|
16 Nov 09 - 03:27 PM (#2767221) Subject: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Donuel teachers, parents, phenomena ? |
|
16 Nov 09 - 03:49 PM (#2767248) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Les in Chorlton The successful demonstration of The Ball and Ring procedure by our Science Teacher Ken Young a thousand years ago L in C |
|
16 Nov 09 - 04:28 PM (#2767290) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: VirginiaTam My first love was rocks. When I was 8 years old I had 2 wonderful Christmas presents. One was a geology kit with rock hammer, picture information cards, some sample rocks and rock testing kit. I loved picking up rocks and trying to work out whether they were metamorphic, igneous, conglomerate, etc. Going ga ga when I found one with a bit of garnet in it. Breaking bits of gneiss to find the mica inside. Proudly showing off my geology vocab to sibs and kids in the neighbourhood. The second (really a gift for the whole family) was a rock tumbler that only got one use because the noise nearly drove my parents mad, even though it lived in the boiler room in the basement with a cardboard box and army blankets over it. I liked polished stones because they showed me what was inside. I was fascinated by the varying rates of erosion per type of stone. The biggest stones seemed to melt like magic and smaller ones changed little in size. Whoa... thanks for the walk down memory lane. |
|
16 Nov 09 - 04:46 PM (#2767303) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Bill D I lived in Kansas.... my mother told me that tornadoes always come from the south-west. I would NOT believe it until I knew why. (They don't 'always'..just often.) Then it was astronomy pictures in National Geographic. |
|
16 Nov 09 - 05:00 PM (#2767322) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: GUEST,eric the viking I'm not sure whether it was visits "Newting, froging and toading" at Chiselhurst ponds or a teacher called Mr Munn When I was eight he started teaching my class. One day he said to us. "We are going to learn about science", in such a way that I have been captivated ever since, and even now I can se him in his pinstripe suit with a syrup can demonstrating air pressure. When I was 12 my dad got me a proper microscope. I used to buy science books when ever I could from the second hand book shop. |
|
16 Nov 09 - 05:24 PM (#2767340) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Ed T My childhood chemestry kit, got me interested. I now work closely with oceanographers. |
|
16 Nov 09 - 05:49 PM (#2767355) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Rowan Trying to work out why particular things happen the way they do, I would design experiments and try to make them. This started before I was 10 (I'd been given Richard's Topical Encyclopedia for my 8th birthday and had read its 15 volumes from cover to cover) but got into full swing when I got to high school and could squirrel away bits and pieces of info, ideas and even "stuff". A reasonable memory for detail helped. If you check out BS: Rocket Science??? you'll see where it got me as well as how others got into it as well. Cheers, Rowan |
|
16 Nov 09 - 05:56 PM (#2767357) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Rapparee Chemistry set, microscope set...finding out you could buy oxidizers at the drug store even though you were only 10 years old and were reading a LOT of science fiction, which led to reading the Model Rocketry Handbook, which led to "how to make your own rocket fuel using the oxidizers you could buy at the drug store".... And of course that led to astronomy and how stars worked and astrophysics and nuclear physics and before I was out of high school I'd figured the critical mass for an atomic weapon AND how to make it work, if only I had some Pu239 or U235 and could talk my brothers into doing a little file work.... |
|
16 Nov 09 - 05:57 PM (#2767358) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Ebbie VT, the son of my former brother in law also was fascinated by rocks from an early age. I remember one time when he was 9 years old he picked up a flattish, round, green rock and carried it all the way to his dad's truck, even though it was in rough terrain, including a 15-foot cliff we had to scale, and it weighed at least 10 pounds. He wouldn't let anyone else spell him in the carrying, either. Whenever I visited their home he would take me to his bedroom where he'd haul out the rocks he had collected since my last visit. He grew up to be a gemologist- and he is still fascinated by rocks. (The spot where Tim found that green rock is an amazing place. It is in rough country, as I said, along the Washougal river in western Washington state. It is remote and uninhabited. At a certain place there's a several hundred feet long stretch along the river where it appears that dump trucks dropped these rocks- there are green ones, tan ones, blueish ones, lots of red and rust-colored ones- and most of them look like they were liquid when they were "dumped"; they appear to have firmed up smoothly from puddles. The whole area has had volcanic activity for ages and that is the only explanation I can come up with.) |
|
16 Nov 09 - 06:12 PM (#2767370) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: MartinRyan Aged about eleven or twelve, my first day in a Physics lab, measuring the curvature of a lens... Regards |
|
16 Nov 09 - 06:45 PM (#2767394) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: ranger1 Watching a pair of nuthatches build a nest in a tree at eye-level from my bedroom window and then watching them raise the four little ones when I was three or four. Apparantly I also used to have tea parties with the garter snakes on the back porch around the same time period. Then there was being allowed to stay up late and watch National Geographic and Jacques Cousteau specials...Catching tadpoles in my grandma Millie's frog pond and keeping them until they turned into frogs at the age of eight. You get the picture. |
|
16 Nov 09 - 07:55 PM (#2767421) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Joe_F Reading _Explaining the Atom_ by Selig Hecht when I had just turned 10 (1947). |
|
17 Nov 09 - 02:39 AM (#2767555) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Doug Chadwick My first chemistry set was a big disappointment – just a load of crystals - there were no acids that could eat through the dining room table or things to make explosions. OK, there was a warning not to eat the copper sulphate but where was the danger in that? To be honest, I can't remember a defining moment in my love of science. I just grew up with it in the same way as I grew up with my love for music. DC |
|
17 Nov 09 - 05:41 AM (#2767604) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Les in Chorlton Just see them crystals "grow" under a microscope L in C |
|
17 Nov 09 - 06:45 AM (#2767626) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: catspaw49 I think it was a good shit. Yeah.........Actually I was on the quest for a perfect enema and became fascinated with all the scientific aspects. From the chemistry to the physics to the engineering, it was all a wondrous adventure. As I got older though, I developed a lifelong case of the shits and all my fine research and hard work went down the crapper. Spaw |
|
17 Nov 09 - 07:38 AM (#2767642) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Stu I wanted to know the truth. Fundamental. Profound. Wondrous. |
|
17 Nov 09 - 07:45 AM (#2767644) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Dave Hanson Mr Duffield. Mr Duffield's dead and gone, His voice we'll hear no more, For what he thought was H2O Was H2SO4 Dave H |
|
17 Nov 09 - 09:36 AM (#2767701) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Rapparee KNO3 + C6H22O11 (or variant) + heat -> "Aw, Mom! We didn't use THAT much!" |
|
17 Nov 09 - 02:55 PM (#2767912) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Alaska Mike I remember my dad pointing out the small dot that was Sputnik as it moved across the southern sky one night. Then Gregarin, Shepard, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, moon walks, etc. Reading Asimov, Bradbury, Herbert, Brin, and so many more made me think and dream like no other authors. As my children grew up, we would have long discussions about "why" and "how" and "what if" with science being the fundamental path to explanation. It has always been a part of my thought process and probably will remain so for as long as I have. Mike |
|
17 Nov 09 - 03:12 PM (#2767924) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: VirginiaTam Ebbie I want to visit that lovely place you described with all the river rocks. Did google image search and looks like they could be glacial deposit. The pressure and friction during glacio-fluvial transportation causes egg shape stones found in some river beds. The next time you visit a river with such stones, if the water is fast flowing look for large stones that have bowls worn into them. It is caused by smaller stones and water roiling around and around in a trapped place, until divot then larger hole is created. If you are really lucky you may see bowls with the stones still churning away in them. Woot! |
|
17 Nov 09 - 10:49 PM (#2768153) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Amos Oddly enough, it was Ray Bradbury followed by Robert Heinlein, followed by Isaac Asimov. A |
|
17 Nov 09 - 11:08 PM (#2768162) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: GUEST,MarkS(on the road) Isaac Asimov for sure. For years he wrote a monthly science column in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction and as a kid I couldn't get enough. I still cherish his column on how to pronounce long chemical names. The example he used was paradymethylaminobenzaldehyde. Easy once you learn to speak it using the cadance of the jig "The Irish Washerwoman." To this day I cannot hear this tune without singing along Para........ Talk about fixation! Mark |
|
18 Nov 09 - 06:48 AM (#2768300) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: mandotim Three things stand out; a passionate and brilliant physics teacher called Miss Jones at Cardinal Langley in Middleton, my father who would take time to explain what he was learning as an adult about science (he left school at 13) and Jacob Bronowski's wonderful book 'The Ascent of Man'. |
|
18 Nov 09 - 07:46 AM (#2768326) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: GUEST,Wolfgang, without the normal access I always liked math at school. No stupid learning of unconnected details like in history, geography and languages, only understanding and applying logically connected rules. Studying a science was just applied math. Wolfgang |
|
18 Nov 09 - 01:44 PM (#2768549) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Stringsinger Religion. |
|
19 Nov 09 - 07:08 AM (#2769089) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Les in Chorlton Stringsinger, clearly bored and throwing spanners? L in C |
|
19 Nov 09 - 09:25 AM (#2769160) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Ed T A good ocean science song....a bit into this You tube piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npWZ5DrQY-c |
|
19 Nov 09 - 10:35 AM (#2769191) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Skivee Seeing the Bell Labs science films with Dr.Albert Hibbs when I was in elementary school did it for me. This is probably a USA thing. I doubt that the films were distributed outside the country. Does anyone else remember "Hemo The Magnificent"? |
|
19 Nov 09 - 12:41 PM (#2769280) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Donuel What made you a science Junkie? As a kid I was lucky that my mom got me a Scientific American magazine subscription. Sure it got me in trouble at school when my essays were about Evolution and a true timeline of the Universe but it was invaluable. Then a 7th grade Earth Science teacher named Mr. Daily did something I never saw before, he cared. He taught me the principles and pitfalls of observation. My first two pre school books were the Cat in the Hat and The Ice Age. I could innately read both although my parents were dubious. The Ice Age resonated within me like a distant memory and is still a fascinating study. Later books like the aforementioned Ascent of Man as well as Connections by Burke and even works by Joseph Campbell had a powerful influence upon me. Not as a defense for wrench slingers, but the study of the nature of religion adds a wider scope to scientific understanding even if it only believing in a truth which is "unseeable". Some myths and religions had more to do with science than others but I would defend the notion that religion does provide a platform for knowing and wonder that can be valuable, especially in the arena of cosmology as portrayed in the book The Tao of physics and others. I have lived to see many of the accepted scientific notions of their day thrown out the window such as Phrenology, steady state theory and the notion that the age of cataclysmic impacts was over. Many of the speculations by Velikovski and Tesla have been vindicated. When it came to understanding E=Mc2 I mistakenly thought I did but I really did not have a handle on it until my forties and still get stuck today when I think of two timelines at once. On the other hand I saw some pioneers proved correct. In genetics the notions by a Russian scientist in the 1800's claimed we could inherit ability and knowledge from recent as well as distant ancestors is now proven with the discovery of exo-genetic coding of our DNA. I saw Jules Verne's fictional inventions proved correct. I began to feel that I too could invent things if I gave them enough thought, and I was right. Contending with nay sayers in science is no different than any other endeavor be it the arts or politics. It's easy for people to stand their ground and yell "impossible". My greatest scientific opportunity, or curse, was to witness 3 events that were totally unexplainable by main stream physics. That I can recount them is a miracle in itself since we usually do not see or remember something that is 'Completely Outside' our normal frame of visual reference, language and everyday experience. Take for example a fictional scene where you look at a tree and it suddenly becomes twice as tall and then back to its original height in a split second. You would think your eyes played a trick or simply dismiss it as some sort of glare and never bring that moment to mind again. In other words when something that you depend on to always be a certain way appears to do something impossible we tend to dismiss it. Well you can't dismiss everything you can't explain. Like a guy who sees and feels his first earthquake, I knew what I saw and could not forget. Sometimes there is plenty of evidence left behind and sometimes the evidence is less obvious. I have mentioned this strange occurrence many times before regarding what I saw, and have come to now describe with ease, is seeing a fourth dimensional object poke its nose into my 3D space and time. It had light and color of a subtle yellow pink nebulous semi transparent glow. It had the shape of two spheres about a foot in diameter each. It had motion of about 1.5 miles per hour as one sphere followed the initial sphere as they passed through one brick wall and then another brick wall 9 feet from the floor and 2 feet from the ceiling. It had sound like a high pitched sizzle or hiss. They scared my cat who immediately puffed all its hair out on end and hissed at the slow moving spheres. It scared me because I wanted to put my hand right inside it but I could only manage the courage to try and touch the outer part of their glow while I was standing on the sofa. The globes had now passed through an inner wall and I had to go through three other rooms to get to where I estimated they would re emerge. They were gone. Seeing, feeling and hearing these "things' was not so difficult while still being completely out of the ordinary. What was difficult is what it had done to something I always held somewhat predicable. It caused time to become non linear for about an hour and caused such a peculiar confusion that each time I found a clue to what was now different, I carefully noted it and tried to put time back in a linear framework and make sense of what was happening. I said to myself "OK I was just in this room but now it is locked from the inside and the cat is outside even though I closed the door so the cat would not get out." I made excuses for not remembering or the cat being to fast for me, but by the end of that hour when time returned to normal it was clear that time had just done a peculiar circle that I had never encountered before. This was not just missing time or having time slow down due to focused attention, this was new. It was outside my ability to explain it. As a result I started reading books on time and dimensions beginning with Flat Land. Today I am comfortable with knowing that my space time is less than 4% of all the stuff and dimensions using this space all at the same… existence. In a way I came to feel that we must take care to not harm what is unseen. This is probably a notion Oppenheimer may have given a passing thought.= when 300 nuclear tests were poisoning our planet monthly. What do I think of other dimensions? Since it 'affected' me I guess we probably effect it. Time waves, gravity waves, virtual particles from other times, tachyons moving in contrary time? I reckon its all true. Einstein once said, "Our thoughts go against the grain of space time" . I believe we do have experiences and ideas that jump up and over the currents of space time like a salmon swimming upstream. I think my experience has happened to man people but they interpreted it differently or not at all. Finding out empirically what strange phenomenon really is, is the stuff of scientific breakthroughs. While the unknown is made of wonderful wonder and is as electrifying as magic, the scientific explanation will not burst the wonder bubble but may lead to control of new and tremendous human ability… which sadly will first be exploited for war |
|
19 Nov 09 - 04:17 PM (#2769396) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Donuel Unless I rewrite something, it sounds like English is my second language and has a tendency to hurt the brains of literate people so... I became addicted to science at an early age. To give you an idea of my formative influences my first two pre school books were the Cat in the Hat and The Ice Age. I could innately read both although my parents were dubious. As a 6 year old kid I was lucky that my mom got me a Scientific American magazine subscription. Sure it got me in trouble at school when my essays were about Evolution and a true timeline of the Universe but it was invaluable. Then a 7th grade Earth Science teacher named Mr. Daily did something I never saw before, he cared. He taught me the principles and pitfalls of observation. This proved to be crucial in understanding scientific method. Later in college I learned that the unknown has a place at the table and can be called Phenomenology instead of BS. To this day the subject of the Ice Ages still resonates within me like a distant memory and is still a fascinating study. Later books like the Ascent of Man as well as Connections by Burke and even works by Joseph Campbell had a powerful influence upon me. Often religion presented itself as a barrier to scientific inquiry within the Bible belt in which I grew up. Not as a defense for zealous wrench slingers, but the study of the nature of religion does indeed add a wider scope to scientific understanding even if it only believing in a truth which is "unseeable". Some myths and organized religions have more to do with science than others but I would defend the notion that religion does provide a platform for knowing and wonder that can be valuable, especially in the arena of cosmology as portrayed in the book The Tao of physics and others. I have lived to see many of the accepted scientific notions of their day thrown out the window. Some were preposterous to begins with such as Phrenology but there were were other widely accepted ideas like the steady state theory and the notion that the age of cataclysmic impacts was over. Many of the speculations by Velikovski and Tesla have been vindicated. When it came to understanding E=Mc2 I mistakenly thought I understood but I really did not have a handle on it until my forties and still get stuck today when I think of two timelines at once. On the other hand I saw some early discredited pioneers proved correct. In genetics the notions by a Russian scientist in the 1800's claimed we could inherit ability and knowledge from recent as well as distant ancestors is now proven with the discovery of exo-genetic coding of our DNA. I saw Jules Verne's fictional inventions proved correct. I began to feel that I too could invent things if I gave them enough thought, and I was right. Contending with nay sayers in science is no different than any other endeavor be it the arts or politics. It's easy for people to stand their ground and yell "impossible". My greatest scientific opportunity, or curse, was to witness 3 events that were totally unexplainable by main stream physics. That I can recount them is a miracle in itself since we usually do not see or remember something that is 'Completely Outside' our normal frame of visual reference, language and everyday experience. Take for example a fictional scene where you look at a tree and it suddenly becomes twice as tall and then back to its original height in a split second. You would think your eyes played a trick or simply dismiss it as some sort of glare and never bring that moment to mind again. In other words when something that you depend on to always be a certain way appears to do something impossible, we tend to dismiss it. Well you can't dismiss everything you can't explain. Like a guy who sees and feels his first earthquake, I knew what I saw and could not forget. Sometimes there is plenty of evidence left behind and sometimes the evidence is less obvious. I have mentioned this one particular strange occurrence many times before, and can describe the physical parameters with ease. What I suspect that I saw was a fourth dimensional object poke its nose into our 3D space and time. It had light and color of a subtle yellow pink nebulous semi transparent glow. It had the shape of two spheres about a foot in diameter each and about 4 feet apart. It had motion of about 1.5 miles per hour as one sphere followed the initial sphere as they passed through one brick wall and then another wall of wood and plaster 9 feet up from the floor and 2 feet down from the ceiling. It had sound like a high pitched sizzle or hiss. They scared my cat who immediately puffed all its hair out on end and hissed at the slow moving spheres. It scared me because I wanted to put my hand right inside it but I could only manage the courage to try and touch the outer part of their glow while I was standing on the sofa. The globes had now passed through an inner wall and I had to go through three other rooms to get to where I estimated they would re emerge in the immense vestibule of the once glorious mansion of the man who invented Evening in Paris Perfume. When I searched for the globes they were gone. But all of this is just an ourward description of the experience and does not tell of the deeper experience. Seeing, feeling and hearing these "glowing globes' was not so difficult even though they were completely out of the ordinary. What is difficult to describe is what it had done to time, something I always held somewhat predicable and inviolate. It caused my perception of time to become non linear for about an hour and caused such a peculiar confusion that each time I found a clue to what was now different, I carefully noted it and tried to put time back in a linear framework and make sense of what was happening. I said to myself "OK I was just in this room but now it is locked from the inside and the cat is outside even though I closed the door so the cat would not get out." I made excuses for not remembering or the cat being to fast for me, but by the end of that hour when time returned to normal it was clear that time had just done a peculiar circle that I had never encountered before. The peculiar feeling of being partly in the very near future and the present at the same time is yet another clumsy way to describe what I felt. This was not just missing time or having time slow down due to focused attention, this was new. It was outside my ability to explain it. As a result I started reading books on time and dimensions beginning with Flat Land. Today I am comfortable with knowing that my space time is less than 4% of all the stuff and dimensions using this space all at the same… existence. In a way I came to feel that we must take care to not harm what is unseen. This is probably a notion Oppenheimer may have given a passing thought when 300 atmospheric nuclear tests had poisoned our planet and children with leukemia. They may have effected more than our own 3D world. What do I think of other dimensions? Since it 'affected' me I guess we probably effect it. Time waves, gravity waves, 11 dimensions, virtual particles from other times, dark matter, tachyons moving in contrary time? I reckon its all true. Einstein once said, "Our thoughts go against the grain of space time". I believe we do have experiences and ideas that jump up and over the currents of space time like a salmon swimming upstream. Seeing is not believing, and feelings, while powerful, are not evidence of truth. Together they are a starting point on the search for truth. I think my unusual experiences have happened to many people, but they interpreted it differently or not at all. Finding out empirically what strange phenomenon is responsible for the perception, is the stuff of scientific inquiry. While the unknown is made of wonder and can be as electrifying as magic, the scientific explanation should not burst the wonder bubble but rather lead to the control of new and tremendous human abilities…which sadly is usually first exploited for war. Countless people have speculated upon the serious trouble mankind would get into if we ever got a handle on the manipulation of time. Maybe there are some scientific secrets worth keeping for now. |
|
20 Nov 09 - 08:52 AM (#2769762) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: GUEST,Mr Red The logic, the newness, the understanding of the world. And the fact that reading the New Scientist in bed sends me to sleep! |
|
20 Nov 09 - 06:23 PM (#2770124) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Stringsinger Les, no really. Religion has become a tool for those who are opposed to Evolution, and science. When 40% of the American public don't believe in Evolution, doesn't this reflect a serious issue for the educational life of the US? I am in support of scientists today whose influence is being eroded by noisy religious people. |
|
21 Nov 09 - 12:26 AM (#2770269) Subject: RE: BS: What made you a science junkie From: Abdul The Bul Bul About 1954 when I would be 6 years old, Father Christmas left among other things, a set of 5 childrens encyclopiedias and an old telescope. Never looked back. Still have them all too. Before that I suppose was Rocket Man and Flash Gordon at the Saturday morning cinema matinee for kids. I recall about the same age discussing the name we should give our 'gang', with John Herbert and Alan Gosling and them not being keen on calling it the 'Stargazers"!! Anybody know who wrote "Infinity Zero"? It was a short story that made a big impression but I've never been able to find it again. Strange, I never gave my SF books away. Al |