/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1249366]

hey /sci/, no guesses; what creates gravity?

[Inurdaes !lolol6yVHg No.1249377]

Higgs boson lolz

[Anonymous No.1249382]

>>1249366
Mass causing a disturbance in the space-time.
My space-time sense is bending.

[Anonymous No.1249402]

>>1249382

so more mass = more gravity?

[Anonymous No.1249405]

>>1249402
Yep, that's the basics.

[Anonymous No.1249411]

>>1249405
It's like he never took an Earth Science class!!!

[Anonymous No.1249430]

well im asking because i noticed the moon has 1/6th the gravity of earth and yet 1/80th the mass of earth and was wondering if there's something more too it

[Anonymous No.1249508]

in the same vein as this thread, how does orbit work?

[Anonymous No.1249515]

inb4 "FUCKING MAGNETS"

[Anonymous No.1249543]

>>1249430

1/81 It's all related to the inverse square law.

[Anonymous No.1249548]

>>1249430
It doesn't scale linearly. Scales by r^2.

[Anonymous No.1249550]

>>1249508

Gravitational attraction between to masses is sufficient to trap a planet by centrapetal force.

[Anonymous No.1249563]

>hey /sci/, no guesses; what creates gravity?
no one knows for sure yet what creates gravity yet. there's a lot of hypotheses. higgs boson from the standard model, but there is no evidence for it yet. the LHC is an effort to try to find some evidence for it. then there are models where gravity is emergent, such as induced gravity, entropic gravity, and others. again, there is no solid evidence supporting anything yet.

[Anonymous No.1249567]

>>1249405
so if the universe only had one ginormous entity would all other objects move towards it?

[Anonymous No.1249577]

>>1249563
I think the universe has ways of defining specific collections of entities wherein additional physical components are added. so like a 1000mile long human wont generate any mass because in the system biological entities dont generate mass. also i dont think angular velocity has anything to do with it except for enabling the planets inhabitants to see the whole sky

[Anonymous No.1249579]

>>1249366
WE DONT KNOW YET
/thread

[Anonymous No.1249581]

>>1249577
you sir are a crack pot.

[Anonymous No.1249587]

>>1249577
if you didn't have mass, you wouldn't be attracted to the center of the planet.

gravity is a mutually attractive force.

stop making shit up and believing it to be true.

[Anonymous No.1249592]

>>1249430
f=(G(m1)(m2))/(r^2)
even though moon is substantially smaller, the f (force) in the equation is still bigger because at the surface of the moon, r^2 (radius of moon in this case) is substantially smaller than that of earth...

[Anonymous No.1249597]

>>1249577
get the fuck out

[Anonymous No.1249603]

>>1249587
LOL, EINSTEIN LAUGHS AT YOUR INCORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF GRAVITY.

[Anonymous No.1249604]

>>1249581
My problem is that you dont understand encapsulation. Áll human activity is facilitated by chemical and physical interactions but they are not defined within physical matter. I think I'll stop there

[Anonymous No.1249606]

According to the very latest cutting edge theroies, gravity is created by the change in relative motion between reference frames. By applying the equivalence principle to relative motion and the forces that hold matter together in local clusters (thus forming a reference frame and/or sizable mass) We find that gravity cannot be a fundamental force, but instead a phenomenon of relative entropy differences between two areas of space-time. Among other implications, this means that when I drop a baseball to the ground, this is the act of the baseball and the planet earth attempting to come into thermodynamic equilibrium.

Gravity = thermodynamics

[Anonymous No.1249609]

Mass

[Anonymous No.1249610]

>>1249587
but what im saying is if there's only one significantly large body would all the other smaller bodies travel light years to its center

also this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Op3QLzMgSY for you gyuise who need evidence every step of the way. good luck with that

[Anonymous No.1249614]

>>1249604
organic encapsulation is when a molecule is surrounded by another molecule... both of these molecules have mass. And all human interactions are defined within physical matter, to say they are not means you are a theist...

[Anonymous No.1249615]

>>1249604
that is not true, everything can be explained in terms the physical laws of nature. you have no evidence supporting your claims.

[Anonymous No.1249618]

>>1249606

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1249621]

>>1249604
religious nutcase trying to reconcile his so-called god needing to micromanage everything with actual science detected

[Anonymous No.1249626]

>>1249618
it's just a theory, there's no evidence for it, but entropic gravity is compelling enough to continue researching it. some high profile physicists are looking into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_as_an_entropic_force

[Anonymous No.1249627]

[Anonymous No.1249628]

>>1249610
yes, hence black holes and galaxies... the reason not all matter has collapsed into one entity is because the universe is expanding which is outside the scope of gravity...

[Anonymous No.1249633]

while the question asked is asked by some troll, i was wonder if the rotation of the earth has a significant impact on the acceleration of objects because the g commonly used in physics (9.81 m/s) doesn't account for it.

[Anonymous No.1249636]

Maybe the universe is like Jello, and it expands when it cools.

[Anonymous No.1249637]

>>1249604
Human behavior and life in general is emergent from lower-order chemical processes, it doesn't need to be defined anywhere. I believe you need to research more into what is known in bio-chemistry before making baseless claims.

Emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Everything can be explained in terms of the simpler interactions.

[Anonymous No.1249645]

>>1249633

[Anonymous No.1249647]

>>1249621
If I think I'm god does that make you correct.

Also everything is micromanaged like any other complex system. As i said you dont know shit about encapsulation which is why your eyeball is stuck in a microscope trying to figure out things religious fags already know

[Anonymous No.1249659]

>>1249636
What the fuck is dark matter

[Anonymous No.1249662]

>>1249633
technically it doesnt but if you are rotating with the earth then technically you are also being submitted to inertia and have a force pushing you away from the earth... other factors such as air buoyancy or elevation also contribute to differences in gravitational measurement...

[Anonymous No.1249664]

>>1249637
omg. you silly fek do you see what you keep saying. it's basically saying that svchost.exe doesnt exist because you've never seen a gui for it. All matter is defined by rules that are not perceivable in the physically projected world. what's so hard to understand about this? How exactly are you gonna reverse engineer space ships with that methodology.

[Anonymous No.1249665]

>>1249647
Please define what you mean by encapsulation, provide evidence for your claims and stop with the ad hominem attacks typical of your kind.

I'm a computer scientist, and my definition of encapsulation is the process of compartmentalizing the elements of an abstraction that constitute its structure and behavior--encapsulation serves to separate the contractual interface of an abstraction and its implementation.

[Anonymous No.1249667]

>>1249659

WELL I THINK that dark matter is bose-einsten condesate

[Anonymous No.1249669]

>>1249626
>>1249606
>>1249667

ENTROPYMIND

[Anonymous No.1249672]

>>1249659
personally i think its false but the explanation is that there is matter in the universe that doesnt create observable radiation (or is affected by it) and it affects the gravitational patterns of the universe. its one way to reason out the way galaxies form or why the universe expands...

[Anonymous No.1249678]

>>1249626

Ah, so it's just a guess then?

[Anonymous No.1249679]

>>1249659
It's matter that has cooled into a state unobservable to us, as it emits no electromagnetic energy. Basically the cold-pockets of the universe.

[Anonymous No.1249683]

>>1249665

yes so, you sit in a car and all you know is press gas and it goes. you dont give a shit what gas or an engine do


similarly, it is possible to identify high order functions before understanding the the actual mechanics by identifying other correlations.

that is all

[Anonymous No.1249685]

>>1249664
Disclaimer: I'm a computer scientist.

svchost.exe is emergent from the underlying machine instructions that constitute the program, and the behavior of an instance of svchost.exe while executing is emergent from the laws of electromagnetism which are being used and exploited to design a working electronic circuit.

svchost.exe as a whole is an abstraction, a human invented concept, it doesn't actually exist in the physical world except as a string of zeros and ones in the form of electrons or magnetically polarized regions on a hard disk, or pits on an optical disc, etc.

all software is emergent.

[Anonymous No.1249686]

>>1249672

Yea, the mind bender is this: How can something be said to thermodynamically exist if it doesn't interact with EM? It would have to be made of some very strange shit, such as particles that are reverse entropy or something. But if they were reverse entropy particles then they would be tachyons.

[Anonymous No.1249688]

>>1249626

That's very interesting, I would have never thought to link the two.

[Anonymous No.1249694]

That weird entropy thing aside, I think it has something to do with a delayed action/opposite reaction. If everything was packed together then blown apart by the energy in the big bang, gravity is the yang to that ying. In partnership with the other forces that were overcome, of course.

>Completely made up, per /sci/ rules.

[Anonymous No.1249696]

>>1249686
> particles that are reverse entropy or something
You mean life?

[Anonymous No.1249697]

>>1249685
disclaimer you're a dumb fuck.

i said svchost because its some program used by the OS because whichever guy talked about micromagement indicated God believer and i retorted that all complex systems are micromanaged. I still can't believe you jump on that. I am a computer scientist he says. You must know that I am as well, So I'm not even sure what that was sposed to mean

[Anonymous No.1249699]

>>1249688
Yeah, if you're interested, Erik Verlinde's paper is on arxiv.org, and it's mostly accessible to the layman with just highschool physics knowledge, until it gets into general relativity and m-theory at the end. It's mind blowing stuff.

[Anonymous No.1249708]

>>1249683
So basically, You're implying that the observable laws of physics, etc, are caused by some other more fundamental process which might be able to be inferred from within the system, but can never be completely known from with in the system.

Basically your definintion and use of the term "encapsulation" is "being surrounded by a hidden order". An appeal to a hidden order is equivalent to an appeal to metaphysical first-movers which is then equivalent to the generalized creationist argument. Godfag detected.

>>1249685
>svchost.exe as a whole is an abstraction, a human invented concept, it doesn't actually exist in the physical world

lol no. Just because some "object" is an information abstraction doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or is not real - the pattern within the energy is just as real as the energy that makes it up.

[Anonymous No.1249709]

>>1249697
Please, you're just making yourself look like a fool. I said all software programs, when considered as a whole, can be explained in terms of their underlying components right down to the fundamental laws of nature (electromagnetism).

Software is indeed emergent.

It doesn't matter if it's svchost.exe on Windows, or a kernel module loaded into the Linux kernel, or adobe photoshop.

[Anonymous No.1249715]

>>1249699

I'm glad to hear that someone besides me knows about this research program. That means its a Big Fucking Deal (TM)

VIVA LA HOLOGRAFIC!
:D

[Anonymous No.1249716]

>>1249697
Are you saying that all life is micromanaged by a god?

[Anonymous No.1249732]

>>1249708
GOd dammit.. i meant devil dammit...

All I'm saying is you won't discover the meaning of life by analyzing/discovering the nature of fundamental particles. I will admit that I am no physics genius, but I base all my assumptions on creating my own world. The only tool i have to do this is VR space in computer programs. Now tell me you do not see any parallels with REAL reality. The avatars in the system will never be able to access our dimension and are subject to the constants defined by my physics simulation. the effects of these rules are observable in the VR space but the actual rules can be as contrived as i wish even though the NPc/avatars generate very close models to explain VR phenomena. plz tell me I'm not as crazy as the avg God fag

[Anonymous No.1249742]

>>1249708
>lol no. Just because some "object" is an information abstraction doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or is not real - the pattern within the energy is just as real as the energy that makes it up.

the pattern is very real, but it has no higher-level meaning unless you have a machine or an intelligent observer to assign meaning to it.

take away the higher-order abstractions and concepts, and you have nothing but a string of ones and zeros.

similar to dead languages, take away the meaning assigned to strings of symbols, and all you're left with are scribbles on a wall.

I guess this is more of a philosphical debate at this point.

Irregardless, back to the main point, software is not micromanaged. Neither are are biological systems. Micromanagement implies an intelligent entity hand-guiding all of the tiny interactions in a system. That is simply not the case.

[Anonymous No.1249744]

ITT: a post about the nature of gravity spawns a thread about the hidden-order/veil-of-ignorance argument for the existence of a god, because some creationistfag doesn't think that humans weight anything because their souls don't weight anything, and also that the earth rotates around it's axis so that god could let us see the whole sky

I hate you, /sci/

[Anonymous No.1249747]

>>1249732
>questions about the meaning of life
>physics
Barking up the wrong tree.

But, you know, rather than a "tree" it's a "discipline." And rather than "barking" it's "asking questions about things."

And stuff.

[Anonymous No.1249748]

>>1249716
Look at how many people it takes to maintain an mmorpg. I know i know "infinitely" more complex, baseless analogy but you guys assume that the universe is perfect and does not require an IT staff. As I keep saying encapsulation. If you knew this you wouldn't be riding me with this straw man shit.

There's a bunch of shit you can do long before you can comprehend it. I assert that there are a number of built in human functions that take into account the absence of complete data sets. My second assertion being we are not our bodies, and that bodies(brains) are massively parallel correlatory engines.

[Anonymous No.1249749]

>>1249732
>All I'm saying is you won't discover the meaning of life by analyzing/discovering the nature of fundamental particles.

Actually, you can. By taking and analyzing the nature of the fundamental interactions, molecules, and so on involved, you can build higher-order abstractions that model and explain the emergent phenomena of all of the interactions as a whole. It's the bottom-up approach, and it works.

[Anonymous No.1249750]

I hear Umbral Calculus invented gravity.

Confirm/Deny?

[Anonymous No.1249757]

>>1249748
There is no evidence that the universe we live in is like an MMORPG. There is no evidence that the universe has a purpose, and there is no evidence that it requires something to continually tweak it. In fact, all of the evidence thus far points to the fact that laws and models of the universe being constant.

There is no evidence for your assertions, unless you can someone convince your god to magically create some for you.

[Anonymous No.1249758]

>>1249747
I'm not an antiscientist or nuthin but everyone has their own desires for comprehending their existence. I do not mock or belittle the hard work that scientists do. But what I d is make outrageous claims then look for corroboration in the scientific community for my little theories. i realized long ago that specialization is not for me. One day I will discover the the theory of general conjecture as I am convinced that the majority of physical actions are the projection of high order rules that cannot be understood by disassembling physical matter to its smallest parts/

we cool?

[Anonymous No.1249763]

>>1249577

[Anonymous No.1249765]

>>1249758
No. We're not cool. You are following a haphazard method of making guesses and claims without testing out your hypotheses. You may not be anti-scientist, but you are unscientific. There is no reason for any rationally minded person to take your claims at face value, so stop expecting that to happen.

[Anonymous No.1249768]

>>1249732

It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you believe that your consciousness can alter reality, manifest your desires, etc because your body is just an avatar that is being controlled by a god-soul. This is not new, in fact it is quite new-agey which explains your compulsion to abuse scientific concept to make your point, but that is forgiven for the moment.

I personally believe that my consciousness is the spawn of a collective god-soul, however I understand that such a god-soul must exist within the limits of thermodynamics in order to meaningfully exist at all - as such I do not believe that the god-soul created the law of thermodynamics. Ergo I do not believe that just because I might "have a soul", that I can manifest shit in reality and use my mind to warp the fucking matrix. I can change my perception of the situation around me and expand my understanding but that is as far as the metaphor goes, in my experience.

To take it a little further, I will posit that due to the human mind's ability to change perception, we can easily trick ourselves into believing that we "manifested" something we wanted into our lives when it so happens that we receive it. So you see, it becomes a classic case of causation/correlation confusion.

TL;DR: walking around beliving that your consciousness (or God's will, or the Flying Speghetti Monster's noodly appendage) somehow directly manifests your reality is psychologically unhealthy and shows that you don't understand cause and effect very well.

[Anonymous No.1249769]

>>1249757
yup. it's like you're coaxing me into a religious rant. but i'll resists. keep confirming your bias.


>>1249749
actually it doesnt work, and when it does it's slow as fuck. also it's called a break through because you get through when you break the rules.

It reminds me very much of google. They try to employ the scientific process in all stages of web development. so while they think they're getting user data, it's just random shit and testing billions of color/layout combinations doesn't help anybody. Sometimes you gotta go with your gut - Jesus

[Anonymous No.1249774]

>>1249769
>Sometimes you gotta go with your gut - Jesus
It looks like my bias correctly predicted your mindset.

[Anonymous No.1249779]

>>1249769
It does work and it's used extensively in all engineering fields. It's just as valid an approach as top-down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-down_and_bottom-up_design

I can provide references and citations, and supporting evidence. I don't see you providing any evidence.

This is just an example of the bottom-up approach being used successfully.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn700239j

I could provide any number of examples. Your claims aren't holding up.

[Anonymous No.1249791]

>>1249768
No I don't/ I dont even think of God as a person or singualr being. I dont tihnk of heaven or hell or none of that existential stuff. As for the mmorpg paradigm, I find it extremely interesting that you find it ridiculous to conceive that paradigm, when all we're doing is widening our understanding of science and our main implementation of these discoeveries turn into toys, the most common being robots (AI) and VR worlds. In a few years there will be little difference between real world physics and simulations. When that happens perhaps it will be easier for you to comprehend, or relate with my analogy why is it so hard to comprehend that reality is nothing more magnificent than this same progression of trivial entertainment.

As for manipulating matter, I think it's been proven that we do affect matter both local and non to some extent. also I'm black

[Anonymous No.1249792]

>>1249769
>Implying you're not a retard in need of a .45 calibre frontal lobotomy

[Anonymous No.1249793]

>>1249792
this

[Anonymous No.1249796]

>>1249750

>Implying umbral calculus didn't invent everything

[Anonymous No.1249800]

>>1249791
>I think it's been proven that we do affect matter both local and non to some extent.
[citation required]

yeah, I know you're probably getting sick of this, but you need to learn that no rationally minded person will take claims that appear new or contradictory to existing knowledge at face value. you must provide evidence.

[Anonymous No.1249802]

>>1249365
ｒＥｍＯEｖ ＹｕＯｒ_ＩLｌgEａｌ CｌＯeN Fo ｈtｔＰ://ｗww.ＡnToＮyＴａlk.ＳＥ/_(aｎｔoＮY_= ＡNoN)_iｍmｅｉｄaｔｅlＹ. eweneuxs cj favwn ulmaz ldkax o v krvrstlpvm

[Anonymous No.1249807]

>>1249758

>as I am convinced that the majority of physical actions are the projection of high order rules that cannot be understood by disassembling physical matter to its smallest parts

I disagree because all of the observable evidence points to the universe explicitly NOT working the way you say it might.

You are an anti-reductionist. Ultimately you don't believe that we can understand how the system works from the inside of it, and as such you don't think that scientific investigation of the world around us can yield the ultimate answers. This in turn is caused by your believe that there exists something both with and yet beyond the physical laws of the world that cause the physical laws of the world - this is a viewpoint called Panentheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

NOT to be confused with Pantheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

The issue here is that, IF we are going to push it, Pantheism agrees more with modern scientific evidence and theory than Panentheism does.

[Anonymous No.1249810]

>>1249779
Your claims aren't holding up.

XD at least you want to be a real scientist. I can't fault you for that. But so many words have been put in my mouth, I think I just might skip breakfast.

All these weren't started from scratch they rely on the work of other individuals. and if you're referencing chemistry, that's definitely not the bottom. cite the countless research halted until a breakthrough by some other research group. As i said I got no problem against science, but it is limited and slow.. As i said

[Anonymous No.1249818]

>>1249363

rEｍｏｅV_ｙUｏｒ IlｌGｅaL ＣＬoＥＮ_FＯ hＴｔＰ://WwW.ａｎtOnｙｔAｌＫ.Se/ (ａNＴＯｎＹ = AＮｏＮ) ｉＭＭEiｄAＴELｙ. a ff ssafwtizqmml oty nck bb lmbo bbej pztd

[Anonymous No.1249821]

>>1249810
>Your claims aren't holding up.
Yes they are, I just provided undeniable evidence--proof--that the bottom-up approach to problem solving works in at least one scenario, thus disproving your claim that bottom-up never works.

In the paper I linked from ACS Nano, it shows that academics have used the bottom-up approach in the successful design synthetic peptide cell translocators.

How can any sane person say that isn't proof?

[Anonymous No.1249829]

>>1249807
I dont believe. note I always say I think.And yes, if you were following my argument instead of feeding off small parts you'd realize that I dont dispute scientific methodology or refute verified scientific discoveries. I think that understanding the universe is our destiny. Getting off this planet is the first step. physical Immortality is inevitable and from this will call the ability to perceive long term cycles necessary for the evolution of our intuition which we will need for tying the more complex facets of physics into a "theory of all this shit". but that's never ever ever ever going to make us see the "underlying code/mechanism" that keeps all these rules that we will observe coherent and consistent across the universe. And if I must again explain why this is, I guess I'm done here.

[Anonymous No.1249832]

>>1249810

>Implying that there is something else besides science, that is not limited or slow, which we can use to understand reality in a more accurate way

such as: Fuckin' Magic EVERYWHERE in this bitch. Or similar. Stop trolling /sci/ with your philosophical spirituality. You must be at least a reductionist and/or naturalist to ride this ride.

[Anonymous No.1249833]

>>1249810
you're just trolling at this point, give it up

[Anonymous No.1249836]

Gravity is the geodesic shadow from the 4th dimension

[Anonymous No.1249841]

>>1249821
software developer here, we use the bottom up approach all of the time in software development, especially when design frameworks. top-down in the form of divide and conquer is more applicable to specific use cases.

the other guy saying bottom-up is slow and doesn't work doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.1249849]

>>1249829
>I guess I'm done here.
great, you're done. farewell. and may a bullet find it's way into your skill.

[Anonymous No.1249850]

>>1249821
How can any sane person stop reading a sentence after a comma then go troll google for refuting evidence?

I said it doesnt work, well it does, but it's slow as fuck.

what i wanted to type was if i cant fly then science hasn't accomplished anything.

I'm sure if you try you'll find it.

also: being smarter than a retard does not make one smart. line by line dismantling of arguments are very cool in the movies, but in real life you attack my conclusion based on my arguments not attack my arguments bottom-up XD and miss the point entirely. because I can do that too.

[Anonymous No.1249851]

>but that's never ever ever ever going to make us see the "underlying code/mechanism" that keeps all these rules that we will observe coherent and consistent across the universe

Well, I disagree and as far as I'm concerned, a person as some level must also fundamentally disagree in order to have any sincere faith in the continued pursuit of science. Most scientists probably disagree with you as well, which is why they continue to do science. That is, they believe that we will in fact find all the answers, given that our species last long enough to do it.

[Anonymous No.1249856]

>>1249841
explains why nobody can exploit all dems multicores.

also, that didnt make a lick of sense. you must be 12

[Anonymous No.1249862]

>>1249851
ok, how can scientists disagree with me when i agree with everything they're doing and their research is a staple of my ranting? All I'm saying is that scientific methodology has it's short comings as well. And you great debaters should have learned that you must also acknowledge valid points, not gloss over them. my only argument is this, the universe is like a fish bowl, science will tell us everything that is inside that fish bowl - eventually but then you're going to reach the limit where no more physical evidence exists and then educated guesses and conjecture will be the new religion.. ahem i meant science

[Anonymous No.1249863]

>>1249856
Actually, we can scale to use all cores. Parallel programming might be difficult for the novice, but it can be done. And ironically, it's best done via the bottom-up approach by paralleling subsets of a given algorithm (the map stage) and then aggregating the result (the reduction stage).

Also, nice ad hominem attack there as well. I'm sorry you don't understand what I'm saying, but please don't be an asshole by expecting everyone to cater to what you can understand.

[Anonymous No.1249875]

>ok, how can scientists disagree with me when i agree with everything they're doing and their research is a staple of my ranting?

Alice proves that alligators exist.
Bob and Alice both agree that alligators exist. Bob asserts that alligators are warm blooded and live in the arctic.
Alice disagrees, because she has also discovered that alligators are cold blooded and live in the swamps.

Bob's idea is based off of Alice's work. This certainly does not mean that Alice must automatically agree with Bob's misunderstanding of alligators.

[Anonymous No.1249877]

>>1249863
if that were true larabee wouldnt be scrapped. I know there are certain problems for which parallel programming is more intuitive but that has nothing to do with CPUS that are at 100% with cores off. I'm not talking about CUDA either. also nice ad hominem attack because my jovial prodding.

[Anonymous No.1249882]

>>1249877
>CPUS that are at 100% with cores off

whatthefuckamireading.jpg

how can a CPU core be running at 100% if it's turned off

[Anonymous No.1249893]

>>1249877
larrabee wasn't scrapped, it was delayed because the original design couldn't even achieve 2 teraflops of computing power, but ATI's HD5000 series and nVidia's GF100 architecture were exceeding 2 teraflops. larrabee wouldn't have been competitive. This was an engineering issue of using the P4 core design on a 45nm process. The same design on a 22nm or 32nm process with quadruple or double the cores of the original design will be more competitive.

HD5000 has up to 1200 shader pipelines (if you consider all stages though, it works out to around 384 cores), and GF100 has up to 512 cores.

Larrabee is still undergoing production and hasn't been cancelled.

[­ No.1249900]

Stupidity. That's why all the planets and stars orbit around the earth.

[Anonymous No.1249901]

>>1249875
no because you guys live of straw men. I spent the last 1/2 hour removing words from my mouth. I never said anything about science or scientists. I said many times that I follow scientific research to further my own understanding across several fields which I would'nt be able to do if I were specialized. the confusion comes from me saying that it's too slow for my taste, and everybody knows that progress is a slow process, further halted by our economic systems. Hence I have my own methodology that allows me to come to certain conclusions without a multi million dollar lab or any kind of budget while these breakthrough crawl towards any meaningful end. Am I still talking crazy here?

[Anonymous No.1249907]

>>1249901
>Hence I have my own methodology that allows me to come to certain conclusions ... Am I still talking crazy here?

Yes, you are talking crazy, because you have no way to be sure that your conclusion are correct, or to convey to others that your conclusions are correct.

[Anonymous No.1249917]

>>1249893
do you remember the initial point or do I have to keep doing this. oh what da hell. something to do with parallel.. no top down..yes

So. Yep they didnt cancel larabee. but my point was that it was supposed to be a hybrid CPU, PPU or GPGPU. the point being that I wouldn't need to know CUDA or any upcoming proprietary implementation to fully utilize all those parallel streams/threads/wtf ever. Meaning we are not parallel programming yet (in terms of generic programming/compiler dependent optimizations). Which brings me to the initial point which is you talking some shit about top down something in software engineering which I couldnt understand at all, resulting in me calling you a 12 year old or something. In fact I'm trying to recall what you said and it's messing with my brain things in my head.

[Anonymous No.1249919]

>>1249901
you don't need a multi-million dollar lab to be able to use logic and the scientific method. all you need is patience and discipline. taking shortcuts does not guarantee that you will come to a meaningful conclusion. have any of your conclusions advanced the body of knowledge of a given field? have any of your conclusions lead to the discovery of a new and useful invention that helps mankind? have any of your conclusions predicted new or existing phenomena that can be demonstrated in a rigorous manner using logic and mathematics? if the answer is no, you are merely dreaming up pseudo-scientific fantasies that have no basis in reality.

[Anonymous No.1249923]

>>1249907
Go a couple steps back, I did say that the slow ass science always corroborates my conjecture which only strengthens my bias, though i resist. Let's put it this way, if i ever win a nobel prize or two, I'll be sure to tell them stick those up their asses, that's how you'll know it was me and also that your precious science will always be second to intuition.

[Anonymous No.1249934]

>>1249900
that's seriously funny.

>>1249882
that's exactly what they said. Though I can think of reasons why this could be accurate for some spec sheet. you should follow intel more. you'd understand why there's no larabee and why all they're talking about is power savings, encryption and ubiquitous wireless technologies.

[Anonymous No.1249940]

>>1249917
Parallel programming will always require knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of concurrency to some degree. You won't be able to hide it completely, it won't be fully transparent. Just because it's not transparent doesn't mean it's not "parallel programming" as you put it.

Even in functional languages like Haskell, you program in terms of monads, which encapsulates some aspects of concurrency, but you still need to be aware of the concurrent nature of monads.

The Larrabee platform currently allows you to use OpenCL or DirectCompute (both are like CUDA), or use Intel C/C++/Fortan compilers with Intel's Threading Building Blocks Library (TBB for short).

TBB comes with standard concurrency synchronization primitives, task-based concurrency components (actors, thread pools, dependency graphs), and other things. The Intel C/C++ compiler also has some experimental stuff for software transactional memory.

None of this hides concurrency, but it does makes parallel programming easier and more accessible.

And back to the original point, bottom-up and top-down approaches to problem solving in the domain of parallel programming are still equally valuable and used by developers and engineers every day.

Also, AMD has beat Intel to the punch with their new Fusion APU (GPU + CPU on the same die).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fusion

It's coming to the market in a few more months.

[Anonymous No.1249944]

>>1249923
Could you please provide an example case where science has ended up proving one of your conjectures? Otherwise, I'm going to have a hard time believing you. I would like some specifics please.

[Anonymous No.1249957]

>>1249940
I wasn't arguing this damn you.

If you wanna get technical, parallel programming is still top down right. And I agree that it's not going to be a magic stick but i know gimmicks when i see them, no matter how intuitive or ground breaking. And I think you're wrong CPUs will phase out and hybrids will take over. If GPU switching isnt an indicator of things to come. Sure i can't just have a compiler that tries to run all for loops in parallel, but I'm not going to speculate on future implementations, what is basically the HTML5 of application development.

yes i know about fusion. but this had nothing to do with parallel programming. I was the one who said snicker snicker, must be why they cant fully exploit multi cores. I know that there are problems that see "massive computational speed ups" when run in parallel and right now we're on the cusp of that future "agnostic" programming language. But what I was talking about, though I kept using software engineering parallels to explain why i prefer top down to bottom-up approaches. I dont think that we're talking about the same thing here. The physics world hinging on LHC revelations isnt the same as creating a computer model of an already defined problem space.

Unless I'm not understanding what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.1249965]

>>1249944
I can't think of one. Though I did invent that convex screen.. or is it concave. That's about the time I started seeing the shortcomings of specialization aka a career

[Anonymous No.1249981]

>>1249850
You can attack an argument from the bottom up.

It's called a false premise.

[Anonymous No.1249997]

>>1249957
>I wasn't arguing this damn you.
Then you wouldn't have replied with a retort, you would have not replied at all or you would have replied in agreement.

>If you wanna get technical, parallel programming is still top down right.
Prove it with logic and examples. I can prove that both top-down and bottom-up approaches are applicable.

>And I agree that it's not going to be a magic stick but i know gimmicks when i see them, no matter how intuitive or ground breaking. And I think you're wrong CPUs will phase out and hybrids will take over.
Where did I say CPUs are here to stay?

>If GPU switching isnt an indicator of things to come.
GPU task switching (what I assume you meant here) isn't magic, it's actually the exact same as task switching regular CPUs. GPU shader kernels work the exact same regular function blocks being executed an multiple cores. There isn't anything special or different about them, and it still requires the same skill as parallel programming on traditional CPUs.

>Sure i can't just have a compiler that tries to run all for loops in parallel, but I'm not going to speculate on future implementations, what is basically the HTML5 of application development.
The day when you can program a computer to do a specific task and have it automatically figure out how to best parallelize it will be the day where you have a sufficiently advanced artificial intelligent agent that you can communicate with in english, and ask it to write the program for you.

>yes i know about fusion. but this had nothing to do with parallel programming.
Fusion has a lot of similarities with Larrabee and GPGPUs. I believe you're the one who brought up Larrabee.

continued...

[Anonymous No.1249999]

>>1249997
continued....

>I was the one who said snicker snicker, must be why they cant fully exploit multi cores. I know that there are problems that see "massive computational speed ups" when run in parallel and right now we're on the cusp of that future "agnostic" programming language. But what I was talking about, though I kept using software engineering parallels to explain why i prefer top down to bottom-up approaches

That's all it is, it's your preference. Your preference doesn't necessarily mean it's true for all programmers or problem solvers. Other people have different preferences, and both approaches remain equally applicable.

>I dont think that we're talking about the same thing here. The physics world hinging on LHC revelations isnt the same as creating a computer model of an already defined problem space.
While the physics world is introspecting into the realm of quantum mechanics using a top-down approach, other fields like biochemisty are using both top-down and bottom-up approaches to develop models of how life works.

Also, you want to use a bottom-up approach to help validate your top-down results, to see if you end up reaching the same conclusion, even in subatomic and high-energy physics.

>Unless I'm not understanding what you're saying.
I think you're choosing to not understand.

[Anonymous No.1250011]

Gravity is not a true force, but an effect of particles with "mass" in spacetime. Spacetime is "braided" by these forces such that they obtain the other properties that are apparent. Charges of electrostrongweak. Spacetime is effectively "used up" by these forces and, as a result, spacetime contracts on this point, resulting in the phenomenon of gravitation. Of course, this theory is still in the mathematical works, but I find it an elegant explaination.

[Anonymous No.1250017]

>>1249997
And to support my claims that a bottom-up approach to parallel programming works and is in fact important, I present the following evidence.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/structured-parallel-programming-with-deterministic-patterns
/

>Deterministic parallel programs can be built from the bottom up by composing deterministic parallel patterns of computation and data access. However, an implementation of a programming model based on these patterns must not only support a sufficiently wide variety of patterns, it also needs to be able to control the granularity of their execution, expanding and fusing them as needed.

Any seasoned software developer or architect knows the value of design patterns.

[Anonymous No.1250044]

>>1249997
>>1249999
>>1250017
that's sure some told.

Godfag reductionist status:
NOT TOLD: [ ]
TOLD: [x]

[Anonymous No.1250046]

>>1249981
yes but I can arrive at a valid conclusion from flawed reasoning, hence this line by line shit is for noob debaters who tend to love shredding my beautiful analogies.


>>1250017
So I'll take your advice and not reply. oh.. who am I kidding.

I still havent said a single tihng about top-down or bottom-down problem solving methodologies. I did confuse myself with you saying hybrid cpus were dead. I was the one who said, but I was saying that they aint ready yet.


I referenced GPU switch not for the actual implementation but because I dont have to learn anything new to take advatange of it. missed the point.

I mention Larabee cancelled and you corrected me, because I was referencing the gimmick of hybrid cpus when GPUs are only now being exploited as GPGPUS. that has nothing to do with Fusion being like it

[Anonymous No.1250055]

>>1250046

Erm, no matter how slick your rhetoric is, if your premise is flawed then any conclusions you reach are going to be wrong.

>yes but I can arrive at a valid conclusion from flawed reasoning, hence this line by line shit is for noob debaters who tend to love shredding my beautiful analogies.

Ok, you can't really argue by analogy. It's a rhetorical technique used to distill a complicated idea (for example). Arguments in science are won by evidence, not analogy or clever language.

Just so you know.

[Anonymous No.1250068]

>>1250046
>yes but I can arrive at a valid conclusion from flawed reasoning
Nice delusion thinking there bro.

I take back what I said about you "choosing to not understand." Instead, I see enough evidence in your posts to confidently state that I think you are suffering from some significant dysfunction in your mental facilities for reasoning and logic.

This has perhaps lead to you struggling in life to find employment raising you to at least middle class status, as well as finding social approval from peers belonging to higher social classes.

This, in turn, has lead to real grievances in your life, and a need for you to be able to explain your problems and to rationalize them, even if it means rationalizing with faulty explanations. I for one can feel some level of sympathy for this; however, that doesn't change the fact that I think you're completely off your mark and that most of what you say is laughable at best.

[Anonymous No.1250074]

This is some of the worst arguing I've ever seen. It's like watching a snail try to beat up a slug.

[Anonymous No.1250076]

>>1250074
>>1250046
samefag

[Anonymous No.1250077]

>The day when you can program a computer to do a specific task and have it automatically figure out how to best parallelize it will be the day where you have a sufficiently advanced artificial intelligent agent that you can communicate with in english, and ask it to write the program for you.

I hope you know that you're exaggerating. I really do. You do know this is at best a guess?

>That's all it is, it's your preference. Your preference doesn't necessarily mean it's true for all programmers or problem solvers. Other people have different preferences, and both approaches remain equally applicable.

Has nothing to do with my preferences, unless you can guarantee that AMD is adopting CUDA and that particular language wont be subject to massive future updates. But that cant happen since they dont know how to parallel.


>While the physics world is introspecting into the realm of quantum mechanics using a top-down approach, other .. physics.
Nobody disputes this. in fact this was exactly my point and despite your lengthy retorts you still hvent read their argument in it's entirety. hence you reiterating what I've been saying.


>I think you're choosing to not understand.
That has to be trying too hard

[Anonymous No.1250090]

>>1250077
>I hope you know that you're exaggerating. I really do. You do know this is at best a guess?
Prove it.


As for the rest of your post...

AMD has adopted both OpenCL and DirectCompute which are industry standards that replace CUDA and are free for adoption by any GPU maker. nVidia, Intel, and others have also adoped OpenCL and DirectCompute. CUDA is on the way out.

You've been continually saying the bottom-up approach has no application and is slow and worthless, and saying so in a general sense. You are wrong, and I have proven so. Instead you continue to ignore my evidence.

[Anonymous No.1250100]

>>1250055
and evidence is not analogous to analogies. you pure sci fags really tickle my testicles.

>Any seasoned software developer or architect knows the value of design patterns

Hohoho. You said we would have AI by the time a compiler can automatically detect when to implement parallel routines. And I disagreed. Now this trite. And you would have taken the win by default. for shame. I find it fascinating actually. Plz read the WHOLE post, from start to finish. Because if you're writhing around trying to poke holes in a theory i never mentioned then the crazy shit I said prior to your participation are gonna make you shit bricks.


>>1250068
It's logics 101. You went all out there bro.

Everything I said is right there to be highlighted, and a bunch of fags to deny me wriggle room yet you can't even resist the ad hominems, and I was gonna let your ego win this time too.

[Anonymous No.1250102]

How does the bottom up approach even work... how can you design something if you don't have a good understanding of the overall problem and what you want to achieve? It seems like a pretty useless way to approach something.

[Anonymous No.1250105]

>>1250102
>It seems like a pretty useless way to approach something.

That's how evolution works dipstain.

[Anonymous No.1250114]

>>1250100
Glad to see you admitted to trolling. I think that's just you taking the easy way out though. I have a feeling you actually meant what you said in the earlier posts.

And when I said "Any seasoned software developer or architect knows the value of design patterns," I was just saying that design patterns are important, which in turn backs up my claim that the use of design patterns during a bottom-up approach to solving parallel problems is important.

I wasn't arguing against a non-existent point. You have a hard time finding associations and following a line of thought.

[Anonymous No.1250121]

>>1250102
Straight from wikipedia:

>A bottom-up approach is the piecing together of systems to give rise to grander systems, thus making the original systems sub-systems of the emergent system. In a bottom-up approach the individual base elements of the system are first specified in great detail. These elements are then linked together to form larger subsystems, which then in turn are linked, sometimes in many levels, until a complete top-level system is formed. This strategy often resembles a "seed" model, whereby the beginnings are small but eventually grow in complexity and completeness. However, "organic strategies" may result in a tangle of elements and subsystems, developed in isolation and subject to local optimization as opposed to meeting a global purpose.

So with bottom-up, you still have a goal, you still know what you want to achieve, you just start at the bottom... with the smallest elements you know will have to be there. Then you keep composing them and iterating until you reach your goal.

[Anonymous No.1250132]

>>1250090
lol. This is your problem son. I did tell you that the language is not gonna be magical but you still wouldnt let go of that point. You went so far as to say #AI would be the first intuitive parallel language when.

We know as little about AI as we do Parallel processing paradigms. The only way to get a proper predictive model is with use cases. I'm confident if you can schedule a CPU, you can make the language flexible enough to do all the shit you said EXPERIENCED programmers require from the language.

Before I go: i hate Apple because

a. I cannot afford one [ ]
b. it's overpriced hipster crap [ ]

XD

[Anonymous No.1250147]

>>1250132
actually, we know a lot about parallel processing paradigms. the problem is that you don't know anything about it, you just assume it's difficult and that the field hasn't advanced much there. it has. anyway, I hope you enjoy programming in vb.net for $25K a year. farewell.

[Anonymous No.1250149]

You newtonists are ridiculous. Why do you believe in gravity? It's just a theory. Only intelligent falling makes sense.

[Sage Rage No.1250155]

>>1249366

Curved spacetime. See Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

[Anonymous No.1250157]

>>1250149
>>1250132
samefag

[Anonymous No.1250158]

>>1250121
>So with bottom-up, you still have a goal, you still know what you want to achieve, you just start at the bottom... with the smallest elements you know will have to be there. Then you keep composing them and iterating until you reach your goal.

I still havent said a single thing about either approach.

>>1250105
but that's not how evolution works.

>>1250114
I won't argue with you there. you have so many things fundamentally misconstrued because of the limits of science. And not once have you addressed a single thing that I've said. I offended you in some way because your initial statement was made because you didnt understand what I was talking about. I'd really love to argue with you the way you like, but there's nothing to argue about. i was ranting about God and models for existence beyond physical matter. It has nothing to do with any problem solving approaches. That was one guy who thought I was hating on science. Then you jumped in. So wipe that smug grin off your face, and let the thread RIP

[Anonymous No.1250159]

>>1250100

>and evidence is not analogous to analogies. you pure sci fags really tickle my testicles.
>evidence is not analogous to analogies.
>EVIDENCE IS NOT ANALOGOUS TO ANALOGIES
>EVIDENCE IS NOT ANALOGOUS TO ANALOGIES
>EVIDENCE IS NOT ANALOGOUS TO ANALOGIES
>EVIDENCE IS NOT ANALOGOUS TO ANALOGIES
>EVIDENCE IS NOT ANALOGOUS TO ANALOGIES


WHAT DOES THIS EVEN MEAN? FUCK.

[Anonymous No.1250163]

>>1250159
it's just typical godfag rhetoric. it's not supposed to mean anything, just to confuse.

[Anonymous No.1250165]

I'm working on an n-threaded application at the moment using threading building blocks from intel. Using large scale parallelism is actually much easier in practice than trying to orchestrate ordinary multithreading. It's just a lot more work to break your program down into individual tasks suitable for parallelism (it takes a lot more planning) and the payoffs are often smaller than you would expect.

[Anonymous No.1250178]

>>1250147
wow.. I umm just don't know what to say. You see I dont have a ego, it makes it easy to hear yours (non locally) ahahahah fagot

[Anonymous No.1250180]

rEｍOＥV_ｙＵｏR_ＩＬＬgeal ＣlｏEｎ fｏ_ＨｔTP://ｗWｗ.ａＮTＯNYＴALｋ.Se/ (anｔｏnY =_ＡＮｏN) ｉMＭeIDａＴEly. jiptxgscj cno f n hoko w yr jhggtfct fyqc

[Anonymous No.1250185]

>>1250178
>You see I dont have a ego,
every human being has an ego

[Anonymous No.1250192]

>>1250159
lol. I said you can arrive at a correct conclusion through invalid arguments, which is why you attack the argument. Jesus christ it's not like you dont know how to google. It's easily refuted in 3 clicks or less

And this: I don't know how you make an analogy without credible constructs based on empirical evidence from which you draw a correlation - despite your pretension you are no scientist. you wreak of copy pasta

[Anonymous No.1250195]

>>1249366
ITT: guesses about what creates gravity

[Anonymous No.1250205]

>>1250195
I think you meant "geusses".

[Anonymous No.1250208]

>>1250205
I lol'd

[Anonymous No.1250211]

>>1250185
oh ok.. thanks.. i see you're nitpicking so i need to be literal.

I have subdued my ego to the point where I am not trying to win fights. When I had a massive ego, I was placated by science until I found my true Lord ands saviour conjecture who showed me the way of conjecture. Don't worry, some things are just beyond you till you reach a certain age. When you start getting super powers and start hallucinating and seeing the "future" come back here and preach the word of conjecture. fagot.

[Anonymous No.1250251]

last post, god fags are fags

[Anonymous No.1250259]

>>1250192
>>1250192

I'm a scientist.

And you have no idea what you're talking about.

Please. Stop trolling. Most of /sci/ takes thinks that trolls don't exist and there are people like you that actually post whilst believing their own bull.


4/10

[Anonymous No.1250355]

>>1249732
>I belive that the universe is micromanaged by a magical guy made of nothing
Yep, you are as crazy as any other theist.