If someone couldn't access Google.COM, it's because their DNS (Domain Name Server, a computer/program that translates the addresses like Google.COM to the numerical IP addresses) is down. Some people even argued that Google's domain was hijacked by SoGoSearch.COM and it showed their main screen. Others suggested that Google.COM was switching their DNS software. In the case that the problems are repeated, you can access the engine here:

Also, the server news.google.com may be independently unavailable just like it is now. A useful replacement is e.g.

Congratulations to the unknown 100,000th visitor of this blog (the counter only counts unique visits per day, approximately speaking).
Any ideas as to why Google was down? I have a report from a freind in Pheonix that MSN was dowm as well.

ReplyDeleteLet's see - before Google - good progress in physics, every 10-20 yrs or so. After - zero progress - but many books writenn at a third grade level sold to those who aren't able to judge the content! Perfect!

ReplyDeleteCoincidence? Maybe not!

Maybe I'm losing brain cells but mostly I can't tell the difference between postings here from Jefferson Labs Tea Parties and random spewing from a physics/maths verbiage generator:

"..3(N)x(U1) ten dimensional p-adic hyper-gravito-bosonic super-symmetric [s1] gluino-sheaf bundle,..."

Is there one?

Anyone got a good integral needs solving?

Dear TripleIntegral,

ReplyDeleteyes, there is a difference between the random generator and what many of us write - even though sometimes it can be subtle. Yes, you're not the only one who feels that sometimes we are just combining some concepts into decreasingly relevant combinations.

You're also not the only one who would be more than happy to calculate a triple integral to make a big progress in physics. If you know how to isolate such an integral by disconnecting Google ;-), I am absolutely interested in it.

All the best

Lubos

Anyone got a good integral needs solving?

ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know a webpage that does numerical *definite* integrals as effectively as

http://integrals.wolfram.com/

does indefinite ones?

"In fact, some believe MASINT will be the most important "technical INT of the future."

ReplyDeleteIC21: The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century

Staff Study

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

House of Representatives

One Hundred Fourth Congress

￼

VII. MASINT: Measurement and Signatures Intelligence

MORE FUNDAMENTALLY it is

guv(Curved)

= {Iu^a + Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO)}(Flat)ab{(Iu^a + Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO)}

Therefore, it is the DYNAMICAL B field from argVacuumODLRO that PHYSICALLY WARPS space-time universally!

Note to NID MASINT

ETTT = ET^3 = Extra Terrestrial Time Travelers with W^3 technology supplement to C^3.

If these observers are ET^3s in anyon spray-painted flying saucers, they must switch off warp drive for this. They cannot metric engineer their local space-time fabric to illustrate 1916 GR that does not include such advanced technology.

MASINT: MEASUREMENT AND SIGNATURES INTELLIGENCE

Study Purpose

One can argue that the requirements levied on the Intelligence

Community (IC) in the twenty-first century will not be radically

different than those levied on it today. The basic information

needs of "who, what, where, when and why" will likely not change.

However, most can easily agree that the sophistication of the

technologies employed in the future weapon systems (threats) that

the IC will be tasked against will be radically improved, and

perhaps even more radically different than those we attempt to

understand today. Increasingly, even unsophisticated countries are

gaining access to relatively inexpensive, but high technology

weapons. Weapons that can be "launched and forgotten," weapons of

mass destruction -- including nuclear, chemical and biological, or

weapons that are difficult to detect or are stealthy. The

resulting need for a more sophisticated IC collection capability is

clear. Clear also, is the need to unambiguously identify these

specific weapons or capabilities -- often before they are ever

used. The IC's ability to specifically locate, identify,

characterize, and determine the intentions of such weapons or

threats is, and will become even more, critical. Conventional

technical intelligence disciplines -- Imagery Intelligence (IMINT),

Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), etc. -- have played, and will

continue to play, a vital role in the identification and location

of such targets. However, as the sophistication of these targets

increases, or as countries (or transnational players) employ

effective denial and deception techniques, we will need to employ

new capabilities to ensure we can continue to answer the consumers'

questions. One such capability is Measurement and Signature

Intelligence, or MASINT. MASINT is a very scientific and

technically-based discipline that can provide unique contributions

to the IC in terms of specific weapon identifications, chemical

compositions, material content, etc. Such unique identifications

will be a major factor in answering the future questions of "who,

what where, when and why." In fact, some believe MASINT will be

the most important "technical INT of the future."

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/intel/ic21/ic21007.html

On May 16, 2005, at 4:11 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On May 15, 2005, at 4:09 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

II

On May 14, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Paul your whole approach to this problem is based on a naive bogus idea that total energy conservation is an absolute. It's not.

The "naive bogus idea" here is that physical entities should be described *objectively*, and that the existence or non-existence of such an entity

should not depend on the state of motion of any observer.

That is poppycock Paul. It's too vague.

"...the existence or non-existence of such an entity should not depend on the state of motion of any observer" is VAGUE?

That's a black-and-white categorical proposition.

Going to The Ball?

Whilst the "existence" may not depend on state of motion, or orientation of a magnet (quantum spin), the projections (eigenvalues) certainly do, i.e. the raw data.

Objectivity is relative to the GROUP of relevant frame transformations.

*May* not depend? Or *cannot* depend on it, as a matter of principle?

Obviously, "speed" of a test particle depends on the state of motion of detector. And it is zero in the rest frame of the test particle. Therefore "speed" is not a "tensor". It's zero in one frame and not in any other! However 4-velocity is a tensor relative to T4xO(1,3).

But I would not say that "speed" is "fictitious" or "not real". Inelastic collisions are quite real. Smash your BMW into a brick wall at 65 mph and you will say that is not real! Preposterous poopycock Paulito. Meta-theoretics? Bah! Humbug! Laputan.

A fictitious field of force exists or not depending on the state of motion of the observer. Such a "field" that exists for one observer may not exist for another.

Give an example. (LC) is not at all fictitious simply because it is not a Diff(4) tensor. That at any event P there exist an infinity of LIFs in which at least (LC)^i00 = 0 does not mean that the (LC) field is not real. You can mathematically make all components of (LC) vanish of course, but that is excess baggage in terms of rest LNIF dynamics of the "weight" of a test particle caused by non-gravity forces.

That is not an objective physical entity. It is merely a *useful fiction*.

So, physics is the science of useful fictions just as calculus is the study of ghosts of departed quantities?

According to my diagnosis, the root fallacy of Einsteinian physics is to treat useful fictions as real entities, and then to seamlessly combine them together into *chimeras* like Einstein's unified gravitational-inertial field, which is half fiction and half reality.

Well at least the writing is improving though not the truth of the content. ;-) Obviously Paul what is wrong here is your notion of "reality".

In this "redneck" POV, a supposed entity whose very existence is observer-dependent is to be regarded as *fictitious*.

Too strong. Do you put red hot chile peppers on your ice cream?

"Existence" is inferred from actual frame-dependent "values" in many repeated measurements on identically prepared ensembles in both quantum and classical physics.

Since quantum mechanics, as everyone knows, is NUTZ, I would prefer not even to refer to it here.

Not true. Micro-quantum theory is not nuts. It has several interpretations to be sure and its limits are not understood even by Pundits. For example macro-quantum theory breaks the signal locality rule of micro-quantum theory. It also explains why the large-scale world is local and why Schrodinger's Cat is the Chimera.

You might as well say that the real existence of a three-dimensional object is inferred from its various perspective views. This may be so, but it is not just the set views; it is also how the various perspectives relate as the object moves.

Who denies that?

In the abstract, that is why tensors represent mathematical objects. It is not just the values of the components in various coordinate frames, but the coordinate transformation rules that they obey, that matters.

Of course. Is the Pope Catholic? But requiring homogeneous multi-linear transformation is not intrinsic to physical reality. Zero is a good number. It's OK for a real thing to be zero in one frame and not in another. Indeed, tensors are peculiar in that they do not allow that. Your error is to think that x = 0 means that x no longer exists!

To say (LC) is not real BECAUSE of XY =/= 0 in

(LC)' = XXX(LC) + XY

is silly. That Emperor has no clothes.

One thing you cannot do is systematically confuse a real physical change (e.g. thermal expansion) of a three-dimensional object with a mere coordinate transformation or a change of the observer's perspective on the object.

Yes, but not all frame transformations are passive. Some are active as when the local frame accelerates or rotates adding inertial forces that move pointers on detectors! These inertial forces cause stresses & strains in materials because there are always non-gravity real forces causing them!

Not all frame transformations are equivalent to Cartesian <-> polar. What matters is (LC)^i00 where i = 1,2,3 spacelike

Any GCT Xu'^u that changes (LC)^i00 in a non-trivial way that has

(LC)^i'0'0' - (LC)^i00 =/= 0

is DYNAMICAL introducing inertial forces caused by stress-strain producing real non-gravity forces.

Note that e^i' = Xi^i'e^i (e.g. Cartesian <-> polar) is a trivial change, i.e. the acceleration 3-vector is invariant.

Basis vectors e^x, e^y, e^z -> e^r, e^theta, e^phi

dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)

is still a linear orthogonal transformation.

{c^2(LC)^i00} is invariant there.

Suppose I propose a theory of thermal contraction as "equivalent" to a rotation of the observer's perspective on a metal bar? You would rightly consider me to be certifiably insane, since this would muddle subjective appearance with physical reality.

Take the SSS metric

g00 = (1 - 2GM/c^2r) = -1/grr

r > 2GM/c^2

Note to be consistent in terms of physical dimensions you really must use

gtheta,theta = (r/L)^2 with coordinate differential Ldtheta

gphi,phi = (r/L)^2sin^theta with coordinate differential Ldphi

L is an arbitrary length scale that cancels out of actual local observables.

Now this metric representation is what hovering rest LNIF observers see. Such an observer cannot exist without non-gravity forces!

The physical time differential for example is

dT = g00^1/2dt

Gravity time dilation is for those hovering LNIF guys

dT(P)/g00(P)^1/2 = dT(P')/g00(P')^1/2

Similarly gravity radial warp is

dR(P)/grr(P)^1/2 = dR(P')/grr(P')^1/2

There is NO local transverse warp UNLIKE Hal Puthoff's exponential PV SSS metric!

That is, the transverse warps are effectively zero, transverse base space is locally flat in the SSS problem for hovering LNIFs.

You ask, what is the cause of the universality?

The answer is the equivalence principle that locally the gravity force is indistinguishable from an inertial force ALWAYS WITHOUT FAIL caused by a non-gravity electrical force!

Also

Ruv = 0

in ordinary vacuum with vanishing "dark" zero point energy density of either sign of pressure for hovering observers in space in rockets above surface of Earth.

But more fundamentally its the M(source) that does it where Ruv = 0 smoothly matches

Ruv - (1/2)Rguv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv(Matter) = 0

If its a Geon of Mass without mass then it is the multiply-connected 3-space topology permitted by the plastic nonlinearities hidden in the vacuum equation

Ruv = 0

because Ruvwl is the covariant curl of (LC). It's not only the quadratic terms (LC)(LC), but it's the nonlinear terms in B where B is the local gauge field from T4 -> Diff(4) and MORE FUNDAMENTALLY it is

guv(Curved)

= {Iu^a + Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO)}(Flat)ab{(Iu^a + Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO)}

Therefore, it is the DYNAMICAL B field from argVacuumODLRO that PHYSICALLY WARPS space-time universally!

ETTT = ET^3 = Extra Terrestrial Time Travelers with W^3 technology supplement to C^3.

If these observers are ET^3s in anyon spray-painted flying saucers, they must switch off warp drive for this. They cannot metric engineer their local space-time fabric to illustrate 1916 GR that does not include such advanced technology.

One thing that is actually locally measured is the tidal curvature geodesic deviation between two geodesic test particles.

Another thing you can measure is the color shift between two hovering LNIF observers.

Since this solution is asymptotically flat, as r -> infinity the hovering LNIF observer --> LIF, i.e. the non-gravity force needed to keep the detector of mass m at a fixed r with no orbital angular momentum is

f(non-gravity) = mGM/r^2 ---> 0

the geodesics approach straight lines in 3D space as r -> infinity.