knyazik

 

I infer that you are an optimist .....

I sure am, and I really hope that pursuit of science especially pure science will yield results that are unimaginable to us today, but would be second nature to future generations. Oh yeah, and if someone created perpetual motion, or a time machine, even better, lol! (I know that its impossible)

 

If I would show two C/C++ source codes for OpenGL v1.0 API, and OpenGL v2.0+ API, would you be able to tell me from memory which is which?

 

I am specialist from optimizations...

So I can judge by myself whether code is running efficiently and when it's not.

I was surprised by your comment that's so slow working with 100 atoms, and especially downloaded software to check it out by myself. Don't take it personally, you didn't write it after all.

On my Core i7 CPU it's working quite fine with ~500 atoms Fullerene (deleting atoms and adding new one is quick).

 

You can quickly calculate quantity of triangles per second rendered by Arguslab while spinning/rotating viewport (while NO MODELING).

Calculate quantity of triangles per single sphere, bond, multiply by quantity of atoms, multiply by frames per second, and you have total quantity of triangles code is rendering per second.

I am receiving approximately 1.5 mln triangles per second.

From other experiments with my own code, I know that's approximately rate when OpenGL v1.0 API is used on my gfx card.

 

After using OpenGL v2.0 API or higher, we can have 50 mln triangles rendered per second. 30 times faster than with OpenGL v1.0 API.

 

See by yourself - load the same FullereneTube.agl, it's in C:\Program Files\ArgusLab\Samples

by default it's loaded with no atoms-spheres, just bonds are displayed.

Spin viewport, rotate, zoom it. It's going with 30 FPS on my machine.

Then press Settings > Display Options,

and pick up Rendering Style > Ball Cylinder > High.

And then spin, rotate, zoom viewport. It's going with 1 FPS or so.. Jumping.

 

(don't click Fast Render While Moving, it'd be cheating)

 

Try editing this Fullerene object (adding new atoms, removing existing) when Rendering Style is set to Wireframe, and when it's Ball Cylinder High.

This is *all* due to using OpenGL v1.0

 

Such calculation has to be done ONCE. Literally ONCE. When user clicked f.e. "delete atom", or added new atom.

It's not infinitely going process.

With Arguslab we can see significant slow down while spinning/rotating viewport, when no recalculation of bonds, angles etc is required.

 

ps. Analogy for engineer: you have two engines, one is consuming 1 L of fuel per 100 km, and second one is consuming 30 L per 100 km. Same weight of car. Same velocity. Which one is more efficient.. ? You don't need to be rocket scientist to answer that question...

Thank you for that detailed explanation. I am not that good at programming, so unfortunately did not understand everything that you said. I was wondering if you had a different recommendation for simulation software that would not be buggy, would be easy to setup, would be relatively easy to use, and would be free. Thank you for your suggestion.

I was wondering if there is an easy answer about this. There are multiple versions of Latex, and I'm still a newbie to it. I was wondering if you guys knew which version is best to use and why? Also is there any fundamental differences between the different versions, and how much of the latex is standardized?

The reasons for the conflict also include the fact that religion tells lies like this.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/11/catholic-bishops-in-kenya-oppose-tetanus-vaccine-because-its-population-control-in-disguise/

It is despicable to see how people abuse their power to control people. I wonder about this bishop though... Is he really doing this to gain political power. Based on what I saw it is more because he is insanely ignorant, and afraid and therefore passes his paranoia onto other people. This whole part makes me question more the intelligence level of religious leaders, and if there is a way to ensure that it is relatively high. Perhaps better education is the answer... What do you guys think?

Ha. That's a good one. You should post it in the political humor!

I am not sure what you are hungry for?

 

If you are hungry for a lot of resistance Meg Ohms then you will be safe with high voltage as it will limit the current to a safe level.

If you are hungry for very low resistance then Oscillation and resonance can be achieved with the coil - capacitor tuned combination.

If you are hungry for time control, or just control, then a chosen resistance and/or capacitance, can give a precise - Time from Nano seconds to hours.., or precise values of a variable.

 

Mike

Actually I was just hungry for the sausage that got electrecuted multiple times. I wonder how it tastes, and if you can actually tell that it was prepared by very unorthodox method

I think the bottom line is our understanding of time, space, etc. is all limited by our observations. Based on what we observe we came with a model that differantiates time and space, and yet at the same time allows us to use the time-space 4 vector. 150 years ago no one would have considered arguments that we are making today, limited by one's experiences, and the whole idea that time space is a function of one's velocity was pretty unorthodox. 200 years before that, you would most likely be burned for such reasoning. I really wonder how well we will understand the subject in another 100-150 years. Perhaps at that point our ancestors will read arguments on blogs like this and laugh at how primitive our thought pattern was...

Aristotle while being a quasi scientist, was first and foremost an philosopher with a high ranking in the meta-physical. His science stemmed from his understanding of the mysteries, therefore they had no conflict within him. The only measurable/scientific variable I can think of for the conflict of religion and science would be the old adage, So as a man think, so he is" Religion dispenses with thinking for faith/belief, science dispenses with faith/belief in favor for observable facts. the earliest conflict could have been the issue of the world (Earth) being the center of everything, a religious view. whereas science saw it as a part of, not the center of...

 

Those who challenged the church's view were prosecuted and often put to death. While eventually, science established the truth of the argument. This could have been a early warning sign to the church, which caused them to hover over science like fly's hover over garbage, setting the stage for future conflicts.

So why were there no "churches" that used science as the absolute truth and put to death anyone who didn't approve? There has to be a fundamental reason why that never happened because scientists, and minister's/bishops, etc. are both people that have similar strengths and weaknesses and that could exploit other people for their personal gain.

I liked the 100',kv ( 100,000 volt ) breakdown voltage experiment !

He had some large size capacitors around his apparatus

 

Mike

Maybe it's just me, but this video made me hungry

I'd like to see a Fourier analysis on how this thread moves between boorishness and sophistication.

I can tell you the result. It would be similar to performing fourier analysis of brownian motion

This is the kit I ended up getting:

http://www.amazon.com/Molymod-Inorganic-Organic-Molecular-Student/dp/B005NWGISS/

Now I have plenty of things to try. I haven't downloaded the software yet, but thank your for that suggestion, Enthalpy. I anticipate that using a computer simulation, I can make some crazy biochem molecules. Wonder if you spent enough time on it, if you can actually form a model for the DNA... probably an unrealistic task that would take a lifetime to accomplish.

 

Hi

i'am a back-year chemist that makes rocket fuel with the same chemicals KNO3+C12H22O11+Fe2O3. I've made many rockets that work great but I've made a new batch that's making a teal green material as a byproduct. Its a new mix of 65 grams of KNO3, 35 grams of C12H22O11,and 10 grams of Fe2O3. Does anyone know what this material???

 

So what is the punchline, stayoffmylawn? I know it contains K, N, O, C, H and Fe, lol

 

 

Time by itself has no meaning. Space does. If i say you have an object that looks like a box you can be sure what to expect. If I say I saw an object at T = 3 units it means very little, except that the object was in motion for 3 s. This could be 3 s from any origin that you choose to select. Space on the other hand always completely describes the nature of the object irrespective of where you choose the reference axes. A box at rest or a box in motion is always a box. Just contemplate the same.

Well you can think of something as having a size in terms of time. All it means is that for a certain period of time there indeed was matter at a certain position. So a box at rest will also look like a box at rest from this point of view. What do you think?

 

Yes..

I see, but what is the fundamental principle from not viewing it from the other point of view, where your virtual vector is constant and is space, and time is the associated vector?

 

Hi

i'am a back-year chemist that makes rocket fuel with the same chemicals KNO3+C12H22O11+Fe2O3. I've made many rockets that work great but I've made a new batch that's making a teal green material as a byproduct. Its a new mix of 65 grams of KNO3, 35 grams of C12H22O11,and 10 grams of Fe2O3. Does anyone know what this material???

 

Welcome. I'm assuming you want someone to calculate an empirical formula. A physicist here, so even if I did the composition would not speak to me, lol. I am curious what material you are referring to though...

 

1 Farad that is a mean capacitor.

 

I used to work with a company that built magnetisers , using Large capacitors in their equipment to manufacture Magnets. Someone I noticed had left a magnet on the magnetising Coil . I shouted out " Don't anyboby press the Big Red Magnetising Button. "Alas my words were too late , somebody pressed the Magnetising button ...before my words were out. The Large Farad Paper capacitor , discharged through the Magnetising Coil. The Magnet that had been left on the Head shot across the Factory like a '303 bullet .. Your eyes could not follow it. It was too fast.

 

They used to keep the terminals of these capacitors shorted out when storing them , otherwise somehow they would self charge from stray static electricity. They could be quite dangerous if someone accidentally touched the terminals. It would be like being struck by lightning.

 

Mind you I met someone , who had been struck by an electric cable on an electric pylon , that killed him . He Died. But fell out of the tree. When he hit the ground , the impact resuscitated him. He said for two years he lived with permanent ( De Ja Vue )

 

mike

Is that story of the flying capacitor that's caused by a large magnetic field similar to how a rail gun works? Does anyone have insight on how exactly it accelerates the "bullets", and/or if you can effectively treat it as a capacitor?

To me the "authority" that the church leans on in establishing what eventually leads to it's conflicts, is the excersie of authority. The church being an outgrowth of devotion to it's jesus, under Emperor Constanine became a figure head of an individual, from Bishop to Pope. Men vested with such power use their authority perversely. With nothing to stop them and with the religious control of the head of the political goverment (Armed forces) the conflict is set. Religion rules in faith and belief to some degree that translate to submission, to that which is close to the height of that belief or faith, that would be Man (Bishop/Pope)

 

When the church sought to alienate it's particular doctrine from that which was it roots (Jewish faith) perhaps that was the first conflict.

So what do you think prevented a scientist from acting in a similar way to the figure head you just described. Why didn't aristotle, wind up the people by showing them his discoveries and using them to instill faith in science, and gain control of the masses to gain political power and displace the pope, bishop, or whoever else?

Two mathematicians are having lunch at Starbucks. They are in a deep discussion about how well on average people know math. One argues that on average nobody cares or knows math, and the other one argues that they do. The optimist says, let's have a test. I bet you that our waitress can solve a math problem. Let's ask her to take an integral of x. I bet she knows that it's x squared over 2. The other one says, fine, but I will bet $10 that she won't get it right. The optimist excuses himself and pretends to go to the restroom, while approaching the waitress, and asking her to respond to the next question they both will pose to her by "x squared over 2". It's pretty hard for the waitress to remember, but finally she repeats it back right to him, the optimist gives her $10 for her troubles. He then returns and shortly afterwards the waitress appears. The pesimists asks her what integral of x is, to which she proudly responds "x squared over 2". The pessimist upset gives his colleague the $10, who is smiling at his clever scheme. The waitress starts heading away, then stops for a second, turns around and adds "plus a constant"...

Does a radioactive cat have 18 half-lives?

Just wanted to update you guys, the kit that I got is awesome. Thank you so much for helping me. Definitely brought back college memories

 

Time according to me is notional. As a control experiment consider a cubical box placed at an origin at some time T₀. Even if the box has not translated in space it may translate in time because the observer sees it that way. Space is real and time is virtual. That is why we speak of space-time. Even a stationary object translates in the time axis even if it does not move in space. The converse of course is not true. According to me time is the driving virtual vector dimension and space the following scalar dimension. Just my thoughts running riot....

So let me see if I understand. What you have is a virtual constant vector, which has associated space-like vectors at each one of its values? Is that an accurate description of what you mean?

Might be worthwhile to point out that religion is in conflict with anthing and everything that is not subjected to religion. Religion is even in conflict with itself as can be wittnessed by basic East Vs, West religious doctrines.

 

Behind religion at it's core, you will find Philosophy, behind that you will find metaphysical aspects of orgins. behind Science you will find Philosophy, behind that you will find metaphsical orgins.

 

So the conflicts are not black and white or inherent too..... they are the shadow's of mans involement.

It seems like a lot of people agree that the differences are made by men involvement, I would thinking from a scientist point of view that it would be really good to quantify it. In effect I'm interested in the history of both science and religion from the point of view of different people that either brought the two closer together, or pushed them further apart. I'm sure there's multiple examples with inquisition, scientology, etc. that people can come up with. If you're up to the challenge please contribute an event, an approximate date, and how it effected the conflict. Thought this would be a stimulating exercise!

The relevant components in the transmission device or circuit above ,are primarily the ( L. Coil, Inductance, having a magnetic field ) and the ( C ,capacitor, having an electric field engendered between its plates in a dielectric ) and the antenna ( making the oscillating E-M electro magnetic fields head out into space ) .

 

The need for resistance to be low in both the capacitor and coil is so that the oscillations can be large( not damped ) .

 

Useful analogies ( models) are

1. A wine glass being held tight to a table, empty, and gently rubbing your damp finger around the rim. Get it right and it will sing like a canary.

2. Stroke a violin bow across the centre of the string of a violin , and enchant the audience.

3. Hit the loose end of a tuning fork , and place on a wooden table and hear the note. ( and probably just scratched your dining room table. )

 

Each has a ground , to work from , and free loose ends to vibrate or oscillate .

 

In the case of the coil and capacitor , the power supply end , and the earth rail at the bottom act as the fixed ground state to work from . Somewhere in the coil capacitor combination an oscillating electrical and magnetic field is vibrating at millions of times a second. ( like the vibrating wine glass but you cannot see it. If you can capture this , and send it to an antenna and the area around the antenna, you can send this oscillating E-M field away into space at the speed of light. That is the miracle.

 

To make this process be efficient you need the resistance to be very low in the capacitor, and in the inductor.

 

Big ,thick copper pipes( coil) and aluminium plates (capacitor) . In the older BBC transmitting stations these two components looked more like household plumbing water pipes , and sheets of aluminium. Nowadays you are probably thinking more of resonant cavities in a magnetron , like a microwave oven has in it. These are Not good to experiment with or you will cook yourself. But a coil and a capacitor can be great fun. Keep it small power or you will cause interference.

 

You will note the driver ,in the circuit ( a transistor giving a signal frequency ) , this being equivalent to your finger on the wine glass. This supplies the small seeding oscillation to make the high Q ( coil and capacitor with low resistance ) , sing like a parade day lone trumpeter playing a single note into the sky and hills beyond !

 

image.jpg

 

Mike

 

Ps For long distance experiments. You will need a licence.......... Not for blowing a trumpet !

Love the drawings. My friend in High School installed a 1 Farad capacitor in his car. Took up all his trunk, and really amplified his base. Not only was it a extreme base, but also when he did connect the capacitor his car would shake violently, and his headlights would go dim.

 

My own simple visualization is thus :

 

the 4th dimension is coupled collectively to the 3 dimensions in space (not to an individual axis) and translation in this space is experienced as time. Time cannot be visualization as another plane but should be thought of as a curved space that mimics the lower orders of magnitude. (in this case 3 dimensional space).

So let's take this to a simple case where space is only in one dimension x, so we have a 2D space of (x,t). In that case do you mean to say that i cannot think of some sort of a profile (whether linear or curved) in the XT space, but instead a whole bunch of points in X dimension that are just taken at different times? Am I thinking about the "curved space" in a wrong way? Thank you for your contribution.

Reading through this thread, I see some great posts. I have a lot if views on this subject, and will list a few of them here.

 

Religion is a way to explain the natural world in the absence of scientific evidence. People are prone to assign intent to random observations, and this is related to the dopamine levels in your brain.

 

http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/dopamine-marks-the-line-between-religious-believer-and-fanatic/

 

There is a lot in the literature on this, but I cannot post it due to copywrite law.

 

The Druids believed in the power of the trees, the Native Americans had many guiding/controlling spirits that ruled nature. The Romans and Greeks had their myths. A few thousand years ago there was a shift to monotheism, which really isn't unless 3=1, but that's a different argument all together. Every culture had its creation myths. Here is 10 of them to look at:

 

http://listverse.com/2014/01/11/10-creation-myths-as-strange-as-the-bible/

 

Here are a few others that are very similar to Christianity:

 

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

 

These are based on the hero archetype:

 

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/lord-raglan-on-mythic-heroes-t2089.html

 

So, when you look at the evolution of spiritual beliefs, they follow a pattern that has evolved to be relevant to the culture, as people moved from hunter gatherer to agrarian, then industrialized societies. In this day, religion is becoming much less relevant to cultural norms. Numerous examples exist, such as climate change, human rights, equality of women, overpopulation, and many others. Solutions are opposed by people who fundamentally believe in a book that is millenia old, and no longer relevant. Additionally, people of the three major religions continue killing each other because the God of Abraham promised the world to three groups of people. Yes, that is correct, Christianity, Islam , and Judaism are all based on the same god, and share a number of books in their holy tomes.

 

Science only shares one principle with religion. It tries to explain the natural world, but in every way other than this it is different. Science looks for evidence and proof. It requires metagognition, rather than faith. It gives statistical probabilities. The results are accepted, even if the hypothesis is not supported. One does not have to explain away science, and if new evidence makes previous "truths" obsolete, it accepts that and evolves. This is not proof of the fallability of science, it is the quest to find the best explanation we can based on the evidence we have.

 

One of my issues with religion is the homocentrism of it all. The entire expanse of this vast universe was supposedly created for us. We can only observe about 1/1000 of it as our best guess, and we can only perceive through senses that make the majority of the universe unobservable to us. What a cruel trick to play on the reason for the universe.

 

When human suffering can be diminished through science, and religious groups block that because of an interpretation of a myth written two millenia ago (give or take several centuries) it is obvious that there will be conflict. I'm trying to stay away from politics here, as I understand that is against the rules, so I'm leaving it as the goals of religious groups versus scientific groups on issues that can benefit humanity, regardless of political systems.

That was a great summary. Really hard to follow that up. Thank you. One thing that I observed over the years is that people turn to religion when they are in a tough place. When you are faced with huge obstacles and problems that you can't do anything about such as death, divorce, illness, poverty, etc. and you cannot rationally accept or even begin getting over what is happening you turn to god to find comfort. In reality people just want to believe in something that cannot be proved by science, but their beliefs help them function so to them it doesn't matter if it can be proven or not, it works for them and therefore it's as good as a fact that can be proven using scientific reasoning. Unfortunately, and this has been going on for thousands of years, they can be manipulated by other people who position themselves as religious leaders, and then use their power for their own personal agenda. You are completely right a lot of religions are very similar, and the fact that there's conflict is more about conflict between religious leaders, or social position of different religions today, rather then battle of ideologies. Wow, that got way too political. On a lighter note, need to believe in something that is beyond us is very human, and not logical, so I really wonder if you can make an artificial intelligence machine that is not programmed to be religious, but figured out on its own that it wants to believe and be part of one religion or another.