Message boards :
Cafe SETI :
Stars are blue, Panthers are pink and the music plays here
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 . . . 347 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
Are we real? Are we for real? Anyway, I used a couple of minutes today in order to track my YouTube surfing log. The general web address for such a YouTube surfing log may possibly be http://www.youtube.com/feed/history Running across several discs and partitions, I once in a while come across something which makes it a little better. For example this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM This video definitely is a better one. Watch it and enjoy your evening. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
If you could possibly make 8 out of it rather than 6, it would be even better. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
Blame Slippery Sue. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
King of idiots. Anyway, while surfing the web today, I noticed (or really, came across) a reference or mentioning to the old testament (of the Bible) a little down these web-pages. I happen to know that the Bible is all about religion and faith (including "psalms"). So why are we then having both the old testament as well as the new testament in the Bible? One possible answer may be that the new testament is covering the life of Jesus Christ from when he was born and until his death, as well as later history as it happened. The old testament is supposed to be covering known facts from what is Abraham (but not Adam and Eve...). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham Is the old testament supposed to be mentioning Noah's Ark (the Ark of Noah)? If not so, it is assumed that our language and communication, including our ability to communicate and interact with other people once became garbled - ending up with the "Towers of Babel" as the result. In any other instance, the old testament is supposed to be telling a story on its own. It is not about religion, because before Jesus was born there were no definition of "belief" as we are supposed to assume it to be. You know, anthropologists are happy to dig up the history of Lucy (errhm, Adam). Rather than uncovering Noah's Ark, they rather are able to find or deduce that Abraham was having two sons, Isaac and ? One of them was married to Rebecca (probably Isaac). Who was the other one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain_and_Abel Also the story is telling that Cain made the end of Abel because of envy or contempt. They were the two sons of Adam and Eve, if you don't happen to know this. The final point to remember here is that God created man by means of using his finger. Such a description or depiction may be pictured as a "relic". |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
N'th book of Moses, that is. (Yes, I know they are supposed to be ugly, even though I think that they are quite able to fly. Does it ever show up, eh ? |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
So, if you happen to be having a star atlas in your hands, you may be able notice (or perhaps you already know) that several stars in the constellations of Bootes, Corona Borealis and Serpens are in fact binary stars. Speaking of constellations, it is of course the Milky Way. But perhaps it is not that simple yet. First, epsilon Bootes (sometimes called or named Izar) is not a close neighbor system of ours, even though it is a binary one. But from just my recall only, theta "hangover" Bootes / Corona Borealis / Serpentis (not chi or theta) is either a double star, or possibly a triple star. Is it possible to pay such a star a visit? Oh, yes. Possibly kind of, using your mind as well as some thought dedication. Are such star systems currently known to be possessing intelligent beings? The answer to this question is NO. Which really means not as we are able to know right now. There are some candidates currently being scrutinized which are located in the constellations of Cygnus, Lyra and Hercules. Also the Milky Way star constellations Serpens Caput and Serpens Cauda are known areas of location for possible extraterrestrial signal candidates currently under investigation or examination. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
Is science supposed to be giving an answer to questions which may not have a definitive answer or otherwise be trying to giving an answer to things that we do not yet have an answer for? The question is really about whether or not we are able to conclusively prove that black holes do exist and are having the properties which either are wished for or desired. According to Stephen Hawking, there are no black holes in the Universe. It took me only 30 seconds to find the link to this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOWnTNQs6BY The same question may perhaps be asked when it comes to our own existence. For those of us who are supposed to be scientists, it may be easy or most feasible to assume that the Universe is a random event which was spontaneously created without any intervention (divine or not divine) at all. If it was a random event, it was not supposedly created either. Rather it more was something that came into existence from nowhere. Our notion of the possible divine comes from our religious belief which is based on part of our history and development. So when we are rather looking at the heavens instead, is it more easy (or perhaps difficult) to assume that the Universe as a whole is having a creator behind its existence or creation? If you compare stars and galaxies with Jesus, you certainly know that God is his father. Definitely we know who Jesus was, but do we happen to know who God may be in the same context? Please give me your reply if you happen to have an answer to some of these questions. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 28 Oct 09 Posts: 34060 Credit: 18,883,157 RAC: 18 ![]() ![]() |
|
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
Yes. Same goes here. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
Definitely it is not a "hangover" as previously mentioned. Greek alphabet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet Found the mentioned hangover this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=xi+corona+borealis&title=Special%3ASearch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Coronae_Borealis http://simbak.cfa.harvard.edu/simbad/sim-basic?Ident=Xi+Coronae+Borealis&submit=SIMBAD+search Edit: Testing it out using Windows Ultimate 64 bits, I apparently do not get Adobe Flash Player running using Internet Explorer, even though I am able to playback YouTube videos. The CDS Simplay which requires Adobe Flash apparently runs using both Internet Explorer as well as Google Chrome, but the display in the middle apparently will not do so here in the very early morning. The Aladin Application which is Java based will not run at all because of the preset Security settings in the web-browser, even though it is a signed or trusted Application. Reading closer, it is apparently a self-signed application. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
What stupid! Using Google Chrome and again choosing the CDS Simplay option, actually when clicking on one of the objects being offered as a selection option to the left, (for example NGC 4565), it actually comes up in the middle panel after a couple of seconds. Right-clicking on the panel gives more options. But to me, such a rolling box is more like a "loading function", meaning that there is something (meaning data) which is supposed to be loaded, but is not able to be displayed. Here something better should be available. Even experienced users may become mislead. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
A question for you about "Choosing optimal functions". For the ordinary Seti@home tasks (excluding Astropulse), a given task starts up by choosing optimal functions. If you are quick at starting up the graphics which is available for the CPU tasks, you may know that there are a couple of things happening before the processing starts, including "Doing baseline smoothing". I guess the same is happening for the CUDA tasks as well, but is there any difference in which way this initialization phase is being carried out based on the different task types? Meaning that some tasks are "shorties", returning only spikes, pulses and possibly triplets in return. The longer tasks are carrying out the gaussian search as well. The .vlar tasks do not carry out the gaussian search, but their run time length may be much longer than the shorties tasks. Again, only a question about whether or not there is any difference between the tasks (by means of algorithm) when it comes to the initial start up phase, namely "Choosing optimal functions". |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
I am struggling a little bit here right now. Blame ageing, perhaps. One of my fingers has become stuck. Still I am curious about a couple of things both when it comes to numbers and those things I probably am not able to get at when it comes to this project. Like the subject of chirping and de-chirping, which came to my attention today. Since I am not a native English or American when it comes to language, I had to look up "chirp" using my dictionary. Supposedly birds are singing and not chirping. But then it all becomes music. Really a musical note or tone of sorts. If you take time listening to such chirps, you may know that the sounds you are able to hear are analog or wave-based ones (really frequency) and not digital (bits and bytes) in nature. If you make a sound digital, you are replacing frequency, amplitude and pitch with the corresponding binary digits or decimal numbers for the similar "values" instead. What the corresponding digital representation for a sound may be called by means of a general term actually went out of my head right now, but at least it is power, fit and score for a gaussian and more or less the rest of it for the other parameters as well. For those of us who are running Seti@home, it would be so nice to pick up a signal which supposedly would be a data transmission of sorts. You may perhaps never give a thought about whether or not you may be able to hear a voice, or perhaps a song in a given transmission if one such ever happens to be received. Again, it is nice to possibly hear birds singing. If you happen to lucky, you may be able to hear a song in the chirps. Anyway, you are not supposed to be understanding the meaning of its contents. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
What really was on my mind came back to me right now. Give a thought about the Universe as we know it, will you. It is both microcosmos and macrocosmos, but things are supposedly happening a little faster in the first than the second, even though the general physical and mathematical laws behind all of it are mostly the same. Everything that we are able to observe in space, including gravity and time is supposed to be adhering to mathematical and physical laws. Whether or not it is Carl Friedrich Gauss when it comes to mathematics or Isaac Newton when it comes to physics, we are supposed to believe that falling objects are speeding up when being attracted by a gravitational field. Try dropping two plummets (or two heavy stones instead) from the leaning tower of Piza. Except for the tower leaning, you are still quite high up when being at the top. If you rather replace one of the plummets with a feather instead, the plummet will hit the ground first because of air resistance. If you rather try this out on the moon and only are considering weight and not size, both objects will hit the ground at the same time when there is no air present. This is in fact something which was tried out on the Moon (the feather and hammer experiment). But yet another thing that may be forgotten in all of this is that such falling objects are in fact speeding up while doing so. It may not be going on forever unless you happen to be free-falling to the center of the Earth. If I rather happened to be on the planet Jupiter instead, my free-fall would be considerably faster when it comes to speed. The only thing being the difference is the size of this planet which is much larger than our own planet. Supposedly the mass of the Earth is determining the escape velocity (40,000 km/h or 11.2 km/s) which is needed to be able to leave this planet and possibly visiting the Moon or other planets. But for this to become possible, you need to know the right formula. This was something a quite decent scientific work in the bookshelf of my parents was unable to present correctly, so here is yet another question which is supposed to be returning a proper scientific answer back. Also, everything we are supposed to be able to see and observe is based on the principle of chaos. In some instances we may be able to see order inside chaos (meaning structures). This is something which becomes evident when you are dealing with numbers that are supposed to be either factors, composite numbers or possibly prime numbers. Even prime numbers are now becoming part of lists which are more or less repeatable or continuous. In some instances you are only able to see a short list. At other times, such a list may rather become a lengthy one instead. A given way of presenting such a list by means of something other than numbers would be to display or represent it as a pattern instead. A pattern may be repeatable, even recursive in nature. Possibly there are no limits of nature when it comes to imagination, but when it comes to our ability of understanding of these things there apparently still is a limit to our capabilities or comprehension. The two mentioned examples above are yet another indication that carrying out science is not always meant to be an easy thing to be doing. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
If you did not happen to know it already, but who or whatever that was behind the creation of everything including ourselves gave us eyes for us to see. Among things that now happen to know about are the galaxies found in the Hubble Deep Field and Very Deep Field photographs or pictures. Astronomers are not bothering about those objects (mostly galaxies) which readily shows up, but rather those little faint and very reddish objects instead which are thought of as being very distant ones. Current estimates place the faintest objects visible in these two Hubble fields at a distance of about 13.6 billion light years which matches quite well with the estimated age of the Universe which is thought to be some 13.7 billion to 13.8 billion light years old. Yet another indicator that these objects were formed only a short time after the Big Bang itself and that we now are closing in on being able to see the Big Bang itself by photographic means. Should we perhaps take these results with a litte grain of salt and rather assume that they are quite preliminary? History has told us before that there are a little more to things than what is known at first stage. Better do a little more scientific research perhaps before any definite conclusions can be made. In no instance are we yet able to see a divine creator behind everything. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
Flip-flop. A little searching right here. Eh, what did I play? Just getting the usual 64-bits Adobe Player messages about playback problems. Anyway, that YouTube video was a better one, but apparently lost when it comes to who and where. Trying out some Richard Strauss instead (2001 Space Odyssey). Anyway, getting back to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSSfrIFmk84 So, distant ones that they or these objects are supposed to be. Both by means of definition as well as appearance they really become galactic objects. The apparent creation of galaxies in an infant Universe apparently does not solve any of my taxation problems. If you happen to look at pictures of nearby galaxy clusters, you may notice the weird shape of some of its inhabitants, or objects (which in fact are galaxies themselves). These objects are bent in shape because of the tremendous gravity which nay be located in between. As previously mentioned, such a gravitational force does not help or give aid to your wallet or personal lifestyle. Still, there are some people in between who are trying to make some science out of all of this. If some galaxies are bent in shape because of gravity, does this solve the notion of time? Apparently not so. I still have to be able to see those formulas. In the end, a prediction is for something that is assumed to be. We generally do not believe in time travel, despite the notion of possible worm holes. Thinking about it, putting a ton or million of it is only part of the story. It is not supposed to be believed, because there is currently no Scientific explanantion which is able to explain all and everything. Right now we are left with the Theory of Relativity (Special and General). Quantum Theory is only bringing or giving additional complexity to a field of science which already is bogged dwn to uncertainties when it comes to detail. Right now, there seem to be impossible to get any further based on what we already are supposed to be knowing about these things. Anyway, did some things of interest become hidden during the way? My best guess is that thinking is still around and that some results may definitely have become obtained as a result of such a thinking. Because of this I am just curious. Where are all those "cardboard examples" being located if they happen to be stored or collected at all? Anyway, have a listen to the mentioned video. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
Meant inserting a line break above (really, there is enough of them already). ... exited with zero status but no 'finished' file That is for a PrimeGrid task. Should I continue running this task? A closer look indicates the task is still in my task list and has not finished yet. Either it was suspended, or it halted execution because Boinc Manager was exited, perhaps because of a logout or a system restart. Anyway, while enjoying last evening taking a break from the usual numbers, I came across the following YouTube videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G89_7FYynt4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMPb0qA_5Ns Apparently life is full of illusions. Regardless of whether or not you are supposed to be a believer of such illusions, there always is supposed to be a logical answer to such magical things which really are feats of cheating for the purpose of entertainment only. Ask a magician how he or she is able to perform magical things which are supposed to be cheating us and never reveal the true facts, there will probably never be a straightforward answer in return. In many instances there really is an easy answer to the problem. In other instances there is no such explanation readily available, but what we are able to see is still being looked as cheating. Meaning that cheating and illusions are supposed to be going hand in hand and becoming just the same thing. Therefore, what is supposed to be cheating or perhaps a magical illusion of sorts is therefore never supposed to be believed. It always end up being just a fake. In any instance, you may find such things hard to believe, especially when there appears to be no logical answer to what you may be able to see. If an event is supposed to happen or is supposed or purported to have happened, are you always ready to believe in the fact behind such a story? Again it should be much easier to believe in facts, but not necessarily the whole story behind. Seeing is supposed to be believing. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
Believe or not believe. I am watching a YouTube video right now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhZFvwRlftc There should be no reason to doubt that the UFO phenomenon is a real phenomenon which is not totally understood. Also UFO's may be thought of as either a natural phenomenon, or possibly something technological in nature which is having an intelligence behind their existence and known performance capabilities. In contrast, detecting possible signals from extraterrestrials assume that we are trying to detect a signal coming from another star system in space. Most people probably would like to write off both possibilities as chances of such a detection appears rather slim. We happen to know about signal candidates, but are these signals coming from UFO's - or from the stars instead? Are there perhaps two different camps here? One camp believing in UFO's and another camp believing in a possible extraterrestrial signal which may be coming our way through space? I leave it to you to answer these questions. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2442 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
And for mature audiences only. *** A little warning here *** We all happen to know that science = technology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TXFoTUrSYw Do not start up your day watching this video. Advancement in science means advancement in technology (and vice versa). Watch this video when you have finished your day. |
©2025 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.