Re: LIGO.

On Feb 13, 2:27 pm, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Feb 12, 8:30 pm, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

On Feb 11, 7:40 pm, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...

No I'm not one of those people you speak of with regard to science being
a con job. Just as well that it usually isn't. Religion and Politics are
quite enough in that department.
I might add that it would be remarkable if I gave up many hours of my
time to listen to a lot of Con men while spending a lot of my time in
retirement building telescopes and observatories and researching the
history of electronics, one of my pet subjects, if I was anti science.
The fact is most people think of me as fanatically pro Science
especially the local Creationists and members of the anti Space lobby.
regards Cliff Wright.

Cliff makes a point, we can all see faces
in clouds, that's human, but what he fails
to realize is the effort put into the evolving
the algorithm that combines the signals.
Dr. Baez explained that awhile ago, it takes
serious processing power + algorithm.
Ken
BTW, Al Gore did NOT invent the algorithm!

Oh Dear Ken! I'm afaraid I still don't seem to be getting through!
My son for example is an expert (and highly qulified and experienced)
software engineer so I have acess to pretty good technical advice on
software.

I can write software, the problem is (I repeat) the
"numerical analysis" algorithm(s), the situation
calls for a "phase arrayed" analysis, looking in the
data to detect a common harmonic "thumping",
using time triangulation. A "one off" event is not
likely to be taken as proof, but it's encouraging
if it corresponded to a visually confirmable event.

My WHOLE POINT is that the detection of a previously unobserved
phenomenon requires definitive and independent proof. This was for
example fortunately insisted on in the case of "Cold fusion" and the
infamous "n" rays early last century. No matter what results the 2
LIGO's give the definitive prooof of "gravitational radiation" is not in
until a source for the signal can be at least strongly suggested which
agrees with the current state of Physics knowledge, or which by
observation extends our knowledge.

Again agreed, I've published this paper,
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
that suggests g-waves will appear as EMR,
and that in turn leads to a Unified Field Theory.
Do you know how much work it is to write
up a UFT (?), well it's a lot, so if LIGO works,
I can get out of doing that, otherwise I got a
serious homework assignment. That's ok but,
I'd rather make sure it's necessary.

I have seen just how far astray the use of massive computing power can
lead in the case of Acoustics modelling. Indeed a post doc student I was
working with once discovered that the algorithm used in the standard
reverberation tests for auditoria by some of the worlds best equipment
companies was seriously flawed.

It's not that simple. The complex "search" algorithm
differs from the simple "verification" algorithm,
a verification algorithm is straightforward.

No matter what the old maxim still applies GIGO to LIGO just as much as
any other use of computing analysis.
Doing maths on its own does not constitute complete scientific
investigation, it remains a thought experiment or model until tested in
the real world.

It's being tested in "the real world" right now,
and the procedure looks really good to me.

Regards Cliff Wright.

Thanks, Regards
Ken

Hi Ken! Had a quick look at your paper intro, very interesting indeed
tho with my maths I would have to sit down for a while to work it all out.

No prob, Eq.(4) "S^2=X^2+ab" is the key,
Eq.(1,2,3) are formalities, so that the article is
founded within established General Relativity
Theory, (GR).

The residual attractive force looks very well worth following up.
Does it roughly give the correct result for the enormous difference
between gravitational and electromagnetic forces?

Yes, GR provides a means to convert length and
mass-energy, for example the mass of the Sun is
approximately 1.47 kilometers, and that figure has
been verified fairly well by measuring the deflection
of light.
In Special Relativity (SR) recall E=mc^2, well GR
blows the doors off that, it gives,
E = L c^4/G ,
where L=Length and G=Newtons gravitational constant.
So a small difference like S-X (From (4)), provides the
enormous energy that powers ElectroMagnetism.

If so you may indeed be on to something.

Maybe, but it would cost $billions if it's true,
many current text-books would be obsoleted,
professors and teachers would have to be
retrained, and new text books written and
that's why LIGO is such an important test.

It reminded me of a very good book on Physics I came across probably 20
years ago, I think it was by a lady physicist actually but I can't
remember her name. This gave a very good non mathematical (or reasonably
so) suggestion that the nuclear "weak force" was a similar "imbalance"
of "strong forces" in the nucleus. Has that theory stood the test of time?

There seems to be some mediocre consensus
on strong and weak force theory, but I think the
smart guys would like something better.

If so this might be a big step towards a "unified field" theory.
As soon as I get a bit of time I must really work my way thru your
equations and get a better handle on it. Despite being retired I have 3
grandsons and in 2 weeks time they will rise to 6 as my son is getting
married with a ready made family so I don't have all the time I'd like!
Best Regards Cliff Wright.

Congrads Cliff, I'm a grandpa too.
Best to you too.
Ken

.

Relevant Pages

  • Batch verification via Pippengers algorithm
    ... Let's look at a typical elliptic-curve signature system within the ... which provide much faster verification but need ... v public keys n_i B (or fewer if some public keys ... if v = 32 then the algorithm ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Batch verification via Pippengers algorithm
    ... which provide much faster verification but need ... v public keys n_i B (or fewer if some public keys ... if v = 32 then the algorithm ... Other addition chain algorithms should be considered too. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: LIGO.
    ... a con job. ... the algorithm that combines the signals. ... No matter what results the 2 LIGO's give the definitive prooof of "gravitational radiation" is not in until a source for the signal can be at least strongly suggested which agrees with the current state of Physics knowledge, or which by observation extends our knowledge. ... I have seen just how far astray the use of massive computing power can lead in the case of Acoustics modelling. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: LIGO.
    ... a con job. ... the algorithm that combines the signals. ... agrees with the current state of Physics knowledge, ... I have seen just how far astray the use of massive computing power can ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article in Scientific American
    ... I am not aware of such a context. ... Because an algorithm may contain no logical gaps, ... The question of whether a computer verification, ...
    (sci.math)