"Uncle Al" spewed

[Snip dreams of wet dreams]

It looks like Uncle Al's Annual December Disappoinment is on tract to
..... uh .... disappoint. It happens often enough that we can give it a
name Uncle Al's ADD.

With Uncle Al's record of disappointing performances, it's no wonder
that Mrs Uncle Al divorced him.

This is probably Uncle Al's last chance to perform. If he fails again
the Rabbi will take away his beanie and call in the Mohel to undo his
circumcision.

Eventually, Uncle Al will have to admit to himself that his mama was
wrong and he is just an ordinary turd in the River of Poop.

In sci.chem Uncle Al wrote:

: Find the pair (oooh! Could there be more than two?) of differential
: scanning calorimeters with an English-speaking technician and again
: validate what a consummate asshole you are. In the meanwhile we will
: have the empirical answer by New Years. A null result is entirely
: acceptable... but Uncle Al at a Swedish podium would especially enjoy
: shoving a big fat reproducible net output up your sloppy ass and out
: your mouth.

Will a null result falsify your hypothesis?

-----
Richard Schultz
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

On Dec 12, 7:34 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

1) 72 space group P3(1)21 single crystal benzil test masses,
2) 72 space group P3(2)21 single crystal benzil test masses,
3) 1 gram of finely powdered racemic benzil from equal
masses of P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 single crystals crushed and mixed,

are verified received at a pair of differential scanning
calorimeters located at 45.04 degrees north. Instrument time
and personnel are allocated 27-30 December inclusive.
Instrument runs for calibration
and precision with racemic benzil are SOP.

Response maxima are 44.95 degees latitude (WGS 84) and 03
January (Earth perihelion).

Simultaneous measurements will be performed with enantiomeric
test masses aligned North(R)-South(S) at 0600, 1200, and 1800
hrs the first day and East(R)-West(S) the second day. If non-
zero net output obtains, both days will be repeated at
30-minute intervals 0530-1630 hrs.

1) Zero net output within experimental error validates
achiral isotropic vacuum in the mass sector. That is physics
as we know it.

2) Non-zero net output with proper amplitude modulation and
phasing Day 3 vs. Day 4 validates chiral anisotropic vacuum in
the mass sector.
2a) General Relativity is falsified vs. teleparallel
gravitation,

....except that teleparallel gravitation predicts no such thing.

In response to my repeated challenges, you have NEVER produced
a single citation supporting your belief that teleparallel
gravitation couples with GEOMETRIC parity.

Your experiment is totally without theoretical underpinning.

It -is- known that teleparallel gravitation couples with SPIN
parity and angular momentum; unfortunately the coupling magnitude
is such that it is not likely that any experiment in the near
or intermediate future would be capable of detecting the effects
of such coupling.

2b) perturbative string theory is falsified vs. BRST
invariance,
2c) conservation of angular momentum is falsified via
Noether's theorem,

Not bloody likely...

2d) biological homochirality may be sourced,
2e) post-Big Bang inflation may be sourced by a chiral
vacuum pseudoscalar background,
2f) Weak interaction chirality may be sourced,
2g) matter-antimatter imbalance may be sourced,

You're fantasizing. Chemical properties of left-right enantiomers
have been studied since 1849, since Pasteur. You're going to
revolutionize physics with a kitchen experiment covering known
territory?

and it all happens at the founding postulate level without
contradicting any observation in any venue at any scale.

Unlike cold fusion, the Fifth Force, polywater... the
experiment can be accurately, easily, rapidly, and
inexpensively reproduced in common commercial equipment, by
undergraduates if convenient. It can do no
worse than fail. How much more fun could a fella have for
under a kilobuck?

It does have the merit of being cheap.

Shades of Yang, Lee, and New Years 1957. We'll see how an added
half-century of science fares. Festivus - for the rest of us.

Symptoms of megalomania.

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

: You're fantasizing.

You should be in symbiosis with him then. Both you idiots are
Einstein Dingleberries.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Use c+v to "prove" you can't use c+v.

In sci.chem harry wrote:

: What happened the last time that you tried the experiment? Now I
: remember -- your "collaborator" cancelled the experiment when he found
: out that you had lied to him.

: What was the lie?

Ask Uncle Al to post the email he got from Jun Luo in which Professor Luo
tells him that as far as he (Luo) was concerned, there never had been any
collaboration between them.

-----
Richard Schultz
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

On Dec 17, 10:29*am, (Richard Schultz) wrote:
In sci.chem harry wrote:

: What happened the last time that you tried the experiment? *Now I
: remember -- your "collaborator" cancelled the experiment when he found
: out that you had lied to him.

: What was the lie?

Ask Uncle Al to post the email he got from Jun Luo in which Professor Luo
tells him that as far as he (Luo) was concerned, there never had been any
collaboration between them.

-----
Richard Schultz * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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

The proper question is "what were the lies". Plural, not singular.

Prof. Luo had four issues of contention with Mr. Schwartz. If one
wishes to talk about "The" lie, it would probably be Schwartz'
assertion that he could predict an outcome of 3x10^-12 in an
experiment.

Prof. Luo did not seem pleased with the way he was being portrayed by
Mr. Schwartz in newsgroups. One can only imagine that the way Mr.
Schwartz has portrayed the situation since would be even less
appealing to Prof. Luo.

Of course, this is all an aside from the fact that Mr. Schwartz has no
understanding of what he is talking about. The fact that he keeps
asserting that the effect will be highest at a given lattitude
indicates that he doesn't know the difference between his own proposed
experiment and an Eotvos balance measurement.

Perseverations are by definition difficult to control. However, this
one has involved the use of time and equipment of many others. In the
example of Prof. Luo, this involved time, money and manpower based on
false information. Accomodations should be made for perseverations,
but that should not extend into allowing him to waste other peoples
resources.

One must keep in mind that there is a significant chance that this
test-run is a lie, much like his long succession of "third and final"
attempts to make diamonds.

It is just sad that this great perseveration of his centers on an
subject matter that is beyond his comprehension. If he could focus
this effort on something within his reach he might actually accomplish
something.

Mr. Schwartz really should move on from this. Perhaps some nice
person at OCRC could offer you some assistance with that?

Thomas