Thought experiments?

I once read somewhere, somewhen, that Galileo (or someone) disproved Aristotle's theory of force and gravitation without even moving or measuring projectiles. Now, as you can see, every detail about this recollection is beyond fuzzy.

INSCITIA:

Can anyone out there fill me in on this thought experiment? Who did it (if not Galileo)? What was its content?

COGITATIO:

I've tried to recall how the pure-thought experiment disproved Aristotle's theory (i.e., it was a reductio ad absurdum about the latter's claim that bigger objects fall faster), but it's just so hazy and I'm not so smart. All I remember clearly is that the author was illustrating how science is not primarily or even necessarily a mathematical endeavor. Good science depends fundamentally on observation and logic.

RESPONSUM, care of "c" [pending Cogitator analysis]:

www.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/...sci_method_9t12.html

Waking bears?

I was watching Will Farrell's (sp?) Anchorman (again) with some friends this Saturday. The climax of the film has much to do with Kodiak bears, presumably angry to have been woken from their hibernation. Which led me to wonder, and then to blog.

INSCITIA:

Is it even possible to wake hibernating bears? Is not hibernation a deep, nearly catatonic, seasonal and hormonal "coma", which makes the bears totally and irreversibly unconscious? Or is it just a really long and sometimes fitful sleep? Do bears wake up naturally from time to time, or, as I recall from elementary school, do they load up for winter (lots of berries and a plug of pinecones) and then hole up in caves literally until winter breaks?

COGITATIO:

I am fairly certain the bears can be woken, if for no other reason than that lying for months as sleeping, vulnerable hunks of waiting meat for any non-hibernating predators probably weeds out that flaw. Then again, hibernation is from all I know, a profoundly deep and immobile lifecycle. What do I know? Ah, I'll sleep on it.

RESPONSUM:

Tea pot?

FACT 1: I was a huge Aerosmith fan in my teen years. I used to know all their lyrics, albums, track names, band members and riffs by heart.

FACT 2: Now, I live in Taiwan, where I've cultivated a taste for, if not "fine", then at least good tea (especially pure green tea).

Today a peculiar connection formed between these two facts. As I added more hot water to my tea bottle, I imagined the green leaves releasing their strong, amber riches as if on command, as if they were made to dissolve into fluid delight in the mere presence of hot water (oh, wait...). The image of green leaves releasing a pleasing consumer harvest reminded me of - why lie? - pot, marijuana, the ganja.

Now, I'm not a pot head; I've never even smoked the stuff. (Maybe green tea is as botanically rebellious as I get.) But, thinking of my tea as pot instantly reminded me of the lyrics from Aerosmith's (1976?) song, "Mama Kin." In that song, Steven Tyler euphemistically describes a rock-bohemian as "sleepin' late and smokin' up tea," tea of course being a code name for pot (both have green leaves, etc.). These mental meanderings led me to wonder, and then blog.

INSCITIA:

Can you make marijuana tea? For that matter, can you make tobacco tea? If not, why not?

As I daid, I'm not an admirer, smoker nor dealer of either plant, so the profits for me in this question are all but nil. It's the idea, though, that intrigues me.

COGITATIO:

I understand marijuana is weed, and therefore probably all too planty a plant to do anything but cut, dry, press and smoke. The same must certainly go for tobacco. Even so... some of the Chinese herbal medicines I've seen can't be any less bitter, raw, planty or unpleasant than boiled weed juice. It seems to me if you added some honey or sugar or some flavor enhancement, you could get past the acrid bitterness and enjoy the, eh-hem, more reputed aspects of either weed. Further, bypassing the smoking of those plants would remove the inherent health risks of any sort of smoking, as well as, I am certain, enhance the potency of the weeds. No flavors, chemicals or minerals would be lost as when the plants are processed and burned, so I imagine "tea pot" and "teabacco" would enhance their respective markets.

Are there serious medical dangers in boiling pot and or tobacco? In any case, why haven't I heard of this before? (Maybe because I'm not a pot head or a smoker...) As always, I welcome instructive comments. For those who may respond, there's no need to explain how you know the ins and outs of the pot world. :emoticon: It may just be a matter of time till we see cans and bottles of "Tea Pot" and "Teabacco"!

RESPONSUM, care of "c":

Don't try this at home kids, I'm a plant physiologist. The medium length answer to your question is that it all depends on the solubility of the active ingredient. Nicotine is water soluble, but but doesn't taste very good. That's why the nicotine gum tastes horrible. The main reason for that is that it is highly alakaline. THC, me thinks, is lipid soluble, and does not readily dissolve in water. I'm sure it's possible to make your proposed pot tea, and I'm almost certain that it's been tried. My guess is that it would take a lot more of the stuff to have the same effect. Smoking a substance delivers the chemical directly to the lungs, as with nicotine and THC. People could start making pot tea and nicotea, but they would end up using a lot more and paying a lot more. The bodily cost of consumption lost from the lungs would certainly be taken by the digestive system, and we would, perhaps, see an increase in stomach cancer. It seems to me that man has figured out the most pleasurable delivery methods for all his vices. That is, until recently, when people started vaporizing liquor. Quickly becoming illegal across the US, liquor vaporizers allow the consumer to breathe in alcohol vapors, which goes straight to the lungs, bypassing the digestive system, for a quick and powerful dose of alcohol. I remember the good old days when tasty ale was enjoyed in moderation. Kids these days.

Broad zoom?

Things are advancing slowly but pleasingly here at ScIn. For one case I've gotten two responsa to my inscitia from real live people in the past week or so, and for a second case, was able to dispel my inscitia with a little googling.

Now, having just read some cinematic analysis, I've got a film question. Calling all film students and movie buffs!

INSCITIA:

How do they do that zoom in which the person stays stationery at center and gets closer and tighter, while the (unfocused) background widens and moves around him? (This effect is commonly seen at moments of surprise or panic, to highlight the character's sense of vertigo and isolation.)

COGITATIO:

I think I once deduced or heard this effect is achieved by keeping a tight lens-focus on the person while physically moving the camera in towards him. The lens-focus stays tight, clean and immobile while the background moves into greater unclarity. That sounds legit, I guess, but still doesn't help me understand how a camera can register such disjunctive perspectives. (If this is right, I only thought of it in a burst of covering my arse, where trying to look knowledgeable may have flushed me into a cinematographic epiphany.)

RESPONSUM: