(Ain’t It Cool News) – … Copernicus’ Law of Science Fiction: Bending the laws of physics theory out of service to the story is fine, doing it out of ignorance is unconscionable. …

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440

أهم شيء أهم شيء صلعة معتز

I was never very good at physics theory, least of all the kind about how light is bent. So, when I read about apertures and their relationship with depth of field, I knew I was venturing into scary territory that I would rather not enter. But, inevitably, here I am.

What am I talking about?

Here’s the progression of apertures from Ben Fried’s excellent explanation of the basics.

The relationship with depth of field is, oddly, reversed. The bigger the hole, the lower the depth of field and hence the blurrier it is on the edges. The smaller the hole, the higher the depth of field, bringing more of the picture into clear focus.  Say it again with me – bigger hole, lower DOF;  smaller hole, higher DOF.

Or, to make it more catchy, bigger hole, bigger blur. Smaller hole, smaller blur.

But, why?

Here’s some science behind it. Sean McHugh, a Chemical Engineering PhD student named who studied at Cambridge University in the UK, has a website Cambridge In Colour, with absolutely sublime pictures of the Cambridge area and knowledgeable explanations of the mechanics behind photography. Here’s his take on aperture/DOF:

The key concept is this: when an object is in focus, light rays originating from that point converge at a point on the camera’s sensor. If the light rays hit the sensor at slightly different locations (arriving at a disc instead of a point), then this object will be rendered as out of focus — and increasingly so depending on how far apart the light rays are.

And a visualization of the concept:

Follow the link for a more detailed scientific explanation of Depth of Field on the Cambridge in Colour website.

Here’s another quick visual reference to help remember which aperture gets what kind of depth of field (via the CS department at MichiganTech).

Don’t care about the physics theory? Just remember – bigger hole, bigger blur

(ScienceDaily) — Duke University engineers have created a new generation of lens that could greatly improve the capabilities of telecommunications or radar systems to provide a wide field of view and greater detail. …

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091220143915.htm

(New York Times photograph by Damon Winter)

The New York Times has an article on teachers defying gravity to gain their students’ interest in learning science and mathematics.  Northrop Grumman has partnered with Zero G Corporation to offer science teachers opportunities to experience zero gravity.

The Zero G Corporation also offers their Zero G Experience to the general public for $5,000 per person.

Anyone want to contribute to my zero G fund?

Read the full article at The New York Times.

Images of graphene oxide sheets deposited on a SiO2/Si substrate acquired by atomic force microscopy, scanning electron microscope, optical microscope at reflectance mode and the new fluorescence quenching microscopy (FQM). FQM offers comparable contrast and layer resolutions to AFM and SEM.

It’s been used to dye the Chicago River green on St. Patrick’s Day. It’s been used to find latent blood stains at crime scenes. And now researchers at Northwestern University have used it to examine the thinnest material in the world.

The useful tool is the dye fluorescein, and Jiaxing Huang, assistant professor of materials science and engineering at the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, and his research group have used the dye to create a new imaging technique to view graphene, a one-atom thick sheet that scientists believe could be used to produce low-cost carbon-based transparent and flexible electronics.

Their results were recently published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

Being the world’s thinnest materials, graphene and its derivatives such as graphene oxide are quite challenging to see. Current imaging methods for graphene materials typically involve expensive and time-consuming techniques. For example, atomic force microscopy (AFM), which scans materials with a tiny tip, is frequently used to obtain images of graphene materials. But it is a slow process that can only look at small areas on smooth surfaces. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), which scans a surface with high-energy electrons, only works if the material is placed in vacuum. Some optical microscopy methods are available, but they require the use of special substrates, too.

“There are really no good techniques that are general enough to meet the diverse imaging needs in the research and development of this group of new materials,” Huang says. “For example, people have proposed putting graphene materials on plastic sheets for flexible electronics, but seeing them on plastic has been very challenging. If one cannot exam these materials, quality control is going to be difficult.”

Fluorescent labeling has been used routinely to image biological samples, typically by using fluorescent dyes that make the objects of interest light up under a fluorescence microscope. But such a technique doesn’t work for graphene materials because of a mechanism called fluorescence quenching: they can “turn off” the fluorescence of nearby dye molecules.

“So we thought, how about we just put dye everywhere?” Huang says. “That way, the whole background lights up, and wherever you have graphene will be dark. It’s an inverse strategy that turns out to work beautifully.”

When Huang and his group coated a graphene sample with fluorescein and put it under a fluorescence microscope — a much cheaper, readily available instrument — they obtained images as clear as those acquired with AFM and SEM.

via An Easy Way to See the World’s Thinnest Material.

I continue to meet with clairvoyant and channel Pat Bruckmann to help facilitate her channeling sessions. We work collaboratively and I am there mostly to provide a second perspective of someone who has not been given material from this source for years. I ask questions that hopefully others would naturally be wondering at the appropriate times and also build a dialogue with THEY WHO SPEAK that sparks the introduction of interesting material in general (although they are quite clear that they have an agenda of material they wish to bring to humanity via the channeling, they also wish for the process to remain a fluid dialogue as we have been conducting it).

Pat and I both got busy over the holiday season and just met today for the first time after having missed two weeks. Toward the end of the session I brought up a question that she and I had discussed earlier – would there be value in channeling predictive material? There was a long involved answer (to be made available in its entirely on 36stones.com in the new year) but what really sparked my interest was their statement that we should exercise caution with what we ask and that an answer will not always be given. I asked them to elaborate. They explained that if too much information is provided given a future event then that information can go out into the world, affect people’s perceptions and activities and perhaps change the unfolding of the future event itself. I asked if they had a sense about WHEN giving information regarding the future could have this negative effect and they said yes. I asked HOW they could know. They explained something about how they could see things in steps– if there were 10 steps between a person and the door, they could see things broken down and how at step 3 a bird may fly by and hit the person in the face and how the other steps may change if the bird does not hit the person because the person knew to duck. (I am probably not doing their words justice here and will refer to the transcript when available.) Then I asked them if their ability to see all of these things, future events and things laid out in steps as they were describing, was an artifact of their existence in another dimension. They said, yes…that was sort of it.

Now this is where it got fun. I asked them, then if they could be wrong about things in the present…for example if I was hiding a blue ball from vision in my hand and asked them what color the ball in my hand was, if it was possible for them to get a question like that in the present tense physical world wrong. I think at that point they may have chuckled at me a bit over on their “side” wherever they were. They stated that they could infact materialize the blue ball in my hand if they wanted to, but that was not the point of their work. They went on a long discussion that basically made it clear that WE choose to incarnate into this wretched delusion of separateness (my words, not theirs)…which is necessary for the human experience, all the growth and unfolding involved. They feel no need to perform “parlor tricks” (their words) or prove themselves as this defeats the purpose of our journey. They also said that if everything was known to mankind regarding what it truly is to exist in spirit, then there would simply be no one left here. And yet, I find myself confused by the paradox that we WERE in the comfy, happy beautiful loving spirit zone when we for some INSANE reason thought it would be a good idea to incarnate on this planet (I am being a bit sarcastic…bare with me). I did understand their point and thought it was a good one. While trying to have a conversation with them about how it would be awesome if they would materialize stuff in my hand in front of people so that everyone would then listen to their message, they shut me down so fast (wouldn’t even let me finish that not-so-brilliant question) that I found myself unable to counter with anything except: yes. I understand. you’re right. (and kind of a silent “darn” to myself.) I realize that I am a two-year old to them..an awesome two-year old that they are fond of, but still a two year old.

Pat is my friend. She has many qualities about her that I really enjoy being around. It is interesting for me to now begin to develop a kind of friendship and working relationship with a different consciousness that is coming through her. It looks like her and sounds like her voice but sure doesn’t feel like her or choose words like her. And there is this relationship developing between me and them through my already existing friend Pat as a kind of microphone. Its just a bizarre experience to the senses at first. When we close the session, they leave, she quickly wakes up and then we have a whole bunch of stuff to say to each other and its time for us to catch up on things, kind of like she was away for the past hour and now its time to hang out with her again.

The truth about humanity right now is that we are all over the place with our levels of understanding. What I have to share here will seem to be at the infant level to some people who are experienced with metaphysical and transpersonal concepts. To others, they may think that I am in danger of being possessed by demons and should spend more time in church. I hope there is a group of people out there who can appreciate hearing what it is like to experience this from someone used to breaking things down and attempting to think in concrete terms. I have been told over and over again in the metaphysical world that thinking will get me nowhere. They could be right. There is a large number of people in that community who feel that the human brain has very little to contribute in this arena and that a different “heart-based” knowing comes into play. What I know about ME and my path is that I have to give it my best shot and at least try to think about it. I have to think about these phenomenal things that are happening to me each day right now, because they contradict most of what I was taught my whole life about how the world and reality works. To me, that is very important. I have found out from personal experience that mainstream accepted knowledge has it wrong in many cases. It’s not enough for me to simply stop trying to think about these exciting things and just accept them.

Maybe it comes from being a doctor. I learned ACLS (Advanced Cardiac Life Support). I learned a sequence of applying chest compressions, electric shocks and IV drugs that all the data said would give a person their best chance of hanging onto life in the physical world. Thinking brought all of that about. Then I got to run codes on people in the process of dying. I got to see some of those people go home with their families. On a very basic, personal, concrete level- I GET the value of thought! In all honesty, I have to criticize the metaphysical world for its at times arrogant disdain of critical thinking. Thought has gotten us a ways in the physical world. What if someday we could measure the energy that is a “soul” that attaches to a body at birth (or conception..who knows) and leaves at death. There are many many people who walk this earth who truly believe they are only their body and everything goes into complete dark nothingness someday for them…wouldn’t that science, that thinking, that proof of energy change at birth and death change everything for those poeple..give them hope and inspire a new way of living? Don’t get me started. There are millions of examples of how our collective consciousness could be transformed into something happier, kinder and more beautiful with a richer understanding brought about by responsible scientific investigation of the spiritual/metaphysical. This is my passion, by no mistake. THEY WHO SPEAK are already taking amused notice of my analytical mind…this is going to be fun for all involved as I am passionately wired this way. I’m also humbly willing to learn as I stay true to my inner voice!

May your heart be filled with joy over these holidays, whatever they mean to you. Take time to notice the wonderful scents, scenes and most of all take some time to LAUGH at yourself!