Is History a Fractal? February 28, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Musings, Science.add a comment
In his Foundation series of science fiction books, author and scientist Isaac Asimov postulated the idea that history could be projected forward as a mathematical set of equations. The principle was that if you have enough people, the group will behave in very predictable ways. You can’t predict the actions of a single person, but when you have, in the case of Foundation, a galaxy full of people, then you can forecast what they will do with mathematical certainty. It made for a very entertaining series of classic science fiction literature.
But, I wonder if there might be some truth to this idea. When you read history, you find that events happen over and over. Indeed, its a famous saying that history repeats itself. But, if you start looking, what you find is the same things are not only repeating themselves, but they repeat themselves at all levels. Take this comparison of 2008, for example. Things that look the same at all magnifications are called fractals.
So, is history a fractal? Can we see the same pattern repeating itself? And, can we possibly, like in Asimov’s books, mathematically predict the future, at least in a general sense? Would it be possible, if we were able to formulate history as a mathematical expression, to forecast, for instance, that there will be a major war in year 2xxx? That the course of events is already in motion and history shows these particular events will lead to some given outcome?
I think there may be some validity to this. Take the current economic problems, for instance. Once finance companies started giving out subprime mortgages to people that couldn’t afford them, it was only a matter of time before the course of events led to an economic calamity. And, the longer it took for the collapse to occur, the more people there would be getting these mortgages, and the more severe the collapse. With the given economic conditions, I have to think it would have been possible to mathematically forecast when the collapse would occur.
But, I’m not saying this is something we could do. At least, not at the present. I think the mathematics involved would be massive and the amount of data required would be massive. But, this would be a good thing to achieve.
Suppose we could forecast when and how a major conflict would occur. We could act to prevent it. Maybe we could even forecast something like a widespread flu epidemic, based on the history of flu viruses and the knowledge of how people move about. We could make adjustments to prevent the (most) recent economic situation.
These are worthwhile goals. It would certainly be interesting if it is something we could achieve. Maybe there would be a website where you could see what the latest forecasts were. The long-range forecast for civil unrest and warfare. Who know? Maybe Asimov was right.
While We Debate… February 24, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Global Warming, Science.add a comment
Its really pretty pathetic. The climate just keeps coming apart and the evidence of man’s involvement in all of this just keeps piling up. So, instead of realizing we need to change the way we do business, we argue and actually make things worse.
I was reading about the latest report by the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. I know the skeptics will just look at this report and dismiss it, not because the science is invalid, but because they want to live in denial. But, the panel’s conclusions aren’t the thing I want to point out. What I’m concerned about in this article is the statement:
Carbon emissions have been growing at 3.5 percent per year since 2000, up sharply from the 0.9 percent per year in the 1990s,
What is Time? February 20, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Musings, Science.add a comment
This is a question that I’ve thought a lot about over the years. What is time? The truth is, there is no answer to the question, so its merely rhetorical. Something to fill my time, you might say.
I know all about the 4th dimension statements. I had relativity as both an undergraduate and a graduate under one of the world’s leaders in relativity, Dr. Wolfgang Rindler, and I did quite well in his classes. In relativity, time is a fourth dimension after length, width and height. And, let’s be clear on this, the theory of relativity has been tested rigorously and repeatedly, and passed each and every test. I am not challenging anything that relativity says about time being the fourth dimension.
But, that still doesn’t answer the question. Let me put it a different way. We can move in each of the three other dimensions, then, turn around and move back. We can even go back to our starting point. But, not with time. We move in one direction and we cannot go backwards.
But, there is a bigger issue. When I move in a straight line, it affects me and my immediate surroundings only and nothing else. The rest of the world, and certainly the rest of the universe, doesn’t know or care if I move from one side of my room to the other. If I travel from New York to Tokyo, the rest of the universe goes its merry way, neither knowing nor caring. But, if I progress into the future, so does the entire universe.
Think about that. In the time that it took you to read this posting, the rest of the ENTIRE universe was also progressing in time. Stars so distant that their light won’t reach us for billions of years are progressing forward in time, just like us. At the same time.
Now, by relativity, we may not all be progressing at the same rate. By relativity, the faster you go, the slower time goes. But, it still goes. And, if you’re going at a constant rate, the progression is proportional. In other words, if I go through twice as much time as before, so will they. It might not be the same amount of time for them as me, but it will still be twice as much time as they progressed in the first instance. The exception to this is if you are accelerating and changing your speed. This is known as changing your inertial reference frame and other things can occur, but time still moves forward even in these cases.
So, back to my question, what is this thing that causes the complete and entire universe to advance, just like us, and along with us? And, in only one direction?
Just wondering.
Darwin’s 200th February 12, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Evolution and Creationism, Musings, Science.add a comment
Today is Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday. Happy birthday to the man that changed an entire branch of science. Biology today is completely different due to the work of this one man. If you wish to learn more about the man and his work, check out this excellent article by Tom Sigfried at Science News, or take a look at their special package on Darwin and Evolution.
Darwin, in short, was a brilliant man, able to cross several disciplines of science and connect dots that were not apparent to most others. Much of what we understand about the world today is because of his work.
In the most fundamental level, Darwin stated that a species that has an advantage breeding is most likely to survive. This has been summed up in the phrase, ’survival of the fittest.’ The result of this is evolution, the formation of more complex life forms from less complex ones.
This theory has become much more refined since Darwin first published it in On the Origin of Species, but the basic theory is still there. And, contrary to the claims of the nay-sayers, the amount of supporting evidence is huge, simply huge. In fact, I once read that the amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is greater than the evidence supporting any other theory ever discovered.
Yet, for some reason, Darwin has been vilified by the religious zealots. Unfortunately, these zealots are able to convince a lot of people. A Gallup survey found only 39 percent of Americans believe in evolution. I’ve never been able to understand this. These religious zealots claim that Darwin and evolution are contrary to the Bible and undermines their religious beliefs. They point out that the Bible says the universe was created in six days, therefore there cannot be any evolution. The Bible, they say, is God’s word and must be interpreted literally.
But, these same people will work on Sundays, will lie, steal and even commit adultery without even thinking about it. Yet, all of these things are expressly forbidden by the Bible and are part of the ten commandments. Further, they will believe that the Earth orbits the Sun. But, if you are going to claim the Bible must be interpreted literally, then you must believe that the Sun orbits the Earth. The Bible is quite clear on this. These same people will even get their annual flu vaccinations. If you don’t believe in evolution, then you don’t need to get an annual vaccination. Without evolution, there would be only one flu strain and only one vaccination would ever be needed to protect you against it. And, we won’t go into how the Bible treats slavery, genocide, women’s rights, polygamy, and religious sacrifices, just to name a few topics.
This is hypocrisy of the worst sort and one of the reasons why I always think of these people as being anti-science. It is also one of the reasons why I left organized religion and am now a practicing Wiccan. Wicca, at least, has no problems with the advancement of science. If fact, it embraces it.
And science will advance. There is no ‘Mother Nature.’ The natural world is not sentient. It is what it is without us and will continue to be that way, whether we choose to understand it or not. The laws of nature will continue as they are, oblivious to the silly arguments of humans. Science is merely trying to understand what those laws of nature are. A majority of people denying evolution will not change the laws of nature. Nature marches on, with or without our consent.
Evolution is certainly one of those laws of nature. The evidence cannot be denied by anyone looking at the subject with an open mind. But, most people are not willing to do that. They have made up their minds based on things that have been told to them, almost all of which are either wrong, or distorted.
Here is a fact. Evolution is no more anti-religion than the Copernican theory that the Earth orbits the Sun. Four hundred years ago, the Catholic Church put Galileo on trial for defying orders to not teach or hold that theory. Today, most people would agree that the idea of the Earth orbiting the Sun does not threaten their religious beliefs. Four hundred years from now, people will be saying the same thing about evolution.
I hope you don’t wait that long. Accept that science and religion can co-exist.
The Evidence for Global Warming Continues to Pile-up February 11, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Global Warming, Science.add a comment
There is a new report out that shows birds are wintering over further north. This study of bird migrations has shown that over the last 40 years the wintering location of about 305 bird species has moved north an average of 35 miles. The large number of species involved in the study helps to show that this isn’t due to some isolated cause unrelated to the climate. It also notes that during that time span, the average January temperature has risen about 5 degrees Fahrenheit.
I especially liked one particular statment by Terry Root, a biologist at Stanford University, “We don’t know for a fact that it is warming. But when one keeps finding the same thing over and over … we know it is not just a figment of our imagination.”
This is really the most important point. Global warming skeptics keep denying the scientific results. But, at some point, the amount of evidence is so over-whelming and so widespread that you begin to look like a fool to deny that something is happening. Talking with some of these people makes you think that they will end up sitting is a world devastated by global warming and still denying that anything is changing. The scientific evidence is already massive. This latest study is just one more piece to add to the ever-growing pile.
And, I think the news is just going to get worse, not only for global warming skeptics, but for all of us. NASA is about to launch the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. This mission will measure, from space, the distribution of carbon dioxide and its sources and sinks. I really think the skeptics will be very disappointed in the results of this mission. But, then again, I think everyone else will be, too.
Now, what I would really like to see is a mission to measure the distribution, sources and sinks of methane. Methane is a much more potent global warming gas. Vast amounts of it have been stored in the arctic regions and under the sea floor. But, with the rising temperatures, we are seeing these frozen deposits beginning to melt and release their stored methane into the atmosphere. That will just make global warming worse and is something we need to watching very closely.
Stimulus Bill Mathematics February 11, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Musings.add a comment
I did a little math. The stimulus bill is now at $838 billion. This is about $2800 for every American alive today. The interest rate on a 30-yr treasury note is 3.47 percent. That means, if the stimulus package was to be financed entirely with treasury notes for 30 years, it would cost every American alive today about $7700 ($2.331 trillion total). Of course, some of the package (about 40%) is actually tax breaks, but since this will increase the deficit, that amount of money will still be funded with treasury notes.
Suggestion: Just give every American $2500 to spend as they see fit. This would cost $750 billion ($2.087 trillion over 30-years) and would do much more for the economy than giving it to the Friends of Congress.
A Question for Global Warming Skeptics February 10, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Global Warming, Science.add a comment
How come, when there’s a really cold day in December or January (when its supposed to be cold), global warming skeptics point at the temperature and make comments about global warming. But, when there is a really warm day in February, when its supposed to be cold, no one says a word. It was 60 degrees the first week in February here and there’s more on the way this week. The coldest average temperature of the year is the last week in January, so this is only about two weeks removed from the coldest average part of winter.
So, where are the comments now?
Proof of Life on Mars? February 9, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Science.add a comment
A recent scientific paper revealed that seasonal methane emissions have been detected on Mars. This is big news, any way you cut it. This shows that some kind of activity either is currently going on on Mars, or did in the not too distant past.
What is has been found is that methane emissions peak in the martian summer time, then taper off during the winter. Methane doesn’t last for long in the atmosphere, so some kind of activity is going on. Certainly, the idea of life comes immediately to mind. Methane is a naturally occurring emission from living things. Is it possible there are microbes under the surface that become more active in the summer time and emit methane? This is certainly possible, but this evidence is not enough to reach that conclusion.
The problem is there are also non-biological sources of methane. One of these is geologic activity. Could there be some kind of geologic activity going on under the martian surface? You bet! While this wouldn’t be as exciting as finding some microbes, it would still be a major discovery. This would show that Mars is still active today. We know Mars was active in the distant past, but this would show that it has been active all along.
It is also possible that there was a source of methane in the past that built up underground reservoirs of the gas. Now, as summer comes along, the surface heats up enough to allow some of the gas to escape. This would not be as exciting as the previous two possibilities, but would still be good.
There are some plans being made to determine what the source of the methane is, but I think that will take a while to do. In the meantime, we can still speculate, is there life on Mars?
Personally, I believe there is. I believe life will find a way whenever the conditions exist for it, and those conditions have certainly been around for a long time on Mars, about 4.5 billion years, in fact. Mars is hostile and would not support large sized life such as what we are familiar with here on Earth. But, if microbes ever were able to evolve on Mars and could live in the rocks under the surface, then I feel confident they are still there today. This is not far fetched. We have plenty of microbes that live in rocks beneath the surface and in hostile environments right here on Earth. If it could happen here, I have to believe it could happen on Mars.
We will have to wait for a definitive answer to this question. But, we are really starting to get to the point where an answer might be on the way. What an exciting thought!
$1000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge February 5, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Global Warming, Science.2 comments
I’ve been inspired by what I view as the fake Ultimate Global Warming Challenge on JunkScience.com and am now making my own, counter-challenge. I challenge all global warming skeptics to prove, in a scientific manner and using scientific evidence, that global warming does not exist. I will pay $1000 out of my own pocket to the first person that can prove this, according to the rules below. There is no entry fee and it is open to anyone that wishes to submit an entry. There is currently no closing date, but I reserve the right to end the contest whenever I wish and to change the rules as necessary to protect myself from any legal issues.
I fully intend to pay up, in the event that anyone can come through. I don’t mind admitting that I feel my money is completely safe. The only way someone can be a global warming skeptic is by completely rejecting science. Since I require any winner to use the scientific method, rejecting science will prevent them from achieving this. But, I leave the door open that I could be wrong. All you have to do is prove it and the $1000 is yours.
I will post any and all entries and I will also post my critique of the entry and why it does, or does not, prove the points in question.
So, here’s the challenge and the rules:
The $1000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge
Prove, by using the scientific method and scientific evidence available to everyone each of the following two points:
Hypothesis 1
Global Warming is not occurring.
Hypothesis 2
Manmade emissions are not changing the climate.
RULES
By submitting an entry to the contest, entrants agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. Entrants agree to be bound by the $1000 GWSC Rules.
2. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the $1000 GWSC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. Physics309 reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the challenge.
3. Physics309, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from $1000 GWSC entries. All determinations made by Physics309 are final.
4. The winner, if any, will receive $1000 in a single, lump sum payment. Physics309 does not promise or guarantee that the $1000 GWSC will have any winner.
5. All entries must represent the original work of an entrant that has been produced specifically for the $1000 GWSC.
6. All data used in an entry must be publicly available and readily accessible to the public.
7. All entries must be submitted in MS Word or PDF format. Email all entries to physics309@yahoo.com.
8. Entries must include a summary or abstract of no more than 700 words for each hypothesis.
9. Entrants consent to their entries being posted on this website for public review and comment.
10. Entrants waive all rights and claims against Physics309 related to, or arising from the $1000 GWSC.
No Surpise From JunkScience February 2, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Global Warming, Science.add a comment
This was posted on the JunkScience webpage today:
No Winner in Ultimate Global Warming Challenge
Junkscience.com announces that there is no winner in the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge. None of the five entries demonstrates to the satisfaction of JunkScience.com that either, let alone both, of the contest hypotheses can be rejected according to the rules of the contest. JunkScience.com is considering the possibility of extending the contest in hopes that someone can prove scientifically that manmade global warming is real and the disaster that it is purported to be. Stay tuned!
I know of no one that thought that this guy would ever give out the award. The common thought is that he did this only as a publicity stunt and to be able to come out and say, “Hey! I offered $500,000 to someone if they could prove global warming and no one could! That proves there is no global warming.”
Unfortunately, that is about as valid as most of his arguments.
Well, my plan all along was to put him on the spot and then throw it back at him. I issue the following challenge to Steve Miloy of JunkScience.com:
(1) Prove, in a scientific manner and using valid scientific evidence available to everyone, that global warming doesn’t exist and;
(2) Prove, in a scientific manner, that manmade emissions are not changing the climate.
If it is as cut and dry as he claims, then he won’t have any problems.
What do I expect? There will not be any proof coming from him. He’ll simply ignore the challenge. That’s because there is no way for him to do it. He has taken a position based on his emotional desires and has rejected all science. No amount of scientific evidence will ever convince him that global warming exists. No event will ever convince him that he needs to reconsider his position. He will rationalize any science and any occurrence to make it conform to what he wants it to be. He can no more change his opinion on the matter than a rascist can change his beliefs. But, I’ll give him a chance.
This is his opportunity to show that JunkScience is more than junk science.
And, while I’m at it, I’ll publish any scientific proof that anyone else cares to submit. I think its an easy promise to make because I expect no submissions.
