The Science Thread

Wow ! Finally this loooooong journey was fruitful !!!!!

Besides : A new Quark has been detected : http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33517492

And a strange study : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc…-10375280.html

Men At Arms

Making a katana the old traditional Japanese way.
Dragonborn's Iron Helmet from Skyrim

Originally Posted by Ripper
A five-star solar system.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33428506

Neat. Immediately made me think of Asimov's short story Nightfall. Read if you want to imagine a civilization living on a planet in such a system.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
And a strange study : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc…-10375280.html

Strange? To the contrary. It's a kind of "no shit Sherlock?" one.

Wanted to post this in the global warming thread but for obvious reasons:
http://www.theallium.com/policy/tayl…ew-for-nature/

Also this just came in
http://www.theallium.com/engineering…stackoverflow/

Originally Posted by ilm
Wanted to post this in the global warming thread but for obvious reasons:
http://www.theallium.com/policy/tayl…ew-for-nature/

Also this just came in
http://www.theallium.com/engineering…stackoverflow/

Great. Now we'll have to debunk the Swift/Bono Conjecture.

Originally Posted by Ripper
Great. Now we'll have to debunk the Swift/Bono Conjecture.

I can (try to) do that. But only if payed handsomely.

//checking a few things on youtube

Or for a promise that I'll never have to listen to ms Swift again.

pibbur who thinks this Swiftsong isn't too bad. Or this Polka Metal version. And wonders how much Brian May gets for reviewing things.

Not bad, except for the monster screaming part.

Billionaire Yuri Milner has launched a new SETI intitiative, along with some of the most esteemed members of the scientific community.
http://time.com/3964301/breakthrough-listen-letter/

Are we alone? Now is the time to find out
Who are we?

A mature civilization, like a mature individual, must ask itself this question. Is humanity defined by its divisions, its problems, its passing needs and trends? Or do we have a shared face, turned outward to the Universe?

In 1990, Voyager 1 swiveled its camera and captured the ‘Pale Blue Dot’ – an image of Earth from six billion kilometers away. It was a mirror held up to our planet – home of water, life, and minds. A reminder that we share something precious and rare.
But how rare, exactly? The only life? The only minds?

For the last half-century, small groups of scientists have listened valiantly for signs of life in the vast silence. But for government, academia, and industry, cosmic questions are astronomically far down the list of priorities. And that lengthens the odds of finding answers. It is hard enough to comb the Universe from the edge of the Milky Way; harder still from the edge of the public consciousness.

Yet millions are inspired by these ideas, whether they meet them in science or science fiction. Because the biggest questions of our existence are at stake. Are we the Universe’s only child – our thoughts its only thoughts? Or do we have cosmic siblings – an interstellar family of intelligence? As Arthur C. Clarke said, “In either case the idea is quite staggering.”

That means the search for life is the ultimate ‘win-win’ endeavor. All we have to do is take part.

Today we have search tools far surpassing those of previous generations. Telescopes can pick out planets across thousands of light years. The magic of Moore’s law lets our computers sift data orders of magnitude faster than older mainframes – and ever quicker each year.

These tools are now reaping a harvest of discoveries. In the last few years, astronomers and the Kepler Mission have discovered thousands of planets beyond our solar system. It now appears that most stars host a planetary system. Many of them have a planet similar in size to our own, basking in the ‘habitable zone’ where the temperature permits liquid water. There are likely billions of earth-like worlds in our galaxy alone. And with instruments now or soon available, we have a chance of finding out if any of these planets are true Pale Blue Dots – home to water, life, even minds.

There has never been a better moment for a large-scale international effort to find life in the Universe. As a civilization, we owe it to ourselves to commit time, resources, and passion to this quest.

But as well as a call to action, this is a call to thought. When we find the nearest exo-Earth, should we send a probe? Do we try to make contact with advanced civilizations? Who decides? Individuals, institutions, corporations, or states? Or can we as species – as a planet – think together?

Three years ago, Voyager 1 broke the sun’s embrace and entered interstellar space. The 20th century will be remembered for our travels within the solar system. With cooperation and commitment, the present century will be the time when we graduate to the galactic scale, seek other forms of life, and so know more deeply who we are.

Yuri Milner –

Something from the field of linguistics.

pibbur's language thread made me browse a bit and eventually I stumbled upon the constructed philosophical language Ithkuil by John Quijada. The language had been in development for 30 years and was finished in 2011. Ithkuil is meant to be both very precise and concise. From what I read it makes the speaker think about what they want to say, and mean what they say. It also allows to articulate concepts that have no name.

For those familiar with the history of artificial language construction, Ithkuil represents a cross between an a priori philosophical language and a logical language. It is by no means intended to function as a “natural” human language. Ithkuil exists as an exercise in exploring how human languages could function, not how human languages do function.

There's a very fascinating article about Ithkuil on The New Yorker:

Utopian for Beginners.

A long, but terrific read.


Ithkuil Homepage: www.ithkuil.net

Fastest ever neutrino among slew of fresh findings

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Quantum Physics in Modern Mathematics -
Robbert Dijkgraaf

I recently found an interesting phenomenon.

1 divided through 14 = 0,07142857142857142857142857142857 … that's apparingly one periodic number.

Now, the strange thing I've found is this :

7
14
28
57

Wait, 57 ???

1 x 7 = 7
2 x 7 = 14
4 x 7 = 28
8 x 7 = 56, NOT 57 !!!

This phenomenon led me to come up with a theory :

That 57 in this line of numbers must be some kind of … intra-number … what's the English word for "Kommazahl" ? Significiant figure ? which might get rounded from 56 so that it becomes 57 in modern clculators … I can only use calculators for doing 1 / 14 …

56,9999999 would result in 57.

Which would imply that there might be significiant numbers WITHIN periodic number lines like in the result of 1 / 14 !

So, the line would be : 1 / 14 = 0,07142857142857142857142857142857 according to the Windows Calculator

But, in my theory of in-number significant figures it would be like this :

1 / 14 = 0,07142856,999999999142856,999999999142856,9999999 99142856,999999999142856,999999999

with this "56,999999999" being replaced of an periodic, perhaps even infinite version of it, I mean, the "9" would bever end, and it would be shortened to an "57" by the calculator ?

The only other solution of this problem is, that the 57 represents a completely different "version" of the 56 - one of which nature I don't know anything, but it is there.

It is there, because the periodic line goes like 0,07142857142857142857142857142857

and NOT like 0,07142856142856142856142856142856

Interestingly, 1 / 57 results in another periodic number … which I cannot understand.

Anyone of the Mathematicians here able to shed more light on this ?

I was just applying this article to SWTOR PvP : "The problem of too much talent".

Interesting, if true .http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar…eople-see-you/
The facial bones determine how people see each other.

And last : "The problem of female superheroes" : http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar…e-superheroes/

New pre-human species discovered:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34192447

Suddenly, joxer makes sense

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Suddenly, joxer makes sense

What has happened to you Dart…. first that joke in the other thread and now this…. you're on a roll

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
What has happened to you Dart…. first that joke in the other thread and now this…. you're on a roll

Are you saying you've finally developed a sense of humor sophisticated enough to appreciate DArt's pearls of laughter?

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
I recently found an interesting phenomenon.

1 divided through 14 = 0,07142857142857142857142857142857 … that's apparingly one periodic number.

Now, the strange thing I've found is this :

7
14
28
57

Wait, 57 ???

1 x 7 = 7
2 x 7 = 14
4 x 7 = 28
8 x 7 = 56, NOT 57 !!!

This phenomenon led me to come up with a theory :

That 57 in this line of numbers must be some kind of … intra-number … what's the English word for "Kommazahl" ? Significiant figure ? which might get rounded from 56 so that it becomes 57 in modern clculators … I can only use calculators for doing 1 / 14 …

56,9999999 would result in 57.

Which would imply that there might be significiant numbers WITHIN periodic number lines like in the result of 1 / 14 !

So, the line would be : 1 / 14 = 0,07142857142857142857142857142857 according to the Windows Calculator

But, in my theory of in-number significant figures it would be like this :

1 / 14 = 0,07142856,999999999142856,999999999142856,9999999 99142856,999999999142856,999999999

with this "56,999999999" being replaced of an periodic, perhaps even infinite version of it, I mean, the "9" would bever end, and it would be shortened to an "57" by the calculator ?

The only other solution of this problem is, that the 57 represents a completely different "version" of the 56 - one of which nature I don't know anything, but it is there.

It is there, because the periodic line goes like 0,07142857142857142857142857142857

and NOT like 0,07142856142856142856142856142856

Interestingly, 1 / 57 results in another periodic number … which I cannot understand.

Anyone of the Mathematicians here able to shed more light on this ?

Sorry, but you are wrong. 1/14 is a rational number and any rational number will, if expressed as a finite value (1/2=0.5) or an infinite sequence of repeating digits. The 57 in the sequence is not caused by a calculator "shortening the sequence".

Talking about numbers. The irrational numbers are numbers that cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers (like 1/14), and when expressed in decimals ithey will never terminate and does not turn into a repeating sequence of digits. Typical irrational numbers are the square root of 2, square root of 3, pi and e.

The rational and irrational numbers together constitute what is called the real numbers.

We can extend numbers even more: The complex numbers, which are on the form a+b*i, where a and b are real numbers. i is defined as the square root of -1. and is not a real number (no real number satisfies the equation a*a=-1), it's an imaginary number and so is b*i, which is called the imaginary part of a complex number.

pibbur who hopes most of him is real. And who uses the terms "rational", "irrational", "real" and so on strictly as they are defined in mathematics.

Originally Posted by pibbur who
We can extend numbers even more: The complex numbers, which are on the form a+b*i, where a and b are real numbers. i is defined as the square root of -1. and is not a real number (no real number satisfies the equation a*a=-1), it's an imaginary number and so is b*i, which is called the imaginary part of a complex number.

You are forgetting the hyper-imaginary numbers, i.e. the so-called quaternions .

They are defined as: a + b*i + c*j + d*k

where a, b, c and d are real numbers and i, j, k are "imaginary" and are subject to the followig relations:

i² = j² = k² = ijk = -1
ij = -ji = k
jk = -kj = i
ki = -ik = j

It is a mathematical concept that was invented in the 19th century. But the question that many may ask themselves is….what the hell are they for and how does it help us in any way in everyday life?

Well, in my line of work I use them regularly as they are very useful in parameterising the orientation of bodies. In fact, in the space sector it is standard practice to use quaternions to represent the attitude of a satellite.