Re: Eotvos - Status Update



jmfbahciv@xxxxxxx wrote in
news:dhj2l5$8qk_001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> In article <Xns96E0A068C18B0zsp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Al Zenner <azen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>"Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>news:1127969088.925593.302900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

>>> 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.


.