Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [TR] Physicists Recreate End Of Time.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# [TR] Physicists Recreate End Of Time. - Page 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus2129
A meter and a second, etc, are all derived indirectly from the weight of The Kilogram, in France, which is defined as the unit of mass, from which all others are copied and derived.

The speed of light is derived from general relativity. A meter is defined as the distance light travels in some fraction of a second, and a second is derived from quantum energy equations.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MasterOP Schooled! Hahaha
OK, I took your advice Master, and looked up the definitions of the speed of light, the meter, the second, and even Vacuum.

The post by Phaedrus is not at all accurate, although you sure seem to get a charge out of him "schooling" me.

Here is what I found according to Wiki:

The Speed of Light:
Quote:
 The speed of light (meaning speed of light in vacuum), usually denoted by c, is a physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure that is exact since the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time
The Meter:
Quote:
 The metre (or meter), symbol m, is the base unit of length in the International System of Units (SI). Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole (at sea level), its definition has been periodically refined to reflect growing knowledge of metrology. Since 1983, it is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
The Second:
Quote:
 The second (SI symbol: s), sometimes abbreviated sec., is a unit of measurement of time, and is the International System of Units (SI) base unit of time.[1] It may be measured using a clock. Early definitions of the second were based on the apparent motion of the sun around the earth.[2] The solar day was divided into 24 hours, each of which contained 60 minutes of 60 seconds each, so the second was 1⁄86 400 of the mean solar day. However, 19th- and 20th century astronomical observations revealed that this average time is lengthening, and thus the sun/earth motion is no longer considered a suitable basis for definition. With the advent of atomic clocks, it became feasible to define the second based on fundamental properties of nature. Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
and the condition of Vacuum:
Quote:
 vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] The word comes from the Latin term for "empty". A perfect vacuum would be one with no particles in it at all, which is impossible to achieve in practice
So, the supposedly unsahakable bedrock upon which all currently accepted views of the universe are based- "The Speed of Light" is defined by using the Meter and the Second- in a Particular condition : Vacuum.

Next, what is a Meter? It is defined using the Speed of Light and the Second in a Vacuum.

Hold on here, these two definitions rely on eachother to define themselves. This is not valid. Surely then the Second must be the lynchpin that holds these definitions together, right?

Nope. The Second is defined using measurements of "periods of radiation(travelling at the speed of light) of a substance ,whose properties are defined using Mass and Specific Gravity- both of which require both the Meter and the Speed of Light to derive, in a Vacuum.

Next, all of these definitons rely on measurements within an admittedly impossible condiditon- a complete Vacuum.

SO:

The Speed of Light is defined by using the Meter and the Second.

The Meter is defined by using the Speed of Light and the Second.

The Second is defined using The Speed of Light and the Meter.

And all of these definitions are supposedly based by taking these measurements in a condition that is admitted to be impossible.

This is clearly Circular Reasoning . None of these things are proven. This means that the currently accepted "mainstream" views of the entire Universe are based purely on Assumptions .

Thanks for the "Schooling"
Edited by Jagged_Steel - 7/26/11 at 10:52am
 Cannonball Fxpress (14 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-4170 @ 4.86 Ghz ASUS M5A97 EVO 2 x PowerColor AX6790 Crossfire 16GB (4 x 4GB) SAMSUNG MV-3V4G3D @1890 Mhz 8-9-9
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x Corsair Force 3 120 GB SSD External USB AMD stock cooler Win7 Ultimate
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS 23" DVI Fullsize, solid. OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W CM Praetorian 730 Black
Mouse
Has red light on bottom
 Cannonball Fxpress (14 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-4170 @ 4.86 Ghz ASUS M5A97 EVO 2 x PowerColor AX6790 Crossfire 16GB (4 x 4GB) SAMSUNG MV-3V4G3D @1890 Mhz 8-9-9
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x Corsair Force 3 120 GB SSD External USB AMD stock cooler Win7 Ultimate
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS 23" DVI Fullsize, solid. OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W CM Praetorian 730 Black
Mouse
Has red light on bottom
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jagged_Steel Is it possible that only our perception of time is linear? My perception of time certainly is linear, but this does not prove that it is true. I am only observing from a very limited vantage point and perspective, the reality could be much different than what I percieve. Simply stating that "Time is Linear" does not make it so.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line and the shortest distance between what I did today and what I did yesterday is a straight timeline. I only experience the phenomena of time in one direction, but were I able to perceive time in the reverse direction, I would either have to experience my timeline in reverse or it wouldn't be my timeline.

If I spent 24 hours on a timeline going forward on my own "normal" timeline, then went back on the timeline of a man traveling near the speed of light for 24 hours, I would re-enter my own timeline before my normal 24hr timeline began.
 Mobile Gamer IV (8 items)
CPUGraphicsRAMOptical Drive
i7 4710HQ Nvidia GTX 980m 8GB 16GB [2x8GB] 1600MHz Blu-ray Burner
OSKeyboardPowerCase
Windows 8.1 x64 Steel Series Full-Color Programmable 230w Power Brick MSI GT72 DOMINATOR
 Mobile Gamer IV (8 items)
CPUGraphicsRAMOptical Drive
i7 4710HQ Nvidia GTX 980m 8GB 16GB [2x8GB] 1600MHz Blu-ray Burner
OSKeyboardPowerCase
Windows 8.1 x64 Steel Series Full-Color Programmable 230w Power Brick MSI GT72 DOMINATOR
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jagged_Steel The Second is defined using The Speed of Light and the Meter. And all of these definitions are supposedly based by taking these measurements in a condition that is admitted to be impossible. This is clearly Circular Reasoning . None of these things are proven. This means that the currently accepted "mainstream" views of the entire Universe are based purely on Assumptions . Thanks for the "Schooling"
No... no one said that. A second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." That would be discrete count of how many transistions occur.... or how many ticks like a clock.

However, it actually does not matter how long a second lasts (as long as it is equal to or greater than Planck time). A second is just a reference counter. A second could be 10 transition periods and all that would do is adjust a value in every equation. The results would be exactly the same but on a different scale.

Have you ever thought to stop and think... maybe I don't know as much as I think? Do you really believe that you just disproved ALL of physics with a misreading of Wikipedia articles?

Seriously, you only stumbled on these definitions today and want to make a case that your thought process works better? It's like getting a A++ certification and walking into a room of Intel engineers to tell them that are doing it wrong. They need more MHz.
Edited by DuckieHo - 7/26/11 at 11:03am
 Once again... (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz]
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro
 Once again... (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz]
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jagged_Steel Quote: Originally Posted by Phaedrus2129 A meter and a second, etc, are all derived indirectly from the weight of The Kilogram, in France, which is defined as the unit of mass, from which all others are copied and derived. The speed of light is derived from general relativity. A meter is defined as the distance light travels in some fraction of a second, and a second is derived from quantum energy equations. OK, I took your advice Master, and looked up the definitions of the speed of light, the meter, the second, and even Vacuum. The post by Phaedrus is not at all accurate, although you sure seem to get a charge out of him "schooling" me. Here is what I found according to Wiki: The Speed of Light: The Meter: The Second: and the condition of Vacuum: So, the supposedly unsahakable bedrock upon which all currently accepted views of the universe are based- "The Speed of Light" is defined by using the Meter and the Second- in a Particular condition : Vacuum. Next, what is a Meter? It is defined using the Speed of Light and the Second in a Vacuum. Hold on here, these two definitions rely on eachother to define themselves. This is not valid. Surely then the Second must be the lynchpin that holds these definitions together, right? Nope. The Second is defined using measurements of "periods of radiation(travelling at the speed of light) in a substance in a Vacuum, whose properties are defined using Mass and Specific Gravity- both of which require both the Meter and the Speed of Light to derive. Next, all of these definitons rely on measurements within an admittedly impossible condiditon- a complete Vacuum. SO: The Speed of Light is defined by using the Meter and the Second. The Meter is defined by using the Speed of Light and the Second. The Second is defined using The Speed of Light and the Meter. And all of these definitions are supposedly based by taking these measurements in a condition that is admitted to be impossible. This is clearly Circular Reasoning . None of these things are proven. This means that the currently accepted "mainstream" views of the entire Universe are based purely on Assumptions . Thanks for the "Schooling"
I love you more and more with every post.

The meter, second and speed of light all depend on each other in their definitions, because they are relative to each other. (go ahead and wiki that one while we're on the topic)

IF the speed of light were to magically change one day. "And God said, let the speed limit of the universe be a little higher, because I'm feeling crazy today", you know what would happen to the second and the meter?

Nothing. (see definition of relativity)

They are relative to each other. They collectively help to represent the very nature of our universe. Time, Space, and Energy. To say that these things are assumptions, and not proven, is to close your eyes and say that that bus about to hit you when you walk blindly across the highway isn't there, because you yourself haven't turned to look at it.

Oh, and about that bus, it's traveling at a certain speed (meters per second), but if the speed of light isn't real, and therefore meters and seconds aren't real either, don't worry, you'll be fine.
 My AMD&nVidia&ATI (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
1090T 3.8 @ 1.4v Crosshair IV Formula Sapphire 6850 850/4000 + 9800GT PhysX 8GB HyperX 1600
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
120GB Solid 3 Boot - 1TB WD Black Windows 7 Ultimate Antec TruePower 750 HAF 932
 My AMD&nVidia&ATI (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
1090T 3.8 @ 1.4v Crosshair IV Formula Sapphire 6850 850/4000 + 9800GT PhysX 8GB HyperX 1600
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
120GB Solid 3 Boot - 1TB WD Black Windows 7 Ultimate Antec TruePower 750 HAF 932
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DuckieHo No... no one said that. A second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." That would be discrete count. However, it actually does not matter how long a second lasts (as long as it is equal to or greater than Planck time). A second is just a reference counter. Have you ever thought to stop and think... maybe I don't know as much as I think? Do you really believe that you just disproved ALL of physics with a misreading of Wikipedia articles?
What is "radiiation" and how fast does it travel? What is "Cesium" and how can I be certain that I have a pure sample? Both of these things are definitely derived using the Speed of Light and the Meter- even the second. Specific Gravity- which is used to define a substance uses SOL, M ans S!

As for your staement of "it actually does not matter how long a second lasts ", I wholeheartedly disagree. I think that little things like "facts" are required to say something is valid- but you clearly do not subscribe to this point of view.
 Cannonball Fxpress (14 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-4170 @ 4.86 Ghz ASUS M5A97 EVO 2 x PowerColor AX6790 Crossfire 16GB (4 x 4GB) SAMSUNG MV-3V4G3D @1890 Mhz 8-9-9
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x Corsair Force 3 120 GB SSD External USB AMD stock cooler Win7 Ultimate
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS 23" DVI Fullsize, solid. OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W CM Praetorian 730 Black
Mouse
Has red light on bottom
 Cannonball Fxpress (14 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-4170 @ 4.86 Ghz ASUS M5A97 EVO 2 x PowerColor AX6790 Crossfire 16GB (4 x 4GB) SAMSUNG MV-3V4G3D @1890 Mhz 8-9-9
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x Corsair Force 3 120 GB SSD External USB AMD stock cooler Win7 Ultimate
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS 23" DVI Fullsize, solid. OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W CM Praetorian 730 Black
Mouse
Has red light on bottom
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jagged_Steel What is "radiiation" and how fast does it travel? What is "Cesium" and how can I be certain that I have a pure sample? Both of these things are definitely derived using the Speed of Light and the Meter- even the second. Specific Gravity- which is used to define a substance uses SOL, M ans S! As for your staement of "it actually does not matter how long a second lasts ", I wholeheartedly disagree. I think that little things like "facts" are required to say something is valid- but you clearly do not believe this.
Again... you have no clue what you are talking about.

Basically, scientist count the number of times an electron move between two states. They chose this particular atom for a reason.

You might wholeheartedly disagree but that does not make you right. Actually, it is basic subsitution.... alegbra 1.
 Once again... (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz]
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro
 Once again... (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz]
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jagged_Steel What is "radiiation" and how fast does it travel? What is "Cesium" and how can I be certain that I have a pure sample? Both of these things are definitely derived using the Speed of Light and the Meter- even the second. Specific Gravity- which is used to define a substance uses SOL, M ans S! As for your staement of "it actually does not matter how long a second lasts ", I wholeheartedly disagree. I think that little things like "facts" are required to say something is valid- but you clearly do not subscribe to this point of view.
Why do you disagree? Don't you need some facts to present a valid argument?

Can you define disagree? How do I know you are REALLY in disagreement?

 Naming is harder than building (15 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k 4.5GHz @ 1.32V Asus P8P67 Pro EVGA GTX 580 Mushkin 2133 9-10-9-24
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840  WD Black Silver Arrow Windows 7
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2211H Rosewill RK-9000BR Seasonic X750 HAF X
MouseAudio
 Naming is harder than building (15 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k 4.5GHz @ 1.32V Asus P8P67 Pro EVGA GTX 580 Mushkin 2133 9-10-9-24
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840  WD Black Silver Arrow Windows 7
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2211H Rosewill RK-9000BR Seasonic X750 HAF X
MouseAudio
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DuckieHo Again... you have no clue what you are talking about. Basically, scientist count the number of times an electron move between two states. They chose this particular atom for a reason. You might wholeheartedly disagree but that does not make you right. Actually, it is basic subsitution.... alegbra 1.
How do these"scientists " know what atom they are looking at to derive the Second? They use formulas involving the Speed of Light, The Meter and the Second. A "Proof" requires using something other than itself to define itself. The fact of the "matter" (pun intended) is that we not only do not understand the basic nature of the Universe, we do not yet even have a way to take valid measurements.
 Cannonball Fxpress (14 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-4170 @ 4.86 Ghz ASUS M5A97 EVO 2 x PowerColor AX6790 Crossfire 16GB (4 x 4GB) SAMSUNG MV-3V4G3D @1890 Mhz 8-9-9
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x Corsair Force 3 120 GB SSD External USB AMD stock cooler Win7 Ultimate
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS 23" DVI Fullsize, solid. OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W CM Praetorian 730 Black
Mouse
Has red light on bottom
 Cannonball Fxpress (14 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-4170 @ 4.86 Ghz ASUS M5A97 EVO 2 x PowerColor AX6790 Crossfire 16GB (4 x 4GB) SAMSUNG MV-3V4G3D @1890 Mhz 8-9-9
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x Corsair Force 3 120 GB SSD External USB AMD stock cooler Win7 Ultimate
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS 23" DVI Fullsize, solid. OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W CM Praetorian 730 Black
Mouse
Has red light on bottom
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DuckieHo No... no one said that. A second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." That would be discrete count of how many transistions occur.... or how many ticks like a clock. However, it actually does not matter how long a second lasts (as long as it is equal to or greater than Planck time). A second is just a reference counter. A second could be 10 transition periods and all that would do is adjust a value in every equation. The results would be exactly the same but on a different scale. Have you ever thought to stop and think... maybe I don't know as much as I think? Do you really believe that you just disproved ALL of physics with a misreading of Wikipedia articles? Seriously, you only stumbled on these definitions today and want to make a case that your thought process works better? It's like getting a A++ certification and walking into a room of Intel engineers to tell them that are doing it wrong. They need more MHz.
Lol. He's either ACTUALLY trying to philosophically disprove modern physics or is just the biggest troll in this thread.
 Leviathan (19 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 @ 4.2 GHz - 200*21 @1.38V Asus Rampage II Extreme 2x 7970's Crossfired -- 1000 | 1425 (Sapphire r... 12GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz | 7-8-7-20 1.65v 1T
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
2x120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD RAID 0 + 1.5 TB Seag... EK Supreme HF copper block Feser X360 radiator Danger Den Laing DDC 12V / 18W pump
CoolingCoolingOSOS
iandh multi-option reservoir 1/2" ID 3/4" OD tubing, G 1/2" compression fitt... Windows 7 x64 Professional Arch x64 with Awesome wm
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Asus VG248QE 1080p@144Hz Sceptre X24W6 1080p@60Hz Razer Tarantula 750W Xigmatek w/ 4 +12V DC Rails ~60A
Corsair Obsidian 800D Razer Mamba @ 600 DPI QcK+ Heavy
 Leviathan (19 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 @ 4.2 GHz - 200*21 @1.38V Asus Rampage II Extreme 2x 7970's Crossfired -- 1000 | 1425 (Sapphire r... 12GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz | 7-8-7-20 1.65v 1T
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
2x120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD RAID 0 + 1.5 TB Seag... EK Supreme HF copper block Feser X360 radiator Danger Den Laing DDC 12V / 18W pump
CoolingCoolingOSOS
iandh multi-option reservoir 1/2" ID 3/4" OD tubing, G 1/2" compression fitt... Windows 7 x64 Professional Arch x64 with Awesome wm
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Asus VG248QE 1080p@144Hz Sceptre X24W6 1080p@60Hz Razer Tarantula 750W Xigmatek w/ 4 +12V DC Rails ~60A
Corsair Obsidian 800D Razer Mamba @ 600 DPI QcK+ Heavy
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jagged_Steel How do these"scientists " know what atom they are looking at to derive the Second? They use formulas involving the Speed of Light, The Meter and the Second. A "Proof" requires using something other than itself to define itself. The fact of the "matter" (pun intended) is that we not only do not understand the basic nature of the Universe, we do not yet even have a way to take valid measurements.
If this were true, then we probably wouldn't have invented something as precise as the transistor using laws of quantum mechanics. In which case, you wouldn't probably be aware of what Wikipedia says. It wouldn't even exist. You really ought to learn about what you're talking about before you try to say modern science has it wrong, because obviously, humans have succeeded with what we know.
 Leviathan (19 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 @ 4.2 GHz - 200*21 @1.38V Asus Rampage II Extreme 2x 7970's Crossfired -- 1000 | 1425 (Sapphire r... 12GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz | 7-8-7-20 1.65v 1T
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
2x120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD RAID 0 + 1.5 TB Seag... EK Supreme HF copper block Feser X360 radiator Danger Den Laing DDC 12V / 18W pump
CoolingCoolingOSOS
iandh multi-option reservoir 1/2" ID 3/4" OD tubing, G 1/2" compression fitt... Windows 7 x64 Professional Arch x64 with Awesome wm
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Asus VG248QE 1080p@144Hz Sceptre X24W6 1080p@60Hz Razer Tarantula 750W Xigmatek w/ 4 +12V DC Rails ~60A
Corsair Obsidian 800D Razer Mamba @ 600 DPI QcK+ Heavy
 Leviathan (19 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 @ 4.2 GHz - 200*21 @1.38V Asus Rampage II Extreme 2x 7970's Crossfired -- 1000 | 1425 (Sapphire r... 12GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz | 7-8-7-20 1.65v 1T
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
2x120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD RAID 0 + 1.5 TB Seag... EK Supreme HF copper block Feser X360 radiator Danger Den Laing DDC 12V / 18W pump
CoolingCoolingOSOS
iandh multi-option reservoir 1/2" ID 3/4" OD tubing, G 1/2" compression fitt... Windows 7 x64 Professional Arch x64 with Awesome wm
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Asus VG248QE 1080p@144Hz Sceptre X24W6 1080p@60Hz Razer Tarantula 750W Xigmatek w/ 4 +12V DC Rails ~60A