Please don't steal photos that a) belong to someone else, b) are of someone's child, and c) are related to a different cause and twist them to make them fit your own agenda. It's inappropriate and I'm quite disappointed that you would think this was okay. As a feminist and lover of science I absolutely support the idea behind it, but please go about it in a way that does not involve theft of and taking credit for someone else's work. Create your own unique works to support the cause!
Hi Anon, I sorry to upset you for this post. If you look at the blog, you will see that I always give credit on each input and also link to the original source. If this time I didn’t made it is because I have not found the source. A single word from the author is enough to remove the photo immediately. In the mean time, and just for the record:
a) There is no “own agenda”, only “own opinion”. These are very different things.
b) The url inserted in the photo is only to make clear that this photo was faked as I say in the entry.
c) I linked to the original picture, but not to the blog because I lost it.
d) Well, after your claim I did some search and I found one source: this one (although you can find them in dozens of sites, and in different years).
e) It does not fits the strict sense of ethics that is deducted from your comment, with the use of anonymity to voice a complaint or indictment (or just opinion, indeed).
I really love your blog! I had read that you did something with geophysics and I was wondering what that entailed because I am looking to apply to do geophysics at un so I'd just like to know what it was all about... :)
Hi! take a look here, here, here or here to begin with. You should be good, of course, at Maths and Physics… and if you like the field work much the better.
#1) the more momentum an electron has, the ____ a) more massive it is b) more velocity it has c) more force it feels d) more charge it has. #2) as a test charge moves through a potential difference, it a) gains additional charge, b) loses it charge c) changes energy d) remains stationary #3) the electric potential energy of a system depends on ______
LOL… I won’t do schoolwork ever, but, well, I’ll do an exception. Assuming a basic/school physics (the easy one):
#1.- b) because neglecting the variations on electron mass, velocity is the only free variable to change in the momentum relation P = m * v
#2.- c) from own definition of electrical potential (at a point of space is the amount of electric potential energy that a unitary point charge would have when located at that point.)
Hi, I love your blog, it's amazing, and I wanted to know: are you a scientist yourself, like, all this information, does it comes from your own knoweledge, or you just read a lot (like most of us nerds) of scientific papers? Thanks you a lot! :)
Well, I am a physicist, but my career has been for many years in the private sector, and focused on the geophysical consulting, computing and GIS. However I have always followed (as closely as possible) the developments in the fields that I like, particularly in Applied Physics, Theoretical Physics and the bridges between them. Although I also like many other fields, and try to follow them within my limitations. I think this shows in the blog, it could not be otherwise.
It began about four years ago as my secondary blog in Tumblr (being the primary The Eclectikus Box). Soon this roles were exchanged as far Science is Beauty occupied 90% of my time on Tumblr, and still does.
The idea was, and is, to bring Science to the people who normally runs from it, mainly using the aesthetic power of its imagery. Everything indicates that this philosophy has been good and this blog has never stopped growing.
I read daily a lot of Science through the Internet, I suppose I have a good eye for selecting what fits the blog and what is not, moreover is a simple and rewarding task.
And this is the short story, the long story is not actually much lengthy. It’s that simple.
“The void is ‘not-being,’ and no part of ‘what is’ is a ‘not-being,’; for what ‘is’ in the strict sense of the term is an absolute plenum. This plenum, however, is not ‘one’: on the contrary, it is a ‘many’ infinite in number and invisible owing to the minuteness of their bulk.”—
Rod Dreher calls attention to a physicist, Vlatko Vedral, who claims that the origin of the laws of nature can be explained scientifically: ”We believe in one method of understanding the ultimate, secure truth: the scientific method." Vedral rejects the philosophical objection that scientific explanations for the laws of nature end in infinite regress—whatever causes the laws of nature needs a cause, which needs a cause, ad infinitum. Vedral hands the accusation back to religious philosophers: who created the Creator? God is apparently stuck in the same infinite regress that philosophers accuse scientists of entertaining.
“For when a ship is floating calmly along, the sailors see its motion mirrored in everything outside, while on the other hand they suppose that they are stationary, together with everything on board. In the same way, the motion of the earth can unquestionably produce the impression that the entire universe is rotating.”—