photo meme: geology in action
In the name of generally keeping blythechild happy, I tend to respond to any meme I see, unless I specifically find it objectionable. After all, it's such a simple thing. The girl likes memes and is (in general) actually interested in how you respond. Also, I just like the word "meme" and excuses to use it. This one is perhaps not quite her thing... but here it is:
It works like this: if you use Flickr, go to the sixth page of your photostream and pick the sixth picture there, then post it to your blog, and pass it on to six other people.
So here we have:
See, this, if not obvious, is the Gaspé, and I photographed it because I do find it interesting to see obvious geology in action. Really, as a geophysicist, for me the emphasis is on the -physicist and not the geo- but I do like active and violent rocks. The implication being that I don't really like geology, but in honesty, that is the just physical scientist's bias against descriptive science. You know, what Lord Rutherford would have called "stamp collecting". Physicists like forces.* I once registered for a class on sedimentology. This was on my supervisor's advice. In the vein (no pun indented) of "take a little geology as breadth - it'll be good for you" and "of course you can take a graduate level course in geology without any undergrad background - you're a physicist and it's only geology". I quickly dropped the course when it became obvious we had a serious cultural problem. The prof would ask, "Why did the basin descend?" and I would reply, "Well obviously there was a force on it." Things only move if there are unbalanced forces. That's just Newton. The prof would shudder and reply that the right answer was because of the flexural rigidity of the underlying material (which in my mind is a description of the reason behind the unbalance in the forces... i.e. why the normal force could not balance gravity). But the long and the short of it was we spoke two different languages. This is why, also, I won't answer questions about biology, as a matter of principle, having no education whatsoever in the field, and my knowledge based on: a) things my mother has said at the dinner table b) various documentaries seen on TV c) books about other things like Gödel, Escher, Bach d) having occasionally to meet microbiologists, marine biologist or biogeochemists because my field is inherently inter-disciplinary.
There is a 20th century composer whom I hate and the only real explanation I can give is that his work is non-narrative like geology. I hate this man's work so much I cannot remember his name. If I hear it after a while I get cross and ask what is the music. I've forgotten his name before. My brain refuses to admit it**. I have bothered Di and asked who is that guy whose music drives me up the wall. Once I made MR (a big fan of opera and classical) figure it out. I recognize the name when I hear it. MR then quibbled that this wasn't Classical, as Classical is in fact in reference to a specific era and I don't want to get into such tangential arguments. I tried looking through wikipedia's surprisingly long list of 20th century composers. No luck. But I was heartened that the list includes Frank Zappa.
*But to be truly honest, what is a force, if not a description? There. I said it. Physics heresy. I defy you however, to define "force" without using a description.
**The ancient Egyptians (I took Ancient Egyptian Religion because it's good to have a course without mathematics, and I was interested) considered this the worst thing one could do - erase someone's name. As in, if you want to curse someone, or feel someone has committed some horrible crime for which they should not be remembered, erase their name from everything. Make sure it is not recorded for posterity. They believed in fame but despised notoriety. My professor maintained that thus we should, for instance, explicitly NOT recall the name of the man who shot John Lennon. I entirely agree, and will not mention his name (which, sadly, I know). Modern Western culture could learn a lot on this front. If we took away the notorious, what would be left? Substance?
It works like this: if you use Flickr, go to the sixth page of your photostream and pick the sixth picture there, then post it to your blog, and pass it on to six other people.
So here we have:
See, this, if not obvious, is the Gaspé, and I photographed it because I do find it interesting to see obvious geology in action. Really, as a geophysicist, for me the emphasis is on the -physicist and not the geo- but I do like active and violent rocks. The implication being that I don't really like geology, but in honesty, that is the just physical scientist's bias against descriptive science. You know, what Lord Rutherford would have called "stamp collecting". Physicists like forces.* I once registered for a class on sedimentology. This was on my supervisor's advice. In the vein (no pun indented) of "take a little geology as breadth - it'll be good for you" and "of course you can take a graduate level course in geology without any undergrad background - you're a physicist and it's only geology". I quickly dropped the course when it became obvious we had a serious cultural problem. The prof would ask, "Why did the basin descend?" and I would reply, "Well obviously there was a force on it." Things only move if there are unbalanced forces. That's just Newton. The prof would shudder and reply that the right answer was because of the flexural rigidity of the underlying material (which in my mind is a description of the reason behind the unbalance in the forces... i.e. why the normal force could not balance gravity). But the long and the short of it was we spoke two different languages. This is why, also, I won't answer questions about biology, as a matter of principle, having no education whatsoever in the field, and my knowledge based on: a) things my mother has said at the dinner table b) various documentaries seen on TV c) books about other things like Gödel, Escher, Bach d) having occasionally to meet microbiologists, marine biologist or biogeochemists because my field is inherently inter-disciplinary.
There is a 20th century composer whom I hate and the only real explanation I can give is that his work is non-narrative like geology. I hate this man's work so much I cannot remember his name. If I hear it after a while I get cross and ask what is the music. I've forgotten his name before. My brain refuses to admit it**. I have bothered Di and asked who is that guy whose music drives me up the wall. Once I made MR (a big fan of opera and classical) figure it out. I recognize the name when I hear it. MR then quibbled that this wasn't Classical, as Classical is in fact in reference to a specific era and I don't want to get into such tangential arguments. I tried looking through wikipedia's surprisingly long list of 20th century composers. No luck. But I was heartened that the list includes Frank Zappa.
*But to be truly honest, what is a force, if not a description? There. I said it. Physics heresy. I defy you however, to define "force" without using a description.
**The ancient Egyptians (I took Ancient Egyptian Religion because it's good to have a course without mathematics, and I was interested) considered this the worst thing one could do - erase someone's name. As in, if you want to curse someone, or feel someone has committed some horrible crime for which they should not be remembered, erase their name from everything. Make sure it is not recorded for posterity. They believed in fame but despised notoriety. My professor maintained that thus we should, for instance, explicitly NOT recall the name of the man who shot John Lennon. I entirely agree, and will not mention his name (which, sadly, I know). Modern Western culture could learn a lot on this front. If we took away the notorious, what would be left? Substance?