F l u x

My Science-Curious Friends and Readers,

A new year is a new opportunity. And, in the beginning of 2020, I would like to address you, my readers, and let you know of what opportunities I want to take this year.

Flux has given me insight to the problems that people face when interacting with science. An article that I wrote a few years ago showed how communicators can make science less accessible. My last article introduced how interest in STEM declines in school and gave solutions to how communicators can increase interest in science.

But, while these problems are significant, they are only pieces to the puzzle that is increasing scientific literacy. This year, I want to put a spotlight on several problems surrounding literacy, including pseudoscience complicating and the bureaucratic paywall preventing people from reading articles.

Also, as you may have noticed by the picture above, Flux is undergoing reconstruction. 2020 will be the year in which I put the changes I mentioned in my 2019 address into action. In the coming months, you'll see some new ideas and looks take hold here. Exciting times are ahead! I hope you'll join me this year and in the years to follow.

As always, thank you for your continued involvement in this community. I can’t state how much it has changed the trajectory of my life.

Warmly, Matthew

The atom is arguably the most important particle in the study of science, as it makes up every substance, seen and unseen, in the universe. It is made of several, smaller particles, including protons, neutrons and electrons. Although protons and neutrons, which are made of smaller, even more fundamental particles, are interesting parts of the atom to study, the Elemental Flow arc takes a look at the negatively-charged electron.

Without electrons, no substance would exist as we know it today, including those substances that make up our bodies. The primary function of electrons is to give the atom a type of currency that can be used to control its energy. This makes electrons important for stability of the atom and, by extension, the stability of every substance in the universe.

To be as stable as possible, atoms seek to complete their outermost electron shell, which is the region farthest outside of the atom’s core. Although the Periodic Table of Elements informs you of exactly how many electrons are needed to complete a shell, there is science - complex science - behind its organization. This complex science is called quantum mechanics, which explains why electrons interact with each other in the way that they do.

Quantum mechanics shows an important part of the study of science that will stick with us throughout the journey through the following arcs: there are many things we know, but there are many more things that we do not know.

—

Start the Elemental Flow arc or see a summary of the arc, here.

So the atoms have fulfilled their lifelong dream of being cool enough to be among the noble gases by forming molecules. Here’s the problem: when you try so hard to fit in, it’s hard for your individuality to shine. However, no matter how hard you try, there will always be something about you that makes you different.

Let’s throw a spotlight on those differences and where they come from.

Properties of the Table

Did you notice that, on different periodic tables, there is, often, a large number of colors?

There are ten categories of elements, which are divided into three groups: metals, metalloids and nonmetals.

Metals, which include alkali metals, alkaline earth metals and general metals, are:

Great conductors of electricity and heat

Malleable and ductile solids - meaning that they can be molded into sheets or wires without breaking or loosing their toughness

Shiny

Nonmetals, including general nonmetals, halogens and noble gases, are:

Awful conductors of both electricity and heat

Typically brittle solids - meaning they break easily when being molded

Dull, but many colors

Metalloids, as you may have figured, have properties that mimic both metals and nonmetals. They include general metalloids, transitional metals, lanthanides and actinides. Their properties include being:

Fair conductors of electricity and heat.

Because of this, they are called semiconductors, which are defined as materials that are neither good conductors or good insulators (opposite of conductor)

These are those same “semiconductors” that are used in computer parts!

Brittle solids

Shiny

A Program for the Dance

Those three groups are incredibly helpful for one major reason: in most cases, they offer you, my friend, insight as to what kind of bond will occur.

The bonding of two nonmetals forms covalent bonds. Carbon, one of the most important non-metals to us living beings, is famous for covalently bonding with everything. Electronegativity makes it so that each atom pulls on each other with similar strength, yielding a vigorous dance.

When two metals, which both are trying to give up their electrons, bond, they form metallic bonds. As these atoms are not very electronegative, they tend to be detached to their electrons, which the proton cores of other atoms sense and appreciate; even this waltz, gentle as it may be, creates a strong bond.

The bonding of metals and nonmetals, the two categories that inhabit opposite sides of the periodic table, often form ionic bonds. Nonmetals pull the metals to them, guiding them strictly, like a conductor that leads a orchestra’s rehearsal.

Metalloids are uniquely flexible partners. Whether bonding with other metalloids, or joining with metals or nonmetals, the dance of a metalloid is fully determined by the rules set by electronegativity. They are true chaos, forming either covalent, metallic or ionic bonds according to the properties of the atom that they choose to bond with.

Identity

The quest to be like something else comes with sacrifice. An atom’s identity is best displayed as it bonds, forming a unique relationship with its partner that can only be described as finding a soulmate - both atoms fulfilling each other’s need to be complete.

But unlike a true dance, which can end with a song’s last melody or at the will of the participants, atoms have no choice but to continue in this mutual relationship. The desire of all atoms to lower energy creates a common understanding that, once the total energy of all bonded atoms is lower, that is the configuration that they must stay in. In a way, atoms cease being metals, nonmetals or metalloids and just become one unified molecule; its very identity, including everything it was, changes.

The exception to this is if the substance is a pure substance, which is one that is made of only one kind of atom or molecule. A sheet of aluminum or tin, which is made of only aluminum or tin atoms, respectively, are pure substances. In the cases of pure substances, the properties of the entire material are the same as the properties one of the atoms in that substance, with the exception of strength and conductivity (both get stronger).

As sad as it may sound, there is beauty to be found everywhere within science. After all, without this dance of chemistry, life - existence - as we know it would not exist.

Conclusion

With this, the Dance of Chemistry arc comes to an end. The First Branch takes its place as the focus of our next adventure. With molecules making their appearance on the stage of science, we have a path forward to more complex molecules of chemistry and biology! But, until then, I feel as though we need more context on what we have done so far.

As always, feel free to ask questions if they arise and follow Flux’s community on Facebook and Twitter. Until next time…

Will a point come where society moves past science? After all, there should come a point in dialogue (or monologue) where one questions the longevity of a pursuit. If that pursuit is a job, the questioning most likely comes from analyzing one’s self (acknowledgment of potential, dissatisfaction with a current situation, etc.). With an idea, its lasting power comes from its perception among that particular society; ideas that don’t have a following or are disagreed upon are often countered by other, more agreeable ideas.

If we define science as one of these pursuits, then we can break down the question of society moving past science into a more basic question: Will there come a point when the pursuit of science is pointless?

Many — myself included — would say “no”. But regardless, I think there’s an interesting discussion to be had here.

The Humble Axiom

An axiom is a statement which we know to be true without any further proof. In math, we know that, if a = b and b = c, then a = c; no proof needed. In science, empirical observations are axioms. For example, the fact that the universe has order and follows predictable rules which we could make conclusions about. Often, these axioms are building blocks that form the basis for questions that scientists and mathematicians then dig into to create mathematical systems or scientific systems, which are composed of theorems.

If these theorems can prove every unknown question, then a system exhibits completeness. In other words, the system has all the necessary theorems to tackle any question. That already sounds like a tall order.

Lastly, any supposedly complete system should have an answer that proves the truth of only one thing, not its opposite. For example, if a lawyer were to prove their client guilty of a specific crime, they should also not be able to prove them not guilty of that crime. If they could, then one of those proofs - guilty or not guilty - is false, yet proven, which would throw the entirety of a system into question, including the theorems and, by extension, the axioms that make up those theorems. Systems that don’t contradict themselves are known as consistent.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem

In the early 1900s, Kurt Gödel, a logician and mathematician, created two theorems to demonstrate the limits of any axiomatic system, or any system built on axioms.

But the consensus for Gödel’s theorems is that they only work for mathematics. Why is that, when science also contains axioms? To find out, we have to dig deeper.

The first theorem states that a system can only be complete or consistent, but never both. This is true. There are no systems that exist that can answer every single question and have provable answers without some of those proofs contradicting each other. For example, if my system was inconsistent, then I would be able to prove that, for example, humans are both warm-blooded and cold-blooded. If I can prove that “humans are warm-blooded” and “humans are cold-blooded”, then my system is complete, even if one or both of those statements are wrong. This is, obviously, catastrophic. We don’t want that inconsistency; it’s disturbing and unwelcome for our curious minds.

But what about the opposite? Would a system that’s consistent, but incomplete be just as catastrophic? Actually, no. In fact, we would prefer if it was a system that couldn’t answer every question, so long as it doesn’t contradict itself…Wait, that sounds familiar…I can’t put my finger on it…what does that sound like?

Oh! Right! The answer is “reality”. No system can answer every truth; hence “incompleteness”.

But, there’s one problem. How do you prove consistency? Say that you only had one system to work with. How does that system prove itself to be consistent? Can you use theorems within a system to prove that system? The answer is “no”. We don’t say that gravity exists because of the theorem of gravity. We say it exists because of the force that it creates, which dips into a second system: physics, or, more specifically, the Second Law of Motion. Simply put, you can’t prove that your system is consistent because, within that system, you can’t prove that there are no contradictions. No consistent system can prove its own consistency; this is Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem.

The Difference Between Science and Mathematics

If math is a system that science dips into to explain its observed phenomena, then why would science not also be subject to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems? The answer is found within those axioms, the very building blocks of systems. The axioms of mathematics and the “axioms” of science are not as alike as one might initially think.

A mathematical axiom is something that is true, no matter the situation. That is because we created math as a tool to explain something observed. For us to be able to accurately translate an observed phenomenon into a mathematical model, the math has to be axiomatic. Would a shovel with a pole chewed out by termites be able to perform the job of scooping up heavy dirt well? Probably not. Likewise, math that is hollow and easily disproven cannot be used to explain anything.

Scientific axioms are a bit different. While axioms in math are common and play a foundational role in more complex math, axioms in science are either limited or even nonexistent. Why? Science is not rigid. While mathematics is bound, science is limitless. Axioms only work in certain contexts, but science constantly redefines its context. I could say that one day that a scientific axiom is that the universe’s center is the Earth, but, upon the revelation of new observations, that axiom changes…and that’s one thing an axiom doesn’t do.

So, to correct and clarify, science uses postulates, which are similar to axioms, but more flexible. They function as “presumptions”, which may or may not be correct. Postulates provide science with enough of a stable ground to explore through the scientific method. When it comes to math, postulates are axioms, but science operates on logical presumptions.

So, what happens to the Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem if there are no true axioms, like in science? Yes, my curious readers, it does not apply.

The Drive of Science

The longest-lasting pursuits are those that are ingrained in the longest-lasting aspects of humanity. In other words, the pursuits that are closest to us as humans will survive as long as humans do.

Science is such a pursuit. From agriculture to agricultural engineering, science and the pursuit of knowledge has been with us forever. In fact, knowledge is among the essential human conditions.

Science is not on anybody’s side. I know: how does a science communicator justify this stance? It’s fairly easy, but we have to ask a classic question in an abstract way. What does the existence of science fulfill?

The Purpose

Science tells a saga that must be followed from its beginnings (or as far back as one can fathom) in order to be fully understood. Exploring one piece of the story only provides a snapshot of the total research that led up to that point. It’s the same with résumés; the best are typically shorter, but it’s not possible to encapsulate your entire body of experiences in one or two pages.

On that note, I believe that no one person, except for historians of science and groups of researchers, come close to understanding science in its entirety. The more we learn, the more we recognize how much we don’t know. Disparaging, right? Maybe a little exciting if, like me, you love to learn.

But I say all of this to set the scene. Science does not need to be understood to that degree. Science builds upon past research and has since the first discoveries were documented and used for society. As such, even though one discovery is a snapshot, it can be a starting point. These are the two ways to explore science — moving backwards to understand historical research and moving

What we are not allowed to do is cherry-pick data points and piece together an unrelated interpretation. That is, by definition, the creation of a story. But science tells its own story, which we are meant to follow.

In this, science reveals its purpose. Science provides a method and a body of study that should be passed throughout the ages to the public. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Problem

Science fulfills the human need for knowledge. Society, generally, understands that science and scientists are authorities on the state of society (social sciences) and the world (natural science). But navigating through the world, either on the streets or on the internet, we often find people saying that science agrees with their agenda or opinion.

Science does not bend to an opinion. Scientists have lost their labs and jobs over injecting their opinions and biases into studies. It is a breathing body of knowledge, however it is not alive. It does not have the capacity to choose what it believes. In this, those that use it to suit an agenda are misunderstanding its objectivity. The question is: does your agenda agree with the literature?

“But Matthew, you’re splitting hairs. What’s the difference between saying ‘the science agrees with me’ and ‘I agree with the science’?” That question is the problem. It makes all the difference. It is far more powerful to state that your agenda is based on science than saying that the science supports your agenda. Why? Well, say that you’re a skeptic of climate change.

If you looked at this set of graphs, which I conveniently cherry-picked from a paper, what would you conclude? Likely that climate change isn’t something to be concerned about. After all, according to the infographic, the temperature changes between a range of 10 degrees Celsius over 400,000 years; the Earth getting warmer and eventually colder must be natural. If I were to use this graph to explain that climate change is being blown out of proportion, I would likely be able to bring hundreds of thousands of people onto my side off the “authority” of this data alone. That would be me saying that the science supports my opinion; I might even go as far as to say that what I’m saying is factual.

But what’s missing here?

That’s right: the entire paper. I just pulled a graph from a paper, and I’m relying on you not looking into that paper, which I, myself, may or may not have looked into, to support my point. In other words, I took a piece of the full story and crafted my own fable with it. When doing that, I no longer have the right to say that my words are backed by science because I am no longer using the conclusions of the original literature.

It goes even further. When you do look into that paper, you realize that, no, science doesn’t support my opinion at all. It shows: (1) the paper was written in 20 years ago — 1999, (2) the study did not have a global reach, but it was done on a single ice core in one of the coldest places on Earth, (3) the purpose of the study was not to critique climate change, but show the levels of carbon dioxide and methane of the past 400,000 years, and (4) despite not having anything to do with climate change, the authors still mention the unprecedented levels of carbon dioxide and methane.

Yikes. Now, what if you took it a step further and wondered what the carbon dioxide and methane looked like closer to today and on a global scale?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that we’re not even close to the 280 parts per million carbon dioxide and 700 parts per million methane limits in the graph. We’re double that in the case of carbon dioxide and triple that in the case of methane.

The Reality

In my scenario, one thing makes itself clear. The study is the authority. What I should be taking as my opinion should be based on that authority. When the roles are reversed, and I create the story, I present myself as the authority. The science becomes flexible because my opinions are flexible. In our society, flexible science leads to catastrophe — medicines that are toxic, structures that are not properly constructed, diseases that can’t be cured.

When the story of the science is told, with all of the research done and confirmed by other researchers, my shoddy story, and, by extension, my argument falls apart. My argument was not based on science. I manipulated science to suit my needs. Maybe if my argument was based on science instead, it wouldn’t have.

Science is not on your side. It’s not on my side. It is an independent body for us to learn from.

Reference: Petit, J. R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N. I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., … Stievenard, M. (1999). Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 399(6735), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1038/20859

Listen, we’ve all had those days. You know what I’m talking about; the days where you feel like doing absolutely nothing. Perhaps you feel that way because you’re overwhelmed by the massive amount of things that you will have to do. Or maybe you’ve done too much, and your body is taking the reasonable approach in relaxing while your mind races to find something else for you to do. But, after that break, we always go back to work and move forward with our lives.

Time and time again do we experience this cycle, and eventually, as is true when one walks along a path for long enough, we become familiar with it. Then comes the introspection. “Am I satisfied with this?” “Does this help me reach my goals?” The answers to these questions bring a change in psyche and a redirection in drive, possibly leading to larger changes down the road. This is the fate of humans in the societies that we have built.

What would cause this but our own potential and our awareness of what we can do? We can speak for our own potential, as we are capable of self-awareness. Instead of speaking of our individual potential, like most do, however, I want to bring attention toward the collective, societal potential.

As a society, we don’t have the capacity to be introspective. Members of society have to tell society of what they see. And, unlike the single, introspective person, people in society can disagree with that initial interpretation and offer a rebuttal. This comes at a cost; the interpretation of any given person may be true, but they can be overwritten by a more persuasive person. That persuasion is dangerous, since it doesn’t only spawn from individual charisma, but also societal mores.

On that note, most industrialized societies have one thing in common. That is men, from the time of King Gilgamesh, have taken control over an insane percentage of decision-making for these nation’s societies. Explicitly, this creates a problem. Humanity has, for the millennia of our existence, been mostly composed of an even amount of men and women. If a minority of a group are responsible for all of that group’s decisions, then there will not only be natural tension, but also a destruction of societal efficiency.

Think for a moment. Besides the information and communication technologies of today, such as the smartphone, social medias and YouTube, can you think of any isolated invention that has impacted general life that did not already exist in some, more outdated form before the 21st century?

But that’s not even the worst of it. Do you believe that this is as fast as we could have been getting to this point? Knowing how we’ve held our own back, it’s unlikely. We have to face the fact that our innovation has been curbed by the male majority, only growing a fraction of what it could have been moving at.

Sociobiology

Allow me to elaborate on a critical reason for our lack of growth by utilizing the science of sociobiology. Sociobiology, the study of social life through the lens of biology, tells us that, in the past and, to a lesser extent, now, intensity of labor, subordination of women, creation of female and male-centric roles and the use of symbols drove the structure of patriarchal societies. But that’s clearly illogical. What does the intensity of labor have to do with the capacity of any gender to envision the problems of this world and create solutions?

It doesn’t. It was a woman that founded the world’s oldest university, 500 years before the age of universities in the medieval era. The introduction of smallpox inoculation, or the protection against infection, in western medicine was brought about by a woman. One of the most valuable scientific laws, the Law of Conservation of Energy, began from commentary, by a woman, on Isaac Newton’s most famous work. The first treatment for leprosy, or Hansen’s disease? The link between chloresterol and clogged arteries? The first to bring awareness of the effect of financial status and gender and racial discrimination on health? Women.

And I can keep going. There are an immense amount of hidden, female figures in human history that can be found to have contributed massively to the library of knowledge that we humans have since built on. However, the question is, “how far would we have gotten if societal roles were not hindering their, and our, growth?”

With Unity Comes Progress

Many say that the problems of the largest units — countries — begin with the problems of the smallest — families and communities. Well what happens when an entire community is involved in solving a problem?

This is very simple, but I will add an analogy in the form of a question to clarify: how do you surmount a roadblock if everybody thinks the same way or has experienced the same thing?

When there are problems to be solved, people tend to call upon their experiences to inform their patterns of thought. Therefore, if everyone had the same experiences, then there would be no difference in how people think. Diversity of thought can only come from diversity between people. That said, when a community works together on a problem, it is more likely for that problem to be solved. Many heads are better than a few.

That said, despite the logic of tapping into everyone’s potential, we’re still at a point where segments of society are male-dominated. For example, women only hold 24% of STEM jobs. While women, particularly those of color, are now outpacing men in higher education, they still have to fight against those ancient sociobiological ideologies to be seen.

This creates a frustrating map of events: society has problems to solve, the solutions to those problems elude society because of the lack of diversity of thought, women, who bring that diversity, show that they are qualified to help, but get turned away, due to societal mores, and, finally, the solution is found at a great financial and temporal cost.

The only way to fight these ideologies is education and progress. When more people are aware of an issue, it becomes more important to solve it. When you need knowledge, find it. When you need perspective, ask for it. Our path to growth as a human culture can only be carved with input from all of us.

Fire is something that captures the imagination. Some believe that fire is matter, since it occupies space and contains mass, but, technically, fire itself is not the matter that we see. Fire is the result of exothermic chemical reactions, or those that give off heat. On Earth, combustion reactions, exothermic chemical reactions in which an element such as oxygen is involved, causes materials to burn. The heat energy created from this burning is absorbed by surrounding gases, which, in an effort to reduce energy, begin to glow and give off light. This light, which follows the wispy and fast-moving gases, is what we call a flame. 

But let’s deviate for a second and explore the combustion that makes fire possible. Fire requires three things: a fuel source, heat and an oxidizer. Oxidizers, like oxygen, are characterized by their high energy levels. Since the objective of atoms is to reduce their energy level, these oxidizers are readily reactive, and will form bonds without much, if any, additional energy input into the reaction (DAC 2). The substances that oxidizers bond with can be anything that will give up their electrons. However, an oxidizer and an electron-donating substance by themselves can’t just start a fire. If that were the case, the Earth would actually be on fire.

It needs a spark; something needs to accelerate the combustion. That something is heat. Although oxidizers do not need anything to bond, adding energy to the system increases the speed at which the molecules involved gives off energy. Remember, if heat energy is given off, it’s an exothermic chemical reaction. That initial energy that kicks off chemical reactions is referred to as activation energy. When this external energy is added to a system where an oxidizer exists, the molecules or atoms that are giving up their electrons become fuel sources with which the oxidizer reacts, generating heat with each reaction. If the surroundings become hot enough, in an instant, a flame appears.

Fire is just a beautiful display of glowing gas. When I was thinking of this, I had a question. Why is “water” the first answer given when someone asks, “how does one put out a fire?” After all, it is composed of hydrogen, which is extremely flammable, making it a fuel source, and oxygen, an oxidizer. Why isn’t combustion made worse by adding water? In order to figure out if it is or isn’t, we have to look at the interaction between water, which exists as a liquid in natural conditions, and fire.

Water

Generally, when liquid water contacts fire, it absorbs the heat energy emitted by the combustion reaction, and turns into vapor, which is heavier than air. The heavier vapor sinks below the air, separating the fuel from the oxygen. Furthermore, without heat, the flame cannot sustain itself and extinguishes.

But this only happens in some cases. After all, the fuel sources can vary. As such, here’s something that many people don’t know: fire is defined by classes according to its fuel source. The class of fire demonstrated above, which can be extinguished by water, is what occurs when the fuel source is a combustible solid, such as wood, paper, coal or trash. This class of fire is designated Class A.

The next class of fires — Class B — are created when burning flammable gases or liquids, such as gasoline, oil, and propane. So, what happens when you throw water on a Class B fire? Water can’t smother these fires for a few reasons.

First, the density of water is greater than that of most Class B fuel sources, meaning when it’s thrown onto the fuel source, it will sink below it. If it’s not on top of the source, then it can’t prevent the heat energy from interacting with the environment.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, liquids and gases tend to have lower thermal conductivity than solids. In other words, the amount of time that it takes a container of a gas or liquid to transfer heat is far longer than the amount of time that it would take a solid to. This is due to the structure of the atoms in each state; the more tightly packed the atoms, the easier heat can be transferred.

Why does that matter? Because the amount of heat that it takes liquids and gases to actually catch fire is larger compared to ordinary combustible solids. For example, your common gas stove produces a flame (after the gas is stoked by an electric ignition switch or a pilot light — both forms of activation energy) that can reach up to 1500 degrees Celsius. These fires are so hot that the surrounding vapors give off a blue color, indicating that the atoms are vibrating at a very fast frequency. Surrounding that blue flame would be yellow and red flames, which are progressively cooler with a lower frequency. In other words, liquid and gas fires are far hotter than solid fires.

What happens when liquid water contacts something of that temperature? The liquid water transforms into superheated steam, rather than ordinary water vapor. The difference between the two is that water vapor is far closer to the liquid phase than superheated steam is. And you’ve probably seen that difference for yourself in the form of fog over a lake. The fog, which is water vapor, is a testament to the transition between the liquid layer and the gas above it. As such, water vapor contains visible water droplets, which can condense into liquid water if it’s cold enough. Superheated steam has no visible water droplets within it. As such, if the steam was cooled, there would be no condensation. Since steam is far more of a pure gas than water vapor is (even though they are both gaseous water), it expands far faster. But this vigorous form of water can actually splatter the fuel source around, carrying the still-reacting fuel and the fire with it. This, without fail, causes Class B fires to spread, making liquid water a counterproductive option. To fight these, you would want to smother the gas with something light, like a foam.

Before thinking of science communication, we have to consider communication at its basis. Yet we seem to run into situations where questioning is controversial. Why? #FluxScience #SciComm #ScienceCommunication #Questioning

Image via NBMDA

Happy New Year, my friends. Here’s to a year of healthy growth for ourselves, our countries, and our world.

Lately, I’ve been considering accessibility – beyond science, which I wrote aboutin the middle of last year. This time, I want to question the accessibility of knowledge from our peers. There is a lot that I have experienced as an engineer, researcher and, overall, student…

We're going to be here for a while... #2019InFlux

My friends and readers,

Flux’s website was initially crafted a year ago with the mission to educate every person in the arts and sciences. But it was not crafted for me to be a talking head – a figure for you to just listen to and take my words as law. I freely admit, like the teachers of ancient times, that I do not know. There are things that I could never and will never know. As our community…

With the amount of atoms that exist in our universe, you might be surprised to note that there are only a handful of ways that they bond. Consider the bonds that keep you (and us) together. #FluxScience #ScienceCommunication

Animation by Bevan Lynch via TedEd

In the last lesson, we discussed the rules that valence electrons follow to dictate their bonding. But not all bonding is equal. There are some cases when the rules are broken.

Electrons will, generally, be shared evenly when the two atoms are the same or similar in terms of their electrostatic nature, or that within an atom which defines how strongly its…

New bonds are made as Flux Science returns to form. #fluxscience

Animation by Ahmed Saeed via Youtube

Before we continue talking about bonding, we have to talk about what urges atoms to do it. And since oxygen likes the attention, we’ll use it as a reference for this entire lesson. Yay, oxygen.

As a reminder, oxygen’s orbital configuration is 1s22s22p4. This means that it has 8 electrons (add the exponents of the orbital configuration). So, if it has an atomic…

Science does not support the idea of XX/XY being the only combination of sex chromosomes in existence. It does support the pursuit of learning more about gender and sex. #Flux #Pride #Biology #NaturalScience #SocialScience

The Flags of Sexual Identity Image via Filthy by Ossiana Tepfenhart

Happy Pride Month.

Having an entire month dedicated to something that many understand, but just as many do not can be quite jarring. But the true crime is in the use of outdated or cherry-picked scientific facts to support oppressive opinions.

While most have learned in our various schools that there are only two sex chromosomes,…

Part 1 of the Dance of Chemistry Arc. Atoms, by all accounts, are not considered sentient, or living, yet they make up things that are considered living. #Flux #Chemistry #Science #Bonds

Animation by Bevan Lynch Welcome to the Dance of Chemistry arc. If you’re following from the Elemental Flow arc, you have a perspective that many high-schoolers don’t. To put you at ease, there’s a lot less quantum mechanics in this part. In fact, many chemistry students begin learning from here. It’s a solid place to begin in any of the sciences. Remember the guy at the beginning of the…

The Elemental Flow Summary #Flux #Science #Atoms #Orbitals

Image via Vivax Solutions The Elemental Flow arc is long past us, but our objective is to make sure you understand what you’ve learned…It’s one thing to say that you’ve been taught. It’s another to say that you can remember – a general flaw brought about by time constraints in school. The Motivations for Electrons Electrons behave in a simple manner. There is only one factor that motivates it –…

|| by matthew

The consumption of power has corrupted us. Men, from the time of King Gilgamesh, have taken control over the decisions of an immense amount of the world’s cultures.

And it’s greatly decreasing the speed at which our innovation should be moving.

Image via BlackPantherDaily

|| by matthew I, like many of you (I hope), saw Black Panther over the weekend, and, of course, there was much to read from it. One of those things, I would like to consider – Black Panther’s armor.