harvard.edu · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:More playing fast and free with facts? by APODNereid · 2008-01-20 14:33 · Score: 1 · on Aftermath of Distant Planetary Collision?

I rather doubt a poll of people on their familiarity with QED (this wikipedia page will do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics) would tell you much about how good a job it does, as a theory, in accounting for the relevant experimental results.

Science - thank goodness - is not some version of American Idol.

Plasma physics is pretty darn quantitative, and it has been applied (quantitatively) to astronomical observations, in order to develop hypotheses and models, to explain (in terms of mechanisms and processes) the fine details of the data that comes from the instruments attached to telescopes ... as the thousands of papers on MHD (magnetohydrodynamics - what Alfvén got his Nobel for) in databases such as ADS will attest [source: http://adswww.harvard.edu/)*.

If you - or any other reader of this comment - are interested in learning why Peratt's 'astronomy' papers (on galaxies, for example) are not cited by anyone (except himself), why not join an internet discussion forum where lots of folk with degrees in physics (including plasma physics), astronomy, etc hang out^? It would surely be interesting, wouldn't it? I mean, we could have a discussion on his papers, in terms of how well he has applied plasma physics and tested hypotheses against the actual astronomical observations .... quantitatively!

Surely this is how science is done? By developing (testable) hypotheses ... and actually testing them?

Or do you think the only people in the world who know enough about plasma physics, as applied to 'things we see in the sky' (beyond the Earth's atmosphere), to be able to do this kind of science are Peratt and Thornhill (despite the thousands who have PhDs in just this)?

* If you need some help finding these thousands of papers, just say so; I'd be only to pleased to help you.
^ For avoidance of doubt, none of the 'Electric Universe' fora I am aware has any quantitative discussions (equations, numbers, estimated uncertainties, etc), of astronomical phenomena ... I'd love to be proven wrong.

Re:They just wanted... by Ignis+Flatus · 2008-01-20 13:25 · Score: 1 · on Two AI Pioneers, Two Bizarre Suicides

Yeah, but he was forced to take some hormones or something after being accused of being gay, maybe that caused the imbalance that led to his suicide. Terrible loss anyway...

it's entirely possible. testosterone, despite all the bad press about steroids lately (and no, i'm not a juicer), has a very positive effect on a man's sense of well-being. when testosterone drops, men become depressed. and estrogen reduces endogenous testosterone production by increasing negative feedback at the hypothalamus and pituitary. which, btw, is another reason not to get fat, it increases your estrogen and decreases your testosterone.

Solve this quickly by ehrichweiss · 2008-01-19 02:51 · Score: 1 · on Lawyer Trademarks "Cyberlaw"

Solve this very quickly: Dilute his trademark by spelling it lower case and use the term in a link to an(other) attorney's site. He can't sue the attorney and can't sue you. If you recall, Google got upset when everyone was using "googling" and they tried in vain to stop it because it would dilute the trademark they had created, and that was Google, a company that actually is doing something worth trademarking not some half-wit attorney who thinks he knows cyberlaw or even cyberlaw or possibly cyberlaw and EVEN cyberlaw.

Take that ya farging bastitch.

Re:Mecca and Medina by kurzweilfreak · 2008-01-18 09:15 · Score: 1 · on Pope Cancels Speech After Scientists Protest

Wow, talk about putting the cart before the horse. Have you done any research into neurophysiology at all or are you just pretending to know what you're talking about? IANANP, but the basic concepts of neurophysiology aren't that difficult to come to grips with. How can you possibly separate neuron firing from these things you call thoughts? Do some basic research into how the brain works. I recommend "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins for a pretty understandable primer about how the brain does what it does. If we can manipulate the brain by sticking electrodes in there or poking it with a stick causing artificially generated thoughts (like the girl laughing for no reason at all and finding everything unexplainably funny when they poked her brain in a certain place [citation], or the experiments whereby artificial spiritual experiences or out-of-body sensations can be produced by stimulation directly or with magnetic fields applied to the brain) then what's the use of positing some extra layer of complexity that is not needed and is only trying to create a disconnect where none exists?

And why not be cranky about it? It's time that people get over bullshit like this and stop trying to fill their ever-shrinking gaps with their beloved imaginary friends/ghosts/souls.

Re:How does that work, exactly? by Sperbels · 2008-01-16 03:42 · Score: 2, Informative · on High School Sophomores Discover Asteroid

This will get you started. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/info/Astrometry.html#name

Re:Space shifting is not clear by rasputin465 · 2008-01-06 22:22 · Score: 1 · on RIAA's 'Misspeaking' May Have Affected Verdict

Someone should mod you up for "informative".

Anyways, I found the /. posting where I got the "decidedly legal" idea about space-shifting. From that posting, TFA makes that claim, and references the Rio case that is discussed in the wikipedia article you shared. But in the Napster case, it seems that the context of that ruling [against space-shifting] would not include ipods*. The MP3.com case seems to be in a similar context. Is it true that the law differentiates between various kinds of space-shifting? If so, then it looks like copying to an ipod is legit.

*or any other portable mp3 player

Let's look at the Keck observations, shall we? by APODNereid · 2007-12-28 18:46 · Score: 1 · on Enceladus "Sea" Mystery Deepens

pln2bz, quoting his fave non-science source:

Planetary scientists continue to perpetuate misunderstanding when they call the "Tiger Stripes" of Enceladus "cracks" that allow water to reach the surface. The channels are, in fact, precise analogs of those seen on Europa. Their frequent parallelism, their ridges or levees, and their ability to cut across all other channels in their paths stand as a definitive contradiction of the "fracturing" hypothesis. The pictures suggest something akin to a "claw" or router bit dragged across the surface in disregard for prior surface relief. That is a unique signature of an electric arc. In contrast, fracturing is invariably affected by a pre-existing surface channel or groove, as anyone who has ever worked with a glasscutter knows very well.

Now let's see what Schneider et al. actually found, per the abstract of the conference paper that the SD story which all these comments are on (source: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.P11F..08S)

A groundbased telescopic search for sodium emission near Saturn's moon Enceladus places a firm upper limit on the possible amount of sodium released by eruptions there. Independent observations at the Keck and Anglo- Australian Telescopes using high resolution spectroscopy failed to detect any sodium emission near Enceladus, despite the high sensitivity of such instruments to minute amounts of sodium originating at Jupiter's moons Io and Europa. Large amounts of sodium would be expected if Enceladus' plume material were derived directly from a long-lived ocean (or more confined "sea") in contact with rocky material. Chemical models predict that sodium would dissolve into such an ocean at mixing ratios relative to water of 10-4 to 10-1 (Zolotov et. al, 2007). Our numerical plumes models show that such high sodium concentrations would result in a long-lived torus of sodium encircling Saturn. Our detection upper limits fall orders of magnitude below these models, leading us to conclude that the Enceladus plumes do not originate in an ocean or sea. These observations support the alternative theories that Enceladus' plumes are generated by shear heating of the icy crust - resulting in sublimation or melting - or the decomposition of clathrates. These results do not rule out the possibility that a deep ocean exists at depth that is not directly responsible for the plumes. Plume sampling by Cassini or potential future missions, however, would not be probing this potentially habitable environment. This work has been supported by NSF's Planetary Astronomy Program.

(I added the bold re Io and Europa).

So, pln2bz would have us accept that certain surface features on Io, Europa, AND Enceladus are *all* due (entirely?) to 'sputtering' or 'electric arcs', based solely (so it would seem) on certain qualitative similarities in the appearance of these features with some lab materials blasted with plasma guns^.

However, despite the SD story having been up for over 10 days, he apparently did not bother to check the source, nor check whether Thornhill (or any other 'EU Theory' authority) commented on (or was even aware of) the apparent inconsistency; namely that the Keck results suggest the method of formation of the Enceladus features is not the same as the Io or Europa ones (for avoidance of doubt, the Keck results do not *prove* anything; such is the nature of modern science).

What say you, pln2bz? Within the 'EU Theory' paradigm, is it legitimate to introduce evidence, concerning Enceladus' plumes in this case, beyond qualitative similarities in images? Especially when that (other) evidence is quantitative? When it is independent of the images?

And if it is legitimate, how should that evidence be weighed? To what extent do the qualitative similarities trump the quantitative spectroscopic data? Or do 'EU Theorists' feel compelled to develop mathematical models of these hypothesised arcs and sputterings,

Re:I bet the Mafiaa Won't Like That by budgenator · 2007-12-27 11:55 · Score: 1 · on WTO Awards Caribbean Country Right to Ignore US Copyright

Who cares what they do, they have a population of what about 69,481 they leave Harvard alone and they have 33213 students and Facultyif the Antiguan and Barbudans ignore copyright who cares what they do in their country with a GDP - per capita of $10,900 it's unlikely that they are even on the RIAA or MPAA's radar. If they resell, and the bootleg stuff is exported then the importer is shit-outta-luck if they are caught.

the scale seems off by brer_rabbit · 2007-12-27 10:45 · Score: 1 · on Black Hole Fires at Neighboring Galaxy

According to the scale in this photo, these galaxies are only half the size of Stonehenge.

The difference this time around... by rHBa · 2007-12-27 05:17 · Score: 1 · on Black Hole Fires at Neighboring Galaxy

The difference this time around is that TFA has some cool, high def pics that I can crop for my desktop wallpaper :-)

PS (6.9 MB)
Tiff (43.4 MB)

The difference this time around... by rHBa · 2007-12-27 05:17 · Score: 1 · on Black Hole Fires at Neighboring Galaxy

The difference this time around is that TFA has some cool, high def pics that I can crop for my desktop wallpaper :-)

PS (6.9 MB)
Tiff (43.4 MB)

Re:What about postscript? by e**(i+pi)-1 · 2007-12-21 17:21 · Score: 1 · on Norway Mandates Government Use of ODF and PDF

The problem with postscript is that it can be alife.

hypervelocity star by MyNymWasTaken · 2007-12-20 05:40 · Score: 4, Interesting · on Supernova Detonates In Empty Space

It could've been a hypervelocity star.

The universe beyond the solar system ... astronomy by APODNereid · 2007-12-20 05:30 · Score: 1 · on Enceladus "Sea" Mystery Deepens

Everything we think we know about the universe beyond the solar system derives from the detection of photons*.

It is from analyses of these detections that we derive conclusions about stars made of hydrogen, of clouds of tenuous gas and dust, of regions of hot plasma, and so on.

Many of these detections are presented as pictures, or images, such as those presented daily at Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071220.html).

Some are just like what we can see with our own eyes (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070508.html).

Some are 'false colour' images, but close enough to what we imagine we might see if only we could look through the eyepiece of the telescope (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070418.html).

It's but a small step to look at other false colour images, taken in the infrared for example, through what is obviously just a telescope, and imagine we can interpret them similarly (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070413.html).

Other images are false colour composites, with one or more components having been taken by something that may bear little resemblance to our backyard refractor; nonetheless we may feel we can still interpret them similarly (example: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/crab/index.html).

However, reading the details of how photon/EMR detection got turned into an image quickly reveals that we should be very cautious when it comes to interpreting these images. For example, take this combined (Chandra) x-ray and (VLA) radio 'image' of the supernova remnant G11.2-0.3 (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/g11/index.html). Here is a description of how the x-ray image was created (source: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107292):

NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory observed G11.2-0.3 at two epochs, the first (Sequence Number 50076) on 2000 August 6, and the second (Sequence Number 50077) on 2000 October 15. The exposure for the first epoch was 20 ks. The second epoch consisted of two exposures, one of 10 ks and the other of 5 ks. In all observations, the remnant was positioned on the back-illuminated CCD chip S3 of the ACIS instrument in standard exposure mode. In this mode, the time resolution (3.2 s) is too coarse to resolve the pulsations from the pulsar.

The data were analyzed using the CIAO 2.02 and MIRIAD software packages. Following the energy binning scheme of Hughes et al. (2000), we added together the individual count maps from the three different observing epochs in the 0.6-1.65 keV, 1.65-2.25 keV, and 2.25-7.5 keV energy bands. Spectrally weighted exposure maps were created for each observation and energy band, and were summed over the three observations, creating a total count map and exposure map for each energy band. The count maps were divided by the exposure maps, and the result convolved with a 5" FWHM Gaussian to enhance the nebular structure given the low count rate. The three individual maps were then combined into a 3-color image, with red, green, and blue assigned to the low, medium, and high energy bands respectively.

And the radio image (source http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0202262):

Radio observations of G11.2-0.3 were made with the VLA at 20 and 6 cm (L- and C-bands, respectively), between 1984 April and 1985 May. Details of these observations are summarized in Table 1.

Data reduction and analysis were performed using standard procedures within the miriad package (Sault & Killeen 1999). The data were flux-density and anten

The universe beyond the solar system ... astronomy by APODNereid · 2007-12-20 05:30 · Score: 1 · on Enceladus "Sea" Mystery Deepens

Everything we think we know about the universe beyond the solar system derives from the detection of photons*.

It is from analyses of these detections that we derive conclusions about stars made of hydrogen, of clouds of tenuous gas and dust, of regions of hot plasma, and so on.

Many of these detections are presented as pictures, or images, such as those presented daily at Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071220.html).

Some are just like what we can see with our own eyes (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070508.html).

Some are 'false colour' images, but close enough to what we imagine we might see if only we could look through the eyepiece of the telescope (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070418.html).

It's but a small step to look at other false colour images, taken in the infrared for example, through what is obviously just a telescope, and imagine we can interpret them similarly (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070413.html).

Other images are false colour composites, with one or more components having been taken by something that may bear little resemblance to our backyard refractor; nonetheless we may feel we can still interpret them similarly (example: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/crab/index.html).

However, reading the details of how photon/EMR detection got turned into an image quickly reveals that we should be very cautious when it comes to interpreting these images. For example, take this combined (Chandra) x-ray and (VLA) radio 'image' of the supernova remnant G11.2-0.3 (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/g11/index.html). Here is a description of how the x-ray image was created (source: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107292):

NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory observed G11.2-0.3 at two epochs, the first (Sequence Number 50076) on 2000 August 6, and the second (Sequence Number 50077) on 2000 October 15. The exposure for the first epoch was 20 ks. The second epoch consisted of two exposures, one of 10 ks and the other of 5 ks. In all observations, the remnant was positioned on the back-illuminated CCD chip S3 of the ACIS instrument in standard exposure mode. In this mode, the time resolution (3.2 s) is too coarse to resolve the pulsations from the pulsar.

The data were analyzed using the CIAO 2.02 and MIRIAD software packages. Following the energy binning scheme of Hughes et al. (2000), we added together the individual count maps from the three different observing epochs in the 0.6-1.65 keV, 1.65-2.25 keV, and 2.25-7.5 keV energy bands. Spectrally weighted exposure maps were created for each observation and energy band, and were summed over the three observations, creating a total count map and exposure map for each energy band. The count maps were divided by the exposure maps, and the result convolved with a 5" FWHM Gaussian to enhance the nebular structure given the low count rate. The three individual maps were then combined into a 3-color image, with red, green, and blue assigned to the low, medium, and high energy bands respectively.

And the radio image (source http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0202262):

Radio observations of G11.2-0.3 were made with the VLA at 20 and 6 cm (L- and C-bands, respectively), between 1984 April and 1985 May. Details of these observations are summarized in Table 1.

Data reduction and analysis were performed using standard procedures within the miriad package (Sault & Killeen 1999). The data were flux-density and anten

Re:Thanks for the response! by APODNereid · 2007-12-17 04:36 · Score: 1 · on Cause of Aurora Borealis Confirmed

Given that the post which got you into so much trouble was, to all intents and purposes, the same (content-wise) as your first BAUT post, your decision - deliberate or not - to not bother to check on replies to it (the first post) before starting a new thread was foolish and clumsy, at best.

If that were all there was, then you did pay a heavy price for being gauche.

However, your first post contained many pointers to something deeper, something going on behind the scenes as it were.

And a few minutes with Google will lead a disinterested person to a number of very interesting posts by a 'mgmirkin', around the time you posted on BAUT; reading some of those might lead such an unbiased observer to replace gauche with cynical, disingenuous hypocrite ... and that the BAUT mod's decision was entirely justified.

Next, an apology. I mistook a reference in your first BAUT post (to yourself as 'a mad scientist') to mean that you are a professional scientist. It seems I was wrong; certainly there are no citations in ADS (http://adswww.harvard.edu/) for author 'Gmirkin' (Astronomy, Physics, arXiv). But perhaps you got your PhD in a different field of science?

In any case, the second part of your comments, to which I'm replying, clearly indicate an unfamiliarity with contemporary physics, astronomy, space science, astrophysics, cosmology, ...

Perhaps a good way to show this is to compare your link (Conventional vs Maverick Science) with your admiration of Birkeland: it seems you are a fan of both 'Maverick Science' and Birkeland's work, yet apparently unaware of how ironic or inconsistent this is! By your own, preferred, definitions, Birkeland's work was 'Conventional' in the extreme.

It gets better (or worse, depending on your viewpoint).

Birkeland, no doubt, would have been horrified at your characterisation of the state of space science (and plasma physics in general), a century later, as being (still) 'conceptual'; after all, almost all his work involved (quantitative, with numbers, math, and equations) testing the ideas you are excited about.

mgmirkin, the content of your BAUT posts - to the extent it is 'wrong' - is wrong because the detailed, quantitative results of a century (and more) of research - into plasma physics, into aurorae, the Earth's magnetosphere, the solar wind, etc, etc, etc - have long since shown those 'concepts' to be inconsistent with the data.

Let me give you a very small example of just how far beyond the 'conceptual' stage research into aurorae, the Earth's magnetosphere, the solar wind, etc, has got, by referring you to a couple of MSc thesis projects at KTH's School of Electrical Engineering (Space and Plasma Physics section) - the academic institution which includes the Alfvén Laboratory (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/): Multi-satellite measurements of solar wind plasma structures (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/edu/exjobb/visaprojekt.html?id=47037), and Study of auroral potentials using multi-satellite data from ESA's Cluster mission (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/edu/exjobb/visaprojekt.html?id=45773). And their syllabus for graduate studies: (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/edu/graduate/Syllabus_2002.pdf, a link to a PDF). And the research area of Solar System Plasma Physics: (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/res/ss/) ... be sure to check out the Publications link.

So, instead of ignorant bombast and vitriol, why not enrol in a university space science and/or plasma physics programme? Why not take the trouble to find out, first hand, for yourself, just how much further advanced we (collectively) are than mere 'concepts'?

And along the way