Physics - Thermodynamics: (1 of 22) What is the First Law of Thermodynam...

A couple of weeks ago, at the very last service I attended, I heard the preacher say as follows: "One more reason not to believe most scientists is to hear that matter cannot be created nor destroyed". Once more, religious people display their inability to understand science. Have I even met Christians who have got degrees in engineering and nursing who still believe everything the bible has to say. Therefore, more than a lack of education (in these particular cases that is), there is an unwillingness from this people to learn the truth. Am I not going to go into detail as to why I was still attending church until that recently. Suffice it to say that I still had a glimmer of hope for these people. Now however, I would rather meditate and pray at the comfort of my home or wherever I happen to be at.

 

Back to the issue at hand nonetheless. What most people fail to understand is that matter and energy are constantly changing at quantum and atomic levels. Thus, the reason why these changes are not easily perceived by the human eye. The law of conservation of mass states that  in a chemical reaction, mass can neither be created nor destroyed. Whereas the law of conservation of energy states that all energy in a closed system must remain constant. It can not increase nor decrease without interference from an outside source. The aforesaid law is also known as the 1st law of thermodynamics. How can we explain how energy changes forms however? Case in point, when we climb the stairs, chemical energy in our food is changed into kinetic energy by our muscles, which in turn transforms into potential energy as our bodies are raised against gravity.

 

Mass conservation and energy conservation can be combined into mass-energy conservation. In fact, mass is not converted into energy or vice-versa. They are conserved as each other due to E = MC² equation which shows that "massless energy particles can act as mass when confined to a system. Energy = Mass times the constant speed of light squared. Despite the fact that mass and energy are equivalent and able to "convert" into each other without losing or gaining mass-energy, they are not exactly the same. Energy is the essential building block of everything in the universe, and all energy has mass when tied to a system. For instance, fire is a result of a conversion of chemical energy into thermal and electromagnetic energy through a chemical reaction. The aforesaid reaction merges the molecules in fuel (wood) with oxygen from the air to create water and carbon dioxide. It sends forth energy in the form of heat and light.

 

In conclusion, we could say that matter can indeed created or destroyed (only on the surface however). Be that as it may, its elementary particles of energy and mass cannot be destroyed nor created. In lieu, energy and mass are purely conserved as each other when matter transforms. Consequently, there is no such thing as "nothing". The universe is full of quantum field fluctuations (the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space). Lastly, we could conclude that: "At its core, all that exists has always existed and will always exist". Have the stultifying effects of dogma prevented religious people from comprehending the importance of the issue explained above? That might be a topic for another day.

 

Sources:

- http://factmyth.com/factoids/energy-is-neither-created-or-destroyed/
- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-can-neither-be-created-nor-destroyed/
- Michael Van Biezen YouTube channel.

What is the communicative approach?

Has it exactly been eleven days since my last post. Notwithstanding, it does seem slightly longer. Probably due to the fact that I have been somewhat introspective these past few days. As promised however, I will keep on talking about language teaching methods and approaches. This time, the focus will be on "The Communicative Approach". A widely spread and highly successful approach that has been around since the 1960s. 

As its name would suggest, its main focus is on communication. Thus, meaning that the best way to learn a language is through interaction. Even though it is important to learn about grammar, vocabulary, and discourse, the study of them alone will not guarantee fluency in the target language. Consequently, the need to keep a balanced syllabus or lesson plan. In addition, teacher should not only take CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) into account when preparing their classes,  but also other approaches. As I have mentioned on my previous posts, the ideal method for a successful language class is to be able to use an "Eclectic approach" (Blend of different approaches). For instance, useful activities applying this method in the classroom would be: Group work and role-play. Not to mention the use of authentic materials/realia (Examples of real language used for real communication).

What is more, reducing the amount of teacher talking time is essential when using this approach. In fact,  learners must become active users of the target language. Hence, the role of the teacher should be more of a facilitator. Needless to say that even when correcting, language instructors must be tactful. Case in point, rather than being curt with a student when he makes a mistake, we can make use of techniques such as recasting/shadowing (Repeating the last sentence the student said with the correct structure). So as not to raise their the students' affective filter that is (Not to make them anxious). Furthermore, emphasis is on fluency when using CLT. Irrespective of how indispensable it may seem to use the target language accurately, it will not matter if the learner does not speak it fluently. Therefore, none of the aforesaid should be disregarded. Lastly, basing our lesson on our students communicative needs is also key to having a worthwhile class.

In conclusion, I would say as follows: Even though it might not seem easy to communicate fluently in the target language at first, we should not let our students get discouraged. Learning a language takes time, patience and dedication. Doing things in order to make certain that our students are motivated and learning appropriately is crucial too. Using a language register that is slightly above theirs will constantly challenge them for example. Besides, allowing students to learn grammar through a heuristic method could prove useful as well. I am of the opinion however, that learners should be exposed to both. Activities making use  of the language structures, and short explanations so as to consolidate their learning.

PS. Before I go, I will leave you with the following quote whose author I neglected to find:

"I hope learning English is not your New Year's resolution. It should be your life's resolution"

Sources:

- The TKT Teaching Knowledge Test Course Modules 1, 2 and 3, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
- http://eldstrategies.com/affectivefilter.html
 - Fiona Sloane YouTube Channel

Fact vs. Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law… EXPLAINED!

Has it not been that long since my last post. Be that as it may, a topic for debate arose in a class I am taking now. In fact, more than a topic, it was the definition a four words: "Hypothesis", "Theory", "Law" and "Theorem". Before, I proceed with my explanations nonetheless, will I say that this is not the first time I talk about science. Irrespective of my limited knowledge of the aforesaid area, do I try to keep myself well-informed and unprejudiced when it comes to relevant issues such as the one I will touch on tonight.

As I have previously mentioned on my post regarding evolution, the vast majority of people world-

wide still mistake the term "theory" for "hypothesis". You see, a hypothesis is "a". For instance, you could say something such as: "All brands of light-bulb last equally long". Notwithstanding, once you test out the different brands, you find that brand "X LED light-bulb" offers the best quality, performance, and durability. You could thus say that the aforesaid hypothesis has been disproved. It would be worth noting that before we develop a hypothesis, we have to make an observation about something. Conversely, a theory is " a well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method. Repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation". Case in point,  the big bang theory, which suggest that the universe began about 14 billion years ago with a colossal expansion event. Even though it cannot be directly observed, most of the evidence found thus far indicates it indeed took place. Not to mention inductive reasoning, and the tests done to the aforementioned theory as well.

Moreover, a law is "a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describe some phenomenon of nature". An example would be Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Which can be proven through mathematical equations. A theorem on the other hand, is "a statement that can be shown to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments. For example, the Pythagorean theorem, which states that "In a right-angled triangle, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides".  Generally however, a theorem is the embodiment of some general rule that makes it part of a larger theory". What is more, outside of mathematics, a theorem would be one of the tests that are done to a theory so as to validate it. Not to mention that according to Richard Feynman (Novel Prize-winning physicist, 1985), any theorem can be viewed as inconsequential by mathematicians once it has been proven (Regardless of how challenging it must have been to solve).

 

In review, I would say that it is imperative not to confuse one scientific term with another. From what I have been able to glean, I have found reasonable descriptions of what I have explained today. Albeit, there is an almost limitless amount of information out there. Needless to say a large number of people to talk to. Hence, the need to have an inquisitive mind and always do research. The more knowledge you gain, the more you will be able to understand the world around you. Stay humble and question almost everything you hear as long as you can prove it wrong.

PS. I neglected to mention that a group of hypotheses can become a theory. It is better explained in the video I will share.
 

Sources:

- http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/10-scientific-laws-  theories1.htm
- https://sciencenotes.org/hypothesis-examples/
- http://amazingbeautifulworld.com/amazing-facts/10-scientific-laws-and-theories-you-really-should-know/3/
- http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Theorem.html
- http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Theorem.html
- http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/archive