1) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Antimatter, Antitime, and Anti-photons. (Message 24971)
Posted 28 Nov 2012 by Aaron Finney
I was thinking today that anti-matter might already exist in the universe, it's just that we can't see it. Whole galaxies of anti-matter could exist in our universe, in the portions of space that we think are "empty", because anti-matter would be travelling backwards in time in it's own gravity-wells. If the anti-photon works exactly opposite to the photon, then it would be travelling in reverse, be the *vaccum* of light, and be unobservable in our universe by normal light-detecting methods.

My question is, how would you detect anti-matter, if it is not emitting anything *backwards* to it's relative time? In other words... if It is (relative to our direction of time) a vaccum of all radio, gravity, and light observation, how do you detect that in our direction of time?

I'm thinking that the only thing in the universe that does not "experience" time would be the fabric of space itself. A black hole would be constantly absorbing and accumulating more and more of space itself as gravity does it's magic to pull in the fabric and (relatively) compress it inside itself. If there *are* antimatter galaxies, then it is safe to assume that there are also anti-black-holes. You should be able to detect the movement of space (relative to us) OUTWARD from these sources. This explains the expansion of space in our normal section of the universe, and why there is so much matter unaccounted for in the universe. If the majority of the universe is anti-matter... then the resulting pressure would result in an outwards expansion of the universe, as these anti-black-holes and other anti-matter anti-gravity sources PUSH (relative to our time direction) space outwards.

I guess this would also mean that photons are not affected by time. Since photons travel at the same speed and it is constant, no matter if it is close to a gravity center or not (and gravity affects time) then it is safe to say that photons, because they do not have mass, are not affected by time itself. Photons would pass right through anti-matter portions of the universe as if it were a blank pane of glass, and apparently in our direction of time.

Any thoughts...? Could this be the "Dark Matter" we've been looking for?
2) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Gravitational Lens via Particle Accelerator (Message 24946)
Posted 7 Nov 2012 by Aaron Finney
I have an idea for an artificial gravitational lens to be possibly used as a telescope.

First, you would need to make a particle accelerator(PA) in space. A big and very powerful one.

Once you have a PA built in space, charge the ring of the PA with a beam of protons like normal, but continue to accellerate the protons until they become so massive as to create a gravitational lens on the inside of the ring. The resolution of the telescope would only likely be limited by the strength of the PA.

One would then be able to see with FAR FAR greater clarity than a traditional telescope, because you wouldn't be limited by the shape, size, or smoothness of the mirror. Space is infinitely smooth.

Gravitational Lensing of course is already possible if we had a close enough black hole so that we wouldn't have to build a PA to create an artificial lens. Of course, nobody wants to live nextdoor to a black hole, so this idea sidesteps all of that, aside from the fact that we do not live next to a black hole!

Anyone have any thoughts on this idea?

Second thought on this topic :

I have to wonder now -- If a smaller version of this could be made, and formed into a microscope here on earth.

Imagine a small PA ring used as the lens in a microscope. Using gravity as the lens, you could see FAR FAR clearer images and you wouldn't have to damage the material in order to view it under the microscope.

This could revolutionize the microscope industry!!!

Any thoughts??? Very excited about this!
3) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Woke up and had this FTL Theory -- (Message 23885)
Posted 13 Feb 2012 by Aaron Finney

(Wholly conceived by me, based upon my visualization of the Universe, in my head.)

"Manipulating gravity in order to move the fabric of space to thereby move you faster than light."

If gravity is responsible for the flexing and bending of the fabric of space, it might be possible to manipulate the gravity in front of an object to accellerate not the object itself, but the *space itself* surrounding the object, to fling it through the rest of space at speeds far greater than the speed of light. The limits on Superrelative/Hyperrelative speed is possibly infinite, HOWEVER --- One must also know the universal dynamics of the resistance of such a "globule" travelling through it's own "stuff". Does it have surface tension? Would it create drag, heat, or some other byproduct? One must then think of space, not as a liquid, or a vacuum, but more of an emulsion. -- Much like the homogenization process used in milk, microscopic "pockets" of spacetime might be propelled through the "space" mixture in their own sections of relative space. For an easier model --- consider a bathtub full of boiled eggs, with the yolk as the gravity well. Of course, this is only a stationary representation.

Next, let's imagine a much larger body of "eggs" this time an entire celestial body made of them. Let's ignore the fact that the weight of the eggs would crush the eggs "below" them, and suspend this enormous batch of boiled eggs in a three dimensional space with no orbit or motion.

Push an egg - Change the universe.

Next, let's consider the yolk's as seperate galaxies.

The white portion of the egg, could be considered the sections of space between galaxies, but now we have to stop thinking of the eggs as eggs, and change the material and texture of the seperate yellow and white portions of the egg to be slightly more fluidic in nature, and not restrict them to specific shapes like we see inside actual eggs. Let's then refer to them as galaxies from now on, but retain the simplicity of the egg design.

Would it be possible then, to propel yourself through the galaxy using gravity, much like using a water hose in a swimming pool? --- The Obverse of using a gravity "well" persay, in this case using a gravity void. I suppose if it's possible to control gravity in such a way (and therefore the fabric of space itself) one would find many artful and creatively complex ways of doing so efficiently.

FTL is possible - Space moves, you don't.

Does this mean that wormholes, are the (in?)complete real(visual)ization of what I just wrote above?

Further, imagine that the properties of the space surrounding the yolks must change the closer you get to them. Let's try to imagine that the white portion of the egg is much less defined, and more like a drop of red dye sitting in a jar of water.

Except that.. the dye itself actually changes the relative gravity and thusly the space around it to hold it somewhat together, rather than totally expand.

This might help explain what gravity is, as less of an effect, but more of the shape of a four dimensional object.

Seems odd to imagine gravity as a dimension, but if it is such -- It would explain why we can calculate it, we just can't see it without a visual representation of it's effects.

Next ! --- Let's imagine a black hole as a supercondensed portion of the fabric of space. Basically, if you have condensed the fabric of space so that it is stretched down around this black hole... It's possible that by going into one, you would then get sucked into a much more different relative space of the tissue of the universe... like passing through a lens, rather than through an event horizon. Such changes would possbly not harm a traveller the size of a human space ship for example, as the fabric of space surely would only relatively change so rapidly. In order to visualize this, let's use one of those circus mirrors which expands and contracts what appears when we look at it.

Moving through the event horizon would be much like a microscopic organism moving across your body, as visualized on the mirror at again an EXTREMELY slow relative speed. Such would be the way a human sized ship would travel through this space. --- Of course, from our vantage, it may look entirely different, because the passage that which light must take in order to reach us would be warped at best -- If it was even visible.

The problem most science might have with visualizing the event horizon is that the object is moving --- I wonder if it's possible to consider that the object remains stationary, and the space around it moves?

Perhaps I have no clue what I'm talking about, but I would be tickled to have a little discussion on this random thought I had this afternoon, even if it's just to completely destroy it's creativity by pointing out some simple things that make such a thing impossible. --- For thinking outside the box can help you with what lies within said box.
4) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Time, Relativity, and Black Holes (Message 22717)
Posted 21 Mar 2011 by Aaron Finney
Any discussion?

Further - This theory provides for stable interspace travel, should we discover how to manipulate gravity without the assistance of a large mass, as the relative time spent in transit could be brought down to 0.
5) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Time, Relativity, and Black Holes (Message 22716)
Posted 21 Mar 2011 by Aaron Finney
If we assume that time is not a constant, but a changing force in the universe that can change according to your relationship with other elements, and energies.. --

What is the likelyhood that we have the gravitational effect on time backwards? --

Instead of the "rate" of time decreasing the closer you get to a gravitational well, it increases?

For instance, Person A is on the earth, Person B - Is in the middle of space, away from our Sun's (and any other) gravitational well. Person A experiences a hypothetical and random 10 minutes, while person B relative to person A experiences another hypothetical and random 5 minutes, or half the time. (or some other more accurate ratio.)

What then - Would a singularity be? -- An incrossable barrier within which the flow of time moves not at all or even backwards?

Sorry I had this instant "what-if" moment while in the shower today when trying to conjure a reason as to why the Voyager 1 spacecraft is "slowing down" with no currently understood reason. What if time itself is moving slower where we are?

Alternatively.. if the gravity well effect is not suspect.. could it be that V-1 is travelling through a patch of space that has slower time? I just had this light-bulb moment that Time is not as constant as we think, because we only get to experience it at one rate. We simply assume it's much more constant, for lack of any other experience.

Any discussion?
6) Message boards : Number crunching : platform 'windows_x86_64' not found (Message 17501)
Posted 22 Jul 2007 by Aaron Finney
7/22/2007 6:24:20 PM|lhcathome|Scheduler RPC succeeded [server version 505]
7/22/2007 6:24:20 PM|lhcathome|Message from server: platform 'windows_x86_64' not found
7/22/2007 6:24:20 PM|lhcathome|Deferring communication for 1 days 0 hr 0 min 0 sec
7/22/2007 6:24:20 PM|lhcathome|Reason: requested by project

It appears that since the server code is so old, the 'alternate_platform' code is missing. Some effort should be made to move towards updating the code.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : The new look bugs (Message 17223)
Posted 4 Jul 2007 by Aaron Finney
The ratings buttons and 'report' buttons in the forums are not working.

When I click on the 'report' button, it brings up the comment box, but once I submit the report, I get 'User with id FORUM_MODERATION_EMAIL_USER_ID created but nothing returned from DB layer'.

Also, though not a forum bug.. The request team founder transfer feature is not active in the teams.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Wait for it (Message 17115)
Posted 26 Jun 2007 by Aaron Finney

Congrataru Kupo..

9) Message boards : Number crunching : XML Stats Export (Message 17073)
Posted 21 Jun 2007 by Aaron Finney
10) Message boards : Number crunching : XML Stats Export (Message 17042)
Posted 16 Jun 2007 by Aaron Finney
Problem : XML Stats Export for this project is offline.

Theory : The 'massively duplicated hosts' bug is causing the XML not to be created because there are WAY too many hosts.

Question #1 : What kind of loose timeframes are we looking at to have this fixed? I'm not silly enough to ask for an hard date and time, but a general speculation about the length of time it could take would be a nice gesture. (I.E. a shipment of rice takes 2 to 8 weeks to arrive by boat)

Question #2 : Are we correct in that the two problems are interconnected and that righting the hosts problem will right the XML stats export problem automatically?

Question #3 : How do you propose to fix the duplicate hosts problem? Perhaps if we knew of the complexity of the issue, we could share some of the pain with you.

Question #4 : Have you contacted various stats sites for input? I'm sure Willy @ Boincstats would be open to the suggestion of offering any kind of assistance / advice he could give, though I can't speak for him.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : xml stats update and status of beta project? (Message 17013)
Posted 10 Jun 2007 by Aaron Finney
I have taken steps to prevent the host XML from importing to BOINCstats (until the host problem is solved).

I could understand the implications of having several million random hosts introduced into your stats table, and agree this was an absolutely nessacery precaution.

Especially considering that LHC only *really* has 100k hosts or so.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Because you asked.... (Message 16881)
Posted 14 May 2007 by Aaron Finney
I'm also going to be snipping out portions to condense this. It's not intended to try to make things out of context (getting that disclaimer out of the way up front!)

Translation : "My taking things out of context should not be called upon for taking things out of context. HaHa! Beat you to it."
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Because you asked.... (Message 16878)
Posted 14 May 2007 by Aaron Finney
I'm saying that you simply can't look past layer 1 in my diatribe.

Credit is only the personification of the issue. - A superficial, but 'tangible' form of the problems at hand.

The problems at hand are the core of my and everyone elses frustration. If you want to put a face to it and call it an incessant almost twisted desire for a number in my boincstats sig to go up 19k (I'm getting 80+k a month, whoopie that 19k really means alot!), well that is your perogative. Unfortunately, just as psychotic as that would sound it is also hideously incorrect.

While there are those of us who may call attention to and 'bitch' about the credits (as you have suggested), most if not all of the time it is only our envisionment of deeper problems that we are *really* trying to address. As users in an open source community we generally understand that crap can happen, we simply cannot understand why:

1. The previous caretaker, 'CERN' neglected this project to the point of death, then at the last moment transferred it out of their control to save some face before it really fell apart and became too embarrassing for them. While this may have bought some time for the new project owners, I think it only made the situation worse.

2. Update 1 and Update 2 on the front page from the London staff are basically the same. What progress was made between the two? What 'actual' progress has been given? Any? To my knowledge we have never actually been told that much has happened other than 'we're working on this' or 'we're looking into this'. The ONLY form of progress we actually have been specifically told about was that the new server arrived, and that has nothing to do with 'transition' that's just preparedness.

3. There has been nearly 0 project communication for the last 3 months, and when there was/is any project communication from the staff, it involves either telling us the same thing over and over about things they have to do to enable a smooth transition (while carefully rewording enough of it to sound temporarily unique), or to simply state 'We're working hard, but it's real busy here'.

Number 1, the new project admins can't answer for, so that's forgotten, but at the same time, we still have that wound in our side from the previous owner of the project. We improved in the short term, but god dammit - We've been forgotten again and all of those feelings come back to bear.

Number 2 tells us a few things. Not championing your progress to users who are incessantly inquiring about your efforts heavily implies that zero has been done to actually 'transition' the project. If they had actually done something to facilitate the transition, don't you think they would have announced it in the form of 'Hey today we got the E-Mail to work!'. At least that would have made us feel like there was some progress and while there was some of this originally I haven't seen any of it in at least 3 months. I don't know what IT professionals they have at the college in London, but over 5 months to get a system transferred is simply damn embarrassing.

The Coup De Grace to all of this is Number 3. The staff have quit piping in to make comments to us and there aren't many explanations given for this. Why can't we break through this barrier of silence and have a little discourse to find out what's going on behind the scenes? - The answer is only unfortunately that they simply can't or don't want to tell us what the real reasons are. And don't tell me that jumping in to tell us they are alive and well in london is enough, I can get a crack addict to log in for me and do that once a week for 5 bucks. The problem with this methodology is that while the staff think that hiding the problems is the right thing to do, they couldn't be more wrong.

The only logical reason given the information at hand is that all of these things are too painful for staff to express to this projects users. The staff here would rather let accounts hemorrage to other projects than devote resources to satiating it's userbase because they *believe* there are enough diehard sheep in their flock to keep this titanic afloat and that the 'cost-to-benefit ratio' to actually make it work the way it should simply isn't worth it.

I refuse to be subverted into believing the lie any longer.

I give up.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Because you asked.... (Message 16875)
Posted 14 May 2007 by Aaron Finney

("The only form of appreciation I need is just to have my stats exported.", "give me credits or give me death") for a long time now.

'give me credits or give me death' was a joke. Did you read the post, or are you *that* bereft?

Oh wait....

I read your posts before I said what I said.

Apparrently you *are* bereft. My mistake.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Because you asked.... (Message 16873)
Posted 14 May 2007 by Aaron Finney

Thank you for making this clearer to me.

As you have completely misunderstood what I said, and taken it to mean that I am after something I'm not. I could give a **** what my 'score' is. I'm tired of being lied to.

However - You have cleared up the issue *for me*.

My resource share for this project will now be lowered to 1.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Because you asked.... (Message 16871)
Posted 13 May 2007 by Aaron Finney

The transition is progressing. Hope to have some more concrete information on the front page soon.

I know a number of you are feeling frustrated about this... if it is any comfort so am I!!!

LHC@Home Server Admin

Alex, I rarely do this, so please know that I do so out of necessity

This project has had 5 months to transition the server and get things running.

I call BS, and you sir - smell of it!

On an afternote, there would be nothing to please me more than for you to prove me wrong. I dare you. Double dare you!

Course.. that would mean we would get the stats exporting problem fixed... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! - that'll happen.
17) Message boards : Number crunching : Because you asked.... (Message 16849)
Posted 9 May 2007 by Aaron Finney

3. The "Stats" fault has been in existence for ages (before the migration). It has no scientific significance whatsoever - therefore, it has a priority of "<=0" (that isn't a smiley but it should be ;-) ). No matter how long or loud the whinges, it ain't going to change anytime soon, so get over it.

The only way it is going to change is to have a mass exodus of accounts.
18) Message boards : Number crunching : Project dead ? (Message 16848)
Posted 9 May 2007 by Aaron Finney
Costs nothing to have a machine attatched with a few percent quota allocated to LHC, wu's come along, so you get one, they don't, you don't. Your other projects use the quota that LHC is not using, they gain.

Typically I have 1-2 of the "intermittent" projects attached to each of my crunchers.

If you want to be alerted when something gets posted as news, subscribe to the RSS feed, although I have to say, the RSS feed from LHC has a habit of regurgitating old news from time to time.

It's a simple request, and if it can't be fixed (after a year of not having it) I have no intentions on devoting my network of computers ANY more time to LHC.

Apparrently the people running the show here have either forgotten about us, or have the idea that they don't have to make us happy to get what they want.

In either case, I'm done. I don't like being 'used' and then thrown away like a used condom.
19) Message boards : Number crunching : Project dead ? (Message 16835)
Posted 7 May 2007 by Aaron Finney
Why all this drama? Why not simply leave your hosts attached, and receive work if and when it becomes available? It doesn't hurt you to have your machines pinging LHC once in a while for work. Why must everyone act as if LHC is out to offend them personally?

As much as I would love to participate in the project, I want to know that my participation in said project is appreciated.

The only form of appreciation I need is just to have my stats exported.

If you can't do that, you don't appreciate my participation, and I no longer have a desire to participate in the project.

End of line.
20) Message boards : Number crunching : Project dead ? (Message 16833)
Posted 7 May 2007 by Aaron Finney
By by !


If you leave quickly you can take your time coming back.

Quickly? I've been a LHC member for 2 1/2 years... This is not a quick decision.

I think I might be jumping ship too if my birthday wish isn't granted.

Next 20

©2021 CERN