tadchem wrote:

On Jul 3, 3:20 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
"M.Parker" wrote:

If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the
hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon",

[snip crap]

Pair formation, photon counting, light pressure, single molecule
fluorescence, optical isotope separation, lasers, plasmon excitation,
electroluminescence, positronium annihalation, nuclear
photofragmentation, hydrogen hyperfine transition...

Al, you left out atomic spectroscopy. Not much, I know, but
historically it is the basis of quantum mechanics.

You know how the little stuff slips through. Bohr explained hydrogen,
then mathematical induction for the other elements, right? When
spin-orbit coupling appears for heavy elements we'll use permutation
methods to avoid rewriting to an ab inito correct theory. That is how
proper phusics is done - needs more study not more thought.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

"Howard Eisenhauer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:26:07 +0100, "Androcles"
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm

If spacetime is curved, is the curvature convex or concave?
Any clue?




It all depends on whether your on the inside of the univers looking
out or on the outside looking in

H.
Good answer, but I'm on the Earth looking out. Where do you live?
Oh wait... Planet California... How's King Michael Jackson doing these
days? L.A. smog will kill him. Ban smoking instead.

Uncle Al wrote:
tadchem wrote:

On Jul 3, 3:20 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
"M.Parker" wrote:

If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the
hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon",

[snip crap]

Pair formation, photon counting, light pressure, single molecule
fluorescence, optical isotope separation, lasers, plasmon excitation,
electroluminescence, positronium annihalation, nuclear
photofragmentation, hydrogen hyperfine transition...

Al, you left out atomic spectroscopy. Not much, I know, but
historically it is the basis of quantum mechanics.

You know how the little stuff slips through. Bohr explained hydrogen,
then mathematical induction for the other elements, right? When
spin-orbit coupling appears for heavy elements we'll use permutation
methods to avoid rewriting to an ab inito correct theory. That is how
proper phusics is done - needs more study not more thought.

I think the other elements are (and will probably remain) a bit tricky. As far
as mem chips can recall, only He/Na/Li/K I/II/III have empirical formulas
similar to Bohr's for H, but in the later years it's conceivable that the list
has grown further.

If anybody wants to have some serious physics fun, you can always ask someone to
solve Schroedinger's equation for the simplest of these after H, say He. And see
them fail spectacularly :-)

Nevertheless, it's amazing what kind of acrobatics a copiously meticulous
student can do with atomic spectroscopy, once certain parameters are into place.

The following is based on NIST and is a bit longish, but it explains fairly well
some of the major trends in the lighting industry. No physical experimentation
in this doc. Only hard core thinking and programming. Consult as needed before
you replace your kitchen light bulbs :-)

http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.c.../elements.html
--
Ioannis

On Jul 4, 11:20 am, "I.N. Galidakis" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
tadchem wrote:

On Jul 3, 3:20 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
"M.Parker" wrote:

If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the
hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon",

[snip crap]

Pair formation, photon counting, light pressure, single molecule
fluorescence, optical isotope separation, lasers, plasmon excitation,
electroluminescence, positronium annihalation, nuclear
photofragmentation, hydrogen hyperfine transition...

Al, you left out atomic spectroscopy. Not much, I know, but
historically it is the basis of quantum mechanics.

You know how the little stuff slips through. Bohr explained hydrogen,
then mathematical induction for the other elements, right? When
spin-orbit coupling appears for heavy elements we'll use permutation
methods to avoid rewriting to an ab inito correct theory. That is how
proper phusics is done - needs more study not more thought.

I think the other elements are (and will probably remain) a bit tricky. As far
as mem chips can recall, only He/Na/Li/K I/II/III have empirical formulas
similar to Bohr's for H, but in the later years it's conceivable that the list
has grown further.

If anybody wants to have some serious physics fun, you can always ask someone to
solve Schroedinger's equation for the simplest of these after H, say He. And see
them fail spectacularly :-)

Back when I was a graduate student, in the late 1960's, one of my
collegues used a purely numerical approach to "solve" Schroedingers
wave equation for He. It worked tolerably well, and he was running his
analysis on an IBM 7040/44 with 32k of 36-bit words of core memory at
a clock rate of the order of a MHz.

Nevertheless, it's amazing what kind of acrobatics a copiously meticulous
student can do with atomic spectroscopy, once certain parameters are into place.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

"I.N. Galidakis" wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:
tadchem wrote:

On Jul 3, 3:20 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
"M.Parker" wrote:

If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the
hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon",

[snip crap]

Pair formation, photon counting, light pressure, single molecule
fluorescence, optical isotope separation, lasers, plasmon excitation,
electroluminescence, positronium annihalation, nuclear
photofragmentation, hydrogen hyperfine transition...

Al, you left out atomic spectroscopy. Not much, I know, but
historically it is the basis of quantum mechanics.

You know how the little stuff slips through. Bohr explained hydrogen,
then mathematical induction for the other elements, right? When
spin-orbit coupling appears for heavy elements we'll use permutation
methods to avoid rewriting to an ab inito correct theory. That is how
proper phusics is done - needs more study not more thought.

I think the other elements are (and will probably remain) a bit tricky.
Helium destroyed Bohr's phenomenological quantum theory. Successively
heavier one-electron nuclei have increasingly larger Lamb shifts.
Bohr still doesn't work.

As far
as mem chips can recall, only He/Na/Li/K I/II/III have empirical formulas
similar to Bohr's for H, but in the later years it's conceivable that the list
has grown further.

If anybody wants to have some serious physics fun, you can always ask someone to
solve Schroedinger's equation for the simplest of these after H, say He. And see
them fail spectacularly :-)

One starts by assuming the nucleus is stationary, diddle the two
electrons with confocal ellipsoial coordinates, then append a
geometric series of correction factors. In other words...
perturbation methods will path the holes of having ab initio wrong
theory. Being wrong and jury-rig corrected for calculation is OK as
such (e.g., Mercator projection maps), but disastrous for theory
(e.g., economically steaming from Japan to Seattle, WA).

String and M-theory are mathematically elegant physical disasters, now
boasting at least 10^(50,000) acceptable vacua. Simply put, both are
rigorously derived and neither of them are correct.

Uncle Al exposed the weakness in late 1999: It is trivially observed
that the vacuum is isotropic in the massless sector (photons).
Linearly polarized EM from quasars does not rotate its plane of
polarization through distance by frequency, radio to annihalation
radiation. There is no vacuum refraction, dispersion, dichroism, or
gyrotropy over billion lightyear optical paths.

NOBODY knows if the vacuum is isotropic in the massed sector. Do left
and right shoes (chemically and macroscopically identical, opposite
geometric parity atomic mass distributions) vacuum free fall
identically? Load an Eotvos balance with opposed sets of solid single
crystal test masses of left- and right-handed quartz. If a net
non-zero signal emerges, all of physics is wrong without contradicting
any prior observation.

Hells bells, quantized gravitation theories require supplementing
Einstein-Hilbert action with a parity-violating Chern-Simons term.
The patch for ab initio wrong theory! The universe is screaming at
physics to pull its thumbs out of its collective ass.

Somebody should look.

Nevertheless, it's amazing what kind of acrobatics a copiously meticulous
student can do with atomic spectroscopy, once certain parameters are into place.

Given any two irrational numbers 'x' and 'y' it is always possible to
find integers j, k, m, n such that |(j)(x^m) - (k)(y^n)| epsilon,
where "epsilon" is arbitrarily small. One should not be impressed by
such a relationship since one could find an arbitrarily large number
of relationships as good or better by picking any other irrational
number, like the Napierian base 'e', Euler's constant gamma, the
Golden Ratio, any irrational square root, etc.

The following is based on NIST and is a bit longish, but it explains fairly well
some of the major trends in the lighting industry. No physical experimentation
in this doc. Only hard core thinking and programming. Consult as needed before
you replace your kitchen light bulbs :-)

http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.c.../elements.html

When pure theory cannot be reduced to practice, better is always the
enemy of good enough The Senate of Rome thought they were above the
stink. In AD 476 the stink rose to the challenge.

The first kilowatt short arc lamp (police helicopter giant lights)
refused to exist for a year of frenzied analysis and experimentation
at Optical Radiation Corporation. There was a very big, literally
armored sphere in which candidates would BOOM! every few days.

Desperation set in during the last month of the military contract. So
desperate was management that it allowed the quartzblower and the
tungsten electrode fabricator - both tradesmen with no formal
education - to take a whack at it where a whole room of sophisticated
suit- and tie-wearing engineers had massively, sustainedly failed.

One guy wanged together two tungsten electrodes that didn't look right
at all. The quartzblower blew a fused silica envelope absent all
calculations for stress - because it looked right to him. He sealed
the electrodes in their ports. The lamp was pumped out and backfilled
with a smidge of argon, a bit of mercury, and some lanthanide iodides
to spread the specrum. It was mounted in the armored sphere,
everybody cleared the Hell out, and an impressively large circuit
breaker was thrown.

1100 watts. The lamp stayed lit, the armor shell eventually glowed
dull red, the project went to prototyping. I knew Matt, the
quartzblower. Management didn't even say "thank you."

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:09:54 +0000 (UTC), "M.Parker"
wrote:

If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the
hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon",


It's not. So start all over.


John

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:09:54 +0000 (UTC), "M.Parker"
wrote:

If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the
hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon",


It's not. So start all over.


John
Hear here.

idiot "Uncle rect-Al" aka
anAl Alan Schwartz, the idiot, wrote:
["ab initio" corrected & snipped the idiot's rect-Al ****, for clarity]

One starts by assuming & diddle ab initio wrong.
Being wrong, jury-rig corrected for calculation is OK.
Uncle rect-Al exposed the weakness in late 1999:
It is trivially observed [like here in rect-Al's own post]:
http://tinyurl.com/par3tq

NOBODY knows Hells bells, quantized for ab initio
to pull its thumbs out of its collective ass.
Somebody should look. [like here on rect-Al's own website]:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

Given any two irrational relationships as good or better
by picking The Senate of Rome above the stink. In
AD 476 the stink rose to at Optical Radiation Corporation.
So desperate was management that it allowed both tradesmen
with no formal education - [rect-Al refers here to Hebe Herbie,
the hate filled, biogoted and racist kike G=EMC^2] to whack
sophisticated suit- and tie-wearing engineers
[snip rest of rect-Al' scrap]
Hell, Management didn't even say "thank you."

hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... Schwartz is still sour and full of hate and anger
because he never made it into management. So, the rect-Al idiot
tries to manage in sci.physics, which he himself managed to
label as a "river of ****" ... ahahahaha... Great rect-Al job,
Schwartz, you Dreidel. Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:19:00 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

String and M-theory are mathematically elegant physical disasters, now
boasting at least 10^(50,000) acceptable vacua. Simply put, both are
rigorously derived and neither of them are correct.

Uncle Al exposed the weakness in late 1999: It is trivially observed
that the vacuum is isotropic in the massless sector (photons).
Linearly polarized EM from quasars does not rotate its plane of
polarization through distance by frequency, radio to annihalation
radiation. There is no vacuum refraction, dispersion, dichroism, or
gyrotropy over billion lightyear optical paths.

NOBODY knows if the vacuum is isotropic in the massed sector. Do left
and right shoes (chemically and macroscopically identical, opposite
geometric parity atomic mass distributions) vacuum free fall
identically? Load an Eotvos balance with opposed sets of solid single
crystal test masses of left- and right-handed quartz. If a net
non-zero signal emerges, all of physics is wrong without contradicting
any prior observation.

Hells bells, quantized gravitation theories require supplementing
Einstein-Hilbert action with a parity-violating Chern-Simons term.
The patch for ab initio wrong theory! The universe is screaming at
physics to pull its thumbs out of its collective ass.

Somebody should look.

The Chinese were looking a while ago. Then they said they pulled the
plug. Their sudden reluctance to finish the experiment (or perhaps to
share the rest of the data they intended to collect) had an odor about
it.

Then it seemed that you came up with a Plan B to test your hypothesis
with benzil crystals. It sounded like a quicker, cheaper, more
accessible way to test the same hypothesis.

If it really is quicker, cheaper and more accessible, why hasn't
someone done it?

Why haven't /you/ done it?

I have been reading your "Somebody should look" challenge for years.

Why is "Somebody should look" to be read as "Somebody /else/ should
look"?

Stop buying ammo for a few weeks, use some of the bazillion dollars
you made on your roach poison, and leverage it into Nobel prize money.

Or is the experiment much more expensive or complicated than it seems
from your assertion here?
Message-ID:
Two calorimeters and two all-nighters could kill it all. An undergrad
p-chem lab section could irreversibly overturn the most esoteric
agglomeratiion of ditzy physical theory

What happened to the gifted team who ran the simulations before the
Chinese ran the Eotvos experiment? Can you not all chip in and make
this benzil experiment happen? Or have they stopped believing that an
experiment will confirm your hypothesis?

From the same post referenced above:
You have something interesting, you do not have
something interesting, or you have comedy.

If it takes nothing more than a weekend in an undergrad p-chem lab to
look, what should it tell onlookers that no one, including Uncle Al,
is making the effort to look?

--
Adam

--------- AHAHAHAHAHA... Priceless!... AHAHAHA... ----------

"Adam" wrote:

Uncle rect-Al wrote:
[snip crap]
Somebody should look.

"Adam" wrote:
The Chinese were looking a while ago. Then they said they pulled the
plug. Their sudden reluctance to finish the experiment (or perhaps to
share the rest of the data they intended to collect) had an odor about
it.

hanson wrote:
..... ahahahaha... IIRC, rect-Al performed one of his Yiddisher street
corner performances for them & probably referred to them as "idiots"
while he was claiming prior art... ahahahaha... So, they pulled the plug
and let rect-Al die on the vine... ahahahaha... and NOBODY looked.

"Adam" wrote:
Then it seemed that you [rect-Al] came up with a Plan B to test your
hypothesis with benzil crystals. It sounded like a quicker, cheaper,
more accessible way to test the same hypothesis.
If it really is quicker, cheaper and more accessible, why hasn't
someone done it?
Why haven't /you/ done it?

hanson wrote:
But rect-Al so did... And to his credit he spent $500 for a set of
calorimetric analysis of the chiral Benzil xx. However when the
results came back and told him what he didn't want to hear, he
assumed that the testers in the lab were... well... "idiots"...

"Adam" wrote:
I have been reading your "Somebody should look" challenge for years.
Why is "Somebody should look" to be read as "Somebody /else/ should
look"?

hanson wrote:
... the reason why "nobody else looks" is because rect-All lives in
a sea of "idiots".. ahahaha... rect-Al himself pointed out and said:
:: UA:: ||||| ....Goyim could study for their entire lifetime and
:: UA:: ||||| not come close to what is hardwired at birth for
:: UA:: ||||| Yahweh's Chosen.

So, what do you expect?... "oye weh!.. "Trust Me!"... "Go figure!"

"Adam" wrote:
Stop buying ammo for a few weeks, use some of the bazillion dollars
you made on your roach poison, and leverage it into Nobel prize money.

hanson wrote:
.... but rect-Al has no $$ from his unsellable cockroach repellent
because the EPA "idiots" didn't approve it, & rect-Al's customers
were "idiots" too since they didn't buy it... and Einstein didn't sweat
neither, like rect-Al said that Albert should, because of rect-Al's
Eotvoes experiment, and so rect-Al's only money available comes
with his disability check, from when rect-Al burnt his ass in a organo-
metallic fire at his lab bench... or so his story went... ahahaha...

And so rect-Al runs to the gun store as frequently as he can because
in his rect-Al mind it's the "idiots" from the "diversity" that will be
the "somebody should look" that will come looking for rect-Al...

Thanks for the laughs guys,... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson