So here she is again, as sloppy and scatterbrain and sanguinary as ever. I hope and the heroine of another strange adventure.
Surabaya, Kereta, beserta Ceritanya

"One’s destination is never a place, but a new way of seeing things." — Henry Miller

Rabu, 28 April sejak pukul 05:00 saya dan ke delapan teman lainnya beranjak pergi dari Malang menuju Surabaya kampus UNESA. Sedari pagi saya sudah excited sebab perjalanan ditempuh dengan kereta, yang saya sendiri—mungkin ini terdengar udik—belum pernah naik kereta sejak masih bayi hingga jaman kuliah ini. Tidak ada yang spesial ternyata, karena memang kereta sudah pada jalurnya yang notabene lurus-lurus saja. Berbeda dengan perjalanan Malang–Pujon yang saya tempuh ketika pulang kampung dengan jalanan yang begitu berkelok sehingga beberapa teman menyebutnya sebagai sirkuit MotoGP. Cerobong kereta di lokomotif mengeluarkan asap kelabunya diiringi suara tut tut tut—yang digambarkan pada lagu Naik Kereta Api itu—dan memekikkan telinga, pertanda kereta segera berangkat.

Sekitar 06:45 kereta mulai berjalan meninggalkan stasiun Kota Baru dengan decitan rodanya pada rel besi. Sesekali kami ribut dalam perjalanan. Perkara kuliah, potrait pemandangan yang baru saja dilewati, perut yang kosong, mengeluh karena sudah tak ingin duduk berlama-lama di kereta, atau perkara tak penting lainnya. Kami menginjakkan kaki di Wonokromo pukul 10:20, seketika menuju kampus UNESA, jalan sebentar dan akhirnya! ..ada kantin! Makan. Istirahat. Beribadah. Perpustakaan. Tujuan utama kami memang untuk menyambangi perpustakaan kampus dimana kumpulan skripsi para pendahulu kami, mahasiswa Prodi Pendidikan Sains/IPA berada. Semoga dengan bekal ini, nantinya kami bersembilan tidak buta-buta amat dalam menyusun skripsi IPA, bukan Kimia/Fisika/Biologi saja, tapi IPA. Baiklah, karena kereta menuju Malang dijadwalkan berangkat pada pukul 16:00, maka kami sudah nongkrong di stasiun Wonokromo sejak satu jam sebelumnya. Pukul 16:10 kereta belum datang, kami memakluminya. 16:20 kereta tak juga tiba, kami mulai resah dan gelisah menunggu disini, di sudut stasiun tempat yang kami nantikan seakan penuh tanya sedang apa di sini? Menunggu kereta, jawab kami. Bukan. Tadi itu lirik lagu yang diubah sedikit agar lebih drama saja suasananya. Garing, bukan?. Pukul 16:45 tersiar pengumuman bahwa kereta Penataran yang akan kami tumpangi masih mengalami perbaikan di stasiun sebelah yang jarak waktunya dua puluh menit dari stasiun ini. Khawatir jika terlalu malam tiba di Malang dengan kereta yang tak tentu jadwalnya, sepakat saja kami angkat kaki dari stasiun dan menjalankan plan-b yang baru dipikirkan. Naik angkot menuju terminal yang saya lupa namanya. Beribadah. Menyusuri terminal yang atmosfirnya mencekam dan kejam. Naik bis antar kota dengan gambar seekor panda dan bambu runcingnya.

Perjalanan pulang ini, juga merupakan perjalanan hati bagi saya. Perjalanan yang mengajarkan untuk tidak menyerah pada keadaan, pun menyalahkannya. Untuk berpikir cepat lantas beraksi dengan tepat. Untuk tidak mengeluh dan manja. Untuk selalu peduli dengan orang disekeliling kita dan hal lainnya yang berharga. Suatu perjalanan, apapun itu, pastilah melelahkan. Sangat melelahkan. Harga yang harus dibayar, energi yang dicurahkan, dan emosi yang terkuras, pada akhirnya tak kan menjadi sia-sia jika diri tahu kemana jalan yang dituju. Saat telah sampai pada tujuan itu, akan ada rasa syukur yang henti serta kebahagiaan-kebahagiaan yang mengiringi. Seperti kami, dengan sedikit energi tersisa dan bermata panda, pada 20:00 menginjakkan kaki di Arjosari dan masih saja mengungkit cerita pulang yang dramatis serta cerita tak penting lainnya, kemudian menertawakan nasib bersama :)

Terimakasih Anisa, Firda, Diana, Ria, Ana, Iroh, Huda, dan Yayang. Terimakasih atas perjalanan ini. Semoga ada perjalanan-perjalanan lain yang tak kalah hebatnya!



Are you hook up to their leash?



“Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends on your frame of reference.”

 —Albert Einstein. (via thatintp)



“We are, as a species, addicted to story. Even when the body goes to sleep, the mind stays up all night, telling itself stories.”

 —Jonathan Gottschall, The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human (via afigureofspeech)

(via quotefullness)



Then, answer me!

Then, answer me!



There’s someone i’ve been missing

There’s someone i’ve been missing



compoundchem:

With Valentine’s Day upcoming, a look at the supposed aphrodisiac properties of chocolate, as well as its toxicity: http://wp.me/p4aPLT-5j

compoundchem:

With Valentine’s Day upcoming, a look at the supposed aphrodisiac properties of chocolate, as well as its toxicity: http://wp.me/p4aPLT-5j



Sudah terlalu larut ketika debu bertebaran menutup rata daerah ini di Kamis malam, tiga belas Februari. Pujon 2014, keadaannya yang sahaja tetiba terusik oleh suatu bencana. Meski jauh dari Kelud, sekalipun.
(pic: tribunnews)

Sudah terlalu larut ketika debu bertebaran menutup rata daerah ini di Kamis malam, tiga belas Februari. Pujon 2014, keadaannya yang sahaja tetiba terusik oleh suatu bencana. Meski jauh dari Kelud, sekalipun.

(pic: tribunnews)



the-science-llama:

Ok so I thought it was necessary to make this response a post of its own… continued from here.
Edit: I added some info from commenters clearing up some things and cleaned up the format a bit.
cosmicmachinery:

wildcat2030:

Here’s What Wi-Fi Would Look Like If We Could See It
(Wildcat2030, I love you but I just- I just gotta debunk the crap out of this real quick)…Wi-fi. It’s all around us, quietly and invisibly powering our access to the world’s information. But few of us have a sense of what wi-fi actually is, let alone what it would look like if we could see it. Artist Nickolay Lamm, a blogger for MyDeals.com, decided to shed some light on the subject. He created visualizations that imagine the size, shape, and color of wi-fi signals were they visible to the human eye. “I feel that by showing what wi-fi would look like if we could see it, we’d appreciate the technology that we use everyday,” Lamm told me in an email. “A lot of us use technology without appreciating the complexity behind making it work.” To estimate what this would look like, Lamm worked with M. Browning Vogel, Ph.D., an astrobiologist and former employee at NASA Ames. Dr. Vogel described the science behind wireless technology, and Lamm used the information to create the visualizations. (via Here’s What Wi-Fi Would Look Like If We Could See It | Motherboard) (Nah, don’t even click this link. What are you thinking?)

Here’s all the reasons why this article is entirely wrong. It’s really really wrong:
The wifi range is just another set of wavelengths. In other words, it would be a continuation of what we can already see in the electromagnetic spectrum. Since color varies with wavelength, it is only reasonable to assume that wifi/radio/any electromagnetic source would look like any other light source with a different (new) color of light.
And, since at wifi wavelengths the waves are not absorbed by walls and stuff, we’d be able to see these electromagnetic sources through walls. It would be like the walls were clear to that particular color of light, just like how certain substances, like glass, do not absorb wavelengths in the visual spectrum.
The minimum threshold for the perception of light is very very low, on the order of 10^-15 watts. My own router broadcasts at 60mw. Laser pointers are eye-safe around 5mw, and lasers past 30mw are used for cool lighting effects for stages and stuff, so routers would also be powerful enough for us to see.
Sources: Engineering physics courses, electronics courses (covering optoelectronic devices like photodiodes and laser diodes) and a couple minutes on Google to tie it all together. Let me know if I’ve gotten anything very wrong.
And don’t forget that this article offers no reasoning beyond “it’s from a NASA astrobiologist” for its validity.

(^Yes^ comsmicmachinery, I don’t even know you but I love you!)This was bugging me too…I know the artist deserves some artistic leeway but these illustrations are so wrong it hurts me.
And I’m pretty sure most Wifi signals are the same wavelength, so if we could see it, it would just be the same color, whatever that may be to our brains.— But the artist had to use some color that we could already see. Like me trying to point to the 4th dimension (impossible btw) but in this case trying to show a new color. — 
Edit — Clarification from enki2:

Wifi doesn’t actually stick to a single wavelength; one of the big and interesting advances in wifi is that it combines separate signals on completely different frequency ranges and switches them up in a complex way as a mechanism for collision avoidance.

(So I it does use different wavelengths. I’ll assume that the frequency modulation would result in shifting colors from white to any other combination but this would also happen very quickly)
Maybe a little variances but I’m not an expert on this stuff (<— this is important for the rest of the article). Since we are talking about perception of color, check out this epic video by Vsauce. Ok, back to the wifi thing.
The electromagnetic spectrum for reference…(yea, we are basically blind)
Also, the waves wouldn’t just sit on the ground like some sort of fog like in the pic below. Wifi is just like any other electromagnetic signal and will radiate all around.
And I can hardly get a signal in my own damn house sometimes, so I really doubt you would be able to see wifi signals far away from you. Unless maybe you were near some cell phone tower, which would be blindingly bright (in that new color or a combination of new colors) if you stood next to it. And as the person above explained, your router would glow brightly as well, along with anything that emitted that wavelength and made it to your eye. 
So walking into a mall and shopping would be difficult (or just approaching one and trying to find the entrance since the signals go through walls) considering they are usually filled with these signals and shopping with a flood-light in front of your face is kind of hard (not speaking from experience).

The artist stresses that you would be able to see the crests of the waves themselves. No, these are not something physical just floating around in space as if it was a magical ribbon flying around. No, other light waves are not bouncing off these waves illuminating the crests and troughs allowing us to see the different parts of the waves.The only reason you can see something is because a protein in your eyeball just got blasted with a photon and eventually caused a neuron in your brain to fire. The same thing would go on here, just with a different wavelength.
That pond of water right there wouldn’t be reflecting that wifi-light either. If we were seeing only those wavelengths, the pond would be black because it absorbs them (see spectra below), otherwise it would just be the blue color we normally see. It might be darkened a bit depending on how our brains would interpret seeing both the reflecting blue-light and the absence of the wifi-light.
And according to this…

So what kind of energies are we looking at in WiFi signals? WiFi operates in the 2.4 GHz frequency range, the same as a microwave oven. The wavelength of that light is about 12.5 centimeters, which is about 125 million nanometers.

…wifi uses the same wavelength as a microwave oven, and I know cell phones use the microwave part of the spectrum as well (or about the same wavelengths, just depends on the phone I guess — but why would you evolve to only see ONE particular wavelength anyway, amiright?). So you would also be able to see cell phone signals too.


I guess the sky would just be filled with this new color, unless maybe it was humid or raining, because water absorbs those wavelengths (see the spectra above). Now you know why you get bad reception in rain.

Tangent:That’s how your microwave works by the way. Also, water absorbs blue the least, that’s why it looks blue to us — It would look crazy to bees (normal to them anyway) since they can see Ultraviolet to ~1mm wavelengths (radar).
Also your microwave, when turned on, would not glow in this new color. You ever wonder why that mesh is there on the door? That keeps the microwaves in!

Anyway, off track there for a second. Since we are just talking about the sky, the night sky would be completely different if you could see these waves.

The reason the night sky isn’t filled completely with stars is that the further away something is, the faster it is moving away from you and thus the light it emits gets red-shifted (here is an excellent post on that).

Oh look! Microwaves are basically a really-really red-shifted wavelength.

See the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation oh and MASERS in space are a thing too (like LASERS but with Microwaves).

And it seems radio waves and microwaves are able to make it through our atmosphere (if only a small amount), so you would be able to see more objects in the sky. That is, assuming you could differentiate from all of the other man-made signals flying around.
Because of this red-shifting, right now when you look up at night, you are only seeing stars in our own galaxy the Milky Way and a few other things like the Andromeda galaxy but most of it is from our galaxy. — (fun fact: we will crash into Andromeda eventually) — So being able to see this red-shifted wavelength allows you to see more objects that are further away AND those objects in a completely different light… literally.
One of the many reasons we have different telescopes that use different wavelengths is so we can see different things. — Here is a cool tool showing the different telescopes we have and the light they see in.— As soon as we starting looking at the Milky Way core in infrared for example, we can see through all of the dust in the way, allowing us to make this gorgeous 9gigapixel image of our galaxy.
Now THAT is fucking awesome! So whoever the artist was on this, take some notes and try again. Courtesy of: SCIENCE!

the-science-llama:

Ok so I thought it was necessary to make this response a post of its own… continued from here.

Edit: I added some info from commenters clearing up some things and cleaned up the format a bit.

cosmicmachinery:

wildcat2030:

Here’s What Wi-Fi Would Look Like If We Could See It

(Wildcat2030, I love you but I just- I just gotta debunk the crap out of this real quick)…

Wi-fi. It’s all around us, quietly and invisibly powering our access to the world’s information. But few of us have a sense of what wi-fi actually is, let alone what it would look like if we could see it. Artist Nickolay Lamm, a blogger for MyDeals.com, decided to shed some light on the subject. He created visualizations that imagine the size, shape, and color of wi-fi signals were they visible to the human eye. “I feel that by showing what wi-fi would look like if we could see it, we’d appreciate the technology that we use everyday,” Lamm told me in an email. “A lot of us use technology without appreciating the complexity behind making it work.” To estimate what this would look like, Lamm worked with M. Browning Vogel, Ph.D., an astrobiologist and former employee at NASA Ames. Dr. Vogel described the science behind wireless technology, and Lamm used the information to create the visualizations. (via Here’s What Wi-Fi Would Look Like If We Could See It | Motherboard) (Nah, don’t even click this link. What are you thinking?)

Here’s all the reasons why this article is entirely wrong. It’s really really wrong:

The wifi range is just another set of wavelengths. In other words, it would be a continuation of what we can already see in the electromagnetic spectrum. Since color varies with wavelength, it is only reasonable to assume that wifi/radio/any electromagnetic source would look like any other light source with a different (new) color of light.

And, since at wifi wavelengths the waves are not absorbed by walls and stuff, we’d be able to see these electromagnetic sources through walls. It would be like the walls were clear to that particular color of light, just like how certain substances, like glass, do not absorb wavelengths in the visual spectrum.

The minimum threshold for the perception of light is very very low, on the order of 10^-15 watts. My own router broadcasts at 60mw. Laser pointers are eye-safe around 5mw, and lasers past 30mw are used for cool lighting effects for stages and stuff, so routers would also be powerful enough for us to see.

Sources: Engineering physics courses, electronics courses (covering optoelectronic devices like photodiodes and laser diodes) and a couple minutes on Google to tie it all together. Let me know if I’ve gotten anything very wrong.

And don’t forget that this article offers no reasoning beyond “it’s from a NASA astrobiologist” for its validity.

(^Yes^ comsmicmachinery, I don’t even know you but I love you!)
This was bugging me too…
I know the artist deserves some artistic leeway but these illustrations are so wrong it hurts me.

And I’m pretty sure most Wifi signals are the same wavelength, so if we could see it, it would just be the same color, whatever that may be to our brains.
— But the artist had to use some color that we could already see. Like me trying to point to the 4th dimension (impossible btw) but in this case trying to show a new color. —

Edit — Clarification from enki2:

Wifi doesn’t actually stick to a single wavelength; one of the big and interesting advances in wifi is that it combines separate signals on completely different frequency ranges and switches them up in a complex way as a mechanism for collision avoidance.

(So I it does use different wavelengths. I’ll assume that the frequency modulation would result in shifting colors from white to any other combination but this would also happen very quickly)

Maybe a little variances but I’m not an expert on this stuff (<— this is important for the rest of the article). Since we are talking about perception of color, check out this epic video by Vsauce. Ok, back to the wifi thing.

The electromagnetic spectrum for reference…

(yea, we are basically blind)

Also, the waves wouldn’t just sit on the ground like some sort of fog like in the pic below. Wifi is just like any other electromagnetic signal and will radiate all around.

And I can hardly get a signal in my own damn house sometimes, so I really doubt you would be able to see wifi signals far away from you. Unless maybe you were near some cell phone tower, which would be blindingly bright (in that new color or a combination of new colors) if you stood next to it. And as the person above explained, your router would glow brightly as well, along with anything that emitted that wavelength and made it to your eye.

So walking into a mall and shopping would be difficult (or just approaching one and trying to find the entrance since the signals go through walls) considering they are usually filled with these signals and shopping with a flood-light in front of your face is kind of hard (not speaking from experience).

The artist stresses that you would be able to see the crests of the waves themselves. No, these are not something physical just floating around in space as if it was a magical ribbon flying around. No, other light waves are not bouncing off these waves illuminating the crests and troughs allowing us to see the different parts of the waves.The only reason you can see something is because a protein in your eyeball just got blasted with a photon and eventually caused a neuron in your brain to fire. The same thing would go on here, just with a different wavelength.

That pond of water right there wouldn’t be reflecting that wifi-light either. If we were seeing only those wavelengths, the pond would be black because it absorbs them (see spectra below), otherwise it would just be the blue color we normally see. It might be darkened a bit depending on how our brains would interpret seeing both the reflecting blue-light and the absence of the wifi-light.

And according to this

So what kind of energies are we looking at in WiFi signals? WiFi operates in the 2.4 GHz frequency range, the same as a microwave oven. The wavelength of that light is about 12.5 centimeters, which is about 125 million nanometers.

…wifi uses the same wavelength as a microwave oven, and I know cell phones use the microwave part of the spectrum as well (or about the same wavelengths, just depends on the phone I guess — but why would you evolve to only see ONE particular wavelength anyway, amiright?)So you would also be able to see cell phone signals too.

I guess the sky would just be filled with this new color, unless maybe it was humid or raining, because water absorbs those wavelengths (see the spectra above). Now you know why you get bad reception in rain.

Tangent:
That’s how your microwave works by the way. Also, water absorbs blue the least, that’s why it looks blue to us — It would look crazy to bees (normal to them anyway) since they can see Ultraviolet to ~1mm wavelengths (radar).

Also your microwave, when turned on, would not glow in this new color. You ever wonder why that mesh is there on the door? That keeps the microwaves in!

Anyway, off track there for a second. Since we are just talking about the sky, the night sky would be completely different if you could see these waves.

The reason the night sky isn’t filled completely with stars is that the further away something is, the faster it is moving away from you and thus the light it emits gets red-shifted (here is an excellent post on that).

Oh look! Microwaves are basically a really-really red-shifted wavelength.

See the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation oh and MASERS in space are a thing too (like LASERS but with Microwaves).

And it seems radio waves and microwaves are able to make it through our atmosphere (if only a small amount), so you would be able to see more objects in the sky. That is, assuming you could differentiate from all of the other man-made signals flying around.

Because of this red-shifting, right now when you look up at night, you are only seeing stars in our own galaxy the Milky Way and a few other things like the Andromeda galaxy but most of it is from our galaxy. — (fun fact: we will crash into Andromeda eventually) — So being able to see this red-shifted wavelength allows you to see more objects that are further away AND those objects in a completely different light… literally.

One of the many reasons we have different telescopes that use different wavelengths is so we can see different things. — Here is a cool tool showing the different telescopes we have and the light they see in.— As soon as we starting looking at the Milky Way core in infrared for example, we can see through all of the dust in the way, allowing us to make this gorgeous 9gigapixel image of our galaxy.

Now THAT is fucking awesome! So whoever the artist was on this, take some notes and try again. Courtesy of: SCIENCE!




science-junkie:

molecularlifesciences:

Top 5 misconceptions about evolution: A guide to demystify the foundation of modern biology.

Version 2.0

Donate here to support science education:  
National Center for Science Education http://ncse.com

Thank you followers for all your support!
Love, 
molecularlifesciences.tumblr.com

You can find version 1.0 here.