Re: No Unique Initial Segment And No Characteristic Expansion
From: Uncle Al (UncleAl0_at_hate.spam.net)
Date: 12/04/04
- Next message: peter_douglass: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Previous message: Cindi Jenkins: "Re: Rules Engines - Best Practices?"
- Next in thread: Daryl McCullough: "Re: No Unique Initial Segment And No Characteristic Expansion"
- Maybe reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: No Unique Initial Segment And No Characteristic Expansion"
- Maybe reply: Rob Duncan: "Re: No Unique Initial Segment And No Characteristic Expansion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 07:47:29 -0800
HERC777 wrote:
>
> Uncle Al, the last remnant of pre Herc anarchy on the science web.
> (and a complete mental blank on any issues he can't popularise out of
> previous theorists work)
> (and the most obnoxious purile self obsessed fckwit mensa has every had
> to put up with)
> like nobody's seen a science student correct art students.....
> http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame76.html
>
> Herc
Dear crybaby,
Here is what you so desperately seek to subborn, steal, purchase,
cheat, lie... anything but earn:
"Dear Dr. Schwartz,
The editors acknowledge receipt of the above manuscript on [date
omitted] 2004 and are considering it for possible publication as a
regular article in [journal name omitted]."
Uncle Al did a prdy good job, little boy, and now his work will be
reviewed by Referees to stand or fall. The first of three experiments
is happening in China as you read this. We then have four outcomes:
1) The paper is rejected and all three parity Eotvos experiments
null within experimental error. Clever idea but empirically wrong.
2) The paper is accepted and all three parity Eotvos experiments
null within experimental error. Clever idea but empirically wrong.
Perhaps somebody else will look in a better way or extend quantitative
parity divergence theory.
3) The paper is rejected and there is a reproducible non-null
output. The paper will be resubmitted and quickly accepted. General
Relativity and 3/5 of M-theory are falsified; quantum mechanics is in
trouble (Lorentz invariance empirically fails). Weitzenboek and
affine gravitation displace Einstein and metric gravitation.
4) The paper is accepted and there is a reproducible non-null
output. General Relativity and 3/5 of M-theory are falsified; quantum
mechanics is in trouble (Lorentz invariance empirically fails).
Weitzenboek and affine gravitation displace Einstein and metric
gravitation.
(2), (3), or (4) will have you eating your liver. (3) or (4) will
have Uncle Al sampling lutefisk 10 December. Pookie pookie little
whining nothing. Uncle Al says, "It's hard to make a comeback when
you haven't been anywhere."
-- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
- Next message: peter_douglass: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Previous message: Cindi Jenkins: "Re: Rules Engines - Best Practices?"
- Next in thread: Daryl McCullough: "Re: No Unique Initial Segment And No Characteristic Expansion"
- Maybe reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: No Unique Initial Segment And No Characteristic Expansion"
- Maybe reply: Rob Duncan: "Re: No Unique Initial Segment And No Characteristic Expansion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|