Eotvos - Status Update



 Science > Physics > Eotvos - Status Update

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 2 of 2

1

 

2

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "Phil Holman"
Date: 22 Sep 2005 12:44:14 AM
Object: Eotvos - Status Update
Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
Al?
Phil H
.

User: "mountain man"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 22 Sep 2005 08:50:09 PM
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127438113.364875.31730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

THIS is the *only* reason I care about GR - to take us to the stars. I
want to see humanity reach the stars within my lifetime.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/surfi_03.htm
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Rural Oz.
www.mountainman.com.au
.

User: "Puppet_Sock"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 22 Sep 2005 02:50:14 PM
Uncle Al wrote:

Phil Holman wrote:


Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
Al?


Total silence from PR China for the past 6 weeks to me and also to
co-conspirator academic inquiries. A degreed Mandarin Chinese speaker
has volunteered to pursue this with e-mail, fax, and phone. In
progress.

[snips]
Is anything "interesting" happening politically just now in PR China?
Experimenters might be some place with the doors closed and their
butts hiding under tables. How about weather? Does that area of
China get hurricanes?
Socks
.

User: "Thomas Johnson"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 26 Sep 2005 01:13:11 PM
Phil Holman wrote:

Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
Al?

Phil H

Schwartz has from the beginning misrepresented his involvement with the
experimental team. He was not ever a full member of a collaboration
with them. For a while, they did respond to Schwartz' emails, but
quickly found his discussions of the "theory" to be "specious and
paradoxical".
Unfortunately for Schwartz, he offended the team in China with his
statements claiming all the credit for any results. Statements
referring to them as merely "muscle and experience" did not help
Schwartz.
You can imagine that they were not pleased to hear that Schwartz was
giving a talk on the subject, discussing "his experiment" in China.
If Scwhartz does some serious fence-mending, he may hear the results
before they become public. I expect that when an APS abstract or a
paper in PRL or PRD is published, Schwartz will hear at the same time
as the rest of the world.
Thomas.
.
User: "Jason Stanidge"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 26 Sep 2005 04:08:01 PM
"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127758390.972547.177360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Phil Holman wrote:

Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
Al?

Phil H


Schwartz has from the beginning misrepresented his involvement with the
experimental team. He was not ever a full member of a collaboration
with them. For a while, they did respond to Schwartz' emails, but
quickly found his discussions of the "theory" to be "specious and
paradoxical".

Unfortunately for Schwartz, he offended the team in China with his
statements claiming all the credit for any results. Statements
referring to them as merely "muscle and experience" did not help
Schwartz.

You can imagine that they were not pleased to hear that Schwartz was
giving a talk on the subject, discussing "his experiment" in China.

If Scwhartz does some serious fence-mending, he may hear the results
before they become public. I expect that when an APS abstract or a
paper in PRL or PRD is published, Schwartz will hear at the same time
as the rest of the world.

Thomas.

How do you know all this?
.
User: "Thomas Johnson"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 26 Sep 2005 04:56:39 PM
Jason Stanidge wrote:

"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127758390.972547.177360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Phil Holman wrote:

Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
Al?

Phil H


Schwartz has from the beginning misrepresented his involvement with the
experimental team. He was not ever a full member of a collaboration
with them. For a while, they did respond to Schwartz' emails, but
quickly found his discussions of the "theory" to be "specious and
paradoxical".

Unfortunately for Schwartz, he offended the team in China with his
statements claiming all the credit for any results. Statements
referring to them as merely "muscle and experience" did not help
Schwartz.

You can imagine that they were not pleased to hear that Schwartz was
giving a talk on the subject, discussing "his experiment" in China.

If Scwhartz does some serious fence-mending, he may hear the results
before they become public. I expect that when an APS abstract or a
paper in PRL or PRD is published, Schwartz will hear at the same time
as the rest of the world.

Thomas.


How do you know all this?

Back in April, when Scwhartz was making some of his rudest comments, I
forwarded some of them to Prof. Luo. At that time, I was not even sure
that Schwartz wasn't just making up the whole thing about Prof. Luo
doing the experiments. Prof. Luo sent an email to Schartz and cc'd me.
The email made it very clear that Schwartz was not a full
collaborator, that his comments on the newsgroups were not welcome, and
that further communication between them was not going to happen.
When the experimentor on the project refers to your discussions as
"specious and paradoxical", you should probably take note.
Schwartz did calm down for a long while after I made a couple of posts
letting him know that I had knew something of the real story. He let
me know that he wasn't pleased with my methods:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7432d6e8888acc6b?dmode=source&hl=en
Thomas.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 27 Sep 2005 06:01:50 AM
In article <1127771799.682280.95180@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote:


Jason Stanidge wrote:

"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127758390.972547.177360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Phil Holman wrote:

Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
Al?

Phil H


Schwartz has from the beginning misrepresented his involvement with the
experimental team. He was not ever a full member of a collaboration
with them. For a while, they did respond to Schwartz' emails, but
quickly found his discussions of the "theory" to be "specious and
paradoxical".

Unfortunately for Schwartz, he offended the team in China with his
statements claiming all the credit for any results. Statements
referring to them as merely "muscle and experience" did not help
Schwartz.

You can imagine that they were not pleased to hear that Schwartz was
giving a talk on the subject, discussing "his experiment" in China.

If Scwhartz does some serious fence-mending, he may hear the results
before they become public. I expect that when an APS abstract or a
paper in PRL or PRD is published, Schwartz will hear at the same time
as the rest of the world.

Thomas.


How do you know all this?


Back in April, when Scwhartz was making some of his rudest comments, I
forwarded some of them to Prof. Luo.

You have just given the one reason why serious study cannot
be done nor discussed on a public forum. People who cannot
think long-term will disrupt them.
/BAH
.
User: "Sheldon Harper"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 27 Sep 2005 05:09:21 PM
wrote in
news:dhb8qu$8u0_001@s835.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:

You have just given the one reason why serious study cannot
be done nor discussed on a public forum. People who cannot
think long-term will disrupt them.

Please google Pons Fleischmann and do a little reading.
These newsgroups have been here before and no doubt will be here
again.
.

User: "Thomas Johnson"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 28 Sep 2005 11:44:48 PM
wrote:

In article <1127771799.682280.95180@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote:


Jason Stanidge wrote:

"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127758390.972547.177360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Phil Holman wrote:

Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
Al?

Phil H


Schwartz has from the beginning misrepresented his involvement with the
experimental team. He was not ever a full member of a collaboration
with them. For a while, they did respond to Schwartz' emails, but
quickly found his discussions of the "theory" to be "specious and
paradoxical".

Unfortunately for Schwartz, he offended the team in China with his
statements claiming all the credit for any results. Statements
referring to them as merely "muscle and experience" did not help
Schwartz.

You can imagine that they were not pleased to hear that Schwartz was
giving a talk on the subject, discussing "his experiment" in China.

If Scwhartz does some serious fence-mending, he may hear the results
before they become public. I expect that when an APS abstract or a
paper in PRL or PRD is published, Schwartz will hear at the same time
as the rest of the world.

Thomas.


How do you know all this?


Back in April, when Scwhartz was making some of his rudest comments, I
forwarded some of them to Prof. Luo.


You have just given the one reason why serious study cannot
be done nor discussed on a public forum. People who cannot
think long-term will disrupt them.

Actually, Scwhartz has given a good example of why researchers are
skeptical of working with people they don't know.
Let's see, Scwhartz makes a suggestion to Luo. Luo acts on it, and
occasionally let's Schwartz know what is happening. Schwartz not only
posts this to the newsgroups, but he also presnts himself as the lord
and master of the research project. He continued to do this even after
being directly scolded for this behavior.
Remember, I didn't get Scwhartz kicked off of the collaboration. There
never was one to begin with. Schwartz' comments on the newsgroups were
inaccurate and insulting to prof. Luo.
I must have missed your post where you informed Scwhartz about your
displeasure at having been lied to for the past year. I must have
missed where you told him that he was out of bounds for attacking a
person who isn't around to defend himself. I must have missed the post
where you stated that suggesting that blood would "fill the gutters"
was out of bounds.
If you scold me for my behavior but remain silent on Schwartz', you are
showing tacit approval of his actions.
Thomas.
.
User: "Al Zenner"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 29 Sep 2005 03:46:31 PM
"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1127969088.925593.302900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1127771799.682280.95180@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You have just given the one reason why serious study cannot
be done nor discussed on a public forum. People who cannot
think long-term will disrupt them.


Actually, Scwhartz has given a good example of why researchers are
skeptical of working with people they don't know.


Let's see, Scwhartz makes a suggestion to Luo. Luo acts on it, and
occasionally let's Schwartz know what is happening. Schwartz not only
posts this to the newsgroups, but he also presnts himself as the lord
and master of the research project. He continued to do this even after
being directly scolded for this behavior.


Remember, I didn't get Scwhartz kicked off of the collaboration. There
never was one to begin with. Schwartz' comments on the newsgroups were
inaccurate and insulting to prof. Luo.


I must have missed your post where you informed Scwhartz about your
displeasure at having been lied to for the past year. I must have
missed where you told him that he was out of bounds for attacking a
person who isn't around to defend himself. I must have missed the post
where you stated that suggesting that blood would "fill the gutters"
was out of bounds.


If you scold me for my behavior but remain silent on Schwartz', you are
showing tacit approval of his actions.

jmfbahciv recently posted something about cognitive dissonance. Guess who
is on the receiving end at the moment. It is much easier to continue to
believe in the things in which a person has an emotional investment even
in the face of all sorts of evidence to the contrary. Protest
notwithstanding, such belief often gives rise to a religious fight.
It is obvious that Uncle Al faces the same difficulty.
Maybe as his next project Uncle Al should study the differences in
earthbound basic physics if the sun rose in the west and set in the east.
Perhaps he and Don could collaberate.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 30 Sep 2005 05:05:25 AM
In article <Xns96E0A068C18B0zsp@63.223.5.248>,
Al Zenner <azen@zenner.com> wrote:

"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1127969088.925593.302900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1127771799.682280.95180@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote:


You have just given the one reason why serious study cannot
be done nor discussed on a public forum. People who cannot
think long-term will disrupt them.


Actually, Scwhartz has given a good example of why researchers are
skeptical of working with people they don't know.


Let's see, Scwhartz makes a suggestion to Luo. Luo acts on it, and
occasionally let's Schwartz know what is happening. Schwartz not only
posts this to the newsgroups, but he also presnts himself as the lord
and master of the research project. He continued to do this even after
being directly scolded for this behavior.


Remember, I didn't get Scwhartz kicked off of the collaboration. There
never was one to begin with. Schwartz' comments on the newsgroups were
inaccurate and insulting to prof. Luo.


I must have missed your post where you informed Scwhartz about your
displeasure at having been lied to for the past year. I must have
missed where you told him that he was out of bounds for attacking a
person who isn't around to defend himself. I must have missed the post
where you stated that suggesting that blood would "fill the gutters"
was out of bounds.


If you scold me for my behavior but remain silent on Schwartz', you are
showing tacit approval of his actions.



jmfbahciv recently posted something about cognitive dissonance. Guess who
is on the receiving end at the moment.

Are you talking to me [/BAH]or him?
Just in case you are referring to me, did you also read
what I was interested in and what I noted as the good
side effects of Uncle's efforts? It had nothing to do
with the contents of Uncle's exploration.
It occurred to me last night that people reading my posts may
not have an adequate long term thinking ability. I have
said that I don't care about who gets credit (if it is
a Nobel level) because I am not going to be alive if
that work is awarded.
Is the science biz really this obsessed more with who did
what when than scratching their curiosity itch and passing
on better methods to help with the research?

It is much easier to continue to
believe in the things in which a person has an emotional investment even
in the face of all sorts of evidence to the contrary. Protest
notwithstanding, such belief often gives rise to a religious fight.

It is obvious that Uncle Al faces the same difficulty.

Uncle has difficulties. I'm not talking about his foibles.
I am talking about how Uncle did do the work he did.


Maybe as his next project Uncle Al should study the differences in
earthbound basic physics if the sun rose in the west and set in the east.
Perhaps he and Don could collaberate.

Thus, if a person is not socially acceptable, none of his or her
work should be used? Are you suggesting that all of the side
results of Uncle's project be removed and eradicated to wait
for a more PCable person to "rediscover"?
If this is the case, then you are going to have to eradicate
everything after Newton; he, reportedly, was also not a nice
man. So anything that has used the results of his work,
has to be thrown out. This is all manufactured items; your
computers; networks; possibly even indoor plumbing. Oh,
and there won't be any employment since jobs these days
are based on results of the results of that work.
/BAH
.
User: "Al Zenner"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 30 Sep 2005 11:19:21 AM
wrote in
news:dhj2l5$8qk_001@s911.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:

In article <Xns96E0A068C18B0zsp@63.223.5.248>,
Al Zenner <azen@zenner.com> wrote:

"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1127969088.925593.302900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

If you scold me for my behavior but remain silent on Schwartz',
you are showing tacit approval of his actions.

jmfbahciv recently posted something about cognitive dissonance. Guess
who is on the receiving end at the moment.


Are you talking to me [/BAH]or him?

I was talking to you, but since you pointed this out, true for both
of you.

Just in case you are referring to me, did you also read
what I was interested in and what I noted as the good
side effects of Uncle's efforts? It had nothing to do
with the contents of Uncle's exploration.

Actually it has everything to do with the contents, as you demonstrate
later and elsewhere.

It occurred to me last night that people reading my posts may
not have an adequate long term thinking ability. I have
said that I don't care about who gets credit (if it is
a Nobel level) because I am not going to be alive if
that work is awarded.

Hard to say unless your long term thinking ends quite soon.

Is the science biz really this obsessed more with who did
what when than scratching their curiosity itch and passing
on better methods to help with the research?

The science biz is obsessed with doing science. What has been going on with
Uncle Al, his supporters, and his detractors, has the trappings of science
but in the end it hasn't been science at all, but a major political effort
on Uncle Al's part to have a particular experiment run reviled by others
who either have a personal dislike for the guy and-or don't understand the
significance of the experiment which Uncle Al is personally unable to
undertake under the best of circumstances.
You seem to believe that science was being done in a new way. Unfortunately
you bought into a salesman's pitch. The study of chirality has a history
predating Uncle Al.

It is much easier to continue to
believe in the things in which a person has an emotional investment even
in the face of all sorts of evidence to the contrary. Protest
notwithstanding, such belief often gives rise to a religious fight.
It is obvious that Uncle Al faces the same difficulty.


Uncle has difficulties. I'm not talking about his foibles.
I am talking about how Uncle did do the work he did.

Please explain to me what "work he did" and the scientific significance
of such work.

Maybe as his next project Uncle Al should study the differences in
earthbound basic physics if the sun rose in the west and set in the
east. Perhaps he and Don could collaberate.


Thus, if a person is not socially acceptable, none of his or her
work should be used? Are you suggesting that all of the side
results of Uncle's project be removed and eradicated to wait
for a more PCable person to "rediscover"?

You obviously missed the little L-R joke.
Once again, what work? Others have done a lot of actually significanrt
theoretical work on chirality. Petitjean's web page might enlighten you.
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
Please list for me any significant and substantial scientific achievments
you claim Uncle Al has given to he world resulting from this project. Also
describe their impact on present day knowledge.

If this is the case, then you are going to have to eradicate
everything after Newton; he, reportedly, was also not a nice
man.

Newton imparted worthwhile knowledge. So did von Braun. Science and
technology has accepted results from all sorts of mad and nasty folks
so that's *not* the problem. No one appears to be jealous of Uncle Al.
Their sensibilities are offended on personal and professional levels.
It takes a greater degree of understanding than most in these science
newsgroups possess to appreciate what Uncle Al has been promoting. That
in itself presents one problem. But in the end, so far as I have been
able to ascertain, the totality of Al's contribution has been promoting
the concept for experiment.
That's not to say that others involved in his project haven't come up with
interesting avenues to pursue, but I haven't seen anything published as
yet. Have I missed anything?

So anything that has used the results of his work,
has to be thrown out. This is all manufactured items; your
computers; networks; possibly even indoor plumbing. Oh,
and there won't be any employment since jobs these days
are based on results of the results of that work.

Sorry, but your reducio ad absurdum falls flat, probably because you're
marching to the beat of Uncle Al's drum.
As I implied earlier, you're so heavily emotionally invested in your beliefs
that no amount of contradictory fact is likely to have any impact other
than ushering in additional defensive rhetoric. Just as the folks began to
believe that turning knobs was actually fun you seem taken to believing that
form is more important than function in a discipline where function is
everything. How many different ways are there to invent a wheel? Are the ways
important, or the result? You can study ways allyou want, but when all the
ways lead to "no result" (not to be confused, however, with "null output"
which is a result) what have you achieved?
I understand that unwinding from believing in a person and their project is
a difficult process, sometimes consisting of intermediate steps. I'm sure
someone formally trained in psychology beyond the introductory courses I
took can explain the entire process much better than I.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 01 Oct 2005 06:37:27 AM
In article <Xns96E173234ECF7zsp@63.223.5.248>,
Al Zenner <azen@zenner.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in
news:dhj2l5$8qk_001@s911.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:

In article <Xns96E0A068C18B0zsp@63.223.5.248>,
Al Zenner <azen@zenner.com> wrote:


"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1127969088.925593.302900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


If you scold me for my behavior but remain silent on Schwartz',
you are showing tacit approval of his actions.


jmfbahciv recently posted something about cognitive dissonance. Guess
who is on the receiving end at the moment.


Are you talking to me [/BAH]or him?


I was talking to you, but since you pointed this out, true for both
of you.

Just in case you are referring to me, did you also read
what I was interested in and what I noted as the good
side effects of Uncle's efforts? It had nothing to do
with the contents of Uncle's exploration.


Actually it has everything to do with the contents, as you demonstrate
later and elsewhere.

Sigh! I can not have anything to do with the contents because
I don't understand that part. I leave the science biz to
scientits.


It occurred to me last night that people reading my posts may
not have an adequate long term thinking ability. I have
said that I don't care about who gets credit (if it is
a Nobel level) because I am not going to be alive if
that work is awarded.


Hard to say unless your long term thinking ends quite soon.

Assuming everything is perfect: 10 years research and
development; another 10-20 for engineering apps. Perhaps
another 50 for the tech to become common, it is taken for
granted and taught in kindergarten physics classes.
This is all assuming that the results are not subject
to national top security classifications.


Is the science biz really this obsessed more with who did
what when than scratching their curiosity itch and passing
on better methods to help with the research?


The science biz is obsessed with doing science.

From these posts, I've started to think that it has
to do with old policies and procedures based on the
old boy network.

..What has been going on with
Uncle Al, his supporters, and his detractors,

There are two, IIRC, people who actually talk about the science rather
than personality conflicts. The thread drifts of these two have
been interesting.

.. has the trappings of science
but in the end it hasn't been science at all, but a major political effort
on Uncle Al's part to have a particular experiment run reviled by others
who either have a personal dislike for the guy and-or don't understand the
significance of the experiment which Uncle Al is personally unable to
undertake under the best of circumstances.

This is another part that is interesting. If somebody, who is
outside the field w.r.t. employment, has a good idea, how in the
hell does your biz hear about it? This is the negative part
of science's procedures about papers. The good thing about
these procedures is retaining knowledge.


You seem to believe that science was being done in a new way.

Not the science. You still don't seem to be reading what
I write. It is possible that I'm not writing clearly enough;
writing is not on my list of fun things to do.

.. Unfortunately
you bought into a salesman's pitch. The study of chirality has a history
predating Uncle Al.

You have absolutely no idea what I'm looking at. Instead,
you interpret everything as an emotional reaction. Pot, kettle,
black.


It is much easier to continue to
believe in the things in which a person has an emotional investment even
in the face of all sorts of evidence to the contrary. Protest
notwithstanding, such belief often gives rise to a religious fight.


It is obvious that Uncle Al faces the same difficulty.


Uncle has difficulties. I'm not talking about his foibles.
I am talking about how Uncle did do the work he did.


Please explain to me what "work he did" and the scientific significance
of such work.

The one result that I can say will affect science is the
computation methods and tools that were uesd. Do you
honestly think that AMD ignored all this? Do you honestly
think that people will be content to wait in line for years
for a Cray time slot if they can run it on something they
can plug into their house current? Are you underestimating
the extreme usefulness of being able to do enough computing
to discard the ideas that won't work before a Cray is used?
And a kiddie, who is brilliant, will not have to go through
8 years of advanced training to try out new computational
methods. He can do it in his room when he's bored to tears
by adding 2 + 2 repeatedly.
Furthermore, the future geniuses can have access to other
people who are learning to think AND they conversational
access to people who have already learned how to think.
Do you honestly not see the tsunamis of learning and
exploration that will be done if people with varied
backgrounds and knowledge can meet without having to
pay for physical travel?


Maybe as his next project Uncle Al should study the differences in
earthbound basic physics if the sun rose in the west and set in the
east. Perhaps he and Don could collaberate.


Thus, if a person is not socially acceptable, none of his or her
work should be used? Are you suggesting that all of the side
results of Uncle's project be removed and eradicated to wait
for a more PCable person to "rediscover"?


You obviously missed the little L-R joke.

This is not a fucking joking matter. It is so serious I cannot
describe how serious it is.


Once again, what work?

The work that makes it possible for other scientists and
engineers to do their jobs.

Others have done a lot of actually significanrt
theoretical work on chirality. Petitjean's web page might enlighten you.

http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html

Please list for me any significant and substantial scientific achievments
you claim Uncle Al has given to he world resulting from this project. Also
describe their impact on present day knowledge.

Uncle led. It is how he got people, who would have never talked
to each other in their lifetimes, together working on little
pieces of Uncle's project. Those little pieces are extraordinary.
Even the computer games people are becoming aware of multi-CPU
systems (which my biz ignored for 20+ years). I am not crediting
Uncle as the sole mover of these configurations and computing
possibilities, but I am crediting him with starting more people
to talk to more people about the existence of multi-tightly-
coupled CPUs.
This is one side effect of Uncle's effort. In the computing biz,
as with any other manfuctured "toy", word of mouth eventually
because a market demand. It happened with VCRs, cellphones,
microwave ovens, and any electronic device that you can buy
off the shelf today.


If this is the case, then you are going to have to eradicate
everything after Newton; he, reportedly, was also not a nice
man.


Newton imparted worthwhile knowledge. So did von Braun. Science and
technology has accepted results from all sorts of mad and nasty folks
so that's *not* the problem.

Perhaps you should use my impressions as data rather than
blithely dismissing them as noise. But, alas, I forgot; you
are a scientist and everybody else is an idiot with no ability
to think.

.. No one appears to be jealous of Uncle Al.

Then you have not been reading anything that has been written.

Their sensibilities are offended on personal and professional levels.

I understand this. What I'm worried about is the latter. Snobs
don't cause progress because progress means change and adaptation.

It takes a greater degree of understanding than most in these science
newsgroups possess to appreciate what Uncle Al has been promoting. That
in itself presents one problem. But in the end, so far as I have been
able to ascertain,

Then you haven't noticed anything other than your very narrow field
of knowledge. I'm telling you that a lot has been done and
has effects. None of this is "scientific" but it all was
in how the project got itself together and the tools that
were made to do the computational work and the communications
while getting that work done. Do you have any idea how
difficult it is to have people who can't yell over the wall
at each other get anything productive done? Especially when
that work has not been transformed into an engineering discipline
yet.

.. the totality of Al's contribution has been promoting
the concept for experiment.

And you keep looking at the syllabus of the project. I'm
looking at all the work that was done before that paragraph
was written. That is the grunt work of science. From my
point of view, the hypothesis is the pretty packaging.
[I think I'd better don my moth-eaten flame suit now. You will
never understand what I meant by that but I couldn't figure
out how write it clearer and better.]


That's not to say that others involved in his project haven't come up with
interesting avenues to pursue,

Finally!! This is what I've been looking at.

..but I haven't seen anything published as
yet. Have I missed anything?

We don't generally publish. Our biz has not acquired your biz'
methods of handing down knowledge. We are getting there but
it's made a u-turn, IMO, because of the unfortunate addition
of the word science in the degree name.


So anything that has used the results of his work,
has to be thrown out. This is all manufactured items; your
computers; networks; possibly even indoor plumbing. Oh,
and there won't be any employment since jobs these days
are based on results of the results of that work.


Sorry, but your reducio ad absurdum falls flat, probably because you're
marching to the beat of Uncle Al's drum.

Oh, honey. You don't have any idea what drum I march to.


As I implied earlier, you're so heavily emotionally invested

No. There is no basis for your conclusion.

..in your beliefs

Ah, there is a name for this; you are imposing your emotion
reactions into my personna. If I were an animal, it would
be called anthropomorphism but limited to attributing your
personal beliefs.

that no amount of contradictory fact is likely to have any impact other
than ushering in additional defensive rhetoric. Just as the folks began to
believe that turning knobs was actually fun you seem taken to believing that
form is more important than function in a discipline where function is
everything. How many different ways are there to invent a wheel?

Thousands. Materials, design, size, number, terrain, etc.
A lot of people are making a lot of money improving a round
thing.

Are the ways
important, or the result?

It's a CATCH-22 with a useful feedback mechanism. This is something
you seem to be missing. Getting a new result usually requires
creating new tools and/or methods that can be used in thousands
of other endeavors. The result may become a seed corn
for a gazillion other results--which create new methods,...

.. You can study ways allyou want, but when all the
ways lead to "no result" (not to be confused, however, with "null output"
which is a result) what have you achieved?

Now you are talking about something else because Uncle's project
did not lead to "no result". Just the computation aspect is
going to be <ahem>interesting.


I understand that unwinding from believing in a person and their project is
a difficult process, sometimes consisting of intermediate steps.

I'm sure you don't understand becaues you need to start going through
that process.

.. I'm sure
someone formally trained in psychology beyond the introductory courses I
took can explain the entire process much better than I.

If you have to wait until it can be explained in English ASCII,
you will never see what I am talking about.
/BAH
.
User: "Al Zenner"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 01 Oct 2005 08:13:45 PM
wrote in
news:dhlsdn$8qk_001@s1003.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:

In article <Xns96E173234ECF7zsp@63.223.5.248>,
Al Zenner <azen@zenner.com> wrote:

This has been one of the nicest non-discussion discussions I've had in
a long time. Thank you.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 02 Oct 2005 04:47:55 AM
In article <Xns96E2CDC433A7Czsp@63.223.5.248>,
Al Zenner <azen@zenner.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in
news:dhlsdn$8qk_001@s1003.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:

In article <Xns96E173234ECF7zsp@63.223.5.248>,
Al Zenner <azen@zenner.com> wrote:


This has been one of the nicest non-discussion discussions I've had in
a long time. Thank you.

<grin> You are welcome. It reminded me a tad of our brain
storming sessions at my job.
/BAH
.






User: ""

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 29 Sep 2005 07:30:47 AM
In article <1127969088.925593.302900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1127771799.682280.95180@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote:


Jason Stanidge wrote:

"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127758390.972547.177360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Phil Holman wrote:

Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the

latest

Al?

Phil H


Schwartz has from the beginning misrepresented his involvement with

the

experimental team. He was not ever a full member of a collaboration
with them. For a while, they did respond to Schwartz' emails, but
quickly found his discussions of the "theory" to be "specious and
paradoxical".

Unfortunately for Schwartz, he offended the team in China with his
statements claiming all the credit for any results. Statements
referring to them as merely "muscle and experience" did not help
Schwartz.

You can imagine that they were not pleased to hear that Schwartz was
giving a talk on the subject, discussing "his experiment" in China.

If Scwhartz does some serious fence-mending, he may hear the results
before they become public. I expect that when an APS abstract or a
paper in PRL or PRD is published, Schwartz will hear at the same time
as the rest of the world.

Thomas.


How do you know all this?


Back in April, when Scwhartz was making some of his rudest comments, I
forwarded some of them to Prof. Luo.


You have just given the one reason why serious study cannot
be done nor discussed on a public forum. People who cannot
think long-term will disrupt them.


Actually, Scwhartz has given a good example of why researchers are
skeptical of working with people they don't know.

Honey, this is smoke and mirrors. I don't know how clearly
I can put this but I am not interested in the politics. I
am interested in the utility and possibilities now that
serious CPU power is available to every Tom, *****, and Al.


Let's see, Scwhartz makes a suggestion to Luo.

I don't care. I am not interested in the politics.

.. Luo acts on it, and
occasionally let's Schwartz know what is happening. Schwartz not only
posts this to the newsgroups, but he also presnts himself as the lord
and master of the research project.

I don't about anybody else, but I did not read "lord and master"
in any of those posts. I am grownup enough to know that he
was not. I don't know the details of how scientists in China
get paid but I do know that their bosses are nobody outside
their political system, let alone outside of the country.

..He continued to do this even after
being directly scolded for this behavior.

Remember, I didn't get Scwhartz kicked off of the collaboration.

And I never thought there was a collaboration. Apparently you
decided there had to be one because Uncle was posting about work
getting done. So you felt obligated to fix that.

. There
never was one to begin with. Schwartz' comments on the newsgroups were
inaccurate and insulting to prof. Luo.

I didn't insults in those posts. Apparently you did.
Furthermore, you had to explain them as insults to people who
were doing work.


I must have missed your post where you informed Scwhartz about your
displeasure at having been lied to for the past year.

Do you think I would have cared if that were the case? I am
not interested in personality conflicts, internal politics of
the science biz, nor your assumption of what I should think
and how I should limit my reading abilities and scope of these
reports.

... I must have
missed where you told him that he was out of bounds for attacking a
person who isn't around to defend himself.

Did this person who was being attacked ask you to intervene for
him?

.. I must have missed the post
where you stated that suggesting that blood would "fill the gutters"
was out of bounds.

I ignore most of Uncle's rhetoric unless I'm looking the pun.


If you scold me for my behavior but remain silent on Schwartz', you are
showing tacit approval of his actions.

Wow! Damned if I do and damned if I don't. And you think Uncle's
style is bad. Yours is worse. Not only that, but you like
to pass on gossip for the sole purpose of making trouble.
This is a trait that is usually attributed to females.
Like I stated in a previous post, you have absolutely no long-term
thinking.
/BAH
.

User: "Quantum Mirror"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 01 Oct 2005 08:54:10 AM
Thomas Johnson wrote:

You have just given the one reason why serious study cannot
be done nor discussed on a public forum. People who cannot
think long-term will disrupt them.


Actually, Scwhartz has given a good example of why researchers are
skeptical of working with people they don't know.

Let's see, Scwhartz makes a suggestion to Luo. Luo acts on it, and
occasionally let's Schwartz know what is happening. Schwartz not only
posts this to the newsgroups, but he also presnts himself as the lord
and master of the research project. He continued to do this even after
being directly scolded for this behavior.

Remember, I didn't get Scwhartz kicked off of the collaboration. There
never was one to begin with. Schwartz' comments on the newsgroups were
inaccurate and insulting to prof. Luo.

I must have missed your post where you informed Scwhartz about your
displeasure at having been lied to for the past year.

The only lie I have seen over and over is your true identity crybaby
Richard Schultz! Only someone with years of hatred and declared
vengeance for anti-semitic statements would stoop so low and go to so
much trouble to try and destroy the work of another, with so much one
sided passion.
I must have

missed where you told him that he was out of bounds for attacking a
person who isn't around to defend himself. I must have missed the post
where you stated that suggesting that blood would "fill the gutters"
was out of bounds.

Oh these are such terrible injustices that the penality should be
internment awaiting execution? Strip Uncle AL of all his work? Will
poor old Richard Schultz ever find peace of mind as long as one person
is left alive that has made anti-semitic statements? To the death camps
with them all?

If you scold me for my behavior but remain silent on Schwartz', you are
showing tacit approval of his actions.

Thomas.

.
User: "Traveler"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 01 Oct 2005 09:06:23 AM
"Quantum *****" <junebug@pgrb.com> wrote:

Oh these are such terrible injustices that the penality should be
internment awaiting execution? Strip Uncle AL of all his work? Will
poor old Richard Schultz ever find peace of mind as long as one person
is left alive that has made anti-semitic statements? To the death camps
with them all?

I'm getting the feeling that Quantum ***** invested some money in one
of Uncle Al's hairbrained schemes and would like to see some of the
money back. Notoriety from a non-null announcement would be a good way
to attract more clueless investors. ahahaha... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
User: "Quantum Mirror"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 01 Oct 2005 12:21:03 PM
Traveler wrote:

"Quantum *****" <junebug@pgrb.com> wrote:

Oh these are such terrible injustices that the penality should be
internment awaiting execution? Strip Uncle AL of all his work? Will
poor old Richard Schultz ever find peace of mind as long as one person
is left alive that has made anti-semitic statements? To the death camps
with them all?


I'm getting the feeling that Quantum ***** invested some money in one
of Uncle Al's hairbrained schemes and would like to see some of the
money back. Notoriety from a non-null announcement would be a good way
to attract more clueless investors. ahahaha... ahahaha...

You had the wrong feeling as usual. I like to read his posts when they
contain physics. That is so much better than reading "***** kisser" or
synonymous cussing and swearing with no physics content posted 50-100
times daily. Your posts are boring, repetitious, worthless, uneducated
horse droppings. The kind which has destroyed this news group. I only
come here to read what Uncle Al and a couple of others have to say and
when he no longer contributes I will not return. I will leave it to
scum like you!
.


User: "WattMan"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 01 Oct 2005 10:20:49 AM
"Quantum Mirror" <junebug@pgrb.com> wrote in message
news:1128174850.740823.148810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...


Thomas Johnson wrote:

You have just given the one reason why serious study cannot
be done nor discussed on a public forum. People who cannot
think long-term will disrupt them.


Actually, Scwhartz has given a good example of why researchers are
skeptical of working with people they don't know.

Let's see, Scwhartz makes a suggestion to Luo. Luo acts on it, and
occasionally let's Schwartz know what is happening. Schwartz not
only
posts this to the newsgroups, but he also presnts himself as the lord
and master of the research project. He continued to do this even
after
being directly scolded for this behavior.

Remember, I didn't get Scwhartz kicked off of the collaboration.
There
never was one to begin with. Schwartz' comments on the newsgroups
were
inaccurate and insulting to prof. Luo.

I must have missed your post where you informed Scwhartz about your
displeasure at having been lied to for the past year.


The only lie I have seen over and over is your true identity crybaby
Richard Schultz! Only someone with years of hatred and declared
vengeance for anti-semitic statements would stoop so low and go to so
much trouble to try and destroy the work of another, with so much one
sided passion.

I must have

missed where you told him that he was out of bounds for attacking a
person who isn't around to defend himself. I must have missed the
post
where you stated that suggesting that blood would "fill the gutters"
was out of bounds.


Oh these are such terrible injustices that the penality should be
internment awaiting execution? Strip Uncle AL of all his work? Will
poor old Richard Schultz ever find peace of mind as long as one
person
is left alive that has made anti-semitic statements? To the death
camps
with them all?

If you scold me for my behavior but remain silent on Schwartz', you
are
showing tacit approval of his actions.

Thomas.


The inescapable conclusion is that Richard Schultz and Thomas Johnson
are both noms de plume adopted by Uncle Al's soon-to-be ex-wife.
Only Mrs Uncle Al would have the motivation to do the dastardly things
that Shultz and Johnson do to Uncle Al. Her actions are excusable. Can
you imagine what it would be like to be married to Uncle Al?
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 02 Oct 2005 04:49:30 AM
In article <lPx%e.60670$mb4.27852@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
"WattMan" <hm_bob@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

Can
you imagine what it would be like to be married to Uncle Al?

Yup. Life would never be boring.
/BAH
.
User: "WattMan"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 02 Oct 2005 10:18:14 AM
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dhoafa$8qk_002@s873.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <lPx%e.60670$mb4.27852@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
"WattMan" <hm_bob@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

Can
you imagine what it would be like to be married to Uncle Al?


Yup. Life would never be boring.

Oh yes, I understand that some women actually get a strange excitement
from being the subject of abuse and humiliation.
Of course, you'd have to weigh that upside against the Unc's reputation
for
delivering lots of talk and no results. Could have serious implications
for the
marital bed. Maybe the soon-to-be ex-Mrs Uncle Al will write a book.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 03 Oct 2005 04:35:43 AM
In article <WSS%e.86047$32.56392@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
"WattMan" <hm_bob@hotmail.com> wrote:


<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dhoafa$8qk_002@s873.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <lPx%e.60670$mb4.27852@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
"WattMan" <hm_bob@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

Can
you imagine what it would be like to be married to Uncle Al?


Yup. Life would never be boring.


Oh yes, I understand that some women actually get a strange excitement
from being the subject of abuse and humiliation.

Check your assumptions. Uncle's mate would have to
have remarkable thinking abilities to stay a step
ahead.
<snip>
/BAH
.




User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 01 Oct 2005 09:16:06 AM
Quantum Mirror wrote:

Oh these are such terrible injustices that the penality should be
internment awaiting execution? Strip Uncle AL of all his work? Will
poor old Richard Schultz ever find peace of mind as long as one person
is left alive that has made anti-semitic statements? To the death camps
with them all?

http://www.biu.ac.il/ESC/ch/faculty/schultz/rich.jpg
.
User: "Traveler"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 01 Oct 2005 10:03:36 AM
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:

Quantum Mirror wrote:

Oh these are such terrible injustices that the penality should be
internment awaiting execution? Strip Uncle AL of all his work? Will
poor old Richard Schultz ever find peace of mind as long as one person
is left alive that has made anti-semitic statements? To the death camps
with them all?


http://www.biu.ac.il/ESC/ch/faculty/schultz/rich.jpg

Hold on second, Wormlette. Isn't Uncle ***** Jewish? So you two *****
kissers are attacking a Jewish man (Richard Schultz) for criticizing
another Jewish man (Uncle *****)? Makes a lot of sense. Not!
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.

User: "Schoenfeld"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 01 Oct 2005 12:00:02 PM
Sam Wormley wrote:

Quantum Mirror wrote:

Oh these are such terrible injustices that the penality should be
internment awaiting execution? Strip Uncle AL of all his work? Will
poor old Richard Schultz ever find peace of mind as long as one person
is left alive that has made anti-semitic statements? To the death camps
with them all?


http://www.biu.ac.il/ESC/ch/faculty/schultz/rich.jpg

http://www.themusicmen.net/img/wormleybio.jpg
.
User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 01 Oct 2005 12:21:26 PM
Schoenfeld wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Quantum Mirror wrote:


Oh these are such terrible injustices that the penality should be
internment awaiting execution? Strip Uncle AL of all his work? Will
poor old Richard Schultz ever find peace of mind as long as one person
is left alive that has made anti-semitic statements? To the death camps
with them all?


http://www.biu.ac.il/ESC/ch/faculty/schultz/rich.jpg



http://www.themusicmen.net/img/wormleybio.jpg

Drink up Schoenfeld... I took you off my crank list at your request
so's you could get a job.
.






User: "Quantum Mirror"

Title: Re: Eotvos - Status Update 27 Sep 2005 05:34:01 PM
Thomas Johnson wrote:

Jason Stanidge wrote:

"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127758390.972547.177360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Phil Holman wrote:

Mid September was slated for the parity test result. What's the latest
Al?

Phil H


Schwartz has from the beginning misrepresented his involvement with the
experimental team. He was not ever a full member of a collaboration
with them. For a while, they did respond to Schwartz' emails, but
quickly found his discussions of the "theory" to be "specious and
paradoxical".

Unfortunately for Schwartz, he offended the team in China with his
statements claiming all the credit for any results. Statements
referring to them as merely "muscle and experience" did not help
Schwartz.

You can imagine that they were not pleased to hear that Schwartz was
giving a talk on the subject, discussing "his experiment" in China.

If Scwhartz does some serious fence-mending, he may hear the results
before they become public. I expect that when an APS abstract or a
paper in PRL or PRD is published, Schwartz will hear at the same time
as the rest of the world.

Thomas.


How do you know all this?


Back in April, when Scwhartz was making some of his rudest comments, I
forwarded some of them to Prof. Luo. At that time, I was not even sure
that Schwartz wasn't just making up the whole thing about Prof. Luo
doing the experiments. Prof. Luo sent an email to Schartz and cc'd me.
The email made it very clear that Schwartz was not a full
collaborator, that his comments on the newsgroups were not welcome, and
that further communication between them was not going to happen.

When the experimentor on the project refers to your discussions as
"specious and paradoxical", you should probably take note.

Schwartz did calm down for a long while after I made a couple of posts
letting him know that I had knew something of the real story. He let
me know that he wasn't pleased with my methods:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7432d6e8888acc6b?dmode=source&hl=en

Thomas.

What an *****! Your only purpose is to stir up conflict, you have
never done anything positive in your life and never will. You should be
forced to read every post in this newsgroup by spaceman 1000 times. You
would end up craving every word Al ever wrote. At least he was trying
to do some real physics. What are you trying to accomplish? Making as
many lives as miserable as possible before you die?
.





  Page 2 of 2

1

 

2

 


Related Articles
Physics News Update -- Number 666, December 18, 2003
Physics News Update -- Number 673, February 18, 2004
Physics News Update -- Number 674, February 23, 2004
Physics News Update -- Number 685, May 12, 2004
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 688 June 11, 2004 by Phillip F. Schewe,Ben Stein
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 690 June 30, 2004 by Phillip F. Schewe,Ben Stein
Parity Eotvos experiment, update.
Operation Troll Shoulder Weekend Update
Update to Revealing Fermion Mass re: Neutrino Mass Question
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 721 February 24, 2005 by Phillip F.Schewe, Ben Stein
AUSTRALIA GRAIN DEVASTATION - DDD MAY UPDATE
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 737 July 14, 2005 by Phillip F. Schewe,Ben Stein
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 738 July 21, 2005 by Phillip F. Schewe,Ben Stein
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 744 September 6, 2005 by Phillip F.Schewe, Ben Stein
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE Number 749 October 13, 2005 by Phillip F.Schewe and Ben Stein
 

NEWER

pg.1169     pg.647     pg.357     pg.196     pg.107     pg.58     pg.31     pg.16     pg.8     pg.4     pg.2

OLDER