Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Monday, July 29, 2013

Tartessos-Tarshish-Scheria-Atlantis/ Peacocks

I have been reading Willy Ley's new book, Lands Beyond. Actually, it's a book from the 1950s era co-authored with de Camp, but I prefer to hear Ley's voice in my head, and it's a new book to me. And for the publication date stills has a very "recent news" feel, which is impressive.

Anyway, it says more about the Bibical Tarshish and the historical Tartessos than I was aware of.
I had thought that perhaps the book would deteriorate into self-indulgent fantasy when speaking about mysteries like Atlantis, and I am releived it doesn't.

One of the large ideas put forth is that the Bibical Tarshish and historical Tartessos, long thought one and the same, might also be the city of Scheria from the Odessey and (the inspiration for?) the Atlantis of Plato. This four-way misidentification sounds worth looking into!

http://www.mysteria3000.de/magazin/the-archaeological-search-for-tartessos-tarshish-atlantis/

Sadly, Tarshish doesn't seem to have a wide consensus on identification, only a slim majority of scholarly opinion. Scheria and Atlantis would be much further remove from scholarly confidence.

While I think the hypotheses of the Indian coast and Britian are rather silly, I am prepared to consider Minoan Crete and Tarsus (of Bibical Paul's birthplace in modern Turkey) and Carthage as good candidates.

http://www.varchive.org/nldag/tarshish.htm
http://www.britam.org/Questions/QuesTarshish.html

Today I also looked up some bits of evidence that come from the Bible's description of Tarshish, or rather it's exports.
http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/2-chronicles-921-is-it-peacocks-or-baboons/
I had not known of the green peacock (or jungle peafowl) before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Peafowl), although I did know of the Congo peacock (which is not closely related). I also did not know that the peacock is a central symbol in Japan, Babylon, and Persia, all places it is not native (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl). I also did not know the peacock was widely eaten in ancient times, nor did I know the peacock is kosher food (http://oukosher.org/blog/industrial-kosher/a-peafowl-by-any-other-name/).

Monday, June 17, 2013

Acer laptop black/blinking screen -- urgh


I'm gonna try to fix it myself, but not sure if the problem is simple enough for that.
I've already tried what I they call a power drain (removing battery and trying to start up without power)

Next up: RAM stick removal.

There are definately a few things I think I can do BEFORE I give up at take it to a repair person at the flea market.

A lot of these videos suggest trying an external monitor as a test, and using a USB external drive to bring over files downloaded from the Acer website. I don't have fancy stuff like that.

(Come to think of it, maybe I should look on Acer's website before YouTube)

This was a pretty good video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chaoqoebcTo
And this show the same things, but more angles from a different guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiDBqx_wsdM

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

science links

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2002/08/27-02.html
Guiding Glow
Black Death
100 Trillion
https://courses.edx.org/static/content-mit-7012x~2013_Spring/handouts/thm-10a.pdf
https://courses.edx.org/static/content-mit-7012x~2013_Spring/handouts/morgan-1911b.pdf
http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/molecular-structure-of-nucleic-acids-a-structure-13997975
http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick2.pdf
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/04/17/myriad-gene-patent-oral-argument-and-the-lander-brief/
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-398_neither_amcu_lander.authcheckdam.pdf

Monday, May 20, 2013

Good science a la Hal Clement, 1950s sci-fi

As readers of my blog would know, I am taking an Intro to Biology class via EdX.org and MIT. It is free, and for self-improvement and education (or job-readiness) rather than course credit.

Lately, they have been discussing evolution (a concept I actually agree with) as demonstrated by shared elements of mammalian genomes (human and chimp and lemur and mouse, for instance). It really bothers me that the scientists seem so inperturbably self-assured over the origins of life, which I hope is even a more powerful comment seeing that I respect and agree with their theories. Where is the healthy skepticism?

I was reminded recently of the author Hal Clement and his excellent books (such as Half Life) and short stories (such as "Proof"). I did think a lot of his higher acclaimed books, such as Mission of Gravity, but they made less of an impression on me.

I found this link reviewing Half Life: http://www.sfsite.com/09b/half65.htm

"Clement's references aren't all scientific, and some of them will be quite amusing to Golden Age SF fans. A lot of space is given over to General Order 6 -- an attempt to avoid hastily jumping to conclusions by requiring anyone with a hypothesis to present at least one viable alternative. This is also referred to as the "Aaron Munro instant-certainty syndrome," in reference to John W. Campbell's famous character of the same name."

Here's review of the author:
http://timjonesbooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-i-like-hal-clement.html

I also found this quote for Hal Clement online: (I'm shocked this is all I can find)
"Speculation is perfectly all right, but if you stay there you've only founded a superstition. If you test it, you've started a science."
Hal Clement
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/hal_clement.html#5XeIdjVB65VY4WAq.99

I need to read his 1993 novel Fossil and his 1950s award-winning short "Uncommon Sense"

Monday, April 29, 2013

The actual reasons behind sickle-cell anemia

It's week 8 of my MIT Biology course delivered online via EdX.org, with the lectures by the highly-esteemed Eric S. Lander, director of the Broad Institute, a man largely involved in the recent Human Genome Project.

During weeks 6 and 7, there was a bunch of really cool things.

We had a long discussion (a few lectures) about hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs and throughout the body. Well, the only protien worth mentioning under normal circumstances.
Most everyone knows that sickle-cell anemia is caused by defetive hemoglobin, which is sickle-shaped rather than the normal cell shape. But why is it defective? How? And what makes the sickle shape and why?

It turns out the answer is in the molecular biology of the human genome. The lecture explains what particular error makes the gene (that makes hemoglobin) defective, and how that error might occur. It then explains the molecular results of the error, which are simply a misalignment of negative charges. Those negative charges result in a string of hemoglobin proteins, which crystallizes into a rod which then shapes the sickle cell. Thus the visible shape of the diseased cells is a consequence, not a cause, of the disease.


Anyone with anemia should really get to watch these lectures. I really hate that the videos might not be readiy available online.

Another really cool thing I learned was why some viruses are especially awful and hard to get rid of, like HIV. These are called retroviruses, and as I understand it insert their destructive genetic material into the genetic code of the host, becoming an integral part of the cell and pretty much impossible to excise.

And then the lectures go on to explain things I had not learned in high school, but thought I had. I thought it was impossible to have a offspring have a phenotype unknown in their ancestry. Right after high school, I went so far as to explain to a Chinese friend that first generation Chinese children could never have blue eyes because there were no blue eyed genes in the Chinese parents (or even in a marriage between a Chinese and a blue-eyed Caucasian).

Turns out, its not as simple as I had been taught. Yes, what I had been taught was a good foundation, but it didn't address all sorts of genetic hanky-panky that can go on, such as recombinant DND and transposons.

After all this, there was yet more. I was especially intrigued by the "computer logic" of DNA and proteins. Many genetic sequences are like "switches" that turn on or off a specific gene under specific circumstances.

I gotta go watch another lecture.
Jolan tru.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Science: Who Mendel really was

As you might know, I am taking a science class thruough Edx.org from MIT Biology professor and acclaimed geneticist E. Lander.

This week, after looking at proteins and enyzmes and molecules, we came to genetics, which is a perfect time to discuss Mendel. It was a really great lecture, and I loved hearing all these biographical tidbits I had not run across before.

I really, really hope I am not in violation of either the academic code nor copyright anything.

"So people knew somehow there was something very important about the
information that was transmitted, and you couldn't help but notice familial
resemblance.
So for thousands of years, people wondered about familial resemblance.
Folks being folks would make up explanations for it.
The ancient Greeks were very big on philosophizing, not so much on doing
experiments.
And so they had all sorts of philosophical explanations for this,
that particles from all over the body would come together
into the seminal fluid.
Sort of some kind of pulling operation and collecting information from the
body that would somehow go into the seminal fluid.
Most of the Greek theories were relatively sexist because it was the
male that was transmitting the information, and the female was
permissive to all of that.
Indeed at some point, people could later, many hundreds of years later,
looked at microscopes and even thought they could see little people in the
head of the sperm, little homunculi.
It's amazing what you can convince yourself you can see.
Broadly speaking, since heredity didn't follow incredibly simple laws,
the general view was somehow information was
combined from both parents.
Eventually the female parent ends up getting involved in this too, even if
not in the early Greek theories.
Information was combined from both parents and blended in some way, and
it was kind of mushy beyond that, exactly what that meant, by blending
inheritance.
So today, what we're going to do is talk about the origins of a real
understanding of heredity.
But it's important to know that for 2,000 or more years, people were just
completely confused about this thing.
And to understand that, we need to know the origins of Mendel.
Now, in biochemistry, we started by meeting Buchner.
Buchner, I bet most of you have never heard of before.
Amazing biochemist, you haven't heard of him before.
So my job with Buchner was to teach you about him and
what his problem was.
With Mendel I have exactly the opposite problem.
You've all heard of Mendel.
You learned about Mendel in high school, and probably kindergarten, and
things like that with the peas and the big As and the little As.
And everybody's been exposed to Mendel.
And I have to unteach you about Mendel first.
Mendel, I've got to say, I'm a geneticist.
Mendel is one of my real heroes.
Mendel is not who you think he is.
You think, it's always told that Mendel is this lone monk off in a
monastery in Brno in what is today the present Czech Republic.
And you're wondering, what is a monk doing performing scientific
experiments in the city of Brno in the middle of the Habsburg Empire?
And like, what's going on, cooking these peas for his fellow monks for
long periods of time?
You have to understand the origins of Mendel.
The origins of Mendel go back to the age of exploration.
They go back to the 1500s, when Europe sends out ships across the world.
And people come back with all sorts of strange new plants and animals.
And people begin cultivating them, and breeding them, and people get very
interested in breeding experiments, in part because of all these new
varieties, new species that are coming in from the new world.
Then there's another incredibly powerful reason why people care about
breeding at this time, and that is economics.
Europe goes from being lots of isolated little villages, not really
communicating much with each other, to building road networks.
To building commerce across cities and villages, and countries.
And it becomes more and more economically viable, economically
rewarding to make a better apple.
If you made a better apple in your own little village, you might sell it to a
few other people.
But in fact, if you could make better plants and better animals, and you had
an economic distribution system, you could get returns on investment for
improving agriculture.
So there was a powerful positive force of economics at work there as well.
So people begin to start thinking about these things.
In England, there's a lot of work on breeding better and better fruit trees
and better sheep.
A guy called Blakewell produces the Dishley sheep, which
produces great meat.
And he becomes very famous for his sheep breeding skills.
Now, on the continent of Europe, sheep were not about meat.
That wasn't what you really wanted the sheep for.
What the European continent wanted sheep for was wool.
Everybody knew that the Spanish had the best wool sheep.
Spanish sheep produced the best wool.
But of course people who are growing sheep for wool across Europe, they
wanted Spanish sheep.
And so they imported Spanish sheep, but the Spanish sheep didn't do so
well in some of these other environments.
And so people began crossing the Spanish sheep with the local sheep to
make sheep that still had good wool, but somehow survived better in the
local environments.
And there was breeding going on in France, and going on in Germany.
But the place that perhaps cared most about wool, you might imagine, was the
center of the textile industry, which was Moravia in the Habsburg Empire.
And the capital of Moravia then was Brno.
They cared a lot about wool.
And so people in this area, in the city of Brno, began to organize
scientific societies and discussion groups to talk about, how could we
make breeding better?
More scientific?
There was a guy called Andre, Carl Andre in 1806, organized the Moravian
Society for the Improvement of Agriculture, Natural Science, and the
Knowledge of the Country.
And he drew up a whole program of scientific development, emphasizing
the importance of basic and applied research in the natural sciences.
And in one of these kind of over the top civic booster kind of speeches, he
writes in his program that the significance of this kind of work on
better breeding may someday be as important as the work of Copernicus
and Newton.
And that some day the world may be as grateful to some son of Brno as they
are to Newton and to Copernicus.
Pretty kind of florid, over the top kind of prose.
But Andre lays out this whole program there, and he gets other people
interested in it.
And this guy, Hempel, five years later, begins writing about these
things and making programs.
And he says, look, we've got to understand the laws of hybridization
and how they really work.
And we're going to have--
he says we're going to need really scientific people to do it.
He says--
he even tries to characterize the kind of folk we're going to need.
He says, "we're going to need a researcher with a profound knowledge
of botany and sharply defined powers of observation who might with untiring
and stubborn patience grasp the subtleties of the experiments, take a
firm command with them and provide a clear explanation," he writes in 1820.
Well, around this time, Andre had organized a group called the
Enological and Pomological Society.
The Enological and Pomological Society, right around this time there,
very interested in plant breeding.
It has its first president, who's the president of it for about the first
seven years.
When he dies, a new person takes over, CF Napp takes over the Enological and
Pomological Society.
Now, that's not a full time job, doing this.
He has a full time job.
His full time job is he's the abbot of the Augustinian Monastery in Brno.
And he begins to decide to have his monastery work on breeding.
So he goes off looking for scientifically trained monks.
Looking for months with backgrounds in math and physics.
He's looking for MIT kind of monks.
And so he's off looking for these people, and who does he find?
STUDENT: Mendel.
PROFESSOR: Mendel.
Mendel is no accident.
Mendel is the result of economic forces and scientific forces, and
civic planning and an understanding of scientific research that culminates in
this monk that you think is this isolated guy standing in his garden in
the monastery.
No.
He's the product of a biotech incubator.
This was a biotech incubator going on in the middle of Moravia.
That's Mendel."


Link to an English translation of Mendel's original paper!
http://www.mendelweb.org/Mendel.html

Good science - 1908 early geneticist

I am really enjoying hearing about the history of science in my EdX class I am taking.
My grades and performance isn't too impressive, but I am taking the class for fun, not credit. Although if I pass I will value the certificate they offer.

But today's lecture on early genetics had a passage that really impressed me, and I love hearing scientists speak about good science.

I'm not sure this is approved for me to post (off a YouTube video lecture), but I am going to anyway, and hope I don't receive consequences.

PROFESSOR: Section 2.
Fruit Flies and the Linkage.
To explain what resolves this, I have to tell you about one more person.
There's another really interesting person, a guy called Thomas Hunt
Morgan, who spends decades as a naturalist and an embryologist.
And he studies all sorts of different kinds of critters.
And he's fascinated by everything in the natural world.
And he has one of these labs where he kind of works on everything.
All sorts of crazy things are going on.
And when this whole Mendelism stuff comes back, he's interested in the
Mendelism stuff too.
But he is really an experimentalist.
He doesn't go in for this high-faluting theory.
Morgan is not a theory guy.
He's a data guy.
He's very suspicious of all this talk of factors and things like that.
In fact, Morgan begins to do genetics work in his lab, not to study
Mendelism, but to study evolution.
He starts crossing fruit flies together.
He starts about 1908, crossing fruit flies together in the hope that he's
going to discover evolution happening in the lab, new forms coming up.
We know it's going to be new mutants.
But that's not what he was looking for originally.
He's looking for these kinds of new forms.
And I know that in 1908, when he was beginning to do this work, he was no
believer in this whole chromosome business.
I actually found an article he wrote in 1909 that tells you what kind of a
skeptic he was.
He says "In the modern tradition of Mendelism, facts are being transformed
into factors at a rapid rate.
If one factor will not explain the facts, then two factors are invoked.
If two factors prove insufficient, now three will sometimes work.
The superior juggling sometimes necessary to account for the result
may blind us, if taken too naively, to the commonplace that the results are
so excellently explained, because the explanation was invented to explain
them." Just like what we talked about.
That was exactly what was bothering him.
"We work backward from the facts to the factors and then presto, explain
the facts by the very factors that we invented to explain them." That is a
good skeptical scientist.
He says I love your high-faluting theory over there, but
I'm not buying it.
And he's off making fruit flies.

Here a great link provided by the class. This is an excerpt of a Nobel speech in 1907 by Eduard Buchner.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

having fun: Intro to Biology, Dinosaurs, and more

These last few days are being fun, including an MIT Biology class I signed up for FREE online (edx.org), a book on dinosaurs that has proven to be suprisingly stimulating, and a discovery in cooking.

The MIT Bio class just started this week, and so nothing heavy yet. I signed up just for kicks. It has already proven kick-worthy. It has taken a lesson from the history of science, the discovery and description of enzymes (via study of the yeast fermentation puzzle of the 1890s) and climaxing in the scientist Buchner's Nobel lecture in 1907, available online.

For many people, I suppose that isn't much of a climax. For me, it's pretty cool. I love these sorts of "history of science" stories.

Next, I have been reading "Ultimate Dinosaur" edited by Byron Preiss and Robert Silverberg, and written by several respectable authors. I was suprised and pleased to find that this book is both fiction and non-fiction, written by several respectable authors, and well-crafted in a manner that is clear which is which. It is a collection of essays and short stories, alternating genres in a manner easy on the reader. I was also pleased it had subject matter for a more mature reflection. You see, the cover seemed to suggest a kid's book. The fiction writers write fiction, and the scientists write science. What a refreshing book.

Okay, in my cooking, I love it when I find a quick recipe that actually is quick and easy and cheap. A cheap box of mac 'n cheese, cooked in 12 minutes, using the butter it calls for, with or without milk, and the Stove Top stuffing stirred in right before serving. Easy, but very good!

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

NPR: Free MIT Biology Course Online

Here and Now is exactly appropriate for this topic. It addresses the most up-to-date state of biology and genetics, although from one man's perspective. This stuff gets me excited. If you do a bit of searching, I'm sure there is a way to listen to the interview given today (2/20/2013) with guest Eric Lander, professor of biology at MIT and science advisor to the president. http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/02/20/eric-lander-biology

The FREE course, presented by EdX.org, is March 5th, 2013. Following the link may not work unless you search the main website)

I have never yet used edX, but this looks exciting. 6 to 8 hours a week isn't too hard to committ to, and I am releived, because I was imaging a "live" streaming lecture that I would have to be available for. Also, I worried I might have to buy an expensive textbook.

The materials for study, along with the class, seem to be all freely online, including the main "supplemental" textbook, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th edition.

EdX.org also seems to have courses available in quantum mechanics, greek history, justice, and environmental science. I can't find information on how many "students" can take the class. It appears I might receive a "Certificate of Completion" if I pass the class, but I can't find information whether the certificate is free or not.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

goodies from your friendly neighborhood uber-goober

I had not heard of 'Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal' comics until today. This one is about the revolution debate. http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2703 If you watch the Star Trek movies, the series by this author are really good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoWfTq8dYos&noredirect=1 Again, if you watch Star Trek. It seems I was wrong. http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35860 Commercials sometimes are really catchy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmWWJ3OPCtI Who knew taxes could be such fun? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmynbxyfFjM

Friday, November 30, 2012

COAB and Bennett tests

I just took these two tests, and I am (almost) humiliated to have not done well-enough to "pass." I get to retake sometime soon, TBA. And expect (with reasonable hope) to do much better, especially now that I know what I am up against. That is the crux of this post. Maybe one of those poor souls searching around online for a little guidance will find something to help them. I sure didn't find much, or rather I found too much seeming advice in the wrong direction. Any advice or comments I make are from my own one-time experience. The test questions almost certainly change, although I am given to wonder if they change in type of question as well. These tests are both for industrial machine operator training, but I have read where they are applicable (and taken by) various job categories, from the armed forces to structural engineers. I took both tests today, although I imagine a person might take only one or the other, or maybe combined with other industry-specific tests. THIS PRACTICE TEST HELPED A LOT WITH BENNETT: https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&biw=1280&bih=695&sclient=psy-ab&q=mechreasoning+sampletest&oq=mechreasoning+sampletest&gs_l=hp.3...1936.11602.0.12671.28.26.2.0.0.0.372.4438.2j16j7j1.26.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.yaSIaf2oSQg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=994d01e560db146b&bpcl=39314241 First thing to know: these tests are timed sharply. With both tests, it is very important to realize you will be in a huge rush to finish on time. I have heard a few different things about that, and they can't all be right. Some have said you should take your time and be sure you are right. Others seem to say that you should go as fast as you can and do as many as possible, even if you don't feel confident, or even a guess. So in the end, I'm not sure how to advise, just to be aware. Bennett test (Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test): This is about 15 tests (of maybe 4-16 questions) in one, and I think the grades are merged together for the final score. http://creativeorgdesign.com/tests_page.htm?id=45 Categories of questions included: Acoustics, Inertia, Belt Drive, Levers, Center of Gravity, Optics, Centrifugal Force, Planes and Slopes, Electricity, Pulley Systems, Gears, Resolution of Forces, Gravity and Velocity, Shape and Volume, Heat, Structures (such as arches), Hydraulics, and Miscellaneous Let me go thru each one from my experience today: 1- Acoustics - (can horn in a tunnel any louder than normal?) 2- Inertia – (I didn't notice any) 3- Belt Drive - (Belt A turns this way; how does Belt B turn?) 4- Levers – (I didn't notice any) 5- Center of Gravity – (Which loaded crane would tip over easier?) 6- Optics – (How would a pen look if half in water, A,B, or C) 7- Centrifugal Force – (What movement will mud travel when slung off a wheel.) 8- Planes and Slopes – (A winding path vesus a straight incline) 9- Electricity – (Which switch turns on ONLY bulb B. What set-up for 2 battaries is correct?) 10-Pulley Systems – (Does man A pull harder or man B in the same task?) 11- Gears - (If gear A turns this-a-way, which way will gear B turn? And which turns faster? which will have more complete rotations?) 12- Resolution of Forces – (I didn't notice any) 13- Gravity and Velocity – (if you throw a stone horizonally, will it land at the same time as one siply dropped?) 14- Shape and Volume - (What shape has more capacity for volumn, a box or a cylinder of the same width?) 15- Heat- (I didn't notice any) 16- Structures – (What kind of arch is strongest? Which bridge?) 17- Hydraulics – (wish rushing water, will a faster current "push" water up a pipe?) 18- Miscellaneous - (will a helicopter fly on the moon? how do you pull from beside a canal?) I advise everyone to study rudders (ride of a boat on water, shooting a bullet on the moon) I think I did fairly well here, as most of the test questions were "simple" physics and so-called mechanical common sense. However, neither of these tests should be taken for granted. Some of the points that were tricky (for me) were connecting multiple battaries and water pressure (hydraulics) questions. But how pullies work, what turning gears and belt do go eath other, one turning the other at what speed, but it also asked what direction mud slings off a raised bycycle wheel. Ah, that was a cintrifugal force question. COAB (Computer Operator Aptitude Battery): http://creativeorgdesign.com/tests_page.htm?id=63 The COAB is really 3 tests in 1, and each is fairly seperate, although scored together. It requires no prior knowledge or even familiarity with programming, but is rather logical reasoning, ordering of events in sequence, following directions in formating, ability to follow complex procedures (flow charts), and attention to detail. First is sequences, second is formatting, and last is interpreting flow charts. Good (although inexact) Bennett resources: Google: mechreasoning sampletest (look for tlc and bcit.ca) http://www.findthatfile.com/search-46577129-hXML/rss-feed-podcast-download-rss-mechanical-reasoning.rss.htm http://www.personality-and-aptitude-career-tests.com/bennett-mechanical-comprehension-test.html http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=594168 http://89.28.209.150/go/textonly/Experiment_884.html;jsessionid=aZyaYbQ9f3D9 http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/sports-imports/multi-battery-hookup.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T7tGosXM58
Good resources for COAB (not exact): http://www.kent.ac.uk/careers/tests/computer-test.htm I could not find much help, and most of what I did find was inapplicable, not what was on the test, but there are a lot of Yes or No on the flow charts and I suggest sketching your own flow chart on scrap paper and go aheard and write in the outcomes at each point. It seems like you waste time, but it is quicker in the end. For the formatting, just remember to follow directions, all of them.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

multiple readings at the moment...

I read online recently (amazing that I have the time) where someone in the Commentariat mentioned their Mount To-Be-Read (well, they said Mount Toberead, but I think that is confusing). I'm not sure I'll adopt that phrase for my own use, but it is worth consideration, especially considering the mountain-seeming pile I have been accumulating. And accumulate is about all that has happened for a few months. I took a very time consuming construction job, about as inappropriate a job for a scholarly type that I can think of. But I am surviving, and even holding my own. I worked 71 hours last week, getting paid 31 hours of overtime. No life; large paychecks. For a temporary thing, it is marvelous in many respects and I'm very blessed and grateful to have it. But anyway... I have had Jack London's The Sea Wolf on my calander for about two years. I am still in the middle of Gods of Opar, and actually I am reading books 2 and 3 of the trilogy (Flight to Opar and Song of Kwasin) simultaneously, alternating between their natural turning points (if I am lucky enough to notice them). I am in the middle of a breif scholarly history of Africa, called an Atlas of African History, and it is just the kind of overview I was interested in. I hope to finish that soon. It's about 1300 and Zimbabwe just emerged as a power, enriched by their gold trade with seagoing Arabs. The Islamic empire(s) are in decline from their apex of a few centuries ago, and independant Ghana has thrown out the Mohamadeans in favor of their indigenous animism and native king. My favorite chapter in history, the Renaissance explorers, is just over the horizon. Literally. Next up Prince Henry the Navigator, Magellan, Cadamosto, I hope. I picked up a few books from the library on "mysteries" recently. One on cryptozoolgy, one on lost civiliations, and another on mysteries of the past, generally. My Opar interests compelled the African and mysterious books. I ordered the Other Log of Phileus Fogg on eBay. The new Titan books edition, gently used. That purchase is not quite a result of Opar, but rather part of the same trend (the author, Jose Farmer) After ordering Phileus Fogg, I learned from a review online that I was earnestly recommended to first read the original Around the World in 80 Days by Jules Verne. So I have added that to my list also, retroactively. Strangely enough, my girlfriend seems to have had a presentiment on that account and had gotten me a copy months before. I am in the middle of The Annotated Hobbit, an 80s pre-Peter-Jackson celebration of the ledgendary books, including the novel itself. Four months ago I think the dwarves, hobbit, and wizard just escaped the Goblin caverns (along with Golum). I also began a Sherlock Holmes story, but only a few pages in, and I forget which one. I just remember my shock at his cocaine use. I also got two hardbacks from the Dollar Tree recently (I cannot recommend books from Dollar Tree enough, when worth reading): one on modern travel tales from China, the other on corruption in US politics. Those are near the bottom of my pile, however. I have Exiles of Kho on preorder, and am hoping for it later this month. It is a novella set in the world of the Opar books, and is exiting. It is going to be high on my list of To-Be-Reads, in part because I paid real money for the privilege ;-) And privilege is promises to be. Months ago I started an Ernest Hemingway novel, The Green Hills of Africa, but only got a few chapters into it by the time I got sidetracked. I plan to get back to it. It seemed worth the read. Besides, I own it, because I bought it very cheap at a library used book sale. Not long ago (in bibliographical terms) I read an excerpt from Edgar Allen Poe's Eureka and was dumbstruck. I mean, this was the 1800s, and the guy has anticipated the Big Bang Theory. No, I'm not kidding. If you are interested in astronomical science, you should read it. Can you tell I have a bad habit of starting stories I don't finish, even if they are good? To combat this bad habit, I have sometimes forced myself to read stories that did not hold my attention. Forgive my blasphemy, but some of the Edgar Allen Poe stories were that way. Am I forgetting something? Well, I suspect I am, but if I remembered what I was forgetting, we wouldn't be having this problem, would we?

Monday, January 30, 2012

Science and Religion are Compatible, book says

Where the Conflict Really Lies : Science, Religion, and Naturalism
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-ebook/dp/B005X3SAHY

I heard about this book on NPR. I invite you to listen here.

From what I understand, the book seems to have a very simple point, but one that really needed to be said and it so very basic and yet overlooked. The incompatability of religion and science just simply doesn't exist. They might not agree, but they aren't opposed to each other the way most people seem to think.

The mutual disagreement arises between religion and naturalism (often seen as atheism). Now, many scientific thinkers are indeed beleivers in naturalism, but athiem cannot be "proved" any more than theism can. Specifically, both cannot be observed, and are merely an assumption. Admittedly, certain elements of religion are implausible notions, at best, and are the ones most often thought of, such as fundamentalist creationism. But even there, room for thinking allows plausability.

Your thoughts?

As a book, I have no basis for real recommendation, one way or the other. At first blush, it sounds like the book could have made its case as an article rather than a book, or as an entry in a compilation, perhaps.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

what have you read by Buckminster Fuller?

I had no idea who he was until today. I first heard of him a few weeks ago, mentioned in the Tao of Pooh, spoken of in the same breathe as Edison. That alone was enough to catch my attention.

Well, a quick online glance makes it amazing to me I had never heard of him before, or at least not in a way I remembered the mention. From what I see, he was a writer (as well as mover, shaker, and innovator) and from a quick look I think he is in line with my interests.

http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/bucky.html

The website linked above suggests Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, 1963, or Critical Path as good starting points. I am going to add those to my ever-lengthy and ever-growing reading list.

His science is doubtlessly dated, and I suspect this is the major reason I haven't heard of him. But like a favorite author of mine, Willy Ley, I bet his enduring insights into various fundamental principles are worthy of note. He really isn't THAT outdated. He wrote until the 80s.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

"Theories" need a rating system

From my ongoing thought processes resultant from Stephen Hawking's book comes more blogging. But this one wasn't even inspired by my reading, but was a later thought! I have so many more to go!

This blog post is, in part, a result of my ponderings following my "Savannah theory" post of a few months ago.

Is seems to me that even scientists use the term "theory" in a few different ways depending on context but also forum and discipline. And if national economies can be applied with a AAA rating, and much lower, why can't scientific ideas? Surely national economics is at least as divisive and debatable as science.

Anyway, in a Brief History of Time, Hawking says:

"...you have to be clear about what a scientific theory is. I shall take the simple-minded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantaties in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds, and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definate predictions about the results of future observations."

and

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiements agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory"

and

"In practice, what often happens is that a new theory is devised that is really an extension of the previous theory. For example, very accurate observations of the planet Mercury revealed a small difference between its motion and the predictions of Newton's theory of gravity. Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted a slightly different motion from Newton's theory. The fact that Einstein's predictions matched what was seen, while Newton's did not, was one of the crucial confirmations of the new theory."

Monday, November 28, 2011

A Nod to Aristotle

Well, I spefically refer to Aristotle for reasons I will explain, but all the ancient thinkers need to be similarly appreciated.

Well, I've been reading Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time and I have had so many blog ideas come of that book it just isn't funny. So, expect more to come. If I have time. Haha, time. Get it? Ah, nevermind.

Anyway, it is suprisingly rare that I see the ancient thinkers given their proper due. I often see them refrenced and their ideas explained. But what I mean is praise, and an acknowledgment of debt. In fact, I consider it amazing what the ancients acheived without the advanced instruments of the modern day. This isn't meant to downgrade any modern scientist, and I think all good scientists accept their endebtedness, but I don't see it in print enough. Galileo and Newton receive much more praise than the Greeks, and the Greeks much more than non-western philophers of the ancient world.

Well, Stephen Hawking isn't as humble as I would like, but he does offer Aristotle specifically a point of praise I had never come across before. Aristotle believed in 4 elements, Earth, Fire, Wind, Water, and 2 forces, gravity and levity. Hawking rightly dismisses this as early graspings at reality, but he adds that Aristotle began a tradition in science that has never faded: describing the universe as elements and forces.

Monday, November 21, 2011

The God of Albert, Issac, and Stephen

This is referring to Issac Newton and is a pun of the Bibilcal phrase "The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob" used to identify.

Anyway, this follows my blog post on Stephen Hawking's A Breif History of Time, and it a short rumination on the attitudes towards God expressed.

Issac is the easiest. It's pretty well documented that he had some strong pro-religious thoughts. He incorporated ideas of religious purity in his scientific experiments, especially dealing with alchemy. He is reputed to have been very unhappy that his gravitational theories seemed to promote a relative understanding of space (distance between heavenly bodies), on the grouds that absolute space fit better with his Christian concepts.

I do not know much about Hawking's thoughts on the matter, other than his concillatory language in his book, Breif Time.

He goes so far to say: "One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning...An expanding universe does not preclue a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"

Albert Einstein is a bit of an enigma. He has some great pro-religion comments attributed to him, as well as some anti-religious ideas also attributed. I just don't know. At the least (or most), he might have beleived in "a" God, just not in the Judeo-Christian God. Again, I dunno.
The best has to be:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

I chose to make no comments at this time. I need to go blow my nose.

what have you read by Stephen Hawking?

My tastes in literature vary a lot. In fact, I take pride in the scope of my study, whether fictional or non-fiction. I set down the Poe book of short stories I've been reading (because after dark is not a good time for me to be reading Poe, on the chance I stumbled across one of his more disturing moments) and took up an old used copy of A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.

I am only a few chapters into it, but I think i can already make some general comments.

This books firstly is seriously outdated (printed in 1988) but I wouldn't know the difference. That's sad, in a way, but nothing that troubles me overmuch. What amazed me was being reminded how old Eistein and his General Theory of Relativity is, about equal with the invention airplanes. There have been many steps since then, but nothing nearly as monumental. I think that the concepts of multiple universes is an up-to-date idea.

This book, A Breif History, succeeds very well I think at popular readability. The author lost me a few times, but that happens. I couldn't help but notice (from it's novelty) the vague considerations made toward a God-centered universe, or at least an Intelligent Design universe. This books was directed towards a opinionated public, so I thought the nods appropriate and becoming. I personally like to see a scientist take a humble stance on his science, and that's not to dinegrate him or her, but simply because I think modesty is prerequisite for an honestly open-mind.

Speaking of modesty and humility, I was pleased I already had a vague understanding of much of what Hawking wrote of. I think it's due to my readings in sci-fi, most notably Asimov, especially his The Billiard Ball.

I'd love to hear some comments.