Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Somebody's terminal is dropping bits. I found a pile of them over in the corner.


devel / comp.arch / Re: finite but unbounded?

SubjectAuthor
* finite but unbounded?Ivan Godard
`* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 +* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |+* Re: finite but unbounded?robf...@gmail.com
 ||`- Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 |`* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 | `* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |  `* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |   `* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |    `* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |     +* Re: finite but unbounded?robf...@gmail.com
 |     |`* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 |     | +* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |     | |`* Re: finite but unbounded?George Neuner
 |     | | +* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 |     | | |`- Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |     | | `* Re: finite but unbounded?EricP
 |     | |  `- Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |     | `* Re: finite but unbounded?BGB
 |     |  `* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 |     |   `- Re: finite but unbounded?BGB
 |     `* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |      `* Re: finite but unbounded?Ivan Godard
 |       `* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |        `* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |         `* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |          +* Re: finite but unbounded?Ivan Godard
 |          |`* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |          | `- Re: finite but unbounded?Stefan Monnier
 |          +* Re: finite but unbounded?Stefan Monnier
 |          |+* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 |          ||`- Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |          |`* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |          | `* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |          |  +* Re: finite but unbounded?Stefan Monnier
 |          |  |`* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 |          |  | +- Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |          |  | `- Re: finite but unbounded?Thomas Koenig
 |          |  `* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |          |   `- Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |          `- Re: finite but unbounded?Andy Valencia
 +* Re: finite but unbounded?Thomas Koenig
 |`- Re: finite but unbounded?robf...@gmail.com
 +* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |`- Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 `* Re: finite but unbounded?BGB
  +* Re: finite but unbounded?robf...@gmail.com
  |`* Re: finite but unbounded?BGB
  | `* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
  |  `- Re: finite but unbounded?BGB
  `* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
   `- Re: finite but unbounded?BGB

Pages:123
Re: finite but unbounded?

<t53qlb$6g8$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25108&group=comp.arch#25108

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ggt...@yahoo.com (Brett)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 18:50:19 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <t53qlb$6g8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me>
<t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<8ec408ce-ec62-4811-83c6-6da9548a3a23n@googlegroups.com>
<896aad8f-2a69-49e4-8d3a-a8858a2d1005n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 18:50:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="12095cbee818eaa0ef147e8292942567";
logging-data="6664"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Yy4Fn+xEMkwuOf1tJ67IL"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dfXZGLEMuuoG5s7VqNshvuIzwz8=
sha1:qkwfSL+Qq1pt8R4GdFzmDa5q5RA=
 by: Brett - Fri, 6 May 2022 18:50 UTC

MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 7:39:32 PM UTC-5, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> If it were passing faster with distance, it would blue-shift. Red-shift
>>> would imply that time slows down with distance.
>> More units of time per wavelength equals a lower frequency. I think
>> it would result in apparent red-shifting to the remote observer. Point
>> is I believe that time may not pass at the same rate everywhere at
>> cosmic distances. It could explain some things.
>>> It would also imply a universe with a curved spacetime (vs flat).
> <
>> I think time is not a dimension. I believe it is an aggregate measure. If no events
>> occur then no time passes. An event as small as an electron spinning, or
>> smaller, causes time to pass. So at our scale of existence it seems
>> to pass consistently. Time is visibility of state change. The quanta of time is
>> very small.
> <
> In the book "Schrodinger 's Kittens" John Gribbin explains essentially how
> Stephan Weinberg won his Nobel Prize. The trick, Weinberg determined has
> to do with the interpretation of the Schrodinger equations with negative
> values in the SQRT() part. Weinberg reasoned that this set of solutions represent
> waves running backwards in time.
> <
> This solves the 2-slit experiments. The negative time photon passes through
> and sees the configuration of the experiment before the actual (forward time)
> photon has been released. So the negative time photon informs the real photon
> to act like a wave or act like a particle.
> <
> But also explains that our knowledge of particle physics requires there to be
> an atom to receive a photon that is emitted by another atom. This, in turn,
> sets up the thought experiment where a atom on one side of the universe
> emits a photon which is captured by an atom on the other side of the universe.
> To the photon, time does not pass, to the initiator (negative time photon) time
> does not pass either. So, here we have a photon that takes 13B years of flight
> time, and the photon perceives none of it. The photon is released from the
> atom and it arrives instantaneously at the other atom after 13B years of travel.
> <
> Time is not what we as humans make it out to be.
> Time merely is what it is.
> And Quantum electrodynamics is happy with the notion that some things
> travel backwards in time (at least our understanding/perception of time).
> <
> recently work on trying to ecreate the math necessary to calculate in the
> "time" between 10^-43 of Big Bang and 10^-38 of BB enumerates both time
> and space as particles of foam (plank scale foam) that when expanded
> by inflation, 3 of these become the dimensions of distance, and the other
> becomes the dimension of time. But prior to 10^-38 after BB there was
> neither the concept of distance nor the concept of "flowing time". We
> need this kind of new math in order to create the mathematical basis
> for describing physics before the emergence of dimension and time.
> QED and QCD both depend on cardinality of dimensions and the flow
> of time. Gravity does not. Merging these requires "new math".
>

Take a look at Young’s Single Slit Experiment from 1802.
You get the same distribution, the effect is interaction with the atoms of
the slit.
No need for ridiculous theories Ike negative time.
This also explains the horizontal distribution which theories ignore.
I would try heavier and lighter atoms for the slit, it’s probably been
done.

Muddling.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t53sfc$lir$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25109&group=comp.arch#25109

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: cr88...@gmail.com (BGB)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 14:21:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 283
Message-ID: <t53sfc$lir$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<8ec408ce-ec62-4811-83c6-6da9548a3a23n@googlegroups.com>
<896aad8f-2a69-49e4-8d3a-a8858a2d1005n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 19:21:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="81705acac1d9ba6e5a03f52bf3f43bc8";
logging-data="22107"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zQUWjW8QOCJtYjMGSnS4f"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R2pCA9a3A6ClmigJVLCGIC/HN2c=
In-Reply-To: <896aad8f-2a69-49e4-8d3a-a8858a2d1005n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: BGB - Fri, 6 May 2022 19:21 UTC

On 5/5/2022 8:15 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 7:39:32 PM UTC-5, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> If it were passing faster with distance, it would blue-shift. Red-shift
>>> would imply that time slows down with distance.
>> More units of time per wavelength equals a lower frequency. I think
>> it would result in apparent red-shifting to the remote observer. Point
>> is I believe that time may not pass at the same rate everywhere at
>> cosmic distances. It could explain some things.

If observing a point where time was moving faster (relative to the
observer), there would be a higher density of photons, at higher energy
levels, leading to a blue-shift.

This would be similar to if that point was rapidly approaching and
effectively compressing the time as seen from the observer.

For things that are moving away, time appears to be moving slower
(relative to the observer), so the wavelengths stretch, hence red-shift.

Similarly, assume one were traveling at relativistic speeds (presumably
inside a spaceship of some sort).

So, say, ~ 0.5 to 0.95c:
Everything ahead of the ship would appear to be moving faster relative
to the observer (and blue-shifted), whereas everything behind the ship
would appear slower (and red-shifted), with a ring of "normal looking"
light in directions perpendicular to the axis of travel (gradually
moving forward and shrinking as speed increases, *1).

At near light speed (say, past 0.95c), only things directly ahead of the
ship would be visible (like a spotlight of heavily blue-shifted
photons), whereas pretty much everything else would appear red-shifted
to a point of being pretty much invisible.

*1: One effectively reaches a point where photons coming in from
perpendicular to the axis of travel no longer travel in straight lines,
but would instead appear to be taking curved paths "behind" the ship.

Similarly, to an external observer, the ship might appear (slightly)
blue-shifted if it were being viewed head-on, but red-shifted from
pretty much every other direction.

As the ship approaches light-speed, the relative angles one could
"actually see the ship" would also decrease (besides red-shifting, it
would also appear to shorten, and then disappear, then only being
visible to observers along the axis of travel).

Time on the ship would also be moving slower from the perspective of an
external observer.

Not sure what it would "look like" if someone could somehow break
light-speed, pretty much all the numbers would turn into complex
numbers. So, it is "whatever space looking like when your spacetime axes
have complex numbers and similar" I guess...

Well, and one has to travel through a "division by zero" to get there,
which is traditionally assumed to be kind of a deal-breaker.

Granted, this is assuming one gets their via "actually going faster", vs
trying to "bend" space, or by folding the universe into a paper crane or
similar, both of these options presenting a certain set of challenges.

>>> It would also imply a universe with a curved spacetime (vs flat).
> <
>> I think time is not a dimension. I believe it is an aggregate measure. If no events
>> occur then no time passes. An event as small as an electron spinning, or
>> smaller, causes time to pass. So at our scale of existence it seems
>> to pass consistently. Time is visibility of state change. The quanta of time is
>> very small.
> <
> In the book "Schrodinger 's Kittens" John Gribbin explains essentially how
> Stephan Weinberg won his Nobel Prize. The trick, Weinberg determined has
> to do with the interpretation of the Schrodinger equations with negative
> values in the SQRT() part. Weinberg reasoned that this set of solutions represent
> waves running backwards in time.
> <
> This solves the 2-slit experiments. The negative time photon passes through
> and sees the configuration of the experiment before the actual (forward time)
> photon has been released. So the negative time photon informs the real photon
> to act like a wave or act like a particle.
> <
> But also explains that our knowledge of particle physics requires there to be
> an atom to receive a photon that is emitted by another atom. This, in turn,
> sets up the thought experiment where a atom on one side of the universe
> emits a photon which is captured by an atom on the other side of the universe.
> To the photon, time does not pass, to the initiator (negative time photon) time
> does not pass either. So, here we have a photon that takes 13B years of flight
> time, and the photon perceives none of it. The photon is released from the
> atom and it arrives instantaneously at the other atom after 13B years of travel.

Pretty much.

One can assume that time effectively runs in both directions at the same
time.

Potentially, it merely requires that past and future states are
consistent, rather than necessarily "one event leads to another", but
what appears to be the forward progress of causality is, in effect, a
result of the interaction dependencies needed to get into a given state,
and the potential set of states a given parent state can turn into.

It also gets fun if one assumes that "wavefunction collapse" doesn't
actually happen, but instead that the seeming collapse is due to those
states becoming no longer compatible with the current state and are
effectively "hidden" from a given world-state rather than no longer
existing.

Or, say, one can only "see" states where things advance in a consistent
manner, as opposed to states where "nearly everything almost immediately
decays into gamma rays" or similar (and, say, for pretty much every
moment leading to the next, there are nearly an almost infinitely larger
number where pretty much everything turns into gamma rays or similar).

Though, this could be attributed to anthropic principle / survivorship bias:
If one is still around to observe it, they "can't" be in a universe
where everything has since decayed into gamma rays.

And, potentially, the introduction of a temporal paradox effectively
nukes any universe which had introduced it (such as by leading to an
immediate vacuum decay or similar).

> <
> Time is not what we as humans make it out to be.
> Time merely is what it is.
> And Quantum electrodynamics is happy with the notion that some things
> travel backwards in time (at least our understanding/perception of time).
> <
> recently work on trying to ecreate the math necessary to calculate in the
> "time" between 10^-43 of Big Bang and 10^-38 of BB enumerates both time
> and space as particles of foam (plank scale foam) that when expanded
> by inflation, 3 of these become the dimensions of distance, and the other
> becomes the dimension of time. But prior to 10^-38 after BB there was
> neither the concept of distance nor the concept of "flowing time". We
> need this kind of new math in order to create the mathematical basis
> for describing physics before the emergence of dimension and time.
> QED and QCD both depend on cardinality of dimensions and the flow
> of time. Gravity does not. Merging these requires "new math".

....

Side note, there are reasons I mostly do programming rather than
physics. I am at least smart enough to maybe do something useful with
programming, whereas physics is full of stuff that is either difficult
to understand, and would probably not have an immediate / obvious
use-case if one did understand it (well, and also, for whatever reasons,
physics nerds tend to be pretty much some of the biggest jerks around).

Well, that and crackpots. Seemingly both physics and data compression
and similar seem to function like crackpot magnets (*1).

....

*1: Well, and in the case of data compression, it is kinda moot at this
point, in that existing compressors can already get close enough to the
Shannon limit, that any further gains are basically moot in a practical
sense (at least for lossless compression).

Tradeoffs are either:
Burn more CPU cycles for slightly better;
Go faster for slightly less;
Try to figure out some way to get slightly better without burning quite
as many clock cycles.

For lossy, there is a little more room, but similar sorts of issues.

It it like, asking why no one has managed to effectively "dethrone" the
original T.81 JPEG format; a format that gives a 10% smaller file, but
takes 4x longer to decode, and/or is prone to looking like garbage for
certain types of images, isn't really "a win".

Most of my own efforts had been more focused more on "goes fast,
compresses OK, and hopefully doesn't look totally like total garbage",
which granted, isn't really the "popular" direction.

For some use-cases, "Like JPEG, just with an alpha channel" would be
useful. This part isn't hard (and had previously hacked an alpha channel
onto the T.81 format, FWIW, *2). Issue is seemingly that pretty much
everyone else is like "Why would a photograph need an alpha channel?..."
which sorta misses the point (and then keep trying to make image and
video codecs which lack an alpha channel).


Click here to read the complete article
Re: finite but unbounded?

<e1faa945-b757-4cdd-9934-690edb2b0104n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25110&group=comp.arch#25110

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:472a:b0:6a0:23f0:6a64 with SMTP id bs42-20020a05620a472a00b006a023f06a64mr3805500qkb.534.1651868742606;
Fri, 06 May 2022 13:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1489:b0:605:e8f6:5047 with SMTP id
s9-20020a056830148900b00605e8f65047mr1655009otq.185.1651868742327; Fri, 06
May 2022 13:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 13:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t53sfc$lir$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:291:29f0:fdaf:8d40:a619:81f5;
posting-account=H_G_JQkAAADS6onOMb-dqvUozKse7mcM
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:291:29f0:fdaf:8d40:a619:81f5
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me> <d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me> <t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me> <8ec408ce-ec62-4811-83c6-6da9548a3a23n@googlegroups.com>
<896aad8f-2a69-49e4-8d3a-a8858a2d1005n@googlegroups.com> <t53sfc$lir$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e1faa945-b757-4cdd-9934-690edb2b0104n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: MitchAl...@aol.com (MitchAlsup)
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 20:25:42 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: MitchAlsup - Fri, 6 May 2022 20:25 UTC

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 2:21:20 PM UTC-5, BGB wrote:
> On 5/5/2022 8:15 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:

> Side note, there are reasons I mostly do programming rather than
> physics. I am at least smart enough to maybe do something useful with
> programming, whereas physics is full of stuff that is either difficult
> to understand, and would probably not have an immediate / obvious
> use-case if one did understand it (well, and also, for whatever reasons,
> physics nerds tend to be pretty much some of the biggest jerks around).
>
> Well, that and crackpots. Seemingly both physics and data compression
> and similar seem to function like crackpot magnets (*1).
>
> ...
>
>
> *1: Well, and in the case of data compression, it is kinda moot at this
> point, in that existing compressors can already get close enough to the
> Shannon limit, that any further gains are basically moot in a practical
> sense (at least for lossless compression).
>
> Tradeoffs are either:
> Burn more CPU cycles for slightly better;
> Go faster for slightly less;
> Try to figure out some way to get slightly better without burning quite
> as many clock cycles.
<
I was hired to build a compression program for a semiconductor "chip" tester.
<
I took me a couple of hours. I noticed that there was essentially no correspondence
reading left-to-right (or right-to-left) but more than 90% of each column was the
same as the same position in the last column. So I simply did a Run length coding
for each column and got better than 99% compression.
<
This thing worked so well, that it saved enough disk time to decompress on the fly
and instead of taking 3-4 minutes to load a data set, it took less than 5 seconds.
{Going from I/O bound to CPU (PDP-11) bound.}
<
But this does not fit very many compression problems.
>
>
> For lossy, there is a little more room, but similar sorts of issues.
>
> It it like, asking why no one has managed to effectively "dethrone" the
> original T.81 JPEG format; a format that gives a 10% smaller file, but
> takes 4x longer to decode, and/or is prone to looking like garbage for
> certain types of images, isn't really "a win".
<
JPEG has lots of artifacts that are easily visible if you are cognizant
of how the mistakes manifest themselves.
>
> Most of my own efforts had been more focused more on "goes fast,
> compresses OK, and hopefully doesn't look totally like total garbage",
> which granted, isn't really the "popular" direction.
>
A generally good notion.
>
> For some use-cases, "Like JPEG, just with an alpha channel" would be
> useful. This part isn't hard (and had previously hacked an alpha channel
> onto the T.81 format, FWIW, *2). Issue is seemingly that pretty much
> everyone else is like "Why would a photograph need an alpha channel?..."
> which sorta misses the point (and then keep trying to make image and
> video codecs which lack an alpha channel).
<
What information you need depends on what kind of post-image-capture
processing you intend to do. JPEG has no more than 8-bits of per-pixel
data, and any gamma or tonality changes result in "posterization" effects.
Going back to the 14-bit original data (pre BAYER matrix processing)
gives you a lot better starting point.
>
> Granted, doesn't really help that a lot of photo and video related
> programs assume the use of either "matte masks" or "chromakey" (creating
> a sort of "chicken and egg" situation for putting an alpha channel in a
> video codec).
<
Given the RAW data off the sensor is the best one can do for a starting point.
Then based on what kinds of corrections are to be applied, RGB or CYMK or
other data format can be better. Astro-photos, like luminance and RGB.
>
> For a lot of my own use-cases, would have much rather have had an alpha
> channel though (and, if anything, the chromakey could be used to
> generate contents of the alpha channel).
>
>
> Some other newer formats are like, "Look, we have so much improved over
> T.81's compression ratios!", looks at their examples, sees lots of
> obvious blocking artifacts, feels slightly less impressed. "But the loop
> filter makes the blocking artifacts go away!" No, it does not, it just
> softens the edges on them slightly, but an image with lots of blocking
> artifacts is still an image with lots of blocking artifacts.
<
I do not store any of my photos in JPEG. I store them in RAW and as my
post-processing talent improves, I can go back and fix them later. 20
years ago, disks were expensive, now you can get 1TB drives at $35.
Why not just get more drives ?
>
>
> *2: Or, one can "improve on" the JPEG in a compression sense, and add an
> alpha channel, but then one mostly ends up with:
> Well, still using DCT, 4:4:0 chroma subsampling, ...
> But with:
> A slightly different zigzag encoding
> Z3.F5 with a Deflate-like scheme for VLNs does slightly better.
> Tweaks to the Huffman scheme:
> More compact Huffman table encoding;
> Limiting symbol lengths (eg, 12 or 13 bits) can make codec faster;
> Using LSB-first bit-packing (like Deflate);
> Getting rid of the FF-escape scheme (wastes cycles).
> Using Trellis filtering can improve Q/bpp slightly.
> This also works with T.81 JPEG.
>
> But, ultimately, this is still kinda meh...
>
Still not as good as you can do with 14-bit RAW data.
>
....

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t54ldd$uoo$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25115&group=comp.arch#25115

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: cr88...@gmail.com (BGB)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 21:26:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 336
Message-ID: <t54ldd$uoo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<8ec408ce-ec62-4811-83c6-6da9548a3a23n@googlegroups.com>
<896aad8f-2a69-49e4-8d3a-a8858a2d1005n@googlegroups.com>
<t53sfc$lir$1@dont-email.me>
<e1faa945-b757-4cdd-9934-690edb2b0104n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 02:26:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="64d3a1357b8d4a06aa45d2020137e407";
logging-data="31512"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NPTIixe6tDaMzSESeVJZC"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:n8z5blsYcLA/1uNZlOu6dJ2EDbM=
In-Reply-To: <e1faa945-b757-4cdd-9934-690edb2b0104n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: BGB - Sat, 7 May 2022 02:26 UTC

On 5/6/2022 3:25 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 2:21:20 PM UTC-5, BGB wrote:
>> On 5/5/2022 8:15 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>
>> Side note, there are reasons I mostly do programming rather than
>> physics. I am at least smart enough to maybe do something useful with
>> programming, whereas physics is full of stuff that is either difficult
>> to understand, and would probably not have an immediate / obvious
>> use-case if one did understand it (well, and also, for whatever reasons,
>> physics nerds tend to be pretty much some of the biggest jerks around).
>>
>> Well, that and crackpots. Seemingly both physics and data compression
>> and similar seem to function like crackpot magnets (*1).
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> *1: Well, and in the case of data compression, it is kinda moot at this
>> point, in that existing compressors can already get close enough to the
>> Shannon limit, that any further gains are basically moot in a practical
>> sense (at least for lossless compression).
>>
>> Tradeoffs are either:
>> Burn more CPU cycles for slightly better;
>> Go faster for slightly less;
>> Try to figure out some way to get slightly better without burning quite
>> as many clock cycles.
> <
> I was hired to build a compression program for a semiconductor "chip" tester.
> <
> I took me a couple of hours. I noticed that there was essentially no correspondence
> reading left-to-right (or right-to-left) but more than 90% of each column was the
> same as the same position in the last column. So I simply did a Run length coding
> for each column and got better than 99% compression.
> <
> This thing worked so well, that it saved enough disk time to decompress on the fly
> and instead of taking 3-4 minutes to load a data set, it took less than 5 seconds.
> {Going from I/O bound to CPU (PDP-11) bound.}
> <
> But this does not fit very many compression problems.

Pretty much.

The modern solution would probably be throwing an LZ77 variant at it.

Though, for a columnar numeric data or similar, LZ77 may not be optimal.

For general data compression, some major options (LZ77 based) are:
Byte-oriented backend (like LZ4), which is "reasonably fast"
Huffman coded (like Deflate), which is slower, but better compression.
Range coded (like LZMA), which is slower still

Huffman can help slightly over a byte-oriented encoding, but its gains
are more modest.

For an LZ77 variant, one can get a little more gain by increasing the
size of the sliding window, but much past around 128K or so doesn't gain
much.

Huffman looks "more impressive" when compressing ASCII text files than
general-purpose binary data, but mostly because ASCII has somewhat
skewed symbol probabilities.

There are relatively few cases where I feel Range coding and similar are
"worth it" (slight gain in compression for a big hit in speed), and I
would suspect that quite probably, more of the compression advantage of
LZMA over Deflate is more due to the larger sliding window than due to
the range coder.

It is possible to get a noticeable speed-boost for a Huffman oriented
format via reducing the maximum symbol length (hence why a lot of my
"recent" Huffman-coded formats had been using a 12 or 13 bit limit
rather than 15 or 16).

Shaving a few bits off the maximum symbol length can save a whole lot of
L1 misses...

>>
>>
>> For lossy, there is a little more room, but similar sorts of issues.
>>
>> It it like, asking why no one has managed to effectively "dethrone" the
>> original T.81 JPEG format; a format that gives a 10% smaller file, but
>> takes 4x longer to decode, and/or is prone to looking like garbage for
>> certain types of images, isn't really "a win".
> <
> JPEG has lots of artifacts that are easily visible if you are cognizant
> of how the mistakes manifest themselves.

It generally holds up reasonably OK at higher quality levels though.

Most of the lossy formats which had attempted to dethrone it either have
similar or worse artifacts when trying to pull off smaller file sizes.

>>
>> Most of my own efforts had been more focused more on "goes fast,
>> compresses OK, and hopefully doesn't look totally like total garbage",
>> which granted, isn't really the "popular" direction.
>>
> A generally good notion.
>>
>> For some use-cases, "Like JPEG, just with an alpha channel" would be
>> useful. This part isn't hard (and had previously hacked an alpha channel
>> onto the T.81 format, FWIW, *2). Issue is seemingly that pretty much
>> everyone else is like "Why would a photograph need an alpha channel?..."
>> which sorta misses the point (and then keep trying to make image and
>> video codecs which lack an alpha channel).
> <
> What information you need depends on what kind of post-image-capture
> processing you intend to do. JPEG has no more than 8-bits of per-pixel
> data, and any gamma or tonality changes result in "posterization" effects.
> Going back to the 14-bit original data (pre BAYER matrix processing)
> gives you a lot better starting point.

Mostly at the time I was using it for things like texture maps.

For example, in my first "BGBTech Engine" (~ 2009 - 2012):
Textures were stored in a customized version of T.81 JPEG;
It could support an alpha channel as an extension;
Experimentally supported HDR as well (RGBE).
Was typically decoded internally to BC7 textures.
Had ended up developing a faster "block by block" transcoder (*1).

*1: It was faster to perform the transcoding in terms of 16x16 pixel
blocks, than to decode all the way to a raster image and then transcode
this to BC7.

The A/E channel was stored as a second embedded monochrome JPEG image,
with the top-level format able to be decoded in a normal JPEG decoder
(albeit without the A/E channel).

Typically, it was also using a tweaked colorspace (like YCbCr, but with
the math tweaked to make it cheaper to decode).

I had also experimented with video codecs designs:
BTIC1C: Derived from the RPZA design, easy to transcode to to DXT1.
If you want "S3TC but in an AVI video"...
RPZA was almost this already.
Added an alpha channel, could be decoded to DXT5.
Added a Deflate stage, as this helped considerably with file sizes.
BTIC1H: Redesigned codec
Still 4x4x2 bit blocks internally.
Supported sub-sampling to 2x2x2 (8 bits).
Used a Rice-coded bitstream delta prediction.
Typically, only commands and color deltas were Rice coded.
BTIC4B: Redesigned again
Basically similar to BTIC1H, but went to 8x8 blocks.
So, blocks were: 8x8x2, 8x4x2, 4x8x2, 4x4x2, 4x2x2, 2x4x2, 2x2x2
Faster than 1H, but considerable increase in code complexity.

I later made a "BGBTech2 Engine", which had used the I-Frame format from
BTIC4B for storing textures, as it was both faster to transcode to BC7,
and gave better quality when doing so, if compared with my older JPEG
variant.

Q/bpp was fairly competitive with JPEG.

Actually, I was able to get Q/bpp for BTIC4B to be fairly competitive
with MPEG-1, albeit it sucked pretty bad if compared with either MPEG-2
or Theora.

If decoded to RGBA32, BTIC4B still tended to look a bit worse than JPEG.
I had also spent a while trying to resolve an issue I could refer to as
the "Rainbow Dash hair", where (as a big obvious drawback of the 8x8
color cells), trying to encode things like "My Little Pony: Friendship
is Magic" using this coded would result in some fairly obvious chroma
artifacts with a character named "Rainbow Dash", whose hair basically
followed a rainbow pattern.

Only real workaround was to detect cases like this, and then use
color-cell blocks with separate YUV interpolation (say,
Y=8x8x2;U,V=4x4x2 or Y=4x4x2;U,V=2x2x2).

Further adding to the codec complexity and (compared with the other
blocks) significantly slower to transcode to BC7 (which couldn't really
deal all that effectively with these cases either).

Generally, these blocks were not used in the "optimize for transcoding
to BC7" mode (since all one could really do with them, was decode them
to RGBA, and then try and mostly fail at re-encoding them effectively
using BC7).

While BC7 did have blocks which supported multiple "partitions", using
them effectively from a fast / real-time encoder was easier said than done.

Likewise, BC7 partition blocks were still not enough to avoid causing
obvious artifacts on "Rainbow Dash". I mostly just sat around being
annoyed that BC7 lacked anything comparable to 4:2:0 chroma subsampling.

A more recent codec (BTIC5A/B) was mostly designed because BTIC4B wasn't
really fast enough for a video player running on my BJX2 core (for
320x200 video).


Click here to read the complete article
Re: finite but unbounded?

<t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25118&group=comp.arch#25118

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david.br...@hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 12:08:15 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me> <t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 10:08:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8f0f52c4097426dac6116fd51c30d44d";
logging-data="5038"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+w1CzK1ocBc6Y5+MSbm1bT6pfD/GGvTBs="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Zmc68N1rVqLa2LdjkprJnJK+/TI=
In-Reply-To: <t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: David Brown - Sat, 7 May 2022 10:08 UTC

On 06/05/2022 20:33, Brett wrote:
> Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> wrote:
>> On 5/6/2022 2:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 05/05/2022 22:43, Brett wrote:

>>>
>>>> I knew that most of my astronomy textbook was bullshit, but being before
>>>> the internet could not prove such with reasonable effort. I was in
>>>> college
>>>> to actually learn, not memorize and recite bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> By bullshit I mean random interesting ideas that kinda fit the curve but
>>>> not really, but by being interesting won the group mob mentality lottery.
>>>>
>>>> I have since learned life is all bullshit.
>>>
>>> What a sad outlook you have.  I don't really understand how people can
>>> get themselves onto such a self-destructive spiral of paranoia and
>>> distrust, though I do understand how it is a vicious circle that gets
>>> worse and worse.
>>>
>>> I hope you can find some way to restore a bit of faith in your fellow
>>> humans and the world around you.
>>
>> +1
>>
>
> A more generous and accurate interpretation is that we are all muddling
> though life. Don’t look to close at your hero’s as they are just as
> muddled. ;)
>

Is that how you see your position? Certainly it is more generous to
yourself than how you come across in your posts. If it is more accurate
or not, only you can say - but if it /is/ more accurate, then you do not
do yourself justice in your posting.

The single outstanding feature that makes humans different from other
animals is our ability to learn from the experiences of others. (Some
other species do so to a very limited extent.) We don't need to find
out everything for ourselves, or do all the research, or trial and error
- we can learn from others. If you are unable to trust other people,
trust the majority and established opinion of experts, you have lost a
key part of what it means to be human.

It is important to remember that /sometimes/ the established majority
understanding is wrong. But most of the time, it is correct - or at
least roughly as correct as possible given current data. Mavericks,
outliers, random Youtube or Facebook posters that have a very different
view of things, are almost always wrong.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<bbtf7hddljge5b2pcvgu7kgg3mnnbgqne2@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25131&group=comp.arch#25131

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: gneun...@comcast.net (George Neuner)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 12:58:10 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <bbtf7hddljge5b2pcvgu7kgg3mnnbgqne2@4ax.com>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com> <t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me> <d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com> <t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me> <t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me> <8ec408ce-ec62-4811-83c6-6da9548a3a23n@googlegroups.com> <896aad8f-2a69-49e4-8d3a-a8858a2d1005n@googlegroups.com> <t53qlb$6g8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9ad275dd42c56b59c75fbf973a40b8a6";
logging-data="4265"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+EQnzXd3x5v02w+mOLkYTbICwVx9g9Y6c="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2QeGmEasACL4TW8NlAor1SSNOG8=
 by: George Neuner - Sun, 8 May 2022 16:58 UTC

On Fri, 6 May 2022 18:50:19 -0000 (UTC), Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 7:39:32 PM UTC-5, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> If it were passing faster with distance, it would blue-shift. Red-shift
>>>> would imply that time slows down with distance.
>>> More units of time per wavelength equals a lower frequency. I think
>>> it would result in apparent red-shifting to the remote observer. Point
>>> is I believe that time may not pass at the same rate everywhere at
>>> cosmic distances. It could explain some things.
>>>> It would also imply a universe with a curved spacetime (vs flat).
>> <
>>> I think time is not a dimension. I believe it is an aggregate measure. If no events
>>> occur then no time passes. An event as small as an electron spinning, or
>>> smaller, causes time to pass. So at our scale of existence it seems
>>> to pass consistently. Time is visibility of state change. The quanta of time is
>>> very small.
>> <
>> In the book "Schrodinger 's Kittens" John Gribbin explains essentially how
>> Stephan Weinberg won his Nobel Prize. The trick, Weinberg determined has
>> to do with the interpretation of the Schrodinger equations with negative
>> values in the SQRT() part. Weinberg reasoned that this set of solutions represent
>> waves running backwards in time.
>> <
>> This solves the 2-slit experiments. The negative time photon passes through
>> and sees the configuration of the experiment before the actual (forward time)
>> photon has been released. So the negative time photon informs the real photon
>> to act like a wave or act like a particle.
>> <
>> But also explains that our knowledge of particle physics requires there to be
>> an atom to receive a photon that is emitted by another atom. This, in turn,
>> sets up the thought experiment where a atom on one side of the universe
>> emits a photon which is captured by an atom on the other side of the universe.
>> To the photon, time does not pass, to the initiator (negative time photon) time
>> does not pass either. So, here we have a photon that takes 13B years of flight
>> time, and the photon perceives none of it. The photon is released from the
>> atom and it arrives instantaneously at the other atom after 13B years of travel.
>> <
>> Time is not what we as humans make it out to be.
>> Time merely is what it is.
>> And Quantum electrodynamics is happy with the notion that some things
>> travel backwards in time (at least our understanding/perception of time).
>> <
>> recently work on trying to ecreate the math necessary to calculate in the
>> "time" between 10^-43 of Big Bang and 10^-38 of BB enumerates both time
>> and space as particles of foam (plank scale foam) that when expanded
>> by inflation, 3 of these become the dimensions of distance, and the other
>> becomes the dimension of time. But prior to 10^-38 after BB there was
>> neither the concept of distance nor the concept of "flowing time". We
>> need this kind of new math in order to create the mathematical basis
>> for describing physics before the emergence of dimension and time.
>> QED and QCD both depend on cardinality of dimensions and the flow
>> of time. Gravity does not. Merging these requires "new math".
>>
>
>Take a look at Young’s Single Slit Experiment from 1802.
>You get the same distribution, the effect is interaction with the atoms of
>the slit.
>No need for ridiculous theories Ike negative time.
>This also explains the horizontal distribution which theories ignore.
>I would try heavier and lighter atoms for the slit, it’s probably been
>done.

In fact, the double-slit experiment has been replicated in the 'macro'
world using easily visible objects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGCtMKthRh4

>Muddling.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<9b80e998-0354-4a28-9e48-adc35366cb01n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25134&group=comp.arch#25134

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d0c:b0:45b:3c7:fd68 with SMTP id 12-20020a0562140d0c00b0045b03c7fd68mr3758507qvh.77.1652033270937;
Sun, 08 May 2022 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:11ca:b0:2d9:a01a:488b with SMTP id
p10-20020a05680811ca00b002d9a01a488bmr9763551oiv.214.1652033270694; Sun, 08
May 2022 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <bbtf7hddljge5b2pcvgu7kgg3mnnbgqne2@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:291:29f0:c058:497c:25c3:26c7;
posting-account=H_G_JQkAAADS6onOMb-dqvUozKse7mcM
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:291:29f0:c058:497c:25c3:26c7
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me> <d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me> <t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me> <8ec408ce-ec62-4811-83c6-6da9548a3a23n@googlegroups.com>
<896aad8f-2a69-49e4-8d3a-a8858a2d1005n@googlegroups.com> <t53qlb$6g8$1@dont-email.me>
<bbtf7hddljge5b2pcvgu7kgg3mnnbgqne2@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9b80e998-0354-4a28-9e48-adc35366cb01n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: MitchAl...@aol.com (MitchAlsup)
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 18:07:50 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: MitchAlsup - Sun, 8 May 2022 18:07 UTC

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 11:58:15 AM UTC-5, George Neuner wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 18:50:19 -0000 (UTC), Brett <gg...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >MitchAlsup <Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 7:39:32 PM UTC-5, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> If it were passing faster with distance, it would blue-shift. Red-shift
> >>>> would imply that time slows down with distance.
> >>> More units of time per wavelength equals a lower frequency. I think
> >>> it would result in apparent red-shifting to the remote observer. Point
> >>> is I believe that time may not pass at the same rate everywhere at
> >>> cosmic distances. It could explain some things.
> >>>> It would also imply a universe with a curved spacetime (vs flat).
> >> <
> >>> I think time is not a dimension. I believe it is an aggregate measure.. If no events
> >>> occur then no time passes. An event as small as an electron spinning, or
> >>> smaller, causes time to pass. So at our scale of existence it seems
> >>> to pass consistently. Time is visibility of state change. The quanta of time is
> >>> very small.
> >> <
> >> In the book "Schrodinger 's Kittens" John Gribbin explains essentially how
> >> Stephan Weinberg won his Nobel Prize. The trick, Weinberg determined has
> >> to do with the interpretation of the Schrodinger equations with negative
> >> values in the SQRT() part. Weinberg reasoned that this set of solutions represent
> >> waves running backwards in time.
> >> <
> >> This solves the 2-slit experiments. The negative time photon passes through
> >> and sees the configuration of the experiment before the actual (forward time)
> >> photon has been released. So the negative time photon informs the real photon
> >> to act like a wave or act like a particle.
> >> <
> >> But also explains that our knowledge of particle physics requires there to be
> >> an atom to receive a photon that is emitted by another atom. This, in turn,
> >> sets up the thought experiment where a atom on one side of the universe
> >> emits a photon which is captured by an atom on the other side of the universe.
> >> To the photon, time does not pass, to the initiator (negative time photon) time
> >> does not pass either. So, here we have a photon that takes 13B years of flight
> >> time, and the photon perceives none of it. The photon is released from the
> >> atom and it arrives instantaneously at the other atom after 13B years of travel.
> >> <
> >> Time is not what we as humans make it out to be.
> >> Time merely is what it is.
> >> And Quantum electrodynamics is happy with the notion that some things
> >> travel backwards in time (at least our understanding/perception of time).
> >> <
> >> recently work on trying to ecreate the math necessary to calculate in the
> >> "time" between 10^-43 of Big Bang and 10^-38 of BB enumerates both time
> >> and space as particles of foam (plank scale foam) that when expanded
> >> by inflation, 3 of these become the dimensions of distance, and the other
> >> becomes the dimension of time. But prior to 10^-38 after BB there was
> >> neither the concept of distance nor the concept of "flowing time". We
> >> need this kind of new math in order to create the mathematical basis
> >> for describing physics before the emergence of dimension and time.
> >> QED and QCD both depend on cardinality of dimensions and the flow
> >> of time. Gravity does not. Merging these requires "new math".
> >>
> >
> >Take a look at Young’s Single Slit Experiment from 1802.
> >You get the same distribution, the effect is interaction with the atoms of
> >the slit.
> >No need for ridiculous theories Ike negative time.
> >This also explains the horizontal distribution which theories ignore.
> >I would try heavier and lighter atoms for the slit, it’s probably been
> >done.
> In fact, the double-slit experiment has been replicated in the 'macro'
> world using easily visible objects.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGCtMKthRh4
>
Cute !
>
> >Muddling.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<ccfe6daf-2a2c-42c1-a5dc-704d233101f6n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25137&group=comp.arch#25137

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2683:b0:69c:8c9c:5f80 with SMTP id c3-20020a05620a268300b0069c8c9c5f80mr9669135qkp.367.1652042909563;
Sun, 08 May 2022 13:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:34b:0:b0:605:f0f1:e28e with SMTP id
69-20020a9d034b000000b00605f0f1e28emr4720673otv.304.1652042909297; Sun, 08
May 2022 13:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 13:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4seho$kmm$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:291:29f0:c058:497c:25c3:26c7;
posting-account=H_G_JQkAAADS6onOMb-dqvUozKse7mcM
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:291:29f0:c058:497c:25c3:26c7
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4seho$kmm$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ccfe6daf-2a2c-42c1-a5dc-704d233101f6n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: MitchAl...@aol.com (MitchAlsup)
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 20:48:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: MitchAlsup - Sun, 8 May 2022 20:48 UTC

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 6:40:44 PM UTC-5, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> MitchAlsup <Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
> >> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
> > <
> > The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
> > Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
> > <
> > However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
> > light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
> “Universe grew faster than the speed of light” Universe speeding up, etc.
> These fools just can’t stop dividing by zero and violating their own rules.
>
<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr6nNvw55C4
<
> Red shift by distance is better explained by decay. There is a good paper
> on it.
> > Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
> > of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
> > <
> > The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
> > in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
> > worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
> > number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}
> >

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25144&group=comp.arch#25144

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ggt...@yahoo.com (Brett)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 00:27:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me>
<t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me>
<t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me>
<t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 00:27:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="180ef3b4578548d0f919b4f1880a648c";
logging-data="10751"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+pKaKgBqPIhmoNTBjFMO08"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6HC27CMSL8MgCXgQb/B+n+p11Zk=
sha1:GrEqzpNgfHKdQkB5z+qHHN97NmY=
 by: Brett - Mon, 9 May 2022 00:27 UTC

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 06/05/2022 20:33, Brett wrote:
>> Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2022 2:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 05/05/2022 22:43, Brett wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>> I knew that most of my astronomy textbook was bullshit, but being before
>>>>> the internet could not prove such with reasonable effort. I was in
>>>>> college
>>>>> to actually learn, not memorize and recite bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> By bullshit I mean random interesting ideas that kinda fit the curve but
>>>>> not really, but by being interesting won the group mob mentality lottery.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have since learned life is all bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> What a sad outlook you have.  I don't really understand how people can
>>>> get themselves onto such a self-destructive spiral of paranoia and
>>>> distrust, though I do understand how it is a vicious circle that gets
>>>> worse and worse.
>>>>
>>>> I hope you can find some way to restore a bit of faith in your fellow
>>>> humans and the world around you.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>> A more generous and accurate interpretation is that we are all muddling
>> though life. Don’t look to close at your hero’s as they are just as
>> muddled. ;)
>>
>
> Is that how you see your position? Certainly it is more generous to
> yourself than how you come across in your posts. If it is more accurate
> or not, only you can say - but if it /is/ more accurate, then you do not
> do yourself justice in your posting.
>
> The single outstanding feature that makes humans different from other
> animals is our ability to learn from the experiences of others. (Some
> other species do so to a very limited extent.) We don't need to find
> out everything for ourselves, or do all the research, or trial and error
> - we can learn from others. If you are unable to trust other people,
> trust the majority and established opinion of experts, you have lost a
> key part of what it means to be human.

Half of research papers cannot be reproduced. Google it.
Add in money or politics and the fraud quickly goes epic.

Cheap available effective treatments are slandered in favor of patented
trillion dollar “cures” that only last six months.

> It is important to remember that /sometimes/ the established majority
> understanding is wrong. But most of the time, it is correct - or at
> least roughly as correct as possible given current data. Mavericks,
> outliers, random Youtube or Facebook posters that have a very different
> view of things, are almost always wrong.

The majority is only right when you add enough time to the equation.
As witnessed by “the science” flip flopping that has been hoisted on the
public.
The majority is a completely useless measure.

The maverick’s generally win, the problem can be picking the right one of
thousands.

Real science does slowly advance despite the mud.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t59p58$jpm$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25145&group=comp.arch#25145

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: iva...@millcomputing.com (Ivan Godard)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 18:01:28 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <t59p58$jpm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me> <t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me> <t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
<t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 01:01:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b6e1250913471c33c07fa5515aa695d5";
logging-data="20278"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195a8ZpOQDMioo+YQUUFoa1"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SCyLnSMHU/BXyz94GtUtd6TxOCw=
In-Reply-To: <t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Ivan Godard - Mon, 9 May 2022 01:01 UTC

On 5/8/2022 5:27 PM, Brett wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 06/05/2022 20:33, Brett wrote:
>>> Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2022 2:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 05/05/2022 22:43, Brett wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I knew that most of my astronomy textbook was bullshit, but being before
>>>>>> the internet could not prove such with reasonable effort. I was in
>>>>>> college
>>>>>> to actually learn, not memorize and recite bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By bullshit I mean random interesting ideas that kinda fit the curve but
>>>>>> not really, but by being interesting won the group mob mentality lottery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have since learned life is all bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> What a sad outlook you have.  I don't really understand how people can
>>>>> get themselves onto such a self-destructive spiral of paranoia and
>>>>> distrust, though I do understand how it is a vicious circle that gets
>>>>> worse and worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope you can find some way to restore a bit of faith in your fellow
>>>>> humans and the world around you.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>
>>> A more generous and accurate interpretation is that we are all muddling
>>> though life. Don’t look to close at your hero’s as they are just as
>>> muddled. ;)
>>>
>>
>> Is that how you see your position? Certainly it is more generous to
>> yourself than how you come across in your posts. If it is more accurate
>> or not, only you can say - but if it /is/ more accurate, then you do not
>> do yourself justice in your posting.
>>
>> The single outstanding feature that makes humans different from other
>> animals is our ability to learn from the experiences of others. (Some
>> other species do so to a very limited extent.) We don't need to find
>> out everything for ourselves, or do all the research, or trial and error
>> - we can learn from others. If you are unable to trust other people,
>> trust the majority and established opinion of experts, you have lost a
>> key part of what it means to be human.
>
> Half of research papers cannot be reproduced. Google it.
> Add in money or politics and the fraud quickly goes epic.
>
> Cheap available effective treatments are slandered in favor of patented
> trillion dollar “cures” that only last six months.
>
>> It is important to remember that /sometimes/ the established majority
>> understanding is wrong. But most of the time, it is correct - or at
>> least roughly as correct as possible given current data. Mavericks,
>> outliers, random Youtube or Facebook posters that have a very different
>> view of things, are almost always wrong.
>
> The majority is only right when you add enough time to the equation.
> As witnessed by “the science” flip flopping that has been hoisted on the
> public.

Perhaps you mean "foisted"?

> The majority is a completely useless measure.
>
> The maverick’s generally win, the problem can be picking the right one of
> thousands.
>
> Real science does slowly advance despite the mud.
>

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t59q1j$ts8$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25146&group=comp.arch#25146

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ggt...@yahoo.com (Brett)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 01:16:37 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <t59q1j$ts8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me>
<t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<8ec408ce-ec62-4811-83c6-6da9548a3a23n@googlegroups.com>
<896aad8f-2a69-49e4-8d3a-a8858a2d1005n@googlegroups.com>
<t53qlb$6g8$1@dont-email.me>
<bbtf7hddljge5b2pcvgu7kgg3mnnbgqne2@4ax.com>
<9b80e998-0354-4a28-9e48-adc35366cb01n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 01:16:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="180ef3b4578548d0f919b4f1880a648c";
logging-data="30600"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18A3WLsjFlNWRzvMH6gbfll"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GOcw0tgjkGYGZswC4ee5SvmxVv0=
sha1:FklIbE91ffTatgnEO4yw5ldrgVE=
 by: Brett - Mon, 9 May 2022 01:16 UTC

MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 11:58:15 AM UTC-5, George Neuner wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 18:50:19 -0000 (UTC), Brett <gg...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> MitchAlsup <Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 7:39:32 PM UTC-5, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> If it were passing faster with distance, it would blue-shift. Red-shift
>>>>>> would imply that time slows down with distance.
>>>>> More units of time per wavelength equals a lower frequency. I think
>>>>> it would result in apparent red-shifting to the remote observer. Point
>>>>> is I believe that time may not pass at the same rate everywhere at
>>>>> cosmic distances. It could explain some things.
>>>>>> It would also imply a universe with a curved spacetime (vs flat).
>>>> <
>>>>> I think time is not a dimension. I believe it is an aggregate measure. If no events
>>>>> occur then no time passes. An event as small as an electron spinning, or
>>>>> smaller, causes time to pass. So at our scale of existence it seems
>>>>> to pass consistently. Time is visibility of state change. The quanta of time is
>>>>> very small.
>>>> <
>>>> In the book "Schrodinger 's Kittens" John Gribbin explains essentially how
>>>> Stephan Weinberg won his Nobel Prize. The trick, Weinberg determined has
>>>> to do with the interpretation of the Schrodinger equations with negative
>>>> values in the SQRT() part. Weinberg reasoned that this set of solutions represent
>>>> waves running backwards in time.
>>>> <
>>>> This solves the 2-slit experiments. The negative time photon passes through
>>>> and sees the configuration of the experiment before the actual (forward time)
>>>> photon has been released. So the negative time photon informs the real photon
>>>> to act like a wave or act like a particle.
>>>> <
>>>> But also explains that our knowledge of particle physics requires there to be
>>>> an atom to receive a photon that is emitted by another atom. This, in turn,
>>>> sets up the thought experiment where a atom on one side of the universe
>>>> emits a photon which is captured by an atom on the other side of the universe.
>>>> To the photon, time does not pass, to the initiator (negative time photon) time
>>>> does not pass either. So, here we have a photon that takes 13B years of flight
>>>> time, and the photon perceives none of it. The photon is released from the
>>>> atom and it arrives instantaneously at the other atom after 13B years of travel.
>>>> <
>>>> Time is not what we as humans make it out to be.
>>>> Time merely is what it is.
>>>> And Quantum electrodynamics is happy with the notion that some things
>>>> travel backwards in time (at least our understanding/perception of time).
>>>> <
>>>> recently work on trying to ecreate the math necessary to calculate in the
>>>> "time" between 10^-43 of Big Bang and 10^-38 of BB enumerates both time
>>>> and space as particles of foam (plank scale foam) that when expanded
>>>> by inflation, 3 of these become the dimensions of distance, and the other
>>>> becomes the dimension of time. But prior to 10^-38 after BB there was
>>>> neither the concept of distance nor the concept of "flowing time". We
>>>> need this kind of new math in order to create the mathematical basis
>>>> for describing physics before the emergence of dimension and time.
>>>> QED and QCD both depend on cardinality of dimensions and the flow
>>>> of time. Gravity does not. Merging these requires "new math".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Take a look at Young’s Single Slit Experiment from 1802.
>>> You get the same distribution, the effect is interaction with the atoms of
>>> the slit.
>>> No need for ridiculous theories Ike negative time.
>>> This also explains the horizontal distribution which theories ignore.
>>> I would try heavier and lighter atoms for the slit, it’s probably been
>>> done.
>> In fact, the double-slit experiment has been replicated in the 'macro'
>> world using easily visible objects.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGCtMKthRh4
>>
> Cute !

Looks like part of an episode of “Through the wormhole with Morgan Freeman”
These are the best videos that have ever aired, worth watching.

I saved three episodes on my TiVo:
“Can we all become geniuses?”
“Can we live forever?”
“Is gun crime a virus?”

>>> Muddling.
>

Re: finite but unbounded?

<jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25147&group=comp.arch#25147

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: monn...@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 21:18:43 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me> <t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me> <t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
<t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="36db61cec5c1ceb85de1c6b7ce0cffb5";
logging-data="24991"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX186gQYSw3mo+XQ4RhDUquAF"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pHjXGcMM914jn4jck7/0N+4F5qc=
sha1:96TpA87TisoIB0Zd46RVVNcJDck=
 by: Stefan Monnier - Mon, 9 May 2022 01:18 UTC

> Half of research papers cannot be reproduced. Google it.
> Add in money or politics and the fraud quickly goes epic.

Most researchers would make more money doing something else than
research, so I don't buy this "money" argument very much.

In most cases you don't need to resort to money, politics, or fraud, to
explain the impossibility to reproduce a paper's results: writing
a research paper such that it can be reproduced is just hard.

Stefan

Re: finite but unbounded?

<21da5467-d641-4c4b-b98b-1811bb45c9cfn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25149&group=comp.arch#25149

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a37:b442:0:b0:69a:fc75:ca52 with SMTP id d63-20020a37b442000000b0069afc75ca52mr10524769qkf.730.1652061266400;
Sun, 08 May 2022 18:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4518:0:b0:325:9228:fde2 with SMTP id
l24-20020a544518000000b003259228fde2mr9598922oil.16.1652061266165; Sun, 08
May 2022 18:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 18:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:291:29f0:c058:497c:25c3:26c7;
posting-account=H_G_JQkAAADS6onOMb-dqvUozKse7mcM
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:291:29f0:c058:497c:25c3:26c7
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me> <d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me> <t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me> <t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me> <t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me> <t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me> <t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>
<jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <21da5467-d641-4c4b-b98b-1811bb45c9cfn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: MitchAl...@aol.com (MitchAlsup)
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 01:54:26 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: MitchAlsup - Mon, 9 May 2022 01:54 UTC

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 8:18:47 PM UTC-5, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Half of research papers cannot be reproduced. Google it.
> > Add in money or politics and the fraud quickly goes epic.
> Most researchers would make more money doing something else than
> research, so I don't buy this "money" argument very much.
>
> In most cases you don't need to resort to money, politics, or fraud, to
> explain the impossibility to reproduce a paper's results: writing
> a research paper such that it can be reproduced is just hard.
>
Never attribute to malfeasance that which can be attributed to stupidity.
>
> Stefan

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t5a98k$ii3$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25153&group=comp.arch#25153

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ggt...@yahoo.com (Brett)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 05:36:20 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <t5a98k$ii3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me>
<t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me>
<t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me>
<t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
<t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>
<jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
<21da5467-d641-4c4b-b98b-1811bb45c9cfn@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 05:36:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="180ef3b4578548d0f919b4f1880a648c";
logging-data="19011"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/gLnpc1NPRvCJloB81uer"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qs5yoEaP7ON9EYeViBmd3HureHo=
sha1:j2TXlHhnKZpcVriTPnir4fGUXcA=
 by: Brett - Mon, 9 May 2022 05:36 UTC

MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 8:18:47 PM UTC-5, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Half of research papers cannot be reproduced. Google it.
>>> Add in money or politics and the fraud quickly goes epic.
>> Most researchers would make more money doing something else than
>> research, so I don't buy this "money" argument very much.
>>
>> In most cases you don't need to resort to money, politics, or fraud, to
>> explain the impossibility to reproduce a paper's results: writing
>> a research paper such that it can be reproduced is just hard.
>>
> Never attribute to malfeasance that which can be attributed to stupidity.

Publish or perish leads to just random crap getting published. No stupidity
required.

Drug trials are notorious for slants that are just short of criminal, in
that you can’t prove criminal intent, but the results always slant that
direction.

The trillion dollar cholesterol drug scam that has harmed millions for no
benefit is a shining example that is worse than the addictive pain drug
scam big Pharma has been prosecuted for. The billion dollar payout
judgements are a tiny fraction of those 100s of billions made, so there is
a negative incentive to fix the problem.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t5aa2t$n2c$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25154&group=comp.arch#25154

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ggt...@yahoo.com (Brett)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 05:50:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <t5aa2t$n2c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me>
<t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me>
<t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me>
<t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
<t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>
<t59p58$jpm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 05:50:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="180ef3b4578548d0f919b4f1880a648c";
logging-data="23628"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+bOHP0c7+e/7xAX/d2XeE8"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f7/qyInw8lgBngCV6ejeyoopx8Q=
sha1:e6ZHBYUD9vNYWBveIalSbQLMozc=
 by: Brett - Mon, 9 May 2022 05:50 UTC

Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 5:27 PM, Brett wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 06/05/2022 20:33, Brett wrote:
>>>> Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2022 2:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/05/2022 22:43, Brett wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I knew that most of my astronomy textbook was bullshit, but being before
>>>>>>> the internet could not prove such with reasonable effort. I was in
>>>>>>> college
>>>>>>> to actually learn, not memorize and recite bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By bullshit I mean random interesting ideas that kinda fit the curve but
>>>>>>> not really, but by being interesting won the group mob mentality lottery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have since learned life is all bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What a sad outlook you have.  I don't really understand how people can
>>>>>> get themselves onto such a self-destructive spiral of paranoia and
>>>>>> distrust, though I do understand how it is a vicious circle that gets
>>>>>> worse and worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope you can find some way to restore a bit of faith in your fellow
>>>>>> humans and the world around you.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A more generous and accurate interpretation is that we are all muddling
>>>> though life. Don’t look to close at your hero’s as they are just as
>>>> muddled. ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that how you see your position? Certainly it is more generous to
>>> yourself than how you come across in your posts. If it is more accurate
>>> or not, only you can say - but if it /is/ more accurate, then you do not
>>> do yourself justice in your posting.
>>>
>>> The single outstanding feature that makes humans different from other
>>> animals is our ability to learn from the experiences of others. (Some
>>> other species do so to a very limited extent.) We don't need to find
>>> out everything for ourselves, or do all the research, or trial and error
>>> - we can learn from others. If you are unable to trust other people,
>>> trust the majority and established opinion of experts, you have lost a
>>> key part of what it means to be human.
>>
>> Half of research papers cannot be reproduced. Google it.
>> Add in money or politics and the fraud quickly goes epic.
>>
>> Cheap available effective treatments are slandered in favor of patented
>> trillion dollar “cures” that only last six months.
>>
>>> It is important to remember that /sometimes/ the established majority
>>> understanding is wrong. But most of the time, it is correct - or at
>>> least roughly as correct as possible given current data. Mavericks,
>>> outliers, random Youtube or Facebook posters that have a very different
>>> view of things, are almost always wrong.
>>
>> The majority is only right when you add enough time to the equation.
>> As witnessed by “the science” flip flopping that has been hoisted on the
>> public.
>
> Perhaps you mean "foisted"?
>
>> The majority is a completely useless measure.
>>
>> The maverick’s generally win, the problem can be picking the right one of
>> thousands.
>>
>> Real science does slowly advance despite the mud.

The Chicxulub impact was ~300,000 years before the KT boundary that killed
the dinosaurs. This has been known since day one, but excuses were made of
tsunami’s, the story of Chicxulub was just too popular, so the press went
with the clicks.

https://www.academia.edu/17273554/Impact_Stratigraphy_Old_principle_new_reality?email_work_card=view-paper

Sorry for revealing the truth.

Now we get to find out if the second of two impacts that created the Deccan
traps in India is the real killer of the dinosaurs. At least this time the
timing is right.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<jwvilqevqb6.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25158&group=comp.arch#25158

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: monn...@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 08:37:20 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <jwvilqevqb6.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me> <t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me> <t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
<t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me> <t59p58$jpm$1@dont-email.me>
<t5aa2t$n2c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="36db61cec5c1ceb85de1c6b7ce0cffb5";
logging-data="19725"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/s0x6vors3NfOdXbpdRJWn"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:b4DI/clGekbqafYOe7If3trunto=
sha1:mAAjKS1hKpfdZpVvwfrN0DF0NFo=
 by: Stefan Monnier - Mon, 9 May 2022 12:37 UTC

Brett [2022-05-09 05:50:21] wrote:
> The Chicxulub impact was ~300,000 years before the KT boundary that killed
> the dinosaurs. This has been known since day one, but excuses were made of
> tsunami’s, the story of Chicxulub was just too popular, so the press went
> with the clicks.

The way you state this makes me think you're probably not a scientist
(or if so, probably not a good one): a scientist would know that none of
those elements are truly "known" with any kind of certainty.
They're just the best available explanation so far.

Stefan

Re: finite but unbounded?

<165210246342.2864.12521831562912362605@media.vsta.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25159&group=comp.arch#25159

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: van...@vsta.org (Andy Valencia)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 06:21:03 -0700
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <165210246342.2864.12521831562912362605@media.vsta.org>
References: <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me> <t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me> <t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me> <t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me> <t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me> <t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>
X-Trace: individual.net BUAwlYeC8wPtf4vdV7bHSA0kaIlo8TMtaUp7V6l2naOkhf/53z
X-Orig-Path: media
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i8iG9h0m+LrWpmOm8wMvUlLVKag=
User-Agent: rn.py v0.0.1
 by: Andy Valencia - Mon, 9 May 2022 13:21 UTC

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
> In most cases you don't need to resort to money, politics, or fraud, to
> explain the impossibility to reproduce a paper's results: writing
> a research paper such that it can be reproduced is just hard.

And for decades, reproducibility was not given much attention. Why
work on something hard when it is--by the standards of your industry--not
valuable?

I'm hearing from friends and family across quite a breadth of the industry
that this issue is now recognized as a priority. Better late than never.

Andy Valencia
Home page: https://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: https://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t5di6q$1r3$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25164&group=comp.arch#25164

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david.br...@hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 13:27:22 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <t5di6q$1r3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me> <t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me> <t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
<t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me> <jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 11:27:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fedf94d888a76a2d74998748af80c9e9";
logging-data="1891"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19aSg4z2MZRoZ6FXfa5OsU8Wrepeq7FXIA="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zNPE80RaC2f/lvjqpUMtZs+mTJo=
In-Reply-To: <jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: David Brown - Tue, 10 May 2022 11:27 UTC

On 09/05/2022 03:18, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Half of research papers cannot be reproduced. Google it.
>> Add in money or politics and the fraud quickly goes epic.
>
> Most researchers would make more money doing something else than
> research, so I don't buy this "money" argument very much.
>
> In most cases you don't need to resort to money, politics, or fraud, to
> explain the impossibility to reproduce a paper's results: writing
> a research paper such that it can be reproduced is just hard.
>

It is also the basic principle of how experimental science works. One
group does some experiments or measurements, and finds something
interesting. They publish the results. Other groups in the field see
these, and try to replicate the results. If they can, it becomes part
of established science. If they cannot, then maybe it was experimental
error, luck, faked results (scientists are fallible humans too), or
other effects. And maybe the negative results are something that
scientists can learn from too.

So it is natural and healthy that a large proportion of research papers
can't be (or haven't yet been) reproduced. It is not fraud in any way.

In fact, there is a real problem in some areas - particularly medical
research - where there are too few negative results or irreproducible
results published. And money /is/ an important part of it - but not on
the part of the researchers. Drug studies and other medical research
costs a great deal of money, and the sponsors have a bad habit of
pulling the plug when it looks like the results will be negative - the
researchers lose the funding they need to finish the study and publish
it. The wider community thus loses out on useful knowledge about what
/doesn't/ work.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t5et75$kns$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25191&group=comp.arch#25191

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ggt...@yahoo.com (Brett)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 23:41:27 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <t5et75$kns$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me>
<t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me>
<t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me>
<t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
<t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>
<jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
<t5di6q$1r3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 23:41:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a42c80e4c8580178d4bdd66548c3f3ff";
logging-data="21244"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19cBRer5l4MiNTNJ3eLf7yP"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3wfzxL7EHyfs6xQEvasjOLQeICc=
sha1:UBjd1YHxMVMh4F2RcBBcL+DNm+U=
 by: Brett - Tue, 10 May 2022 23:41 UTC

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 09/05/2022 03:18, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Half of research papers cannot be reproduced. Google it.
>>> Add in money or politics and the fraud quickly goes epic.
>>
>> Most researchers would make more money doing something else than
>> research, so I don't buy this "money" argument very much.
>>
>> In most cases you don't need to resort to money, politics, or fraud, to
>> explain the impossibility to reproduce a paper's results: writing
>> a research paper such that it can be reproduced is just hard.
>>
>
> It is also the basic principle of how experimental science works. One
> group does some experiments or measurements, and finds something
> interesting. They publish the results. Other groups in the field see
> these, and try to replicate the results. If they can, it becomes part
> of established science. If they cannot, then maybe it was experimental
> error, luck, faked results (scientists are fallible humans too), or
> other effects. And maybe the negative results are something that
> scientists can learn from too.
>
> So it is natural and healthy that a large proportion of research papers
> can't be (or haven't yet been) reproduced. It is not fraud in any way.
>
>
> In fact, there is a real problem in some areas - particularly medical
> research - where there are too few negative results or irreproducible
> results published. And money /is/ an important part of it - but not on
> the part of the researchers. Drug studies and other medical research
> costs a great deal of money, and the sponsors have a bad habit of
> pulling the plug when it looks like the results will be negative - the
> researchers lose the funding they need to finish the study and publish
> it. The wider community thus loses out on useful knowledge about what
> /doesn't/ work.

Yes, the policy of pulling funding from drug studies that are not
fraudulent shows the fraud. So you have four studies on statins, three show
downsides with no useful effect and are canceled, and the fraudulent study
gets published.

Congratulations, your company just made a trillion dollars, as did several
copy cat similar patent drug companies that of course had to pull the same
drug trial fraud to get their drugs to market.

The DNA revolution was supposed to bring new treatments and occasional
cures, instead we get statins, just health harming fraud based on an
incorrect theory of how cholesterol works. Such a profound disappointment
the drug companies are.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<jwvwnesomd1.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25193&group=comp.arch#25193

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: monn...@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 22:07:52 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <jwvwnesomd1.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me> <t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me> <t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
<t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>
<jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
<t5di6q$1r3$1@dont-email.me> <t5et75$kns$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3dba3e7a09f3ba04269d840b4d1b15bf";
logging-data="2826"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181YV+senEueQrYO1Vj6t1o"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rpQcxJZY8q4j7QACLwX1LQrff78=
sha1:+wi2mTeRJZh45sTq5yYyHV82xiA=
 by: Stefan Monnier - Wed, 11 May 2022 02:07 UTC

> Such a profound disappointment the drug companies are.

I wonder why you'd be disappointed. I mean they are large companies,
just like Nestlé, Apple, etc... They're designed to maximize their own
profit, not other people's well being.

Stefan

Re: finite but unbounded?

<0a89251f-2235-473c-9051-0f1f94945819n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25194&group=comp.arch#25194

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:e6b:b0:45b:474:1035 with SMTP id jz11-20020a0562140e6b00b0045b04741035mr13606100qvb.39.1652235139792;
Tue, 10 May 2022 19:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4518:0:b0:325:9228:fde2 with SMTP id
l24-20020a544518000000b003259228fde2mr1380559oil.16.1652235139522; Tue, 10
May 2022 19:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 19:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jwvwnesomd1.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:291:29f0:a0da:736:be6c:6d2c;
posting-account=H_G_JQkAAADS6onOMb-dqvUozKse7mcM
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:291:29f0:a0da:736:be6c:6d2c
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me> <d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me> <t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me> <t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me> <t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me> <t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me> <t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>
<jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org> <t5di6q$1r3$1@dont-email.me>
<t5et75$kns$1@dont-email.me> <jwvwnesomd1.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0a89251f-2235-473c-9051-0f1f94945819n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: MitchAl...@aol.com (MitchAlsup)
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 02:12:19 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2211
 by: MitchAlsup - Wed, 11 May 2022 02:12 UTC

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 9:07:56 PM UTC-5, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Such a profound disappointment the drug companies are.
> I wonder why you'd be disappointed. I mean they are large companies,
> just like Nestlé, Apple, etc... They're designed to maximize their own
> profit, not other people's well being.
<
Which, by the way, is why medicine should not be left to "for profit"
companies or corporations (and especially not to *.gov).
>
>
> Stefan

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t5fu2n$edg$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25197&group=comp.arch#25197

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david.br...@hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 11:02:14 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <t5fu2n$edg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me> <t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me> <t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
<t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me> <jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
<t5di6q$1r3$1@dont-email.me> <t5et75$kns$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 09:02:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c8a94eac5eedaf001cb06b528262d4ec";
logging-data="14768"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1869UwiVtaX99ZdypDZmUyn3X4QvmyTFuI="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fz8OoEVyOBPlAoasfKKAFk0I4oM=
In-Reply-To: <t5et75$kns$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: David Brown - Wed, 11 May 2022 09:02 UTC

On 11/05/2022 01:41, Brett wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 09/05/2022 03:18, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> Half of research papers cannot be reproduced. Google it.
>>>> Add in money or politics and the fraud quickly goes epic.
>>>
>>> Most researchers would make more money doing something else than
>>> research, so I don't buy this "money" argument very much.
>>>
>>> In most cases you don't need to resort to money, politics, or fraud, to
>>> explain the impossibility to reproduce a paper's results: writing
>>> a research paper such that it can be reproduced is just hard.
>>>
>>
>> It is also the basic principle of how experimental science works. One
>> group does some experiments or measurements, and finds something
>> interesting. They publish the results. Other groups in the field see
>> these, and try to replicate the results. If they can, it becomes part
>> of established science. If they cannot, then maybe it was experimental
>> error, luck, faked results (scientists are fallible humans too), or
>> other effects. And maybe the negative results are something that
>> scientists can learn from too.
>>
>> So it is natural and healthy that a large proportion of research papers
>> can't be (or haven't yet been) reproduced. It is not fraud in any way.
>>
>>
>> In fact, there is a real problem in some areas - particularly medical
>> research - where there are too few negative results or irreproducible
>> results published. And money /is/ an important part of it - but not on
>> the part of the researchers. Drug studies and other medical research
>> costs a great deal of money, and the sponsors have a bad habit of
>> pulling the plug when it looks like the results will be negative - the
>> researchers lose the funding they need to finish the study and publish
>> it. The wider community thus loses out on useful knowledge about what
>> /doesn't/ work.
>
> Yes, the policy of pulling funding from drug studies that are not
> fraudulent shows the fraud. So you have four studies on statins, three show
> downsides with no useful effect and are canceled, and the fraudulent study
> gets published.
>

No, that's not how it works (most of the time).

A study shows that a drug is not giving much benefit, so the study /and/
the drug are pulled and the drug company works on something else
instead. Other researchers cannot then benefit from the knowledge that
this particular drug does not work.

I don't think there is much direct fraud in drug studies, or amongst the
researchers. But there is a lot of bias in which studies are funded or
promoted. There is definitely a problem from the corporate and economic
structures that are dominant in the drug industry - drug research
(especially safety testing) is hugely expensive, and the development,
production and sale is all done for profit. This is not just a problem
in how research is done and published, it is also a problem in terms of
the drugs and treatments developed - there is an economic motive for
developing continuous treatment rather than cures, and for targeting
medicines to long-term treatment of rich people rather than helping
those most in need.

As usual in these things, America leads the way in the problem as it is
money-oriented from top to bottom, with vast amounts of advertising
dollars targeting patients and doctors so that people will end up with
the drugs that are most profitable to the producers, not ones that are
more cost-effective. That does not imply that the drugs don't work,
merely that they might not be the best value for money.

> Congratulations, your company just made a trillion dollars, as did several
> copy cat similar patent drug companies that of course had to pull the same
> drug trial fraud to get their drugs to market.
>
> The DNA revolution was supposed to bring new treatments and occasional
> cures, instead we get statins, just health harming fraud based on an
> incorrect theory of how cholesterol works. Such a profound disappointment
> the drug companies are.
>

Statins are always the drug that paranoid conspiracy theorists love to
hate. Of course drug companies love them - when you take them, you take
them for a long time, so it is steady income for them. But it is
completely incorrect to assume that because these are good for the
producers, they are bad (or useless) for patients. The standard for
judging research on drugs is the Cochrane group - and they have
concluded that statins are a definitely good if you have medium risk of
heart problems, and almost certainly good even for low risk.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t5fuoo$kp5$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25198&group=comp.arch#25198

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david.br...@hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:00 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <t5fuoo$kp5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me> <t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me> <t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
<t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me> <jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
<t5di6q$1r3$1@dont-email.me> <t5et75$kns$1@dont-email.me>
<jwvwnesomd1.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
<0a89251f-2235-473c-9051-0f1f94945819n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 09:14:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c8a94eac5eedaf001cb06b528262d4ec";
logging-data="21285"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+nCYIBbI2Ur09azSu6Y30PIbEJIPbmkhs="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vNr1N5Q9RZxA5VORoIjVkSXwwOY=
In-Reply-To: <0a89251f-2235-473c-9051-0f1f94945819n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: David Brown - Wed, 11 May 2022 09:14 UTC

On 11/05/2022 04:12, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 9:07:56 PM UTC-5, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Such a profound disappointment the drug companies are.
>> I wonder why you'd be disappointed. I mean they are large companies,
>> just like Nestlé, Apple, etc... They're designed to maximize their own
>> profit, not other people's well being.
> <
> Which, by the way, is why medicine should not be left to "for profit"
> companies or corporations (and especially not to *.gov).

Agreed.

Health services should be funded publicly (usually at a national level,
but perhaps in the USA or other federated states it might be state
level) based on taxes of some sort. But they should be independent of
politics at all levels.

Medical research should be international, and non-profit, with funding
partly from nation states, and partly from drug production companies.
There should be no patents involved anywhere, but there should be
licensing and certification of producers (which would be commercial
for-profit companies) to ensure that patients can rely on the quality of
the drugs produced.

That's my opinion on the ideal arrangement, anyway. I can't imagine it
would be practical to change the current state to get to that ideal,
however - it would require too many rich and powerful people and
companies to change their ways.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t5h45p$6cn$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25205&group=comp.arch#25205

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ggt...@yahoo.com (Brett)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 19:52:25 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <t5h45p$6cn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me>
<t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me>
<t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me>
<t55geg$4te$1@dont-email.me>
<t59n6c$afv$1@dont-email.me>
<jwv5ymfwlqd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
<t5di6q$1r3$1@dont-email.me>
<t5et75$kns$1@dont-email.me>
<t5fu2n$edg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 19:52:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a42c80e4c8580178d4bdd66548c3f3ff";
logging-data="6551"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18seV3udEpykBgqB9HQPXPg"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ONFI8iODsEr4yugFlucqUXkSnJM=
sha1:YsSPWJCCkdKfA4/wti0hna+rQKY=
 by: Brett - Wed, 11 May 2022 19:52 UTC

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 11/05/2022 01:41, Brett wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 09/05/2022 03:18, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>>> Half of research papers cannot be reproduced. Google it.
>>>>> Add in money or politics and the fraud quickly goes epic.
>>>>
>>>> Most researchers would make more money doing something else than
>>>> research, so I don't buy this "money" argument very much.
>>>>
>>>> In most cases you don't need to resort to money, politics, or fraud, to
>>>> explain the impossibility to reproduce a paper's results: writing
>>>> a research paper such that it can be reproduced is just hard.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is also the basic principle of how experimental science works. One
>>> group does some experiments or measurements, and finds something
>>> interesting. They publish the results. Other groups in the field see
>>> these, and try to replicate the results. If they can, it becomes part
>>> of established science. If they cannot, then maybe it was experimental
>>> error, luck, faked results (scientists are fallible humans too), or
>>> other effects. And maybe the negative results are something that
>>> scientists can learn from too.
>>>
>>> So it is natural and healthy that a large proportion of research papers
>>> can't be (or haven't yet been) reproduced. It is not fraud in any way.
>>>
>>>
>>> In fact, there is a real problem in some areas - particularly medical
>>> research - where there are too few negative results or irreproducible
>>> results published. And money /is/ an important part of it - but not on
>>> the part of the researchers. Drug studies and other medical research
>>> costs a great deal of money, and the sponsors have a bad habit of
>>> pulling the plug when it looks like the results will be negative - the
>>> researchers lose the funding they need to finish the study and publish
>>> it. The wider community thus loses out on useful knowledge about what
>>> /doesn't/ work.
>>
>> Yes, the policy of pulling funding from drug studies that are not
>> fraudulent shows the fraud. So you have four studies on statins, three show
>> downsides with no useful effect and are canceled, and the fraudulent study
>> gets published.
>>
>
> No, that's not how it works (most of the time).
>
> A study shows that a drug is not giving much benefit, so the study /and/
> the drug are pulled and the drug company works on something else
> instead. Other researchers cannot then benefit from the knowledge that
> this particular drug does not work.
>
> I don't think there is much direct fraud in drug studies, or amongst the
> researchers. But there is a lot of bias in which studies are funded or
> promoted. There is definitely a problem from the corporate and economic
> structures that are dominant in the drug industry - drug research
> (especially safety testing) is hugely expensive, and the development,
> production and sale is all done for profit. This is not just a problem
> in how research is done and published, it is also a problem in terms of
> the drugs and treatments developed - there is an economic motive for
> developing continuous treatment rather than cures, and for targeting
> medicines to long-term treatment of rich people rather than helping
> those most in need.
>
> As usual in these things, America leads the way in the problem as it is
> money-oriented from top to bottom, with vast amounts of advertising
> dollars targeting patients and doctors so that people will end up with
> the drugs that are most profitable to the producers, not ones that are
> more cost-effective. That does not imply that the drugs don't work,
> merely that they might not be the best value for money.
>
>> Congratulations, your company just made a trillion dollars, as did several
>> copy cat similar patent drug companies that of course had to pull the same
>> drug trial fraud to get their drugs to market.
>>
>> The DNA revolution was supposed to bring new treatments and occasional
>> cures, instead we get statins, just health harming fraud based on an
>> incorrect theory of how cholesterol works. Such a profound disappointment
>> the drug companies are.
>>
>
> Statins are always the drug that paranoid conspiracy theorists love to
> hate. Of course drug companies love them - when you take them, you take
> them for a long time, so it is steady income for them. But it is
> completely incorrect to assume that because these are good for the
> producers, they are bad (or useless) for patients. The standard for
> judging research on drugs is the Cochrane group - and they have
> concluded that statins are a definitely good if you have medium risk of
> heart problems, and almost certainly good even for low risk.

The studies saying statins improve outcomes have not been reproduced.

Your brain needs cholesterol to work, taking statins leads to cognitive
impairment.
A one month study will not test for or see this, or the long term effects
of the muscle pain which show up as heart damage!


Cardiologist Peter Langsjoen studied 20 patients with completely normal
heart function. After six months on a low dose of 20 mg of Lipitor a day,
two-thirds of the patients had abnormalities in the heart’s filling phase,
when the muscle fills with blood. According to Langsjoen, this malfunction
is due to Co-Q10 depletion. Without Co-Q10, the cell’s mitochondria are
inhibited from producing energy, leading to muscle pain and weakness. The
heart is especially susceptible because it uses so much energy.15

Co-Q10 depletion becomes more and more of a problem as the pharmaceutical
industry encourages doctors to lower cholesterol levels in their patients
by greater and greater amounts. Fifteen animal studies in six different
animal species have documented statin-induced Co-Q10 depletion leading to
decreased ATP production, increased injury from heart failure, skeletal
muscle injury and increased mortality. Of the nine controlled trials on
statin-induced Co-Q10 depletion in humans, eight showed significant Co-Q10
depletion leading to decline in left ventricular function and biochemical
imbalances.16

Yet virtually all patients with heart failure are put on statin drugs, even
if their cholesterol is already low. Of interest is a recent study
indicating that patients with chronic heart failure benefit from having
high levels of cholesterol rather than low. Researchers in Hull, UK
followed 114 heart failure patients for at least 12 months.17 Survival was
78 percent at 12 months and 56 percent at 36 months. They found that for
every point of decrease in serum cholesterol, there was a 36 percent
increase in the risk of death within three years.

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/modern-diseases/dangers-of-statin-drugs-what-you-havent-been-told-about-popular-cholesterol-lowering-medicines/

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2022/January/PDF/statins-do-more-harm-than-good-pdf.pdf

https://guyaneseonline.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/the-ugly-side-of-statins-dr-mercola.pdf

Trillions of dollars are at stake with statins, the first several pages of
simple goggle searches are disinformation that can be tied back to big
Pharma lies. You have to use uncommon search terms to get real information.

As for the Cochrane group, big Pharma is notorious for setting up fake
foundations and then having those foundations do their own fundraising to
hide the fraud, and reduce expenses.

A search on the Cochrane group for statins and mental health shows studies
that they searched for statins HELPING prevent Alzheimer’s, with results of
failure of course. Not a peep about long term harm.

https://www.cochrane.org/search/site/Statins?f%5B0%5D=field_terms_cochrane_library%253Aparents_all%3A51005

This is just short of criminal level misdirection.

These big Pharma criminals do not care about your health, only making
money.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<O0cfK.6015$6dof.1037@fx13.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25221&group=comp.arch#25221

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ThatWoul...@thevillage.com (EricP)
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com> <t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me> <d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com> <t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me> <t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me> <8ec408ce-ec62-4811-83c6-6da9548a3a23n@googlegroups.com> <896aad8f-2a69-49e4-8d3a-a8858a2d1005n@googlegroups.com> <t53qlb$6g8$1@dont-email.me> <bbtf7hddljge5b2pcvgu7kgg3mnnbgqne2@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <bbtf7hddljge5b2pcvgu7kgg3mnnbgqne2@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <O0cfK.6015$6dof.1037@fx13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@UsenetServer.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 18:06:38 UTC
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 14:05:42 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6781
 by: EricP - Thu, 12 May 2022 18:05 UTC

George Neuner wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 18:50:19 -0000 (UTC), Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 7:39:32 PM UTC-5, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> If it were passing faster with distance, it would blue-shift. Red-shift
>>>>> would imply that time slows down with distance.
>>>> More units of time per wavelength equals a lower frequency. I think
>>>> it would result in apparent red-shifting to the remote observer. Point
>>>> is I believe that time may not pass at the same rate everywhere at
>>>> cosmic distances. It could explain some things.
>>>>> It would also imply a universe with a curved spacetime (vs flat).
>>> <
>>>> I think time is not a dimension. I believe it is an aggregate measure. If no events
>>>> occur then no time passes. An event as small as an electron spinning, or
>>>> smaller, causes time to pass. So at our scale of existence it seems
>>>> to pass consistently. Time is visibility of state change. The quanta of time is
>>>> very small.
>>> <
>>> In the book "Schrodinger 's Kittens" John Gribbin explains essentially how
>>> Stephan Weinberg won his Nobel Prize. The trick, Weinberg determined has
>>> to do with the interpretation of the Schrodinger equations with negative
>>> values in the SQRT() part. Weinberg reasoned that this set of solutions represent
>>> waves running backwards in time.
>>> <
>>> This solves the 2-slit experiments. The negative time photon passes through
>>> and sees the configuration of the experiment before the actual (forward time)
>>> photon has been released. So the negative time photon informs the real photon
>>> to act like a wave or act like a particle.
>>> <
>>> But also explains that our knowledge of particle physics requires there to be
>>> an atom to receive a photon that is emitted by another atom. This, in turn,
>>> sets up the thought experiment where a atom on one side of the universe
>>> emits a photon which is captured by an atom on the other side of the universe.
>>> To the photon, time does not pass, to the initiator (negative time photon) time
>>> does not pass either. So, here we have a photon that takes 13B years of flight
>>> time, and the photon perceives none of it. The photon is released from the
>>> atom and it arrives instantaneously at the other atom after 13B years of travel.
>>> <
>>> Time is not what we as humans make it out to be.
>>> Time merely is what it is.
>>> And Quantum electrodynamics is happy with the notion that some things
>>> travel backwards in time (at least our understanding/perception of time).
>>> <
>>> recently work on trying to ecreate the math necessary to calculate in the
>>> "time" between 10^-43 of Big Bang and 10^-38 of BB enumerates both time
>>> and space as particles of foam (plank scale foam) that when expanded
>>> by inflation, 3 of these become the dimensions of distance, and the other
>>> becomes the dimension of time. But prior to 10^-38 after BB there was
>>> neither the concept of distance nor the concept of "flowing time". We
>>> need this kind of new math in order to create the mathematical basis
>>> for describing physics before the emergence of dimension and time.
>>> QED and QCD both depend on cardinality of dimensions and the flow
>>> of time. Gravity does not. Merging these requires "new math".
>>>
>> Take a look at Young’s Single Slit Experiment from 1802.
>> You get the same distribution, the effect is interaction with the atoms of
>> the slit.
>> No need for ridiculous theories Ike negative time.
>> This also explains the horizontal distribution which theories ignore.
>> I would try heavier and lighter atoms for the slit, it’s probably been
>> done.
>
> In fact, the double-slit experiment has been replicated in the 'macro'
> world using easily visible objects.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGCtMKthRh4

That is not demonstration of quantum phenomena.

Young's 1882 double slit experiment works fine as a demonstration
of the wave nature of light or sound.
The puzzles for the double slit experiments came when
you try to explain it using particles and quantum mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#%22Which-way%22_experiments_and_the_principle_of_complementarity

A recent published result with a double-slit interferometer of
neutrons claims to prove that _fractions of individual particles_
travel through both slits and along both paths of the interferometer
simultaneously, and not just statistical sums over many particles.

One particle on two paths: Quantum physics is right
https://phys.org/news/2022-05-particle-paths-quantum-physics.html

"The novelty is that one does not have to resort to unsatisfactory
statistical arguments: When measuring a single particle, our experiment
shows that it must have taken two paths at the same time and quantifies
the respective proportions unambiguously."

[open access]
Quantifying the presence of a neutron in the paths
of an interferometer, 2022
https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023075

"It should be emphasized that all results are completely consistent
with standard quantum theory. The conclusion that particles can be
physically delocalized between paths in which no strong interactions
occur and that the localization or delocalization is decided by a
measurement that takes place after the particles have propagated
along the paths is a possibility inherent in the paradoxical
aspects of quantum superpositions."

Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor