Is SR an Ether Theory?

Hi Han_de_Bruijn, You told me,
" ...anything to be consumed must also be _produced_. ".

The energy of the cosmos is forever being " spent ".
And from that " life " emerges at each " new " energy level.
The energy level where water and humans exist is nothing special.

As for banking...

Quoting from " http://WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Double-entry_bookkeeping ":

" Each debit value must have a corresponding credit value,
and all transactions must ' balance ' so that
when you add up all the debit balances, the total must be
the same as the total of all the credit balances. ".
.......
" By the end of the 15th century,
the merchant venturers of Venice used this system widely.

Luca Pacioli, a monk and collaborator of Leonardo da Vinci,
first codified the system in a 1494 mathematics textbook.

Pacioli is often called
the ' father of accounting ' because he was the first to publish
a detailed description of the double-entry system,
which enabled others to study and use it. ".

Consumption and Expenditures are two sides of the same coin;
e.g. if you consume more then you expend then you get fat.
( Or, financially, your net worth goes up ).

Financial Obesity is just as ugly as corporal obesity, in my opinion.

"Han de Bruijn" wrote in message l...
Androcles wrote:

"Han de Bruijn" wrote in message l...

Androcles wrote:

"Han de Bruijn" wrote in message l...

Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 28, 9:03 pm, Jeff...Relf wrote:

Hi Eric Gisse, What's the " Big Bang model " ?

Did you seriously just ask "What is the Big Bang model?"

It's creation in atheist's terms.

'Atheist' and 'lunatic' are not synonymous, the unproven postulates
of a beginning and no end have no evidence to support them.
To have a creation at all requires a creator who requires a creator
who requires a creator.
The Earth stands on the backs of four elephants, the elephants
on the shell of a giant turtle. After that it's turtles all the way down.

'Creation' my arse.

Let's see. Big Bang Theory in its straighforward version 1.0 explains a
universe. The only problem being that it's not the universe we live in.
So we need a hodgepodge of - God only knows why - additional assumptions
for the sole purpose of fitting the model to reality. Yeah ! That's the
way I can get _any_ model up and running.

So what's the big deal?

I'm not a creationist. But as long as "science" doesn't offer something
better than this, I'll prefer: " And God said: let there be light ".
If it were only for the fact that it's far more aesthetically appealing.

Your approach differs from mine.

Not as much as you think:

The ultimate explanation you'll accept is always the same,
"God made it".

Did I say that? Seems that you know me better than I know myself ..


What you said was "I'll prefer: " And God said: let there be light "."
Seems that I know you better than you know yourself.


To you that is aesthetically pleasing, to me
it is anathema, for god made God? No sir, Man made god
in his own image and endowed his god with attributes of
masculinity, jealously, anger, mercy, even stupidity when
his god takes no interest in the workings of that other evil
goddess, Mother Nature. "Thank god I was saved from
that tornado Mother Nature sent". Your god is impotent,
not omnipotent.

You say it.

I did.



Where you are satisfied with any explanation so long as
you have some explanation, I am not.
I prefer to say "I do not know and will attempt to find out "
rather than pretend I do, I refuse to fool myself.

You think that religion is prohibitive for doing honest science ?

Actually no I don't think it, I know it.
Honest science doesn't deal in the supernatural, dishonest science
does.




I would remind you that the burden of proof is upon
the claimant; that science is a study of natural, not
supernatural phenomena. Gods are supernatural and
therefore outside the domain of
sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,sci.as tro

That's the Christian version. There are "religions" where God is more
like "the laws of nature", maybe in personalized form, but anyway: to
know God better is to know the laws of nature better. I think my faith
- if there is one - is rather close to the latter.

Han de Bruijn

I don't really give a monkey's toss about any religion or faith
or your hallucinations. If you want to rant about gods there
are plenty of non-sci.* newsgroups where others will suck up
to your ramblings.

Jeff…Relf wrote:

Hey everybody, take the quiz.

Even though the Lambda-CDM model has no singularities,
some people think perfect vacuums and infinite density ( Planck who ? )
exist in nature and, therefore, we should model them.

Which of these super-geniuses are right ?

Stephen Hawking says,
" a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon. ".

Einstein says, " The essential result of this investigation is
a clear understanding as to why ' Schwarzschild singularities '
do not exist in physical reality. ".

Tom Roberts says, " General Relativity predicts singularities. ".

Uncle_Al says,
" The circumference of a black hole at its external event horizon
is well-described. Its diameter through the singularity is infinite. ".

Gisse says, " I measured the density of an electron, it's infinite. ".

Hey schmuck Jeff…Relf - reply or die.

Hey stooopid Jeff…Relf - infinite density must be embedded in infinite
spacetime curvature that is elliptic geometry. The circumference of a
black hole at its external event horizon is well-described. Its
diameter through the singularity is infinite.

Hey stooopid Jeff…Relf - infinite mass embedded in infinite volume
could trivially be a mere 6.

Hey stooopid Jeff…Relf, why don't you post the mathematical difference
between a Schwarzschild black hole and a Kerr black hole? Unless you
can dump huuuge stellar angular momentum with contracting radius,
pendejo, all black holes are infinitely spinning Kerr black holes.
But wait! Centripetal force aimed out balances gravitation aimed in
and nothing untoward occurs. But wait! Infinite spacetime curvature
means infinite spin radius and nothing untoward occurs. But wait! If
singularity dimensions are within one compactified dimension's
diameter, you've got 4-D and no rotation axes at all.

Idiot.

BTW, stooopid Jeff…Relf, are we talking the tiny infinity of integers,
the infinitly bigger infinity of points on a line, the infinitely
bigger bigger infinity of functions through a point... Cough it up,
stooopid Jeff…Relf, which infinity? Huh, huh, stooopid Jeff…Relf?
Which infinity?

Idiot.

(Uncle Al apologizes to Dear Reader for introducing the ineluctable
mathematical complexity of 6. If Dear Reader is a graduate of
American zero-goal education, a Head Start dropout, or an Even Start
rejectee... do not hesitate to substitute 1, or a kumquat.)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Jeff…Relf wrote:

Hi Daryl_McCullough, You wrote, " The question of black hole formation
has been studied extensively, with the conclusion that
sufficiently massive stars will inevitably collapse into black holes. ".

Most cosmologist agree that
General Relativity doesn't work at super-Planck densities.
e.g. There are no singularities in the Lambda-CDM model.

Stephen Hawking says,
" a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon. ".

Einstein says, " The essential result of this investigation is
a clear understanding as to why ' Schwarzschild singularities '
do not exist in physical reality. ".

Hey schumck Jeff…Relf - reply or die.

Hey stooopid Jeff…Relf - infinite density must be embedded in infinite
spacetime curvature that is elliptic geometry. The circumference of a
black hole at its external event horizon is well-described. Its
diameter through the singularity is infinite.

Hey stooopid Jeff…Relf - infinite mass embedded in infinite volume
could trivially be a mere 6.

Hey stooopid Jeff…Relf, why don't you post the mathematical difference
between a Schwarzschild black hole and a Kerr black hole? Unless you
can dump huuuge stellar angular momentum with contracting radius,
pendejo, all black holes are infinitely spinning Kerr black holes.
But wait! Centripetal force aimed out balances gravitation aimed in
and nothing untoward occurs. But wait! Infinite spacetime curvature
means infinite spin radius and nothing untoward occurs. But wait! If
singularity dimensions are within one compactified dimension's
diameter, you've got 4-D and no rotation axes at all.

Idiot.

BTW, stooopid Jeff…Relf, are we talking the tiny infinity of integers,
the infinitly bigger infinity of points on a line, the infinitely
bigger bigger infinity of functions through a point... Cough it up,
stooopid Jeff…Relf, which infinity? Huh, huh, stooopid Jeff…Relf?
Which infinity?

Idiot.

(Uncle Al apologizes to Dear Reader for introducing the ineluctable
mathematical complexity of 6. If Dear Reader is a graduate of
American zero-goal education, a Head Start dropout, or an Even Start
rejectee... do not hesitate to substitute 1, or a kumquat.)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Jeff…Relf wrote:

Hi Daryl_McCullough,

Passing wholely unphysical numbers like infinity
to General Realativity does not mean G.R. has a " bug ";
it means " Garbage in Garbage out ".
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid Jeff…Relf, are we talking the tiny infinity of integers,
the infinitly bigger infinity of points on a line, the infinitely
bigger bigger infinity of functions through a point... Cough it up,
stooopid Jeff…Relf, which infinity? Huh, huh, stooopid Jeff…Relf?
Which infinity?

Idiot.

A theory operates within its founding postulates and boundary
conditions, stooopid Jeff…Relf. Euclidean geometry is trivially
empirically wrong for every triangle on the Earth's geoid having its
interor angles sum to more than 180 degrees and not more than 540
degrees. Euclid demands 180 degrees *exactly.* IS THAT GARBAGE IN
GARBAGE OUT, stooopid Jeff…Relf?

Idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Linonut wrote:
After takin' a swig o' grog, Maverick belched out this bit o' wisdom:


We're still using the crap for our oldest apps.


The Borland version?


Yeah, C++ Builder 4 (old!)


Hehehe... at least they didn't get on the M$ upgrade spiral and spend a
lot of money.

Greg Cox wrote:

In article ,
says...

Greg Cox wrote:


In article ,
says...


Greg Cox wrote:



In article ,
says...



After takin' a swig o' grog, Maverick belched out this bit o' wisdom:




OK wrote:




Gnu gcc was around way before VC of any kind came about.

Microsoft compiles its own stuff with its own compiler since Microsoft
C 3.0, circa 1985.

No, they used DECs VAX systems during that time to cross compile their
products.

And those systems were running, get this, UNIX.


The only Microsoft product developed on the VAX was Xenix (a UNIX
variant). You knew that, right?

If I recall, the VAX line ran VMS and then also a modified version of
BSD UNIX that they called Ultrix. I had a choice back then when
purchasing a new system and I chose VMS over the Ultrix, mainly because
the nuclear dept. ran vms as well. (I was trying to make sure that if
the project got shut down we could easily migrate to their dept. :-)


So what does this have to do with your contention that Microsoft "used
DECs VAX systems during that time to cross compile their products"?

What else would they need VMS then?


Why in the world do you think they needed VMS?

Only they knew why they needed VMS. I can take a very good guess at why
tho. After reviewing the DEC Basic language guide I can see where MS
Basic around 1992 had adopted many concepts from VAX Basic... such as
the kind of parameter passing mechanisms to other subroutines like
byvalue, byreference, etc. Good ideas too. To me it looked like MS
needed something to study from.

Unless it was to run
that business management software. SAP? Whatever it was called it was
about the only software of its type at that time.

I don't know either, but then you worked there. But during that time I
do know that DECs languages and their extensions were pretty good and
heads above the rest in industry at that time.

I remember it ran on
one of the mini-computers but I don't remember what OS it used.


I remember back then that Lattice C
wasn't bug free. At least the documentation with VAX C back then
reflected what their compiler could do and the docs were fairly
accurate. I think that the old 8088/80286 gave some compiler coders a
bit of a hassle. Today it doesn't matter.
Now the real question for those of today would be: will the compiler
writers be able to extend the standard to accomodate parallelisms of
cpus like the Intel Quad core processors?


What are you talking about? Putting thread handling in the C++ spec
rather than as a platform specific library? I'm not sure that would be
very valuable.


Threading apparently doesn't solve all the problems of parallelisms for
multi core processors it seems. I remember the multi-processor vaxes
and their language guides and compilers were revamped to include
mechanisms for properly dividing up sections of code to different cpus.
I now see that Intel is doing the same thing for their quad core
processors. Threading was also included back in 1991 for vms and I've
still got the handbook on it.

http://mysearch.intel.com/corporate/...chsubmit.y= 0

There is a pdf file on threading and OpenMP techniques for multi-core
processors. It looks like Intel finally had to dive into that area that
was already researched by Cray, DEC and IBM.

Linonut wrote:

After takin' a swig o' grog, Greg Cox belched out this bit o' wisdom:


What are you talking about? Putting thread handling in the C++ spec
rather than as a platform specific library? I'm not sure that would be
very valuable.


I agree here. Threading has too many paradigms to mandate one or more of
them in a language specification.

Besides, the pthread library is out there, and works pretty well. You
can find all sorts of Windows adaptors for it, too. And Vista adds
condition variables, so you don't have to fake those anymore.

The world is full of specific-model languages. I'd prefer to see C/C++
remain as open-ended as possible. I think anyone who has labored with
FORTRAN and the early BASICs would also see it that way.


pthreads and OpenMP specs aren't the same thing here.

As I've given the url to greg :
http://mysearch.intel.com/corporate/...chsubmit.y= 0

On that page there is a pdf file that explains the differences and shows
various techniques of parallelisms.

On 2007-03-29, Denis Feldmann wrote:
Aatu Koskensilta a écrit :
I'll trust your word on that. Alas, I can't find any way to bring in
'Gadsby' in this post.

Is it a hint to "Big" Gatsby? Scott F's main (and most known) rich and
lazy man of this world?

Nah. It was but an allusion to an '*'-lacking work by *rn*st Vinc*nt Wright,
from 1930.

--
Aatu Koskensilta )

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

On 29/3/07 18:02, in article , "Art
Deco" wrote:

JeffŠRelf wrote:

Hi Daryl_McCullough, You wrote, " The question of black hole formation
has been studied extensively, with the conclusion that
sufficiently massive stars will inevitably collapse into black holes. ".

Most cosmologist agree that
General Relativity doesn't work at super-Planck densities.
e.g. There are no singularities in the Lambda-CDM model.

Stephen Hawking says,
" a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon. ".

Einstein says, " The essential result of this investigation is
a clear understanding as to why ' Schwarzschild singularities '
do not exist in physical reality. ".

Hi Jeff-

You really need to start getting your message into alt.astronomy, the
saucerhead crew there will go ga-ga over your "ideas".

He could be king idiot.

Jeff…Relf is the voluminously empirically self-proclaimed heir to the
throne of the Kingdom of Idiots. He's arguably the least able
programmer Uncle Al has ever encountered, too. Ought to work for the
government.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2