Apparently Colorado Mesa University only grants Associate and Bachelor's Degrees in physics. I'd say that was a pretty nice paper and experiment for an undergraduate physics major (see page 4). My guess it was his senior research project.
It has been many years since I have presented at an AGU meeting, but back then at least, you were given about 12 minutes. This just the kind of thing to present at one of these meetings. You have preliminary work and have a working hypothesis, and you put it out in a brief talk to your colleagues for comments and criticism. Some of these talks are summaries of work that has been, or will be sent in, as a formal refereed paper, a lot of it are graduate students presenting their work in progress, and some of it is preliminary stuff like this. This is exactly why these kind of meetings are so important to scientists and engineers; you get to flush out ideas, form collaborations, get called out for shoddy work, etc. It is far more productive and efficient than throwing something up on the web somewhere.
I played that on a VAX back in 1984. It was fun, but I never played it enough to build up a strong enough ship. Those sysadmin bastards (who were usually CS majors sitting at the terminal for their work/study job) would love to swoop in and pick off the newbies.
Google is mainly returning all links to this story, but I seem to recall from at least 15 to 20 years ago when quantum computing became a popular issue, that cracking encryption keys was exactly the thing you'd use a quantum computer for. There was all this discussion of how many bits you should use for key generation, and how safe it would be ("It would take you the age of the Universe to crack 256 bits, even when harnessing all the computers on Earth, but a quantum computer could crack it in an hour" and stuff like that). It was no secret that the NSA was working on quantum computer technology then as well.
The NSA does all sorts of cutting-edge research in mathematics and computer sciences, so you can pretty much write a story that says "The NSA is working on a program to [insert futuristic computer-related topic]". Other than making for breathless headlines, is ANYONE surprised that they have a quantum computing program?
The 88 page John Galt monologue almost did me in, but I was that far into the book that I decided it was going to be a battle of wills and I was going to put my head down and finish it no matter how laborious it became. My Dad said the same thing about working his way through War and Peace.
It also depends upon where you are seeing these endless stories. If you are mainly seeing these stories for the first time on this site, that might have more to do with a selection bias. Those are the kind of stories that quickly and easily make it on this site these days. I would be hesitant to say that those kind of things are happening more often, rather, those kind of topics are the kind of things that become easily showcased on this site; not so much tech stuff anymore.
The force of gravity is faster than light. Why this isn't widely known is a mystery to me (probably breaks someone's pet model - you think science doesn't have heretics?) but it's true. The earth doesn't orbit where the sun was 8 minutes ago. If it did it would have long ago left the solar system. The earth orbits where the sun is right now. It takes light about 8 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth.
Do the math sometime and you'll see that you are wrong (you are right that it orbits where the sun is now, but not for the reasons you think); or at least, do the math from our current models. I don't know what the math would say from whatever model your theory is.
As for heretics and pet models, a summary of where the current pet models stand with regard to being tested can be found here. From the conclusion:
All present experimental tests are compatible with the predictions of the current “standard” theory of gravitation: Einstein’s General Relativity. The universality of the coupling between matter and gravity (Equivalence Principle) has been verified around the 10^(-13) level. Solar system experiments have tested the weak-field predictions of Einstein’s theory at the 10^(-4) level (and down to the 2 × 10^(-5) level for the post-Einstein parameter gamma-bar). The propagation properties of relativistic gravity, as well as several of its strong-field aspects, have been verified at the 10^(-3) level (or better) in several binary pulsar experiments. Recent laboratory experiments have set strong constraints on sub-millimeter modifications of Newtonian gravity. Quantitative confirmations of General Relativity have also been obtained on astrophysical and cosmological scales (assuming dark matter and a cosmological constant).
This pet theory is almost 100 year old now, and though there is still lots of interesting things to study and find, it does not have a problem explaining the orbits of the Earth and Sun as you seem to think it does.
I love the graphics on R as well. Matlab always looks too computer-y for me. However, the thing I love the most about R is that not only is it free and top-notch quality, but I run it on my Windows box, linux box, for giggles I've loaded it on Raspbian on a Raspberry Pi, and if I ever get around to rooting my phone, I could even load it on there as well. No license files.
With regard to Octave, when I've been given m-files, I've found Octave to be a very good substitute for Matlab.
The thing you need to be careful of is mixing Newtonian ideas (instantaneous force vectors) with quantum or relativistic phenomena. However, there are many similarities between gravity and electromagnetism. If you go through all the math and consider the propagation delay between a moving charged particle and one at rest, it works out that the force vector points towards the instantaneous position of the moving charged particle because the EM field of the moving particle has a velocity-dependent component that cancels out the propagation delay effect. A similar thing happens if you work through the uglier equations of General Relativity, but the cancellation effect is not exact, and this difference is what gives rise to gravitational radiation (and is why we believe orbital pulsar systems have decaying orbits), and is also why we do not seem to detect a gravitational aberration effect..
This paper explains it pretty well. The math isn't too bad, though it uses tensor notation so it can look a bit intimidating if you're not used to it, but the text around the equations is pretty good.
Ah, wait a minute - the Earth is moving as well as rotating. So the photons reaching Earth are moving (relative to Earth) with a velocity that is the combination of their initial velocity and Earth's orthogonal velocity. Meaning they should appear to be slightly blue-shifted, and coming from a point slightly more in front of the Earth in it's orbit. Unfortunately I can't remember the details of relativistic velocity addition offhand, so I can't calculate the exact angle of the discrepancy.
This is referred to as The Aberation of Light, which is an unfortunate name because light aberration has a different meaning with regards to optical systems.
Given that, then if gravity travels through space at a finite speed then a similar discrepancy should exist, with gravitons hitting the Earth from slighty "in front", and accelerating the planet in it's orbit.
It has to do with the difference between phase and group velocities when dealing with groups of waves. You can have a phase velocity greater than c but information is transferred via the group velocity. One place to start is here, another here. You can find some nice applets around that will show it to you graphically. The topic comes up from time to time because it is at the heart of the misunderstanding of faster-than-light "photons".
If you know of a good source for that number, I would be interested. The studies I am aware of followed population groups who were exposed to it, as well as some people who were known to have inhaled or ingested it, and they do not support these statements. Ralph Nader famously stated that plutonium is the most dangerous substance on Earth, but this has been refuted many times over. Google turns up some good scientific articles that address this.
When I was in college I was always impressed with how concerned the dredlock crowd was about the rope industry. Usually those guys got tagged with an anti-business label, but in reality they were really looking out for the small rope manufacturer.
I don't disagree with you, but your concerns can only be addressed at the oversight level. If the programs you refer to are classified ones, which I'm sure they are, the NSA will not be allowed to talk about them or publicly acknowledge them. Someone at a very high level would need to declassify them first before they could be publicly discussed. If Congress isn't doing their job overseeing this, people need to get on their asses to address it.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently Colorado Mesa University only grants Associate and Bachelor's Degrees in physics. I'd say that was a pretty nice paper and experiment for an undergraduate physics major (see page 4). My guess it was his senior research project.
That was the part of the whole thing that I found funny.
They usually last 30 to 45 minutes
It has been many years since I have presented at an AGU meeting, but back then at least, you were given about 12 minutes. This just the kind of thing to present at one of these meetings. You have preliminary work and have a working hypothesis, and you put it out in a brief talk to your colleagues for comments and criticism. Some of these talks are summaries of work that has been, or will be sent in, as a formal refereed paper, a lot of it are graduate students presenting their work in progress, and some of it is preliminary stuff like this. This is exactly why these kind of meetings are so important to scientists and engineers; you get to flush out ideas, form collaborations, get called out for shoddy work, etc. It is far more productive and efficient than throwing something up on the web somewhere.
I played that on a VAX back in 1984. It was fun, but I never played it enough to build up a strong enough ship. Those sysadmin bastards (who were usually CS majors sitting at the terminal for their work/study job) would love to swoop in and pick off the newbies.
Other than making for breathless headlines, is ANYONE surprised that they have a quantum computing program?
Well, evidently the person who modded me Flamebait was surprised, so I stand corrected. :P
It adds credibility to include them, but I wonder if Ford and Reiche can remember what their creative intentions were after 20 years.
Google is mainly returning all links to this story, but I seem to recall from at least 15 to 20 years ago when quantum computing became a popular issue, that cracking encryption keys was exactly the thing you'd use a quantum computer for. There was all this discussion of how many bits you should use for key generation, and how safe it would be ("It would take you the age of the Universe to crack 256 bits, even when harnessing all the computers on Earth, but a quantum computer could crack it in an hour" and stuff like that). It was no secret that the NSA was working on quantum computer technology then as well.
The NSA does all sorts of cutting-edge research in mathematics and computer sciences, so you can pretty much write a story that says "The NSA is working on a program to [insert futuristic computer-related topic]". Other than making for breathless headlines, is ANYONE surprised that they have a quantum computing program?
Better go with higher than P(0.9). Mitch Albom tried what you suggest and got busted for it.
The 88 page John Galt monologue almost did me in, but I was that far into the book that I decided it was going to be a battle of wills and I was going to put my head down and finish it no matter how laborious it became. My Dad said the same thing about working his way through War and Peace.
It also depends upon where you are seeing these endless stories. If you are mainly seeing these stories for the first time on this site, that might have more to do with a selection bias. Those are the kind of stories that quickly and easily make it on this site these days. I would be hesitant to say that those kind of things are happening more often, rather, those kind of topics are the kind of things that become easily showcased on this site; not so much tech stuff anymore.
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!
Any of the works of Stephen J Gould and Steven Hawking written for the general population.
The 66th edition is WAY better.
(You need to be an old fart of a certain minimum age to appreciate the reference.)
Don't worry, they'll rename it in the future.
There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark.
The force of gravity is faster than light. Why this isn't widely known is a mystery to me (probably breaks someone's pet model - you think science doesn't have heretics?) but it's true. The earth doesn't orbit where the sun was 8 minutes ago. If it did it would have long ago left the solar system. The earth orbits where the sun is right now. It takes light about 8 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth.
Do the math sometime and you'll see that you are wrong (you are right that it orbits where the sun is now, but not for the reasons you think); or at least, do the math from our current models. I don't know what the math would say from whatever model your theory is.
As for heretics and pet models, a summary of where the current pet models stand with regard to being tested can be found here. From the conclusion:
All present experimental tests are compatible with the predictions of the current “standard” theory of gravitation: Einstein’s General Relativity. The universality of the coupling between matter and gravity (Equivalence Principle) has been verified around the 10^(-13) level. Solar system experiments have tested the weak-field predictions of Einstein’s theory at the 10^(-4) level (and down to the 2 × 10^(-5) level for the post-Einstein parameter gamma-bar). The propagation properties of relativistic gravity, as well as several of its strong-field aspects, have been verified at the 10^(-3) level (or better) in several binary pulsar experiments. Recent laboratory experiments have set strong constraints on sub-millimeter modifications of Newtonian gravity. Quantitative confirmations of General Relativity have also been obtained on astrophysical and cosmological scales (assuming dark matter and a cosmological constant).
This pet theory is almost 100 year old now, and though there is still lots of interesting things to study and find, it does not have a problem explaining the orbits of the Earth and Sun as you seem to think it does.
R has everything I need for linear algebra.
I love the graphics on R as well. Matlab always looks too computer-y for me. However, the thing I love the most about R is that not only is it free and top-notch quality, but I run it on my Windows box, linux box, for giggles I've loaded it on Raspbian on a Raspberry Pi, and if I ever get around to rooting my phone, I could even load it on there as well. No license files.
With regard to Octave, when I've been given m-files, I've found Octave to be a very good substitute for Matlab.
And several decades later, I'm still playing Nethack. Got it on my phone too. It fires up real fast. :)
The thing you need to be careful of is mixing Newtonian ideas (instantaneous force vectors) with quantum or relativistic phenomena. However, there are many similarities between gravity and electromagnetism. If you go through all the math and consider the propagation delay between a moving charged particle and one at rest, it works out that the force vector points towards the instantaneous position of the moving charged particle because the EM field of the moving particle has a velocity-dependent component that cancels out the propagation delay effect. A similar thing happens if you work through the uglier equations of General Relativity, but the cancellation effect is not exact, and this difference is what gives rise to gravitational radiation (and is why we believe orbital pulsar systems have decaying orbits), and is also why we do not seem to detect a gravitational aberration effect..
This paper explains it pretty well. The math isn't too bad, though it uses tensor notation so it can look a bit intimidating if you're not used to it, but the text around the equations is pretty good.
Ah, wait a minute - the Earth is moving as well as rotating. So the photons reaching Earth are moving (relative to Earth) with a velocity that is the combination of their initial velocity and Earth's orthogonal velocity. Meaning they should appear to be slightly blue-shifted, and coming from a point slightly more in front of the Earth in it's orbit. Unfortunately I can't remember the details of relativistic velocity addition offhand, so I can't calculate the exact angle of the discrepancy.
This is referred to as The Aberation of Light , which is an unfortunate name because light aberration has a different meaning with regards to optical systems.
Given that, then if gravity travels through space at a finite speed then a similar discrepancy should exist, with gravitons hitting the Earth from slighty "in front", and accelerating the planet in it's orbit.
This makes no sense to me.
It has to do with the difference between phase and group velocities when dealing with groups of waves. You can have a phase velocity greater than c but information is transferred via the group velocity. One place to start is here, another here. You can find some nice applets around that will show it to you graphically. The topic comes up from time to time because it is at the heart of the misunderstanding of faster-than-light "photons".
If you know of a good source for that number, I would be interested. The studies I am aware of followed population groups who were exposed to it, as well as some people who were known to have inhaled or ingested it, and they do not support these statements. Ralph Nader famously stated that plutonium is the most dangerous substance on Earth, but this has been refuted many times over. Google turns up some good scientific articles that address this.
When I was in college I was always impressed with how concerned the dredlock crowd was about the rope industry. Usually those guys got tagged with an anti-business label, but in reality they were really looking out for the small rope manufacturer.
I don't disagree with you, but your concerns can only be addressed at the oversight level. If the programs you refer to are classified ones, which I'm sure they are, the NSA will not be allowed to talk about them or publicly acknowledge them. Someone at a very high level would need to declassify them first before they could be publicly discussed. If Congress isn't doing their job overseeing this, people need to get on their asses to address it.
Absolutely. I got it on my Windows and linux machines, and I had it on my old phone (haven't put it on the new one yet).