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 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 104 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile James SotherdenProject Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10356
Credit: 89,778,167
RAC: 47,053
United States
Message 1456550 - Posted: 23 Dec 2013, 7:07:29 UTC - in response to Message 1456352.  

You couldn't make it up if you tried .....

Nope, But the man loves numbers. Whos to say.....?
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1456550 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1456564 - Posted: 23 Dec 2013, 7:51:46 UTC
Last modified: 23 Dec 2013, 7:54:41 UTC

There is well known formulated fact today that the Universe as we are being able to observe and understand it is revealing its secrets by means of the way science is approaching the subject readily at hand.

Whether or not we are observing white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes, or the possible existence of deities as well, each subject field is being carried out in a way which best fits the respective subject being scrutinized.

One point hard to miss or forget is that while there are supposedly many deities around or being present, some evil, some divine, is that no-one of these deities (with the possible exception of God himself) is known as being a
creator of the Universe as we are observing it today.

To us space is everything from grains of dust and sand being remnants of meteroids and asteroids, through white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes. Also we are having space itself which is constantly inflating (or expanding) as a result of its creation by means of the Big Bang.

Space is mostly stars and galaxies. The only known life known in the Universe is being found here on earth, making us possibly unique. As far as we know, the creation and existence of the Universe is not synonymous with life, because we only know of life here on earth, not somewhere else.

So the question becomes then - is life itself the result of divine forces behind it? Intelligent life when present is synonymous with thinking, dreaming and creation of materials like cars and buildings. Also the thinking process is giving room for ideas which sometimes may be carried out in practice, as well as theories which may ultimately become proven by means of scientific studies.

Defintitely there are many scientists who are either agnostics or atheists. But everything which may be related to the possible existence of deities should not be just associated with religion (really the bible) either.

One of the chapters in the bible tells the story about John's revelation.

When at school in my younger days, I really was able to associated the bible with the book of psalms.

When you attend church, you are supposed to be singing these psalms. These psalms are being synchronized with preaching, carried out by the priest, which really is all about God.

Another wording or description here is "gospel" (or evangelical/evangelist).

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

So while you either may be in the position of perhaps starving to death, freezing from cold, or become a victim of a decease, is there any point of believing in such deities when at the same time you only know that space is possible infinite (Big Bang vs. the constant inflation/contraction theory).

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

Anyway, angels in the sky - angels here on earth. Time to believe in UFO's and extraterrestrials as well, perhaps?

Or maybe this rather becomes just another subject instead?
ID: 1456564 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1456578 - Posted: 23 Dec 2013, 8:55:54 UTC
Last modified: 23 Dec 2013, 8:56:38 UTC

To me as an amateur astronomer, assuming that our galaxy is a barred spiral, is quite hard to come to hands with.

Despite the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy being some 100,000 light years across, it is not that symmetrical in shape when being observed. We are able to see both stars and clusters of stars as well as light and dark clouds of gas.

Our Milky Way is definitely an evolved galaxy. The Andromeda galaxy, M31, is supposedly even larger than the Milky Way and possibly even older than our own galaxy.

Compare with the Small and Large Magellanic Clouds, for example. The Large Magellanic Cloud is showing signs of developing a central bar and may become such a galaxy in the future.

For now, the assumption that the Milky Way galaxy is a Sb/Sc type galaxy is the one that fits best when it comes to me right now.
ID: 1456578 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1456581 - Posted: 23 Dec 2013, 9:32:54 UTC
Last modified: 23 Dec 2013, 9:37:14 UTC

The previous post slipped away at the end because of what fell out of my mind.

But in fact, Fred Hoyle should be associated with the "Steady State Theory".

Which means that the birth and subsequent death of a Universe is supposed to be a continuous process.

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

Astronomers are speculating whether parallell Universes may exist, each being subjected to its own laws of physics.

Also better to say that psalms are being being performed in church in conjunction with the preaching during the service, in order to bring a message of peace and unity.

Especially in this time of Christmas.
ID: 1456581 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1456596 - Posted: 23 Dec 2013, 11:05:52 UTC
Last modified: 23 Dec 2013, 11:56:25 UTC

Oh, dog and cat you two are as usual.

Where are the mice?

I am hoping for a nice Christmas, even though right now it's 12:07 AM here and I had just an orange for breakfast.

Not my best time of the day.

By the way Mark, that was nice to hear that from you.

I should perhaps read things better through first before posting my thoughts.
ID: 1456596 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1456652 - Posted: 23 Dec 2013, 15:26:18 UTC
Last modified: 23 Dec 2013, 15:27:38 UTC

Without no doubt, Sir Isaac Newton was one of the greatest mathematicians and physicists who has ever lived.

The British are well known for bringing up eminent scientists.

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

Scroll halfway down that web-page and you are able to read about Newton's "Laws of motion".

In fact, you really need to be either a mathematician or physicist (or both) in order to understand the underlying concepts behind these principles. To other it only becomes desktop reading entertainment or enjoyment at best.

Newton's three laws of gravity may be proven by means of experiments.

Perhaps this is the reason that he once was hit in the head by a falling apple.

But he (or the laws he was able to produce) was not able to explain the 43" discrepancy of the motion of the planet Mercury in its orbit around the sun.

What is the reason that scientists are unable to do so? The third law of gravity deduced by Newton is a quite complex one and not that easy to understand.

So, may I ask, does anyone know or is able to give a reasonable explanation for this measured discrepancy?

Or is it more of the fact that philosophical thinking or rhetoric is the same as no thinking at all?
ID: 1456652 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40355
Credit: 38,188,888
RAC: 54,165
United Kingdom
Message 1456702 - Posted: 23 Dec 2013, 17:19:02 UTC

Nope, But the man loves numbers. Whos to say.....?

Just another Knutt case.
ID: 1456702 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1456876 - Posted: 23 Dec 2013, 22:01:06 UTC
Last modified: 23 Dec 2013, 22:04:14 UTC

One question which comes to my mind is the following:

Science is all about separating myths from facts.

That is "proven" facts.

Several years ago I watched a scientific program about excavations around the Giza pyramid complex which is located in Egypt, close to the capital, Cairo.

One of the scientists who was taking part in this program was an Egyptian scientist, probably an archaeologist or the similar (a scientist exploring tombs).

His particular subject field regarding specific things about ancient Egyptian history going back to Tut-ankh-amun apparently was quite unique and probably would not have been accepted if the subject field possibly was more "controversial".

The point here is that the story about the Ark of Noah is supposed to be just a "myth" - unless you happen to know it better. The story tells that the Ark of Noah ended up on the mountain of Mt. Ararat, which is located in Turkey.

Many attempts have been carried out in order to try to locate the exact position of the Ark and whether or not it does exist at all. To my current knowledge, this story about the "Great Flood" (deluge/flood) should be regarded as either a myth or superstition. No proof about this story appears to be currently available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tut-ankh-amun

So, the main point here is that unless you happen to know it better (or at least are able to prove your theories or conclusions), everything becomes just unproven speculation. One may perhaps question whether such unproven speculation is of any scientific value at all.

In the end there will always be possible controversial subjects available which may lack conclusive evidence, but still may be regarded as subjects worth closer scientific research and study.
ID: 1456876 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile celttooth
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 99
Posts: 26503
Credit: 28,209,643
RAC: 876
Canada
Message 1456912 - Posted: 23 Dec 2013, 23:29:55 UTC

Maybe?
ID: 1456912 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1456913 - Posted: 23 Dec 2013, 23:30:48 UTC
Last modified: 24 Dec 2013, 0:09:57 UTC

Supposedly we are having threads here on this message board for people to read.

So, I am just wondering whether these threads are meant for serious discussion and debate, or rather it is the general thought that experienced users of Seti@home at times may be stepping on each ones toes.

My own preference is that I would like to post a follow-up reply on a post at the place where the original post was placed.

Of course I would like to make a separation between number crunching and politics.

Really, politics should be mostly regarded as an election debate, but right now it apparently has become a little more.

Everything not directly related to science (either directly UFO or space signals rated) right now ends up in politics.

For some reason you may be of the opinion that I am just a stupid fool or nerd.

Oh, what mediocre!

Really, Seti@home is a little more than msattler, Chris S and myself as well as a dozen or two others. Right now Seti@home is becoming better organized by means of the creation of teams.

The main purpose of teams is the combined credit score being accumulated by means of the processing of raw data.

Radio signals are a natural part of the sky as seen by means of the frequency band being currently being observed by the Arecibo Radio Telescope. Unless specifically observing a radio based source (presumably of natural origin), it is right now up to the project scientists to ascertain or conclude whether a given result is yielding a certain result of value.

A couple of years ago, a result possibly being obtained by the Seti@home client would only return power and fit (chi square). More recently the estimated or calculated score has been included in the result as well.

The given values for the scores (spikes, gaussians, pulses and triplets) possibly is an open-ended table. A triplet of 14 may be replaced by a triplet of 14.36 and so on until there becomes a result which apparently becomes unbeatable or unbroken and therefore stays at the top as the best result.

Included here may be a possibly "metascore", which calculates the score from all of the four parameters (spikes, gaussians, pulses and triplets) and makes a summary out of it.

Seti@home is supposedly looking for signals coming from other star systems, or possibly space itself. Unless otherwise specified, most or all numbers currently available might be regarded as having a natural origin and not being associated with the possible existence of other advanced or developed civilizations in space.

There is currently available a list of the best known results including gaussian scores being found at the old Seti@home classic pages. Most of these scores are as mentioned gaussian scores. The Wow signal supposedly was a strong narrowband signal in comparison and possibly only one or a few such narrowband signals are currently known.

Is it possible to perhaps do things slightly better? My best guess is that there were a couple of things during all this time that just went "down the drain".

In comparison, the classic story from 1929 having the name "War of the Worlds", by Orson Welles, supposedly created panic and havoc among ordinary people when originally being broadcast. My best guess is that such an event is sought not to be repeated once again even though most people living today are supposed to be having more knowledge about certain events than was readily available some 84 years ago.
ID: 1456913 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40355
Credit: 38,188,888
RAC: 54,165
United Kingdom
Message 1456916 - Posted: 23 Dec 2013, 23:46:41 UTC
Last modified: 23 Dec 2013, 23:47:38 UTC

Several years ago I watched a scientific program about excavations around the Giza pyramid complex which is located in Egypt, close to the capital, Cairo.

One of the scientists who was taking part in this program was an Egyptian scientist, probably an archaeologist or the similar (a scientist exploring tombs).

His particular subject field regarding specific things about ancient Egyptian history going back to Tut-ankh-amun apparently was quite unique and probably would not have been accepted if the subject field possibly was more "controversial".

The point here is that the story about the Ark of Noah is supposed to be just a "myth" - unless you happen to know it better. The story tells that the Ark of Noah ended up on the mountain of Mt. Ararat, which is located in Turkey.

Many attempts have been carried out in order to try to locate the exact position of the Ark and whether or not it does exist at all. To my current knowledge, this story about the "Great Flood" (deluge/flood) should be regarded as either a myth or superstition. No proof about this story appears to be currently available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tut-ankh-amun

So, the main point here is that unless you happen to know it better (or at least are able to prove your theories or conclusions), everything becomes just unproven speculation. One may perhaps question whether such unproven speculation is of any scientific value at all.

In the end there will always be possible controversial subjects available which may lack conclusive evidence, but still may be regarded as subjects worth closer scientific research and study.

Why don't you post that in the religion thread? It would be quite relevant there. I myself was about to expand upon Noahs Ark.
ID: 1456916 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1456926 - Posted: 24 Dec 2013, 0:01:05 UTC - in response to Message 1456914.  
Last modified: 24 Dec 2013, 0:02:45 UTC

Yes. Let us not forget the human factor in all of this, my friend.

The perception you may be having regarding one or more specific person or people relates to what you may think is everything from just humble through evil and sinister.

At times you may perhaps get a little high and possibly forget that someone's pure annoyance really is hiding a little more, like sorrow, vain and maybe even despair.

I use a dictionary for a couple of words, because there are a heck of a lot of them and I happen to know at least a million of them using my head alone.

So looking up despair (and not dispair), I also noticed the word "disgruntled" at the same time.

Ever heard about a "disgruntled" Nasa employeee?

Just another story.

Merry Christmas!
ID: 1456926 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1457305 - Posted: 25 Dec 2013, 7:09:33 UTC
Last modified: 25 Dec 2013, 7:27:14 UTC

Yes, merge the credits of wiggo and msattler together and then mix a couple of YouTube videos in betweeen.

See what you get?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0n5MTS4DA8

Nice and peaceful Christmas Music for those of us being educated and intellectual.
ID: 1457305 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1457329 - Posted: 25 Dec 2013, 9:35:04 UTC
Last modified: 25 Dec 2013, 9:41:51 UTC

Good night!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_bvSN17YGg

Or perhaps rather with a short dance of sorts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL7vQ3THRpU
ID: 1457329 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 33541
Credit: 12,896,732
RAC: 8,066
Belgium
Message 1457483 - Posted: 25 Dec 2013, 21:45:28 UTC

Merry Christmas mp
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1457483 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1457610 - Posted: 26 Dec 2013, 10:51:27 UTC
Last modified: 26 Dec 2013, 10:56:42 UTC

In space we are observing both the birth as well as death of different, separate objects.

So why has it always been so that scientists are looking at the principle of life vs. death?

Perhaps skipping "why" if that possibly should make the question different, or possibly more clearly understandable.

Religion is many times connected to the principle of a "dogma", or "paradigm", which I find being mentioned using the first of these two links below.

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

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

Both links for you here.

Religion definitely is not about space and time at all. Still we are trying to explain everything by means of observing space and trying to understand time.
ID: 1457610 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1457615 - Posted: 26 Dec 2013, 11:10:40 UTC - in response to Message 1456809.  
Last modified: 26 Dec 2013, 11:18:40 UTC

Steve.

A question for you.

Should religion and worshipping be assumed to be part of our culture and tradition?

We are supposed to be celebrating Christmas for a particular and specific reason, you know.

Culture and tradition, that is - which is known to always be going hand for hand.

Or is it because there always have been things that we are not able to understand and may be trying to do so by means of science.

There should be no doubt that famous people through history were able to either carry out historical feats like the Ark of Noah, or possibly Moses being given the ten commandments on two tables of stone, or possibly clay (anyone here with a better word or name for this, please).

One part of what we are assuming to be religion may be associated with our understanding of God by means of Jesus Christ. Another part which sometimes may be religion, sometimes may be science and at time none of these two things are dealing with the occult and mysterious, which lacks a rational scientifical explanation most of the time.

Your views on these questions are welcome, Steve.

Thanks!
ID: 1457615 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1457699 - Posted: 26 Dec 2013, 17:35:37 UTC
Last modified: 26 Dec 2013, 18:08:44 UTC

So evolution is supposed to be random and coincidental, while survival is all about survival of the fittest?

We definitely are not seeing God's helping hand when it comes to evolution. Still we are assuming that the existence of some species is as a result of more primitive species which were already present.

I watched a nature documentary on television earlier today. It was about penguins in the Antarctica. Despite having a lot of fat and flesh below their skin, it is definitely hardship when they are parenting their children. Also when it is biting cold in the winternight and perhaps a blowing wind present as well, living conditions must be harsh indeed.

Penguins are supposed to be eating fish for their nutrition. When diving in the sea they are supposed to eat fish they come across. Some of this food ends up in their own system. The rest of it is supposed to be feeding their child.

Anyway, the poor little penguin child was stabbed several times in front of the grown-up penguins before finally ending up below the feet of what was probably his or her mother. This shows that parenting children is not always a welcome business when living conditions are very hard.

Survival is all about adaptation to the environment, but for everything there must be a limit as well when it comes to possibilities.
ID: 1457699 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile James SotherdenProject Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10356
Credit: 89,778,167
RAC: 47,053
United States
Message 1457873 - Posted: 27 Dec 2013, 7:16:55 UTC
Last modified: 27 Dec 2013, 7:17:24 UTC

You cant put human emotions into an animals action. I think they call that anthromorphism. Maybe insticnt told this penquin that in order for him or her to live the baby had to die.
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1457873 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1827
Credit: 863,160
RAC: 0
Message 1458072 - Posted: 28 Dec 2013, 1:38:25 UTC
Last modified: 28 Dec 2013, 1:50:31 UTC

So, what next?

Everyone knows that our results are based on what should be regarded as being initial values.

The numbers I get in my logs are values which I do not find anywhere else. I therefore have noone to compare against.

But at least there are several different levels or thresholds available.

First you have all the invalids and errors. Next you have user experience and quality of user equipment.

One such level is about what might be regarded as being "unexplained spikes".

If a CUDA-task runs for a second, then finishes and uploads its result and becoming available when reporting, I generally should assume that I either did not get anything there, or at least the result becomes the responsibility of someone else than me.

Seti@home is looking for a signal from the stars. Not impossibly, an intelligent signal could travel through space for 1500 light years or so. More likely a signal could be coming from an extraterrestrial visitor, who generally may be assumed to be either UFO's, or more specifically crafts (even so-called motherships perhaps, although this subject is controversial at best).

The Kardashev scale lists our own civilization at a scale of some 0.84, meaning that we are still a type 0 civilization but closing in on becoming a type 1 civilization. Other civilizations which may be present in space may be either type 1, type 2, or even type 3 civilizations.

In order to being able to conquer space and in this way being able to travel from one star to another, a technology barrier needs to be overcome in order for this to happen.

First, if a civilization is bound or attached to an object like a planet, you need to overcome the gravity of this planet and be able to establish a permanent base in space.

This is what we now have been able to achive. With the help of the space shuttle program and international co-operation, there is now a permanently manned International Space Station. Also the Hubble Space Telescope is giving new insight into far regions of space which may not be observed by means of earth based telescopes or observatories.

Our current notion of possible extraterrestrials are that they are "little green men". Some scientists are believers in UFO's. Other scientists are of the opinion that life might exist on other stars in the Milky Way which is assuming the presence of planets around other stars. Some people tend to make religion out of it, others are either debunkers, hackers, skeptics, agnostics or atheists.

In between all of this you may also find some believers as well, but it too soon becomes either a religious belief or some other personal matter out of it.
ID: 1458072 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 104 · Next

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


 
©2018 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.