1) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Cool Science Link: Cern Courier (Message 11065)
Posted 27 Oct 2005 by Ken Vogt
There is in fact now a reply to Korzynski's critique of C&T.
We analyze the presence of an additional singular thin disk in the recent General Relativistic model of galactic gravitational field proposed by Cooperstock and Tieu. The physical variables of the disk's energy-momentum tensor are calculated. We show that the disk is made of exotic matter, either cosmic strings or struts with negative energy density.

I honestly don't know whether this helps or hurts C&Ts case!

One would have thought a galaxy composed even mostly of dark matter was simpler than one needing strings and negative energy?

And there's still the stubborn problem that you can't analyse a singularity with general relativity -- the theory simply does not apply to non-analytic functions.

You can't just say, "OK we have a singular disk, but let's go ahead and compute its properties with GR anyway!"

Again, just my opinion. And I agree with you Alex that since calculus and the absolute value function's properties are college subjects, Ben Owen overstretched to say they were high school errors. :)
2) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Cool Science Link: Cern Courier (Message 11002)
Posted 26 Oct 2005 by Ken Vogt
Actually, the rebuttal paper is Korzynski's, whose abstact is here. Blob was just summarizing its conclusion. I'm sorry, Alex, for any confusion.

You can indeed follow the debate, by clicking on the "cited by" link toward the bottom of the abstract. Any reply on arXiv would be listed there. The rebuttal was posted on 17 August, and so far there have been no replies from anyone, least of all Cooperstock & Tieu.

For reference, the original abstract of Cooperstock & Tieu's paper is here; so far the only citation it has received is Korzynski's rebuttal.

Note also that C&T's paper has only been submitted to the Astrophysical Journal (July 26); you can be sure if it is ever accepted there will be plenty of publicity.

As I say, I don't follow the math in either paper, but reading abstracts on arXiv's astro-ph can often be enlightening. And if you like vigorous debate on theories that may be a bit against the mainstream, there is no place better than the section of the BAUT forum of that name, IMO.

Note also: the Ben Owen whose comment I noted in my post is one of the chief scientists of Einstein@Home; it's just my opinion, YMMV, but based on reading his excellent posts on their board, if he says something is a high school error, you can take it to the bank. :)
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Host corruption (Message 10895)
Posted 25 Oct 2005 by Ken Vogt
I updated as suggested & corruption was fixed, as others have reported.

However after the next WU finished at 13:42, and result was updated, the corruption returned. See #39757.

Sorry, I did not check to see if the corruption happened after the upload, or after the manual update.

This time I will leave in corrupt state if that is helpful to the team.

4) Message boards : Number crunching : Host corruption (Message 10884)
Posted 25 Oct 2005 by Ken Vogt
Hi Chrulle,

This host is corrupted.

BOINC 4.72

Last contact was 10/25 4:16 GMT; a normal DL of work.

My other host hasn't run lhc for some months, so it's not corrupt.

5) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Cool Science Link: Cern Courier (Message 10878)
Posted 25 Oct 2005 by Ken Vogt
I linked to a pretty effective rebuttal to this idea on the E@H board, here.

Specifically, see Blob's post from the BAUT board thread linked there, and Ben Owen's comment toward the end of the E@H thread.

©2024 CERN