Schneibster

Sorry, sonny, I stick with oscilloscopes and generally figure people who deny what they say are idiots.

Umm, no, it's not false; you still haven't answered post 75.

You started claiming I was wrong before you even understood what I was saying.

There's no mistake here but yours.

Someone told you I was stupid and you believed them. That was your mistake.

I've been humiliating you ever since for your disrespect.

That's the mistake.

You'll want to start trying to fix it with an apology.

And not a bunch of bullshit about how sorry you are I was offended, either.

I'd have been happy to explain it except you kept claiming I was wrong before I was finished.

Unfortunately you haven't heard the justification, nor have you actually understood what the claim is (hint: you screwed it up).

Typical.

And apparently you aren't done and are too stubborn to stop and too mean to admit it when you're beaten. That's fine but please understand everyone knows.

What "new measurements?"

You think somehow there's gonna be "new measurements" that define phase instead of describing it, and that don't require a reference for phase to be measured against?

Yay Don Quixote. Kill that windmill. Good luck buddy.

I'm not gonna play games, sunshine.

You do or you don't. I play nasty with people who are trying to prove I'm stupid. If you wanna play that game I can do it forever.

If you're smart you'll stop.

You've been trying to catch me in a misstep for fifty posts. What you've got so far is embarrassed.

Are you done?

I'm willing to keep it civil if I am not maliciously and subtly accused of lying as you have been doing. If you intend to continue trolling me I'll shortly put you on ignore rather than be accused of insulting you.

Now, the Dirac fermion field is explicitly relativistic, correct?

I think I have clearly shown what you're trying to do, and that it has nothing to do with physics.

I think you've been trying to create a controversy or a fight since post 75. I think you've failed and you're running away to hide.

What makes me sure is that when I tell you what the Lorentz Symmetry means, you ignore it and change the subject. It's quite transparent and obvious.

Furthermore as far as your lies about "unclear statements," you were the one who was maliciously unclear about the difference between the Dirac Lagrangian and the Dirac Field. You have repeated a deliberate and previously proven untruth in an attempt to discredit me under false pretenses. I stand ready to provide the proof of my allegations, if it is not already obvious to the members and staff.

Sonny I measured a lot of phase and it's always been two signals' relations to one another.

Maybe you can go sell your stuff to a freshman physics student.

The experimental results over velocity or orientation (or position, which is implicit in velocity).

See, I think you keep trying "gotcha" maneuvers on me and I keep making you look like an idiot.

I think you should stop. But that's just me. You can make yourself look as bad as you want. Go for it.

Symmetric means invariant. A vase is symmetric because no matter what direction you see it from it looks the same.

People who play with math always forget these basic realities.

Are you serious?

This is basic relativity, do you not understand what the Lorentz Symmetry defines as invariant?

This is simple: admit the Dirac fermion field is Lorentz symmetric or go back to school.

Period. I'm a fan of reality.

I am amazed by the number of people who think mathematical derivations are physical proofs.

Your math is nice but the field isn't the math. Especially when you have to superposition it with fifteen other things in order to describe the field.

No, you will not listen to the explanation.

Fine.

Bear in mind we have not advanced beyond post 75 because you will not admit that the Dirac fermion field is Lorentz symmetric.

I'm sorry I don't see a great deal of advantage in arguing with someone who cannot differentiate between the Dirac Lagrangian and the Dirac Field.

You need to learn to understand more than just the math. You don't understand the real fields that the universe exhibits.

I told you the Dirac field is relativistic. You denied it, and presented the Dirac Lagrangian to pretend it's not. The Lagrangian is of course not relativistic. You have repeatedly confused the two in order to attempt to deflect, distract, or deceive me. You have failed abominably and are now trying to deny it.

Please stop.

You have been misled by fools. You should stop talking to them.

1 I don't see how a 0.5 to 2.5 degree c temperature increse by 2100 will stop agriculture in the mid west.

 

You are a plumber. That's why you don't see it.

Maybe if you were a geophysicist.

2 The wrost case scenario of sea level rise in the IPCC's IR4 report was for a 59cm rise by 2100 and that required a 6.4 degree c temperature rise. The temperature rise has droped and the worst case scenario is now 1m. I don't understand where they have got that figure from because they are very opacke about which ice they expect to melt. Is Central California with 1m of sea level? If it is then perhaps they should have already built some sort of sea defences.

The first refugees whose islands have been inundated have already been relocated from the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. The Marshall Islands have been inundated and buried dead have been disinterred along with massive damage in the hundreds of millions of US$. This has happened in the last month.

I can't see why I should argue physics any more with a plumber.

No, the Dirac field is the Fermi-Dirac field or fermion field. You're not talking about the fermion field nor have you been at any time despite the fact I've mentioned it in nearly every post I've made.

You are attempting to troll me and you are transparent.

When you can measure what you're yammering about with an oscilloscope you can come talk to me. Until then you're a n00b.

Dyson has recommended looking for large, very low-mass, infrared-bright spherical objects. They are likely eponymous dyson spheres constructed by alien civilizations to take full advantage of the total output of a star.

A quasar is the center of a galaxy. I suspect it's going to be a very, very long time, like millions of years, until the human race disposes of enough power to use the center of a galaxy as a weapon, not to mention it would take a hundred thousand years to fire one shot.

And that's assuming we survive both global warming, and whatever kills off the smart species so we don't see any.

Since this is a game I will break a personal rule and post a link from HuffPost, who has the most amusing article. The game is linked inside the HuffPost article.

Be warned, the author says his site has been overwhelmed, so there may be performance problems.

The game is called "Super Planet Crash" and it's actually a training application for real exoplanet detection systems. Other astronomers have made humorous accusations that he is sabotaging everyone else's research in order to steal all the prizes. Reportedly, when he first released it at his university for beta testing all work stopped at the site for the afternoon.

I think it goes without saying it's addictive.

I put it in news because it's not just a game, there's serious astronomy behind it and it may be a route to an educational end-around of the medieval superstitions parents continue to insist upon teaching their kids.

Have fun: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/super-planet-crash-game_n_5120708.html

And full credit and honesty: The Schneibsteress found this one. Her search-fu is imposing.

I agree, Acme. It's actually an A/B Taste Test of two RISC compilers. (I'd go with IBM or SPARC.) I'd use a direct test of the machine language length, watch memory usage (probably not a problem but remember that step where you store the value) and run a sprint test of factorials overnight. Finally, I'd test the output values to make sure it works rather than just outputting whatever.

I'd compare the results with a standard RISC compiler's factorial handling using the same test, and also with the performance of a CISC compiler which both the standard and your modified RISC compilers should beat.

I suspect you'll find, Asterisk, if you try to use CISCs and CISC compilers, that it performs worse. But that's because they don't have optimized primitives, so that's OK; your goal isn't a better CISC algorithm, but a better RISC algorithm. If your algorithm really works right, then it will work only on RISCs.

Dead children aren't subjective.

I will add my parents' experience, specifically my mother's. She was taking statins, until she started eating beans four to six times a week, and extra fiber cereal every morning. It works. I eat beans myself at least three times a week. Probably less than I should.

No, I didn't say describe it, I said define it.

Have you ever used an oscilloscope? Do you know what the "trigger" control does? And do you understand that by manipulating the sweep speed, you are defining the oscilloscope's frequency, and comparing the signal's phase with it, using the trigger to control the relative phase?

Now, that oscilloscope (and I have two in my garage, one in need of calibration) is calibrated so that those sweep speeds are extremely precise; this allows extremely precise measurement of frequencies and time intervals, which is one of the main functions of an oscilloscope. In addition it is calibrated so that its voltage scale is also extremely precise. These are adjusted by a professional calibration service, that maintains the special batteries that are certified to provide exact voltages, and the special oscillators that are certified to provide exact frequencies, so that I don't have to have such incredibly expensive and touchy devices.

So "phase" is defined in terms of an exact time reference, compared to a reference frequency: the oscilloscope.

There is no absolute phase. Phase is always a comparison between two signals: a reference and a datum.

The oscilloscope provides the reference with its sweep speed, triggering adjustment, and variable holdoff reference. And even then the variable holdoff is used by defining the beginning and ending measurements. "0" is basically meaningless, though they put it close enough that you're guaranteed to be able to measure a full screen width. It can't be kept that tight; you have to measure it relative to itself every time, two numbers not one.

You know the little knob that looks like a safe combination dial? That's the variable holdoff; the one you use to get four digits out of the 'scope when you're measuring. Against the reference.

Cute math. Now let's talk about reality.

Never argue with a sound engineer about sound. And never argue about waves with an EE.

Define phase.