Any news regarding an ATI GPU client for Snow Leopard?

Please, look at this picture. It shows 4 MW ATI app running in task manager while only 1 MW task running on GPU as BOINC thinks. It shows other MW tasks running on CPU only! This causes out of memory state for ATI AP app running on secondary GPU on that host.
Any ideas how it could be and what could be wrong in MW setup there ?

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/4797/17454729.png

Does CP's op ap need updating as well?

Yeah, there's a bunch of updates that we need to get done so we can swap over to the assimilator/validator that doesn't generate files for each WU and for each result.

Hopefully he gets settled at his new post doc and can work with us or send us the code so we can update it.

It can be argued that the most interesting discovery would be that we cannot find the higgs proving practically that it isn't there. That would mean that we really haven't understood something, that's a very good scene for science. Revelations sometimes come from the fact you hit a wall and you realize that you truly haven't understood anything.

That's what the bearded dude states. I agree, that's how science works. In essence, we don't find it, we've been wrong all along? Haven't understood Quantum Mechanics?

Well, pardon me. Sounds more like you can't defend an incomplete theory. No Higgs, no theory.

That's kind of how it works.

Edit: Even better. Here's the link to a youtube video where the scientists say what i just told you. No Higgs, no theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XbKZwXK-3c&feature=related

I suggest you go trolling there for information straight from a LHC scientists mouth.

But quantum theory is NOT a complete theory until the higgs mechanism is found. No proof, no cigar, unworkable theory.

One simply cannot PROVE

And when you have a higgs boson and a graviton that justify and qualify the other 16 particles, one can start spouting QM as a usable, testable theory. Not a mathematical theory that produces questionable experimental evidence based on hypothetical particles.

That's why I said earlier that such advanced theories are currently not much more than playing around with some advanced mathematics without any factual base.

But that also encompasses the big bung theory. Alan Guth, inventor of the Inflation theory (bolted on to the big bung) freely admits that his calculations, and theory, is wrong. Yet big bungers hold on to the thought religiously. Why?

And the Casimir effect, how is that justified with 16 elementery particles, +2 hypotheticals. Don't they need their opposite spin particles to make sense? Those other 16 particles that were MADE UP i.e. NO EVIDENCE FOR except the fact that mathemeticians needed them for QM to make sense?

So, is this electromagnetism explained in another way?

No. The universe as a whole came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago. We know that, because no light older than that had the chance to reach us so far.

Didn't you say though that there's part of the universe beyond our viewable range? Please be consistent.

Looks like you mix up now quite some stuff. Hawking had nothing to do with the Big Bang idea for instance and he didn't invented the singularities either.

Penrose penned (pardon the pun) the singularity, Hawking 'borrowed' it as the source of the big bang.

There is some concept named energy conservation which is generally fullfilled except on very short time scales. That is where the vacuum fluctuations come into the game. And by the way, the total energy of the universe may be zero ;)

Vacuum fluctuations? Theory? No facts? Not provable but invented to fill a knowledge gap? We aren't talking gravitons are we? Of course not. We're quoting Hawking again. The man that gave us the unworkable multiple universe theory. Well, he thought it worked anyway.

http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Vacuum%20Fluctuation.htm

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy.

That's Hawking's zero energy. But that doesn't account for our dark matter or dark energy, does it? So is Hawking wrong, or wrong?

it doesn't explain this..

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

In 2007 the Keck telescope, a team from California Institute of Technology found six star forming galaxies about 13.2 billion light years (light travel distance) away and therefore created when the universe was only 500 million years old.

Damn, i'm using evil Wiki.

Of the oldest observable light, our universe is 13.7 billion years old. But what about the part of the universe we can't see, beyond the horizon? I assume it's still part of our 'universe' by your own definition.
So how, with any accuracy, can we predict when galaxies first formed? There could be 20 billion light years worth of creation beyond our horizon. Well, that could mean we don't really know squat about what formed and when. Correct?

I find it difficult to fathom basing the current fate of the universe whilst only knowing a % of the whole picture.

The Hartle and Hawking No-Boundary Proposal

The same idiot that gave us singularities and big bang's. First he comes up with multiple universes, then we get 1 from a big bang.

Where did the initial big bang 'singularity' suddenly appear from? Not there 1 microsecond, expanding exponentially the next.

I atleast give M-Theory a rap for having a go at explaining it, whilst current science palms it off to philosophers to debate over. Puts it in the too hard basket as it interferes with their current theory.

Matter can't be created or destroyed? Law of some sort? ;) 'Big bang' energy came from....

The universe by definition, as all that we know. Are you claiming we now know everything that there is to know?

There is a reason I wrote that there is not even an outside.

So, answer the question. When i peer through the event horizon, what do i see? What do i travel into? The ocean with the fish in it?

And how do you come to the conclusion that gravitation is far to weak to influence the expansion? There is experimental evidence for about 27% of the mass needed to asymptotically stop the expansion. The open question is if we find the missing 73% or if those are comprised of the still hypothetical dark energy.

You answered your own question.

Explain to me what the universe is expanding into...that is, the event horizon of the universe. What's on the other side of the wall?

Did God tell you there was no medium into which our universe came into existence?

Explain to me what the universe is expanding into...that is, the event horizon of the universe. What's on the other side of the wall? Strings? Angels? Ahhh, i've got it, nothing! The universe is growing into nothing.

So, it started infinitely small, surrounded by....nothing. Grew to the size of a pea, compared to what? There is no frame of reference as there is nothing.

Why is the expansion not uniform? what's stopping it from expanding uniformly? What "outside" force is opposing it? Certainly can't be gravity from the inside, it's too weak.

And the fish in the water swims around casually believing water is the only world there is. Just keep swimming.

That's all very well to have your own opinion. As all the mathematicians must be playing a fun game with M-theory. Seems like an awful lot of funding for a mathematical game, wouldn't you say?

And if Wiki is your source of info, please find a more serious, scientific one. The people who correct/quote/contribute are all on board with mainstream science and have little time for others who wish to challenge their view.

The philosophy you are invoking is the God theory i believe. In the beginning.....

Ok, i define our universe as the "bubble universe" theory. Convenient, isn't it? Nice theory also.

What's the bubble forming in?

Want to not discuss it as it doesn't fit your theory? Easier to ignore than put a hypothesis forward?

It's just as philisophical as dark energy. 'We think something is accelerating the universe, so it must be inside'. That's kind of ignoring any other opinion, as it doesn't fit yours.

The bubble universe model proposes that different regions of this inflationary universe (termed a multiverse) decayed to a true vacuum state at different times, with decaying regions corresponding to “sub”- universes not in causal contact with each other

I believe the fate of the universe depends solely upon the medium into which it was born, big-banged. Blow up a balloon real fast, a huge influx of energy. What happens to it depends upon the pressures outside it.

I read somewhere, that by recent long-term CMB observations and measurements, it has been concluded that after all our universe seems to be flat instead of open. So it might be that your (and mine) feeling might not be far off.

My reasoning in support of non-open universe goes somewhat along this line: the further out we look, we see further back in time. And we see redshift. To me that redshift means nothing more than a fact that things we observe moved at such speeds relative to us at THAT time, not NOW. And since doppler effect (blue/redshift) is a function of speed, is as such invariant to distance, so, if our universe was indeed accelerating in expansion, we should see a lot more redshift closer to us than further out.

And not wanting to become a victim of Dunning�Kruger effect, I am fully aware that my knowledge in this area is far from perfect, I just wanted to present my line thinking about this question.