| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2004 04:07:03 PM |
| Object: |
Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses |
Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses
Douglas Eagleson, 2004
A field of gravity is found to exist with the
existence of either material or nonmaterial
quanta. This is the third abstract quanta,
defined.
The force of gravity as an equivalence force
implies that the quanta is not able to be
detected. As a measurement of gravity only,
would find gravity associated with all field
occupants.
A quanta of force is felt and never seen,
in this definition of the abstract field.
And the gyroscope in the field is a spinning
top.
In Gravity Science any material even a top,
is held inertial!!
So, big, big fallacy is stated. A science of
the equivalance forces has found the tip
of the top, unaccelerated, and therefor all
parts of the top are held in the identical
inertial reference frame.
And here the inertial frame of the tip is
held only another larger frame of the whole
top.
And so the effect of gravity on the mass
as a whole must be either a vector sum in
the field or not.
A fallacy resolution is stated.
A field is to either be allowed to define
occupants of itself or not! That simple is
the logical resolution.
And gravity science has disallowed this
definition of the field.
And the third abstracted quanta is only
defined in a single dimension of the
transission.
So, how is gravity to be reconciled with
quantum mechanics? This is the large, large
question of resolution. How are the three
or four dimensions of General Relativity
to relate all transissions?
And I have defined the fallacy as the
transformation of force itself to the
dimension of field found and altered, and
never caused again, by the force's existence.
An inertial frame is therefor independent
of the observer, but not the thing to which
is held the cause of inertial to noninertial
frame alteration.
A quanta.
And here the abstract observer is the same,
whether, a field, a reference frame, or
the top, is to feel the quanta.
Abstract sight is removed.
And so the top in the field has either
an accelerating occupant to its tip
or not.
And gravity probe B levitates the top in
order to remove this relation or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Big, Big, Big theory resolution is this
experiment. A quanta is either the cause of the
field or not, physically. And it is either
the occupant always of either the inertial or
or the noninertial reference frame.
Making the spinning tops either occupants of the
probe or independent, because of levitation.
It all boils down to these resolution is theory.
___________________________________________________
note:
Any force of the earth effecting the top
must be either a field's force or the
gravity science's equivlance force.
Can the top, see gravity?
And to see rather than feel, is the clock
of the spinning top. A magnetic field is
placed in the sphere and the field rotates
inertially or noninertially.
One or the other, is to be the method of
measure. Is the effect of the nearby
mass, to alter the clock?
And here the question is found already
resolved, and the fallacies stated the means
to the resolution of Gravity and Quantum
Mechanics.
So, the time in Science is now, to decide.
No more weights of tops to determine the
field's occupant and not its existence.
That NIST event in science was very upsetting.
NIST did that experiment to prove equivalence.
And Stanford is to be the disinterested party
to define the resolution as the top.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses |
29 Aug 2004 12:10:48 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<43d9f575.0408261307.256fc4ec@posting.google.com>...
Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses
Douglas Eagleson, 2004
A field of gravity is found to exist with the
existence of either material or nonmaterial
quanta. This is the third abstract quanta,
defined.
The force of gravity as an equivalence force
implies that the quanta is not able to be
detected. As a measurement of gravity only,
would find gravity associated with all field
occupants.
A quanta of force is felt and never seen,
in this definition of the abstract field.
And the gyroscope in the field is a spinning
top.
In Gravity Science any material even a top,
is held inertial!!
So, big, big fallacy is stated. A science of
the equivalance forces has found the tip
of the top, unaccelerated, and therefor all
parts of the top are held in the identical
inertial reference frame.
And here the inertial frame of the tip is
held only another larger frame of the whole
top.
And so the effect of gravity on the mass
as a whole must be either a vector sum in
the field or not.
A fallacy resolution is stated.
A field is to either be allowed to define
occupants of itself or not! That simple is
the logical resolution.
And gravity science has disallowed this
definition of the field.
And the third abstracted quanta is only
defined in a single dimension of the
transission.
So, how is gravity to be reconciled with
quantum mechanics? This is the large, large
question of resolution. How are the three
or four dimensions of General Relativity
to relate all transissions?
And I have defined the fallacy as the
transformation of force itself to the
dimension of field found and altered, and
never caused again, by the force's existence.
An inertial frame is therefor independent
of the observer, but not the thing to which
is held the cause of inertial to noninertial
frame alteration.
A quanta.
And here the abstract observer is the same,
whether, a field, a reference frame, or
the top, is to feel the quanta.
Abstract sight is removed.
And so the top in the field has either
an accelerating occupant to its tip
or not.
And gravity probe B levitates the top in
order to remove this relation or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Big, Big, Big theory resolution is this
experiment. A quanta is either the cause of the
field or not, physically. And it is either
the occupant always of either the inertial or
or the noninertial reference frame.
Making the spinning tops either occupants of the
probe or independent, because of levitation.
It all boils down to these resolution is theory.
___________________________________________________
note:
Any force of the earth effecting the top
must be either a field's force or the
gravity science's equivlance force.
Can the top, see gravity?
And to see rather than feel, is the clock
of the spinning top. A magnetic field is
placed in the sphere and the field rotates
inertially or noninertially.
One or the other, is to be the method of
measure. Is the effect of the nearby
mass, to alter the clock?
And here the question is found already
resolved, and the fallacies stated the means
to the resolution of Gravity and Quantum
Mechanics.
So, the time in Science is now, to decide.
No more weights of tops to determine the
field's occupant and not its existence.
That NIST event in science was very upsetting.
NIST did that experiment to prove equivalence.
And Stanford is to be the disinterested party
to define the resolution as the top.
The spellig of the word transition was intentional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses |
29 Aug 2004 11:00:06 PM |
|
|
In article <43d9f575.0408290910.1554afd5@posting.google.com>,
wrote:
wrote in message
news:<43d9f575.0408261307.256fc4ec@posting.google.com>...
Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses
Douglas Eagleson, 2004
A field of gravity is found to exist with the
existence of either material or nonmaterial
quanta. This is the third abstract quanta,
defined.
The force of gravity as an equivalence force
implies that the quanta is not able to be
detected. As a measurement of gravity only,
would find gravity associated with all field
occupants.
A quanta of force is felt and never seen,
in this definition of the abstract field.
And the gyroscope in the field is a spinning
top.
In Gravity Science any material even a top,
is held inertial!!
So, big, big fallacy is stated. A science of
the equivalance forces has found the tip
of the top, unaccelerated, and therefor all
parts of the top are held in the identical
inertial reference frame.
And here the inertial frame of the tip is
held only another larger frame of the whole
top.
And so the effect of gravity on the mass
as a whole must be either a vector sum in
the field or not.
A fallacy resolution is stated.
A field is to either be allowed to define
occupants of itself or not! That simple is
the logical resolution.
And gravity science has disallowed this
definition of the field.
And the third abstracted quanta is only
defined in a single dimension of the
transission.
So, how is gravity to be reconciled with
quantum mechanics? This is the large, large
question of resolution. How are the three
or four dimensions of General Relativity
to relate all transissions?
And I have defined the fallacy as the
transformation of force itself to the
dimension of field found and altered, and
never caused again, by the force's existence.
An inertial frame is therefor independent
of the observer, but not the thing to which
is held the cause of inertial to noninertial
frame alteration.
A quanta.
And here the abstract observer is the same,
whether, a field, a reference frame, or
the top, is to feel the quanta.
Abstract sight is removed.
And so the top in the field has either
an accelerating occupant to its tip
or not.
And gravity probe B levitates the top in
order to remove this relation or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Big, Big, Big theory resolution is this
experiment. A quanta is either the cause of the
field or not, physically. And it is either
the occupant always of either the inertial or
or the noninertial reference frame.
Making the spinning tops either occupants of the
probe or independent, because of levitation.
It all boils down to these resolution is theory.
___________________________________________________
note:
Any force of the earth effecting the top
must be either a field's force or the
gravity science's equivlance force.
Can the top, see gravity?
And to see rather than feel, is the clock
of the spinning top. A magnetic field is
placed in the sphere and the field rotates
inertially or noninertially.
One or the other, is to be the method of
measure. Is the effect of the nearby
mass, to alter the clock?
And here the question is found already
resolved, and the fallacies stated the means
to the resolution of Gravity and Quantum
Mechanics.
So, the time in Science is now, to decide.
No more weights of tops to determine the
field's occupant and not its existence.
That NIST event in science was very upsetting.
NIST did that experiment to prove equivalence.
And Stanford is to be the disinterested party
to define the resolution as the top.
The spellig of the word transition was intentional.
*
My advice: You should get in line for the stupid, uneducated and
crazy *****-of-the-month award. There are several ahead of you,
but you stand a very good chance.
Keep up the good work.
Somewhere else, hopefully.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses |
30 Aug 2004 10:32:56 AM |
|
|
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-459DDC.21000529082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <43d9f575.0408290910.1554afd5@posting.google.com>,
eagleson2004123@yahoo.com wrote:
eagleson2004123@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:<43d9f575.0408261307.256fc4ec@posting.google.com>...
Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses
Douglas Eagleson, 2004
A field of gravity is found to exist with the
existence of either material or nonmaterial
quanta. This is the third abstract quanta,
defined.
The force of gravity as an equivalence force
implies that the quanta is not able to be
detected. As a measurement of gravity only,
would find gravity associated with all field
occupants.
A quanta of force is felt and never seen,
in this definition of the abstract field.
And the gyroscope in the field is a spinning
top.
In Gravity Science any material even a top,
is held inertial!!
So, big, big fallacy is stated. A science of
the equivalance forces has found the tip
of the top, unaccelerated, and therefor all
parts of the top are held in the identical
inertial reference frame.
And here the inertial frame of the tip is
held only another larger frame of the whole
top.
And so the effect of gravity on the mass
as a whole must be either a vector sum in
the field or not.
A fallacy resolution is stated.
A field is to either be allowed to define
occupants of itself or not! That simple is
the logical resolution.
And gravity science has disallowed this
definition of the field.
And the third abstracted quanta is only
defined in a single dimension of the
transission.
So, how is gravity to be reconciled with
quantum mechanics? This is the large, large
question of resolution. How are the three
or four dimensions of General Relativity
to relate all transissions?
And I have defined the fallacy as the
transformation of force itself to the
dimension of field found and altered, and
never caused again, by the force's existence.
An inertial frame is therefor independent
of the observer, but not the thing to which
is held the cause of inertial to noninertial
frame alteration.
A quanta.
And here the abstract observer is the same,
whether, a field, a reference frame, or
the top, is to feel the quanta.
Abstract sight is removed.
And so the top in the field has either
an accelerating occupant to its tip
or not.
And gravity probe B levitates the top in
order to remove this relation or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Big, Big, Big theory resolution is this
experiment. A quanta is either the cause of the
field or not, physically. And it is either
the occupant always of either the inertial or
or the noninertial reference frame.
Making the spinning tops either occupants of the
probe or independent, because of levitation.
It all boils down to these resolution is theory.
___________________________________________________
note:
Any force of the earth effecting the top
must be either a field's force or the
gravity science's equivlance force.
Can the top, see gravity?
And to see rather than feel, is the clock
of the spinning top. A magnetic field is
placed in the sphere and the field rotates
inertially or noninertially.
One or the other, is to be the method of
measure. Is the effect of the nearby
mass, to alter the clock?
And here the question is found already
resolved, and the fallacies stated the means
to the resolution of Gravity and Quantum
Mechanics.
So, the time in Science is now, to decide.
No more weights of tops to determine the
field's occupant and not its existence.
That NIST event in science was very upsetting.
NIST did that experiment to prove equivalence.
And Stanford is to be the disinterested party
to define the resolution as the top.
The spellig of the word transition was intentional.
*
My advice: You should get in line for the stupid, uneducated and
crazy *****-of-the-month award. There are several ahead of you,
but you stand a very good chance.
Keep up the good work.
Somewhere else, hopefully.
earle
*
Sorry, you appear the winner of that award.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses |
26 Aug 2004 04:22:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses
Douglas Eagleson, 2004
A field of gravity is found to exist with the
existence of either material or nonmaterial
quanta. This is the third abstract quanta,
defined.
[snip]
Ineducable spewing idiot.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses |
26 Aug 2004 05:11:00 PM |
|
|
In article <412E5499.EE0FB766@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> posted:
wrote:
Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses
Douglas Eagleson, 2004
A field of gravity is found to exist with the
existence of either material or nonmaterial
quanta. This is the third abstract quanta,
defined.
The force of gravity as an equivalence force
implies that the quanta is not able to be
detected. As a measurement of gravity only,
would find gravity associated with all field
occupants.
A quanta of force is felt and never seen,
in this definition of the abstract field.
And the gyroscope in the field is a spinning
top.
In Gravity Science any material even a top,
is held inertial!!
So, big, big fallacy is stated. A science of
the equivalance forces has found the tip
of the top, unaccelerated, and therefor all
parts of the top are held in the identical
inertial reference frame.
And here the inertial frame of the tip is
held only another larger frame of the whole
top.
And so the effect of gravity on the mass
as a whole must be either a vector sum in
the field or not.
A fallacy resolution is stated.
A field is to either be allowed to define
occupants of itself or not! That simple is
the logical resolution.
And gravity science has disallowed this
definition of the field.
And the third abstracted quanta is only
defined in a single dimension of the
transission.
So, how is gravity to be reconciled with
quantum mechanics? This is the large, large
question of resolution. How are the three
or four dimensions of General Relativity
to relate all transissions?
And I have defined the fallacy as the
transformation of force itself to the
dimension of field found and altered, and
never caused again, by the force's existence.
An inertial frame is therefor independent
of the observer, but not the thing to which
is held the cause of inertial to noninertial
frame alteration.
A quanta.
And here the abstract observer is the same,
whether, a field, a reference frame, or
the top, is to feel the quanta.
Abstract sight is removed.
And so the top in the field has either
an accelerating occupant to its tip
or not.
And gravity probe B levitates the top in
order to remove this relation or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Big, Big, Big theory resolution is this
experiment. A quanta is either the cause of the
field or not, physically. And it is either
the occupant always of either the inertial or
or the noninertial reference frame.
Making the spinning tops either occupants of the
probe or independent, because of levitation.
It all boils down to these resolution is theory.
___________________________________________________
note:
Any force of the earth effecting the top
must be either a field's force or the
gravity science's equivlance force.
Can the top, see gravity?
And to see rather than feel, is the clock
of the spinning top. A magnetic field is
placed in the sphere and the field rotates
inertially or noninertially.
One or the other, is to be the method of
measure. Is the effect of the nearby
mass, to alter the clock?
And here the question is found already
resolved, and the fallacies stated the means
to the resolution of Gravity and Quantum
Mechanics.
So, the time in Science is now, to decide.
No more weights of tops to determine the
field's occupant and not its existence.
That NIST event in science was very upsetting.
NIST did that experiment to prove equivalence.
And Stanford is to be the disinterested party
to define the resolution as the top.
Ineducable spewing idiot.
- "Alan Schwartz" <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
PROFILE OF ABUSER ALAN SCHWARTZ aka 'Uncle Al' <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
There's more information about Alan Schwartz
in the public archives at:
http://tinyurl.com/5qjmw
[ Subject: Profile: Schwartz, Alan
[ From:
[ Newsgroups: sci.physics
[ Date: 21 Mar 2004 13:34:46 -0800
[ Message-ID: <b31a8173.0403211334.25f9abc5@posting.google.com>
[ NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.11.26.150
[ X-Trace: posting.google.com 1079904887 30505 127.0.0.1
[ (21 Mar 2004 21:34:47 GMT)
[ NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:34:47 +0000 (UTC)
[
[
[ Name: Schwartz, Alan
[ Country: USA
[ Residential Address: SANTA ANA, CA 92705
[ Map: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&countryid=250&addtohistory=&address=&city=SANTA+ANA&state=CA&zipcode=92705&submit=Get+Map
[ Postal Address:
[ Alan Schwartz
[ 49 Fabriano
[ P.O. Box 005
[ Irvine, CA 92620-2525
[ E-mail(s): uncleal0@ix.netcom.com,
[ Tel: 714-771-2526 (+1 714 771 2526 for international callers)
[ Spouse: Jackie Schwartz
[ Spouse Occupation: Para-legal
[ Spouse workplace: <pending disclosure>
[
[ ISP: http://www.earthlink.net
[ Email: http://support.earthlink.net/support/MYACCT/forms/csform.jsp
End of forwarded message from
http://tinyurl.com/5qjmw
Or,
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b31a8173.0403211334.25f9abc5%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
In article <43d9f575.0408101155.15fe136e@posting.google.com>,
posted:
EXPOSED - Lying scum and stalker 'Uncle Al' aka "Alan Schwartz"
<uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
How to handle stalkers and
'Uncle Al' aka "Alan Schwartz" <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
[ Subject: How to handle stalkers and Uncle Al
[ From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutoniu@willinet.net>
[ Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.archaeology
[ Message-ID: <3A6128B1.7ED158B6@willinet.net>
[ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
[
[
[ Ryan Doherty wrote:
[
[ > Uncle Al (24.16.181.181),
[ >
[ > I am consider this message of yours SPAM, so please
[ > keep your childish postings to yourself!
[ > By the way, Grow up.. you are wasting more bandwidth
[ > with your repeated responces that Archimedes and his
[ > questions!
[ >
[ > Ryan
[
[ > Ryan, you are talking to a fence post when you talk to
[ > Uncle Al. He and his motley crew of cohorts have stalked
[ > me for years. In fact they have stalked me nonstop for 7
[ > years now.
[ >
[ > Uncle Al feels he is a police cop of sci.chem and
[ > sci.physics and wants to chase out any poster he does not
[ > like. Many chemistry professors have put Al Schwartz into
[ > their killfile. That is about the only real solution.
[ >
[ > Some say Al Schwartz is a failed chemistry professor of
[ > 80s in age living in Tallahassee Florida or Denton Texas.
[ > He is old, cranky with nothing to do but post to the
[ > Internet. He feels a righteous duty to stalk me. No
[ > matter if I post pure chemistry to sci. chem or pure
[ > physics to sci.physics, Uncle Al feels that none of my
[ > posts belongs to those newsgroups.
[ >
[ > He has set himself up as a self righteous self imposed
[ > police cop of sci.chem.
[ >
[ > Many other people have complained about Uncle Al in sci.
[ > chem.
[ >
[ > SOLUTION: the only solution that I can see is to killfile
[ > Uncle Al and all Al supporters. And to add sci.chem and
[ > sci.physics to all of your posts to the Internet. Let
[ > Uncle Al stalk you everywhere, not just sci. chem or sci
[ > physics. Make it so that everyday Uncle Al wakes up, his
[ > chores and work are to stalk people on the Internet. Make
[ > it such that the essence of life for Uncle Al will now be
[ > to stalk 1 or 3 or 20 or 117 people every day.
[ >
[ > So, I am asking of all those people on the Internet who
[ > have been attacked by Uncle Al, to give Uncle Al what he
[ > craves. Add sci.chem and sci.physics to all of your
[ > Internet posts. And killfile Uncle Al.
[ >
[ > Uncle Al is already a crackpot and is insane, but drive
[ > him wildly insane.
[ >
[ > Force him to waste minutes and hours every day of his
[ > life stalking you.
[ >
[ > And you just sit back and laugh at how the idiot Uncle Al
[ > is making himself a monkey idiot.
[ >
[ > Last year someone emailed me saying that sci.chem was
[ > back to normal and that Uncle Al had been put under
[ > sedation and it was safe to post to sci.chem again.
[ > Sci.chem was flooded by outsiders because Uncle Al had
[ > pissed them off.
[ >
[ > Well, that is not the way to handle the self imposed
[ > sci.chem police dog of Uncle Al. The way to handle Uncle
[ > Al and other stalkers like him is to "killfile them" and
[ > then force them to stalk you all over the Internet. Let
[ > everyone see what a fool he is, not just sci.chem folk.
[ >
[ > I wish that someone is archiving all of the Uncle Al
[ > stalks of Archimedes Plutonium. I have him killfiled and
[ > so I have zero. But I would imagine that Uncle Al has
[ > about 500 posts per year of attacks.
[ >
[ > So, I ask everyone who knows Uncle Al, to add sci. chem
[ > to their Internet posts and to killfile Uncle Al. Let the
[ > fool make himself a larger fool.
[ >
[ > And it takes little energy for me or for you to add
[ > "sci.chem" but think of how much energy and how much rage
[ > it gives Uncle Al. Why, I just burst out into laughter at
[ > all the energy spent by Uncle Al in stalking this and
[ > other posts of mine. Uncle Al is too stupid to realize he
[ > has been defeated and that the world laughs at his cop
[ > enforcement. That method (if they have a newsgroup
[ > hangout) will deal with all stalkers of the Internet, not
[ > just Uncle Al.
End of copy
[ Subject: Re: How to handle stalker Alan 'Uncle Al' Schwartz
[ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004
In article <ZcednUDSG4Zb5NPdRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Bill Vajk <bill9north@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> posted:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
news:<Stalker-Uncle-Al-27hf3.20040308@news.mantra.com>...
In article <404D34BE.30087280@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> posted:
[... reference to lies and defamation...]
How to handle stalkers and "Uncle Al"
- snip -
Thanks, Jai, looks like this fellow was not worth my attention. It is
depressing to think, that those in power in the field of modern
physics are what chaps like these want to be.
Al is a chemist wannabe physicist.
Alan Schwartz has published his contact information:
Alan Schwartz
49 Fabriano
P.O. Box 005
Irvine, CA 92620-2525
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Nu16TComWkEJ:www.mazepath.com/uncleal/advert.htm+%22Schwartz%22+%22Uncle+Al%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
and e-mail addresses:
"Alan Schwartz" <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
"Alan Schwartz" < >
- - - - -
Thanks for the warning about the modern sceintist who defends
science all the time. Uncle Al is ignored. He is the
flip side of the open thinking philosopher scinetist.
Meaning he requires litterally a falsified predicate thinking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity probe B- and Large Nearby Masses |
26 Aug 2004 07:01:04 PM |
|
|
Crank Information and Resources
http://www.geocities.com/drjosemariachi/jay_faq.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=vedic+astrology+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://www.google.com/search?q=Vedic+Astrology+site%3Awww.csicop.org
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AMaharaj
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Monkey with a keyboard Jay Stevens |
26 Aug 2004 06:14:38 PM |
|
|
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" wrote:
No brains, no balls, no knowledge. Send complaints plus attach
abusive posts to his ISP.
Jay Stevens (Jai Mirage, Jai Maharaj) is one of the founding
officers (the other being Joan Miller) of Mantra Corporation,
which was incorporated in Hawaii on November 30, 1990 issued a
1000 shares. It's an astrology scam masquerading as a business
consulting and marketing outfit, and they are the only 2
shareholders.
His business phone (last time checked) was (808) 948-4357; and
his residence (also, last time checked) was in Honolulu, area
code 96817, at 51 Coelho Way, phone (808) 595-3947 and -4913. But
things change and this may be out of date.
http://www.geocities.com/drjosemariachi/jay_faq.html
Troll FAQ for Jai Maharaj (Hindi for "cracked athletic cup")
His real name is "Jay Stevens" and he runs a front called
"Mantra Corporation."
http://www.cyclingforums.com/archive/index.php/t-55527.html
http://www.lart.com/auk/whiners.html
Kook of the Month for June 1995
news:alt.flame.jay-stevens
http://mathquest.com/discuss/sci.math/a/m/387192/387198
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/minifaqs/jai.maharaj.miniFAQ
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: PROFILE OF ABUSER ALAN SCHWARTZ aka 'Uncle Al' |
26 Aug 2004 06:41:20 PM |
|
|
PROFILE OF ABUSER ALAN SCHWARTZ aka 'Uncle Al' <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
There's more information about Alan Schwartz
in the public archives at:
http://tinyurl.com/5qjmw
[ Subject: Profile: Schwartz, Alan
[ From:
[ Newsgroups: sci.physics
[ Date: 21 Mar 2004 13:34:46 -0800
[ Message-ID: <b31a8173.0403211334.25f9abc5@posting.google.com>
[ NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.11.26.150
[ X-Trace: posting.google.com 1079904887 30505 127.0.0.1
[ (21 Mar 2004 21:34:47 GMT)
[ NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:34:47 +0000 (UTC)
[
[
[ Name: Schwartz, Alan
[ Country: USA
[ Residential Address: SANTA ANA, CA 92705
[ Map: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&countryid=250&addtohistory=&address=&city=SANTA+ANA&state=CA&zipcode=92705&submit=Get+Map
[ Postal Address:
[ Alan Schwartz
[ 49 Fabriano
[ P.O. Box 005
[ Irvine, CA 92620-2525
[ E-mail(s): uncleal0@ix.netcom.com,
[ Tel: 714-771-2526 (+1 714 771 2526 for international callers)
[ Spouse: Jackie Schwartz
[ Spouse Occupation: Para-legal
[ Spouse workplace: <pending disclosure>
[
[ ISP: http://www.earthlink.net
[ Email: http://support.earthlink.net/support/MYACCT/forms/csform.jsp
End of forwarded message from
http://tinyurl.com/5qjmw
Or,
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b31a8173.0403211334.25f9abc5%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
In article <43d9f575.0408101155.15fe136e@posting.google.com>,
posted:
EXPOSED - Lying scum and stalker 'Uncle Al' aka "Alan Schwartz"
<uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
How to handle stalkers and
'Uncle Al' aka "Alan Schwartz" <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
[ Subject: How to handle stalkers and Uncle Al
[ From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutoniu@willinet.net>
[ Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.archaeology
[ Message-ID: <3A6128B1.7ED158B6@willinet.net>
[ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
[
[
[ Ryan Doherty wrote:
[
[ > Uncle Al (24.16.181.181),
[ >
[ > I am consider this message of yours SPAM, so please
[ > keep your childish postings to yourself!
[ > By the way, Grow up.. you are wasting more bandwidth
[ > with your repeated responces that Archimedes and his
[ > questions!
[ >
[ > Ryan
[
[ > Ryan, you are talking to a fence post when you talk to
[ > Uncle Al. He and his motley crew of cohorts have stalked
[ > me for years. In fact they have stalked me nonstop for 7
[ > years now.
[ >
[ > Uncle Al feels he is a police cop of sci.chem and
[ > sci.physics and wants to chase out any poster he does not
[ > like. Many chemistry professors have put Al Schwartz into
[ > their killfile. That is about the only real solution.
[ >
[ > Some say Al Schwartz is a failed chemistry professor of
[ > 80s in age living in Tallahassee Florida or Denton Texas.
[ > He is old, cranky with nothing to do but post to the
[ > Internet. He feels a righteous duty to stalk me. No
[ > matter if I post pure chemistry to sci. chem or pure
[ > physics to sci.physics, Uncle Al feels that none of my
[ > posts belongs to those newsgroups.
[ >
[ > He has set himself up as a self righteous self imposed
[ > police cop of sci.chem.
[ >
[ > Many other people have complained about Uncle Al in sci.
[ > chem.
[ >
[ > SOLUTION: the only solution that I can see is to killfile
[ > Uncle Al and all Al supporters. And to add sci.chem and
[ > sci.physics to all of your posts to the Internet. Let
[ > Uncle Al stalk you everywhere, not just sci. chem or sci
[ > physics. Make it so that everyday Uncle Al wakes up, his
[ > chores and work are to stalk people on the Internet. Make
[ > it such that the essence of life for Uncle Al will now be
[ > to stalk 1 or 3 or 20 or 117 people every day.
[ >
[ > So, I am asking of all those people on the Internet who
[ > have been attacked by Uncle Al, to give Uncle Al what he
[ > craves. Add sci.chem and sci.physics to all of your
[ > Internet posts. And killfile Uncle Al.
[ >
[ > Uncle Al is already a crackpot and is insane, but drive
[ > him wildly insane.
[ >
[ > Force him to waste minutes and hours every day of his
[ > life stalking you.
[ >
[ > And you just sit back and laugh at how the idiot Uncle Al
[ > is making himself a monkey idiot.
[ >
[ > Last year someone emailed me saying that sci.chem was
[ > back to normal and that Uncle Al had been put under
[ > sedation and it was safe to post to sci.chem again.
[ > Sci.chem was flooded by outsiders because Uncle Al had
[ > pissed them off.
[ >
[ > Well, that is not the way to handle the self imposed
[ > sci.chem police dog of Uncle Al. The way to handle Uncle
[ > Al and other stalkers like him is to "killfile them" and
[ > then force them to stalk you all over the Internet. Let
[ > everyone see what a fool he is, not just sci.chem folk.
[ >
[ > I wish that someone is archiving all of the Uncle Al
[ > stalks of Archimedes Plutonium. I have him killfiled and
[ > so I have zero. But I would imagine that Uncle Al has
[ > about 500 posts per year of attacks.
[ >
[ > So, I ask everyone who knows Uncle Al, to add sci. chem
[ > to their Internet posts and to killfile Uncle Al. Let the
[ > fool make himself a larger fool.
[ >
[ > And it takes little energy for me or for you to add
[ > "sci.chem" but think of how much energy and how much rage
[ > it gives Uncle Al. Why, I just burst out into laughter at
[ > all the energy spent by Uncle Al in stalking this and
[ > other posts of mine. Uncle Al is too stupid to realize he
[ > has been defeated and that the world laughs at his cop
[ > enforcement. That method (if they have a newsgroup
[ > hangout) will deal with all stalkers of the Internet, not
[ > just Uncle Al.
End of copy
[ Subject: Re: How to handle stalker Alan 'Uncle Al' Schwartz
[ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004
In article <ZcednUDSG4Zb5NPdRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Bill Vajk <bill9north@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> posted:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
news:<Stalker-Uncle-Al-27hf3.20040308@news.mantra.com>...
In article <404D34BE.30087280@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> posted:
[... reference to lies and defamation...]
How to handle stalkers and "Uncle Al"
- snip -
Thanks, Jai, looks like this fellow was not worth my attention. It is
depressing to think, that those in power in the field of modern
physics are what chaps like these want to be.
Al is a chemist wannabe physicist.
Alan Schwartz has published his contact information:
Alan Schwartz
49 Fabriano
P.O. Box 005
Irvine, CA 92620-2525
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Nu16TComWkEJ:www.mazepath.com/uncleal/advert.htm+%22Schwartz%22+%22Uncle+Al%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
and e-mail addresses:
"Alan Schwartz" <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
"Alan Schwartz" < >
- - - - -
Thanks for the warning about the modern sceintist who defends
science all the time. Uncle Al is ignored. He is the
flip side of the open thinking philosopher scinetist.
Meaning he requires litterally a falsified predicate thinking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: PROFILE OF ABUSER ALAN SCHWARTZ aka 'Uncle Al' |
27 Aug 2004 03:56:57 AM |
|
|
PROFILE OF ABUSER ALAN SCHWARTZ aka 'Uncle Al' <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
There's more information about Alan Schwartz
in the public archives at:
http://tinyurl.com/5qjmw
[ Subject: Profile: Schwartz, Alan
[ From:
[ Newsgroups: sci.physics
[ Date: 21 Mar 2004 13:34:46 -0800
[ Message-ID: <b31a8173.0403211334.25f9abc5@posting.google.com>
[ NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.11.26.150
[ X-Trace: posting.google.com 1079904887 30505 127.0.0.1
[ (21 Mar 2004 21:34:47 GMT)
[ NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:34:47 +0000 (UTC)
[
[
[ Name: Schwartz, Alan
[ Country: USA
[ Residential Address: SANTA ANA, CA 92705
[ Map: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&countryid=250&addtohistory=&address=&city=SANTA+ANA&state=CA&zipcode=92705&submit=Get+Map
[ Postal Address:
[ Alan Schwartz
[ 49 Fabriano
[ P.O. Box 005
[ Irvine, CA 92620-2525
[ E-mail(s): uncleal0@ix.netcom.com,
[ Tel: 714-771-2526 (+1 714 771 2526 for international callers)
[ Spouse: Jackie Schwartz
[ Spouse Occupation: Para-legal
[ Spouse workplace: <pending disclosure>
[
[ ISP: http://www.earthlink.net
[ Email: http://support.earthlink.net/support/MYACCT/forms/csform.jsp
End of forwarded message from
http://tinyurl.com/5qjmw
Or,
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b31a8173.0403211334.25f9abc5%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
In article <43d9f575.0408101155.15fe136e@posting.google.com>,
posted:
EXPOSED - Lying scum and stalker 'Uncle Al' aka "Alan Schwartz"
<uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
How to handle stalkers and
'Uncle Al' aka "Alan Schwartz" <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
[ Subject: How to handle stalkers and Uncle Al
[ From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutoniu@willinet.net>
[ Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.archaeology
[ Message-ID: <3A6128B1.7ED158B6@willinet.net>
[ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
[
[
[ Ryan Doherty wrote:
[
[ > Uncle Al (24.16.181.181),
[ >
[ > I am consider this message of yours SPAM, so please
[ > keep your childish postings to yourself!
[ > By the way, Grow up.. you are wasting more bandwidth
[ > with your repeated responces that Archimedes and his
[ > questions!
[ >
[ > Ryan
[
[ > Ryan, you are talking to a fence post when you talk to
[ > Uncle Al. He and his motley crew of cohorts have stalked
[ > me for years. In fact they have stalked me nonstop for 7
[ > years now.
[ >
[ > Uncle Al feels he is a police cop of sci.chem and
[ > sci.physics and wants to chase out any poster he does not
[ > like. Many chemistry professors have put Al Schwartz into
[ > their killfile. That is about the only real solution.
[ >
[ > Some say Al Schwartz is a failed chemistry professor of
[ > 80s in age living in Tallahassee Florida or Denton Texas.
[ > He is old, cranky with nothing to do but post to the
[ > Internet. He feels a righteous duty to stalk me. No
[ > matter if I post pure chemistry to sci. chem or pure
[ > physics to sci.physics, Uncle Al feels that none of my
[ > posts belongs to those newsgroups.
[ >
[ > He has set himself up as a self righteous self imposed
[ > police cop of sci.chem.
[ >
[ > Many other people have complained about Uncle Al in sci.
[ > chem.
[ >
[ > SOLUTION: the only solution that I can see is to killfile
[ > Uncle Al and all Al supporters. And to add sci.chem and
[ > sci.physics to all of your posts to the Internet. Let
[ > Uncle Al stalk you everywhere, not just sci. chem or sci
[ > physics. Make it so that everyday Uncle Al wakes up, his
[ > chores and work are to stalk people on the Internet. Make
[ > it such that the essence of life for Uncle Al will now be
[ > to stalk 1 or 3 or 20 or 117 people every day.
[ >
[ > So, I am asking of all those people on the Internet who
[ > have been attacked by Uncle Al, to give Uncle Al what he
[ > craves. Add sci.chem and sci.physics to all of your
[ > Internet posts. And killfile Uncle Al.
[ >
[ > Uncle Al is already a crackpot and is insane, but drive
[ > him wildly insane.
[ >
[ > Force him to waste minutes and hours every day of his
[ > life stalking you.
[ >
[ > And you just sit back and laugh at how the idiot Uncle Al
[ > is making himself a monkey idiot.
[ >
[ > Last year someone emailed me saying that sci.chem was
[ > back to normal and that Uncle Al had been put under
[ > sedation and it was safe to post to sci.chem again.
[ > Sci.chem was flooded by outsiders because Uncle Al had
[ > pissed them off.
[ >
[ > Well, that is not the way to handle the self imposed
[ > sci.chem police dog of Uncle Al. The way to handle Uncle
[ > Al and other stalkers like him is to "killfile them" and
[ > then force them to stalk you all over the Internet. Let
[ > everyone see what a fool he is, not just sci.chem folk.
[ >
[ > I wish that someone is archiving all of the Uncle Al
[ > stalks of Archimedes Plutonium. I have him killfiled and
[ > so I have zero. But I would imagine that Uncle Al has
[ > about 500 posts per year of attacks.
[ >
[ > So, I ask everyone who knows Uncle Al, to add sci. chem
[ > to their Internet posts and to killfile Uncle Al. Let the
[ > fool make himself a larger fool.
[ >
[ > And it takes little energy for me or for you to add
[ > "sci.chem" but think of how much energy and how much rage
[ > it gives Uncle Al. Why, I just burst out into laughter at
[ > all the energy spent by Uncle Al in stalking this and
[ > other posts of mine. Uncle Al is too stupid to realize he
[ > has been defeated and that the world laughs at his cop
[ > enforcement. That method (if they have a newsgroup
[ > hangout) will deal with all stalkers of the Internet, not
[ > just Uncle Al.
End of copy
[ Subject: Re: How to handle stalker Alan 'Uncle Al' Schwartz
[ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004
In article <ZcednUDSG4Zb5NPdRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Bill Vajk <bill9north@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> posted:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
news:<Stalker-Uncle-Al-27hf3.20040308@news.mantra.com>...
In article <404D34BE.30087280@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> posted:
[... reference to lies and defamation...]
How to handle stalkers and "Uncle Al"
- snip -
Thanks, Jai, looks like this fellow was not worth my attention. It is
depressing to think, that those in power in the field of modern
physics are what chaps like these want to be.
Al is a chemist wannabe physicist.
Alan Schwartz has published his contact information:
Alan Schwartz
49 Fabriano
P.O. Box 005
Irvine, CA 92620-2525
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Nu16TComWkEJ:www.mazepath.com/uncleal/advert.htm+%22Schwartz%22+%22Uncle+Al%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
and e-mail addresses:
"Alan Schwartz" <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
"Alan Schwartz" < >
- - - - -
Thanks for the warning about the modern sceintist who defends
science all the time. Uncle Al is ignored. He is the
flip side of the open thinking philosopher scinetist.
Meaning he requires litterally a falsified predicate thinking.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
