only for calculating CHI. I came back after 18
months and saw that there were claims to have modeled the actual
results as divergent test mass. Not having access to the calculations
performed by the software I can't say how or what was being calculated
and neither can you. I was just glad that one fucking person was trying
to do something akin to actual physics in this group. I had read enough
fucking clock's goofing and above light speed aether bullshit to last a
lifetime the first day. It seems to me when anyone tries to do
something constructive in these groups they must fight 10 idiots per
word to get anything done. I hope you are wrong and the truth comes out
in the near future. I can't say without access to the actual
calculations one way or another!!
Henry Lemington-Wholeflavors
Uncle Al wrote:
> The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
> experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
> have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
> An excerpt:
Of course if this really is a non-null result, it won't have been the
first chiral-gravity experiment yielding a non-null to have been
inspired by Uncle Al.
See
http://www.theavalonfoundation.org/AcceleratedQuartz.htm
Apparently their "data" was dependent upon weather conditions and what
time it was. Hahaha.
tj Frazir
orbit !!!
The dumbfuck still dont understand gravity.
The moron still dont understand dark energy.
he's still a moron
tj Frazir
Tell us what dark energy is !!
Dark energy is the photons from outside the visible universe at c with
no wavelength .
Tell us unkee dumbfuck what gravity is .
Gravity is the elimination of dark energy as the orbiting parts of
atoms take up space in motion as space closes in behind it.
Fuck you unckee al.
Unkee al is a preditor ??
How about I just call you stupid AL because you aint no uncle
tj Frazir
Happy Hippy
> Uncle Dickhead wrote:
>
>
>>Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
>>blood filling the gutters.
>
>
> ahahaha... How does 10^-11 constitute a non-null result? What are the
> margins of error? ahahaha...
>
> This is all bullshit, of course. The molecular arrangement of atoms in
> matter has nothing to do with the fundamental properties of the atoms
> or their constituents.
>
chuckle
Mike
Uncle Al wrote:
> The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
> experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
> have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
> An excerpt:
>
> >> We admit that you first bring forward the idea about the possible violation of the parity Eotvos experiment and we believe nobody denies it, but the practical experiment is another thing completely. Hence, if we achieve an experimental result, as the doer, we certainly have the first priority to choose whether we interpret it by ourselves independently or discuss with you, not determined by your part!
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html
> Credit was awarded to Tsung Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang who created
> the theory, not to Chien-Shiung Wu et al. who arranged for and
> conducted the experiment.
That is of course typical. The person who comes up first with the idea,
or motivates experimenters to pursue it, gets the credit. Worse case
scenario, they share the credit. But unless you make some noise, it is
natural that they may say they "forgot" you.
The ENIAC people stole the idea of a digital computer from John Vincent
Atanasoff, who invented the first electronic digital computer at
Iowa State College in the late 1930s. They got the patent but after a
long legal battle, Atanasoff won. But these days, issues are resolved
faster because scripta manent in the web.
Mike
NunYa Bidness
Frazir) Gave us:
You're an absolute loon, dipshit.
NunYa Bidness
Frazir) Gave us:
>tell us unckee dumbass ...
> Tell us what dark energy is !!
You're an idiot.
>Dark energy is the photons from outside the visible universe at c with
>no wavelength .
Mot true.
> Tell us unkee dumbfuck what gravity is .
It is what keeps us from launching idiots like you into deep space
with a single firm push.
> Gravity is the elimination of dark energy as the orbiting parts of
>atoms take up space in motion as space closes in behind it.
You're an idiot.
> Fuck you unckee al.
You need to have your ass kicked.
> Unkee al is a preditor ??
You need spelling lessons as well.
> How about I just call you stupid AL because you aint no uncle
How about you just go the fuck away, retard boy.
Jan Panteltje
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in <43387ACC...@hate.spam.net>:
> Calm down, Alan. There's thousands of people that are aware of your
>> contribution, amateurs and professional alike. Thank god for Google, huh?
>
>We ask ourselves: Why would anybody steal something of no value? I
>think the Equivalence Prnciple has an experimentally accessible parity
>violation.
what they want, so if they use a bit good filters (like my newsreader NewsFleX
has), all references to Uncle Al, EOTVOS, and with that a large part of sci.physics,
would be withheld from the Chinese.
They would have never heard of Uncle Al.
Politics is what is the issue here, you cannot win..... not your way...
So, as I thought of those filters before China did, should I go throw a tantrum?.
have been thinking about that filtering practice in China.
I am seeing it this way (for convenience).
The US general defined freedom as : 'The freedom to attack whenever you want'
China defines it as: 'the freedom to filter whatever you want'.
Now tell me: 'What is new after they burned whatshisname (earth was not at center)?'.
Politics Al, and a PhD looks good in politics, these are only 1200$ inclusive hat.
Better see the *relativity* of it all ;-)
jgr...@seol.net.au
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
> > experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
> > have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
>
> Congratulations. You just smashed four centuries of experiment and a
> century of theory, it is a beautiful sight to see. Physics is about to
> have a fire lit under its' ass. Let the games begin.
>
> Hmm, should I stop studying GR?
You never did get the implications, nor spot the contradictions, so if
you do, give thanks for the fact of less time wasted studying bullshit
in the future, and curse your own stupidity for not recognising the
flaws before.
Hint: If results are "produced" at accuracies which have not been
tested yet, the rat is a stinking rodent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> [snip]
>
> > Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
> > blood filling the gutters.
>
> When can we expect the published paper detailing this?
>
> Anyway, Thank you for the work, Al. I want a stardrive in my lifetime -
> twiggering the nature of mass is a helluva start.
You can't take the accellerating energy source with you; it must be
collected along the way. Get it?
Jim G
c'=c+v
Traveler
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> On 26 Sep 2005 18:30:17 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Uncle Al wrote:
>> >> The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
>> >> experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
>> >> have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
>> >
>> >Congratulations. You just smashed four centuries of experiment and a
>> >century of theory, it is a beautiful sight to see. Physics is about to
>> >have a fire lit under its' ass. Let the games begin.
>> >
>> >Hmm, should I stop studying GR?
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
>> >> blood filling the gutters.
>> >
>> >When can we expect the published paper detailing this?
>> >
>> >Anyway, Thank you for the work, Al. I want a stardrive in my lifetime -
>> >twiggering the nature of mass is a helluva start.
>>
>> You're an ass-kissing idiot. The only non-null result is your
>> stupidity.
>
>You are only upset because no-one kisses your ass.
If you'd really like to go to the stars, autistic megalomaniac idiots
like Uncle Dickhead are the last people you want to support. Physics
is full of assholes like him (e.g., Kip Thorne, Brian Greene, David
Deutsch and the little con artist in the wheel chair). The assholes
are not making any progress in understanding things like gravity. In
fact, they are a hindrance.
If Uncle Dickhead really understood gravity, he would never have
proposed his stupid test. It shows his cluelessness.
Traveler
wrote:
What I meant is that the arrangement of atoms in matter does not
affect their fundamental properties and those of their constituents.
This is what Uncle Dickhead and his ass kissers are proposing. It's
the other way around.
hanson
> Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own.
> Let there be blood filling the gutters.
>
... ahahaha... Al, you are a MASTER in DESTROYING the
fruits of your labor but an abject failure in harvesting them.
You are better at this than anyone I have ever encountered.
To boot you are so loud about it.... ahahahaha... AHAHA...
First you did it with your Cockroach thing, then with your kg
size Diamonds, and now this..... AHAHAHA.... ahahaha...
Do you do that purposely? Is that your real game?... being
ultra macho?... but only feeling safe behind your trigger?...
But then, of course,... only the paranoid survive... right?
>
ahahaha... Al your are a GREAT ENTERTAINER!....
Capitalize on that instead of bringing immense grief and
disappointment onto your 3 "stooopid" diehard supporters.
Have some heart and compassion for these 3 "idiots".
OTOH, consider that your 3 diehard supporters may be
also the type who yell "jump" to the suicide candidate on
the ledge... ahahaha.... Thanks for all the laughs, dude.
Al, you are great!... fun that is.... ahahaha....
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:43386823...@hate.spam.net...
> The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
> experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
> have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
>
>>> We admit that you first bring forward the idea about the
>>> possible violation of the parity Eotvos experiment and
>>> we believe nobody denies it, but the practical experiment
>>> is another thing completely. Hence, if we achieve an experimental
>>> result, as the doer, we certainly have the first priority to choose
>>> whether we interpret it by ourselves independently or discuss
>>> with you, not determined by your part!
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html
> Credit was awarded to Tsung Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang
> who created the theory, not to Chien-Shiung Wu et al. who
> arranged for and conducted the experiment.
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> Proposal dating to before 1999.
>
> I Cc'd and Bcc'd my reply to the heads of all academic
> Eotvos groups, the Gifted volunteers in the parity Eotvos
> experiment project, the APS, and a few well-chosen physics blogs.
>
> blood filling the gutters.
>
Uncle Al
Hey Schultzy - remember your perseverative prolix fervent denials of a
50:50 chance of the full parity Eotvos experiment reproducibly
empirically demonstrating General Relativity had a falsifiable
founding postulate, the Equivalence Principle? Uncle Al will be kind
- it now looks like 90:10 in favor of empirical falsification.
Hell, we both know it worked. Uncle Al on one 11 December, "Bra, tack
så mycket."
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1290/tacksaam.wav
Don't you display as a right proper techno-turd. Go back to your
metal carbonyls.
Uncle Al
>
> Quantum Mirror wrote:
> > A statement is not even close to scientific proof. Why don't you give
> > facts and figures? You can't just say he calculated a useless number.
> > Give us some proof blowhard! If it is calculations the reason it is
> > useless can be demonstrated by numbers! Where are your numbers?
>
> 1) He calculated CHI for bulk crystals. CHI=1 or 0 for bulk crystals.
> Why spend months of CPU time calculating what is already known?
Gee, Schultzy, do you now believe in Petitjean's CHI?
Hey stooopid - is it CHI=0 or CHI=1? Makes a difference.
Hey stooopid - how fast does CHI grow with lattice radius? Makes a
difference.
Hey stooopid - how close does explicit calculation come to the one
parameter model? Makes a difference.
Hey stooopid - what about Green's function and anomaly emergent
scale? Makes a difference
Hey stooopid Schultzy, go back to your metal carbonyls. We both know
the full parity Eotvos experiment worked. General Relativity is
empirically falsified, as is Lorentz Invariance. Uncle Al on one 11
December, "Bra, tack så mycket."
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1290/tacksaam.wav
[snip rest of Schultz' perpetually carping crap]
Hey Schultzy - here's a little quote from "Babylon 5,"
Ivanova: "Who am I? I am Susan Ivanova, Commander. Daughter of Andrej
and Sofie Ivanov. I am the right hand of vengeance and the boot that's
gonna kick your sorry ass all the way back to Earth, sweetheart. I am
death incarnate and the last living thing that you are ever going to
see. GOD sent me!"
If you plan on being tenured, plan differently. If you plan on being
employed, plan differently. Uncle Al pays his debts, and the public
record is here for all to read. Uncle Al has subcontracted your
technical career to Moloch ha-Movis. Tsadik katamar yifrach.
Score one for the Levite. FOaD.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
> > experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
> > have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
>
> Congratulations. You just smashed four centuries of experiment and a
> century of theory, it is a beautiful sight to see. Physics is about to
> have a fire lit under its' ass. Let the games begin.
>
> Hmm, should I stop studying GR?
>
> [snip]
Let's wait for a publication. The Equivalence Princple is no longer
on firm ground, nor is Lorentz Invariance. The parity Eotvos
experiment not will-'o-the-wisp. Mainstream physics is fully
justified in taking a formal hard look at the full parity Eotvos
experiment in quartz. The observed answer is the answer.
I don't care who does the reported work with my name as First Author -
Jun Luo, Wei Tou-Ni, Eot-Wash, UCI Gravitation Lab, the East Indian
TATA Institute, or any of the other lesser but equal Eotvos groups.
It looks like there is a 10^(-12) difference/average Equivalence
Principle parity violation to be observed at will. Any modern Eotvos
balance can observe something that large. Maybe it was BIGGER. I was
betting on 3x10^(-12). What does an organiker know?
> > Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
> > blood filling the gutters.
>
> When can we expect the published paper detailing this?
>
> Anyway, Thank you for the work, Al. I want a stardrive in my lifetime -
> twiggering the nature of mass is a helluva start.
A 50:50 chance has become maybe 90:10 in favor. Let's land the fish
before we plan a fish dinner.
Uncle Al says, "Bra, tack så mycket."
Uncle Al
It went out Cc: and Bcc: to the players, including the American
Physical Society "Topical Group in Gravitation." Posting private
e-mail without permission is poor sport. The difficult parts are done
- idea, model, calculation, reduction to practice, experiment. Let's
do this through channels.
Let's get an Official experimental result from a better Eotvos group.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
> > experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
> > have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
> > An excerpt:
> >
> > >> We admit that you first bring forward the idea about the possible violation of the parity Eotvos experiment and we believe nobody denies it, but the practical experiment is another thing completely. Hence, if we achieve an experimental result, as the doer, we certainly have the first priority to choose whether we interpret it by ourselves independently or discuss with you, not determined by your part!
> >
> > http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html
> > Credit was awarded to Tsung Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang who created
> > the theory, not to Chien-Shiung Wu et al. who arranged for and
> > conducted the experiment.
>
> That is of course typical. The person who comes up first with the idea,
> or motivates experimenters to pursue it, gets the credit. Worse case
> scenario, they share the credit. But unless you make some noise, it is
> natural that they may say they "forgot" you.
>
> The ENIAC people stole the idea of a digital computer from John Vincent
> Atanasoff, who invented the first electronic digital computer at
> Iowa State College in the late 1930s. They got the patent but after a
> long legal battle, Atanasoff won. But these days, issues are resolved
> faster because scripta manent in the web.
The inventor of the laser, Gordon Gould, was quashed by Washington and
died in obscurity last Wednesday. Rosalind Franklin was euchered by
Watson and Crick. Barbara McClintock was a professional pariah for 30
years.
Let there be blood, up close and personal.
Thomas Johnson
Uncle Al wrote:
> Thomas Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Quantum Mirror wrote:
> > > A statement is not even close to scientific proof. Why don't you give
> > > facts and figures? You can't just say he calculated a useless number.
> > > Give us some proof blowhard! If it is calculations the reason it is
> > > useless can be demonstrated by numbers! Where are your numbers?
> >
> > 1) He calculated CHI for bulk crystals. CHI=1 or 0 for bulk crystals.
> > Why spend months of CPU time calculating what is already known?
>
> Gee, Schultzy, do you now believe in Petitjean's CHI?
>
> Hey stooopid - is it CHI=0 or CHI=1? Makes a difference.
CHI=1 for all perfect chiral bulk crystals, CHI=0 for all non-chiral
bulk crystals.
How much does a month of supercomputer time cost if you have to buy it?
What a waste
> Hey stooopid - how fast does CHI grow with lattice radius? Makes a
> difference.
Is someone looking at really small crystals in an Eotvos balance.
Answer: No
Can anyone in the world tie CHI to gravity? Answer: no.
> Hey stooopid - how close does explicit calculation come to the one
> parameter model? Makes a difference.
> Hey stooopid - what about Green's function and anomaly emergent
> scale? Makes a difference
Since you have a fundamental lack of understanding about what
constitutes a Green's function, how would you know?
I believe an excellent scientist has referred to your work as "Specious
and Paradoxical". I agree.
Multiple referees found your paper unfit for publication. I agree.
The Stanford Chemistry department found you unfit for a Ph.D. I agree.
You were laying claims to being a "professional" a few weeks back.
I'll check how often professional scientists claim that their
collaborations will fill the gutters with blood. What a crank.
Thomas.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>>You are only upset because no-one kisses your ass.
Sounds like a description of you.
>
>If you'd really like to go to the stars, autistic megalomaniac idiots
>like Uncle Dickhead are the last people you want to support.
You're retarded.
> Physics
>is full of assholes like him
As if you were qualified one bit to make such an assessment.
> (e.g., Kip Thorne, Brian Greene, David
>Deutsch and the little con artist in the wheel chair).
You're a fucking retard.
> The assholes
>are not making any progress in understanding things like gravity.
You're a fucking retard.
> In
>fact, they are a hindrance.
Again, you describe yourself.
>If Uncle Dickhead really understood gravity, he would never have
>proposed his stupid test. It shows his cluelessness.
>
>Louis Savain, the utter idiot
You're an idiot, Savain. Nothing more.
Traveler
[crap]
ahahaha... What does Uncle Dickhead's ass smell like today, Varney?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:51:45 -0600, Happy Hippy <J0...@accesscomm.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>Traveler wrote:
>>
>>> Uncle Dickhead wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
>>>>blood filling the gutters.
>>>
>>>
>>> ahahaha... How does 10^-11 constitute a non-null result? What are the
>>> margins of error? ahahaha...
>>>
>>> This is all bullshit, of course. The molecular arrangement of atoms in
>>> matter has nothing to do with the fundamental properties of the atoms
>>> or their constituents.
>>>
>>chuckle
>
>What I meant is that the arrangement of atoms in matter does not
>affect their fundamental properties and those of their constituents.
>This is what Uncle Dickhead and his ass kissers are proposing. It's
>the other way around.
>
You're an idiot. Examine a magnet. Perfect example of how wrong
you are.
Thomas Johnson
Uncle Al wrote:
> scm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I think the crux is whether quartz is an obvious choice for the first
> > experiment.
> >
> > Uncle Al, please post the whole mail from Luo if you want people here
> > to judge fairly.
>
> It went out Cc: and Bcc: to the players, including the American
> Physical Society "Topical Group in Gravitation." Posting private
> e-mail without permission is poor sport. The difficult parts are done
> - idea, model, calculation, reduction to practice, experiment. Let's
> do this through channels.
> Let's get an Official experimental result from a better Eotvos group.
Let's see--The problem is tht Luo isn't going to use your
"calculation", so you don't get to be a co-author. At least four
referees agreed with him, that your "calculation" doesn't constitute
publishable material.
And you don't think that you have just labelled yourself as a
mega-crank to the entire community?
Posting an email is poor sport, but stating that your "collaborator's"
blood will fill the gutters is?
Interesting thought process, Scwhartz.
Thomas.
Attila the Bum
Atty
Traveler
ahahaha... Come closer, dipshit. I'll give something to examine.
ahahaha...
Thomas Johnson
> I don't care who does the reported work with my name as First Author -
> Jun Luo, Wei Tou-Ni, Eot-Wash, UCI Gravitation Lab, the East Indian
> TATA Institute, or any of the other lesser but equal Eotvos groups.
And your contribution would be what, exactly? A calculation that is
unpublishable?
The concept of checking chiral samples predates you. You *may* have
precidence on using single crystals, but you put that into the public
domain.
The best you can hope for is that someone will cite your abstract for
the APS meeting.
By the way--let's keep things strait. You don't have a confirmation
from Prof. Luo that he actually saw an effect. Or, did I misread your
rant?
"Hence, if we achieve an experimental result". Hmmm, "if"....
Thomas.
NunYa Bidness
>[hanson]
>... ahahaha...
Snipped utterly retarded baby bullshit, posted by the top posting
Usenet retard, hanson.
Do you *do* anything right? Do you actually *know* anything?
Traveler
wrote:
>He had the idea, you didn't, queer.
ahahaha... Who cares, scroatface? It was a stupid idea to begin with.
Neither inertial nor gravitational mass is affected by the molecular
arrangement of atoms. To claim otherwise is to be either a fucking
crackpot or a con artist. ahahaha...
Attila the Bum
true scientific debate?
You're failing queer.
Atty (The last "strait" I saw,
was called Gee brawl tour :-)
Traveler
wrote:
>Jealousy? Just jealousy? Or a
You're Uncle Dickhead's bitch, aren't you, scroatface? ahahaha...
Attila the Bum
an experiment exists.
He's your buddy in this argument.
You gotta be de nut here, by your
own admission :-)
Atty (A neat idea; will there be a result?)
Attila the Bum
Give the dog a bath, then
wash my truck :-)
Atty (Is "moronistical" a patentable concept?)
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>
>The inventor of the laser, Gordon Gould, was quashed by Washington and
>died in obscurity last Wednesday.
Wow... Our thoughts go with him.
Hard to believe that a Lt. General got screwed by his own for so
long.
NunYa Bidness
<thomas_j...@hotmail.com> Gave us:
>You were laying claims to being a "professional" a few weeks back.
>I'll check how often professional scientists claim that their
>collaborations will fill the gutters with blood. What a crank.
Not much for words, eh?
Does your retarded ass really think Al was talking about real harm
or real blood running in the gutters?
At least he put you dumbfuckers where you belong... the gutter.
Traveler
>The inventor of the laser, Gordon Gould, was quashed by Washington and
>died in obscurity last Wednesday. Rosalind Franklin was euchered by
>Watson and Crick. Barbara McClintock was a professional pariah for 30
>years.
Science is not about fame and fortune, dickhead. It's about gaining an
understanding of the miracle that is nature. It about undertanding for
understanding's sake. Grow the fuck up, you autistic megalomaniac!
>Let there be blood, up close and personal.
It's gonna be your blood, after you commit suicide on account of your
not getting enough admiration and credit from your peers. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Attila the Bum
And that's were NunYa, our esteemed custodial
superperson, would find such like yuz all.
On the job, obviously. All's
right with the whirrled :-)
Atty (... now about the sewer sump ...)
hanson
aka Lodo, the Dreidel "TokaMundo" <Toka...@weedizgood.org>
aka To-becom...@weed-is-good.org is AGAIN loaded & fully
undun from the effects of his bad weed he'd put into his bong when
he painfully lisped....
in news:i06jj1d33qq9dsurq...@4ax.com...>>... ahahaha...Al your are .... bringing immense grief and
> disappointment onto your 3 "stooopid" diehard supporters.
> Have some heart and compassion for these 3 "idiots".
>
> Snipped utterly retarded baby bullshit, posted by the top posting
> Usenet retard, hanson.
> Do you *do* anything right? Do you actually *know* anything?
>
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... So, Lodo, so it was my 3 liner above
that got to you and cranked you... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...
It was specifically directed at YOU, for your consumption, Lodo.
Thanks for the laughs, Varney, for having taken my bait, just like
a good bitch & the retarded doper like yourself should...
Here it is again in full bloom and context for your benefit:
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:OYd_e.69$4h2...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
>
> ahahaha... Who cares, scroatface? It was
> a stupid idea to begin with.
It has always bothered me that when Penzias and Wilson got the Nobel Prize that no one from the Princeton group was included (Dicke, Peebles, anybody). Of course, P and W already some observations from their antenna and had inadvertantly done the correct experiment with no prior knowledge.
In the present case, its not clear to me that Luo or anybody else would have tried the full parity Eotvos experiment without some prior basis for doing so.
Also in the present case, the actual results are not yet peer reviewed and published.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
>>>He had the idea, you didnt, queer.
>>
>>ahahaha... Who cares, scroatface? It was
>>a stupid idea to begin with.
>
>
> It has always bothered me that when Penzias and Wilson got the Nobel Prize that no one from the Princeton group was included (Dicke, Peebles, anybody). Of course, P and W already some observations from their antenna and had inadvertantly done the correct experiment with no prior knowledge.
>
> In the present case, its not clear to me that Luo or anybody else would have tried the full parity Eotvos experiment without some prior basis for doing so.
I would have thought that a suitable prior basis would be that nobody had done
it before.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Attila the Bum
There is no experiment. No
CHI calculations have been done.
There is no China lab working
on the issue. And, G.W. Bush
is taking his meds.
Now go away.
Atty (...)
Thomas Johnson
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:
> >
> > ahahaha... Who cares, scroatface? It was
> > a stupid idea to begin with.
>
> It has always bothered me that when Penzias and Wilson got the Nobel Prize that no one from the Princeton group was included (Dicke, Peebles, anybody). Of course, P and W already some observations from their antenna and had inadvertantly done the correct experiment with no prior knowledge.
>
> In the present case, its not clear to me that Luo or anybody else would have tried the full parity Eotvos experiment without some prior basis for doing so.
While the citation will generally note a specific discovery, Nobel
prizes are given to people who have a significant body of work.
Publications on maple syrup don't really stand up to the required
level.
A person has to have advanced understanding, not just made blind
guesses. Qz.pdf does not advance the understanding of gravity,
relativity or, really, any physics. It presents a calculation of a
geometrical quantity of quartz that is completely uninteresting. No
tie is made of this quantitiy, CHI, to any real physics.
If anyone must cling to the idea, "Scwhartz suggested quartz"--Lastly,
Nobel prizes citations have noted people who made discoveries suggested
by others.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1995/index.html
>
> Also in the present case, the actual results are not yet peer reviewed and published.
In the present case, we have no proof that an actual discovery has been
made. So far, all we know is that Scwhartz was cut out of the loop.
Since he feels that they wouldn't do this unless there was a discovery,
he concludes there was a discovery. Not a lot to hang your hat upon,
eh?
Thomas.
Traveler
<thomas_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In the present case, we have no proof that an actual discovery has been
>made. So far, all we know is that Scwhartz was cut out of the loop.
>Since he feels that they wouldn't do this unless there was a discovery,
>he concludes there was a discovery. Not a lot to hang your hat upon,
>eh?
There is no need to wait for the published paper to know there was no
discovery. This whole thing flies in the face of logic. I am surprised
that anybody bothered to conduct the experiment. It's a sad commentary
on the state of fundamental physics, especially in matters having to
do with gravity.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> A person has to have advanced understanding, not just made blind
> guesses.
And the guys who discovered the first hitemp superconductors were doing what,
exactly?
Thomas Johnson
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> Thomas Johnson wrote:
>
> > A person has to have advanced understanding, not just made blind
> > guesses.
>
> And the guys who discovered the first hitemp superconductors were doing what,
> exactly?
Studying superconductivity in oxides
(1) Studies by Bednorz and Muller on Lanthanum based oxides in 1983
(pre High-TC)
BEDNORZ JG, MULLER KA, AREND H, et al.
PHASE-DIAGRAM OF THE (LAALO3)1-X (SRTIO3)X SOLID-SOLUTION SYSTEM, FOR
X-LESS-THAN-OR-EQUAL-TO 0.8
MATERIALS RESEARCH BULLETIN 18 (2): 181-187 1983
(2) Studies of superconductivity in oxides, 1980.
BINNIG G, BARATOFF A, HOENIG HE, BEDNORZ JG
2-BAND SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN NB-DOPED SRTIO3
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 45 (16): 1352-1355 1980
Notice the name G. Binnig. If you are into Nobel prizes, it should
ring a bell.
Schwartz often likes to comment how Muller and Bednorz were going to be
charged with a crime for misapropriation of IBM funds in their search
for superconductors--and only the Nobel prize saved them. Total
hogwash. They were doing their job.
Thomas.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Mixing up oxides and testing them with absolutely no theoretical basis.
Uncle Al
>
>
> > A person has to have advanced understanding, not just made blind
> > guesses.
>
> And the guys who discovered the first hitemp superconductors were doing what,
> exactly?
Bednorz and Müller were Officially looking for large-Cp cryogenic
ceramic insulation for supercon solenoids. When IBM/Zurick discovered
- after about two years - that they had "embezzled lab funds, notice
in writing went out that the pair was liable for civil prosecution,
compensatory and punitive damages to be sought.
One presumes Management found the 1987 Nobel Prize in Physics to be
intrusive and contradictory to Korporate Kulture. I lost track - did
the two keep their jobs?
Kary Mullis was drunk and/or stoned, driving up to his Mendicino,
California cabin, when road boredom sprang PCR into is mind. His PCR
paper was rejected by "Science." 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Hey stooopid Schultzy, we both know the full parity Eotvos experiment
worked. General Relativity is empirically falsified, as is Lorentz
Invariance. Uncle Al on one 11 December, "Bra, tack så mycket."
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1290/tacksaam.wav
Uncle Al has subcontracted your technical career to Moloch-ha-Movis.
Tsadik katamar yifrach.
Androcles
[snip crap]
So they told you to fuck off, eh?
ROFLMAO!
Androcles
Bob Cain
Thomas Johnson wrote:
> A person has to have advanced understanding, not just made blind
> guesses.
Penzias and Wilson's first guess was bird shit. A
subsequent one worked out better.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
Thomas Johnson
They did not have the theory that is applied today to High-Tc, they did
have their own experience with structure and transport in oxides.
They had a basic understanding of where to look--
"What Bednorz and Müller did was to abandon the "conventional"
materials - alloys of different composition. Since 1983 they have
concentrated on oxides which, apart from containing oxygen, include
copper and one or more of the rare earth metals. The new idea was that
the copper atoms in a material of this kind could be made to transport
electrons, which interact more strongly with the surrounding crystal
than they do in normal electrical conductors. To obtain a chemically
stable material the two researchers added barium to crystals or
lanthanum-copper-oxide to produce a ceramic material that became the
first successful "hightemperature" superconductor."
If it is such a random shot--why did another team look at the same
class of oxides? I remember seeing the data from a group that
published a year before Muller and Bednorz, looking at the Cu-oxide
materials that would become the first-generation High-Tc. This other
team, unfortunately, only went to LN2 temperature.
Thomas.
Traveler
>Hey stooopid Schultzy, we both know the full parity Eotvos experiment
>worked. General Relativity is empirically falsified, as is Lorentz
>Invariance. Uncle Al on one 11 December, "Bra, tack så mycket."
ahahaha... You're entitled to believe in your own bullshit, of course.
Thomas Johnson
Uncle Al wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > A person has to have advanced understanding, not just made blind
> > > guesses.
> >
> > And the guys who discovered the first hitemp superconductors were doing what,
> > exactly?
>
> Bednorz and Müller were Officially looking for large-Cp cryogenic
> ceramic insulation for supercon solenoids. When IBM/Zurick discovered
> - after about two years - that they had "embezzled lab funds, notice
> in writing went out that the pair was liable for civil prosecution,
> compensatory and punitive damages to be sought.
And your citation would be? A URL, newspaper story, something,
anything?
A google search of Bednorz and "embezzled lab funds" comes up blank.
Odd since you are using quotation marks as though it is from a specific
source.
Besides, Research Staff at major industrial laboratories are typically
supposed to do 30% of their time on long-range projects outside of the
directed research. At the time, an IBM researcher would be judged
highly if he got a PRL or two a year. You don't do that working on
development projects.
Thomas.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
And what theoretical justifications did Jocelyn Bell, Penzias and Wilson, and
the discoverers of the Fullerenes have?
Ross A. Finlayson
> ...
> We ask ourselves: Why would anybody steal something of no value? I
> think the Equivalence Prnciple has an experimentally accessible parity
> violation.
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Alright, entertainment!
Al, I don't know if the PRC research group has the authority to do
anything with you. Blame not them! Well, maybe a little bit. Blame
their repressive government. That's also difficult, when there is
plenty of blame for the other governing bodies.
Why should Al care whether he's a coauthor of their paper? He'll
definitely be referenced in their paper, as is alluded to when they say
"it's his idea first."
Aren't there two Eotvos parity violation experiments ongoing?
Al, if you have mathematics and so forth explaining this effect, then
withholding them is kind of against scientific communitarianism. As
well, if you withhold them and they derive the necessary mechanics on
their own or via espionage then it would be difficult for you to claim
without pattern matching of style that they hadn't independently
discovered said results.
Al's a chemist, he's also apparently a physicist. His prose is inane,
it's amazing, I've thought a couple times that Al's a computer
simulation, Al, you know, A.I. Then again, he's just a little too
personal.
Al's kind of unique, one of the first world class scientists with a
grasp of language ever to stoop to conversation with any and all
comers. He's abrasive and dirty-mouthed, quick to anger and lambast
those he perceives as lessers or unworthy in some sense of elitism, as
a psychological profile Al will psychoanalyze you without care for your
feelings, and tell you about it. He's kind of a sick cantankerous old
bastard. If you post a question and he knows the answer, he'll tell
you.
Al, basically, if enough people believe you, you win.
What if the anomaly happens around 10^-12, but returns the other way
around 10^-40, and so towards infinity re-nulls? I wonder. Then again
I get half the binary sequences having equal zero and one density.
This guy Thomas Johnson seems pretty frickin' smart. I'm impressed
that he had an opinion about the development of high temperature
superconductors, besides otherwise generally seeming to be in the know.
So, it seems the consensus is that qz.pdf doesn't self-contain the
reasoning to presume a non-null Eotvos parity violation result, only
the predicted values of what it would be. For Al to claim a prize, he
should have to present the reasoning as to why that effect takes place.
Ha ha ha ha. News.
Ross
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
You're an idiot. Fuck off.
Uncle Al
Bell was stargazing. Penzias cleaned pigeon shit out of a couple of
roof microwave horns and the static didn't go a way. Kroto and
Smalley were vacuum laser ablating graphite looking for... it's kinda
not clear. Maybe interstellar debris to explain ewak absorption
lines. Anyway, they blasted some graphite and sucked the emergent
crap into a mass spec.
If you are there when your little lump of gallium arsenide is driven
into whoopeee! they name a Gunn diode after you.
muha
poor sod who made ferrocene first and published paper about it - with
an incorrect structure - got a pat on his back.
Eric Gisse
Traveler wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2005 19:11:57 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Traveler wrote:
> >> On 26 Sep 2005 18:30:17 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Uncle Al wrote:
> >> >> The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
> >> >> experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
> >> >> have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
> >> >
> >> >century of theory, it is a beautiful sight to see. Physics is about to
> >> >have a fire lit under its' ass. Let the games begin.
> >> >
> >> >Hmm, should I stop studying GR?
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >> Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
> >> >> blood filling the gutters.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Anyway, Thank you for the work, Al. I want a stardrive in my lifetime -
> >> >twiggering the nature of mass is a helluva start.
> >>
> >> You're an ass-kissing idiot. The only non-null result is your
> >> stupidity.
> >
> >You are only upset because no-one kisses your ass.
>
> If you'd really like to go to the stars, autistic megalomaniac idiots
> like Uncle Dickhead are the last people you want to support. Physics
> is full of assholes like him (e.g., Kip Thorne, Brian Greene, David
> Deutsch and the little con artist in the wheel chair). The assholes
> are not making any progress in understanding things like gravity. In
> fact, they are a hindrance.
You sound bitter.
>
> If Uncle Dickhead really understood gravity, he would never have
> proposed his stupid test. It shows his cluelessness.
Now you sound jealous.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I'd say that Al and the Chinese know exactly what they are looking for.
Thomas Johnson
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>
> > Only if you recognize the significance of your accidental luck. The
> > poor sod who made ferrocene first and published paper about it - with
> > an incorrect structure - got a pat on his back.
> >
> I'd say that Al and the Chinese know exactly what they are looking for.
>
First--the Chinese are looking, Scwhartz is on the outside.
Second--the Chinese know what they are looking for--an output in their
balance. But do they know why an output should exist?
Third--Scwhartz doesn't know the "why". His calculation is completely
useless. That is why he is not a member of a collaboration on the
project. If he had an understanding, he couldn't get bumped.
Don't take my word for it. At least 4 referees have called the paper
unfit for publication.
Thomas.
Eric Gisse
[Google Groups does not currently support posting to the following
usenet groups: "sci.hcem" (lol) ]
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
> > > experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
> > > have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
> >
> > Congratulations. You just smashed four centuries of experiment and a
> > century of theory, it is a beautiful sight to see. Physics is about to
> > have a fire lit under its' ass. Let the games begin.
> >
> > Hmm, should I stop studying GR?
> >
> > [snip]
>
> Let's wait for a publication. The Equivalence Princple is no longer
> on firm ground, nor is Lorentz Invariance. The parity Eotvos
> experiment not will-'o-the-wisp. Mainstream physics is fully
> justified in taking a formal hard look at the full parity Eotvos
> experiment in quartz. The observed answer is the answer.
I asked for when I should expect the published paper. No sense breaking
out the good liquor yet. :P
I'm actually curious how the analysis is done such that something that
small can be noticed.
Now, for the next step (let the Eotvos people do the steps that are
truly next).
Say your result holds - what models of gravitation do we have that are
still viable? Of them, which of them have been fleshed out to the point
an actual prediction can be made? I include the latter condition
because of how notoriously useless string theory is for physics.
For reference...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1b6025ac5f177845?dmode=source&hl=en
Can you say anything concrete about affine gravitation? I find this a
subject worth looking at now, but I don't know where to start.
For example, how do you know that while it has metric gravitation as a
subset, it is almost exactly like GR barring the EP?
Or, as a bit of a non-sequitur, how does affine gravitation respond to
attempts of quantization?
>
> I don't care who does the reported work with my name as First Author -
> Jun Luo, Wei Tou-Ni, Eot-Wash, UCI Gravitation Lab, the East Indian
> TATA Institute, or any of the other lesser but equal Eotvos groups.
> It looks like there is a 10^(-12) difference/average Equivalence
> Principle parity violation to be observed at will. Any modern Eotvos
> balance can observe something that large. Maybe it was BIGGER. I was
> betting on 3x10^(-12). What does an organiker know?
>
> > > Let them try to publish a non-null result as their own. Let there be
> > > blood filling the gutters.
> >
> > When can we expect the published paper detailing this?
> >
> > Anyway, Thank you for the work, Al. I want a stardrive in my lifetime -
> > twiggering the nature of mass is a helluva start.
>
> A 50:50 chance has become maybe 90:10 in favor. Let's land the fish
> before we plan a fish dinner.
As I recall, one of the major reasons you wanted an already-established
Eotvos balance is so that the equipment is qualified before your
experiment was even thought of being ran. In other words, if you see a
result like this, the first thought isn't "the apparatus is messed up".
What were the results of your control group?
Hum. Gravity is amusing again. The pendulumn swings back yet again...
>
> Uncle Al says, "Bra, tack så mycket."
Eric Gisse
I was wondering how you would respond. I was hoping for something to
the tune of "I told you so! GR IS WRONG!". Nope - abject denial in any
event.
Androcles, you really do occupy your own universe.
Will Janoschka
<r...@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
> This guy Thomas Johnson seems pretty frickin' smart. I'm impressed
> that he had an opinion about the development of high temperature
> superconductors, besides otherwise generally seeming to be in the know.
>
> So, it seems the consensus is that qz.pdf doesn't self-contain the
> reasoning to presume a non-null Eotvos parity violation result, only
> the predicted values of what it would be. For Al to claim a prize, he
> should have to present the reasoning as to why that effect takes place.
>
> Ha ha ha ha. News.
>
> Ross
>
In ten or twelve years Al has only said that someone should look!!!
Al dosn't want to have a new thery of gravity. His numbers show
that " If spacetime has chirality" here is how to test.
Einstien is relieved that it's over.
The teleparallel folks get their turn in th barrel.
-will-
Uncle Al
The full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz, Schultz. It worked to
spec. Does it stick in your craw, Schultz? Does it ram up your ass,
Schultz? Quartz crystals, Schultzy! Atlantean knowledge, Schultzy.
Racial memory, memes, channeling, ouija boards, Caballah, divination
from goat guts, I Ching... anything ANYTHING but
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/cite.htm
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Hey Schultzy, do you think Uncle Al cribbed that from... himself?
It's a closed temporal loop! SCHULTZ DID IT ALL! SCHULTZY IS QUEEN
OF THE MAY, CINDERELLA, AND THE BAR MITZVAH BOY IN BONDAGE WHO BROKE
EINSTEIN!
Hey Schultzy - still the coward critic troll? Richard Schultz is king
of the carbonyls! Schultzy is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a
henhouse, a steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a
gib, a lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a critic troll in a science
newsgroup.
Hey Schultzy, here's a hint - Circumcision takes place from the tip
not the base. Jesus H. Christ you stink of fear and failure. We both
know the full parity Eotvos experiment worked. General Relativity is
empirically falsified, as is Lorentz Invariance. Uncle Al called it
from Day One, before 1999. Does a left hand fall identically to a
right hand? The proper challenge of spacetime geometry is test mass
geometry.
Does it burn Schultz? Does it burn? If you know you are an idiot,
and we know you are an idiot, and each knows the other knows you are
an idiot, why do you further pursue the point?
Squeal, whine, intimate, fabricate, libel, slander, hallucinate,
wallow in it up to your chin, Schultzy. ANYBODY COULD HAVE DONE IT,
Schultzy - but not you. It appears that ANYBODY didn't want to
empirically falsify General Relativity. Tell us how it wouldn't work,
Schultzy. Tell us how it was one chance in a million not 50:50,
Schultzy. Does that make the beautiful historic observation less
beautiful?
You've eaten too much barbed wire-infested JAP pussy. Rent yourself a
nice blonde shicksa with soft pubes that don't attract botflies. Hey
Schultzy - do you like,r eally like, wrapping the leather strap around
yor middle finger? Are ya gonna post again and again and again? New
false names, new complaints, new proof of your cacademic testiclettal
manhood?
Are ya gonna write to the Nobel Committee? Are ya gonna? Huh huh?
Are ya gonna? Are ya gonna tell them it's yours all yours Schultzy?
Are ya gonna show them the prison tattoo on your flat ass?
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzwhole.png
Is your ball sack half empty or half full? Did the missing raisin
fall incongruently? Hey Schultzy, did the left one fall faster?
Uncle Al will say on one 11 December, "Bra, tack så mycket."
Jerry
My brother, who used to contribute frequently to these
newsgroups, told me, "Uncle Al is not a -physics- crackpot."
I suspect my brother is wrong.
Jerry
Robert J. Kolker
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
>>The Luo group reports that they didn't perform the full parity Eotvos
>>experiment past 10^(-10) difference/average signal, for which they
>>have already sent me interim results to 10^(-11) difference/average.
>
>
> Congratulations. You just smashed four centuries of experiment and a
> century of theory, it is a beautiful sight to see. Physics is about to
> have a fire lit under its' ass. Let the games begin.
>
> Hmm, should I stop studying GR?
Bad idea. GR is no less useful today than it was a week ago. Classical
mechanics still has its uses as well as classical electrodynamics.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> I Don't have a breakdown of the calculations performed by the software
> and I seriously doubt you have them. I must admit I thought the
> original software was only for calculating CHI. I came back after 18
> months and saw that there were claims to have modeled the actual
> results as divergent test mass. Not having access to the calculations
> performed by the software I can't say how or what was being calculated
> and neither can you. I was just glad that one fucking person was trying
> to do something akin to actual physics in this group. I had read enough
> fucking clock's goofing and above light speed aether bullshit to last a
> lifetime the first day. It seems to me when anyone tries to do
> something constructive in these groups they must fight 10 idiots per
> word to get anything done. I hope you are wrong and the truth comes out
> in the near future. I can't say without access to the actual
> calculations one way or another!!
You can always spot the Pioneers. They are the ones with arrows in their
back.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> That is of course typical. The person who comes up first with the idea,
> or motivates experimenters to pursue it, gets the credit. Worse case
> scenario, they share the credit. But unless you make some noise, it is
> natural that they may say they "forgot" you.
The cautionary tale: Ros Franklin, the grey lady of DNA. Watson and
Crick shortchanged her.
Bob Kolker
NunYa Bidness
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> Gave us:
>My brother, who used to contribute frequently to these
>newsgroups, told me, "Uncle Al is not a -physics- crackpot."
>I suspect my brother is wrong.
You're an idiot. You should have your brother shoot you. They still
shoot lame horses, don't they?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>
> My brother, who used to contribute frequently to these
> newsgroups, told me, "Uncle Al is not a -physics- crackpot."
> I suspect my brother is wrong.
> Jerry
Your brother was right.
Uncle Al is enjoying what appears to be a well deserved "Neiner, neiner,
neiner, you flaming assholes!" moment.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Eric Gisse
I was just being a smartass.
:P
With luck, people won't take that viewpoint seriously.
>
> Bob Kolker
Traveler
wrote:
>In sci.physics Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> My brother, who used to contribute frequently to these
>> newsgroups, told me, "Uncle Al is not a -physics- crackpot."
>> I suspect my brother is wrong.
>
>> Jerry
>
>Your brother was right.
>
>Uncle Al is enjoying what appears to be a well deserved "Neiner, neiner,
>neiner, you flaming assholes!" moment.
The only thing Uncle Dickhead enjoys is to have his submissive bitches
kiss his ass. You are an ass-kissing moron. Uncle Dickhead is worse
than a crackpot. He's a fucking con artist, kind of like that little
asshole in the wheelchair. ahahaha...
Challenging the EP, your ass! It's not GR that needs to be broken,
it's the fucking clueless relativists who don't have a fucking clue as
to what it means. Now go back to kissing Uncle Dickhead's ass, moron.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Sam Wormley
If you take a look at the posting record, you will
find that:
o Uncle Al is usually right;
o Uncle Al does not tolerate fools gladly; and
o Uncle Al has made significant contribution to
those in these newsgroups that care to learn.
You're brother is correct, IMO.
Sam Wormley
Richard Schultz
: Thomas Johnson wrote:
:> 1) He calculated CHI for bulk crystals. CHI=1 or 0 for bulk crystals.
:> Why spend months of CPU time calculating what is already known?
:
: Gee, Schultzy, do you now believe in Petitjean's CHI?
For someone who thinks he deserves a Nobel prize, you seem to have
remarkably poor reading ability. I did not write the post to which
you responded.
-----
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."
Richard Schultz
: Thomas Johnson wrote:
:
:> A person has to have advanced understanding, not just made blind
:> guesses.
:
: And the guys who discovered the first hitemp superconductors were doing what,
: exactly?
was not at all random: Bednorz and Mueller knew pretty much exactly
what they were doing. You can read all about the background at
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1987/bednorz-muller-lecture.pdf
-----
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."
Richard Schultz
:> Only if you recognize the significance of your accidental luck. The
:> poor sod who made ferrocene first and published paper about it - with
:> an incorrect structure - got a pat on his back.
: I'd say that Al and the Chinese know exactly what they are looking for.
If that is the case, perhaps you can explain why Uncle Al is unable to answer
the simple question of where exactly his model predicts a deviation from
a null result of 3 ppt?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Apparently, you take me for a complete fool."
"Yeah -- more or less."
Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit"
Richard Schultz
: Thomas Johnson wrote:
: The full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz, Schultz.
Why do you keep responding to "Thomas Johnson's" posts by calling him
"Schultz"? I have never posted anything to usenet under any name but
my own. Even in the early days when I was using an account that I
received as a legacy from another student in our research group, my name
and .sig appeared at the bottom of every article that I posted to usenet.
And even if you thought that I would post anonymously or pseudonymously,
all you have to is read "Thomas Johnson's" posts to realize that they can't
possibly be from me -- you can start by observing that his spelling tends
to be much worse than mine.
-----
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
-----
"There are no fools as tiresome as those who have some wit." -- La Rochefoucald
Richard Schultz
: If you take a look at the posting record, you will
: find that:
: o Uncle Al is usually right;
: o Uncle Al does not tolerate fools gladly; and
: o Uncle Al has made significant contribution to
: those in these newsgroups that care to learn.
If you take a look at the posting record, you will find that
o Uncle Al is a proven liar;
o Uncle Al is frequently wrong even when he's not lying;
o When Uncle Al is demonstrated to be wrong, he always ignores
the corrections, and frequently continues posting his
lies; and
o Any positive contribution that Uncle Al has made is more than
compensated for by his numerous mistakes, making him a
most unreliable source of information.
If you want to be a fan/toady/TL of Uncle Al, that's your business. But
you could at least be truthful about who and what he is.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I have, if you will forgive the expression, known several bastards
with very high IQs."
--J. Bronowski
Richard Schultz
:>> And the guys who discovered the first hitemp superconductors were doing
:>> what, exactly?
:> Studying superconductivity in oxides
: Mixing up oxides and testing them with absolutely no theoretical basis.
I realize that making it up as you go along is lots of fun, but if you
would trouble yourself to read their Nobel Prize lecture, you would find
that they explained in detail the theoretical basis for their decision to
look for high-Tc superconductivity in Perovskite-structure cuprates.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Richard Schultz
: Uncle Al wrote:
:> Bednorz and M?ller were Officially looking for large-Cp cryogenic
:> ceramic insulation for supercon solenoids. When IBM/Zurick discovered
:> - after about two years - that they had "embezzled lab funds, notice
:> in writing went out that the pair was liable for civil prosecution,
:> compensatory and punitive damages to be sought.
: And your citation would be? A URL, newspaper story, something,
: anything?
:
: A google search of Bednorz and "embezzled lab funds" comes up blank.
: Odd since you are using quotation marks as though it is from a specific
: source.
Also, since in their Nobel prize speech, they talk about the various
kinds of equipment that their managers agreed to buy them. I find it
hard to believe that they could have managed to hide from their supervisors
what they were doing for the several years that they spent on the project.
I assume that Uncle Al figures that since he has the world convinced that
he really, really is working on the kg-sized diamond project, and that he
really, really does almost have it working, that Bednorz and Mueller could
easily have pulled off a similar fraud.
-----
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>