Eames Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Fair comment but Miscellaneous Conversational Frivolity is a bit of a mouthful isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Most of the above is talking out of my arse - physics was never my strongest suit And it isn't mine as well so I can hardly understand anything being said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 24, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 24, 2012 Most of the above is talking out of my arse - physics was never my strongest suit And it isn't mine as well so I can hardly understand anything being said I can probably bring you roughly upto speed with most of the stuff we've talked about here if theres anything that particularly piques your interest. Absolute zero is pretty easy to understand, as is the thing I reckon will turn out to be wrong featuring electron energy levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Most of the above is talking out of my arse - physics was never my strongest suit And it isn't mine as well so I can hardly understand anything being said I can probably bring you roughly upto speed with most of the stuff we've talked about here if theres anything that particularly piques your interest. Absolute zero is pretty easy to understand, as is the thing I reckon will turn out to be wrong featuring electron energy levels. I understand what absolute zero is, just not the quantum and electron mummbeeejummmbbooogeee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 24, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 24, 2012 I understand what absolute zero is, just not the quantum and electron mummbeeejummmbbooogeee. The electron thing is pretty simple (well, it isn't, but I'm gonna explain it to the level I feel confident talking about it, which is going to be so simplistic as to miss some of the point, but we're not physicists). Every atom has electrons obviously, and it turns out that when atoms react, it's largely the electrons that do the 'reacting'. It also turns out that electrons have different levels of energy, but they want to get the lowest level of energy they can. If you imagine an atom is a series of circles within one another, with the protons and neutrons in the centre, the electrons want to get to circle closest to the centre. But they can't, because each level can only take a set number of electrons, so they fill up the levels as well as they can (IIRC the lowest 2 levels can take 1 electron each, then all the others can take 2... and they want to fill the level perfectly - it's this that makes elements react, or not - if they have spare electrons, they try to lose them or gain another to make things full. Oxygen, a very reactive element, has a spare electron so will grab another from any element it can, or try to lose it. The noble gases are incredibly unreactive because they have full electron energy levels, meaning they require a lot of effort to force to react). Through a series of other theories we've discovered that these electron energy levels also all have to be individual - no 2 electrons in the entire universe have the same energy level. But we also know that we can give electrons energy - if you picked up a metal ball and rubbed it so it heated up, the electrons in the metal ball would have gained energy... but we know that no 2 electrons can have the same energy - so that means, we currently think, that all electrons have to be somehow in sync with each other - if a single electron in the universe has an energy gain or loss, all the others have to adjust to take into account that change. I think thats an elegant solution to a problem we've discovered on the back of other things we know... but the idea that electrons all in sync somehow seems a little silly to me, and I reckon we'll eventually, as we understand quantum more, discover that we're not quite right. As for quantum, it's basically just discussing physics at atomic (and below) levels, at which point the usual pretty normal laws of physics start to go weird or do stuff that does not happen in the usual observable world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I understand what absolute zero is, just not the quantum and electron mummbeeejummmbbooogeee. The electron thing is pretty simple (well, it isn't, but I'm gonna explain it to the level I feel confident talking about it, which is going to be so simplistic as to miss some of the point, but we're not physicists). Every atom has electrons obviously, and it turns out that when atoms react, it's largely the electrons that do the 'reacting'. It also turns out that electrons have different levels of energy, but they want to get the lowest level of energy they can. If you imagine an atom is a series of circles within one another, with the protons and neutrons in the centre, the electrons want to get to circle closest to the centre. But they can't, because each level can only take a set number of electrons, so they fill up the levels as well as they can (IIRC the lowest 2 levels can take 1 electron each, then all the others can take 2... and they want to fill the level perfectly - it's this that makes elements react, or not - if they have spare electrons, they try to lose them or gain another to make things full. Oxygen, a very reactive element, has a spare electron so will grab another from any element it can, or try to lose it. The noble gases are incredibly unreactive because they have full electron energy levels, meaning they require a lot of effort to force to react). Through a series of other theories we've discovered that these electron energy levels also all have to be individual - no 2 electrons in the entire universe have the same energy level. But we also know that we can give electrons energy - if you picked up a metal ball and rubbed it so it heated up, the electrons in the metal ball would have gained energy... but we know that no 2 electrons can have the same energy - so that means, we currently think, that all electrons have to be somehow in sync with each other - if a single electron in the universe has an energy gain or loss, all the others have to adjust to take into account that change. I think thats an elegant solution to a problem we've discovered on the back of other things we know... but the idea that electrons all in sync somehow seems a little silly to me, and I reckon we'll eventually, as we understand quantum more, discover that we're not quite right. As for quantum, it's basically just discussing physics at atomic (and below) levels, at which point the usual pretty normal laws of physics start to go weird or do stuff that does not happen in the usual observable world. Articulate ****. I mean that in the nicest possible way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Every atom has electrons obviously, and it turns out that when atoms react, it's largely the electrons that do the 'reacting'. It also turns out that electrons have different levels of energy, but they want to get the lowest level of energy they can. If you imagine an atom is a series of circles within one another, with the protons and neutrons in the centre, the electrons want to get to circle closest to the centre. But they can't, because each level can only take a set number of electrons, so they fill up the levels as well as they can (IIRC the lowest 2 levels can take 1 electron each, then all the others can take 2... and they want to fill the level perfectly - it's this that makes elements react, or not - if they have spare electrons, they try to lose them or gain another to make things full). Wait, wait, I've learnt this before...........you've just reminded me that it's been 2 and a half years since I last touched a Chemistry worksheet Was never great at the physical sciences at high school level, more of an abstract (for lack of a better word) thinker myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 24, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 24, 2012 Articulate ****. I mean that in the nicest possible way Ha, cheers. 8) Wait, wait, I've learnt this before...........you've just reminded me that it's been 2 and a half years since I last touched a Chemistry worksheet Was never great at the physical sciences at high school level, more of an abstract (for lack of a better word) thinker myself. Yes the first part of that is basically AS Level chemistry - a subject I failed 6 years ago >_> I was best at biology, accept at cell level. I liked being able to break down processes in systems that have progressive stages/steps, which biology does quite easily. Physics I never enjoyed but found interesting, chemistry involved way too much remembering the exact natures of way too many things. Still, I find it all interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irreverentad Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Anyone ever had a massage (of the non dodgy variety)? How much should I pay and does it properly relax you? I am a bit tense with some muscular back pain at the moment so I am considering it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Australia Rudd and Gillard at loggerheads again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I understand what absolute zero is, just not the quantum and electron mummbeeejummmbbooogeee. The electron thing is pretty simple (well, it isn't, but I'm gonna explain it to the level I feel confident talking about it, which is going to be so simplistic as to miss some of the point, but we're not physicists). Every atom has electrons obviously, and it turns out that when atoms react, it's largely the electrons that do the 'reacting'. It also turns out that electrons have different levels of energy, but they want to get the lowest level of energy they can. If you imagine an atom is a series of circles within one another, with the protons and neutrons in the centre, the electrons want to get to circle closest to the centre. But they can't, because each level can only take a set number of electrons, so they fill up the levels as well as they can (IIRC the lowest 2 levels can take 1 electron each, then all the others can take 2... and they want to fill the level perfectly - it's this that makes elements react, or not - if they have spare electrons, they try to lose them or gain another to make things full. Oxygen, a very reactive element, has a spare electron so will grab another from any element it can, or try to lose it. The noble gases are incredibly unreactive because they have full electron energy levels, meaning they require a lot of effort to force to react). Through a series of other theories we've discovered that these electron energy levels also all have to be individual - no 2 electrons in the entire universe have the same energy level. But we also know that we can give electrons energy - if you picked up a metal ball and rubbed it so it heated up, the electrons in the metal ball would have gained energy... but we know that no 2 electrons can have the same energy - so that means, we currently think, that all electrons have to be somehow in sync with each other - if a single electron in the universe has an energy gain or loss, all the others have to adjust to take into account that change. I think thats an elegant solution to a problem we've discovered on the back of other things we know... but the idea that electrons all in sync somehow seems a little silly to me, and I reckon we'll eventually, as we understand quantum more, discover that we're not quite right. As for quantum, it's basically just discussing physics at atomic (and below) levels, at which point the usual pretty normal laws of physics start to go weird or do stuff that does not happen in the usual observable world. it's good .... but I can't help but think a simple drawing would have been better :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Anyone ever had a massage (of the non dodgy variety)? How much should I pay and does it properly relax you? I am a bit tense with some muscular back pain at the moment so I am considering it. they do massages without a happy ending :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 24, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2012 Interesting read Chindie, cheers. I agree with your assertion too. It certainly seems as though based on that, they've come up with a current theory that will be debunked at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Anyone ever had a massage (of the non dodgy variety)? How much should I pay and does it properly relax you? I am a bit tense with some muscular back pain at the moment so I am considering it. Ive had a few mate. I used to struggle/suffer with muscle tension/cramp of my trapezius which was sports related. A deep tissue massage hurts like **** at times but you feel amazing afterwards. I think i paid around £30-£40. Worth every penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 24, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 24, 2012 A deep tissue massage hurts like **** at times but you feel amazing afterwards.There's a guy at my running club who is one of the toughest, hardest blokes I have ever met. He told me he had one of those massages on his calf once that made him cry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 A deep tissue massage hurts like **** at times but you feel amazing afterwards.There's a guy at my running club who is one of the toughest, hardest blokes I have ever met. He told me he had one of those massages on his calf once that made him cry! my mate does this sort of thing for a living and he reckons the thing with deep tissue massage is that if it hurts someone then the masseur is doing it wrong .... seems to be this perception that you have to push as hard as you can in some form of test of strength but by doing so all you are doing is pushing the muscle down onto the bone thus creating that pain sensation (or something like that , I have a very short attention span to learning new stuff) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 ultimately the theory that comes along and makes most sense will be so bloody obvious we will wonder how we missed it in the first place. or it will cause our brains to melt. i never quite liked professor floppy hair's reasoning that all electrons are connected and could never fill the same energy level, even if it does explain why we don't fall though the floor. the idea of an deeply interconnected universe is a bit to deist for my liking, although admittedly it seems reasonable enough considering we all emerged from a space smaller than a grain of sand. still, part of me likes to think it just bloody is, and the ground rules we see are not ground rules at all (to deist) but just a way of opposing the inherently chaotic nature of it all anwyway it's fascinating all the same and all i hope for is to hang around long enough for some chap to usurp our current understanding with something even more baffling, or simple.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 A deep tissue massage hurts like **** at times but you feel amazing afterwards.There's a guy at my running club who is one of the toughest, hardest blokes I have ever met. He told me he had one of those massages on his calf once that made him cry! my mate does this sort of thing for a living and he reckons the thing with deep tissue massage is that if it hurts someone then the masseur is doing it wrong .... seems to be this perception that you have to push as hard as you can in some form of test of strength but by doing so all you are doing is pushing the muscle down onto the bone thus creating that pain sensation (or something like that , I have a very short attention span to learning new stuff) Obviously if you push the muscle onto the bone then its going to hurt like ****, on the other hand, if you massage a muscle that hurts anyway with an amount of pressure then its going to hurt like **** also. To sum it up, either way it hurts like ****! But yes, i agree with what your saying GT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Australia Rudd and Gillard at loggerheads again. I'm not that hot on Aussie Politics, but Gillard gets my vote. We asked her for a letter of support for our local footy team that was under threat and she sent us a really supportive letter. She wished us well, asked to be kept up to date and mentioned that whilst she wasn't a big football fan in our sense of the word she did have a fave Aussie Rules team and they'd been through struggles so she sympathised. Had the feel of a genuine letter and was on official paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 There's a guy at my running club who is one of the toughest, hardest blokes I have ever met. He told me he had one of those massages on his calf once that made him cry! A massage that made him cry? Where did he 'cry' from? :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts