Ziendan TiengViet
TRANGCHỦ   Ghidanh   Ðăngnhập   Danhsách thànhviên
Xem thưriêng   Banquảntrị   Tìmkiếm   Thắcmắc chung

Food-For-Thought of 2009
:: Diễnđàn tiếngViệtTảnmạnVấnnạn của chúngta....
Tiểumục bàiđăng trước | bàiđăng kế »
Cuong Nguyen


Gianhập: Nov.14.2009
Nơicưtrú: Sacto US
Trìnhtrạng: [hiệntại không cómặt trên diễnđàn]
IP: IP ghinhập
Food-For-Thought of 2009

Cuong Nguyen
October, 25th 2009

Dear Professor Koblitz,

I’d like to take this opportunity to make a few comments about your rebuttal
article regarding Professor Vallely’s investigative report on Viet Nam’s national
education system.

Firstly, I am truly impressed with most of your logical arguments, especially the
advice in which you have given to your colleague. However, with all my due
respect, I have to say that I disagree with your recommendation on these two
following specific issues:

  • There is nothing wrong with the “Socialism” ideals in which you are advocating.
    However, please consider the fact that VN is a developing country with very
    limited resources (as we’re also aware of). Therefore, I am doubtful that it would
    be helpful to Viet Nam to be spending too much on your recommended social
    programs training the whole lot of female and ethnic students. In general, I
    strongly believe that Viet Nam should use its scarce and precious resources to
    train the most qualified and innovative technicians and engineers to better its GNP
    in both its short-term and long-term planning.
  • There are also cultural obstacles that matter physically and mentally in which you
    and Professor Vallely may not understand thoroughly, and I wouldn’t want to
    discuss openly here on this forum. For instance, malnutrition has been a big factor
    which likely affects school performance more than 70% of the population in Viet
    Nam and that also explains partially why Professor Hoang Tuy and his associates
    could not achieve their goal with the Thang-Long University. Therefore, the
    educators and leaders in Viet Nam should take the issue into consideration and
    study it seriously to come up with the best methods to help their students

Again, thank you so much for your generosity and kindness.

Best Regards,

Cuong Nguyen
Cc: TuanVietnam/VNN

PS: FYI Only. Reply from Prof. Koblitz
"koblitzzzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxu.washington.edu" <koblitzzzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxu.washington.edu>
"Cuong Nguyen" <phucuongzzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxpacbell.net>
koblitzzzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxmath.washington.edu, koblitzzzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxasu.edu, minhhazzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxvnu.edu.vn,
tuanvietnamzzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxvietnamnet.vn, tctiasangzzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxgmail.com

Dear Cuong Nguyen,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments about my article. I'd like to clarify what I
meant in my recommendations #4,5. The purpose is not to meet some sort of socialist
ideal (in fact, there are many programs in capitalist countries aimed at increasing the
participation of women and ethnic minorities in science and technology), but rather to
enable a country to make use of all its human resources. In many cases women and
ethnic minorities are held back by social prejudices, not by lack of ability. For example,
if a woman scientist has an opportunity to spend time abroad at a scientific center, many
people will ask "Are you sure you want to spend so much time away from your family?",
whereas they will not say that to a male scientist. At the secondary school level, some
parents who are not wealthy will pay only for their son and not their daughter to receive
special training for the university entrance examinations. And poor parents of ethnic
minorities would be unable to pay for any of their children to receive such special
training. These are only a few examples of the many ways that unfair disadvantages
occur. The basic idea of recommendations #4,5 is that a country cannot reach its full
potential in science and technology if more than half of the population (women and
ethnic minorities) are not brought into the system of technical and scientific education in
much greater numbers.

One of the reasons why my wife and I started the Kovalevskaia Fund in 1985 (which
initially worked only in Vietnam) was that we learned that in Hanoi at that time the
Polytechnical University's students were only 8% female. I do not know the percent
now, but I think that it is higher than 8% -- but nowhere near 50%.

In connection with your second point, I agree entirely that malnutrition among children is
a major cause of poor performance in school. This is true internationally, even in some
of the industrialized countries. This question has been extensively studied in the United
States, where there is a malnutrition problem, especially among certain population
groups. There have been several studies that document exactly what you say, namely,
that children in the United States who go to school hungry or improperly fed perform
worse than children who are well nourished. This is the main reason that the U.S.
government started a special program that subsidizes lunch in school for children of low income families. Does the Vietnamese government have any similar program? If it
doesn't, then maybe one should be started.

I also agree with you that proposals that might be reasonable in a wealthy country are not
necessarily reasonable in the case of Vietnam. For example, I believe that Vietnam
should not construct new universities, except possibly in cases when a foreign
government is paying. The government of Vietnam should not spend its money (or
borrow money from the World Bank) for that purpose, because it is more cost-effective
to improve the existing universities than to build new ones.

Thank you again for your message.

Best regards,
Neal Koblitz

September 25, 2009
LHC: The 8th Wonder of The World.

Dear “ Wiki” Members,

I wonder if you ever ignored voting for one of the most expensive construction and
greatest building of the 21st century on earth: The LHC (Large Hadron Collider)?
If so, I would strongly suggest that we should vote for LHC the Eighth Wonder of The
World, considering the following facts and reasons:

  • The LHC is the most advanced engineering machine in the world. The
    cost to build LHC is estimated at nearly 10 billions, the highest price for
    any single building on earth. It has also broken many engineering records:
  • Each of the current wonders usually stands for one of our past and great
    civilization. For instance: The Giza Pyramid Complex for Egypt
    (African) Civilization; The Colosseum for Roman (or Mediterranean)
    Civilization; the Great Wall of China for Chinese (Asian) Civilization.
    So, the LHC should be a very good symbol for European Civilization
    standing for the past 300 years of advanced technology and scientific
    research for the human kind.
  • Within the next 10 or 20 years, LHC will be the most attractive place on
    earth for tourism in Europe. Any good investor should think of at least a
    billion $E. annual income for the region.

Thank you for your consideration and your votes.

Cuong Nguyen, P.E.

December 8, 2009

Dear Physicists,

I’d like to take this opportunity to make a few comments on some scientific statements
regarding experimental atom-smashing devices, conducted by our scientists in the past
decades and recently at CERN on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

According to the official information released from the CERN organization:

“The operators then got the beams to run simultaneously in opposite directions through firehose-sized pipes 11,000 times a second around the ring, zooming by at nearly the speed of light through temperatures colder than outer space.

Ultimately, the collider aims to create conditions like they were 1 trillionth to 2 trillionths of a
second after the Big Bang —which scientists think marked the creation of the universe billions of years ago….”

The above statements are inquired for its integrity and correctness by our understanding
of the fundamental laws in Physics, as follows:

  • When two beams of proton run into head-on collision course at nearly the speed
    of light, it would be liked a beam of protons traveling at nearly twice the energy
    or more than the speed of light and colliding with a fixed object. Therefore, if the
    above assumption for LHC experiments still holds true, then it would be untrue to
    the conditions as if they were “1 trillionth to 2 trillionths of a second after the Big
    Bang“. Because there was absolutely no speed of anything at that time could be
    higher than the speed of light after the Big Bang, theoretically.
  • Most importantly, there are only particles, as small as electrons that may travel at
    nearly the speed of light (300,000 km/s). Other large particles including proton
    and neutron would never be able to reach the speed of light, practically. If it ever
    had happened, it would have created some kinds of “superlight” and that could
    have destroyed all of living things on earth!
  • If our scientists had really created a beam of protons that could run at nearly the
    speed of light, then the size or mass of those protons must have been decomposed
    or reduced down to equal or smaller than electron! It’s impossible! Therefore, it
    is doubtful and questionable if those beams of protons created in the accelerators
    could ever reach the speed of light (?) as being claimed by those physicists.
    Otherwise, it could be simply some kinds of high-energy beams made up by
    electrons (?).
  • In fact, if the law of energy conservation is logically observed here, then the beam
    of protons at the LHC might only reach a maximum speed of about 7,100 km/sec
    (Vproton = 300000/ (1800)**.0.5 = 7,090 km/s assuming the ratio of kinetic mass
    between Proton /Electron would be about 1800) without reducing its original size,
    or vice versa. Theoretically, it should also be noted that other natural radiations
    such as “Beta” radiation created by Neutron and Proton particles would always
    travel at much slower speed than the speed of light.

In summary, we have been impressed for so long by a few famous scientists that they
could create a beam of protons that would run at nearly the speed of light. The above
statement could be totally misleading, unless objectively verified and proven. .
After all, if in deed, they could not get a beam of protons in the LHC to run at nearly
the speed of light, then they should tell the truth, and nothing is better than the truth
for the scientists to hold the same standard in scientific research as most of us do.

Thank you very much for your reading
My Best Regards,
Cuong Nguyen, P.E.

PS (1/20/2010): After I had sent out the inquiry, the Wikipedia online revised and
inserted the following paragraph into its original version of “Particle Accelerators”.
However, the (Wiki)’statement:” as the energy increases the particle speed approaches
the speed of light as a limit, but never attains it” does not indicate clearly which particle
the accelerator would be used!

Sent to:
physicszzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxaps.org; erbacherzzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxphysics.ucdavis.edu, bkeisterzzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxnsf.gov, aopperzzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxnsf.gov,
The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI- ) - infozzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxcsicop.org
bradfordzzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxcenterforinquiry.net, kendrickfrazierzzzz(a)xxxxxxxxxcomcast.net
Since the special theory of relativity requires that matter always travels slower than the
speed of light in a vacuum, in high-energy accelerators, as the energy increases the
particle speed approaches the speed of light as a limit, but never attains it. Therefore
particle physicists do not generally think in terms of speed, but rather in terms of a
particle's energy or momentum, usually measured in electron volts (eV). An important
principle for circular accelerators, and particle beams in general, is that the curvature of
the particle trajectory is proportional to the particle charge and to the magnetic field, but
inversely proportional to the (typically relativistic) momentum.

Cyclotrons reach an energy limit because of relativistic effects whereby the particles
effectively become more massive, so that their cyclotron frequency drops out of synch
with the accelerating RF. Therefore simple cyclotrons can accelerate protons only to
an energy of around 15 million electron volts (15 MeV, corresponding to a speed of
roughly 10% of c), because the protons get out of phase with the driving electric field. If
accelerated further, the beam would continue to spiral outward to a larger radius but the
particles would no longer gain enough speed to complete the larger circle in step with the
accelerating RF. Cyclotrons are nevertheless still useful for lower energy applications.


- Ngườihiệuđính: Cuong Nguyen vào ngày Feb.13.2010, 11:29 am

Tôi ủnghộ phươngán cảicách chữviết đaâmtiết trong tiếngViệt.

Feb.13.2010 11:25 am
Ðềtài nầy đãcó 0 bàitrảlời kểtừ Feb.13.2010.
Xếp đềtài nầy vào mục cần theodõi  Email cho ngườiquen  In đềtài nầy ra giấy

Trảlời nhanh

Flag counter for this page only -- reset 06262011

Diễnđàn cổvũ sửađổi cáchviết ChữViệt2020 mới!
ziendan.net | vny2k.com | hocthuat.com | sangtac.com | Han-Viet.com
©2002-2020 vny2k.com