Re: Eotvos.
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 11:49:22 -0700
Dear em:
"em" <nootlanoo@dodiggerdo> wrote in message
news:4375b6c6$0$28238$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote in message news:4Oj0f.2586$lq6.1412@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
....
>>> Hey, has the Eotvos washed up or is it still underway?
>>
>> Still not published. Reasons why are being debated
>> by the "paranoid" and "not so paranoid".
>
> I am beginning to think hahahaha was not kidding.
Always kidding, and always with at least a grain of truth. Or is
that a mole of truth?
> So it is all washed up then.
Hardly. Getting there is the entire fun of any exercise. UA
"allowed" some people to revise their assumptions about the
behavior of materials. And he provided at least one inroad from
the "public consciousness" to the laboratory (other than
Mythbusters). The fact that he was frequently a PITA*, getting
large areas of your body burned can force you to develop
"personality".
> It must have produced a null result.
Maybe. Maybe all the chirality-proneness doesn't extend beyond
the binding energy level of formation, and doesn't extend into
spacetime. I don't see a paper yet, but I am pretty far from
where these things first show up. I didn't expect this to yield
anti-gravity anyway...
David A. Smith
*Pain In The Ass
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Eotvos.
- From: em
- Re: Eotvos.
- Prev by Date: Are relativists some kind of sect? Mathematical funambulism, systems of units, and Newtonian limit
- Next by Date: Re: How To Disprove c'=c+v With A Pen Laser
- Previous by thread: Re: Eotvos.
- Next by thread: Re: Eotvos.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
