🚀 go-pugleaf

Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<40C78912.ECAC86B6@hate.spam.net>...
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> > 
> > selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0406041518.6daa54d9@posting.google.com>...
> > > Uncle Al (UncleAl0@hate.spam.net)
[snip]

> If you truly believe you have something other than merde, I invite you
> to submit to Physical Review and make it past qualified referees, or
> have it be accepted and acted upon by a legitimate academic group. 
> Uncle Al's calculated empirical assault upon the Equivalence Principle
> 
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
> 
> was presented at the 01 May 2004 APS national meeting in Denver,
> 
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/abs/S690006.html
> Bull. Amer. Phys. Soc. 49(2) 54 (2004)
> 
> We are now in collaboration with a recognized (oh boy and how!)
> academic group.  We expect the parity Eotvos experiment to be
> conducted in P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21 alpha-quartz test masses by 2006. 
> 
> What have you got, bunky?  Self-publication on the Net is not
> reprehensible, but it is worth the paper upon which it is written. 
> Yours is a self-admitted dust bin:  "Basically, this journal was
> assigned to publish the materials worked out at SELF."
> 
> "mathematical physics, wave physics, theory of analytical functions,
> theory of complex variables (especially quasi-conformal and
> non-conformal mapping), theory of differential equations (especially
> systems of ODE), dynamics, elasticity, vibrations, circuit theory
> (especially calculation of ladder filters, transmission lines,
> networks), electromechanical analogy, circuits synthesis, EM field
> theory (including the properties of electrical, magnetic fields,
> radiation/reception of waves, advanced Maxwell equations etc.),
> acoustics, gas dynamics, mechanics, geophysics, geochemistry, geology,
> planetology, philosophy of science, history of science."
> 
> Is there anything you will not pubish?


Dear Alan,

I am really happy hearing of your win and collaboration with so sound
academic group. Every success to you. Your experiment with Eotvos
balance is interesting, though you will surely have lots of trouble
with this thing. So, when jmfbahciv@aol.com thinks, it can take two
months, it only says that he never had in hands even a ruler (I'm far
from mind to reproach him). ;-) Surely, no one can grasp all reefs of
this experiment better than you do. I can only express my sympathy
knowing that it is basically impossible to balance two masses ideally.
And you will have a difference not only in inertia but in moment of
inertia connected with the length of half-arms where the studied
masses will be fixed. By some reason I think impossible to eliminate
it by a simple nulling of interferometer - i.e., by choosing the
floating point as the reference base. But you, undoubtedly, see it
better.

Unfortunately, I did not see in your brief presentation one more
important question. Having dared to test the inertial mass versus that
gravitational, you seemingly may want to have an exact idea of
physical meaning of inertia and gravitation, or the very essence of
measurement blurs. This raises a natural question: what namely we
compare? Incredibly difficult question. Even without proving the
Equivalency Principle, to answer this question would be a great
achievement. On the other hand, out of understanding this, I truly
have no idea what can you compare with what. We in our laboratory
still have such upper achievement: we have proven the possibility of
negative measure of inertia in dynamic systems. We are able to conduct
this experiment. We also have a definite idea of the essence of
gravitation, but we have to develop this subject better and I truly
yet would not dare to study it experimentally, having not more precise
idea of calculation model. But again, you see it better.

Not in vain I write you this. I know, you undoubtedly will yield
vibrations of Eotvos pendulum, but I would like much, it would not
happen as with Sagnac experiment. It also seemed to him that he has
solved the problem and detected the aether wind, but it appeared, he
simply disregarded that mirrors turn when his interferometer turned.
As I see, you also will have mirrors fixed tangentially to each other.
They will be arranged on the same fiber with the Eotvos pendulum and
will experience the torsion of fiber and disbalance of rotating
masses. This will cause wider fringes and, hence, will blur the
result. Additionally, you will need a balanced source of pendulum
excitation. Interferometer is a damnably sensitive thing.

As I can see, the experiment with Eotvos pendulum will be for you not
a start but finish of a long chain of experiments on preparation of
tested bodies with equal measures of inertia and on balancing them.
The points will be: precise fixation of masses, balancing of pendulum
arms (without masses), and finally selection of masses with equal
measure of inertia. Possibly, an elastic pendulum will be of help.
Comparing the natural frequencies for tested masses, you seemingly
will be able to select their measure of inertia in the most precise
way. This will be specially important, as in your experiment the
equalisers are contra-indicative. They would introduce the difference
into moment of inertia comparable with the sought result. On this way
I only can wish you sensitive hands and sharp-sighted eyes.

Concerning your advice me to follow your way. When I read it, I only
thought: let God to hear your words. You long time whirl in this
boiler and know no worse than I do how jealous are our comrades in
arms. ;-) You can recall my thread on diffusive coatings which you
saw. I suggested to these gristles a million-dollars business, a
topical technology developed up to report of comparative test with
best known technologies - and they seek mistakes in my English
language and reproach me in whatever sins. However much I suggested
them to discuss the point, they did not.

Though, I cannot think unsuccessful all our activity. Our methods to
calculate elastic systems and electric ladder filters have been
recognised the Technology of the week in EU,

" Understanding vibration "

http://dbs.cordis.lu/fep-cgi/srchidadb?ACTION=D&SESSION=299052003-8-20&DOC=2&TBL=EN_OFFR&RCN=EN_RCN:1158&CALLER=OFFR_O_SCIE_EN

and  " Electrophysical problems may be dynamically resolved "

http://dbs.cordis.lu/fep-cgi/srchidadb?ACTION=D&SESSION=&DOC=1&TBL=EN_OFFR&RCN=EN_RCN:1093&CALLER=OFFR_TM_EN

This means, we submit our works for reviewing as possible, though
today I have a great doubt in so-called internationally-recognised
peer reviewing. If you wish, I can tell you many curious cases where
these peer referees got into a deep mess; this would be no less than
you can tell me. Just now in one international journal in Ireland our
paper on ladder filters lays under reviewing. The referee sent us a
bravura review telling that solutions for such problem are long ago
known and our paper makes no contribution to the circuit theory. Don't
you know such responds? ;-) I did not argue or ask, "oh, please do
publish!", I asked them, for sake of scientific truth, to show me
ignorant how have we yield these results (the very method, how we
yielded, we omitted "for better understanding". ;-) It's now few
months since they puff, though this calculation takes at most several
hours. My letter prompting that we wait a lesson from them the editor
first deleted without reading (we had an alert). When I sent it again,
he asked to wait two weeks. A month passed and surely not one will
pass, if they really will respond something articulate. The utmost
what referees are able to do in such case is to chew over our "poor
English language". The difficulty for Editor is now that I already
accented, this is not a matter of publication but only of scientific
truth based on their "thorough" review. ;-)

By the way, we sent the link to the paper announced in this thread to
NASA, STScI, Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, asking them to express
their opinion, as we cited much their studies which were in a great
help for our analysis. We received the alert confirming, they have
read our invitation, and we know, they have read the paper. But they
keep silence just as in case of our previous papers on astrophysics.
This tells, it's their regular reaction confirming, they have no
claims to our material, but no constructive attitude to us also. So
you see, we strain our muscles to do so as you advice.

It is enough to say, few years ago the Dynamic Group NSF responded me
favourably, the only hindrance was, they could fund us only through
some American university. We have haunted the thresholds of more than
a hundred of leading American specialists in dynamics and received no
one intelligible respond. Even the Pennsylvania State university where
Professor Skudrzyk worked to whose study we referred and developed it
- even they ignored. When I asked, do they develop his works, they
replied, they respect him so  much, re-published some of his works but
his trend in fact has been drooped. And with it they rejected to
develop his trend in frames of their university! And PSU Press
rejected to take for consideration our paper developing Skudrzyk's
ideas! We have published this paper in other international edition,
but PSU rejected! While we in that paper with all mathematical rigor
substantiated and calculated conditions at which the state of negative
measure of inertia arise in elastic systems with resonance subsystems
- just the idea to which Skudrzyk came but could not substantiate, as
he had not our method to yield exact analytic solutions for his system
of equations and dynamic electromechanical analogy DEMA which we
developed. While we have succeeded to develop all necessary tool which
substantiated his great guess, and we checked and corroborated our
calculation experimentally.

I can tell you, how one international journal in USA accepted our
paper for publication, took from us the signed copyright agreement,
said us in which issue and pages our paper will be published - and in
a year of keeping silence to all our inquiries sent us a rejecting
letter. Nothing to say of such funny cases, when we submitted one
paper but received the review to other our paper submitted to other
journal in other country; when the editor apologised for his referee's
stupidity but none the less rejected our paper; when the referees sent
us congratulations with a great discovery, told that they immediately
see its great application, in that number in their own research,
strongly advised to publish this paper ... somewhere but not in their
journal; when one editor, having read our paper submitted to another
journal, invited us to re-submit it to their journal - and then
rejected; when the editor sent us an ultimatum that they will consider
our paper only in case if we submit additionally (under clear
condition that it will not be published) the full methodology to yield
exact analytic solutions for elastic lumped chains; or how one
international conference reviewed and published our report, and at the
same time the same editorial board rejected the extended text of this
report because of 'no novelty and use'. I could tell you, how one
emeritus professor wrote us, "there is nothing new in this problem, it
is already 200 years under attempts to resolve, there is nothing in
this world what could help to resolve, so your solution is wrong and
no one needs it". And so on, so on. And you are saying, "peer" review
is valuable. It is not worth a brass farting. Let them rest.

As opposite to the said, we like much our e-journal and I cannot agree
with you that it is worth of paper on which it is written. It has
500-700 readers monthly. Angelfire team has permanent problems with
the counter, it often drops the number of visitors. But we have
another one and know which day which paper do our visitors read.
Surely, not each sound scientific journal can be proud of so many
readers. The fact that international scientific journals buy the
banner-place on our web site tells itself. Basically, what is the aim
of journal? To present scientific information, to be accessible and
interesting. In our journal information is over the roof and we
provide the substantiation, accessibility and visualisation. We have
registered it in most search systems. And tell me please, which
printed journal is able to publish our animations? They require $
75-200 for each coloured picture, as if this is something
extraordinary, while we do it easily. So we are quite happy with our
journal and sure, our readers can judge the novelty and use of our
results no worse than peer referees do. Thus, we quite achieved our
aim. And I am pleased that our Aims and Scope impressed you. I can
mark, just as each self-respecting editorial board, we based our key
words on our portfolio. See the contents of our volumes

http://www.angelfire.com/la3/selftrans/cover/cover.html

and you will make sure, we already have published papers in
practically all these trends, except geophysics, geochemistry, geology
and circuit synthesis. Well, fourth volume of our journal is not last,
we have these papers written and they wait their turn. In particular,
now we are preparing for publication the experimental work on
low-current contacts switching an inductive load. The experimental
curves which will be presented in this paper open a direct way to the
synthesis of spark-quenching circuits. The method will follow this
paper. The chapters on geophysics, geochemistry, geology, planetology
will follow the chapter of planet system formation of our monograph on
the Earth origin and evolution. So we will provide the full list of
key words. And naturally, we will not forget the started trends, I
have no doubt and you can be sure. ;-)

In the end, I would like to hear from you few words about the
announced paper. Above all other, we tried much to answer your
question. Do you accept our answer?

Kind regards,

Sergey