to Mark Fergerson:

... the full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz comes along with
its own controls - the two hemiparity Eotvos experiments of
each hand of quartz vs. fused silica. In any case, different test
masses can be cut, fabricated, and completely run within four months.
The equipment is qualified from previous classical runs, as are the
protocols for running the thing and analyzing data and errors. The
signal is phase-lock amplified slaved to balance rotation.
Everything external cancels at will.
**** I did it my way and I did it right. ****
**** My people are the best at every step. ****

The loaded rotor is *perfectly* classically balanced to all orders of
mass distribution and moments of inertia. Quartz is quartz to the
limits of fabrication excellence.
A net signal - a big one! - has only one possible origin:
**** left hands vacuum free fall differently from right hands. ****
**** It's Petitjean's CHI what done it. ****

Luo did solid cylinders. Adelberger was assigned solid spheres
at his insistence. Solid pentagonal dodecahedra also qualify.
We're increasingly thinking we did it with sigmas to spare.
GR is fundamentally wrong at the postulate level.
Hooh-rah. Now, I'm bored again.>

Yeah, but it's a secret that cannot be kept. This post, for example.
We then ask, "how stooopid is the US government?" [<=== A]
Real stooopid in real time, but also real paranoid especially
after the fact. Uncle Al, being a loyal citizen, has sent notice
through channels. Nothing will come of it.

Measured numbers [for G] don't jive big time and nobody can find an
error in disparate groups' work. At the moment it looks like the Eot-Wash
quadrupole pendulum is in the lead. They are no damned good at
picking materials, though.

They [who??] might wonder how a foreign researcher [Luo???]
independently discovered what was already known and publicly disclosed,
[in] "Affine vs. Metric Gravitation Parity Test" Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 49(2)
54 (2004) [D9.006] by Alan M. Schwartz (MGLS, Ltd.)

... why he [who?] cannot produce a reason for test mass configuration.
If I were diddling cylinders I would have their height equal their
diameter. The parity Eotvos experiment has their height equal to
sqrt(3) times their radius. It's in Petitjean's math and we've
checked it with explicit QCM calculation of tellurium crystallattice
samplings, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b36
There's second order stuff beyond moments of inertia, also
inexplicable without Petitjean. ...... ***[same reason as above in (B)]***
I think the full parity Eotvos experiment had a net signal to spec
and, like Moses looking at the Promised Land, the guy who performed
the experiment doesn't get the Prize. Mine, all mine - and two dozen
folks who get a check in the mail. They volunteered, they get boons
if and when it works. Other debts to be paid, too.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Uncle Al

I think the full parity Eotvos experiment had a net signal to spec
and, like Moses looking at the Promised Land, the guy who performed
the experiment doesn't get the Prize. Mine, all mine - and two dozen

folks who get a check in the mail. They volunteered, they get boons
if and when it works. Other debts to be paid, too.
--
Uncle Al

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:18:04 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in <4332F55C.38119820@hate.spam.net>:

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.

I'm kinda thinkin' maybe the Equivalence Principle has fallen. Given
the timing vs. experiment duration, it would be an Eotvos factor of
more than 10^(-12) difference/average compared to demonstrated balance
sensitivity of 10^-(13) and my predicted 3x10^(-12). That's a whole
big pile of standard deviations.

If they have some signal, they will want to re-run, and then will test and
test and test for systematic errors.

I tend to concur. After all, great discoveries are usually
heralded by phrases like "I wasn't expecting _that_".

You forget that that the full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz comes
along with its own controls - the two hemiparity Eotvos experiments of
each hand of quartz vs. fused silica. In any case, different test
masses can be cut, fabricated, and completely run within four months.

The equipment is qualified from previous classical runs, as are the
protocols for running the thing and analyzing data and errors. The
signal is phase-lock amplified slaved to balance rotation. Everything
external cancels at will. I did it my way and I did it right. My
people are the best at every step.

The loaded rotor is *perfectly* classically balanced to all orders of
mass distribution and moments of inertia. Quartz is quartz to the
limits of fabrication excellence. A net signal - a big one! - has
only one possible origin: left hands vacuum free fall differently from
right hands. It's Petitjean's CHI what done it.

Forget about it.
Years, then it will have to be done in a different way by other groups.

As long as the "different way" looks for the same thing.

Already covered. Luo did solid cylinders. Adelberger was assigned
solid spheres at his insistence. Solid pentagonal dodecahedra also
qualify if you are a little bit Rococo. CNC machining and polishing to
optical standards is no big deal.

MAYBE then we will have something.
Look at the silence from the gravity experiment...

Silence from an experiment expected to confirm or refine known
results may indicate "something unexpected".

Yeah. We're increasingly thinking we did it with sigmas to spare. GR
is fundamentally wrong at the postulate level. Hooh-rah. Now, I'm
bored again.

I'd think a null result would rate at least a preliminary
announcement. A non-null OTOH would reasonably generate silence
because nobody wants to be the next Pons & Fleischman.

But silence can indeed be significant, especially if somebody
wearing red shoulderboards starts thinking weaponization...

Yeah, but it's a secret that cannot be kept. This post, for example.
We then ask, "how stooopid is the US government?" Real stooopid in
real time, but also real paranoid especially after the fact. Uncle
Al, being a loyal citizen, has sent notice through channels. Nothing
will come of it.

I've just come off a mild case of flu; what "international Big G
controversy"?

Measured numbers don't jive big time and nobody can find an error in
disparate groups' work. At the moment it looks like the Eot-Wash
quadrupole pendulum is in the lead. They are no damned good at
picking materials, though.

Proximity is not causality, still... and I've been a gadfly about the
ears of MOG personnel while developing the parity Eotvos experiment.

So, Unc might not be on their speed-dial list? ;>)

They might wonder how a foreign researcher independently discovered
what was already known and publicly disclosed,

"Affine vs. Metric Gravitation Parity Test" Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 49(2)
54 (2004)

and why he cannot produce a reason for test mass configuration. If I
were diddling cylinders I would have their height equal their
diameter. The parity Eotvos experiment has their height equal to
sqrt(3) times their radius. It's in Petitjean's math and we've
checked it with explicit QCM calculation of tellurium crystallattice
samplings,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b36

There's second order stuff beyond moments of inertia, also
inexplicable without Petitjean.

I think the full parity Eotvos experiment had a net signal to spec
and, like Moses looking at the Promised Land, the guy who performed
the experiment doesn't get the Prize. Mine, all mine - and two dozen
folks who get a check in the mail. They volunteered, they get boons
if and when it works. Other debts to be paid, too.

Yeah. We're increasingly thinking we did it with sigmas to spare. GR
is fundamentally wrong at the postulate level. Hooh-rah. Now, I'm
bored again.