Wisdom.

Looking it up.

Getting back at it.

There is a mentioning of a volcano, some 19 miles from Rome, Italy.

Where, if I could ask.

Before asking or PM'ing tullio, there is a quite big lake not that far from Rome.

Last beer in the fridge. I will soon be in bed.

Sorry about that.

And God said.

Make it three days of the week.

Or even five days, if you will.

Speaking of creation and possible moments.

"And God saw it was good".

I already said it.

Sigh.

Oh, I once again chose to make a report of it.

I did not note down the exact wording.

Are scientists supposed to be speaking on behalf of God?

Is possible creation a better alternative or option for something else?

Is what something could be believed or spoken as being creation a product or a result of the existence of God?

In the same way, possible infallabilty or mishaps when they possibly or suppodedly could be happening.

The fact is that we are supposed to believe in God as being our possible savior.

Such a context, or principle may only be explained by means of science and it is not necessarily about truth or general principles.

Keep digging, or working.

Again, buh, for the lack of something else.

Lago di Nemi? There was a Roman fleet there, whose ships were found and preserved.
Tullio

---

A Roman fleet, being located or found in a lake?

That thing needs a little more explanation, in my opinion.

If it became buried in the sand, or sank to the bottom of the sea, there probably is a need for archeologists in order to get the facts of this story.

Anyway, should tell that I was not able to make it to the shop before this weekend.

Enough food to eat, but no beer to enjoy.

I was thinking a bit about what we might think of as being "predictive" science, where certain things we could assume could be predicted only becomes another bit or puzzle of an otherwise unpredictable world.

Before making a check when it comes to this, the Bible has the story about the Creation, by means of its biblical term, rather than that of the scientific term for this word.

Using the native version of the Wikipedia for this, the correct word is of course Genesis and next further reading is being referred to the first book of Moses.

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

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

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

The subject in the latter link has been discussed before and is being included only as a possible reference.

When looking up the first book of Moses, there is a further reference to the account behind this Genesis, but here I find it more interesting to look at the account of this event itself, not the usual depiction of God being the creator of Adam by means of the painting by Michelangelo.

To most scientists, this depiction only is showing the creation of man, or really Adam, by means of God, rather than the more likely story that humans evolved from mammals and particularly apes and chimpanzees.

We really do not look like gorillas, in fact and also we happen not to recognize ourselves with the Neanderthals either.

Because scientists are more likely to give another explanation of given facts than those being reflected or portrayed in the Bible, we may also be able to conclude that the Universe came into existence by means of a moment of initial creation.

Perhaps slightly forgotten or missed, but the fact is that when the Universe became created, one half of it when it comes to mass was matter, the other half was antimatter.

In the end, the amount of matter was slightly more than antimatter and as these two forces annihilated each other, next becoming energy, only matter was being left.

The next question is asking whether or not this annihilation process was the result of the Big Bang itself, or whether this process was the reason for why this moment of creation took place at all.

If anyone happens to know a little more about this, comments are welcome.

For now it may only seem that our current understanding of elementary particles might be able to explain these things and not so in another way.

One may perhaps be left asking what is supposed to be the better science regardless of it being religion or maybe something else.

As usual, we are left with both different explanations, as well as also different opinions when it comes to these things.

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

Apparently with a "h" in the name.

At least when it goes to my preference or liking.

So, if we think of the Big Bang as the possible beginning of everything, is Genesis, or rather perhaps evolution then a logical step or conclusion when it comes to the development of everything?

If you happen to be familiar with project management, or the running of computers, you most likely are familiar with the CASE study model.

Put it simple, you build something based on a given design or possible innovation.

Next becomes the task of maintaining the product during its working or living phase.

Finally the product becomes discarded or thrown away because of either old age or being worn from use.

You typically do not see the cyclic model being used for things that are supposed to be lasting only a limited time.

Therefore, a car may not be used once again after being placed in the ditch.

In a similar way, we may be able to define the notion of infinity, even though we also know that certain things are limited when it comes to how long they are supposed to last.

Stars are being born from coccoons of dust and gas and eventually die by means of becoming either red or white dwarfs, or possibly neutron stars or even Black Holes.

Even here, the cyclic process is not being present either, even though we might think that this process of life and death happens all the time.

We think of all of this as being creation and when so, not necessarily a creation by means of the possible divine, or even a creator.

The laws and equations which makes certain things possible, most likely already were present at the moment of the Big Bang, but the end result was only elementary particles without any relationship with each other.

For some reason, these elementary particles formed atoms, each having their separate weight based on the number of protons, neutrons and electrons.

If antimatter could still exist, or could be created, such matter would most likely be elementary particles only and not atoms.

In the end, the elementary particles make up the atoms that everything is being made from and by means of knowing that everything is made up of such particles, we readily assume that the world we are a part of is such a creation.

A Roman fleet, being located or found in a lake?

That thing needs a little more explanation, in my opinion.

If it became buried in the sand, or sank to the bottom of the sea, there probably is a need for archeologists in order to get the facts of this story.

Google "Lago di Nemi" and you will find a link to Museo delle navi romane.
Tullio

---

One folly follows another. After Nice, we had Munich and then Kabul. I feel a need to pray. There is a mass Catholic youth meeting im Krakov, which will be broadcast on Italian TV. I shall pray with them.
Tullio

---

One folly follows another. After Nice, we had Munich and then Kabul. I feel a need to pray. There is a mass Catholic youth meeting im Krakov, which will be broadcast on Italian TV. I shall pray with them.
Tullio

I shall pray for the human race along with you, Tullio.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Anyway, tullio.

Without forgetting Mark either, do you happen to know the true colors of the elementary particles that are being known?

Are protons perhaps red and neutrons white, only because they might be portrayed as being such in illustrations?

In fact, my own question reminds me that I should better find out a little more about what those bosons are all about and not necessarily only the Higgs boson.

A bit late right now, but I know there is an illustration for this in the article about the Standard Model of Physics in the Wikipedia.

I happen to know that numbers are not always welcome here, but at least we know that such numbers could be quantisized at times.

Among typically examples are the Avogadro constant for water and that a cubic meter of sugar probably would weigh in at more than a ton, compared with a similar amount of water, for example.

Before checking, I do not know the number of people currently living here on Earth, but it should be somewhere between 5 and 10 billion people.

Again, the possible confusion about how these numbers are being expressed.

For now make 5 billion 5,000,000,000 for simplicity.

Earlier today I added P37 = 1899694532761666085661076233926293547 to the Factor Database.

Exclude the commas and it should be easy to tell which number is the largest of these two.

With that in mind, why not compare with the Laws of Gravity by Isaac Newton and remember that these laws happen to be equations.

Perhaps being mentioned before, but an old work (not Encyclopaedia Britannica) standing in the shelf was found to be having a big error or mistake in the reference article for gravity as being experienced here on Earth.

Using only a pocket calculator, the equations had become wrong in the article.

Because of such errors, one may next ask oneself who might be the better scientist.

Is it the one who are dealing with numbers, or is it rather the one who could be using his or her mind thinking or dreaming?

In which way are we supposed to be able to get any results?

Should we always believe those numbers, or should we perhaps close our eyes and maybe ears as well and leave the rest of it for the mind?

Stories about alien visitors, including experiences while asleep happen to be part of many people's lives.

Regardless of whether or not they happen to be believed or could be related to science at all, it is not the same as using a radio telescope in order for listening to the stars.

We happen to be intelligent ourselves and therefore we are able to put ourselves in a given context.

Recent studies are finding that the core of the Orion Nebula is an even more exotic place than previously thought.

Again, we are probably more likely to believe that intelligent life could be present at stars twice as old as our sun.

But not necessarily so when it comes to stars which are much younger than ourselves.

A star like Rigel is a blue supergiant, while a star like Betelgeuze has already entered its red supergiant phase.

Many other stars are both young and sometimes more luminous than our sun.

In my opinion, the chance that intelligent life could exist near, or in the vicinity of such stars is quite probable or likely, given the fact that there are billions of stars only in the Milky Way.

Being able to quantisize certain things or facts may not necessarily be about probabilities in a similar way.

Probability could also be about randomness and chance, but quantifying something in a similar way might perhaps not be the same thing.

See you tomorrow.

"Color" is a quantum number assigned to quarks. They are red, green or blue, if I still remember the online course on the Higgs field I took last year. But I tend to forget.
Tullio

---

Going to bed at 03:15 AM.

But something is wrong.

I am getting the same value for power and score when it comes to the spikes.

For now the other values are nominal.

Exited BoincLogX for now and restarted it.

Either it is the BOINC Manager, or it is BoincLogX that became awry.

A couple of more tasks needs to be run first, including suspended tasks.

Keeping a tab on it.

Not sure about this right now.

Anyway, but nominal was not a good word to choose.

Only became so in the middle of the day.

What I really meant was that the other values looked to be as usual, but that some of the .vlar tasks had relatively short running times without giving any more when it comes to possible information.

Most likely it was something in the running of the tasks which became wrong and it did not make it anywhere here.

My guess is that we are not alone in the Milky Way, but that the numbers being processed and returned by the client does not give any particular indication or clue when it comes to a possible signal or other intelligent types of communication being present in space.

If I am not wrong, the modern listening and detection technologies for possibly detecting an intelligent signal coming from space are now some 39 years old, starting with the detection of the WOW signal in 1977.

Apparently we have come no further when it comes to being able to detect any extraterrestrial intelligence and our ways and means probably are not any better than doing a couple of other things here on Earth which could be done.

Making a post, I typically edit it before it gets finished.

Next this editing shows up as well in the post.

In fact, posting two words in a message does not make its meaning much different than using only one word.

Still, this editing of a post is showing up.

Why not make the system only show the time and date the post was being created as a whole?

I probably still could get my opinion voiced by saying only "bumpers", rather than "bumpers me".

Or maybe something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljxm3NsnVI0

a+b=c (and not a+c=b) (at least when it comes to the words).

Please tell me and it possibly becomes a difference.

Or, the exact meaning of it.

http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss355/mittbilde32/S1_jpg_zpsphlkr6yd.jpg



Just uploaded to Photobucket.

Oh, pretty picture.

Do you think I am stupid, or?

Eh, that thing?

NO!

In fact I happen to associate Johnny Guinness with the country of Ireland?

In comparison, where do you make a similar association or relationship when it comes to possible idiots, or nerds?

I guess you can not or may not be able to give me the correct answer here.

Is there any difference between a web server and an e-mail client like Microsoft Outlook when it comes to possibilities or performance?

Perhaps Outlook should be enough to say, when it comes to its wording.

Used either wrong, or even diligently, such a service, by means of being a protocol, could in fact, or possibly bring the whole net down.

You know, I happpened to catch the mother of these two (or three adventurers), currently being musicians, on the phone in the quite distant past.

Of course she rejected my ideas, thoughts, or suggestions when it comes to possible whereabouts and origins, in the same way as you probably would do.

Better make something cheap rather than expensive.

Does it always work out in any way?

I happened to learn something new here the other day.

Apparently, or in fact, Lyndon B. Johnson served a six year term as being President of the United States between 1963 and 1969.

Here or this is the missing link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson

Should such a thing perhaps be attributed or related to me?

Or is it a part of history missed, or missing, or perhaps slipping away?

Slip my finger and forget about a couple of other things.

Sigh!