http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/ Random Thoughts from the Desk of Mike en-us Nucleus CMS v3.50 © Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz//nucleus/nucleus2.gif http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/ http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=390 this article, people who watch TV have "an 11% greater risk of all causes of death"This strikes me as not quite possible. After all, it's well known that the probability of death from all causes is 100%.Does this mean that amongst the TV-watching population, the probability of dying becomes 111% ?

Or maybe the 100% applies to those who watch TV, and it means that those who don't watch TV have only an 89% chance of dying? Hey, that's a 1 in 9 chance of attaining immortality!

I'm glad I don't watch TV much!]]> Language http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=390 Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:09:47 +0100 http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=388
As if I would know!

However, I tell them confidently "No", fully confident the answer is "no". In any case, the plot is as full of holes as any other "world catastrophe" disaster movie.
Here's a few I noticed.

The movie explains the science behind the disaster at the start. I find it odd that they bother to do this, since usually the "science" is very unscientific.

I read one commentary recently, in a book called "The Science Of Middle Earth", pointing out that it is more intelectually honest to attribute things to "magic" or leave no explanation than to invent a scientific-sounding explanation that is actually pseudoscience.

In 2012, the earth's crust becomes unstable, and we are given not one, but two explanations!

• A scientist explains that the neutrinos coming from the sun have somehow increased in number and changed in nature, and are heating the earth's core like microwaves heat a pie, destabilising the crust.
  
• A crazy hermit pirate radio broadcaster explains that this is caused by a rare alignment of the planets.
  

Neither of these explanations is scientific at all. The only way an alignment of the planets could affect the stability of the earth's crust is through their tidal action. However, the tides of the planets are too small to have such an impact, besides the fact that no significant alignment is due in 2012.

The most volcanically active object in the solar system is one of Jupiter's moons. It attains this distinction precisely because of the tidal action of Jupiter. The major tides affecting the earth are from the moon and the sun. When the moon, earth and sun align (about twice a month) we get slightly higher and lower tides than usual, but no extra volcanoes and earthquakes.

The strength of a planet's effect on our tides is inversely proportional to the cube of our distance to the planet. However, its effect on our orbit is inversely proportional to the square of the distance - a much greater influence. If the alignment of the planets were to affect the earth's crust at all, these same planets would have pulled us out of our nice roughly-circular orbit centruies ago, making life on earth impossible.

The planets are too far away to have such the impact shown in the movie. So much for the hermit's explanation.

What about the scientist's? Well, neutrinos are tiny particles that are produced by the nuclear reactions in the sun's core. They interact very weakly with matter - ordinary matter is almost invisible to neutrinos.

This is why we can detect the ones coming from the sun. Whereas a particle of light bounces around inside the sun for (on average) 10000 years before it escapes, most neutrinos come straight through the sun, then eight minutes later those aimed at earth pass straight through, mostly, as if we weren't here. Their effect on the earth's core or crust or seas is miniscule.

According to the movie, though, the neutrinos from the sun "changed" into a different kind of particle. Let's ignore, for now, the fact that this is not how neutrinos work, and suppose instead that the sun started emitting a new kind of particle - some particle that really could interact with the earth's core if it passed our way.

To get to the core of the earth, these mysterious particles would first have to get out of the core of the sun. And there's the problem.

Neutrinos can pass through the huge distance from the core of the sun to the surface precisely because they barely interact with matter. For the same reason, they don't subsequently affect the earth. Any particle that interacts with matter enough to affect the earth would be absorbed by the sun on its journey out, becoming heat and light. It would never reach us.

So, the "scientific" causes of the disaster in the move 2012 are bunk.

A couple of other holes in the plot and setting :

• At a critical point in the movie, the hero has to dive underwater to dislodge something blocking the "hydraulics" of the door of a huge boat. These hydraulics are powerful enough to open and shut a two-foot thick metal door that's taller and wider than an olympic swimming pool is long. Yet, they get blocked by something small and light enough to be carried by a man. This something is jammed between some cogs in the machinery, yet these cogs neither crush the object to smithereens, nor even hold it tightly - the hero is able to dislodge the object using only his muscle power, while swimming under about 3 metres of water. A rather unrealistic moment of tension, in my opinion. But hey, it's a disaster movie. That's what we expect, right?
  
• The disaster supposedly happened on the 21st of December, 2012. However, the weather in the United States looks somewhat too summery for the winter solstice. What's more, there are no Christmas decorations visible anywhere in any of the houses - nor even in the shops.
  
• A month or so after massive volcanic eruptions have happened all over the world, we are treated to a scene of the boats sailing under a clear sky. But this kind of weather is all wrong. The dust spewed into the atmosphere from the volcanoes should have darkened the sky, and made even the tropics cold and icy. But hey, that was the end of the show, no room for doom and gloom, right?
  
• The show depicts world leaders united in taking action to save (some of) humanity from a global disaster. Excuse my cynicism, but... Copenhagen, anyone?
  

There are a number of other holes in the plot. However, that will do for now!

]]> General http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=388 Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:54:25 +0100 http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=386
Oxford theologian Alister McGrath (author of The Dawkins Delusion) maintains that Dawkins is "ignorant" of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently. In reply, Dawkins asks "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?",I would answer "no, one does not". A person does not have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns.

However, it seems to me that if one wants to engage "leprechists" (or whatever believers in leprechauns might be called) in intelligent debate, one needs to be at least as familiar with leprechology as the leprechist - which might mean reading a paragraph or two on wikipedia, or might require serious study of leprechology - depending on the individuals one wishes to "engage" with.

Therefore Richard Dawkin commits a logical fallacy in his rebuttal. Sure, he need not be familiar with Christian theology in order to disbelieve it. However, the "accusation" leveled by Alister McGrath was not that Richard Dawkins is ignorant of theology therefore must believe Christianity - that would be ridiculous. Rather, the theologian says Dawkins is unable to "engage religion and faith intelligently" - which would certainly be true of someone unfamiliar with the intricacies of any particular faith or religious belief system.

It seems to me that McGrath's logic is correct (whether his premises are correct or not), and Dawkins has not adequately rebutted either the logic, premise or conclusion of McGrath's statement.




]]> Faith http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=386 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:35:00 +0200 http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=384 We are now in a transition period from the world being a collection of domestic markets to a single global market. It's a slow transition that may take a century to complete. However, at the end, a cleaner or programmer or researcher in the US or Europe will earn the same as a cleaner or programmer or researcher in India or Myanmar.

This means that currently, there must be a downward trend in the real value of wages in developed countries. Since people don't swallow paycuts well, this is likely to translate into inflation - a gradual long-term decrease in the value of the US Dollar (and other OECD currencies) versus currencies of countries that are now moving into the global marketplace, such as China or Iran.

Perhaps the current downward trend in the value of the US dollar is just part of this longer-term trend? Perhaps it just looks like the world economy going down the tubes, because our eyes tend to equate the global economy with the economy of OECD countries - whereas in fact the wealth is just being spread out more evenly?
]]> Politics http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=384 Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:16:33 +0200 http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=383 now playing out in the Australian Parliament.

The Senate is debating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, passed in the upper house of Parliament by the Labor government. The government has excluded certain "energy intensive, trade exposed" industries from the scheme, in order to protect them. However, it doesn't become law if the Senate doesn't pass it - and that won't happen unless either

• The opposition agrees, or
  
• All the minor parties and independents in the Senate agree
  

The situation now is

• The opposition will oppose this bill, because it is too strong. They want to water it down even further, granting concessions to even more industries.
  
• The Greens party might oppose it because it's too weak. They want fewer concessions.
  

If both oppose it, there will be no bill, effectively swing things all the way towards the opposition's "ideal" of securing jobs in polluting industries no matter what the cost to the environment and climate.

Interestingly, 75% of the Australian public want the Senate to vote with the Greens' ideas - but this is not going to happen.

It's a classic case of "democracy" not being "rule by the people".



]]> Politics http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=383 Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:46:58 +0200 http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=381 Some time ago, I wrote a letter about a homeless man I met in Subiaco, and sent it to six serving politicians from three political parties. For a long time, I got very little response. A week ago, however, the Electorate Officer from the Office of Senator Bob brown, leader of the Greens party, wrote back.Now the Greens are the third most powerful political force in Australia, although in terms of actual voting on bills, they have no more power than the various independent Senators or parties with a single member serving on the Senate - Labor can pass any bill they like in the upper house, and to get it through the lower house, they need support from either,/i> the Liberal party or from everyone else.

However, the Greens (formed a long time ago to campaign on environmental issues) have grown to a minor party with significant support among the public, views on multiple issues, and more media time than anyone outside Labor or the Liberal-National coalition.

Here's what the letter said.

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement and support. They are much appreciated.

Whilst Senator Brown and his colleagues have limited capacity to intervene directly in the lives of an individual like Peter, they are well aware of the factors that mitigate against his ability to participate fully in the life of his community and have consistently argued and campaigned for the removal of them and advocated alternatives to the current arrangements.

You can find examples of some of their work in this area via the following links : http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/taxonomy/term/175/all and http://rachel-siewert.greensmps.org.au/taxonomy/term/168/all.

Yours sincerely,

(Name deleted)
Electorate Officer
Office of Senator Bob Brown

Well, I checked the links, of course. While Bob Brown has made numerous statement about pensioners, it is Rachel Siewert who has the most to say about poverty in Australia. As far as I can tell, none of the things mentioned would greatly affect Peter's case. However, it is, no doubt, only a sample of what the Greens would like to see implemented.

In the meantime, today, a Centrelink employee in Canberra attempted to phone, in response to the copy of the letter sent to the Prime Minister. I missed the call, but they told my wife they would call back on Monday morning.

So you can look forward to another update soon!


]]> Politics http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=381 Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:57:00 +0200 http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=380 Get RealThe unions' request is silly. A number of reasons spring to mind.

• First, what Kevin Rudd stated, that protectionist measures would slow the recovery. If other economies retaliate, we would be faced with teh same situation that happened after the Great Depression. Low international trade, and a poor world economy. If we add tarriffs to imported steel, for example, we should not be surprised if another country slaps tarriffs on our exported wheat. Do we want that?
  
• Secondly, as an Australian taxpayer, I'm nervous about increased government spending. Do I really want to pay 25% extra on Australian products, if I can save the money and pay off debt, reduce taxes or build more?
  
• If the government - or anyone else - spends money locally instead of overseas, they don't have to convert their Aussie dollars into foreign currency. Since they keep their AUD instead of selling it, the price of the dollar goes up slightly. If this is done a lot, the AUD goes up a lot. Our exporters find that their exports become more expensive, and lose sales. Domestic consumers find imported goods are cheap, and buy more, so local manufacturers (at least, those not enjoying the 'benefits' of the tarriffs on their competitors) also suffer. Our economy loses more than it gains overall. This is true even if our trading partners put up trade barriers against us.
  

Also interesting is Kevin Rudd's offhand dismissal of the unions' silly demand. I'm reminded of the scare campaign by the Liberal government in late 2007 - where they tried to claim that a Rudd Labor government would be a government run by the unions. We now see that this is manifestly not the case.

Does anyone still believe political advertising?]]> Politics http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=380 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:13:26 +0200 http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=378
Now it's never that simple. Another little item that was causing hiccups just before the credit crisis burst was the price of oil - at $150 per barrel, it was causing consternation at the pump for drivers worldwide, difficult political decisions in places where governments keep petrol prices fixed through subsidies, and even protests and riots in one or two places.

Then came the credit crisis, and the price of oil dropped. Petrol prices are now at a much more comfortable figure.

The price of oil is sometimes quoted in the business news as if high prices are good. Perhaps for people who enjoy business news it is. For example,

• If you own shares in oil-based investment products, when the price of oil goes up, your shares go up. This is because you own a little bit of something that has increased in value.
  
• In general, over the past few years, the price of oil correlates with general economic activity - when the economy is booming, the price of oil is up. When recession hits, the price of oil is down. We come to the conclusion - if the price of oil goes up, it means the economy is doing well.
  

If we then think "high oil price cause good economic times" the we have our head screwed on completely backwards. The truth is the other way round - when the economy starts rolling, it causes the price of oil to go up - in the short term, at least.

But the price of oil also affects the economy.

Think about any business - they buy products and services, including their employees' time, add value to it, and sell it on at a profit. If the cost of the inputs goes up, either their profit goes up, or they have to charge more. Charging more means fewer sales. EIther way, the company is less profitable.

What if the price of oil goes up? For most companies, this has no effect on the value of their output - unless they sell oil, or solar panels, or insulation. However, it does have an effect on the cost of their inputs - at the very least since energy is one of the inputs they buy. You can't run a manufacturing plant without machinery. You need an airconditioned store to keep retail customers shopping. You need electricity to run the servers on your web-based service. Something has to power the container vessels supporting your imports business, and you need fuel for your road trains. For the public also, higher oil prices add costs - at the very least, the cost of driving to work - and removes money they might have spent on more expensive Christmas presents.

None of this is good for the economy.

So we have what is called a negative feedback loop - at least in the short-term. A thriving economy pushes up oil prices, and high oil prices push down the economy. If it was as simple as that, we would expect to see slow economic growth accompanied by a slow upward drift in the price of oil.

It's not as simple as that. Oil can be traded in a relatively efficient market. In an efficient market, "the best predictor of tomorrow's price is today's price" - if the price of oil is going to go up and up and up, it will already be up, right now, today. When the economy begins to recover, the price of oil will rise sharply, causing shocks again like we saw in 2007. It will then dip sharply in response to those shocks. It may take some time to stabilise, as investors and speculators take time to learn how it all works now. All this will lend uncertainty to economies - companies can't promise prices for next year's manufactured steel if they can't be sure of next year's energy price. This will further slow the economy.

If the price of oil is 50 then 100 then 50 then 100, it is worse for the economy than if the price of oil is a steady 75.

So as well as the negative feedback loop slowing economic growth, we have this volatility. This is why the recovery will be slow.

But why does all this apply now, and not before? Why is the price of oil suddenly so important?

The simple reason is that all the easy oil is used up. The oil being drilled and searched for is deeper underground, further offshore, lower quality and generally more expensive to dig up, purify, and put in car engines. When the price of a barrel of oil was $20, it wasn't worth a second glance. The exploration leases would have proven worthless, and caused the share price of their owners to dip. When the price of a barrel of oil hits $100 or $200, they suddenly become valuable, providing a great return on investment. This is the logical outcome for a field so inaccessible that it costs $50 per barrel to get the oil out. 5 years ago it was worthless. Today it's interesting. In 5 year's time it may well be starting production.

Now, I don't subscribe to the "Olduvai Theory" "Peak Oil" school. Oil and Natural Gas are not our only sources of energy. They've just been the cheapest for a long long time. Soon they won't be. We'll still have plenty of energy being produced, it will just be more expensive.

Anyway, back to the price of oil. Why is it so important now? Why is it so sensitive to the economy?

The first reason is, simply, because demand for oil is not very sensitive - in the short term - to price. In the medium term, yes. But not the short term.

Let me ask you - if you woke up tomorrow, and learned that the petrol price had doubled, what would you change? My guess is not much. You would still go to work the same way, driving or whatever. There are adjustments you can make in the face of doubled energy costs - besides just showering for a few minutes less, the biggest impacts you can have on your energy bills are :-

• You can catch a bus instead of driving, or ride a bike instead of catching a bus.
  
• You can move house to live nearer your work, or change job to work nearer your home.
  
• You can install solar panels on your roof, and try to keep your home energy consumption within what the panels produce.
  

All of these are effective, none of them can be done at the drop of a hat.

Likewise, if you are a business, and your electric company tells you that the bills will double, you'll still open the doors for customers - and try to smile at them while you worry how to make ends meet. Over the course of months or years, you'll find answers (or go out of business). Maybe close up a couple of retail stores and sell more online, or install more efficient air-conditioners... who knows.

In the medium-term, people and companies will adjust to high energy costs by using less energy. In the short term, they will adjust to them by spending more of their money on energy, and less on other goods and services.

This has always been the case. The change has been in the supply - and this is the second reason.

When there was plenty of oil, the amount of oil on the market went up with price. Oil producing companies would pump out more when the going was good. This is illustarted in the diagram below.

Supply and Demand curves for 20th century oil

The line marked "supply of oil" shows how the amount produced and the price of oil would go up together. The lines marked "Economy Strong" and "Economy Weak" show how the amount of oil consumed goes down when the price goes up, but not by much. These are called "Demand curves" the place where the demand curve meets the supply curve will shows both the price of oil, and the amount supplied or consumed.

As you can see, when oil producing nations can pump oil more oil when the price goes up, an improving economy only produces a small change in the oil price. This was the situation last century.

Now, things are different. oil producing nations might want to pump out more when the price is high, but they can't.

Supply and Demand curves for 21st century oil

Notice that if the price goes up, the supply only goes up a little bit. Notice also that the same change in the demand curve - from a weak economy to a strong one - produces a large change in the price of oil.

Hence, a growing economy will push the price of oil up much more than it did in the past, forcing businesses to slow their growth, the public to spend less on other things, and (in the medium- and long-term) find ways to live with less - or alternative - energy.]]> Politics http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=378 Sun, 26 Jul 2009 01:44:00 +0200 http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=375 Pollyanna World" by recommending strong greenhouse gas reduction targets, claiming that "Jobs are on the line - you've got to be practical".Now, technically, the Senator has used the wrong word. "Pollyanna" means "overly optimistic" - and I don't think climate scientists are being optimistic at all when they push for emissions reductions. They state that we have to radically transform our society, at significant inconvenience and cost, or have even greater transformation, at even greater inconvenience and cost thrust upon us in the future. This is not the kind of statement that comes out of an overly optimistic mindset.

The senator is right when he says that jobs are on the line. A failure to deal with climate change - to either reduce its impact or prepare for it - will cost vast numbers of jobs in the agricultural and tourism sectors. Also, jobs will be lost in sectors that support these - which includes the whole economy, including mining.

The senator is also right when he says that jobs are on the line - a Carbon Reduction plan will cause some industries to slow down. If nothing else, it will reduce the demand for carbon-based energy, so some coal miners and oil drillers will lose jobs, or fail to get them in the first place.

We are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Or perhaps we should get a bit pollyanna about this - we are faced with a great challenge and opportunity. Although Australia owns huge reserves of coal and natural gas, we also own huge reserves of non-carbon-based energy.

• We have the world's largest deposit of Uranium, in South Australia - largely untapped, with other huge deposits in Western Australia and others states.
  
• We have the world's largest deposit of solar energy - also largely untapped.
  
• We also have large reserves of tidal and wind energy.
  

Deficient battery or hydrogen cell technology makes it hard to tap the last two and trade them globally. Pollution and Politics makes it hard to tap the first one. It follows that Australia should do everything possible to promote research in how to overcome these issues. How better than to promote aggressive carbon reduction? If successful, it would spur research into how to make batteries light and effective, how to make solar power more efficient, and how to make nuclear power cleaner. It would make buyers of nuclear power more willing to accommodate the wishes and political views of sellers. Even if Australia didn't invent a single iota of these new energy technologies, they would still increase the value of the resources we're sitting on.

In addition, this would create tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs in the energy sector.

Australia's richness as a country with non-carbon-based energy resources might make it a very powerful player in history of 21st century politics. A global carbon reduction plan would only help that.

So what is the senator so worried about, then?




]]> Politics http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=375 Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:12:00 +0200 http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=373 BHP Billiton will start selling Australian Uranium to China as early as this year. Besides the ethics of selling nuclear fuel to a country with nuclear weapons, it strikes me that there's some economic silliness going on here. After all, with energy prices due to substantially increase over the next decade or two, won't we get a better ROI if we Aussies just hold onto our Uranium and watch the price increase? Or use it ourselves when oil hits $400/barrel?

Short-term gain, long-term pain, by the sounds of it... I read a narrative imagining a Perth man of the year 2030 - humming along in his electric car, listening to a news report of Saudi Arabia complaining to the UN energy watchdog about Australia cutting back production...

Or maybe BHP knows that less controversial alternatives such as solar and wind are closer to prime-time than they seem? Is this also why Bluescope steel seems to be saying to the government - or at least, just stopping short of saying - "we want a global Carbon Trading Scheme, not a local one"? Because they know they will get the energy they need at a decent price if a global scheme is enforced??




]]> General http://dr-mikes-maths.com/thotz/index.php?itemid=373 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:08:32 +0200