With snow falling it's time to turn up the heating; except wait a minute why do we need to do that? If you have thermostatically controlled heating it will switch off when it reaches a certain temperature regardless of what it is outside. Sure you can turn it up to make it heat up quicker; but once the heater switches off the temperature now should be the same as yesterday. So why is it colder?
I woke up to news that the Police were increasing the number of patrols on buses in the wake of the stabbing of a 16-year old. This seems a case of horses an stable doors, but in fact makes sense with the telling phrase "to reassure commuters" and that's because we're a strange species
Cracked have posted one of their amusing video's regarding a flaw with the first Back to the Future. Of course there are several, but the flaw they point out took me some time to understand. In the end I laid it out as follows.
We start with the original timeline and its inhabitants that I'll refer to using a subscript OT. In this timeline DocOT hits his head invents the flux capacitor, and build the time machine. MartyOT watches his father GeorgeOT being picked on by BiffOT and hears about how his mother LorraineOT fell in love with his father after being hit by her father's car. Now things get fun.
As mentioned I'm re-reading the Infinite Book and one topic that came up was with regards to the expansion of the universe. The logic presented in simple fashion goes like this:
The universe initially expanded (accelerated), however with no additional force gravity should 'instantly' start to cause everything to collapse.
In everyday terms if I throw a ball into the air as soon as the initial force of my hand is removed and the ball leaves my hand gravity takes over and 'removes' that force from the ball; until there's none left and the only force remaining is gravity and down comes the ball.
Looking at the universe parts are accelerating. That's like throwing a ball in the air and having its speed increase. Explanations are many and the book seems to settle on dark energy/dark matter etc. which are gravitationally repulsive. Spit-balling I threw some other concepts together and asked what if the acceleration is an illusion?
Where I'm sitting I can see the front of my car. Relative to that the snow is blowing from right to left, but the 'right' side of my bonnet (passenger side) is clear with snow piling up on the 'left'
Had a chat with an old friend yesterday. I won't get into too much about what started the discussion, but it turned to religion how it's not necessarily about God (capital G) or even god (lower G) but about a higher power - believing in a higher power. As examples he tried to throw concepts of infinity, and cause and effect at me... at me can you imagine :-)
Anyway as the concept of 'higher power' is helping him I didn't throw the big guns at him; despite what some people might conclude I'm not into breaking people's faith I'd rather they came to their own conclusions and help them with some of the false 'scientific' concepts religions tend to throw at their followers.
It's now 11:12 GMT one minute past the end of the world and for all those believers still standing there's only one thought passing through their minds "How do I explain this in a way that won't make me look like an idiot?". Here's hoping I can help you out:
Tip #1. Go for the metaphysical. The world has ended, but not the physical world is was never going to be that; instead it's the dawning of a new spiritual world.
Bonus. Your claim can never be refuted.
Tip #2. Mistranslation. The Mayan calendar really started later so the end of the world is still yet to come.
Bonus. You can do this all over again.
Tip #3. "Hah fooled you" not as good as the first two in that this makes you look like a jerk rather than an idiot, but hey go with it if you've nothing else
Bonus. You can do this with any other idiotic thing you say in the future
Tip #4. Realise that this was all a crock of shit; go back into education; and learn about science.
Bonus. Actually learning something... yeah whom I kidding if you've gone this far you'd best stick with one of the first three options.
Has everyone ticked off the last item on the bucket list? Bid your family and friends farewell? Why not; don't you know the world ends tomorrow?
Yes the 21st day of the 12th month of the year 2012 is the end of time... according to the Mayans. Well actually not according to the Mayans, but according to all the kooks who happily misinterpreted Mayan inscriptions.
In essence:
A story had popped up for no apparent reason in a few places including the Daily Mail, but I'm not going to link to them so instead here's the RAS page.
Upon reading the title I thought "Hmm I wonder if they meant looking for a depleted asteroid belt (compared to mathematical models) that might indicate extensive mining of it for resources indicating, at the least, a intra-system space-faring race?" Nope it's a having just the right type of asteroid belt could evolve intelligent life.
Okay really? We're still getting this. For a more in-depth look at my take on these stories check my posts on Reporting not parroting - Earth type planet; Theoretical physicist plus biology equals?; and Goldilocks planet.
In this instance we have Dr. Rebecca Martin with her PhD in "Theoretical Astrophysics, Warped and Twisted DIscs" and BA in Mathematics and Dr Mario Livio with his PhD in theoretical astrophysics M.S. in theoretical particle physics and B.S. in Mathematics and Physics both interpreting Punctuated Equilibrium, an evolutionary biology theory, and extending it into the realm of the xenobiologist.
While I could hold that the odd asteroid hit might have aided the rise of intelligent life on this planet the assumption that this would hold true for others is hilarious. I mean it's not been that long since the presence of our gas giants was supposedly crucial in deflecting asteroid hits along with our own satellite; so is 'life creation' being narrowed down so much to exactly the right type of asteroid field with exactly the right type of deflection hitting a planet that is just the right distance from the sun?
Again sure if you're looking for life that's evolved via pretty much exactly the same process we did than oddly enough looking for pretty much the same conditions would be a given. Assuming that's the only way intelligent life could evolve... I'll stick with hilarious.
A post from the local Labour Party about ATOS led me to have a look around. In an attempt to avoid legal matters I'm going to present a hypothetical situation that in theory could be applied to multiple situations.
Consider a government department that pays out money to claimants who present specific conditions. To determine if their claims are true the department outsources the checking to a private firm who employ experts to assess the claimants.
Both the department and private company state that there are no quotas involved regarding payment or bonuses. In theory therefore the company is free to assess fairly and honestly and not expect to be penalised if the results do not match the department's expectations.
That's the theory. Now I'll throw an extra into the mix - the very reason that the department outsourced these checks is because they believed that the previous system allowed too many "scroungers" in that is claimants falsely presenting the conditions that would allow them to gain monetary assistance from that department.
Given that extra consider a hypothetical situation in which the department's assumption was wrong.
The private company performs their task honestly and reports back that although there were a few scroungers (and there always will be) by far the previous assessments were accurate. The department now has two options
1. Accept the results.
2. Deny the results.
In the first instance the question is likely to be raised about how much money was spent on a private company to confirm the in-house results. The checks are likely to be returned in-house and the company not retained after the expiry of their contract.
In the second instance the government is assuming the company has failed in their checks and a new company will be brought in to do a 'proper' job'
Therefore if the company wishes to retain its contract there is an implied incentive for the results they present to adhere to the departments stated assumptions.
But wait it's not the company who do the reports they simply employ experts and compile their results. However as above so below. If the company, whom I've already ascertained wishes to retain its contract, hires two experts one who passes most claimants and one who fails most claimants which of the two is most likely to remain employed?
There is therefore an implied incentive on the experts to keep both themselves employed with the company and with the company being contracted by the department and therefore for them to adhere to the government's assumptions.
Considering it in reverse there is an incentive for the company not to check the experts' work provided it matches expectations and there is an incentive for the department not to check the company's work provided it matches expectations.
Worse yet even if independent experts were brought in to check they'd still be employed by the department and therefore they'd be exactly the same incentives on them to sign off on the work of the company.
So how can this be avoided? The flaw lies in the department's announcement of why it's outsourcing this work and what it expects the results to be. This is why I've tagged this with "Science" because that's one of the fundamental points of work carried out - you don't start it by stating what you expect the results to be because it's far too easy to nudge or cherry-picker the data to match your expectations.
An excellent piece from Nature. Best part when the doctor explains why the parent isn't allowed science any more:
“This is outrageous!” snarled Sacha. “How can this happen?”Heh - I'm sorry I can't explain why you're not allowed science any more because that involves science. "If only..." indeed.
“Oh, that's easy,” said James. “Magic.”
“Magic?” said Sacha, her eyes suddenly shining. “You mean there's really such a thing?”
“Of course not. But I can't explain to you how it's really done because you're not allowed science any more.”
Yes I know other people's dreams are boring; if you find that to be the case don't continue I'm not forcing you to read this. Normally I don't recall my dreams. All the ones I remember are narratives and the ones I glimpse before they fade seem to be the same; however there are two recurring ones that I can always remember the cause to the effect they have on me and both are very similar. The preamble often differs, but the conclusion is roughly the same. I'll illustrate with the one from last night.
As touched upon briefly I picked up a Steampunk novel from Waterstones while out with the Bratii namely The Strange Affair of Spring Heeled Jack by Mark Hodder. While the reveal was a little obvious, I think, to any follower of speculative history and SF it was written well enough for me to pick up the sequel and to contemplate the third in the series. Then I caught Steampunk Revolution by Abney Park via Pharyngula which I think is just one of those things where you only spot it because you're thinking about it. Hey I'm a sucker for violins when they're both a) tuned and b) played well which is c) rare ;-)
I can imagine some of my readers reading this though and thinking "What the hell is Steampunk?" and hopefully "That's kind of cool" while watching the video.
One wonders if he was let off because they agreed with him or because they didn't want to acknowledge they couldn't understand his paper.
It's well worth reading though the mathematics may be a little too high-level for some. So just for fun I'll simplify it a little (or more accurately a lot). There are three conditions that need to apply - the position of the officer; the deceleration and acceleration of the vehicle and a point where the car is no longer visible.
As a festive offering I thought I'd post a little information on the Big Guys in Red given that I'd happened to mention this to my father and he responded with "I never knew that".
Santa Claus and Father Christmas are not the same person. Santa is an American derivative of the Dutch figure; Father Christmas is more English/German/pagan. In attitude Santa is the gift-giver while Father Christmas is the merry maker - Santa brings the booze; Father Christmas encourages you to enjoy it ;-)
In appearance Santa Claus wears a short jacket and a hat; Father Christmas wears a robe with a hood. Locally the Three Kings Parade features Father Christmas - the hoodie you do want to hug.
A 'fact' that does need to be scotched is that they both wear red and white due to the Coca Cola adverts - they both wore red but also green or brown prior to Coca Cola; however it could be said that red is now the predominant shade due this public perception.
On an atheistic note if you wish someone Happy Holidays and they get snotty about you not using the C word ask them why they don't consider this time to be a Holy Day which is where the word derives its meaning :-)
And on that note I wish everyone a happy,pleasant and fun holiday. See you in the New Year.
As I've mentioned I did some Christmas shopping for Bratus Minor and I did end up buying him a "How to Paint" book. Prior to wrapping I had a flick through it and found they were using the Red Yellow Blue (RYB) colour model on how to mix paints. This is a popular model that painters use; but why?
Currently re-reading "Time Travellers in Einstein's Universe" by J Richard Gott and reached a section on cosmic strings that touched on black holes and thought "That's not right". He was mentioning escape velocity and stated that the astronauts who went to the moon had to achieve this speed. No they didn't.
I have already covered it here, but another take won't hurt.
I was cornered the other day by someone who'd taken exception to my stating that convection isn't really a method of heat transfer.
And so to an analogy (feel free to groan I know some hate the ones I produce)
I have a box of tennis balls each marked "HEAT"; you also have a similar box. While moving around we bump into each other and some of each of our tennis balls bounce into the other's box. I end up with less and you end up with more.
Another time I see you standing paying no attention so I take out one of my tennis balls and throw it at you; it lands in your box.
Another time you see me and not wanting to be hit by flung tennis balls you and your box take several steps away from me.
Consider: In the first and second scenarios 'heat' was transferred; you gained it, I lost it. In the third no 'heat' was transferred; it was moved, but it was still attached to you. Conduction, radiation, convection. The question is does the word move and the word transfer have identical meanings? I contend that they don't. I accept that another might and that therefore all three methods do regard heat transfer; however it is still the case that in two of the cases the carriers of heat lose it and one where they don't and for me that continues to stand as a misclassification.
I mentioned as part of GCSE Physics that the guide described the differences between speed and velocity; it has been pointed out to me that I neglected to explain what that difference was. Easily remedied - speed is scalar whereas velocity is a vector; there you go.
Major is taking some of his GCSE exams this year. Seems early, but apparently they've decided to split them up over two years rather than drop them all in at the same time. Makes sense to me rather than trying to cram and revise for all the exams they only need to do so for half of them.
This meant that Major had his revision guides lying around so I picked up the one for Physics. Now this is a cramming guide so I didn't expect much in the way of explanation, but I expected more. One of the things it does illuminate is the type of erroneous knowledge exhibited by those who never went beyond GCSE Science.
