Eotvos, place your bets.
Dr GroundAxe
flame wars being almost as fascinating as the science itself. Now that a
result is near, what is the consensus of opinion on the outcome?
FrediFizzx
news:HOS9e.16978$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
I think Al is right that it is about 50/50. I am leaning towards a
non-null signal.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Classix
It will be null, but it's still worth doing.
Jan Panteltje
<grou...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
<HOS9e.16978$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>I have been following this experiment for quite a while, the attendant
>flame wars being almost as fascinating as the science itself. Now that a
>result is near, what is the consensus of opinion on the outcome?
1 for EOTVOS
0 for the man from Uncle and his cat
Gregory L. Hansen
Null, but it would be nice if it weren't.
--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959
Uncle Al
The deciding vote was cast 14.5 billion years ago. We're opening the
ballot box by 01 August. Each month of data collection roughly adds
another order of magnitude sensitivity. Given nominal performance,
10 ppt sensitivity in about 40 days,
1 ppt sensitivity in about 70 days,
0.1 ppt sensitivity in about 100 days, the thermal noise limit.
Barring disaster we'll know whether Einstein was wrong by 01 August.
We've either been very clever or no smarter than anybody else in the
past 400+ years. I'm keen on 3 parts-per-trillion difference/average,
which slips under all observations to date. The first hemiparity
Eotvos experiment whisper, optically right-handed P3(2)21 quartz vs.
fused silica, was not unwelcome.
The Weak Interaction is strictly left-handed. One expects
geometrically left-handed (optically right-handed) quartz to fit as
well into left-handed space as a common achiral test mass, or perhaps
slightly better. Consider a sock or a left shoe pulled onto a left
foot. The big divergence ought to be geometrically right-handed
(optically left-handed) quartz, a right shoe pulled onto a left foot.
The full parity Eotvos experiment is the best we can do.
Each of the eight single crystal cylindrical test masses is about 1.6
cm in diameter and 1.4 cm high for about 60 grams total active mass,
30 grams on each side of the rotor. That is 500X the net active mass
of the best composition Eotvos experiment. Masses plus rotor are 90%
tensile loading of the 20 micron-diameter tungsten fiber. Calculated
(1-CHI) for perfect quartz of that size is around 10^(-15), or
adequately close to CHI=1. Real world cultured quartz has
dislocations as the primary structural disruption. Sparse jiggle
doesn't matter as long as it isn't disinclinations or twinning.
Quartz has all Petitjean's quantitative parity divergence parameters
almost maxed out in the good direction. It would require a
substantially larger budget to evaluate either of the two closest
competitors,
1) Single crystal tellurium, space groups P3(1,2)21, is a stack of
1-D isolated heavy atom homoatomic helices. It would be Hell to grow
to the required size, Hell to machine (six perfect cleavage planes and
a brittle solid), and Hell to handle all the while (tellurium
breath). Having literal isolated helices, only one kind of atom, and
very heavy atoms are all aesthetic improvements on quartz. CHI does
not calculate quite as large vs. radius (for known reasons). There is
a lot of lattice volume/atom. If you like compactified dimensions,
tellurium is a coarse mesh compared to quartz. Selenium won't work
real world.
2) Single crystal PdSbTe in space group P2(1)3 is all heavy atoms
and calculates spectacular CHI growth with radius (for known
reasons). P2(1)3 is a chiral but not a parity space group. A 2(1)
screw axis is simultaneously left-handed and right-handed (ditto 4(2)
and 6(3) screw axes). Aesthetically it looks poor, cubic space group
and large lattice volume/atom included, but there is the math in
counterpoint.
<http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/sig.html>
We've started the 100-day countdown.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
b...@fractalfreak.com
Null
Dr GroundAxe
> Dr GroundAxe wrote:
>
>>I have been following this experiment for quite a while, the attendant
>>flame wars being almost as fascinating as the science itself. Now that a
>>result is near, what is the consensus of opinion on the outcome?
>
>
> The deciding vote was cast 14.5 billion years ago. We're opening the
> ballot box by 01 August. Each month of data collection roughly adds
> another order of magnitude sensitivity. Given nominal performance,
>
To stretch a metaphor, are the ballots going to be recounted, if the
result is not as desired?
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> Consider a sock or a left shoe pulled onto a left
> foot.
Hey! Watch what you say about socks!
Anyway, I wear tube socks. Can't be bothered hunting
through the "large clothing storage location number one"
(AKA the floor) to find a pair.
And, I vote the result will be null.
Socks
Uncle Al
A string of three nulls from the full parity Eotvos experiment and two
hemiparity Eotvos experiments (each hand of quartz vs. fused silica)
probably kills the entire class of inquiry. I doubt the second group
would test solid quartz spheres if the cylinder experiments null.
The project was done with two dozen volunteers, with zero funding.
The Chinese graduate student honestly earns his degree no matter which
way the coin lands. The empirical answer is what it is, obtained SOP
and wholly independent of the experiment's proposers.
A null result is identical to 420 years of Equivalence Principle
testing. If that is the way things are, that is entirely
satisfactory. I'm a chemist. Nobody comes away with anything worse
than lost lunch money. It was a lot of fun doing it.
A non-null result would be pleasant for all involved. The volunteers
will get laser-etched 3" cube leaded crystal paperweights and 15
minutes of fame. The rest of physics can work it out on its own
nickel.
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>A null result is identical to 420 years of Equivalence Principle
>testing. If that is the way things are, that is entirely
>satisfactory. I'm a chemist. Nobody comes away with anything worse
>than lost lunch money. It was a lot of fun doing it.
>
>A non-null result would be pleasant for all involved. The volunteers
>will get laser-etched 3" cube leaded crystal paperweights and 15
>minutes of fame. The rest of physics can work it out on its own
>nickel.
The problem is that you've spent so much time and energy over the
years on this wild goose chase, a null result will be heavy blow to
your ego, not to mention your pocket book. Your only chance to amass
fame and fortune will be gone forever. Why? Because you got nothing
else that anyone would be interested in. Poor Uncle Al. All those
years of ass kissing for nothing.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
onehapp...@yahoo.com
the bomb, and vengeance for the Asian Holocaust.
What practical wonders will the outcome of the Eotvos experiment
present to humanity?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Well, hopefully some of the lame, ignorant crackpots that are continually
spouting off here will shut the fuck up. That would be a giant present
to humanity.
What will probably happen is they will not believe the results and
they will continue their boring spew.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Uncle Al
In the future, everybody will agree with Uncle Al. What more could
anybody wish beyond a world that works for those who deserve its
proper operation? Clobbering time for the idiots.
I can't imagine what it would be useful for in application. I'll
subcontract.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:48:23 -0700
<42687407...@hate.spam.net>:
> onehapp...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> So what will it all mean in the end? Einstein's E=mc2 gave humanity
>> the bomb, and vengeance for the Asian Holocaust.
>>
>> What practical wonders will the outcome of the Eotvos experiment
>> present to humanity?
>
> In the future, everybody will agree with Uncle Al.
I dunno Al; Henri's still out there... :-) So is Greenfield.
Haven't seen Androcles lately.
> What more could
> anybody wish beyond a world that works for those who deserve its
> proper operation? Clobbering time for the idiots.
But the world is *always* operating properly. We just haven't
located The Big Golden Book Of Physics yet. :-)
>
> I can't imagine what it would be useful for in application. I'll
> subcontract.
>
Not to NASA, presumably.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
jmfb...@aol.com
Traveler <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <42685C3D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>>A null result is identical to 420 years of Equivalence Principle
>>testing. If that is the way things are, that is entirely
>>satisfactory. I'm a chemist. Nobody comes away with anything worse
>>than lost lunch money. It was a lot of fun doing it.
>>
>>A non-null result would be pleasant for all involved. The volunteers
>>will get laser-etched 3" cube leaded crystal paperweights and 15
>>minutes of fame. The rest of physics can work it out on its own
>>nickel.
>
>The problem is that you've spent so much time and energy over the
>years on this wild goose chase, a null result will be heavy blow to
>your ego, not to mention your pocket book.
You don't understand anything about science work. If you track
the work, you will find there have already been positive results
that people are using today. One of most imporant, IMO, is the
demonstration that research that needs serious CPU-days
is becoming available to people who don't have a timeclock
for a Cray-equivalent. All that's needed is clever coders
who actually know how to order a computer around.
The side effects of this study is already creating waves, big
waves.
<snip>
>The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
You obviously have no idea about software, badness and fixing.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
jmfb...@aol.com
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics onehapp...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> So what will it all mean in the end? Einstein's E=mc2 gave humanity
>> the bomb, and vengeance for the Asian Holocaust.
>
>> What practical wonders will the outcome of the Eotvos experiment
>> present to humanity?
>
>Well, hopefully some of the lame, ignorant crackpots that are continually
>spouting off here will shut the fuck up.
But they won't. Haven't you noticed the swerve towards
plagarism? That will be the next attempt at work prevention.
> That would be a giant present
>to humanity.
>
>What will probably happen is they will not believe the results and
>they will continue their boring spew.
>
It won't matter. If the results are non-null, there will be
future work for a lot of people. If the results are null,
there will still be future work for a lot of people.
Richard Tobin
<onehapp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So what will it all mean in the end? Einstein's E=mc2 gave humanity
>the bomb, and vengeance for the Asian Holocaust.
E=mc2 applies equally to atom bombs, TNT, and candles.
-- Richard
Mark Fergerson
Non-null. _Something_ fundamental has to underlie the pesky
left-handed weak force asymmetry.
Mark L. Fergerson
Traveler
>In article <hcng61h2l8g9dam76...@4ax.com>,
> Traveler <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>In article <42685C3D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
>><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>A null result is identical to 420 years of Equivalence Principle
>>>testing. If that is the way things are, that is entirely
>>>satisfactory. I'm a chemist. Nobody comes away with anything worse
>>>than lost lunch money. It was a lot of fun doing it.
>>>
>>>A non-null result would be pleasant for all involved. The volunteers
>>>will get laser-etched 3" cube leaded crystal paperweights and 15
>>>minutes of fame. The rest of physics can work it out on its own
>>>nickel.
>>
>>The problem is that you've spent so much time and energy over the
>>years on this wild goose chase, a null result will be heavy blow to
>>your ego, not to mention your pocket book.
>
>You don't understand anything about science work. If you track
>the work, you will find there have already been positive results
>that people are using today. One of most imporant, IMO, is the
>demonstration that research that needs serious CPU-days
>is becoming available to people who don't have a timeclock
>for a Cray-equivalent. All that's needed is clever coders
>who actually know how to order a computer around.
Huh? What the fuck does any of this crap mean? Since when did Uncle
Al's crap have positive results that people are using today? Run that
by me again.
>The side effects of this study is already creating waves, big
>waves.
Where is Uncle Al's crap creating waves? I don't see them.
><snip>
>
>>The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
>>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>
>You obviously have no idea about software, badness and fixing.
And your stupid opinion matters to me because...?
Louis Savain
jmfb...@aol.com
Traveler <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <SqqdnZLugt_...@rcn.net>, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>In article <hcng61h2l8g9dam76...@4ax.com>,
>> Traveler <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>In article <42685C3D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
>>><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>A null result is identical to 420 years of Equivalence Principle
>>>>testing. If that is the way things are, that is entirely
>>>>satisfactory. I'm a chemist. Nobody comes away with anything worse
>>>>than lost lunch money. It was a lot of fun doing it.
>>>>
>>>>A non-null result would be pleasant for all involved. The volunteers
>>>>will get laser-etched 3" cube leaded crystal paperweights and 15
>>>>minutes of fame. The rest of physics can work it out on its own
>>>>nickel.
>>>
>>>The problem is that you've spent so much time and energy over the
>>>years on this wild goose chase, a null result will be heavy blow to
>>>your ego, not to mention your pocket book.
>>
FOO::
>>You don't understand anything about science work. If you track
>>the work, you will find there have already been positive results
>>that people are using today. One of most imporant, IMO, is the
>>demonstration that research that needs serious CPU-days
>>is becoming available to people who don't have a timeclock
>>for a Cray-equivalent. All that's needed is clever coders
>>who actually know how to order a computer around.
>
>Huh? What the fuck does any of this crap mean? Since when did Uncle
>Al's crap have positive results that people are using today? Run that
>by me again.
GO TO FOO ;THAT'S THE LABEL ^UP THERE^
>
>>The side effects of this study is already creating waves, big
>>waves.
>
>Where is Uncle Al's crap creating waves? I don't see them.
You do need to move your mini-sub out of the Marinara Trench,
land, and then crawl out into the fresh air to see the waves.
>
>><snip>
>>
>>>The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
>>>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>>
>>You obviously have no idea about software, badness and fixing.
>
>And your stupid opinion matters to me because...?
I must be doing very well today. This is the second time
I've been labelled stupid.
Traveler
>I must be doing very well today. This is the second time
>I've been labelled stupid.
Are you getting the hint yet?
Louis Savain
Jerry
> The first hemiparity
> Eotvos experiment whisper, optically right-handed P3(2)21 quartz vs.
> fused silica, was not unwelcome.
>
> The Weak Interaction is strictly left-handed. One expects
> geometrically left-handed (optically right-handed) quartz to fit as
> well into left-handed space as a common achiral test mass, or perhaps
> slightly better. Consider a sock or a left shoe pulled onto a left
> foot. The big divergence ought to be geometrically right-handed
> (optically left-handed) quartz, a right shoe pulled onto a left foot.
In other words, the initial experiment gave a null result.
Jerry
jmfb...@aol.com
Traveler <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <0Nadna80_6c...@rcn.net>, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>I must be doing very well today. This is the second time
>>I've been labelled stupid.
>
>Are you getting the hint yet?
It was good feedback telling me that I'm on the correct track.
Uncle Al
AMD Developer's Center assembled blades holding 16 Opteron-848s and
gave us 40 days 24/7 in it, gratis. That was 15,000 CPU-hrs in the
hottest parallel-executing hardware to be had, from a bonepile. A
168-Xeon cluster with faulty modules used FastCHI as a diagnostic. We
found three hardware faults while running eight weekends for about
100,000 CPU-hrs accumulated, donated free. We've been in a small
piece of CERN, we've diagnosed dual-core Xeon clusters in Silicon
Valley, we've run in a national defense grid looking for bad
hardware...
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
resulted from about 150,000 CPU-hrs total of high end hardware at no
cost to us. The hardware had to be burning anyway. The world is a
marvelous place! Bigger would have been distributed computation like
"Einstein at Home"
http://www.physics2005.org/events/einsteinathome/
http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/
We convinced a quality physics group to do the parity Eotvos
experiment before the code could be considered. Overall, we only
received *one* rancid feedback to a request for supercomputer time:
NASA and its twice-built ungodly expensive pile of otherwise unsalable
Itanium-2s, "Columbia." Does anybody remember Space Scuttle
"Columbia?"
Robert Kolker
> Itanium-2s, "Columbia." Does anybody remember Space Scuttle
> "Columbia?"
STS Columbia. RIP. Rest in Pieces.
Bob Kolker
>
Uncle Al
No, the first hemiparity experiment gave a non-null output that was
not statistically significant. It's the first time any Equivalence
Principle test gave anything but a clean zero within experimental
error. A (questionable) signal of that magnitude can have many
sources, even in qualified equipment run by expert keepers.
There is one obvious source based upon the different densities of
crystalline quartz and amorphous silica. Contingent corrections of
test mass dimensioning and added gold plate balance mass and moments
of inertia distribution of the rotor to minimize tidal effects
(quadrupole corrections to "locality"). It is difficult to do
perfectly. Composition Eotvos experiment test masses are surface
drilled or internally hollowed. The mathematics of parity divergence
does not tolerate that. Be that as it may, the full parity Eotvos
experiment suddenly enjoyed top prority and budget allocation.
We'll know in fewer than 100 days.
Given identically shaped (symmetric) masses of different densities,
the less dense mass must be slightly undersized and the difference
made up with very dense gold to give two lumps with identical
dimensions and masses; and symmetric moments of inertia overall after
mounting on the rotor. (A dense rim on a less dense core cannot have
the same moments of inertia as a homogeneous body of the same overall
dimensions and mass. It is the loaded rotor that must be balanced.)
If "R" is the radius of the denser mass with d_0, "a" the uniform
thickness of the gold shell with d_2, and "R-a" the radius of the less
dense test mass with d_1,
a^3 - 3Ra^2 + 3R^a - [(d_0-d_1)/(d_2-d_1)]R^3 = 0
http://www.1728.com/cubic.htm
For quartz, fused silica, and gold given R=1, a=0.0087722. "a" is
directly proportional to radius. It's a small relative correction.
The full parity Eotvos experiment is left-handed vs. right-handed
quartz. Exact balance is only limited by fabrication precision.
Quartz is routinely fabricated to full optical standards.
Full parity Eotvos experiment output will either be big or be a clean
zero. There will be no doubt either way. Both possible results are
important to understanding gravitation. A non-null output would be
more interesting and useful.
Ken S. Tucker
Ah, Richard, prior to 1905, what was the theory
for the Sun's energy?
You young whipper snappers have no respect for a
good equation, why when I was -47 years old, we
thought the Sun was powered by coal.
Ken
Dr GroundAxe
It was, but coal got scarce so it was converted to fusion power.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
pant...@yahoo.com
<grou...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
<1Kcae.17758$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
The green will have it go back to coal soon.
>>
>
pant...@yahoo.com
<puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1114123155.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
No this is not correct, as the socks issue has been discussed here
before,
and of one pair, usualy 1 goes missing.
I am not sure if we had two rights if that still would be the case,
but with left and right handed (footed) socks, there would likely be a
one
result after a long enough time.
jmfb...@aol.com
I simply cannot imagine that figure. MOst of the runtimes in
my experience were seconds. A machine wouldnt' stay up long
enough to allot a couple of hours of runtime (hardware
maintenance schedules caused reloads at least once/wk.).
When we designed USAGE data (computer resource data for
cross-charging computer usage downstream) we defined the
field for runtime, IIRC, to be 7, maybe 6, characters
wide; the runtime was reported in seconds. Uncle, you have
blown my design out of the water ;-).
> .. in the
>hottest parallel-executing hardware to be had, from a bonepile. A
>168-Xeon cluster with faulty modules used FastCHI as a diagnostic.
Yep. Our best diag was the OS.
> .. We
>found three hardware faults while running eight weekends for about
>100,000 CPU-hrs accumulated, donated free.
And I hadn't thought about this side-effect.
> .. We've been in a small
>piece of CERN, we've diagnosed dual-core Xeon clusters in Silicon
>Valley, we've run in a national defense grid looking for bad
>hardware...
>
>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
>
>resulted from about 150,000 CPU-hrs total of high end hardware at no
>cost to us. The hardware had to be burning anyway. The world is a
>marvelous place! Bigger would have been distributed computation like
>"Einstein at Home"
>
>http://www.physics2005.org/events/einsteinathome/
>http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/
>
>We convinced a quality physics group to do the parity Eotvos
>experiment before the code could be considered. Overall, we only
>received *one* rancid feedback to a request for supercomputer time:
>NASA and its twice-built ungodly expensive pile of otherwise unsalable
>Itanium-2s, "Columbia." Does anybody remember Space Scuttle
>"Columbia?"
I've heard more people yak about multi-CPUs and thinking about
having them be a common fact of the computing life. It's about
fucking time.
Richard Tobin
Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>> E=mc2 applies equally to atom bombs, TNT, and candles.
>Ah, Richard, prior to 1905, what was the theory
>for the Sun's energy?
The fact that E=mc2 can be applied to reactions in the Sun doesn't
help you make an atom bomb. The key to that was the discovery of
nuclear fission 30 years later. Once you know about fission, E=mc2 is
a way to determine how much energy is released, but it would do the
same for TNT if you had good enough scales.
-- Richard
Uncle Al
>
> In article <426932E2...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> >> In article <hcng61h2l8g9dam76...@4ax.com>,
> >> Traveler <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >In article <42685C3D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> >> ><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >AMD Developer's Center assembled blades holding 16 Opteron-848s and
> >gave us 40 days 24/7 in it, gratis. That was 15,000 CPU-hrs
>
> I simply cannot imagine that figure. MOst of the runtimes in
> my experience were seconds. A machine wouldnt' stay up long
> enough to allot a couple of hours of runtime (hardware
> maintenance schedules caused reloads at least once/wk.).
> When we designed USAGE data (computer resource data for
> cross-charging computer usage downstream) we defined the
> field for runtime, IIRC, to be 7, maybe 6, characters
> wide; the runtime was reported in seconds. Uncle, you have
> blown my design out of the water ;-).
AMD hardware running Linux does not crash. Intel hardware running
Linux does not crash if you violently cool it. We did almost no HDD
operations except at the end, so that did not fail. Our experience
running the C++ source compiled for Windows is that we could get 24
CPU-hours faithfully and a CPU-week almost always. Windows is a bad
joke. Linx ran 40% faster in the same iron with the same source
code. Opterons ran 30-40% faster than Xeons even though they have
lower CPU frequencies. (This is generally *not* true for media
generation. If you are creating mpegs, test drive your software in
Intel chips. Much media software is specfically written to Intel CPU
architecture.)
> > .. in the
> >hottest parallel-executing hardware to be had, from a bonepile. A
> >168-Xeon cluster with faulty modules used FastCHI as a diagnostic.
>
> Yep. Our best diag was the OS.
A dead CPU is easy to find. A defective CPU or card needs to be run
flat out to squeak. FastCHI eats everything. Saturating an
Opteron-848 is not easy. Saturating 14 dozen Xeons for nearly three
days at whack is downright scary.
> > .. We
> >found three hardware faults while running eight weekends for about
> >100,000 CPU-hrs accumulated, donated free.
>
> And I hadn't thought about this side-effect.
>
[snip]
> I've heard more people yak about multi-CPUs and thinking about
> having them be a common fact of the computing life. It's about
> fucking time.
It's no good without an OS to handle parallel-compatible CPUs.. Four
Xeons running parallel in Windows sum to about two Xeons individually
- 50% hit/CPU throughput, and memory bandwidth divides. 16
Opteron-848s lost 1% throughput each vs. single performance, and
hypertransport *adds* memory bandwidths. If you want 64-bit computing
you can buy Intel and wait for Win64 in 2008, or you can buy AMD and
get a $2.00 Knoppix64 bootable Linux CD tomorrow. The future is
already here - it's the penguin.
http://www.abscomputers.com/
NO INTEL INSIDE
(Ya wanna do some penguin bashing? Uncle Al's highest score is 593.5
on Smack the Pingu!!)
jmfb...@aol.com
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <426932E2...@hate.spam.net>,
>> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> >jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> In article <hcng61h2l8g9dam76...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Traveler <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >In article <42685C3D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
>> >> ><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> >AMD Developer's Center assembled blades holding 16 Opteron-848s and
>> >gave us 40 days 24/7 in it, gratis. That was 15,000 CPU-hrs
>>
>> I simply cannot imagine that figure. MOst of the runtimes in
>> my experience were seconds. A machine wouldnt' stay up long
>> enough to allot a couple of hours of runtime (hardware
>> maintenance schedules caused reloads at least once/wk.).
>> When we designed USAGE data (computer resource data for
>> cross-charging computer usage downstream) we defined the
>> field for runtime, IIRC, to be 7, maybe 6, characters
>> wide; the runtime was reported in seconds. Uncle, you have
>> blown my design out of the water ;-).
>
>AMD hardware running Linux does not crash. Intel hardware running
>Linux does not crash if you violently cool it.
At least you don't need a gymnasium with five 2ton A/Cs blowing
you away.
> .. We did almost no HDD
>operations except at the end, so that did not fail. Our experience
>running the C++ source compiled for Windows is that we could get 24
>CPU-hours faithfully and a CPU-week almost always. Windows is a bad
>joke.
Windows was always a bad joke. It was not designed for thruput.
> .. Linx ran 40% faster in the same iron with the same source
>code.
I would hope so. I'm surprised it wasn't more. You must
have had some interrupts you have removed.
> .. Opterons ran 30-40% faster than Xeons even though they have
>lower CPU frequencies.
Hertz compares is a male thing :-). It isn't ever how fast your
CPU churns, it's the fact that is is churning. I got more work
done with a very slow KL10 in one minute than it would take me
to do on this very fast CPU running DOS/WIN. The time ratio
would be about 1 hour/1 minute. If the OS has to spend 20%
of its time deciding to run your job, then you only get
80% of the runtime. If the OS takes 1% of its time to run
your job, you now have 99% of available runtime.
> ... (This is generally *not* true for media
>generation. If you are creating mpegs, test drive your software in
>Intel chips. Much media software is specfically written to Intel CPU
>architecture.)
That's data intensive, not compute intensive. The two don't usually
mix well at all.
>
>> > .. in the
>> >hottest parallel-executing hardware to be had, from a bonepile. A
>> >168-Xeon cluster with faulty modules used FastCHI as a diagnostic.
>>
>> Yep. Our best diag was the OS.
>
>A dead CPU is easy to find. A defective CPU or card needs to be run
>flat out to squeak. FastCHI eats everything. Saturating an
>Opteron-848 is not easy. Saturating 14 dozen Xeons for nearly three
>days at whack is downright scary.
Their hard/software engineers must have had fun watching.
>
>> > .. We
>> >found three hardware faults while running eight weekends for about
>> >100,000 CPU-hrs accumulated, donated free.
>>
>> And I hadn't thought about this side-effect.
>>
>[snip]
>
>> I've heard more people yak about multi-CPUs and thinking about
>> having them be a common fact of the computing life. It's about
>> fucking time.
>
>It's no good without an OS to handle parallel-compatible CPUs.. Four
>Xeons running parallel in Windows sum to about two Xeons individually
>- 50% hit/CPU throughput, and memory bandwidth divides.
Well, that problem with Windows is due to small computer thinking,
a disease I've haven't found a cure for...yet.
> .. 16
>Opteron-848s lost 1% throughput each vs. single performance, and
>hypertransport *adds* memory bandwidths. If you want 64-bit computing
>you can buy Intel and wait for Win64 in 2008, or you can buy AMD and
>get a $2.00 Knoppix64 bootable Linux CD tomorrow. The future is
>already here - it's the penguin.
>
>http://www.abscomputers.com/
> NO INTEL INSIDE
>
>(Ya wanna do some penguin bashing? Uncle Al's highest score is 593.5
>on Smack the Pingu!!)
>
>http://henriluoma.net/pingu/
/BAH
Greysky
"Dr GroundAxe" <grou...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HOS9e.16978$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>I have been following this experiment for quite a while, the attendant
>flame wars being almost as fascinating as the science itself. Now that a
>result is near, what is the consensus of opinion on the outcome?
There will be a discrepancy as long as Al has nothing to do with it. If he
touches *anything at all* there will be a null result. Further, the
equipment will not begin to work until a priest is called in and performs an
exorcism on it.
Greysky
Uncle Al
>
> In article <426AC9B2...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <426932E2...@hate.spam.net>,
> >> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >> >jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> In article <hcng61h2l8g9dam76...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> Traveler <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >In article <42685C3D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> >> >> ><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >[snip]
> >A dead CPU is easy to find. A defective CPU or card needs to be run
> >flat out to squeak. FastCHI eats everything. Saturating an
> >Opteron-848 is not easy. Saturating 14 dozen Xeons for nearly three
> >days at whack is downright scary.
>
> Their hard/software engineers must have had fun watching.
[snip]
The sysop was a graduate of Eotvos University in Hungary. Expertise
is good; luck is as good as exertise although less accessible. He
could pronounce the name, too. "Ert-versh" more or less. They were
looking for those three hardware faults for forever.
> >If you want 64-bit computing
> >you can buy Intel and wait for Win64 in 2008, or you can buy AMD and
> >get a $2.00 Knoppix64 bootable Linux CD tomorrow. The future is
> >already here - it's the penguin.
> >
> >http://www.abscomputers.com/
> > NO INTEL INSIDE
> >
> >(Ya wanna do some penguin bashing? Uncle Al's highest score is 593.5
> >on Smack the Pingu!!)
> >
> >http://henriluoma.net/pingu/
--
Uncle Al
The Wicked Witch of the West died for Uncle Al's sins - he saw her do
it.
Experimental protocol demands pre-qualified apparatus run by its
disinterested expert keepers SOP with no physical contact of any kind
between the proposers and those who reduce it to practice or their
infrastructre. Our hearts are pure and our quest is clean.
Of the two dozen or more folks who supported the parity Eotvos
experment's proposal, Uncle Al has met only one programmer. She's an
*incredible* fox with a thing for embedded code and Marine pilots.
Uncle Al loves her for her mind.
The Ghost In The Machine
<greysk...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:23:57 GMT
<NCQae.87$Gd7...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>:
You forgot the '69 Honda tranny! How do you expect the exorcism to work
properly without it?
(Or was that the gas tank from a '74 Pinto?)
em
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42693B36...@hate.spam.net...
> Full parity Eotvos experiment output will either be big or be a clean
> zero. There will be no doubt either way. Both possible results are
> important to understanding gravitation. A non-null output would be
> more interesting and useful.
Then again... a null result would be the last bastion to collapse leaving
the way clear of any impediment to consider the ground may actually be
accelerating beneath our feet.
A null result would mean weight *is* equal to mass. There is no divergence.
This experiment has been regarded by its author as being possibly the last
conceivable test to discern if there is any divergence between that of
acceleration and that of gravitational attraction.
Mass and weight being equal is astronomical. As it means quite simply that
just standing with two feet planted firmly on the ground, we are actually
undergoing a constant rate of acceleration in the upward direction. . Hence
mass is weight and weight is mass.
If mass is defined as a body's resistance to acceleration then so too must
weight be regarded as the product of a body's resistance to being
accelerated.
Yes... this is a big thing.
There should really be a tsunami warning posted.
But alas, instead I fear, we had better be watching our bovine excremometers
very closely and get ready for a fast one.
The dice are getting loaded.
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Full parity Eotvos experiment output will either be big or be a clean
>zero. There will be no doubt either way. Both possible results are
>important to understanding gravitation. A non-null output would be
>more interesting and useful.
This is bullshit, of course. The result will certainly be null which
means that you will have no better understanding of gravity than you
already have, i.e., zilch. If you had any clue as to the nature of
gravity, you would already know how stupid your Eotvos experiment is.
Uncle Al
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:42693B36...@hate.spam.net...
>
> > Full parity Eotvos experiment output will either be big or be a clean
> > zero. There will be no doubt either way. Both possible results are
> > important to understanding gravitation. A non-null output would be
> > more interesting and useful.
>
> Then again... a null result would be the last bastion to collapse leaving
> the way clear of any impediment to consider the ground may actually be
> accelerating beneath our feet.
Idiot.
Ken S. Tucker
Naaaaaaaaaa, see them dark spots on the sun??
Well that's hunks of coal fallin' in from outa space.
Ken
PS:(I gotta think of everything)
Ken S. Tucker
Ok, prior to E=mc^2 one was unable to relate the *potential*
energy bonds in molecules and in nucleus, without guessing,
into mass units.
E=mc^2 provided the rational tool to balance molecule and
atomic equations, permitting experimentalist's and theoreticians
to proceed on a secure foundation.
Richard says, "if you had good enough scales."
Did you really want to argue that point, doesn't
look good.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <1114199548.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >> E=mc2 applies equally to atom bombs, TNT, and candles.
>>
>> >Ah, Richard, prior to 1905, what was the theory
>> >for the Sun's energy?
>>
>> The fact that E=mc2 can be applied to reactions in the Sun doesn't
>> help you make an atom bomb. The key to that was the discovery of
>> nuclear fission 30 years later. Once you know about fission, E=mc2
>is
>> a way to determine how much energy is released, but it would do the
>> same for TNT if you had good enough scales.
>> -- Richard
>
>Ok, prior to E=mc^2 one was unable to relate the *potential*
>energy bonds in molecules and in nucleus, without guessing,
>into mass units.
So? Even today you determine the amount of energy in chemical bonds
through direct energy measurements, not calculating from mass defects
(which are barely measurable even in the most favorable cases).
Didn't hurt chemistry any.
> E=mc^2 provided the rational tool to balance molecule and
>atomic equations, permitting experimentalist's and theoreticians
>to proceed on a secure foundation.
It is but an accounting tool. Would you just have known the fission
energy from an empirical measurement, it would've made *no*
difference.
>
>Richard says, "if you had good enough scales."
>
>Did you really want to argue that point, doesn't
>look good.
His point looks good. Yours, doesn't.
Thomas Johnson
Uncle Al wrote:
> 10 ppt sensitivity in about 40 days,
> 1 ppt sensitivity in about 70 days,
> 0.1 ppt sensitivity in about 100 days, the thermal noise limit.
One would expect that, with gaussian statistics, you would require 100x
more time for a 10x increase in SNR. This experiment is getting a
factor of 10 in under 2x time. Perhaps you could discuss the details
of the experiment that lead to this much different?
Thomas.
Ken S. Tucker
He is a better teacher! I'm wondering about
understanding matter-antimatter reactions
without E=mc^2 like how to get to E=hf.
Ken
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>understanding matter-antimatter reactions
>without E=mc^2 like how to get to E=hf.
The question is not quite clear, but it seems to me that you're mixing
two different things. As for matter-antimatter reactions, E = mc^2 is
very useful for finding the energy of the reaction without going
through it, but it in no way does "expalin" the reaction. All you can
say is 'if such reaction is possible, that's the energy that will be
released". But it says nothing about whether such reaction is
possible at all.
As for E = hf, note that when this relationship was first postulated
(by Planck), it was *before* the advent of relativity and with no
relationship to E = mc^2.
Ken S. Tucker
Same for using weigh scales and empirically collecting data.
> As for E = hf, note that when this relationship was first postulated
> (by Planck), it was *before* the advent of relativity and with no
> relationship to E = mc^2.
In 1905 mc^2=hf and thus E=mc^2 predicted the frequency of,
e- + e+ => two .511 Mev gamma's,
something you couldn't do with a "weigh scale".
Regards
Ken
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Indeed.
>
>> As for E = hf, note that when this relationship was first postulated
>> (by Planck), it was *before* the advent of relativity and with no
>> relationship to E = mc^2.
>
>In 1905 mc^2=hf
Nope. mc^2=hf as general statement is wrong. All you could say is
that "if a *single* photon (another concept which didn't exist prior
to 1905) is generated, with same energy as this of a massive body of
mass m, then hf = mc^2".
> and thus E=mc^2 predicted the frequency of,
>
>e- + e+ => two .511 Mev gamma's,
>
This is wrong on multiple levels as:
1) E = mc^2 simply gives you the energy content of mass m. It says
nothing about whether this energy can be released and if so when.
Specifically, it *does not* predict that e- and e= will annihilate.
2) Even if you know from *other* sources that the two will annihilate,
E = mc^2 doesn't predict that they will annihilate into photons.
3) Even if you know from *other* sources that there is an annihilation
reaction resulting in photons, E = mc^2 doesn't predict that it'll be into
two photons. Can be any number (well any number greater than 1). All
that E = mc^2 will tell you that their *total energy will be 1.022
MeV.
4) Even if you already know from *other* sources that there is an
annihilation reaction resulting in photons and that the most probable
number of photons is 2, you still know nothing about their frequency
(based on E = mc^2 alone). You just know that the energy of each will
be 0.511 MeV (MeV is a unit of energy, not frequency). To convert
this energy into frequency you need E = hf and if you have E = hf you
could get the frequency even if the energy would've been obtained from
a purely empirical measurement, with no theory involved.
>something you couldn't do with a "weigh scale".
On the contrary, as explained above, you could. You managed to pack a
hell of a lot of errors into a single sentence:-)
Ken S. Tucker
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <1114494291....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> writes:
> >Same for using weigh scales and empirically collecting data.
>
> Indeed.
> >
> >> As for E = hf, note that when this relationship was first
postulated
> >> (by Planck), it was *before* the advent of relativity and with no
> >> relationship to E = mc^2.
> >
> >In 1905 mc^2=hf
>
> Nope. mc^2=hf as general statement is wrong. All you could say is
> that "if a *single* photon (another concept which didn't exist prior
> to 1905) is generated, with same energy as this of a massive body of
> mass m, then hf = mc^2".
>
> > and thus E=mc^2 predicted the frequency of,
> >
> >e- + e+ => two .511 Mev gamma's,
> >
> This is wrong on multiple levels as:
Not really, it's a statement of facts.
> 1) E = mc^2 simply gives you the energy content of mass m. It says
> nothing about whether this energy can be released and if so when.
> Specifically, it *does not* predict that e- and e= will annihilate.
That's OT.
> 2) Even if you know from *other* sources that the two will
annihilate,
> E = mc^2 doesn't predict that they will annihilate into photons.
That's OT.
> 3) Even if you know from *other* sources that there is an
annihilation
> reaction resulting in photons, E = mc^2 doesn't predict that it'll be
into
> two photons. Can be any number (well any number greater than 1).
All
> that E = mc^2 will tell you that their *total energy will be 1.022
> MeV.
Well you'll NEED mc^2*gamma to balance, conservation
of energy AND momentum, that's part of my point.
> 4) Even if you already know from *other* sources that there is an
> annihilation reaction resulting in photons and that the most probable
> number of photons is 2, you still know nothing about their frequency
> (based on E = mc^2 alone). You just know that the energy of each
will
> be 0.511 MeV (MeV is a unit of energy, not frequency). To convert
> this energy into frequency you need E = hf and if you have E = hf you
> could get the frequency even if the energy would've been obtained
from
> a purely empirical measurement, with no theory involved.
How?
You would need to get the E to put into hf from mass.
According to your ideas, you might permit
E=(jack rabbits)^14, see my point.
> >something you couldn't do with a "weigh scale".
>
> On the contrary, as explained above, you could. You managed to pack
a
> hell of a lot of errors into a single sentence:-)
Ha, error density that's good.
I think I come from a different background from you people.
Presumably I view the unification of mass-energy and spacetime
as the same thing, this is getting ridiculous.
Ken
Bilge
>In 1905 mc^2=hf and thus E=mc^2 predicted the frequency of,
>e- + e+ => two .511 Mev gamma's,
You only get 2 0.511 MeV gammas in the rest frame of an e+/e-
pair that anihilate at zero (or very small) relative velocity.
Your equation doesn't work for the general case. You need the
full energy momentum relation to get the energies and opening
angle in a frame independent fashion:
(p + q)^2 = (k + k')^2
p, q are the e+/e- four momenta. k and k' are the photon four momenta.
p^2 + q^2 + 2p.q = k^2 + k'^2 + 2k.k'
p^2 = q^2 = m^2 = (0.511 MeV)^2, k^2 = k'^2 = 0
2m^2 + 2m^2 \gamma_1\gamma_2(1 - \beta_1\beta_2 cos(A))
= 2w1w2(1 - cos(B))
Work in the center of mass frame, so that \beta_1 = -\beta_2 and
cos(A) = cos(B) = -1 and w1 = w2 == w
m^2 [1 + \gamma^2(1 + \beta^2)] = 2w^2
w^2 = m^2 \gamma^2
Exercise for ken tucker: Repeat the exercise and find the photon
energies and opening angle of the photons in the lab frame for a
collision of a 5 MeV e+ and 3 MeV e- at an angle of 45 degrees
in two different ways: (a) By transforming the result above,
(b) working in the lab frame.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> In article <1114494291....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> writes:
>
>> >Same for using weigh scales and empirically collecting data.
>>
>> Indeed.
>> >
>> >> As for E = hf, note that when this relationship was first
>postulated
>> >> (by Planck), it was *before* the advent of relativity and with no
>> >> relationship to E = mc^2.
>> >
>> >In 1905 mc^2=hf
>>
>> Nope. mc^2=hf as general statement is wrong. All you could say is
>> that "if a *single* photon (another concept which didn't exist prior
>> to 1905) is generated, with same energy as this of a massive body of
>> mass m, then hf = mc^2".
>>
>> > and thus E=mc^2 predicted the frequency of,
>> >
>> >e- + e+ => two .511 Mev gamma's,
>> >
>> This is wrong on multiple levels as:
>
>
>> nothing about whether this energy can be released and if so when.
>> Specifically, it *does not* predict that e- and e= will annihilate.
>
Meaning, it does not predict.
>
>> 2) Even if you know from *other* sources that the two will
>annihilate,
>> E = mc^2 doesn't predict that they will annihilate into photons.
>
>That's OT.
See above.
>
>> 3) Even if you know from *other* sources that there is an
>annihilation
>> reaction resulting in photons, E = mc^2 doesn't predict that it'll be
>into
>> two photons. Can be any number (well any number greater than 1).
>All
>> that E = mc^2 will tell you that their *total energy will be 1.022
>> MeV.
>
>Well you'll NEED mc^2*gamma to balance, conservation
>of energy AND momentum, that's part of my point.
>
All this just tells you "greater than one".
>> 4) Even if you already know from *other* sources that there is an
>> annihilation reaction resulting in photons and that the most probable
>
>> number of photons is 2, you still know nothing about their frequency
>> (based on E = mc^2 alone). You just know that the energy of each
>will
>> be 0.511 MeV (MeV is a unit of energy, not frequency). To convert
>> this energy into frequency you need E = hf and if you have E = hf you
>
>> could get the frequency even if the energy would've been obtained
>from
>> a purely empirical measurement, with no theory involved.
>
>How?
How do you measure the energy of chemical reactions? Has been done
for a long time.
>You would need to get the E to put into hf from mass.
Indeed. The E, however, can come either from theory or from
measurement.
>According to your ideas, you might permit
>E=(jack rabbits)^14, see my point.
There is no point to see.
>
>> >something you couldn't do with a "weigh scale".
>>
>> On the contrary, as explained above, you could. You managed to pack
>a
>> hell of a lot of errors into a single sentence:-)
>
>Ha, error density that's good.
>I think I come from a different background from you people.
Yes, that's rather obvious.
>Presumably I view the unification of mass-energy and spacetime
>as the same thing, this is getting ridiculous.
That much is true:-)
Ken S. Tucker
Agreed!
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
Yes but E=mc^2 accounts for the loss of mass if
energy is liberated,
C + O2 => CO2 + heat
E=mc^2 *predicts* CO2 weighs less than C+O2.
> >You would need to get the E to put into hf from mass.
>
> Indeed. The E, however, can come either from theory or from
> measurement.
>
> >According to your ideas, you might permit
> >E=(jack rabbits)^14, see my point.
>
> There is no point to see.
> >
> >> >something you couldn't do with a "weigh scale".
> >>
> >> On the contrary, as explained above, you could. You managed to
pack
> >a
> >> hell of a lot of errors into a single sentence:-)
> >
> >Ha, error density that's good.
> >I think I come from a different background from you people.
>
> Yes, that's rather obvious.
Well I know you guys aren't the cranks, and find
myself in the unusual position of arguing for
respecting relativity and defending it!
> >Presumably I view the unification of mass-energy and spacetime
> >as the same thing, this is getting ridiculous.
>
> That much is true:-)
To summarize: We're asking if E=mc^2 has predictive
power and I argue yes, using the positron-electron
annihilation problem (that predicts 2 lights-rays
to be produced from other reasons), but we use
E=mc^2 = hf to basically *predict* the frequency.
I see that as a real triumph for relativity, that
should be respected.
If a student were to ask me about that, it looks
like a very clear example.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: I spent two years in the field fixing gamma
ray imagers, fun stuff.
bz
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Yes but E=mc^2 accounts for the loss of mass if
> energy is liberated,
>
> C + O2 => CO2 + heat
>
> E=mc^2 *predicts* CO2 weighs less than C+O2.
from the heat of combustion, 14540 BTU/lb, 1 lb of carbon burned results in a
loss of 3.7e-10 lb of mass. Kind of hard to measure.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Ken S. Tucker
bz wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1114547524.622378.15210
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Yes but E=mc^2 accounts for the loss of mass if
> > energy is liberated,
> >
> > C + O2 => CO2 + heat
> >
> > E=mc^2 *predicts* CO2 weighs less than C+O2.
>
> from the heat of combustion, 14540 BTU/lb, 1 lb of carbon burned
results in a
> loss of 3.7e-10 lb of mass. Kind of hard to measure.
But that's a technology problem, what's mass spectrometry
for, you likely know 10x more about that, BTW that's a
nice toy, ever had chance to play with one?
Ken
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>energy is liberated,
>
>C + O2 => CO2 + heat
>
>E=mc^2 *predicts* CO2 weighs less than C+O2.
Indeed. But, not relevant to the issue. You do not need to use
E = mc^2 to find the amount of heat liberated. Calorimetry suffices.
You could (assuming you had at your disposal sufficiently precise mass
data) calculate the heat from the masses involved, but you can manage
perfectly well just with the measured value. And that's the point
here, what started the discussion was the question to what extent was
E = mc^2 important to the development of atomic bombs. The answer is
"not very".
>
>> >You would need to get the E to put into hf from mass.
>>
>> Indeed. The E, however, can come either from theory or from
>> measurement.
>>
>> >According to your ideas, you might permit
>> >E=(jack rabbits)^14, see my point.
>>
>> There is no point to see.
>> >
>> >> >something you couldn't do with a "weigh scale".
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, as explained above, you could. You managed to
>pack
>> >a
>> >> hell of a lot of errors into a single sentence:-)
>> >
>> >Ha, error density that's good.
>> >I think I come from a different background from you people.
>>
>> Yes, that's rather obvious.
>
>Well I know you guys aren't the cranks, and find
>myself in the unusual position of arguing for
>respecting relativity and defending it!
It is not a question of "disrespect" and relativity needs no
defending. It is a matter of not attributing some mysterious powers
to the simple relationship E = mc^2. This is not the crux of
relativity, just one of the many derived results, useful but rarely
central to anything.
>
>> >Presumably I view the unification of mass-energy and spacetime
>> >as the same thing, this is getting ridiculous.
>>
>> That much is true:-)
>
>To summarize: We're asking if E=mc^2 has predictive
>power and I argue yes, using the positron-electron
>annihilation problem (that predicts 2 lights-rays
>to be produced from other reasons), but we use
>E=mc^2 = hf to basically *predict* the frequency.
>I see that as a real triumph for relativity, that
>should be respected.
No problem with this, but note how much narrower this is than the
original claim. Nobody here said that E = mc^2 is not useful, just
that the usefullness shouldn't be overestimated.
> If a student were to ask me about that, it looks
>like a very clear example.
Yes, I fully agree.
bz
Once or twice. :)
We have several in our building.
Then there is GC/MS, HPLC/MS. There are Quadrapole MS and Time of flight
MS.
The first MS I worked on, in the 60's was an old ?varian? 'oil field
surplus', donated to Midwestern University in Wichita Falls, Texas. It ran
the ions through a magnetic field and used an electron multipier to count
them. The magnetic field was varied to scan the mass range.
Ken S. Tucker
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <1114547524....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> writes:
> >
> >mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >> In article
<1114507846.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> writes:
> >> How do you measure the energy of chemical reactions? Has been
done
> >> for a long time.
> >
> >Yes but E=mc^2 accounts for the loss of mass if
> >energy is liberated,
> >
> >C + O2 => CO2 + heat
> >
> >E=mc^2 *predicts* CO2 weighs less than C+O2.
>
> Indeed. But, not relevant to the issue. You do not need to use
> E = mc^2 to find the amount of heat liberated. Calorimetry suffices.
Your bending. Classical chemistry uses conservation of
mass, hence mass of CO2 = mass of C+O2, but thats
*predicted* to be wrong by E=mc^2. A good experimentalist
will ultimately be able to verify that *prediction*.
> You could (assuming you had at your disposal sufficiently precise
mass
> data) calculate the heat from the masses involved, but you can manage
> perfectly well just with the measured value. And that's the point
> here, what started the discussion was the question to what extent was
> E = mc^2 important to the development of atomic bombs. The answer is
> "not very".
Not sure, Madame Curie got weird energy from what
Einstein (in his 1905 paper) quoted as radium salts.
At that time the Curies seem to have thought they
discovered some godly potion. Some people drank
disolved radium with bad consequences.
...
> >Well I know you guys aren't the cranks, and find
> >myself in the unusual position of arguing for
> >respecting relativity and defending it!
>
> It is not a question of "disrespect" and relativity needs no
> defending. It is a matter of not attributing some mysterious powers
> to the simple relationship E = mc^2. This is not the crux of
> relativity, just one of the many derived results, useful but rarely
> central to anything.
Ah, "central" depends on the problem.
...
> >To summarize: We're asking if E=mc^2 has predictive
> >power and I argue yes, using the positron-electron
> >annihilation problem (that predicts 2 lights-rays
> >to be produced from other reasons), but we use
> >E=mc^2 = hf to basically *predict* the frequency.
> >I see that as a real triumph for relativity, that
> >should be respected.
>
> No problem with this, but note how much narrower this is than the
> original claim. Nobody here said that E = mc^2 is not useful, just
> that the usefullness shouldn't be overestimated.
>
> > If a student were to ask me about that, it looks
> >like a very clear example.
>
> Yes, I fully agree.
Good, then we agree.
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
To a techy like me that's better than porn!
What ever happened to Varian? When I was in that business
in the 80's they seemed to be sliding, I didn't get time
to research them. I was asked to fix their stuff, but I
was too busy.
Ken
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> In article <1114547524....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> writes:
>> >
>> >mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> >> In article
><1114507846.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> writes:
>> >> How do you measure the energy of chemical reactions? Has been
>done
>> >> for a long time.
>> >
>> >Yes but E=mc^2 accounts for the loss of mass if
>> >energy is liberated,
>> >
>> >C + O2 => CO2 + heat
>> >
>> >E=mc^2 *predicts* CO2 weighs less than C+O2.
>>
>> Indeed. But, not relevant to the issue. You do not need to use
>> E = mc^2 to find the amount of heat liberated. Calorimetry suffices.
>
>
>mass, hence mass of CO2 = mass of C+O2, but thats
>*predicted* to be wrong by E=mc^2. A good experimentalist
>will ultimately be able to verify that *prediction*.
Quite irrelevant to the issue at hand which was how can we know the
amount of energy released, not the mass. As for the mass change
itself, indeed, there is no exact conservation but for the purposes of
chemistry you can treat it as conserved since the changes are too small
to be of concern. Part of the art of doing science is to know what to
care about and what to ignore.
>
>> You could (assuming you had at your disposal sufficiently precise
>mass
>> data) calculate the heat from the masses involved, but you can manage
>
>> perfectly well just with the measured value. And that's the point
>> here, what started the discussion was the question to what extent was
>
>> E = mc^2 important to the development of atomic bombs. The answer is
>
>> "not very".
>
>Not sure, Madame Curie got weird energy from what
>Einstein (in his 1905 paper) quoted as radium salts.
>At that time the Curies seem to have thought they
>discovered some godly potion. Some people drank
>disolved radium with bad consequences.
Again, the relevance would be?
Mme Curie is important in the story line because (among other things)
her calorimetry on radium established that the amount of energy
present vastly exceeds what any known chemical process could provide.
And this was first established empirically, not from theory.
>...
>
>> >Well I know you guys aren't the cranks, and find
>> >myself in the unusual position of arguing for
>> >respecting relativity and defending it!
>>
>> It is not a question of "disrespect" and relativity needs no
>> defending. It is a matter of not attributing some mysterious powers
>> to the simple relationship E = mc^2. This is not the crux of
>> relativity, just one of the many derived results, useful but rarely
>> central to anything.
>
>Ah, "central" depends on the problem.
For sure.
>...
>
>> >To summarize: We're asking if E=mc^2 has predictive
>> >power and I argue yes, using the positron-electron
>> >annihilation problem (that predicts 2 lights-rays
>> >to be produced from other reasons), but we use
>> >E=mc^2 = hf to basically *predict* the frequency.
>> >I see that as a real triumph for relativity, that
>> >should be respected.
>>
>> No problem with this, but note how much narrower this is than the
>> original claim. Nobody here said that E = mc^2 is not useful, just
>> that the usefullness shouldn't be overestimated.
>>
>> > If a student were to ask me about that, it looks
>> >like a very clear example.
>>
>> Yes, I fully agree.
>
>Good, then we agree.
Excellent.
bz
>
> bz wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
>> news:1114555657....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
....
>> The first MS I worked on, in the 60's was an old ?varian? 'oil field
>> surplus', donated to Midwestern University in Wichita Falls, Texas.
> It ran
>> the ions through a magnetic field and used an electron multipier to
> count
>> them. The magnetic field was varied to scan the mass range.
>
> To a techy like me that's better than porn!
>
> What ever happened to Varian?
seem to still be around.
http://www.varian.com/index2.html
> When I was in that business
> in the 80's they seemed to be sliding, I didn't get time
> to research them. I was asked to fix their stuff, but I
> was too busy.
I think we have quite a bit of varian stuff around our building. Some of it
quite old. There was some varian microwave 'junk' in the dumpster a couple
of days ago. Someone was cleaning up, I guess.
Uncle Al
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
> news:1114560937.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > bz wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
> >> news:1114555657....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> ....
> >> The first MS I worked on, in the 60's was an old ?varian? 'oil field
> >> surplus', donated to Midwestern University in Wichita Falls, Texas.
> > It ran
> >> the ions through a magnetic field and used an electron multipier to
> > count
> >> them. The magnetic field was varied to scan the mass range.
> >
> > To a techy like me that's better than porn!
> >
> > What ever happened to Varian?
>
> seem to still be around.
> http://www.varian.com/index2.html
>
> > When I was in that business
> > in the 80's they seemed to be sliding, I didn't get time
> > to research them. I was asked to fix their stuff, but I
> > was too busy.
>
> I think we have quite a bit of varian stuff around our building. Some of it
> quite old. There was some varian microwave 'junk' in the dumpster a couple
> of days ago. Someone was cleaning up, I guess.
The Varian brothers had a wicked sense of humor. "Klystron" as in
"klyster" (enema).
bz
>> I think we have quite a bit of varian stuff around our building. Some
>> of it quite old. There was some varian microwave 'junk' in the dumpster
>> a couple of days ago. Someone was cleaning up, I guess.
>
> The Varian brothers had a wicked sense of humor. "Klystron" as in
> "klyster" (enema).
>
If I could have lifted the stuff out of the dumpster (and if it hadn't been
raining, hard), I would have rescued the stuff. Had some nice looking 3cm,
x-band wave guide. I am sure there was a high power klystron or TWT inside
the box somewhere. Of course, I also thought of what my wife would say when
I dragged home 50 plus pounds of junk and where I could hide it in my ham
shack. The rain and some heavier stuff on top of it were deciding factors.
Still, it would have been fun to play with and the gold plated waveguides
were pretty. :(
Gregory L. Hansen
bz <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in
>news:426EE69B...@hate.spam.net:
>
>>> I think we have quite a bit of varian stuff around our building. Some
>>> of it quite old. There was some varian microwave 'junk' in the dumpster
>>> a couple of days ago. Someone was cleaning up, I guess.
>>
>> The Varian brothers had a wicked sense of humor. "Klystron" as in
>> "klyster" (enema).
>>
>
>If I could have lifted the stuff out of the dumpster (and if it hadn't been
>raining, hard), I would have rescued the stuff. Had some nice looking 3cm,
>x-band wave guide. I am sure there was a high power klystron or TWT inside
>the box somewhere. Of course, I also thought of what my wife would say when
>I dragged home 50 plus pounds of junk and where I could hide it in my ham
>shack. The rain and some heavier stuff on top of it were deciding factors.
>
>Still, it would have been fun to play with and the gold plated waveguides
>were pretty. :(
I'm always a little sad when old equipment gets thrown out like that.
Sure, the previous keepers may no longer need it, or have replaced it with
something better. But even a 40 year old vacuum tube oscillograph is
useful to a high school student, and the average high school student
can't easily buy equipment of his own. It would be nice to match
equipment with organizations or even individuals that might use it.
NIST has an Excess Property division that circulates potentially useful
equipment to other users. But it can't legally get out of NIST's hands
except at auction, where e.g. some old screw mount lenses you might want
would be included in a pallet of junk that some dealer will buy for scrap,
and then put the lenses on eBay. The system is carefully designed so that
no NIST employee may benefit from it.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Thomas Johnson
Well, I didn't expect you to answer this one. It would take an actual
knowledge of the experiment. Also, it would be embarassing to note
that actual data should already be available.
Odd that the same rules didn't apply to the first experiment, eh Mr.
Schwartz? I mean, they didn't have any preliminary results for you,
just the final answer.
This is just Schwartz' way of dragging the subject out to gather as
much attention as he can.
The excuses this time should be excellent. The "autoclave blew up"
excuse was pretty darned good last time, though.
Thomas.
Jerry
Obviously, the major errors would be systematic, not Gaussian.
A great deal of the error comes from lunar and solar perturbations on
the masses - the experiment is that sensitive! From the above table,
I would gather that each month the experiment is run, the effects of
these perturbations on the experiment become far better understood.
Jerry
Jerry
Demean the experiment, do not demean the man. I myself have had
-many- negative things to say about the experiment, and I've goaded
Al a lot in the "Proof of General Relativity & Consequence of
EP Violation" thread, but I have NEVER ONCE insulted him personally.
Believe it or not, the experiment -is- worth doing, despite my
reservations on how the results should be interpreted.
Jerry
Uncle Al
Published results typically include two error bands: intrinsic noise
and systematic error. The empirical results will stand on their own.
The parity Eotvos experiment is conducted SOP in qualified unmodified
apparatus by its academic keepers. A non-null result will be retested
by the independent backup lab - oh yes indeed! - using second
independent sets of equipment, personnel, and raw materials.
Substantially different latitude and time of year will vary the
impressed inertial and gravitational accelerations. Different
alignment of crystal axes, too. A third set of experiments will vary
test mass macroscopic form from Petitjean's mathematics that requires
three equal moments of inertia to generate maximum CHI.
Critic trolls are well below baseline noise. There is nothing they
can do to stop the experiment or influence its outcome. The parity
Eotvos experiment has a life of its own now in a country that cannot
be intimidated. Attempts at social sabotage have been viewed with
considerable amusement by all involved. A major Equivalence Principle
parity anomaly would be evident by the end of May. It might not be a
subtle thing at all.
Somebody is looking, hot and eager to learn the empirical truth.
Ken S. Tucker
Most of the time yes, but so what, it's a prediction.
> >> You could (assuming you had at your disposal sufficiently precise
> >mass
> >> data) calculate the heat from the masses involved, but you can
manage
> >
> >> perfectly well just with the measured value. And that's the point
> >> here, what started the discussion was the question to what extent
was
> >
> >> E = mc^2 important to the development of atomic bombs. The answer
is
> >
> >> "not very".
> >
> >Not sure, Madame Curie got weird energy from what
> >Einstein (in his 1905 paper) quoted as radium salts.
> >At that time the Curies seem to have thought they
> >discovered some godly potion. Some people drank
> >disolved radium with bad consequences.
>
> Again, the relevance would be?
>
> Mme Curie is important in the story line because (among other things)
> her calorimetry on radium established that the amount of energy
> present vastly exceeds what any known chemical process could provide.
> And this was first established empirically, not from theory.
AE using E=mc^2 predicted in 1905 the radium salts would
be loosing mass, also *predicted* radiation convey's
inertia. That's cool.
Ken
[snip agreeably]
Jan Panteltje
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in <426FD2B8...@hate.spam.net>:
>Critic trolls are well below baseline noise. There is nothing they
>can do to stop the experiment or influence its outcome.
I would not be so sure about a critic troll with a GSM cellphone in
the same room.
Or the one next to it.
GSMs are able to influence more then you think.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Sure is.
>
>> >> You could (assuming you had at your disposal sufficiently precise
>> >mass
>> >> data) calculate the heat from the masses involved, but you can
>manage
>> >
>> >> perfectly well just with the measured value. And that's the point
>> >> here, what started the discussion was the question to what extent
>was
>> >
>> >> E = mc^2 important to the development of atomic bombs. The answer
>is
>> >
>> >> "not very".
>> >
>> >Not sure, Madame Curie got weird energy from what
>> >Einstein (in his 1905 paper) quoted as radium salts.
>> >At that time the Curies seem to have thought they
>> >discovered some godly potion. Some people drank
>> >disolved radium with bad consequences.
>>
>> Again, the relevance would be?
>>
>> Mme Curie is important in the story line because (among other things)
>
>> her calorimetry on radium established that the amount of energy
>> present vastly exceeds what any known chemical process could provide.
>
>> And this was first established empirically, not from theory.
>
>AE using E=mc^2 predicted in 1905 the radium salts would
>be loosing mass, also *predicted* radiation convey's
>inertia. That's cool.
Of course.
Thomas Johnson
Yes, there are things such as seismic noise which will be non-gaussian.
However, Schwartz can't describe them as he knows little about the
experiment which he has "calculated".
Also, why didn't he describe the results as data came out from the
supposed experiments run late last year?
Schwartz has a history of lying about his pet projects. He has given
no proof that the experiment is actually being run. People believe him
even though his track record would suggest strong skepticism.
Thomas.
Thomas Johnson
Schwartz does not have the high ground when it comes to insults.
I do not demean the experiment. I point out the fact that the
calculations presented in qz.pdf are both poorly irrelevant to the
experiment and poorly presented.
Schwartz presents these calculations with the intent to deceive. He
has been very successful with this.
I have said this before--if an undergraduate presented work of the
caliber of qz.pdf I would try to work with him/her to learn how to do
and to report science. If the same student submitted something like
that a second time, I would spend my time working with students who can
learn. Schwartz either can't learn or doesn't want to admit that he
knows it is nonsense.
He has started mentioning Green's functions again in another thread.
Anyone with a basic understanding of Green's function can read the
apendix in qz.pdf and see *glaring* errors in understanding.
If anyone can present a single part of the CHI calculation that is
useful to an Eotvos experiment or to general relativity, please do so.
Thomas.
em
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:426D0FBF...@hate.spam.net...
> em wrote:
>>
>> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>> news:42693B36...@hate.spam.net...
>>
>> > Full parity Eotvos experiment output will either be big or be a clean
>> > zero. There will be no doubt either way. Both possible results are
>> > important to understanding gravitation. A non-null output would be
>> > more interesting and useful.
>>
>> Then again... a null result would be the last bastion to collapse leaving
>> the way clear of any impediment to consider the ground may actually be
>> accelerating beneath our feet.
> [snip]
>
> Idiot.
[splat]
Fool...shut up and load the dice.
Greysky
>
> Critic trolls are well below baseline noise. There is nothing they
> can do to stop the experiment or influence its outcome. The parity
> Eotvos experiment has a life of its own now in a country that cannot
> be intimidated.
Ah, I had no idea the experiment was being conducted in Northern Nigeria.
Yes, damn those Northern Nigerians to hell, as they can't be intimidated
nearly as well as their Southern Nigerian Kin can.
>Attempts at social sabotage have been viewed with
> considerable amusement by all involved. A major Equivalence Principle
> parity anomaly would be evident by the end of May. It might not be a
> subtle thing at all.
>
> Somebody is looking, hot and eager to learn the empirical truth.
>
Yes. The Northern Nigerians.
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> Jerry wrote:
> > Demean the experiment, do not demean the man. I myself have had
> > -many- negative things to say about the experiment, and I've goaded
> > Al a lot in the "Proof of General Relativity & Consequence of
> > EP Violation" thread, but I have NEVER ONCE insulted him
personally.
> >
> > Believe it or not, the experiment -is- worth doing, despite my
> > reservations on how the results should be interpreted.
> >
> > Jerry
>
>
> Schwartz does not have the high ground when it comes to insults.
Quite true. In my arguments with Al, "stoopid" and "idiot" were
some of the milder invectives that he threw at me.
> I do not demean the experiment. I point out the fact that the
> calculations presented in qz.pdf are both poorly irrelevant
> to the experiment and poorly presented.
I stand corrected. You are right. The experiment is probably
being conducted in a totally professional manner. The problem
is in Al's theory, or rather, lack thereof.
> Schwartz presents these calculations with the intent to
> deceive. He has been very successful with this.
>
> I have said this before--if an undergraduate presented work
> of the caliber of qz.pdf I would try to work with him/her to
> learn how to do and to report science. If the same student
> submitted something like that a second time, I would spend
> my time working with students who can learn. Schwartz either
> can't learn or doesn't want to admit that he knows it is
> nonsense.
>
> He has started mentioning Green's functions again in another
> thread. Anyone with a basic understanding of Green's function
> can read the apendix in qz.pdf and see *glaring* errors in
> understanding.
I remember being baffled. I gave Al the benefit of the doubt
and thought possibly the misunderstanding was on my end, because
I don't pretend to superior math skills. Let me revisit his
presentation.
Thanks for the tip.
> If anyone can present a single part of the CHI calculation
> that is useful to an Eotvos experiment or to general relativity,
> please do so.
Jerry
Thomas Johnson
Thomas Johnson wrote:
> Schwartz has a history of lying about his pet projects. He has given
> no proof that the experiment is actually being run. People believe
him
> even though his track record would suggest strong skepticism.
>
> Thomas.
I have to admit when I am wrong. There is an experiment ongoing
looking at quartz.
Mr. Shwartz is misrepresenting his participation, however.
Thomas.
Uncle Al
The full parity Eotvos experiment [P3(1)21 vs P3(2)21 single crystal
quartz test masses] is fabricated consistent with Petitjean's
mathematics of quantitative parity divergence, loaded, and pumping
down. Physical reality disdains both crimson watered silk and
jackbooted threats. Whatever the outcome of the full parity Eotvos
experiment, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
Uncle Al says, "The existential root of Liberty is the capacity to be
very bad at taking orders from morons."
Ken S. Tucker
Al, and all
I (Tucker) just posted my prediction for the
expected result of the $1,000,000,000 GP-b
experiment, my neck is out. Al stop being a
twink, sheesh you're crystal stuff is like
needle point, get out of your dress, and
make a GP-b prediction based on your theory
of GR, where teleparallism is concerned.
Stick your neck out Al in an experiment,
you don't control!
If you do, I might acquire a bit of respect
for you, otherwise your just another crank
twink.
Best Intentions
Ken S. Tucker
Attila the Bum
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Thomas Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > Thomas Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Schwartz has a history of lying about his pet projects. He has
> given
> > > > no proof that the experiment is actually being run. People
> believe
> > > him
Then contrary to the twink's assertion,
UA does run the show ... heh |-)
> > > > even though his track record would suggest strong skepticism.
> > > >
> > > > Thomas.
> > >
> > > I have to admit when I am wrong. There is an experiment ongoing
> > > looking at quartz.
> > >
> > > Mr. Shwartz is misrepresenting his participation, however.
In this case, no news is bad news.
> > > Thomas.
> >
> > The full parity Eotvos experiment [P3(1)21 vs P3(2)21 single
crystal
> > quartz test masses] is fabricated consistent with Petitjean's
> > mathematics of quantitative parity divergence, loaded, and pumping
> > down. Physical reality disdains both crimson watered silk and
> > jackbooted threats. Whatever the outcome of the full parity Eotvos
> > experiment, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
Uhh ... we are all aware, of course,
that folks ride their trikes, not
horses ....
> > Uncle Al says, "The existential root of Liberty is the capacity to
be
> > very bad at taking orders from morons."
No long "i" in that pronunciation,
is there?
> > --
> > Uncle Al
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
>
> Al, and all
> I (Tucker) just posted my prediction for the
> expected result of the $1,000,000,000 GP-b
> experiment, my neck is out. Al stop being a
> twink, sheesh you're crystal stuff is like
> needle point, get out of your dress, and
> make a GP-b prediction based on your theory
> of GR, where teleparallism is concerned.
> Stick your neck out Al in an experiment,
> you don't control!
Conflict in communication, here.
See the above pointer.
> If you do, I might acquire a bit of respect
> for you, otherwise your just another crank
> twink.
> Best Intentions
> Ken S. Tucker
Conflict ... conflict ... crashing ...
aborting thomas tucker twink connections
... crashing ... crash ....
Atty ( ... now about the chiral diamond
roach repellant project .... :-)
Ken S. Tucker
nothing...
tj Frazir
The idiot thinks photons have the mass to knock a neutron out .
I know all about frame dragging as you called it and its dragging space
dumbass .
So Ill punch the math up on a disk standing on end with a magnet near it
to manipulate the diploles wile its spins at 1/2 C and changes mass in
the energy slope at C.
The change in mass will take place 180 deg and it will fall up.
Its the gain in mass pushing the rest of the atom down the slope .
The atom pushes its self down the energy slope and no pull exsist .
You can not manipulate how fast an atom changes mass but can manupulate
where it changes mass .
This is what drags space.
Uncle dumbass wount understand it because he dont understand gravity.
do you ?
tj Frazir
Uncle is a pedifile name ,,you should change it to AL and get rid of the
pedifile name ..
Or go sit beside Jackson ...Uncle Jackson !
Uncle AL Uncle Jackson ..
A grown man using UNCLE on the net makes me wonder !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Attila the Bum
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Attila the Bum wrote:
>
> nothing...
And there it is; Kenny has the
last word.
And a fine word it is. I thank
the fool for it. "Fool", for he
knows not that there is nothing
greater than nothing in the
universe. Someone please, throw
Kenny a bone |-)
Atty (...I promise to deliver
nothing, but you must pay
in advance :-)
Ken S. Tucker
I shot a spit-ball at Uncle Al, you have to
otherwise he'll think you're a twink and ignore you.
But do wonder if all those spinning sapphires
in GP-b, will yield a different prediction
using the Teleparallel theory.
I've already made a fool of myself by questioning
the Kerr metric, shooting a spit-ball at me is
like farting in a tornado!
Ken
Uncle Al
>
> To At. the bum
>
> Attila the Bum wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > Attila the Bum wrote:
> > >
> > > nothing...
> >
> > And there it is; Kenny has the
> > last word.
> >
> > And a fine word it is. I thank
> > the fool for it. "Fool", for he
> > knows not that there is nothing
> > greater than nothing in the
> > universe. Someone please, throw
> > Kenny a bone |-)
> >
> >
> > Atty (...I promise to deliver
> > nothing, but you must pay
> > in advance :-)
>
> I shot a spit-ball at Uncle Al, you have to
> otherwise he'll think you're a twink and ignore you.
> But do wonder if all those spinning sapphires
fused silica the size of ping pong balls, not single crystal alumina.
Try reading the website,
Twerps avoid becoming educated. Twinks sexually excite pederasts,
Google
twink pedophile 889 hits
> in GP-b, will yield a different prediction
> using the Teleparallel theory.
> I've already made a fool of myself by questioning
> the Kerr metric, shooting a spit-ball at me is
> like farting in a tornado!
*All* qualitative and quantitative predictions within metric theories
of gravitation (e.g., General Relativity) are exactly duplicated by
affine/teleparallel theories, without exception. Metric gravitation
is a subset of affine/teleparallel gravitation - with the Equivalence
Principle turned on.
The parity Eotvos experiment asks the obvious and important question:
Given spacetime geometry, can the Equivalence Principle be violated
with test mass geometry? Composition is empirically inert to one part
in 10^13 difference/average. By 01 August we will know if there is an
Equivalence Principle parity anomaly.
Ken, bring along some ammo if you are going to engage in a battle of
wits with Uncle Al. Bring a weaopon, too.
Ken S. Tucker
Don't worry about wits, you won me over in the paper
airplane contest!
Al, you avoided predicting the outcome of the
GP-b experiment, that's much bigger. You hold
yourself to be a "spin" expert in GR, chirally
etc. yet you faded when confronted with a direct
question. Now answer directly, do you have a
prediction of the results of GP-b other than
what is predicted using Kerr metric's etc.
Al take a quick glance at my post "Theory of Relativity",
it's in s.p.research or sp relativity.
In those you'll see eliminated from ds^2 the need
for "g_i0" metrics Kerr uses.
I needed g_uv;w=0 to construct relativity, and I
asked Al if that holds in Teleparallelism.
Uncle Al, I posted "Theory of Relativity" mostly
for your benefit. Usually, Relativity is riddled
with "words" and sometimes incoherent math, (IMO),
so I tried to boil down the theory to two specifics
(1) U_i=0 , (2) g_uv;w=0,
it's the latter you question, but sofar have given
no substitution. The (2) embodies the PoE as I've
explained.
The question to Al, is the RHS of (2) non-zero?
Speakin' for myself and others that's what you've
failed to answer.
I've bent over backwards to define basic GR, it's
really in your ball-pack. Just tell me/us what is
(2)?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
> > >
> > > To At. the bum
> > >
> > > Attila the Bum wrote:
> > > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > > > Attila the Bum wrote:
> Al, you avoided predicting the outcome of the
> GP-b experiment, that's much bigger. You hold
> yourself to be a "spin" expert in GR, chirally
> etc. yet you faded when confronted with a direct
> question. Now answer directly, do you have a
> prediction of the results of GP-b other than
> what is predicted using Kerr metric's etc.
Don't be an ass. I said Gravity Probe-B will observe everything it is
supposed to observe, including Lense-Thirring frame dragging. It is
also a test of the Equivalence Princple for antiparallel 10,000 rpm
spinning fused silica bodies and 10,000 rpm spinning Type I
superconductor niobium cooled below its Tc, compared with the
stationary fused silica housing.
> Al take a quick glance at my post "Theory of Relativity",
> it's in s.p.research or sp relativity.
>
> In those you'll see eliminated from ds^2 the need
> for "g_i0" metrics Kerr uses.
>
> I needed g_uv;w=0 to construct relativity, and I
> asked Al if that holds in Teleparallelism.
>
> Uncle Al, I posted "Theory of Relativity" mostly
> for your benefit. Usually, Relativity is riddled
> with "words" and sometimes incoherent math, (IMO),
> so I tried to boil down the theory to two specifics
>
> (1) U_i=0 , (2) g_uv;w=0,
>
> it's the latter you question, but sofar have given
> no substitution. The (2) embodies the PoE as I've
> explained.
You were given an extensive explanation of where you made your errors
in sci.physics.research The EP is a GR founding postulate. If the EP
is empirically counterdemonstrated GR is falsified. No math is
necessary.
Euclid's Fifth postulate is counterdemonstrated by hyperbolic
(Reimann) and elliptic (Bolyai/Lobechevsky) geometries. Then all
three were given the heave-ho by Thurston's eight simply-connected
geometric 3-manifolds with compact quotients,
GP Scott, "The geometries of 3-manifolds," Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.
15(5) 401-487 (1983)
WP Thurston, "Three-dimensional manifolds, Kleinian groups and
hyperbolic geometry," Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 357-381 (1982).
WP Thurston, "The geometry and topology of three-manifolds," Princeton
Math. Dept., 1979.
Euclid is but a tightly constrained case of much more general
geometry. The parity Eotvos experiment seeks to demonstrate GR is a
tightly constrained case of much more general gravitation theory.
That a net signal would also bring down Lorentz Invariance, isotropy
of space, conservation of angular momentum, and quantum mechanics is
part of the fun. Uncle Al is a chemist. His livelihood depends on
none of that being true.
> The question to Al, is the RHS of (2) non-zero?
>
> Speakin' for myself and others that's what you've
> failed to answer.
>
> I've bent over backwards to define basic GR, it's
> really in your ball-pack. Just tell me/us what is
> (2)?
The EP is a GR founding postulate. If the EP is empirically
counterdemonstrated GR is falsified. No math is necessary. If
Euclid's parallel Postulate is falsified, Euclid is falsified. Good
thing, too, since a mile square on the Earth's surface does not
enclose a square mile.
FrediFizzx
news:1114896072....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Err... That is why the experiment is being done. Perhaps a better
question; if it is non-zero, what is the value and why?
FrediFizzx
Uncle Al
How much and why are not Uncle Al's problems. I'm here for the
discovery, if any. The rest of physics can work out the sequelae, if
any, after the hard work is accomplished.
Uncle Al says, "Will shatter paradigms for cash."
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> FrediFizzx wrote:
> > Err... That is why the experiment is being done. Perhaps a better
> > question; if it is non-zero, what is the value and why?
>
> How much and why are not Uncle Al's problems. I'm here for the
> discovery, if any. The rest of physics can work out the sequelae, if
> any, after the hard work is accomplished.
That's that it all boils down to. Al has some vague intuition that
the EP violation predicted by teleparallel theory might manifest
itself in a sensitivity of an object's falling behavior to its
three dimensional geometry. This is an intuition that Al has never
been able to justify by rigorous argument. His so-called
derivations all contain a leap of logic equivalent to "then a
miracle occurs", i.e. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ThenaMiracleOccurs .
Never mind that conservation of angular momentum and local
conservation of energy would be violated if his experiment succeeds.
I agree that teleparallel theory predicts a violation of the EP.
But it is illogical of Al to claim that the manifestation of EP
violation that must take place in teleparallel theories would be
differential falling behavior of geometrically divergent test
bodies.
As classical theories, neither GR nor teleparallel gravitation
can be expected to predict the downfall of classical conservation
laws. For Al's experiment to succeed, not only GR must fall, but
virtually the whole of classical physics.
Note that Al's experiment is still worth doing. The universe
is not classical, but quantum, and unexpected effects may occur
in this quantum universe.
But as a -classical- experiment to distinguish between
-classical- alternatives to gravitational theory, GR and affine
gravitation, Al's experiment cannot succeed. A non-null result,
if observed, would be inconsistent with -both- theories. Al's
fundamental argument for conducting the experiment is wrong.
So let us wait until August, and see whether classical physics
remains standing. Of course, we know that classical physics has
-already- fallen. But I daresay that a non-null result would
punch a pretty substantial hole in quantum physics as well.
For example, quantum physics allows momentary violations of
conservation of energy, the deviations being strictly constrained
by the uncertainty principle. On the other hand, a non-null result
in Al's experiment would allow construction of a perpetual motion
machine. See Bilge's post
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b513817a0e596b0d?hl=en
Al doesn't care. He's an organiker. Let others sort out the
problems that would occur if the experiment pans out.
Jerry
FrediFizzx
news:1114917241....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Uncle Al wrote:
| > FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| > > Err... That is why the experiment is being done. Perhaps a
better
| > > question; if it is non-zero, what is the value and why?
| >
| > How much and why are not Uncle Al's problems. I'm here for the
| > discovery, if any. The rest of physics can work out the sequelae,
if
| > any, after the hard work is accomplished.
Well, that seems to be somewhat of a lame attitude. Surely you must
have some best "guesses" from the "research"? My cheap 2 cents worth;
dual space-times with one being right-handed and one being left-handed
and they ain't equal.
| That's that it all boils down to. Al has some vague intuition that
| the EP violation predicted by teleparallel theory might manifest
| itself in a sensitivity of an object's falling behavior to its
| three dimensional geometry. This is an intuition that Al has never
| been able to justify by rigorous argument. His so-called
| derivations all contain a leap of logic equivalent to "then a
| miracle occurs", i.e. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ThenaMiracleOccurs .
|
| Never mind that conservation of angular momentum and local
| conservation of energy would be violated if his experiment succeeds.
Well, there are good indications that something is not conserved.
Matter exists and we don't see equal amounts of anti-matter. And for
me, matter seems to be an anomaly of the space-time equilibrium.
| I agree that teleparallel theory predicts a violation of the EP.
| But it is illogical of Al to claim that the manifestation of EP
| violation that must take place in teleparallel theories would be
| differential falling behavior of geometrically divergent test
| bodies.
|
| As classical theories, neither GR nor teleparallel gravitation
| can be expected to predict the downfall of classical conservation
| laws. For Al's experiment to succeed, not only GR must fall, but
| virtually the whole of classical physics.
Ah hell, it will only be by a little bit. Not a big deal IMHO.
| Note that Al's experiment is still worth doing. The universe
| is not classical, but quantum, and unexpected effects may occur
| in this quantum universe.
I think they have already occured.
| But as a -classical- experiment to distinguish between
| -classical- alternatives to gravitational theory, GR and affine
| gravitation, Al's experiment cannot succeed. A non-null result,
| if observed, would be inconsistent with -both- theories. Al's
| fundamental argument for conducting the experiment is wrong.
You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
| So let us wait until August, and see whether classical physics
| remains standing. Of course, we know that classical physics has
| -already- fallen. But I daresay that a non-null result would
| punch a pretty substantial hole in quantum physics as well.
| For example, quantum physics allows momentary violations of
| conservation of energy, the deviations being strictly constrained
| by the uncertainty principle. On the other hand, a non-null result
| in Al's experiment would allow construction of a perpetual motion
| machine. See Bilge's post
|
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b513817a0e596b0d?hl=en
I think you bein' a sissy again. Classical physics has not fallen.
Ever. It's a freakin' duality. Quantum-classical; they don't and can't
exist without each other. Now we might have to break them both a little
bit to make them fit together better.
| Al doesn't care. He's an organiker. Let others sort out the
| problems that would occur if the experiment pans out.
He probably just doesn't want to do any speculating before results. But
watch him go if a signal is obtained. From my own naive research, I am
leaning towards that they just might get a signal.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1114917241....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> | So let us wait until August, and see whether classical physics
> | remains standing. Of course, we know that classical physics has
> | -already- fallen. But I daresay that a non-null result would
> | punch a pretty substantial hole in quantum physics as well.
> | For example, quantum physics allows momentary violations of
> | conservation of energy, the deviations being strictly constrained
> | by the uncertainty principle. On the other hand, a non-null result
> | in Al's experiment would allow construction of a perpetual motion
> | machine. See Bilge's post
> |
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b513817a0e596b0d?hl=en
>
> I think you bein' a sissy again. Classical physics has not fallen.
Then perpetual motion devices are impossible.
> Ever. It's a freakin' duality. Quantum-classical; they don't and
> can't exist without each other. Now we might have to break them
> both a little bit to make them fit together better.
Then perpetual motion devices are possible.
Please make up your mind.
Jerry
tj Frazir
Down is less energy in bent space and up is more energy.
Up is a Gain in mass .
The atoms parts in orbit change mass at C .
In an energy slope they have more mass from one side to the other .
all the atoms mass falls twards the center of the atom .
The atoms parts have more mass when on top.
More of the atoms mass is falling in one direction than the other and
allso spend more time on one side ..
The atom is pushin it's self down the energy slope.
NO PULL exsist .
Mass does not atract mass ,,mass takes up space in an expanding
universe.
The gain in mass is F pushing F--ma .
the mass of the atom.
Evry atoms gain is perportional to its mass.
V is the same for evry atom so they all fall the same speed.
RichD
> I have been following this experiment for quite a while,
> the attendant flame wars being almost as fascinating as
> the science itself. Now that a
> result is near, what is the consensus of opinion on the outcome?
For those of us late to the party, can you clue us re the
experiment? And why does it require so many cpu cycles?
Whatever it is, watching the kooks jump on old Uncle, I figure
he must be doing something right.
--
Rich
FrediFizzx
news:1115005021.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Hmm... Besides the "kooks", he is getting some flak from people that
don't seem all that kooky. That is what I am wondering about. But as
for my own "kooky" self-research, I am leaning towards that he might
just get a signal. And I am somewhat hoping the experiment does get a
signal. What could be more wonderful than shaking modern physics up a
bit? It seems to me that we are due for another breakthough.
Greysky
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dlq0eF...@individual.net...
> "RichD" <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1115005021.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> | Dr GroundAxe wrote:
> | > I have been following this experiment for quite a while,
> | > the attendant flame wars being almost as fascinating as
> | > the science itself. Now that a
> | > result is near, what is the consensus of opinion on the outcome?
> |
> | For those of us late to the party, can you clue us re the
> | experiment? And why does it require so many cpu cycles?
> |
> | Whatever it is, watching the kooks jump on old Uncle, I figure
> | he must be doing something right.
>
>
> Hmm... Besides the "kooks", he is getting some flak from people that
> don't seem all that kooky. That is what I am wondering about. But as
> for my own "kooky" self-research, I am leaning towards that he might
> just get a signal. And I am somewhat hoping the experiment does get a
> signal. What could be more wonderful than shaking modern physics up a
> bit? It seems to me that we are due for another breakthough.
>
indicator the universe is rotating within a inertial framework. I don't know
if the setup is sensitive enough to see this or not, so it'll be an
interesting day when the results come out.
Greysky