All of us know Archimedes' Principle. It states "The upthrust on an object by a fluid is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by it". Right now, we know quite well that Archimedes was right in his principle... but, have you ever though there was quite an evil trade conspiracy behind his discovery?
Well, I'm coming to it. I'll start with my version of Archimedes and his discovery.

Archimedes was summoned by the Greek king, who suspected a jeweller he asked to make a gold crown for him was a cheat. What Archimedes had to do was, to find out (the king doesn't care how) whether his crown was genuine. Well, it was 200 BC, and nobody knew how to do that then... but Archimedes was on a mission, in the bathroom.

It all started with with a bath. Archimedes was feeling important having his king's own crown in his possesion. He took it along with him to the bathroom, and went around the room admiring himself, imagining things he'd probably be arrested for if he told it around. In a short while, the water was ready, so he dipped in, crown and all. The crown was his after all, till he could prove the crown wasn't mixed with lead (without destroying it).

While enjoying himself, he put his rubber duck in and watched it bobbing about. He had his dinner plate in his bathroom (he was quite strange), so he filled it with water right to the brim and put his rubber duck in. "Hey... γιατί είναι το νερό ξεχειλίζει!" He ran to another jeweller and bought a pure block of gold of about the volume of the crown (don't worry, there wasn't paperwork for the prime scientist of the court those days), and ran back, to his bathroom. You might be wondering why he'd want to do that, but here goes...

He thought that if he puts stuff (supposed) to be of the same material and of the same volume, the denser substance would displace more water. So, he put the gold block at first, and measured the water displaced. Right after that, he put his crown in and measured how much water was displaced.

Uh... something was clearly wrong. His crown displaced more water than the gold block of the same volume. He tried again. And again. Revelation came about, and he foiled the jeweller's trick. After enjoying a moment of celebration, he thought, "Will the king mind if I run in my underpants yelling Eureka?", "No, I don't think so, I'd leave immediately". So, he ran out of the bathroom yelling Eureka to everybody in Syracuse in his underpants, and headed to his king in the king's court. "What have ye to tell me?" asked the king. "My lord, forgive me for the paucity of my clothing, but the jeweller who made you this crown has mixed it with something else to make it heavier and cheaper"."I believe this not! I have been deceived! Execute this defying jeweller immediately!" screamed the king. And the sword sliced the jeweller's neck, within an hour.

You'd probably think the king's decision was hasty, and he should've double checked Archimedes' discovery. The story doesn't end here...

Since the crown was impure, the king was quite mad. He threw, and threw the crown all around until it broke. After the king was calmed by his wife, Archimedes took the crown and said "If this crown was mixed with lead, it shouldn't have stained and blackened the crown so much. This is gold, pure gold.". And then the jeweller's family found another reason to wail again before the king again. The king was now trying to the bawling family and a rather mad crowd outside the gates.

But for Archimedes, the problem wasn't the dead jeweller's family and the intruding mob. It was the crown.

Go through the story again, and you'd find a little-mentioned character who'd probably be behind this strange occurrence.

Archimedes got annoyed when he found he was duped by the jeweller he bought the block of gold from. After some really tight experiments, he found the block of gold the other bad jeweller gave wasn't actually gold, but was just some gold mixed with another cheaper material.

Turns out, the innocent jeweller and the bad jeweller weren't exactly chummy, so when the ned jeweller found out about the good jeweller and his problem, he made sure Archimedes came to him (ned) to buy the (supposedly) pure block of gold, so the innocent jeweller gets pickled.
If this was true, then Archimedes wasn't the one to discover the principle; it was actually the ned jeweller. The jeweller predicted, quite nicely how Archimedes would experiment with the crown. So... he turned the table to his side, and got away with his rival dead. I'll get to what happened to the ned jeweller later...

Who really discovered the (so called) Archimedes principle?

You're reading this now. Well, that means, that you can understand what I'm saying, and you could probably reply, or acknowledge this.

A cow. A cow, is a big, fat, no-6th-sense-sensing ruminant which just moos. Well, I think, only most of that is correct... I'll tell you why.

Imagine this, aliens, who consider themselves having the 6th sense, come to 

Earth and see about 7 billion weird looking two-eyed two-handed two-legged organisms scuttling along, doing exactly what every other person is doing... Getting up in the morning, putting some weird long stick into their mouths, getting into a really fast thing and going to a building, and doing exactly what all others are doing, tapping on some plate and staring at a light source.

How do we know, that the-very-very-apparent-same bark your dog gives has a meaning, a difference from each other bark it gives. We look at dogs (generally) as large-eared four legged animals, which have a very funny similarity between each breed. Who knows how the aliens will generalise us? How do we know we're talking, not saying some very-very-apparent-same sound every time we talk? 

How can we say that animals can't think, talk, work and solve logic as complex as we do? How do we know what animals regard us as, when they see us doing something? Who knows whether animals have a kind a statute of secrecy among themselves while they do activities, so that we don't know they're intelligent, and we use them as slaves?

It's all unknown, and if you've read my previous blogs, you'd probably know the known is really what we want to know, and if we set our mind to a concept, we'd never have an authentic look at all the things around us. There could be a world working under us. They could be beyond us. They have succeeded in not exposing their (probable) secrets, of their different existence and civilisation. What I think, is that we need to open our minds, and probably think the way they think when we treat them in different ways, to achieve trust among species.

We are 7 billion people. And I know well, that not many people like the smell of toothpaste or love to learn the elements of the periodic table. All of us have different likings, opinions and habits.

Why is that so?

A psychologist would say that people's brain reacts differently to different things, and a scientist would say 'your brain and my brain aren't the same'.  But, I'll go the scientist way.

I think, that people are born never the same. The colour 'blue' might be red for someone, but they are taught to call it blue. The smell of toothpaste could smell like old and dusty books, but they are taught to call it tangy and overwhelming. A strawberry could taste like eggplants, but in school, we are taught that it's sweet and sour.

Probably that's why people don't like things. Strawberry maybe isn't sweet to everyone. Science could look like a boring, unchanging, non-developing subject, where someone like me will perceive it interesting, changing, developing and beautiful.

Here's the time to think. Close the site, and think, of all the things you don't like, which others find perfectly great. Think of all the things you find interesting, where others would look at you like seeing an alien. Think of all the boring things you learnt at class, and all the nerds who stayed up overnight finding more on the same.

Plato was definetely correct in quoting 'Beauty lies in the beholder's eyes', because nobody might see how you see a thing the same. The world is different, inequality runs rampant all over the universe. Nothing remains the same. You can now believe, something you see, has never been seen by anyone before.

This isn't going to be about what's strong and what can destroy it... It's about us, and all our things.

Go to your toy room, pick a car replica... and drop it. If your car is really badly made, you'll probably find a few scratches. Now, go to Youtube, and watch a video, of a car being dropped 50 feet.

Do you find a few differences? A toy car, can survive being thrown over hundreds of metres (proportionally) and probably just end up with a few hits or a dent. Think of a good old sedan being thrown down... Remember the Youtube video? It falls to smithereens.

After all of this, a few questions arise... are the strong things of our age, and time, really that strong? Is the so called army tank really indestructible? Is your Volvo* car, really that safe? Are there beings, out there, who build things probably a million times stronger than ours? Why can't we find materials which can be compared to theirs?

We'll go down to being an ant...
"Ah, finally got below that door, it's tight in there... Whoa, I made it to the room! What is that?! Is that a car? Whoa, what designing, and it's almost unbreakable!"

If I had an ant counterpart as a blogger, he'd be talking about all those seriously strong cars of ours... Why is it, that we are blocked away from materials used by the generation ahead, or larger than us?

It gets me thinking, as it's quite funny how we can't get ahead of 'our type of strong'.




*Volvo is supposed to have pretty safe cars

We all know Stephen Hawking, the revolutionary scientist who changed the course of theoretical science. He studied about a lot of things... Including gravitons...

According to him in his book 'The quest for the theory of everything' written by Kitty Ferguson, there IS something called as a graviton.

If a graviton pulls us down, how about an Anti-Graviton? It is a very valid idea because, I didn't know until quite recently, I found out about anti-matter. If there is a +, then to say it's a plus, or for a comparison, there has to be a -.

Why is it that we cannot observe the two? Why can't we find a place, or a planet, which complies with either? Why has the Theory of Everything (if it exists) made sure that the normal can't see the 'anti-normal'? How can we find out more? Is no gravity called anti-gravity? How can this be possible?

What created gravitons...? Why does it come mostly to only places with mass? Is space time actually a bend with gravity? Does speed defy gravity?

Talking about space time... What if it doesn't bend to mass, but gravity? But that would mean that high speed, really high speed like light may be able to defy gravity, to an extent. There are many proper arguments against my theory, because it HAS been tested that light is bent with mass. What about a speed FASTER than the speed of light. Will that object be the sole survivor of black holes?

Anti-graviton, is an provable, possible wrong but arguably correct, vast and as for now, waiting to take part in something big...

We often hear scientists telling that Earth is special, Earth is the only habitable planet, conditions on other planets are horrible, and -200C is a really cold place.

But...
This -200C which we call as 'low' might just probably be summer time for the people on Jupiter.
We humans, have closed our minds to only places which are very similar to our Earth, but there IS a great possibility that we may be the 'extreme' creatures in the Universe, living in the hottest and most inhabitable conditions in the world.

How do we know that this is the best place. How do we know that our weird neighbours think the same? How do we know that we're probably being abducted by aliens, for them to find genes which allow us to survive here? How do we know that our biggest key to life, oxygen, isn't shown on TV on Venus on the '10 worst elements ever' program?

It's very inexplicable, because there's probably so much we don't know!

Recently, on the newspaper, I read an article on scientists finding hundreds of planets in our so-called 'goldilocks zone', saying that we might find many human-like creatures in other star-systems in Milky Way. It's possible that at least one planet of them would have life.

I believe, that there's really no way that we're the only ones in the Universe.  Read the word again, 'Universe'. What comes in your mind is something huge, empty, lifeless, and just with dreamy asteroids drifting by. But the size, is what matters. This is something so big, and how can it be that we're the only ones?

Earth is a beautiful system, which manages so many creatures, plus the 7 billion destroyers. We, being here might just be luck. Life might not be generous. It wouldn't come everywhere. It only comes for very, very lucky places, and Earth might just be one.

This is one of my favourites...

★

I was in our colony badminton court, where I was practising.
All the lights in our court were CFL bulbs, yet one of them had failed, so the authority replaced it with an LED.

The LED shone out like none of the other CFLs did, and somehow, there was just one thing very unusual in this.

When I turned on 1 of the CFL bulbs, the place where it was focused was equally bright as it's surroundings :. It was lighting up the whole place, dimly, instead of focusing all it's light.

When I turned on the LED, this particular bulb only lit up this one place where the bulb was pointing, and very ironically, everywhere except the place where the LED lit up was black! Does this mean that light produced by LEDs do not reflect? Why?

When I turned on the CFL one, it was dimly lighting everywhere, showing that the place where it focused reflected most of the light.

The paint was the same (green), the bumps on the walls were negligible on both places, and there was hardly any difference in it's surroundings and holders.

Why is it that LED light doesn't reflect?

Space has existed for a long, long time. There's space everywhere!
Why is it that we can't understand this long existing term?

I call it 'term' because, i'm very challenged to realise that there isn't really word for space itself?
Is it an element? Is it a large substance? Is it even matter? Matter is something which occupies space, has weight, or at least has atoms? But space carries atoms!

That, has arisen one of the man's biggest, unanswered questions. What is space? Why does it exist? Is there really anything called space? Are we just hallucinating, or dreaming, from a body of someone worlds and universes away?

How did space come to be?

I was recently thinking of this, called as a 'spacetron'. Like how atoms of neutrons, protons and electrons make matter, spacetron may just make another kind of matter. It wouldn't be matter (undoubtedly), neither would it be anti-matter (it definitely doesn't explode in contact with matter), it's not dark-matter, or the problem faced by scientists would be more than easily solved. So, it's something, which we haven't detected yet. It just exists. It's another kind of 'term'.

But what if, space takes space? What if certain beings in this universe, can see a higher dimension, where space acts as matter, and space really is another type of matter?

Spacetron may be a thing which attracts matter to it, and dilutes pure matter. This diluted version may be what we sense everyday.

However, why is it that space is actually undetectable? Why is it that if we stand in a place with just space, and nothing at all, we feel there's really nothing we can feel? Why is space not seen, sensed, touched and perceived by humans?

Maybe, for those higher-dimension beings I talked about, our universe is a huge deposit of space, where for them, it's really just atoms forming another mineral? 

There was a time, when going faster than 30km/h for at least 15 minutes was inhuman. Then the wheel was invented. Then going faster than 40km/h horseback for more than 30 minutes was inhuman. Then came the train, it was fast, inefficient yet could go for really long distances, carrying at least 3 engineers, each engine. Then came the car, going only a little faster than 13km/h, for a long time, with 1 engineer tagging along, then came demand, and cars got faster, and faster, and faster. It just kept going on, until someone thought of going up in the air. Then came the age of flying things, it was called as an 'aeroplane'. At first, it was a very uncommon sight, and the ones who could fly it were very lucky.

MiB 1, 2, 3; War of the worlds, Mars needs Moms, Battleship, The day earth stood still, Transformers, and more and more and more.
There are two things common in this:

1. Aliens
2. What this very post is about