but I’m not a Scientist
Today would be the inventor Nikola Tesla’s 155th birthday so I’d like to offer a happy birthday shout out. Tesla is one of the figures in scientific history that I’d love to know more about. From what I do know about him he was instrumental to the development of Alternating Current (AC) and also played a huge role in creating wireless communication (radio).
Also, David Bowie played him in “The Prestige.”
Mr. Nikola Tesla
Google honors Tesla's birthday with this custom logo today
Quite literally. This New York Times article seems to cover it all, and go into details about how newer stronger glass is being used in ways that previously would not have been considered for the material. Probably my favorite thing about the article is that it clarifies that most experts now classify glass as an amorphous solid as opposed to a super viscous liquid. It really is an amazing material when you think about it, but often we don’t, because it is so ubiquitous. A great article which also offers a slide show and two infographics (here and here). Maybe the next time you take a look through glass you’ll be able to appreciate the transparent material a little bit more.
Considering the previous post, I feel it is worth pointing out the potential world colony of Argentine Ants as described by BBC. Not a lot that I can say about it that hasn’t been said in the article. I really suggest you just read it and maybe experience the momant of baffled amazement. Still, as the article clearly points out, it seems that this is in part directly responsible to human movement throughout the world. fascinating stuff about a fascinating species.
Okay, it has been ages since I last wrote here, and I feel kind of bad about it. So I am back, and in my return I will point you to a blog post by Olivia Judson from The New York Times (coincidentally Ms. Judson just returned herself after being away on sabbatical). The piece is titled “ ‘Operator? Can You Put Me Through to Ant Nest 251?’” and is a wonderful little examination of ants, and how they communicate.
I have known, for some time, that ants’ main form of communication was through “smelling” chemicals (note: I put smelling in quotes, because I believe it is a little bit different than what we associate with smelling, though in general analogous). Ants can leave all sorts of chemical trails to direct the movements and actions of others in their colonies. They are also quite sensitive to anything that doesn’t smell right to them (aka. a probably threat). This system of chemical communication seems to work out quite well for the little insects. As Ms. Judson points out in her piece that ants can account for more than a quarter of the biomass (mass of all living things) in some tropical regions. I have further read (though I don’t have a cited confirmation here – apologies, look this up yourselves) that the total biomass of all ants on Earth is about equal to the total biomass of all humans on Earth. Just think about that for a second . . . how many ants do you think make up your personal body mass? Then think about how there are about 6.7 billion people in the world. Conclusion: A hell of a lot of ants on our planet.
I digress though . . . the article really focuses, in stead of formian chemical comunication, on how ants can stridulate (I assume kind of similar to crickets and grasshoppers, though not 100% certain) to make small sounds. These sounds can provide further forms of communication within the various ant species. Just as we humans communicate in more ways than just language, so to do ants convey messages beyond just their reliable chemical trails.
And Ms. Judson closes off on a valuable point in regards to how we think of other animals (and perhaps science in general). We often, even without thinking about it, commit the fallacy of anthropocentrism in assuming that because we humans act in a certain way other living things (and the universe in general) will, and should, act that way too. This is one of the great challenges in science, to distinguish what we think should be from what actually is. The world does not always (in fact might very rarely ever) confirm with our views and desires. If we look only for the facts that support our beliefs or ideals then we are committing bad science and not really seeking a greater knowledge of the world. Something to think about.
Take care.
A BBC article describes the discovery of poison glands in Komodo Dragons, which explains some of their effectiveness as predators. I had heard the rumors/belief that Komodo Dragons could cause bacterial infections with their bites, but the discovery of the venom glands seems to make more sense than a consistent virulent bacteria that exists in the mouths of all individuals in a species. What I further find interesting is the biting capacity of the Komodo Dragons. For their size it is relatively weak, but with the addition of the venom, and a vice like grip that is hard to convince to let go, the Dragons do not really require bone crushing jaws.
Venom/Poison have long interested me, and I think proving that such a large predator like a Komodo Dragon uses venom, raises a lot of questions in regards to predatory evolution. Really it is fascinating stuff.
A BBC article briefly describes further advances in the prospects of creating an invisibility cloak. While I think it would be awesome to have a material that can render a type of virtual invisibility, I am curious about how such a material could be made with an invisibility toggling feature, so that it could be visible when it needs to be and then turned invisible at the right moment. Of course all of that is still a long ways away seeing as the material being worked on right now is still at the microscopic level. Still cool stuff that seems to have some interesting potential.
I think it is fair to say that no discovery, in recent years, has shaken paleoanthropology more than the discovery of Homo floresiensis on the island of Flores, and that is saying a whole lot considering the topic of paleoanthropology and the debates that regularly go along with the study. The New York Times has provided a great in depth look at some of the questions and difficulties that H. floresiensis has been raising. The thought that there could have been another living hominid in the relatively recent past (relatively considering the whole of hominid evolution) is both amazing and slightly unsettling. In begs a number of questions about the hominids themsleves and the evolution of modern humans. Really fascinating stuff.
Constance Casey, over at Slate.com, has written several articles detailing the lives of a number of less than savory animals. They are wonderful! To date she has written about slugs, vultures, ticks, and jellyfish. Each article gives us, the readers, a closer look at an animal that in general we don’t want to get any closer to than through a bunch of words and pictures. The great thing about each piece that Ms. Casey has written is that they encourage a reconsideration of some of the other living things on this planet. The tick might not be a pleasant creature all and all (especially with the potential spread of lyme disease) but that doesn’t mean that they are not worth our interest and inspection. The reality is that all the different animals that we share the world with currently have come about through millions of years evolution, much like ourselves, and ultimately these creatures are just playing the surviving game.
When I was a kid I had a book (the title of which I cannot remember) that looked at almost all the creatures that Ms. Casey has written about, as well as several other “icky” critters. I loved that book! I honestly think that it did a lot for me to develop a great fascination with pretty much any living thing. So much so that when I found a blackwidow in my room not too long ago I didn’t just freak and squish it but spent several minutes closely observing it, marveling at the beautiful and complex little creature. Then I did squish it, not because I take particular pleasure in killing anything, even spiders, but mostly because I am aware that the little red hourglass indictes the female black widow, and that female spiders are known for laying a good quantity of eggs, which in turn hatch into a bunch of other little spiders (and considering the black widow’s poisonous bite I’m not that eager to have more around, regardless of how interesting I think they are).
Can you imagine being confined to the same, tight, place with five other people for 105 days? Well, according to this New York Time article, that is exactly what 6 Russian Cosmonauts are going to get to do. The objective of this long confinement is to study the possible effects of such enclosure on a crew en-route to Mars. I think it is a fascinating experiment, but one that I would never have any desire to be a part of. It is something like prison, but willingly. I just wonder how human psychology can cope with such situations.
Does anybody know how long the astro/cosmonauts spend in the International Space Station? I imagine a pretty long time seeing as I don’t hear about too many missions to replace the crews. I am curious as to what tests have been done on the psychological soundness of the ISS crews.
While I find space quite interesting, I really have no desire to ever go there. Everything about space travel in our day and age just seems too cramped and uncomfortable and potentially deadly. I prefer to keep my feet on the relatively safe ground of this planet.
via New York Times’ article “Extravagant Results of Nature’s Arms Race“
Wonderful stuff . . . check out the slide show too!
