Make your own free website on
« January 2019 »
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Friday, 10 January 2014
Off Topic: On Geography, Weather, and Climate

Given my educational background I thought I would chime in about Geography.  Most people see it as a pointless major memorizing states and capitals, there is more to it than that I hold a science degree in the area relating to Weather and Climate so it is a bit more than that.  It differs from the main subject of this site being theoretical physics a lot of that stemming from how mathematics is taught at university.  Ask a question get a reply hey dumb kid this is easy math 500 level stuff being even though you are taking 200 level class, have further questions ask the Graduate Assistant taking other classes teaching other classes and the only avaible office hours are while you are in other classes or working.  Well this lack of teaching in the math department caused me to go from being physics major to geography major.  Though my past knowledge in physics was useful for my geography studies as I was interested in weather forecasting but my university really just focused on Climate in the hard science, probably more along the lines of urban planning for the softer side of Geography anyhow that is not here or there just a brief introduction into commenting on this topic.

Geography is really about the study of spatial patterns more precisely those relating the globe, this can include economics, natural resources, the spread of virus, the best location for transportation hubs, cultural differences etc.  For myself I studied that natural aspects of Geography in particular weather and climate which in essence is physics tied to location: temperature, wind direction, latent heat, chemistry et cetera at various longitude and latitude locations.  Climate is something I know a lot about due to schooling though I find weather and astrophysics in general more interesting but haven’t commented on it as it is too politicized which a science really shouldn’t be.

Climate is real simple it is just catalogued historical weather data the simplest concrete example being the four seasons: in the middle latitudes every year we expect four seasons winter, spring, summer and fall.  Historically climate has be described as a 10-year average of weather data as the science progressed we could catalogued proxy data in the geologic record and learn things like the planet was warmer when the dinosaurs were around then today all fine and dandy until you project things into the future then people start debating climate.

I think the vast majority people fit into three camps when it comes to “climate change” a bit of an oxymoron as climate always changes there a long geologic record of it after all.  People either buy climate change, don’t buy it, or in the middle some which can be attributed to not understanding climate and climate models.  Most people have a general understanding of climate the seasons at least regionally anyway climate models not so much.  But if you would like to understand climate models better and own a PC or Mac EDGCM ( may be the way to go.  It is an older Climate Model from the 1980’s but will now run fine on home computers and laptops more modern models can be downloaded through NASA or MIT but then they are not much use without access to supercomputers.  Below is an example from the EDGCM climate model for the near future showing the max and low surface air temperatures averages for 2004 to 2019 using IPCC emission projections?


I chose the grid format as that is essentially how the computer sees it of course curvilinear coordinates are more accurate for things such as wind flow due to geostrophic wind and so forth.  The Grid format shows how course the 1980’s model was more modern models use larger datasets and smaller girds which is why you need a supercomputer to do the calculations.  If you noticed in Max surface temperature graphic there is a lot of blue, there are places actually cooling when the global average temperature is rising.  By looking at the minimum surface air temperature you the minimum surface air temperature has more red than the maximum surface air temperature graphic.  The images shows that you can have mild increase in the summer lower than normal variations in weather and not detectable and regions with increased cooling even though global average temperature is on the rise.  The reason weather and climate are complex processes.  The EDGCM is good learning tool because anyone can use it on a PC change its parameters and see the outcomes without taking someone else’s word on the subject who may have an agenda.  You could for example cut carbon emissions to zero and see that the Milankovitch cycle would usher in another ice age in about 1,500 years.

With all that said I prefer to study the weather, in most people’s mind the weather man or lady is wrong half the time so there isn’t nearly as much politicization of that data.  Weather forecasting can save lives doing climate analysis could tell you how high or low to build a bridge based on climatologically data, that’s there point use them or ignore them at your own peril.

Since I brought up weather I thought I would mention the WRF model ( for weather enthusiasts and people having access to *nix machines.  I mainly downloaded and ran the WRF to check its accuracy for local forecasting it’s a bit hit and miss but useful for understanding upper level air movements that you won’t get from a local forecast.  And secondarily to compare and contrast climate and weather models.


WRF data 12-23-2013
Using Unidata IDV viewer

Having run both climate and weather models I could go into their differences in another post.  I’ve seen problems from one used against another on the web enough to see there is lot of misunderstanding between the two from Lorentz attractors to initial and boundary value problems fun stuff that will probably bore anyone who is not a modeler or math enthusiast.

Posted by da_theoretical1 at 5:33 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Sunday, 13 October 2013
Last major update for this site
The last "cosmetic" update to the site has been made and a new document placed in the author section.  From here on out I will branch onto other topics when the desire comes.

Posted by da_theoretical1 at 6:54 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 18 June 2013

Now Playing: Starship Design I

I have wanted to do one major update to this website before putting into essentially archived status.  I figure my time would be best spent working on physical-geography issues until I brush up on math skills and learn a few new ones before dabbling into theoretical physics full-on again.   There is also not much reason to add to content to this site when there is a wealth of information on the web suited for this purpose so links should suffice for the curious who know not where to look.  So I feel it would be best to archive and update the site links and freeze the site as is unless there is a major breakthrough such as a new field of physics or new form of energy discovered.


With the current science methods are known to warp space for faster than light travel, it is just, well it there may be no physical or engineering means to warp space for such travel in the current universe.  So the question to me, what I’ve been curious about beyond the numbers is what a starship would look like in principal?  That is something that I feel could be useful for science-fiction writers to inspire future scientists and engineers, the only problem with this is given the state of the science I do not know how to do so without conjuring up bad science-fiction.  For example something I think like “building the enterprise”

is impossible at the present, and if ever possible in the future is likely to look radically different.  One of the more realistic starship designs to date that I found (even though propulsion is lacking) is the Daedalus Project

it may not be as glamorous as starship from science fiction, but one thing any realistic starship is going to need with human onboard is a good life support system, and Daedalus illustrates just the magnitude of this challenge alone.  There are a however two-ideas that have been put forth of how a faster than light spaceship might be designed, one is to manipulated Dark Energy by unknown means according to Dr. Obousy

and another by manipulating the vacuum to create a negative gravitational pressure according to Dr. White

the former looking somewhat like an arrangement of double asymmetrical hoola-hoops and the latter looking like a American football encompassed by a ring, combine them both with the Daedalus for life support than you can start envisioning design of a faster than light spaceship even though the physics and engineering maybe somewhat questionable.


So I feel that I will tidy up this site by refreshing the links and discussing in a few short pages some of these ideas and more importantly there problems.  I think it is really a cheat to say what a starship might look like at this point because we really do not know, I think it would be best to give a look at the brighter ideas out there and some form science fiction and show why they are problematic so that others can work on better more practical solutions.


For those wishing to get a general idea of how the warp drive work in text not mathematical form I would suggest you to read an article by Loup:

Some of the text may be hard to follow simply because the author’s native language is not English, the only criticism I would give is that some of the ideas repeat which makes the paper longer than it needs.  But if you want a general idea of how science of warp drive is understood without the math it is not a bad first step to get your feet wet.


With that said after that update, which I have no time frame for at the moment I will update this site for the last time, with the possible exception of adding comments to this blog from time to time.

Posted by da_theoretical1 at 12:08 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 6 June 2013
NASA "Warp Drive"?

Given that much ado has been made about Dr. White’s work on the Warp Drive, for a FAQ of sorts see (  For me this news is old hat as his research began back in 2003, the interferometer is a good concept to measure spacetime curvature NASA-ESA have an orbital version in development called LISA ( to test predictions of General Relativity.   The white interferometer would be more or less the same idea on smaller scale in a laboratory setting and could be useful for testing theoretical or experimental claims of exotic energy, of course the amount and density required for detection would be enormous in theory, but then again so would a warp drive field, in theory. 


Where White’s ideas differ from many in the literature on the warp drive is how to reduce the energy requirements, something needed if one can ever hope to engineer a warp drive.  There are many ideas in the General Relativity that allow for minimum negative energy to support vacuum wormhole solutions, White’s argument is that by taking advantage of extra-space dimension you could in principal reduce the energy requirements through inter-dimensional interactions, string theorists would be the experts on whether or not this idea will work.


White’s interferometer is only special in that it attempts to measure Chung-Freese spacetime boost off the standard four-dimensions of spacetime in ring plasma.  The idea is that if plasma can be made to feel an electromagnetic pressure it would be indistinguishable from gravitational pressure and can be made to feel negative pressure for a warp drive, if the plasma is encoded in the right way a spaceship could be boosted into an extra-dimension of space where the speed of light would be faster than the conventional one.

Posted by da_theoretical1 at 1:44 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
Higgs, Dark Matter & Jumps to Conclusions

It’s been a while since the last update.  Superluminal neutrinos have been determined to have been a result of calculations resulting from a loose plug or at least that is the official word, probably more than meets the eye behind the scene on that.  And then there is the Higgs Boson, it has been found, wait no, something that looks like a Higgs, well maybe, it is something, maybe Higgs, or maybe a type of Higgs or something.  But the media jumps on like it has been discovered and it is the end all be all of physics, why not it is the “god” particle after all.  Well not really “god” particle is just a short hand made by an editor for an explicative description of the particle from a Fermi Lab scientist when cleaned up might resemble something like the “golly-gee” particle because it has been so hard to find.   That’s why there are all these disclaimers that the Large Hadron Collider data resembles a Higgs, or could be a type of Higgs, or a Higgs decaying into something else, it will take more data crunching and probably higher energy collisions to obtain better data to claim a definitive discovery.  The end result so far there is something strange in the 125 GeV particle range, suggesting the Higgs boson if maybe it is or maybe likely a Higgs would be about 133 times as massive as a proton. 


Another bit of bad science journalism is Dark Matter, recently I heard on the radio Dark Matter had been detected in experiment, no follow up, so I did my own research.  Nope, Dark Matter not detected but a matter antimatter balance was found from high energy sources in the galaxy.   There are many possible explanation for that observation, and while interesting doesn’t prove Dark Matter has been detected.  At present there are really two theories of Dark Matter: weakly interacting massive particles or modified gravity, the massive particle hypothesis being the most popular.  One massive particle theory suggests that Dark Matter can interact with itself generating matter and antimatter in certain collisions and might create matter and antimatter symmetries.  Part of the confusion might stem from the fact the knowledge about Dark Matter is poorly illustrated to the public.  Observational constraints suggest the best fit to be light “supersymmetric” particles, although there are theoretical reasons for this to be a less than favorable fit, a lot of unknowns going on beyond the observational constraints.

Posted by da_theoretical1 at 10:47 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Update on Superluminal Neutrinos

This is still a source of hot debate over two dozen papers have come forth challenging the claims that superluminal neutrinos had been detected from an experiment at CERN.  To me these arguments appear to be poorly established, as if the authorities no there can be superluminal neutrinos even if not forbidden by theory and even with experimental evidence to the contrary.  In Special Relativity faster than light travel is only forbidden for positive mass particles, for a negative mass particle this would be fine, however neutrinos are believed to have a tiny albeit positive mass.  Well, the problem is that Poincare invariance can treat momentum and hence mass as a square potential so that negative mass would appear to be positive by a squaring effect.  So superluminal neutrinos are fine in theory, but not in practice, if so we would expect neutrino interactions to behave quite differently, debate is a good and refreshing thing.  The most popular counter argument to the findings is the idea that the clock times calculated by the OPERA team were in correct due to time dilation affects known to exist in orbiting GPS satellites, the argument being that General Relativity effects were ignored in the laboratory calculations for distance and time.  But this appears to a weak argument given that the time dilation effects are quite well known and GPS most be update with atomic ground clock measurements to give accurate positions.  It is very unlikely that this could have happened, but since the exact time-distance measurement calculations done are unknown it is a worthy potential candidate to investigate.


More interestingly are data collected earlier about neutrinos potentially traveling faster than light a good paper which accomplishes this task is arXiv/1109.4980, where similar conclusions were drawn by the MINOS team at Fermi Lab but with weak 1sigma supporting evidence, where as the CERN case has strong 6sigma statistical confidence.  A supernova which was recorded in 1987 also seemed to favor a FTL interpretation, but if at the CERN confidence levels then the neutrinos should have arrived a full 9 days earlier than the optical photon emission of that supernova, this is what makes actual data more interesting than theoretical constructs!  The resolution to the problem appears to be that some neutrinos can travel faster than light and others can’t.  MINOS and OPERA made use of munnic neutrinos, where as supernova neutrinos are released in the electron neutrino form due to electrons colliding with protons during core collapse.  Some theories have proposed that the neutrinos or at least some may be going into extra dimensions as a short-cut.  Interestingly this is the kind of thing superstring supporters were looking for, but in a much different form, and now there appears to evidence coming for this and a different direction and the scientific community it seems just wants it to disappear.  Another interesting fact about the data so far is that the alleged neutrinos were not found to lose energy from travelling at alleged faster than light velocities as would be expected with Cherenkov radiation, interesting times indeed for a branch of physics which was considered to be well understood for years.


Yet perhaps most staggering of all was the claim that this data somehow calls into question climate science, as someone with a science and climate background I find that a troubling assertion.  The argument was well since we thought we knew nothing could go faster than light, and apparently things can maybe other things we think we know like climate are wrong too.  What a very poor argument, first the neutrinos have not been yet proven to travel faster than light right now it is just speculation, and speculation getting a lot of well deserved attention.  The second problem of course is that current theories do not rule out faster than light neutrinos as I have explained above, but would open up the door for new kinds of physical interactions which up to now have never been considered.  The third is the neutrinos emerge as a consequence of nuclear physics and would have no impact on thermodynamics and chemistry laws in classical physics, which are tools used in part to understand climate.

Posted by da_theoretical1 at 1:32 AM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 25 October 2011 1:59 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Ongoing Radiation Fallout

Of prominent importance is the ongoing Fukushima nuclear fallout, the event is still largely being ignored by the mainstream press.  In the beginning the dangers were over hyped for regions far from its epicenter to under reported near the epicenter, now it appears just to be under reported everywhere.  It is now being reported that near the epicenter the radiation levels are four times that which required evacuation at Chernobyl in 1986.

Since monitoring is weak or under reported the exact impact is unknown and hard to decipher, but constant vigilance on the available data is needed to determine long-term impacts.  Too me what has been shocking is that early back of the envelope calculations I did for the potential range for the fallout turned out be closed to reported facts, using conservative but worst case scenario speculations based upon early radiation level readings.  This suggest the situation is still from under control, and is likely to have large long-term than short term affects.

Posted by da_theoretical1 at 1:31 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Neutrinos going bump in the night?

There is some noise and rumors coming out of CERN lately, no mini black holes have not been found, and the Higgs particle still remains, illusive.  There is statistical arguments for a particle whose rest energy doesn’t gel well with the Standard Model…so your typical science, finding the unexpected, but that is not making the headlines as it should, but an elusive nuclear particle known to science for quite some time, the neutrino, believed to be in lepton family of subatomic particles.   The latest news is that these well known particles can do something pretty much all physicists have said was impossible since Einstein, that the light barrier cannot be broken, actually this rule only applies to particles who have a non-zero rest mass, the problem though is that neutrinos are known to have a non zero rest masses which was key in solving an old problem known as the solar neutrino problem, this was solved by releazing that neutrinos can do something weird, change flavors and mimic their cousins.


I’ve been following this news both cautiously and skeptically, and since I’ve been getting emails of late on this subject it may now be time for me to comment.  I have downloaded the CERN report on the OPERA experiment but have not yet had time to read it, if  another peer such as Fermi Lab can confirm the results many textbooks will have to be re-written, until then it is  simply amusing the read comments on the OPERA results, ranging from disbelief, to excitement over new physics.  The interesting thing is that Special Relativity does not forbid faster than light travel, and yet some are acting as though it’s the end of physics if that is possible, not so at all, but like a cautious and skeptical person I will await for further study to be done before jumping to conclusions.


In the short term if correct what does that mean?  It’s hard to tell, new discoveries can go in any number of ways.  But right now does not mean we could travel faster than the speed of light or travel back through time, probably not, even if its found that neutrinos can, the “normal” matter that makes up a world would not likely benefit from the discovery, unless say something entirely new about the physical world emergences from future study, but caution rather than excitement should be the key word to keep in the foreground.


If  the records nanosecond time differential is valid then this would I believe have important implications for quantum mechanics and may be tied to strange phenomenon that Einstein once called spooky-action-at-a-distance.  The only real problem in Special Relativity involving faster than light neutrinos, is that they are known to have a non-zero rest mass, and two are believed not have “negative” mass and cannot be tachyonic, which would be fine for relativity theory, if even strange to conventional views of mass.  The real problem is that would begin to re-write Quantum-Field-Theory, which makes use of relativity theory and quantum mechanics and is amongst the most precise models for the physical universe as we know it, making it hard for many to give up if the OPERA results are accurate.  So at the moment something like spooky-action-at-a-distance may come to the rescues.  It may be possible that the sending and receiving apparatus may have been quantum mechanically coupled, if that was the case theorist could keep current quantum field theory with some modification that is, which if true would likely have impacts on other areas of physics.  Interesting stuff to consider no doubt, but be cautious in these waters could be nothing, then again could be something, but more data is needed to really say anything more.

Posted by da_theoretical1 at 12:14 AM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 25 October 2011 1:35 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Future Site Plans

It appears that I will have troubles with attempting to run this site the way I would like, not enough space.  If I added probably two or three documents then all my space will be gone, odd given that email accounts have much large space than this site needs.  The direction I will be taking is looking for a new location for the site and to use the existing site to link to other sites.  I’ll probably keep some of my old documents here until a new location is found.  I think it’s just best to have a simple clean site for linking and cross referencing but the bulk of the efforts should be on the documents.  In standard document formats it is also much easier to make corrections and post updates, something that has been problematic in the past because of programs becoming outdated, etc.


My short terms goals or to revise an article on Flying Triangles by correcting a few errors and removing my observations of a such a craft and making that into a separate document so there is less clutter.  Some of those objects could be blimps/reconnaissance craft but to conclude that they are all is a little erroneous.  So I think the update version will probably discuss which aspects agree with the blimp hypothesis and dealing with experimental aircraft design.  I would imagine that’s about a year or so off as I have to find the spare time to reformat and restudy the document with appropriate corrections and perhaps updates.


Other things include devising a new method for measuring the Gravitational Constant G, this project is nothing earth shattering, but since G is the most poorly measured scientific constant in modern physics I feel it is worthy to find methods to better measure it, might provide a tool to check various quantum theories and could provide better insight into the early universe and who knows make better accelerometers for future space probes.  Then there is the global energy problem, I’ll probably take a few stabs at that as I see that as problem as well.  Fossil fuels are in finite supply, yet the history of human energy usage has grown logarithmically which if not properly addressed could halt growth and could lead to the collapse of modern civilization, not to mention it does seem strange that with modern science that the bulk of energy comes from dead plants, surely we can do better.  I’ll probably also chime in few words on climate not too long from now, it is highly polarized topic at the moment.  Generally climate is well understood it’s about pattern, annually in the mid latitudes there are always four seasons…but then there is climate change, a misnomer because the climate is always changing, because the conditions on “spaceship” earth are always changing.


So that’s more or less my short list of things to work with on the site: moving the site to a new location, transferring html files in document files, finding a new method to measure G, and begin to think up new energy technologies. 

Posted by da_theoretical1 at 10:36 PM EDT
Updated: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 10:40 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Saturday, 9 July 2011
Site Updates

Hello Again World.  According to the blog I haven't made an update for about three years.  I've been busy at college for the past few years hence the long hiatus.  What's new with the site?  Not too much, just making a few cosmetic changes here and there, hopefully the advanced warp physics homepage is a little easier to navigate.  In the future I plan to have an a subs-site similar to the advanced physics homepage but for general topics not solely limited to the warp drive.  Tentatively it may be called the gray box, and maybe, just maybe I'll have a mini webzine to go with the site by years end.

Have there been any major updates to the site recently? Yes and no, I important some author information from an older site and updated it, so that's new.  I also took a look a second, or third look at an article I wrote years back on BBD or "flying triangles"  I found that I miss interpreted a calculation for the displacement of hydrogen for lifting buoyance and greatly underestimated the lifting mass for a BBD which is close to 100 tons.  So a massive update for that article with corrections is needed and I will do my best to get on that in the next few months.

I also added another review of sorts which can be found on the advanced physics homepage, a claim regarding that a warp drive like effect was induced by a storm in the Bermuda-Triangle.  I did some mental gymnastics to get around all the technical difficulties with the claim and produced a best case explanation if the details of the story are accurate. 


Posted by da_theoretical1 at 4:24 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older