Saturday, October 30, 2010 ~ Have your say...

Time traveler on a cell phone... in Chaplin footage from 1920s?

A filmmaker by the name of George Clarke is claiming that an extra in Charlie Chaplin's "The Circus" is talking on a cell phone.  The film was released in the 1920s.  Looking at the picture, and at the video (which has over 3 million views already), Clarke has come to the conclusion that the person must be a time traveler

He's screened it in front of about 100 people, and no one can give an explanation. "I want to try to get this out there, because right now the only conclusion is ... a time traveler." Clarke says in the video.

The time traveling woman in the film appears in a bonus scene included on the DVD release of "The Circus," a 1928 silent film starring Charlie Chaplin. The footage itself is from 1923. The woman is shown outside Mann's Chinese Theater in Hollywood where the film premiered.  She does appear to have something in her hand... but what is it? 

For the sake of argument (sigh...), let's assume it is a cell phone.  How could she actually be using it?  What about the network towers, satellites, and infrastructure required to operate a cell phone network?  I guess those would have to have traveled with her through time.

The New York Daily News, suggests it could be a hearing aid. They were invented in 1920 and were widely manufactured by 1928.  Who knows why she's talking - maybe she's testing it?  Maybe she's talking to someone else?  As one commenter pointed out, maybe she's just sticking a pencil behind her ear.  Or maybe she's scratching her head while talking to someone. 

What a fitting time to invoke Occam's Razor - the theory that says (in a nutshell) that the simplest solution is, more often than not, the correct solution.  So is it a time traveling woman from the future, or a something much simpler?  It is a massive leap to think that the woman is time traveling. 

I'll give Clarke the final word on this one though, as it's a fitting quote for the conspiracy buffs out there... "I'm hearing from a lot of ex-government officials, men 70-odd years of age, who tell me about secret government operations.".

No doubt...



Related Posts:

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 ~ Have your say...

Science and Skeptic Humor From Around the Web

Science and Skepticism can take on some pretty serious issues, so every once in a while, it's nice to relax and take a breather.  Here's a collection of comics from around the web... 








Friday, October 22, 2010 ~ Have your say...

The Trolley Problem: A Thought Experiment That Tests Our Morality



Consider the following scenario...

It's a beautiful day, and you're walking along the trolley tracks.  Suddenly, you hear calls for help and notice there are five people tied up on the tracks just ahead!  A trolley is bearing down on them, and it's brakes have failed...

You find yourself next to a lever, where, if pulled, it will divert the trolley safely away from the five trapped people.  But there's a catch:  there's a man standing on this diverted track who is completely unaware of what could happen, and he can't hear you or see you.  If you pull the lever, he will die, but you will save the other five.  If you don't pull the lever, the five people will surely die.  What will you do?

Now consider the same problem with a twist.

You find yourself walking along a trolley track again, and again you notice the trolley is out of control.  This time, there is no divert-able track.  Instead, there is a very large man standing within arm's reach who is between you and the track.  If you were to push him, he would fall onto the track and stop the trolley, saving the five people.  Unfortunately, he would die.  What will you do?

The trolley problem is a question of human morality, and an example of a philosophical view called consequentialism. This view says that morality is defined by the consequences of an action, and that the consequences are all that matter. This begs the question:  which consequences are allowable?

On the surface, the consequences of both actions are the same: one person dies, five survive. More specifically, in both examples five people live as the result of one person's death. At first, both may seem to be justified, but most people, when asked which of the two actions is acceptable (pulling the lever or pushing the man onto the tracks) agree that the former is permissible, the latter is not.  What's the difference?  There appears to be a distinction between killing a person and letting a person die.

Why is one wrong and another considered acceptable when both result in death?  If a person dies in both scenarios, and both deaths directly result from an action you take, what's the distinction between the two? 



The queasy feeling you might have now is a result of an application of the doctrine of double effect, which says that you may perform an action that has negative consequences, but deliberately intending harm (even for good causes) is unacceptable.


The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.


2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be "indirectly voluntary".


3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.


4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. 


A practical example of the doctrine of double effect applies to the act of war.  For example, is it acceptable to bomb a city to end a war quickly (where thousands may die), knowing that many innocent civilians will also die?  


The Trolley Problem and other thought experiments are an integral part of moral philosophy. They force us to consider scenarios that are seemingly far fetched, yet have real-world applications.

So what would you have done?




References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/behavior/trolley-problem.htm 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_double_effect 
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ 

Monday, October 11, 2010 ~ Have your say...

10 Math Tricks You Can Use To Impress Your Friends

Want to impress your friends with your arithmetic skills?  Here's a list of simple math tricks you can use on a daily basis.  Some are even practical - who said you'd never use what you learned in school?

For most of these math tricks, the idea is to get manageable numbers to work with in your head, and stick with operations that you are most familiar with.


Math Trick #1:

How to multiply a two digit number by 11:

For example, 43x11.  Take the original number and imagine a space between the two digits:

4_3

Now add the two numbers together and put them in the middle:

4_(4+3)_3 which is the same as 4_7_3

The answer... 473

If the numbers in the middle add up to a two digit number, insert the second number and add 1 to the first:

For example, 67x11

6_(6+7)_7

(6+1)_3_7 which is the same as 7_3_7

The answer...  737


Math Trick #2:

How to square a two digit number ending in 5

If you need to square a two digit number ending in 5, multiply the first digit by itself + 1, and put 25 on the end. 

For example, 65^2 (which can be written as 65x65)

6x(6+1) or 6x7 = 42

Put a 25 on the end of it...

The answer...  4225


Math Trick #3:

How to multiply big numbers by 5

Take any number, then divide it by 2.  Then...

If the result is whole (that is, theres's no remainder), add a 0 at the end.

If it is not whole, ignore the remainder and add a 5 at the end of the number.

For example, 4252x5 = (4252/2) and add a 5 or 0 to the end of the number

4252/2 = 2126 (it's a whole number so add a 0 to the end)

The answer...  21260

Here's another example:  8667x5

Divide the number by two:  4333.5  (there's a remainder so add 5 to the end)

The answer...  43335


Math Trick #4:

How to multiply by 4

The trick here is to simply multiply by two, then multiply by two again. Ultimately, you want to work with smaller numbers that are easier to work with in your head.

For example 82 x 4 = (82 x 2) x 2 = (164) * 2 = 328

To multiply by 8, just multiply by 2 one more time (656).


Math Trick # 5

How to multiply by 9, or 99, or 999

Multiplying by 9 is really like multiplying by 10-1.

9×9 is the same as 9x(10-1) which is (9×10)-9 which is 90-9 or 81.

Let’s try a harder example: 56×9 = 56×10-56 = 560-56 = 504

To multiply by 99, it's the same idea, except you multiply by 100-1.

So, 56×99 = 56x(100-1) = 5600-56 = 5544.

Multiplying by 999 is similar to multiplying by 9 and by 99, except now you multiply by 1000-1

22×999 = 22x(1000-1) = (22x1000) - (22x1) = 22000-22 = 21978


Math Trick # 6

Multiplying by doubling and halving

There are cases when you’re multiplying two numbers together and one of the numbers is even. In this case you can divide that number by two and multiply the other number by 2. You can do keep doing this until you get numbers that are easy to work with in your head.

Let’s say you want to multiply 14 by 16. You can double and halve the numbers till you get your answer:

14×16 = 28×8 = 56×4 = 112×2 = 224

Another example: 12×15 = 6×30 = 6×3x10 = 180

Here's another example:

48×17 = 24×34 = 12×68 = 6×136 = 3×272... this may seem large, but you can break it down further into:

3x270 + 3x2 = 810 + 6 = 816


Math Trick # 7

Working with Percentages

Remember that "per cent" is like saying "parts of one hundred".

So, it follows that 8 percent of 100, is 8. As another example 23.89% is the same as saying "23.89 parts of 100".

Find 8% of 200. 

8% of the first hundred is 8.  8% of the second hundred is also 8.  So it follows that 8% of of 200 is 8 + 8 = 16. Therefore 8% of 200 is 16%.

Another bonus trick: you can flip percents. For example 35% of 8 is the same as 8% of 35.

Using percents has a very practical application when you're at a restaurant. Let's say you want to leave a tip of 15% on a $50 dinner. You can quickly calculate it in your head:

15% of $100 is $15, so then 15% of 50 is half of that, or $7.50.

Let's try one more example: Calculate a 15% tip on a $60 dinner.

Using the same approach, 15% of $100 is $15, so then 15% of 50 is half of that, or $7.50.  Also, you know that 15% of $10 is $1.50. 

So then 15% of 60 is the same as 15% of 50 + 15% of 10... which equals $7.50 + $1.50, or $9.00.


Math Trick # 8

Quick Addition using the left-to-right approach (instead of the familiar right-to-left):

Instead of using a right to left approach, we can start from the left and move to the right. Take the following example:

   45
+ 34

Usually, you would first sum up 4 to 45, and then add 30 to the result. But by using the left to right approach, you first sum up 30 to 45, and then you add 4 to the result. Although this example is very simple, you’ll see the advantages of this method as you start to use it.

If you’re working with three digit numbers, the process is the same.

   459
+ 637

This example is a bit more complicated than the previous one, yet it’s very easy to solve using the left to right approach. You first start by adding 600 to 459, which results in 1059. Now the problem is simplified to 1059 + 37. You simplify it even further by adding 30 to 1059, and then adding 7 to the result... which is 1096.


Math Trick # 9

Subtracting a large number from 1000.

To subtract a large number from 1000 you can use this basic rule: subtract all but the last number from 9 (taking the absolute value... that is, ignoring if the number is negative), then subtract the last number from 10:

1000
- 736

Step 1:  subtract 7 from 9 = 2
Step 2:  subtract 3 from 9 = 6
Step 3:  subtract 6 from 10 = 4

Your answer:  264


Math Trick # 10

Multiplication rules...

Multiply by 5:  Multiply by 10 and divide by 2
Multiply by 6:  Multiplying by 3 and then 2 is easy
Multiply by 9:  Multiply by 10 and subtract the original number
Multiply by 12:  Multiply by 10 and add twice the original number
Multiply by 13:  Multiply by 3 and add 10 times original number
Multiply by 14:  Multiply by 7 and then multiply by 2
Multiply by 15:  Multiply by 10 and add 5 times the original number
Multiply by 16:  You can double four times or multiply by 8 and then by 2
Multiply by 17:  Multiply by 7 and add 10 times original number
Multiply by 18:  Multiply by 20 and subtract twice the original number
Multiply by 19:  Multiply by 20 and subtract the original number
Multiply by 24:  Multiply by 8 and then multiply by 3
Multiply by 27:  Multiply by 30 and subtract 3 times the original number
Multiply by 45:  Multiply by 50 and subtract 5 times the original number
Multiply by 90:  Multiply by 9 and put a zero on the right
Multiply by 98:  Multiply by 100 and subtract twice the original number
Multiply by 99:  Multiply by 100 and subtract the original number  


Wednesday, October 6, 2010 ~ Have your say...

Skepticamp! Science as a candle in the dark...

Are you frustrated by the prevalence of pseudoscience in medicine? Are you interested in critical thinking and science?  Want to meet like-minded science advocates? On October 23, 2010 four Skepticamps will take place across Canada. If you enjoy reading this blog, you’ll probably enjoy Skepticamp.

Skepticamp is a flexibly organized, collaborative conference on science and critical thinking. Skepticamp is not your typical medical conference with high fees, bad PowerPoint, long talks and little interaction with speakers. Skepticamps are open, collaborative, interactive, and FREE.



There are 10 speakers on the agenda for the Toronto event:


1.  Erik Davis - Thinking About Magical Thinking 

2.  Behzad Elahi - How to make sense of medical literature / levels of evidence / Clinical trials 


3.  Scott Gavura - Undecided - Health product licensing, Homeopathy, etc 


4.  Michael Kruse - Naturopathy 


5.  Michael MacMay - Libel Law, Skeptics, and the Internet: A Primer 


6.  Karl Mamer - Conspiracy theories 


7.  Iain Martel - Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience (or Why Skeptics Should Stop Talking about Falsifiability) 


8.  Jeff Orchard - It's not enough to just be right Can we overcome the irrational pitfalls of human
psychology? Maybe, maybe not. I say, If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. 


9.  Steve Thoms - Politics, Policy, Skeptical Activism 


10.  Justin Trottier - Critical Thinking in High Schools 


Read all about it, and sign up by clicking the link below:

http://networkedblogs.com/8KVap

Friday, October 1, 2010 ~ Have your say...

UFO Sighted In Montreal? Probably Not.

Yesterday, a respected doctor took a video of an unidentified flying object over the skies of Montreal (more specifically, over the Cavendish Mall).

The headlines were typical for this type of story:



"UFOs in Montreal? Strange sights reported: Doctor among witnesses to 'not of this world' light show"

"Cote St. Luc doctor wonders if he spotted a UFO"

"Unusual object in night sky baffles Montrealers"


Dr. Cleve Ziegler, an obstetrician-gynecologist (note:  not an astronomer... yet the press seems to think that because he's a doctor, he's more credible), spotted the object when he was driving home from work around 12:30 a.m. He couldn't believe his eyes.



"There were many little sparkly red and blue lights. It had a changing shape, morphing from something that looked triangular to something that looked like a trapezoid. It was not a stable shape," Ziegler told CBC News.

CTV News posted the video that Dr. Ziegler was able to take.  Stills from the video are found below.  








UFO?  A planet?  A star?  Satellite?


Andrew Fazekas, a director at the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, said the object was likely of this world.

"From the description, definitely I would say it is not something astronomical. It's not a satellite. And it's not a star or anything like that," said Fazekas.

He posed another theory. Around the same time, helicopters were buzzing around the site of a fuel spill at the Port of Montreal in the other end of town.

And if you look closely at the image on the right, you can actually make out the shape of a helicopter:  the bulbous portion on the right, and the tail on the left.  Looking at the video, it is certainly plausible that the movement of the object is that of a helicopter.



Having grown up in Montreal, this story piqued my interest. The concept of extraterrestrial life has always intrigued me, and as much as I would like to believe that an alien aircraft hovered over Montreal last night, I reckon this is nothing more than something from our own home planet.

References:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/09/30/mystery-ufo-sighting-montreal.html
http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100929/mtl_UFO_100929/20100929/?hub=MontrealHome
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/100930/canada/canada_montreal_mystery_ufo_sighting_montreal

~ Have your say...

A Hole in the Earth: Just How Do Sinkholes Work?




This past summer, the flood waters from tropical storm Agatha caused a massive sinkhole to finally collapse and expose itself in Guatemala.  The hole is a startling 30 stories deep, and 60 feet (18 metres) wide.  When I originally saw the images, I thought they where Photoshopped and all we had was another Internent meme... so I was shocked to learn that these were actual images of the sinkhole.

What causes this natural wonder?



Usually, sinkholes form in an area where there is dissolvable bedrock, like limestone.  These areas are said to have a "Karst topography".  Water percolating through the ground dissolves carbon dioxide creating a weak acid, which slowly eats away at the limestone.  Eventually, the limestone will form an empty cavity where water will collect as it pools from a surrounding aquifer and the water percolating from above. 

If there is significant pumping and removal of that water, the filtration process will be accelerated, and the pressure excerpted from the water (on the cavity's ceiling) will be reduced.  This increases the size of the cavity, until the roof can no longer support its own weight and collapses during a period of heavy rain or vibration.



The image below helps to describe how sinkholes work:




While the Guatemalan sinkhole has received the most press recently (upper right-most image at the top of this article), there are a number of other sinkholes that are equally spectacular.


The Great Blue Hole is an example of an underwater sinkhole off the coast of Belize.  It formed during years of glaciation, some 153,000; 66,000; 60,000; and 15,000 years ago.  It is a whopping 300m across and 124m deep.



Sima Humboldt (Sima Major) is another massive sinkhole located on the summit of the plateau of Sarisariñama tepui, in Bolívar,  Venezuela. Its maximum width at its upper rim is 352 metres, below it is 502 metres.








The Cave of Swallows, also cave situated in San Luis PotosíMexico. The entrance lies along a sloped section of karst, and measures approximately 49 by 62 m). The pit opens up to a room that measures approximately 303m by 134m. The low point of the entrance provides a 333m freefall drop to the bottom of the cave while the high point provides a 372m freefall drop.  This makes the Cave of Swallows the largest cave shaft in the world.

The Kravice waterfall on the 
Trebižat river in Bosnia and Herzegovina demonstrates Karst geology and landscape.  The image, bottom right, demonstrates a karst landscape in Minerve, Hérault,France.

In both cases, the landscape is formed by the dissolution of layers of soluble bedrock, providing the landscape with sinkholes and caves scattered throughout.

The next time you hear of sinkhole opening up in the Earth, you will now have the basics of how they work.


References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blue_Hole

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...