Parity Eotvos experiment, post-Denver.
Uncle Al
Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/about.cfm
2004 American Physical Society National Meeting, Denver.
http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/abs/S690006.html
The abstract
http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/tocD.html#SD9.006
The program
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
The formal proposal (data not most recent)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
A huge pile of stuff with a few hundred clickable footnotes. The
Devil lays in the details. Live with the unfinished part about
Green's function. It's pinned tight with recently calculated data.
20 minutes after said talk's conclusion, the parity Eotvos experiment
was entered into collaboration with a respected academic research
group. We now sort out the details, quid pro quo.
WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only way
to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at the
> Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
>
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/about.cfm
> 2004 American Physical Society National Meeting, Denver.
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/abs/S690006.html
> The abstract
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/tocD.html#SD9.006
> The program
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
> The formal proposal (data not most recent)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
> A huge pile of stuff with a few hundred clickable footnotes. The
> Devil lays in the details. Live with the unfinished part about
> Green's function. It's pinned tight with recently calculated data.
>
> 20 minutes after said talk's conclusion, the parity Eotvos experiment
> was entered into collaboration with a respected academic research
> group. We now sort out the details, quid pro quo.
>
> WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only way
> to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."
Congratulations! And good luck!
Bye,
Bjoern
Ed Keane III
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4096CB87...@hate.spam.net...
Congradulations!
Will there be a betting pool?
John Sefton
I'm betting that long before
Al performs his stupidity (probably
while hiring as many bumboys
as possible), push gravity will be
proven and in use for locomotion
(clandestine use by covert gov't
organizations has probably been
happening for many years).
Disinformation and distraction is
what Bumboy Al is into.
When the axis shifts, I hope the
mexicans kick you off the raft.
I know Airforce 1 will be asking
pretty-please to land in Canada-
won't be any usable States left.
Poetic justice.
John
Uncle Al
Already in place. First prize is a trip to Sweden in late autumn.
Stakes are reputation vs. results.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Franz Heymann
the
> Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
>
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/about.cfm
> 2004 American Physical Society National Meeting, Denver.
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/abs/S690006.html
> The abstract
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/tocD.html#SD9.006
> The program
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
> The formal proposal (data not most recent)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
> A huge pile of stuff with a few hundred clickable footnotes. The
> Devil lays in the details. Live with the unfinished part about
> Green's function. It's pinned tight with recently calculated data.
>
> 20 minutes after said talk's conclusion, the parity Eotvos
experiment
> was entered into collaboration with a respected academic research
> group. We now sort out the details, quid pro quo.
>
> WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only
way
> to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."
Congratulations and the best of luck with the experiment.
Since Vajk might be a little shy of giving you his good wishes as
well, I will give them to you by proxy.
Franz
Torbjörn Svensson Diaz
in <4096CB87...@hate.spam.net>:
>Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at the
>Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
>
>http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/about.cfm
> 2004 American Physical Society National Meeting, Denver.
>http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/abs/S690006.html
> The abstract
>http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/tocD.html#SD9.006
> The program
>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
> The formal proposal (data not most recent)
>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
> A huge pile of stuff with a few hundred clickable footnotes. The
>Devil lays in the details. Live with the unfinished part about
>Green's function. It's pinned tight with recently calculated data.
>
>20 minutes after said talk's conclusion, the parity Eotvos experiment
>was entered into collaboration with a respected academic research
>group. We now sort out the details, quid pro quo.
>
>WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only way
>to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."
Congratulations!
--
/Torbjörn Svensson Diaz
Please visist this site. http://www.againsttcpa.com/
Uncle Al
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:4096CB87...@hate.spam.net...
> > Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at
> the
> > Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
> Congratulations and the best of luck with the experiment.
"8^>)
> Since Vajk might be a little shy of giving you his good wishes as
> well, I will give them to you by proxy.
Vajk?
Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
Way to go Uncle Al!.
Klazmon.
Bill Hobba
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c78v6v$qcd$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Of course my congratulations and best of luck as well.
Thanks
Bill
Eric Gisse
[snippy]
> WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only way
> to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."
YAY!
Notice the silence being emitted from our local compactified dementias...
Bill Vajk
Schwartz has no need of anyhting from me.
If he actually has managed to convince someone to run the experiment
then all well and good and I'll wait for the published results. I've
never seen anything from Schwartz other than vaporware.
"Couldn't this time be different," asked the little boy who
cried wolf?
Michael Varney
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:S_idnVf1kOB...@comcast.com...
He did, and they will. But please... continue to whine and pout, Vajk the
vacuous.
> I've
> never seen anything from Schwartz other than vaporware.
And nobody has seen anything of worth from you, Vajk.
Bill Vajk
> "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> news:S_idnVf1kOB...@comcast.com...
>>I've
>>never seen anything from Schwartz other than vaporware.
> And nobody has seen anything of worth from you, Vajk.
If you knew anything, child, you'd understand it is
a case of "you had to be there." LOL
Greg Neill
news:4097BA35...@petcom.com...
>
> I'm betting that long before
> Al performs his stupidity (probably
> while hiring as many bumboys
> as possible), push gravity will be
> proven and in use for locomotion
> (clandestine use by covert gov't
> organizations has probably been
> happening for many years).
> Disinformation and distraction is
> what Bumboy Al is into.
> When the axis shifts, I hope the
> mexicans kick you off the raft.
> I know Airforce 1 will be asking
> pretty-please to land in Canada-
> won't be any usable States left.
> Poetic justice.
> John
>
Your jealousy is showing. It's not pretty.
Bill Vajk
First there would have to be something to be
jalous of, wouldn't you say? Are you actually
implying there is?
Silly boy.
Franz Heymann
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:S_idnVf1kOB...@comcast.com...
You are quite right. You have nothing to offer him except
congratulations and you were too much of a churl to do that. And you
are right. Hr does not need them. He can stand on his own feet.
>
> If he actually has managed to convince someone to run the experiment
> then all well and good and I'll wait for the published results. I've
> never seen anything from Schwartz other than vaporware.
You are getting to be boring. This is the third time in one session
that you have used that word. How about learning a new one?
>
> "Couldn't this time be different," asked the little boy who
> cried wolf?
You are out of steam.
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
Yes. And you are. It shows.
Franz
Bill Vajk
> "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> news:S_idnVf1kOB...@comcast.com...
>>Schwartz has no need of anyhting from me.
> You are quite right. You have nothing to offer him except
> congratulations and you were too much of a churl to do that.
Congratulations? For what precisely, pray tell? Did he
achieve what he set out to do? Perhaps/apparently. When
a student achieves what is expected of them do you run
up and congratulate them? Heck no, it was expected after
all. If a student achieves what is expected of the average
student and you didn't expect him to succede, and you
congratulate him, then I view that as an insult, because
you're telling that student they exceeded your expectations.
But of course being the loser you are you haven't a clue.
> And you
> are right. Hr does not need them. He can stand on his own feet.
You seem to think so. That's an opinion without foundation
in fact.
>>If he actually has managed to convince someone to run the experiment
>>then all well and good and I'll wait for the published results. I've
>>never seen anything from Schwartz other than vaporware.
> You are getting to be boring. This is the third time in one session
> that you have used that word. How about learning a new one?
When the shoe fits...... In any case, I'm not here engaging
in discussion for your personal entertainment. You are quite
welcome to tune out, indeed in your case I invite it.
>>"Couldn't this time be different," asked the little boy who
>>cried wolf?
> You are out of steam.
Your opinions are devoid of value.
Bill Vajk
>>Greg Neill wrote:
Go chat with James Driscoll, you two are
well matched.
Greg Neill
You grow greener with every post. And your
attempted barbs are pitiful. Just pitiful.
Michael Varney
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:6Vdmc.41522$ZJ5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
They are, aren't they?
Bill Vajk
> "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> news:EtydncLjfYt...@comcast.com...
>>Franz Heymann wrote:
>>>"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
>>>news:J7WdnVG_4O2...@comcast.com...
>>>>Greg Neill wrote:
>>>>>Your jealousy is showing. It's not pretty.
>>>>First there would have to be something to be
>>>>jalous of, wouldn't you say? Are you actually
>>>>implying there is?
>>>Yes. And you are. It shows.
>>Go chat with James Driscoll, you two are
>>well matched.
> You grow greener with every post. And your
> attempted barbs are pitiful. Just pitiful.
Your projection is horiffic.
I am at retirement age and am looking forward
to that busiest period of my life, doing the
sorts of things I didn't have time for till
now, and a country life besides.
You're an idiot, and even worse, a fool. Is the
wolfpack circling again? LOL Keep on circling, it
is one another's behinds you have your noses in.
Be careful no one stops too suddenly. :-)
Greg Neill
> Greg Neill wrote:
>
> > "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> > news:EtydncLjfYt...@comcast.com...
>
> >>Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> >>>"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:J7WdnVG_4O2...@comcast.com...
>
> >>>>Greg Neill wrote:
>
> >>>>>Your jealousy is showing. It's not pretty.
>
> >>>>First there would have to be something to be
> >>>>jalous of, wouldn't you say? Are you actually
> >>>>implying there is?
>
> >>>Yes. And you are. It shows.
>
> >>Go chat with James Driscoll, you two are
> >>well matched.
>
> > You grow greener with every post. And your
> > attempted barbs are pitiful. Just pitiful.
>
> Your projection is horiffic.
>
> I am at retirement age and am looking forward
> to that busiest period of my life, doing the
> sorts of things I didn't have time for till
> now, and a country life besides.
One would have hoped that by retirement age, one
would have outgrown petty jealousies. Apparently
not everyone manages that evolution. Oh, and the
shade of green I alluded to was envy green.
>
> You're an idiot, and even worse, a fool. Is the
> wolfpack circling again? LOL Keep on circling, it
> is one another's behinds you have your noses in.
> Be careful no one stops too suddenly. :-)
Absolutely pitiful.
Bill Vajk
Greg Neill wrote:
> One would have hoped that by retirement age, one
> would have outgrown petty jealousies. Apparently
> not everyone manages that evolution. Oh, and the
> shade of green I alluded to was envy green.
You have been stamped, folded, mutilated, and disposed
of in precisely the manner you deserve. Like the jackass
you appear to be you simply don't know when to quit so
I'll help you this one last time by finishing with you.
Greg Neill
Bwahahahahahaha!
At least you retain some small modicum of humor value.
Let that be a comfort to you.
And now, piss off.
Michael Varney
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
LOL! It is funny to see you twist and turn there, Vajk.
Greg has your number.
|-|erc
> Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at the
> Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
> A huge pile of stuff with a few hundred clickable footnotes. The
> Devil lays in the details. Live with the unfinished part about
> Green's function. It's pinned tight with recently calculated data.
>
> 20 minutes after said talk's conclusion, the parity Eotvos experiment
> was entered into collaboration with a respected academic research
> group. We now sort out the details, quid pro quo.
>
> WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only way
> to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."
>
Good! Now that's over you can stop talking like you're reciting minutes.
Herc
Mike
Congradulations. I hope you make the trip. It's about time someone
does that. It's long overdue. EP is not a founding principle of GR as
it has been claimed. A dream or 'fantasy experiment' cannot serve as a
physical principle. You need solid empirical support far beyond Eotvos
type setups. Transformation from local Cartesian frames to locally
curved space-time as shown by Chinese researchers violates EP and
general covariance. Your work will provide the empirical support
needed. GR will remain a heuristic, a footnote in some text books.
Time to explore a true relativistic dynamics ans abolish covered
absolutism presented with a Relativity mascara. It's long overdue,
long, long overdue.
Mike
Mark Fergerson
As Unc said, this was just foreplay. After the
experiment's done (and the data's analyzed [preferably on
something other than Intel]) the _real_ hoohaw begins.
Mark L. Fergerson
Bill Vajk
> As Unc said, this was just foreplay. After the experiment's done (and
> the data's analyzed [preferably on something other than Intel]) the
> _real_ hoohaw begins.
>
Gack! He's already insufferable.
Michael Varney
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
And you are retarded. Your point was?
Franz Heymann
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:6Vdmc.41522$ZJ5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Be kind to him. He does try his best, poor though that may be.
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
Wanna buy a cheap book on good repartee?
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> > "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> > news:S_idnVf1kOB...@comcast.com...
>
> >>Schwartz has no need of anyhting from me.
>
> > You are quite right. You have nothing to offer him except
> > congratulations and you were too much of a churl to do that.
>
> Congratulations? For what precisely, pray tell? Did he
> achieve what he set out to do?
It rather looks like that. Contrary to your expectations.
> Perhaps/apparently. When
> a student achieves what is expected of them do you run
> up and congratulate them? Heck no, it was expected after
> all.
(a) Uncle Al is not a student. He is a first class physicist with a
personal character which I don't particularly like.
(b) You did not expect him to give a well-received talk.
> If a student achieves what is expected of the average
> student and you didn't expect him to succede, and you
> congratulate him, then I view that as an insult, because
> you're telling that student they exceeded your expectations.
He did succeed your expectations.
>
> But of course being the loser you are you haven't a clue.
I haven't lost anything except respect for you.
>
> > And you
> > are right. Hr does not need them. He can stand on his own feet.
>
> You seem to think so. That's an opinion without foundation
> in fact.
>
> >>If he actually has managed to convince someone to run the
experiment
> >>then all well and good and I'll wait for the published results.
I've
> >>never seen anything from Schwartz other than vaporware.
>
> > You are getting to be boring. This is the third time in one
session
> > that you have used that word. How about learning a new one?
>
> When the shoe fits...... In any case, I'm not here engaging
> in discussion for your personal entertainment.
That is the only reason why I am discussing anything for you. Your
intellect and integrity do not allow ,ore meaningful discussions.
> You are quite
> welcome to tune out, indeed in your case I invite it.
>
> >>"Couldn't this time be different," asked the little boy who
> >>cried wolf?
>
> > You are out of steam.
>
> Your opinions are devoid of value.
I am offering them to you free of charge, so you have no commplaint.
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> Greg Neill wrote:
>
> > "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> > news:EtydncLjfYt...@comcast.com...
>
> >>Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> >>>"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:J7WdnVG_4O2...@comcast.com...
>
> >>>>Greg Neill wrote:
>
> >>>>>Your jealousy is showing. It's not pretty.
>
> >>>>First there would have to be something to be
> >>>>jalous of, wouldn't you say? Are you actually
> >>>>implying there is?
>
> >>>Yes. And you are. It shows.
>
> >>Go chat with James Driscoll, you two are
> >>well matched.
>
> > You grow greener with every post. And your
> > attempted barbs are pitiful. Just pitiful.
>
> Your projection is horiffic.
>
> I am at retirement age
What have you been doing for a living? Selling used cars?
> and am looking forward
> to that busiest period of my life, doing the
> sorts of things I didn't have time for till
> now, and a country life besides.
I wish you a happy retirement and I hope that you will now cease
posting vituperation and start posting physics instead.
Or, even better, stop posting anything at all. Your contributions
won't be missed, except as comedy stuff.
[snip the sort of stuff Greg Neill was complaining about]
Franz
Will Janoschka
Bill Vajk
>>Greg Neill wrote:
If it is yours it is obviously a virgin
in every sense.
Bill Vajk
> "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> news:SImdnS9ze-3...@comcast.com...
>
>>Franz Heymann wrote:
>
>>Congratulations? For what precisely, pray tell? Did he
>>achieve what he set out to do?
> It rather looks like that.
Ahhh, "it rather *looks* like that? We have a self aggrandizing
report and you fall all over yourself on that basis?
> (a) Uncle Al is not a student.
If he's not a student then he's worthless in science, which
is an idea I've been promoting for some time now. So we
agree on *one* thing.
> He is a first class physicist
Nope. Wrong. He is a chemist with a chemist's education
so far as I am able to discern.
> with a personal character which I don't particularly like.
So finally, we agree on *two* things.
> (b) You did not expect him to give a well-received talk.
Whose reports are you reading? It is the brave and competent
parson who takes up the collection AFTER the sermon. I've
heard promises out of Schwartz for years now, and none of them
have actualized. Why would I think this any different? When I
see something in print from a recognizable authority I'll
be right there offering congratulations, whether the experiment
supports his theories or not, because overcoming his personality
failures to the point of the experiment being run would be a
major milestone worthy of note.
snip
>> In any case, I'm not here engaging
>>in discussion for your personal entertainment.
> That is the only reason why I am discussing anything for you. Your
> intellect and integrity do not allow ,ore meaningful discussions.
On the contrary, you, like many others in this newsgroup, consider
your emotions much more important than facts. Here, in this case,
and in this thread, lies a very clear example.
>>Your opinions are devoid of value.
> I am offering them to you free of charge, so you have no commplaint.
Certainly true. I was offering information you already knew
for benefit of the peanut gallery
Mark Fergerson
> Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at the
> Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
Brevity is the soul of somethingorother.
<snip>
> The formal proposal (data not most recent)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
> A huge pile of stuff with a few hundred clickable footnotes. The
> Devil lays in the details. Live with the unfinished part about
> Green's function. It's pinned tight with recently calculated data.
>
> 20 minutes after said talk's conclusion, the parity Eotvos experiment
> was entered into collaboration with a respected academic research
> group. We now sort out the details, quid pro quo.
So now that the foreplay is concluded and home plate in
sight, suddenly you have volunteers for your team.
Excellent. Better than pitchforks and torches...
> WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. So far, so good. Uncle Al ays, "The only way
> to reliably predict the future is to create it yourself."
Speaking of that Unc, I really wish you'd get over your
so-called aversion to theory and make some predictions of
possible applications (other than "sliding down the shaft of
twisted spacetime", which reminds me uncomfortably of Cmdr.
Grimes' adventures as chronicled by A. Bertram Chandler).
Any effect, no matter how "laboratory scale", can be
amplified into technology given suitable materials. Are you
totally convinced that differential parity cannot be so
exploited? Ah, well; I suppose one must leave something as
an "exercise for the student".
Mark L. Fergerson
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
[snip]
> Any effect, no matter how "laboratory scale", can be
> amplified into technology given suitable materials. Are you
> totally convinced that differential parity cannot be so
> exploited? Ah, well; I suppose one must leave something as
> an "exercise for the student".
The fractional uncoupling of inertial and gravitational mass has
thermodynamic constraints. I'm not greedy. If somebody can figure
out how to make a spaceship that weighs nothing at sea level or
accelerates to within an epsilon of lightspeed with a gentle push,
more power to 'em. To recap...
There were two divergent lines of eleven squat maraging steel igloos
marching down the engineering bay. Each pair was rotated at odd
angles to all the others: One pair each for the three spatial
dimensions, one pair for time, and one pair each for the seven
compactified dimensions of M-theory sullenly glared at the flight
engineers. Each igloo enclosed a huge naturally facted single crystal
of hydrothermally cultured berlinite. The paired igloos held
geometric parity pairs of crystals. Each optically left-handed
crystal in crystallographic space group P3_1_21 (_subscript_) was
opposed by its parity twin P3_2_21 optically right-handed crystal.
Each face of each foot-thick crystal was plasma-polished to atomic
precision like the finest astronomical telescope mirror. Shakedown
cruises for real world calibration were nasty.
Each mammoth crystal was piezoelectrically and mechanically subjected
to a complex tesselation of reciprocal pressures and torques just
short of material failure - the Instron Chiral Drive. (Everybody knew
general relativity was wrong because it conflicted with quantum
mechanics. Einstein was eventually experimentally falsified by a
footnote with parity Eotvos experiments.) Subtle asymmetries in the
torsional structure of teleparallel spacetime allowed for some serious
interdimensional ass hauling if the boojum was tickled just right.
Black space suddenly looked horribly wrong as the ship began to slip
through progressively decompactified dimensions in exponentiating ICD
starflight. A newbie on her first slide down the glistening haft of
Weitzenböck spacetime swallowed most of a long long scream. It gives
Uncle Al a techno-woodie just thinking about it. Will the crew have
problems parallel-dimension parking?
Give the vessel a nice friendly name, like the Chelsea La Fea (if it's
military, the Hillary Ramrod Clinton.) Consider each crew station
having an ominous opening called the "V-Port." You could have a nice
biological side effect like everybody barfing into their console
V-Ports as the dimensionality of thought isn't quite compensated from
relative microgram imbalances of the single crystal pillars. Don't
eat a newbie big breakfast before your first flight, because when you
re-enter real space your nether bung will be hovering hard by your
incisors demanding exit. Alas, if one of the brittle berlinite
crystals cracks from the stress... Baikonur sleighride! And don't
stand behind the thing when the clutch pops SOP, "behind" being kinda
relative as these things go, because "behind" won't be there any more.
It's too good not to be true, but who bells the cat?
Robert J. Kolker
Uncle Al wrote:
> It's too good not to be true, but who bells the cat?
Al, Al, you are tripping out. Wait until the hen lays the egg before you
cackle like a rooster. And even if the equivalence principle is a little
bit wrong, it doesn't necessarily mean we are going to exceed the speed
of light anytime soon.
Bob Kolker
Bill Vajk
So Franz, did your little troll, including your originating
the crosspost to rec.org.mensa, work out as you planned?
Better?
Worse?
Is this something new with you, or is it I just hadn't
been paying close attention to your doings? I am forced
to admit that you make a far better troll than you do a
physicist! Now there's something worthy of my
congratulations.
So congratulations!
See. I give credit where credit is due. LOL
=================================================================
Michael Varney
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
>
> So Franz, did your little troll, including your originating
> the crosspost to rec.org.mensa, work out as you planned?
You did a fine job of showing you are an ignorant dolt, Vajk.
> Better?
>
> Worse?
>
> Is this something new with you, or is it I just hadn't
> been paying close attention to your doings? I am forced
> to admit that you make a far better troll than you do a
> physicist! Now there's something worthy of my
> congratulations.
Quit projecting your inadequacies on other people, Vajk.
How many Mensa members have you blown today?
> So congratulations!
>
> See. I give credit where credit is due. LOL
And take credit where it is due as well.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WorkHarder.html
Sam Wormley
>
> So Franz, did your little troll, including your originating
> the crosspost to rec.org.mensa, work out as you planned?
>
Bitter Bastard Bill
Bill Vajk
Fuck off fool.
Michael Varney
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:409B0B63...@mchsi.com...
The Vulgar Viperous Vacuous Vajk.
John Schoenfeld
> How many Mensa members have you blown today?
Don't your type condone this style of behaviour?
Bill Vajk
> "Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:
He's duplistic on his best days.
Michael Varney
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
It is amusing when cranks like Helland and Vajk discuss things. *smirk*
The Ghost In The Machine
<nu...@biz.ness>
wrote
on Thu, 06 May 2004 11:45:03 -0700
<3Jvmc.12164$k24.11670@fed1read01>:
Intel should have fixed that divide-by bug by now. :-) As it is,
I'm not sure Intel has the best performance. It might have
the best price/performance (though I have my doubts).
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Mark Fergerson
Relax Bob, I asked for a pipe dream and Unc unlimbered a
six-foot Stilson.
Me, I'm wondering if BECs can exhibit chirality...
Mark L. Fergerson
Franz Heymann
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
>
> So Franz, did your little troll, including your originating
> the crosspost to rec.org.mensa, work out as you planned?
>
> Better?
>
> Worse?
Look up the records without making a mistake. I never originated any
crosspost to anything anywhere ever. I don't believe in crossposting.
Please apologise when you have found your mistake.
I am waiting for you to correct your latest lie.
[snip irrelevancies]
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:4sBmc.232$4p5....@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> news:AfKdnRPrCtU...@comcast.com...
> >
> > So Franz, did your little troll, including your originating
> > the crosspost to rec.org.mensa, work out as you planned?
>
> You did a fine job of showing you are an ignorant dolt, Vajk.
>
> > Better?
> >
> > Worse?
> >
> > Is this something new with you, or is it I just hadn't
> > been paying close attention to your doings? I am forced
> > to admit that you make a far better troll than you do a
> > physicist! Now there's something worthy of my
> > congratulations.
>
> Quit projecting your inadequacies on other people, Vajk.
> How many Mensa members have you blown today?
The idiot can't even follow attributions back to see who originated
the crossposting to rec.org.mensa.
>
>
> > So congratulations!
> >
> > See. I give credit where credit is due. LOL
>
> And take credit where it is due as well.
>
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WorkHarder.html
Franz
Franz Heymann
He is also too stupid to follow back the attributions to see who
actually originated the crossposting to rec.org.mensa.
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
Have you checked who originated the crossposting to rec.org.mensa?
If so, where is your apology?
Franz
>
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.physics, Mark Fergerson
> <nu...@biz.ness>
> wrote
> on Thu, 06 May 2004 11:45:03 -0700
> <3Jvmc.12164$k24.11670@fed1read01>:
> > |-|erc wrote:
> Intel should have fixed that divide-by bug by now. :-) As it is,
> I'm not sure Intel has the best performance. It might have
> the best price/performance (though I have my doubts).
Neither Intel Pentiums nor Xeons can be run as an efficient cluster:
1) Memory management is on mobo not on CPU. The mobo is only 800
MHz and it is distant from the CPU. Lightspeed is a foot/nanosecond.
2) Memory bandwidth is *divided* amongst CPUs.
3) On-CPU caching is small.
4) CPUs communicate catch-as-catch-can.
AMD Opterons are flat out amazing:
1) Memory management is on CPU. It runs at multiple GHz and
without plumbing delays.
2) Memory bandwidth is *added* amongst CPUs.
3) On-CPU caching is huge.
4) CPUs communicate via coherent HyperTransport. 800-series
Opterons have continuous near-zero latency.
For a one-CPU mobo, Intel can outperform AMD by about 5% on select
diagnostics, mostly from its higher clock speed. In a cluster of 8 or
more CPUs, every clock cycle will give you up to 60% more throughput
in AMD than in Intel. That is in real world running of our CHIpir
program.
We found that 16 Opteron-848s lost 1% CPU throughput/(CPU added)
compared to a single 848. As we had been running in a pair of
slightly slower Opteron-244s (plus an Athlon to handle system
overhead), we got more than 100% performance/CPU in the cluster
overall. The 16 Opteron-848 cluster compared favorably with
projections for a 160+ Xeon processor farm that was graciously
volunteered for a shorter runtime.
The Intel Itanium is a bastard CPU. If you have that kind of money,
cluster G5s like Virgina Tech did.
The world will be going 64-bit soon enough. Intel CPUs will not
simultaneously run 32-bit and 64-bit programming, nor is their 64-bit
operation wholly x86 compatible. Intel Athlon-FX and Opterons are
designed to run 32- and 64-bit codings simultaneously, and they are
wholly x86 compatible.
Uncle Al gets a techno-woodie imagining WordStar executed in an
Opteron.
Vibhu AV
semi-layman's viewpoint.
Can someone explain what will the outcome of this experiment mean to
GR in particular?
If the experiment is successful in showing a equivalence principle
(EP) violation, would it mean GR is wrong? Would it mean that all the
predictions based on GR, for example, blackholes, don't exist? Or
would it mean GR is still correct, albeit in limited circumstances
just like Newton's theory is right in limited situations? If so, what
will the limiting factor be?
Conversely, what would it mean if the experiment failed to show a
violation of the EP? Would it simply mean that the math/proof is
incorrect? Or something was overlooked? I guess it would be one more
proof that GR is (still) correct.
Nothing personal - I am interested one way or the other, and am just
curious.
Vibhu.
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<4096CB87...@hate.spam.net>...
> Uncle Al presented a brief talk on the parity Eotvos experiment at the
> Denver American Physical Society meeting, Saturday 01 May,
>
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/about.cfm
> 2004 American Physical Society National Meeting, Denver.
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/abs/S690006.html
> The abstract
> http://www.aps.org/meet/APR04/baps/tocD.html#SD9.006
> The program
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
> The formal proposal (data not most recent)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
Uncle Al
>
> I am following the "Parity Eotvos experiment" thread from a
> semi-layman's viewpoint.
>
> Can someone explain what will the outcome of this experiment mean to
> GR in particular?
>
> If the experiment is successful in showing a equivalence principle
> (EP) violation, would it mean GR is wrong? Would it mean that all the
> predictions based on GR, for example, blackholes, don't exist? Or
> would it mean GR is still correct, albeit in limited circumstances
> just like Newton's theory is right in limited situations? If so, what
> will the limiting factor be?
If the EP is violated by local parity pair test masses, GR will still
work admirably for anything except parity pair test masses. As this
is an entirely artificial situation that does not occur naturally, GR
will continue to be the calculation engine of choice for gravitation -
albeit as a heuristic and not as theory.
The newly discovered exceptions will then be vigorously pursued. We
will learn new things.
> Conversely, what would it mean if the experiment failed to show a
> violation of the EP? Would it simply mean that the math/proof is
> incorrect? Or something was overlooked? I guess it would be one more
> proof that GR is (still) correct.
If the parity Eotvos experiment nulls, we have new and powerful
evidence that gravitation is metric not affine, that Einstein not
Weitzenboek was right. The staus quo remains quo.
> Nothing personal - I am interested one way or the other, and am just
> curious.
Euclid postulated that through a point not on a given line only one
line could be drawn parallel to the given line. This is not good or
bad, nor can it be proven. The sum of the interior angles of any
Euclidean triangle is then 180 degrees exactly. There are no mistakes
in Euclid; it is entirely self-consistent.
Take a globe of the Earth. A segment of the equator will furnish the
base of a triangle. Two lines of longitude will be the other two
sides, the North Pole will be the apex. Since all lines of longitude
intersect the Equator at right angles... a triangle drawn on the
surface of the Earth must contain more than 180 degrees as the sum of
its interior angles. It can have up to and including 540 degrees as
that sum.
Euclid is a special case of more general geometry. Euclid is not
complete. You cannot accurately survey or navigate with Euclid. You
need more. Newton is very good stuff day to day. If you are way down
small, massive, or very fast you need more.
Einstein postulated that all local bodies fall identically in vacuum,
the Equivalence Principle. Spacetime curvature, General Relativity,
and metric gravitation then immediately follow as irrevocably as
Euclid's 180-degree triangles did. However, Weizenboek ignored the
Equivalence Principle entirely. He used spacetime torsion to create
affine gravitation. All of metric gravitation's predictions are
exactly duplicated within affine gravitation, then affine gravitation
has some extra predictions.
If you could furnish two local test masses that reproducibly fell
differently in vacuum, General Relativity would be demonstrated to
have been founded on a falsified postulate. It would be *wrong* even
though it has never made a disproven prediction. Its founding
postulate would be real world invalid. A huge swath of physical
theory would then fall aside, as Newton was superceded by Einstein.
M-theory in particular would severely contract, perhaps to something
usably predictive.
Every imaginable composition contrast - and there are some wild and
hairy Noether's theorem-based ones, as well as bundled contrasts - has
been tested, now to one part in two trillion difference/average.
Every test without exception has been a perfect null within
experimental error. Is the Equivalence Princple thus empirically
validated?
No.
Test mass geometry, specifically opposite parity test masses, have
never been tested. Test mass geometry is a natural test of spacetime
geometry. There was no way to pin a quantitative number on parity
(chirality along all coordinate axes simultaneously)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/invert.gif
That changed in 1999. Given the coordinates of all the atoms in a
test mass, we can quantitate its parity divergence vs. its parity
inversion on a normalized scale of CHI=0 (achiral) to CHI=1 (perfect
parity divergence).
J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
Petitjean's landmark paper
http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf
Review of the field
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/petit.htm
A gentle introduction to quantitative chirality (so he tells me)
We can calculate the position of every atom in a periodic crystal. We
can rigorously calculate CHI in software given those coordinates. We
can thus identify the most extremal parity pair test masses.
As of May, 2004 the following are true:
1) A bleeding edge state-of-the-art Eotvos balance can now detect
EP violaton to one part in ten trillion.
2) Test masses of identical chemical composition and macroscopic
form fabricated from left-handed vs. right-handed alpha-quartz, one
centimeter diameter spheres, have CHI=0.999999999999998426. This is
acceptably close to CHI=1 exactly. 3-cm diameter spheres get an extra
9 in the string.
3) We are going to test whether local extremal parity pair test
masses fall identically in vacuum.
4) If they violate the Equivalence Principle, Einstein was wrong
and Weitzenboek was right. Physics will undergo a sudden, violent sea
change. Progress will be made thereafter, possibly with NASA or
weaponization applications.
There are two more very delicious outcomes!
1) Left- and right-handed parity pair bodies need not not fit
symmetrically into affine spacetime. Given a left shoe, your left and
right feet will not have equal but opposite interactions. Most or all
of the anomaly vs. ordinary matter may then be vested in only one
handedness.
2) CHI is normalized by the body's angular momentum tensor,
reaching its maximum possible value when all three moments of inertia
of a body are identical. Thus a sphere of quartz would fall
differently than a needle. This is tremendously disturbing - though
it does have empirical precedent in the Sagnac effect in ring laser
gyroscopes. The Sagnac effect is a spacetime topological probe
proportional to the scalar product of area and angular velocity
vectors, and inversely to perimeter length (proportional to subtended
area and compactness). Wouldn't that be interesting new gravitational
physics?
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
The formal proposal (data updated)
Bill Vajk
> I am following the "Parity Eotvos experiment" thread from a
> semi-layman's viewpoint.
> Can someone explain what will the outcome of this experiment mean to
> GR in particular?
> If the experiment is successful in showing a equivalence principle
> (EP) violation, would it mean GR is wrong? Would it mean that all the
> predictions based on GR, for example, blackholes, don't exist? Or
> would it mean GR is still correct, albeit in limited circumstances
> just like Newton's theory is right in limited situations? If so, what
> will the limiting factor be?
Neglecting all the blather that normally accompanies this
subject matter in this newsgroup, there is a very important
core issue involved.
If the parity Eötvös experiment provides anything other than
a null result, it could mean that the variation in the order
of assemblage of matter at the atomic level alters the results
and that our understandings that the essential characteristics
of matter attach at the subatomic level is incorrect.
Given that the elements comprising quartz fall identically to
the way that a naturally occurring quartz crystal falls, and
the crystal form is a simple, while ordered, arithmetic sum
of the parts, in order achieve a non null result to Al's
experiment it would mean that all the parts would have to
add up differently in a chiral crystal version than they do
in the naturally occurring one. Not bloody likely that.
Reduced to this central idea the problem Schwartz has presented
is simplified and easily understood.
> Conversely, what would it mean if the experiment failed to show a
> violation of the EP? Would it simply mean that the math/proof is
> incorrect? Or something was overlooked? I guess it would be one more
> proof that GR is (still) correct.
That doesn't mean that something else might not eventually
come along and upset parts of GR, but it seems unlikely. A
failure to disprove is not a supportive proof.
> Nothing personal - I am interested one way or the other, and am just
> curious.
IMO part of the problem when these sorts of issues arise is that
a lot of folks want to attack the problem from the top down
while neglecting the essentials which start at the bottom and work
their way up.
Bill Vajk
>>Better?
>>Worse?
> [snip irrelevancies]
> Franz
First things first, then you agree that your posting
was an intentional troll.
Thank you.
Michael Varney
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> Vibhu AV wrote:
>
> > I am following the "Parity Eotvos experiment" thread from a
> > semi-layman's viewpoint.
>
> > Can someone explain what will the outcome of this experiment mean to
> > GR in particular?
>
> > If the experiment is successful in showing a equivalence principle
> > (EP) violation, would it mean GR is wrong? Would it mean that all the
> > predictions based on GR, for example, blackholes, don't exist? Or
> > would it mean GR is still correct, albeit in limited circumstances
> > just like Newton's theory is right in limited situations? If so, what
> > will the limiting factor be?
>
> Neglecting all the blather that normally accompanies this
> subject matter in this newsgroup
99.9999% of which is yours, Vacuous Vajk.
Here... this might help you communicate your ideas better:
http://www.fartlouder.com/index.html
Uncle Al
[snip]
> Given that the elements comprising quartz fall identically to
> the way that a naturally occurring quartz crystal falls, and
> the crystal form is a simple, while ordered, arithmetic sum
> of the parts, in order achieve a non null result to Al's
> experiment it would mean that all the parts would have to
> add up differently in a chiral crystal version than they do
> in the naturally occurring one. Not bloody likely that.
[snip]
Idiot. Natural quartz and cultured quartz are indistinguishable. Hey
stooopid Vajk, using your stoopid logic, why does C_10_H_14_O
(S)-carvone smell like caraway seeds but C_10_H_14_O (R)-carvone smell
like spearmint? All the parts would have to add up differently in a
chiral version, idiot Vajk. Hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon don't smell
at all. Stooopid, stoooopid, stooopid Vajk. Fucking imbecile Vajk.
<http://www.reciprocalnet.org/recipnet/showsample.jsp?sampleId=27344070>
Hey stooopid Vajk, using your stoopid logic, why is
(2R,3R)-methylphenidate the pharmacologically active enantiomer of
Ritalin and the other three optical isomers inert and/or toxic?
<http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/980921/drugs.html>
<http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/7940/7940chiral2.html>
<http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/7940/7940chiral1.html>
For anybody with a working mind, obviously not stooopid Vajk, here is
an overview of chirally-resolved pharmaceuticals,
<http://www.ims-global.com/insight/news_story/0301/news_story_030116.htm>
Hey stooopid Vajk, can you screw an oxidizer CGA coupling onto a
compressed hydrogen or methane tank? No you cannot, jackass Vajk,
because oxidizer fitting threads are right-handed and fuel gas fitting
threads are left-handed (as are corrosives). Brass is achiral, as are
copper and zinc. Same thing for fitting parity pair test masses into
into chiral spacetime, stooopid Vajk. All neutrinos are left-handed,
all relativistic beta-rays are left-handed, and all atoms are
left-handed from neutral current exchange,
http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0207627
Mendeleev Commun. 13(3) 129 (2003)
<http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~budker/PubList.html>
Phys. Rev. Lett. 82(12) 2484 (1999)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(17) 3719 (1998)
Rep. Prog. Phys. 60(11) 1351 (1997)
Phys. Rev. A 52(3) 1895 (1995)
Am. J. Phys. 56 1086 (1988)
There is no reason at all to assume that extremal parity pair test
masses would fall identically - or even split the difference evenly.
Hey stoopid Vajk, it would be amazing if the parity Eotvos experiment
*didn't* have a net output.
> Reduced to this central idea the problem Schwartz has presented
> is simplified and easily understood.
HA HA HA! Stooopid Vajk now "simply understands" the parity Eotvos
experiment.
> IMO part of the problem when these sorts of issues arise is that
> a lot of folks want to attack the problem from the top down
> while neglecting the essentials which start at the bottom and work
> their way up.
Fucking imbecile Vajk. Founding postulates *are* at the bottom. Your
"understanding" is simple indeed. It is non-existent. Hey stooopid
Vajk, have you been sucking off Dumb Donny shitHead? Hey stooopid
Vajk, do you ever grow weary of bleeding from a thousand cuts?
Senbongiri your ass, stooopid Vajk.
Bill Vajk
snip <just another obfuscatory tourettish rant>
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:409BC839...@hate.spam.net...
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
...
> Uncle Al gets a techno-woodie imagining WordStar executed in an
> Opteron.
... or a dBase or Clipper file sort of 10,000 records... done when you
raise your finger off the enter key.
David A. Smith
Uncle Al
>
> Littlmanwearingbigboypants writes:
>
> snip <just another
Look up "senbongiri," stooopid Vajk.
Bill Vajk
> Bill Vajk wrote:
>>Littlmanwearingbigboypants writes:
>>snip <just another
> Look up "senbongiri," stooopid Vajk.
snip <replay of "just another obfuscatory tourettish rant">
My comment "snip <just another obfuscatory tourettish rant>"
is correct. I avoid engaging in the sorts of dicksize war
you've invited me to play.
Michael Varney
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
Good idea, as it would require a dick, and you have none.
Hey Vajk, how many Mensa members have you blown today?
Richard Henry
> experiment.
> >
> "understanding" is simple indeed. It is non-existent. Hey stooopid
> Vajk, have you been sucking off Dumb Donny shitHead? Hey stooopid
> Vajk, do you ever grow weary of bleeding from a thousand cuts?
> Senbongiri your ass, stooopid Vajk.
I'm not trying to start an argument here, just wondering --
Will the final published paper by Schwartz et al. be written in this style?
"...stooopid f'ing crystals..."
Richard Henry
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> Littlmanwearingbigboypants writes:
>
> snip <just another obfuscatory tourettish rant>
Actually, there was quite a bit of well-documented educational scientific
stuff in between the Vajk-tweaks.
Bill Vajk
>>Littlmanwearingbigboypants writes:
Obfuscatory, in this case, means off target.
Misconstruction of results from valid data by humans
is very well documented. See also "retrograde".
http://alpha.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html
It should be obvious that the theory set which embraced
retrograde wassn't the only historical misconstruction.
Many, if indeed not most, advances in science displace
a defective or inadequate concept. Where a proposed
replacement is the defective idea we call the proponent
a crank. That's the current situation with Al Schwartz
and the reason that the people in charge of the few
pieces of qualified equipment refuse to deal with him.
I'll gladly revise my opinion if and when he gets his
theories published in a peer reviewed journal. In the
meantime I'll stick to what mainstream science has
said on the underlying issues.
The mere fact that Al has a long history of abusive
posting on the internet should be a crystal clear
indicator that all is not well with the man. That
alone, without considering the fact that he's bucking
all of science, is clue enough for most people to
ignore his rantings and self aggrandizement.
There's the old illustrative joke about the man who,
while changing a flat tire, accidentally kicked the
lug nuts down into a drain, well beyond his ability
to recover them. An observer on the other side of an
adjoining fence suggested he remove one lug nut from
each of the other tires and use them to secure his
wheel as that would allow him to safely drive to a
store where he could purchase and install the lug
nuts he was missing.
The man thanked him and noticed his benefactor was
on the grounds of an insane asylum. "Surely a man
as bright as you are doesn't belong in there," he
exclaimed.
The benefactor replied, "I'm not in here for stupidity,
you know, I'm in here because I'm crazy."
The Ghost In The Machine
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Fri, 07 May 2004 10:32:41 -0700
<409BC839...@hate.spam.net>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In sci.physics, Mark Fergerson
>> <nu...@biz.ness>
>> wrote
>> on Thu, 06 May 2004 11:45:03 -0700
>> <3Jvmc.12164$k24.11670@fed1read01>:
>> > |-|erc wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> Intel should have fixed that divide-by bug by now. :-) As it is,
>> I'm not sure Intel has the best performance. It might have
>> the best price/performance (though I have my doubts).
>
> Neither Intel Pentiums nor Xeons can be run as an efficient cluster:
>
> 1) Memory management is on mobo not on CPU. The mobo is only 800
> MHz and it is distant from the CPU. Lightspeed is a foot/nanosecond.
> 2) Memory bandwidth is *divided* amongst CPUs.
> 3) On-CPU caching is small.
> 4) CPUs communicate catch-as-catch-can.
>
> AMD Opterons are flat out amazing:
>
> 1) Memory management is on CPU. It runs at multiple GHz and
> without plumbing delays.
> 2) Memory bandwidth is *added* amongst CPUs.
> 3) On-CPU caching is huge.
> 4) CPUs communicate via coherent HyperTransport. 800-series
> Opterons have continuous near-zero latency.
Noted. I've got a AMD Athlon XP 1600+ myself; it works reasonably
well though I'm having a problem with APIC timing for some reason.
Haven't gotten around to upgrading -- this one's plenty fast
enough for me for now.
My previous CPUs have been Intels (except for the Amiga) and I
can't say their performance was all that impressive. Then again,
I can't say performance has been that great an issue either.
>
> For a one-CPU mobo, Intel can outperform AMD by about 5% on select
> diagnostics, mostly from its higher clock speed. In a cluster of 8 or
> more CPUs, every clock cycle will give you up to 60% more throughput
> in AMD than in Intel. That is in real world running of our CHIpir
> program.
>
> We found that 16 Opteron-848s lost 1% CPU throughput/(CPU added)
> compared to a single 848. As we had been running in a pair of
> slightly slower Opteron-244s (plus an Athlon to handle system
> overhead), we got more than 100% performance/CPU in the cluster
> overall. The 16 Opteron-848 cluster compared favorably with
> projections for a 160+ Xeon processor farm that was graciously
> volunteered for a shorter runtime.
>
> The Intel Itanium is a bastard CPU. If you have that kind of money,
> cluster G5s like Virgina Tech did.
>
> The world will be going 64-bit soon enough. Intel CPUs will not
> simultaneously run 32-bit and 64-bit programming, nor is their 64-bit
> operation wholly x86 compatible. Intel Athlon-FX and Opterons are
> designed to run 32- and 64-bit codings simultaneously, and they are
> wholly x86 compatible.
>
> Uncle Al gets a techno-woodie imagining WordStar executed in an
> Opteron.
Wordstar? Try an old 5 1/4"-era floppy game (it's "Star something",
and is basically a Defender clone; I think it was written by Atari
but for IBM PC's). It's so fast it's unplayable. :-)
But yeah, Wordstar would fly through those documents. :-) (And not
in the sense of having a hidden flight simulator, either...)
[.sigsnip]
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.physics, Uncle Al
> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
> wrote
> on Fri, 07 May 2004 10:32:41 -0700
> <409BC839...@hate.spam.net>:
> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>
> >> In sci.physics, Mark Fergerson
> >> <nu...@biz.ness>
> >> wrote
> >> on Thu, 06 May 2004 11:45:03 -0700
> >> <3Jvmc.12164$k24.11670@fed1read01>:
> >> > |-|erc wrote:
> > [snip]
> > AMD Opterons are flat out amazing:
> >
> > 1) Memory management is on CPU. It runs at multiple GHz and
> > without plumbing delays.
> > 2) Memory bandwidth is *added* amongst CPUs.
> > 3) On-CPU caching is huge.
> > 4) CPUs communicate via coherent HyperTransport. 800-series
> > Opterons have continuous near-zero latency.
>
> Noted. I've got a AMD Athlon XP 1600+ myself; it works reasonably
> well though I'm having a problem with APIC timing for some reason.
> Haven't gotten around to upgrading -- this one's plenty fast
> enough for me for now.
>
> My previous CPUs have been Intels (except for the Amiga) and I
> can't say their performance was all that impressive. Then again,
> I can't say performance has been that great an issue either.
What do we do that needs raw CPU power? Unless you are an idiot and
bought a Celeron, not much. For most folks, the only large datasets
they see are graphics and sound renderings that have their own
dedicated boards. If you do your own mpegs or serious databasing, you
need that CPU and memory bandwidth. The average CPU spends its life
choking on Bill Gates' little joke.
Gnuplot will do a 60,000 point linear least squares fit no problem,
concurrent with massaging raw data into a log-log plot. I've done a
series of them looking at 100 femtometer radial increments over 60
angstroms total increment (100-160 A radius overall) in parity Eotvos
experiment calculations. Linear least squares, polynomial, Fourier
fit, etc. Crunch crunch looking for something unsuspected. Faster
would be better.
Folks who actually use their boxes for real world stuff can never have
enough speed or power. The rest of the mob can play cames and keep
the price down with mass purchases.
> > Uncle Al gets a techno-woodie imagining WordStar executed in an
> > Opteron.
>
> Wordstar? Try an old 5 1/4"-era floppy game (it's "Star something",
> and is basically a Defender clone; I think it was written by Atari
> but for IBM PC's). It's so fast it's unplayable. :-)
>
> But yeah, Wordstar would fly through those documents. :-) (And not
> in the sense of having a hidden flight simulator, either...)
I use custom-hacked WordStar 6 almost exclusively. MS Word is a
printing buffer. Go try doing block column operations in MS Word.
^KN rules datasets! An 8 MB RAMdrive is the way to go.
The APS meeting last week was interesting in terms of graphic
display. Uncle Al's transparencies were big bold b&w Arial. That is
a Damascus steel blade. If there are Guinness records for number of
different fonts and colors used in a single PowerPoint slide, or the
densest scribble in a given projected area, or maximum number of
different animated dissolves in a single presentation, they were
sweating in Denver. A talk like that is a water balloon.
<http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/seminaronseminars.html>
HOW TO PRESENT A SEMINAR
Believe it. Uniform presentation throughout. A slide should contain
*as little as possible.* If you cannot explain it with a swizzle
stick and a cocktail napkin, you will explain it even less well with
PowerPoint.
(Bill Gates is missing a major PowerPoint feature. If there were a
slide dissolve of Pacman eating the area, it would be legislated as a
national standard - followed by hacks for Barney and Ted Kennedy.)
Franz Heymann
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
No.
Where is that apology, you guttersnipe?
Franz
>
> Thank you.
>
Bill Vajk
> "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
> news:qYudnXNm943...@comcast.com...
>>Franz Heymann wrote:
>>>"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
>>>news:AfKdnRPrCtU...@comcast.com...
>>>>So Franz, did your little troll, including your originating
>>>>the crosspost to rec.org.mensa, work out as you planned?
>>>>Better?
>>>>Worse?
>>>Look up the records without making a mistake. I never originated
> any
>>>crosspost to anything anywhere ever. I don't believe in
> crossposting.
>>>Please apologise when you have found your mistake.
>>>I am waiting for you to correct your latest lie.
>>>[snip irrelevancies]
>>>Franz
>>First things first, then you agree that your posting
>>was an intentional troll.
> No.
> Where is that apology, you guttersnipe?
> Franz
>>Thank you.
I make no apologies to dishonest trolls, ever.
Franz Heymann
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
That is a good policy.
Now, why are you ducking from that apology due to me?
Franz
>
>
The Ghost In The Machine
<409D07C9...@hate.spam.net>:
Ah...there's the rub. I'm not using Bill Gates' alleged
OS. :-) Therefore my CPU is doing real work -- or, if not,
it's halted, which might keep my lab (which isn't that much
of a lab, admittedly; it's a second bedroom hijacked for
the purpose) a little cooler if I don't burn CPU cycles
on various screensavers.
>
> Gnuplot will do a 60,000 point linear least squares fit no problem,
> concurrent with massaging raw data into a log-log plot. I've done a
> series of them looking at 100 femtometer radial increments over 60
> angstroms total increment (100-160 A radius overall) in parity Eotvos
> experiment calculations. Linear least squares, polynomial, Fourier
> fit, etc. Crunch crunch looking for something unsuspected. Faster
> would be better.
>
> Folks who actually use their boxes for real world stuff can never have
> enough speed or power. The rest of the mob can play cames and keep
> the price down with mass purchases.
You'd be surprised how much CPU power is required for UT2004. :-/
Not to mention graphics card capability. I'm a generation behind
Moore, apparently.
>
>> > Uncle Al gets a techno-woodie imagining WordStar executed in an
>> > Opteron.
>>
>> Wordstar? Try an old 5 1/4"-era floppy game (it's "Star something",
>> and is basically a Defender clone; I think it was written by Atari
>> but for IBM PC's). It's so fast it's unplayable. :-)
>>
>> But yeah, Wordstar would fly through those documents. :-) (And not
>> in the sense of having a hidden flight simulator, either...)
>
> I use custom-hacked WordStar 6 almost exclusively. MS Word is a
> printing buffer. Go try doing block column operations in MS Word.
> ^KN rules datasets! An 8 MB RAMdrive is the way to go.
>
> The APS meeting last week was interesting in terms of graphic
> display. Uncle Al's transparencies were big bold b&w Arial. That is
> a Damascus steel blade. If there are Guinness records for number of
> different fonts and colors used in a single PowerPoint slide, or the
> densest scribble in a given projected area, or maximum number of
> different animated dissolves in a single presentation, they were
> sweating in Denver. A talk like that is a water balloon.
>
> <http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/seminaronseminars.html>
> HOW TO PRESENT A SEMINAR
>
> Believe it. Uniform presentation throughout. A slide should contain
> *as little as possible.* If you cannot explain it with a swizzle
> stick and a cocktail napkin, you will explain it even less well with
> PowerPoint.
There was a page -- I'll have to find it -- complaining about some
of the Excel graphs being overly cluttered. I'll admit I'd have
to find it but I generally agree with you; keep it short and simple.
If it needs more than one font, start asking questions. :-)
Not sure if one needs textured 3-D gorgeously edible piecharts.
Unless one is playing lots of UT, of course...
>
> (Bill Gates is missing a major PowerPoint feature. If there were a
> slide dissolve of Pacman eating the area, it would be legislated as a
> national standard - followed by hacks for Barney and Ted Kennedy.)
Not to mention falling anvils and cast-iron bombs. Those'll probably
be added as the "Animaniacs generation" comes of age.
Bill Vajk
Because there you go again with your dishonest trolling.
Michael Varney
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
Forget it Franz. Vacuous Vajk has ducked responsibility his whole life.
Just look at his immortal fumble that he declines to admit even after a
year. You will have a long hard road ahead in getting Vacuous Vajk to admit
his error.
Franz Heymann
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:Xpsnc.18$Rx1....@news.uswest.net...
You are right. I have now tried enough to see if he has any
integrity. It was a waste of time.
Franz
Bill Vajk
Franz Heymann wrote:
> You are right. I have now tried enough to see if he has any
> integrity. It was a waste of time.
Your opinions have been shown time and again to
be devoid of value.
Sam Wormley
Reminds me of the insignificance of Smart and Seto
Bill Vajk
> Bill Vajk wrote:
>>Franz Heymann wrote:
Sam, some while back you publicly killfiled me,
did you not? So what's this hit and run nonsense
from you.
Heyman refuses to acknowledge that physically turning
around in the midst of an optics experiment introduces
another rotation to how we see the image. lacking it
himself, he's certainly no one to judge anyone else's
integrity.
Do us all a favor and stick to physics which you're
pretty good at.
Sam Wormley
>
> Sam, some while back you publicly killfiled me,
> did you not? So what's this hit and run nonsense
> from you.
>
> Heyman refuses to acknowledge that physically turning
> around in the midst of an optics experiment introduces
> another rotation to how we see the image. lacking it
> himself, he's certainly no one to judge anyone else's
> integrity.
>
> Do us all a favor and stick to physics which you're
> pretty good at.
Hi Bill--I don't have killfile capability on my browser, although
I can hide threads. If you think that Franz is incorrect, please
show mathematically why this is so... or at least cite a credible
reference in support of your argument. Let the physics be the
arbiter.
Barking at the folks who know their physics, which makes up the
majority of what you do, is counter productive. Why not spend
your efforts trying to educate the lurkers with some good physics
resources. Peoples various personalities will often irritate
others. It's the physics that should be the most important in this
news:sci.physics
Michael Varney
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:409F92D5...@mchsi.com...
> Bill Vajk wrote:
> >
> > Sam, some while back you publicly killfiled me,
> > did you not? So what's this hit and run nonsense
> > from you.
> >
> > Heyman refuses to acknowledge that physically turning
> > around in the midst of an optics experiment introduces
> > another rotation to how we see the image. lacking it
> > himself, he's certainly no one to judge anyone else's
> > integrity.
> >
> > Do us all a favor and stick to physics which you're
> > pretty good at.
>
>
> Hi Bill--I don't have killfile capability on my browser, although
> I can hide threads. If you think that Franz is incorrect, please
> show mathematically why this is so... or at least cite a credible
> reference in support of your argument. Let the physics be the
> arbiter.
>
> Barking at the folks who know their physics, which makes up the
> majority of what you do, is counter productive. Why not spend
> your efforts trying to educate the lurkers with some good physics
> resources.
Because not only is Vajk ignorant of physics, but does not even know enough
to post references.
Bill Vajk
> Bill Vajk wrote:
>>Sam, some while back you publicly killfiled me,
>>did you not? So what's this hit and run nonsense
>>from you.
>>Heyman refuses to acknowledge that physically turning
>>around in the midst of an optics experiment introduces
>>another rotation to how we see the image. lacking it
>>himself, he's certainly no one to judge anyone else's
>>integrity.
>>Do us all a favor and stick to physics which you're
>>pretty good at.
> Hi Bill--I don't have killfile capability on my browser, although
> I can hide threads. If you think that Franz is incorrect, please
> show mathematically why this is so... or at least cite a credible
> reference in support of your argument. Let the physics be the
> arbiter.
We went through it several time at the time.
> Barking at the folks who know their physics,
Nonsense.
Bill Vajk
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Bill Vajk wrote:
> We went through it several times at the time.
>> Barking at the folks who know their physics,
> Nonsense.
In fact, Sam this latest flap with Franz was a troll undertaken by
Franz himself:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c78v6v%24qcd%241%40titan.btinternet.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
without any instigation by anyone else. And then there's Varney, the
feral bus-boy, and Tourette Schwartz, and ...and.....and.....and.....
In the face of all that, you have the audacity to climb on my case?
These newsgroups were a cesspit well before I arrived and there's
nothing I can do to fix it, so don't be singling me out for your
unwarranted criticism. As plainly as I can say this, Sam, you're
completely out of line, so fuck off.
Michael Varney
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
LOL! Feral bus-boy.... hahahahahahahahahahaha! Well then, at least I have
pulled myself up farther than you could hope to. I have reached heights that
you could only aspire.
*smirk*
>
> In the face of all that, you have the audacity to climb on my case?
>
> These newsgroups were a cesspit well before I arrived and there's
> nothing I can do to fix it, so don't be singling me out for your
> unwarranted criticism. As plainly as I can say this, Sam, you're
> completely out of line, so fuck off.
Go away Vajk, you crank.
Franz Heymann
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
To save other folk the trouble of looking up that URL, here is my
contribution to that thread::
Quote
Congratulations and the best of luck with the experiment.
Since Vajk might be a little shy of giving you his good wishes as
well, I will give them to you by proxy.
Unquote
Vajk did in fact turn out to be shy of congratulating Uncle Al, so he
should be thankful that I did it on his behalf
>
> In the face of all that, you have the audacity to climb on my case?
>
> These newsgroups were a cesspit well before I arrived and there's
> nothing I can do to fix it, so don't be singling me out for your
> unwarranted criticism. As plainly as I can say this, Sam, you're
> completely out of line, so fuck off.
Franz
Bill Vajk
Franz Heymann wrote:
snip
Yes, as predicted, the second string continues to chime in.
Michael Varney
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c85m90$gmb$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
He is thanking you Franz, in the only way he knows how.