beakers-and-telescopes:

Scientists discover that water molecules define the materials around us
For decades, the fields of physics and chemistry have maintained that the atoms and molecules that make up the natural world define the char
phys.org

OKAY THIS ARTICLE IS SO COOL

I’m going to try to explain this in a comprehensible way, because honestly it’s wild to wrap your head around even for me, who has a degree in chemistry. But bear with me.

Okay, so. Solids, right? They are rigid enough to hold their shape, but aside from that they are quite variable. Some solids are hard, others are soft, some are brittle or rubbery or malleable. So what determines these qualities? And what creates the rigid structure that makes a solid a solid? Most people would tell you that it depends on the atoms that make up the solid, and the bonds between those atoms. Rubber is flexible because of the polymers it’s made of, steel is strong because of the metallic bonds between its atoms. And this applies to all solids. Or so everybody thought.

A paper published in the journal Nature has discovered that biological materials such as wood, fungi, cotton, hair, and anything else that can respond to the humidity in the environment may be composed of a new class of matter dubbed “hydration solids”. That’s because the rigidity and solidness of the materials doesn’t actually come from the atoms and bonds, but from the water molecules hanging out in between.

So basically, try to imagine a hydration solid as a bunch of balloons taped together to form a giant cube, with the actual balloon part representing the atoms and bonds of the material, and the air filling the balloons as the water in the pores of the solid. What makes this “solid” cube shaped? It’s not because of the rubber at all, but the air inside. If you took out all the air from inside the balloons, the structure wouldn’t be able to hold its shape.

Ozger Sahin, one of the paper’s authors, said

“When we take a walk in the woods, we think of the trees and plants around us as typical solids. This research shows that we should really think of those trees and plants as towers of water holding sugars and proteins in place. It’s really water’s world.”

And the great thing about this discovery (and one of the reasons to support its validity) is that thinking about hydration solids this way makes the math so so so much easier. Before this, if you wanted to calculate how water interacts with organic matter, you would need advanced computer simulations. Now, there are simple equations that you can do in your head. Being able to calculate a material’s properties using basic physics principles is a really big deal, because so far we have only been able to do that with gasses (PV=nRT anyone?). Expanding that to a group that encompasses 50-90% of the biological world around us is huge.

(via esrah-rah-rasputin)

astercrash:

oldbookist:

oldbookist:

this condemnation of “particular friendships” by a 17th century seminary director reads like a beautiful poem

On Particular Friendships

Those who have these types of friendships usually stray from the rest of the community to converse together, and to have a heart-to-heart about their little secrets.

They freely communicate their sorrows, their temptations, their feelings and their suspicions.

They share their plans, and sometimes they even recount their past misdeeds.

They brag, they flatter, they excuse one another.

They talk shamelessly, against the rules, against good order, and against the perfection of the community.

They slander, they whisper, they complain.

They form little leagues, they make secret parties, they rendez-vous.

They try, as much as they can, to be near each other, and when it happens that they are separated, they try not to lose sight of one another; they look at each other, they make signs and communicate with gestures.

They hardly ever talk about spiritual things, and if they sometimes begin there, they usually end in discussions of trifles, nonsense and vanity.

When they are together, they do not suffer others to join them, unless they are part of their cabal; they distrust others, and immediately change their conversation when they approach.

They find it so hard to leave each other that when the time for conversation ends, they cannot leave without saying a few more words.

They have each other’s interests in mind; if one is reproached, the other is offended on his behalf or justifies him, and rather than blame his conduct, they condemn the superior or superior director.

Finally, these sorts of friendships are the cause of much rule-breaking, and of one making mistakes so as to not displease his friend.

Let us examine, by all these points, if we did not once have these particular friendships, and if we do not have them still.

— Œuvres de Tronson

and they’re FUCKING

(via birdblogwhichisforbirds)

astercrash:

oldbookist:

oldbookist:

this condemnation of “particular friendships” by a 17th century seminary director reads like a beautiful poem

On Particular Friendships

Those who have these types of friendships usually stray from the rest of the community to converse together, and to have a heart-to-heart about their little secrets.

They freely communicate their sorrows, their temptations, their feelings and their suspicions.

They share their plans, and sometimes they even recount their past misdeeds.

They brag, they flatter, they excuse one another.

They talk shamelessly, against the rules, against good order, and against the perfection of the community.

They slander, they whisper, they complain.

They form little leagues, they make secret parties, they rendez-vous.

They try, as much as they can, to be near each other, and when it happens that they are separated, they try not to lose sight of one another; they look at each other, they make signs and communicate with gestures.

They hardly ever talk about spiritual things, and if they sometimes begin there, they usually end in discussions of trifles, nonsense and vanity.

When they are together, they do not suffer others to join them, unless they are part of their cabal; they distrust others, and immediately change their conversation when they approach.

They find it so hard to leave each other that when the time for conversation ends, they cannot leave without saying a few more words.

They have each other’s interests in mind; if one is reproached, the other is offended on his behalf or justifies him, and rather than blame his conduct, they condemn the superior or superior director.

Finally, these sorts of friendships are the cause of much rule-breaking, and of one making mistakes so as to not displease his friend.

Let us examine, by all these points, if we did not once have these particular friendships, and if we do not have them still.

— Œuvres de Tronson

and they’re FUCKING

(via birdblogwhichisforbirds)

headspace-hotel:

hekatelaufeyson:

i-was-today-years-old-when:

i learned that sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children. This myth is based on a single 1978 study; no subsequent study has shown a relationship (x)

image

In fact, a meta-analysis of 16 different studies on sugar and hyperactivity all came back with the same result: ’sugar does not affect the behaviour or cognitive performance of children’. If sugar does change something, it’s parental expectations of their children

The Sweet Truth. The sugar-hyperactivity myth is based on a single study from the mid 1970’s in which a doctor removed the sugar from one child’s diet and that child’s behavior improved. Since then, over a dozen larger studies have been conducted without proving sugar causes hyperactivity.

Love all the people in the notes who are like “well CLEARLY you haven’t had this anecdotal experience that totally invalidates the results of double-blind scientific studies”

(via steampoweredwerehog)