Posts by [B^S] Molzahn

41) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Cosmology, who needs it? (Message 12679) Posted 8 Feb 2006 by [B^S] Molzahn Post: Thank you very much, It was incredibly helpful; I own two of those books but have yet to completely read them. (Shakespeare, Doyle, Poe, Atwood, Constitutional Law and various text books have consumed my reading so far this semester.) I will purchase the rest (that you mentioned) tommorow and start reading them in the order you have listed; or if another order, (upon reading the back cover ie: date wise, becomes apparent i will read them that way.) I know my ineptitude is far beyond the pale, but i appreciate any help that will point me in the right direction. Thank you so very much for taking the time to help me in my quest for knowledge, Mike aka: ACLUguy. Post Script: I saw Brian Greene on C-SPAN2's book tv a year or two ago; im a policy wonk, most of my time is donated to political campaigns and non-profits that benefit the "working poor to the poor" like meals on wheels, soup kitchens and what not. I love book TV and Brian Greene captivated me, that's why I purchased his book. And no doubt you can guess Hawking's book (It has sold second to the bible from what i understand) is the other... Thank you again!!!
42) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Cosmology, who needs it? (Message 12677) Posted 8 Feb 2006 by [B^S] Molzahn Post: Hello all, So, I know the title is slightly inflammatory; I understand cosmology is extremely useful and important; the title was more or less used to grab attention. As an aspiring student of cosmology (or even quantum mechanics), I have a couple questions; and I thought since LCH has to deal with black-holes this would be the place to ask. (I really enjoyed reading that "what if CERN created a black hole" thread.) (just quick bit about my background: I have taken high school and a basic college classes in physics, I enjoy the science channels Tuesday night programming, and I have read bits and pieces of various prominent physicists like Feynman and Hawking; I (would like to think I) completely understand Einsteins general and special theories of relativity.) So, if the universe will lose its expanding momentum, at some point, is it at all possible that it will have another big bang and re-expand? The way I see it is: If a black hole can consume another black hole, isnt it possible that once all of the back holes have merged and eaten every thing they can, wouldnt they then react in some way. (In another big bang, that is.) When you think of the tree falling in the woods metaphor you need someone to hear it fall. If there is nothing (matter, light, energy, what-have-you, black holes) left for a final black hole to consume, and it has nothing for this, speculative, black hole to react with (and share a symbiotic relationship with) wouldnt it react in some way? I would assume a final black hole with nothing left to "react with" would then "collapse" & (or just) "explode". (creating another big bang...) If this idea has been discussed by someone, or written about: a link or an author's name would be greatly appreciated. I am sorry I could not articulate this thought more clearly, ACLUguy Post Script: Sorry if this is completely off base or an inept line of thinking, its something I have always wondered about. The reason i am posting this is (i would love to know): If this notion has been completely discredited, or if there is further (credible) reading to be done on the subject. (sorry for my ineptitude...) Post Script two: If this is far beyond an explaination or is just "plain stupid" please just say "you're stupid: here is why", or "this idea is so inept that the innumerable problems cannot be explained." (Thank you; English, political science and law are where i excel. I have yet to, go in depth (so to speak), with physics; aside from my minor reading experience.) Post Script three: I didnt use apostrophes, as in its (it is) a nice day, because the apostrophes created strange question marks; i hope that didnt hinder your ability to understand what i was trying to say; aside from the convoluted representation of my idea(s).
43) Message boards : Number crunching : @Admin: Release optimised Clients? (Message 12541) Posted 28 Jan 2006 by [B^S] Molzahn Post: Hey guys/gals, I have to thank you, That was beyond the pale for any explanation I could have expected... Paul, that information is far more than I can comprehend in the, arguably, drunken state I am in. Yet, from what I understood of that information (so far), it was extremely useful in helping me understand the implications of such a venture in the LHC project and with the BOINC client itself. Ray, your post was tremendously helpful, thank you for putting things in "straight forward" terms and for adding to Paul's eloquent and informed explanation; I appreciate it. I'm grateful to be a member of such a helpful and committed crunching community; I am glad we are all committed to such an important scientific endeavor. Without like-minded individuals: BOINC wouldn't exist. Thank you both, ACLUguy
44) Message boards : Number crunching : @Admin: Release optimised Clients? (Message 12532) Posted 28 Jan 2006 by [B^S] Molzahn Post: Thank you for responding, i will try to make this (slightly) more clear, Yeah I understand the difference between the SETI optimization & BOINC optimization; at least i think so, perhaps i'm not understanding the BOINC optimization and that's why my post was misleading. I was just wondering if using a optimized BOINC client would corrupt/reduce the quality of LHC results; something I don't wish to do. I assumed the BOINC optimization exe was just optimizing BOINC for my processor, and did not sacrifice quality for speed (in every project, including LHC). The consensus (, if i understand correctly,) seems to be that an optimized BOINC client would compromise LHC results... Does that sound right? Or are we just discussing the addition/creation of a new science application to optimize LHC? On the contrary, if an optimized BOINC client will not harm LHC results: I will install it post haste. Thank you for responding, ACLUguy Post Script: I assume, since I wont be installing the optimized BOINC client (it seems like it does corrupt LHC results, from what i can understand): I will install the optimized SETI science program; as you have suggested, and use (instead of the BOINC optimization). Thanks for your response to my redundant, rambling, indecipherable posts. :) (I wish i was adept at communicating with the English language; it seems as if a few of us have this problem...)
45) Message boards : Number crunching : @Admin: Release optimised Clients? (Message 12530) Posted 28 Jan 2006 by [B^S] Molzahn Post: Ok I re-read this thread and as i know, LHC is already "optimized"; I was just curious if an optimized BOINC client would give less accurate LHC results. It seems as if this is so. Sorry, I should have read this thread more carefully. Thank you, and if this assertion is incorrect please correct me, ACLUguy Post Script: No need to respond unless i am incorrect. :) thanks again
46) Message boards : Number crunching : @Admin: Release optimised Clients? (Message 12527) Posted 28 Jan 2006 by [B^S] Molzahn Post: Hello my fellow LHC crunchers, LHC and Einstein are my primary concerns with BOINC at the moment, I also run Seti, and was/am planning on installing an optimized BOINC client tonight (http://www.guntec.de/Crunch3r/boincx86.html )... Since LHC is my primary concern: is it a bad idea to install an optimized client? or are we just discussing the optimized project application? Sorry to ask a question that most likely has an obvious answer; hopefully someone can clarify my misunderstanding with the difference here. Thanks a ton, ACLUguy Post Script: Thank you in advance for taking the time to humor my "newbie" question.

Previous 20

LHC@home