UKTerrorist
Posted by Hotshot at 12:20 10/8/2005.
With 4Kings down one member since the departure of Red after ESWC, news was released this morning regarding the appointment of a new team member. Below is the obligatory extract from the 4Kings website:
After the recent departure of Red, 4Kings are excited to announce our new addition to a world class lineup.
The addition of a new 5th has taken us some time, but without further ado we can proudly announceJoona "natu" Leppänen as our new member of royalty. Joona has a fine competitive pedigree with experience in every competition gaming has to offer and an extremely strong desire to achieve success with 4Kings.
When asked about his motivation for joining 4kings, Joona had this to say:
"I'm excited about this new challenge to play for 4Kings and I'm definitely motivated to be part of a team with such professionalism. I'm confident that with the proper preparing we'll be able to show it's full potential!"
With the lineup now complete, we are also happy to announce that the team will be attending the UK CPL World Tour stop.We look forward to a long and happy future with Joona, and hope to bring all the success this team is capable of back to the rest of our fans.
Comments
Choke
12:31 10/8/2005
12:38 10/8/2005
12:45 10/8/2005
deliverance
12:50 10/8/2005
13:03 10/8/2005
Croydon
13:13 10/8/2005
13:19 10/8/2005
Void
13:24 10/8/2005
A: MOND stands for MOdified Newtonian Dynamics. It is a modification of the usual Newtonian force law hypothesized in 1983 by Moti Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute as an alternative to Dark Matter.
Q: What is the modification?
A: MOND can be interpreted as either a modification of gravity through a change to the Poisson equation, or as a modification of inertia through a breaking of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass.
The modification occurs at very small accelerations. Above a critical acceleration a0 (the one parameter of the theory), everything is normal. Below a0, the effective acceleration approaches a = (gN a0)1/2, where gN is the normal Newtonian acceleration. The two regimes are joined smoothly by an interpolation function mu(x) with the asymptotic property mu(x) -> 1 for x >> 1 and mu(x) -> x for x << 1, where x = a/a0.
Q: Isn't it rather drastic to modify such fundamental Laws?
A: Sure. Just as it is drastic to fill the universe with non-baryonic cold dark matter consisting of new fundamental particles we don't actually know to exist. The data drive us to one of these extremes. The question, of course, is which is a better approximation of Nature?
Q: What is mu(x)?
A: The interpolation function is not specified theoretically, but there is a fairly narrow range of empirically acceptable mu(x). Two commonly assumed forms which are acceptable to galaxy data are
mu(x) = x(1+x2)-1/2 and mu(x) = 1-e-x.
Q: What is the acceleration scale?
A: a0 = 1.2 x 10-10 m s-2, i.e., about one Angstrom per second per second. This is one part in 1011 of what we feel on the surface of the earth. The precise value depends on the distance scale to galaxies, so perhaps it would be better to say a0 = 1.2 x 10-10 m s-2 h752, where h = H0/75 is the Hubble Constant (the expansion rate of the universe) in units of H0 = 75 km s-1 Mpc-1. (Currently, most measurements report values in the neighborhood of H0 = 72 km s-1 Mpc-1.)
Q: Why an acceleration based modification?
A: We usually think first in terms of a modification at some length scale: galaxies are big, so maybe gravity is different on large scales. This does not work. But there are other scales which are different about galaxies. One of them is the very low centripetal acceleration experienced by stars orbiting within galaxies. This is just as far removed from our laboratories as is the size scale of galaxies. MOND was motivated by two observations: 1) the asymptotic flatness of rotation curves and 2) the slope of the Tully-Fisher relation (M ~ Vflat4). These two things lead to an acceleration scale:
Newton: GM/R = V2
Observed: M = AV4
where A is a constant which holds irrespective of differences in R. Squaring Newton,
V4 = (GM/R)2 = M/A
A-1 = G2M/R2 = G*(G*surface density)
and G*surface density has units of acceleration:
A-1 = Ga0
Q: MOND fits the rotation curves of spiral galaxies well, but it was designed to do that. So do such data provide any test?
A: Yes.
That MOND was "designed" to fit rotation curves and is therefore guaranteed to do so is a common misconception.
Both MOND and dark matter were invented to explain the presence of mass discrepancies in astronomical data, especially the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies. It is often asserted that MOND is ad hoc (and therefore bad), but this is also true of dark matter. Once invoked, dark matter can be distributed in any way necessary to explain just about anything. It is difficult to test, and does not constitute a falsifiable theory. In contrast, once a modified force law is specified, there is no freedom to adjust its predictions. MOND can not fit any arbitrary rotation curve: it is tied down by the observed mass distribution. However, it does fit real data. I find it remarkable that of the infinite variety of things rotation curves might plausibly do were they caused by a Newtonian disk + dark matter halo, they in fact do the one (and only one) thing allowed by MOND.
Fundamental Clue or Big Cosmic Accident? (Is God subtle or malicious?)
MOND's detractor's often assert it is just some sort of fluke, so I guess they prefer to believe that God is malicious.
Q: But wait, there is a fundamental objection to an acceleration scale. The atoms within stars have acceleratoins in the Newtonian regime. Since the star's constituents are Newtonian with a > a0, the star itself can never be in the MOND regime.
A: This comes down to when you can consider an object to be a billiard ball, as we are so fond of doing in physics. Is a star an unremitingly Newtonian object because of the microscopic motion of its constiuent atoms? Or can it be treated as a point mass in the much larger gravitational field of the entire galaxy?
It would be quite a thing if the accelerations of atoms within stars could affect their motion in galaxies. There is a matching condition between the Newtonian and MOND regimes. This effectively defines the location at which you are in one regime or the other - and whether things interior to that regime can be treated as a single billiard ball for the purpose of calculating its motion, e.g the barycenter of the solar system about the galaxy. The solar system is Newtonian out to about a tenth of a light year; all the substructure we are familiar with is well within this radius and matters not at all to the galactic motion.
If quantum mechanics has taught us anything, it is that there is a regime where substructure matters, and another where the billiard-ball approximation is quite good. Whether this analogy extends to MOND or not I expect will be debated for many years to come. It seems not unreasonable that it might.
Q: Wouldn't MOND effects show up in precision solar system tests?
A: They may have already. Whether they should or not depends on the interpolation function mu(x). The accelerations in the inner solar system are millions of times higher than the MOND acceleration scale, so all that can be tested here is the (slight) deviation of the interpolation function from unity. This might be perceptible if mu(x) approaches unity slowly in the limit x >> 1, but would not be if it converged rapidly. For example, if mu(x) = 1-e-x, then the deviation one is looking for is of order one part in e108.
MOND and General Relativity
Q: Does MOND contradict General Relativity?
A: It generally seems to be assumed that it must, but this is not true. GR and MOND apply in very different regimes. Relativity is what happens as v -> c; MOND is what happens as a -> 0. Empirically, these regimes couldn't be further removed.
Q: Is there a complete relativistic theory incorporating MOND?
A: There have been suggestions, such as Bekenstein's Phased Coupled Gravity and Sanders's Stratified Scalar-Tensor Theory. It is not obvious that either of these are satisfactory, but they do at least demonstrate that it is possible to construct theories which encompass both GR and MOND.
This is a hard problem, especially conceptually. It took a long time to go from the inverse square law to the Poisson equation, and from special relativity to GR. If both GR and MOND are correct (as appears to be true empirically), then there must be a grander theory encompassing both. But don't expect to derive it on the back of an envelope in a few minutes.
Q: What about the Equivalence Principle?
A: The inertia interpretation of MOND breaks the symmetry of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, which is one of the foundations of GR. This makes it especially challenging to come up with a relativistic theory. Experimenters have long searched for violations of the equivalence without success, so it seems inviolable. However, these experiments are all performed in acceleration fields eleven orders of magnitude greater than the acceleration scale of MOND. Accelerations are not relative. Recall the Einstein thought experiment of an observer in an elevator. The observer may not be able to tell whether the weight that he feels is due to being stationary on the surface of the Earth, or because he is being accelerated at 1 gee out in space. But he knows very sell he is being accelerated! You can do the Eotvos experiment here on Earth to arbitrary accuracy and never discover MOND. Moreover, such experiments look for composition-dependent differences: wood vs. gold, or some such. There is nothing in MOND that is composition dependent. Indeed, the galaxian data which support MOND are the only data which test the Equivalence Principle in the relevant regime. One fair interpretation is that it breaks at small accelerations. We do not have a satisfactory understanding of the origin of inertial mass. This phenomenology may be a big clue.
Q: MOND can't actually be true, can it?
A: Empirically it works. No empirical piece of evidence clearly contradicts it. Its predictions come true where those of dark matter based theories fail. [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
13:25 10/8/2005
ImaGine
13:36 10/8/2005
Void
13:42 10/8/2005
13:45 10/8/2005
13:56 10/8/2005
Choke
14:01 10/8/2005
and nightwish seriously why. [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
14:02 10/8/2005
Choke
14:04 10/8/2005
And are you against gamers making money? [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
14:08 10/8/2005
ImaGine
14:29 10/8/2005
Hope so :) [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
14:44 10/8/2005
Im against 4K constantly getting foreigners to join them. It used to be an all UK lineup. Now there are more foreign players than there are UK players. I remember wanting to watch 4K because they were all the best UK players, the best we had to offer. Now it just feels if they achieve something its because they replaced their UK lineup with foriegners.
Plus the clans that are going to do the best are the ones who stick together. You cant throw any 5 top players together and expect them to perform well.
Am I against gamers making money? People who practise and have genuine talent should make money. Not people who get sponsor money thrown at them so they can not practise and under perform consistently. [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
14:48 10/8/2005
ImaGine
14:54 10/8/2005
u = yoda :) [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
reSonance
15:03 10/8/2005
15:09 10/8/2005
15:12 10/8/2005
twisted Reality
15:14 10/8/2005
15:20 10/8/2005
A: A c**k!
Q: Why is he a c**k?
A: Incest! A game for all the family. [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
16:09 10/8/2005
and roar is completely right! :D [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
Collective
16:39 10/8/2005
16:44 10/8/2005
Oh the hilarity. [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
Anti-saviour of UKT
16:58 10/8/2005
%define target [ebp+12]
%define sz [ebp+16]
_asm_find:
enter 0,0
push edi
mov eax, target
mov edi, src
mov ecx, sz
cld
repne scasb
je found_it
mov eax, 0
jmp short quit
found_it:
mov eax, edi
dec eax
quit:
pop edi
leave
ret
lolllercakes! [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
17:16 10/8/2005
17:48 10/8/2005
They could have choose someone from atr but they'd probably get more grief for stealing one of their players and for trying to elminate 'competition'. They can't win either way so why moan, if i was them i'd rather recruit someone like natu who has a lot of experience and they know he can perform.
The UK 'scene' will never go any further when people heavily rely on 4K to make players well known, maybe if another UK team actually did well for once and established themselves as consistent lan performers and won etc maybe 4K would consider recruiting more British players. Hopefully part of this maybe solved if atr actually attend some lans and do well, i still don't think they'll get overtake 4K although Harriman should help a lot.
[Edited by cpr at 17:51 10/8/2005] [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
Collective
17:56 10/8/2005
BLACKLiGHT
18:04 10/8/2005
Good luck 4kings, natu is better than any uk player available so can't really see it as a bad decision. [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
18:11 10/8/2005
and i think there are a certain 10-20 odd people that if put into a more professional atmosphere they would perform just as well and perhaps even better than an older player, with time ofcourse. [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
18:14 10/8/2005
19:14 10/8/2005
Croydon
19:57 10/8/2005
20:05 10/8/2005
St3al7h, you don't get what i am saying, if there are 10-20 people 'that if put into a more professional atmosphere they would perform just as well' then why have 4K been the only UK clan that's attended big events and done well in the past few years? Surely if there's that amount of players then a clan could form that could match 4K. Clans have had a chance at the CPL UK Qualifiers in the past but no team has ever made an impact and won it etc. When the likes of ctx go to a lan such as the CPL UK stop and win that's when the chance of 4K recruiting one of them players or alike will be a lot higher. Up until that point, they'll never just recruit some one who's performed well at a few smaller lans.
[Edited by cpr at 20:08 10/8/2005] [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
Croydon
20:32 10/8/2005
mHm
20:33 10/8/2005
BLACKLiGHT
21:00 10/8/2005
ClanNEW
21:01 10/8/2005
21:02 10/8/2005
21:39 10/8/2005
BLACKLiGHT
21:39 10/8/2005
Slightly more than a game for people who are good at it, when money like that is involved fox :) [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
21:45 10/8/2005
22:00 10/8/2005
22:04 10/8/2005
Lite
22:21 10/8/2005
cs was worth playing then though. [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
22:53 10/8/2005
You can count on me, I will be there for you
When it seems, all your hopes and dreams
Are a million miles away, I will re-assure you
We've got to all stick together
Good friends are there for each other
Never ever forget that I got you
And you got me so
CHORUS:
Reach for the stars
Climb every mountain higher
Reach for the stars
Follow your hearts desire
Reach for the stars
And when that rainbow's shining over you
Thats when your dreams will all come true
There's a place, waiting just for you
It's a special place, where your dreams all come true
Fly away, swim the ocean
Drive that open road, leave the past be-hind you
Don't stop, gotta keep moving
Your hopes, gotta keep building
Never, ever forget that I got you
And you got me so
CHORUS
Don't Believe in all that you've been told
The sky's the limit, you can reach your goal
No-one knows just what the future holds
There aint nothing you cant be
There's a whole world at your feet
I said reach
Climb every mountain(reach)
Reach for the moon(reach)
Follow that rainbow
And your dreams will all come true
Reach for the stars
Climb every mountain higher
Reach for the stars
Follow your hearts desire
Reach for the stars
And when that rainbows shining over you
Thats when your dreams will all come true (repeat chorus fading away)
Just for you Weebull [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
23:20 10/8/2005
00:04 11/8/2005
Still, good luck with your new natu, 4K fellas... bring us Brits some much-needed CS cheer soon. [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
eSports.Edge
01:09 11/8/2005
01:19 11/8/2005
01:26 11/8/2005
01:44 11/8/2005
[Edited by Mango at 01:45 11/8/2005] [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
01:55 11/8/2005
01:57 11/8/2005
09:35 11/8/2005
May not be a UK line-up but its a good line-up. [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
10:35 11/8/2005
11:24 11/8/2005
actually technically they do, they are leasing you for the period your salary covers, hence why the early american mill workers used to refer to it as 'wage slavery'
"Mangiacapra, Harriman, luck1ng, Kwak, Dartagnen, xenon was my favourite 4k team."
Shame that team never existed since DArt was booted to let xenon in. The lineup was then liquid, lil, danfrag, darth, xenon, grim. [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
Anti-saviour of UKT
11:42 11/8/2005
11:53 11/8/2005
you would think a full UK team might find communication (socially + ingame) much easier than split-nationality. [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
13:30 11/8/2005
13:52 11/8/2005
15:35 11/8/2005
15:53 11/8/2005
Last Chance
16:59 11/8/2005
17:10 11/8/2005
17:36 11/8/2005
19:12 11/8/2005
Bit like Celtic in Europe this season.
ooooooooh my bad :(( [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]
19:26 11/8/2005
20:04 11/8/2005
21:20 11/8/2005
09:03 13/8/2005
17:47 13/8/2005
18:17 13/8/2005
So if they're leasing you, how can they be buying you? [ Comment: Report | IP: Logged ]