Yes, yes, I am late, but I don't have TV (most of the time). I have been immersing myself in all the geek channels, and I've just discovered this:
I love, love, love Discovery Channel's "The world is just awesome" campaign. Brings out the E(nvitonmental) S(cience) major in me. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but it's true! Deal with it. Hahaha.
"I love egyptian kings."
"I love the whole world!"
I love Bear Grylls.
I love Mike Rowe.
I love the Mythbusters.
I love Nat Geo, too.
I hate Animal Planet.
I wish I had cable TV.
I used to say, especially after I began to explore writing and the arts and (a little bit) regretting my science background, that BS stood for two things. I don't believe that now. After all, if science isn't the antithesis of bullshit, I don't know what is.
Sing it with me, "I love the whole world!" Boom de ya ya. Boom de ya ya.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, September 22, 2008
Work Break #1
Anticipating no sleep for work is like asking to be distracted, to be taken away--
I am in the middle of an Excel worksheet, work I usually like, work that can usually consume my focus so completely, I forget where and when I am, like I am alone in the world and I don't mind it. I am in the middle of numbers and figures and I realize I am interpreting data that probably no one else has before, and I think to myself--If I write this up into a report perhaps I can submit it for publication, instead of condensing it into a presentation for the purposes of my work. And I think about it: I've done the research, I have the data, if I can analyze these into bullet points, then surely I can stretch it out, can't I? And I can submit it to a journal and should it get published, surely I can add that to my resume?
But this is not what I want to write.
Every hour or so into this work, I take a little break. Maybe light a cigarette, or drink my coffee-gone-cold, or get a glass of water. But always, I open this book I've decided to re-read for the nth time, read a chapter or so. And every time I say to myself, this is how I want to write. This is what I want to sound like when I write. And this tone now, this one I employ--too earnest, pleading, whiney even--this is not that tone.
I remember once I was on vacation in San Joaquin with some friends. We woke up at dawn to go to the beach, where the waves were like stone walls rolling towards the shore. I wanted to go for a swim, but everything that morning was hard: the light was a stone grey like slate, the wind cold, the beach full of rocks. And the barreling waves that despite all that want, that earnestness earned me nothing: I ended up sprawled, wet, defeated on the shore.
I think back to my favorite authors now, characters even, and I realize they are all men, macho men at that. And this is what I want to sound like? I am aghast, but this is true: Stripped of drama, pleading, hurt. Or at least, stripped of the wallowing such that everything becomes fact. This happened because of that. Consequence. A to B in a straight line, and detours may pretty it up a bit, but here. This is where you end up. Start to finish uncomplicated. If I follow this procedure precisely and I can predict the result. Like science.
And look at me now: Whether I took the time to write this, or decided to sleep the rest of the morning before Monday officially starts, or finished the book, the result is the same. I will have to deliver a presentation at 5pm tomorrow. And I will deliver it because I have to, and I know myself well enough that I will. Whether or not I will be proud of my work will obviously vary directly with the amount of time I have spent on it. But that is my story from now until then. A to B, and nowhere else to go.
No, I am not talking about fate, or destiny or karma. And no, this is not making me sad, or angry. This, I realize, is why I've always loved science. That precision and straight-forwardness. The following of rules the order of the day, guiltless. And not having to look for anything else, even escape.
There I was. Now I am here. And my break is over.
I am in the middle of an Excel worksheet, work I usually like, work that can usually consume my focus so completely, I forget where and when I am, like I am alone in the world and I don't mind it. I am in the middle of numbers and figures and I realize I am interpreting data that probably no one else has before, and I think to myself--If I write this up into a report perhaps I can submit it for publication, instead of condensing it into a presentation for the purposes of my work. And I think about it: I've done the research, I have the data, if I can analyze these into bullet points, then surely I can stretch it out, can't I? And I can submit it to a journal and should it get published, surely I can add that to my resume?
But this is not what I want to write.
Every hour or so into this work, I take a little break. Maybe light a cigarette, or drink my coffee-gone-cold, or get a glass of water. But always, I open this book I've decided to re-read for the nth time, read a chapter or so. And every time I say to myself, this is how I want to write. This is what I want to sound like when I write. And this tone now, this one I employ--too earnest, pleading, whiney even--this is not that tone.
I remember once I was on vacation in San Joaquin with some friends. We woke up at dawn to go to the beach, where the waves were like stone walls rolling towards the shore. I wanted to go for a swim, but everything that morning was hard: the light was a stone grey like slate, the wind cold, the beach full of rocks. And the barreling waves that despite all that want, that earnestness earned me nothing: I ended up sprawled, wet, defeated on the shore.
I think back to my favorite authors now, characters even, and I realize they are all men, macho men at that. And this is what I want to sound like? I am aghast, but this is true: Stripped of drama, pleading, hurt. Or at least, stripped of the wallowing such that everything becomes fact. This happened because of that. Consequence. A to B in a straight line, and detours may pretty it up a bit, but here. This is where you end up. Start to finish uncomplicated. If I follow this procedure precisely and I can predict the result. Like science.
And look at me now: Whether I took the time to write this, or decided to sleep the rest of the morning before Monday officially starts, or finished the book, the result is the same. I will have to deliver a presentation at 5pm tomorrow. And I will deliver it because I have to, and I know myself well enough that I will. Whether or not I will be proud of my work will obviously vary directly with the amount of time I have spent on it. But that is my story from now until then. A to B, and nowhere else to go.
No, I am not talking about fate, or destiny or karma. And no, this is not making me sad, or angry. This, I realize, is why I've always loved science. That precision and straight-forwardness. The following of rules the order of the day, guiltless. And not having to look for anything else, even escape.
There I was. Now I am here. And my break is over.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Autobiography: Studies in Stimulus-Response
1. Birth
Twelve signs of the zodiac. Seven animal symbols, four human; I had to be born under the one sign that had no life. Inanimate, dead.
2. Balancing Act
Libra is represented by the scales which figure balance. Or, equilibrium, to use a scientific term. Yes, what better way to pretend at life than by looking at it scientifically? As if everything were still, constant. Controlled.
3. Scientific Method
In science, a universe can be simplified into a system and its surroundings. In an experiment, a system can be studied by keeping certain variables constant or changing.
A simplification: Picture a woman, and let her be the system. Put something she desires in her immediate surroundings: food, books, a vacation. She will reach out to take it. Change the surroundings, and instead put in something she fears. She will cringe, her hand will recoil.
4. Theory
If something a woman desires is within her reach, she will hold out her hand to take it. If it is something she fears, she will recoil.
Is this true?
5. Null Hypothesis
If there is nothing in the woman's surroundings, she will look for two things: that which she desires, and that which she fears. She will pursue the first and avoid the second.
6. Experiment
aaa6.1 If she finds only that which she desires, will she be content? Or will she be forever looking over her shoulder?
aaa6.2 If she finds only that which she fears, she will run, yes. But toward which direction?
aaa6.3 What if something the woman equally desires and fears is put in front of her? How will she react? How am I to react?
7. Results
aaa7.1 The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics
A simplification: A is in contact with B, and B is with C; but A is not in contact with C. If A is of a higher temperature than C, and B can conduct heat, then heat will travel from A to C through B, until all three are of the same temperature. Then the system (A, B, and C) is in thermal equilibrium.
aaa7.2 Rev 3:15-16
aaa7.3 I don't know. I am lost. There's a poem in here, somewhere.
(Figure copied from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thereq.html)
Twelve signs of the zodiac. Seven animal symbols, four human; I had to be born under the one sign that had no life. Inanimate, dead.
2. Balancing Act
Libra is represented by the scales which figure balance. Or, equilibrium, to use a scientific term. Yes, what better way to pretend at life than by looking at it scientifically? As if everything were still, constant. Controlled.
3. Scientific Method
In science, a universe can be simplified into a system and its surroundings. In an experiment, a system can be studied by keeping certain variables constant or changing.
A simplification: Picture a woman, and let her be the system. Put something she desires in her immediate surroundings: food, books, a vacation. She will reach out to take it. Change the surroundings, and instead put in something she fears. She will cringe, her hand will recoil.
4. Theory
If something a woman desires is within her reach, she will hold out her hand to take it. If it is something she fears, she will recoil.
Is this true?
5. Null Hypothesis
If there is nothing in the woman's surroundings, she will look for two things: that which she desires, and that which she fears. She will pursue the first and avoid the second.
6. Experiment
aaa6.1 If she finds only that which she desires, will she be content? Or will she be forever looking over her shoulder?
aaa6.2 If she finds only that which she fears, she will run, yes. But toward which direction?
aaa6.3 What if something the woman equally desires and fears is put in front of her? How will she react? How am I to react?
7. Results
aaa7.1 The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics
A simplification: A is in contact with B, and B is with C; but A is not in contact with C. If A is of a higher temperature than C, and B can conduct heat, then heat will travel from A to C through B, until all three are of the same temperature. Then the system (A, B, and C) is in thermal equilibrium.
aaa7.2 Rev 3:15-16
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
aaa7.3 I don't know. I am lost. There's a poem in here, somewhere.
(Figure copied from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thereq.html)
Sunday, May 27, 2007
When it rains, it pours.
Dear colleagues,
Today I stand in front of you, honored to be invited to speak in front of so many I respect and admire, to present my new theory.
As we all know, the scientific method is simply a step-by-step procedure in answering questions. We gather data by observing the world around us, perhaps by noticing patterns or cause-and-effect relationships. Then we formulate hypotheses from these observations and then work on experiments to prove or disprove them.
This proposal I present today, however, is a product of observation alone--no experiments have been done yet--but its occurrence has been so consistent in the past few years, that I was actually quite perplexed to find that this theory has not been proposed before. I suppose, I would like to to ask for your help as well in verifying these observations. Ladies in the audience, I appeal to you specifically.
The paper I am presenting today is on a theory I like to call "Theory of Multiple Portions". Yes, yes--I have anticipated your objections--ladies and gentlemen, please hear me out. I know it sounds too much like The Law of Multiple Proportions or Dalton's Law as we like to call it, and it is for this reason alone that I have refused to even consider calling it "Dr. Drey's Theory" --although I have to admit, I wish to be remembered as its proponent. To top it all, it has something to do with chemistry as well--physical chemistry, as a matter of fact.
Now, let us get back to the topic at hand. This theory states simply that:
The only thing a girl needs to get laid, is to be already getting laid.
Gentlemen, please! Ladies, I see that I have your full attention. Now, ladies, I am sure you have noticed that unless we have steady partners, people expect us to be chaste--and chased I might add--and when we do choose to have some casual, recreational intercourse, the men expect us--with a certain dread of course, but expect us nonetheless--to act like some version of Glenn Close in that movie, Fatal Attraction.
(Just a side note: I have written a rather extensive paper on how that movie, Fatal Attraction, has fatally reduced women's chances of getting equal treatment as players in the field of sexual intercourse. This has been published in the 16 December 2006 issue of Nature Volume 666 Number 5243, should you like to read on it some more.)
This expectation of women to act like raging lunatics after one night of sex has always fascinated men, and although I grant that they don't look forward to its realization in their own lives, there is a certain fantasizing that it happens at least once--a kind of validation, if you will.
How is this related to my theory? As women have evolved over the years after that movie, we have taken two options in response to it: (1) have sex only when we are in a monogamous relationship; (2) have sex like a man, i.e., one-night stands, fuck buddies, etc.
However, having "sex like a man" is not as easy for women as it sounds, especially in this country--am I right, ladies? Sadly, we have learned that, simply because a woman is open-minded about sex, it doesn't necessarily mean that the men are open-minded about these open-minded women. There is no direct proportionality to this relationship.
Therefore, women have come to understand that even though the choice of sex is up to them, it doesn't necessarily mean bed partners left and right of the equation. Thus, such common observations as, "When it rains, it pours" for the lucky ones, and the comfort of a book on the bedside for those who aren't--studies show that Liwayway Arceo's "Uhaw ang Tigang na Lupa" is a favorite among the unlucky group.
I suppose given this disparity--multiple portions or nothing at all--the next step should be to test hormonal reactions of women in the two groups. Questions like, "Does the lucky group give off more pheromones than the other?" arise. Of course since we are studying two groups which can be designated as ones and zeroes (strictly in terms of haves/have-nots, I mean), there would have to be two control groups as well to properly ascertain significant differences in the result. For these, I propose virgins as control for the zeroes and pros for the ones.
Of course, I am getting ahead of myself here. I understand that my purpose here today is simply to present this theory, and ultimately to ask for help in formulating an experimental method to test it.
Ladies and gentlemen--where have the men gone?--anyway, ladies, thank you for your kind attention.
*****
The text above is a transcript of Dr. Drey's speech and proposal presented to the Physical Chemistry: Modern Problems conference, 24 - 26 May 2007, in various venues in Quezon City, Philippines.
Today I stand in front of you, honored to be invited to speak in front of so many I respect and admire, to present my new theory.
As we all know, the scientific method is simply a step-by-step procedure in answering questions. We gather data by observing the world around us, perhaps by noticing patterns or cause-and-effect relationships. Then we formulate hypotheses from these observations and then work on experiments to prove or disprove them.
This proposal I present today, however, is a product of observation alone--no experiments have been done yet--but its occurrence has been so consistent in the past few years, that I was actually quite perplexed to find that this theory has not been proposed before. I suppose, I would like to to ask for your help as well in verifying these observations. Ladies in the audience, I appeal to you specifically.
The paper I am presenting today is on a theory I like to call "Theory of Multiple Portions". Yes, yes--I have anticipated your objections--ladies and gentlemen, please hear me out. I know it sounds too much like The Law of Multiple Proportions or Dalton's Law as we like to call it, and it is for this reason alone that I have refused to even consider calling it "Dr. Drey's Theory" --although I have to admit, I wish to be remembered as its proponent. To top it all, it has something to do with chemistry as well--physical chemistry, as a matter of fact.
Now, let us get back to the topic at hand. This theory states simply that:
The only thing a girl needs to get laid, is to be already getting laid.
Gentlemen, please! Ladies, I see that I have your full attention. Now, ladies, I am sure you have noticed that unless we have steady partners, people expect us to be chaste--and chased I might add--and when we do choose to have some casual, recreational intercourse, the men expect us--with a certain dread of course, but expect us nonetheless--to act like some version of Glenn Close in that movie, Fatal Attraction.
(Just a side note: I have written a rather extensive paper on how that movie, Fatal Attraction, has fatally reduced women's chances of getting equal treatment as players in the field of sexual intercourse. This has been published in the 16 December 2006 issue of Nature Volume 666 Number 5243, should you like to read on it some more.)
This expectation of women to act like raging lunatics after one night of sex has always fascinated men, and although I grant that they don't look forward to its realization in their own lives, there is a certain fantasizing that it happens at least once--a kind of validation, if you will.
How is this related to my theory? As women have evolved over the years after that movie, we have taken two options in response to it: (1) have sex only when we are in a monogamous relationship; (2) have sex like a man, i.e., one-night stands, fuck buddies, etc.
However, having "sex like a man" is not as easy for women as it sounds, especially in this country--am I right, ladies? Sadly, we have learned that, simply because a woman is open-minded about sex, it doesn't necessarily mean that the men are open-minded about these open-minded women. There is no direct proportionality to this relationship.
Therefore, women have come to understand that even though the choice of sex is up to them, it doesn't necessarily mean bed partners left and right of the equation. Thus, such common observations as, "When it rains, it pours" for the lucky ones, and the comfort of a book on the bedside for those who aren't--studies show that Liwayway Arceo's "Uhaw ang Tigang na Lupa" is a favorite among the unlucky group.
I suppose given this disparity--multiple portions or nothing at all--the next step should be to test hormonal reactions of women in the two groups. Questions like, "Does the lucky group give off more pheromones than the other?" arise. Of course since we are studying two groups which can be designated as ones and zeroes (strictly in terms of haves/have-nots, I mean), there would have to be two control groups as well to properly ascertain significant differences in the result. For these, I propose virgins as control for the zeroes and pros for the ones.
Of course, I am getting ahead of myself here. I understand that my purpose here today is simply to present this theory, and ultimately to ask for help in formulating an experimental method to test it.
Ladies and gentlemen--where have the men gone?--anyway, ladies, thank you for your kind attention.
*****
The text above is a transcript of Dr. Drey's speech and proposal presented to the Physical Chemistry: Modern Problems conference, 24 - 26 May 2007, in various venues in Quezon City, Philippines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
