Daimonie's Blog

Introduction A while ago, I was alerted to an article by "four physicists" in a "scientific journal". Apparently, these authors had "shown" that the conspiracy is real. Behold: A European scientific study has concluded that on September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. The study, conducted by four physicists and published in Europhysics Magazine, says that “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.” (your news wire)  We discussed the article briefly, mostly dismissing it because it is not a scientific study , nor is it by four physicists, and its conclusions do not follow from the evidence. However, the conspiracy crowd seems real happy with it. The Credible Hulk, for instance, had several `truthers' all over his page ( here ). I decided that, as a physicist, it would perhaps be interesting to write a rebuke of this article. Now...

Introduction While reading my delightful new book - which I will name at the end - I realised how only a small part of people realises all implications of natural selection. It was Charles Darwin, in the Origin of species (By means of natural selection) that first postulated an explanation of evolution by a one mechanism of heritability and another of variability. We know both mechanisms; they are in our DNA. DNA is the mechanism of heritability, and copying errors and sexual reshuffling are the mechanism of variation. Not too long ago, breeding was invented. By this I do not mean merely the breeding of livestock, but the deliberate selection of offspring so as to produce some sort of phenotypical change. The result are the many 'races' of dogs and cats we are familiar with.  The first chapter of the Origin is `variation under domestication', and is essentially about breeding or artificial selection. From there, Charles Darwin leaps onto 'variation under Na...

Introduction A somewhat heated discussion started on the page Cats in Space Quoting Scientists . They had shared the image to the right, and someone had responded. She stated that this trend is further engendered by science becoming dogma. This is actually something that is said rather often, and fringe scientists are paraded around by antis for this reason.  In this particular case, some heated responses were made and she posted a video to back her up. That video being a TedX talk by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a former plant biologist that went into the realm of woo somewhere in the 1980s. He has since published parapsychology nonsense in some pay-to-play journals and as is common for woo-peddlers, he buffs up his credentials for people that do not double-check it. For the record, he hasn't published any peer-reviewed science nor does he hold a academic position, at all. The person that started the conversation asked that we address the ideas an evidence of Rupert Shel...

Introduction There's a fun little topic in biology that I'd like to introduce you to. It's called ' convergent evolution'. As the name implies, there are two distinct groups that evolve to the same point. For instance, many of us remember Pterodactyls; flying dinosaurs whose wings are essentially 'hands' spread out with skin in between. Which is often called a "bat wing". That's a fine example, because a bat is a mammal and a pterodactyl a reptile. Their last common ancestor most certainly didn't have these wings.  A drawing of a hummingbird. Convergent evolution Let us talk about an illustrative example. To the right, you see an drawing of a hummingbird. These birds are usually quite small. However, they beat their wings typically about fifty times per second. This creates a humming sound that led to their name. Humming birds have among the highest metabolism among animals. Most creatures ingest their food, which goes ...

Introduction Right: Image I made to accompany this article. Note that there is a concise summary in it. I was alerted to a news article from Boulder County, titled " Elise Jones and Deb Gardner: GMO phase-out is faithful to Boulder County values . The two names are the authors. Elise Jones is an " important environmental advocate " and has opposed GMOs  on open spaces since 2003. Deb Gardner, from what I can find, is more limited but does note environment on her website . From this, I would suggest that Elise Jones has a preconceived opinion and Deb Gardner is liable to join in. My initial prediction about the contents of this article were immediately confirmed. While attempting to pose as reasonable commissioners, a number of anti-GM points are reiterated that do not represent the science, while "natural" products are held up as the shining example of good practise, quickly showing their true colors by speaking of both these and "organic...

Introduction Screenshot of the conversation that instigated this post. The Credible Hulk  made a few posts on General Relativity, which is Einstein's theory of gravity. The comment thread to the right (image) ensued. I have taught myself some general relativity, and I am aiming for a Ph. D. that involves general relativity. Can I explain it, even if slightly? I think I can, at least, try to do so. So, here I will try to explain the concepts involved: Riemann Tensor Ricci Scalar Ricci Tensor Christoffel Symbol Energy-Momentum Tensor ..  As you can see, general relativity is scary. It really is - one of the standard texts for an introduction course is Spacetime and Geometry by Sean Carroll, and the first four chapters are mathematics.  Yet the information contained does have conceptual explanations. There's a familiar one, involving space as a sort of elastic cloth and planets and stars as really heavy balls that dent the fabric.  Ho...