Power calculation for gravitational radiation: oversimplification and the importance of time scale

A simplified formula for gravitational-radiation power is examined. It is shown to give completely erroneous answers in three situations, making it useless even for rough estimates. It is emphasized that short timescales, as well as fast speeds, make classical approximations to relativistic calculations untenable.Comment: Three pages, no figures, accepted for publication in Astronomische Nachrichte

Approximate Killing Vectors on S^2

We present a new method for computing the best approximation to a Killing vector on closed 2-surfaces that are topologically S^2. When solutions of Killing's equation do not exist, this method is shown to yield results superior to those produced by existing methods. In addition, this method appears to provide a new tool for studying the horizon geometry of distorted black holes.Comment: 4 pages, 3 figures, submitted to Physical Review D, revtex

Problems in the Science and Mathematics of 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery'

Professor Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994) was one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century. However, in his most famous work 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' he displays troubling misunderstandings of science and mathematics at a basic level. These call into question his conclusions concerning the philosophy of science.Quanta 2012; 1: 13–18

Comparison of Maintenance Gains From Two Treatment Approaches for Patients Diagnosed with Apraxia of Speech and Broca’s Aphasia: A Critically Appraised Topic

Three peer-reviewed research articles demonstrated benefits in using the articulatory-kinematic approaches of sound production treatment (SPT) and speech motor learning (SML) for intervention of patients diagnoses with apraxia of speech (AOS) concomitant with aphasia over the age of 50. This CAT was intended to review and compare the treatment maintenance between the two approaches using a specific search question; however, there was limited evidence for the specified population in that question. Although both approaches warranted positive outcomes, the SML approach may demonstrate a stronger linkage to the underlying features of apraxia of speech based on the method’s rationale. Through the approach, the individual is expected to generalize the rules for planning by relearning the centralized motor plans for speech motor movements (Wambaugh et al., 2013). Also differing from SPT, the SML approach involves the individual learning to internally predict controls of movements to independently generate speech.The SML approach demonstrated greater maintenance gains using traditional treatments compared to the SPT that was reviewed using both intensive and traditional treatments (van der Merwe, 2011; Wambaugh et al., 2013). Although the SML approach was implemented for more sessions than the SPT, it was only greater by one session. This may lead to the assumption that the SML approach demonstrates greater gains due to the less intensive practice schedule yielding stronger maintenance compared to the more intensive SPT schedule