Podcast #1 <-- Clickable
Hello all,
I felt it necessary to first and for most explain where I'm at during this moment. Podcast #1 includes a short discussion of my research as well as the methods I (along with others) am using to approach calculating genetic diversity.
Enjoy.
(Further Reading:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalDistribution.html
http://www.uncg.edu/mat/bio-math/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Its been a while
I haven't posted anything is quite some time now. I have been busy with various things and now have time to start back. I'm currently thinking of topics to bring up here at the Corporeal Tutorial. If you have any ideas for future posts feel free to comment below, if not I will most likely have something up by the end of this weekend.
Thanks,
Steve
Thanks,
Steve
Monday, January 11, 2010
Constant? I think not.
Time and time again I hear (even from professionals): "The acceleration due to gravity is constant (~9.8 m/^s^)," this is simply not so.
First, I would like to say that in order to speak of an acceleration an object must be specified. Therefore, "The acceleration due to gravity is constant," now becomes "The field strength of gravity is constant," but even this well corrected phrase is not to my liking.
Second, the force of gravity obeys Newton's universal law of gravity (in the classical sense) whereby the field strength is constantly being depleted in accordance with an inverse square law. Therefore, "The field strength of gravity is constant," now becomes "The field strength of gravity is approximately constant at short distances to the earth's surface."
All is well with the world.
I would also like to add that with the semester introducing itself more posts will be add to the "Problems" section of the blog. Please view old posts for details.
First, I would like to say that in order to speak of an acceleration an object must be specified. Therefore, "The acceleration due to gravity is constant," now becomes "The field strength of gravity is constant," but even this well corrected phrase is not to my liking.
Second, the force of gravity obeys Newton's universal law of gravity (in the classical sense) whereby the field strength is constantly being depleted in accordance with an inverse square law. Therefore, "The field strength of gravity is constant," now becomes "The field strength of gravity is approximately constant at short distances to the earth's surface."
All is well with the world.
I would also like to add that with the semester introducing itself more posts will be add to the "Problems" section of the blog. Please view old posts for details.
Friday, January 8, 2010
What is information?
I'm sure we have all heard this: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?" This question is one of tremendous importance. The reason why this question is so important is because Einstein's special-relativity (and Galileo's classical relativity) rests upon the idea of information being transverse across reference frames. When these theories were being developed the authors must have postulated what "information" means and consists of. If I tell you that "a tree fell in the woods," does that constitute as information? If I translate “a tree fell in the woods” into Latin, would it still be information relevant to the discussion?
So far it seems as though some information that is being provided, namely “a tree fell in the woods” may be of greater importance compared to “a tree fell in the woods” translated into Latin; yet better still would be a picture of the tree or, ideally, the actual light waves or sound waves produced by the tree falling. Consider “a tree fell in the woods” equal to (TW) and “a tree fell in the woods” in Latin equal to (TWL), to simplify things. (TW) is useful to you because it transfers to your frame; (TWL) is not useful (to most of you) because it doesn’t transfer to you. Therefore, this method of depicting information is not useful for any theory of relativity in which information is transverse across reference frames. This is only the case for two reasons: 1) there is no universal language (besides math) and 2) people lie/don’t gather data effectively.
Not surprisingly, the sound and light waves would be the ideal universal language to transverse information across any two reference frames. So, in conclusion I would like to jump to the point.
Random Person: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?”
Another Person: “I cannot say, because the information provided lacks the ability to be crossed referenced.”
Think of it this way, a tree has never fallen without a human being watching (that we know of). We may consider it common sense to assume: “the tree is on the ground, it must have fallen!” and it also seems common sense to assume sound being present after/during a tree falling but if we are to assume these statements true on “common sense” must we also assume, that without life in the universe, would it too still exist?
(special thanks to Aaron A. for a fruitful discussion of the above topics.)
So far it seems as though some information that is being provided, namely “a tree fell in the woods” may be of greater importance compared to “a tree fell in the woods” translated into Latin; yet better still would be a picture of the tree or, ideally, the actual light waves or sound waves produced by the tree falling. Consider “a tree fell in the woods” equal to (TW) and “a tree fell in the woods” in Latin equal to (TWL), to simplify things. (TW) is useful to you because it transfers to your frame; (TWL) is not useful (to most of you) because it doesn’t transfer to you. Therefore, this method of depicting information is not useful for any theory of relativity in which information is transverse across reference frames. This is only the case for two reasons: 1) there is no universal language (besides math) and 2) people lie/don’t gather data effectively.
Not surprisingly, the sound and light waves would be the ideal universal language to transverse information across any two reference frames. So, in conclusion I would like to jump to the point.
Random Person: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?”
Another Person: “I cannot say, because the information provided lacks the ability to be crossed referenced.”
Think of it this way, a tree has never fallen without a human being watching (that we know of). We may consider it common sense to assume: “the tree is on the ground, it must have fallen!” and it also seems common sense to assume sound being present after/during a tree falling but if we are to assume these statements true on “common sense” must we also assume, that without life in the universe, would it too still exist?
(special thanks to Aaron A. for a fruitful discussion of the above topics.)
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Fancy a fine eye?
It won't be easy peering into the relative roles Multiple Mating and Genetic Recombination play in adding genetic diversity to a colony of social insects, but I'm up for it. I feel extremely intrigued by the general thesis Olav and I have developed thus far. It's still a work in progress. What research I have started thus far has demonstrated the importance of fine tuning an acute eye for the essentials. With the vast amount of information being fed to me I absolutely must grind it down to it's essentials. To do this I must consider how relevant said information is to my under lining thesis. Every chapter, title, sub-title, etc. must be scrutinized by a finely tuned eye if I am to make the most of my time.
This idea should be emphasized more in school. We can prove that a brain which organizes better often excels; and what better way to organize than to strip stimuli to their bare essentials? I would inquire that all readers implement some techniques for acquiring an acute eye. Good luck to all ^^
This idea should be emphasized more in school. We can prove that a brain which organizes better often excels; and what better way to organize than to strip stimuli to their bare essentials? I would inquire that all readers implement some techniques for acquiring an acute eye. Good luck to all ^^
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Gearing Up
Salve! (hello!)
So it seems, after Christmas but before the new year (and my b-day), I have started back on my usual routine academic discipline. I am reading a book by Carl Sagan titled "The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark" and partaking in an online video course offered by Yale to brush up on my area of interest. Christmas was good for me as I would imagine it was for everyone not living in a mud hut.
Carl's book has thus far illustrated very little of what I have yet to hear on the matter of science and religion. I find his title choice interesting because it seem to insinuate science lighting the way when all else is dark and empty; a school of thought I humbly belong to.
If you haven't checked out the new game show on the science channel, I highly recommended you do so. Here is the link: Head Games. I enjoy the science being advocated by the program. I do not enjoy the gay, peppy, and in sinuous character of the host; but I suppose beggars are far from to choosers.
Also, here is a little topic I would like to hear your opinion on: Joy to the World ^^
So it seems, after Christmas but before the new year (and my b-day), I have started back on my usual routine academic discipline. I am reading a book by Carl Sagan titled "The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark" and partaking in an online video course offered by Yale to brush up on my area of interest. Christmas was good for me as I would imagine it was for everyone not living in a mud hut.
Carl's book has thus far illustrated very little of what I have yet to hear on the matter of science and religion. I find his title choice interesting because it seem to insinuate science lighting the way when all else is dark and empty; a school of thought I humbly belong to.
If you haven't checked out the new game show on the science channel, I highly recommended you do so. Here is the link: Head Games. I enjoy the science being advocated by the program. I do not enjoy the gay, peppy, and in sinuous character of the host; but I suppose beggars are far from to choosers.
Also, here is a little topic I would like to hear your opinion on: Joy to the World ^^
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
MathBio Acceptance!!
I have been accepted into the MathBio program at UNCG!! Here is the link for more info on my project:
Honey bees!!
I will be developing models for the social interaction of honey bees. Hopefully we will be able to identify various traits within the bees genome which may help us to better understand social dynamics amongst all social animals. Who know what fascinating things await!!
More on this to come ^^
(did I mention that this project is funded by the NSF?!? SO exciting!)
Honey bees!!
I will be developing models for the social interaction of honey bees. Hopefully we will be able to identify various traits within the bees genome which may help us to better understand social dynamics amongst all social animals. Who know what fascinating things await!!
More on this to come ^^
(did I mention that this project is funded by the NSF?!? SO exciting!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
