Delay this week

Due to much work to do at, um, work, this weeks post will be non existent. To keep the voting alive I have placed the poll "which is better? late or never" on the site. Voting begins now.

1.4 Ptolemaic System vs Newtonian gravity

Ptolemaic System

In the Ptolemaic system, each planet is moved by five or more spheres: one sphere is its deferent. The deferent was a circle centered around a point halfway between the equant and the earth. Another sphere is the epicycle which is embedded in the deferent. The planet is embedded in the epicycle sphere. The deferent rotates around the Earth while the epicycle rotates within the deferent, causing the planet to move closer to and farther from Earth at different points in its orbit, and even to slow down, stop, and move backward (in retrograde motion). The epicycles of Venus and Mercury are always centered on a line between Earth and the Sun (Mercury being closer to Earth), which explains why they are always near it in the sky. Near being used loosely in comparison to terrestrial distances.

Ptolemy argued that the Earth was in the center of the universe from the simple observation that half the stars were above the horizon and half were below the horizon at any time, and the assumption that the stars were all at some modest distance from the center of the universe. If the Earth were substantially displaced from the center, this division into visible and invisible stars would not be equal. Ptolemy also held stock in several sphere producing publicly traded companies which is why he required 5 spheres for each planet. The reliance on invisible stars was a stroke of genius.

Newtonian Gravity

Newton's description of gravity is sufficiently accurate for many practical purposes and is therefore widely used. Deviations from it are small when the dimensionless quantities φ/c² and (v/c)² are both much less than one, where φ is the gravitational potential, v is the velocity of the objects being studied, and c is the speed of light. For example, Newtonian gravity provides an accurate description of the Earth/Sun system, since

where r_orbit is the radius of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

In situations where either dimensionless parameter is large, then general relativity must be used to describe the system. General relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the limit of small potential and low velocities, so Newton's law of gravitation is often said to be the low-gravity limit of general relativity.

Perhaps if the apple hitting Newton on the head had been traveling faster (such that (v/c)^2 were not much less than one) Newton could have devised general relativity. Then again, an apple hitting Newton in the head at relativistic speeds may have left him incapacitated for some time.

Google see's the Worth of this Site

Search for "bernolli principle" in Google, and look at the number one return. It is this site. I would like to thank all of the little people who have made this possible. I didn't watch the Oscars, so I don't know what else is vogue at the moment and will end it at that.

Here is a screen shot in case I slip in the ranks.I would also like to point out that even though the name is misspelled in the search terms, it is correct on the web site. Once again, "Go me."

Edit: I just realized I am also number one for the following terms: "inclandestine," and "gauss vs einstein" (I'm one and two for that search). Once again, "Go me."

1.3 Classical Elements vs Flat Earth theory

Classical Elements
The dominant theory of classical elements, held by the Hindu, Japanese, and Greek systems of thought, is that there are five elements, namely Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and a fifth element known variously as Idea, Void "quintessence" or Aether (the term "quintessence" derives from "quint" meaning "fifth"). In Greek thought the philosopher Aristotle added aether as the quintessence, reasoning that whereas fire, earth, air, and water were earthly and corruptible, since no changes had been perceived in the heavenly regions, the stars cannot be made out of any of the four elements but must be made of a different, unchangeable, heavenly substance.[1]. The Greek Pythagoreans used the initial letters of these five elements to name the outer angles of their pentagram.
All other materials were formed by combining these elements together.  Such as in the following cases taken from "Science Made Stupid."
Earth + Water = Mud, Air + Water = Soda Water,  Earth + Fire = Bricks, Fire+Water= Tequila, Earth + Air = Smog.


Flat Earth Theory
The earth is flat, not a sphere.  And, um, the hills and stuff aren't flat, but the earth is, anyway, I guess.  Not much else to this one.

1.2 Miasmatic Theory vs Lamarckis

Miasmatic Theory
The miasmatic theory of disease held that diseases such as cholera, the Black Death, and politics were caused by a miasma (Greek language: "pollution"), a noxious form of "bad air". In general, this concept has been supplanted by the more scientifically founded germ theory of disease. It has also been found that politics is a cause of and not the result of "bad air."

Miasma is considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist that is filled with particles from decomposed matter (miasmata) that could cause illnesses and is identifiable by its nasty, foul smell (which, of course, came from the decomposed material). A prominent supporter of the miasmatic theory was Abaris the Hyperborean, who famously cleaned Sparta under Mount Taygetus from miasmata coming downhill. Opposition parties would often point out that flowers, although generally expected to be pleasant smelling can cause hay fever. Debates on the subject usually degraded to name calling with the opposition retorting to the proponents "You Stink!" At which point the believers would run for cover.

The miasmatic theory of disease began in the Middle Ages and continued to the mid 1800s, when it was used to explain the spread of cholera in London and in Paris, partly explaining Haussmann's latter renovation of the French capital. The disease was said to be preventable by cleansing and scouring of the body and items. Dr. William Farr, the assistant commissioner for the 1851 London census, was an important supporter of the miasma theory. He believed that cholera was transmitted by air, and that there was a deadly concentration of miasmata near the River Thames' banks. The wide acceptance of Miasma theory during the cholera outbreaks overshadowed the theory brought forth by John Snow that cholera was spread through water. This slowed the response to the major outbreaks in the Soho district of London and other areas. Another proponent of the miasmatic theory was Crimean War nurse and hottie, Florence Nightingale (1820-1910), who was made famous for her work in making hospitals sanitary, fresh-smelling, and a breeding ground for poorly contrived pickup lines. This theory was dealt its death blow in the 1980's when millions of school children found family members in the game 'The Oregon Trail' dying of cholera despite plenty of simulated fresh air.

Lamarckian Theory of Evolution
Lamarckism or Lamarckian evolution refers to the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as based on heritability of acquired characteristics or "soft inheritance"). It is named for the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories and is often incorrectly cited as the founder of soft inheritance. It proposed that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring. Rudyard Kipling chronicled many instances of soft inheritance in his historical literature for scholars known as "Just So Stories." After years of painstaking research Kipling details 'How the Whale got his Throat,' 'How the Camel got his Hump,' 'How the Rhinoceros got his Skin,' and how the elephant got his trunk among others.

After publication of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, the importance of individual efforts in the generation of adaptation was considerably diminished. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology, which is truly tradgic, for Kipling's writings are much more engrossing that those of either Darwin or Mendel. Any dork dweeb or nerd should be able to realize that this theory was flawed, in as they are more disposed to perpetuate stereotypes than species. No, unless you get out of your mothers basement your acquired traits will die with you, looser.

Starting Over, Fight 1

Continental Drift vs Vital essence theory, descriptions edited from Wikipedea originals to fit this web site

Continental Drift: Frank Bursley Taylor had proposed the concept in a Geological Society of America meeting in 1908 after working on a jigsaw puzzle in between sessions, and published his work in the GSA Bulletin in June 1910, once the puzzle was finished. It was by all accounts a very large puzzle. Abraham Ortelius, Francis Bacon, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, Benjamin Franklin, and others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on either side of the Atlantic
Ocean (most notably, Africa and South America) seem to fit together. Some sources suggest that they may have assisted with the puzzle at the GSA meeting of '08, or at least seen the puzzle in stores. The similarity of southern continent fossil faunae and some geological formations had led a small number of Southern hemisphere geologists to conjecture as early as 1900 that all the continents had once been joined into a supercontinent now known as Pangaea. How they came to the conclusion that the name was Pangaea is suspicious however, as there was no forwarding address. *This theory was superceded by Plate Techtonics which provided a valid forwarding address.

Vital essence theory (Vitalism) as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is,
1. a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces
2. a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining
In a nut shell vitalism says you need a soul to be alive. Vitalism is often criticized for not being testable, and non-scientific. And it is in fact hard to prove, or disprove in the real world. In the Simpsons however, we find our answer. After selling his soul to Milhouse, Bart is still alive. Automatic doors however no longer will work for him, as well as other problems. So, clearly a soul is not required to live. Those intelligent design people may be right, with enough smarts chemistry can do anything.

Lack of Posting Recently

In a comment tommyp said the following:

Sadly, BadAnswer seems to have come up against an insurmountable obstacle at the start of the new season. Perhaps he has become too overloaded with work. Maybe he feels he has become too important to share his BadAnswers with the rest of us. Mayhap he has simply lost interest.
In any case, all we need is a week or two to vote on something. Let the random generation thingy loose, and we'll sort the rest out!

Perhaps tommyp does not follow politics, and is unaware that there is an election going on, and has been for about a year, which is good, because the actual voting is only 10 months away. There is stuff to vote on that is not on the internet.

But in all seriousness (not that the president of the US is not serious) there have been insurmountable obstacles of late. See, work has been busier, but more importantly, my neighbors wireless network has been down. We have spoken, and he will get it up and running again soon. In related news, I got a free access point a few days ago which I can hook up as a repeater to get an even better signal throughout my house, hopefully strong enough to get online with my Wii. Which could then again cause a slowness to the posts here at badanswer.

But in any event, I will be starting the new season again, consider the previous post to have been a pilot. So, on Monday get ready to vote for science, and if you are in one of the 20 states participating in "Super Tuesday" you can vote then as well. I recommend Ron Paul.

I look forward to hearing from you on Monday.

Superceded Theories, Fight 1, Round 1: Continental Drift vs Vital essence theory (Vitalism)

Continental Drift vs Vital essence theory
descriptions edited from Wikipedea originals to better fit this web site

Continental Drift: Frank Bursley Taylor had proposed the concept in a Geological Society of America meeting in 1908 after working on a jigsaw puzzle in between sessions, and published his work in the GSA Bulletin in June 1910, once the puzzle was finished. It was by all accounts a very large puzzle. Abraham Ortelius, Francis Bacon, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, Benjamin Franklin, and others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on either side of the Atlantic Ocean (most notably, Africa and South America) seem to fit together. Some sources suggest that they may have assisted with the puzzle at the GSA meeting of '08, or at least seen the puzzle in stores. The similarity of southern continent fossil faunae and some geological formations had led a small number of Southern hemisphere geologists to conjecture as early as 1900 that all the continents had once been joined into a supercontinent now known as Pangaea. How they came to the conclusion that the name was Pangaea is suspicious however, as there was no forwarding address. *This theory was superceded by Plate Techtonics which provided a valid forwarding address.

Vital essence theory (Vitalism) as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is,
1. a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces
2. a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining
In a nut shell vitalism says you need a soul to be alive. Vitalism is often criticized for not being testable, and non-scientific. And it is in fact hard to prove, or disprove in the real world. In the Simpsons however, we find our answer. After selling his soul to Milhouse, Bart is still alive. Automatic doors however no longer will work for him, as well as other problems. So, clearly a soul is not required to live. Those intelligent design people may be right, with enough smarts chemistry can do anything.

The New Year

Although badanswer.blogspot.com has not been online for a year, we do have a new calendar year upon us, for better or for worse, and I am hoping to make some changes around here.

First, as already mentioned I am planning to start a new competition involving scientific theories that "didn't make the cut." These theories are much like the Chicago Cubs of the science community. There were well received for a while (1907-1908) but now are just waiting to be swallowed by the maw of eternity having out lived their usefulness. The Cubs however get a new chance every year to try to be reinstated to the ranks of the "non-irrelevant," and the theories have been left to collect dust; until now.

Second, I was hoping to end my tenure as Google's redheaded step child by getting a domain name in my stocking, but alas, Santa failed me. So, all you loyal readers and one time visitors who got me nothing for Christmas (which is all of you, my brother, who's wife made me something, gets partial credit) have a chance to chip in. Domain registration is going for $10. I figure if all the regulars chip in a buck I can raid the kids penny jar to make up the difference. The other option is to just wait until the adds earn enough money to pay for the registration, based on Decembers totals that should happen sometime in May, 2075. I actually hope to be retired by then, so this may not be the best option. It would be nice to have this taken care of by February 23, 2007, the one year anniversary of the blog. A date in which two questions were answered ( http://badanswer.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html). I anticipate this would make it easier for whoever keeps getting to the blog by googling "badanswer blogspot."

Third, actually that about sums it up, but the list seemed short with just two points. So, I guess I will say I would also like to put up a list of those who do donate to the cause. Hopefully I won't be required to put down my kids names, a quick google search (which could be done from the top of this page) could show them who 'borrowed' their money. Feel free to email for more details.

Fourth, I guess I did have more to say after all. I added a poll on the page asking which post you feel is the best of the options given. This is primarily to keep you in practice for the voting, we don't want any dangling chad screwing up our results. You can vote for more than one post, but despite how deserving they all are, try to refrain from voting for them all. That would defeat the purpose.

Check back next week for the beginning of "Brackets 2: The Second Chance." Sorry for the lousy title, but the writers are still on strike.

THE FINAL

Kepler vs Newton

Evidently the date was wrong for the Archimedes vs Newton fight, but with Newton up by 9, we will let him get started in the final.

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion:
   1. The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at one of the foci. An ellipse is characterized by its two focal points. Thus, Kepler rejected the ancient Aristotelean and Ptolemaic and Copernican belief in circular motion.
   2. A line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time as the planet travels along its orbit.  This means that the planet travels faster while close to the sun and slows down when it is farther from the sun. With his law, Kepler destroyed the Aristotelean astronomical theory that planets have uniform velocity.
   3. The squares of the orbital periods of planets are directly proportional to the cubes of the semi-major axes (the "half-length" of the ellipse) of their orbits. This means not only that larger orbits have longer periods, but also that the speed of a planet in a larger orbit is lower than in a smaller orbit. His third law is based on the foundation left by Copernicus, because he uses a mathematical expression to show the correlation between T (time for one revolution) and D (distance from the sun).

Newton's Laws of Motion:
Briefly stated, the three laws are:
1. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a net force.
2. Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration.
3. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The final starts on Monday, What's up (Next) doc?

Well, I have decided to have another cage match. But like most of these reality shows we here at badanswer are resorting to "B-list" science to throw in the cage. We are currently recruiting false or superseded theories to put in the cage. The winner will get a second chance to be widely accepted by being immortalized by me personally in a blog post. A partial list of contestants is as follows:
Geocentric Universe
Lamarckism
Classical Elements
Flat Earth and
Spontaneous Generation

If you would like to nominate something for the next event please leave your recommendation in the comments so we may all ridicule you; unless you leave an anonymous comment,chicken.

Semifinal 2

Archimedes vs Newton

Archimedes' principle, or the law of upthrust, is: "When a solid body is partially or completely immersed in water, the apparent loss in weight will be equal to the weight of the displaced liquid."
In other words, when a body is partially or completely immersed in a liquid, then it experiences an upward buoyant force which is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the immersed part of the body.

Newton's Laws of Motion:
Briefly stated, the three laws are:
1. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a net force.
2. Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration.
3. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Friday Updates

Unfortunately due to lots of work, regular Friday updates will no longer be regular.  However, still feel free to ask questions, I will try to get them answered in a timely manner.  Also, if you would like to be a guest contributor feel free to submit an article for review.  Please try to get any submission in by Friday morning, the day you would like it to be published.  That time is required to ensure the article will stand up to the rigorous standards we adhere to here at badanswer, both for accuracy and understandability.
Thank you for understanding.  I understand you will all be disappointed, feel free to vent in the comments.

Semifinal 1

Kepler vs. Ohm

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion:
   1. The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at one of the foci. An ellipse is characterized by its two focal points. Thus, Kepler rejected the ancient Aristotelean and Ptolemaic and Copernican belief in circular motion.
   2. A line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time as the planet travels along its orbit.  This means that the planet travels faster while close to the sun and slows down when it is farther from the sun. With his law, Kepler destroyed the Aristotelean astronomical theory that planets have uniform velocity.
   3. The squares of the orbital periods of planets are directly proportional to the cubes of the semi-major axes (the "half-length" of the ellipse) of their orbits. This means not only that larger orbits have longer periods, but also that the speed of a planet in a larger orbit is lower than in a smaller orbit. His third law is based on the foundation left by Copernicus, because he uses a mathematical expression to show the correlation between T (time for one revolution) and D (distance from the sun).

Ohm's law states that, in an electrical circuit, the current passing through a conductor between two points is proportional to the potential difference (i.e. voltage drop or voltage) across the two points, and inversely proportional to the resistance between them. In mathematical terms, this is written as: V=IR

Round 2, Fight 4

Newton vs Einstein

Newton's Laws of Motion:
Briefly stated, the three laws are:
1. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a net force.
2. Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration.
3. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

According to Einstein's general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from those masses warping nearby space and time.

Round 2, Fight 3

Archimedes vs. Hooke

Archimedes' principle, or the law of upthrust, is: "When a solid body is partially or completely immersed in water, the apparent loss in weight will be equal to the weight of the displaced liquid."
In other words, when a body is partially or completely immersed in a liquid, then it experiences an upward buoyant force which is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the immersed part of the body.

 

Hooke's law of elasticity is an approximation that states that the amount by which a material body is deformed (the strain) is linearly related to the force causing the deformation (the stress). Materials for which Hooke's law is a useful approximation are known as linear-elastic or "Hookean" materials.

 

As a result of the late posting of this event, voting will be extended until noon on Tuesday, mountain time.

Vacation Time, Agains

As you might have guessed from the title, I am on vacation, again.  Due to a wedding, and a thanksgiving, the next two weeks will not see the regularly scheduled Friday updates.  The cage matches will continue as planned, but perhaps with less punctuality.
Thanks for your support and understanding.

Round 2, Fight 2

Ohm vs. Fick

Ohm's law states that, in an electrical circuit, the current passing through a conductor between two points is proportional to the potential difference (i.e. voltage drop or voltage) across the two points, and inversely proportional to the resistance between them. In mathematical terms, this is written as: V=IR

In the mid-1800's, Fick introduced two differential equations that quantified the above statement for the case of transport through thin membranes. Fick's First Law states that the flux, J, of a component of concentration, C, across a membrane of unit area, in a predefined plane, is proportional to the concentration differential across that plane.
Fick's Second Law states that the rate of change of concentration in a volume element of a membrane, within the diffusional field, is proportional to the rate of change of concentration gradient at that point in the field.

Hamilton's Rule

TommyP asks:  How does Hamilton's Rule (Br - C > 0) of altruism relate to human society?  I've heard it said that for me to give my life for a brother, it should actually require 2 brothers (or 8 cousins).  What's different about humans that allows us to cheat and give our own life for a single, unrelated life?

I believe the rule you are referring too is stated as such:  A Hamilton should never battle a Burr when life is on the line.  But I have no idea what that equation you stated has to do with it.  As far as cheating, it is unlikely that either of the contestants cheated.  But they certanly were selfish.  Pfft, getting shot at just for the sake of 'honor.'  What a waste, as you mentioned if it had been for two of his brothers, or 8 cousins, or even 4 nephews, then it may have been justified.  The rules are slightly more difficult when it comes to women folk, because as Grumpy pointed out in Snow White, they have "wiles, wicked wiles."  As a result it typically only takes one mother, or one sister to set the whole thing in motion.  As far as unrelated lifes, this typically requires money.  See, humans  are the only animals that use money, and for enough of it you can get most anyone to do most anything.  But back to the brother cousin thing, yes, it is not very worth while to go for a 1:1 exchange. 

There is quite a bit of theory behind this, and it is typically called Kin Selection.  William Donald Hamilton studied this phenomenon before contracting malaria in Africa while trying to link AIDS to oral polio vaccines, and subsequently dying.  Well, that is all for this time, hope you have a large family, just to make it worth while if you ever need to expire for the greater good. 

Round 2, Fight 1

Kepler vs. Asimov

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion:
   1. The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at one of the foci. An ellipse is characterized by its two focal points. Thus, Kepler rejected the ancient Aristotelean and Ptolemaic and Copernican belief in circular motion.
   2. A line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time as the planet travels along its orbit.  This means that the planet travels faster while close to the sun and slows down when it is farther from the sun. With his law, Kepler destroyed the Aristotelean astronomical theory that planets have uniform velocity.
   3. The squares of the orbital periods of planets are directly proportional to the cubes of the semi-major axes (the "half-length" of the ellipse) of their orbits. This means not only that larger orbits have longer periods, but also that the speed of a planet in a larger orbit is lower than in a smaller orbit. His third law is based on the foundation left by Copernicus, because he uses a mathematical expression to show the correlation between T (time for one revolution) and D (distance from the sun).

Asimov's Laws of Robotis
   1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
   2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
   3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.