I have attended an ordinary differential equations lecture. The topic was Laplace Transform…

[This intro rather looks like an opening scene of a movie, "I... and then ..." structure , anyhow ]

The lecture was given in such a manner:

• Talking about Integral Transforms
• The “definition” of Laplace Transform
• Finding the Laplace Transforms of some elementary functions[i.e., polynomials, sin(x) and cos(x)...]

What has been disappointing about the lecture is that it is not mentioned why the Laplace Transform is necessary.

Ever wondered what’s going on?

Well, I suggest the first ~15 mins. of the following video-lecture. It gives a pretty well analogy [or nonetheless a motivation for the rest of the lecture] with the series expansion method:

Introduction to the Laplace Transform; Basic Formulas on MIT OCW.

Today’s Special Offer: A Conversation

What else would you like to have ma’am?

A cup of tea and today’s special cookie please.

We have Laplace Transform for today, extremely fine.

Yes, please..

***

Definición: es un pensamiento crítico sobre los fundamentos que sostienen la sociedad del Antiguo Régimen y estableció las bases del pensamiento moderno. A este movimiento intelectual se le conoce como Ilustración. Nació en Inglaterra y Escocia en el siglo XVII, y se expandió por el continente Europeo durante el siglo XVIII.

El siglo de las luces. Es el nombre que recibe el siglo XVIII, la época de la Ilustración, porque una explicación racional del mundo venía a iluminar las sombras heredadas de la tradición o de la superstición. Se produce un gran avance de la ciencia en matemáticas (Leibniz), física (Newton), astronomía (Laplace) y química (Lavoisier). Las leyes del funcionamiento del Universo cuestionan los relatos bíblicos sobre la creación de la Tierra.

Pensamiento económico. En estas fechas se ponen las bases del pensamiento económico contemporáneo: el liberalismo económico. Adam Smith afirma en su libro La riqueza de las Naciones (1773), que el progreso económico exige dejar en libertad los factores de producción (capital, tierra, trabajo).

La crítica social y política. En Francia los ilustrados eran conocidos como les philosophes y tuvieron un importante antecesor en John Locke (vivió en el siglo XVII) y había justificado el parlamentarismo inglés impuesto tras la Gloriosa Revolución de 1688, diciendo que era una restauración del contrato social. Defiende la necesidad de tolerar ideas y creencias diferentes, y de establecer un sistema político pactado en el que nadie tuviese poder absoluto.

1. Voltaire: primero que difundió en Francia los planteamientos de Locke, reivindicaba la libertad política y la tolerancia religiosa así como la unificación de las instituciones del Estado.
2. Montesquieu: noble acaudalado al que se considera fundador de la ciencia política y de la sociología. En su obra El espíritu de las leyes, explica las diversas formas de gobierno. Propuso un sistema monárquico controlado por una constitución en el que habría una separación de los poderes legislativo, ejecutivo y judicial. Su doctrina inspiró la Constitución norteamericana de 1787 y otras europeas del siglo XIX.
3. Rosseau: creía que el hombre era bueno por naturaleza y que el orden social había corrompido la igualdad original entre las personas. Explica que su concepción de gobierno es un contrato que debía reflejar la voluntad general en la que se fundarían todas las voluntades individuales, por lo que se trata de la primera afirmación de la soberanía nacional. Para él, los reyes o representantes elegidos no eran más que delegados de un pueblo soberano. Su crítica a la propiedad y su defensa de la igualdad estarían presentes en planteamientos democráticos posteriores.

La enciclopedia. El conjunto de las ideas ilustradas circuló inicialmente entre unas élites reducidas. La publicación de los 28 volúmenes de la Enciclopedia (1751-1772), dirigida por Diderot y D´Alembert intentó ser un diccionario razonado de las ciencias, las artes y las técnicas, en la cual colaboraron famosos intelectuales. Presentaba la situación de los conocimientos en la época, pero también figuraba una crítica hacia las instituciones políticas y religiosas.

El absolutismo ilustrado. Monarcas y gobernantes europeos acogieron favorablemente el espíritu de las luces y lo utilizaron en sus conflictos con la autonomía de la Iglesia o contra el poder de la nobleza. Eran los déspotas ilustrados, que planificaban reformas que creían favorables para el pueblo pero sin contar con él.

The era of modern physics could be said to have begun in 1687 with the publication by Sir Isaac Newton of his great Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, (Principia for short). In this magnificent volume, Newton presented a mathematical theory of all known forms of motion and, for the first time, gave clear definitions of the concepts of force and momentum. Within this general framework he derived a new theory of Universal Gravitation and used it to explain the properties of planetary orbits previously discovered but unexplained by Johannes Kepler. The classical laws of motion and his famous “inverse square law” of gravity have been superseded by more complete theories when dealing with very high speeds or very strong gravity, but they nevertheless continue supply a very accurate description of our everyday physical world.

Newton’s laws have a rigidly deterministic structure. What I mean by this is that, given precise information about the state of a system at some time then one can use Newtonian mechanics to calculate the precise state of the system at any later time. The orbits of the planets, the positions of stars in the sky, and the occurrence of eclipses can all be predicted to very high accuracy using this theory.

At this point it is useful to mention that most physicists do not use Newton’s laws in the form presented in the Principia, but in a more elegant language named after Sir William Rowan Hamilton. The point about Newton’s laws of motion is that they are expressed mathematically as differential equations: they are expressed in terms of rates of changes of things. For instance, the force on a body gives the rate of change of the momentum of the body. Generally speaking, differential equations are very nasty things to solve which is a shame because most a great deal of theoretical physics involves them. Hamilton realised that it was possible to express Newton’s laws in a way that did not involve clumsy mathematics of this type. His formalism was equivalent, in the sense that one could obtain the basic differential equations from it, but easier to use in general situations. The key concept he introduced – now called the Hamiltonian – is a single mathematical function that depends on both the positions q and momenta p of the particles in a system, say H(q,p). This function is constructed from the different forms of energy (kinetic and potential) in the system, and how they depend on the p’s and q’s, but the details of how this works out don’t matter. Suffice to say that knowing the Hamiltonian for a system is tantamount to a full classical description of its behaviour.

Hamilton was a very interesting character. He was born in Dublin in 1805 and showed an astonishing early flair for languages, speaking 13 of them by the time he was 13. He graduated from Trinity College aged 22, at which point he was clearly a whiz-kid at mathematics as well as languages. He was immediately made professor of astronomy at Dublin and Astronomer Royal for Ireland. However, he turned out to be hopeless at the practicalities of observational work. Despite employing three of his sisters to help him in the observatory he never produced much of astronomical interest. Mathematics and alcohol seem to have been the two real loves of his life.

It is a fascinating historical fact that the development of probability theory during the late 17^th and early 18^th century coincided almost exactly with the rise of Newtonian Mechanics. It may seem strange in retrospect that there was no great philosophical conflict between these two great intellectual achievements since they have mutually incompatible views of prediction. Probability applies in unpredictable situations; Newtonian Mechanics says that everything is predictable. The resolution of this conundrum may owe a great deal to Laplace, who contributed greatly to both fields. Laplace, more than any other individual, was responsible to elevated the deterministic world-view of Newton to a scientific principle in its own right. To quote:

We ought then to regard the present state of the Universe as the effect of its preceding state and as the cause of its succeeding state.

According to Laplace’s view, knowledge of the initial conditions pertaining at the instant of creation would be sufficient in order to predict everything that subsequently happened. For him, a probabilistic treatment of phenomena did not conflict with classical theory, but was simply a convenient approach to be taken when the equations of motion were too difficult to be solved exactly. The required probabilities could be derived from the underlying theory, perhaps using some kind of symmetry argument.

The s-called “randomizing” devices used in all traditional gambling games – roulette wheels, dice, coins, bingo machines, and so on – are in fact well described by Newtonian mechanics. We call them “random” because the motions involved are just too complicated to make accurate prediction possible. Nevertheless it is clear that they are just straightforward mechanical devices which are essentially deterministic. On the other hand, we like to think the weather is predictable, at least in principle, but with much less evidence that it is so!

But it is not only systems with large numbers of interacting particles (like the Earth’s atmosphere) that pose problems for predictability. Some deceptively simple systems display extremely erratic behaviour. The theory of these systems is less than fifty years old or so, and it goes under the general title of nonlinear dynamics. One of the most important landmarks in this field was a study by two astronomers, Michel Hénon and Carl Heiles in 1964. They were interested in what would happens if you take a system with a known analytical solutions and modify it.

In the language of Hamiltonians, let us assume that H₀ describes a system whose evolution we know exactly and H₁ is some perturbation to it. The Hamiltonian of the modified system is thus

What Hénon and Heiles did was to study a system whose unmodified form is very familiar to physicists: the simple harmonic oscillator. This is a system which, when displaced from its equilibrium, experiences a restoring force proportional to the displacement. The Hamiltonian description for a single simple harmonic oscillator system involves a function that is quadratic in both p and q:

The solution of this system is well known: the general form is a sinusoidal motion and it is used in the description of all kinds of wave phenomena, swinging pendulums and so on.

The case Henon and Heiles looked at had two degrees of freedom, so that the Hamiltonian depends on q₁, q₂, p₁ and p_2:

 However, in this example, the two degrees of freedom are independent, meaning that there is uncoupled motion in the two directions. The amplitude of the oscillations is governed by the total energy of the system, which is a constant of the motion. Other than this, the type of behaviour displayed by this system is very rich, as exemplified by the various Lissajous figures shown in the diagram below. Note that all these figures are produced by the same type of dynamical system of equations: the different shapes are consequences of different initial conditions and different coefficients (which I set to unity in the form above).

 If the oscillations in each direction have the same frequency then one can get an orbit which is a line or an ellipse. If the frequencies differ then the orbits can be much more complicated, but still pretty. Note that in all these cases the orbit is just a line, i.e. a one-dimensional part of the two-dimensional space drawn on the paper.

More generally, one can think of this system as a point moving in a four-dimensional phase space defined by the coordinates q₁, q₂, p₁ and p₂; taking slices through this space reveals qualitatively similar types of orbit for, say, p₂ and q₂ as for p₁ and p₂. The motion of the system is confined to a lower-dimensional part of the phase space rather than filling up all the available phase space. In this particular case, because each degree of freedom moves in only one of its two available dimensions, the system as a whole moves in a two-dimensional part of the four-dimensional space.

This all applies to the original, unperturbed system. Hénon and Heiles took this simple model and modified by adding a term to the Hamiltonian that was cubic rather than quadratic and which coupled the two degrees of freedom together. For those of you interested in the details their Hamiltonian was of the form

The first set of terms in the brackets is the unmodified form, describing a simple harmonic oscillator; the other two terms are new. The result of this simple alteration is really quite surprising. They found that, for low energies, the system continued to behave like two uncoupled oscillators; the orbits were smooth and well-behaved. This is not surprising because the cubic modifications are smaller than the original quadratic terms if the amplitude is small.  For higher energies the motion becomes a bit more complicated, but the phase space behaviour is still characterized by continuous lines, as shown in the left hand part of the following figure.

However, at higher values of the energy (right), the cubic terms become more important, and something very striking happens. A two-dimensional slice through the phase space no longer shows the continuous curves that typify the original system, but a seemingly disorganized scattering of dots. It is not possible to discern any pattern in the phase space structure of this system: it appear to be random.

Nowadays we describe the transition from these two types of behaviour as being accompanied by the onset of chaos. It is important to note that this system is entirely deterministic, but it generates a phase space pattern that is quite different from what one would naively expect from the behaviour usually associated with classical Hamiltonian systems. To understand how this comes about it is perhaps helpful to think about predictability in classical systems. It is true that precise knowledge of the state of a system allows one to predict its state at some future time.  For a single particle this means that precise knowledge of its position and momentum, and knowledge of the relevant H, will allow one to calculate the position and momentum at all future times.

But think a moment about what this means. What do we mean by precise knowledge of the particle’s position? How precise? How many decimal places? If one has to give the position exactly then that could require an infinite amount of information. Clearly we never have that much information. Everything we know about the physical world has to be coarse-grained to some extent, even if it is only limited by measurement error. Strict determinism in the form advocated by Laplace is clearly a fantasy. Determinism is not the same as predictability.

In “simple” Hamiltonian systems what happens is that two neighbouring phase-space paths separate from each other in a very controlled way as the system evolves. In fact the separation between paths usually grows proportionally to time. The coarse-graining with which the input conditions are specified thus leads to a similar level of coarse-graining in the output state. Effectively the system is predictable, since the uncertainty in the output is not much larger than in the input.

In the chaotic system things are very different. What happens here is that the non-linear interactions represented in the Hamiltonian play havoc with the initial coarse-graining. Phase-space orbits that start out close to each other separate extremely violently (typically exponentially) and in a way that varies from one part of the phase space to another.  What happens then is that particle paths become hopelessly scrambled and the mapping between initial and final states becomes too complex to handle. What comes out  the end is practically impossible to predict.

Einstein speaks of his mind processes on the origin of General Relativity; (Nov. 21, 2009)

This article is how Einstein described his mind processes that lead to the theory of restricted relativity and then his concept for General Relativity. In 1905, restricted relativity discovered the equivalence of all systems of inertia for formulating physics equations. From a cinematic perspective there was no way to doubting relative movements; still there was the tendency to physically extend privileged significance to system of inertia.  The question was “if speed is relative do we have to consider acceleration as absolute?”

Ernest Mach considered that inertia did not resist acceleration except when related to the acceleration toward other masses. This idea impressed me greatly. First, I had to establish a law of gravitation field and suppress the concept of absolute simultaneity. Simplicity urged me to maintain Laplace’s scalar gravity potential and fine tune Poisson’s equation. Given the theorem of inertia of energy then inertia mass must be depended on gravitation potential but my research left me skeptical. In classical mechanics, vertical acceleration in a vertical field of gravity is independent of the horizontal component of velocity; it follows that vertical acceleration is exercised independently of the internal kinetic energy of the body in movement. I discovered that this independence did not exist in my draft theory; this evidence did not coincide with the affirmation that all bodies submit to the same acceleration in a gravitational field. Thus, the principle that there is equality between inertia mass and weight grew with striking significance. I was convinced of its validity though I had no knowledge of the results of experiments done by Eotvos.

Consequently, the principle of equality between inertia mass and weight would be explained as follow: in a homogenous gravitational field all movements are executed in relation to a system of coordinates accelerating uniformly as if in absence of gravity field. I conjectured that if this principle is applicable to any other events then it can be applied to system of coordinates not accelerating uniformly. These reflections occupied me from 1908 to 1911 and I figured that the principle of relativity needed to be extended (equations should retain their forms in non uniform accelerations of coordinates) in order to account for a rational theory of gravitation; the physical explanation of coordinates (measured by rules and clocks) has to go.

I reasoned that if in reality “a field of gravitation used in system of inertia” did not exist it could still be served in the Galilean expression that “a material point in a 4-dimentional space is represented by the shortest straight line”. Minkowski has demonstrated that this metric of the square of the distance of the line is a function of the squares of the differential coordinates.  If I introduced other coordinates by non linear transformation then the distance of the line stay homogeneous if coefficients dependent on coordinates are added to the metric (this is the Riemann metric in 4-dimension space not submitted to any gravity field). Thus, the coefficients describe the field of gravity in the selected system of coordinates; the physical significance is just related to the Riemannian metric. This resolved this dilemma in 1912.

Two other problems had to be resolved from 1912 to 1914 with the collaboration of Marcel Grossmann. The first problem is stated as follow: How can we transfer to a Riemannian metric a field law expressed in the language of restrained relativity?  I discovered that Ricci and Levi-Civia had answered it using infinitesimal differential calculus.  The second problem is: what are the differential laws that determine the coefficients of Riemann?  I needed to resolve invariant differential forms of the second order of Riemann’s coefficients. It turned out that Riemann had also answered the problem using curb tensors.

“Two years before the publication of my theory on General Relativity” said Einstein “I thought that my equations could not be confirmed by experiments. I was convinced that an invariant law of gravitation relative to any transformations of coordinates was not compatible with the causality principle. Astronomic experiments proved me right in 1915.”

Note:  I recall that during my last year in high school my physics teacher, an old Jesuit Brother, filled the blackboard with partial derivatives of Newton’s equation on the force applied to a mass; then he integrated and he got Einstein’s equation of energy equal mass by C square. At university, whenever I had problems to solve in classical mechanics on energy or momentum conservations I just applied the relativity equation for easy and quick results; pretty straightforward; not like the huge pain of describing or analyzing movements of an object in coordinate space.

Jako zadanie domowe proponuję sprawdzenie, jaką strategię powinien wybrać przedsiębiorca produkujący skarpetki w poniższej grze z Naturą. Rynek spełnia warunki definicyjne Natury: podejmuje decyzje, które wpływają na wynik Producenta, a jednocześnie jego reakcja na wybory Przedsiębiorcy jest tak znikoma, że dla naszych potrzeb możemy ją pominąć. Proszę sprawdzić, jak powinien zachować się przedsiębiorca przyjmując za kryterium wyboru:

1. Kryterium Laplace’a

2. Kryterium Walda

3. Kryterium Hurwicza (współczynnik optymizmu α=0,75)

4. Kryterium Savage’a.

Zastanówcie się też, które kryterium jest najwłaściwsze z punktu widzenia Producenta skarpetek grającego w tę grę z Rynkiem. Powodzenia!

Na drugich zajęciach zajmowaliśmy się, ogólnie rzecz ujmując, strategiami mieszanymi i grami z Naturą. Poniżej i w Dziale Slajdy, znajdą Państwo materiały.

Prove that:

Solution:

First,

It follows that:

Then,

Hence,

After the strange views held on Bayesian statistics by the popular science magazine La Recherche, it is  more than comforting to see the other popular science magazine Pour la Science to publish a more balanced paper on the role of statistical evidence, both frequentist and Bayesian. And by Andrew Gelman! This paper is actually a translation into French of a paper of Andrew with David Wiekliem, published earlier in American Scientist. I can only make one complaint about a missing reference to Laplace (the true father of Bayesian statistics!) who did study the difference between male and female births in his Théorie Analytique des Probabilités.

The illusion of knowing is the major obstacle to discovery; (October 4, 2009)

            Even a century ago, a scientist published a single manuscript after a life time of research and toiling; transmission of opinions and suggestions were sent via long erudite letters by peers. Translators of these remarkable books didn’t go unnoticed and were rewarded academically. Nowadays, any “respectable” scientist works for several institutions, private and public, and at various nations.  Two centuries ago, scientists did not need to refer to Pythagoras or Archimedes.  Modern scientists have no time to refer to Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Laplace, Lavoisier, or Kelvin; soon Einstein and Heisenberg will be outmoded.

            The team of the geeks in “Sciences and Future” met in August for brainstorming in “pause mode” to deliberate on the unique question “In the last few decades, what discoveries were true breakthroughs?”  The team reached an understanding on five scientific fields: climatology, neuroscience, astronomy, cellular biology, and Internet. Consequently, I will answer a few of the questions that you might think you know in these fields so that our knowledge is no longer an illusion.

The internet shifts from the virtual to the real

            There are three generations of internet or Web. The first generation or Web1.0 was created from 2003 to 2005 and is represented by MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube that gathers people on common interest social aspects or making “friends”.  The second generation or Web 2.0 is represented by Twitter or the microblogging platform for messages restricted to 140 characters. Thus, these micro messages can be regrouped and analyze to constitute a story contributed by many Twitter bloggers.  The third generation of Web 3.0 is ready technologically; this generation is already labeled object oriented intelligence sources.  For example, you record a message on your cell phone and then stick a yellow sticker on a wall or an object. The next visitor will pass his cell phone over the sticker and copy your message of whatever you have seen or appreciated. This generation can zip all kinds of products and gather intelligence and compare with other resources.  Personally, I think that even the Twitter is already a perfect source of information by intelligence agencies; these centers can hire thousands of Twitter users and direct them on specific topic of interests in many countries.

Cells can be rejuvenated to its embryo stage

            The lab technician would take samples of your skin. The skin cells can be treated to reach its first born state.  Whatever genetic diseases that cell inherited it will take another 30 years for the disease to emerge.  All the while you are thirty years younger. Better, skin cells can be treated to isolate a specific cell for any body member like liver, heart, brain, or whatever.  The sick tissue in any part of your body can be rejuvenated within a month. This biomedical technique of treating adult cells into embryo state was made possible because many laws prohibited using fetus embryo on the ground that the cell belonged to another person.

Is man’s activity altering nature more than geophysics?

            Man feared the return of the ice age; it turned out that the climate is getting hotter and the poles are melting.  The emergence of urban and industrial societies as a geophysical force is altering the environment power for rejuvenation according to human threshold for survival.  Since 1824, Joseph Fourier theorized that gases in the atmosphere have the potential to increase surface temperature. Even in 1896, John Tyndall predicted that the concentration of CO2 will increase temperature to 5 degrees by the end of the 20^th century. Now, this is a fact and each year the casualties in man and nature are increasing by the violence of climatic changes. People are waiting anxiously the international summit on the environment in Copenhagen this December. Awareness of man effective participation in climatic changes was proven when the ozone layer of O3 in the stratosphere was depleting. Seas level is increasing 3 mm a year since 1993.  So far, only Danemark produces the fourth of its power using eoliens or wind turbines.

            Ex-President Bush Junior said in 1992: “The American way of life is not negotiable.” The philosopher Michelle Serres said in 1990: “This world that we treated as an object is returning as a subject; capable of vengeance.”  The humorist Coluche said: “For an ecologist to be elected as President then trees should be allowed to vote.”

The brain is in perpetual re-structuring

            There are specialized neurons that can be activated when an action is executed or when an action is also observed (mirror neurons).  These mirror neurons are the biological basis for empathy, imitation, and training; almost every decision is influenced by our emotions.  Neurons have the potential to flow or transfer from one brain to another when recycling cognitive aptitudes such as reading and writing are elevated.  Neurons and connections are modified when training tasks are memorized.

            We have 8 varieties of intelligence; mainly the visual, spatial, naturalist, logic-mathematics, corporal, musical, inter-personal, and intra-personal intelligences. The new battery of experiments for testing cognitive and movements capabilities are designed to account for our eight kinds of intelligences. It is the quantity of synapses (connections) and not the weight of the brain that differentiate among the various intelligences. There are phases in our sleep when brain activities are most intense while muscular activities are extremely inhibited; this phase is called “paradox sleep”.  We produce new neurons at every stage of growth, especially in the hippocampus and the smell brains. Almost 10% of our synapses are established when we are born and they increase with our activities and cognitive demands (efforts, mental and physical, mean increase in fresh synapses and neurons).

Hormones or chemical messengers for the brains  

            Serotonin is a chemical messenger to the brains; it is implicated in sleep, feeding and sexual habits. A decrease in its production is associated to depressive moods. Anti-depressant drugs increase the concentration of serotonin in the blood.

            Dopamine is a chemical hormone that controls movements, moods, addiction, and the circuit of pleasure; its deficiency generates rigidity in the muscles which is the symptoms of Parkinson disease.

            Adrenaline is a chemical hormone that is secreted at moments of stress and is attached on large numbers of receptors to re-enforce cardiac functions, accelerate the heart beats, elevate arterial pressure, inhibit digestion and increase the level of glycemy.

            Cortisol is secreted in moments of stress to increase the rate of glucose in the blood stream and liberating energy to counter dangers.

            Insulin enhances the stock of glucose in the tissues and thus decreases glycemy.

            Acetylcholine is a neuro-transmitter that excites the targeted brain when acquiring new training and for enhancing memory; its deficiency is the origin of Alzheimer disease.

            Erythropoietin stimulates the synthesis of red blood cells; its deficiency results in anemia.  The word “doping” is related to sport competitors abusing of this hormone.

Dogs, Dogs, and Even More Dogs!

LaPlace, LA & Iuka, MS & Birmingham, AL
to
Plainfield, IL; Milwaukee, & Green Bay, WI
September 26 – 27

Leaving out of the New Orleans area and picking up dogs all across the south as we make our way north!

2 White German Shepherds start this journey. They pick up a small fluffy dog in Hattiesburg, MS and head to Birmingham where they add 8 more small fluffies. From there they head northward to Decatur, AL and add a sweet dobie boy. Once all dogs are aboard this rescue transport of love, they overnight in Louisville, KY and then head to Chicago, Milwaukee, and Green Bay WI on Sunday. Please oh please don’t let us arrive while the Packers are playing!!

Total of 12 dogs: 3 large, 4 small, 5 medium

CROSSPOSTING GREATLY APPRECIATED!!

Transport Coordinator:
PLEASE CONTACT DIRECTLY IF YOU CAN HELP
Kelly Gibson
mdgrrrl@msn.com

Please provide the following:
Leg offered:
First & Last Name:
Location (city/state):
Please provide full address if volunteering for the overnight.
Email:
Is email available from home or only work?
Home phone:
Cell phone:
Vehicle make/model/color/etc:
Name of coordinators or groups for whom you’ve driven before. If none, please give vet name and contact number.
Recommended meeting place, if any:
How many of these dogs can you accommodate?

Passenger details are at the bottom of the post.

SATURDAY, SEPT 26

LEG 1: LaPlace, LA to Slidell, LA (I-10)
1 WGSD
55.1 miles; 58 min
7:00 AM – 8:00 AM CDT
Filled – thank you Nene!!

LEG 2: Slidell, LA to Hattiesburg, MS (I-59)
1 WGSD
80.8 miles; 1 hr 14 min
8:15 AM – 9:30 AM CDT
Filled – thank you Lin!!

LEG 3: Hattiesburg, MS to Meridian, MS (I-59)
1 WGSD
90.9 miles; 1 hr 30 min
9:45 AM – 11:15 AM CDT
Filled – thank you Joel & Stephanie!!

LEG 4: Meridian, MS to Tuscaloosa, AL (I-59)
1 WGSD
95 miles; 1 hr 25 min
11:30 AM – 1:00 PM CDT
Filled – thank you Sarah!!

LEG 5: Tuscaloosa, Al to Birmingham, AL (I-59 / 20)
1 WGSD
52.3 miles; 47 min
1:15 PM – 2:00 PM CDT
Filled – thank you Robin!!

8 fluffy dogs added in Birmingham.

LEG 6: Birmingham, AL to Decatur, AL (I-65)
1 large, 4 small, 4 medium
78.6 miles; 1 hr 13 min
2:20 PM – 3:35 PM CDT
DRIVER 1: Filled – thank you Clayetta!! (4 sm + 1 med)
DRIVER 2: Filled — thank you Denise!! (2 lg)
DRIVER 3: Filled – thank you Jackie!! (4 med)

Dobie added in Decatur.

LEG 7: Decatur, AL to Lewisburg, TN (I-65, exit 32)
2 large, 4 small, 4 medium– all aboard!!
60.1 miles; 1 hr
3:55 PM – 4:55 PM CDT
DRIVER 1: Filled – thank you Marsha & Jean!! (2 lg)
DRIVER 2: Filled – thank you Jeanie & David!!

LEG 8: Lewisburg, TN to Nashville, TN
2 large, 4 small, 5 medium
53.3 miles; 52 min
5:15 PM – 6:10 PM CDT
DRIVER 1: Filled – thank you Brenda!! (5-6 dogs)
DRIVER 2: Filled – thank you Sandy!! (5-6 dogs)

LEG 9: Nashville, TN to Bowling Green, KY (I-65)
2 large, 4 small, 5 medium
68 miles; 1 hr 12 min
6:30 PM – 7:40 PM CDT
DRIVER 1: Filled – thank you Stacy!! (2 lg, 2 med)
DRIVER 2: Filled – thank you Ann!! (4 sm)
DRIVER 3: Filled – thank you Adam!! (2 med)

LEG 10: Bowling Green, KY to Elizabethtown, KY (I-65)
2 large, 4 small, 5 medium
Time zone change, +1 hr
69.9 miles; 1 hr 15 min
8:00 PM – 9:15 PM CDT
9:00 PM – 10:15 PM EDT
DRIVER 1: Filled – thank you Andrew!! (2 dogs)
DRIVER 2: Filled – thank you Brent!! (6 dogs)
DRIVER 3: Filled – thank you Chelsea & Nick!! (2 dogs)

LEG 11: Elizabethtown, KY to Louisville, KY (I-65)
2 large, 4 small, 5 medium
45.6 miles; 51 min
10:35 PM – 11:25 PM EDT
DRIVER 1: Filled – thank you Karen!! (5 med)
DRIVER 2: Filled – thank you Rhonda!! (2 lg)
DRIVER 3: Filled – thank you Kimber!! (4 sm)

OVERNIGHT IN / AROUND LOUISVILLE, KY
2 large, 4 small, 5 medium
OVERNIGHT 1: Filled – thank you Kimber!! (4 sm)
OVERNIGHT 2: Filled – thank you Tara!! (INDY)

SUNDAY, SEPT 27

LEG 12: Louisville, KY to Seymour, IN (I-65)
2 large, 4 small, 5 medium
55.2 miles; 58 min
8:00 AM – 9:00 AM EDT
DRIVER 1: Filled – thank you Lisa & Jay!! (4 sm)
DRIVER 2: Filled – thank you Tara!! (SATURDAY NIGHT)

LEG 13: Seymour, IN to Indianapolis, IN (I-65)
2 large, 4 small, 5 medium
68.6 miles; 1 hr 10 min
9:20 AM – 10:30 AM EDT
DRIVER 1: Filled – thank you Gina!! (4 sm)
DRIVER 2: Filled – thank you Tara!! (SATURDAY NIGHT)

LEG 14: Indianapolis, IN to Lafayette, IN (I-65)
2 large, 4 small, 5 medium
62 miles; 1 hr 9 min
10:50 AM – 12:00 PM EDT
DRIVER 1: Filled – thank you Carol!! (4 sm + 1 med / 3 lg)
DRIVER 2: Filled – thank you Lisa & Rob!!

LEG 15: Lafayette, IN to Crown Point, IN (I-65)
2 large, 4 small, 5 medium
Time zone change, -1 hr
81.1 miles; 1 hr 20 min
12:20 PM – 1:40 PM EDT
11:20 AM – 12:40 PM CDT
Filled – thank you Kathy!!

LEG 16: Crown Point, IN to Chicago / Hinsdale, IL (I-65 / 90)
2 large, 4 small, 5 medium
53.6 miles; 1 hr 10 min
1:00 PM – 2:10 PM CDT
Filled – thank you Kathy!!

Dobie leaves transport in Hinsdale.

LEG 17: Chicago / Hinsdale, IL to Kenosha, WI (I-94)
1 large, 4 small, 5 medium
64.5 miles; 1 hr 20 min
2:30 PM – 3:50 PM CDT
DRIVER 1: Filled – thank you Diane!! (4 sm/med)
DRIVER 2: Thank you Sunnie & Bill!! (7 dogs)

LEG 18: Kenosha, WI to Milwaukee, WI (I-94)
1 large, 4 small, 5 medium
34.3 miles; 35 min
4:10 PM – 4:45 PM CDT
DRIVER 1: Filled – thank you Judie!! (5 med)
DRIVER 2: Filled – thank you Denise!! (4 sm)
DRIVER 3: Filled – thank you Donna!! (2 lg)

Fluffy dogs leave transport in Milwaukee.

LEG 19: Milwaukee, WI to Sheboygan, WI (I-43)
1 WGSD
53 miles; 53 min
5:00 PM – 5:55 PM CDT
Filled – thank you Diane!!

LEG 20: Sheboygan, WI to Green Bay, WI (I-43)
1 WGSD
62.5 miles; 1 hr
6:10 PM – 7:10 PM CDT
Filled – thank you Diana!!

*************************************
PASSENGER DETAILS

NOTE: All dogs on the transport are UTD on shots and will be accompanied by a health certificate.
Any that are not altered prior to transport will be altered upon arriving at rescue.
*************************************

RECEIVER A:
Fluffy Dog Rescue
Hartland, WI

http://www.fluffydog.net

SENDER A-1:
Becky Harshman
Independent rescuer
Montevallo, AL

PASSENGERS (8: 3 small, 5 med):

A-1: Cupcake
Westie X, F, Young, Sm
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=14696048

A-2: Cotton
Poodle X, M, Adult, Sm
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=14617881

A-3: Tanner
Wirehair X, M, Young, Sm
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=14617907

A-4: Sparky
Wirehair X, M, Young, Med
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=14617913

A-5: Bumble
Yellow Lab, F, Baby, Med
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=14648220

A-6: Jimmie
Wirehair X, M, Baby, Med
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=14670118

A-7: Carrigan
Golden Ret X, F, Baby, Med
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=14680805

A-8: Boogie
PBGV mix, M, Adult, Med

http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=14681163

*************************************
*************************************

RECEIVER B:
Rescue name: Lean On Me Doberman Rescue
Location: Plainfield, IL

http://www.leanonmedoberescue.com

SENDER B:
Doberman Assistance Network
Iuka, MS

http://www.dobermanassistance.org

PASSENGER (1):

RED
Breed: Doberman
Sex: male
Age: 3
Weight/Size: 75 lbs
Is dog intact or altered? neutered
On what date did the dog last receive vax for:
–bordetella? 8/15/09
–DH2LPP? 8/15/09
–rabies? 8/15/09

*************************************
*************************************

RECEIVER C:
White Paws GSD Rescue
Green Bay, WI

http://www.whitepawsgsr.com/

SENDER C:
Laplace Veterinary Hospital
2921 New Highway 51
LaPlace, La 70068
985-652-3123

PASSENGERS (2):

PRECIOUS
Breed-WGSD
Sex-Female
Age- 11 mos.
Altered-No, will be done by receiving rescue
Vetting-UTD w/HC
Temp-Friendly
Weight-50 lbs.

As estrelas que observamos à noite são fruto de um ciclo que se inicia numa nuvem molecular e que termina, por exemplo, em forma de explosão (supernova) que posteriormente enriquecerá o meio interestelar e iniciará um novo processo de formação de estrelas.

Quando uma Estrela explode (Supernova)

 Compreender a formação de estrelas não se restringe apenas a querer saber como é que elas se formam, mas é acima de tudo, querer compreender como é que os sistemas estelares múltiplos, enxames de estrelas, galáxias e sistemas planetários têm a sua origem.

As primeiras concepções sobre a formação de estrelas por via gravitacional surgiram com Kant (1755) e Laplace (1796), no entanto, foi só em meados do século XX que a teoria de formação de estrelas de pequena massa (semelhantes ao nosso Sol), ficou mais explícita.

As estrelas formam-se dentro de grandes nuvens moleculares (GMC), que correspondem a grandes condensações de gás (essencialmente hidrogénio) e poeira. As GMC contém mais de 50% da matéria interestelar (o gás e a poeira) das galáxias.

São muitas as provas de que as estrelas se formam em nuvens moleculares, pelo o que se pretende compreender, são as etapas pelas quais essas nuvens têm de passar até se formar uma estrela; a gravidade ( força responsável pela queda dos corpos) é a actriz responsável por este processo.

Na teoria padrão da formação de estrelas isoladas, para que ocorra o processo de “colapso”, o gás tem de se encontrar suficientemente compactado, de modo a que a força da gravidade exceda forças dispersivas (que contrariam a queda do material para os seu interior), tais como campos magnéticos, movimentos turbulentos ou de rotação.

O modelo de formação de estrelas de pequena massa foi elaborado pelo astrofísico Frank Shu e outros (1987). Neste modelo, um núcleo (uma dada região dentro da nuvem) inicialmente suportado por um campo magnético vai-se contraindo à medida que o campo magnético se «perde», e deste modo torna-se instável. Quando a gravidade imperar sobre as forças magnéticas, ocorre o colapso (a matéria cai para o interior do núcleo!).

Como resultado da rotação inicial da nuvem, surge um disco plano em torno do núcleo que está em contracção. Segue-se posteriormente uma fase em que a protoestrela (fase embrionária da estrela) «deposita» momento linear, angular e energia mecânica através de jactos e outflows, à medida que a futura estrela ainda está a acumular matéria. Posteriormente, a protoestrela ajusta-se à ZAMS (do inglês, Zero Age Main Sequence – idade zero na sequência principal, onde ocorre a fusão do hidrogénio em hélio), e temos uma estrela formada!

Este modelo de “produção” de estrelas está de acordo com as observações efectuadas e tornou-se o modelo padrão de formação de estrelas de pequena massa.

Na nossa galáxia a taxa de formação de estrelas é de cerca de três por ano!!

As estrelas maciças (mais de dez massas solares) envolvem tempos de escala, ou por outras palavras, formam-se mais rapidamente do que as estrelas de pequena massa, são mais raras e encontram-se fortemente embebidas no material a partir do qual se formam, pelo que o processo de formação torna-se mais complicado de explicar e de observar!.

Fonte: Fórum da Ciência!!

The second theme that Dr. Barr deals with is the triumph of mechanism over teleology. The Biblical religions had the concept of a natural order, but they saw that order as embodying purpose, which gave rise to the science of teleology. Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists. As a school of thought it can be contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which views nature as having no design or purpose and is one of the philosophical homes of atheism. Teleology would say that a person has eyes because he has the need of sight (form following function), while naturalism would say that a person has sight because he has eyes (function following form).

The arrangement of the world and the processes of nature the Biblical religions saw as being directed toward beneficent ends. That is why Christianity had little difficulty in accepting the naturalistic science of Aristotle, which was based on final causes. However, the Scientific Revolution occurred when it was realized that final causes could be dispensed with altogether in physics and that phenomena could be adequately explained in a completely mechanistic way in terms of preceding physical events. Even in biology, apparent purpose is now thought to arise from the undirected mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. The materialist or metaphysical naturalist argues that the disappearance of purpose from nature undercuts the idea that nature is designed.

Dr. Barr continues the story:
“The second theme of the materialist’s story was the triumph of mechanism over teleology. Instead of seeing purpose in nature, and thus a Person behind the purpose, science came to see only the operation of impersonal laws. There was no need for a cosmic designer, for it was the laws of physics that shaped and sculpted the world in which we live. When Laplace was asked by Napoleon why God was never mentioned in his great treatise on celestial mechanics, Laplace famously answered, “I had no need of that hypothesis.” This revealed a shift in perspective. Whereas once the laws of nature had been seen as pointing to a lawgiver, they were now seen by some as constituting in themselves, and by themselves, a sufficient explanation of reality. This brings us to the second plot twist in the story of science. In the twentieth century another shift in perspective took place. One might call it the aesthetic turn. This requires some explanation.

Macrophysics begins with phenomena that can be observed with the senses, perhaps aided by simple instruments, like telescopes. It finds regularities in those phenomena and seeks mathematical rules that accurately describe them. Physicists call such rules empirical formulas or phenomenological laws. At a later stage, these rules are found to follow from some deeper and more general laws, which usually require more abstract and abstruse mathematics to express them.

Underlying these, in turn, are found yet more fundamental laws. As this deepening has occurred, two things have happened. First, there has been an increasing unification of physics. Whereas, in the early days of science, nature seemed to be a potpourri of many kinds of phenomena with little apparent relation, such as heat, sound, magnetism, and gravity, it later became clear that there were deep connections. This trend toward unification greatly accelerated throughout the twentieth century, until we now have begun to discern that the laws of physics make up a single harmonious mathematical system.

Second, physicists began to look not only at the surface physical effects, but increasingly at the form of the deep laws that underlie them. They began to notice that those laws exhibit a great richness and profundity of mathematical structure, and that they are, indeed, remarkably beautiful and elegant from the mathematical point of view.

As time went on, the search for new theories became guided not only by detailed fitting of experimental data, but by aesthetic criteria. A classic example of this was the discovery of the Dirac Equation in 1928. Paul Dirac was looking for an equation to describe electrons that was consistent with both relativity and quantum theory. He hit upon a piece of mathematics that struck him as “pretty.” “[It] was a pretty mathematical result,” he said. “I was quite excited over it. It seemed that it must be of some importance.” This led him to the discovery that has been justly described as among the highest achievements of twentieth–century science.

The same quest for mathematical beauty dominates the search for fundamental theories today. One of the leading theoretical particle physicists in the world today, Edward Witten, trying to explain to a skeptical science reporter why he believed in superstring theory in spite of the dearth of experimental evidence for it, said, “I don’t think I’ve succeeded in conveying to you its wonder, incredible consistency, remarkable elegance, and beauty.”

All of this has changed the context in which we think about design in nature. When the questions physicists asked were simply about particular sensible phenomena, like stars, rainbows, or crystals, it may have seemed out of place to talk about them, however beautiful they were, as being fashioned by the hand of God. They could be accounted for satisfactorily by the laws of physics. But now, when it is the laws of physics themselves that are the object of curiosity and aesthetic appreciation, and when it has been found that they form a single magnificent edifice of great subtlety, harmony, and beauty, the question of a cosmic designer seems no longer irrelevant, but inescapable.” Mechanism, along with Elvis, has left the house as it were.

The principal arguments for beauty are:

1. We have a strong intuition, especially when in the presence of great art or extreme natural or human beauty, that the beauty is real and transcends its material manifestations. Although such intuitions are not always correct, they are strong enough prima facie evidence that very compelling arguments to the contrary would be needed to cancel them out.
2. Creative artists generally experience their efforts to create great art/literature/music in terms that assume the objective existence of beauty, albeit mediated by their subjective experience
3. Although one can make plausible evolutionary explanations for finding beauty in potential sexual partners and in healthy animals that might be food or predators, the experience of beauty is much wider than these categories and includes visions of things for which there can be no direct evolutionary advantage (like clouds seen from aeroplanes, or images from telescopes).
4. Scientists, especially physicists, have found that mathematical beauty is a very useful guide to a valid theory.
5. It is very difficult to speak of beauty in a coherent way without assuming its objective existence, albeit mediated by highly subjective and cultural factors.

The splendor of a great work of art communicates the radiance which belongs to the truth of things, what the Scholastic philosophers called pulchrum, beauty as a determination of being as such. In a similar way, it is proposed, the glory of God shines forth in the life and person of Jesus Christ. His words and works of love express the self-communicating goodness of being, a goodness derived from being’s transcendent ground or source.

John Paul II: “In reasoning about nature, the human being can rise to God: “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wisdom 13:5). This is to recognize as a first stage of divine Revelation the marvelous “book of nature”, which, when read with the proper tools of human reason, can lead to knowledge of the Creator.

If human beings with their intelligence fail to recognize God as Creator of all, it is not because they lack the means to do so, but because their free will and their sinfulness place an impediment in the way. Seen in this light, reason is valued without being overvalued. The results of reasoning may in fact be true, but these results acquire their true meaning only if they are set within the larger horizon of faith: “All man’s steps are ordered by the Lord: how then can man understand his own ways?” (Proverbs 20:24).

For the Old Testament, then, faith liberates reason in so far as it allows reason to attain correctly what it seeks to know and to place it within the ultimate order of things, in which everything acquires true meaning. In brief, human beings attain truth by way of reason because, enlightened by faith, they discover the deeper meaning of all things and most especially of their own existence.”

In 1931, Hermann Weyl, one of the great mathematicians and physicists of the twentieth century, gave a lecture at Yale University in which he said the following:
“Many people think that modern science is far removed from God. I find, on the contrary, that it is much more difficult today for the knowing person to approach God from history, from the spiritual side of the world, and from morals; for there we encounter the suffering and evil in the world, which it is difficult to bring into harmony with an all–merciful and almighty God. In this domain we have evidently not yet succeeded in raising the veil with which our human nature covers the essence of things. But in our knowledge of physical nature we have penetrated so far that we can obtain a vision of the flawless harmony which is in conformity with sublime reason.”

As I noted in an earlier essay, I’m not seeking to replace atheist conceits with Christian ones. Nowhere here will I posit the existence of God from a scientific argument on the nature of Beauty or the demise of mechanism in the recent history of science. Alan Mittleman has demolished the usefulness of such arguments as far as I am concerned. (LINK). God is not a scientific hypotheses.

These essays are measured responses to a virulent and obnoxious atheist conceit that says Christianity has been debunked by science and has no role in scientific discourse or endeavors. To be perfectly truthful there is a form of Christianity typified by Christian fundamentalists who assert a certain Biblical literalism (The earth is 6000 years old; Intelligent Design is opposed to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, etc. etc.) that should be read the riot act and shown the door. Most forms of Jewish and Christian faith do not support such biblical literalism. However some atheists attempt to paint a broad stroke, toss in issues of faith such as Transubstantiation or the Resurrection to muddy the waters and attempt to muscle Roman Catholicism out the door too. This is for you guys.

Along with this short lecture from John Paul II:
This is why the Christian’s relationship to philosophy (and science) requires thorough-going discernment. In the New Testament, especially in the Letters of Saint Paul, one thing emerges with great clarity: the opposition between “the wisdom of this world” and the wisdom of God revealed in Jesus Christ. The depth of revealed wisdom disrupts the cycle of our habitual patterns of thought, which are in no way able to express that wisdom in its fullness.

The beginning of the First Letter to the Corinthians poses the dilemma in a radical way. The crucified Son of God is the historic event upon which every attempt of the mind to construct an adequate explanation of the meaning of existence upon merely human argumentation comes to grief. The true key-point, which challenges every philosophy, is Jesus Christ’s death on the Cross. It is here that every attempt to reduce the Father’s saving plan to purely human logic is doomed to failure. “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the learned? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” [1 Corinthians 1:20], the Apostle asks emphatically.

The wisdom of the wise is no longer enough for what God wants to accomplish; what is required is a decisive step towards welcoming something radically new: “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise…; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are” (1 Corinthians 1:27-28). Human wisdom refuses to see in its own weakness the possibility of its strength; yet Saint Paul is quick to affirm: “When I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10).

Man cannot grasp how death could be the source of life and love; yet to reveal the mystery of his saving plan God has chosen precisely that which reason considers “foolishness” and a “scandal”. Adopting the language of the philosophers of his time, Paul comes to the summit of his teaching as he speaks the paradox: “God has chosen in the world… that which is nothing to reduce to nothing things that are” (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:28). In order to express the gratuitous nature of the love revealed in the Cross of Christ, the Apostle is not afraid to use the most radical language of the philosophers in their thinking about God. Reason cannot eliminate the mystery of love which the Cross represents, while the Cross can give to reason the ultimate answer which it seeks. It is not the wisdom of words, but the Word of Wisdom which Saint Paul offers as the criterion of both truth and salvation.

En el fons, la teoria de probabilitats és només sentit comú expressat amb números.

Pierre-Simon Laplace, matemàtic francès.

Lasting contributions of our fathers
to mankind:
iPods,
and high definition flatscreen
televisions;
Bluetooth headsets
and hybrid gas & electric
automobiles;
iPhone apps,
and dual-core computer
processors…

As if we would die
were our fingers to stop;
as if the world were
a list of tasks to be ticked
or a stack of papers
waiting to be filed.

As if to deny Descartes
we need replace the ghost
in the machine
with another machine
and the mind with
Faber’s silver needle
to guide us,
toward logic.

As if the darkling plain
were something inside us waiting
for the incinerator
of science to illuminate it;
as if the heart
is a void to be filled
like a display at a
grocery store.

As if poetry
were a danger
and safety just the staccato babble
of Mildred’s ‘family’ on Montag’s walls.
As if anyone
was home.
As if the house
wasn’t on fire.

As if Clara crying
was little more than a passing humor,
to be diagnosed
and fixed like
a bad internet connection.
As if it didn’t happen.
As if we don’t remember
anything at all.

LaplaceMe™

&

kooLNerd nATIONAL assOcIatION™

© by SHAK Ltd.

*note SHAK Ltd. is my imaginary creative idea company (icic) =)

Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace (23 March 1749 – 5 March 1827) was a French mathematician and astronomer whose work was pivotal to the development of mathematical astronomy and statistics. He summarized and extended the work of his predecessors in his five volume Mécanique Céleste (Celestial Mechanics) (1799-1825). This seminal work translated the geometric study of classical mechanics to one based on calculus, opening up a broader range of problems. In statistics, the so-called Bayesian interpretation of probability was mainly developed by Laplace.

He formulated Laplace’s equation, and invented the Laplace transform which appears in many branches of mathematical physics, a field that he took a leading role in forming. The Laplacian differential operator, widely used in applied mathematics, is also named after him.

He restated and developed the nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar system and was one of the first scientists to postulate the existence of black holes and the notion of gravitational collapse.

He is remembered as one of the greatest scientists of all time, sometimes referred to as a French Newton or Newton of France, with a phenomenal natural mathematical faculty superior to any of his contemporaries.

He became a count of the First French Empire in 1806 and was named a marquis in 1817, after the Bourbon Restoration.

Pierre-Simon Laplace now set himself the task to write a work which should “offer a complete solution of the great mechanical problem presented by the solar system, and bring theory to coincide so closely with observation that empirical equations should no longer find a place in astronomical tables.” The result is embodied in the Exposition du système du monde and the Mécanique céleste. The former was published in 1796, and gives a general explanation of the phenomena, but omits all details. It contains a summary of the history of astronomy. This summary procured for its author the honour of admission to the forty of the French Academy and is commonly esteemed one of the masterpieces of French literature, though it is not altogether reliable for the later periods of which it treats. Laplace developed the nebular hypothesis of the formation of the solar system, first suggested by Emanuel Swedenborg and expanded by Immanuel Kant, a hypothesis that continues to dominate accounts of the origin of planetary systems. According to Laplace’s description of the hypothesis, the solar system had evolved from a globular mass of incandescent gas rotating around an axis through its centre of mass. As it cooled, this mass contracted, and successive rings broke off from its outer edge. These rings in their turn cooled, and finally condensed into the planets, while the sun represented the central core which was still left. On this view, Laplace predicted that the more distant planets would be older than those nearer the sun. As mentioned, the idea of the nebular hypothesis had been outlined by Immanuel Kant in 1755, and he had also suggested “meteoric aggregations” and tidal friction as causes affecting the formation of the solar system. Laplace was probably aware of this, but, like many writers of his time, he generally did not reference the work of others.

Edge (tepi) dari suatu citra yaitu area dengan intensitas kontras yang tinggi dari satu piksel ke piksel berikutnya. Citra pada umumnya, edge digunakan untuk mengkarakteristikan batasan objek yang kemudian berguna untuk segmentasi, registrasi, dan pengenalan objek dalam suatu citra. Edge detection (deteksi tepi) merupakan sebuah masalah dasar yang penting dalam analisis citra. Penerapannya pada suatu citra secara signifikan dapat mengurangi jumlah data dan menghilangkan informasi yang tidak berguna dengan tetap mempertahankan struktur penting citra tersebut. Terdapat beberapa cara untuk melakukan deteksi tepi, namun ada dua cara umum untuk melakukannya, yaitu gradient dan laplacian.

Operasi gradien sangat cocok untuk tepi yang tajam dimana piksel dari gray level berubah sangat cepat. Namun jika gray level berubah perlahan dari gelap ke terang maka operasi gradient akan menghasilkan tepi yang melebar. Maka untuk mengatasinya bisa dilakukan menggunakan metode laplacian. Metode ini akan mendeteksi zero crossing ,untuk menentukan garis batas antara hitam dan putih, yang terdapat pada turunan kedua dari citra yang bersangkutan. Kekurangann dari penerapan perator laplacian adalah sangat sensitif terhadap noise, namun demikian edge detection dengan operator ini dapat di tingkatkan hasilnya dengan menerapkan thresholding.

Dasar pemikiran dari operator laplacian adalah penggunaan turunan kedua untuk mendeteksi garis pinggir yang dihasilkan oleh perubahan kontras gray level pada citra. Kemudian mencari titik pelana (zero crossing) untuk digunakan sebagai lokasi garis tepi (edge).

Seiring dengan perkembangan tren menuju pemrosesan paralel, deteksi tepi Laplacian juga bisa diimplementasikan menggunakan pemrograman paralel. Pada kasus ini saya menggunakan MPI dengan sistem operasi Windows XP. Dan melalui uji perbandingan dengan hasil deteksi tepi menggunakan pemrograman sekuensial, diperoleh hasil yang realtif sama.

Artikel lengkap dapat diunduh di sini:

http://www.ziddu.com/download/4010156/laplacian.pdf.html

Eso de decirle a la gente que no revuelva peras con manzanas es una metáfora que algunos individuos no pueden entender. Curiosamente algunos de estos, son personas que entienden bastante de matemáticas, aunque entiendan poco para qué sirven y de qué hablan las matemáticas.

Mucha gente cree que las matemáticas son algo así como la ciencia por antonomasia o más aún, la base fundamental de tosas las ciencias, nada más lejos de mi verdad y nada más cerca de la verdad positivista.

Verá usted, en este tipo de cosa, hay que tomar partido, o se cree una cosa o se cree la otra (o no se cree ninguna, en cuyo caso, esta discusión pierde su sentido por completo, y como somos bien discutidores, vamos a ignorar esta tercer posibilidad). Yo tomo partido, como es fácil de imaginar, por aquello de que las matemáticas y la realidad son dos cosas que nada tienen que ver una con la otra, agua y aceite, como dicen. Acomodando la Aeron para observar desde ese punto de vista es que escribo mis opiniones.

Pues bien, en el entendido de que las matemáticas y la lógica sirven para hacer matemáticas y lógica, y que la filosofía sirve para hacer filosofía y la ciencia, ciencia; eso de revolverlas es un asunto delicado, no apto para menores de edad. Se pueden mezclar, pero hay que saber hacerlo, es como hacer un cappuccino que quede separado en tres colores o hacer un revoltijo sin espuma, se puede, pero no a todos les sale.

Resulta que según Graham Collins de Scientific American, David H. Wolpert tuvo la genial idea de demostrar que el universo no es cognoscible para los seres humanos (En los artículos que se publican en la página de David H. Wolpert no aparece nada relacionado, y todo parece indicar que se trata de un prudente y productivo investigador, pero su publicación en Physica D lo mete en estos embrollos). Hasta aquí, todo suena razonable. El autor ni es el primero ni será el último con esta clase de rollo nihilistoide. Si nos dijeran que Wolpertde estas ideas es un filósofo, nos parecería la mar de normal y predecible, pero no lo es, y su discurso tampoco. Se intenta demostrar de manera lógica, matemática, que el conocimiento que podemos tener del universo siempre será incompleto debido a que siempre habrá algo que se nos olvide o que no hayamos observado hasta ese momento del desarrollo de la ciencia.

Para que esta tésis pudiese tener sentido necesitamos demasiados aprioris:

• En primer lugar, necesitamos tener una buena definición, o más bien, una definición matemática de lo que es el conocimiento. Me temo que ya desde aquí las cosas no tienen solución.
• Tenemos que suponer que sabemos también, matemáticamente expresado por supuesto, qué es el universo. Nuevamente tendremos que llamar al chapulín colorado para ver qué se inventa con esto.
• Tenemos que asumir que las teorías científicas (el conocimiento) tienen una relación con el universo, pero no cualquier relación, necesitamos una relación independiente de los seres humanos, “objetiva”, digamos.

Lo que se olvida es que el universo se expande tanto como nuestra descripción de él, es decir, nosotros (más bien los científicos, que seguro usted y yo no hemos ayudado en nada en estos menesteres) creamos el universo que conocemos al crear el modelo (la ciencia) con el que hablamos acerca de él. Incluso si se pudiese describir el universo en términos matemáticos, lo que no tendría ningún sentido, la complejidad que tendríamos en esa descripción volvería loco al mismo demonio de Laplace. El universo es aquello de lo que hablan las ciencias, y las ciencias son, desde su principio y hasta su final, creaciones humanas, la realidad es una descripción, y la objetividad un ingenuo imposible como diría Glasersfeld.

Dudo mucho que a los científicos, positivistas o constructivistas o nihilistas o el -istas que les de la gana, les importe un comino si el universo pudiese ser o no cognosible por un demonio imaginario amigo de Collins, basta con que sepan que un ser humano, así solito, no es capaz ni de aprender tantas cosas ni de entenderlas todas; cuestión más de tiempo que de capacidad cerebral. Lo que la humanidad como grupo puede conocer ya es otro cantar, que tiene más que ver con la sociología que con las matemáticas, pues por más que se esfuercen Wolpert y sus amigos, seguirán existiendo un montón de ignorantes, fanáticos religiosos, libre pensadores y toda clase de alimañas anti positivistas que no podrán ser incluidas en sus cuentas.

“The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” ~ Pierre-Simon Marquis de Laplace

“Theists have not yet grasped the concept of the burden of proof, apparently. It’s really simple, so I find it astounding that it is so easily dismissed-the one who makes the positive claim (ie-god exists) is the one who has to prove that claim, not the person who is in the default position of suspension of belief due to lack of evidence (ie-as far as we know, god does not exist).” ~ How to Respond to a Supercilious Christian, Kelly O’Connor, http://www.rationalresponders.com/how_to_respond_to_a_supercilious_christian

This burden of proof question is one that has always bothered me. Atheism has positioned itself as being stated in the negative. For this reason, in formal debate, atheism claims never to have the burden of proof because the rules state that that burden belongs to the positive position.

Formally, I understand the burden of proof rule with regard to other kinds of subjects. A universal negative is difficult if not impossible to prove. Take the negative statement; “There are no two snowflakes exactly alike.” That statement cannot be proved without exhaustively searching the universe in all places simultaneously to prove that twin snowflakes do not exist. Conversely, the positive is easy; just show a single example of twin snowflakes.

The atheist claim isn’t anything like that though. It’s a positive claim in disguise. No atheist is claiming simply that there is no evidence for God, rhetorical posturing to the contrary notwithstanding. If that were the case then we could just unpack our evidence and that claim would no longer stand. The Atheist claim is that God is not a necessary hypothesis to explain life, the universe and everything as per Ockham’s Razor.

Effectively, the atheist claim is that life can come from the universe spontaneously, a positive claim. Or that complex systems happen by simple systems gradually becoming more complex over time, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, another positive claim. Or that complexity=life. Or that matter is eternal. Or that right and wrong has a biological basis. Or any myriad of other kinds of claims that are positive in nature.

Greg Bahnsen dealt with this problem head on in his debate with Gordon Stein, calling it “the pretended neutrality fallacy.” He explained:

“In advance, you see, Dr. Stein is committed to disallowing any theistic interpretation of nature, history or experience. What he seems to overlook is that this is just as much begging the question on his own part as it is on the part of the theists who appeal to such evidence. He has not at all proven by empirical observation and logic his pre-commitment to Naturalism. He has assumed it in advance, accepting and rejecting all further factual claims in terms of that controlling and unproved assumption.”

So in a formal debate scenario, where the question is, “Is there a God?” the more jejune Atheist says “no” without definition or dealing with the implications of their response, hoping to then sit back and wait for the Christian apologist to fail or succeed. And failure is foreordained, because the naysayer can simply say, “I’m not convinced.”

That simply doesn’t work. This is a totally different kind of question than the garden-variety claim of something’s non-existence. Saying, “there is no God” carries with it a host of implication that saying, “there is no Santa Claus” does not carry. Santa Claus’ existence has no impact on our worldview’s ability to account for logic, morals, design, right tuning of our senses to the universe, the mind/body distinction or any of many questions like it. Saying there is no God, on the other hand, demands positive claims in each of those areas. It amounts to a variation on the complex question fallacy.

There are some apologists who are pleased to bear the burden of proof solely on the Christian side and build a probabilistic kind of argument for God’s existence. The difficulty here is in determining when that burden has been met. If it has only been met when Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, et al agree that there is a God, I think we have set an impossible standard. Not all people who understand an argument find it cogent.

That smart people disagree is not a defeater for any proposition. There are many reasons that even intelligent people who understand the arguments have for not finding something particularly compelling. Those reasons aren’t always given when they disagree with a position “on its merits.” Smart people convert, and not usually because they suddenly get some piece of information they never had before that puts the puzzle together for them. Often it is because some pre-commitment loses its force for them personally.

So what about the day-in-day-out apologetics of our everyday life? Surely the rules of academic debate don’t encroach here. It’s just friends and family members gathered around the questions that unite us all, right? Yet even here we find that an unhelpful attitude about burden of proof stymies real dialog.

The fact is, when two people come together to discuss God, they BOTH have a burden. Neither one has an option to simply shrug and say, “I’m not convinced by your Kalam Cosmological Argument, so I win.” They must account for their worldview just as you must account for yours. Lacking that, all they’ve done is bamboozle you with the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument and lived to bamboozle another day.

So what of the two quotes that started this article? Is Laplace correct in claiming that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Let’s test this idea.

If I claim to be able to ride a bicycle, what proof is required? My riding of the bicycle. This is an ordinary claim and the corresponding ordinary evidence.

If I claim to be able to operate that same bicycle without a rider by the power of my mind, what proof is required? My operation of the bicycle with the power of my mind. This is an extraordinary claim, but the evidence is the normal kind; the demonstration of the claim.

I do not deny that we go about providing evidence in different ways for different things (Bahnsen’s “crackers in the pantry” fallacy). I am merely pointing out that there are not separate standards of evidence in evaluating worldviews. Each worldview is subject to the same standard of evidence.

The result of adopting Laplace’s notion is that it is absolutely arbitrary. The strangeness of a claim is a predilection of the one receiving the claim. Furthermore, what level of evidence is required is also arbitrary and usually results in the bar being set to “whatever convinces me.”

What of Kelly O’Connor’s spirited quips? Does she have the default position as she claims? On what ground does this claim rest? It rests on her arbitrary and unproven presumption of Naturalism.

An evidential apologist may claim that something like a mind must have preceded the universe, and continues to support it and its law-like functioning. O’Connor may claim that nothing like a mind was necessary.

The evidential claim is philosophical. It must stand to philosophical rigor. But so must O’Connor’s claim. She may object that she’s agnostic on the question of cosmic origins; she simply doesn’t know and so carries no burden. This is simple obfuscation. An Atheist saying there is no God is saying that universes begin themselves spontaneously or has some other cause. She may come up with a strong reasoning that underlies this positive assertion, but it is a positive assertion that must be supported. O’Connor’s claim of having the “default” position is without merit

We don’t come to a discussion to win for winning’s sake. We come together to talk about these questions so that all might know the truth. Stacking the deck with an unfair burden of proof is anathema to this end.

Lindsay