Jump to content
Science Forums

jungjedi

Members
  • Content Count

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    jungjedi got a reaction from Queso in Mycological innovations   
    thank you for this thread.i to am an amature mycologist.theres always so much more to learn about mushrooms.
  2. Like
    jungjedi got a reaction from Turtle in Intergalactic Spores   
    http://www.karunabooks.net/library/the_bee_men_of_tassili.pdf
    enjoy!
  3. Like
    jungjedi reacted to blamski in Science and art   
    as an artist who works closely with science and scientists i'm interested to hear people's views on how the two relate to each other or how each can learn from the other. or if, indeed, they have anything to learn from each other.
     
    i have been involved in a lot of debate where the general consensus is that art and science are basically similar in practice but that art looks to open up more questions whereas science tends to look for answers. another view is that science is tied to a much more rigorous methodology than art, where an experiment has to be repeated many times before results can be accepted and before the obligatory process of writing and publishing papers can begin. many people see that artists enjoy a lot more freedom in this respect, we never have to repeat an experiment, or a project, unless we really want to - and no one can really disprove our findings because art is objective.
     
    many artists are suspicious of science that represents the 'science industry' - a system in which research is coloured by political demands and high stakes funding. we wonder if 'pure' research can exist in such an environment and whether outcomes will only match what was hoped for or predicted. however, in many ways art will follow a similar course - few artists will admit it but we will often bend our research or methodologies to fit what it was we were hoping to express in the first place.
     
    therefore, maybe it is true to say that 'pure' art and 'pure' science share a very similar territory and, in fact, may be very difficult to distinguish between in certain lights. maybe it is when either one becomes applied that we begin to see the differences and that those differences become amplified. maybe we need to seperate process from outcomes in this instance. if we only view art and science in terms of process then we probably do have very similar disciplines.
     
    i'm very lucky in that i am currently working alongside a microbiologist within a university. he has a fair amount of free time outside of course obligations and is quite happy to indulge me in blue sky research and experiments for the fun of it, to see what happens. obviously the scientific rigour is there but the process is fairly playful and we engage in interesting debate about this very subject.
     
    i'd be interested to hear the views of others on this subject as this sketchy introduction only scratches the surface of a complex issue.
  4. Like
    jungjedi reacted to Farsight in Charge Explained   
    CHARGE EXPLAINED
     
    Charge is another one of those things you learn about in physics. Well, you think you do, but you don’t. Not really. The textbooks don’t explain it, and they shrug off this omission by telling you it’s fundamental. It isn’t. It’s as fundamental as mass, which is not very fundamental at all. The thing is this: if you understand mass you already understand charge. But you probably don’t realise it yet. So I’ll explain it.
     

     
    Let’s start with the easy stuff. We know that we can rub a balloon to create an electric field. It can pick up a piece of paper or make your hair stand up. We’ve all seen and felt a spark of static, blue and crackling as electricity tears the air. We know that high voltage is called high tension, and tension is negative stress and stress is pressure. So we’re happy with the fluid analogy where a current flows from the negative to the positive terminals of a battery. It doesn’t much matter that they got electricity backwards. We measure this rate of flow in terms of amperage, and multiply by time to get charge, and multiply again by voltage to get energy. We work out that the amount of charge in a battery is all about the number of electrons available to flow, and we know that our charged-up balloon has a surplus of them above and beyond its protons.
     
    So, how much charge is in a flat battery? None, I hear you say. Wrong. It’s chock full of charge. It’s full of positive charge and negative charge. That’s why it’s got mass. That’s why it’s a material object. If there wasn’t any charge, it would be a whole heap of gamma radiation, and you and I would be looking like something out of Mars Attacks!
     
     

     
    LOL. But let’s keep it simple and stick to electrons. What is it about these electrons that keeps our laptops humming? What is this thing called “charge” that causes motion? The answer is trivial once you know how to see it. Go to the kitchen, get a glass, then pour a glass of water and hold it up to the window pronto. You will see bubbles swirling and silvery, pop pop, popping. They aren’t actually silver of course, they just look that way because they distort the light. Now go to the cutlery drawer and pull out a spoon. It’s silvery. Metals look that way because they are awash with electrons. When you look at a spoon you are seeing those electrons, or more properly, their charge. It’s reflective, silvery. Charge looks like this for the same reason as those bubbles. It’s like a highway mirage on a hot sunny day. You see what looks like water on the road far ahead, but it’s merely the light from the sky bent towards your eye. You are seeing distortion, and it’s silvery like a bubble because it bends light.
     


     
    Charge is distortion too. Charge is “curl”. Charge is twist. If it wasn’t there, your electrons would be gamma photons of 511KeV apiece. To show you how it works, I need you to play with plates. Take two dinner plates, one in each hand. Find a swimming pool or a pond, preferably on a sunny windless day. Dip one of the plates halfway into the water. Now stroke it gently forward in a paddling motion whilst lifting it clear. Notice that you create a “U-tube” double whirlpool that moves slowly forward through the water.
     

     
    This is a Falaco Soliton. If your pool is big enough, the double whirlpool will settle down into two dimples on the surface of the water, visible as two black-spot shadows on the bottom. They are very stable, and can persist for maybe an hour. But you don’t need to wait for that. Create one double whirlpool with one dinner plate, then step to one side and create another one with the other dinner plate. You’ll need a little practice, but after a while you’ll have the knack of it, and you’ll be able to create two double whirlpools with ease. Aim them at each other. Notice what happens. If the left-hand-side of one double whirlpool closes with the right-hand-side of the other, the two opposite whirlpools move together. If the left-hand-side of one double whirlpool closes with the left-hand-side of the other, the two similar whirlpools move apart. What you are seeing is attraction and repulsion.
     
    Now aim two double whirlpools straight at one another, face on. This is best in a shallow pond with a muddy bottom. The two double whirlpools meet and merge and are gone with a surprisingly energetic puff of muddy water. You’ve just seen annihilation.
     
    It’s another fluid analogy. But the vacuum of space is not a fluid like water. It doesn’t flow. It’s more like an elastic solid, but one with no solidity at all. Let’s recap a little. I explained energy in terms of stress. Stress is force per unit area, and energy is force times distance, so energy is stress times volume. I talked about a photon as a stress travelling through space like a transverse wave propagating through a block of ghostly rubber. I explained mass by talking about pair production, where a massless gamma photon is converted into an electron and a positron.
     

     
    Both the electron and the positron can be viewed as a photon configured as a moebius doughnut, twisting and turning to stay in place. It takes two turns round a moebius to get back to where you started, hence the spin ½. The difference is that one twists and turns one way, and the other twists and turns the other way. They are mirror images of opposite chirality, primitive 3D knots tied different ways. Do note though that there are no surfaces involved. An electron has no surface, just like a photon has no surface, just as an ocean wave has no surface, because it’s the ocean that does. And space does not. The electron isn’t some little particle that’s “got” charge extending out into space. Instead charge is one of the things the electron is.
     


     
    The electron and positron will attract one another like the Falaco solitons, and if they meet it’s like pushing two opposite twists of fishing line together. Twang. The electron and the positron annihilate, and become gamma photons flying off in opposite directions like that puff of muddy water.
     

     
    Energy is fundamental. You cannot create energy, and you cannot destroy it. But you can create charge just as you can create mass, via pair production. And you can destroy charge just as you can destroy mass, via annihilation. Because charge is the twist that you need to apply to a travelling stress to keep it twisting and turning in one location to re-present momentum as inertia. And because there’s nothing solid to brace against in our pure marble geometric world where stable particles are knots, the only way to make a twist is to make an untwist at the same time. That’s why charge is always conserved. Yes, you can make a mass without any charge, but that’s only because one twist is masked by another, as in a neutron. A neutron is pinned down stable in a nucleus, but let it escape that nucleus and it comes apart.
     

     
    This twist is what charge is. It’s a twist in the thing you call space, stretching out into space. You could call an electric field a “twist field”.
     
    Let’s see how it affects an electron. Remember, an electron is a photon travelling in a twisting turn, a moebius doughnut. Drop it into a cube of space so it looks like this: ◙. If we take a side view of our photon at one instant in time it looks like a vertical slice of the moebius doughnut, like this: o. Now twist the cube from top to bottom. What happens to the o? It tilts. Its orientation has changed. It’s now angled downwards. So the electron digs down through the electric field like a drill bit.
     
    Note that that the electric field isn’t just a twist in one dimension, it’s actually in three dimensions. Your electron digs down like a drill bit from any direction. But it’s very difficult to think in three dimensions. Our primary input is visual, and whilst binocular vision permits depth perception, we tend to think in two dimensions. That’s why getting the feel for something is what intuition and grasp are all about. It gives us a better, three-dimensional concept. To illustrate this, get a block of plasticine or maybe the wax from Babybel cheese, and make a cube. Now try twisting it in three dimensions. Two twists is easy: twist, turn, twist. But doing the third one is surprisingly difficult. In the end you have to just do it by feel: twist turn, twist turn, twist. You end up with something like this:
     

     
    The easiest way to get your head round all this geometry is to imagine that the twisted cube is a twisted block of water, and we’ve got to swim through it. I’m really good at swimming underwater, I do it like the Man from Atlantis, undulating my whole body. Spladoosh, in we go. As you’re swimming behind me you find that all the twisting and turning means you’ve got to swim further than you thought, and you come out of the other side gasping for air. But you will now understand refraction. Light travels slower through a glass block because it’s got to make its way through all that twisting and turning in all directions, be it positive or negative.
     
    Talking of turning, let’s talk about magnetism. Imagine that you’re flying through space, but the space ahead of you is twisted like a catherine wheel because of the electric field. It will make you turn. We now use Relativity to work out that if you aren’t travelling through space but you find yourself turning, then the twist must be travelling through you. That’s what happens when a current flows through a wire. Imagine the current is flowing down a wire from your eyes into the screen, and introduces an anticlockwise twist. I do mean anticlockwise because I’m talking about a flow from – to +.
     
    .. ←
    ↓ ¤ ↑ o
    .. →
     
    Ignore the little dots, they're just spacers because this website compresses the spaces. The nearby electron o is basically a circling photon. This comes full circle in the twisting space before it has gone round 360 degrees. So it ends up at a different place, and describes a cycloid motion. So it follows the twist and goes round the wire like it’s in a washing machine, like swarf going round a drill bit.
     
    It really is that simple. It’s so simple that it’s amazing that people puzzle at the mystery of it. I guess it’s because people like a good mystery. The electric field is effectively a “twist field”, and if you move through it you perceive a magnetic field, which is effectively a “turn field”. It’s so obvious once you see it. And you can see it. You can see how a magnetic field changes the polarization plane of a beam of light via the Faraday effect.
     

     
    That’s the utter simplicity of electromagnetism: twist and turn. It tells you a battery is like a wind-up clockwork spring, only the twist is in space rather than steel. The electric twist extends forward with the flowing current, and it makes things turn like a pump-action screwdriver. That’s the principle of the electric motor. But you can turn a screw with an ordinary screwdriver too, extending the twist forward. That’s the principle of the dynamo.
     
    Most materials aren’t magnetic because all this twisting and turning is symmetrical in all directions, even for your charged-up balloon. It’s what you call isotropic. When it isn’t, that’s when you get a magnet. Fly through an electric field or past a stationary electron and you “see” more twist in the direction of travel, so you “see” a magnetic field that makes you turn. Move an electron towards you and you get the same effect. All you need to do to make an actual magnet is arrange the atoms so that the electrons jitter round in the same orientation.
     
    .. ←
    ↓ .. ↑
    .. → o
     
    The electron is moving in a circular fashion, so its component photon doesn’t need to complete a full 360 degrees to turn around. This is why a day is less than one full rotation of the earth. So there’s a component of the “turn” left over, and you end up with a magnetic field similar to what you’d see if you flew past a stationary electron. It’s rather like the inverse of the current in the wire situation, but with no current and no wire.
     
    Whilst I describe a magnetic field is a “turn field”, you have to remember that space is like an elastic solid. The electric field is the “twisted space”, and the magnetic field is only your relativistic view when you move through it, or it moves through you. There are no actual regions of space that are turning round like roller bearings or wheels. That’s why you can’t have magnetic monopoles. But you can have superconductors. High temperature superconductors consist of copper oxide planes. The atoms present an array of opposite magnetic fields rather like a conveyor belt, allowing electrons to zip through effortlessly like they’re not moving at all.
     
    .. ←
    ↓ ¤ ↑
    .. →
     
    o→
     
    .. →
    ↑ ¤ ↓
    .. ←
     
    It is of course a little more complicated than that. Wheels need bearings and axles. Here’s some pictures of a high-temperature superconductor called yttrium barium copper oxide, or YBCO for short. The chemical formula is YBa2Cu3O7 and it’s a crystal so you get repeating groups. Look at the third picture. In simple terms the “wheels” are where the green pyramids are.
     



     
    Low temperature superconductors aren’t quite the same. You have to think Barn Dance, where you’re an electron with a “Cooper Pair” dance partner making your own magnetic fields as you go. When everybody’s cool, the dance line is tidy and you swing easily from one end to the other. But when it’s hot and late and everybody’s bumping around pissed, you spill somebody’s beer, lose your partner to a “Phase Slip”, and get into a fight. Yeehah. In both cases the superconductor is diamagnetic. It doesn’t want to be magnetised because of the Meissner Effect where internal opposite magnetic fields scramble an applied magnetic field so it doesn’t get into the material. All interesting stuff.
     
    But not as interesting as the electron itself. Here’s the secret: cut a strip of paper, maybe an inch wide and ten inches long. Draw a very flattened X across the length of it, to represent the sinusoidal electric and magnetic fields over half a photon wavelength. That’s the slanted curvy twisted χ to the right of the M in the middle of this picture.
     

     
    Mark the top left hand corner of your strip with an E, and the bottom left corner with an M. Mark the top right hand corner with an M and the bottom right corner with an E. This kind of thing:
     
    E .......... M
    ..... X....
    M ......... E
     
    Turn the paper over and repeat. Now loop it around and twist it to make a moebius strip. You see the E adjoining the M and the M adjoining the E. That’s the nub of it, why the electron is a stable soliton. The electric field is the magnetic field and vice versa. The twist is the turn and the turn is the twist. It’s because of Relativistic abberation. Travel really fast and a horizontal line like this — looks skewed like this /. Travel at c like a photon and your horizontals look totally vertical. Change course fast and your change of course is skewed too, so you change course more than you meant to. And you do it fast so you change course even more. The details of this were worked out by Llewellyn Thomas in 1927, and is called Thomas Precession. Knock a photon just right to change its course, and it keeps on changing course because its velocity vector precesses π/2 times per revolution. The photon “thinks” its travelling in a straight line but its travelling like this: ∞. It’s all twisted, and it turns. It’s curly.
     
    The twist and the turn are just two sides of the same thing. That’s how it always is. That’s why we have electromagnetism and the electromagnetic field. A magnetic field is the same thing as an electric field, it just depends how you’re looking at it. It depends on whether you’re moving through it or it’s moving through you, or not. That’s Relativity for you. Once you learn how to see things the way they are, things get a whole lot simpler. An electron is what it is because it’s “got” charge, and charge is twist.
     
    The really really interesting thing about all this is that if charge isn’t fundamental, we can’t quite say that the photon is the mediator of the electromagnetic force. They got it back to front, like everything else to do with electricity, and it does matter. It matters a lot.

  5. Like
    jungjedi reacted to Qfwfq in What is the beginning of science?   
    One reason for the answer not being unique is in what is meant by the word science. Strictly it means knowledge but, today, it is used to mean an extension of what had been called natural philosophy and now also includes technology and applications. So what is meant by "Science" in the question?
     
    One plausible textbook meaning is what's called the "modern scientific method" of which Galileo Galilei is typically considered the founder. However, back around 1600, he did not call himself a "scientist" but a philosopher. To him the word science meant knowledge and his arguments were about what considerations natural philosophers should make for regarding something as knowlegde and calling it a fact. This gradually brought on the current use of the word science and the coining of the word scientist, so these have been much asociated with Galileo.
     
    Now philosophy made great progress in the times of acient Greek civilization and culture and natural philosophy was one branch of it. The word physics is from the Greek word for nature, which was the title of one of Aristotle's books. While other ancient civilizations made remarkable discoveries too, they could mostly be regarded as feats of engineering and practical ability whereas the Greeks very much developped the skills of argument, deductive reasoning and logic and combined these with observation. Logic was the title of another of Aristotle's books. Other Greeks were important, including Euclid who laid the grounds of geometry and Pythagoras who gave deep insight into numbers.
     
    Now when Galileo argued against other philosophers of his time, about several topics in physics and astronomy, his opponents were holding up Aristotle's opinions. Despite this he was very much reminding them of Aristotle's recomendations. They had become "blind pupils" and considered anything Aristotle said to be incontrovertible truth, even in the face of contrary evidence (ipse dixit, because he said it) and forgetting that one of the things he had said was that we obviously must let go of an opinion when new experience shows otherwise. So the Greeks were very important too in the history of science, even though there was already some impressive knowledge (science) before them.
  6. Downvote
    jungjedi got a reaction from Star30 in Brand New: Introduction   
    Howdy
  7. Like
    jungjedi reacted to CraigD in Stable planetary orbits around the sun?   
    An alternative to staying away from wikipedia, or any wiki – and the essential idea of wikis - is to correct errors and omission that you find there. Of course, as evidenced by Moontanman’s minor but critical (and brief) misreading of diameter and radius, it’s advisable to double-check any corrections, and even seek the review of friends (such as one’s fellow hypographers) before making them, especially when the correction appears to be of a glaringly obvious error  
    Although such open editing policy are a potential source of inaccuracy, they’re also a source of improved accuracy, especially when edit histories are discussion logs are available, as they are at wikipedia. As such, I think they’re very appropriate for source citations from sites such as hypography.
    I never assume that any source is correct, especially encyclopedic ones. As studies and articles such as the wikipedia article “Reliability of Wikipedia” describe, even professionally edited encyclopedias have error rates similar to wikipedia. 
    I treat wikipedia and other wikis much as I do my own notes and copies of the notes of friends and acquaintances – likely correct, but only slightly or not at all reviewed by a responsible editor. I think this is a sensible position, given that I and my friends and acquaintances are among the many contributors to wikipedia and other wikis.
     
    I in no way intend to criticize the position of many teachers and schools in refusing to allow wikipedia, other wiki, or in some cases any website citations in submitted school work. Although useful for quickly finding information (“wiki” does, after all, come from the Hawaiian for “quick”), getting information from it isn’t a substitute for getting it from ones proscribed academic curriculum.
  8. Like
    jungjedi reacted to Tormod in Big Bang Blasted   
    You keep saying this, but
     
    1. No you have not refuted BB theory, you have provided a different theory.
     
    2. The BB is not a creation theory unless you claim that there was nothing before it. That is a strange claim. The BB theory does not explain what was *before* - it only explains what happened after the Big Bang.
     
    Big Bang theory is a well documented, well tested theory that has passed predictions. It is however a problematic theori, as will any cosmological theory which explains the origin of the universe be, because it deals with a single piece of data (our universe).
  9. Like
    jungjedi reacted to freeztar in Mycological innovations   
    Fungi Perfecti®: gourmet and medicinal mushrooms
    ;)
     
    I was fortunate enough to attend a presentation by Mr. Stamets at my uni in '03. His ideas are off the wall (yet backed up) and I love it! :)
    Here are some snippets from his website.
     
    Fungi Perfecti®: Mushrooms and the ecosystem
     
    Fungi Perfecti®: road restoration and mushrooms
     
    If we are going to destroy, then we need some help. :hihi:
    Fungi are truly amazing!
    What else can they do? I'm sure we have not even scraped the surface of their potential.
  10. Like
    jungjedi got a reaction from freeztar in Muzak for a Space Elevator   
    what kind of muzak would they play on this "space elevator"?
  11. Like
    jungjedi got a reaction from Queso in Muzak for a Space Elevator   
    what kind of muzak would they play on this "space elevator"?
  12. Downvote
    jungjedi got a reaction from Jay-qu in Could spaciousness change state?   
    is this a personal fetish?
  13. Like
    jungjedi reacted to september_13 in What i could say , may be hello ?   
    some for physics ( it being what it was what it shouldn't be ) , some for mathematic ( i hate it , for all there teacher siad " don't ask me , y'all will found it by yourself ." . ) , some for logistics ( i hate poetry . what ever , it spends my lunch time alot , so i'm not good at english too . ) , some ...for all there ununderstandable things . so , what there "some" was . (thanks alot for read it , i don't really under stand what're there line ahead . or , what y'all nor i've type before . i waste my life-time alot to typing along message with a hundread of space bare and red line under all there paragarphs so my dictionary are looking hurt alot and i thought i should be rest , ... for along time . i still open it in every word i've trying to type , _amn it . )
  14. Downvote
    jungjedi got a reaction from GAHD in I dont know if this belongs here   
    your...a weirdo!
  15. Like
    jungjedi reacted to Buffy in Polar bears....SHHHH!!!   
    But they're providing aid and comfort to the terrorists! If we don't stay the course on denying global warming protecting our country's access to oil our natural resources, then the terrorists win! Those partisan hack administrators scientist's supervisors have more experience and they are good Patriotic Americans: why do the crazy enviros always blame America first?
     
    Dittoderriere,
    Buffy
  16. Downvote
    jungjedi got a reaction from pgrmdave in How do neutrinos do it?   
    i would really like to.
    but first a poem by pablo neruda
    March days return with their covert light,
    and huge fish swim through the sky,
     
    vague earthly vapours progress in secret,
     
    things slip to silence one by one.
     
     
     
    Through fortuity, at this crisis of errant skies,
     
    you reunite the lives of the sea to that of fire,
     
    grey lurchings of the ship of winter
     
    to the form that love carved in the guitar.
     
     
     
    O love, O rose soaked by mermaids and spume,
     
    dancing flame that climbs the invisible stairway,
     
    to waken the blood in insomnia’s labyrinth,
     
     
     
    so that the waves can complete themselves in the sky,
     
    the sea forget its cargoes and rages,
     
    and the world fall into darkness’s nets.
  17. Like
    jungjedi got a reaction from Michaelangelica in Indroduction Forum Requirement   
    are you looking for doggie downers?
  18. Like
    jungjedi got a reaction from HappytheStripper in Modeling the Anaverse   
    isnt there some buddhist cone that goes "what was the look on your face before you were born" and if you mean your question to be a paradigm shift as to thinking outside the box.my first impulse would be to say the universe was lonely and had the intention of makeing new friends.
  19. Like
    jungjedi got a reaction from theblackalchemist in Hello from the swamp   
    hello swampfox.im new here too
  20. Like
    jungjedi got a reaction from Zythryn in Water: Where will it come from in 2050?   
    i saw a report on FRONTLINE about this issue of scarecity of water and lack of proper sanitation leading to billions of people dying from the year 2020 to 2060.i recon wars will be raised in the middle east over this issue
  21. Downvote
    jungjedi got a reaction from CraigD in There are none so blind as those who will not see!   
    dear dr.dick and magnet man.i love how you two crack this joint up.ive only read some of this thread because im very schizo and have the attention span
    of about 32 seconds.but,ill keep trying.as soon as i get off probation im headed again for tijuana.your welcome to come with,perhaps we could score some viagra and give dr. dick a new lease on life.
×
×
  • Create New...