So, it’s Saturday night and I’ve just passed through a week that could easily make up the entire front page of www.fmylife.com.

Here’s a pretty good idea of what came back to me:

1. I totally bombed that physics theory test (but I already mentioned that in another post)
2. I got back my SAT scores, and concluded that I definitely need to narrow my college scope (because I really doubt that I’m ‘more than a number’ or whatever they like to call it)
3. They started work on the road outside my house, so now I have to walk a good long mile to get to school in the mornings, and have to wake up considerably earlier
4. I ruined my favorite shirt by food stains
5. I found out that a few of my khaki pants don’t fit anymore

And I could go on…. (but there’s a line where blogs just get annoying and I don’t want to cross that)

Back to my various rants (and a very important filled conclusion):

So, regarding the philosophy that ‘I am more than a number‘ and that all students are more than their GPAs, SATs, and every other acronym that refers to some score, I strongly believe in that. Unfortunately, the rest of the world are a little slow to get that memo. Tell that to the sites where students pay monthly fees to find out they have a 2.4% chance of getting into their college, or the ones that pay excessive amounts for prep books that are proven to only raise their score about 50-odd points. In my opinion, the whole system is messed up beyond repair. And we’re all victims of it, even when I got my test scores back I went through the typically PTA (Post-Test-Anixety) that seems to hit once those scores come back. But, like Gandhi said ‘Be the change you wish to see in the World,’ so I’ll be who I want to be. I’ll do the clubs and activities I want to do, try my best in my classes and just be who I can be, not who I am pressured to be. In a way, this is like the rallying against those fashion magazines, accusing them of perpuating an unattainable goal. Just like that, the industry and society forces students to try for that 2400 when they could be exploring more important, benefical things, like playing an instrument, learning about medicine or just following their interests, rather than cramming for some test that won’t matter in one year.

So, that’s what I’ll be doing. Rather than spending my summer at an SAT-camp in South Korea (which is likely errily similar to the death-camps in North Korea, except those actually matter), I’ll be attending something that I’ve been interested in (and tried to start at my own school), JSA or Junior Statesmen of America. I can’t wait to take my class in foreign policy, for it’s someting that’s highly related to my interests and a field I’d like to pursue after college, which will likely be at ASU if the preceding paragraph is true, but seriously, I think it’s a much more valuable use of my time than any test-prep class could ever be. I’ll also continue to express my political opinions in Junto, MUN and Forensics, the clubs that I care about and want to be part of.

And if that doesn’t get me into Harvard, then I don’t frankly care. I’m not going to change who I am for anyone or anything. I’m me, and I’m fine with that.

There are different laws of physics theory that scientists use to describe the way that the universe works.  One of the most basic and most useful laws of physics theory is the law of conservation of energy.  This law says that you can move energy around and change its form but you can’t create or destroy it.

This fundamental law governs the universe as we know it and man’s relationship to all material things (or rather physical things made of matter).  So man cannot create or destroy energy.  This law also implies that man cannot create or destroy matter.  When for example something is set afire, the matter just changes form.  Items are burned and they transform into different compounds including ash, gas, and other compounds.  The matter is not destroyed, it just moves around into a different form.

You see it is important to recognize that man cannot create things from nothing.  We do create.  Our creative abilities are to mix and match things into different forms. We just “move stuff around” and form things as “new arrangements.”

1. A painting is created by putting down color on canvas from the end of a brush.
2. A sculpture is created by removing material with a hammer and chisel.
3. A software program is created by writing a set of instructions that are executed by a computer
4. A meal is created by blending ingredients in a particular order and by cooking, heading, cooling, and arranging and mixing
5. A novel is created by writing words in the form of a story
6. A home is created by craftsmen that are skilled in the art of construction
7. A play is created by a group of actors that perform a script

Many things man can create by using materials that exist.  But man cannot create something from nothing.  Only God can create new material, new life, and all that exists.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

It’s rather amusing that one of the most sophisticated scientific disciplines (physics theory) has an established law that conforms to the truth stated in the first line of the Bible.  As scientists, we often get a bit “puffed up” with our abilities.  We imagine that through our intellect and our insight, we have discovered something “new” in this universe.  The truth is that we may occasionally understand a bit more about the complexity and interworkings of God’s creation, but we are well served to honor the Creator, our Father in Heaven for giving us the blessing of a tiny glimpse into the way things work.

So lets’ appreciate the laws of physics theory as they point to a spectacular creation.

The science of networking is totally fascinating to me. I have always, personally, been interested why things function the way they do, and more specifically why humans function the way they do.

Why does one blush when another says something flattering about them? And why, in relationships, does it seem that people like the chase, but not like being chased?

The understanding of how things are built, or organized, is the basis of understanding why they function in a particular way, from the microscopic to the macro cosmic. For example, if I understand how emotions work within the brain, and then how that relates to blood flow, then my question about blushing is answered. The science of networks addresses this issue of organization. Understanding networks informs us about how things are, and, therefore, why things behave the way they do.

The following documentary is about networks, and how the science of networks is being used today in a variety of ways.

Six Degrees of Separation (BBC)

Documentary unfolding the science behind the idea of six degrees of separation. Originally thought to be an urban myth, it now appears that anyone on the planet can be connected in just a few steps of association. Six degrees of separation is also at the heart of a major scientific breakthrough; that there might be a law which nature uses to organize itself and that now promises to solve some of its deepest mysteries.

Heya everyone!

Somehow my 2 week absence turned into 4 weeks, ah well. That’s life! I have A LOT to say, so bare with me:

First off, FacePAD was featured on Lifehacker, the super-awesome tech site that reviews software that eases people’s lives. Click here to see their review!

Second, FacePAD will be published in the Europe’s largest (general public) PC magazine, ComputerBILD. I’m not sure which issue, but I assume it’ll be sometime this summer. The issue will come with a review of my program as well as a CD with the program installed.

Third, I’m in Glasgow, Scotland this summer for nuclear physics theory research. Like last summer, I’ll spend most of my time doing the research and/or relaxing, and when/if ever I get the urge, I’ll work on the extensions. I actually have the urge right now, and luckily, I’ve had fruitful results. The next post I make (tonight) will be about the forthcoming update to Email This! I’ll also be updating the other two extensions in the coming weeks and I’ll probably add an FAQ section to FacePAD since I’ve been getting a lot of emails asking the same questions!

Keep on emailing or twittering me with your questions/comments/suggestions!

dE : dM = π : 1

dE = darkEnergy; dM = darkMatter

Note: This is seemingly true only because of the widespread misperception that the universe is expanding, as well as because of our failure to account for galactic polar field integrity as a very significant factor in galactic rotation.

As data collection, comparison and amalgamation grow more precise, the numbers will shake out like this (rounded to 0.0000): 

dE = 72.7131…%

dM = 23.1453…%

m = 4.1416…%

(Given as % of all gravitationally-affective materials/forces.)
Note that mass totals [π+1]% of the sum of itself, dE & dM.

Current NASA data tallies roughly 73%/23%/4%, respectively (see below).

If dE and dM really existed, this would actually be cool!

NASA Pie Chart (dE, dM, m)

• All particles might be mini dark holes. Does this mean that all dark holes are giant particles?
• Arnold Kling says the only two elements of the political system are Progressive Corporatism and The Resistance.
• Excellent, concise post at Tea with FT about the arbitrariness of capital requirements:
  

  If a bank regulator decided that the minimum capital requirements for the banks depended on how much some few specially designated fashion experts fancied the colour of the tie that the borrower´s chief executive officer wore; and that capital requirements so determined could then vary between a high of 12% of the loan and a low of 0.56% would you call this a free market? Of course not, not even if instead of the colour of ties what was used were the ratings of some vaguely defined credit-default risks.

• Steve Sailer cracks me up: “Here are hardworking scientists carefully digging up stuff, but some Broadway musical expert implies that they are racist for finding it and publicizing it.”
• George Will: “The [Obama] administration’s central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.” (HT Cafe Hayek)
• Did you know that if you pay off your credit card bills you’ve been “enjoying the equivalent of a free ride” compared to people who don’t? (HT Dr. Frank)

Today I received a purported message from the American Physical Society. It was an html page with claims like these:

Not necessaries more experiments, theories and models about the particle and atomic world, because now exists the very simple and real physics theory of these!

As Moshe would say, this is a typical crackpot comment. However, it goes much further than usual:

We state positively that her paper is the giant revolution of the physics theory science. We wish with this mail to suggest Prof. Gabor Fekete for Nobel Prize.

Afterward it suggests that I exert pressure on the Royal Sweedish Academy of Sciences to that effect.

Looking at the headers, the e-mail was sent from Hungary. It also has quite a few names of physicists in the top of the advert. It even insinuates that the Nobel prize winners in physics theory of last year are endorsing this. The APS would never send a message like this, especially not with such a ridiculously bad English grammar.

I definitely think this breaks the mold and should not be tolerated. Hence, a post with full name and an explicit claim that this is spam and crackpot physics theory.

PS. If your name is on the header of this advert and you are not a party to endorsing this sending, I suggest that you protest heavily the use of your name in association with this mail.

I suppose I can now call myself a real scientist. I have applied for funding from the NSF.

I’m listed as a co-PI on a Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) grant proposal. We’ve called it Improving the APplied physics theory Laboratory Experience, or iAPPLE. The purpose of the grant would be to create a junior-level lab course sequence,

which hasn’t existed to date. Instead of doing the “classic” experiments, though, students would propose, design, and carry out independent projects. They would have to create mathematical models (using Mathematica, naturally) for the phenomena they’re investigating and produce some sort of physical apparatus of demonstration equipment-level quality. In turn, these would be folded back into the introductory courses, and the lab students would be responsible for assessing the quality of their work as it’s used in the intro classes. Therefore, a feedback loop is created, in which students come into the program and learn from materials more advanced students have made, then they make more materials for the next “generation”. These educational materials would accumulate in our department over time. It’s win/win/win… or so we believe.

The grant-writing process itself has been hectic, especially toward the end. I was gone on vacation for a week, though, so I missed a lot of the slog of writing and editing. I feel a bit guilty about it, but my responsibility in the actual execution of the grant is quite significant. But the last few days since I’ve gotten back have been a constant cycle of re-writes and edits and meeting to talk about grammar and re-formatting. We submitted it today, though, so the pressure’s off. We think we have a very good shot of getting funded. We’re all very excited about the project anyway, regardless of the NSF’s decision.

Now, it’s on to write another NSF grant about starting an REU program here…