Cancer

One of the things firing my crackpot alarm:

No, he didn't. Or if he did, he didn't tell anyone about it, or meaningfully tell how he did it (and that is overwhelmingly likely because he didn't, in fact, do it). It would have made quite a splash if it had withstood scrutiny, and appear rather prominently in textbooks and historical accounts. That would entail producing meaningful images of, e.g., a hydrogen atom, that were about a meter across. Emphasis on meaningful, also. That picture of "a magnetic atom" is so obviously fake (flat? really? no hint of a third dimension? really?) that I would guess some third-grader scrawled it with chalk on blacktop. 
There's no citation of him doing that, publishing results, reporting a discussion of how he tried it, etc. That lack of citations is a BIG FRICKIN RED FLAG that this is at least fallacious, and more probably fatuous. Whoever wrote that has no clue what they are writing about.
 
Then, back to physics: that feat of magnification can't be done with anything like conventional light microscopy. (The Wikipedia entry for "Limitations" under "Microscopy" is flagged as unsourced, so I'll do this myself.) Conventional light microscopy is subject to the limits of diffraction, one of the consequences of the wave nature of light. Your angular resolution, in radians, is limited angles no smaller than (wavelength) / (aperture of apparatus) or in this case, (wavelength) / (size of object being viewed). Atoms are hundreds of times smaller than the wavelength of visible light. You cannot make meaningful images of anything under those circumstances. If you go to x-rays, the wavelength is now comparable to the dimensions of an atom, so you can start getting information on that scale, but (1) not of an isolated atom and (2) that isn't conventional light microscopy. But there is the technique of x-ray crystallography, which uses diffraction of x-rays through crystals to learn the crystal structure, the atomic-scale 3-d structure of the molecules making the crystal; this was developed in a well-documented way in the 19-teens (including the Nobel prize in physics in both 1914 and 1915), and "everyone" uses it these days; it was the means by which Rosalind Franklin found the double helix structure of DNA in the mid-1950s.
 
Everything that follows at that site seems to hinge on that unsupported and impossible claim, so it's kind of analogous to the silly things you can "prove" if you divide by zero in some unobvious way. Everything after that equally meaningless.

Leftover chicken curry with rice and peanuts for lunch. Yum.
 
But alas, no lager.

On one of her post-cancer-treatment albums, Melissa Ethridge has a rather spacey little cut that says, "All there is / Is atoms and space / Everything else is an illusion".
 
When I first heard it, my immediate reaction was, "It has been shown that that is incorrect." My wife hit me.

Four things snoring lightly: three cats, one spouse.

On one of her post-cancer-treatment albums, Melissa Ethridge has a rather spacey little cut that says, "All there is / Is atoms and space / Everything else is an illusion".
 
When I first heard it, my immediate reaction was, "It has been shown that that is incorrect." My wife hit me.

As opposed to physics departments, where radioactive crashing bores run rampant.

"Set yourself on fire. All the cool kids are doing it."
 
In deliberate imitation of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, in a town where wights and zombies were an all-too-common problem: "Bring out your undead!" (clank of cowbell) "Bring out your undead!"

As opposed to physics departments, where radioactive crashing bores run rampant.

Yttrium. It's a first-peak s-process element, as is its neighbor in the periodic table, zirconium. And I did my master's on zirconium.
 
Scandium, on the other hand, is less interesting in a nucleosynthetic sense; it's kind of what you get when you're aiming for calcium and miss high. However, an ionized scandium line is the signpost neighbor to the forbidden oxygen line at 6300.311 angstroms, which does count for something.
 
 
Inexplicable and incomprehensible ramblings:
 
Handwaving high-level comments invoking nucleosynthesis, or entirely idiosyncratic little bits dropped from the associative memory of a spectroscopist.
 
N.B. changing your major to mechanical engineering is viable third alternative.

As opposed to physics departments, where radioactive crashing bores run rampant.

I walked along the avenue.
I never thought I'd meet a girl like you;
Meet a girl like you.
With auburn hair and tawny eyes;
The kind of eyes that hypnotize me through;
Hypnotize me through.

And I ran, I ran so far away.
I just ran, I ran all night and day.
I couldn't get away.

In the town where I was born
Lived a man who sailed to sea
And he told us of his life
In the land of submarines

So we sailed up to the sun
Till we found the sea of green
And we lived beneath the waves
In our yellow submarine

We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine

And our friends are all on board
Many more of them live next door
And the band begins to play

We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine

[Full speed ahead, Mr. Parker, full speed ahead!
Full speed over here, sir!
Action station! Action station!
Aye, aye, sir, fire!
Heaven! Heaven!]

As we live a life of ease (A life of ease)
Everyone of us (Everyone of us) has all we need (Has all we need)
Sky of blue (Sky of blue) and sea of green (Sea of green)
In our yellow (In our yellow) submarine (Submarine, ha, ha)

We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine

Is she really going out with him?
Is she really gonna take him home tonight?
Is she really going out with him?
Because if my eyes don't deceive me
There's something going wrong around here
Around here
 
Something going wrong around here
Something going wrong around here
Something going wrong around here
Something going wrong around

Breathe deep the gathering gloom
Watch lights fade from every room
Bed-sitter people look back and lament
Another day's useless energy spent
 
Impassioned lovers wrestle as one
Lonely man cries for love and has none
A new mother picks up and suckles her son
And senior citizens wish they were young
 
Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colours from our sight
Red is grey, and yellow white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion

Friday afternoon on campus
 
 
 
 
 
What?

The name by itself gives me ideas for my game-world.
 
Pluto's bladed terrain

Seattle Pacific U. My nephew went there.

I agree with Pariah about fields. Aluminum bats I have learned to tolerate on a participant-sport basis because I have known people who I liked in almost all other avenues BUT they seem subconsciously bound and determined to break all the wood bats they don't own. And when you're standing on 2nd base and they're coming up to bat, it's approximately impossible to keep that mofo from picking up the bat that you own.

With Simon watching?
 
No.

I have learned to shut it out. Nowadays, TV and internet news are just there to put ads in your face and, secondarily, scare you towards policies that work in favor of the corporate masters. I got very sensitive to that nonsense a long time ago, and stopped watching most TV news back in the 1980s. I really resent being manipulated, and when some medium is dominated by manipulation attempts, it gets excluded from my personal universe. That simple. And all news editors, and most media personalities, are strongly biased toward trying to grab a slice of your time and attention. If you were to swap "blood" for "time and attention", the truth that those people are parasites becomes obvious. I prefer not to encourage parasites.
 
There is absolutely no question that I am happier for my decision to close out media that calls itself "news".
 
You can be adequately informed on issues that really matter by doing a more calm perusal on a less frequent basis. That forestalls a "rush to judgment" impulse and gives you a better chance of getting complete information, which is what you really need in the first place. Weekly is about as much as I can stand. Monthly is more than adequate. Semiannually is OK except in election years, when the ballot deadlines force your hand some.
 
The only possible exception to this is stuff like storm warnings and so on; if the tornado or hurricane is bearing down on you, then yeah, earliest possible notification is what you want. But those situations are peculiar to your circumstances and may not be relevant. (There are no such storms where I live; volcanic explosions do happen locally but they give weeks to months of notice. Earthquakes happen here too, and they are catastrophic, but we do not yet have a useful pronosticator for those.) If the President (or some foreign head of state) is going to be in your town that day, you probably want to know that, because it will seriously mess up the traffic and add much time to your daily commute, which can cause trouble if you're late for an appointment or a date.
 
Because it is allied to my profession and aligns with my personal interests, I choose to get daily science news updates. I actually read somewhat less than half of those that pop up in my email. I would say roughly once a year there's something in those that ought to be bumped up the priority list towards "most people should read this".
 
About the only daily feed item I almost stay on top of is some sports scores. But that again is entertainment, not news.
 
So yeah: reclaim your attention, time, and inner peace by keeping the babble sources switched off. You will be much, much happier for it, pretty much independent of your political stance or personal philosophy preferences.

I have learned to shut it out. Nowadays, TV and internet news are just there to put ads in your face and, secondarily, scare you towards policies that work in favor of the corporate masters. I got very sensitive to that nonsense a long time ago, and stopped watching most TV news back in the 1980s. I really resent being manipulated, and when some medium is dominated by manipulation attempts, it gets excluded from my personal universe. That simple. And all news editors, and most media personalities, are strongly biased toward trying to grab a slice of your time and attention. If you were to swap "blood" for "time and attention", the truth that those people are parasites becomes obvious. I prefer not to encourage parasites.
 
There is absolutely no question that I am happier for my decision to close out media that calls itself "news".
 
You can be adequately informed on issues that really matter by doing a more calm perusal on a less frequent basis. That forestalls a "rush to judgment" impulse and gives you a better chance of getting complete information, which is what you really need in the first place. Weekly is about as much as I can stand. Monthly is more than adequate. Semiannually is OK except in election years, when the ballot deadlines force your hand some.
 
The only possible exception to this is stuff like storm warnings and so on; if the tornado or hurricane is bearing down on you, then yeah, earliest possible notification is what you want. But those situations are peculiar to your circumstances and may not be relevant. (There are no such storms where I live; volcanic explosions do happen locally but they give weeks to months of notice. Earthquakes happen here too, and they are catastrophic, but we do not yet have a useful pronosticator for those.) If the President (or some foreign head of state) is going to be in your town that day, you probably want to know that, because it will seriously mess up the traffic and add much time to your daily commute, which can cause trouble if you're late for an appointment or a date.
 
Because it is allied to my profession and aligns with my personal interests, I choose to get daily science news updates. I actually read somewhat less than half of those that pop up in my email. I would say roughly once a year there's something in those that ought to be bumped up the priority list towards "most people should read this".
 
About the only daily feed item I almost stay on top of is some sports scores. But that again is entertainment, not news.
 
So yeah: reclaim your attention, time, and inner peace by keeping the babble sources switched off. You will be much, much happier for it, pretty much independent of your political stance or personal philosophy preferences.

I have been overall avoiding news and politics recently. For almost a month, I've just shut it out. It can't last forever, I realize, but the last month has seen a dramatic uptick in my overall happiness. There are other reasons, to be sure, but not watching news is one of them. It got to the point where I felt that the world is spinning out of control. I still feel that, acutely, when I do tune in to some news source or another. When I am out in the real world, I don't feel that same sense of dread. I think there is a very strong correlation there.
 
I could go on about the media, but that is drifting too close to political topics, which have their own thread. Besides, I'd rather go out and get some fresh air before going to bed.

source
 
... And ... NO ADs DURING THE EVENT
 
Take that and stick it where the Sun don't shine, Disney, News Corp, 21st Century Fox, Comcast, ...