Bang. Energy. Tah-dahhh.

Physicsssssss. My most favourite subjects ever. Not. Why on Earth did I apply for Physics AS? I'd like to switch to Bio but I'm failing it at the moment.

So, this is my attempt at liking Physics more. As I listen to Friday by Rebecca Black. How sad my life is.

Okies, no more putting it off.

Lets review what I already know on Nuclear power.

Pros are -

• It's clean (and lets face it, no one likes a mess).
• It brings good things to an area like skilled jobs and a better infrastructure.
• It's cheap (and right now everyone's very poor... which I don't understand is where all this money has gone. Coz, if everyone's suddenly poor, the money must have gone somewhere. I can just imagine Africa suddenly becoming a new super power with all the squillions of pounds we've lot. Sorry, tangent).

Wow, that wasn't a lot of pro's at all.

Okay, lets look at Con's instead.

• It releases baddddd things into the atmosphere. CO2 causes global warming and Sulphur compounds cause acid rain. It seems whatever we humans do, we're just murdering the planet.
• The products are radioactive which is very very very bad for all living things.
• Those radioactive products are very hard to get rid of. We have to box them up and bury them in a hole.
• Those radioactive elements stay radioactive for hundreds of years. So we could kill our ancestors if we don't kill ourselves. Lovely.
• There's ALWAYS the risk of major accidents like Chernobyl. Not only do people die at the time, by babies are born with mutations and people die of cancer decades after.
• Even though nuclear reactors are cheap, the facilities and cleaning up the site afterwards is very expensive.

Okay. So the purpose of today's blog is nuclear Fission and Fusion.

Fission is what goes on in a Nuclear Power plant. How does it work? Well, its all in the name. The word 'fission' is when nuclei split. So, lots of Uranium or Plutonium is chucked into the reactor. A stray neutron will smash into one of these big atoms and cause it to split. These split atoms are radioactive and a couple of little neutrons are also released. Those extra neutrons might go off and hit some more Uranium or Plutonium.

Here's a picture;

So that's fission over and done with... all that's left is Nuclear Fusion.

As the name suggests, its when atoms fuse together. This only happens with small nuclei and can be seen in stars like the sun. Fusion whacks out a massive amount of energy (loads more that fission) and since we have loads of hydrogen knocking about, it would be awesome if we could use fusion to produce energy on earth. However, fusion only works in really high temperature.

BUT! There may be an answer to the problem. Some scientists have claimed to have proven a type of 'Cold Fusion', but these results are yet to be replicated.

And tah-dah, that's the ins and outs of Fission and Fusion.

Gahh, The Society For The Protection Of Plants Are Coming!

Today's post is on Biology, kids.

We all know that plants photosynthesise, which involved water, which we know is sucked up through the roots. We also know that plants need CO2 to photosynthesise, and that they release Oxygen as a product of photosynthesis. But, plants don't have mouths or lungs to breathe, and they don't have tongues and stomachs to suck up water as if through a straw.

So how do plants do it? Break them open and they're just leafy-green all the way through. The greatest puzzle of mankind? Of course not, it call all be explained with some other stuff we already know.

Take the process of diffusion. Here's the law, just in case;

Diffusion is the passive movement of particles from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration (AKA, down a concentration gradient).

So, we know its possible for CO2 and Oxygen to diffuse. If only plants had cells that let that happen...

Oh, would you just look at that? That ^ is a cross section of a leaf. And see the thing labelled 'Stoma'? That's basically a tiny hole in the skin of the leaf. Conveniently, it's big enough to let Oxygen and CO2 pass in and out.

No prizes for guessing this is how gas exchange happens in a plant.

So lets make things nice and clear.

To start off, there is a high concentration of CO2 in the air, so it diffuses into the leaf. Its then used to photosynthesise and is turned into Oxygen. This means there's a higher concentration of Oxygen in the plant than outside it, so it diffuses out. This happens continuously.

So, if that's how plants get CO2 for photosynthesis, how do they get the water?

Yep, through the roots.

But, for the water to get from the roots to the leaves, it would pretty much have to defy gravity. How? By sucking. Yeah, I know plants don't have mouths or stomachs. But they can suck, because just the same as gases can be diffused out of the leaves, so can water. So water vapour left over from photosynthesising is diffused out, leaving a little gap for more water to fill. So all the water in the plant moves up a little bit, leading to a tiny bit being sucked up through the roots.

Lovely. That whole process of the water moving is known as Transpiration. A complex name for a pretty simple theory.

Now, there a few other little things I'll need to know.

And those are how the rate of transpiration is affected.

Light is a huge factor. Generally, the brighter the light, the greater the transpiration rate, because the plant is photosynthesising faster. But the plants do need to keep some water to keep them hydrated, which is why all the stomata are on the bottom of the leaf, where it's cooler and darker. The stomata also start to close in the dark, because photosynthesising can't happen in the dark.

Another factor is temperature. When it's hotter, the rate increases because the particles have more energy to move and diffuse.

Air movement also has a big role. Diffusion (and subsequently transpiration) happens more quickly when it's windy because the water vapour is blown away. But when it's not windy, all the water vapour stays around the plant, so there is a higher concentration of water outside the plant.

Finally, the humidity of the air around the plant affects transpiration. Think about it, if there's more water in the air, the concentration gradient will be less, to diffusion will be slower.

Tah-dah, there's a perfectly adequate lesson on transfusion. And damn, my teacher could't explain it in a whole hour. Tut tut, I'm appalled.

Thank me later, people of the world.

I'm A Very Acidic Person.

During Chemistry today, I was appalled by how little I know about the very foundations of Chemistry. I'm not talking ethics and morals and theories. I mean the common knowledge, like what reacts to make a salt, what a base is, what colour a certain substance turns in a certain indicator.

So, this post is going to be a little smidge of all that, plus some stuff on Acid-Base theories which I just didn't get today and need to clear up in my head.

Now then. What is an acid, boys and girls?

Something with a pH less than 7.

And what is an alkali, children?

Something with a pH greater than 7.

So who can tell me what neutral is?

Something with a pH of 7, like water, miss.

I think that ^ is a pretty good interpretation of how I felt today... five year old's could have out smarted me.

But oh well, it's never too late to learn.

Metal Oxides and Metal Hydroxides are all bases. And to complicate things further, all alkali's are bases, but not all bases are alkali. Like this...

Yay.

There's a couple of equations I need to learn...

acid + base --> salt + water

AKA:

That basically means that the Hydrogen in an Acid will react with the Hydroxide in an Alkali to produce water, which is neutral.

An example? Well, just think of Sulphuric Acid and Sodium Hydroxide forming Sodium Sulphate and Water.... the Sodium Sulphate is the salt.

Another formula:

acid + metal --> salt + hydrogen

Like Sulphuric Acid and Magnesium will form Magnesium Sulphate (the salt again) and Hydrogen. The more reactive the metal, the more hydrogen is produced and the quicker it happens. But there are some weakling-little metals, like Copper, that are less reactive than hydrogen, so they don't react at all.

Also, Acids and Carbonates will always produce Carbon Dioxide (and salt and water).

A note on reversible reactions: provided all the reactants and products are kept in a closed environment, they will eventually reach a dynamic equilibrium. This means that there will eventually come a time when the relative (%) quantities of the reactants and products will reach a balance and stay there. It's called a 'dynamic' equilibrium because the reaction is still going on. However, the reaction is happening at the same rate, so they cancel each other out.

Changing temperature or pressure can effect a reactions equilibrium, but a catalyst makes no difference.

I know I said I was going to talk about Acid-Base theories, but this post has gone on for too long and I'm past the point of caring :)

Oh Gee, You Think I'm Special?

More RS coming up, because I have a test on Friday.

So, following on from the stuff on Special revelation, I need to talk about prayer, worship, visions, dreams, enlightenment and then I need to discuss whether God is a reality or an illusion.

Lets crack on then.

Prayer is a big part of a lot of religions. Millions of people use it to contact God and as a symbol of their commitment. The way people pray is effected by the religion they belong to and personal preference too.

Some people pray in silence because they believe words get in the way of worship. They believe that prayer is about being still in the presence of God and being totally open to what he has to offer. Other people enjoy to meditate, particularly Buddhists. This can either be done in silence or by saying 'Om' in time with breathing. Meditation has a lot in common with silent prayer as it's about being open to God and (especially for Buddhism) enlightenment. Some people focus on religious books or God, others try to clear the mind to achieve enlightenment. The purpose of meditation is to become one with God.

Another popular type of prayer is communal prayer. This takes place in religious buildings or at formal ceremonies. A group of believers (of one religion) all come together to share a prayer, perhaps to help one person feel more integrated into the religion and accepted by God. Communal prayer is often done in a set format, which is known as Liturgical prayer. The people repeat standard prayers or words, usually in a formal setting, led by a priest (or other holy-person).

Some religions are a little more over the top and use their whole bodies to pray, such as Muslims who go through a series of bows...etc whilst chanting or praying.

Prayer is really interlinked with worship. Technically, prayer is a form of worship and worship goes wayyyyy beyond just prayer. So other types of worship can include going to a holy building, reading sacred texts or taking part in religious days. The point of all this is to show off to God and be like 'Hey, you up there! I love you, God!'. But yeah, anyway. Some religions require you to live by the rules of God at all times, but some people can't help but wonder at the validity of worship. It's not as if worshipping God is going to help him much. Added to the fact that God might not even exist, the whole idea of worship does make you consider the sanity of these worshippers. But hey, they say it gives them a better understanding of God, so I'll just leave them to it.

So, last post I talked about how God might reveal himself to humans through nature or whatever and I had to use that complicated Van Gogh anology. This method of revelation is much simpler - maybe God could just pop up and be like "Hey, I exist, spread the word!" And voila, job done. That's what I discussed the post before last with the whole Isaiah thing. But the thing is, who would really believe Isaiah if he came along and started going on about Serpahs and whatever else. Coz I sure wouldn't; I'd have him down as a whack job. Fact is, it's always gonna be hard to prove visions and dreams are real because they're hard to communicate to other people, and they'd be pretty hard to believe. Visions and dreams are almost always unique and personal, so really only the person in question can believe in it.

There's one final revelation that I have to talk about, and surprisingly, I'm not that pessimistic about it as the other ones. Enlightenment was first achieved by the Buddha on like 400BCE. He fasted and nearly died and tried all sorts of things to achieve enlightenment, but eventually he just meditated for 49 days and finally made it. Now the whole of Buddhism is dedicated to the Buddha and achieving enlightenment.

Finally, the difference between reality and illusion has already been revised on my poster. So, for the topic of Revelation and Enlightenment, I'm DONEEEEE XD

Abolish Religion So We Can Stop Fighting Over It.

I majorly freaked out in RS today. At this rate I'll scrape a C and then my hard earned A* (100%, by the way) from last year will be a total waste.

So here I am on Pancake Day revising RS. Oh well, at least I can write oh-so-sarcastically about Revelation and Enlightenment.

Lets hypothesize. If God did exist, and if he was the ultimate creator, how would we know? If God were as high-and-mighty as he's made out to be, it's pretty fair to say that humans wouldn't know about him unless God wanted us to. So religious people rely on revelation to know that God is up there somewhere. There are two types of revelation - special and general.

General revelation can be seen all around us. For example, if we want to find out about a dead painter like Van Gogh, we look at his paintings. From those paintings we can tell that he was a tormented man. But Van Gogh was probably more than just a tormented man. He might have enjoyed strawberry ice cream and watching America's Next Top Model, but we don't know that from his painting. Van Gogh can never create a painting greater than himself. Likewise, God can never create something greater than himself.

So when we look in awe at nature and all it's glory, I can see why these uber-Catholics might assume that God is all of nature and greater. Nature is a good way to look at God. Nature is intelligent, interlinked, beautiful. Maybe you could argue that those are some of the characteristics of God. But you could also argue that nature can be evil and dangerous... are those characteristics of God too? Maybe, maybe not.

But God can also reveal himself through his other creations, like people. Some people are compassionate and loving, like religious people claim God to be. Other people can be spiteful and evil... once again, shouldn't these be characteristics of God too?

-

Special revelation is a whole different subject all together. Rather than being able to look at what's around us to determine what God is like, we have to rely on direct messages from God.

A pretty obvious example are sacred texts. Most of them are apparently written by people who have had direct contact with God. Some religions obviously value their religious books more than others, like the Sikh Guru Granth Sahib is treated like God itself; it's fed, put to bed and carried above the head.

Here's a short note on the sacred texts of the six main world religions -

• Hinduism, The Vedas - these books have no human authors, as the stories in them were heard/seen in visions by priestly seers, who in turn wrote them down when it was feared the meaning of the tales was being changed.
• Judaism , The Torah - contains the laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Since these laws came directly from God, Jews follow the Torah very exactly.
• Buddhism, The Tripitaka and The Sutras - the Buddha taught many great lessons, which were gradually collected and written down. These books aren't so much worshipped, they just contain the teachings of an enlightened man.
• Christianity, The Bible - was written by prophets, gospels...etc who had direct contact with God, so it's followed very exactly.
• Islam, The Qur'an - is the word of Allah revealed to Muhammed, which means the book is treated with utmost respect.
• Sikhism, The Guru Granth Sahib - contains the teachings of the ten gurus (and some Hindu and Muslim teachings) and is treated like a human.

Although some religious books contain the direct words of God and some do not, there is a LOT of confusion over how the words should be interpreted.

Some people known as fundamentalists believe that every word in sacred texts should be taken literally, as the words come from God and God wouldn't mislead his people.

Others, known as liberals, believe that since the sacred texts were written so long ago, they're not very relevant to current times, so we must derive meaning from the texts and apply them to current day situations.

Finally, there are even some people who question the validity of scared texts. They question their validity because they believe sacred texts are just expressions of other people's beliefs that gained value because other people could relate to them. So, although the sacred texts might not be completely accurate, they do show us how people like to express their faith.

Wow, I'm tired after all that. I might post more on other ways of spiritual revelation tonight or maybe tomorrow :)

Oh, Hello God. You Exist After All!

Okies, hello again Blogger. I can't believe I'm back here already. This time for my actual GCSEs. Whoopie.

I'm here to waffle about Isaiah's Commission, which is some biblical text about some dude called Isaiah getting a vision and becoming a prophet.

The text I'm supposed to study is on page 68 of my textbook, but here's a link to a slightly different version because I can't find the exact one.

http://www.bibleinsong.com/Song_Pages/Isaiah/Isaiah6/Isaiah6.htm

Yeah, I know, what a loadddd of mumbo-jumbo. I can't believe I'm actually analysing the Bible on the internet. Oh the shame. Anyway, right.

Basically, the story starts off the same year some King called Uzziah died. God was sitting on a throne and the train of his robe was filling the whole temple (some people might argue that it was Solomon's Temple). Above God there were two Seraphs, which are these winged mythical creatures that appear in Hebrew and Christian texts. So these two Seraphs had six wings each, two covering their faces, two covering their feet and two they were using to fly.

These creatures are representative of praise and they were all "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty, the whole earth was full of his glory". Basically, they were bigging up God's ego even more than it already was.

And when these Seraphs started speaking, the door posts started shaking and the room was full of smoke. There's also a quotation in Exodus, which goes "for no man shall see me and live". So naturally, Isaiah started freaking out big time. He goes on about having unclean lips and that he lives among other people who have unclean lips. No, all of Isaiah's household don't need a good wash, apparently this 'unclean lips' is a metaphor for having sin, which everyone has.

So after Isaiah started freaking out, one of the Seraphs wanted to chill him out. But rather than give him a good pat on the shoulder, the Seraph grabbed a burning coal from some alter and shoved it on Isaiah's lips. To be honest, that would have freaked me out more, but it chilled Isaiah out, so that's all that matters. So then the Seraph tells Isaiah that his sin and guilt is gone.

Then God starts asking for a prophet, so Isaiah offers himself up. God then tells him to go and tell everyone to "be ever hearing, but never understand; be ever seeing, but never perceiving". Then God talks about how this will effect people and says stuff about their hearts being calloused and their ears dull and their eyes closed. Which all basically means that even though Isaiah is apparently preaching the truth, many people won't listen. But there will be the handful of headcases who will listen. And Jesus will deal with the ones who don't wanna listen and make some of them into headcases too.

Sounds like I just analysed God's plan for world domination and some poor guy with too much on his mind as it is, without some high-and-mighty-supernatural-being telling him to go preach to people who won't listen.

What a fucked up religion Christianity is. No offence, ofc.

Oh, I almost forgot.

http://executableoutlines.com/isa/isa_04.htm

^ That's the site I used to get my head around the whole extract :)