Why should I crunch numbers for you?

Message boards : Number crunching : Why should I crunch numbers for you?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Sleestak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 01
Posts: 779
Credit: 857,664
RAC: 0
United States
Message 213774 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 7:15:45 UTC
Last modified: 14 Dec 2005, 7:37:30 UTC

Seti:Well, i'm a bit disappointed that seti is closing it's doors.

LHC:I've picked up LHC but they are just running scenarios and with how often that they actually have work, they could just buy 1 of those nifty unix super computers and have it all done in the same time.

Climateprdiction:
Are you joking? Try predicting the earthquakes for the middle east. I can’t see myself caring that much about weather.

Einstein@home:Geez, don’t get me started. I know for a fact that they won’t find anything and the projects are a colossal waste of money. Using Reinmann geometry to trace patterns is not an explanation, nor does it prove that space is curved. Why would we define x, y, and z to be linear projections then say they are curved. It’s definitely a major faux pas on the mathematician’s part. I might post later on this depending on how fast my copyright is all the way through.

Cell Computing:
I don’t speak Japanese and I’m not loading he language thingy majig.

World Community Grid::
Proteome: I know the company that finished mapping the genome and I’m not
helping them. Don’t like the heads of the company. Anyway It’s a
protein folding predictor
Aids: Autodock to predict docking patterns into the proteins.
It’s simply not going to happen with shear force when it’s based on faulty and incomplete assumptions. I simply believe that not enough intelligence is going into the front end.

Rosetta@home:
Same as Above, another protein docking / folding project.

Predictor@home:
Same as Above, another protein docking / folding project.

I’ll continue to leave it on for LHC but I don’t see it as actually being that useful.


TEAM
LL
ID: 213774 · Report as offensive
Bill Barto

Send message
Joined: 28 Jun 99
Posts: 864
Credit: 58,712,313
RAC: 91
United States
Message 213776 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 7:22:25 UTC

Somehow it seems that distributed computing or science isn't something you are very interested in. BTW, SETI is not closing its doors.
ID: 213776 · Report as offensive
Profile Sleestak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 01
Posts: 779
Credit: 857,664
RAC: 0
United States
Message 213777 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 7:23:31 UTC - in response to Message 213776.  

Somehow it seems that distributed computing or science isn't something you are very interested in. BTW, SETI is not closing its doors.


Are they still passing out data after Dec 15? It won't update my work units at the moment.

TEAM
LL
ID: 213777 · Report as offensive
Profile Lampros
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Jun 02
Posts: 279
Credit: 13,973,726
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 213778 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 7:23:52 UTC

Seti "Classic" will be shut down. Seti/Boinc is continuing.
ID: 213778 · Report as offensive
Profile Sleestak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 01
Posts: 779
Credit: 857,664
RAC: 0
United States
Message 213779 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 7:25:07 UTC - in response to Message 213778.  

Seti "Classic" will be shut down. Seti/Boinc is continuing.


That's cool then. It's not that i'm not for distributed computing. I'm just not that validated in what they are doing because science is for me.

TEAM
LL
ID: 213779 · Report as offensive
Profile MikeSW17
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1603
Credit: 2,700,523
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 213782 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 7:34:50 UTC - in response to Message 213774.  
Last modified: 14 Dec 2005, 7:36:09 UTC

Seti:Well, i'm a bit disappointed that seti is closing it's doors.



That's news, where did you get the infomation that SETI is closing?

SETI (the science) is just moving to a new infrastructure, BOINC. Not only that, but it is soon to be enhanced, to analyse the data at a greater resolution.


LHC:I've picked up LHC but they are just running scenarios and with how often that they actually have work, they could just buy 1 of those nifty unix super computers and have it all done in the same time.


LHC can use BOINC because it's there, why waste money on a nifty *nix super computer?


Climateprdiction:
Are you joking? Try predicting the earthquakes for the middle east. I can’t see myself caring that much about weather.


That's your choice, there are plenty of other projects.
BTW, do you really think we have more chance of a message from LGM?


Einstein@home:Geez, don’t get me started. I know for a fact that they won’t find anything and the projects are a colossal waste of money. Using Reinmann geometry to trace patterns is not an explanation, nor does it prove that space is curved. Why would we define x, y, and z to be linear projections then say they are curved. It’s definitely a major faux pas on the mathematician’s part. I most post later on this depending on how fast my copyright is all the way through.


Write your own science app?


Cell Computing:
I don’t speak Japanese and I’m not loading he language thingy majig.


You run dozens of sortware packages that you've never read the whole specification of. You have learnt through other means that these packages are OK.


World Community Grid::
Proteome: I know the company that finished mapping the genome and I’m not
helping them. Don’t like the heads of the company. Anyway It’s a
protein folding predictor
Aids: Autodock to predict docking patterns into the proteins.
It’s simply not going to happen with shear force when it’s based on faulty and incomplete assumptions. I simply believe that not enough intelligence is going into the front end.


It's entirely your choice which projects you chose to attach to.


Rosetta@home:
Same as Above, another protein docking / folding project.


As above


I’ll continue to leave it on for LHC but I don’t see it as actually being that useful.


What's wrong with just running SETI?

ID: 213782 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19215
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 213784 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 7:38:33 UTC

You might look at this Distributed Computing you might find something to your tastes there. Plus there is a new one, closed to new accounts at mo though, doing research Malaria Control
ID: 213784 · Report as offensive
Profile alphax
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 17 May 99
Posts: 74
Credit: 1,266,810
RAC: 0
United States
Message 213785 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 7:38:36 UTC - in response to Message 213779.  

That's cool then. It's not that i'm not for distributed computing. I'm just not that validated in what they are doing because science is for me.


I think what you're saying is that you don't believe in the usefulness of most BOINC projects, and therefore won't participate in most of them.

That's a fair statement. I only participate in 2 projects myself: SETI and ClimatePrediction, but only because these were the first projects that were opened to the general public and because I don't have a lot of hardware to run all the projects.

Some projects like all of those under WCG, I won't participate in at all because the results are handed over to the Military.

Feel free to contribute your computing resources to whomever you like.
ID: 213785 · Report as offensive
Profile Sleestak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 01
Posts: 779
Credit: 857,664
RAC: 0
United States
Message 213786 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 7:44:56 UTC

I might be more interested in the proetein folding bit if they made it more interesting like pitting 3 theorys against each other. A "reality distributed computing" if you will. And the results were compared against reality and the winners method would be used until new challengers were ready. Wash rins and repeat. Simply having one team develop a single method and repeatedly test it seems a bit etheral. There are too many protein modelers out there and I would not know which one that I most agree with.

TEAM
LL
ID: 213786 · Report as offensive
Profile Mr.Pernod
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Feb 04
Posts: 350
Credit: 1,015,988
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 213788 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 7:55:16 UTC

Sleestak, did you have a look at the SIMAP project?
be sure to read their Project description
ID: 213788 · Report as offensive
Profile FZB

Send message
Joined: 16 Nov 01
Posts: 11
Credit: 1,943,154
RAC: 7
Germany
Message 213831 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 10:08:31 UTC - in response to Message 213786.  

I might be more interested in the proetein folding bit if they made it more interesting like pitting 3 theorys against each other. A "reality distributed computing" if you will. And the results were compared against reality and the winners method would be used until new challengers were ready. Wash rins and repeat. Simply having one team develop a single method and repeatedly test it seems a bit etheral. There are too many protein modelers out there and I would not know which one that I most agree with.


actually, the results of the different folding approaches are compared to each other... there is e.g. the CASP (http://predictioncenter.org/) conference where the different teams (including those without DC projects) discuss there advances...
not trying to convince you to join something here, but i got the impression you got a rather negative view of most projects to start with...

ID: 213831 · Report as offensive
Neal Watkins
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 99
Posts: 192
Credit: 289,148
RAC: 0
Message 213904 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 12:51:50 UTC
Last modified: 14 Dec 2005, 12:54:23 UTC

Whoa....lighten up....
You don't like what we do? So why go way out of your way to tell us so?
Take your "compute power" and go somewhere else. What makes you think that your cycles are special?


ID: 213904 · Report as offensive
Profile Jason Safoutin
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 05
Posts: 1386
Credit: 200,389
RAC: 0
United States
Message 213911 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 13:05:39 UTC - in response to Message 213774.  
Last modified: 14 Dec 2005, 13:08:37 UTC

Seti:Well, i'm a bit disappointed that seti is closing it's doors.


SETI is NOT closing its doors...just moving to BOINC. In fact, I just got a WU overnight. Moving trillions of amoutns of data takes time and problems WILL occur. Time is of the essance.

LHC:I've picked up LHC but they are just running scenarios and with how often that they actually have work, they could just buy 1 of those nifty unix super computers and have it all done in the same time.


Not true. Scientists AkA people have to also look at the analyzed data like they do SETI's. ALL work is usually confirmed by a person in the end. All our computer does is analyze the data and sends back the results of the analyzation.

Climateprdiction:
Are you joking? Try predicting the earthquakes for the middle east. I can’t see myself caring that much about weather.


Well you should care. Weather affects EVERYONE everyday 24/7. We need to know how weather works better in order to send out warnings faster to save lives. This program (if I could run it) is very helpful. Although it takes a long time, in the long run lives WILL be saved.

Einstein@home:Geez, don’t get me started. I know for a fact that they won’t find anything and the projects are a colossal waste of money. Using Reinmann geometry to trace patterns is not an explanation, nor does it prove that space is curved. Why would we define x, y, and z to be linear projections then say they are curved. It’s definitely a major faux pas on the mathematician’s part. I might post later on this depending on how fast my copyright is all the way through.


Ummm I think you need to do a little more research on space.

Cell Computing:
I don’t speak Japanese and I’m not loading he language thingy majig.


Well no one is forcing you to run ANY of these projects. Don't like them or do not speak the language, then do not participate. Besides, some of those projects may eventually come out with an english version assuming more people from otehr nations are interested and keep signing up.

World Community Grid::
Proteome: I know the company that finished mapping the genome and I’m not
helping them. Don’t like the heads of the company. Anyway It’s a
protein folding predictor
Aids: Autodock to predict docking patterns into the proteins.
It’s simply not going to happen with shear force when it’s based on faulty and incomplete assumptions. I simply believe that not enough intelligence is going into the front end.


I run FightAIDS@home. I am facinated by it. It does help. And without the help of computers and people like you and me, we may never find a cure. Diseases take RESEARCH and analyzation. Which is what my computer is doing. A computer can do work in a day or so, as where a scientist(s) could take decades to research. Hence the reson we have distributed "computing"

Rosetta@home:
Same as Above, another protein docking / folding project.


So what? It does help. Research says most all computing projects do help in advancing science and cures.

Predictor@home:
Same as Above, another protein docking / folding project.


Read above.

I’ll continue to leave it on for LHC but I don’t see it as actually being that useful.


Well it seems you are not happy with BOINC or ANY project for that matter. If you do not want to participate then don't. Badmouthing EVERY BOINC project will not make anything go faster...it will just piss a lot of people off. So if you are unhappy, go somewhere else. SO to answer your question "Why should I crunch numbers for you?" - Don't.
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible". Hebrews 11.3

ID: 213911 · Report as offensive
Profile Yakumo_Fuji
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 05
Posts: 6
Credit: 32,976
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 213920 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 13:19:12 UTC

Maybe I read the first post differently from a lot of you.

I read it like this...

"Seti is closing, what will I do now, I don't feel confident in the other projects out there. Am I right or can someone come with a counter argument?"

I read in the last sentance. After a few more posts he seemed happy to hear Seti wasn't closing. To me that sounds like he is going to continue to crunch.

Now if his science or comments about the other projects are faulty, clearing up the issue helps not only him/her but everyone else reading this board who maybe had similar doubts. Is it neccessary to tell people to clear off because of that?

I think Alphax has hit the nail on the head.

Yakumo
ID: 213920 · Report as offensive
Profile Sleestak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 01
Posts: 779
Credit: 857,664
RAC: 0
United States
Message 213929 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 13:28:41 UTC - in response to Message 213911.  


Ummm I think you need to do a little more research on space.


I know more than what I depend on others telling me. The fact is that they didn't find anything. So they build more facilities. Hadn't occured to anyone that it's the same experiment as Michealson and Morley, just a lot more sensitive?

This is a quote from their website:
"Although Newton’s theory explained what gravity does, the question of why it works this way remained a mystery for the next 300 years."

Einstein's theory does no better at explaining it.



TEAM
LL
ID: 213929 · Report as offensive
Profile Jason Safoutin
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 05
Posts: 1386
Credit: 200,389
RAC: 0
United States
Message 213933 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 13:36:44 UTC - in response to Message 213929.  
Last modified: 14 Dec 2005, 13:38:15 UTC


Ummm I think you need to do a little more research on space.


I know more than what I depend on others telling me. The fact is that they didn't find anything. So they build more facilities. Hadn't occured to anyone that it's the same experiment as Michealson and Morley, just a lot more sensitive?

This is a quote from their website:
"Although Newton’s theory explained what gravity does, the question of why it works this way remained a mystery for the next 300 years."

Einstein's theory does no better at explaining it.



Ok thats why we are analyzing the data...see 300 years is based on HUMAN analyzation...not a computer. computers do the work 100 times faster...and how old is that quote?

And SETI has not found aliens yet AkA ET, so does that mean nothing is out there?
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible". Hebrews 11.3

ID: 213933 · Report as offensive
Profile Sleestak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 01
Posts: 779
Credit: 857,664
RAC: 0
United States
Message 213950 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 13:54:24 UTC
Last modified: 14 Dec 2005, 13:56:30 UTC

I firmly believe that the LIGO lack of positive or affirming data is good data and they should not ignore the data they do have. Seti had produced positve data.

Perhaps they have found intelligent life

Obviously, I'm bias for some reasons and those reasons also lead me to believe that Seti is not optimized and it's because of the same flaws in assumtions that afflict the gravitational detectors. Seti has picked the best areas to search based on what they know and based on the limitations of the location and maneuverability of the Arecebo telescope. I believe that if they knew more, they would look in different places. As far as large facilities costing way too much a year, I would prefer that it didn't use my money. Let other countries do it. There are around 5 of the detectors around the world. 2 was enough to get the non-affirming positive data, but nope. They had to build more.

TEAM
LL
ID: 213950 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 213966 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 14:22:05 UTC - in response to Message 213929.  


Ummm I think you need to do a little more research on space.


I know more than what I depend on others telling me. The fact is that they didn't find anything. So they build more facilities. Hadn't occured to anyone that it's the same experiment as Michealson and Morley, just a lot more sensitive?

This is a quote from their website:
"Although Newton’s theory explained what gravity does, the question of why it works this way remained a mystery for the next 300 years."

Einstein's theory does no better at explaining it.


It is not doing the same experiment as Michaelson and Morley. Michaelson and Morley were looking for a difference in the speed of light depending on where the earth was in its orbit.

Einstein is looking for gravity waves from distant stelar explosions. The "ether" the Michaelson and Morley were looking for has been completely disproven. Gravity waves have not been either proven or disproven.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 213966 · Report as offensive
Profile Sleestak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 01
Posts: 779
Credit: 857,664
RAC: 0
United States
Message 214025 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 15:37:27 UTC - in response to Message 213966.  
Last modified: 14 Dec 2005, 15:44:09 UTC



It is not doing the same experiment as Michaelson and Morley. Michaelson and Morley were looking for a difference in the speed of light depending on where the earth was in its orbit.

Einstein is looking for gravity waves from distant stelar explosions. The "ether" the Michaelson and Morley were looking for has been completely disproven. Gravity waves have not been either proven or disproven.



Considering that it's pretty much the same set up... Well anyhow, if Michaelson and Morely were able to "prove" the non-existence of ether by accepting that the light beam remained unchanged, why can't the scientists at LIGO accept that static is static.

Do you happen to know the theoretical limit of the project? i.e. how far away can the quasar be? Or are they hoping to get a spurt off our own cirrus which I would assume that's it's in constant action, and thus they should have seen more than static.

Also, on another thread an interesting article was posted that reviewed fr-qc/0408023 A review of conventional explanations of anomalous observations during solar eclipses. The paper was not extrodanary but quite interesting. I had not heard some of this before. If a gravimeter can pick up the differences during an eclipse, then LIGO should too because it's way more sensitive than a torsion pendulum, paraconical pendulum or a gravimeter of any sort. Basiscally, they should have had an answer by now.

TEAM
LL
ID: 214025 · Report as offensive
Profile Sleestak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 01
Posts: 779
Credit: 857,664
RAC: 0
United States
Message 214028 - Posted: 14 Dec 2005, 15:39:19 UTC - in response to Message 213788.  

Sleestak, did you have a look at the SIMAP project?
be sure to read their Project description


I'm almost convinced. I still need to read more.

TEAM
LL
ID: 214028 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Why should I crunch numbers for you?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.