Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Kaappaan Coincidence



https://www.newsbricks.com/entertainment/kaappaan-mohanlal-resembles-pm-modi/37118/amp?utm_source=whatsapp


The Movie has a lot to tell us about the fact that as Humans there will be consequences for one's actions.



Modi and Modern India
Modi exercising and PM exercising in the movie.
There were instances were it posted like, "Invest in India" which is similar to "Make in India".

Biblical coincidences:
Locust:

The book of Joel focuses on the fact that locust have destroyed the crops of Israel.

Image result for Joel 2 locusts"


It is only God who Saves:
Most dictionaries will translate Jesus' name (which was apparently more properly translated to Joshua than "Jesus") to be "God is salvation." "God is salvation" is a phrase that ascribes a passive quality to God. ... Yah is short for Yahweh, and shuah is from yeshuah which means "to save, save alive, rescue."

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Life's Greatest Questions

The Why?


Why Christianity has to be a true religion?
"Yes, Christianity is the one true religion. That may sound awfully dogmatic and narrow-minded, but the simple truth is that Christianity is the only true religion. Jesus said that He alone was the way to the Father (John 14:6), that He alone revealed the Father




Romans 1:19-21New American Standard Bible (NASB)

19 because that which is known about God is evident [a]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not[b]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.



Questions about conversion? Why converse for Money? Power and other things?


Question on religious freedom.

Why many versions(canonicity of the bible) ? Why many authors(4 Gospels)?

On Judgment - Where will we be if we die now? Should we really care about it?

On Sin and punishment? Is it right for us to Judge others Sins and punish them?

On Idol worship? Seeking for truth?

On Religion just being the projection of one's own culture and environment Vs Freewill and choice, Wrong view on relativism (Logical Fallacy)

Why Jesus has to be God? Why does not he prove that now, by appearing, miracles?

If one has to be born to be a Christian (Being Born Again) - One should be baptized in the name of Father, Son and holy spirit.


1 Corinthians 11:27 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.



John 8:44-45 King James Version (KJV)

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Lessons from the Movies



Life Is Beautiful:
Humbleness -


It's A Wonderful Life:



Pollyanna:
Turning the Bad into Good and Glad Games...



National Treasure:
Thomas Alva Edison -



Mission Impossible:




7am Arivu:
Parts of the Mobile - Don't know how to re-assemble so made it as The Chocolate - The McDonald Gift, The Bunny Gift...
Not to disclose the place - Mobile number.... Purchases....
Not to know the place - Bus and the confusions....
Dustbin and the habits...



Thupakki:
The Masterplan. - Finding the evidence.


Italian Job:


The Number 23:


Shutter Island:


the illusionist:



Prince of Persia



Source Code



The Gift - Echelon conspiracy



Saturday, August 16, 2014

Parable of the Invisible Gardener

Parable of the Invisible Gardener

The Parable of the Invisible Gardener is a tale told by John Wisdom. It was later developed in the university debate, by Antony Flew who made a few changes such as changing the gardeners to explorers. It is often used to illustrate the perceived differences between assertions based on faith and assertions based on scientific evidence, and the problems associated with unfalsifiable beliefs. The main point of the parable is that religious believers do not allow anybody to "falsify" their assertions, instead they simply change their beliefs to suit the questioner. This is why for Flew religious believers cause God to "Die the death of a thousand qualifications". The tale runs as follows:
"Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.' The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The skeptic doesn't agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differs from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all."
In the later additions of Flew, there is the addition of infra-red, and cameras and the garden/clearing is surrounded by an electrified fence. The gardener therefore must not only be undetectable, but intangible.




British philosopher of religion Antony Flew (1923-2010), writing as an atheist in 1955, expanded upon a parable designed to show that there is no difference between (God as) an “invisible gardener” and there being “no gardener at all.”
Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds.
One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.”
The other disagrees, “There is no gardener.”
So they pitch their tents and set a watch.
No gardener is ever seen.
“But perhaps he is an invisible gardener.”
So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well’s The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.)
But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry.
Yet still the Believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves.”
At last the Skeptic despairs, “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”
John Frame counters with a parable of his own:
Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle.
A man was there, pulling weeds, applying fertilizer, trimming branches. The man turned to the explorers and introduced himself as the royal gardener. One explorer shook his hand and exchanged pleasantries.
The other ignored the gardener and turned away: “There can be no gardener in this part of the jungle,” he said; “this must be some trick.”
They pitch camp. Every day the gardener arrives, tends the plot. Soon the plot is bursting with perfectly arranged blooms.
“He’s only doing it because we’re here—to fool us into thinking this is a royal garden.”
The gardener takes them to a royal palace, introduces the explorers to a score of officials who verify the gardener’s status.
Then the skeptic tries a last resort: “Our senses are deceiving us. There is no gardener, no blooms, no palace, no officials. It’s still a hoax!”
Finally the believer despairs: “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does this mirage, as you call it, differ from a real gardener?”
—John M. Frame, “God and Biblical Language: Transcendence and Immanence,” God’s Inerrant Word, ed. J. W. Montgomery (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1974), p. 171.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Butterfly effect

Butterfly effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Butterfly effect (disambiguation).
Point attractors in 2D phase space
In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependency on initial conditions in which a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state. The name of the effect, coined by Edward Lorenz, is derived from the theoretical example of the details of a hurricane (exact time of formation, exact path taken) being influenced by minor perturbations equating to the flapping of the wings of a distant butterfly several weeks earlier. Lorenz discovered the effect when he observed that runs of his weather model with initial condition data that wasrounded in a seemingly inconsequential manner would fail to reproduce the results of runs with the unrounded initial condition data. A very small change in initial conditions had created a significantly different outcome.
Although the butterfly effect may appear to be an unlikely behavior, it is exhibited by very simple systems. For example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill may roll into any surrounding valley depending on, among other things, slight differences in its initial position. Also the randomness of throwing adice depends on this system's characteristic to amplify small differences in initial conditions - the throw - into significantly different dice paths and outcome, which makes it virtually impossible to throw a dice exactly the same way twice.
The butterfly effect is a common trope in fiction, especially in scenarios involving time travel. Additionally, works of fiction that involve points at which the storyline diverges during a seemingly minor event, resulting in a significantly different outcome than would have occurred without the divergence, are an example of the butterfly effect.


Chaos theory and the sensitive dependence on initial conditions was described in the literature in a particular case of the three-body problem by Henri Poincaré in 1890.[1] He later proposed that such phenomena could be common, for example, in meteorology.[2]
In 1898,[1] Jacques Hadamard noted general divergence of trajectories in spaces of negative curvature. Pierre Duhem discussed the possible general significance of this in 1908.[1] The idea that one butterflycould eventually have a far-reaching ripple effect on subsequent historic events first appears in "A Sound of Thunder", a 1952 short story by Ray Bradbury about time travel (see Literature and print here).
In 1961, Lorenz was using a numerical computer model to rerun a weather prediction, when, as a shortcut on a number in the sequence, he entered the decimal 0.506 instead of entering the full 0.506127. The result was a completely different weather scenario.[3] In 1963 Lorenz published a theoretical study of this effect in a well-known paper called Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow.[4] (As noted in the paper, the calculations were performed on a Royal McBee LPD-30 computing machine.[5]) Elsewhere he said[citation needed] that "One meteorologist remarked that if the theory were correct, one flap of a seagull's wings could change the course of weather forever." Following suggestions from colleagues, in later speeches and papers Lorenz used the more poetic butterfly. According to Lorenz, when he failed to provide a title for a talk he was to present at the 139th meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1972, Philip Merilees concocted Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? as a title. Although a butterfly flapping its wings has remained constant in the expression of this concept, the location of the butterfly, the consequences, and the location of the consequences have varied widely.[6]
The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that may ultimately alter the path of a tornado or delay, accelerate or even prevent the occurrence of a tornado in another location. Note that the butterfly does not power or directly create the tornado. The Butterfly effect does not convey the notion - as is often misconstrued - that the flap of the butterfly's wingscauses the tornado. The flap of the wings is a part of the initial conditions; one set of conditions leads to a tornado while the other set of conditions doesn't. The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale alterations of events (compare: domino effect). Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different - it's possible that the set of conditions without the butterfly flapping its wings is the set that leads to a tornado.
The butterfly effect presents an obvious challenge to prediction, since initial conditions for a system such as the weather can never be known to complete accuracy. This problem motivated the development of ensemble forecasting, in which a number of forecasts are made from perturbed initial conditions.[7]
Some scientists have since argued that the weather system is not as sensitive to initial condition as previously believed.[8] David Orrell argues that the major contributor to weather forecast error is model error, with sensitivity to initial conditions playing a relatively small role.[9][10] Stephen Wolfram also notes that the Lorenz equations are highly simplified and do not contain terms that represent viscous effects; he believes that these terms would tend to damp out small perturbations.[11]

Illustration[edit]

The butterfly effect in the Lorenz attractor
time 0 ≤ t ≤ 30 (larger)z coordinate (larger)
TwoLorenzOrbits.jpgLorenzCoordinatesSmall.jpg
These figures show two segments of the three-dimensional evolution of two trajectories (one in blue, the other in yellow) for the same period of time in the Lorenz attractor starting at two initial points that differ by only 10−5 in the x-coordinate. Initially, the two trajectories seem coincident, as indicated by the small difference between the z coordinate of the blue and yellow trajectories, but for t > 23 the difference is as large as the value of the trajectory. The final position of the cones indicates that the two trajectories are no longer coincident at t = 30.
Java animation of the Lorenz attractor shows the continuous evolution.

Theory and mathematical definition[edit]

Recurrence, the approximate return of a system towards its initial conditions, together with sensitive dependence on initial conditions, are the two main ingredients for chaotic motion. They have the practical consequence of making complex systems, such as the weather, difficult to predict past a certain time range (approximately a week in the case of weather) since it is impossible to measure the starting atmospheric conditions completely accurately.
dynamical system displays sensitive dependence on initial conditions if points arbitrarily close together separate over time at an exponential rate. The definition is not topological, but essentially metrical.
If M is the state space for the map f^t, then f^t displays sensitive dependence to initial conditions if for any x in M and any δ > 0, there are y in M, with 0 < d(x, y) < \delta  such that
d(f^\tau(x), f^\tau(y)) > \mathrm{e}^{a\tau} \, d(x,y).
The definition does not require that all points from a neighborhood separate from the base point x, but it requires one positive Lyapunov exponent.

Examples[edit]

The butterfly effect is most familiar in terms of weather; it can easily be demonstrated in standard weather prediction models, for example.[12]
The potential for sensitive dependence on initial conditions (the butterfly effect) has been studied in a number of cases in semiclassical and quantum physics including atoms in strong fields and the anisotropic Kepler problem.[13][14] Some authors have argued that extreme (exponential) dependence on initial conditions is not expected in pure quantum treatments;[15][16] however, the sensitive dependence on initial conditions demonstrated in classical motion is included in the semiclassical treatments developed by Martin Gutzwiller[17] and Delos and co-workers.[18]
Other authors suggest that the butterfly effect can be observed in quantum systems. Karkuszewski et al. consider the time evolution of quantum systems which have slightly different Hamiltonians. They investigate the level of sensitivity of quantum systems to small changes in their given Hamiltonians.[19] Poulin et al. presented a quantum algorithm to measure fidelity decay, which "measures the rate at which identical initial states diverge when subjected to slightly different dynamics". They consider fidelity decay to be "the closest quantum analog to the (purely classical) butterfly effect".[20] Whereas the classical butterfly effect considers the effect of a small change in the position and/or velocity of an object in a given Hamiltonian system, the quantum butterfly effect considers the effect of a small change in the Hamiltonian system with a given initial position and velocity.[21][22] This quantum butterfly effect has been demonstrated experimentally.[23] Quantum and semiclassical treatments of system sensitivity to initial conditions are known as quantum chaos.[15][21]

Monday, July 14, 2014

how does bee know hexagon?




How does the Bee know the shape of Hexagon? Where did they learn from?


Honeycomb is one of the most amazing structures. The structure is a result of an amazing effort by which the volume and precision of containing the honey is most optimistic.

Take a look at the following diagrams....





Honeybees are some of nature's finest mathematicians. Not only can they calculate angles and comprehend the roundness of the earth, these smart insects build and live in one of the most mathematically efficient architectural designs around: the beehive. Zack Patterson and Andy Peterson delve into the very smart geometry behind the honeybee's home. 




Friday, June 27, 2014

Straw that broke the camel's back


The idiom the straw that broke the camel's back is from an Arabic proverb about how a camel is loaded beyond its capacity to move or stand.[1] This is a reference to any process by which cataclysmic failure (a broken back) is achieved by a seemingly inconsequential addition, a single straw. This also gives rise to thephrase "the last/final straw", used when something is deemed to be the last in a line of unacceptable occurrences. Variations include "the straw that broke thedonkey's back", the "melon that broke the monkey's back", the "feather that broke the camel's back", and the "straw that broke the horse's back".
One of the earliest published usages of this phrase was in Charles Dickens's Dombey and Son (1848), where he says "As the last straw breaks the laden camel's back", meaning that there is a limit to everyone's endurance, or everyone has his breaking-point. Dickens was writing in the nineteenth century and he may have received his inspiration from an earlier proverb, recorded by Thomas Fuller in hisGnomologia: Adages and Proverbs as "'Tis the last feather that breaks the horse's back". Mark Twain also used a variation of this phrase in his book The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), "this final feather broke the camel's back"