Icarus Interstellar to host Starship Congress in Monterey CA August 6-8
Icarus Interstellar to host Starship Congress in Monterey CA August 6-8
Where is the link for this ?
There is no announcement to be found, using Google
Nothing here
http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/
The only #SC17 seems to be related to supercomputing...
Edit:
Check this
https://www.tineye.com/search/d82e8f9f76e5d78e26c6793601b0f91ea2cbe706/
Except that the dates for SC17 supercomputing are Nov. 12-17 and it takes place in Denver CO, instead of Monterey CA August 6-8 :
http://sc17.supercomputing.org/Why not give any link or further information?
What is the source of information about "Icarus Interstellar to host Starship Congress in Monterey CA August 6-8" ?
On May 16, 2016 FattyLumpkin wrote about "keeping in touch with Adam Crowl of Icarus Interstellar".:
I keep in touch with Adam Crowl of Icarus Interstellar. Don't know when or where the next Starship Congress is, but am hoping to give him some hard data before then. Tau Zero is but one of five such organizations and they (all five) have indeed been keeping an eye on Em, Cannae and MLF thrusters, where if ultimately "we" don't prevail, we'll be stuck with a probe 1,000 (yes that's one thousand) meters in length, weighing 45,000 tonnes WM, and generating enough neutrons to bake a cake on the other side of the planet. Am wondering if Centauri Dreams is still up. Off to check. FL
That's the point, no evidence at all, and the images link to ... ah..hrrumph other sites:P
All systems now fully operational. I regretted having removed the display screen because of the convenience of not having to sign on to remote desktop, and all the walking back and forth, every time I wanted to make adjustments. It was a simple matter to remove the steel frame, which is ferromagnetic, and tape up the LCD. As before, the screen is switched off during powered tests.
...
Weinberg is correct, the issue has never been settled, and certainly Milonni (who you quote) also disavows any claim to mathematical rigor. Most physicists, as Weinberg himself acknowledges, they just don't worry about it.
Milonni correctly states, that no matter if the quantities are infinite or finite, in this instance, the observable, measurable quantity is found by taking the difference between these two quantities. I find this to be a satisfactory resolution of the issue. The "true value" of the integrals is irrelevant because they are unmeasurable. What is measurable, has a renormalization procedure that is logical and gives the right answer.
I adopt the philosophy that every measurement is relative to something else. Everything we measure is a "difference" between two states. To quote an overused phrase, "Everything is relative." I think the issue is a philosophical one for some people, not a mathematical one.
...
Weinberg is correct, the issue has never been settled, and certainly Milonni (who you quote) also disavows any claim to mathematical rigor. Most physicists, as Weinberg himself acknowledges, they just don't worry about it.
Milonni correctly states, that no matter if the quantities are infinite or finite, in this instance, the observable, measurable quantity is found by taking the difference between these two quantities. I find this to be a satisfactory resolution of the issue. The "true value" of the integrals is irrelevant because they are unmeasurable. What is measurable, has a renormalization procedure that is logical and gives the right answer.
I adopt the philosophy that every measurement is relative to something else. Everything we measure is a "difference" between two states. To quote an overused phrase, "Everything is relative." I think the issue is a philosophical one for some people, not a mathematical one.
Physicists are right to not stop thinking because of an apparent lack of mathematical rigor of the tools they use. For example in mathematics, it is knows that objects whose existence is found impossible when their properties are expressed in the langage of sets, become fully possible and rich of tremendous possibilities when the langage of categories is employed and mathematical objects like functors are considered.
The subject of renormalisation is an example of the promises of this approach :
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/cosmic+Galois+group
...
Weinberg is correct, the issue has never been settled, and certainly Milonni (who you quote) also disavows any claim to mathematical rigor. Most physicists, as Weinberg himself acknowledges, they just don't worry about it.
Milonni correctly states, that no matter if the quantities are infinite or finite, in this instance, the observable, measurable quantity is found by taking the difference between these two quantities. I find this to be a satisfactory resolution of the issue. The "true value" of the integrals is irrelevant because they are unmeasurable. What is measurable, has a renormalization procedure that is logical and gives the right answer.
I adopt the philosophy that every measurement is relative to something else. Everything we measure is a "difference" between two states. To quote an overused phrase, "Everything is relative." I think the issue is a philosophical one for some people, not a mathematical one.
WarpTech, mass, charge and temperature can be measured against an absolute and unchanging scale, can they not? Which is why they are so vital in the measurement of everything else.
I will have to check with the guys, as I haven't been involved in the Congress planning.
The TVIW might be the main event this year.
Adam
Icarus Interstellar to host Starship Congress in Monterey CA August 6-8
WarpTech, mass, charge and temperature can be measured against an absolute and unchanging scale, can they not? Which is why they are so vital in the measurement of everything else.
I don't think there is anything "absolute" about any of these. For instance, in QED there is a bare mass, and the observed mass. Then there is also a bare charge and an observed charge. When we set a scale, it's still relative to a physical reference, that is not an absolute.
It has recently been "proven" that absolute zero temperature cannot be reached. The place to extract energy from the ZPF would be to push the temperature down below thermal equilibrium, and allow the universe to heat it back up again.
WarpTech, mass, charge and temperature can be measured against an absolute and unchanging scale, can they not? Which is why they are so vital in the measurement of everything else.
I don't think there is anything "absolute" about any of these. For instance, in QED there is a bare mass, and the observed mass. Then there is also a bare charge and an observed charge. When we set a scale, it's still relative to a physical reference, that is not an absolute.
It has recently been "proven" that absolute zero temperature cannot be reached. The place to extract energy from the ZPF would be to push the temperature down below thermal equilibrium, and allow the universe to heat it back up again.
Yeah... It's only recently that I've finally started to truly appreciate the full import of thesaying "everything is relative". The interaction between the quantum and classical realms is one very pertinent example. One that's much easier to wrap your head around is the new definition of the meter
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre. The length of the meter is defined, literally, by the speed of light, which is defined by the length of the meter. Sure, there's a time measurement thrown in there as well, bt that too turns out to vary depending upon the speed of travel and/or the local gravitational field of the observer (relative to an external observer).
How's that for a circular definition?
There is no absolute scale. As WarpTech points out, even absolute zero is a theoretical abstraction, unachievable in practice (not to mention the fact that, in order to define temperature, you need to use both time and length).
...
Weinberg is correct, the issue has never been settled, and certainly Milonni (who you quote) also disavows any claim to mathematical rigor. Most physicists, as Weinberg himself acknowledges, they just don't worry about it.
Milonni correctly states, that no matter if the quantities are infinite or finite, in this instance, the observable, measurable quantity is found by taking the difference between these two quantities. I find this to be a satisfactory resolution of the issue. The "true value" of the integrals is irrelevant because they are unmeasurable. What is measurable, has a renormalization procedure that is logical and gives the right answer.
I adopt the philosophy that every measurement is relative to something else. Everything we measure is a "difference" between two states. To quote an overused phrase, "Everything is relative." I think the issue is a philosophical one for some people, not a mathematical one.
The investigation of the nature of infinite divergences in quantum field theory, shows that they are a highly structured phenomenon. More precisely these divergences provide data that define an action of a uniquely determined and universal “motivic Galois group” also called "cosmic Galois group" on the set of physical theories.
This suggests the possibility of formulating the theory of renormalization in the context of the Riemann–Hilbert correspondence. The latter being a broad term encompassing, in various forms and levels of generalization, equivalences between geometric problems associated to differential systems with singularities and representation theoretic data associated to the what happens as we 'run round' the singularities (monodromy).
In summary the deep inderstanding of divergences renormalisation goes far beyond the consideration of simple differences, but this is at least a good starting point before entering in far more complex geometric considerations !!
WarpTech, mass, charge and temperature can be measured against an absolute and unchanging scale, can they not? Which is why they are so vital in the measurement of everything else.
I don't think there is anything "absolute" about any of these. For instance, in QED there is a bare mass, and the observed mass. Then there is also a bare charge and an observed charge. When we set a scale, it's still relative to a physical reference, that is not an absolute.
It has recently been "proven" that absolute zero temperature cannot be reached. The place to extract energy from the ZPF would be to push the temperature down below thermal equilibrium, and allow the universe to heat it back up again.
WarpTech, if you do not accept discrete charges as the basic building blocks of matter then you have abandoned conservation. How then do you propose to calculate anything practical. Surely this is no more than theory for its own sake.
Meantime the possibility that a simple resolution might be found in complex time which allows conservation (and is not based upon accepting paradox to construct a fudged solution) remains unexplored.
...
Yeah... It's only recently that I've finally started to truly appreciate the full import of thesaying "everything is relative". The interaction between the quantum and classical realms is one very pertinent example. One that's much easier to wrap your head around is the new definition of the meter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre. The length of the meter is defined, literally, by the speed of light, which is defined by the length of the meter. Sure, there's a time measurement thrown in there as well, bt that too turns out to vary depending upon the speed of travel and/or the local gravitational field of the observer (relative to an external observer).
How's that for a circular definition?
There is no absolute scale. As WarpTech points out, even absolute zero is a theoretical abstraction, unachievable in practice (not to mention the fact that, in order to define temperature, you need to use both time and length).
T, if you wish to abandon light speed as an absolute, then you will need a set of concepts which replace it with something else. Otherwise you are just saying that the universe is made of fudge and we can never know anything specific. Which is some rude logic IMHO.
Relativity is all about specifying the relative passage of time, not about giving up on it.
WarpTech, if you do not accept discrete charges as the basic building blocks of matter then you have abandoned conservation. How then do you propose to calculate anything practical. Surely this is no more than theory for its own sake.
...
I said no such thing! In my model/theory, units of Coulombs and units of Newtons are invariant with transformation of the variable refractive index, K. Invariance wrt changes in a gravitational field is not the same as an "absolute" measuring scale. Measurements are still relative to what "we" define as K=1.
Thanks for the expansion on my rather terse note, Jose. I forget sometimes that not everyone knows of the various Interstellar Events, even space enthusiasts.
Adam
Adam, by TVIW is referring to:
https://tviw.us/
TENNESSEE VALLEY INTERSTELLAR WORKSHOP
TVIW 2017
October 4th – 2017
Huntsville, AL
Downtown Embassy Suites
list of featured presentations here:
https://tviw.us/featured-presentations/
All systems now fully operational. I regretted having removed the display screen because of the convenience of not having to sign on to remote desktop, and all the walking back and forth, every time I wanted to make adjustments. It was a simple matter to remove the steel frame, which is ferromagnetic, and tape up the LCD. As before, the screen is switched off during powered tests.
Well, I don't know about you, but sincerely, given the fact that you've a PC near the "test rig", I suppose it shouldn't be a big issue using an RDP session and that would also avoid having the additional payload and EM fields of the display "hanging" on the arm; also, if you need to have a number of RDP sessions (to different boxes) open at once, you may consider using
this or, either, use the old but still useful
VNC see, I think that removing as much stuff as possible from the rig arm could be a good idea, and, in such a spite; did you consider those small boxes offering
"USB over ethernet" ? They may, as well, be useful to bring some stuff outside the rig enclosure
I fabricated a loop EMI probe. Yes, I used a stick from the yard as rigid support.
There is a 5cm diameter unshielded loop at the tip, then coax, then an 8Ghz DC block, and then a USB spectrum analyser, which you can see in my hand. It is very sensitive, and by using it I was able to sniff out the majority of the noise to the 12V power leads - especially when the main amp is sitting idle. I saw very little EMI coming from the main 4000 mAh LiPo 12V battery itself - or the individual components.
I'm open to suggestions. I'm thinking I could try using shielded wire (possibly coax) for the main power leads and then use a few ferrites.
What is the source of information about "Icarus Interstellar to host Starship Congress in Monterey CA August 6-8" ? 
