At pres­ent it only runs in a Win­dows™ en­vi­ron­ment, even if the­re are util­i­ties for the Mac™ that could al­low it with­out de­mand­ing in­stal­la­tions.
Un­der Win­dows has be­en pre­pa­red in such a way that it can be used by the host sys­tem even as a scre­en sav­er: just re­name the ex­ten­sion from THE­ORY_3*.exe to THE­ORY_3*.scr and save it in the ap­pro­pri­ate fold­er of the Win­dows­\ OS; to find which in your ver­sion of the sys­tem in use just se­arch for *.scr with Ex­plor­er; I can­not spec­i­fy spe­cif­ic di­rect­ives and it may be nec­es­sa­ry to copy it wher­ev­er the­se fi­les are pre­sent, but the­re is no risk. Then it must be se­lect­ed or ac­ti­vat­ed for the pau­se-work pha­ses, thro­ugh the Desk­top Prop­er­ties.
The THE­ORY­_3be­ams­.exe file kept in copy (but even the sa­me THE­O­RY­_3­be­ams­.scr) can be laun­ched at will from any­where on the disk, by a click.

The viewing modes

Well, now it's up to you:

As for a pos­si­ble idyll, if you love to me­di­ta­te draw­ing your in­spi­ra­tion from a lyr­ic I can only of­fer you, right by the hu­man side, “The in­fi­nite”, which oc­cu­pies – be a co­in­ci­dence? – the twel­fth po­si­tion in the Can­ti by Gi­a­co­mo Le­op­ar­di, and con­cerns just a hed­ge (re­call the 'Yard'?) that de­lim­its, and pre­clu­des from the view of the far­thest ho­ri­zon, but right for this pat­tern it pro­jects the sub­ject's gaze to­wards the in­fi­ni­te spa­ce – whe­re that re­strict no lon­ger mat­ters – splic­ing in the con­scio­us­ness the thor­ough im­pas­si­ble al­ter­na­tion of the cy­cles of life, and the li­ve sea­son so forth that the he­art is one step away from hav­ing fear.

[ view the 1st manuscript BNN ]

Do­ing that, I was drawn to use some un­u­su­al terms, eg "in­ter­mi­nat­ed ­/in­ter­mi­na­to", which the po­et cho­os­ed – as well as for "in­fi­ni­tu­de ­/in­fin­it " – al­tho­ugh they re­sult words nor­mal­ly very lit­tle us­ed ev­en in the [cur­rent] na­tiv­e lan­guage.
This has to be ob­ser­ved, that Leop­ardi and his lan­gua­ge be­long to a rel­a­tive­ly dis­tant time (two cen­tu­ries sep­a­rate us), but abo­ve all that he ch­ose cer­ta­in words suit­ed to ex­pres­s un­mis­tak­able con­cre­te con­cep­ts.
So, I stri­ved to re­pro­du­ce the mo­od of his ver­ses, at­ten­ti­ve­ly se­lect­ing the most cor­re­spon­ding words – even when I won­de­red about the im­pact on the ac­tu­al read­ers – when­ev­er the­se lo­ok­ed to me mo­re re­spon­si­ve to the poet's in­ten­tion and writ­ing in his time.

A short note, per­haps not ple­as­ant,
but
du­ti­ful le­ast in this con­text.

Of a lyr­ic ac­knowl­ed­ged and ac­clai­med as one of the most be­au­ti­ful Can­ti ever writ­ten, the es­tab­lish­ment of the li­te­ra­ti of our world does not hes­i­tate to dis­tort some parts, al­most be­ing pleased of that, de­spi­te three orig­i­nal ma­nu­scripts – even de­bat­ed in his­to­ry (click the ima­­ge to watch the 1st to the side) – which dem­on­stra­te to all the un­chan­ged text with re­con­fir­med cor­rec­tions of the poet. They are con­cer­ned with cap­i­tal­iza­tion at the be­gin­ning of each ver­se, al­tho­ugh not nec­es­sa­ry [ri­ght here to fix the ca­den­ce, when the zo­om ex­ce­eds], but not to ob­ser­ve the true and de­fin­i­tive text of the poet's own hand: so they in­sist on the word "im­men­si­ty" [im­me­di­ate vo­ice and first writ­ten right away, but then struck out] in­ste­ad of abi­ding "in­fin­ity" [much mo­re pow­er­ful, mo­re re­al­is­tic than ro­man­tic, I da­re say sci­en­tif­ic; how­ev­er ad­vis­ed­ly med­i­tat­ed and re­spon­si­ve to oth­er ver­ses]; and not eno­ugh: to re­place "in­ter­mi­na­ble spa­ce" [aware vi­sion] with "in­ter­mi­na­ble spa-ces" [an ab­stru­se vi­sion], as if this im­promp­tu ide­ation ma­de sense!

Apart from the his­to­ri­cal and for­mal grav­i­ty of the of­fen­se, and the dam­age it in­vol­ves sub­tract­ing the fru­its of an en­light­en­ed and il­lu­mi­nat­ing tho­ught from cul­tu­re, for hav­ing al­te­red in two sig­nif­i­cant p­ints the pro­fo­und to­nal­i­ty of per­cep­tion, ex­pres­sed in such a short and in­ten­se poem;
In fact, even if Gia­co­mo Le­o­par­di could i­ma­gi­ne se­ve­ral ad­ja­cent spa­ces, each of which de­lim­its the other, not even to his ge­nius wo­uld have be­en pos­si­ble to con­ce­ive two or mo­re "in­ter­mi­na­ble spa­ces" sin­ce an un­lim­it­ed spa­ce does not cross, can­not be de­lim­it­ed by, nor can it un­der­lie any oth­er un­lim­it­ed spa­ce: ab­surd, wo­uld be­co­me one spa­ce and no-th­ing more. Un­less the "po­e­tic li­cen­se" en­dor­ses a fre­edom to con­ce­ive non­sen­si­cal things, which is not the ca­se with Our.
It is ev­i­dent that Leop­ardi me­ant it, with­out hesi­ta­tion or la­ter cor­rec­tions; whe­re the plu­ral­i­ty of "su­per­hu­man si­le­nces" re­ver­ber­ates as a coun­ter­po­int a tac­it cho­rus of po­ten­tial sour­ces, which is not iden­ti­fied, in this pas­sa­ge, with a uni­ver­sal si­len­ce, but re­in­for­ces the im­age be­fore. Lat­er it will take on a tem­po­ral, non-spa­tial val­ue, com­par­ing the past with no more so­und to the voi­ce of the pre­sent.
Yet, be­liev­ing that he co­uld ad­just the rhy­mes, so­me­one must have tho­ught that they so­und­ed bet­ter in his own way, and that for the au­thor's gre­at­er fa­me it was ap­pro­pri­ate to tran­scri­be and di­vul­ge all three vo­ices in the plu­ral!
Such a fool­ish and dis­re­spect­ful abu­se, as to make the po­et tur­ning over in his gra­ve, so to spe­ak; but what­ev­er the start­ing po­int, what is most dis­con­cert­ing is how ma­ny in­tel­lects in the wake of, do no-th­ing but copy it slav­ish­ly. Two cen­tu­ries were not eno­ugh ...
I think that an Acad­e­my Lit­er­ary self-re­spect­ing sho­uld apol­o­gize to the civ­i­li­zed world for ne­glect­ing so far this dou­ble out­rage, now eas­i­ly rec­og­niz­a­ble thanks to the Web.
Would any­one like to dare an ar­range­ment of a cou­ple of bars in the she­et mu­sic of Bee­tho­ven's Moon­light So­na­ta as well... or of the Cho­pin's Noc­turne Op 9 No 2? and what wo­uld come out?