jpgs or it's not true
― caek, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 17:04 (sixteen years ago) link
does anyone have any more graphs that look like vajayays, pls email me thx
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 17:06 (sixteen years ago) link
i have some! i made these.
RAINBOW: http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/13.png
STD GAMMA II http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/13-1.png
which scheme do you prefer? they both look fine printed b/w, which is one concern.
― caek, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 18:14 (sixteen years ago) link
Some group placed little white flags on our quad, each for "at least" 5 Iraqis dead, and little red flags, each for "at least" 5 Americans dead, from the Iraq war. The red flags are mostly clustered in a tidy area in front of the sign with our school's name on it, and the white flags stretch on for several blocks. It is pressing my art buttons, my math buttons, and my social justice buttons all at the same time.
Here is the first flickr photo I could find of it.
― Casuistry, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 02:02 (sixteen years ago) link
This may be old news, but wau Songchart
Number of soldiers riding away, grouped by metallurgical composition Effect of Time on Perceived Relative Distance of Troubles
― a passing spacecadet, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 16:32 (sixteen years ago) link
What kind of chart would you use to show, say, technological lag?
eg. you want to show, visually, a timeline of when the 486 became standard, then the pentium, then the p2... and then show when your company adapted the 486, ten the pentium, etc... and dsplay how long each took?
― Will M., Wednesday, 12 March 2008 18:13 (sixteen years ago) link
and, how the fuck do i make excel make whatever you recommend?
a personal favourite:
http://base58.com/ilx/opinionsvsrelevance.gif
― blueski, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 18:21 (sixteen years ago) link
xp: opportunity to procrastinate, yay. Two options.
One is to plot the year of release against the year of adoption. The further above the line y = x the points are, the later it was adopted. You'd probably label the points with, e.g. "Pentium" or whatever rather than just put crosses.
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture1-3.png
Another is to plot the lag before adoption (i.e. adoption - release). The further above y = 0 the later the adoption.
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture2.png
― caek, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 18:41 (sixteen years ago) link
does this guy know how to party or what
you, sir, are made of heroism.
― Will M., Wednesday, 12 March 2008 18:46 (sixteen years ago) link
i think i am going to go with the first one, btw... just figuring out how to make it. any hot chart-makin' tips?
― Will M., Wednesday, 12 March 2008 18:50 (sixteen years ago) link
Uh, don't use Excel.
― caek, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 19:09 (sixteen years ago) link
Sorry. Actually, that should be pretty easy in Excel. Set up three columns of data:
1988 1998 1988 1992 1993 1992 1994 1995 1994 1995 1998 1995 1998 2000 1998 2003 2007 2003
Then plot column 1 (release) vs column 2 (adoption) as points and column 1 vs. column 3 (release again) as a dotted line.
That may be a retarded way of doing it in Excel. I haven't used it since the Pentium II.
― caek, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 19:12 (sixteen years ago) link
http://b3ta.com/challenge/graphs/
― caek, Thursday, 27 March 2008 02:43 (sixteen years ago) link
http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/6686/1205356238/yourmum.GIF
― caek, Thursday, 27 March 2008 02:44 (sixteen years ago) link
in your face, positive terms:
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/NGC_3957-neg.gif
― caek, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 17:22 (sixteen years ago) link
lol postive
― caek, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 17:23 (sixteen years ago) link
hey, dan m, why has AJ gone to IOP but not ApJ? What is up with that?
― caek, Friday, 18 July 2008 01:18 (fifteen years ago) link
Still working on this paper by the way : (
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture1-6.png
― caek, Friday, 18 July 2008 01:25 (fifteen years ago) link
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture2-3.png
― caek, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:21 (fifteen years ago) link
Black circles = stars I mask out Green ellipse = where everyone else says you find half the light Red ellipse = where I say you find it
Curses.
― caek, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:22 (fifteen years ago) link
Aren't those like exactly the same surface? What's the problem?
― StanM, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:34 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah, they're pretty much identical areas, but mine is narrower because my exposures were longer than they others are so I see more of the disk. This means that when I measure how flat the galaxy is it looks flatter than it does to everyone else. It's not a big deal at the end of the day, I just wish life was simpler.
― caek, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:37 (fifteen years ago) link
Finished my poster for conference in Padua:
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/padua-poster.gif
― caek, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 14:22 (fifteen years ago) link
To be printed at A0
― caek, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 14:23 (fifteen years ago) link
i was bored enough to make this quantitative visualisation
http://base58.com/images/lfmartistsnations.png
― blueski, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 14:51 (fifteen years ago) link
A _massive_ fuck you to this graph, which took me seven days to get right.
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture2-5.png
(Cause of the problem: a misprint in equation 7 of Nap0litano et al. 2003. If I ever see that mother fucker I am going to give him a slap.)
― caek, Sunday, 30 November 2008 03:04 (fifteen years ago) link
Everything in this blog to thread: http://infosthetics.com/
― Chris Barrus (Elvis Telecom), Sunday, 30 November 2008 05:08 (fifteen years ago) link
that is a beautiful poster, caek! did you do it in illustrator?
― Tanganyika laughter epidemic (gbx), Sunday, 30 November 2008 06:42 (fifteen years ago) link
yes, I love Illustrator.
I asked for it to be installed on my new work machine and they told me I could get Inkscape. Hahahahahahahahaahahahhahhhahaa.
― caek, Sunday, 30 November 2008 13:25 (fifteen years ago) link
I didn't know you were working on there is no dark matter research until I read that poster. Hooray caek!! dark matter is some suspect shit.
― TOMBOT, Sunday, 30 November 2008 17:46 (fifteen years ago) link
its real ive seen it
― ice cr?m, Sunday, 30 November 2008 17:57 (fifteen years ago) link
listen man I am a lay person who reads magazines my opinions are informed
― TOMBOT, Sunday, 30 November 2008 17:59 (fifteen years ago) link
There is there is no dark matter research, but I wouldn't say I was part of that. I'm more, "OK, dark matter works well on large scales, but things get problematic when you throw some visible matter into the mix, and this is precisely how problematic...".
There's no question that there are discrepancies between the amount of visible mass and the speed with which we see things move (e.g. stars in galaxies). That is an empirical fact that everyone agrees on and it's the observational motivation for "invisible matter that makes things move fast", i.e. dark matter. (The other observational motivation is that time jhosh saw it.)
The other way to explain these disceprancies is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), which is modifications to Newtonian Gravity on very large scales. If you're interested then a good chatty introductions to the merits of the two is James Binney's 2003 address to the IAU in Sydney, which you can read here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310219v2.
Basically, my understanding is that both both dark matter and MOND are fits to data rather than predictions motivated by theories. E.g. Dark matter would probably not have dropped out of theories of particle physics or field theory unless cosmologists had told particle theory people to go looking for it. But dark matter in particular works very well in a lot of situations.
I confront the predictions of dark matter with observations of rotation in galaxies, and they don't match, so the question is what's the problem. Perhaps dark matter is just plain wrong. More likely, I think, is that the models of dark matter (which is simple stuff in itself) do not correctly incorporate "baryonic physics" (things like star formation, black holes, feedback, hydrodynamics, etc. which are all terribly complicated). So on scales where these processes are important, like individual galaxies, things break down.
Dark energy is another matter though. That's some bullshit right there.
― caek, Sunday, 30 November 2008 21:39 (fifteen years ago) link
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture5.png
Here's me confronting some predictions with some observations. Each plot shows the speed at which the stars in a galaxy are rotating (in km/s on the vertical axis) as a function of distance from the centre (in weird units you don't need to care about). The observations are the points. The red lines are the predictions of models. Above each plot are the parameters of those models. The first number is the number of solar masses we ascribe to each unit of solar light we see. The second number is the amount of dark matter (in units of solar masses and then logarithmed for those of you playing along at home).
So the point it this:
Take the top left plot. The first number is 0.5 so we're saying each sun we can see weighs half as much as our sun. And we've got a 1 with ten 0s after it dark matter. And the model does not rotate as quickly as the real galaxy.
So we add more dark matter (plots to the right) and more visible matter (plots to the bottom) until we get the best fit. The best fit gives us an estimate of the amount of dark matter present. The best fit here is probably about 1 with twelve 0s dark matter.
― caek, Sunday, 30 November 2008 21:51 (fifteen years ago) link
Does this guy know how to party or what?!
Today I plotted 3,330 graphs. 30 galaxies, 111 for each galaxy.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOW.jpg
― caek, Monday, 1 December 2008 20:31 (fifteen years ago) link
My supervisor has been away for a week, so I printed them all out (ran to 50 pages), wrote "Welcome back, here's 3 x 10^3 graphs, see you at 10am to discuss them." That will teach him to get on my back about my progress.
― caek, Monday, 1 December 2008 20:32 (fifteen years ago) link
I was just reading the new scientist story on how another possible explanation for the discrepancies could be that the copernican assumptions of our postal code being somewhere in a universal kansas are incorrect, or at least the assumptions about the attributes of said kansas
― El Tomboto, Monday, 1 December 2008 20:45 (fifteen years ago) link
yes, that would do it. again though, all these are post facto fits to observations and not predictions : (
― caek, Monday, 1 December 2008 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link
My program is going to take ten days to run for one graph.
― caek, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 18:12 (fifteen years ago) link
Sort of bragging, but mainly I just write shitty code.
i made a really excellent graph this weekend but i cannot post it becuz it was for work. i managed to get like five pgs of text into one easy-to-read bar graph
making charts and graphs is like my favorite part of my job
― Lamp, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 19:12 (fifteen years ago) link
BOO YA
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/jamchi2.png
― We are all from Northampton now (caek), Thursday, 5 March 2009 22:18 (fifteen years ago) link
(two months of my life)
btw, ur graph is v. pretty
― Dan I., Friday, 6 March 2009 01:24 (fifteen years ago) link
An early version of my model
http://i44.tinypic.com/33ww5yb.jpg
― I fucked up the word rear (Z S), Friday, 6 March 2009 02:57 (fifteen years ago) link
final version will look way different but hey
that's cool, but needs you get good and drunk and do stuff to it in fifteen minutes
― We are all from Northampton now (caek), Friday, 6 March 2009 17:53 (fifteen years ago) link