Thursday, April 28, 2005

Moon Patrol

For those of you who don't know, we landed on the moon for the first time on July 20th, 1969. For some of us it's hard to beleive mankind achieved such an incredible feat of engineering. It's especially difficult for these people:

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
http://www.moonhoax.com/
http://www.moonmovie.com/

There is a whole internet community out there debating over whether or not we actually went to the moon. The conspiracy theorists believe that the video footage and pictures documenting the astronauts' journeys on the moon were faked in a large studio environment. These alarmists claim that there are anomalies in the video footage and pictures that suggest they were faked.

Fortunately, there are many websites that explain away these supposed anomolies:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/



I find the debate extremely interesting. It shows the thought process of conspiracy theorists, but it also demonstrates how hard it is to actually prove anything. I've read all the arguments on both sides and I've looked at the footage myself. I've been looking for evidence that we've been to the moon, something that the conspiracy theorists couldn't say was faked.

Here is my top 5 list of irrefutable evidence we went to the moon:

5) The surface of the moon is very dusty. However, since there is no atmosphere, the spray of dust from the astronauts' boots as they walk, and from the lunar rover's wheels does not create clouds of visible dust that linger as they would on Earth. Dust particles follow arcs through the vacuum of space and quickly settle.

4) We have long, continuous video of the lunar module's descent from several thousand feet to the surface of the moon. This footage, as well as other similar video footage, could simply not be faked.



3) Hundreds of scientists have written hundreds of papers analyzing the geologic nature of the moon rocks we brought back with us. The overwhelming conclusion is that the rocks are indeed from the moon, they did not come from a moon meteorite, and they could not have been faked.

2) Occam's razor. Staging the moon landing is nearly as great a feat as actually going there. Erecting an extremely large set, putting all the technology in place to make it look like we were going to the moon, lying to the control room operators (or were they in on it?) manufacturing moon rocks, it's too much.

1) We put reflectors on the moon during Apollo missions 11, 14 and 15. Scientists and amatuer astronomers alike have successfully bounced laser beams off the moon.

NASA's defense is... well you don't need to defend yourself when the whole thing is extensively documented and publicly available:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/alsj-video.html


Also, the European Space Agency's SMART-1 Probe is now in orbit around the moon and ESA scientists intend to photograph the moon landing site. So we may not have long to wait for the debate to end once and for all.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-03-04-moon-landing-snoop_x.htm

Monday, April 25, 2005

Green Mushroom Award: Intro

Allow me to jump on my soapbox and bitch about the state of video gaming today. Most new video games offer no new innovations in gameplay and instead recycle existing genres and throw in better graphics and sound, more involved and immersive story lines (complete with voice acting) and enough bells and whistles to make the game not seem like more of the same. Meanwhile these games offer only incremental gameplay improvements over the pioneers of the genre, while the new features only dilute and detract from the originals.

There is a trend today for immersive games that have deep story lines. While extra plot can add a lot to a game and can also create an additional problem-solving element, it can usually be stripped away revealing the same gameplay as last year's game. These are games like Quake 8, Halo 12, Myst: XLVII, Warcraft 17, and Grand Theft Auto: Nome.

Now there's nothing wrong with games that offer more of the same, it's the ill-advised improvements that make these games a mistake. All the new "features" of these games make the learning curve slower and the added complications squash the experience of playing games I already love just the way they are.

That being said, you can make improvements to a game and end up with better gameplay. WarCraft II offered a substantially improved user interface over the original that had a direct impact on gameplay. The same can be said with Starcraft, which expanded the gameplay and interface. However, there are signs in Starcraft of the genre starting to jump the shark. Who remembers or cares about the stupid voice acting intermissions and plot points that interrupt gameplay? To me, this is excess. Also, the expansion Brood Wars offers more units that essentially do the same things as the original units, and only serves to wildly over complicate the game.

Now I'm not so caught up on gameplay as I sound, I enjoy the rush of sharp graphics and music too, but to me, the best games offer new ways of playing and push the gaming experience. And for me, it seems like the pace of video game innovation has slowed. This effect is even more noticeable due to the increased volume of games today saturating the market.



In an effort to applaud and acknowledge the past and present of excellence in video gaming, I'm offering a monthly segment: The Green Mushroom Award is presented to those video games that have broken new ground in gaming possibilities or have elevated gameplay in a particular genre. Recipients are selected in no particular order, and indeed at my whim, and are announced on the first of each month. That there is a correspondence between winning games and the games I've played and personally enjoy may become increasingly obvious, though this emerging pattern should not lessen the validity and import of this esteemed award.

Friday, April 22, 2005

Let's Make A Deal!

Monty Hall leads you up on stage and presents you with three closed doors. He announces that behind one of the doors is a wonderful prize, and behind the other two doors is a miserable copy of the home game. He offers to give you the prize behind the door of your choosing. You reason correctly that there is an equal chance of the prize being behind each door, so you pick Door #1 at random.

In an effort to make things interesting, Monty announces that of the remaining two doors, he will randomly pick one of the doors that does not have the glittering prize and open it. He then proceeds to do exactly that, and throws Door #2 wide open revealing one of the two consulation prizes.

Monty then offers you a choice. You may choose to stay with Door #1, or you may now change your mind and switch to Door #3. What should you do to maximize your chance of winning the non-cardboard prize, and why? Come up with your answer before reading on.



You should always switch. That's what they want you to do. Reverse-reverse psychology. Just kidding. But you should still switch. This phenomenon is hard to grasp since it seems unintuitive, so I'm offering three explanations. Try each one until you get it.

1) Logic. Before Monty opens the door, there is a 2/3 chance that the prize is behind either door 2 or 3. Why should that change when Monty opens one of them? If Monty said to you, one of the doors, 2 or 3 has a glorified paperweight behind it, what information is gained? Remember, Monty said he would open a non-grand-prize door. We already know that at least one of Doors #2 and #3 contains an unspectacular prize. We do not need to scrap the information from our original analysis. As a result the 2/3 chance is now attributed entirely to Door #3.

2) Reason. Doors #2 and #3 undergo a process to which Door #1 is immune. This process involves randomly opening one of the doors that does not have the grand prize. That means that the remaining door of the two has survived a random elimination. It is more likely that the door survived because it has the prize.

3) Math. Say you pick Door #1, and your strategy is to switch doors. Now before Monty opens a door, there are three possibilities which are all equally likely:

Prize is behind Door #1: (1/3)
Prize is behind Door #2: (1/3)
Prize is behind Door #3: (1/3)

So if you switch, 1/3 of the time the prize is behind Door #1 and when you switch you will have a 0% chance of winning. However, 1/3 of the time it's behind Door #2, and when you switch you will have a 100% chance of winning. Also 1/3 of the time the prize is behind Door #3, and when you switch you will also have a 100% chance of winnning. So by the Law of Total Probability:

[(1/3) * 0%] + [(1/3) * 100%] + [(1/3) * 100%] = 2/3

So, if your strategy is to switch, you will have a 2/3 chance of winning.

This is a classic probability problem, there are versions with 4 doors too. The following site has links to some great pages that explain the problem in more detail and even have door choosing simulation scripts: http://www.letsmakeadeal.com/problem.htm

Monday, April 18, 2005

Real Time Analysis

Most every book or movie with time travel as a central theme gets it wrong. If time travel is possible in real life, you will not be able to go back in time and "change the past" and create a new timeline, and a new present for yourself. The scientific reasoning for this involves some common sense and the fact that I am always right.

In Back to The Future, Marty time travels back to 1955, makes some changes, and then returns to 1985 to find that the present is different. In this scenario, Marty starts in an initial timeline A. After traveling back in time, he begins altering the timeline, and creates timeline B so that timeline A does not exist anymore.

The problem is that time fits together like a jigsaw, you can't derail it from one timeline to another. In other words, since timeline A will always yield timeline B, it will never exist in the first place. Marty will always experience timeline B, because timeline A doesn't make sense by itself, and you can't have more than one timeline.

So if time travel is possible and if you travel back in time, your "changes" will always produce the same timeline you started with. This is because your journey back in time was already compensated for in the timeline.

The Back To The Future trilogy is ripe with offenses. The timeline is constantly revised and people disappear from pictures and newspapers. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy seems to get it right in some places (though other parts purposefully abuse time travel cliches), but Dirk Gently's Holisitc Detective Agency gets it wrong.



Star Trek sometimes gets it wrong like in All Good Things, but occasionally gets it right, like in Time's Arrow (though there are issues here too). Red Dwarf is similarly plagued. Early episodes such as Future Echoes and Statis Leak get it exactly right, but episodes like Timeslides, The Inquisitor, and Out of Time feature gratuitous timeline editing.

These are just off the top of my head. It would be interesting to compile a larger list and see what percent of popular fiction treats time travel correctly. Stay tuned for further elaborations on how Real time travel would work.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Atari Teenage Mutant Network

I recently discovered the game of Go some months ago. The rules of Go are amazingly simple, yet the game play can be quite complex. The rules of Go are concisely:
  • Two players alternate placing stones of their color on any open point (intersection) of a 19x19 grid.
  • Groups of stones of the same color that touch horizontally or vertically are called units.
  • If a unit ever has all its adjacent (horizontal or vertical) points occupied by enemy stones, the unit is removed.
  • No player may place a stone that would cause a previous board configuration to be repeated.
  • A player may choose to pass instead of playing a stone. If both players pass in succession, the game ends.
  • Players take the number of open points they have surrounded, and subtract one point for each of their removed stones. The player with more points wins.
With such simple rules, one might think that a computer player would be able to use some simple algorithm to play well. That line of thinking is amazingly wrong. Good human players of Go have an easy time beating their binary counterparts. The problem is that the large board size offers hundreds of possible plays each turn, forcing the computer to consider thousands of options just to see a few moves ahead.

Software Neural Networks are algorithms that attempt to recognize patterns in complex systems. Since Go has simple and natural rules, patterns emerge during game play. These patterns may be detectable by a properly trained Neural Network. If it works, the network would essentially recognize patterns in the board configuration and use this analysis to choose its next move. An evolutionary mechanism may be employed to mutate the network to achieve mastery over the best human players.



People have tried using Neural Networks to play go, but there have been no major breakthroughs, however program development still has a long way to go. The idea of solving a complex game like Go is pretty exciting, and I think techniques like Neural Networks can be used to put a huge dent in the problem. Who knows, in the future we might get battles of Software Neurons vs Human Neurons.

Monday, April 11, 2005

Staying Fit in Deep Space

I thoroughly enjoy rock climbing. Here are the reasons why rock climbing is the greatest invention ever:

1) Climbing is a mental puzzle. Trying to climb a new climb can be like trying to remove the iron ring from one of those Tavern Puzzles. The difference is that you're the iron ring, the wall is the rest of the puzzle, and the removal part involves negotiating with Earth's gravity.

2) An outdoor climbing problem is contained within the rock wall itself and will always be there, unchanging until you're good enough to climb it. These climbs have been produced using complex natural processes, making each puzzle unique and each solution stimulating.

3) Indoor rock climbs are man-made puzzles and are in a way art. That there is a creative process involved when creating a synthetic rock climb is unmistakable, and an interplay between sequences of moves can create very satisfying experiences.

4) The future of rock climbing has great potential when one considers the possibilities for synthetic climbing inside a 2001: A Space Odyssey style spinning space station in outer space.



Reasons 1-3 are fairly strong, but no one can deny the awesome truth of reason 4, especially when explained in needed detail.

A spinning circular space station creates a centrifuge that simulates gravity for people on the inside of the rim of a disc-like station. If you make the station's radius longer or spin the station faster, you will increase the effective gravity felt by people on the rim. However, people halfway to the center will feel less effective force than people farther out. People in the center will experience the outside weightlessness of space.

So a rock climb in space may begin at one rim with 100% gravity, however the climber will feel less and less of his weight as he climbs towards the center. As a result, the synthetic holds on the rock wall may be spaced farther apart, and the moves may become ones that would normally be nearly impossible. The climb could be continued through the center and down climbed to the opposite side.

And if that Black Monolith appears in the wall, the aliens will feel pretty embarrassed when I'm able to friction climb it to the top.

What on Io?

Since I'm not content in talking to myself, this blog will have to do for now.

It will allow me to expound upon whatever crazy ideas are spinning inside my head at any given moment, and it will allow you, the random netgoer who has carelessly clicked his way here to read, sometimes in shock, sometimes with much eye rolling, but hopefully with at least some bemusement, the seemingly unrelated stream of articles that will henceforth be posted. The counseling that will become obvious I need desperately can be provided through the comment section. It is my hope that the articles I write will generate significant reader counseling.

This blog is for those who like their ramblings seemingly consumable but in fact stinky, aggressive and overly anthropomorphized.