Not that big of a deal!? I hope it was just a sarcastic remark. I think below may be a list of reasons you should be concerned:
It only takes a very small number of people to control the outcome. Note there are many people handling the voting machine hardware here, and it isn't that difficult for them to find a friend who has a bit of computing experience. Maybe you'll scream unlikely, but think about a simple estimate. If each county has 100 election officials with access to the memory card, average numbef of county per state is about 30, we already have 3000 people with access to memory card per state on average. All it takes is one person to alter pretty much all of the results of the vote. All the analysis used was a card reader bought off e-bay. He didn't have full access to the Diebolt machines.
Well, there's no good reason to believe that physical laws *should*
be constant. Remember, physics is an observational science after
all, and when we look for physical laws, we look for something
that doesn't change. For example, when looking at F = ma, we're
really saying that the ratio of F and acceleration is governed
by a constant that is defined by the object's mass. And when we
find (through relativity) that mass is not necessarily constant,
then we realize that F = ma is just an approximation to something
more fundemental - something that doesn't change under a less
restrictive condition. So we see that whenever a constant becomes
something variable, it isn't so much that we expect the variable to
be constant, it's just that our physical law is not as fundemental as
we think. Physicists then propose the existence of something even
more fundemental. Of course, all of this comes from a bit of
reductionism.
I think it's safe to say that there might be some assumptions
about laptops. Laptops does not necessarily equate to education.
It *might* provide access of information, given there is internet
access. We're all of the "computer-type" here, and I'm sure all
of us can attest to the fact that sometimes we waste quite a bit of
time on the computer, doing nothing. (i.e., browsing the web or what
not)
I also dare say that computers, calculators, and many other modern
technologies may not necessarily be the best way to learn. Take
learning physics for example. With the advant of Mathematica and Maple,
more and more physics students lack the basic skills of simply looking
at a function and understand it. Students become focused on how to get
a function to integrate or plot in these software, as opposed to actually
understand what they mean. We see similar things in writing. In another
words, computer itself, especially when used improperly, becomes more of
a distraction than anything. (Gauss didn't have Mathematica, but he noticed
a whole lot about math.)
Bottom line is, laptop for kids may or may not be a good idea - after all,
access to millions of books on the web is awesome. But can they be as much
used if kids with them don't get instructions to begin with?
He mentioned that charged particle in a gravitational field
does not radiate? What the hell is he talking about? If you
leave an electron on our table top (so to speak), of course
it's not going to radiate as the net force on the electron is
zero. Otherwise, it'd be moving. (freshman physics) An electron in a gravitational field will acclerate, and it will move. And yes, it will radiate. Does anyone know this guy's original training? I believe the Crack Pot Detector [tm] is ringing.
Maybe by now this is redundant, as someone else might have replied already. In the most basic level, this guy claims that electrons can "orbit" around the nucleus of the hydrogen atom much closer than allowed. This is fine, as long as we don't have any experimental prove that this is impossible. This can be shown by using the spectral line of hydrogen atom. We know (from both theory and experiments) that from photoelectric effect, electrons from excited energy level "drops down" to a lower energy level by giving off a photon. So in an experiment, one can excite a hydrogen atom and and observe how how the hydrogen atom goes back into the ground state by giving up a photon.
Again, through both experiment and theory, we know that the spectral line is discrete. You can look at the first excited state, second excited state, and so forth. I'd refer you to wiki and various web resources for the details.
Now, the basis of this guy's whole theory is that electrons in the hydrogen atom, by some magical means, can actually be closer to the nucleus - in another words, we should see another spectral line below the lowest possible state. The question is of course, "How is it possible that we haven't seen this spectral line before."
I only skimmed through his paper, what amazes me is that amount of calculations he's actually done. However, that being said, there seems to be a whole bunch of crap - crap being things he just sort of assumes. I am much more dubious when I see lines such as = [quantity A]/[quantity B]. I'd suggests that at the level of physics he's supposedly doing, things aren't necessarily so simple. A lot of times very important results are barried very deeply inside an equation. (Anyone who's studied Green's function can attest to this.) Mathematics is very powerful tool, but one must be very careful as to what physically we're extracting from it. Otherwise, it's all going to be just garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that big of a deal!? I hope it was just a sarcastic remark. I think below may be a list of reasons you should be concerned:
8 241&from=rss
It only takes a very small number of people to control the outcome. Note there are many people handling the voting machine hardware here, and it isn't that difficult for them to find a friend who has a bit of computing experience. Maybe you'll scream unlikely, but think about a simple estimate. If each county has 100 election officials with access to the memory card, average numbef of county per state is about 30, we already have 3000 people with access to memory card per state on average. All it takes is one person to alter pretty much all of the results of the vote. All the analysis used was a card reader bought off e-bay. He didn't have full access to the Diebolt machines.
Worse, remember an article from about a week ago? http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/26/15
The key issue here is secrecy, concentration of power, and accountability.
Well, there's no good reason to believe that physical laws *should* be constant. Remember, physics is an observational science after all, and when we look for physical laws, we look for something that doesn't change. For example, when looking at F = ma, we're really saying that the ratio of F and acceleration is governed by a constant that is defined by the object's mass. And when we find (through relativity) that mass is not necessarily constant, then we realize that F = ma is just an approximation to something more fundemental - something that doesn't change under a less restrictive condition. So we see that whenever a constant becomes something variable, it isn't so much that we expect the variable to be constant, it's just that our physical law is not as fundemental as we think. Physicists then propose the existence of something even more fundemental. Of course, all of this comes from a bit of reductionism.
I think it's safe to say that there might be some assumptions about laptops. Laptops does not necessarily equate to education. It *might* provide access of information, given there is internet access. We're all of the "computer-type" here, and I'm sure all of us can attest to the fact that sometimes we waste quite a bit of time on the computer, doing nothing. (i.e., browsing the web or what not) I also dare say that computers, calculators, and many other modern technologies may not necessarily be the best way to learn. Take learning physics for example. With the advant of Mathematica and Maple, more and more physics students lack the basic skills of simply looking at a function and understand it. Students become focused on how to get a function to integrate or plot in these software, as opposed to actually understand what they mean. We see similar things in writing. In another words, computer itself, especially when used improperly, becomes more of a distraction than anything. (Gauss didn't have Mathematica, but he noticed a whole lot about math.) Bottom line is, laptop for kids may or may not be a good idea - after all, access to millions of books on the web is awesome. But can they be as much used if kids with them don't get instructions to begin with?
He mentioned that charged particle in a gravitational field does not radiate? What the hell is he talking about? If you leave an electron on our table top (so to speak), of course it's not going to radiate as the net force on the electron is zero. Otherwise, it'd be moving. (freshman physics) An electron in a gravitational field will acclerate, and it will move. And yes, it will radiate. Does anyone know this guy's original training? I believe the Crack Pot Detector [tm] is ringing.
Maybe by now this is redundant, as someone else might have replied already. In the most basic level, this guy claims that electrons can "orbit" around the nucleus of the hydrogen atom much closer than allowed. This is fine, as long as we don't have any experimental prove that this is impossible.
This can be shown by using the spectral line of hydrogen atom. We know (from both theory and experiments) that from photoelectric effect, electrons from excited energy level "drops down" to a lower energy level by giving off a photon. So in an experiment, one can excite a hydrogen atom and and observe how how the hydrogen atom goes back into the ground state by giving up a photon.
Again, through both experiment and theory, we know that the spectral line is discrete. You can look at the first excited state, second excited state, and
so forth. I'd refer you to wiki and various web resources for the details.
Now, the basis of this guy's whole theory is that electrons in the hydrogen atom, by some magical means, can actually be closer to the nucleus - in another words, we should see another spectral line below the lowest possible state. The question is of course, "How is it possible that we haven't seen this spectral line before."
I only skimmed through his paper, what amazes me is that amount of calculations he's actually done. However, that being said, there seems to be a whole bunch of crap - crap being things he just sort of assumes. I am much more dubious when I see lines such as = [quantity A]/[quantity B]. I'd suggests that at the level of physics he's supposedly doing, things aren't necessarily so simple. A lot of times very important results are barried very deeply inside an equation. (Anyone who's studied Green's function can attest to this.) Mathematics is very powerful tool, but one must be very careful as to what physically we're extracting from it. Otherwise, it's all going to be just garbage.