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?

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.

Maybe?

---

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.

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!

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.

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

Merry Christmas mp

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

Oh, the supposed dreaming computer machine of yours.

Are you always supposed to get what you are dreaming about?

My current Corsair-based computed by means of its manufacturer is having two pre-drilled holed through the non-removable plate between the power supply and the motherboard.

Getting one nVidia GTX 680 4 GB graphics card mounted in its slot was quite a big task. Getting the second card mounted inside the computer became almost a nightmare. The small diod connectors labeled SPEAKER, RESET and so on came lose and I had to put my fingers in between the cards in order to tighten them once more to the motherboard.

Because of the big fan, I only was able to squeeze two 4 GB RAM modules (8 GB) on each side of the fan. The motherboard has a total of 8 memory card slots, of which 4 GB RAM kits are most likely to be used or utilized. Possibly there may be 8 GB or 16 GB RAM kits available as well, but they apparently are very expensive.

An alternative to this fan may rather be using liquid cooling, but in order to do so on your own, you really need to be an expert.

Anyway, the processor fan which is included is close to the best that is available of its kind.

Currently it is compatible for both Intel Socket 1366, Socket 1156 and Socket 2011. There are two power connectors going from the fan to the motherboard.

Despite probably having a pre-installed Bluetooth unit installed on the motherboard, it complains at each and every boot-up giving me an error dialog box. Also, I need to wait several minutes from the BIOS boot-up screen because the fan is supposedly not turning around to speed when booting up, becoming a constant annoyance.

In the end the system is now working quite well. There is no room for a sound card together with the two graphics cards. Everything that is sound is for now RealTek, which is located on the motherboard.

Ever heard about drunk women?

Ever heard about drunk women?

One foot in the grave, another foot in heaven.

Usually you say it the other way.

Opus, eh.

Hey! I got a problem!

My parents are now both 76 years old of age.

My father is suffering from Parkinson's decease.

My mother probably gave the most of it when my brother was born on December 26, 1965, in what probably was -30 C.

It is ever supposed to show up so?

If I am not playing back "Free Me", by the Who, I am supposed to rather playback Vangelis instead.

Not your taste, I guess.

But my father played the piano in earlier days. And quite much of it as well.

Out of a "zillion" stupid melodies that came through my ears, some two may be better remembered and I probably would do better by just asking my father about this.

Anyway, Ludwig van Beethoven may by some people be associated with sorrow.

Where is the secret melody located?

The other one is a pure guess. It is related to either Schubert or Schumann (again, I do have 0 - zero knowledge here). Anyway, it is a piece of piano that may have a melody on its own - when played back at very high speed.

Your opinion please. I am completelely in the dark here.

Thanks!

Sorry. I could not resist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooeED5Xy55s

Suspended while my nite music finishes off.

***"Warning - loud ***

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQjove0nzss

Try running Seti@home with a negative attitude...

Apparently a better one here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQjove0nzss

My own theory is a combination of Steady State and Big Bang. What we are observing on earth is not the entire universe just our little bit of it. The whole universe is out there and always has been, and stretches infinitely in all directions, that's the steady state bit. What we are seeing today is the remnants of a gigantic super massive black hole that exploded in our local bit of the universe some 14 billion years ago, thats the big bang bit.

That is very well said, Chris and an interesting thought.

The laws of physics are based on the laws of mathematics.

We think of the Universe as a whole, having the same laws of physics being present everywhere. We do not see any evidence of parallell Universes having their own separate laws of physics, even though the presence of black holes and wormholes may give room to such a speculation.

Everyone should agree that 2+3 equals 5. But for an observer traveling close to the speed of light, time apparently slows down without you being able to notice anything. Time is assumed to be a constant on its own, but if you go for a trip into space close to the speed of light, be prepared to say farewell to family and friends before you go, because you will never be able to see them alive again.

Possibly this will become a reality sometime in the future.