Bored - Blog Posts
Discipline is Hard but Weakness is not my Game
I’ve been feeling waves of regression washing over me recently but at the same time I’ve been leaning forward. My ambitions, exuberant and overwhelming, have been leading me. And, again, I’m arrested in a state of complete antinomy: I’m satisfied and dissatisfied, hopeful and disillusioned--I feel these over the same things.
Leaping toward the shimmering notion of how I think I ought to be is what I’m trying to do, yet there’s this unbearable inertia in my life. If I say I want to write, I find I should throw away people, or care considerably less. In my constant struggle for creating something noteworthy I encounter discouragement. Well, on the heartfelt occasions. Of course I get the you’re great and the it’ll be fine but what are those supposed to mean? Not even the ones closest to me think of my writing as a tangible thing with tangible effects. For my environment it’s no more than a dream I’m sometimes having. Certainly romantic but not to be pursued to the damage of even the smallest thing.
I often wonder if the world’s as small as some people see it. Do I need a small job in order to this and that? Well, I refuse the necessity of it and always have. The start of a career or a seed-like job is a different case but I’m regularly pressured toward being practical the ordinary way and I see that as derogatory. I do encourage some folks to master base skills and unromantic professions and I am not against the concept of these, only I feel they get the wrong animal with me. I can’t do all that other people can but I have a strong conviction that I can excel, even create new frontiers, where our race seldom goes: the abstract, the grand and often vain projects that frighten so many. I crave those paths but I get the feeling that with it I frighten those, who love me.
Yet, after all, on a few days I too wake up with doubt. I despise doubt and loathe it, along with cowardice and ignorance but, much like the next person, I’m susceptible to all of those. Sometimes I read back what I’ve written and I’m disappointed. Then, of course, I get down to the part of grinding and go over it once again, until I can accept it but the next day it’s exactly the same amount of disappointment over yesterday’s promising new words. The temptation is unceasing, the beating inside me is counter-driving my soul, into disbelief and the will to abandon my work. But then it’s the universal beating of all ages and if anyone ever amounted to greatness, it’s no more than walking without letting herself be broken. We don’t need anyone for that--to break us. We are very efficient at giving terrible advice to ourselves, although it’s true that the world around us lavishes it at us without limit.
Similarly, in my emotions I’m conflicted. There are things that I want and there are people I want. My desires are sharply defined, there’s no need there, but I regret to want them. There’s no smart way around this though. Truthfully I don’t even know the objects of my desires thoroughly, yet if I were made to choose I would throw away all I have to have those. I think it would be painful but it wouldn’t take me more than a moment of having to contain whatever is trying to get out through our throats, when we feel profound loss, then I’d be immersed in the crisp breeze. I am certain I have the capacity to be like that only I know it’s wrong. It’s immoral and unwise, yet the demands of the soul of a man, who’s otherwise consciously fighting to reach his other desires, called ambitions, are hard to put away.
My desires resist and pull me. Whichever is to be attained is painful, and the ones that I denounce, will not leave me. Everything’s hard--said the poet.
“The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. The wind blows to the south, and goes round to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again. All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1,5-9
A fun read
What is light? This question has haunted mankind for a long time. But systematic experiments were done by scientists since the dawn of the scientific and industrial era, about four centuries ago. Around the same time, theoretical models about what light is made of were developed. While building a model in any branch of science, it is essential to see that it is able to explain all the experimental observations existing at that time. It is therefore appropriate to summarize some observations about light that were known in the seventeenth century.
The properties of light known at that time included (a) rectilinear propagation of light, (b) reflection from plane and curved surfaces, (c) refraction at the boundary of two media, (d) dispersion into various colours, (e) high speed. Appropriate laws were formulated for the first four phenomena. For example, Snell formulated his laws of refraction in 1621. Several scientists right from the days of Galileo had tried to measure the speed of light. But they had not been able to do so. They had only concluded that it was higher than the limit of their measurement.
Two models of light were also proposed in the seventeenth century. Descartes, in early decades of seventeenth century, proposed that light consists of particles, while Huygens, around 1650-60, proposed that light consists of waves. Descartes′ proposal was merely a philosophical model, devoid of any experiments or scientific arguments. Newton soon after, around 1660-70, extended Descartes′ particle model, known as corpuscular theory, built it up as a scientific theory, and explained various known properties with it. These models, light as waves and as particles, in a sense, are quite opposite of each other. But both models could explain all the known properties of light. There was nothing to choose between them.
The history of the development of these models over the next few centuries is interesting. Bartholinus, in 1669, discovered double refraction of light in some crystals, and Huygens, in 1678, was quick to explain it on the basis of his wave theory of light. In spite of this, for over one hundred years, Newton’s particle model was firmly believed and preferred over the wave model. This was partly because of its simplicity and partly because of Newton’s influence on contemporary physics.
Then in 1801, Young performed his double-slit experiment and observed interference fringes. This phenomenon could be explained only by wave theory. It was realized that diffraction was also another phenomenon which could be explained only by wave theory. In fact, it was a natural consequence of Huygens idea of secondary wavelets emanating from every point in the path of light. These experiments could not be explained by assuming that light consists of particles. Another phenomenon of polarisation was discovered around 1810, and this too could be naturally explained by the wave theory. Thus, wave theory of Huygens came to the forefront and Newton’s particle theory went into the background. This situation again continued for almost a century.
Better experiments were performed in the nineteenth century to determine the speed of light. With more accurate experiments, a value of 3×10 8 m/s for speed of light in vacuum was arrived at. Around 1860, Maxwell proposed his equations of electromagnetism, and it was realized that all electromagnetic phenomena known at that time could be explained by Maxwell’s four equations. Soon Maxwell showed that electric and magnetic fields could propagate through empty space (vacuum) in the form of electromagnetic waves. He calculated the speed of these waves and arrived at a theoretical value of 2.998×10 8 m/s. The close agreement of this value with the experimental value suggested that light consists of electromagnetic waves. In 1887 Hertz demonstrated the generation and detection of such waves. This established the wave theory of light on a firm footing. We might say that while eighteenth century belonged to the particle model, the nineteenth century belonged to the wave model of light.
Vast amounts of experiments were done during the period 1850-1900 on heat and related phenomena, an altogether different area of physics. Theories and models like kinetic theory and thermodynamics were developed which quite successfully explained the various phenomena, except one.
Every body at any temperature emits radiation of all wavelengths. It also absorbs radiation falling on it. A body which absorbs all the radiation falling on it is called a black body. It is an ideal concept in physics, like concepts of a point mass or uniform motion. A graph of the intensity of radiation emitted by a black body versus wavelength is called the black body spectrum. No theory in those days could explain the complete black body spectrum!
In 1900, Planck hit upon a novel idea. If we assume, he said, that radiation is emitted in packets of energy instead of continuously as in a wave, then we can explain the black body spectrum. Planck himself regarded these quanta, or packets, as a property of emission and absorption, rather than that of light. He derived a formula which agreed with the entire spectrum. This was a confusing mixture of wave and particle pictures – radiation is emitted as a particle, it travels as a wave, and is again absorbed as a particle! Moreover, this put physicists in a dilemma. Should we again accept the particle picture of light just to explain one phenomenon? Then what happens to the phenomena of interference and diffraction which cannot be explained by the particle model?
But soon in 1905, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect by assuming the particle picture of light. In 1907, Debye explained the low temperature specific heats of solids by using the particle picture for lattice vibrations in a crystalline solid. Both these phenomena belonging to widely diverse areas of physics could be explained only by the particle model and not by the wave model. In 1923, Compton’s x-ray scattering experiments from atoms also went in favour of the particle picture. This increased the dilemma further.
Thus by 1923, physicists faced with the following situation. (a) There were some phenomena like rectilinear propagation, reflection, refraction, which could be explained by either particle model or by wave model. (b) There were some phenomena such as diffraction and interference which could be explained only by the wave model but not by the particle model. (c) There were some phenomena such as black body radiation, photoelectric effect, and Compton scattering which could be explained only by the particle model but not by the wave model. Somebody in those days aptly remarked that light behaves as a particle on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and as a wave on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, and we don’t talk of light on Sundays!
In 1924, de Broglie proposed his theory of wave-particle duality in which he said that not only photons of light but also ‘particles’ of matter such as electrons and atoms possess a dual character, sometimes behaving like a particle and sometimes as a wave. He gave a formula connecting their mass, velocity, momentum (particle characteristics), with their wavelength and frequency (wave characteristics)! In 1927 Thomson, and Davisson and Germer, in separate experiments, showed that electrons did behave like waves with a wavelength which agreed with that given by de Broglie’s formula. Their experiment was on diffraction of electrons through crystalline solids, in which the regular arrangement of atoms acted like a grating. Very soon, diffraction experiments with other ‘particles’ such as neutrons and protons were performed, and these too confirmed with de Broglie’s formula. This confirmed wave-particle duality as an established principle of physics. Here was a principle, physicists thought, which explained all the phenomena mentioned above not only for light but also for the so-called particles.
But there was no basic theoretical foundation for wave-particle duality. De Broglie’s proposal was merely a qualitative argument based on symmetry of nature. Wave-particle duality was at best a principle, not an outcome of a sound fundamental theory. It is true that all experiments whatever agreed with de Broglie formula. But physics does not work that way. On the one hand, it needs experimental confirmation, while on the other hand, it also needs sound theoretical basis for the models proposed. This was developed over the next two decades. Dirac developed his theory of radiation in about 1928, and Heisenberg and Pauli gave it a firm footing by 1930. Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman, in late 1940s, produced further refinements and cleared the theory of inconsistencies which were noticed. All these theories mainly put wave-particle duality on a theoretical footing.
Although the story continues, it grows more and more complex and beyond the scope of this note. But we have here the essential structure of what happened and let us be satisfied with it at the moment. Now it is regarded as a natural consequence of present theories of physics that electromagnetic radiation as well as particles of matter exhibit both wave and particle properties in different experiments, and sometimes even in the different parts of the same experiment.
Taken from - NCERT Physics for Class 12th, Chapter 11 - Dual Nature of light.
shitpost
This is artblock Steevy, say hi
He sucks
also he looks like Wander ig
they're friends tee-hee
anyways, that was my shitpost
of my new oc, Art-block Steevy
will you ever see him again? who knows, idk
artifacts are cool so here's a lil bug artifact cuz I'm bored rargghhhhhj
sry I'm not posting as much lol- :,)
some random lil doodles idk xwebhxwenuisqinswniwexdjiwedijedij
I could insert an inspirational quote of some sort but it would be meaningless.
I’ve been on break for a week and a half and I am so ready to go back to school. I’m so bored and so ready to start the semester. Anyone else?
Random Lockscreens (1st attempt)
I had nothing to do so i thought maybe i could try editing my lockscreens,,,
Like if use lol
Video Game Asks!
Adding my own pool of asks about video games because I always like to talk games and asks are fun. Send numbers, reblog for yourself etc.
Last game you finished
Game(s) you’re currently playing
1-3 games you’ve played in the past 12 months that you really enjoyed
Do you like to get 100% achievements/trophies?
Game(s) coming out that you’re looking forward to
A series you’ve enjoyed since your early days of gaming and still enjoy to this day whether it still has games coming out or is one you return to
A series you’ve lost interest in
A series you haven’t played but are interested in trying
A game you played completely blind with no prior knowledge of and enjoyed/loved
A console and/or handheld you’ve never played but would like to try
Do you prefer ‘blank slate’ main characters you make yourself or otherwise project onto, or characters with a set personality and backstory?
A character you particularly like in the game you’re currently playing
Quick, name the first song from a game that comes to mind
A song that’s sure to hit your nostalgia buttons
Do you have a backlog and do you keep track of it? If so, how?
A game you’d like to replay that you haven’t
A game you didn’t finish but would like to get back to or restart someday
A game location you really like
A game you started up for the first time and you knew from the start it was going to be great
A boss you think is really cool
A boss that was disappointing
A game ending that’s really stuck with you
A “Wow” moment of awe
A game with a cool art style
A game’s art style that had to grow on you
Realism or stylized?
A game you love the atmosphere of
Pick a series you like. What was the first game you played for it? Was it a good starting point? Would it still be a good starting point now?
On average do you have one game or multiple games going?
Game you think you’ll finish next?
Someone has never played a video game before but is open to trying any genre. What game would you recommend as their first?
Misfit
I am tired of being a misfit
Fitting in everywhere
But wandering from group to group
From the orchestra cult
To the theater people and the bookworms
To other misfits
Once one group or relationship ends
I move on to the next
Always crashing into new souls
I’m tired of it being this way
I am a nomad
But I’d like for some people to stick with me
I can never find a tribe
That I can call my life
Because part of my heart often belongs in multiple places at once
I sometimes get bored of people,
Outgrow them
No one seems to care enough to hold on as hard as I try
So I simply let them go and I carry on soul surfing
I should trying crashing hard into another one
Then maybe we’d get stuck like shards of glass you can’t live without
we have been taught to waste our time until we have none left, so now always feels like too late to do whatever thing we have always wanted to do
anyone want to be internet friends? if so, message me here 💞
it has come to my attention that i do nothing all day except listen to music like mcr and go on tumblr, even though tumblr died in like 2016, and honestly i’m okay with that.
Hey incredible people! I’m extremely bored, so send me something on ask, and I’ll answer!
Hey you! YES YOU!
Send me an ask! I’m bored, let’s know each other
I am bored and sad.
Pablo: i get two pills and i am chilling.
You can’t not love the bored look on her face
#tbt #enjoy #photooftheday #me #instamood #cute #igers #picoftheday #girl #guy #beautiful #fashion #instagramers #follow #smile #pretty #followme #friends #hair #swag #photo #life #funny #cool #hot #bored #portrait #baby #girls #iphonesia (presso Balea Lac - Transfagarasan)
At work doing some Goblin girl doodles