text:
- Josh Mayourian
- Roslyn, NY
- United States
Student , Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
This conversation is closed.
Will we ever truly be able to model nature?
My Bioelectricity professor Nina Tandon recently gave a TED talk "Caring for engineered tissue" and I was amazed how we are able to copy the environment of artificially grown cells. There are many techniques used to reduce error and create accurate results. Such amazing replications allow us to grow artificial hearts and bones, enhancing research opportunities on these
parts of the body. This made me wonder how successful we are at modeling
other living systems, so I watched the TED talk "Robert Full on engineering and evolution." Many years ago, engineer's claimed bees shouldn't be able to fly, dolphins shouldn't be able to swim, and geckos shouldn't be able to climb from their calculations. However, in the past few years we've been able to explain these phenomenons, showing how much we have progressed. Through watching these great talks, I was curious: How close are we to modeling nature and making predictions without ideal assumptions? Will we ever be able to reach this point and truly copy nature?
E Pines
Mar 7 2012: Some 32 years ago, Prof. Stephan Berko of Brandeis University introduced his Quantum Mechanics course with the following question: "Why do we know that there is a law of conservation of energy (or more generally, 'mass' – combined matter and energy)?" After patiently listening to my class's answers, he responded that they were all wrong. "We do not know logically that there is such a law, rather we perceive the same pattern repeatedly, so we assume such a law." It was a seminal insight.
- +11
The "theory of everything" or TOE remains a myth even as the ever-growing plethora of multidimensional "string" models in physics vie for this holy grail. Even where predicting aspects of perceived reality beyond those upon which it was predicated, a TOE certainly doesn't account for itself. It is claimed that the "ultimately" refined "true" TOE will be shown to require itself. A physical object turned in a complete circle will come back into itself, a cleverly constructed circular logic would do the same for a TOE. It would be worse than meaningless, however, as now that circular logic created would need explanation by the TOE. Further, the notion that translating perception into theorem creates any new information at all, much less complete knowledge, is plain wrong. [Even in pure mathematics! – see Gregory Chaitin's "Omega and why maths has no TOEs," at: http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/omega/]
No theory could deal with "Everything" unless it contained it, and only Infinity itself can do this. Absolute Infinity, however, has no definition, no boundaries, no rules, and so no exclusions. There can be no laws of chance, no laws of causality, but therefore, certainly no TOE.
Our goal then must be to perceive with greater accuracy and ever improve model. The true possibility to the next step in this is the joining of Humanity as a whole, a single mind like natural communities in Nature.. The Internet and true mutual responsibility may be all that we need.
david prosser
Mar 7 2012: Great analysis E Pines.
- +10
One thing I'd like to do is address the last overlying question Josh asks above: "Will we ever be able to reach this point and truly copy nature?"
And the question I have for this is, "What is the intention for wanting to do so?"
Because since civilizations beginnings man has built collective stories, throughout all the various cultures of the world, which distance mankind from Nature, pit us above her, or in some eternal struggle against her.
So, it seems that if we are to come to copy Nature then we will have to resolve this outlook. And that's where new education can come into the picture: To wipe away the old myths we have about Nature and each other.
And like E Pines says, "... the next step in this is the joining of Humanity as a whole, a single mind like natural communities in Nature." And that's another fundamental element that can't be separated from the search to copy Nature.
So I think that the first step in this process, of wanting to copy Nature, is proceeding according to how we see Nature operate: As an all inclusive system. And from my perspective, we are the only ones out of balance in this system.
So if we want to copy Nature (and yes please), then we must learn to adapt ourselves to Nature. And, given our collective history as a species, this doesn't come naturally to us. We need new education, devised with the goal of, "adapting us to Nature," to be created and then distributed to everyone (so not just education for children or young adults; but for everyone, since it takes a united humanity to come into balance, or to copy Nature).
Ami krieger
Mar 7 2012: Our possibilities to copy nature as engineers will always be limited no matter how well quipped and knowledgeable we are as long as our sole motivation is the use of nature for our own narrow self benefit. In that case we can also expect, as Sohelia commented, that our acts and products of engineering will also cause damage: Since we don't see the picture as a whole and are not capable to perceive and capture how nature works as an integral one system, by manipulating parts of nature we will necessarily harm other parts of it. Genetic engineering had proved so not once. Therefor, it seems that our only chance to truly model nature lies on a different level of understanding or more accurately on a different, higher level of consciousnesses: Only when we will be able to transform ourselves, our qualities, our minds and hearts, to those which resemble the force of nature, the upper thought or force, shall we be able to truly model nature. The principle of "equalizing of form" is a basic principle in spiritual methodologies. It tells us that by changing ourselves, our egoistic nature, we acquire new sense and intelligent and can gradually adhere to the upper force of nature. When we shall reach that state we will be able to exist in full harmony and balance with ourselves and with nature and maybe will not need to engineer nature at all...Mar 7 2012: Will we ever be able to truly model nature?
- +8
The answer to this, in my view, depends entirely on one's intention.
The infiniteness of nature is something that science has yet to fully reveal. Every time the microscope reaches to further smallness, the complexity grows, and every time the macroscope reaches further, the seeming limits increase.
Perhaps science serves one better when it asks a different question: What is nature? That nature's forms have continually eluded our greatest technologies throughout all history, and its integrally intermingled and intertwined systems are so beautifully interdependent that mankind cannot predict its effects, begs a different question and a different application of science that better serves all of our global human family and our wondrous Universe.Mar 1 2012: One issue is modeling... another is the degree to which the models are accurate... and a third is how far out they remain accurate to some agreed-upon degree -- and when the Butterfly Effect makes them useless. The problem in modeling is feedback loops which amplify small divergences into enormous ones. Sometimes these are major factors (as in weather forecasting) and sometimes there are no divergences (as in modeling the acceleration of a falling apple). The real issue is knowing the characteristics of the aspect of our natural world we're trying to model...... We might reflect that all models are *approximations* and *simplifications* of reality and therefore there's a difference between the more comprehensible model and the incomprehensibility of the more variegated reality being modeled. The only exact model of the universe would be an exactly identical universe... and what use would that be, even if it were possible.....
Mar 1 2012: Thomas
Thank you for this comment and you actually wrote what I was going to say. Lorenz was correct, simple dependence on initial conditions is always how the model turns out something "similar." But is finally similar not exact. I laugh sometimes at the "5-day forecast". Ok sometimes they are right, but sometimes, you just want to say turn off the computer and look out the window. A great answer to this very good question.
Josh, I think we approximate well a number of things. non-linear dynamics says I think, good job, but you forgot this little tweak.
Mar 1 2012: Thomas and Michael,
Using Runge-Kutta methods when programming to approximate, we are able to estimate very well, but only in an ideal setting. Nature is far from an ideal setting. Therefore, I totally agree with you, as nature is so complex that changes would occur in a way that no approximation method used will be able to model perfectly.
Sophie Rand
Mar 2 2012: I agree that we could get close to accuracy, but what would be the point? Getting near accuracy is good enough in most cases-- in engineering we make assumptions so often-- linearity, frictionless, causal...all these things which help us vastly to come up with solutions to natural problems, without needing to truly imitate those natural phenomena.
- +3
Mar 7 2012: There seem to be two directions that this question is being attacked. One from the point of view of whether or not we can create a model for how nature works, how molecules interact to produce the visible results we see in our daily lives. The second is to look at specific instances of how we can use materials to mimic the properties of nature. I will attempt to answer the latter question. In my tissue engineering class as well as my biomechanics class we have been shown over and over again, whether it be a replacement for a material replacement for a tendon or an artificial knee replacement, these artificial replacements cannot match up to those of the native tissues they are replacing. For example, while we might be able to find a material that is capable of reproducing a single material property of the native tendon for example elasticity, the replacements will always fail with respect to a different material property for example strength. To this end, tissue engineering takes as an assumption that in order to truly model a native tissue from the body or in nature in general, the material must be made up for the most part of the same constituent parts as the native one. The question then becomes not finding a material that matches the properties, but rather a set of environmental conditions which will allow a living tissue to grow and gain the same material properties as the native tissue.
Mar 7 2012: I replied to your comment on being human (it did not have a reply button and your email isn't accessible).....I will come back to erase this one in a few minutes.
- 0
MaryMar 6 2012: Hello Thomas,
I agree that every model is inherently a simplification of reality. Certainly, this is acceptable for most applications. Going back to the weather example, it is usually not completely devastating if the meteorologist tells us that it's going to rain in the morning but it actually rains in the evening. But, what about tissue engineering applications, to which Josh referred in his original question? Is an approximate model of human tissue sufficient in the in vitro cultivation of tissues and organs for implantation? Of course, due to various technological limitations, tissue engineers will probably never be able to copy nature exactly. Still, it seems that an "almost perfect" imitation of nature is required in tissue engineering. To maximize the chances that a laboratory-grown transplant will successfully integrate into a human body, the transplant should be an exact match to the tissue or organ that it was grown to mimic.
Mar 6 2012: In my view, the best way to be successful at modeling is first to accept that you can't make a model with infinite accuracy and precision--That's why it's called a model. Next, you have to carefully decide which assumptions you're willing to make, and you have to justify them. Ideally, you should be able to quantify the error: "You should get the right answer within 15%", for example, so that the results are unequivocal, not to be misconstrued as an exact representation, but also not to be disregarded as a mere guess. Of course, it so many disciplines such as biology and economics, the systems are so complex that the error propagation quickly blows up.
My question regards the areas in which we currently have good models, and the areas in which we can use models to make the jump from science and discovery to engineering and design. In medicine, for example, researchers have been using animal models for years and years. However at this point, and correct me if I'm wrong, few computational models are at the point where we where we would base the treatment of a patient on model results.
In Electrical Engineering, however, we have fantastic modeling software that will model many, many types of circuits with very good accuracy. In my engineering design classes, I've used models to get a good idea of what a good design might be, and then gone through iterations of trial and error in the lab before making the final product. But some VLSI circuits are not so easy to test in the lab, and designers heavily rely on simulations.
When, if ever, will we make the leap from pure discovery to design and implementation using computational modeling of complex systems like weather, medicine, ecology, economics....Mar 6 2012: As Veronica said, I think that the level of accuracy that we need for a model truly depends on the situation or system we are trying to understand. Sometimes a model does not even need to be accurate to teach an idea. Although the lock and key model of an enzyme reaction has long been disproved, it is still the way that the concept is initially introduced to students because of the relationship and parallel they can draw to everyday life. Once that idea is understood, instructors proceed to inform their students that the model approximates more of an induced fit process rather than a perfect one to one connection.
Bill Gehling
Mar 7 2012: Question: Why build a model when the real thing exists?
- +2
An answer: Because we can't perform experiments on the real thing (eg for ethical reasons) or because we can't use it to predict the future.
It follows that: the model has to have more properties than the real thing, such as the ability to run it forward in time, or be subject to changed or postulated conditions. Therefore the model has to be in some way different to the real thing (not just a copy), as well as subject to the limitations of the human modeller and the modelling process. This is not to say that based on our (albeit inadequate) modelling abilities as humans, we couldn't invent or engineer something that is more useful and in some sense better than the real thing. Nor is it to deny the possibility that for physical and some biological processes we might build models that capture all their essential properties. But given that we are humans and the entire natural world is the product of 6 bn years of evoluton (or a God or a combination of both) then its hardly likely that one generation of us will be ablle to build a complete model of nature. We can already copy it and sex is more fun anyway.Mar 6 2012: "According to engineer's calculations..."
Not to detract from the insightful and interesting comments so far but I do have to ask, has anyone else looked into this claim? I feel that this discussion is great and I've enjoyed reading every one's opinions but I do feel that we are doing the pursuit of science and ourselves a disservice in accepting that quotation at face value.
We actually have an increasingly good understanding of how bees fly, geckos stick, and dolphins swim. There have been many interesting and exciting advances in these areas which sadly are not always widely publicised. Myths like these are perpetuated in the popular consciousness in part because people never hear about advances and assume none have been made.
But advances have been made and continue to be made. For instance, the realization that air viscosity is different on the insect scale in combination with high speed photography at Caltech has us well on our way to modeling the bee. Want to know how geckos stick, check out the work at Lewis & Clark College's gecko lab it's neat stuff. As for dolphins according to the math being unable to swim, that notion was proposed in the 1930's and we've come a long way in our understanding since then.
There is nothing wrong with saying we don't know how something works yet, that is exciting, that means there is something more to discover, that is the heart of science, but myths like these are harmful.
Countless people have worked really hard to get us to our current level of understanding. So please lets continue the discussion but perhaps we can take a moment to give credit where credit is due.
Mar 7 2012: I was just about to write a similar response to Brendan, I am in complete agreement.
I would also add that discoveries in the field of mathematics with regards Chaos theory and the more popularly known 'Butterfly effect' mean that we can now prove, mathematically, that it is nigh on impossible to predict complex systems present in nature, unpredictability is wired into their very fabric. What I find amazing about this is that, instead of predicting nature in the way that so many hoped we could given enough information and computing power, we can now prove mathematically exactly why we will never be able to predict complex systems present in nature with any degree of certainty and even more remarkably still we have been able to go one further and use this to explain the extraordinary variety present in nature, as the 'Mandelbrot set' visualisations eloquently describe.
To conclude I think that human understanding has advanced so rapidly in these fields that the questions raised by Josh are no longer relevant.
In short, to answer Josh's question - 'No' and it's likely that we never will with any degree of accuracy ...and here's the maths that explains why!Mar 6 2012: As to the general question, of course we can model nature. How accurate our model will be will of course depend on the scale of representation and what we seek to accomplish. The good news is that we don't actually have to form a complete model of the universe to understand how that model functions: general laws and principles can be used to give us (at least as ceteris paribus definitions) laws that allow us to generalize phenomenon: often to a degree where we can find the specific mechanics involved. Once we have the general rules, we can apply them to a specific circumstance and (if our model is more or less accurate) we can describe the phenomenon as it will occur.
However,we DO know (or at least, have a very strong idea) of how bees fly, dolphins swim, and geckos climb. Some quick links that I found with a brief Google search:
Bees flying:
Dolphins swimming:
Geckos climbing:
There are some mysteries out there, but these are often touted as areas that "science has failed to solve," which first, isn't indicative of the process of science and second, isn't factually true. In cases where science has not yet penetrated a phenomenon and discovered an adequate rule or set of rules to describe how the phenomenon occurs, that doesn't actually indicate a problem with our ability to model but rather indicates that we have not yet modelled the phenomenon accurately. If we believe ourselves to have a complete model and something is still unexplained, that may indicate a flaw with our model, it may indicate we are asking the wrong sort of question, or it may indicate that we are mistaken about a general principle of the phenomenon in question. In any of these cases, it doesn't indicate that we cannot, in principle, model the phenomenon.Mar 6 2012: My question is why we are trying to model nature, why we want to do the nature's job. In one hand we destroy it and on the other hand we want to model it, to copy it, to do something like it and finally to fix it . who are we? We are just part of it.
Is it time to leave the nature alone and let it do its job? not to destroy it, no to copy it and not to model it.
Mar 6 2012: I think the answer is that it is incredibly useful to have an accurate model of nature. If I want to know how to stop a building from being demolished by an earthquake or a tornado, I need an accurate idea (or model) of how earthquakes and tornadoes generally cause their damage.
There are a lot of things in the world that could be better, and we want them to be better. In the end, that requires accurate information, which can be expressed in terms of models, as well as the general rules used to build those models.
So I guess my answer is that we model nature because we hope to use the rules we find to improve our lives and the lives of others around us: cure disease, improve the quality of food, build structures, the list goes on.
Mar 7 2012: It's interesting the two different effects of modeling nature you both discuss. In a different post, Soheila, you bring up a very important negative result of our knowledge being applied to nature (pollution). However, Anthony discusses how modeling nature can lead to resolving some of the greatest problems faced by individuals.
This theme of effects of modeling nature seems like a great topic, and I'd love to hear more people's views on this!
Philip Snape
Mar 7 2012: My thoughts would be that we as humans must exercise our ability of freewill as a core part of our human nature. Our ability to grow knowledge is secondary, yet equally as important since we are too far into history to just 'walk away and pretend like nothing happened'.
- +1
So, if we are to grow our ability of freewill (choice), some would say that we must first have knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, correct and incorrect etc.
Surely though, growing our willpower to choose good, right, correct choices that will be best for the planet and the human species as a whole, does not require us to experiment with every other option until our resources are exhausted.
Hmmmm.... perhaps this all sounds more like gospel than ideas, but will there ever be a time in history where humankind will become perfect? And what would humankind do with the key of life if it became ours? If we were able to replicate and manipulate any aspect of nature, would we use it for good or evil? Creation or destruction?
Debra Smith
Mar 3 2012: I don't think we will, Josh but I am not daunted by that because it is already there for us to view, imitate and be inspired by. in the attempt though, I think we will learn astounding amounts.
- +2
Andrew Tam
Mar 5 2012: Agreed. To me, a perfect model of nature would be one that evolves with time. In order to do this, we must be able to accurately predict evolutionary changes. Seeing that it has taken nature billions of years to get us where we are, I don't see how we would be able to mimic this evolution in models that we create.
- +1
Looking back from our vantage point, we might be able to reason why some developments happened; we can logic and think our way through them. However, what nature did was different; evolution seemed more or less like a "go with the flow" kind of process. There was no real thought process or brain power behind it, it just happened, maybe instinctively. I think this difference alone is enough to set us apart from nature - nature always seems to be one step ahead of us without thinking, while we think and struggle only to make less than perfect imitations of what nature has already provided.Mar 1 2012: I think the fact we abuse the reductive -> deductive process in science makes us miss out of a lot of realities...
I read an interesting article a while ago about the difference between the metaphysics of the East and West in historical fashions. The author suggested that in the West we dominated primarily on the idea matter is static - matter is constantly the same. While in the East they developed the idea of Chi into their matter - matter is constantly changing.
Recently Alfred Whitehead coined the term "process philosophy" yet this idea of philosophy is evidently not new. The idea that "all is change" is an ancient one from Heraclitus. Less ancient would be the Chan Buddhist or Zen Buddhism.
We can "copy" nature, but we need to seriously change our methods. Einstein had to create practical geometry in order to conclude relativity theory. Indeed we are all not creative-academic geniuses, but 3 or 4 or 10 minds can do what one man could never do today with our amount of information.
We need fuzzy logic and process philosophy as our primary tools of interpreting nature (reality), just like the ancients suggested, just new vocabulary and new methods. Look at how much psychology is going in circles due to lack of new methods...
We still seriously believe there is one intelligence rather than multiple (in the majority) and such phrases as "you are intelligent" cripple our interpretation of others, because we are all intelligent in something; even if it's building a car from scratch or creating a theorem.
Finally, education needs to change... Filling little kids up with useless facts is child abuse to me... Because it cripples them of learning how to think and being a true individual anarchist (Thoreau) - not this Generation Me crap I have to deal with in my age group.
If all is change than we should be taught how to adapt perceive that change...which takes education; without training in the mental realm we are slaves to our physiology.
Good topic.
Mar 1 2012: Nicholas,
You bring up so many great ideas as to what methods we need to change in order to truly model nature. I have always felt strongly about the last point you make, and it was definitely something I was considering when posting this question. In my high school and middle school math and science classes, the goal was mainly to make sure one remembered and regurgitated ideas. I would take a class and forget everything I learned by the time the summer break was over!
As an undergraduate engineering student, I have taken many math and science courses. However, the approach taken is very different to how it was in high school, and I've gotten to appreciate it greatly. There are so many derived formulas in courses, but professors don't find it vital for us to memorize them. They find it most important that we understand the basics, and are able to think to become true problem solvers. It's great that I now come out of classes remembering the basics, and always keeping the problem solving techniques that could apply to these topics and beyond. Hopefully one day we change the approach to education to advance even more than we are today. Did you have any specific educational experience leading you to such an idea?
You also bring up "psychology is going in circles due to lack of new methods". Coming up with new methods is so challenging, yet it is essential for the ever changing nature around us. Psychology is one of the most difficult fields to experiment for, and going in circles shows that at least many different approaches and thoughts are being used in explaining phenomenons. Through enough experimentation, and creative methods, hopefully one day theories can be made in psychology and other fields that will not be dis-proven at all! Einstein took ideas that were yet to be dis-proven, and used those as basics. That is definitely a method taht should be used more.
The background you give on metaphysics is a nice new piece of information. Thanks for the comment!
Mar 1 2012: As far as psychology it is the bad type of circling.... But you are right in a longer context. I still believe we are completely misguided on what intelligence is, and on that note personality.
*Did you have any specific educational experience leading you to such an idea?
Of course, my memory is terrible and anything past trig might as well be mandarin. I use to think something was wrong with me... But then I looked around and saw I was not alone, in fact I am a huge majority. Logical-math ability has been argued to be it's own intelligence... So we are literally educating on the grounds of one type of intelligence (maybe two, memory)...
Children's minds are SUPER active as young as 2 - 4 because their physiology is telling them they need to adapt in this environment FAST to survive. If we taught kids how to think instead of dictating knowledge... We would have a generation of minds unlike ever before. Piaget is being acknowledged in education theory, but as far as applying his theories... No.
thanks for the response.
Mar 1 2012: Nicholas,
Thanks for sharing your own experience, and you definitely are not alone. You bring up a key point: certain educational values should be taught at a very young age. Hopefully we exploit that more to be able to accomplish some more amazing feats
Mar 7 2012: I have been following this conversation for a while, too shy and lacking confidence in the topic to make a comment.
- +1
But, after reading the last few entries I will say a little something.
The first thing that came to mind about modeling nature is, well, nature is our tutor. Many of the wonderful designs in nature have made our life more "comfortable". In some cases even allowed us to do things we would never have imagined.....like soaring in the air while parasailing over the ocean......not that I would dare venture out.
Also another thought.....even if we were able to truly model nature, the model would be man made......it would require upkeep......it would break down eventually and we would have to give it maintanance, buy spare parts, oil it, or replace it with another new and improved version.
This leads me to man's shortsightedness. Today, as we are aware from the conversation on GM products, some are not happy with nature's design. They have engineered food........food!! Now can we really believe that a man made model of food, through engineering, will ever be as hearty and sustainable as the original? I don't know the answer.
I can only hope that we will arrive at it somehow....hopefully before things get out of hand.
And now one last thought, I posted this a while back on the TED talk about spiders.
Man-made model: Kevlar is a tough man-made fiber used in such items as bulletproof vests. To manufacture Kevlar, high temperatures and hazardous solvents are required.
Nature: Orb-weaving spiders produce seven types of silk. The sturdiest, known as dragline silk, is lighter than cotton yet, ounce for ounce, is stronger than steel and tougher than Kevlar. If enlarged to the size of a football field, a web of dragline silk 0.4 inch thick with strands 1.6 inches apart could stop a jumbo jet in flight! Spiders produce dragline silk at room temperature, using water as a solvent.
Nature's design......JUST AWESOME!!!!!Mar 7 2012: Bees Fly
Dolphins Swim
Geckos Climb
This took less than 4 minutes on my phone, including perusal time, typing and submitting. Rather than look for upper constraints on knowledge, lets put a little more effort into dispelling popular misconceptions that impede the impetus for discovery.
Mar 7 2012: Theo,
It's great to see that these problems have been solved, and shows the progress we have made. I watched a TED talk from many years back discussing these ideas, and it was a mistake not to check whether these problems have been solved yet. I will update the information above. From solving these problems in nature, biomimicry has had many great applications. Please do check out this link below!
However, there are so many different examples of problems in nature we are yet to solve. I would love to hear your input regarding this question presented.Mar 6 2012: I think we will never have a complete model, but we will always have useful models.
There's a joke by standup comic Steven Wright: I have a map of the United States. It's actual size. It says "one mile equals one mile".
A model is a simplification of nature. It must be complex enough to be meaningful but simple enough to be useful. The actual size map, is a model that perfectly matches the United States but it's of course useless.
A model can be refuted and still prove very useful. We have decisively rejected the earth centered solar system, but in every day life, we use still use it: we say the sun rises and the sun sets. We have refuted Newtonian mechanics but we still use his model when designing cars, calculating ballistic trajectories, etc. It wouldn't be practical to use Einstein's model, unless of course we are dealing with extreme values, where Newton's model breaks down.Mar 6 2012: The question posed is in need of a terminological clarification. This is because conceptually modelling is different from actually reproducing/copying nature. Better yet the former is the prior step to the latter, as the former deals mostly with our subjective/objective perception of nature, whilst the latter is a practical procedure that employs it in order to reproduce both the theorem and nature itself.
On the first account of modelling, it will depend on the capacity of technology to produce ever more complex equipment to perform the calculations necessary to model natural systems (social systems are considered subsystems), as well as developments in mathematics and statistics. In this direction we are still quite far away from truly modelling nature due to the number of factors that we need to take into consideration.
On the second account of copying I would say we are already very close. Technology, physics, chemistry and mechanics are already cooperating on many facets of replication of nature ranging from abstract general laws to real world events and objects. For the moment we are essentially able to copy nature by using alternative materials. It is within reason that at some point we will be able to exactly copy nature, as we are indeed striving to decode the underlying mechanisms linking its various components.Mar 7 2012: Science is the study of physical phenomena, which may not be present in natural living things. For example, there are no animals that fly exactly the same as hot air balloons or rockets fly. But by experimenting, people have been able to observe trends and relationships. Engineering is the to application of scientific principals to generate solutions that satisfy human needs. So, we "model" nature, or physical phenomena, to better understand the world around us. Then we use these "models" to improve the human living condition. But, it is not necessary to exactly model phenomena in order to get benefit. Approximate models work just fine. It not even necessary to have any model,, the cut and try approach can work sometimes too. I think the important thing is to ask questions like "why does that happen" or "how can we do this better" or "would life be better if...".Mar 7 2012: "If the physician understands things exactly and sees and recognizes all illnesses in the macrocosm outside man, and if he has a clear idea of man and his whole nature, then and only then is he a physician. Then he may approach the inside of man; then he may examine his urine, take his pulse, and understand where each thing belongs. This would not be possible without profound knowledge of the outer man, who is nothing other than heaven and earth.It would be bold and presumptuous to approach the study of man without such knowledge and to defend the sandy ground of speculation, which is more unstable than a reed in the wind" (Paracelsus)Mar 7 2012: Hi, Nicolette!
Yep, I was trying to track down that quote, seems first one to say that was George E.P.Box. Smart guy! I mean, it all ends up to what do we want from model? By definition it should be simplification of the system? If we are making exact copy, why simply not use the real thing?Mar 7 2012: Well.... are we not a part of nature ourselves?
I feel that in answering this question I am inclined to look to conclusions of a supernatural creator ("God") to account for the reasons that we have not yet replicated the process of forming diamond or gold.
Yet, I also feel that you were not asking for a answer of the metaphysical type, but the purely physical type which possibly requires a different way of approaching the subject.
Take diamond as an example though, we have not the resources or the expertise to create a perfectly flawed diamond - what we can do though is create a substitute with cubic zirconia. It will never will reach the point of truly copying diamond though, because each diamond in uniquely created and formed out of such scarce circumstances that we would be foolish to use our resources to imitate nature.
Coming back to my introduction though, I rarely feel that I (personally) am not part of nature, and so to copy human nature in technology perhaps is more achievable. I feel that if we achieve this then it would be a small step until other parts of the created universe become copied in technology.
First we need to understand human nature though....
"Aim to know the whole universe.... you will understand nothing,
Aim to know yourself... and you will understand the whole universe"
Mar 7 2012: I believe we are already modeling the methods of nature and currently do so. As so many responders have pointed out, we are constantly discovering more of the methods of nature, and we build our models from these discoveries. What were old mysteries are now understood. What are still mysteries will be understood by our continued efforts. We will someday, hopefully, understand the nature of nature and be able to surpass it in our modeling, further discovering supernatural phenomenon, understanding those mysteries and creating new types of models thereof. So yes, I believe we will, and currently do, model nature and our models just keep getting better all the time.Mar 7 2012: I think "truly model" is an oxymoron. A model is, by definition, not the real think. And never will be.Mar 7 2012: ... is it perhaps appropriate to admit we are not as smart as we think.
- 0
Maybe our math is quite simply insufficient? at least we can stay curious.
Comment deleted
Wayne Busby
Mar 7 2012: ...where would they have been without older theory to correlate towards creating new insights and finding new problems?
- +1
Einstein too stood on the shoulders of those who came before, turning over the older ideas from which grew his insights. This, consequently, made it possible for him to "invent" or "create" his theory. Building on the fore mentioned examples how far have we come today and what will we wrought tomorrow?...Mar 7 2012: I admire human mind , I admire all knowledge that we as human have, but we have ruined the planet Earth by our knowledge. I just want to mention most of the time we make more trouble by our knowledge instead of make thing better. I am en engineer. I have done two steam power plant in my work history and two oil refineries. After any of them I have been witness of air pollution, water pollution in those areas . I saw how agricultures in those areas were effluence by shortage of under grand water that was used for those plants. I just talk about general concept not specific type of modelling or engineering .Mar 6 2012: A model by its nature is not exact. I like to explain the accuracy of the conservation geographic modeling I do by saying that the output of those models have as much relationship to reality as seeing clothes on a supermodel has to do with how the clothes would look on me! Models can and do still captures something useful. And how they don't work tells us something too...Mar 6 2012: Hi, Josh!
I'd answer your questions with another one: Why do we have to be able to model nature perfectly? I don't see why it's necessary, but also I do not think it's possible. Simply because we are not able to account for all the evolution, and the complexity of each involved process and individual. Without fully understanding all of it, we still do build models, don't we? And they work occasionally. To our use, they work well. I can't resist mentioning a quote a professor of mine used recently, quoting another colleague of his, where he said "all models are wrong, just some of them are useful".
I think this happens either because we simplified object of study to the level where what we know is actually enough. And what we are looking for is really well studied and is a simple system (as simple as a nature can be...). Or, which I find more likely, in our ignorance, we did get results resembling the real thing, but they still don't mean we know what causes what. We know what co-occurs with what. Which might be enough often. (To make it more clear, I'm talking from ecological modelling, where what we're trying to convert into a model is a natural world, in all it's complexity and secrecy.) In any case, I think another important question is: what do we do with models that we already have and which seem to work well? Do we use them to learn more, or to get profit, or to provide benefit for the life itself, the planet with everything on and around it?
To look at it with a smile on your face, here Michael Pawlyn showed we do know a lot. And we know how to use that knowledge. Where's the problem then?
This should be much more relevant - to use what we know to fix what we did, to minimize damage we're causing and to learn how to sustainably function on this planet. And we do know enough for that. Even with imperfect models.
Mar 7 2012: Buga,
I think your quote "all models are wrong, just some of them are useful" really gets to the point. Whenever I learn about a model of a physical system, I always have a nagging feeling that it can't possibly work considering all the simplifying assumptions we make. But despite that, many of them do a great job of representing the system. It just depends on the purpose of the model.
If we can model something well enough that it meets our purposes, can we call that "truly modeling"? For that situation, the model perfectly represents what we want it to. Of course the model is wrong, but that doesn't mean it we can't use it to copy nature.Mar 6 2012: I don't think we can COPY nature, as the work COPY means to duplicate the same thing in two different places and the two are exactly similar in every details. nature is very complex, highly regulated, and wonderful. we can not copy the essence of these three entities of nature, BUT we can reduce it to its best posible reduction and still functional. YES this is possible.
Mar 7 2012: Hey Hermin!!!
I also think it is a daunting task to exactly copy natural phenomena, part for part, section for section, concept for concept. To emulate nature completely is something that is so difficult because the level of intricacies and connections is so high as you have stated but does our modeling and emulations have to be a mere reduction of nature? I think it is possible to gather information about nature and collate them in a way to exceed nature or at least develop a method or procedure that is more efficient. I think our motivations for improvement stem from nature. We see a functional method but there are possible deficiencies in it. Modeling nature may not be possible but improving it might be.Mar 6 2012: Yes, afterall "nature" could be a model. Keep in mind we need only model what we perceive to be nature, we don't know what nature is and of itself. See... http://www.simulation-argument.com/Mar 6 2012: A model of nature ought to be using parts of it.
Unless the model is an exact replica of nature, with ALL of its components, you can't be sure that the model is an accurate description which gives accurate predictions. There's always a chance that some missing part in your model holds for a certain nature phenomena, which you won't see in the model. Similarly, due to missing parts, the model can give false predictions, which aren't part of nature.
So, in summary, you can make as many models as you wish, but you're never going to be sure you modeled nature correctly.Mar 6 2012: Great question! I think it is just a matter of time when technological complexity will be at a point where it will be able to match natural systems, and even increase more in complexity then natural systems! after all its all just information processing whether it is virtual systems or natural systems, we call this a natural system because we are a part of it and cannot independently separate ourselves from it.
There is an open source project I started with is related to this subject and how modelling of our social landscape and letting solutions evolve much like living systems evolve to match ecosystems, this in turn would steer our species towards social optimization to whatever we deem as our direction - solutions would emerge just like living organisms create novel and creative ways to reproduce and continue the gene flow. Its called 'Zemerge' - http://zemerge.com/wiki/Mar 6 2012: Is it possible that the reason these seemingly impossible feats are accomplished is because no one ever told them it couldn't be done? Maybe the "will" has a very real influence on the outcome? We know this to be true at least in humans so why not in other species as well? Even if this is true we would still need a way to model that influence and that could be very tricky.Mar 6 2012: There are two interesting considerations that we need to take into account:
1.) Nature itself will be changed in the process of our approach because the capacity for segregation is a myth. Look at the examples of ecosystems changed by rampant gmo cross-pollination with wild plants or the environmental impact created by collapsed technology from oil rigs to nuclear plants. The fact will remain that our simulations always require interface with the natural system at too many points - both through input and via the output.
2.) The second is that we ourselves - a large-impact segment of nature - will also be changed by the attempts and the approximations. Here we can consider, among other things, the change in learning/education styles that are evolving as well as the effect of internet technology of socio-cultural systems.
We could multiply and analyze many more examples and data points, but the heart of the idea holds still and that is to say: No, because nature and what it means to model it will both change in non-discrete ways as we proceed. An asymptotic approach may still remain valuable, mind you, but we will never reach the actual result.Mar 6 2012: At very specific levels we're already coming close, as you've mentioned, but the wider we cast our net the more uncertainty we have to put up with and the more error there will be in the modeling. I've spent a fair amount of time modeling ecological systems, and there the complexity and uncertainties are almost infinite, so I don't see us coming close to really reproducing real events. But we can isolate specific parameters, such as energy flow through the system, and come pretty close. At least close enough to gain some understanding.
Andrew Kiang
Mar 6 2012: I agree that we will never be able to model nature 100% accurately because of all the nuances and variables in whatever it is that is being investigated. However, we can come close and in that process we do learn many valuable things about nature. In this publication about modeling, http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/2007/N3027.pdf, the author says that modeling is an essential, instinctive part of being human. The truth in this can be seen in today's world in which advanced computer simulations and AI are now used to make the complexities of reality more understandable. The author suggested that modeling was important for the future so that humans can make intelligent decisions, and I think as long as this is kept in mind, we will not have to worry so much about copying nature exactly and coming close is just fine.
- +1
Yu-An Chen
Mar 6 2012: Hi, Andrew
- +1
It is a great article about modeling, I agree with your and Paul's point. Intuitively, I think perfect modeling of nature is impossible given how many parameters should be considered and the degree of their effectiveness. According to chaos theory, a system behavior is hardly predictable, as the random elements are getting involved included into the system. I agree that it is getting close is sufficient for most of the cases.Mar 2 2012: In many engineering applications feedback loops and non-linear relationships are absent -- but in others (e.g. modeling a nuclear explosion or forecasting weather), the accuracy drops exponentially -- as the phenomenon under analysis develops. To design a new class of nuclear weapons, a high standard of knowledge is needed (which is why supercomputers were developed!). Unfortunately the number-crunching expands exponentially as the complex/chaotic system(s) evolve.... Ultimately many of these systems are (fortunately!) bounded. So.... though we can't predict at what time 37 days from now it will rain -- we can safely predict that if it's July and we're in Belen, Brazil it will not snow. Is this useful? Ah, that's precisely the point! What degree of predictability is needed?Mar 1 2012: Your easy as profound question "truly copy nature" sparks two answers in me.
1.) Epistemological - the science of knowledge, so to speak - it has been proven that we can never proved any thesis in a positive way. We can only falsify (Habermas, Heisenberg) - show that it is wrong. As long as a thesis or theory is not falsified, we call it "true" in our daily lifes... and we all know the saying: true until proven wrong. "truly" is a concept in time and circumstances. it is a relativity concept, relative to our horizont of knowledge. This is the standard of Epistemology research since 1960 - at least it was thought so in university.
2.) My second answer is more irritating, maybe: why should we try to copy nature?
I would have never thought of it as an aim. nature is about difference and diversity itself. learn from nature and all sourroundings... yes. but copy? to me you posted a "wrong" question. Sorry - to say this. This is a hard sentence to write for me. In the end it is good you put the question up - a chance to clarify and argue.
So thanks - though I really have a quite different approach.
Mar 1 2012: Bernd,
No need to be sorry about your second thought. I'm glad your honest about how you feel about this. How would you phrase this question? Also, please do think about the following:
Another concept we try to understand and model is the human body. Bioelectricity, and more generally, biophysics and biomathematics, are subjects highly studied. Why? Many people may simply do so out of curiosity. Others may believe that by being able to model the body well, humans are able to advance and improve the health of the population.
Many people may find it just as important to model nature, as there can be many applications that could help the population worldwide. While we have advanced so well that we can make robots and machines as seen in the TED talks posted above, there are still more ways to improve. Again, please do share how you would phrase the question, as I'm sure it could definitely help answer a question that I'd be interested in as well.Mar 1 2012: probably not, man-made possessions will always trump natureMar 1 2012: Josh,
feedback is more appreciated than a thumbs up
Mar 1 2012: Nicholas,
I needed some thought and rest before giving a response. Please do look at my response below!Mar 1 2012: Alas, I too am reminded of a book. Asimov's "Foundation", Having numerated the universe the Foundation took it upon itself to control it.
The perfect map, a model of the earth, would have to be the size of the earth. So too the perfect model of any system would very likely exceed the system in complexity and scale. Approximation is adequate in models.
But then didn't someone say something to the effect that they had never seen a billboard so lovely as a tree? What if the billboard is of a tree? Where does that get us?Mar 1 2012: Your question reminded me of the novel "hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" by Douglas Adams. in which the mankind creates a supercomputer to design a superior computer to be able to tell them what the Ultimate question is. the supercomputer starts modeling the life and the result is another Earth being crafted. the only way of fully modeling nature is building nature itself.
here is a famous scene from the movie (the answer to life, the universe and everything).
Mar 1 2012: Sina,
I have never watched this movie before, but from your comments and the video you posted I'll be sure to watch it! It shows how truly complicated nature truly is, and how difficult it would be to fully model nature. The movie also implies how important understanding nature is.
Also, would you be able to go more into detail about the idea that "the only way of fully modeling nature is building nature itself"? Was this directly from the movie, or you were able to realize this after watching the movie?
Mar 1 2012: I am glad you liked it Josh.
It's fascinating, but it is also a tragedy in my opinion that as humans we are never going to be able to fully understand the nature (and life as a whole) since we are part of it and we are unable to model it (as modeling is a requirement for understanding).
and no the message is my personal interpretation but the movie gives you enough clue to help you reach this conclusion but as I remember (and I may not be correct) there was not any direct message in it.
Mar 1 2012: Sina,
You say it is a tragedy; however, you must consider that the mystery in understanding how the world works is one of the most interesting parts of life. If we just knew how everything worked, life would be TOO simple. What fun is there in that? By the way, I find your interpretation of the movie very insightful!
Howard Yee
Mar 6 2012: Sina,
- +1
The question, and your answer also reminded me of a short story by Stanislaw Lem: "Non Serviam". (http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-19-non-serviam.html) The gist of the story is that programmers/computer scientists eventually create large mainframes to simulate life. The life forms created eventually question the existence of their creator. In a way, nature is truly cyclical as we will eventually model nature through artificial constructs so self sufficient, that they will eventually model nature...
The short story also poses a question: will we know if we've successfully modelled nature? The models in "Non Serviam" question the existence as a superior being, and in a way, we would too question whether our model is actually a model, or is it the literal thing we've been trying to model? Are artificial intelligence artificial if it's so intelligent that we cannot tell the difference? If we manipulated every molecule manually to create a living organism, yet it's molecule-for-molecule the same as the natural subject, is it a model?Feb 29 2012: "According to engineer's calculations, bees shouldn't be able to fly, dolphins shouldn't be able to swim, and geckos shouldn't be able to climb."
That's your problem right there. Bees fly, dolphins swim and geckos climb, so obviously it's the science that is wrong, not the animals that are doing it regardless of current mathematical models. So my guess is that we're pretty far away, still. But I do think that we can reach a "model for everything" eventually.
Mar 1 2012: Daniel,
Thank you very much for your comment. What you said definitely shows that we aren't exactly able to model nature perfectly yet. However, there are many different experiments and projects that show how close we are to being able to truly model nature. Please do take a look at the TED talks above. The two talks that excited me most about how close we truly are were "A robot that flies like a bird" and "Nina Tandon: Caring for engineered tissue". Let me know what you think of those videos, as they gave me hope that one day we will be able to model nature!


text:
Jennifer Lopez: 6 Favorite Film Roles
Loraine Pavich / January 23, 2013
Out of Sight (1998)
3 of 6
If there's a list out there of "Most Underrated Movies of All Time", Out of Sight has to be very near the top. This perfect adaptation of Elmore Leonard's sexy pulp novel centers on Foley, an affable bank robber played by George Clooney, who breaks out of prison only to find himself locked in the trunk of his getaway car with U.S. Marshall Karen Sisco (Lopez). Sparks figuratively fly between the two leads in your typical Elmore Leonard fashion, as the cop falls in love with her robber. Sight boasts not only Lopez's best performance (fact), but also career highpoints for Clooney and director Steven Soderbergh.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Rihanna, the Police: Does 'Unapologetic' Track Borrow From Rock Classic?
As Rihanna's Unaplogetic album is expected to debut big on the Billboard Albums chart this week, it appears the songstress owes quite a lot to her pop and rock predecessors.
Ri's eclectic seventh studio album is, in many ways, a nod to the classics, but one song in particular may go beyond the homage.
Rihanna's "Love Without Trage


text:
Shirin Farhad Ki Toh Nikal Padi
Comedy, Romance
Shirin and Farhad are two over-forty middle aged Parsi people leading their lives amidst a fast dwindling Parsi community. Self content and enveloped in their daily wordly affairs, they have not had the time to pause and think about love. That is - till they meet each other... What follows is an unconventional love story - quirky and sweet, having its own essence of romance, and teaching the world that love has no expiry date.
Cast: Boman Irani, Farah Khan
Produced by:
Directed by: Bela Sehgal
Written by:
Running time: 1hr 52min
Opens: Aug 24, 2012 Limited
|Theaters for Today
Pick a day
on this day.


text:
(based on 19 reviews)
of respondents would recommend this to a friend.
Ratings Distribution
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Stars
Best Uses
Reviewed by 19 customers
Sort by
Displaying reviews 1-10
Back to top
Previous | Next »
Great wheels, great price.
By matarndt
from Carlisle, PA
About Me Casual/ Recreational
See all my reviews
Comments about Sun-Ringle Rhyno Lite / Shimano Deore 525 Mountain Bike Wheelset:
Wheels arrived true. Hubs and freewheel are smooth. Just what I needed to replace the original wheels on my comfort bike. 20% off deal paid for the oversize shipping charge. No issues at all.
Bottom Line Yes, I would recommend this to a friend
Was this review helpful? Yes / No
- You may also flag this review
Comment on this review
(1 of 1 customers found this review helpful)
good cheap replacement wheels
By e
from minneapolis
Reliable rim. DT stainless spokes are consistent and reliable. Loctite type spoke thread compound is good until you need to true the wheel (which breaks the compound loose) or about two years. The rear wheel dish was off a little in the frame and when checked with a dishing tool. Not enough to bother your typical cyclist or bicycle mechanic. But enough cause a problem if running a 2.3" tire in the frame used. Gave me a chance to add and check tension on the wheel. Not bad for J&B importers. Wheel is cheaper than trying to buy the parts yourself. Good deal if you want to re-lace with colored alloy nipples and use linseed oil or a beeswax compound.
(4 of 4 customers found this review helpful)
Newer up-graded Deore 525-
By Jim P
from Jamestown, New York
About Me Avid Cyclist
These rims have a tall brake surface on the rims for rim brakes,(Disc or Rim Brakes)this leads to a harder tire install. I have to use two tire levers together as one will brake. The good thing about that is, you will never have a tire come off the rim with a flat. These are rock solid rims. The Shimano 525A hubs are new. They use new seals, and the outer "Rubber Dust cover" is gone. They turn smooth like Shimano XT"s.
(3 of 3 customers found this review helpful)
Great wheels - check valve size
By BIGSthebiker
from Rochester, NY
These wheels will no doubt be great (I have not ridden them yet), as has been said in so many reviews. They arrived in perfect condition, except they were drilled for Schrader tubes (not mentioned anywhere in the description). Nashbar customer service, usually great, has not responded to my repeated attempts to contact them about this (I even sent pictures). Just make sure you ask about what type of valves your wheels are drilled for.
Merchant response: Hi BIGS,Best bet is to contact us over Live Chat - we can send you aset of grommets to run presta if you want them. Generally large format photos (over 600x800) exceed the file size limit on our CS e-mail system and the message does not get to a representative. - Bike Nashbar
(2 of 2 customers found this review helpful)
Great Value
By Bike Rider
from Washington DC
Can not do better for this price. I'm building up an off-road touring bike and these wheels fit the bill. When they arrived, I put them in the truing stand and got out my tensiometer and was happy to find them true and even-tensioned. Only surprise was that the rims are drilled for schrader (car-tire-type) valves! Not really a problem as I have a pair of rubber adaptor grommets handy, and I suppose if I'm touring it will be nice to have the option of using either type of tube, but I think Nashbar ought to give you a choice of which drilling you get. Bearings feel smooth and tires mounted easily enough. You'll want the wide 22mm rim tape for these. Still can't believe I got such nice wheels for this price!
Can't Go Wrong Here
By trailboss
from somewhere out in the woods
Can't go wrong with this wheelset. Not fancy, not flashy, and not the lightest on the market. But... they're simple, solid, and pretty dang strong. Rhyno lites are basically double-walled BMX rims bumped up to a 26" diameter, and the Shimano hubs are solid, too. Being a BMX rim, they're a little wider and not quite as deep. Plus side is that they offer a wider footprint and less pinch-flats, allowing you to also run a slightly wider tire. Only slight downside is that the shallow(er) rims generally require soapy water and tire tools to swap tires. No biggee, just know that ahead of time. As for the dude that was confused by the Presta drilling.....simply widen the gap with a hand-held electric drill. NO performance wheelsets out there come pre-drilled for Schraeder- it's a 5-minute fix. Overall, these wheels will handle almost all trail riding, except heavy jumping/park/dh. They excel in fast/aggressive singletrack settings where the stiff construction and wide footprint are put to use.
Great value despite wide rims and weight
By yu888
from san jose, ca
Great value, especially when on sale AND shipped for free! Look great for my upgraded commuter and allowed for me to upgrade to disc brakes to see if its the direction i want to go on this bike or not. Shipped well packaged and received ready to go!
Good wheel that works great at an excel
By old bike rider
from Boston and North
I'm 215 lbs and have this same set of wheels on my 29er. When I saw the price for this set I decided to recondition my 26" mtb. I'm very pleased with them a big improvement over the previous wheelset on the Hardrock sport. I changed the bike to Disc. Brakes. Big improvement
(1 of 2 customers found this review helpful)
Durable Wheelset
By Mark in SA
from San Antonio, TX
I bought these to replace my stock wheelset. I couldn't be happier with them. They are a little on the plain side, but I am much more concerned with durability. I am 225 and these wheels hold up well on everything I have done with them. I am not extreme, but I do put some extra wear on them than the average joe. I would recommed using steel reinforced tire levers to put tires on as the side walls are a little taller than most due to the ability to be used with rim brakes.
Good Wheels!
By eelslake1
from Kimberley BC
I use these for the challenging trails we have around Kimberley BC. The rims have a profile which makes it very easy to mount/dismount tires, almost without levers; they are wide enough for my Nevegall 2.35 tires. Mount your discs and cassette and go!They look good too.
Item No. »
We Make Shopping Safe, Secure and Easy
© 2015 Nashbar. All Rights Reserved.
Return to Mobile


text:
horse.com > Blankets & Sheets > Stable Blankets & Sheets > Item # E002713
promotional discount applied. Cart total will reflect savings.
Quantity discount will reflect in cart.
Sometimes, manufacturers require that products be advertised only at their suggested prices.
When we choose to sell these items for less, we display the sale price only in the cart. To see the price, click Add to Cart.
One-time delivery
Save time with Auto Ship
Deliver Every:
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
6 Weeks
7 Weeks
8 Weeks
1 Month
2 Months
3 Months
6 Months
Heart to Horse Box
Now: $34.99
Tough-1 Softfleece Cooler Blanket Liner
Starting from: $48.88
Collapsible Blanket Bar
Starting from: $15.99
Leather Therapy Saddle Pad and Blanket Wash
Starting at: $14.99
Product Summary:
When selecting a blanket ensure to take into account your horse's behavior, environment or other horses that may be turned out with your horse. The lower the denier number the less strength the material has. 420 Denier and 600 Denier are not recommended for horses that bite, chew or rub on blankets or for horses turned out with a companion or in a group. Always ensure your horse's blanket is properly fitted and all straps are adjusted correctly, if a blanket is too tight or too loose, straps may break and material may tear. For younger horses or horses turned out with a companion or in groups, it is recommended to purchase 1200 Denier or 1680 Denier material as these are stronger materials and are less likely to tear. Certain types of fencing such as barbwire or foreign objects such as nails will easily tear any blanket no matter what the denier, always inspect the area in which your horse is kept to remove any nails or jagged fencing that may cause damage. There are no horse blankets that are guaranteed to not rip or tear.
SyrVet SyrFlex Bandage
Starting at: $1.59
1.87 Ivermectin Single Dose Paste Wormer
Now: $1.99
Sleazy Lycra Hood
Starting at: $54.99
Zimecterin Gold 7.75 Praziquantel Paste Wormer
Now: $9.19
Zocks Ladies Boot Socks
Starting at: $8.05
Tough-1 Vented Sport Boots 4-Pack
Starting at: $77.00
Tough-1 600 Denier Full Hood
Starting at: $48.95
Pyranha Wipe N Spray
Starting at: $16.99
Weaver Original Adj Halter w/Snap
Starting at: $21.49
Bimectin 1.87% Ivermectin Apple Flavored Wormer
Now: $2.39
Equimax 14.03 Praziquantel/1.87 Ivermectin Paste
Now: $9.99
Himalayan Salt on a Rope
Starting at: $6.49
Braiding Bands
Starting at: $1.89
TuffRider Basic All Purpose Pad
Starting at: $19.95
Farnam Repel-X RTU 32oz Sprayer
Now: $12.99
Basic Cotton Lead Rope w/Bolt Snap
Starting from: $5.99
Basic Polo Wraps
Tough-1 600 Denier Neck Cover
Starting at: $38.95
3M Vetrap Bandaging Tape
Starting from: $2.89
Product Reviews by Customers
This item is not eligible for Canadian shipping.
Some items everyday price is so low we can't discount or we have marked down the item to a final sale price. These select items will not be included in your order total when determining if your order qualifies for a promotional event.


text:
President Vladimir Putin vowed Thursday to fix Russia's economic woes within two years by diversifying away from its heavy reliance on oil and gas and voiced confidence that the plummeting ruble will soon recover.
Stevie Wonder�and his girlfriend, Tomeeka Robyn Bracy, have welcomed a baby girl,�
By the Rev. Tim SchenckMore Content Now
Just days before he killed a 17-year-old German exchange student, Markus Kaarma told hairstylists he had been waiting up to shoot some kids who were burglarizing homes.
The Ridgecrest City Council has chosen the new Planning Commission.Council members at their meeting Wednesday each recommended a member for the commission. Mayor Pro Tem Jim Sanders recommended re-appointing Scott Davis. Vice Mayor...
The Ridgecrest Planning Commission approved Helen Jackson's request to take up residence in the site of her former business, Casa K9 Kennels, but that may be a moot point because the property was sold at a foreclosure auction last...
The holidays are a time when shopping sprees run rampant; however, some people take advantage of the season to steal their gifts from others. According to the Ridgecrest Police Department, though, there has been little to worry about so...
- Events Calendar


text:
En español | If you want to have a great credit rating, you have to know how the credit scoring system works.
See also: What factors affect your credit score?
FICO credit scores, which are the most widely used credit scores, range from 300 to 850 points. But the VantageScore is an important credit score, too. The VantageScore ranges from 501 to 990 points. (In case you haven't heard of it, the VantageScore was jointly developed by the three credit bureaus: Equifax, Experian and TransUnion).
When I recently checked my credit scores, I was happy to see that I continue to have a stellar credit rating: My FICO score was 798 and my VantageScore was a perfect 990.
I'm not telling you this to brag. On the contrary, I want you to see how it's possible to go from having awful credit to having a pristine credit record.
You see, back in my college days and well into my early 30s, I often mismanaged credit and debt. As a result, my credit was awful and I wound up in debt. Fast forward to 2011, and I have zero credit card debt and excellent credit, too.
For starters, it's important to understand what criteria are used to calculate your credit scores. With the FICO system, here's how your credit is evaluated:
- Payment history – 35 percent of your score
- Amount of credit card debt owed – 30 percent
- Length of credit history – 15 percent
- Mix of credit – 10 percent
- Inquiries or new credit – 10 percent
The VantageScore attributes slightly different weightings to these categories, but it, too, evaluates each of these areas.
Next: Besides paying on time, these 5 things can help improve your credit. >>


text:
Experts Guide
|Date Posted
James Proudfoot
James Proudfoot has conducted experimental particle physics research in three areas: deep-inelastic muon proton scattering to study the parton content on the proton; e+e- annihilation to study hadron production from quark and gluon jets; and standard model physics using proton-antiproton collisions at the Fermilab Tevatron, where he spent two years as associate department head in the CDF Operations Department.
|February 13, 2012
Leonidas Ocola
Dr Leonidas Ocola has held industry positions, including Bell Laboratories, working in the areas of projection electron beam lithography and then in high resolution electron beam nanolithography. He is the nanofabrication theme co-leader at Argonne's Center for Nanoscale Materials.
|February 10, 2012
Tom LeCompte
Tom LeCompte is the physics coordinator for the ATLAS experiment, a 3,000-person collaboration at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.
|February 8, 2012
Harry Weerts
Harry Weerts is the Associate Laboratory Director for Physical Sciences and Engineering. He oversees Argonne's interdisciplinary research programs in physics, chemistry, material science and nanotechnology. Weerts was formerly Director of Argonne's High Energy Physics division, and prior to that, a collider physicist at Fermilab, where he was the spokesman for the Dzero experiment for six years.
|February 2, 2012


text:
Grundig MINI 400 Radio
Mini 400 - Super Compact AM/FM Shortwave Radio with Digital Display!
Grundig MINI 400 Radio
It receives AM/FM/SW and has a digital LCD screen. The MINI 400 has an internal ferrite bar antenna for AM reception and a telescopic antenna for FM and SW reception.
It has an alarm clock function and a headphone jack for easy listening. Simply insert 2 AAA batteries to start your adventures across radio waves. Size: 2.75" x 4.3" x 0.47".
Don't go without the super compact Grundig MINI 400 from Brookstone. Order today!
Grundig MINI 400 Radio
Reviewed by 1 customer
- Durable
- Easy to Use
- Good sound
- Well Designed
- Battery Hog
Best Uses
- Inside
- Outside
Comments about Grundig MINI 400 Radio:
I was looking for a replacement AM radio to listen to news while I eat my lunch. AM & FM reception is good. Can't comment on SW. Digital tuning readout is helpful, but tuning will still change when you brush the dial even if the radio is off (no big deal). The soft protective case (included) is helpful in preventing unintended tuning changes while not in use. Eats batteries: I use if for about 15 min. a day and they died after a month (my last radio went for years on one 9v). What I do now is remove one of the batteries when I'm not using it. One note, if you do as I do (removing a battery), wait 30secs after replacing it before you turn it on. Something must need to "warm up" before it will work (probably the same thing that drains the batteries). The AM sound quality is very good,IMHO.
Grundig MINI 400 Radio
Our innovative products will provide you and your family with years of enjoyment. And with the Brookstone Protection Plus service and replacement plans, you'll have the added peace of mind knowing that if the unexpected does happen, we will simply repair or replace your covered product. Our enhanced coverage goes above and beyond the manufacturer's warranty, saving you time and money.


text:
I want to share a post full of links for all curious and needing more tools in order to get digging. These are teachers and thinkers and communities who have taken the proverbial red pill. The web is getting pretty thick and I just want to recommend those who have and continue to inspire and teach me.
Stefan Molyneux, mountains of great works philosophical, psychological, anarchic, witty and much more, pumping out a ton of work even as he recovers from cancer treatment–it really doesn't get much more inspiring than that. His quote that inspired me today: "Use the flame of knowledge to light candles, not people's hair." Hmmm, duly noted.
He was on the Alex Jones show just today, making sense of the senselessness.
Moving along, more teachers:
"Now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia has been normalized." Brezhnev said, as the tanks rolled into Prague. As quoted by Yuri Bezmenov, journalist, informant, defector while discussing, The 4 stages of Ideological Subversion.
Demoralization, Destabilization, Insurgency, Normalization.
He says:
"But in reality, the main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all! According to my opinion, and the opinion of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures, (2 Russian words, активные something, I couldn't catch it) in the language of the KGB, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is, to change the perception of reality of every American to such as extent that in spite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country.
It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages, the first one being demoralization. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which is required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of your enemy. In other words, Marxism / Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generations of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism.
The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already, for the last 25 years, actually it's over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success. Most of it is being done by Americans to Americans thanks to a lack of moral standards."
When you look at history without the blinders of propaganda narrowing your view, it's amazing how obvious the social manipulation becomes. It's evident in Walt Disney films for small children, games and toys and cartoons for young kids, driving the entire education system from prenatal to post-doc, saturating Hollywood and Mainstream News, in the Prepping movement for the urban and countrified alike–it's like a Fibonacci sequence of conspiracies!
"Is there a conspiracy to create conspiracies?" asked one of our fellow bloggers on this site. I will answer now after some reflection and research: How could there not be?!
". . . Home schooling breeds terrorists" From one of my favorites at the moment, Jon Rappoport, his last post so good I feel called to re-post a good portion right here!
The Eternal Sunshine of the Mind Controlled Classroom:
"Well," Jimmy's teacher said, "we're trying to emphasize cooperation. But Jimmy has another agenda. He apparently wants to stay separate from the other children."
"Yes," the principal said. "It's matter of psychology. You see, separateness breeds conflict. On a larger scale, this is why nations have wars."
"Agreed," said the school superintendent. "We want each child to see the reflection of himself in the other children. And we want him to see the reflection of everyone else in himself."
"You lost me there," Jimmy's father said. He was trying to remain calm.
A week ago, Jimmy, six years old, was sitting in class drawing. The teacher had taped a sketch of a face on the blackboard. She was taking the students through a step-by-step process aimed at getting them to reproduce the face in their notebooks.
She walked up and down the rows, and when she came to Jimmy, she saw he was drawing a very different face. It wasn't bland. It was the face of a woman laughing. The face was floating among trees in a forest.
She stopped. The drawing looked very real.
"Jimmy," she said, "this isn't the face we're all working on."
He looked up at her.
"I know," he said.
"So why are you doing this other one?"
He shrugged.
She said, "When we're done, we're all going to put our drawings on the blackboard and see what they look like. But your face will be different."
"So?" he said.
She felt a wave of anger sweep through her. She controlled it.
"The other children will be confused when they see your face," she said.
Jimmy shrugged again.
"I won't put your face on the blackboard," the teacher said.
"Okay," Jimmy said.
After class, the teacher went to the principal and they sat down and looked through Jimmy's file. They noticed that Jimmy had once worn an unusual T-shirt to school. It had a photo of a crown on it.
Another child had asked the gym teacher what the crown was.
Now, sitting in the meeting with the teacher, the principal, and the superintendent, Jimmy's father said, "Jimmy just likes crowns. I don't know why."
"Well," the teacher said, "a crown is a symbol of monarchy. One ruler over all the people."
The principal said, "That other child felt confused when she saw the T-shirt. Confusion is an indicator that the communal spirit has been , well, interrupted."
The superintendent said, "A crown can also have religious connotations."
"Look," Jimmy's father said, "we were at a garage sale. Jimmy saw the T-shirt and liked it. So I bought it for him."
"You let him wear a T-shirt from a garage sale?" the teacher said.
Another one unschooling and re-educating on the essentials is Richard Grove, at History, so It Doesn't Repeat.
Interested in education: check out Charlotte Iserbyt and John Taylor Gatto.
That should keep y'all busy for a while, back with more next week!
"The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off" said Gloria Steinem, ironically, now considered part of the Feminist conspiracy.


text:
|Women's Track & Field » News » Schedule » Roster » Coaches » Performance List
Chaney, Haefner, Yewer run lifetime bests; Buccaneers complete final day at Raleigh Relays
Saturday, March 29, 2003RALEIGH, N.C. (March 29, 2003) - East Tennessee State University's men's and women's track teams finished the final day of the Raleigh Relays, hosted by N.C. State, with three lifetime bests from juniors Emily Chaney (Maryville, Tenn.), David Haefner (Hamburg, N.Y.) and sophomore Brad Yewer (Newbury, England). The Raleigh Relays showcase some of the nation's best talent including schools from the nation's top conferences in the Southeastern, Big Ten, and Atlantic Coast Conferences. In day two of the Raleigh Relays, the Buccaneers had only two athletes competing. Chaney finished second in her heat and sixth overall in the women's 3000-meter steeplechase, setting a lifetime best with a time of 11:14.71. Haefner also had a lifetime best performance in the men's 3000-meter steeplechase, finishing fourth with a time of 9:14.92. Haefner's mark was two seconds shy of the regional qualifying mark. "Emily and David's performances today should give them a lot of confidence," Buccaneer assistant Michelle Byrne said. "They both ran real competitive, gutsy races." Friday, in the women's 100-meters, Buccaneer sophomore Chantelle Vernon (Markham, Ontario) placed 29th finishing the race with a time of 12.29. In the 400-meters ETSU had two athletes competing, juniors Kim Simmons (Knoxville, Tenn.) and Tiffany Collier (Atlanta, Ga.) finished their race with times of 56.59 and 59.06, respectively. In the men's 100-meters, Marcus Barnes (Memphis, Tenn.) finished with a time of 10.93, while in the 5000-meters Yewer and James Grufferty (Glanmire, Ireland) finished the race with times of 14:35.51 and 15:05.72, with Yewer placing 17th and running a lifetime best. "This weekend we gave a good effort all around," added Byrne. "This meet is a great meet with top competition and that puts our athlete's performances into perspective." The Buccaneers will travel to Liberty University on April 5 for the Liberty Invitational meet. The meet is set to begin at 11 a.m. For complete results from the Raleigh Relays, log onto www.flashresults.com.
Women's Track & Field Archives
2002-03 Women's Track & Field


text:
Description:36.8GB 10K Ultra Wide SCSI Hot-Plug Hard DriveIBM Part# 36L9808
Overview:This hard drive uses advanced 10 000rpm HDD drive technology which delivers excellent performance and solid reliability.??Predictive Failure Analysis (PFA) alerts you up to 24 hours before a HDD failure. The drive has been rigorously tested in heavy network simulation test suites for optimized reliability and compatibility in your Netfinity server. It comes pre-mounted on hot-swap trays for simplified installation into supported Netfinity products.
CategoryIBM HardDrive
GenerationUltra Wide
Part Number36L9808
Products ID1344
Form FactorEnterprise
Capacity36.4 GB
InterfaceIDE/EIDE SCSI
Spindle Speed10000 RPM
External Data Transfer Rate40 MBps
Seek Time6 ms
Average Latency3 ms
Interface (Detailed)SCSI-3 Ultra Wide (16-bit)
Dimensions (HxWxD)1.62 in x 4.02 in x 5.75 in
Weight2.29 lbs


text:
Is The Movie "The Watch" Even Watchable? [VIDEO]
Another comedy that's at best mediocre, "The Watch" starring Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill and Richard Ayoade.
A film about neighborhood dads who form a club to get out of their day to day family routines and their mission is to save the earth from an alien invasion


text:
Men's glasses
Discover Specsavers' great collection of classic, modern and stylish men's prescription glasses and sunglasses. With over 1,000 frame styles available to choose from online, you'll have plenty of choice. We offer fashionable styles at affordable prices, starting from just £25 to the latest designer styles from £99.
Women's glasses
Have a look through our huge collection of women's glasses, that ranges from the elegant to contemporary bold designs. With new styles added to our range every three months, you're sure to find frames that suit your look. Classic styles at affordable prices, starting from just £25 to chic designer styles from £99.
Men's designer glasses
Find the latest designer frames that won't break the bank. Our range includes styles from design houses such as Jeff Banks, French Connection, Replay and Cheap Monday for £99 and premium designers including BOSS Orange, Osiris, Quiksilver, Timberland and Tommy Hilfiger from just £125.
Women's designer glasses
Browse our designer frames from design houses such as Cheap Monday, FCUK, Replay and Red or Dead for £99 and premium designers including BOSS Orange, John Rocha, Karen Millen, Osiris, Roxy and Tommy Hilfiger from just £125.
Men's prescription sunglasses
Enjoy all the benefits of clearer, comfortable vision when the sun's shining. Our collection of men's prescription sunglasses includes a wide range of modern frames and starts from just £69. The collection includes smart designs from Timberland and Tommy Hilfiger.
Women's prescription sunglasses
Wearing prescription sunglasses doesn't mean you have to compromise on style. Our collection of women's prescription sunglasses includes a wide range of fashionable frames and starts from just £69. The collection includes fabulous designs from Karen Millen, Red or Dead, and Roxy.
Kids' glasses
Children's glasses come to life at Specsavers. Fun frames include the latest styles from Moshi Monsters, Lego, Disney and Star Wars. There are trendy kids' sunglasses too. What's more, all our opticians are trained to test children's eyes and find glasses that fit them perfectly, making the whole experience easy and stress-free.
Teens' glasses
Wearing glasses can be the ultimate fashion accessory when you choose the right pair to suit you and the kind of clothes you wear most. Our teens' glasses collection includes a range of styles so that whatever look you're going for, we can help you find frames that suit you best.
Men's compact glasses
Our compact frames are a perfect fit for trendsetting men with smaller or narrower faces. From modern metal to bold plastic, you'll find frames you love at affordable prices, including fantastic designer names like Replay, French Connection, FCUK, Tommy Hilfiger and Quiksilver.
Petite glasses
Our petite range is ideal for smaller people and those with narrower faces. We have a wide variety of quality glasses in smaller sizes and we have petite designer styles too, including Red or Dead and Quiksilver.
There's great choice and value for everyone in our fantastic range of glasses. From our £25 range to the latest designer brands, all glasses come with PENTAX single vision lenses and a scratch-resistant treatment.


text: flickr [ Experience 19th Century Living History at Sacajawea State Park By Lance Tormey September 20, 2012 The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission invites the public to experience living history at the ninth annual Heritage Days at Sacajawea State Park in Pasco. The event is Sept. 28 and 29 at Sacajawea State Park, 2503 Sacajawea Park Road in Pasco Read More|Comment Category: Human Interest, Lifestyle, Northwest News, Yakima News Tags: bluegrass festival, columbia river, heritage day, native american, pasco, sacajawea state park, snake river, umatilla nation, wanapum nation, washington state parks and recreation commission, yakama nation Send to a friend! Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Pin it! Reddit This! Share on Tumblr!


text:
While I'm a firm believer in giving thanks everyday (there's way too much to be thankful for then can be mentioned in one day), I asked a few authors what they are thankful for.
Jeannie Lin: Last Christmas my twins were 10 days old and fit inside a small gift bag. I'm thankful that today, 11 months later, they are happy and healthy with chubby little cheeks.
Marjorie M. Liu: As always, I am thankful for my family and all my wonderful friends, new and old, and for the blessing of being alive in this beautiful world doing what I love and being with those I love.
Daniel Marks: I'm thankful to have found such grim, gruesome, like-minded readers and supporters, who've made my debut year a fantastic experience!
Lisa Kessler: I'm thankful for my amazing writer friends who are always there to buoy my spirits. Parts of this year were bleak and painful, and yet, they always made me smile and I still finished two more books in spite of the drama.


text:
The Museum of North Sulawesi Province
Home » The Museum of North Sulawesi Province » Find Hotel » Murex Dive Resort
Murex Dive Resort
Four distinct and different sites in one destination, plus explore the frontiers of scuba diving on one of our liveaboards.
Dive Bunaken, Bangka, Lembeh Strait (the muck diving capital of the world) and the Sangihe-Talaud archipelago with Murex, the leading dive centre in Manado, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Over 100 dive sites within easy boat ride from our three resorts.
Sail on one of our liveaboards and you add literally dozens more in the Sangihe-Talaud archipelago that stretches almost to the Philippines.
These waters have the richest bio-diversity in the world, many sites have been under long-term protection and are absolutely pristine.
Unforgettable diving, awesome choice, unbelievable underwater photography opportunities, legendary personal service, great accommodation and food.
We've been the leaders in the Bunaken - Manado area since 1987. And still we lead from the front - we're the first dive centre in North Sulawesi producing Nitrox and the first centre capable of producing mixed gas for tri-mix & rebreathers.
Today, no other dive operation in North Sulawesi offers you so much choice; no other dive company goes out of its way to provide you with exactly the kind of diving you love; no other dive centre makes every diver a member of the Murex family.
Murex. Quite simply, there's no other choice.
|Jl. Raya Trans Sulawesi, Desa Kalasey1 Manado 95361 North Sulawesi - Indonesia
|+62 431 838774|+62 431 839013
|+62 431 838775