The Earth is an open system

[CallMeDave]

What do you mean "divy up their findings"? I mean, scientists share information all the time....

Im surprised you arent familiar with some of the more common ones : http://conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evol ... peculation

Am I the only one having trouble interpreting this? I assume "divy up" is for "divvy up" meaning divide into smaller portions. What this has to do with a few cases of scientific fraud I cannot imagine.

Sorry...thats the British coming out in me. What i mean is the findings being manipulated, enhanced, changed, for the purpose of willful deciet. YES...those men in white lab coats do such things even though the populace holds these folks in the highest of esteem and trust them completely. Read what i posted, and, do a google for other deliberate frauds hoaxes within the secular scientific community...especially Darwinnian Scientists who cant allow a divine foot thru the door.

[Ivellious]

Some people do bad things, Dave. Some people abuse power and prestige for their own gain, but if you think it's ok to say that on account of a few instances of academic fraud, all or most scientists are liars and cheats who cannot be trusted...just look at the Christian faith's leaders right now, particularly the Catholics. Can I reasonably say that because these men abused their power (to do something FAR worse than academic fraud, mind you), I should regard all powerful Christians as rapist pigs? Of course not. You can't generalize like that.

[CallMeDave]

Some people do bad things, Dave. Some people abuse power and prestige for their own gain, but if you think it's ok to say that on account of a few instances of academic fraud, all or most scientists are liars and cheats who cannot be trusted...just look at the Christian faith's leaders right now, particularly the Catholics. Can I reasonably say that because these men abused their power (to do something FAR worse than academic fraud, mind you), I should regard all powerful Christians as rapist pigs? Of course not. You can't generalize like that.

And, they also commit deliberate frauds in order to maintain their own personal philosophical bias and worldview. And i never said that 'all or most scientists are liars and cheats' . All scientists have the same scientific evidence and many will do unethical things to make it fit their particular apriori-commitment to non-intelligence for causes . If you want, get the book called I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist which covers the incredible faith required to hold to an atheistic-based worldview..then you too might question why secular Scientists / Darwinists / Naturalists /Materialists hold to what they do .

[Canuckster1127]

And, they also commit deliberate frauds in order to maintain their own personal philosophical bias and worldview. And i never said that 'all or most scientists are liars and cheats' . All scientists have the same scientific evidence and many will do unethical things to make it fit their particular apriori-commitment to non-intelligence for causes . If you want, get the book called I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist which covers the incredible faith required to hold to an atheistic-based worldview..then you too might question why secular Scientists / Darwinists / Naturalists /Materialists hold to what they do .

Which is it Dave? You deny calling "all or most scientists liars and cheats" and then you go on in the next sentence to say that "many will do unethical (like lying and cheating?) to make it fit their particualr apriori-commitment."

That sounds remarkably more like what you're doing here Dave. No doubt, though, it's OK for you because you're right.

Why do you find it necessary to impugn other's integrity and motives in this manner and not just deal with the evidence and facts to promote your case? The methods you use in your addressing of issues speak more about you than they do those you're criticizing.

This is coming from someone who doesn't support many of the things you're disagreeing with. If all I had to go on however, was the methods and manner of your addressing issues, I have to tell you, I wouldn't be impressed and inclined to give you a serious hearing.

I don't know if you saw this from a couple of week's ago, but this is a blog article put up by a friend of mine (online friend) that I've needed to hear in the past when I begin behaving in similar matters. Take a look and see if it describes some things that you might want to self-examine and reconsider.

http://frankviola.org/2012/02/16/beingajerkonline/

Take it or leave it, but be aware, when you behave in this manner, I and other's will feel free to call you on it.

[Stu]

I gotta side with Dave on this one. Starting right from the days of Haeckel and his embryo's; keep in mind his fraudulent drawings have persisted despite Haeckel himself admitting that they were nothing but the creation of his own imagination. And they have been deliberately used by these so-called ethical lilly-white lab coat scientists to perpetuate the Darwin myth. Why.. because if they had to redo the work from scratch it wouldn't match up, so better to use 100 year old fake drawings and claim ignorance.

I'm not saying all secular scientists deliberately fudge their work, but with pressure groups like the NCSE endorsing putting a "positive spin" (can't seem to find the article right now..) on the truth rather than the bare-bones truth; "pro-evolution facts" are becoming an all too common occurrence these days.

[CallMeDave]

And, they also commit deliberate frauds in order to maintain their own personal philosophical bias and worldview. And i never said that 'all or most scientists are liars and cheats' . All scientists have the same scientific evidence and many will do unethical things to make it fit their particular apriori-commitment to non-intelligence for causes . If you want, get the book called I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist which covers the incredible faith required to hold to an atheistic-based worldview..then you too might question why secular Scientists / Darwinists / Naturalists /Materialists hold to what they do .

Which is it Dave? You deny calling "all or most scientists liars and cheats" and then you go on in the next sentence to say that "many will do unethical (like lying and cheating?) to make it fit their particualr apriori-commitment."

That sounds remarkably more like what you're doing here Dave. No doubt, though, it's OK for you because you're right.

Why do you find it necessary to impugn other's integrity and motives in this manner and not just deal with the evidence and facts to promote your case? The methods you use in your addressing of issues speak more about you than they do those you're criticizing.

This is coming from someone who doesn't support many of the things you're disagreeing with. If all I had to go on however, was the methods and manner of your addressing issues, I have to tell you, I wouldn't be impressed and inclined to give you a serious hearing.

I don't know if you saw this from a couple of week's ago, but this is a blog article put up by a friend of mine (online friend) that I've needed to hear in the past when I begin behaving in similar matters. Take a look and see if it describes some things that you might want to self-examine and reconsider.

http://frankviola.org/2012/02/16/beingajerkonline/

Take it or leave it, but be aware, when you behave in this manner, I and other's will feel free to call you on it.

Its a bit of both ; when Evolutionary Scientists state in public or in the books they write that Darwinnian Evolution is based on faith alone because there is no supporting emphirical evidence , THAT is good reason to believe many if not most Darwinnian Evolutionists arent giving the public the real score . Many have resorted to doctoring up their findings to suit their own philosophical bias :

. When Evolutionists themselves speak out against their field, you know its been fallacious all along :

" It is therefore a MATTER OF FAITH on the part of the biologist that
biogenesis (evolution) did occur and he can choose whatever method of
biogenesis happens to suit him personally ; the evidence for what did
happen is not available" --- Evolutionist Prof. G.A. Kerkut of the
University of Southampton. Source : Implications of Evolution. London.
Pergamon Press, 1960, page 150.



" The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on FAITH ALONE" -- Evolutionist Prof. T.L. Moor .
Origins ? The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988 page 22.



" We Palenontologists have said that the history of life supports (the
story of gradual adaptive change) , all the while really knowing that it
does not" -- Dr. Niles Eldredge. Darwin on Trial. Regnery Gateway,
1991, page 59.


" The record of reckless speculation of human origins is so astonishing
that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in
this field at all" -- Evolutionist Dr. Solly Zuckerman. Darwin on
Trial. 1991. page 82.

From an article in Science Digest Special---

" Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest
growing controversial minorities ... Many of the scientists supporting
this posiiton hold impressive credentials in science" . -- Educators
Against Darwin. winter 1979, page 94



" I believe that one day the Darwinnian myth will be ranked the
greatest deciet in the history of science "--- Prof. Soren Lovtrup,
Embriologist. Darwinism : The Refutation of a Myth. 1987. page 422.

" The more i examine the Universe and the details of its architecture,
the more evidence i find that the Universe in some sense must have known
we were coming"--- Prof. Freeman Dyson, Physicist from Princeton Univ.
'Disturbing the Universe' . 1979. page 250.



" The more man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events, the
firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of
this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature (than a Creator)"
-- Albert Einstein. His LIfe and Times. page 286.

And finally, the bottom line from an "agnostic" Astronomer (and my
favorite) ----

" For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,
the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of
ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak and as he pulls
himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of Theologians who
have been sitting there for centuries reading Genesis 1:1 : In the
Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" --- agnostic Prof. Robert
Jastrow founder of Nasa's Goddard Institute. His book, 'God and the
Astronomers. page 116.

[sandy_mcd]

What i mean is the findings being manipulated, enhanced, changed, for the purpose of willful deciet. YES...those men in white lab coats do such things even though the populace holds these folks in the highest of esteem and trust them completely. Read what i posted, and, do a google for other deliberate frauds hoaxes within the secular scientific community...especially Darwinnian Scientists who cant allow a divine foot thru the door.

Its a bit of both ; when Evolutionary Scientists state in public or in the books they write that Darwinnian Evolution is based on faith alone because there is no supporting emphirical evidence , THAT is good reason to believe many if not most Darwinnian Evolutionists arent giving the public the real score . Many have resorted to doctoring up their findings to suit their own philosophical bias :

There are certainly a handful of (well-publicised) cases of scientific fraud every year. But I see no reason to believe that it is a wide spread phenomenon. You referenced a few examples over many years; most of the frauds were exposed by scientists. This seems to belie your claims of conspiracy.
Your second quote doesn't seem to make sense. If some scientists are stating in public that there is no basis but faith for evolution, then how can they possibly be conspiring to hide the truth from the public?

By the way, science only deals with observable phenomenon. So by definition, anything supernatural which can't be examined is outside the scope of science. It may be true that the universe was created thousands of years ago with the appearance of age, but that is not a scientific hypothesis since there is no way of distinguishing between a genuinely old universe and a recent one made to seem old.

Have you ever been to a university with a research department? I think if you had any exposure to research scientists, you would realize that the idea of large groups of scientists pretending to do research but misrepresenting the results is not very realistic.

[Stu]

You see it is this type of deliberate censorship and interference (see article further below) that promotes the ever increasing cases of deliberate fraudulence.

And for those who would suggest it is the exception rather than the rule, it most certainly is not. There is a very forceful attempt to silence and prohibit design related work, or anything that might critique Darwinism.

For me personally this is why I'm so passionate about the subject.
The scientific arena is supposed to be one of integrity, with checks and balances in place to ensure no agenda's are pursued, but it is the complete opposite. Science, philosophy and ideology have become one.

Here we have a technical paper that "does not contain any known errors or technical problems", and yet it is rejected on nothing more than a whim at the request of a blogger.

Fear and intimidation rule the day in modern science that is largely governed by secular scientists and bodies. It's a complete and utter disgrace. Truth and integrity come a distant second to towing the line.

Journal Censors 'Second Law' Paper Refuting Evolution

After the paper was accepted for publication in Applied Mathematics Letters, an anti-design blogger wrote to the editor, warning that the journal's reputation would be tarnished if the paper was printed. So, the journal's editor withdrew it.2 Sewell, who has authored at least 39 other technical papers,3 then took legal action. Since the journal's own policy states that withdrawing a reviewed and accepted paper "can only occur under exceptional circumstances" such as plagiarism or fraudulent data,4 and since Sewell's article does not contain any known errors or technical problems, he was given an apology as well as permission to post the pre-publication version of his paper on his university faculty web page—although Applied Mathematics Letters still has no plans to publish it.2

The editor's fear of printing the paper is perhaps not surprising, considering the virulent opposition exercised by many evolutionists when their scientific beliefs are academically challenged.5 And as the rejected paper indicates, since the second law states that the orderliness present in matter or energy always tends to decrease, it negates evolution's historical perspective of a massive order increase from hydrogen to humans. However, informed Darwinists argue that order can increase in one place (e.g., on earth) as long as there is a compensating decrease in order elsewhere.

Find the rest of the article here.

[CallMeDave]

What i mean is the findings being manipulated, enhanced, changed, for the purpose of willful deciet. YES...those men in white lab coats do such things even though the populace holds these folks in the highest of esteem and trust them completely. Read what i posted, and, do a google for other deliberate frauds hoaxes within the secular scientific community...especially Darwinnian Scientists who cant allow a divine foot thru the door.

Its a bit of both ; when Evolutionary Scientists state in public or in the books they write that Darwinnian Evolution is based on faith alone because there is no supporting emphirical evidence , THAT is good reason to believe many if not most Darwinnian Evolutionists arent giving the public the real score . Many have resorted to doctoring up their findings to suit their own philosophical bias :

There are certainly a handful of (well-publicised) cases of scientific fraud every year. But I see no reason to believe that it is a wide spread phenomenon. You referenced a few examples over many years; most of the frauds were exposed by scientists. This seems to belie your claims of conspiracy.
Your second quote doesn't seem to make sense. If some scientists are stating in public that there is no basis but faith for evolution, then how can they possibly be conspiring to hide the truth from the public?

By the way, science only deals with observable phenomenon. So by definition, anything supernatural which can't be examined is outside the scope of science. It may be true that the universe was created thousands of years ago with the appearance of age, but that is not a scientific hypothesis since there is no way of distinguishing between a genuinely old universe and a recent one made to seem old.

Have you ever been to a university with a research department? I think if you had any exposure to research scientists, you would realize that the idea of large groups of scientists pretending to do research but misrepresenting the results is not very realistic.

To reiterate, I never said that there was a solely widespread 'conspiracy', rather, individual shennanigans based on personal philosophical bias toward Intelligent Causes . I list below some common reasons why so many individual Darwinnists hang onto faith-filled Macro Evolution ; Further, Science is supposed to be all about the discovery of CAUSES...ALL CAUSES and they come in the form of Natural OR Intelligent . Intelligent Causes only come from a Mind and a Will based on everything we know about reality, ergo, real unbiased Science/Scientists have a responsibility to go in that direction when the evidence is leading to that conclusion , which is most certainly is --- even great Physicists as Stephen Hawkings has eluded to a personal theistic Creator in many of his public statements (available upon request) . So...why would Darwinnists want to keep 'the divine from getting thru the door' as Evolutionists Richard Lewontin stated in the quote I gave ? Here are the answers ---

1. By admitting God, Darwinnists would be admitting that they dont have absolute authority when explaining causes.

2. Darwinnists would be admitting that they are not the highest authority when it comes to truth.

3. Darwinnists would risk loosing financial security and professional admiration. The many books for young children to adults having airbrushed glossy artistry of a pond scum protozoa popping into existence from a sea of chemicals and accidentally graduating to a 206 bone human being with a brain touted as THE most complex thing in the universe .... would cause the general populace to loose all faith in abiogenesis and macro evolution AND those who support it , if they were to admit to an intelligent Cause for our origins (viz, God) .

4. Darwinnists would be admitting that they dont have the authority to define right and wrong for themselves --- as is the same for the rest of humanity .

In short, Darwinnists have backed themselves into the proverbial corner and as modern science continues to produce emphirical evidences for a personal theistic Creator (intelligent causes which are NOT religiously motivated) , these Darwinnists will find more dissent coming their way. Already, over 700 of the worlds top PHD Scientists have signed a common declaration that they flat out find Darwinnian Evolution a fraud and/or they find great problems with the unproven theory.

[Canuckster1127]

Dave, Second request on this, unless I'm mistaken, the list of quotes you have above are a cut and paste from another site that while the primary references are present, it's still a matter of integrity to provide the link or reference to the secondary site that arranged them. Again, it's OK to a limited degree to use cut and pastes or links to support or promote what you're saying. It's not OK to do it without crediting those sources so that others can know who did the original work and where it's coming from. It's OK to pick out a single quote and put that up without referencing the secondary source because that secondary source has added nothing to the value of the presentation. When you take a list of quotes however, you need to reference the secondary source that did the work. I'm serious about this. Please provide the link or references when you do this. Thanks.

[sandy_mcd]

For me personally this is why I'm so passionate about the subject.

If you are really passionate about this subject, you should spend some time studying it. Even someone like myself can see that this paper http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf is utter rubbish (and I do not use the terms lightly). Start off with the "entropy measures disorder" phrase in the abstract. Dr Sewell's article states that "entropy is quantifiable" yet he just refers to "order" without even giving ballpark figures for allowable changes. His statement that some authors feel silly about entropy changes far away affecting changes here is unjustified. He talks about improbable events but says nothing about how probabilities are calculated or estimated. His equations may be valid but his interpretation is just so much handwaving. It was wise of the editor to recognise that this article was outside his area of expertise. Perhaps Dr Sewell should submit it to an in-field journal and see what kind of referee reviews he gets. [Yeah, this isn't a very well-worded explanation.]
Consider a piece of iron sitting outside in humid weather. The metal rusts. That is a very common example of a spontaneous decrease in entropy (or an increase in "order" as Dr Sewell would say). So it is misleading to confuse our human concepts of orderliness with the physical, natural property of entropy.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)

[Stu]

If you are really passionate about this subject, you should spend some time studying it. Even someone like myself can see that this paper http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf is utter rubbish (and I do not use the terms lightly).

You missed the entire point of my post -- censorship of peer-reviewed research based on fear, intimidation and in this case nothing but the hearsay of a blogger!

I also find it incredibly presumptuous and smug on your part to assume I don't spend time studying "the subject". I suggest you step down from your pedestal.

[sandy_mcd]

You missed the entire point of my post -- censorship based on fear and intimidation.

The point of peer reviewed journals is that submitted articles are reviewed by other people who are knowledgable in the area of the paper. Dr Sewell chose to submit a paper to an inappropriate journal; the editors/referees approved the math and assumed the unsupported conclusions were valid rather than suggesting a more suitable venue; someone somehow was notified of errors and the paper was pulled. I don't see any problems with that. At the bottom I put a list of current articles in the journal; do you see anything remotely similar to the thermodynamics paper? Dr Sewell is not censored - he can and has posted his article on his website. He was not allowed to publish the article in AML because it was determined to be unsuitable. AML is obviously a poorly run journal - here is another recent retraction http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/20 ... etraction/. Does anyone want to claim this is also "censorship based on fear and intimidation"?

Recent Applied Mathematics Letters Articles
Recently published articles available online on SciVerse ScienceDirect.
Notes on protected nodes in digital search trees
June 2012
Rosena R.X. Du | Helmut Prodinger

Existence results and the monotone iterative technique for systems of nonlinear fractional differential equations
June 2012
Guotao Wang | Ravi P. Agarwal | Alberto Cabada

By establishing a comparison result and using the monotone iterative technique combined with the method of upper and lower solutions, we investigate the existence of solutions for systems of nonlinear fractional differential equations.

A lethargy result for real analytic functions
June 2012
J.M. Almira

We prove that, if (C[a,b],{An}) is an approximation scheme and {An} satisfies the de La Vallée Poussin Theorem, there are examples of real-valued continuous functions on [a,b], analytic on (a,b], which are “poorly approximable” by the elements of {An}. This illustrates the thesis that the smoothness conditions guaranteeing that a function is “well approximable” must be “global”. The failure of smoothness at endpoints may result in an arbitrarily slow rate of approximation.

The uplift principle for ordered trees
June 2012
Gi-Sang Cheon | Louis Shapiro

In this paper, we describe the uplift principle for ordered trees which lets us solve a variety of combinatorial problems in two simple steps. The first step is to find the appropriate generating function at the root of the tree, the second is to lift the result to an arbitrary vertex by multiplying by the leaf generating function. This paper, though self contained, is a companion piece to Cheon and Shapiro (2008) [2] though with many more possible applications. It also may be viewed as an invitation, via the symbolic method, to the authoritative 800 page book of Flajolet and Sedgewick (2009) [8]. Our examples, with one exception, are different from those in this excellent reference.

New Hermite–Hadamard-type inequalities for convex functions (I)
June 2012
Kuei-Lin Tseng | Shiow-Ru Hwang | Sever S. Dragomir

In this work we establish some new Hermite–Hadamard-type inequalities for convex functions and give several applications for special means.

A new approach to relative asymptotic behavior for discrete Sobolev-type orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle
June 2012
Kenier Castillo

In Foulquié et al. (1999) [2], Li and Marcellán (1996) [4], Marcellán and Moral (2002) [5], the relative asymptotic behavior of orthogonal polynomials with respect to a discrete Sobolev-type inner product on the unit circle was studied. In this paper, we propose an alternative approach to this problem based on the Uvarov spectral transformation.

On the continuous extension of Adams–Bashforth methods and the event location in discontinuous ODEs
June 2012
Marco Berardi | Luciano Lopez

The interpolation polynomial in the k-step Adams–Bashforth method may be used to compute the numerical solution at off grid points. We show that such a numerical solution is equivalent to the one obtained by the Nordsieck technique for changing the step size. We also provide an application of this technique to the event location in discontinuous differential systems.

Coefficient estimates for a certain subclass of analytic and bi-univalent functions
June 2012
Qing-Hua Xu | Ying-Chun Gui | H.M. Srivastava

In this paper, we introduce and investigate an interesting subclass HΣh,p of analytic and bi-univalent functions in the open unit disk U. For functions belonging to the class HΣh,p, we obtain estimates on the first two Taylor–Maclaurin coefficients |a2| and |a3|. The results presented in this paper would generalize and improve some recent work of Srivastava et al. [H.M. Srivastava, A.K. Mishra, P. Gochhayat, Certain subclasses of analytic and bi-univalent functions, Appl. Math. Lett. 23 (2010) 1188–1192].

A projection method for solving Cauchy singular integro-differential equations
June 2012
Abdelaziz Mennouni

In this work we present a modified projection method based on Legendre polynomials, for solving integro-differential equations with Cauchy kernel, in L2([−1,1],C). The proposed numerical procedure leads to solve a system of linear equations. We prove the existence of a solution for the approximate equation, and we perform the error analysis. Numerical examples illustrate the theoretical results.

Common fixed point theorems for sequences of mappings under a new contractive condition of integral type
June 2012
Hassan Mustafa Abu-Donia | Khaled Abd-Rabou

The purpose of this work is to study common fixed point theorems for six mappings and sequences of mappings satisfying a contractive condition of integral type. Our results improve, extend and generalize corresponding results given by many authors.

On dual vector equilibrium problems
June 2012
A.P. Farajzadeh | B.S. Lee

In this work, we consider the dual vector equilibrium problems in the topological vector spaces setting for a moving cone. We investigate the relationship between solutions of the vector equilibrium problems and those for their perturbations. Our result may be viewed as a refinement and improvement of the paper [L. Huang, Existence of Solutions on Weak Vector Equilibrium Problems, vol. 65, 2006, pp. 795–801.].

New univalent conditions for a family of integral operators
June 2012
B.A. Frasin

In this paper, we obtain new sufficient conditions for the operator Gn,α(z)={[n(α−1)+1]∫0z(g1(t))α−1⋯(gn(t))α−1dt}1n(α−1)+1 to be univalent in the open unit disc U, where each of the functions g1,g2,…,gn satisfy the condition |zgi′(z)gi(z)−a|

Some new fractional quantum integral inequalities
June 2012
Wengui Yang

In this work, we employ a fractional q-integral on the specific time scale Tt0={t:t=t0qn, n a nonnegative integer }∪{0}, where t0∈R and 0

Common fixed points of (ψ,ϕ)-type contractive maps
June 2012
Sh. Rezapour | N. Shahzad

One interesting technique for obtaining fixed point results is the technique of contractive conditions of integral type. (ψ,ϕ)-type contractive maps are introduced in order to generalize this technique. Some common fixed point results for (ψ,ϕ)-type contractive maps on metric spaces are proved. Finally, a result is also obtained concerning the discontinuity of (ψ,ϕ)-type contractive maps at their unique common fixed point.

On certain subclasses of meromorphic functions associated with certain differential operators
June 2012
E.A. Elrifai | H.E. Darwish | A.R. Ahmed

In this work, we study some subordination and convolution properties of certain subclasses of meromorphic functions which are defined by a previously mentioned differential operator.

A bounded numerical method for approximating a hyperbolic and convective generalization of Fisher’s model with nonlinear damping
June 2012
J.E. Macías-Díaz

We introduce a numerical method for approximating positive and bounded solutions of a time-delayed partial differential equation which generalizes Fisher’s equation from population dynamics. The derivations of the properties of preservation of the positivity and the boundedness of approximations hinge on the fact that, under suitable constraints on the model coefficients and the computational parameters, the method may be represented in vector form using a multiplicative M-matrix. Our simulations establish that the method proposed in this work conditionally preserves the positivity and the boundedness of the solutions when the lag constant is relatively small. A good agreement between known, exact solutions and the corresponding numerical simulations is recorded in the computational results.

Some new sequences that converge to a generalized Euler constant
June 2012
Alina Sîntămărian

The purpose of the paper is to give some sequences that converge quickly to a generalized Euler constant, i.e. the limit of the sequence (1as+1(a+1)s+⋯+1(a+n−1)s−11−s((a+n−1)1−s−a1−s))n∈N, where a∈(0,+∞) and s∈(0,1).

Nonlinear laminates where the effective conductivity is integer valued
June 2012
Dag Lukkassen | Ralph Høibakk | Annette Meidell

We consider laminates with a power-law relation between the temperature gradient and the heat flux characterized by some constant τ>1. In particular, we discuss the problem of determining what positive integer combinations of the local conductivities and the power −r=1/(τ−1) which make the effective conductivity integer valued. The problem is settled for the case when the number of layers, k, equals 2. For k>2 the problem is settled for the case r=−1, but for lower values, we can only identify certain classes of solutions.

[sandy_mcd]

Correction on Sewell's paper.

Discussion from an opposing viewpoint here http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/02 ... impos.html has

One thing Sewell did was quote Isaac Asimov to the effect that entropy decreases on earth were explainable due to a corresponding and larger entropy increase in the sun. Sewell, though, didn’t note this as a plain error. That is despite Chris Ho-Stuart patiently explaining how, in fact, the sun is undergoing a decrease in entropy, as is the earth, and supports that with calculations. It seems that Sewell missed a chance to put Asimov firmly in his place, but it would have required paying attention to sources of critical commentary.

which leads to http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/01 ... ment-63613 and

This is a common error. The Sun is actually an example of a local decrease in entropy; a common phenomenon in the natural world and a further demonstration of the ignorance involved in creationist invocations of thermodynamics.

The common claim made in response to creationists is that any local decrease of entropy on Earth is compensated by a greater increase in entropy in the Sun. This is wrong.

So where is the entropy increase to satisfy the second law? It is in the vast cold reaches of empty space, which is receiving hot radiation from the Sun. There is a continuous flow of energy from the Sun (a hot object) into empty space (a cold reservoir). So it is empty space that increases in entropy as the Sun decreases in entropy. The Earth taps into this energy flow, receiving hot radiation from the Sun, and then re-radiating this into empty space as infra-red radiation (much cooler). The radiation in balances the radiation out, but the radiation in carries less entropy.

Here are some sample calculations. Consider 1000 J of thermal energy from the Sun. The Sun’s surface is about 5700 K; and the Earth’s surface is about 290 K. The Sun decreases in entropy by 1000/5700, which is about 0.175 J/K. The Earth increases in entropy by 1000/290, which is about 3.45 J/K. So this energy from the Sun actually involves the Earth increasing in entropy. Of course, this cannot be the end of the story. The Earth is an open system, and it radiates back out into space. That 1000 J increase in thermal energy will eventually radiate back out into space, which has a temperature of about 2.7K; this 1000/2.7, or about 370 J/K entropy increase in the universe outside the solar system.

It is the capacity of Earth to taken in hot energy, and then dump it into cool space that allows local thermodynamic systems to do useful work on Earth.

[Stu]

Seriously Sandy?

The editor's broke their own standards / code of conduct (see second quote below) deliberately in this instance at the request of someone who's known only for his blogs surrounding "movies, comics, and fantasy computer games".

And really I can't believe that you would compare Dr. Sewell's article to one that:

"This article has been retracted at the request of the editor as the authors have falsified mathematical findings and have made unsubstantiated claims regarding Euclid’s parallel postulate."

Two entirely different scenario's; for which retraction of the second for falsification is perfectly acceptable according to their standards.

Journal Apologizes and Pays $10,000 After Censoring Article

Dr. Rodin and his journal now have to issue a public statement providing "their sincere and heartfelt apologies to Dr. Sewell... and welcom[ing] Dr. Sewell's submission of future articles for possible publication." More important than the apology, the journal has to set the record straight by reiterating that "Dr. Sewell's article was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication" and by making clear that his article was not withdrawn because of "any errors or technical problems found by the reviewers or editors."

By issuing this statement, Applied Mathematics Letters is essentially admitting that it trashed its own professional standards by what it did. According to the journal's editorial policies, acceptance of an article cannot be rescinded once an author has been notified of its acceptance, and accepted articles are supposed to be withdrawn only "under exceptional circumstances" such as fraud, errors, ethics violations, and the like.