Stars are blue, Panthers are pink and the music plays here

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Stars are blue, Panthers are pink and the music plays here
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 . . . 332 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1789989 - Posted: 24 May 2016, 8:46:42 UTC

See ya later mp..
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1789989 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1791090 - Posted: 28 May 2016, 1:21:37 UTC
Last modified: 28 May 2016, 1:27:24 UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F92L8jGJyis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSBb_5tUjWI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F92L8jGJyis

Listening to a small audio glitch in a video when starting up.

That Firefox video or movie is having a seanse in the air which is a little more relaxed and not related to any battle.

Where do I find this sequence?

Possibly the second link above.

Or maybe the third link, since I possibly found it.

I may need to rewind back to the first one.
ID: 1791090 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1791098 - Posted: 28 May 2016, 1:56:19 UTC
Last modified: 28 May 2016, 2:53:56 UTC

Or, since I already happen to be knowing about it.

Last or least, perhaps.

Perhaps boincmgr.exe as well when it comes to the complete picture.

The pulse is possibly the interpretation of the binary representation for a character of the ASCII alphabet or the like.

Therefore we make the substitution for the letter "A" into the binary digits 01000001 without even thinking.

Try spelling this character for me using your voice.

Or perhaps read my lips instead.

Next make a transformation of this character by means of the binary digits it is supposed to be representing into something else.

If you happen to be doing such a thing, you should know what Seti@home is supposed to be all about.

But if next doing so, you will need to be a scientist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4snQS1QGD4

In the middle of it perhaps. I guess the subject is still open minded.

In fact, I have not checked the subject of Probability right now, but perhaps this subject could better be viewed in the context of "is" rather than not such a thing.

Who is then supposed to be making such a thing possible?

Are we supposed to believe in a possible creator, regardless of technological or the spiritual, meaning religion?

It comes to me in the late morning that God is not scratching his head with his fingers when he is doing a couple of things.

Make religion the subject of your choice.

There is a translation by means of text available when watching the video.

Make it Universe and not Univorse, if you will.

Or distance versus distance, in the same way.

...

Again, good video here.

Still working on this.

Does she need to be a painter with a pencil?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuDDPF6vE6Y&index=26&list=RDD7rjLQuW2nQ

Lost the picture for now.

Better pretend to be cold or ice cold and next be selling your product from such a stance.

Again, numbers are supposed or likely to be any better than a sermon or a possible preaching, but perhaps you do not agree.
ID: 1791098 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1791114 - Posted: 28 May 2016, 3:15:49 UTC
Last modified: 28 May 2016, 3:17:04 UTC

Those advertisements.

Bought a packet of Entrecote for my dinner, which in fact is meat.

Adding two or three spoons of the mighty potato salad, the meat is supposed to be fried in the pan using butter.

To my surprise, several pieces of the whole meal gets to much to swallow and after a couple of chews, the dish ends up in the fridge.

Should I cook fish instead, using the old way or fashion, or should I rather cook the old fish dinner using my micro wave oven?

The light bulb went out in my socket. Should I perhaps blame the oven or the bulb when such a thing is happening?

Again read my lips.
ID: 1791114 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1791184 - Posted: 28 May 2016, 5:59:15 UTC
Last modified: 28 May 2016, 6:00:30 UTC

ID: 1791184 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1792366 - Posted: 31 May 2016, 0:45:29 UTC
Last modified: 31 May 2016, 0:48:21 UTC

I should say that sitting in the early hours of Tuesday morning before going to bed, one way of running Seti@home is using your computer for this purpose and next leave for others to sort things out.

Am I supposed to be techy guy, or am I supposed to be something else, including a possible scientist?

Early scientists, or philosophers like Aristoteles, Galileo, Newton and even Einstein did not have access to computing resources in order to give them any aid.

So, regardless of any of them perhaps being either an astronomer, physicist, mathematician or even philosopher, they all most likely were looking at nature from their own perspective and was able to learn from what they were able to see and observe.

This means that if I happen to be an astronomer for example, rather than something else, I would most likely be able to make given conclusions based on either my knowledge, or possibly inclination when it comes to a given subject.

You probably know that I may have been mentioning this before, but some people choose to use the electron microscope in order to look at cells, bacteria and viruses.

Other people rather choose to be looking through a telescope in order to discover new horizons.

If I happened to be a philosopher, where should my mind possibly be carrying my thoughts?

The personal computer has become an important and necessary tool in order to carry out necessary work.

Should I let my mind carry myself away regardless of whether I was using an electron microscope, a telescope, or even a personal computer?

Unfortunately science is something a hard thing to be doing at times, because you may be left to believe in what you are doing.

See you tomorrow.
ID: 1792366 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1792720 - Posted: 2 Jun 2016, 0:04:22 UTC
Last modified: 2 Jun 2016, 0:09:27 UTC

I could also that there was a link today from my National Broadcaster to a secure page belonging to the government, with pictures enclosed as well.

Meaning that the page is secure by means of https

In fact a web page belonging to the Prime Minister, in this case.

Also there is some more add-on information related to this story tonight coming from the National parliament.

From the old days of Unix, for example, like Unix System V, the password file for a system may only be readable by the root account, or the system administrator.

Originally, a password could be in the open when this file is being accessed.

Later a better solution was found and the password became encrypted even here.

If you subscribe to a book using the web-page belonging to a library, the page itself may not be secure by means of http. Still, it may be asking for a username and password in order for a login session to be possible.

In my opinion using https for such a purpose is only for privacy and security in mind. You could get logged in to a server by means of entering a username and password, but you are still only a regular user on the system.

The question becomes if I choose to use the mobile phone or PC, am I supposed to be on my own when doing so, or should it be assumed that someone is looking over my shoulder whether or not I am running Norton Internet Security in the background and choose to be closing the door and curtains of my room?

For now I am left to assume that any information going from the PC to a secure page on the web get encrypted and therefore unreadable.

If I am not wrong, Microsoft is no longer accepting my first name and 12345 for a password, perhaps even if I choose to use my own PC or mobile phone.

Therefore, I rather should be left to assume that even entering the username or password is something that the computer should be knowing about.

Should Norton Internet Security know about this instead and in this way be able to monitor my web-surfing habits?

In my opinion there should be a difference between working with some numbers and perhaps be looking at some sweet pictures instead.

Because of such a thing, or perhaps other matters related to privacy, such a thing could therefore be regarded as being a criminal offense and therefore be a punishable act.

I have seen web monitoring software meant for server use and the one I came across was not a very good one.

But when saying so, is there any reason to believe that I perhaps might be fooled in some other way, by means of being monitored in a way which is beyond my own knowledge?

For now I really do not know and therefore am left to be guessing.

But if I happen to catch a couple of things correct, many products are being sold with the customer in mind, including privacy and security.

Because of that, it therefore could be assumed that there should still be a difference between the vendor or provider and the possible third part which could be eavesdropping on the whole conversation without having permission.
ID: 1792720 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1793332 - Posted: 4 Jun 2016, 9:47:55 UTC

Just read zoom314's post here about cuda42.

Should perhaps note that I am perhaps becoming overcommitted right now and therefore could be late.

No more tasks for now from nowhere.
ID: 1793332 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1794581 - Posted: 9 Jun 2016, 0:23:27 UTC
Last modified: 9 Jun 2016, 0:45:28 UTC

Is the Universe infinite?

Our universe is supposedly a three dimensional one.

Also the singular point (or singularity) if it could be defined might be regarded as being a point in space.

Singularities are thought to be existing in space and therefore being present in the core or nucleus of black holes.

The smallest calculable distance which is having a practical meaning is being measured by means of the Planck constant.

The universe is synonymous with space as we happen to know it.

For now I am only dealing with the notion of the universe.

Theoretically it may be viewed as an almost infinite set of points (not necessarily singularities, because these entities are supposed to be a result of gravity).

Despite singularities assumed to be existing, we are still having an observable universe around us. Possibly without limits, or perhaps contours, or the like, we think of these three dimensions as being an X-Y-Z axis, where the axes are 90 degrees angled or directed on each other.

Time next becomes the fourth dimension. The notion of time is hard to comprehend to both scientists as well as ordinary people, but in the end time implies change.

Time may be next be possibly measured by means of quantisizing it.

Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is an example that among other things, the amount of energy needed to bring an object having weight to near the speed of light is supposed to be tremendous.

In comparison or contrast, a photon is thought of or regarded as being massless or having no mass at all.

The universe is known to be consisting of elementary particles. Except for the neutron and photon, which are massless particles, most other particles are thought of as having mass.

The proton is having a positive charge. The neutron (slightly heavier) is neutral in charge. Both these particles reside in the nucleus of the atom.

An electron is having a negative charge, but weighs in at only 1/1800 of a proton.

Possibly 1/1852 or so, to be more precise.

Some people are making an educated guess about how our universe looks like when it comes to its geometrical shape or actual physical appearance.

Have a look around using a web search engine like Google. You might be able to find precisely this information.

The universe is thought of as having been created by means of the Big Bang.

The following or ensuing process which was happening next is being called inflation and the universe as we happen to be seeing it today is therefore the result of such a process.
ID: 1794581 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1794889 - Posted: 10 Jun 2016, 1:18:14 UTC
Last modified: 10 Jun 2016, 1:31:52 UTC

Now I will enjoy the rest of the evening.

A small problem is that of displaying all tasks in the task list versus those that are currently running or active.

Because of that, I am enabling new tasks and not receiving any, because of the selected display method, which should be interpreted by the button selection to the left, but sometimes is slipping by.

The next question to perhaps ask is as follows:

Read below, I am getting slightly tired.

Is not the human brain, which is an organic or biological tissue, a composition of elements related to the physical, including breath and heart beat, as well as thinking, including that of being able to stand on your feet and also climb the stairs?

Or perhaps being able to know the fact that 2 + 3 = 5?

If I am not wrong, we are still living in the twentieth century.

Like 20'th Century Fox, if you will.

The search query using Google returns

http://www.foxmovies.com/

Some or most of these questions better should be posted at BOINC instead, but the point or element related to that of the possible existence or presence of other technological civilizations rather than that of more high level definitions when it comes to a couple of other things related to possible intelligence, should be a relevant subject here as well.

In fact, neither my computing skills or similar communicating abilities could have been possible without the development of the microprocessor, sometimes or most of the time only called the processor, or the chip.

Although I did not make a detailed study, I noticed the fact that nVidia was launching a new series of graphics cards recently.

Now it became four digits in the serial number and definitely this development is an exciting story to watch.

I will get back at this later on, because this deserves a general attention.

An old book standing in my shelf is having information about the processor which initially started the computer revolution, namely the Z-80.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilog_Z80

Again, my bad by means of reading this article for the first time.

This was an excellent processor for its time.

The only thing which became even better was the Intel 8088 and Intel 8086.

The first of these two was a 16/8 bits processor (Input/Output). The second one was a full 16 bits processor.

I possibly was able to use the 8086 in one of my first computers, but the design of this computer was not necessarily that good.

Its successor, the 80286 became used in the IBM PC AT computer and purchasing such a model being used, it had a fan, or disc motor, which made a lot of noise when being turned on.

Also, despite much compatibility and versatility, it was much too slow when it came to running.

The Intel 80386 processor, although quite decent, unfortunately slipped past me.

Next it became a computer equipped with a 80486 DX2-50 (from my recall).

Except from that, or rather than being a DX-50, it was in fact a 32 bits computer, having a 16 bits Input and a 32 bits Output.

The DX-50 processor was having full 32 bits capability when being used.

Next you might perhaps be asking about how much memory is either needed, or could be handled by the processor and also how much memory the graphics card could be able to support.

So, because like many others perhaps, I could be waiting for the official release of a 128 bit processor and next some 16-256 (or perhaps even 512 GB) of RAM memory as well.

Current 4 GB graphics cards should definitely suffice for most work being done, but in the future, most likely both 8 GB and 16 GB graphics cards will become available for the regular customer or user as well.

See you later.
ID: 1794889 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1794915 - Posted: 10 Jun 2016, 2:45:29 UTC
Last modified: 10 Jun 2016, 2:48:39 UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwVgQdoRfAU

Some good music here. I need to watch the whole video before making any comments.
ID: 1794915 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1795008 - Posted: 10 Jun 2016, 9:31:54 UTC
Last modified: 10 Jun 2016, 9:36:55 UTC

And NSF supposedly stands for...

National Science Foundation.

Factoring (slip my fingers and it becomes NFS instead).

Yeah, again apparently the money or pocket money in your hand.

Please do not blame Raistmer for such a thing happening, it is always a thing or that thing on white and blue.

...

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000840653998

Shhh!

Slip or slap my fingers.
ID: 1795008 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1795467 - Posted: 11 Jun 2016, 21:59:01 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jun 2016, 22:18:29 UTC

You may perhaps wish to have a look at the definition for the word "Causality" in the Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_fermion_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

The latter link may not be the most relevant here when it comes to this.

The fourth link mentions the subject of hidden variables a little down the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

Also read about Pi (3.1415926) as well for a comparison.
ID: 1795467 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1796495 - Posted: 16 Jun 2016, 3:04:32 UTC
Last modified: 16 Jun 2016, 3:05:44 UTC

Oh, please define "scientific accomplishment" (or result).

Where are the facts and where, or in which way are we supposed to be looking?
ID: 1796495 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1796793 - Posted: 17 Jun 2016, 6:21:14 UTC
Last modified: 17 Jun 2016, 6:37:15 UTC

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=79786#1796098

Shame on you.

Is there supposed to be any difference between a dictionary and a reference which is related to the subject of science?

With the exception of the subject of religion, of course.

Also it should be noticed that I have not read about the whole subject yet.

You perhaps know that I tried mentioning a couple of things at BOINC, apparently getting a mixed response back.

Next it should be said that the subject of possibly creating artificial life by means of anything from insemination through cloning is a very interesting subject.

Also, you probably know that my experience with doing a couple of things have made it harder for me to believe in a God by means of the way religion is supposed to be teached as well as being carried out.

Because of that, I am getting a sense that perhaps those vorshippers and preachers are sometimes being kicked or laughed at because they are preaching a religion thought of as being a subject, which may not readily materialize or come into context with the real world.

So while doing my things here at Seti@home, the question coming up in my mind is that of possible intelligence and what such intelligence next should be measured or compared against.

At least when it comes to mathematics, the notion of infinity is quite clearly defined when it comes to its meaning.

But if you happen to read my thread at BOINC, you possibly know that except from the Buh's and the like, the subject of infinity could also have a meaning both when it comes to the philosophical as well as the purely technical.

If for some reason an intelligent civilization other than our own was present, one possibility for its existence would be a technological one.

If next there were being made attempts at creating artificial life, such a thing would not only be a technological issue, but also a possible moral issue as well.

Next becomes the subject of life itself and the principles being associated with such a thing.

In my opinion, neither science alone and at least not religion may not be able to give an answer to all the questions.

Science is supposed to be result oriented, with accomplishments being both wished for as well as desired.

If we for some reason think that something is wrong, the subject at hand may not necessarily be that of God versus the Devil, but rather the difference between right and wrong.

Therefore it rather becomes a moral issue.

Definitely philosophy alone may not be able to make any difference between such right and wrong and because of that, this could be why philosophy and religion are not supposed to be the same.

Are scientists any better then when it comes to this?

Reading a filed page at my national broadcaster about the sinking of a large German ship entering the capital of my country 76 years ago, the decision being made to sink the cruiser was not in concert.

If for some reason a conclusion should be made by means of a 4:3 vote when it comes to an issue, would such a thing be a good thing?

Is such a thing the same as a genuine proof when it comes to a given subject?

I soon will be in bed once again.

See you later.
ID: 1796793 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8797
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 1796817 - Posted: 17 Jun 2016, 9:29:55 UTC - in response to Message 1792720.  

Admiral Graf von Spee, Montevideo? I saw the movie.
Tullio
ID: 1796817 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1796919 - Posted: 17 Jun 2016, 21:30:27 UTC
Last modified: 17 Jun 2016, 21:48:28 UTC

Needs a little more checking, tullio.

I was thinking about the following.

Right now I am not running any Seti@home CUDA tasks, because with only one graphics card, I am left with the choice of either running these tasks, or a similar PrimeGrid Genefer task, particularly a longer one, like a Genefer21 task (b*2^21+1).

At least for the CPU tasks, this should be Seti@home v8 8.0, but as mentioned, I would need to check somewhere else for the corresponding name for a Seti@home CUDA task.

I already have mentioned this, but it becomes a mismatch of the use of resources and this bothers me quite a bit.

Pulling the second graphics card before my health took a hit for the worse was a big mistake, but I was left with two options.

I have the option of using one graphics card and the Sound Blaster card, but not both graphics cards at the same time because of the soldered plate in between and above the power supply located at the bottom.

You probably also know that I am more familiar with the syntax for the PrimeGrid CUDA tasks than the corresponding Seti@home tasks.

The only thing that is clear is that a task may be run by means of a given or specific priority, which is something that has been determined in advance.

I am not familiar with those app_info configuration files or the like, but regardless of it being nVidia, or perhaps something else when it comes to the hardware, it is definitely possible to get some valuable information by means of making a search on a word like app or app_info in these boards, particularly Number Crunching, for possible suggestions.

Therefore, rather than the question about possible fine tuning for possible performance, I was wondering if the graphics card I am using is configurable in one way or another.

Or to be more specific, is such a possible setting the responsibility of the application being used (like the direct application for a Seti@home CUDA task), or is it perhaps rather the responsibility of the card itself?

Where is such a possible separation or distinction being made when it comes to this?

Is it all because of the driver for the graphics card, which may not necessarily be configurable in such a way, or is it rather a configuration file which should be used in direct conjunction with the task or application being run (again Seti@home CUDA)?

Yes, I have not forgotten about those second or third-party solutions either, like Lunatics, but for now I have still to try this out and guess we all know quite well what that was all about.

Also the main processor should not be forgotten either.

Any suggestions welcome.
ID: 1796919 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8797
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 1796924 - Posted: 17 Jun 2016, 21:46:26 UTC - in response to Message 1796919.  
Last modified: 17 Jun 2016, 22:25:27 UTC

On this Linux host, which is a 2008 vintage SUN workstation, I have installed an AMD HD 7770 board, running both SETI@home and SETI Beta tasks. All stock apps, no change. First I started running only one GPU task at the hime, then, in SETI@home directory I wrote an app_info.xml file with GPU usage 0.5 and CPU usage 0.3. But GPU tasks run much slower two at the time, so I eliminated it.
On the much newer Windows 10 PC with an AMD A10-6700 CPU and 4 cores, while the SUN has an Opteron 1210 with 2 cores, I have left running one GPU task at time on a nVidia GTX 750 OC board. They are much heavier Einstein@home tasks and the CPU is running also CERN projects using Virtual Box. This is my limited experience with GPU boards.The app_config.xml file is very simple.
<app_config>
<app>
<name>setiathome_v8</name>
<gpu_versions>
<gpu_usage>0.5</gpu_usage>
<cpu_usage>0.3</cpu_usage>
</gpu_versions>
</app>
</app_config>
Tullio
,
.

Tullio
ID: 1796924 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1797247 - Posted: 18 Jun 2016, 21:34:09 UTC
Last modified: 18 Jun 2016, 22:10:08 UTC

I lost my running environment once again and also a bit of fun.

This took a little time at writing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Assumedly, a particle physicist is mainly concerned about the subject of elementary particles and their properties and behavior.

A cosmologist, on the other hand, is more concerned about the objects of space, including galaxies and clusters of galaxies and possibly the empty voids in between as well.

If for some reason gravity is the gateway or entry point into a subject field, we are once or again perhaps relating or comparing this subject against some other which might also be present.

For some reason I find it better to associate or relate the subject of gravity with Isaac Newton, rather than that of Johannes Kepler.

Still we are having the laws of motion as defined by Kepler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

It should be generally known that the Laws of Gravity as being defined by Isaac Newton are supposed to hold or be relevant for most circumstances, but these laws are no longer adequate or practical when it comes to the world of microcosmos.

This is perhaps not only because Einstein, in contrast with Newton, introduced the notion of time as a context, being it the fourth dimension of space.

Or rather it is because of the speed being traveled by such a particle, being limited by the speed of light, c, which is a constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

This made me think a little and because of not having the first name, only was looking up Copernicus in the Wikipedia.

Because Galileo Galilei has been mentioned before, here is perhaps a name that may have been slightly forgotten.

The general assumption or sense of feeling I get is that even the Laws of Gravity and the notion of space are only one part of an even larger context, where such things like Quantum Theory and String Theory are even more important or prevalent subjects.

Assumedly both physics, including particle physics could be one given way of approach when it comes to understanding a couple of things, at least when mathematics is being used as a tool as well.

If for some reason we are supposed to believe that the Universe is having a creator, it would next be quite easy to associate or relate such a creator with a possible God.

Next, as usual, such a possible association might only be possible by means of a religious approach or attitude when it comes to the subject.

Also there is no secret that while creation and possible destruction as well could be understood or contemplated within a given context, or framework, the possible notion of a God, or rather an entity being behind the creation of the Universe perhaps more likely still could be viewed by means of a given religious context or approach.

This because rather than having a similar approach, because of the way we are supposed to be approaching this subject, at least when it comes to the point or way of carrying out science, we rather are left at dealing with these things the way we choose to be doing so.

Next it should be up or left to the reader to decide what is next being meant by saying "Universe".

Should it be the elementary particles of microcosmos, which we readily think are the basic building blocks which makes up everything else, or should it rather be the galaxies or clusters of galaxies being part of Cosmos instead?

The world of fractals, or chaos, could be viewed as one given way of understanding either Quantum Mechanics, or maybe something else, including the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Or perhaps it rather should be the opposite way around?

The same goes with the butterfly effect and all these small parts or elements related to different parts of physics are each an individual part of a larger piece which when put together, would give an understanding about the Universe we are being a part of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set

We all happen to know about the famous words by Einstein saying that "God does not play dice".

The reason for these words is that he was never fond of the subject of Quantum Theory or Quantum Mechanics and therefore did not believe much in the subject.

If I am not wrong, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle could be a better tool, or way of approach when it comes to understanding Quantum Mechanics.

The four fundamental forces of nature is including Electromagnetism as one of these four.

Are we supposed to believe that there is a simple explanation for the equations which are responsible for this force?

Should it not be readily assumed that a Law and an Equation is not the same and that the latter principle might only be relevant when two or more factors are interacting with each other, making it impossible to recognize or discern each individual such factor?

If lightning for some reason strikes, where does it go?

Does it perhaps hit the ground, or is the charge only present in the air or through the clouds?

The electron is one of the elementary particles of nature. Having a negative charge, it is responsible for the makeup of electricity which next becomes energy.

Matter is therefore synonymous with tremendous amounts of energy, only because we are able to define c, or the speed of light as being a constant.

Because we right now happen to be so fortunate that three of the fundamental Laws of Physics might be unified into one single piece, we are perhaps halfway to be able to come up with, or produce a General Unified Theory (GUT), which unites, or encompasses all the known forces of nature.

So why is Einstein's Special Law of General Theory about the notion of time and not space itself?

Is there any given relationship between time and such a thing like the Uncertainty Principle, or even Quantum Theory?

Probably, or most likely not, as far as I happen to know.

Also it should be known that certain relativistic effects should be more relevant to the world of microcosmos, even though this effect might also be observed by means of the orbit of the planet Mercury around the Sun.

This discrepancy is being readily explained by means of perhaps a possible flaw, or maybe a lack of accuracy in Newton's laws or equations, but next we perhaps should be more inclined or ready to assume that this rather is because of a given property of space itself and that perhaps either the given properties of space, meaning its dimensions, or perhaps rather time itself might be the reason for this happening.

If for some reason neither of these subjects are enough in order to give a complete explanation, we are still left with the subject of String Theory.

It should be noted that here my knowledge is very limited, but right now took the time at looking up the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

This subject needs a bit more reading.
ID: 1797247 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1797277 - Posted: 18 Jun 2016, 23:09:00 UTC
Last modified: 18 Jun 2016, 23:32:51 UTC

Perhaps I forgot it is Sunday today.

Here, the sunshine which have lasted for quite a while and next made some of my nightly sessions a pleasure, have been replaced by low clouds and a sense of darkness and dull.

If for some reason I could be starting the weekend on a Thursday rather than Friday, the following Sunday could next become a sober day.

I had a look outside when making a late meal in the kitchen.

Not raining right now, but the ground outside is wet.

Also the bushes and trees all around becomes green in the summer and I losing a bit of visibility to the nearby surroundings.

It only goes to show that life is not always the same and that whether or not it may be sunny, or even raining, or you perhaps may have been taking the weekend off, life is still supposed to be continuing and everything we happen to know about should be related against such a fact.

More later on.

Edit: Looking a little more at the article about Copernicus, there is a link to "Scientific revolution" at the top.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution

Rather than being concerned about the format of the discussion or article by itself, there should be no doubt that neither Galileo, Copernicus, or Kepler were able to approach their subjects based on both their epoch of living, including current knowledge at hand and also the way regular thinking was being done.

Slightly confused right now. Galileo Galilei is his full name, but I find it more convenient to spell it Galileo.

Needs more checking.

It only goes to show that when it comes to science, methodology could be one thing, whether or not it is first or second.

Next it becomes the way certain things are being either discovered or observed, based on either current thinking, technological innovation, or even such a thing as changing times and events that might be taking place.

And perhaps we should not be forgetting such a thing as mindful thinking or intuition when it comes to this either.
ID: 1797277 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 . . . 332 · Next

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Stars are blue, Panthers are pink and the music plays here


 
©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.