|
|
| Author |
Message |
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:00 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Jerry wrote:
| Quote: | Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
Actually, I rather admire Max. He is the only "alternative thinker"
in this newsgroup willing to put his theories to the test, investing
a considerable amount of time and money in the process. Of course,
he has tended to jump to false conclusions a lot, and in the past he
has had the habit of dismissing criticism of his experimental setups.
But our present exchange of critical ideas has been different, and I
am pleased that he now understands the importance of running control
experiments.
Has he yet done the simple task of performing his experiment again
after rotating the entire setup by 90 degrees?
I would guess that he is either
1) mounting the disparate components of his setup onto a stable
platform that can actually be tilted, or
|
Eh.
While looking like something that would make MacGuyver shake his head,
most of the setup looks reasonably sturdy. (Hey, he isn't using
particleboard as a base for this one!)
He could take a few 2x4s (or whatever the Aussie equivalent is) and
screw/bolt/ziptie the relevant part of the contraption onto that.
| Quote: | 2) saving the control experiment for what he thinks will be a
triumphant victory over the critical opposition, or
|
Since he already believes he has achieved victory, I'm not sure how
likely this one is. I wonder how his attempts to publish his work are
going.
| Quote: | 3) a trifle nervous of what the results might be.
|
I would be.
Aside from the mess that is the proper analysis of airflow within the
contraption, there is nothing interesting about this. Were the
theoretical justification for frame dragging as solid as his
justification for an "anisotropy", Gravity Probe B would have never
gotten to the launch pad.
This entire process frustrates me. Max's theory is crap, it is a
personal belief which exists outside the scientific method. His sole
mathematics are pulled from the void, and he justifies them by saying
they are derived from his theory - which he cannot show in any way. His
evidence is undocumented.
The qualitative effect of airflow that is not stationary with respect
to the housing has a straightfoward explanation that has nothing to do
with gravitation in any sense.
This is a bit more annoying than the regular crank fare here because
hes *trying* to prove his theory but the base he is building off of is
rotten and the results he is obtaining don't have anything to do with
what he is observing. Usually I can just laugh at cranks without
remorse but this makes me a bit sad because he is trying so hard and
just isn't getting it.
| Quote: |
These are not necessarily exclusive possibilities.
|
There is another.
4) He understands now that his experiment did not measure what he
believed it to measure and he is unwilling to say he is wrong due to
personal investment in the issue.
| Quote: |
So far as I can tell, Max has been scrupulously honest in his
reporting of his experimental results. He is biased, of course, in
the interpretations that he makes, but Max definitely understands
that my concerns about his experimental setup are valid ones, and
he has taken steps to address my criticisms.
I think that we both have been learning a lot in our exchanges.
The flow of knowledge is not symmetric.
At any rate, I am still amused that Max has been unable to justify his
thinking that this setup will detect an "anisotropy" in the force of
gravity. I know he says his theory predicts it, but for all intents and
purposes this IS his theory.
To be fair, I don't know how to program a supercomputer to model
Max's experimental setup, solving the Navier-Stokes equations to
justify my intuitive handwaving concerning the Coriolis effect. So
Max and I are even in that regards. We have opposing intuitions, but
neither of us can justify our arguments with a rigorous mathematical
model.
|
Not even close.
Were you pressed, I'm pretty sure you could make a good model of the
airflow within the setup and hand off this clusterfuck off to someone
who could solve the Navier-Stokes equations.
You actually have a theory that is supported by empirical reality. You
actually have something you can point at and say "this is what I am
basing my thoughts on", rather than pointing figuratively at your bum.
Your intuition is based off, presumably, on some kind of education.
| Quote: |
The ultimate arbiter of who is right will be experiment. And that
makes Max different from all the other "alternative thinkers" in this
newsgroup.
|
That is true.
Max deserves signifigant credit for actually making the appearance of
testing his theory, but he needs to go a lot further. He so badly needs
to take a course that involves lab work, or at the very least pick up
some books.
Actually, I think he should spend some time in the library regardless.
His theory, as it is, predicts quite a few effects. One of which is a
severe violation of energy conservation - a spinning object whose axis
is perpendicular to gravitational field lines will leak energy
something fierce. Someone must have either noticed this before or have
ran experiments where something like this would be apparent. Either
way, the library is the place to be. "A month in the lab saves a day in
the library", and all that.
Failing that, he should try to partner up with Henri Wilson and do some
experimental work. It would be amusing, at the very least. Max would
end up forcing Henri to put his theories in a testable form for us to
assault, and Max would have something fun to play with. I think playing
with cloud chambers and such would be right up his alley.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:26 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1152265238.867329.39400@s16g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
Actually, I rather admire Max. He is the only "alternative thinker"
in this newsgroup willing to put his theories to the test, investing
a considerable amount of time and money in the process. Of course,
he has tended to jump to false conclusions a lot, and in the past he
has had the habit of dismissing criticism of his experimental setups.
But our present exchange of critical ideas has been different, and I
am pleased that he now understands the importance of running control
experiments.
Has he yet done the simple task of performing his experiment again
after rotating the entire setup by 90 degrees?
I would guess that he is either
1) mounting the disparate components of his setup onto a stable
platform that can actually be tilted, or
2) saving the control experiment for what he thinks will be a
triumphant victory over the critical opposition, or
3) a trifle nervous of what the results might be.
These are not necessarily exclusive possibilities.
|
As you are probably noticing, you can make a lot of enemies if you
choose to support me in any way at all. But this is where I'm at.
----
To save over stressing your clicking finger I've stored three
images relating to the latest apparatus upgrade, at
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravnew.html
The snapshot from a video clip is a result that's fairly common
to both planes. As you can see, the already injected smoke now
refuses to go away.
The injected smoke stream is rather dramatically curved upward to
the inner rim by centrifugal forces. But the air is apparently
already in motion prior to smoke injection. The input smoke flow
is turned off by exhausting it through an opening in the side of
the smoke tube, but traces of smoke are still emerging into the
housing.
If air/housing friction didn't exist, a rough analysis of how any
continuous smoke stream at all will affect the air mass, seems to
indicate that the air mass will always be driven to an exact speed
relative to the housing, regardless of the smoke input velocity.
_
- . o
- . -
- Inner . x
rim l^l
l l
Smoke tube
Whether the smoke is driven from the vertically pointing smoke tube
by centrifugal forces only, or forced out as well, if the housing
has moved to point "o" or to point "x" by the time the smoke reaches
the rim, the time is always exactly proportional to the distance
the rim has advanced. The ratio obviously never changes. The lesser
momentum smoke will be carried along with the air mass for a longer
time, but will also be dragged for a greater distance, resulting
in the same effect on the air mass. But perhaps I'm not reading that
correctly.
But it appears that the tiny gravity anisotropy is going to be well
overpowered by even the slightest radial smoke or air flow prior
to the test smoke injection.
All I can now do is trigger the "smoke on" state at the smoke exit
point on the smoke tube, and be very certain that it is smoke which
is initially emitted. This time I'll only get one shot at injecting
the smoke, which must be followed by a reasonable settling period.
Your suggestion in another reply, that I may reform, is highly
unlikely. I don't perceive you as a fool Jerry, and I hope you will
afford me that same respect.
The big bang universe exists on a plane that cannot possibly be
justified. It predicts no beginning, or end. It's just, up there
floating about in some strange plane that requires no justification
whatever for its being. Analyzing the workings of the big bang
universe is no better than a microbe analyzing its raindrop
environment based on the assumption that it constitutes the entire
universe. I don't think ANYONE actually believes they exist in a
big bang universe. I genuinely believe that it's more of an
embarrassment than anything else.
On the other hand, the zero origin universe predicts a beginning
and an ultimate end, and everything in between. Even its two basic
components are readily identified.
Until I can conclusively prove to myself that the gravity anisotropy
doesn't exist, the possibility that I exist in the zero origin
universe will remain my eternal nightmare.
You can all have your heaven, but you must first defeat your hell.
Sound like the rantings of some crazed evangelist, doesn't it.
Thanks to you, this has been a learning experience for which I'll
be eternally grateful. It's probably not over yet though.
You've certainly highlighted the real concern in the styrofoam disc
setup. The moving air, driven by an air flow from the center out,
that was seeping through the outer rim joints, could well have been
driving the disc. I guess I'll have to do that all over again too.
I can at least now easily test it in the two planes. But this time
all I need do is maintain a constant housing rotation rate and just
follow the disc flag along with the strobe light. It can't get much
easier than that.
-----
Max Keon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:30 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1152265238.867329.39400@s16g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
Actually, I rather admire Max. He is the only "alternative thinker"
in this newsgroup willing to put his theories to the test, investing
a considerable amount of time and money in the process. Of course,
he has tended to jump to false conclusions a lot, and in the past he
has had the habit of dismissing criticism of his experimental setups.
But our present exchange of critical ideas has been different, and I
am pleased that he now understands the importance of running control
experiments.
Has he yet done the simple task of performing his experiment again
after rotating the entire setup by 90 degrees?
I would guess that he is either
1) mounting the disparate components of his setup onto a stable
platform that can actually be tilted, or
2) saving the control experiment for what he thinks will be a
triumphant victory over the critical opposition, or
3) a trifle nervous of what the results might be.
These are not necessarily exclusive possibilities.
|
As you are probably noticing, you can make a lot of enemies if you
choose to support me in any way at all. But this is where I'm at.
----
To save over stressing your clicking finger I've stored three
images relating to the latest apparatus upgrade, at
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravnew.html
The snapshot from a video clip is a result that's fairly common
to both planes. As you can see, the already injected smoke now
refuses to go away.
The injected smoke stream is rather dramatically curved upward to
the inner rim by centrifugal forces. But the air is apparently
already in motion prior to smoke injection. The input smoke flow
is turned off by exhausting it through an opening in the side of
the smoke tube, but traces of smoke are still emerging into the
housing.
If air/housing friction didn't exist, a rough analysis of how any
continuous smoke stream at all will affect the air mass, seems to
indicate that the air mass will always be driven to an exact speed
relative to the housing, regardless of the smoke input velocity.
_
- . o
- . -
- Inner . x
rim l^l
l l
Smoke tube
Whether the smoke is driven from the vertically pointing smoke tube
by centrifugal forces only, or forced out as well, if the housing
has moved to point "o" or to point "x" by the time the smoke reaches
the rim, the time is always exactly proportional to the distance
the rim has advanced. The ratio obviously never changes. The lesser
momentum smoke will be carried along with the air mass for a longer
time, but will also be dragged for a greater distance, resulting
in the same effect on the air mass. But perhaps I'm not reading that
correctly.
But it appears that the tiny gravity anisotropy is going to be well
overpowered by even the slightest radial smoke or air flow prior
to the test smoke injection.
All I can now do is trigger the "smoke on" state at the smoke exit
point on the smoke tube, and be very certain that it is smoke which
is initially emitted. This time I'll only get one shot at injecting
the smoke, which must be followed by a reasonable settling period.
Your suggestion in another reply, that I may reform, is highly
unlikely. I don't perceive you as a fool Jerry, and I hope you will
afford me that same respect.
The big bang universe exists on a plane that cannot possibly be
justified. It predicts no beginning, or end. It's just, up there
floating about in some strange plane that requires no justification
whatever for its being. Analyzing the workings of the big bang
universe is no better than a microbe analyzing its raindrop
environment based on the assumption that it constitutes the entire
universe. I don't think ANYONE actually believes they exist in a
big bang universe. I genuinely believe that it's more of an
embarrassment than anything else.
On the other hand, the zero origin universe predicts a beginning
and an ultimate end, and everything in between. Even its two basic
components are readily identified.
Until I can conclusively prove to myself that the gravity anisotropy
doesn't exist, the possibility that I exist in the zero origin
universe will remain my eternal nightmare.
You can all have your heaven, but you must first defeat your hell.
Sound like the rantings of some crazed evangelist, doesn't it.
Thanks to you, this has been a learning experience for which I'll
be eternally grateful. It's probably not over yet though.
You've certainly highlighted the real concern in the styrofoam disc
setup. The moving air, driven by an air flow from the center out,
that was seeping through the outer rim joints, could well have been
driving the disc. I guess I'll have to do that all over again too.
I can at least now easily test it in the two planes. But this time
all I need do is maintain a constant housing rotation rate and just
follow the disc flag along with the strobe light. It can't get much
easier than that.
-----
Max Keon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:47 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
| Quote: | As you are probably noticing, you can make a lot of enemies if you
choose to support me in any way at all. But this is where I'm at.
|
What enemies? Eric and I disagreed on some points. That doesn't make
us enemies. Indeed, he over-rated my competency, to my embarrassment.
I will never be more than a mediocre mathematician. I know that from
experience. And my chosen career path simply will not allow for
formal training in physics, which for me is strictly a hobby.
That's a rather nice setup that you've put together for tilting the
rotor!
| Quote: | The snapshot from a video clip is a result that's fairly common
to both planes. As you can see, the already injected smoke now
refuses to go away.
|
Sealed apparatus, correct?
| Quote: | The injected smoke stream is rather dramatically curved upward to
the inner rim by centrifugal forces. But the air is apparently
already in motion prior to smoke injection. The input smoke flow
is turned off by exhausting it through an opening in the side of
the smoke tube, but traces of smoke are still emerging into the
housing.
If air/housing friction didn't exist, a rough analysis of how any
continuous smoke stream at all will affect the air mass, seems to
indicate that the air mass will always be driven to an exact speed
relative to the housing, regardless of the smoke input velocity.
_
- . o
- . -
- Inner . x
rim l^l
l l
Smoke tube
Whether the smoke is driven from the vertically pointing smoke tube
by centrifugal forces only, or forced out as well, if the housing
has moved to point "o" or to point "x" by the time the smoke reaches
the rim, the time is always exactly proportional to the distance
the rim has advanced. The ratio obviously never changes. The lesser
momentum smoke will be carried along with the air mass for a longer
time, but will also be dragged for a greater distance, resulting
in the same effect on the air mass. But perhaps I'm not reading that
correctly.
|
I don't have enough data from your photo to perform my own analysis.
Maybe you could publish a time lapse series?
| Quote: | But it appears that the tiny gravity anisotropy is going to be well
overpowered by even the slightest radial smoke or air flow prior
to the test smoke injection.
All I can now do is trigger the "smoke on" state at the smoke exit
point on the smoke tube, and be very certain that it is smoke which
is initially emitted. This time I'll only get one shot at injecting
the smoke, which must be followed by a reasonable settling period.
Your suggestion in another reply, that I may reform, is highly
unlikely. I don't perceive you as a fool Jerry, and I hope you will
afford me that same respect.
|
I do respect you. The honesty and integrity that you've displayed in
our exchange of opposing thoughts has been impressive.
| Quote: | The big bang universe exists on a plane that cannot possibly be
justified. It predicts no beginning, or end. It's just, up there
floating about in some strange plane that requires no justification
whatever for its being.
|
The "ultimate" origin of the Big Bang is beyond current physics.
Cosmologists as a rule don't go so far back as to try to explain
ultimate origins. They start from where they have physical and
mathematical tools to deal with the situation and then to make
predictions that may be compared with the results of astronomical
observation.
| Quote: | Analyzing the workings of the big bang
universe is no better than a microbe analyzing its raindrop
environment based on the assumption that it constitutes the entire
universe. I don't think ANYONE actually believes they exist in a
big bang universe. I genuinely believe that it's more of an
embarrassment than anything else.
|
Sir Fred Hoyle, who made enormous contributions to astrophysics and
cosmology, also had a number of very contrarian ideas, including
rejection of the Big Bang. You might be interested in reading his
biography in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
| Quote: | On the other hand, the zero origin universe predicts a beginning
and an ultimate end, and everything in between. Even its two basic
components are readily identified.
Until I can conclusively prove to myself that the gravity anisotropy
doesn't exist, the possibility that I exist in the zero origin
universe will remain my eternal nightmare.
|
Exist in the zero origin universe? Or -don't- exist in the zero
origin universe? I'm not clear which is your nightmare. It almost
seems like you had a typographical error, I'm not sure.
| Quote: | You can all have your heaven, but you must first defeat your hell.
Sound like the rantings of some crazed evangelist, doesn't it.
Thanks to you, this has been a learning experience for which I'll
be eternally grateful. It's probably not over yet though.
|
You're welcome.
| Quote: | You've certainly highlighted the real concern in the styrofoam disc
setup. The moving air, driven by an air flow from the center out,
that was seeping through the outer rim joints, could well have been
driving the disc. I guess I'll have to do that all over again too.
I can at least now easily test it in the two planes. But this time
all I need do is maintain a constant housing rotation rate and just
follow the disc flag along with the strobe light. It can't get much
easier than that.
|
Good luck! But when you have properly accounted for all sources of
error in the rotary disk experiment, I believe that you will discover
that there, too, the results will be negative.
By "reform", I didn't means that I expected you to suddenly adopt
mainstream views. Keep at it! I think you agree, this has been a
really educational experience for both of us!
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shuba
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 160
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:23 pm Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Jerry wrote:
| Quote: | Actually, I rather admire Max. He is the only "alternative thinker"
in this newsgroup willing to put his theories to the test, investing
a considerable amount of time and money in the process.
|
Theories? You mean the incomprehensible gibberish on his "zero
origin" page? Well, whatever. You're right that he deserves some
credit for getting his hands dirty attempting to do real
experiments. However, doing this kind of thing in isolation, as
he appears to be doing, isn't likely to be hugely productive. Max
could use some of his resources to work with (perhaps pay for) an
experimentalist for collaboration or something. Cripes, the guy
is still using DOS and QBASIC. He certainly seems bright enough
to learn skills used in the twenty-first century, say Linux and
Python instead, which would be immensely more useful, at least
assuming he wants to branch out and do something besides trying to
support such cranky silliness as seen in the title of this thread.
| Quote: | I think that we both have been learning a lot in our exchanges.
|
Nothing wrong with that. Whatever floats your smoke.
---Tim Shuba--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:22 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
shuba wrote:
| Quote: | Jerry wrote:
Actually, I rather admire Max. He is the only "alternative thinker"
in this newsgroup willing to put his theories to the test, investing
a considerable amount of time and money in the process.
Theories? You mean the incomprehensible gibberish on his "zero
origin" page?
|
I haven't read it. It's not important to me.
| Quote: | Well, whatever. You're right that he deserves some
credit for getting his hands dirty attempting to do real
experiments.
|
What's more, he accepts their results. He's taken a great leap in
understanding the traps and pitfalls that an experimentalist needs to
watch out for. His clear negative results in the control experiment
have given him a lot to think about.
| Quote: | However, doing this kind of thing in isolation, as
he appears to be doing, isn't likely to be hugely productive. Max
could use some of his resources to work with (perhaps pay for) an
experimentalist for collaboration or something. Cripes, the guy
is still using DOS and QBASIC. He certainly seems bright enough
|
Indeed.
| Quote: | to learn skills used in the twenty-first century, say Linux and
Python instead, which would be immensely more useful, at least
assuming he wants to branch out and do something besides trying to
support such cranky silliness as seen in the title of this thread.
|
Max's behavior on this thread leads me to call him an "alternative
thinker", most definitely in a different category than crackpots such
as Henri Wilson, Androcles, TomGee and the like. He has shown that he
can learn and grow.
| Quote: | I think that we both have been learning a lot in our exchanges.
Nothing wrong with that. Whatever floats your smoke.
|
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:58 pm Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"shuba" <tim.shuba@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
news:tim.shuba-7162F2.18233208072006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
| Quote: | Jerry wrote:
Actually, I rather admire Max. He is the only "alternative thinker"
in this newsgroup willing to put his theories to the test, investing
a considerable amount of time and money in the process.
Theories? You mean the incomprehensible gibberish on his "zero
origin" page?
|
I don't suppose I should criticize you for your inabillity to
comprehend the zero origin concept. It is indeed incomprehensible.
And trying to explain it to someone who has no intention of trying
to understand it is impossible.
| Quote: | Well, whatever. You're right that he deserves some
credit for getting his hands dirty attempting to do real
experiments. However, doing this kind of thing in isolation, as
he appears to be doing, isn't likely to be hugely productive. Max
could use some of his resources to work with (perhaps pay for) an
experimentalist for collaboration or something. Cripes, the guy
is still using DOS and QBASIC.
|
Does it really matter? It gets the job done. Qbasic is an excellent
communication tool in my opinion.
"using DOS" I presume refers to the speed control system I employed
to maintain a constant housing rotation rate, and to monitor the
housing-freedisc relationship in the previous experiment. Perhaps
you would like to try that using your wonderous high level language?
But you really won't have a clue how many clock cycles are used in
each of your high level instructions, will you? You will in fact not
have a clue what's going on.
The program was finally written in MASM assembler after I gave up
tearing my hair out using DEBUG, which is just about the lowest
possible level of programming one can use. Does the phrase "low
level programming language" suggest to you that it's a simple system
of programming that's beneath your dignity to be seen using? It may
seem so to you, but it's the high level programming languages that
are made easy to use, so that any dummy can use them with a mimimum
of training. *But they are extremely restrictive*.
| Quote: | He certainly seems bright enough
to learn skills used in the twenty-first century, say Linux and
Python instead, which would be immensely more useful, at least
assuming he wants to branch out and do something besides trying to
support such cranky silliness as seen in the title of this thread.
|
I wonder why that doesn't bother me?
-----
Max Keon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shuba
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 160
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Max "krazy" Keon wrote:
| Quote: | "shuba" <tim.shuba@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
Well, whatever. You're right that he deserves some
credit for getting his hands dirty attempting to do real
experiments. However, doing this kind of thing in isolation, as
he appears to be doing, isn't likely to be hugely productive. Max
could use some of his resources to work with (perhaps pay for) an
experimentalist for collaboration or something. Cripes, the guy
is still using DOS and QBASIC.
Does it really matter? It gets the job done. Qbasic is an excellent
communication tool in my opinion.
|
In other words, you have no intention of communicating with
people who actively do state-of-the-art experimental work. Sorry
for presuming you might have ambitions other than to be a crank.
| Quote: | "using DOS" I presume refers to the speed control system I employed
to maintain a constant housing rotation rate, and to monitor the
housing-freedisc relationship in the previous experiment. Perhaps
you would like to try that using your wonderous high level language?
|
DOS is an operating system. QBASIC is a programming language.
Linux is an operating system. Python is a programming language.
I was simply suggesting that familiarizing yourself with the
second set might be worthwhile.
| Quote: | But you really won't have a clue how many clock cycles are used in
each of your high level instructions, will you? You will in fact not
have a clue what's going on.
The program was finally written in MASM assembler after I gave up
tearing my hair out using DEBUG, which is just about the lowest
possible level of programming one can use. Does the phrase "low
level programming language" suggest to you that it's a simple system
of programming that's beneath your dignity to be seen using? It may
seem so to you, but it's the high level programming languages that
are made easy to use, so that any dummy can use them with a mimimum
of training. *But they are extremely restrictive*.
|
Let's compare apples to apples. Linux is *far* less restrictive
than DOS, and Python is *far* less restrictive than QBASIC. As I
said, why not contact some people involved in serious
experimental research and solicit their opinions and advice?
---Tim Shuba--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:22 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"shuba" <tim.shuba@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
news:tim.shuba-56C600.14131809072006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
| Quote: | Max "krazy" Keon wrote:
"shuba" <tim.shuba@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
Well, whatever. You're right that he deserves some
credit for getting his hands dirty attempting to do real
experiments. However, doing this kind of thing in isolation, as
he appears to be doing, isn't likely to be hugely productive. Max
could use some of his resources to work with (perhaps pay for) an
experimentalist for collaboration or something. Cripes, the guy
is still using DOS and QBASIC.
Does it really matter? It gets the job done. Qbasic is an excellent
communication tool in my opinion.
In other words, you have no intention of communicating with
people who actively do state-of-the-art experimental work. Sorry
for presuming you might have ambitions other than to be a crank.
|
Just because you have a problem understand QBASIC doesn't imply
that everyone else does. It's a very simple and effective
communication tool.
| Quote: | "using DOS" I presume refers to the speed control system I employed
to maintain a constant housing rotation rate, and to monitor the
housing-freedisc relationship in the previous experiment. Perhaps
you would like to try that using your wonderous high level language?
DOS is an operating system. QBASIC is a programming language.
Linux is an operating system. Python is a programming language.
I was simply suggesting that familiarizing yourself with the
second set might be worthwhile.
|
That's what I would do if the need ever arose.
| Quote: | But you really won't have a clue how many clock cycles are used in
each of your high level instructions, will you? You will in fact not
have a clue what's going on.
The program was finally written in MASM assembler after I gave up
tearing my hair out using DEBUG, which is just about the lowest
possible level of programming one can use. Does the phrase "low
level programming language" suggest to you that it's a simple system
of programming that's beneath your dignity to be seen using? It may
seem so to you, but it's the high level programming languages that
are made easy to use, so that any dummy can use them with a mimimum
of training. *But they are extremely restrictive*.
Let's compare apples to apples. Linux is *far* less restrictive
than DOS, and Python is *far* less restrictive than QBASIC. As I
said, why not contact some people involved in serious
experimental research and solicit their opinions and advice?
|
Let's get back to the DOS-Linux comparison when trying to gain
direct access to the COM ports. You really don't know what you're
talking about, do you. The only way to monitor housing-disc rotation
times is by direct access to the processor and COM ports, and that
cannot be done with any version of Windows, and it cannot be done
with Linux. In DOS, one has complete control over the COM ports,
and access to the very heart of the processor.
And how do you mask all interrupts in Linux, or Windows, even using
your high level, user friendly languages? That is essential to any
timer program, you know. Don't you? Since Python is under the control
of Linux, it's hardly likely that it will gain direct access to the
COM ports. In fact it won't.
Debug can still be found living out a rather low key existence in
the Windows\System32 directory of XP, but is now stripped of much
of its power.
Test your ability to precisely follow instructions, and go along
on this little Debug excursion. You won't of course, but someone
may like to try it. It performs the simple task of placing the words
"SHUBA THE GREAT" onto the screen. Performing that same task in
Qbasic requires this little program
LOCATE 10, 20: PRINT "SHUBA THE GREAT"
and that will be much the same for any other high level programming
language. The file can then be very easily saved.
Compare the level of programming difficulty with your high level
language. And note the close relationship between yourself and the
processor. If you've made a mistake in the program, the computer
will lock up when you run the result of your programming. But
Windows provides a way out. That's why you can never have total
control.
Copy Debug.exe onto a floppy disc, otherwise any program that you
write will be written to a directory that really should be left
alone. You will find the Command prompt in the Start menu, under
accessories. Click on it, and then in the window type a: (enter)
Carry on from there.
a:\>debug
-a100
1361:0100 mov ax,b800
1361:0103 mov ds,ax
1361:0105 mov ax,7053
1361:0108 mov bx,400
1361:010B call 15a
1361:010E mov al,48
1361:0110 call 15a
1361:0113 mov al,55
1361:0115 call 15a
1361:0118 mov al,42
1361:011A call 15a
1361:011D mov al,41
1361:011F call 15a
1361:0122 mov al,20
1361:0124 call 15a
1361:0127 mov al,54
1361:0129 call 15a
1361:012C mov al,48
1361:012E call 15a
1361:0131 mov al,45
1361:0133 call 15a
1361:0136 mov al,20
1361:0138 call 15a
1361:013B mov al,47
1361:013D call 15a
1361:0140 mov al,52
1361:0142 call 15a
1361:0145 mov al,45
1361:0147 call 15a
1361:014A mov al,41
1361:014C call 15a
1361:014F mov al,54
1361:0151 call 15a
1361:0154 mov ah,4c
1361:0156 int 21
1361:0158 add bx,2 Note: Earlier Debug versions
1361:015B mov [bx],ax require mov word ptr [bx],ax
1361:015D ret
1361:015E nop
1361:015F nop
1361:0160 nop
-r bx
BX ???? (current value)
:0 (change to 0)
-r cx
CX ???? (current value)
:160 (change to 160)
-n mee.com (file name is mee.com
-w (saves the file in the current directory)
Writing 00160 bytes
-q (exits debug)
Press ALT and ENTER to change to full screen mode.
Then at the a:\> prompt
a:\>cls
a:\>mee
After all of your programming effort, you find that once you've
closed the Command prompt window, XP in its infinite wisdom denies
you permission to run your program again. You can only do so while
the current window is active. But it can certainly be run in 98 or
95.
As you can perhaps understand, nobody is going to program in Debug
unless it's absolutely essential.
-----
Max Keon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shuba
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 160
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:11 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Max "krazy" Keon wrote:
| Quote: | Just because you have a problem understand QBASIC doesn't imply
that everyone else does. It's a very simple and effective
communication tool.
|
Um, I hate to keep bringing this up, but QBASIC is a programming
language.
[..]
| Quote: | Test your ability to precisely follow instructions, and go along
on this little Debug excursion. You won't of course, but someone
may like to try it.
|
Your instructions are a bit problematic.
#1 I don't have a floppy drive
#2 .exe files do not execute on my machines
#3 I have no a:\> prompt
#4 I have no Start menu
Feel free to waste more of your time correcting these issues.
I'm sorry if I've caused undue consternation by suggesting that
you consult with serious experimentalists. It was actually meant
as a positive idea, but I see is was an anathema to you.
---Tim Shuba--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:44 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Mortgage Calculator | Online Advertising | Personal Loans | Banruptcy | Credit Card Advice
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
