Hi all ,Uncle al and dr Cosmic Ray ,

Her is my point of vue about crystals .

The crystalography is young ,very very young ,it's the time which builds these crystals with the polarisations of evolution .

But let's be serious ,these crystals are youngs like our brain ,thus of course these systems are still far of the ultim system .

Furthermore these crystals are there for something but it's not a foto of our Universe these crystals .The crystallographyn is a tool and that's all .

I invite people to become horticultor ,there the physicality sings and shows us the symphonty of fundamenatsl .

I see in the fly of the bee ,which dances with its flower and etamins ,a tremolo of serenity ,under the human nature and its dark side .Alone on the tree ,alone in the ocean ,alone in my mind ,lost in the requiem of humans but the solitude don't exist ,it's a mirror ,a sad mirror ....and this truth ....

I laugh and still laugh ,as a monkey of the economy .I eat and drink its sighs ,oh sad system ,o perpetual stupidity ,mediocrity ,They live the humans ,they live ,uniques and precious ,all without exeption .

And their hearts in the sky .Dream and create my friends ,live and think ,dream and create even in the dark sides of the society .

Sorry for my english .

Best Regards

Steve

The humanity is like a rainbow ,a diversity of colors united in the light

It's difficult to turn off a big fire with one water drop ,nevertheless a whole of drops makes Ocean .....

Alan

What I really wanted was a musical reply from "The most happy fella".

At FQXI I am interested in opinions from intelligent scientifically literate people, not votes.

I have listed 10 points on which I claim basic science is wrong. Not one comment on the points. No one has refuted any of them ! I think you recognise that syndrome.

I queried the idea of authors voting with the boys in the back-room. I think i have worked out why the process is the way t is.

Like you, I am on a mission - different faith - so the essay is really another trip to the pulpit.

You say, "I have listed 10 points on which I claim basic science is wrong."

You are not granted that privilege. If you wish to contest science, present a reproducible falsifying observation. Have 20 years of string theory, SUSY, Higgs boson, MOND taught you nothing? Theory without empirical anchor is a skinned balloon. Given ore, deal in the values not with the dross.

(physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith

The worst the parity Eotvos experiment can do is give zero net output. That is the gold standard of 420 years of Equivalence Principle testing. The only risk is success. Success contradicts no prior observation in any venue at any scale. It is a new way for physics to fail. Somebody should look.

Gal: Sepracor made $billions by taking commercial racemic pharma, isolating the biologically active optical isomer by chiral chromatography, then repatenting as the resolved enantiomer. Pharma takes 10 years or more of a 20-year patent to pass clinical, costing $500-800 million. Sepracor was immediately FDA cleared for marketing the same pharma "without impurities."

Terry: Absent falsifying tests you only have argument. When a supercon multinuclear FT-NMR runs, the whole of physics short of relativity is engaged. Add GPS and particle accelerators. *Demonstrate* a contention is defective. Propose richer theory with testable novel consequences.

NOBODY knows if left and right shoes vacuum free fall identically. If so, all physics has an exception. Eotvos balances are in use. Opposed test masses are maximally parity divergent atomic mass distributions by Equivalence Principle rules: All properties are inert, only pure geometry is active. All atoms are gravitationally anonymous indistinguishable unit masses; chemical bonding is invisible, charge and spin are irrelevant, optical rotation is arbitrary, etc. Observables are not diagnostic of geometry, optical rotation in chiral almost congruent structures and achiral silver thiogallate.

Crystallography is in qualitative agreement with calculated maximum parity divergence. Pettitjean's QCM-calculated extremal CHI=1, COR=1, DSI=0 includes quartz. Anybody with a dissenting calculation is invited to post - if including a better candidate. Triangulanes, helicenes, twistane; chiral fullerenes and carbon nanotubes, Avnir's tungsten chelate, Aldrich Cat. No. 497460, Ni3(dpa)4Cl2... and certainly DNA are not better.

Alan

1. I leave the empirical issues to others, including you - but i am kept waiting for your data because your approach to experiment causes needless delay.

I am focused on fixing the formalism, the maths and the logic, as my essay makes clear, so that all empirical data can be explained rationally. My experimental data is already available. I specify what it is in my essay - see references to Foucault, Baez, and Lisi. I also have data sources here (Norman Cook) and in Chemistry, Biology, and Cognitive Science texts.

2. An essay is a "polite" form of argument. The adjective explains your ratings, and why despite your ranting for 10 years or more - NO ONE WILL LISTEN TO YOU - even though many, including me, agree with you. You could have had the free trip to Stockholm years ago - if only you took notice of Dale Carnegie.

This essay that i have still to read in full, seems to have brought strong reactions from the community members. Trying to be an outsider, i see this as a clash between egos, physicists and chemists, mathematicians, theorists and experimentalists. Such 'clashes' to me appear not truly academic, as the use of strong words do not reflect humility which all great scientists show towards lesser beings. i have personally experienced such truths while just a graduate student in USA, i happen to have a Nobel Leureate shaving in an adjoining washbasin in a hostel's large bath,meant for delegates attending an International Conferernce. He literally compelled me and released from hesitency to come out with details of what i was doing and praised the same immensely with some humbly made suggestions, when i myself knew it was not deserving the same. From that momnet onwards, i learnt the lesson how to behave with colleagues/students in order to enhance the objectives of science, rather than bother about personalities/status etc.

I am an experimentalist who has dabbled little in theory but did attempt lot of empirical studies in the absence of adequate labs. Today i feel happy that i have a few patents,linkages with industry that are giving me professional activities well into my retirement from University service. The breadth of my exposure has provided me the richness and boldness to enter unexplored areas.

We all need to encourage and enrich all our colleagues and students, in order to get the best out of them for the good of sciences. There is no need to score points or competition ratings or any return from what one does. it should come naturally, uninfluenced. i regret my advisory posture if it hurts anyone here.

Dear Narendra Nath ,

Your wisdom is super ,it's a pleasure to read this wisdom .It's impossible to make undrstanding about truths to a person who don't understand the truth .

in my opinion .It's the life and the human nature but we evolve fortunaly .

Take care

Steve

I asked whether the Equivalence Principle is falsified by left and right hands in 1999. I've been patient, I've been polite, I've been explicative until letters faded off a keyboard (a,s,n go first). I've configured a class of organic molecules whose chirality cannot be named, exposed an error in esoteric mathematics, and calculated parity divergence of test masses to 4.4410^17 atoms because a physicist was too stupid to comprehend periodic crystals are self-similar. After 10 years I see nothing but 10 years of composition Eotovs experiments that perfectly nulled. Waiting is ended. Physics gets it rammed down its craw, in public.

The emperor can be clothed or naked without contradiction either way. I will thereafter be contrite in defeat or gracious in victory - but I will not be silent or accommodating in process. I have had my fill of crap eructated by people comfortable in their ignorance and nurtured by the status quo. Contemporary physical theory - string, SUSY, Higgs, dark matter - is obscene. That it is untestable in its predictions is no protection against falsfication of its founding postulates. If it requires the lesser science of chemistry to do it, so be it. Walk it off.

Somebody should look.

BigCHI is running glycine gamma-polymorph, enantiomorphic space group P3(2), in an AMD FX-55 booted with Knoppix Live! DvD. Quits March 2010 at large radius, time/point growing as (radius)^2. Day #1 did 38,050 radius increments summing to 5000 A, 66.5 billion atoms. Log(1 - CHI) vs. radius y = mx b theoretical slope is -2 exactly, found -1.99993. Least squares graphic intercept of 0.480191 (smaller is larger CHI/radius). Quartz, the previous best, gave 0.534246.

Petitjean's QCM gave CHI -> 1, COR = 1, DSI = 0. CHI is then a connection among eigenvalues, special functions, their representation theory with solid angles, and exponentials of fractions of pi at a characteristic scale. The three consecutive atom angle is 180 - [60(intercept pi)/pi], or 110.83 degrees. Acta Cryst. B 36 115 (1980) for HOOC - CH2 - NH2 (zwitterion). Crystal structure C-C-N angle of 111.15 degrees, giving an intercept of 0.46338, thus 96.5% agreement. Pearson correlation of -0.9854 for 38,050 points.

Physics *should* be afraid of the parity Eotvos experiment. Somebody should look.

Al,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, many things came up lately that hindered me.

Sometimes I just get carried away and don't notice how big it is getting. Sometimes it is just to try to explain things simply and clearly and that can require more words to cover the topic more fully giving history and details, etc. to get the point across without ambiguity. If you get the crystals can you get access to the equipment somewhere long enough to do the testing either free or at low cost? If so, that might be your answer, otherwise you still need the rest of the money to do the test, so not much help. In a bypass experiment you would not go to the usual sources. You already did that and it didn't work satisfactorily. I was thinking more like a large company, government entity, etc. that would already have the equipment as part of their business to see if they would give you time on it either free or at low cost. Once you got the crystals how much equipment time would you need? Would you need one solid block of time on the equipment or could you work around the company's needs by breaking the needed time into smaller blocks? These are some of the kinds of things to think about and have answers for before you contact a prospect.

Good to hear that your paper will be published. What journal (if it is allowed to give that info. here, I haven't checked that kind of thing yet)?

Corrections of others can be good for all. It should be remembered that the purpose ought to be to help the one in error to understand his error in a way that he can accept and correct it and remain mentally intact to either go on in the same path in a better way based on the implications of the corrections or to abandon the current path if it is found to be completely wrong and apply himself to another task that he is able to tackle. At the same time the corrections should help others to not get caught up in the same error by explaining openly and as completely as possible what the error is and what the true answer is that should replace it and explain all of its implications and how they will affect current theories and beliefs, etc. without at the same time causing unnecessary harm to the one who made the error. In the long run much of current science will be shown to be lacking, so most scientists will at one time or another need to admit to making errors, if they desire to keep in line with reality. Because of this we should all attempt to establish as a principle that such corrections should be done in the spirit of humility realizing that we will likely be on the receiving side of the corrections at some time in the future also. In addition, it always is positive to anyone who would desire to work with or support another in their work to see the other person performing in a constructive rather than destructive manner in interactions with others. Because of the nature of scientific work, scientists often spend long hours working in very deep and narrow logic and thought paths. As a result, such scientists become very familiar with all aspects of their work and often replace phrases with mnemonics and short forms of expression because it allows them to work faster with concepts that they are very familiar with. It can be challenging when working with other scientists that have not worked in that same path (or in writing papers for them to read) to express one's self in a simple way, so that others who don't know all the mnemonics, etc. can understand easily what one is attempting to convey. When many such scientists are brought together in one place such as this contest and the concept that the work of a few is better and more important than the rest, such that they get financial rewards while the others get nothing for their labor is introduced, it is not surprising to see that instead of an open and productive discussion of the various concepts presented by each, one tends to see the others merely as channels, using any communications to promote one's idea at the expense of the others in an attempt to win the prize. Because of this many good learning, collaboration, and good contact opportunities are wasted. My point is that it doesn't have to be this way. Each contestant has less than a one percent chance to win the first prize, so most will end up unsatisfied in that respect. Look for creative ways to get as much as you can in all respects as you can and you may find that you will gain much more than the value of the $10,000 both in terms of increasing your total knowledge and understanding and also in terms of practical help in accomplishing your goals. Of course, for me the whole contest becomes a part of my overall experimental process to better understand man's information and information pass through structures to allow the sharing of information with others in a productive manner as much as possible in the appropriate circumstances and times, so it is much easier for me because I don't go into it to win the prize money, although it would be an extra bonus if I were to win at any time, mostly because it would mean that some were able to assimilate higher level concepts than I expect. I do understand and feel for those who are trying to make their living from this and other contests, however, and wish all such well. I am sorry. I had intended to make this comment short, but got carried away again. I hope it does not offend you (this is short for me though (it's all relativity you know)). That is a good excuse from my observation point. It may not be from yours, however.

1023 words, Paul. Write, then discard at least 1/3 the words, leaving content. Cheap 1 TB HDs and 16 MB flash drives debase discourse. Efficiency, content/size, matters.

A parity Eotvos experiment requires eight test masses: $25-30K Sawyer Research x-plate process, 12-18 months to grow quartz in both hands. Shape, balance, gild; $15K. Then academic apparatus and lease of the Department and its research group. No academic wants an outsider overthrowing his discipline with a scut experiment. Call it ~$250K overall. Grant funding must be shamed into supporting a novel experiment. No professional manager champions a risk of success over guaranteed failure. He is rewarded for process not product.

The two papers are embargoed until released. Preliminary glycine gamma-polymorph parity divergence output, glydense.png, and qzdense.png below. Note difference in scales. A Canadian box will serial crunch another 80,000 points at small radii coming week. My AMD FX-55 does five months of serial crunching at larger radii. Anybody with a slack cluster or server farm is invited to play - parallel execution code is in hand. 10,000 CPU-hrs is a boost. At larger radii atoms added/radial increment grows too fast to be densely sampled vs. CPU time that rises/point as (radius)^2.

The only reality is empirical reality. Somebody should look.Attachment #1: glydense.pngAttachment #2: 1_qzdense.png

Al,

When I checked it on my word processor it came to exactly 1024 words or one binary K. I thought there might be some extremely important universal significance to that so I didn't dare to change it. Isn't that a good excuse? A little more seriously, I think I have the idea now. You want the information presented, but you want it to be in a concise form. Let me try one. Here goes.

(view enclosed file attachment now then come back here)

Somebody should look.

How is that?

12-18 months is a long time to wait to get the crystals. Unless you already have that part taken care of. Too bad structured field technology hasn't been developed here yet. If I was an academic I wouldn't want some outsider overthrowing my discipline with an experiment about rabbit or deer tails (scut) either. You might have to go higher up than the local manager. There actually are some owners with vision, probably not many though. Try high tech firms, but you need to give them a reason if possible. If your experiment proves current theories wrong, do you have a better theory to replace them and can you think of any new practical applications that will be derived from it. The shame game can work as long as you are right, but if you are wrong once it can come back on and limit you for a long time. You are right. It is one of man's weaknesses to like to continue in familiar patterns of behavior rather than try new things.

When will the papers be released? Today's computers are really slow aren't they and the AMD FX-55 isn't the fastest of them either. I use an I7 - 920 for local work here, but it would still take a long time with it too, so I couldn't be of a lot of help there. You could use a 8 or 16k parallel processor array system, but most of them are already being heavily used, so getting time on one would likely be difficult.

File Attachment:Attachment #1: Al_picture.png

Quartz must be pure (grown from cultured quartz discards not lascas), dry (Grade A not commercial Grade C), and have minimum dislocations (etch pits/cm^2). 12-18 months in an autoclave, Sawyer Research x-plate process. Commercial z-plate is insufficient. The best Brazilian natural quartz wasn't nearly good enough by the 1940s.

Quartz' calculation was hosted by Silicon Valley companies, a slack piece of CERN, a European server farm... I got output, they located defective CPUs. BigCHI or CHIpir, CPU usage is 99% continuous plus the OS, only in RAM. Billions of atoms are fast, quadrillions are slow. Beowulf clusters or server farm slack work, graphics processors ganged in parallel are exciting. Anybody with hardware running anyway but doing nothing can host the parallel computation. NASA and its supercomputer "Columbia" have a multi-layer consideration process taking longer than a single processor run. I don't have a volunteer who can honcho Solaris in offered server farm slack.

NOBODY knows if left and right shoes together falsify the Equivalence Principle. Orthodox physical theory equally supports both outcomes. Geometric parity divergence is rigorously quantified by explicit calculation. Apparatus and its loading are off the shelf. FQXi voting is infatuation with untestable theory over empirical experiment. The limit to physics is not imagination, it is professional management forever pursuing the sure path of business plans. PowerPoint is success, not Accounts Receivable. How is that working out elsewhere?

Somebody should look

Al,

I read your paper and I noticed a couple of concepts that I have seen many places that are somewhat in error. Since I have seen these concepts displayed in many places, I believe you may have just picked them up from somewhere else and not really checked them out in detail. We all do that at times. There is just so much information out there that it is not possible to check it all out in detail.

The concept that something postulated to be true is falsifiable only works in reality if one of two conditions is met. The first is that all of the properties of that something are not yet known, so a falsifiable prediction of a new property can be made. The second is that the agreement of all the known properties of that something with reality is considered as adequate proof of its truth unless another new property of it is discovered that disagrees with reality. The second condition is needed to account for something that is postulated to be true after all of its properties and their effects are already known. As an example, if I postulate a new theory that gives a deeper understanding of how things that have already been observed (but not fully understood) work, it might not be possible to predict any new unknown property or relationship for a test of falsifiability because all of the theory's properties and relationships may be already known. They may have just not been understood as deeply as to their inter-causal relationships, etc. without the new theory to explain and tie together all of the previously observed properties into the new overall meaning provided by the new theory. In short, if all of a new theory's properties and their interactions are contained in the set of already observed properties and their interactions, the theory can be true, but not falsifiable. On the surface such a theory might not seem to be of much use, but remember that there are many observed properties that do not properly fit into current theories even though much is known about their interactions, etc. A new theory that incorporates and logically accounts for such properties in an understandable way can be of great use in increasing overall knowledge and understanding.

A Euclidean triangle is composed of three straight sides that are joined together to form three angles. The problem with drawing a triangle on a sphere is that: 1. The lines are no longer straight because they bend into the third dimension and are, therefore, curved and, 2. The curvature of the lines generates what is essentially an infinite number of angles that are each not 180 degrees along the curved lines. You, therefore, no longer have a triangle, so the comparison is not valid because you are comparing a three-dimensional object with curved sides and many angles as though it is a two- dimensional object with straight sides and just three angles that are not 180 degrees when it is not. Euclid's Fifth Postulate is also based on straight lines not lines that are curved into the third dimension. It may be that such an object can be more easily manipulated and understood by the use of some non-Euclidian geometry, but it does not make Euclidian geometry wrong, but just somewhat limited in that area. It is still valid as long as you stay within its limited set of operations (stay within its definition of a triangle, etc.)

Wow less than 600 words. I accidentally left my name off of my previous post.

When contrasted single crystal test masses of space group P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 quartz evince a net non-zero output in a parity Eotvos experiment: the Equivalence Principle is empirically untrue, Einstein's elevator has a massed exception, Noether's theorem does not enforce conservation of angular momentum. Physics may textually encode those ineluctable consequences any way it likes.

Paul wrote, "The problem with drawing a triangle on a sphere is that: 1. The lines are no longer straight because they bend into the third dimension and are, therefore, curved and" A 2-sphere, the surface of a 3-D ball, is strictly 2-D (n-sphere, only latitude and longitude are required to uniquely locate a contained point). The sides of its triangles are geodesics (great circles). There is no shorter path between two points.

My essay is traceably, factually correct. A parity Eotvos experiment net non-zero output contradicts no observation in any venue at any scale. That the essay is testable in unremarkable apparatus using commercial materials outrages those whose vocation and reputation are learned eructation not physical reality. Somebody should look.

Calculated log(1 - CHI) vs. radius for glycine gamma-polymorph passed 20,000 A radius and 4.2 trillion atoms 19 October 2009. Glycine asymptotes to CHI = 1 at 1.11 times quartz' rate, has 1.6 times the atoms/volume, and enantiomorphic space groups P3(1) / P3(2) possess lower symmetry than quartz in P3(1)21 / P3(2)21. Nice.

On this link on n sphere ,I saw the stereographic projection .

Very interesting to insert in my model ,for the orbitals it's relevant .

For the real number ,it's of course behind the perceptible lat and long systems of coordonnates ,where the system is different in its stereographic projection due to the complexification towards the planck scales,logic because each entangled rotating spheres are specifics .The perception of surface is our perception in fact .The polarity is well made ,fortunaly .Simple and complex in fact this polarity system .

Steve

Al,

The angular (instantaneous direction) component of motion is not always conserved in reality. When a positron and electron interact, their angular components (generated by their fifth vector motions) are canceled out when their fifth vector motions (which are traveling in the opposite directions in the fifth vector) are forced back into the fourth vector. The total amount of motion is conserved, however. The resulting output photons from the reaction do not contain the fifth vector angular components of the electrons, so they do not have static rest masses and travel away from the reaction point in straight lines. Their dynamic mass structure (variable 90 degree fourth vector angular motion component) is increased somewhat by the increase in fourth vector velocity over that of the electrons from which they came, however.

A sphere is an example of a full physical bounded infinity. In such an infinity, lines curve through an additional dimension such that the beginning of a line returns to and is joined to its end when carried out far enough. Physical bounded infinities always require one more existent dimension than is easily apparent to someone only able to sense the bounded infinity. This is required to accomplish the curvature that creates the infinity. There are generally two main ways that one who lives in a full physical bounded infinity can determine his world's condition. The first and usually the easiest is that physical bounded infinities generally demonstrate horizon effects that are generated by the curvatures of their lines. Even if we were not able to look up or down, but only along the path of the earth's surface, we would still see things disappear over the horizon as we traveled far enough away from them and we would also see new things appear from over the horizon as we traveled toward them. (Of course, if light takes a curved path along the curvature of the dimension instead of traveling in a straight line, the horizon effect might not be visible. There would then be other effects that might be visible, however, such as looking far enough in front of you and seeing your back, etc.) The second effect is that if you traveled far enough in any direction you would generally end up back where you started. The larger the system in comparison to the observer, the harder it is to view these effects. Although one might consider the surface of a sphere to be 2 dimensional, it is apparent that it is actually a 3 dimensional object in Euclidian space (and in this world) because it is impossible to create one in a 2 dimensional plane. It is more correct to see it as a 2 dimensional surface curved into the third dimension. A three dimensional coordinate system can be constructed on the surface of a sphere, but cannot be constructed on a Euclidian 2 dimensional plane. Moreover all lines in a full physical bounded infinity are truly curved when observation includes all dimensions of the infinity at a large enough size scale of measurement. They are actually curved even on small size scales, but it may not be detectable as such. Only partial physical bounded infinities, logical bounded infinities, and true infinities can have true 1 dimensional straight lines. Of course, it is also possible for some finite structures to have straight lines. So far, man's experiments that have attempted to look for curvature of space on astronomic scales have failed to detect curvature of the universe. We apparently either live in a flat universe or one with a very small curvature. Many things can be expressed in math, but not all of those things conform to reality. Another way to say it is that the set of all possibilities is much larger than the set of reality (actualities). When you say "the sides of its triangles are geodesics (great circles)" you admit that the sides are not straight lines as required for Euclidian triangles, so it is not reasonable to compare them as such. The sides of a true Euclidian triangle would be true straight lines and would take a path below the surface of the sphere except that they would come to the surface at the three corner points of the triangle. That is the true shortest path within the three dimensional Euclidian system in which the sphere exists.

You are right. I have not mentioned anything that would contradict the reason for your experiment. That is not my purpose. I hope you get to do your experiment.

I will not touch your fourth paragraph. I believe its meaning will be every bit as clear to most readers as my sample concise transfer of information of a couple comments ago was to you.

Dear Uncle Al,

Being left-handed myself, I nonetheless did not yet entirely understand your interpretation of dominance of the negative right-hand rule in chemistry. Are you inspired by those who put the equivalence between inert and heavy mass into question? If so, is this the only explanation?

Some nuts are pretty hard. At 527 you will find a case, which is likewise unresolved while successfully denied by PRL.

Good luck,

Eckard