Educational Thread

[TheDeceiverGod]

Hello, by now most of you know me, and if there are a few of you who don't I'm TheDeceiverGod, local insane instructor and evil genius of the forum. As it is my nature I have decided to begin a thread the contents of which I hope to be purely educational.

The process is simple, you come into the thread, and you post something educational and interesting to be discussed with your forum going peers. When one topic becomes stale someone, likely me, will post a new topic, and so on and so forth unto the end of time.

I shall start shall I?

Belief as viewed by the scientific method

Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if to another observer they would appear not to do so. Even researchers admit that the first observation may have been a little imprecise, whereas the second and third were "adjusted to the facts," until tradition, education, and familiarity produce a readiness for new perception.

Essentially this is stating that, people, IE everyone, see things different due to their pre-founded beliefs. I now deffer to Wikipedia for an example.

Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying horse' image as an example of observation: in it, the legs of a galloping horse are depicted as splayed, when the stop-action pictures of a horse's gallop by Eadweard Muybridge shows otherwise. Note that at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, the horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed, in a gallop. Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying horse observation (this is an example of observer bias).

This demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; our beliefs will affect our observations (and therefore our subsequent actions). The purpose of a scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a proposed explanation about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can definitively contradict the hypothesis.

[Charm]

YAY COOKIES! ^_^ *nom nom nom*

[AkAlina]

YAY COOKIES! ^_^ *nom nom nom*

COOKIES!? O_O WHERE!?
And very educational Deceiver.. Now more learning from school... Yayyy..! >_<

[Naked Snake]

The thread has been derailed. God save us all.

[TheDeceiverGod]

Not yet it hasn't Snake! Not yet... :determination:

[TheDeceiverGod]

OK so maybe Science wasn't the best place to start. I like it but apparently my will has yet to overpower the rest of yours.

New topic. Writing Composition.
Taken from the pages of A Writer's Reference, sixth edition by Diana Hacker.
Keep in mind I'm editing, but never paraphrasing, these are direct quotes, just not the entire book.

"Writing is not a matter of record already developed thoughts, but a process of figuring out what you think. Since it's not possible to think about everything all at once, most experienced writers handle a piece of writing in stages. You will generally move more from Planning to drafting to revising, but be prepared to return to earlier stages as your ideas develop.

Being by taking a look at the writing situation in which you find yourself. Consider your subject, the sources of information available to you, your purpose, your audience, and constraints such as length, document design, review session, and deadlines or other assignment requirements. It is likely that you will make final decisions about all of these matters later in the writing process - after a first draft, for example. Nevertheless, you can save yourself time by thinking about as many of them as possible in advance."



"Writing paragraphs.
Choosing a suitable pattern of organization.

Although paragraphs may be patterned in any number of ways, certain patterns of organization occur frequently, either alone or in combination: examples and illustration, narration, description, process, comparison and contract, analogy, cause and effect, classification and division, and definition. There is nothing particularly magical about these patterns (sometimes called methods of development) They simply reflect some of the ways in which we think. "

"Narration

A paragraph of narration tells a story or part of a story. The following paragraph recounts one of the author's experiences in the African wild.

One evening when I was wading in the shallows of the lake to pass a rocky outcrop, I suddenly stopped dead as I saw the sinuous black body of a snake in the water. It was all of six feet long, and from the slight hood and the dark stripes at the back of the neck I knew it to be a Storm's water cobra - a deadly reptile for the bite of which there was, at that time, no serum. As I stared at it an incoming wave gently deposited part of its body on one of my feet. I remained motionless, not even breathing until the wave rolled back into the lake, drawing the snake with it. Then I leaped out of the water as fast as I could, my heart hammering. - Jane Goodall, In the Shadow of Man"

"Word Choice
Wordy sentences

Long sentences are not necessarily wordy, nor are short sentences always concise. A sentences is wordy if it can be tightened without loss of meaning.

Eliminate redundancies.

Redundancies such as cooperate together, close proximity, basic essentials and true fact are common sources of wordiness. There is no need to say the same thing twice.

> Danial ^^worksis now employed at a private rehabilitation center working as a registered physical therapist.

Though modifiers ordinatrily add meaning to the words they modify, occasionally they are redundant.

> Sylvia very hurriedly scribbled her name, address, and phone number on the back of a greasy napkin.

> Joel was determined in his mind to lose weight.

The words scribbled and determined already contain the notions suggested by the modifies very hurried and in his mind.

Avoid unnecessary repetition of words.

Though words may be repeated deliberately, for effect, repetitions will seem awkward if they are clearly unnecessary. When a more concise version is possible, choose it.

> Our fifth patient, in room six, is a mentally ill. patient.

> The best teachers help each student to ^^growbecome a better student both academically and emotionally.

Cut empty or inflated phrases

An empty phrase can be cut with little or no loss of meaning. Common examples are introductory word groups that apologize or hedge: in my opinion, I think that, it seems that, one must admit that, and so on.

> In my opinion, o^^Our current immigration policy is misguided.

Inflated phrases can be reduced to a word or two without loss of meaning.

Inflated

Concise

Along the lines of

like

As a matter of fact

in fact

At all times

always

At the present time

now, currently

At this point in time

now, currently

Because of the fact that

because

By means of

by

Due to the fact that

because

For the purpose of

for

For the reason that

because

Have the ability to

can, be able to

In order to

to

In spite of the fact that

although, though

In the event that

if

in the final analysis

finally

in the nature of

like

in the neighborhood

about

until such time as

until

> We will file the appropriate papers ^^ifin the event that we are unable to meet the deadline.

Simplify the structure.

If the structure of a sentences is needlessly indirect, try simplifying it. Look for opportunities to strengthen the verb."

I'd just like to jump in here and point out for those of you involved in Role Playing, Strong Verbs are very important. Now then, carry on.

"> The CEO claimed that because of volatile market conditions she could not make an estimate [/strike]of[/strike] the company's future profits.

The verb estimate is more vigorous and more concise than make an estimate of.

The colorless verbs is, are, was, and were frequently generate excess words.

> Eduartina ^^{monitors and balances}is responsible for monitoring and balancing the budget for travel and personnel.

The expletive constructions there is and there are (or there was and there were) can also generate excess words. The same is true of expletive constructions beginning with it.

> There ^Aanother module that tells the story of Charles Darwin and introduces the theory of evolution.

>It is imperative that ^Aall police officers ^^must follow strict procedures when apprehending a suspect.

Finally, verbs in the passive voice may be needlessly indirect. When the active voice expresses your meaning well, use it.

> All too often, ^^{our coaches have recruited} athletes with marginal academic skills. have been recruited by our coaches.

Reduce clauses to phrases, phrases to single words

Word groups functioning as modifiers can often be made more compact. Look for any opportunities to reduce clauses to phrases or phrases to single words.

> We visited Monticello, which was the home of Tomas Jefferson.

>For her birthday we gave Jess a stylish ^^silkvest. made of silk.

Active Verbs

As a rule, choose an active verb and pair it with a subject that names the person or thing doing the action. Active verbs express meaning more emphatically and vigorously than their weaker counterparts - forms of the verb be or verbs in the passive voice.

Verbs in the passive voice lack strength because their subjects receive action in stead of doing it. Forms of the verb be (be, am, is, are, was, were, being, been) lack vigor because they convey no action.

Although passive verbs and the form of be have legitimate uses, if an active verb can carry your meaning, use it.

PASSIVE The coolant pumps were destroyed by a surge of power.
BE VERB A surge of power was responsible for the destruction of the coolant pumps.

ACTIVE A surge of power destroyed the coolant pumps.

Even among active verbs. some are more active - therefore more vigorous and colorful - than others. Carefully selected verbs can energize a piece of writing.

> The goalie crouched low, ^^sweptreached out his stick, and ^hookedsent the rebound away from the mouth of the net.
"

[Rain]

SHEER AWESOMENESS @__@
I english!
This thread is a great idea. I commend your effort. =D
*claps accordingly*
Oo

[Riaaanna]

Hm. Good thread.
Gimme something on math. 9th grade math. xP

[Fishing4Infinity]

My brain dies a little more with each post Decy O-o..

No wait let me correct that..

My nemesis the...

SANDMAN!!!

Victory shall be mine one day Sandman! I sweareth this upon my cleanly made bed!

[TheDeceiverGod]

I highly doubt that.
I'm even from DC See?

[Music_Hero2779]

Any advanced world history, earth science or astrology you got TDG =D

Or any info on Karmy's Sandman xD

[TheDeceiverGod]

Well you'd need to define most of those, and I suspect you mean Astronomy

Also as far as the Sandman thing goes, Karma is the appointed leader of the Insomnio, the members or the forum here who shun sleep, and me as a man who quiet enjoys his nap time, played out a little game of Nemesis Nemesis in the chat box the other night.

Also, here's something that's both interesting and educational.

[Fishing4Infinity]

Oh I'm terribly sorry Decy!

I was thinking of this Sandman

[TheDeceiverGod]

Either or is fine by me.

[Fishing4Infinity]

Sweetness ^_^

Care to explain the philosophical view behind comic books?

[Naked Snake]

The next person to say, in all seriousness, that Dakari-King Mykan is a brilliant writer and a creative genius, will be destroyed. Utterly, completely and without mercy.

[Riaaanna]

He's outta here, let's not bring it back up. >_> However, I must know something. I shall PM you.

[TheDeceiverGod]

Information!

The Greek alphabet something every boy and girl should know if for no other reason than when we are all eventually conscripted into some manner of bloody conflict you will be able to understand the difference between Sigma target and Pi target.

Look upon it and be informed young bloods!

Lambda was the sign of the armies of blood thirsty Sparta.
The upper-case letter Δ can be used to denote Change any type; (in science and engineering fields)
The letter Psi is commonly used in physics for representing a wave function in quantum mechanics, particularly with the Schrödinger equation.
A Rho at the beginning of a word is conventionally written with a rough breathing (equivalent to h) — ῥ — and a double rho within a word is written with a smooth breathing over the first rho and a rough breathing over the second — ῤῥ — apparently reflecting an aspirated or voiceless pronunciation in Ancient Greek.

[TheDeceiverGod]

Warning Mature Scientific Theory Below

Today's topic, what happens when you microwave a living human body.

I had it on my mind for some reason, I blame that new Super Hero movie with the Hit Girl and Big Daddy.

Now as most people should probably know microwave radiation heats things through a process known as Dielectric Heating, which simply put spins molecules via electromagnetic field, the spinning of these molecules causes them to collide with one another, thus transferring energy and causing the object containing them to heat.

In a microwave oven this process is most effective on water, thus when objects that contain a high concentration of water molecules are subjected to microwave radiation they heat much faster than objects which have less water content. This is also why when you microwave something it gets dried out and crispy before it gets burnt. You're effectively heating the water in the object before you're heating anything else about the object.

This is also why when you heat something like a potato, which has a high water-content wrapped firmly inside a non-water-permeable membrane, or the potato's skin, it explodes. The cause of this explosion is that the potato's water-rich core material is being heated much faster than the water-poor skin, and when the skin is not properly vented, the heated water within the potato's core evaporates, pressure builds as the steam does, and eventually that pressure exceeds the pressure outside the potato and the steam bursts the skin scattering potato everywhere.

The same basic concept applies to the human body. The center of a person is very water rich, filled with various fluids including blood, puss, digestive juices, lymph, cerebral fluid, urine and likely others that I'm forgetting. All these water-rich fluids would be heated much faster than the exterior of the person, and since their skin would prevent proper venting, eventually the pressure of all these evaporating fluids would exceed the pressure outside the person, and they would explode.

However, because I'm like this, I wanted to examine the effects of being microwaved on our theoretical person in segments. Simply put I wondered what it would feel like to die from being microwaved. Now since I have no desire to die, and microwaving people is probably illegal I am forced to do without viable experimentation so this is all just theory.

Now first I would assume that the exposed tissues would heat first. This would cause the subjects eyes to burn as their ocular fluid is evaporated, and eventually their eyes would boil and then explode themselves, since eyes contain fluid and when you microwave fluid inside a membrane the pressure builds and then the object explodes. This might be true of the their tongue as well, but I suspect ocular fluid isn't as thick as blood, so their eyes would probably explode before their tongue, however saliva would probably come to a boil before blood as well, which would cause first dry mouth, and then significant burns inside the subject's mouth as their saliva evaporates and boils.

They would probably get a bloody nose as well, since the mucus in their sinuses would be heated as well, it probably wouldn't evaporate that quickly but the heat would cause their sinuses to dry out and crack which would cause their nose to bleed, the destruction of their sinuses might cause blood to seep from beneath the subject's eyes as well, but their eyes would probably have exploded by the time it got that bad.

Despite all this horror death by microwave would probably be relatively painless, cerebral fluid is relatively thin to my knowledge, so it would boil more quickly than mucus or blood, this would cause increased pressure inside the subject's skull, this pressure would probably kill them before reaching a sufficient value to cause their skull to explode, in addition their skull probably wouldn't so much explode as crack to vent. The same would be true of their spine, and in both cases I wouldn't expect anything to like, steam out their head or back. More likely when their skull cracked their might be some blood from their ears since their ears would be heated while this was happening and that whole system includes liquid as well.

They might actually experience some sense of vertigo as the liquid in their ears was heated.

Their lungs would definitely burn, lungs are spongy and soft and have a surprising amount of liquid in them, though they wouldn't probably explode, lungs are porous so they likely wouldn't have the proper membrane to cause explosion, they'd probably just bleed as the individual pores popped. The stomach would be a different matter, the whole digestive system is quiet liquid-rich, so being subjected to microwave radiation would likely cause sever stomach pain, as well as intestinal discomfort. Eventually all these organs would bleed internally.

Bone marrow wouldn't be excluded from this torment either, marrow is quiet rich in liquid, mostly blood, but since it is contained within a person's bones aside from considerable pain in all your bones as you're microwaved, they probably wouldn't start popping like popcorn until after you'd, well, popped. Teeth too, most teeth have nerves down their center, and there has to be some liquid there blood at least if not actual nervous system fluid, so they'd probably start popping sometime around the rest of your bones, possible before possible after.

[archiesangel]

Remind me to never meet you in a dark alley o.O

[SnowFallsSlow]

o.0 So, what do you suppose is the boiling point of human blood? I tried to ask my mom, but she started being disgusted before I'd even gotten to my question.

[TheDeceiverGod]

I don't know the temperature off the top of my head but I do know that if you reach Armstrong's Point (63,000 Feet) in a non-pressurized suit your blood will start to boil inside you due to the low atmospherically pressure.

[Fishing4Infinity]

O_o

I've heard this somewhere before...

[TheDeceiverGod]

Here's some food for thought.

Assume the human body is the vessel through which the human mind experiences the world. It is through the physical sensations that the body possesses that the mind is informed of the environment outside it. Our eyes receive light, thus we see, our ears pick up the vibrations of sound, thus we hear.

But if this is all that we allow ourselves then how can we advance ourselves as not only a species, but as beings in and of themselves? The body is the tool which allows us to experience the world, in order to enchance our experience of the world, we must improve upon the tool which allows us to do so. This has long been true of virtually everything else which involves tool use. No matter if it is the construction of a building, the invention of a new material from which to build with, or the simple act of preparing a meal, improved tools have allowed us to improve the end result. Without the invention of say, the microwave, we would never have had things such as microwave popcorn, or tv-dinners. Not to say that these are tremendous improvements in the field of cooking, but they are a simple and understandable example of the point I am attempting to make.

As the tool that is used to perform an action improves, so too does the result of the action. The more colors a painter has to choose from the more accurately his vision may be communicated into art.

Thus if the human body is the tool with which we not only interact with the world, but through which we utilize all other tools, then why, I ask, have we not begun looking into the improvement of the human body.

Answer is simple, while in truth we have begun looking into ways to improve the human body, each of these methods are designed not to improve the basic function of the human body, but to improve specific functions of it. While some take vitamins to remain youthful, others take them to increase there muscles. Each of these methods is not improving the body, but simply altering it to become better adapted to a specific task. We have yet, to my knowledge, look to improve the natural basic abilities of the human form.

I believe that this may be primarily to social stigma. No one particularly enjoys the idea of replacing their skin with metal platting for the simple fact that it would be willingly making themselves different from the mass populous. Regardless that metal plating would allow the person to not only ignore such common aliments as poison ivy, poison oak, mosquito, ticks, leaches and other dermal parasites, but remove the threat from large predators such as bears, lions, wolves or other animals which, against a normal unarmed human, would certainly emerge victorious, but against a metal-plated human, be able to deal little to no damage.

The non-social drawbacks to such cybernetic advancement would be few, perhaps a possible danger near deep water, easily enough avoided by those who live in land locked areas, or simply stay inland, and maybe a few other limitations due to the nature of the material. It would also seem that the social drawbacks would be only truly detrimental to people who held certain positions in our society. Indeed there are those who today, seek radical methods with which to differentiate themselves from what they consider the main-stream social order, or 'the establishment.' Yet few, if any of these methods of self-alienation offer any practical use. In fact most of them come with far more dangers than they do potential for personal advancement. Receiving a tattoo or skin piercing puts the subject at risk for infection, as well as various blood transferred diseases if an unclear implement is used.

And yet all current scientific research is being developed not toward advancing the basic functions of the human body, but to better maintaining it as it already is. I question why this is. It would be far easier to replace a failing or failed organ system with a mechanical version, and the potential life span for mechanical replications is already far greater than that of any organic system. In deed mechanical version of our organic systems already posses the ability to break down potential harmful elements which their organic counter-parts are unable to deal with.

True there are numerous things of which mechanical replications are currently unable to be created. Yet by the same token there are numerous methods though which machines are ultimately able to perform the same action as a biological element, but there is virtually no research being done to apply these methods to allow humans to better conquer their limitations.

Is this because humans will always fear being replaced by machines who are able to perform the same function as the human, much faster and much more reliably? Or is it simply that humans fear change, and that attempting to convince the majority of humanity to accept a better way of living is a failed argument in simply that that better way is a different way? Or perhaps we've all seen too many science fiction movies, where the machines who are able to evolve and perfect themselves toward a desired end much faster than organic life, render all organic life obsolete?

[TheDeceiverGod]

Alright back to basics.

Now here's something which you might actually use in your live. Recently re-learned by yours truly thanks to my math class, this may be old news to some of you.

RxT=D

Rate multiplied by Time equals Distance. This is the formula used to solve for virtually anything where motion is involved. It's an important formula, but this is not the only form it appears in. As you may remember you can create equivalent equations by performing the opposite action to both sides of the equality sign. Thus RxT=D is the same equations as R=D/T Rate equals Distance divided by Time. Now if you're not catching on just yet let me put it this way. Rate=Miles/Hours. You'll notice that when Miles Per Hour is written short hand it's always either mph or m/h. When you take the miles you've moved, and divide it by the amount of time it took you to travel that distance, you get the rate at which you were traveling during that time. See how simple that is?

You can also use this formula to solve for the amount of time it takes, or will take, to cover a given distance for an object moving at a given rate. Now since RxT=D, we know that T=D/R. Distance divided by Rate equals Time. So if say, you have an object that is traveling five miles per hour, and you want to know how long it will take to travel one hundred miles, you can figure that out. Now that's a fairly simple example but the point here is that you can use this formula to solve for just about anything you want when it comes to covering distance. The tricky thing comes when you start getting into fun rates.

Now I won't go into that now, because frankly I don't want to, math may make my head fell good but the bottom line is that it's hard for me to put numbers into words, and I've heard a vicious rumor that regular people don't like numbers as much as I do.

But as an example, because I want to give one. Say you had an object that was entering the atmosphere of a planet, and you wanted to know how fast it was going to be traveling when it hit the surface of the planet. Now there would be a number of steps to this, first of which you'd have to find the distance between the surface of the planet and either the object, or the edge of the atmosphere. I personally would want to find both, and that is because, the rate at which the object is traveling will be altered once it enters the atmosphere of the planet. Air friction will reduce the speed of the object by a given amount dependent on the total surface area of the object. A smaller object will be less affected by air friction than a larger object, common sense stuff like that. But this complicates the Rate of the object once it enters the atmosphere. I remember there being some formula for figuring that out, but I don't wanna get into that at the moment. The point is that the Rate of the object's fall would be equal to the objects initial speed, the speed at which it was traveling in space, or a vacuum, minus the amount the atmospheric friction is reducing it by. Now here's the trick, the friction will reduce the object's speed incrementally, meaning that for every X amount of time, the object will slow by X amount. That would have to taken into consideration when solving for the time it would take the object to strike the surface of the planet. In this case Rate would be equal to some funky formula that I can barely remember, but when the distance is divided by that it funky formula designed to factor in the slowing of the atmospheric friction, it will Always equal the time that it will take for that object to cover the distance specified.

[Sponsored content]