Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
Q: What is unscientific in this scientific world?
Krishna: Not accepting science, not following scientific methods and methodologies, and still remaining in ancient times both in your thoughts and deeds is highly unscientific.
This causes trouble because you are going against the very nature of the universe we are living in which is highly scientific.
Q: WHO invented the watch?
Although one Wiki page* says Peter Henlein (1485 - August 1542), a locksmith and clockmaker of Nuremberg, Germany is the inventor of the world's first watch (in 1511).He was the first craftsmen to make small ornamental watches which were often worn as pendants or attached to clothing , known as pomander watches, which are regarded as the first watches in history of timekeeping.
The mainspring which made portable clocks possible, often attributed to him, actually appeared in the early 15th century, almost a century before his work. Although he did not invent the mainspring, the production of his portable watches was made possible primarily by a previously unseen scale of miniaturization of the torsion pendulum and coil spring mechanism, placed in a technical unit by Peter Henlein, a technological innovation and novelty of the time, operating in all positions; which makes him to the inventor of the watch.
Peter Henlein is regarded as a father of modern clocks even though he was not the first locksmith that made small clock designs or was responsible for the discovery of key clock component –mainspring.
Another page ** says:
However, other German clockmakers were creating miniature timepieces during this period, and there is no definite evidence Henlein was the first to invent it.
The first wristwatch was made for a woman, Countess Koscowicz of Hungary, by Swiss watch manufacturer Patek Philippe in 1868. Although it was the first timekeeping device to be designed specifically for use on the wrist, it was intended primarily as a piece of decorative jewellery.
I am not surprised about the controversy!
The problem with things that have been invented long before people started registering things, is you cannot definitely say who invented them. There are several such controversies regarding things invented and discovered in ancient times.
Behind and beside every big-name inventor are typically lots of others whom history forgot, or never knew. It’s rare that you’ve got a major breakthrough that wasn’t developed by multiple people at about the same time.
For instance Alexander Graham Bell is often credited with being the inventor of the telephone since he was awarded the first successful patent. However, there were many other inventors such as Elisha Gray and Antonio Meucci who also developed a talking telegraph. On Feb. 14, 1876, both Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray filed papers with the United States Patent Office to register their competing telephone technologies. Years earlier, the Italian immigrant Antonio Meucci devised his own version of the telephone, but ultimately couldn’t afford the patent application process to defend his innovation.
Attributing the true inventor or inventors to a specific invention can be tricky business. Often credit goes to the inventor of the most practical or best working invention rather than to the original inventor(s). The people who aren’t the winners in the historical dispute sort of fade into obscurity. Whom we credit with an invention often has less to do with who came up with an idea, and more to do with who translated it into something usable, accessible, commercial. And very often whether you have the money and mind to promote it and speed the process too decide the outcome.
This happens to be the case with the invention of the telephone too!
Researchers discovered a recording of a human voice, made by a little-known Frenchman two decades before Thomas Edison’s invention of the phonograph!
Invention may be mothered by necessity. But determining the father can require a paternity test. But that test during earlier times ‘s not highly reliable.
Q: What are your thoughts now when scientists from WHO said COVID-19 is also airborne?
Krishna: I have known this for a long time as I read some papers on this : COVID-19 Outbreak Associated with Air Conditioning in Restaurant, G...
239 scientists in 32 countries have written an open letter to the World Health Organisation (WHO) arguing there is mounting evidence the airborne route plays a role in the transmission of COVID-19 (They are not WHO scientists).
Read here what WHO still says : Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for I....
But WHO acknowledges 'evidence emerging' of airborne spread of COVID-19
I even fought with some doctors here who ‘re saying the disease ‘s not airborn based on WHO and ICMR earlier statements .
Airborne transmission refers to the ability of a virus to be spread by droplets small enough to be suspended in the air. These droplets are less than 5 micrometres in size and generally called aerosols.
Whereas large droplets can only travel short distances, these smaller droplets, in theory, can be spread further, or can linger in a room even after an infected person has left.
Evidence supporting the notion that transmission of COVID-19 can occur via the airborne route takes several forms.
First, laboratory studies have demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, can be aerosolised, and can survive for up to four hours in this form.
Second, genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in aerosols sampled at hospitals, including two hospitals in Wuhan, the Chinese city from which the pandemic emerged. But it’s important to note the presence of this genetic material doesn’t necessarily mean the virus is infectious in this form.
Perhaps the strongest evidence, however, comes through the various case reports of superspreading events. These are situations in which many people appear to have been infected with coronavirus in the absence of close contact.
One notable early example was from a choir practice in the United States where almost 50 people were infected even though they maintained physical distance. Two died.
Another example is an outbreak in Guangzhou, China, where ten people from three families contracted COVID-19 after dining in a restaurant. Non-infected people were not in close contact with any infected person, but those who became infected were in the direct line of one air conditioning unit.
As a microbiologist, when I see all this evidence I can easily understand that COVID 19 pathogen is airborne too. I also knew this means social distancing may not always be effective, and in particular, crowded indoor areas with poor ventilation pose a major threat.
So I warned everybody I knew to stay outdoors as far as possible especially while shopping, keep a safe distance to reduce the amount of aerosol you breathe in, wear a good mask, as far as possible stay at home and ventilate your home and offices well.
It is the WHO till now who is adamant and still says waiting for more evidence. How much more evidence do you need? People are dying. It is better to be safe than sorry. But still WHO is hesitating.
We have some Scientific Evidence : level 3 and level 2. That is enough to take precautions.
Whether WHO issues guidelines or not if you want to be safe, follow the precautions I mentioned earlier.
Please follow the space Science Communication on Quora.
Q: Why can’t science answer life’s ultimate questions?
Just read these articles: Science tries to strengthen our minds permanently by making us real...
Having said that I also want to add this regarding your question:
A chain will be as good as its weakest link. The weakest link with regard to science is human mind limitations. We are unable to utilize scientific knowledge this universe has secured for us because of this weakest link.
People say science cannot solve all the problems and doesn't answer all the questions human minds pose. True! But think about this: This universe started with a Big Bang ( according to one theory - which is not yet proved!) some 14 Billion years ago. But science is just a few hundred years old.
The universe in which we find ourselves is about 14,000,000,000 years old, planet Earth is about 5,000,000,000 years old, the species Homo sapiens, to which we belong, 300,000 years old, and modern science a mere 500 years old ( all approximate, not exact years) .
Science ( the process with which we try to study and understand this universe) is still in its infancy. It has to learn a lot, study a lot, think a lot, experiment a lot and then only it can come up with all the answers we are seeking right now. How can you expect a child to solve all the problems of his ancestors? And answer the questions posed by his great, great, great, great grand fathers? Is it appropriate to even expect such a thing? I don't think so.
There is science ( the laws that govern this universe) every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe. And the universe is unimaginably vast! But the scientists are so few! How can the limited number of scientists read the language this universe is written in such a less time?
Moreover, there are more pressing problems like saving lives, more food production for the ever increasing population. We can’t waste our time on less important ones. But we get ridiculed for our choices of problems!
We should be amazed at how we have been able to get so far in understanding the things in this universe despite our inadequacies! Science is doing its best with the limited resources it has to both answer the questions and solve the problems. As the time goes by, I am pretty sure, it will succeed more and more. Please have patience! Give science some time.
According to scientists, there are many, many phenomena that science can’t currently explain for purely practical reasons: they’re too difficult or dangerous or expensive or time-consuming to investigate. But there is no genuine phenomenon we know of which can’t be explained in principle by science.
When these obstacles are removed, science can slowly move forward and explain the things you think is beyond science now.
And let me assure you when science answers these Qs, they will not be silly stories but universe-shivering true facts.
A slow, steady and authentic process is better than untested and hasty explanations that don't make any sense.
Another way to put it: It is not science that cannot explain things, but us. Science is merely a tool and is as good or as bad as the one who wields it.
Q: Why is science always wrong and you are always right?
Krishna: This Q itself shows how you are always wrong and science is ‘almost always’ right.
If science is always wrong, this universe, you and I won’t exist at all because they are based on scientific principles and run by them.
The very fact that this universe and life in it are doing so well is evidence that science is right and your thinking is completely wrong.
Q: In what ways does a scientist entertain us?
Scientists have better things to do than entertain you. Don’t expect the brilliant minds to do whatever (silly things) you ask them to do.
But still all the entertainment you get like TV shows, movies, internet are products of science and technology that are brain-childs of scientists.
Science is fun too if you know the way to get it. Like this …
There is an entertainment zone to have fun and there should be a serious zone where your mind has to work seriously. Don’t try to mix up things.
If you want entertainment, go to places where you get it. If you want to increase your knowledge, go to the science zone where we enjoy things in our own unique way while studying and learning things.
This is one such zone: Science Communication
Q: My friend started having paranormal experiences after eating pork. Are spirits attracted to pork?
Krishna: Oh, my!
According to science, there is no evidence for such things as paranormal.
However, under certain conditions people can hallucinate. There are several such conditions. Read here what they are: Science and the paranormal
Are you sure, his condition is because of the pork? Have you tested the pork to say it is because of the pork your friend is hallucinating or is it just his imagination?
It can be something else too that is causing these hallucinations.
You have to find the real reason. Then find what is really responsible for his condition. Then you have to go for a cure to a qualified medical doctor.
Are spirits attracted to pork? “Spirits” are imaginative, not real. How can imaginative things get attracted to real things unless you imagine that too? You are connecting unrelated things. Your imagination is not real.
Q: Can gargling with Hydrogen peroxide prevent covid 19 infection from spreading?
Krishna: I haven’t seen any genuine research paper on this. But people are spreading misinformation on this.
Common sense tells us when the virus is deep inside your lungs, or other body parts, how can gargling with peroxide help? A chemical in the mouth is not getting into the nasal cavity or the lungs. And if you are coughing, you’re reinfecting your mucosa—the membranes that line the respiratory system.
Moreover, ethanol and hydrogen peroxide, may, if used several times a day over a period of two to three months, induce inflammation.
Read here what a virologist says: A virologist answers the coronavirus questions you are too embarras...
Can you kill the virus if it’s in your throat and you gargle hydrogen peroxide?
No. You can’t, because the virus isn’t just one group of viruses hanging in your throat at any one time and then you can kill them. Viruses, if you’re infected, are constantly being produced, constantly shedding; they’re in your secretions, they’re replicating themselves. They’re evil little bastards. Sure, maybe on some small local level you can kill some population of viruses, but they’re gonna get replaced instantly. Literally you’d have to be gargling hydrogen peroxide 24 hours a day.
Q: What do you feel, science for people or people for science? What will you suggest to everyone from this above question?
Feelings have no place in science. Only evidence based facts.
Can living beings or this universe and everything in it exist without scientific principles governing them, controlling and running them? NO!
Each and every particle in this universe is controlled by scientific principles. That ‘Science’ is filled in each and every angstrom of this universe. When several factors decide outcomes, they follow the interplay of scientific rules and routes and exactly fit into the reaction realities.
Science has two aspects to it.
One*: The principles with which this universe came into existence and run by it.
Two**: The process with which we study this universe.
People usually take only the second one into consideration, not the first one while dealing with this aspect. But the truth is, without scientific principles, this universe in which we live, wouldn't have come into existence in the first place. Only when the scientific principles based universe came into existence, the consequences like galaxies, stars, planets, origin of life, its evolution, and living beings became a reality.
So it is an established fact that we cannot exist without ‘science’.
Then you have to study this science to gain control over situations, to use it for the benefit of living beings. To live longer and healthy in the first place. To get food to live. To get medical assistance to live. To progress.
Remove ‘science’* that control everything, this universe and you cease to exist.
Remove people, the universe can still exist but without any meaning.
Remove ‘science’ ** (can be thought of as both a body of knowledge (the things we have already discovered), and the process of acquiring new knowledge (through observation and experimentation—testing and hypothesising), you still cannot live a fruitful life, good life, might even die of disease and hunger.
So science* for universe and people in it, because it is the ‘life’ of universe.
If people discard the science**, they still cannot live a quality life and might even get destroyed without the basics for life.
Your statement doesn’t cover all the facts.
Q: Is the way evolution shown everywhere right?
Krishna: NO. This is how it should be shown ....