Wow

The other day I found Monqiue's tumblr (thanks Paul), and I liked it. But also, it made me appreciate how individual we all are. That you can give every person in the world a pen and paper (or a keyboard and blog) and they will all come up with something different. Similar, maybe, but with subtle differences in word choice, style, subject choice, openness. It's amazing.

Which means that God is.

Don't Worry, I'm still Infinately Fond of Trollope's Writing

So i read the other day on the net that you know a character is fully developed if the reader leaves thinking 'I wonder whatever happened to....' And I think we all actually know this. But never has this fact been used so tantalisingly by an author to me before today.

Let me explain.

About a month ago I finished a book called 'Barchester Towers', by Anthony Trollope. Now, apart from being comic genius this book has fully developed characters and is wholly engaging. So, I left and was like....hmm I wonder if those two had kids and whether.... But if Trollope had decided to present me with a lengthy and detailed list of later occurrences in the characters' lives I would undoubtedly hate him. So i was content with the book.

Then I decided to read the next in the series, 'Doctor Thorne' for those who may possibly be interested. This too is a good book, though not on quite a good a level as 'Barchester Towers.' So I was happy with it, despite the fact that it left the characters of the earlier book alone (see above reasons for not hating this).

Sorry for the length of explanation but here's the point. I got to the second last page of 'Doctor Thorne' and Trollope decides to casually mention that two of 'Barchester Towers's principle characters were invited to a wedding in 'Doctor Thorne' (did that make sense?). To make a slightly exaggerated comparison, it's as though J. K. Rowling wrote a story about a new wizarding family and on the last page casually mentions that they're good friends with Harry Potter, although he had been conveniently ignored for 498 pages.

And that has been the main occurrence of my day, so i thought I would share it with you, as we are due for a post here.

Good day!

Physicists, Take Note

I read a book about James Clerk Maxwell, and now I am almost a Maxwellian. So I'm determined to tell you all everything you DON'T know about JCM.

Okay, so before I started this book I knew that Maxwell had come up with some equations and talked about light a little, and that this helped Hertz discover the photoelectric effect and....the consequences go on. But while Maxwell got ONE page in our textbook, he did SO much for physics that we didn't get told. Okay. Basic summary, Maxwell did for electromagnetism what Newton did for gravity.

Before Maxwell's equations, the only fully developed, complete and mathematical theory in physics was Newton's universal law of gravitation. So, everyone was trying to apply its basic form to electricity etc. And it worked, but they had this weird view. 'Newtonians' believed in action-at-a-distance. i.e. that the space around a magnet is empty with regard to the action of the force, which when iit acts between say a nail and magnet leaps across the space between them without affecting that space. Now, I don't quite get this, its a weird concept but, do you know why its strange? Because of Faraday and Maxwell.

So, Faraday, armed only with basic geometry, developed the idea of a magnetic feild, which Maxwell took and hammered away on to get his equations, and eventually the field idea was accepted, when proof came for Maxwell's equations i think, and now we get it, and don't get action-at-distance. In the process of developing a way to describe mathematically the relationship between electricity and magnetism and Faraday's fields, Maxwell took the recent idea of vectors and used it, thus naming many operations involving vectors, including the curl and divergence. Plus, the curl is pretty much the right hand grip rule - how you determine the direction of a magnetic/electric field. So awesome.

Maxwell was also the first to develop a completely mathematically based theory, or like one without a physical image or analogy. Whilst physicists are used to such use of maths now then they wanted more concrete images to work with. Maxwell's equations have had enormous ramifications too. They are behind many many technologies we now use, and play a vital role in quantum electrodynamics. Maxwell also came up with the basic idea for the Michaelson-Morely experiment, and his equations have been found to be applicable at relativistic speeds and on the quantum level.

I hope you followed all that. You really have to read the book to really get how significant this guy was, I think. Not that I really understand half of what I just talked about (quantum electrodynamics, for instance), but I have a new appreciation for this guy who appears to be on the same level as Newton and Einstein. Also, the book is like a biography as well, so you get a glimpse of what the guy was like which is also cool. One of the funniest things I found was his group of friends' nicknames for each other. So, Maxwell's nickname was dp/dt because dp/dt=JCM, JCM being his initials - as the author says a 'mathematical allusion or in-joke" which simply humorously understates the wonderful geekiness of it (for want of a much better word.)

And that is what I've learnt. I don't think I really communicated much of what I wanted to, spent more time on Newtonians etc, but whatever. My blog needed a post and I needed an outlet other than my family, wouldn't care, so you are stuck with this mess of facts instead. Sorry they're terribly organised, they just spilled onto the page, so to speak.

I'll try and be more relatable next time.

And 3.5 Months Later I Return Shame Faced....

So, last night I thought "hey, whatever happened to my blog?" and then "what happened to all those other blogs i visited?" Well in my mind they'd all ceased to exist as I'd recently forgotten about them amongst everything else in life that had made me busy. But everyone else's blogs were still there and mine was too, so i spent half an hour reading what I'd been writing to virtually no one for two years and I was like, "yeah, this is interesting." Then - wait, that's arrogant, cos it was me writing those things!

But (and here's my point), sometime I forgot it was me and it was this other person talking about everything that came into their head. Weird, actually, because once you're distanced from yourself by time its like you see that past self as a different person, in a sense. Well to me anyway. And you can learn again from them things you'd forgotten or note the things that have changed. And that is what I think is really interesting about journals and blogs, that whole 'other-person' aspect, that the present self sees in the past self because we're continually changing.

So my advice for today? Keep a journal, because that way you can remember the smallest detail from 4 years ago that you'd otherwise have forgotten. It's sweet. And you can read over your life and say, 'yeah, that was good.' haha, perhaps. In any case blogs/journals can be rewarding.

Also, as a side note, I realised I used to do quite a lot of thinking. I was a crazy kid. I'll try and do some more for you now that I have 3-4 months of holidays in which i'm unlikely to get a job! So, I'll read the paper or get inspired by quotes, or by Maxwell or Lamb. Yes....Maxwell physicists! I'll tell you more about him on Monday!

I have a dream . . . .

"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right". -Martin Luther King, Jr
This is my quote of the week. It is a new thing I'm starting up because it's quick, regular and not much effort. And its cool (or I think so). Cliche person for the first one but i assure you there will come to be people you've never heard of being posted on here. IT'll be GREAT.
Check back in a week.

Harry Potter

We went to the movies yesterday to see Star Trek, and they were advertising Harry Potter HBP. Posters, cardboard cut-outs and all. Then i came to my blog and saw that its 56 days till it coems out, and realised that i can get half my ticket on my hoyts card and I got excited. Imean, uits been, what, 2 years since the last one was out in the theatres, and 4 years since a decent one was out. (i'm joking, OOTP was decent, but only just, i didn't really like it).
I'm sort of just looking forward to a little bti more harry-hype, because I'm really going to mis the book releases (which for me consisted of gettign to the shops as soona s practical and then spending the better part of the weekend reading it to the exclusion of all company). Even though there'll never be the 'i have no idea what is going to happen, OH MY GOODNESS DID YOU SEE THAT?' that you get first time round with the books, the moveis are the closes we can get now and there's only three left! at least for the movies there's a little excitement in seeing what it's goign to be like. Not no idea, but a little less than complete, if you know what i mean.
Anyway, July 17th. very excited!!

A Few Good Lyrics

Hello. My mum has had this cd since we were in America called Songs by Rich Mullins. And he juts has good lyrics. Here's a selection:

Oh God, You are my God
And I will ever praise You
Oh God, You are my God
And I will ever praise You
I will seek You in the morning
And I will learn to walk in Your ways
And step by step You'll lead me
And I will follow You all of my days


And I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am
I did not make it, no it is making me
It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man
[Chorus of a song in which he pretty much sings the creed]


So if I stand let me stand on the promise
That you will pull me through
And if I can't, let me fall on the grace
That first brought me to You
And if I sing let me sing for the joy
That has born in me these songs
And if I weep let it be as a man
Who is longing for his home


[This is an awesome a capella song]
It's about as useless as a screen door on a submarine
Faith without works baby
It just ain't happenin'
One is your left hand, one is your right
It'll take two strong arms to hold on tight
Some folks cut off their nose just to spite their face
I think you need some works to show for your alleged faith

Well there's a difference you know
'tween having faith and playing make believe
One will make you grow the other one just make you sleep
Talk about it
But I really think you oughtta take a leap off of the ship
Before you claim to walk on water
Faith without works is like a song you can't sing
It's about as useless as a screen door on a submarine

There you go. Enjoy your day. And remember: Some people always have their nose in a book, but this tends to make reading difficult

Back Again, Sane thing

So i posted yesterday, and i still stand by it, but now I'm also going to quote a large section from a book I'm reading. I really liked what it says, more than what i said (because this dude has much more experience than me). This extract is from The Myths of Science edited by Kirsten Birkett, pages 114 - 117. At this point, Birkett is writing about Darwin and the Fundamentalists, in particular, Charles Hodge:

"Darwinism aside, [Hodge] wished to discuss why it was that scientists and
religious thinkers, as two classes, were so commonly perceived to be in
conflict. It was not because science and religion were in conflict; as we have [not haha]
seen, in Hodge's opinion the two could not be in conflict because both
revealed truth. Yet it was evident that, however misplaced it might be in his
view, there was an antagonism between scientists as a class and religious believers
as a class. Why?

Firstly, Hodge pointed out that the two groups adopt different
rules of evidence. Scientific 'knowledge' was restricted to the facts of
nature or the external world. Science, in common usage, was the ordered
knowledge of the phenomena which we recognise through the senses. This means
that a conviction resting on any other grounds was not science. "Darwin admits
that the contrivances in nature May be accounted for by assuming that they are due
to design on the part of God. But, her says, that would not be
science."

This was all very well; but it was illegitimate to assume that therefore the only valid
convictions are those based on sense data. Yet sadly, Hodge said, scientists
often let themselves fall into this very trap:
"It is inevitable that minds addicted to scientific investigation should receive a
strong bias to undervalue any other kind of evidence except that of the
senses...The tendency...of a mind addicted to the consideration
of one kind of evidence to become more or less insensible to to her kinds of proof
in undeniable."

As religion does not rest on the testimony of the sense, such people
therefore ignore its evidence; even though the evidence is still there, and
still just as reliable in its own sphere.

The second reason Hodge gives for why scientists fall into conflict with
theologians was the failure to make the due distinction between facts
and the explanation of those facts or the theories deduced from
them...Facts were beyond question. They were revelation from God, 'peices of
truth' so to speak, and so Christians would and had change their views when
necessary before the facts (e.g. geocentric/heliocentric). However Hodge
combined with this high opinion of fact a fairly cautious appraisal of human
ability to infer correctly from fact. In other words, the willingness of
Christians to change their views in face of the facts ought to satisfy
scientific men, Hodge insisted,; but instead, men of science want Christians to
bow to their explanations and inferences too...It is rather unreaosnable, Hodge
complained, that Chrssitians are called upon to change thier faith with every
new scientific discovery."

After all my thinking and reading the last two days, I've decided that I am just a bit sick and tired of the christianity verses science debate. I mean, it's all very well and good that the people in this book can discredit scientifically the things that the some scientists have said, but the more i read, especially in the 5th chapter (one quoted), the more i am convinced that the more we try and convince them scientifically the more we are scorned and vice versa. As James Orr says, well theologians can't realy intrude in on them. Page 129 of the above book:

The theologian may be to blame when he rashly or dogmatically intrudes into
the domain of science; on the other hand, it is not his place to be silent when
the scientist makes bold inroads into his domain, and, in the name of
science, would sweep away spirtitual facts which stand on their own grounds of
evidence as securely as facts of external nature.

Basically, as i heard recently, they are either going to believe or not and if they've got the mindset, the world view, that god doesn't exist, they will keep scorning those that try to 'prove' it, no matter how scientifically or logically they argue. You see what I mean? And really, the debates that christians get focused on today don't matter as much as losing sight of their salvation, do they? I mean, it's important to know your position on issues that seem to contend with biblical authority, but convincing others shouldn't consume all your time. It's nto noecessarily the best way to promote the gospel. But yes, I just relaised a moment ago how frustrating this whole thing is.

GAAAAH.