Chad's spot for various thoughts, musings, poetry, ideas and whatnot

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

This week in my engineering physics class we are reliving some of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. They began by observing the orbits of the moons of Jupiter (well, actually they did it in a simulation but the data was real) and using that to show the functional form of Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Once they do this, they use Newton's Laws along with their newly discovered expression for the force of gravity to prove Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion. Once they finish that they show how the laws are satisfied by the actually orbit of the Explorer 35 spacecraft. I'm not sure if there's a better week of physics we do all semester long.

I so dig this stuff. More than that, I dig watching my students actually do real science using modern tools as well as real higher level math. You can see the wheels turning and see the growth of their ability to analyze data in a scientific way. It's so cool. Sometimes I bristle when my colleagues suggest my job is easier than theirs because I have the best students here (the material is sometimes a lot harder and so there's usually a lot more bellyaching) but for this one week I really think this class is the best thing I could be doing with my time. To give an example of how cool these geeks are: they are presently figuring out how to import their Explorer 35 data into a program that will allow them to confirm Kepler's Law through direct integration of the data. An important thing to note here is that they're doing this even though the activity packet that I'll be grading doesn't require them to.

As for my other courses things seem to be about the same with some students doing well, some students trying hard, some students doing both and too many students doing neither. I do feel like my attitude is a little better right now that it has been in the past. I'm not exactly sure why but I think that it may have to do with the realization that if I focus on how to serve the students instead of on how they either do or don't respect me by accessing the class I seem to be a lot more chipper and positive. Of course, we'll see if I can keep that attitude if I lose 50% of my students due to lack of effort by mid-term.

Anyways, I've got to get back to Kepler, Newton and my students' scientific discovery. Eat your heart out.

The Physicist   Link Me    |

Monday, January 22, 2007

Perhaps you've seen the recent flurry (get it...flurry...I'm here all week!) of blogs/commentaries/"news stories" regarding forecasters and their claims regarding global warming at its causes. On one hand you have the person over at the Weather Channel saying that it is a well known fact that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide emissions from a variety of human created industrial processes. On the other you have some forecaster at a news station out of Birmingham saying that there is no evidence to support such a claim and that no TV forecasters he knowns thinks such a hypothesis is true.

For both of these people I have one small piece of advice: SHUT UP!

Now, the last time I checked, most TV forecasters aren't scientists. They're journalists who might, if we the viewers are lucky, have a background in the physical sciences; perhaps even a B.S. in Meteorology. Their job is to report on the weather and take the forecasts the National Weather Service produces (or in the case of the Weather Channel-the forecasts its own in-house meteorologists produce) and bring them to the public in some snazzy format. With almost no exceptions, none of these people has actually participated in scientific research at the level required to earn a Ph.D. While they may be accredited by the American Meteorological Society that doesn't make them researchers (what is means is that they're not supposed to be cranks...). I have no problem with them expressing their opinion but, by golly, they should state it as such, not overstate the claims real scientists are making and not say really dumb things like those who don't agree with their position should lose their AMS accreditation. But then again, they're not scientists and thus don't know how to conduct themselves in a scientifically ethical manner. Of course, you'd think as journalists they'd know how to conduct themselves in a journalistically ethical manner and claim opinions as such and keep them out of their "official" information channels.

So here's the where the global warming story as I understand it scientifically. Global warming is taking place. This is a scientifically established fact. That atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been increasing at a fairly dramatic way over the last 40 years is also an observed fact. That the two are linked causally is a scientific HYPOTHESIS. While there are a number of computer simulations that link the two, there is still a good deal of work to be done to show causation at a scientific standard. In addition, there have been previously recorded episodes of dramatic global warming long before human beings were around to dump billions of tons of the stuff into the atmosphere. Thus, as any good scientist will tell you, there's more research that needs to be done and any claims should be stated tentatively at best.

Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion tends towards the "better safe than sorry" position. While I don't know if the increased levels of carbon dioxide cause this, they certainly don't help. I'd definitely like to see a hefty "pollution tax" placed on vehicles that get less than 25 mpg as well as more taxes on non-commercial consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel with the additional revenues funneled into creating efficient mass transit solutions not just in the cities but between various municipalities. I think we need to do some things to make sure that we aren't contributing to this because the consequences will be disasterous.

Anyways, that's my two cents worth. Thanks for reading.

The Physicist   Link Me    |

Saturday, January 13, 2007

The Geek has posted several times regarding some of the mess that is professional cycling in Europe and I thought I post a few of my fence sitting ideas on the various topics that have been in the news:

Doping: I vacilate between the ultracynical position that everyone dopes and the less cynical but more pessimistic one that I'm not sure who does and doesn't so I can't trust anything. I know this sounds confusing but let's see if I can explain it. If everyone dopes then it's sort of a level playing field kind of thing (at least in my mind). Yes, success depends a bit on who has the best pharmacist but that's not unlike a cyclists success depending on who has the coach with the best training routines (Discovery and CSC) or who have the best bikes (CSC and the now defunct Phonak). Now, I'm not saying that doping is OK (I've written very clearly in the past condemning such things) but if everyone's doing it then we're back to everyone having the same access to all the tools and the results are at least valid in the sense of no one having an unfair advantage over anyone else (at least if you are willing to endanger your long term health). If everyone doesn't dope then I don't know who is and who isn't and so I can't really trust the results of any race. Did racer X when because he was better or because he was doped? I'm inclined towards the first position for a lot of reasons. There's so much evidence that Tyler and Ullrich doped that it's about undeniable in my mind. If doping adds 10-15% to one's performance it's hard to imagine Lance or Vino or Kloden being able to hang with Ullrich or Tyler in the Tour without some help. Let me give you an example of what I mean. I can ride a 40K TT in 58 minutes for an average of around 26 mph when in championship form. Assume that with a professional training schedule I could improve by 5-10% over that and with EPO/Human Growth Hormone I get another 10-15%. That puts me at around 31 mph and all of the sudden I'm in the good professional range. If Tyler's doing that then I can't imagine anyone beating him unless they're doping too. I believe Manzano's claims about the Kelme team are true and that they engaged in systematic doping over a lot of years. Sevilla and Botero's up and down performances are proof to me that there was a lot help going on. So...this leads me to...

Floyd: Did he or didn't he? I don't know. I believed Tyler when he said he didn't and look where that led. Honestly, I don't trust cyclists claims anymore. The problem is that we'll never be able to trust the results of the lab's tests either. They are deeply and seriously flawed from a scientific "chain of evidence" and reliability standpoint. Maybe they mishandled the samples and the results are false. Maybe they mishandled the samples but didn't compromise the results. We'll never know. I don't think he should be convicted but that doesn't mean I think he's clean. If the ratio's screwed up like the lab says that points to some new masking thing like the EPO powder to me. But I'm cynical. I also wouldn't put it past the French to do just about anything to make sure another American doesn't win the Tour. The doping labs had it out for Lance and I believe they'd be more than happy to transfer that animus to Floyd or George or Levi or Dave Z. if one of them actually had the termidity to win the Tour (which Floyd did). The lab system's pretty much broken from a justice point of view but I can't blame the system on anyone but the athletes who doped over and over and over again to win. Of course, that's because the competition became so much more than that and that's due to human nature and the corrupting influence of big money I suppose.

Dick Pound: For the readers of this blog who don't know who Dick Pound is, he's the head of the World Anti-Doping Association. He has a penchant for saying really inappropriate things about sports and doping. Why doesn't this guy have a Fox News nightly show like Bill O'Reilly? His opinions are worth about the same as O'Really?'s. He's absurd and should be fired. He's the only thing I can actually think of that's stupider than the Trump/Rosey pissing match. It's one thing for a nobody liek me with no power and authority to express my opinions about doping, it's another thing for the supposedly impartial head of the organization who tests and assigns blame and guilt in athletic dopign cases to say the same things.

UCI vs. the Grand Tour Organizers: If the UCI doesn't like what the Grand Tour Organizers are doing it should find other promoters to partner with and then help the new organizers offer more to the teams. The UCI needs to understand that the Tour de France will always be the "really big show" and that it holds most of the cards. What it needs to do is focus on the shorter stage races and the one-day events and get new promoters with new sponsors and offer teams more to ride in their race than in Paris-Nice or Paris-Tours. Once they do that the ASO will come back to the table and talk. Until then...while you may have good points you aren't going to have a whoel lot of clout. There's a little hypocrisy involved here. The UCI was all happy when the ASO decided to focus on globalization of the Tour and the sport. As the sport grew, so did the power of the ASO as it organized and promoted more events and those events attracted wealthier sponsors. They did the hard work and now they're reaping the benefits. For the UCI to now try to walk in and take over the show is a bit smarmy in some ways. I like the Pro Tour concept but biek racing is never going to be like NASCAR. In fact, NASCAR is moving int he direction of fewer gaurentted spots for teams and I see the UCI having to do the same thing if the Pro Tour is going to survive. I don't really think the issue is about the structure of the Pro Tour actually. If it was then a compromise would have been reached a lot sooner than this. It's abotu who gets to control the direction of big money cycling in Europe.

Well, there you have it and I've rambled on way too long. I won't rant about the the fans who feed the system by demanding super hard races that all but force the athletes to dope to survive them and then who condemn those athletes.

Peace out and thanks for enduring my rant.

The Physicist   Link Me    |

Friday, January 12, 2007

I thought I'd post a brief update about what's been happening in these parts and how I might feel about that.

School: We've started back up here at the ol' College. My classes look pretty good at this point, less than a week into things. There's still some "popcorning" going on in my rosters where students pop in and out during drop-add. I have to say that for right now at least, this semester's physical science class looks better than the last couple, at least in terms of interest and getting work done. One interesting note is that I offered another well-advertized time management class during our "dead period" during the frist weekhoping to attract students that had done poorly last semester and had a overwhelming four students. It's stunning to look at my advisees and see how many of them are earning below 2.0 and then not have anyone take advantage of an opportunity. I guess I'll file it under the heading of "you can offer a student enlightenment but you can't make him drink."

Cycling: I'm fat but I'm riding a lot. So far this year I've ridden almost 500 miles which is good and needed. I'm still about 15 pounds over my race weight (or more importantly-my race body fat percentage) so I definitely need the miles. I've been doing everything from 100 mile LSD rides to CTS audio workouts and hopefully I'll soon see the results of my work in my waistline. The weather here has been unseasonably warm which has helped but it makes me fear for what the summer riding and racing will be like. I still haven't decided on my race program. I'll be doing some time trials for sure but I can't decide how I'll split my time between the road and the dirt. After last year's season was lost in May to broken ribs and exhaustion, I'm thinking that another season on the dirt might not be the best plan. I certainly won't be riding any rainy races. A big part of me wants to just totally sell out and do every race in our statewide amateur race series, the Georgia Cup. They have a class for Cat 4/5 Master's riders and maybe I'll do that and get some upgrade points. I regularly beat most of the Cat 3 riders in the time trials but I can't seem to place highly enough in the races with the Cat 1/2/3 Master's to get upgraded so I think I'll focus on paying my dues.

Personal: On the personal side of things, I'm reading a lot of different things. In GCF we're studying the Apocalypse of John so I've been working through a variety of commentaries on that. Interesting stuff. The really great thing is how truly hopeful the book is. A lot of the neat things are swallowed up in the modern obsession with the weird apocalyptic imagery. As an example, there are nine "Blessed are..." statements in the Apocalypse. When you go to church you hear sermons on the "Blessed are..." statements from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew all the time but you never hear a beep about the ones in Revelations. It's a shame really.

Also, I'm teaching a colloquium on Chaos Science so I've been reading and reviewing a lot of that sort of material. That's been enjoyable as a way to stretch my brain. Finally, I indulged my desire to do some reading about how we got our present calendar and how we developed the ability to tell time. While both books I read were definitely written by non-scientists (historians or English major types) they were enjoyable to read. The problem with these sorts of book is that unless the research and fact checking is really rigorous, there are always errors that slip through the writing to bug guys like me. On top of that, the authors of both books were pretty humanistic so they tended to significantly downplay or marginalize the positive effect of the institutional church in both arenas. Still both book were pretty good and I learned a few things here and there about the evolution of both the calendar and the clock. Such is the vacation reading of a physics geek.

Anyways, thanks for reading, happy New Year and all the best to you and yours.

The Physicist   Link Me    |