What if (on White Dwarfs)

On May 4, 3:45 am, Scott Miller wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

And that has what if anything to do with the honest jest of this
topic?

Are you offering up a public owned supercomputer and of its full blown
3D orbital mechanics software?

Are you otherwise offering us your own best swag of hard numbers?

I've already produced more computational information than you have on
this and other topics. The more relavent question would be - can you
produce anything useful on this topic?

Give me and "G=EMC^2 Glazier" access to most any one of our spendy
supercomputers, and as such we'll proceed to knock your socks off.

This sort of thing is absolutely ideal for a supercomputer to be
working on.


One additional computation I have finished - IF by some odd chance some
planet was captured into the lifezone of a white dwarf like Sirius B
(for which I did the calculation) - it would become tidally locked to
the central white dwarf in 10,000 to 1 million years. That would be far
too short a time period for that planet to become life bearing, if the
scenario that occurred here on Earth happened there. Tidal locking
would cause one side to become hot all the time, the otherside very
cold. Atmosphere, if developed, evaporates, keeping water from existing
in liquid form on the planet.

Your faith-based skewed science is darn good at excluding evidence, as
well as having excluded and/or skewed the regular laws of physics, and
otherwise good at keeping the rest of us village idiots away from our
own supercomputers. Why is that?


So, in the end, the legwork that should have been done by the proposer
of this topic was done by one who actually understands a bit about how
science works rather than the likes of you who offer zip.

So, as per usual, you and others of your all-knowing kind claim to
have those fully interactive 3D simulations via supercomputer, but
you're not about to share squat. Is that also why your MIB are doing
all they can to trash my PC, or to otherwise divert/block Usenet
access?

"An error was encountered while trying to post, please try again
later"
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:


Give me and "G=EMC^2 Glazier" access to most any one of our spendy
supercomputers, and as such we'll proceed to knock your socks off.

This sort of thing is absolutely ideal for a supercomputer to be
working on.

Provide the code, else you are blowing smoke.


Your faith-based skewed science is darn good at excluding evidence, as
well as having excluded and/or skewed the regular laws of physics, and
otherwise good at keeping the rest of us village idiots away from our
own supercomputers. Why is that?

Proof of accusation please. What evidence has been excluded in the
calculations I did, and what regular laws of physics have been excluded
in those calculations? What I see is someone who hasn't the
wherewithall to do the calculations and simply makes noise to cover his
inadequacies.



So, in the end, the legwork that should have been done by the proposer
of this topic was done by one who actually understands a bit about how
science works rather than the likes of you who offer zip.


So, as per usual, you and others of your all-knowing kind claim to
have those fully interactive 3D simulations via supercomputer, but
you're not about to share squat. Is that also why your MIB are doing
all they can to trash my PC, or to otherwise divert/block Usenet
access?

As I stated, you offer zip on this topic and you continue to do so.
Until and unless you can do otherwise, even the simple calculation I
asked you to complete earlier in this series of posts, then this topic
is essentially closed as nothing new is being offered by you.

In article .com,
BradGuth wrote:

Give me and "G=EMC^2 Glazier" access to most any one of our spendy
supercomputers, and as such we'll proceed to knock your socks off.

This sort of thing is absolutely ideal for a supercomputer to be
working on.


It hardly needs a supercomputer.

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

I wish folks (good and bad) would stop hijacking by way of their
renaming these topics, as it's bad enough our being topic/author
stalked and bashed without having to search for the original topic or
otherwise having to deal with Usenet cesspool groups that have nothing
but ulterior motives and hidden agendas.

On May 4, 2:42 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article .com,

BradGuth wrote:
Give me and "G=EMC^2 Glazier" access to most any one of our spendy
supercomputers, and as such we'll proceed to knock your socks off.

This sort of thing is absolutely ideal for a supercomputer to be
working on.

It hardly needs a supercomputer.

I seriously beg to differ.

Full 3D animation, along with fancy surround-sound tracks and lots of
those vibrant colors and artistic patterns, just so that it's on a par
with NASA's infomercial eye-candy, as such proper life-like simulation
does require a supercomputer, especially if running through those hour
by hour and day by day simulation steps of 8760 3D frames per year,
along with the fast forward/reverse of each year compressed down to a
second or perhaps a hundredth of a second.

We'll also need that supercomputer in order to develop all sorts of
those 3D perspective views, of really good looking flybys and lots of
various visualizing via computer generated optical zoom capability, as
though we were God.

After all, the likes of GOOGLE's NOVA will not likely bother to
publish or much less produce a fancy HDTV production series unless
it's offering the very best of artificial 3D eye-popping candy,
exactly like most every other sponsored infomercial that's supposedly
telling us the one and only truth.

However, I suppose we could start off with just one such 3D frame per
year, whereas this one way trek of Sol headed towards Sirius or that
of an icy proto-moon trekking itself from the Sirius Oort cloud toward
us is worth better than 50,000 frames, of having at the very least 8
significant and/or complex items to interact with (more than 12 items
if including a few of the other nearby stellar factors).

Therefore, a 12 body worth of complex gravity and orbital interactions
(that's still excluding 99.9999999% of the Milky Way's interactions as
somewhat depicted within a 225 million year cycle as generated by the
ESA Hipparcos supported data) is not exactly going to fly in 3D
animation on any PC or MAC that I know of.
-
Brad Guth

In article .com,
BradGuth wrote:

It hardly needs a supercomputer.

I seriously beg to differ.

Full 3D animation, along with fancy surround-sound tracks and lots of
those vibrant colors and artistic patterns, just so that it's on a par
with NASA's infomercial eye-candy, as such proper life-like simulation
does require a supercomputer, especially if running through those hour
by hour and day by day simulation steps of 8760 3D frames per year,
along with the fast forward/reverse of each year compressed down to a
second or perhaps a hundredth of a second.


True physics doesn't need tarting up. You could do the work on your PC.

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

On May 5, 10:09 am, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article .com,

BradGuth wrote:
It hardly needs a supercomputer.

I seriously beg to differ.

Full 3D animation, along with fancy surround-sound tracks and lots of
those vibrant colors and artistic patterns, just so that it's on a par
with NASA's infomercial eye-candy, as such proper life-like simulation
does require a supercomputer, especially if running through those hour
by hour and day by day simulation steps of 8760 3D frames per year,
along with the fast forward/reverse of each year compressed down to a
second or perhaps a hundredth of a second.

True physics doesn't need tarting up. You could do the work on your PC.


I fully agree, but then why did NASA/Apollo and most of everything
that's NOVA hyped, as such pull out all of those spendy supercomputer
3D animation stops, and before then having used every new and improved
Kodak dirty trick in their mutually perpetrated cold-war book?

Why are you and others of your infomercial spewing kind still covering
those Third Reich and of their Jewish minion butts (or was it the
other way around?). Unless you're suggesting that it was actually
those smart Muslims or some other faith-based superior intelligence
that got the likes of Hitler so far on so little.

Looking at our NASA of the past and especially today, whereas "tarting
up" whatever is the very name of their game, isn't it. Isn't most
every mainstream publication and/or of space/science movies and those
spendy HDTV productions chuck full of NASA's tartness?

Are not most all textbooks and science journals absolutely stuffed
full of their best tartness?

I just want the equal amount or fair share of tart applied on behalf
of my arguments. Only a true naysayer and/or rusemaster like yourself
would have any problem with that.
-
Brad Guth

In article .com,
BradGuth wrote:

Are not most all textbooks and science journals absolutely stuffed
full of their best tartness?

I just want the equal amount or fair share of tart applied on behalf
of my arguments. Only a true naysayer and/or rusemaster like yourself
would have any problem with that.


Just because you don't understand modern physics.

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

On May 5, 1:21 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article .com,

BradGuth wrote:
Are not most all textbooks and science journals absolutely stuffed
full of their best tartness?

I just want the equal amount or fair share of tart applied on behalf
of my arguments. Only a true naysayer and/or rusemaster like yourself
would have any problem with that.

Just because you don't understand modern physics.

In that case, and since you're so gosh darn all-knowing, you can tell
G=EMC^2 Glazier and myself the answers to the following what-ifs:

If Sirius B was as of not too long ago representing a 'once upon a
time' stellar worth of 5 solar mass, then where the heck did the other
substantial amount of roughly 4 solar mass of Sirius B go?

I suppose that some of it (perhaps one solar mass) had to became an
extra part of Sirius A.

Why otherwise wouldn't the red-giant phase of Sirius B have pushed out
a few planets, plus having tossed out a few of those icy proto-moon
size of various nifty and perhaps salty Oort cloud items?

Why can't this most basic what-if analogy be run through a good enough
supercomputer, in full 3D simulation?

What are these other faith-based fools (that which you claim not to
be) so deathly afraid of?
-
Brad Guth

In article .com,
BradGuth wrote:

On May 5, 1:21 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article .com,

BradGuth wrote:
Are not most all textbooks and science journals absolutely stuffed
full of their best tartness?

I just want the equal amount or fair share of tart applied on behalf
of my arguments. Only a true naysayer and/or rusemaster like yourself
would have any problem with that.

Just because you don't understand modern physics.

In that case, and since you're so gosh darn all-knowing, you can tell
G=EMC^2 Glazier and myself the answers to the following what-ifs:

If Sirius B was as of not too long ago representing a 'once upon a
time' stellar worth of 5 solar mass, then where the heck did the other
substantial amount of roughly 4 solar mass of Sirius B go?


into space, or sirius A

I suppose that some of it (perhaps one solar mass) had to became an
extra part of Sirius A.

Why otherwise wouldn't the red-giant phase of Sirius B have pushed out
a few planets, plus having tossed out a few of those icy proto-moon
size of various nifty and perhaps salty Oort cloud items?

Because cataclysmic events do not generate planets.


Why can't this most basic what-if analogy be run through a good enough
supercomputer, in full 3D simulation?

Because it doesn't make sense


What are these other faith-based fools (that which you claim not to
be) so deathly afraid of?

No one is scared of anything.



--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

On May 5, 1:21 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article .com,

BradGuth wrote:
Are not most all textbooks and science journals absolutely stuffed
full of their best tartness?

I just want the equal amount or fair share of tart applied on behalf
of my arguments. Only a true naysayer and/or rusemaster like yourself
would have any problem with that.

Just because you don't understand modern physics.

In that case, and since you're so gosh darn all-knowing, you can tell
G=EMC^2 Glazier and myself the answers to the following what-ifs:

If Sirius B was as of not too long ago representing a 'once upon a
time' stellar worth of 5 solar mass, then where the heck did the other
substantial amount of roughly 4 solar mass of Sirius B go?

I suppose that some of it (perhaps one solar mass) had to became an
extra part of Sirius A.

Why otherwise wouldn't the red-giant phase of Sirius B have pushed out
a few planets, plus having tossed out a few of those icy proto-moon
size of various nifty and perhaps salty Oort cloud items?

Why can't this most basic what-if analogy be run through a good enough
supercomputer, in full 3D simulation?

What are these other faith-based fools (that which you claim not to
be) so deathly afraid of?
-
Brad Guth