Sciences on Moon [Archive] - Aural Moon - Progressive Rock Discussion

jtmckinley

11-02-2006, 01:54 PM

How can you discuss real science without real math?

I wish there was an easy way to put up equations without having to resort to putting them here as images.

You can certainly talk about science without writing down equations. Remember, mathematics is a human mental construct that is just a tool we use to make models that represent what we measure experimentally in nature, it doesn't mean that nature really behaves that way, in fact, even in physics like in QM or GR, it's often quite hard to come up with an interpretation of what some part of your model means physically. The beauty of the mathematical models (a.k.a. *theories*) is that one can use a model to predict what will happen in nature in some physical area that has not yet been measured and then if you're really smart or lucky you can figure out a way to go measure that and see if your theory matches your experiment. New physics (the really interesting stuff to the folks that actually do the work) occurs when the model *doesn't* fit the experiment, then you know you've discovered something new (unless you screwed up your experiment or got your math wrong ;)).

Also many branches of science like medicine, genetics, biology, just to name a few, often don't really even use mathematical models to describe the underlying processes that are occuring, things just get too complex for us to deal with mathematically in many-body systems, but it's certainly still valid science to carry on measuring what we see and try to come up with theories about how nature works even if we can't write down an equation that describes what is fundamentally going on.

Of course most if not all sciences use math in one way or another to understand the measuring instruments being used or for statistical analysis or whatever, but it's not necessary to use math to discuss the concepts of science. Hence the whole market of books of "science for the layman". However, mathematical models, if possible to derive, are often the most succint way of describing natural phenomena, at least until the theory breaks down. Maxwell's equations are a beautiful example.

VAXman

11-02-2006, 03:34 PM

Also many branches of science like medicine,
ROTFLMFAO! Medicine a science!

KeithieW

11-03-2006, 02:20 AM

ROTFLMFAO! Medicine a science!
It sure is VAX.....at least if experimentation is a vital part of Science. I've taken part in a few medical experiments and now that you all know that I hope the light bulb of understanding has just lit up and you're thinking:

Aha!! Now we understand......:hrm: :alien: :eek:

Bmithra

11-03-2006, 02:39 AM

It sure is VAX.....at least if experimentation is a vital part of Science. I've taken part in a few medical experiments and now that you all know that I hope the light bulb of understanding has just lit up and you're thinking:

Aha!! Now we understand......:hrm: :alien: :eek:

Aha! indeed.... Another vict..er, client of a MAD scientist.. :D

Rick and Roll

11-03-2006, 06:36 AM

ROTFLMFAO! Medicine a science!

??????????

If you don't know, don't belittle. It is indeed a science.

VAXman

11-03-2006, 06:55 AM

??????????

If you don't know, don't belittle. It is indeed a science.
Medicine is no science... no more a science than alchemy. All that medical research to date has proven is how little they actually know and how much farther they need to go.

I'll consider it a science the day medicine treats the cause of disease and not its symptoms.

Rick and Roll

11-03-2006, 09:05 AM

Medicine is no science... no more a science than alchemy. All that medical research to date has proven is how little they actually know and how much farther they need to go.

I'll consider it a science the day medicine treats the cause of disease and not its symptoms.

Alchemy relates to a spiritual element. Medicine relates to the science of many things..disease treatment, causes, healing.

This is not religion vs science. Medicine is no religion. It is science.

Your opinion of the effectiveness of Medicine is no reflection on it's rightful inclusion as Science.

The main reason we know so little is that we keep introducing new issues to the the species. While it is very difficult to keep up, it is undeniable that incredible strides have been made.

If I had my heart surgery or my skin cancer treated 15 years ago, I'd be awful shape because of the improvements in the SCIENCE.

VAXman

11-03-2006, 09:40 AM

Alchemy relates to a spiritual element. Medicine relates to the science of many things..disease treatment, causes, healing.

This is not religion vs science. Medicine is no religion. It is science.

Your opinion of the effectiveness of Medicine is no reflection on it's rightful inclusion as Science.

The main reason we know so little is that we keep introducing new issues to the the species. While it is very difficult to keep up, it is undeniable that incredible strides have been made.

If I had my heart surgery or my skin cancer treated 15 years ago, I'd be awful shape because of the improvements in the SCIENCE.
...and a lifetime with renal failure/nephritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension, and mouthfulls of tablets and injections of potions hasn't cured anything... only treated the symptoms. My son had open heart surgery. It fixed the symptoms of the problem but not its causes. My wife suffers from seisures. They're poison her with potions pretending to have a f*ing clue what they are doing but they don't know. They take tracings of electrical fields produced from the brain. BFD... they can't read her thoughts from them nor deduce what these signals ACTUALLY represent.

Watson and Crick decoded the chemisty of DNA but do we really know what the pairings of guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine mean? No. They're busy splicing genes together in the laboratory now hoping to discover what will be produced like a kid randomly mixing the chemicals from a chemisty set without a clue as to the chemical process. When there's a theory that can predict the outcome, then it will be science. The day the can tell us that the sequence of say, cytosine+adenine+thymine will produce a cat ( ;) ), then we have science.

What irks me about medicine is that the don't know anything and for that privilege, they command big money. It's a freakin' gamble just as with the other "practiced" profession. The problem with this gambling is that it is just like Las Vegas... an empire built on the backs of losers -- or in this case, the unfortunates with medical issues.

Suffice to say, medicine is medicine... but not science.

KeithieW

11-03-2006, 10:01 AM

Medicine and Science............

This is definitely one of those tweeners.

I agree that medicine treats symptoms NOT causes but the research that goes on to develop those treatments must surely be classed as science.

A dictionary definition I found for "SCIENCE" states:

science

noun

1 (Knowledge obtained from) the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities

I think that this covers medical research as well.....so you can take it either way.

I understand what Martha is going through because I suffer from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and I'm being treated by popping lots of pills that were developed in a laboratory and while the prescribing of said pills isn't scientific the development of them surely is.

Just my 2p worth.

Rick and Roll

11-03-2006, 10:56 AM

KeithieW

11-03-2006, 11:03 AM

I'm out. thanks.

What's the betting you'll be back.:smoooch:

jtmckinley

11-03-2006, 02:10 PM

Medicine is definitely a science. It's certainly not fully mature in the sense that it can cure all ills, but medical research is very much science. M.D.s on the other hand are sometimes quacks. Most M.D.s are responsible and are trying their best to heal their patients given the tools they have to work with. Some doctors are more skilled/smarter/harder working than others and so one doctor's best will be better than another doctor's best. Also doctors are just humans so they have good days and bad days like the rest of us.

I guess for medicine to be a fully mature science it would need to be able to cure all disease as well as cure death. This may happen some day. For example it may be possible to some day design little nanobots that will float around in our bodies and fix things at the molecular level ensuring our health and immortality (barring catastrophic accidents like a fatal car crash or falling off a cliff). Obviously we're not there yet.

However, I don't really think it's fair to criticize the medical profession because they haven't gotten everything figured out yet. Most of the folks in the medical profession are working very hard to try and develop new treatments and heal their patients. Sometimes the side effects of the cure are worse than the disease and sometimes M.D.s have no choice but to try experimental treatments simply because there is no known treatment for a particular ailment. In that case it's up to the patient to decide if they want to be treated or not. To my knowledge nobody today is forced to undergo medical treatment of any kind (except maybe children since their parents have legal rights over them). One always has the option of refusing treatment and living with the symptoms of the disease, or if the disease is fatal, dying (assuming some self-righteous jackass of a politician doesn't pass some law preventing one's choice).

On the other hand, I certainly think it's worthwhile for people to get a 2nd or even 3rd and 4th opinion before they agree to a particular treatment. As I said above, some doctors are better than others and do a better job of keeping up to date on the latest treatments and sadly a few others are just quacks. Unfortunately it's sometimes difficult for us laymen to know which doctor is better, but I think the more information you have the better. As for the cost of medical treatment, that's a completely separate issue from medicine as science IMHO and gets into the question of whether there should be nationalized (or even globalized) health care and whether that would result in better care overall.

Lady Roxelle

11-04-2006, 10:00 AM

Before all, I want to thank you Avian, for placing this stunning wallpaper! I think it´s so inspirating, don´t you?

Yeah, moonies, the discussion grew and grew, and look what we have now!
Why Medicine has brought to table for discussion? I think its very opportune, and maybe inconsciently you mooners, has taken the subject of the 21th century, the "Book of Life"...our bodies, and that´s why this science is so noble.

SO great thoughts, jtmckinley, about Medicine. I agree you, Medicine is a science - and what a science! Medicine is a science as another one, and englobes others sciences on its way to understand this reality. So, as we experienced here, there´s a lot of misunderstooding about what Medicine really IS - and what is supposing to be.
In truth, is necessary to be said, medics is not so reliable as they should be - accourding Vernon Coleman, medics should use a warning about its hazardous effects to health. At least, this is what the majority of the people think about them. But is also true, everybody need them. I think that at this point, we can rally see the difference between the medicine of today and the ancient medicine. See the traditional chinese medicine, they use the same resources than 3,000 years ago. On the other hand, the ocidental medicine has evolved a lot. As pharmacology- biochemistry student, I have another sight of this picture. I think that today, the medicine has evolved so much in question as surgeries, so it still depends of the pharmacology to "cure" the diseases, and bring health back. We know, this is not what happens. I´m sorry to say, I´m nothing compared americans or europeans pharmacologists, what really matters is money. Of course, you have your "cure", and there´s a price for this. Often we don´t see this price to pay, the collateral effects is for sure one of this prices. IMHO, I think that this question may be rethinked.
I believe if the person have a headache of some pain that´s not so persistently, the person should rest and let the natural cure process of the human body acts. Mooners, c´mon, since the pre-historical days this occurs. In the advent of civilization, the alchemy brought the way to use the drugs - all from herbs. In the great navigations, lemon and garlic were the drugstores on board. But, one day somebody has synthesized the Prunus salicina from rosacea, and the history of Medicine and drugs has changed. In my oppinion, I think that is NOT the medicine that you´re administering, but the WAY to do it. There´s a difference.
To conclude my thoughts, in this very 21th century we´re whitneses of the Biology advances. Yeah Vax, we don´t know yet what "ACGT" is for. The scientists are on their way, but it might take a lot of decades. To reach the point as shown on "Gattaca" movie, believe me, we´re so far as we´re so closer...I think, it depends on the way for looking on this matter, maybe on the time when the real searching will be the unconditional health improvement, not only money.
I have a vision - I´m aquarian and I´m visionary for nature. In this vision, the medicines could be distributted for free in each country, and the citizens might pay the taxes as they pays for the social sevice. And once needing fo some drug, the person receive it as needed. There´s some kind of this service here in SUS, the brazilian public health system, so it may be spread for all medicines, without exception.
*************ANARCHY IN PHARMACOLOGY!!!:rawk: *************

KeithieW

11-04-2006, 12:04 PM

well said jt (as I said in my priv msg to you)...and Kleber, also well done.
I win my bet..........:rawk:

VAXman

11-04-2006, 12:08 PM

I win my bet..........:rawk::deadhorse

RogorMortis

11-04-2006, 12:49 PM

I guess for medicine to be a fully mature science it would need to be able to cure all disease as well as cure death. This may happen some day. For example it may be possible to some day design little nanobots that will float around in our bodies and fix things at the molecular level ensuring our health and immortality (barring catastrophic accidents like a fatal car crash or falling off a cliff). Obviously we're not there yet.

That will mark the beginning of the end for humans - that's if the earth hasn't succumbed to pollution and lack of food ect. No death means too many humans = path to total war. :sad: :sad: And why? Well when the crib is bare the horses bite. And this will happen here unless of course science takes the right course and avoids this but I'm afraid it will be left to the politicians who can't decide on the mustard in a hot dog. So we're doomed in the long run.

VAXman

11-04-2006, 02:06 PM

No you don't. I just said I wasn't taking part in the rant.

I was complementing jt and Kleber for reasoned comments. I'm really not interested in anything else.
You forget who started it you.

For a guy who is a walking stockpile of jokes, quips and humorous stories, you fail to see the humor in a discussion. I've spent a lifetime with chronic illnesses and more time in hospitals than I'd want to do in 20 lifetimes. The great "science" of medicine hasn't done anything but to prolong misery; therefore, wanting to incorporate a discussion of medicine in and amongst modern sciences seems more laughable than laudable to me. Keith and Bmithra had fun with my comment. I don't see why you couldn't. A little levity now and again is the best "medicine".

Please don't turn this into another reading volumes into words taken out of context debacle.

BTW, it's compliment. ;)

Rick and Roll

11-04-2006, 08:46 PM

You forget who started it you.

For a guy who is a walking stockpile of jokes, quips and humorous stories, you fail to see the humor in a discussion. I've spent a lifetime with chronic illnesses and more time in hospitals than I'd want to do in 20 lifetimes. The great "science" of medicine hasn't done anything but to prolong misery; therefore, wanting to incorporate a discussion of medicine in and amongst modern sciences seems more laughable than laudable to me. Keith and Bmithra had fun with my comment. I don't see why you couldn't. A little levity now and again is the best "medicine".

Please don't turn this into another reading volumes into words taken out of context debacle.

BTW, it's compliment. ;)

I have deleted my posts, and said what I needed to say to vax off line. I will not be drawn into an asinine back and forth. No one really cares to hear any vitriol, and if anyone does, you may get your entertainment someplace else.

Vax, I was trying to have a discussion, and you want to get personal. No thank you.

Bmithra

11-05-2006, 03:15 AM

Geeeeezus! QUACK!QUACK!QUACK! Mellow out guys, this is supposed to be a fun & entertaining discussion of sciences. Fringe, hard core or whatever...

But the key words here are fun & entertaining. We should be entertaining some large & exploratory "What If's". Not bickering.Its beginning to sound like an unhappy married couple. I thought you were married to other people, not each other.

Now Keithie, about those experiments you were involved in... R)

:surrender

Rick and Roll

11-05-2006, 07:33 AM

Geeeeezus! QUACK!QUACK!QUACK! Mellow out guys, this is supposed to be a fun & entertaining discussion of sciences.Its beginning to sound like an unhappy married couple. I thought you were married to other people, not each other.
... R)

:surrender

You're right!

The visual bothers me somewhat though....

KeithieW

11-06-2006, 02:47 AM

You're right!

The visual bothers me somewhat though....
Not as much as the visual bothers me Rick. :-\ All that hair and......Nurse the screens!!!!!

jtmckinley

11-06-2006, 10:26 AM

That will mark the beginning of the end for humans - that's if the earth hasn't succumbed to pollution and lack of food ect. No death means too many humans = path to total war. :sad: :sad: And why? Well when the crib is bare the horses bite. And this will happen here unless of course science takes the right course and avoids this but I'm afraid it will be left to the politicians who can't decide on the mustard in a hot dog. So we're doomed in the long run.

Possibly, but I doubt it will lead to our extinction, probably a lot of violence, but probably not extinction of the human species IMHO. But then I'm an optimist when it comes to that kind of thing ;). It will certainly change everything in the sphere of human existence. The obvious issue of overpopulation, which possibly could be handled by people only being allowed to procreate if somebody in their family dies for whatever reason (tough sell), will certainly have to be dealt with. My guess is there will continue to be death of the folks that can't afford to live forever and population growth of those that can. There will likely be much violence as a result of this, but that's not news for humans. But, perhaps a less obvious issue, if nobody dies in the future, how does the economy function? The haves will go on accumulating wealth and power and if they never die it doesn't ever get passed on to the next generation; that could be a major problem. Immortality will not happen overnight however so hopefully we'll have some time to figure out how to deal with it before depletion of earth's resources becomes too dire. I of course assume we'll have clean (solar or fusion based) energy LONG before we ever achieve immortality, otherwise peak oil is going to cause drastic changes in how we live and possibly greatly slow technological development not to mention great death and destruction from wars and famine.

I imagine that if we ever have the technology to provide immortality it will also provide the means to exist in a non-terrestrial environment and this will be the beginning of the human colonization of space. I think this is essential for the long-term survival of the human race since having all our eggs in one basket so to speak, here on the Earth, we could be wiped out by a singe meteor impact. When people live forever (or even just 1000s of years), and if space vessels can be made comfortable enough and can be made large enough to house thousands or even millions of people, travelling through space for long voyages to other planets will become reasonable to many people, perhaps even desireable. Of course that might lead to interstellar wars down the line, but it's possible that as technology (e.g. advanced molecular nanotechnology) allows humans to exist without having to scratch out a living in the hard earth and there is abundance (assuming some fascists don't take over and try to mete it out as they see fit), human nature will evolve and we won't always be at each other's throats. Obviously there's no guarantee human nature will ever evolve, but I continue to hope.

There was an interesting CSPAN program with Ray Kurzweil 11/5/2006 that discussed some of these topics that Moonfolk might find interesting, it's 3 hours long:

http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=7515&schedID=457

GORT

11-09-2006, 08:36 AM

you have good insight JT

jtmckinley

11-15-2006, 07:59 PM

Here's an entertaining (IMHO) history of numbers narrated by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame. It doesn't go as far as calculus and more advanced forms of mathematics, but I think even VAXman might be amused/enlightened by it. I learned a couple of things whilst I was watching, for example, I wasn't aware that Leibniz had come up with binary in the 1600s, or at least I don't remember that I knew that. So without further ado, here's the link:

http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/11/story-of-one.html

Based on the wikipedia account of Leibniz, he also developed calculus independently of Newton. I was unaware of or at least had forgotten that as well. I had certainly heard of Leibniz, but I guess I really hadn't grasped his accomplishments apparently. He was also the founder of the philosophical school of optimism, which I'm pretty sure I never knew. My take on optimism is different from his I think, at least in requiring a supreme being, but like us all he was a man of his time. I have not yet had the opportunity to read the whole wikipedia article, but I also find it interesting and intend to do so. I think the internet, and whatever it evolves into, may be our saving grace as a species :). Here's the link to his wikipedia article, of course it contains many links that folks might find interesting, as most wikipedia links do:

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

The children of this age will bury us with their knowledge, I hope... ;)

Maestro

11-16-2006, 05:01 PM

Sounds like a great idea, as 'science' does cover such an enormous range of areas.

Nice to keep things mature, but with science.. it's so easy to get distracted.. "oo, a geiger counter, how radioactive am I?"
"oo, a laser, it's my ray gun, POW POW!"

Well, maybe not quite so immaturely...

Puts my physics to good use!

Methem

11-17-2006, 10:07 AM

There was an interesting CSPAN program with Ray Kurzweil 11/5/2006 that discussed some of these topics that Moonfolk might find interesting [...]
Just saw this on the USENET group alt.folklore.computers:

> Imagine the day when someone will be able to reflect back on the
> last 6000 years of composing programs. Will a.f.c still be around
> in some form?

Well, according to Ray Kuzrweil in "The Singularity is Near"
[...] we will still be around in 6000 years (at least those of us who can
survive until the technological utopia arrives around 2040). But - by
then the computers will have been programming themselves for many
millenia. Maybe the computers will have an a.f.h newsgroup
(alt.folklore.humans) where they will reminisce about the distant past
when humans still programmed them. For a laugh they might even dredge
up some 20th century code.

Hmmm.....

-Methem

VAXman

11-17-2006, 03:56 PM

Just saw this on the USENET group alt.folklore.computers:

Hmmm.....

-Methem

Suppose they dredged up Weenoze source code!!! Those computers would be pondering how they ever survived.

Methem

11-17-2006, 04:41 PM

Suppose they dredged up Weenoze source code!!!
What a surprise...

Those computers would be pondering how they ever survived.
:rofl:

I wonder what they would do with something like the following:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/teco/rsts/search.tes

-Methem

VAXman

11-17-2006, 04:52 PM

What a surprise...

:rofl:

I wonder what they would do with something like the following:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/teco/rsts/search.tes

-Methem
OMG! How timely! I was writing some TECO (ie. the MUNG SEARCH) code today to replace "0" (zeros) in a file with slashed zeros.

EB{file}$EY$<FS0$216\$;>EX$$

Clear as day, right? FYI, the $ are escapes as show TECO.

Methem

11-17-2006, 05:14 PM

OMG! How timely! I was writing some TECO (ie. the MUNG SEARCH) code today to replace "0" (zeros) in a file with slashed zeros.

EB{file}$EY$<FS0$216\$;>EX$$

Clear as day, right? FYI, the $ are escapes as show TECO.
Yes, very clear... ;) Luckily I'm too young to have ever needed to deal with that language. I only know it's pretty cryptic, as can be seen.

The original EMACS editor (on ITS and TOPS-20?) was obviously written in TECO macros; must have been a lot of fun.

-Methem

lotus

11-17-2006, 05:55 PM

VAXman

11-17-2006, 06:56 PM

Yes, very clear... ;) Luckily I'm too young to have ever needed to deal with that language. I only know it's pretty cryptic, as can be seen.

The original EMACS editor (on ITS and TOPS-20?) was obviously written in TECO macros; must have been a lot of fun.

-Methem
I have EMACS on my Powerbook configured in EDT mode. I know simple commands in VI but it's really annoying to trip in and out of escape mode.

I've used TECO, SUMSLP, SOS, EDLINE and EDT on VMS. EDT is the most powerful editor. EVE/TPU I use when there's certain needs but mostly, I only use TPU if I need to write a text processing module.

VAXman

11-17-2006, 08:04 PM

What a great documentary, JT, thank you for the link. I learned a lot this evening..
This video is a hoot....

"Turn that Music down!"

"The Sumarian's great gift to the world, the chartered accountant."

...and at the great Pyramid... "Was it supposed to do that?"

"Adequate supplies of flower arrangements"

"An 'I love India' T-shirt was hardly going to do the job"

"Fibonacci's book was a must read"

Stoning Zero!

mathematician v. Abacus

"I much prefer working with Michael Palin."

OMG, this is a "must see". If you haven't watched this, do so!

Methem

11-18-2006, 07:41 AM

(Sorry for hijacking your beautiful science thread for this sort of stuff, folks. :))

I have EMACS on my Powerbook configured in EDT mode. I know simple commands in VI but it's really annoying to trip in and out of escape mode.
Vi isn't my cup of tea either. I use Emacs on my Linux box. I don't claim to be any sort of guru with it though -- far from it.

I've used TECO, SUMSLP, SOS, EDLINE and EDT on VMS. EDT is the most powerful editor. EVE/TPU I use when there's certain needs but mostly, I only use TPU if I need to write a text processing module.
Can't much comment on the merits of each of those, as I don't really know too much about VMS at this point. So far I've been reading about it and mainly using the machines of the Deathrow cluster to experiment with things. Going the Hobbyist route is of course a consideration and has been for quite a long while now.

The first time I've used VMS was a few years ago when I was doing some summer work in steel industry. The place was a cold-rolling mill, and it was a large annealing and pickling line that processed stainless steel strip. There was an oldish Alpha box with, I think, VMS 6.x installed on it. The box provided some mathematical models and calculations for the the general automation system that controlled the production line. Among other things, the box was used to adjust the temperatures in the large annealing furnace that processed the strip. Now, that was a safe place to experiment with the OS. ;)

-Methem

VAXman

11-18-2006, 10:21 AM

(Sorry for hijacking your beautiful science thread for this sort of stuff, folks. :))

Vi isn't my cup of tea either. I use Emacs on my Linux box. I don't claim to be any sort of guru with it though -- far from it.

Like I said, I can get around in VI... not every unix box is going to have EMACS installed so best to know some rudimentary VI skills.

Can't much comment on the merits of each of those, as I don't really know too much about VMS at this point. So far I've been reading about it and mainly using the machines of the Deathrow cluster to experiment with things. Going the Hobbyist route is of course a consideration and has been for quite a long while now.

TECO was available on the PDP OSs but when VMS first hit the streets, it didn't have TECO. When customers asked why their favorite editor was not included, DEC responded, "TECO is not an editor, it's a programming language". I think Andy Goldstein ported TECO from RSM-11(M+) to VMS as he was one of its avid users. It's written in Macro-11(VAX assembly). TECO is still available on VMS today and building it is one of the regression tests used to guage the Macro-11 "compilers" now available on Alpha and the Itanium.

The first time I've used VMS was a few years ago when I was doing some summer work in steel industry. The place was a cold-rolling mill, and it was a large annealing and pickling line that processed stainless steel strip. There was an oldish Alpha box with, I think, VMS 6.x installed on it. The box provided some mathematical models and calculations for the the general automation system that controlled the production line. Among other things, the box was used to adjust the temperatures in the large annealing furnace that processed the strip. Now, that was a safe place to experiment with the OS. ;)

VMS is found in many production scenarios. When and where it absolutley has to run, you're likely to find VMS.

The US Postal service uses VMS to sort and route all mail (letters, packages, flats). The USPS sorts/routes 40K times the volume of all of the other package handling services in the US daily... that's a lot of mail!

...and you wouldn't have the PeeCee either. Intel runs all of its fabs on VMS. They can't afford downtime. Even a few minutes of downtime costs $millions to Intel.

..and until recently, Micro$oft themselves ran all of the accounting for the firm on VMS. Seems even M$ didn't trust their own product when and where it mattered to them most -- the money! Only when a certain application provider HQed in .DE was able to provide a redundancy option in its app -- no longer requiring VMS to protect it -- did M$ get off of VMS. Rumor has it that it's still there for backup.

I guess I needn't mention it is secure. Here's (http://www.sans.org/top20/?ref=1814) SANS' latest list of security vulnerabilities. Note what is NOT on their list.

Methem

11-18-2006, 11:29 AM

VMS is found in many production scenarios. When and where it absolutley has to run, you're likely to find VMS.
The factory I was working for also had some older Tandem systems (CLX); the platform nowadays known as NonStop, of course.

I guess I needn't mention it is secure. Here's (http://www.sans.org/top20/?ref=1814) SANS' latest list of security vulnerabilities. Note what is NOT on their list.
However, like many other VMS advocates, you fail to mention one thing: VMS isn't as popular as MS Windows or Unixes. :) If it were real widely used (after all, it once was), it would be inevitable for it to have vulnerabilities found at least once in a while.

-Methem

VAXman

11-18-2006, 11:57 AM

The factory I was working for also had some older Tandem systems (CLX); the platform nowadays known as NonStop, of course.

Yup.

However, like many other VMS advocates, you fail to mention one thing: VMS isn't as popular as MS Windows or Unixes. :) If it were real widely used (after all, it once was), it would be inevitable for it to have vulnerabilities found at least once in a while.

The bandwagoneering argument has never been correlated. If a hacker really wanted to make an impact, I'd think somewhere where it made a large impact would be targetted -- not mom's recipe files on her Weendoze PeeCee.

Buffer overruns executing arbitrary code? Impossible on VMS. Code and data have always been segregated. Pages in memory have protections that protect inner (privileged) modes from executing code -- malicious or otherwise. The whole "privilege" paradigm in VMS extends to all objects -- processes/jobs, memory, disk, images, etc. The image activator, once an image has been activated, keeps the code sections in mapped virtual pages that are read only. Any attempt to do/use a data overrun (one of the major mechanisms employed to breach other systems) would yield an Access Violation when it tried to write in a code region. IF it would only over write data in a process's image data space, it could NEVER be executed even if written there.

Now, if somebody wants to download malicious code from a sight, install it with privies and subsequently execute it, that will be a problem. However, it is not a security issue in the OS; that is a security issue with the idiot that installed the malicious code.

VMS development is a process. Code is reviewed by others in the group. Data integrity and security are the chief criteria for the code review. Feature parity is way down on the list. Features are not introduced if they sacrifice the aforementioned.

I could ramble on for hours. There are OS constructs that do not exist in any other OS. They are there for a reason -- data integrity and security. These things were designed into the OS from the get-go; not layered on as an after thought. If the foundation of flawed and weak, no amount of plastered on after thought security is going to prevent a breach.

Methem

11-18-2006, 12:30 PM

The bandwagoneering argument has never been correlated. If a hacker really wanted to make an impact, I'd think somewhere where it made a large impact would be targetted -- not mom's recipe files on her Weendoze PeeCee.

Buffer overruns executing arbitrary code? Impossible on VMS. Code and data have always been segregated. Pages in memory have protections that protect inner (privileged) modes from executing code -- malicious or otherwise. The whole "privilege" paradigm in VMS extends to all objects -- processes/jobs, memory, disk, images, etc. The image activator, once an image has been activated, keeps the code sections in mapped virtual pages that are read only. Any attempt to do/use a data overrun (one of the major mechanisms employed to breach other systems) would yield an Access Violation when it tried to write in a code region. IF it would only over write data in a process's image data space, it could NEVER be executed even if written there.

Now, if somebody wants to download malicious code from a sight, install it with privies and subsequently execute it, that will be a problem. However, it is not a security issue in the OS; that is a security issue with the idiot that installed the malicious code.

VMS development is a process. Code is reviewed by others in the group. Data integrity and security are the chief criteria for the code review. Feature parity is way down on the list. Features are not introduced if they sacrifice the aforementioned.

I could ramble on for hours. There are OS constructs that do not exist in any other OS. They are there for a reason -- data integrity and security. These things were designed into the OS from the get-go; not layered on as an after thought. If the foundation of flawed and weak, no amount of plastered on after thought security is going to prevent a breach.
Ok, ok... understood. And I'm not knowledgeable enough to try to argue with you.

As for rambling on for hours, please do: Then I don't need to spend any time or money on obtaining the VMS internals books, as I'll get all the necessary information here. ;)

Do you know how well NSK and z/OS are handling these same issues you've mentioned, by the way?

-Methem

VAXman

11-18-2006, 01:10 PM

Ok, ok... understood. And I'm not knowledgeable enough to try to argue with you.

As for rambling on for hours, please do: Then I don't need to spend any time or money on obtaining the VMS internals books, as I'll get all the necessary information here. ;)

If you really want to know the internals, that book is a must have.

Do you know how well NSK and z/OS are handling these same issues you've mentioned, by the way?

I've only had a cursory overview of NSK. The hardware is too prohibitively priced for me to get my hands on for any academic purposes. Most of what I know about NSK deals with the kernel's use of the processor lock-step mode. Outside of that, I know little of the application environment of NSK.

Methem

11-18-2006, 01:42 PM

If you really want to know the internals, that book is a must have.
Yep.

I've only had a cursory overview of NSK. The hardware is too prohibitively priced for me to get my hands on for any academic purposes. Most of what I know about NSK deals with the kernel's use of the processor lock-step mode. Outside of that, I know little of the application environment of NSK.
Ok, thanks for the info anyway.

---

In the interest of politeness, I thought it would be nice to provide a few links that shed a little light on what this thread has been about for the last 10 posts or so. For those who've been wondering what the hell is going on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_Editor_and_Corrector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDT_text_editor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPS-20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSTS/E
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX-11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS
http://h20223.www2.hp.com/NonStopComputing/cache/76715-0-0-0-121.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z/OS

http://www.openvmshobbyist.com/
http://deathrow.vistech.net/
http://www.twenex.org

-Methem

Ps. I wonder if it would be a good idea to create a whole new section/subforum/whatever in the forums for heavily off-topic threads not related to prog. rock.

VAXman

11-18-2006, 02:12 PM

Ps. I wonder if it would be a good idea to create a whole new section/subforum/whatever in the forums for heavily off-topic threads not related to prog. rock.
On other sites generally devoted to one topic/subject there is often a forum just for such "off-topic" threads.

Perhaps, a "Geek-Speak" forum (there's certainly enough of that here) and a "watercooler" forum for other off-topic talk.

Any other suggestions welcome.

VAXman

11-18-2006, 02:38 PM

Methem,...

Speaking of TECO...

Next time you are on a VMS machine do the following:

Alpha:
$ MAKE :== $TECO32_TV MAKE

VAX:
$ MAKE :== $TECO32 MAKE

Then type $ MAKE LOVE

Methem

11-23-2006, 12:22 PM

Methem,...
Next time you are on a VMS machine do the following:

Alpha:
$ MAKE :== $TECO32_TV MAKE

VAX:
$ MAKE :== $TECO32 MAKE

Then type $ MAKE LOVE
I haven't been able to access a VMS system lately, but from what I just googled, this would probably output "Not war?". Should've guessed that. Excellent... :)

-Methem

QuantumJo

12-07-2006, 04:08 PM

Wow…kewl thread moon units. Now that I have just read it I have to take a look at some of the links. You will be hearing from me soon :)

Roger -Dot- Lee

12-07-2006, 06:59 PM

Suppose they dredged up Weenoze source code!!! Those computers would be pondering how they ever survived.

Here's a scary concept: They're actual descendants of Billy's Best Efforts, and they view it, not as a humorous view into the past (akin to, say, today's view of platform shoes and bell bottoms) but instead as a heroic predecessor, like George Washington, Mustafa Ataturk, etc.

VAXman

12-07-2006, 08:17 PM

Here's a scary concept: They're actual descendants of Billy's Best Efforts, and they view it, not as a humorous view into the past (akin to, say, today's view of platform shoes and bell bottoms) but instead as a heroic predecessor, like George Washington, Mustafa Ataturk, etc.
No, they would probably view it more like the aberration of the human experience that was Adolf Hitler.

QuantumJo

12-08-2006, 06:56 PM

When will humans become a space fairing species?

The way I see it is, until there is world peace or a common enemy we will rot on this rock. For humans to find a way to overcome all the obstacles of life in space it will require the efforts of the entire species working together towards that goal.

Global mass extinction is inevitable; it has happened before and will most certainly happen again. The question is, can we get our shit together before it is too late for us?

VAXman

12-08-2006, 07:59 PM

Global mass extinction is inevitable; it has happened before and will most certainly happen again. The question is, can we get our shit together before it is too late for us?

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

Roger -Dot- Lee

12-08-2006, 09:15 PM

Methem,...

Speaking of TECO...

Next time you are on a VMS machine do the following:

Alpha:
$ MAKE :== $TECO32_TV MAKE

VAX:
$ MAKE :== $TECO32 MAKE

Then type $ MAKE LOVE

You can do
Anything you want...

With Teco and DDT!

Methem: you mention you're on deathrow. I'm rlee there. Drop me a mail sometime.

Roger -Dot- Lee, regretting he missed a good deal of this debate

QuantumJo

12-09-2006, 02:12 PM

To be a planet or not to be a palnet, that is the question...

This is a copy and paste of a fun little interview with the Pluto. Enjoy the read.

A couple of years ago, we caught up with the planet Pluto for a quick word on the occasion of its passing Neptune to once again become the farthest planet from the sun in the solar system. As Pluto is once again in the news, we are able to reach the celestial body for another chat.

Brunching Shuttlecocks: Hello there, Pluto, nice to see you again.

Pluto: Yeah yeah, hurry up. Time is money.

BS: Well, we're all abuzz here on earth with the discovery of 2001 KX76, do you have any thoughts on this historic occasion?

P: What discovery? You act like it hasn't been sitting here all along. I mean if you guys ever bothered to aim your damn telescopes out my way, you'd discover all kinds of floating junk out here. I've known 2001 KX76 for decades. Cocky bastard, never sends a Christmas card. What's the big deal?

BS: Well the big deal is that 2001 KX76 is being heralded as the largest minor planet in the solar system.

P: Really? From the way you guys treat me, I could have sworn I was a minor planet.

BS: No, no. You're a full-fledged planet. For now. But 2001 KX76 is the largest of the so-called 'Kuiper Belt Objects', which orbit the sun out past your neighborhood.

P: Yeah, there are a bunch of KBOs out there. Not the nicest things in space, let me tell you. Just as soon crash in to you as give you the time of day.

BS: There are some on Earth who think you ought to be classified as a Kuiper Belt Object.

P: Me, a damn KBO? Blow me! Your Mom's a KBO!

BS: Well, you would go from being the smallest planet to the largest KBO. Any joy in the big fish / small pond theory?

P: I'm a planet. Read me lips. Pla-net. You got a problem with that?

BS: I was just making a point.

P: I've got a point to make. Bite me.

BS: So you're content being known as the smallest planet in the solar system?

P: As a planet, I get my props. When was the last time a bunch of 3rd graders stood in a line and recited the names of the 10,000+ KBOs?

BS: So this is about ego, not scientific truth.

P: Who has time for truth? I'm a solid ball of frozen rock that circles the sun every 248 friggin' years. Lot of good it does me. Don't get much use for sun tan lotion out my way, know what I mean?

BS: OK, let's get back to the KBOs.

P: Oh! Sure! By all means! Much more interesting than a real, damn planet, huh? You're probably already planning on sending a probe out there. Meanwhile, my crystalline gardens and abundance of silicon-based ice creatures twiddle their thumbs, waiting for you to pay attention to us.

BS: You have life?

P: Sure. Life. Plants. Strip malls. Whatever. Like you care. Prove me wrong.

BS: Yes, well. Anyway. KBOs are thought to be pristine relics of the formation of the solar system. Any thoughts?

P: They're about as pristine as your uncle's left tit after a good hog slaughtering. Know what they do with all their spare time? Plot against you. They hate Earth, they're planning on taking you down.

BS: They're just rocks.

P: Fine. Don't say I didn't warn you.

BS: Pluto, we have time for one more question before we go. Now that 2001 KX76 has made history, astronomers will likely give it a name similar to other named objects in the Kuiper Belt. The tendency has been to assign mythological names associated with creation, such as Varuna, a large object named for the Vedic god of oceans and water. Any suggestions?

P: Phallus.

rauchen

12-09-2006, 10:10 PM

Does this include construction on the Moon????????? I'm ready to build, Where do I sign up ??????????

jtmckinley

12-11-2006, 03:36 PM

Actually I was flipping through the TV news channels and saw something about NASA's plans to build a base on the moon. It was on FOX though, so it may well have been complete BS. ;)

VAXman

12-11-2006, 03:43 PM

Actually I was flipping through the TV news channels and saw something about NASA's plans to build a base on the moon. It was on FOX though, so it may well have been complete BS. ;)
NASA and reality are strange bedfellows.

They have lots of plans to do alot of things. What they don't have is the money and the management to get them there. Don't get me wrong, NASA has plenty of management... and that is it's biggest detriment.

jtmckinley

12-11-2006, 05:13 PM

NASA and reality are strange bedfellows.

They have lots of plans to do alot of things. What they don't have is the money and the management to get them there. Don't get me wrong, NASA has plenty of management... and that is it's biggest detriment.

Yeah, not to mention that we have huge debts and deficit spending right now. Even though our fearless leader talked about going to Mars and such, my guess is we'll need to get our house in order before we do anything like that. So, maybe we can revisit this thread in 10 years or so? Oh well, I figured it was too good to be true... :(

VAXman

12-11-2006, 07:27 PM

Yeah, not to mention that we have huge debts and deficit spending right now. Even though our fearless leader talked about going to Mars and such, my guess is we'll need to get our house in order before we do anything like that. So, maybe we can revisit this thread in 10 years or so? Oh well, I figured it was too good to be true... :(
Another fearless leader talked about sending men to the moon all the while running up huge deficits of money and blood (60K+ souls). We went to the moon despite his, and his successor's, best efforts.

QuantumJo

12-11-2006, 08:59 PM

NASA does a tremendous amount of science with the relative puny budget of $16-$17 billion a year http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf. If anything I think that they should receive more money. Sadly enough, Americans have better things to spend their money on like $14.7 billion a year on holiday decorations, $18.8 billion a year on cosmetics & perfume and a staggering $110 billion a year on fast food.

QuantumJo

12-13-2006, 05:50 AM

Pimp my Mac...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

Methem

12-13-2006, 10:44 AM

Suppose they dredged up Weenoze source code!!! Those computers would be pondering how they ever survived.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/12/07/tech-msvistabusinessesnotready-061207.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.computers/browse_thread/thread/31c9f23336ee22ef

---

Dot, will try to reach you on the Deathrow system whenever I'm online there -- not very often these days.

-Methem

VAXman

12-13-2006, 10:56 AM

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/12/07/tech-msvistabusinessesnotready-061207.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.computers/browse_thread/thread/31c9f23336ee22ef

---

Dot, will try to reach you on the Deathrow system whenever I'm online there -- not very often these days.

-Methem
Thanks Methem... I haven't read alt.folklore.computers in eons... maybe I should rekindle the subscription.

FYI, DEATHrow is back on-line. A major system drive failure. The SYSUAF file was restored from a backup months prior so you need to use password from then. Here a podcast with more info... http://www.openvms.org/podcast/OWAU-2006-12-7_1.mp3

QuantumJo

12-13-2006, 01:12 PM

Hi moon fellows!

The aim in posting this thread is to approaching the moon-scientists, (or simple students like me) , to share their points of view and knowledgement. I know there´s a lot here, and I miss the old constructives chatting in "white room"... so, I know, time is a problem for us, so we can discuss it as we can.

Thanks for all, anyway, if someone agree. ´Cause there´s few things better for me than listening a good sound as we get here, and talk about sciences or SLT.

Strong brasilian hugs to everyone! :knowing:

I'd love to do that! Maybe we can set up a time to use teh chat room to do that. We have a host of engineers, astronomers, particle physicists, just to mention a few - here at the Moon- it would maje for a great discussion

Rules?

No particle physicists - I don't think they're as good as other scientists. ])

I am of course, kidding. I think the only "rules" we should follow would be the laws of physics. And no preposterous theories like the Earth isn't flat(8-D

Is there any chance of following this train of thought or has this thread been spun out of the solar system by the massive pull of Jupiter’s gravity?

A little bit about my self.
I am not an engineer, astronomer, particle physicists or chemist. I was pushed through high school, perhaps out of pity or the unwillingness of my teachers to give me a proper education, and did not graduate until I was 20 years old. I did not pursue any further education although with hind site being 20/20 I wish that I had. Most of my education has been gained through reading magazines, books and watching educational television programs. I have subscriptions to Popular Science and Scientific American and I enjoy watching programs on Discovery HD and PBS.

QuantumJo

12-14-2006, 02:14 PM

jtmckinley

12-14-2006, 03:19 PM

Why do they spin?
A star is formed when gas and dust compress due to gravitational forces and collapses under its own weight. What I wonder about is why does the new star start to spin. What force is responsible for this? I have done some research on angular momentum but I am still not clear on what starts the rotation.

http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/experts/week1b.html

The guy in the link above says tidal forces between the various objects in the cloud, which is probably correct.

If I had to guess off the top of my head, it might have something to do with the curvature of space around massive objects, but I'm just guessing here, I didn't look it up or do any calculations. If a particle has an initial velocity and enters a gravity well of another object, unless it was initially heading directly at the center of mass, the trajectory would curve toward the center of mass so if it was captured I think it would spiral into the gravity well. Think of a marble being flung into the top of a horn shaped tube but not right down into the hole, a bit off to the side, it spirals around as it goes down to the bottom. I'm guessing that as a bunch of them come together, the angular momentum of the resulting collapsed cloud would be non-zero and the resulting object would be spinning no? The rate of spin would then maybe be proportional to the non-uniformity of the original cloud? I'm not an astrophysicist though, so I might be full of it ;).

QuantumJo

12-14-2006, 04:32 PM

Thanks for your reply jtmckinley.

All day I was looking for an answer and this is what I came up with.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/astronomy/q0247.shtml said
Astronomers estimate that the nebular cloud from which our solar system formed contained about two to three times the mass of the Sun and was about 100 astronomical units (AU) across. An astronomical unit is defined as the average distance between the Sun and Earth, or about 93 million miles (150 million km). This massive loosely-bound cloud of dust, ice particles, and gases (primarily hydrogen and helium) had some small rate of rotation due to the method in which it was formed. Over time, this nebular cloud began to collapse inward. The collapse may have itself been triggered by a supernova that sent shockwaves through the cloud causing it to compress. As the cloud compressed on itself, the gravitational attraction of the matter within increased and pulled the material in even further. The nebula continued to contract under the influence of gravity causing it to spin faster. The more the cloud contracted, the faster it rotated due to the conservation of angular momentum. The rate of contraction was greatest near the center of the cloud where a dense central core began to form. As the rate of rotation of the nebula continued to increase, centrifugal effects caused the spinning cloud to flatten into a disk with a bulge at its center.

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html said
Conservation of angular momentum says that any spinning of the dust cloud that formed the solar system will remain, and since most of the matter in the solar system is in the Sun, the Sun will be spinning. It will even be spinning faster than the original dust cloud for the same reason that a skater spins faster by bringing in his/her arms. The lower the "moment of inertia", the faster the spin rate.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Mar2003/1046618532.As.r.html said
The direction of rotation for a star is set by the cloud of gas from which it formed. These clouds of gas are large objects, thousands of times larger than our solar system, but they are just barely rotating when they start to collapse to form a star. Only a small change is necessary during the initial collapse for the cloud to rotate one direction or the other.

And finaly an answer to my question

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ask_astronomer/faq/solarsys.shtml said
When any great number of objects (be them molecules or stars) self-gravitate to make a new body in the Universe (be it a protoplanetary disk of a protogalaxy, they have leftover angular momentum. An analogy would be to imagine all the skaters in Rockefeller Center suddenly clasping hands of others around them. (Imagine them starting from a random pattern of skating.) The linked crowd would have some excess angular momentum and the whole mass would find itself in a slow group spin. If they all tugged closer, the spin would increase. (You know this from watching figure skaters bring in their arms.) This is what happens to the central protoplanetary dust disk.

An alternative analogy is a flight of birds suddenly being tied together with strings. They will start spinning as a group. The Sun carries the lion's share of the angular momentum in the SS. The proto-planets, moons, etc. may get some spin kick back from the Sun by the magnetic fields it drags through space. When the planets formed, again chunks of gas from a larger chunk, the parcels spun with the original spin join together to replicate this spin. The outer parts clumped with the inner parts. Although orbiting slower, the outer parts carry more angular momentum and spin the cloudlets in the same group convention so the SSW spin is maintained. This is a somewhat random process, not necessarily strictly followed, and an exception may be Venus.

VAXman

12-14-2006, 06:36 PM

Why do they spin?
A star is formed when gas and dust compress due to gravitational forces and collapses under its own weight. What I wonder about is why does the new star start to spin. What force is responsible for this? I have done some research on angular momentum but I am still not clear on what starts the rotation.
It's time for some tensor calculus! How's your grasp of the curvature tensor? :D

Seriously, I doubt you'd be ready to grasp that. The spinning is easily explained when you understand the conservation of angular momentum. L = r X p where r is the radius from where the particle is in space relative to an origin and p is its linear momentum. Then a particle turns the angular momentum (L)is a pseudovectorial component perpendicular to the plane of the radial component r and the tangential momentum vector (dp/dt). This can easily be demonstrated in a gyroscope. As a mass acrues, it will create a gravitational "well" and a particle flying by will be caused to curve by it. In the beginning this will be a rather random event but as the mass acrues more "participating particles", the sum effects of one group particles will outweigh the others; eventually, there will be a concensus rotation in one direction. Also, since the momentum must be conserved, as the mass grows and pulls in more mass, that mass will spin faster and faster. It's like having a weight on a string you are spinning about your head. To maintain it spinning in a plane above your head at a distance, it will move slower. As you pull the string in making it shorter, the mass will move faster and faster. A pirouetting ice skater is another great example.

QuantumJo

12-14-2006, 08:00 PM

Did you learn all this in school Vax? I did not know that you are so well versed in physics. I look forward to having more conversation like this with anyone on the Moon that wants to chime in. It is so hard for me to find people to talk with about science.

I am familiar with angular momentum, Planck’s constant, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, wave function, quantum entanglement, entropy and several other theories and laws. What I was wondering is what started the protostar rotating in the first place. The analogy with the skaters in Rockefeller Center is what put it together for me. I have this picture in my mind of all the molecules gathered together and moving independent from each other, then an event causes them to start rotating. From what your saying Vax is that it’s the “gravitational well” that gets the ball rolling. What is it, in the analogy of the skaters, that causes them to “suddenly clasp hands” and start the slow spin?

VAXman

12-14-2006, 09:06 PM

Did you learn all this in school Vax? I did not know that you are so well versed in physics. I look forward to having more conversation like this with anyone on the Moon that wants to chime in. It is so hard for me to find people to talk with about science.

Well, since you asked.

I had an Uncle that taught mathemetics at Lehigh University. He was teaching me how to solve systems of linear equations with determinants/matrices before I got to my Jr. High School.

I took my degrees (BS and MS) in Electronic Engineering. I took my SATs in the 11th grade and scored high enough to get into just about any school I wanted to at the time so, I took the ACTs in the senior year. I scored high enough to get my college language requirement waived and I was placed in the equivalent of an advanced placement group for my math. 5 credit Calculus courses my first 4 semesters (sounds impressive but it wasn't fun getting up at 8am 5 days a week). My text for calc was one being reviewed for publication. I still have them... 2 volumes on 8.5"x11" 2 sided paper and bound in volumes 2" thick each.

The Electronic Engineering discipline covered alot of "modern physics" which a typical Electrical Engineering degree would not.

When I was working on my MSEE, the professor I had for "Tensor Calculus" taught as an adjunct in the evening. I used to work in the school's Physics Lab setting up for the undergrads. I befriended one of the physics profs who helped me with the tensor field theory (math) and its meaning. Also,
as a grad student, I had to teach a semester of a class. I taught a semester of his of Applied Calculus (things like Bessels, lagrange, and sundry other mathematical curios in addition ot calculus) class. In turn, I taught him computer programming.

I actually focused on Communication and Information Theory in my graduate studies. I hated the actual "hands-on" hardware side of EE. There was much more interesting mathematics in the Communication/Information Theory side. I also found the hands-on study of anatomy much more stimulating than the "hands-on" EE. :D

jtmckinley

12-14-2006, 11:16 PM

I think what VAX wrote echoes what I wrote and is what I was alluding to, at least regarding conservation of angular momentum, though I didn't mention that explicitly. Essentially, I think, feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong, is that any system of particles has a fundamental angular momentum due to the fact that they're all moving relative to each other, unless they are all heading toward a fixed point of course. Consequently, conservation of angular momentum inevitably results in spinning objects formed from a cloud of individual particles due to the non-uniformity of motion of the particles in the cloud. The point is that if you add gravity into that system, the particles attract one another, and there is an angular momentum of that system that is conserved when they coalesce. Therefore, if angular momentum is conserved (which it is, as far as I know, at least in the case of dust particles and other macroscopic entities) , it is inevitable that condensed clouds of gas or dust will exhibit rotation. VAX rightly points out that the idea of curved space isn't necessary to explain this behaviour, Newtonian mechanics will suffice. I only mentioned curved space because that was easy to make the "marble" model with.

Rick and Roll

12-23-2006, 10:38 PM

Sometimes in the interests of condensing the meaning is lost. A while ago I tried to introduce the element of medicine in science. Check out the following quote. A little background - Barbaro is a horse that broke down during a race in Baltimore. Since then (April), everyone seems to be interested in the horse's well being. Here's an excerpt from the main doctor's take on how the horse is doing...

"Dean Richardson of the University of Pennsylvania's New Bolton Center also is positive about the colt's recovery. The chief surgeon just doesn't see it as anything more than good medicine.

'It's not a miracle. It's anything but that' he said. 'Some of the Barbaro fans aren't going to like that, perhaps. I'm a scientist. I'm a doctor. I'm not a faith healer or a religious person. I believe in the application of science, and I think nothing that's happened to him is particularly miraculous.'"

For all of the pragmatic, b/w thinkers like myself, that's a perfect quote.

VAXman

12-24-2006, 08:24 AM

'It's not a miracle. It's anything but that' he said. 'Some of the Barbaro fans aren't going to like that, perhaps. I'm a scientist. I'm a doctor. I'm not a faith healer or a religious person. I believe in the application of science, and I think nothing that's happened to him is particularly miraculous.'"

The scientist who yields anything to theology, however slight, is yielding to ignorance and false pretenses, and as certainly as if he granted that a horse-hair put into a bottle of water will turn into a snake. -- H. L. Mencken

A great quote which tied into Rick's post about religion and science ... and a horse.

Rick and Roll

12-24-2006, 09:27 AM

A horse....where's Dekhands when you need him?

Mencken - from Baltimore . From what I gather he sat around making up quotes. What a life.....

VAXman

12-24-2006, 09:38 AM

A horse....where's Dekhands when you need him?
Horsing around somewhere in Freehold I'd wager!

I have to ask him if he wants to buy my lil' sister's horse farm in Aiken, SC.
It's modestly priced at $1.2M.

Mencken - from Baltimore . From what I gather he sat around making up quotes. What a life.....
It's a tough job but somebody's got to do it!

QuantumJo

01-11-2007, 03:02 PM

McNaught Comet

http://www.spaceweather.com/

QuantumJo

01-24-2007, 10:58 AM

On January 26, join us for a rare conversation between two people on the
edges of human exploration, as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
and NASA hold the first call from the deep ocean to the edge of space.

Students, educators, and science lovers can learn more and participate
by visiting
http://www.whoi.edu/sites/SeafloorToStation.

He is two miles under water; she is 200 miles up in the atmosphere. He
works in a small, confined space, looking out onto a vast, unpopulated
expanse--and so does she. He is out of the reach of sunlight, buried in
a blanket of constant darkness, she sees the Sun rise 15 times a
day...if she has any time to look for it. Both are explorers of the last
frontiers.

Marine biologist Tim Shank, diving in the Alvin submersible, will
compare notes on life, science, and exploration with astronaut Sunita
“Suni” Williams as she orbits on the International Space Station.

You can be a part of that conversation: Students, educators, and science
lovers can submit questions for Tim and Suni to answer on the air. Visit
the “Ask a question” page at
http://www.whoi.edu/sites/SeafloorToStation

QuantumJo

02-17-2007, 10:41 AM

Hubble: The most amazing space photographs in the universe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/galleries/index.html?in_gallery_id=9139&in_page_id=1055

QuantumJo

02-19-2007, 11:12 AM

Where will you be in 2036?

http://www.space.com/news/051103_asteroid_apophis.html

VAXman

02-20-2007, 05:59 AM

Where will you be in 2036?

http://www.space.com/news/051103_asteroid_apophis.html
Wow! Visible in 2029 as it passes. That would be something to observe but I doubt I'll still be kicking when it happens.

jtmckinley

03-19-2007, 05:54 PM

Here's a link to a BBC documentary on M-Theory (it's a "Theory Of Everything", but obviously still a work in progress). A friend sent me this link about a month ago and I thought it was pretty interesting so I figured I'd pass it along in this thread, enjoy if you're so inclined...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4183875433858020781&q=BBC+M-theory

jtmckinley

03-19-2007, 09:06 PM

And just in case the link to the documentary on M-theory in my previous post isn't mind-blowing enough to some of you and you want something more related to your everyday existence to elate/worry you, I offer:

http://www.kurzweilai.net

Plenty of articles on there to make yer head spin ;), I read one tonight which touched on Guth's idea that we might be able to create universes and hence I figured I'd post this also as sort of a "ok how 'bout this!". I've read RK's "The Singularity Is Near" as well as Drexler's "Engines of Creation" some of whose ideas RK uses (although I read EOC about 15-20 years ago) and I think they are essentially correct about what will eventually happen with our technology provided we don't destroy ourselves first (but as I've said before, I'm an optimist). I'm less sanguine about their time-lines due to our seemingly less prolific ability to create reliable software (although RK does present some interesting historical graphs to demonstrate the doubly exponential rate of our technology development). IIRC Drexler's EOC has already been shown by time to be overly optimistic time-wise in some instances, but it's still an interesting read IMHO, and can be read here for free if one is so inclined:

http://www.e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Cover.html

Drexler has also written a recent letter reproduced on Kurzweil's site where he talks about the scientific/political ramifications of EOC that have occurred since its publication. This futuristic stuff is obviously less science and more speculation, but it is based on the science we know now (and more scientific evaluations of the ideas in EOC can be found in Drexler's Nanosystems, but it is a much harder read) and perhaps even less far out than M-theory believe it or not, and I found it interesting, perhaps you will as well. Although I imagine many will find it incredulous :).

lotus

03-21-2007, 03:05 AM

If you would like to learn, where science on earth begun, have a look to this fantastic documentary

http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/11/story-of-one.html

learning us in a wonderful way, how numbers originated in the different cultures on earth. But take you time, it is a 1 hour documentary presented by Terry Jones from Monty Python's

jtmckinley

04-09-2007, 06:38 PM

I won't comment on this since I know nothing about it, in fact this article is the first I ever heard of it, and this article is from 2001. But the first few pages about "artificial atoms" I found interesting, maybe you will as well...

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.10/atoms.html

QuantumJo

06-07-2007, 08:15 AM

Here is a link to an article in this month Scientific American.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=72C0E84D-E7F2-99DF-3D281803B61E675C&chanID=sa006&colID=13

podakayne

06-07-2007, 12:17 PM

thanks Qjo,
i luv that mag...i should subscribe thanks for the link.
poda

VAXman

06-11-2007, 05:14 AM

Here's some science we can all lift a glass and toast to:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=E699E9C7-E7F2-99DF-38A7329520CF67D6&colID=15

QuantumJo

09-28-2007, 07:52 AM

RELEASE: 07-212

DAWN SPACECRAFT SUCCESSFULLY LAUNCHED

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - NASA's Dawn spacecraft began its
1.7-billion-mile journey through the inner solar system to study a
pair of asteroids Thursday at 7:34 a.m. EDT.

The Delta 2 rocket, fitted with nine strap-on solid-fuel boosters,
safely climbed away from the Florida coastline and Launch Pad 17B at
the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. "We have our time machine up
and flying," said Dawn Principal Investigator Christopher Russell of
the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dawn is scheduled to begin its exploration of Vesta in 2011 and Ceres
in 2015. The two icons of the asteroid belt are located in orbit
between Mars and Jupiter and have been witness to so much of our
solar system's history.

By using the same set of instruments at two separate destinations,
scientists can more accurately formulate comparisons and contrasts.
Dawn's science instrument suite will measure shape, surface
topography and tectonic history, elemental and mineral composition,
as well as seek out water-bearing minerals.

A critical milestone for the spacecraft comes in acquiring its signal.
The launch team expects that to occur in approximately two to three
hours.

For the latest information about Dawn and its mission, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/dawn

QuantumJo

10-09-2007, 09:45 AM

Dangerous Science?

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/story/8-Dangerous+Science.html

jtmckinley

10-09-2007, 06:41 PM

Dangerous Science?

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/story/8-Dangerous+Science.html

Huh, I just saw that episode on PBS. I feel sorry for all the geeky kids nowadays, I had a chemistry set as a kid, complete with all kinds of noxious chemicals that could make things go boom and nasty smells and corrosives and such, my geologist neighbor down the street even had a bunch of sodium we used to play with, it was great fun, but then I made it through with my eyes and all my fingers intact, so perhaps I have a biased view... ;)

QuantumJo

10-24-2007, 09:20 PM

Space Race Part Two?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15604095

Who will be mining Helium-3 on the moon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

QuantumJo

10-25-2007, 06:16 PM

Women command in space. STS-120 & ISS

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html

VAXman

10-29-2007, 06:46 AM

[QUOTE=QuantumJo;28566]Space Race Part Two?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15604095
Here's the chinese booster rocket: http://www.selstarfireworks.co.uk/images/thumbnails/signalrocket.jpg

QuantumJo

02-02-2008, 08:15 AM

The Beatles are about to become radio stars (http://www.congoo.com/news/2008February1/NASA-beaming-Beatles-tune-stars) in a whole new way.

Lellu

03-21-2008, 04:04 AM

in the latest issue (6/08) of Tekniikan Maailma (a finnish technics magazine) I noticed an interesting article dealing with common myths and beliefs. These seven medical beliefs were originally presented in British Medical Journal. What you see below is my rough translation/referate of the article written by Erkki Kauhanen.

Seven mortal sins

If science knew the concept of mortal sin, it would definitely refer to myths and beliefs that persistently live although there is no evidence to support them. The seven statements listed below are not true, however even most of the doctors believe in them.

1. We only use ten percent of our brian
Research does not support this belief. This myth was probably born in the beginning of the 20th century when phoneys wanted to convince people that they were not using their full braincapacity and offered courses that would fix the problem

2. It is good to drink at least eight glasses of water in a day
"No research supports belief, that a healthy human being would need so much water in normal conditions." says doctor Rachel Vreemann from the university of Indiana. This myth probably comes from the recommendation given by the Nutrition Council of USA in 1945. It said that a human being should get daily a dosage of liquid that equals eight glasses of water. However this also includes all the liquid that one gets from food (vegetables and meat for example contain lots of liquid) and of course the water contained in coffee, tee and other beverages.

3. Nails and hair grow even after death
They dont. It might seem like they do when death skin first withdraws a bit as it dries.

4. Shaved hair grows faster, stronger and darker
Plenty of researches show that this is not the case. A hair might feel stiffer when it is short. Some tones of hair might lighten in sun and a new hair might look darker for a while. The amount of pigment does not increase with shaving.

Reading in dim damages eyes
It does not. Dim light does strain eyes but it is only temporary.

6. Eating turkey makes one sleepy (probably best known in the USA)
Turkey indeed contains a certain amino acid (tryptofaani in finnish) that makes one sleepy in large doses, but all other meats contain it too and for example parmesan cheese has lots more of it.

Cellphones disturb machines in hospital
No evidence has been found for this urban legend.

-Lellu

Ps. I tried to do my best but the text probably still contains masses of grammar bugs. I hope you enjoyed (the text not grammar bugs).

Rick and Roll

03-21-2008, 06:26 AM

1. We only use ten percent of our brian
Researcs does not support this belief. This myth was probably born in the beginning of the 20th century when phoneys wanted to convince people that they were not using their full braincapacity and offered courses that would fix the problem

2. It is good to drink at least eight glasses of water in a day
"No research supports belief, that a healthy human being would need so much water in normal conditions." says doctor Rachel Vreemann from the university of Indiana. This myth probably comes from the recommendation given by the Nutrition Council of USA in 1945. It said that a human being should get daily a dosage of liquid that equals eight glasses of water. However this also includes all the liquid that one gets from food (vegetables and meat for example contain lots of liquid) and of course the water contained in coffee, tee and other beverages.

3. Nails and hair grow even after death
They dont. It might seem like they do when death skin first withdraws a bit as it dries.

4. Shaved hair grows faster, stronger and darker
Plenty of researches show that this is not the case. A hair might feel stiffer when it is short. Some tones of hair might lighten in sun and a new hair might look darker for a while. The amount of pigment does not increase with shaving.

Reading in dim damages eyes
It does not. Dim light does strain eyes but it is only temporary.

6. Eating turkey makes one sleepy (probably best known in the USA)
Turkey indeed contains a certain amino acid (tryptofaani in finnish) that makes one sleepy in large doses, but all other meats contain it too and for example parmesan cheese has lots more of it.

Cellphones disturb machines in hospital
No evidence has been found for this urban legend.

-Lellu

Ps. I tried to do my best but the text probably still contains masses of grammar bugs. I hope you enjoyed (the text not grammar bugs).

1. Some use 50 percent - it's the the 2 percent that brings the curve down!

2. Agreed. But most doctors I know don't subscribe to this.

5. If reading in dim light temporarily strains eyes, then there is a certain amount of cumulative effect. But agreed, no real effect on the eyes.

6. It does make you sleepy. But as you say some other foods do too. That doesn't mean turkey doesn't.That one's mostly from people trying to justify eating too much :)

7. Cell phones may or may not be a hazard in that setting. however, they CAN interfere with critical care equipment. But the signs you see mainly deal with consideration. So while you may be correct that it probably won't interfere with the functions of most equipment, there is enough evidence to state that it can.

Lellu, I was listening to some Kingston Wall on the way into work - speaking of Finland :)

Thanks for the interesting post, now I must work the rest of the day...

VAXman

03-21-2008, 07:56 AM

7. Cell phones may or may not be a hazard in that setting. however, they CAN interfere with critical care equipment. But the signs you see mainly deal with consideration. So while you may be correct that it probably won't interfere with the functions of most equipment, there is enough evidence to state that it can.
Mobile phones operating the the following frequency slots as per FCC allocation: 800MHz, 900MHz, 1.8GHz and 1.9GHz. Cell phones are limited to a maximum radiative power of 600mW and are typically much less. Jim can probably add more to this part of the discussion.

The biggest contributor to possible radio interference with medical equipment would be computers and wireless networking. The bands in use for wireless technology are 2.4GHz and, newer (802.11N), 5GHz. To put this into perspective, the frequency of the magnetron in the microwave oven is 2.45GHz. Wireless access points operate with radiative power of 100-500mW. Radiation at these frequencies is far more destructive than a cell phone. In large buildings, the FCC permits, under license, amplifiers of 1W, 3W and 5W to be used on WAPs.

That said, the EMI from these devices is moot. It is a teardrop in the ocean of the EMI emitted by a single fluorescent bulb. I've walked through many hospitals and doctor offices and I have never seen a warning that says do not turn on the lights because they can interfere with medical equipment. Ever wonder why CAT-5 and CAT-6 cable is UTP (unshielded twisted pair)? Office space fluorescent lighting emits so much EMI that it would interfere with straight (untwisted) cable. The twisting causes phase reversals all along the length of the cabling which effectively cancels inductive egress in the cable that would interfere with the signals. Even with UTP, I've had one or two sites where I've had to install STP (shielded twisted pair which comes at a higher price) to address EMI egress in the network runs. Typically, the problem was building code induce requiring me to put the network cables in existing runnels carrying other cabling which ran along side many fluorescent lighting fixtures.

See any old 'video tube' monitors in these facilities? These require the use of high voltage (in the range of 30KV) which is provided by a flyback transformer. The modern multi-sync monitor can have flyback frequencies from 30KHz to 150KHz. Even with shielding, such EMI is excessive.

Use of laptops prohibited? Complete rubbish! There is more computer electronics in the modern medical device that could interfere with itself than some laptop even sitting atop the medical device. The newer laptops are even better too. They run at much lower voltages giving them better battery life. Lower power consumption yields less power emitted as EMI. Units like my Powerbook, (all aluminium) use metal casing which doubles as the CPU's heat sink. From Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics: divB = 0 :: {i∂/∂x + j∂/∂y + k∂/∂z} • B = 0 :: Gauss's law These laptops shield the small GHz frequency EMI quit effectively.

These warnings, IMHO, come from mythconception and ignorance in the community.

Rick and Roll

03-21-2008, 08:19 AM

Interesting post...there is a lot of computer equip in the units...and I noticed they hooked York up with a computer when I was in -

Is Degauss the opposite of Gauss? :rolleyes:

and "mythconception"...I'd never heard that before - looked it up and it's different than misconception - cool term I'll have to work it in to the vocabulary :yougo

VAXman

03-21-2008, 09:26 AM

Interesting post...there is a lot of computer equip in the units...and I noticed they hooked York up with a computer when I was in -
Yeah, M's video EEG was hooked up to a recorder and monitored on a video-tube monitor. Equipment meant to sense micro/nano-volts of brain wave activity would certainly be susceptible to the EMI from a video tube.

Is Degauss the opposite of Gauss? :rolleyes:
Named after the German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauß (Gauss), the Gauss is a unit of magnetic flux. The term degauss came to mean a method applied to removing magnetic flux inherited in a material. The old TV repairman used to use a "degaussing" coil to remove inherited flux from the video mask of old TV picture tubes. Later designs employed a loop around the tube itself which would carry a diminishing (a 1/RLC time circuit) alternating current to degauss the tube's mask when the set was turned on.
FWIW, this too transmits a significant bit of EMI.

and "mythconception"...I'd never heard that before - looked it up and it's different than misconception - cool term I'll have to work it in to the vocabulary :yougo
It's not yet found in the Oxford Concise OED but it's become a common lexicon that has been incorporated in the more common dictionaries.

Lellu

03-21-2008, 01:16 PM

1. Some use 50 percent - it's the the 2 percent that brings the curve down!

2. Agreed. But most doctors I know don't subscribe to this.

5. If reading in dim light temporarily strains eyes, then there is a certain amount of cumulative effect. But agreed, no real effect on the eyes.

6. It does make you sleepy. But as you say some other foods do too. That doesn't mean turkey doesn't.That one's mostly from people trying to justify eating too much :)

7. Cell phones may or may not be a hazard in that setting. however, they CAN interfere with critical care equipment. But the signs you see mainly deal with consideration. So while you may be correct that it probably won't interfere with the functions of most equipment, there is enough evidence to state that it can.

Lellu, I was listening to some Kingston Wall on the way into work - speaking of Finland :)

Thanks for the interesting post, now I must work the rest of the day...

I would like to highlight that these are not in anyway my conclusions/opinions. I said that it was a translation/referate but I guess the right term would have been translation/summary. (I couldn't find "referate" from dictionary so it was probably pig's Latin :D)

About the turkey thing... The rest of the thing goes:
Instead, many researches have shown that eating lots of carbohydrates (sugars for example) increases the amounts of substances ("serotoniini" and "melatoniini" in finnish) that make one sleepy. Especially vegetable products contain lots of carbohydrates.
So the correct statement should be something like: "Eating food makes one sleepy"

This shows how important the context is... I apologise.

Ps. I don't have any Kingston Wall... yet. :(