Snow flakes and human thought

[xelasnave]

In an effrot to confine my thinking to astronomy related matters, the weather and human thinking consider this statement of "fact":) ..
No two snow flakes are the same.
How many times have we all heard this and being human repeat it as a fact?
I seize upon such a statement to suggest so much of science (and any other thing you care to mention really) is built sometimes upon an unsupported "fact"... having moved past the original premise all that follows icauses all the facts to be suspect.
So rather than accept the statement “that no two snow flakes are the same” one could suggest that evidence in support be offered... How many snow flakes were inspected and by whom to make this observation? Given that there are many snow flakes not inspected I find it curious that such a statement can firstly be made and secondly be universally accepted as a fact.
One could conclude that as physical laws dictate the formation of a snow flake that the same conditions will produce identical snow flakes...would we say no two helium atoms are the same I wonder.. Yet such a reasonable proposition has not been raised when the statement is made “no two snow flakes are the same”
It is of little consequence other than to draw attention to the human condition that it will demand absolute proof of some matters yet let others past without scrutiny.
When reading on cosmology it alarms me that such an approach can be found in many areas. Reading about background radiation I find similar approaches that although I notice it seems goes un noticed by folk one would expect to be absolutely critical of information that comes before them. It is very alarming but because of the dictates of the presentation of a “theory” calls for predictions any following analysis of data leans to fitting it to the theory.

Such an approach is letting us down:) .
Big bang theory fits into this criticism:eyepop: . It is most unfortunate that our view of our Universe must fit this model rather than minds kept open as to what other explanations the data may suggest.
Reading about background radiation tells me that all are convinced "no two snow flakes are the same" and from here they seek to establish the facts to suit the premise. Why is this so I ask and can only answer that humans like to be right about what they put forward and therefore find "the facts"suit their case.. (I do it myself I suspect:whistle: )
Data is being interrupted merely to support the theory and adjusted to suit the theory.
I feel that if such an approach was not universal we would learn more about this Universe we know so little about:) .
Yes it is cloudy here so what do you do? Hang on Sun is out (showing) going to grab some;) .
Alex

[xelasnave]

So my question is could it be possible that somewhere two snow flakes are the same?
alex

[Karls48]

There is one in serval hundreds million chances that two persons will have identical fingerprints. And there is one in serval billion chances that two persons will have identical DNA. Again I don’t know the sources of those claims, but it is often quoted in TV and detective kind of books. It is just a conceivable that there can be two identical snowflakes. I sometimes wander how the mathematicians come to these numbers. Ask them to calculate next draw Lotto numbers and they will tell you it is impossible. They would be dealing with random combinations of 48 numbers only, but they make prediction about random combinations of billions of possibilities

[styleman333]

You guys got way way too much time on your hands . I think about stuff like bills , getting the kids to bed and work .
I dont think ive ever contemplated once in my life whether two snowflakes are the same ...

[xelasnave]

Thanks for considering the matter Karl I feel so many things are drawn from a relatively small sample when one considers the opportunity and although reasonable in the case of the possibilities raised by identical fingure prints or DNA still because one has not sampled all that there is to be sampled the "test" becomes a rule rather than a possibility. A poll is an extreme example where the views of perhaps millions of people are concluded from a sample of the views of a mere 1000 or 2000 people. I hope a lawer does not get hold of the "snow flake"thing to throw DNA evidence out of court.
Thanks again.
alex

[xelasnave]

Perhaps an over simplification as how much time on ones hands is too much:shrug: . Still managed to think that up before I made a useful contribution in the role I was engaged in today... my way of surrendering slowly to the pressure facing me for the day..a day I have for that purpose completed..leaving a little free time for maybe a little thinking and reading:) .

I am fortunate that being old I have become selective of what I let take my time..also I am not trusted with the little important things as unfortunately I overlook their importance and often forget to do them:) .
Bills are taken care of by others because I dont like doing that sort of thing as with many other matters I find I simply do not like to do.
As to getting my daughter off to school I dont live at that address and only get to visit but any time she has free I am there for her and everything even iceinspace and astronomy takes second place to her need for a father and friend:) .
I enjoy thinking and having now the time to think a little but at 60 and being realistic about my life expectancy I really have very little time left on the planet certainly less than most folk;) ;) .
The post was in an effort to entertain rather than make any point and I hope if only for a moment it did this for you and others..and maybe provide a different conversation point for ones next dinner party:) .
best wishes
alex:) :) :)

[styleman333]

If i bring up the non similarities between snowflakes at a dinner party im gonna get a strange look off the one that must be obeyed and she'll be booking me in for evaluation on the monday lol
But good for you Alex , i as well as us all love your lateral thinking .....

Good stuff mate
Best wishes...

[xelasnave]

Thanks for what I will happily seize as a very nice compliment:) .
Thinking about your original observation, as I will for days to come;) , it occurred to me that the absence of TV provides time to think:eyepop: . And not having anyone in my life that must be obeyed perhaps gives me an advantage or indeed a disadvantage:shrug: mmm must think about that also:lol: :lol: :lol: ... I dont know how most have the time to pay bills and ferry the kids as I am too busy thinking:) .
Maybe to pay respect to the one that must be obeyed you could raise the matter in the context that you know of this poor old fella who without a wonderful lady to guide him has in effect lost it looking for identical snow flakes in temperatures that will see none .. work all information for your advantage and to access how lucky you really are:thumbsup: .
Thanks again
alex

[shredder]

Well I'll get in first...

No two snow flakes are the same. I dare you to prove me wrong and show me two snowflakes that are ;-)

M

[xelasnave]

OK just wait I am silly enough to go look..given the weather maybe we will get some snow.
alex

[avandonk]

Water or H2O is a very enigmatic compound. Without it life as we know is impossible. It is a solvent for more other elements and compounds than any other. The growth of ice crystals (snowflakes) depends on the conditions and the slightest variation of any variable will change the resultant morphology as the ice crystal growth is dendritic (branching) so leading to infinite variation.
Ice crystals do not follow the usual crystal growth rules such as salt (NaCl) for example.
The only rule for ice crystals is a quasi hexagonal packing of the water molecules.
I am going on memory not on Google or Wiki.
By the way freezing your body for later reviving is impossible as the ice crystals puncture every cell membrane in your body. Sorry Walt!

Bert

[Gargoyle_Steve]

Alex I understand what you are saying - at least I think I understand what you are saying mate ;) and I must admit that some days even that feat seems astounding.

I will say 2 words straight up for why no 2 snowflakes do not appear to ever be the same : Chaos Theory.

In addition though I think there are 2 ways to look at that old "adage" .... one is as indicated above (thanks Shredder), I think that if you try and find 2 identical snowflakes you might search for a thousand lifetimes and still never find an identical pair. Therefore for all practical purposes "no 2 snowflakes are alike".


However..... :P

Even if the chance of finding 2 that are the same is a billion, billion, billion, billion, etc, etc, etc to 1 - even an infinitely small chance is still a chance, and in an almost infinite universe (latest update I've heard this week is 46 billion light years across - that's a lot of water and a lot of possible snowflakes) there is still therefore a potential chance of 2 snowflakes, somewhere, being the same.

Summing up:

In practice - no 2 snowflakes are the same.

In theory - it's possible, at an incredibly low possibility level.

(Douglas Adams fans fire up your Infinite Improbablility drive, we have snowflakes to check)

I hope this promotes some further deep thought. Carry on chaps.

[venus]

This is way too mathematical for me to figure but scientists seem to have made some steps ....here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6466129.stm

[shredder]

I was only poking fun before....

Actually I do believe there are two or more snowflakes alike. While avandonk is corrent in that it relates to the crystal structure (which is highly variable) there is no reason why two snow flakes couldn't be the same, therefore at some time there will be two snowflakes that are the same. I remember looking into this years ago and the odds are relatively low for this occuring (relatively) and so the old story is just that....

And before anyone asks, no I dont have proof in my ice box.

M

[xelasnave]

Thank you Venus for posting that link:thumbsup: .

It gives me incite to why I can hold various conflicting emotional opinions about those fully engaged in mathematics..ranging from admiration of their ability to contempt for their stupidity;) .

Physics is ruled by mathematics which does not always lead one to acceptable conclusions yet given the proof before one and the wondrous minds that present "the facts" provide no option but acceptance:) .

It puzzles me how a theory can be proven to be so correct that it becomes a fact even in the absence of tangible proof:shrug: .
The theory of black holes for example... all forget that this animal was born on paper, lives on paper yet it has become "real" still remaining unfound. Oh I hear the cries but we can look to see that their influence is present even in our own galaxy. yes indeed:) if one is looking for unicorns fully established as a possibility ïn theory" and then finds the outline of a foot print in the shape that a horse may leave does that entitle one to proclaim "the idea is correct for a unicorn walked upon this very spot".. all will say how crazy for you to say such:lol: :lol: :lol: without thinking further about the human condition to which I point:shrug: ;) .

But for me until you have a unicorn in your stable that I can pat I will not accept such unsupported ideas:) .
But there are black holes!!!.. how long ago were they born, how eagerly humans wished for their existence, how happy they were when they found "tell tale"signs of their presence, happy enough to proclaim them as fact it seems;) ..yet there may be other explanations of the evidence happily seized upon to pronounce the theory as correct:) .

I say this is a premature conclusion based upon an expectation we were led to by a man playing with sums:) . It is convenient that a black hole hides its existence and identification by the very theory that gave it existence:D .

I think we could find and preserve two identical twin snow flakes before we conclusively prove the existence of a black hole:lol: :lol: :lol: .

AND my point finally is simply this... all things can be imagined and reasonable reasons presented as to why they should exist in the Universe but just because humans believe something to be so does not mean it will in fact be a tangible part of the real Universe irrespective of the sums or evidence provided by those eagerly expecting to find the object they seek:) .

A very thought provoking link Venus thanks again.

Alex:) :) :)

[xelasnave]

Very entertaining Bert:thumbsup: but you have just destroyed my plans for the future I had planned coming back one day to see if things got better but you worry me will the cell puncture thing..should not Walt (and a few others be told;) )..
AND all please remember to pay your bills and get the kids out of bed:) ... I am very proud of myself for I have voted in the State elections set for next Saturday....usually I miss the fact that there is an election or forget to go on the day, they send me a letter asking why and to enclose a payment with my explanation while they consider my fate..I over look that also but when the letter comes from the Motor Traffic Dept saying my drivers licence has been cancelled because I did not pay the fine I stop thinking and act..most times:lol: :lol: :lol: .. so by voting early Saturday will be mine to enjoy as I wish. AND although not with my daughter that day it isnt even a school day so how good is that?:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
alex:) :) :)

[xelasnave]

Steve said...
“ Alex I understand what you are saying - at least I think I understand what you are saying mate and I must admit that some days even that feat seems astounding”

I hope the problem is at your end as I try my best to communicate my thoughts not using words out of everyday use however I recognize that when I don’t review what I have typed the spelling errors and poor grammar must detract from my post:) .

I would not be offended if you pointed this out as a specific. In fact I try not to be offended by anyone’s view of me as all observations are usually valid:) .

I think you approached the matter with a balanced outlook and that shows wisdom in my view.
And remember this most everything I post is to provide a platform where others can have a chat and maybe entertain themselves whilst waiting for the clouds to clear.

All any of us can do is to contribute somehow, I see my contribution as offering alternatives and questions may provide others a chance for a friendly chat.. I am not against anything I am not for anything, I believe in everything yet accept very little and most times if I provide an opposing view it is simply because I feel acceptance of propositions occurs because of convenience and repetition of the proposition presented and life’s day to day pressures that allow little time for lengthy consideration of important (and unimportant issues)… If one looks out the selection of who will lead us both State and Federally and realize most will take more time choosing their next car than their next government you can understand my drift.
Thank you for your balanced contribution the "the chat"..
Alex

[xelasnave]

Shredder thanks for your contribution.
But that’s what we need most things are indeed “a joke” some very nice some cruel and evil. Most of what I post is very much to point out the joke that has been played upon us..
AND it is a joke finally that some will take me more seriously than I take myself:) .
In fact the post came from the joke that a Japanese “Doctor” has played upon many people world wide as to his proposition that water contains a memory and that there be “good” ice crystals and bad ice crystals:eyepop: .

A friend gave me his DVD to look at in the belief that I too would be converted to this way of thinking:screwy: .. Well the good doctor may be a Carleton;) but the DVD started with the statement “that no two snow flakes are identical” that was the first point he made and I seek to destroy each and every point he made that offers some mystical credibility to his unbelievable claims:) .

He presented ice crystals from “good water” which were nice and pretty and ice crystals from bad water that were deformed and ugly (by human assessment) … fair enough so far maybe but how anyone can take it past that point and accept by writing nice words and attaching it to the jar holding the water and produce pretty crystals and by attaching bad words produce ugly crystals:lol: :lol: :lol:

It is simply is a cruel joke to play upon people who must be missing part of their brain:) .

Needless to say he discovered all this and has helped over 10,000 people mmm maybe they paid him a fee:shrug: ..does that make it a joke or a crime I wonder:shrug: .. but these jokes are played upon people and although I find it funny in the extreme I find it sad that people can be parted from their cash with such ease.

Oh and there was a book..but is he in it for the money..no he is a hero taking two months of intensive research before the answers came..to bring tears to his eyes when the “break thru finally came”…:whistle: :lol: :lol: :lol: :mad2:

Still as big a joke as this is I find it difficult to laugh:mad2: .

When I see Mr Gore doing so much good to create an awareness that must prevail and find he has banked $46,000,000-00 I find it strange that most people fail to see the “funny” side. Add to that his mansion costs I believe $30,000-00 per annum in energy costs my smiles almost dies;)

When our Premier when asked about the Sydney rain and all he can do is to say... " but we still need a desalinator " again it is hard to enjoy the joke and laugh at others who do not see the humor;) .
This where would we all be if we could not take a joke?:lol: :lol: :lol:
Alex:) :) :)

[Gargoyle_Steve]

Yes Alex - my trying to "understand what you said" is a matter of my following your thought processes, so yes the problem is at my end of the phone line if you like!
;)

I thought you may enjoy my input - my having 2 bob each way as it were - and adding a little fuel to the fire of debate.

May there be many more such thought provoking chats - in fact I have a topic in mind, I've been keeping it "on hold" for a couple of days for when we need something new.

:eyepop:

[DobDobDob]

Snowflakes could be the same given a large enough sampling, just as finger prints can be and also DNA.

What you get today is that there is a one in 6 billion chance of DNA being the same, not the statements from a year or two ago that stated, it was not possible to be the same.

I agree Alex, too many sweeping statements are made, that may have originated in fact but once they become popularised, grabbed by the masses, driven by the media, they become a pseudo immutable law :whistle:

[xelasnave]

I indeed enjoy your input Steve I am more interested in what others have to say as I already know what I think...well I think I do.. and it was my attempt to accept the fault rather than pass it to you.. I cant wait for your new subject.
alex

[xelasnave]

Ron I guess what I am saying is we need to brush those sweeping statements aside.. thanks for your addition to this most serious matter.
alex

[DobDobDob]

You are agreeing with me, because that is what I said, using different words of course :whistle: we seem to be rather clever fellows you and me, do you think others share that sentiment? :D

[bloodhound31]

:scared2:

Thats all I have to say......................

Baz:stupid:

[xelasnave]

The clouds are rolling in so I have packed it all up.. Ron I am sure folk see you as a very clever fellow and indeed a very decent chap and I would agree with them in that regard but in truth they can only see me the way I present..strange and different and I doubt if clever springs readily into their thinking... chatty and verbose does not equate with clever it equates with boring and tiresome. I realise that and dont think ill of them or myself as a result. You see finally I really dont care I dont take things personally why should I its got nothing to do with me.
alex

[DobDobDob]

Good morning Alex, it's another day in my reality, and I would just like to say that if I am the only entity in existence (and that I created you with the enormous power of my mind) then I also command you to care about how I perceive that you perceive yourself. :whistle:

[xelasnave]

Hi Ron
I thought you were talking about how others may perceieve me which is not necessarily how I percieve myself...that is a different kettle of fish;) .
Some percieve me as knowing stuff they do not or that my experience in some things is worth paying for so as to benefit from my input:eyepop: .

Mate if there is one thing I enjoy is a very high opinion of my self worth and an almost arogant self confidence in most things I do. When I do something I go for it and give it everything I have got. I play to win always:) .
My point was simply that others views are often along the lines of ÿou can judge a book by its cover"... another sweeping statement I feel as the cover really tells one very little and more often is designed by the boys in marketing:D .
I recognise that being open and brash and prepared to stand up and say you think much of the science we accept is flawed will produce a predictable opinion from others:) ... I dont take their view as a personal affront:) .. those are their views on the little information they have to go upon... their opinions may be such as I predict or they may not.. but it does no concern me as I have no control upon others views and would respect their opinion ever if it was not complimentary..that is what I mean by I dont take anything personally:) .
I appreciate your concern that I may hold the view of myself that I can happily entertain others may hold of me and thank you for taking the time to express your concern:thumbsup: .
Thank you that is indeed a very decent way to care about others so I now not only see you as clever and decent but as a caring human:thumbsup: .. you can be proud of that I feel it is an uncommon quality and one that all should admire:thumbsup: :thumbsup: .
thanks again:)
alex :) :) :)

[ving]

er... my cats breath smells like catfood....

you guys... my brain hurst so much reading this.
I doubt there are 2 snow flakes the same but if they were lab created then i guess it is posible... not that i know this as a certainty...

:confuse3:

[xelasnave]

Ving I was hopeful that you would add a comment as I understand from my investigations you are the man when it comes to seeing double;) and I think you are indeed on the right track as one could imagine that if exactly the same conditions of creation exist in a controlled environment such as a dedicated "ïce lab" the proposition could be determined I expect with a reasonably small sample of snow flakes. Still the incoming news re fractals suggest there is room for an opposing view more along the line of Bert's arguement.. We really in the interest of unbiased observation need both of you on the review committee. Of course if two idnetical ones are found will they be rejected as simply exceptions to the rule:shrug:
alex

[DobDobDob]

I put it to you that two snowflakes may have been identical between 13 billion years ago and 5 billion years ago, whilst the laws of physics (then) existed. However in the last 5 billion years through till today, under different laws of physics, it is not possible.

Because the laws of physics are dynamic, they have an essence of their own and it changes over time, this is why we have failed to come up with a model for the creation of a galaxy. You would think that a fairly simple thing, but you will never find one, using Newtonian physics.

That's because when galaxies were being formed the rules were different. This is so simple, I just can't believe everyone hasn't come to the same conclusion yet.

Rather than waste time thinking of a set of rules (laws) that work for everything, it is more likely that the laws themselves changed. Therefore today's impossible was yesterdays reality.

Like you Alex, I want Ving to comment, because no one commands a better vocabulary than him and I have never laughed more in my entire life than when I read Ving's last post :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[xelasnave]

Because the laws of physics are dynamic, they have an essence of their own and it changes over time, this is why we have failed to come up with a model for the creation of a galaxy. You would think that a fairly simple thing, but you will never find one, using Newtonian physics.

Ron I can build anything or at least tell every one in the crew where I want things put and if they do their job and follow instructions will build anything even a galaxy.. at least I will try but in truth I dont think anyone even speculates upon how they are built theyu just appear at the time the sums suggest most convienient..
Current physics does not seek to build galaxies, current physics does not seek to explain the force of gravity ..current physics to be cruel takes notes of what is observes and set out sums to record what has taken place not how or why.
Current physics is not to be undersestimated in its application however it fails to explain the force that runs the place..gravity..gravity in its full implication explains everything. It is unfortunate that humans seek to explain things in terms of four forces and seek to explain only three leaving the most important force as almost non existent inserting in its place geometry that merely shows its influence not the animal itself. But that is what they work with for that is the best idea the best mind could suggest. But that was never enough.
Gravity holds the key so rather than tie the öther"forces to gravity the "other forces should be tied to gravity" and no explaination accepted that does not first provide how gravity plays the main part in that forces opperation.
Current theory expects to find things as the theory suggests yet no attempt has been to include gravity other than to explain it as a force of attraction a force never established by experiment but merely a belief seized from human experience. Attraction does not exist so dont look for dark matter you will never find it..it is not there.. it only has to be there to fit the human concept of attraction.. no attraction no dark matter.
And yes I can build a gallaxy or at least explain how they grow and evolve by leaving aside the concept that gravity attracts, and they somehow congregate around dark matter..its not there so that idea will not work..it (attraction and its love child dark matter does exist) and whilst humans include such a concept in their equations without any support from observation they will find no satisfactory answer..They will forever draw an incorrect conclusion in their attempts to solve gallaxy construction and such will remain a mystery along with most of the workings of the Universe.
There is no force of attraction everything exerts its influence by domination provided by particles that flow from it..but never back.. If in doubt ask yourself how can the force of attraction communicate? one body sends a message to another of its prescence waits for a return acknowledgement and there by start a relationship..I am here where are you..no never! each thing simply is and has no necessity to know where anyother thing in the Universe is in relation to itself.
I could be wrong but I could be the first one for whom the mystery has openned ... space time says nothing and string theory says more about nothing... neither offer anything more than a playground of sums.
The laws of the Universe are different to the laws of physics it is unfortunate that humans can not see the difference..the laws of the Universe have ruled it for all time and they simple boil down to everything presents its prescence to the Universe and pushes its particles out to annouce that is where it is..nothing more.
Tell me where you can go to escape one single star for all will reach you in time no matter where you go and whilst you seek to hide remeber that every star (object also seeks you out) and in that the pressure I call gravity is created without need for any object to be concerned about the existence of another.

alex
and yes I am irritated I could not go to the star party..does it show?
alex

[xelasnave]

Sorry to be brief I have a friend around here for a chat.
alex

[DobDobDob]

LOL hehehehe leave comedy to the comedians Alex :whistle:

[xelasnave]

But Ron I was not trying to be funny. I was in fact annoyed to have to entertain someone who had been drinking who if they had not could have driven me to the star party. Still is undelines the point some jokes are nice others are cruel I guess.
ANd Ving's joke was funny Simpson's humour is not lost on me.
alex

[DobDobDob]

Ahhhh (here comes another sweeping statement)....it's hard to see the forest from the trees with respect to your last post, I thought (notice I purposefully avoided the word assume) that you were joking, but now I know you weren't.....hmnnnn it's often difficult to interpret the written word without the aid of facial twitches and hand waving and other telltale clues we use when speaking. :P

[xelasnave]

Ron thats why I use the smilies as the way I sound is always grumpy:shrug: yet I am always happy:) . My humour is also such that your suggestion to leave such to the professionals is indeed a most valid point to make:thumbsup: .
You are more than clever decent and caring you are certainly wise..no joke:thumbsup:
alex

[DobDobDob]

Smilies are good, so is Don :whistle:

[xelasnave]

Who is Don Ron? is Don Ron?
alex

[DobDobDob]

Hahahaha no Don is not Ron, Don is Good, is a popular television commercial for a smallgoods company, the catchphrase is, "Don - is good", you have to say it with a deep voice :whistle:

[xelasnave]

IC IC you have fallen for one of those sweeping statements I feel..Upon what authority do you rely:lol: :lol: :lol: See I am being funny every body look I am making the joke with Ron:D .
alex:) :) :)

[DobDobDob]

Can you define exactly what part of your last posting was actually funny, let's say...in under 1,000 words :whistle:

[xelasnave]

Now Ron you know a joke loses its impact if you have to explain it;) .Still 1000 words seems to appeal somehow:lol: :lol: :lol:
alex:) :) :)

[DobDobDob]

Sorry, typo.... I forgot the decimal point, it was supposed to say, in under 10.00 words :whistle:

[xelasnave]

Well you lost me I am afraid:lol: :lol: :lol:
alex:) :) :)

[DobDobDob]

Okay, so consider the snowflake, if it changed form, i.e. melted to liquid, would not all liquid be the same, in chemical breakdown, but not in quantity?

So is a melted snowflake no less a snowflake, just because it's electrons are agitated? :whistle:

[xelasnave]

mmm I think I will start with identical amount of steam..that should do it. I think we are on the verge of a break thru Ron I see a new level of silliness can now be reached:D
alex:) :) :)

[DobDobDob]

Well for the record, I believe statements like, "No two snowflakes are the same" is a nonsense, but I totally agree that, "No two snowflakes are the same (Snowflake)".

You see the statement is both correct and incorrect at the same time, it's simply a question of which context you take the word 'same' in. The keyword is same, not snowflake.

So everyone wins this argument, regardless of which side they were on :whistle:

[xelasnave]

Which proves we are all winners here.. a wonderful observation Ron which brings up the absolutely riveting subject of context now there are various contexts to regard in analysing any word really. We have social and historic context which probably should be covered first before we look at sub groups within those contexts for example both social and histoic can include but not limit their application the economic context which should not be confussed with pure cultural context. Now the first indication we see histroically of the important of context ....hulo Ron people are leaving the street now we can look at that in the context of the lights out an example of one the one hand cultural context yet on the other political and indeed economic context.. the political context leaks into the area of economic context... but before I offer a detailed comment I feel I should let the moderators catch up.. the lights going out together with power may see them having server problem so in that context I will pick this up later. I am happy however to conserve power I will leave out smilies.
alex
alex

[DobDobDob]

You should not confuse context with intent. The basis of the spoken word should be that he who said it, owns the rights to let them mean whatever he intended. It is therefore not within the domain of the listener to make a determination as to what the speaker meant, although that is the primary purpose that the speaker spoke it :whistle:

[xelasnave]

mmm intent interesting you should bring that up as I have no opinion on intent other than its application to the criminal law.. Ron you have the advantage my battery on the lap top means I must conceed..hang on I was wrong but I can only offer a few short pages to outline the basics here;) .
alex:) :) :)

[DobDobDob]

Oh no, not the flat battery gambit :whistle:

[xelasnave]

a ploy to discover your vunrability to running out of power before I run out of ideas. you were expected to say something like.. oh my battery is near flat... and I would make my move. mm chess do you play Ron?
alex

[DobDobDob]

Are you really asking, "Do I play well?" or "Do I understand the moves, strategies and have the temperament to be a great player ala Fischer?", or are you just asking because you couldn't think of a better retort to my previous posting that was strictly science based and on topic :whistle:

[Sonia]

The short answer to the question is yes -- it is indeed extremely unlikely that two complex snowflakes will look exactly alike. It's so extremely unlikely, in fact, that even if you looked at every one ever made you would not find any exact duplicates.
The long answer is a bit more involved -- it depends on just what you mean by "alike," and on just what you mean by "snowflake." Let's look at the possibilities....

Small snow crystals can look alike. Now let's relax our definition of alikeness, and say that two snow crystals are alike if they just look alike in an optical microscope (the smallest features one can see in an optical microscope are about one micrometer in size, which is about 10000 times larger than an atom). In this case things are very different. One can find simple hexagonal prisms (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/primer/primer.htm) falling from the sky, and one can certainly make such simple crystals in the lab. The picture here shows two such crystals grown using the free-fall method (see Free-falling Snow (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/falling/falling.htm)).
Crystals with simple shapes often look similar to one another, and it's not hard to imagine that if you sifted through a reasonable number of Antarctic snow crystals you would find two that were essentially indistinguishable in a microscope. Since simple crystals are very common (one doesn't notice them much because they're small), it's fair to say that there are a great many natural snow crystals that look pretty much alike.
But that's only for simple hexagonal prisms. What about more complex stellar crystals?

Larger, complex snowflakes are all different. The number of possible ways of making a complex snowflake is staggeringly large. To see just how much so, consider a simpler question -- how many ways can you arrange 15 books on your bookshelf? Well, there's 15 choices for the first book, 14 for the second, 13 for the third, etc. Multiply it out and there are over a trillion ways to arrange just 15 books. With a hundred books, the number of possible arrangements goes up to just under 10158 (that's a 1 followed by 158 zeros). That number is about 1070 times larger than the total number of atoms in the entire universe!
Now when you look at a complex snow crystal, you can often pick out a hundred separate features if you look closely. Since all those features could have grown differently, or ended up in slightly different places, the math is similar to that with the books. Thus the number of ways to make a complex snow crystal is absolutely huge.
And thus it's unlikely that any two complex snow crystals, out of all those made over the entire history of the planet, have ever looked completely alike.

[xelasnave]

mmm only unlikey eh.:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sonia that was a fantastic post and the links so informative I love it:) .
Great stuff:thumbsup: .
I am going back to read more:) .
alex:) :) :)

[xelasnave]

why yes Ron thats exactly what I was asking:whistle:
alex

[DobDobDob]

Sonia, you made it all up - where is your empirical evidence :whistle:
(Kidding, kidding, it's an Aussie thing :P )

[xelasnave]

Sonia wins by a knockout in the 54th round:thumbsup: .
alex:) :) :)

[DobDobDob]

Yes but