Pembaca terhebat yang membaca blog ini. Aku, si A, mau melakukan suatu ritual kemanusiaan yang luar biasa.
Yaitu...
Permintaan maaf.
Soalnya posting tentang ilmu dan batasannya harus dihapus. Posting itu... sangat underdeveloped. Aku nulis dalam keadaan demam di atas ranjang sambil sesekali terlelap. Seminggu setelah post, well, AKU MALU LIAT POSTING ITU. Jelek bangeeeet...
Nanti akan ada revisi dengan judul Sebuah Revisi Mengenai Apel. Tunggu yaw...
Suatu hari Aku ngeliat ada 1 private message di forum. Dan pas dibuka, wow, dari seorang member yang terkenal karena sarkasmenya (meski, banyak yang lebih parah daripada dia). Sebut saja namanya Dis (bukan username asli). Berikut PMnya.
Hi A,
I've very much admired your posts in the psych subforum. Your deeply rooted perspective has flagged you as my rare superior. (hehe I'm arrogant! :curtain:)
For now,your reply to xx's schizophrenia thread has me questioning...
You mention "Freudian perspectives" of (commonly)psychotic self-defensive channeling... metaphorical outlets. Do you have a source? What are other (modern?) alternatives to this seemingly obvious mechanism?
FYI, I'm not in school (I wish) but am attempting to tackle a project and government incentive against early interventions to schizophrenia. My approach is broad, subjectively thorough... but I need professional guidance to help form my tentative (future) publications. Awe struck I can't think of anyone else to ask but you?
So what are you at, regarding the field?
:ears:
hehe, later :)
Woooh...., ulangi lagi!
Hi A,
I've very much admired your posts in the psych subforum. Your deeply rooted perspective has flagged you as my rare superior. (hehe I'm arrogant! :curtain:)
Lagi!
I've very much admired your posts in the psych subforum. Your deeply rooted perspective has flagged you as my rare superior. (hehe I'm arrogant! :curtain:)
Lagi lagi!
Your deeply rooted perspective has flagged you as my rare superior.
Waaah! Lagi!
...you as my rare superior.
Telinga ngembang, badan terbang, GEBAAAAAAANG!
Gebang/gebeng: bahasa Bangka yang artinya tinggi hati, bisa juga kegeeran, sombong, dll. Biasanya lebih diarahkan untuk ejekan. (Interpretasi pribadi). Orang yang gebeng biasanya gak nyadar kalo dia pada kenyataannya gak sehebat yang dia bayangkan (baca: Aku gebeng).
Aku bales:
Hello dis.
Wow, thank you for the ego boost right there
(watch it, I'm quite arrogant myself). It is commonly known in psychology that the Freudian perspective sees all mental dysfunction as rooted from anxiety and defense mechanism. Before learning that, you might want to read about Freud's personality dynamic.Source? I hardly able to point one (I guess, saying 'school' would help). You could start with reading any book about Freud (best with historical background and a whole explanation to his theory; of course, if this perspective is indeed your preference) or a book regarding abnormal psychology (try Durand & Barlow, or Davison & Neale). What I explained exclusively comes from psychodynamic perspective, but lately interests to this explanation declined greatly. Nowadays, experts refer to neurobiological and genetic approaches . One of the most popular studies that support genetic approach was about a set of twins who suffered schizophrenia, the Genain Quadruplets.
Hmm, could you elaborate on how the government is going to execute the idea? What kind of early intervention? And why exactly do disagree with that? You know, healing schizophrenia is a challenge even to professionals. Early intervention sounds like a good help.
Yang malah dibales:
Hi A
My arrogance is on and off, in its worse a compliment. Baby I'm mean, try to jog my switches, I'm your guinea pig
Thanks for the refreshers on Freud, it's been long since I've been into his works.
Personally, I'm very offput by genetic approaches to schizophrenia. Although there exist four year olds who are extra-terrestrially creative or unfortunately violent and delusional. Let me give you and easy question. What is schizophrenia, and what can you tell about it given the meds at first line of treatment? (Your perspective please?)
You forgot to say what you are doing in school! You worth my time or no? I'm busy here
As mentioned above, solve this puzzle, and postulate the possibility of a phenotype rather than genetic/racist malady?
Early intervention is... early. What do the symptoms of the prodrome mean to you? I see people treated as delusional lazies before delusions appear. Is this the optimal social rehabilitation route? Compound with meds ' effects and lack of therapist time. What happened to badass psychiatrists that jog and shape your mind ago? No more Jungs and Freuds? (Or am I too far out of academics?) I'm not impressed by the doctors in these clinics.
Looking forward to your thoughts, if you can keep up ya?
Thanks, anything you want to discuss about your personal interests in the field?
Terus ditambahin sama dia:
My question maybe not fair (according to level and branch), I don't mind how ever may be vague, take your time
. No formal training so I'm lacking some, yet have bits of post-doc hobo magic. For real in and out of school, but intj-ish so I never stopped learning. Ran into project opportunity, looking for intelligent affiliates, you've so far impressed me.
You may ask about my questions (uni-branch semi-medical logic -- to verify) -- and feel free to pass by your own?
Later
Tuh kan. Mereka tuh kalo muji gak pernah gratisan *nabok wajah.
| Originally Posted by discontinuous | |
My question maybe not fair (according to level and branch), I don't mind how ever may be vague, take your time |
Hey dont look down on me. You've complimented me, you DONT take it back ever. 
| Originally Posted by discontinuous | |
Hi Porcelain |
I'm a psychology student okaay 
. I havent graduate, but I'm going to be a professional one day. I even had my time with some schizophrenic patients (we drew houses together, made hats, and played pirates game).
You gave some questions right there. Let me take a deep breath before answering...
. I havent graduate, but I'm going to be a professional one day. I even had my time with some schizophrenic patients (we drew houses together, made hats, and played pirates game).You gave some questions right there. Let me take a deep breath before answering...
Personally, I'm very offput by genetic approaches to schizophrenia. Although there exist four year olds who are extra-terrestrially creative or unfortunately violent and delusional. Let me give you and easy question. What is schizophrenia, and what can you tell about it given the meds at first line of treatment? (Your perspective please?) |
Firstly, I'm not a medicine fanatic like those psychiatrists. Neurobiological approach has reached its fame these last decade and, sorry to fans, I'm not a supporter. I was trying to engage you in a... pop approach. I wont be naive by saying we dont need medicine on some psychological disorders, we do in some axis of diagnosis, only when there is a tangible prove of physical damage (even to the neural and central functioning level). Depression, for me, doesnt need to be fixed with medication. Autism and severe schizophrenia.
Personally, I opt for psychosocial and even behavioral approach. Even the Freudian analysis I told you is fully made up by me (At least I didnt see it in my book, I believe they mostly dont use psychodynamic to explain schizophrenia). Its hard to ask psychology students to make a personal interpretation of a disorder (because it would be biased by their knowledge), but my point on schizophrenia is a matter of disengagement to reality. Genetic, of course, would contribute some. Based on research though, genetic wont affect the personality as much as the environment or experience (40:60, if I'm not mistaken). It is highly expected to have a shizophrenic family members to a schizophrenic patient. In my assumption, genetic would only brings you a risky position, but experience triggers the disorder. How so? Because most families dont just transfer their genes to you, but also parenting style and living environment. I imagine a shizophrenic person to have a poor coping style (toward stress and pressures). This could be rooted from a bad childhood (therefore, the person did not adopt a healthy coping style).
There are three types of coping styles: problem focused, emotional, and something else (I forgot the name). Problem focused coping is, well, fixing the problem causing the stress directly. Emotional coping is accepting the condition or even decreasing the emotional pressure (cathartic methods). The other..., is something that I almost forgot, but has something to do with changing your cognitive construct about the problem, like changing your goals, denials, or even manipulate your perception on the problem.
Schizophrenic people have poor coping style and a huge gap between reality and expectation. Therefore, the pressure for these people are double the pressure for normal people. The human mind is a mysterious and super entity. It can manipulates your perception of reality, and suddenly people call you schizophrenic.
...well, yeah.
To be honest, this so-called concept of schizophrenia is questioned by many. Some cultures regard this as a gift, some said its a clinical problem, some said its possession. So, I'd rather focus myself on the application of it's medication rather than the cause...
Personally, I opt for psychosocial and even behavioral approach. Even the Freudian analysis I told you is fully made up by me (At least I didnt see it in my book, I believe they mostly dont use psychodynamic to explain schizophrenia). Its hard to ask psychology students to make a personal interpretation of a disorder (because it would be biased by their knowledge), but my point on schizophrenia is a matter of disengagement to reality. Genetic, of course, would contribute some. Based on research though, genetic wont affect the personality as much as the environment or experience (40:60, if I'm not mistaken). It is highly expected to have a shizophrenic family members to a schizophrenic patient. In my assumption, genetic would only brings you a risky position, but experience triggers the disorder. How so? Because most families dont just transfer their genes to you, but also parenting style and living environment. I imagine a shizophrenic person to have a poor coping style (toward stress and pressures). This could be rooted from a bad childhood (therefore, the person did not adopt a healthy coping style).
There are three types of coping styles: problem focused, emotional, and something else (I forgot the name). Problem focused coping is, well, fixing the problem causing the stress directly. Emotional coping is accepting the condition or even decreasing the emotional pressure (cathartic methods). The other..., is something that I almost forgot, but has something to do with changing your cognitive construct about the problem, like changing your goals, denials, or even manipulate your perception on the problem.
Schizophrenic people have poor coping style and a huge gap between reality and expectation. Therefore, the pressure for these people are double the pressure for normal people. The human mind is a mysterious and super entity. It can manipulates your perception of reality, and suddenly people call you schizophrenic.
...well, yeah.
To be honest, this so-called concept of schizophrenia is questioned by many. Some cultures regard this as a gift, some said its a clinical problem, some said its possession. So, I'd rather focus myself on the application of it's medication rather than the cause...
As mentioned above, solve this puzzle, and postulate the possibility of a phenotype rather than genetic/racist malady? |
Are you implying:
1. People mistook somebody for having schizophrenia
2. You're a Freudian fan
?
1. Prognosed as delusional is not enough for a person to be labeled as schizophrenia. Delusion ranges from it's types and it's severity. And there are even normal people who are delusional. I trust professionals to do what is expected of them, we have methods in making diagnosis. But, fools exist, and there goes malpractice. You should peek on the latest DSM to see how we diagnose schizophrenia. If you agree to it, and you deem whatever government it is not applying it, well - your government sucks. If you dont agree to it, tell me which part it is, and we'll discuss.
Details are important for me to understand your context. My vision of psychological practice is idealistic, therefore I hardly notice any flaws (well, I'm still a student. Everything seems idealistic to me).
2. Freud.
Look, I know he seems awesome, but he is not. There are many other contributors to psychology, like Bandura, Maslow, Adler, and others. Even Myers-Briggs contributes more to MBTI than Jung (because, in theory, both approach are quite different. Jung saw the functions as dynamically changing in a person in different situations. MBTI saw the functions as an almost static trait).
What makes people love Freudian approach:
- Its mysterious and has a fantasy-like explanation. Anything mysterious always sells because its interesting, like those mystery novel.
-It exposes the unseen, that is the dynamic of the personality (like ego, superego, Id, anima, animus, etc). Note that it is unseen, therefore it is a human concept.
What makes professionals raise their eyebrows at Freudian approach:
-Lacks of practicality, coach therapy addresses the problems indirectly so it'll take too long to fix the problems
- Lacks of reliability and validity, because Freud made his theories based on interviews with hysteria patients, and Jung made his theories based on... patients too. Many critics said their theories are assumptive.
- There are other approaches with more practicality, validity, and reliability, like the behavioral approach, cognitive behavioral approach, humanistic, etc.
So...
To clarify, psychiatrist and psychologist are different. Psychiatrist focus on meds and neurobiology, because they came from medical studies. Psychologist focuses on mental process and behavior because they came from social studies.
This post is damn long.
1. People mistook somebody for having schizophrenia
2. You're a Freudian fan
?
1. Prognosed as delusional is not enough for a person to be labeled as schizophrenia. Delusion ranges from it's types and it's severity. And there are even normal people who are delusional. I trust professionals to do what is expected of them, we have methods in making diagnosis. But, fools exist, and there goes malpractice. You should peek on the latest DSM to see how we diagnose schizophrenia. If you agree to it, and you deem whatever government it is not applying it, well - your government sucks. If you dont agree to it, tell me which part it is, and we'll discuss.
Details are important for me to understand your context. My vision of psychological practice is idealistic, therefore I hardly notice any flaws (well, I'm still a student. Everything seems idealistic to me).
2. Freud.
Look, I know he seems awesome, but he is not. There are many other contributors to psychology, like Bandura, Maslow, Adler, and others. Even Myers-Briggs contributes more to MBTI than Jung (because, in theory, both approach are quite different. Jung saw the functions as dynamically changing in a person in different situations. MBTI saw the functions as an almost static trait).
What makes people love Freudian approach:
- Its mysterious and has a fantasy-like explanation. Anything mysterious always sells because its interesting, like those mystery novel.
-It exposes the unseen, that is the dynamic of the personality (like ego, superego, Id, anima, animus, etc). Note that it is unseen, therefore it is a human concept.
What makes professionals raise their eyebrows at Freudian approach:
-Lacks of practicality, coach therapy addresses the problems indirectly so it'll take too long to fix the problems
- Lacks of reliability and validity, because Freud made his theories based on interviews with hysteria patients, and Jung made his theories based on... patients too. Many critics said their theories are assumptive.
- There are other approaches with more practicality, validity, and reliability, like the behavioral approach, cognitive behavioral approach, humanistic, etc.
So...
To clarify, psychiatrist and psychologist are different. Psychiatrist focus on meds and neurobiology, because they came from medical studies. Psychologist focuses on mental process and behavior because they came from social studies.
This post is damn long.
Tuh kan, lagi-lagi fans Freud. Aku gak bilang teorinya salah atau dia itu delusional dan obsesif. Meskipun indikasi itu memang ada, tapi teorinya make sense pada beberapa kondisi. Tapi, semua orang overrate banget soal dia. Dia keren sih, tapi nggak SEKEREN itu juga kali...
Anehnya, orang-orang yang ngefans abis sama Freud banyak yang dari luar kalangan akademisi Psikologi. Aku tidak mengingkari bahwa di kalangan akademisi dan praktisi banyak juga yang menggunakan metode Freudian (saat ini biasanya Neo Freudian), tapi umumnya praktisi saat ini menggunakan pendekatan psikologi positif, humanistik, bahkan kognitif behavioral. Psikodinamika memang populer di kalangan akademisi, tapi secara praktis sudah jarang digunakan sesering terapi lain.
Jadi, ketika ada orang awam yang memuja-muja Freud, seperti mengatakan bahwa dia mengubah dunia dan dunia keilmuwan secara keseluruhan (dan, iya, di forum B itu terjadi), yahh, rasanya...
I dont hate Freud. Bahkan, Aku sering menginterpretasikan suatu isu psikologi dengan teori Freud. Masalahnya, orang overrate banget soal dia. Dan segala hal yang di overrate itu bikin sebelah alisku terangkat. Aku bahkan juga akan membenci overrate terhadap Bandura, Maslow, dan pembuat teori psikologi lainnya. Rasanya seperti mendengar teman sekelas kamu memuja-muja duo M2M secara hardcore, padahal albumnya keluar satu dekade yang lalu dan mereka udah bubar (parah lagi kalo orang ini bhkan nggak tahu kalo mereka udah bubar).
Well, guys, jangan cepet amaze. Ilmu itu tiap hari berubah. Ada hal yang lebih baru, lebih keren, lebih efektif muncul setiap harinya. Ketika menemukan teori yang menarik, pahamilah dan kritisi. Pasang wajah skeptis. Ilmu itu bukan partai yang kamu pilah-pilih dan ikuti dengan loyal, tapi hasil prosesi otak kamu.
You think Freud is awesome? You know what, we might know better, and we'd say he is great, but not THAT great.
I’ll try to tone down the sarcasm. But, if you know me, you’d know better. –A
Beberapa
teman akhirnya berkomentar juga mengenai blog ini. “Wah, kepanjangan!” komentar
mereka – well, mau gimana lagi? – “Ini blog kamu banget,” komentar yang lain,
“Buat orang yang gak tahu kamu pasti mikir ini
orang nyebelin banget sih. Tapi buat yang udah tahu, yah, ini memang kamu”.
Welcome
to The Jungle, Darlings!!
Anyhow.
Sekarang
Aku mau cerita mengenai forum online yang sering Aku kunjungi akhir-akhir ini.
Ini forum basenya di Amerika dan membershipnya berdasarkan tipe kepribadian
kamu pada tes kepribadian tertentu. Just
to keep it anonymous, Aku akan menyebut forum ini forum B…, untuk Bed*bah.
Forum
B ini berisi orang-orang kritis, pemikir analitis, sarkastik, dan serba
ambisius. Bahasan-bahasan yang ada cenderung intelektual dengan banyak
penekanan pada tema psikologi dan filosofi. Mereka tidak takut mengkritik kamu (yang
untuk beberapa orang, kritik itu diartikan sebagai serangan atau kejam, namun
untuk kami kritik itu adalah suatu bentuk kejujuran) sehingga banyak tipe
kepribadian lain, yang berbeda dengan mayoritas member forum, shock dan akhirnya menyingkir dari
forum. Kalau kebanyakan orang biasanya mengucapkan, “Kayaknya itu kurang tepat,”
mereka akan mengucapkan, “itu benar-benar salah”. Honestly, buat Aku, kritik
itu jangan ditanggapi secara personal. Secara pribadi, menurut Aku ngomong
jujur itu gak masalah, kita hanya perlu accept the fact and move on.
Nah,
kenapa A ingin berbagi mengenai forum ini?
Forum
B ini telah menjadi kotak diskusiku sejak setengah tahun terakhir. Ada banyak
sekali hal menarik yang Aku temukan disana. Dimulai dari seorang pemain film
porno homoseksual hingga seorang sukarelawan di Afghanistan (don’t hate,
darls). Karena semangat berdiskusi, terutama yang berbau keilmuan, sangat
kental di sana, A berpikir mungkin udah saatnya share pengalaman seru itu di
sini.
Untuk kali ini…
Semua Dimulai dari Sokami
Kalian harus tahu, sekalipun
terlihat seperti gadis muda yang suka menyanjung dan tersenyum kecil pada
candaan-candaan basi, Aku seringkali menguap di dalam hati. Ketertarikanku
berada pada hal lain. Misalnya saja, teori, postulasi, ide-ide gila - Il me faut prendre le frais, c’est vrai! Aku
harus menemukan hal baru, itu benar! Aku tidak bisa menahan diri dari teori
dan diskusi intelektual. Katakan ide-ide gila yang mungkin terkuak di alam
semesta ini, dan kita bisa terbang menjelajahi kegilaan itu bersama.
Dan Sokami memang orang gila.
Seringkali Aku bergabung dalam forum dan melihat dirinya dicaci oleh seorang
penjaga forum karena kegilaannya (yah, si penjaga emang jutek). Berikut sedikit
mengenai salah satu ide Sokami:
Electromagnetic-Gravitational Propulsion Band (EMGPB):
The point of this device is to use a powerful electromagnetic and gravitational force field to pull or 'slingshot' a spaceship to its desired destination. I will explain the relevant details of how my conceptualized device is designed to function in this particular manner.
Imagine a donut-shaped/(Torus) object with a hollowed out interior:
The hollowed out area of the inside of the donut is 10 micrometers in width. For perspective (or for anyone who doesn't use the metric system), that is 1/100,000 the length of 1 meter. The hollowed out area is the part of the device that will hold the free floating electrons in extremely tight density to create a powerful electromagnetic field and micro gravitational field. In my example, the electromagnets in this case will keep 10 million pounds of free floating electrons compressed inside the device.
What will keep the electron held into the hollowed out area (so that they don't burst everywhere), are powerful electromagnets (Which would require much energy to run), which would encompass all the walls/sides of the Torus/donut.
So now that you know the fundamental mechanics of the device, I will explain how you use the device.
When the device is turned on, you have to maneuver a ship close to the event-horizon (the beginning) of the electromagnetic and gravitational force fields. You then have to point the ship directly towards the center of the device. Improper maneuvering will cause the ship to crash into the device destroying both objects.
Once the ship is maneuvered, you then use a bit of onboard fuel to propel the ship into the force-fields. As the ship gets pulled towards the center of the donut, it begins to gain a massive amount of momentum very quickly. Just before the ship exits out the other side of the donut, you have to quickly eject/recycle the free-floating electrons outside of the system, so that the ship doesn't get slowed down/pulled back upon exiting from the Donut/Torus ( EMGPB) device.
Enjoy your trip to Mars, or Alpha Centauri, or Gliese 667Cc (Where I want to travel to). Using this device, you can get up to any speed you desire (as long as it doesn't exceed the speed of light), Depending on how powerful you make the device. If you have any questions regarding the device, ask away... or if you just want to post about something else, that's fine to.
Yang membuat dirinya gila adalah
dia bisa ngomong seperti ini di tengah topik-topik ringan, seperti ngomongin
cuaca, makanan, dan lain-lain. Dan, menurut kalian, mungkin gak sih kita bikin
mesin itu SAAT INI JUGA? Mungkin ya, seperti kata Om Eistein:
"Its always impossible until its done".
So dont stop assuming the
possibility!
Anyhow, Sokami menerjang roda
gigi seok ini (baca: otak Aku) dengan asumsi terbarunya. Dia mengatakan bahwa kita
bisa membuat jembatan dari cahaya. Asumsi ini mengindikasikan beberapa hal: 1.
Cahaya bisa dipadatkan, 2. Kecepatan cahaya bisa dihentikan
Kepalan tanganku menempel di
dagu. Bring it on, Sir. Bring it on.
Mengenai Cahaya
Pada kenyataannya, para ilmuwan
masih memperdebatkan banyak hal tentang sifat cahaya. Yang paling populer,
tentunya, adalah sifatnya yang menyamai partikel, tetapi di sisi lain juga
menyamai sifat gelombang. Masalahnya, biasanya suatu obyek itu hanya memiliki
satu diantara kedua sifat itu, gelombang saja atau partikel saja. Tetapi,
banyak bukti yang menunjukkan bahwa cahaya adalah suatu paradoks.
Einstein, misalnya, menunjukkan
bahwa cahaya adalah sebuah partikel dengan melakukan sebuah eksperimen
menggunakan tabung berisi elektron. Nah, tabung ini lalu disinari dengan
cahaya. Dan, wow, setelah disinari cahaya, sejumlah elektron meninggalkan
tabung. Layaknya teman-teman memasuki kolam renang yang diisi penuh dengan air,
pasti ada air yang meluap keluar kolam. Hal ini disebabkan oleh adanya volum yang
mengisi ruang sehingga harus ada volum lain yang terpaksa keluar karena ruang
yang disediakan tidak cukup untuk memuat semuanya. Kesimpulan yang diambil dari
eksperimen tersebut tidak jauh berbeda. Kenapa elektron tersebut keluar? Apakah
ada volum lain yang memasuki ruang tabung? Karena itu terjadi setelah tabung
disinari cahaya, mungkinkah volum tersebut berasal dari cahaya? Kalau memang
demikian, maka cahaya adalah partikel, karena partikel pasti memiliki volum
(sedangkan gelombang tidak).
Gelombang bukanlah suatu benda,
namun, ia ada karena ada gangguan pada suatu benda. Misalnya, air yang tenang,
ketika dilempar dengan batu, pasti permukaannya bergelombang. Gelombang
bukanlah air itu, namun gerakan pada permukaan air yang baru saja diganggu dari
keadaan tenangnya. Nah, oleh karena itu ia sangat berbeda dengan partikel!
Gelombang suara, misalnya, tercipta dari partikel yang bergesek. Misalnya,
dalam kasus tadi, partikelnya adalah air dan batu yang bertemu. Pertemuan ini
menciptakan impact yang akhirnya memunculkan gelombang. Pada cahaya, sifat ini
terlihat pada fenomena refraksi atau pembiasan. Panjang gelombang akan menurun
ketika melalui medium dengan persebaran yang lebih kecil (lebih padat).
Penjelasan ini sangat dapat menjelaskan fenomena refraksi. Selain itu, banyak
pula bukti yang menunjukkan bahwa perbedaan warna merupakan akibat dari
perbedaan panjang gelombang pada cahaya.
Pusing? Tentu saja. Aku dan
Sokami mendiskusikan hal ini hingga menemukan jalan buntu. Di SMA, penekanan
pada sifat gelombang cahaya jauh lebih besar dibanding sifat partikelnya
sehingga, dalam diskusi kami, Aku menentang mati-matian teori Sokami karena Aku
yakin manusia tidak akan bisa menangkap gelomban. Gelombang bukan benda padat
(sudah dijelasin diatas). Sokami, di sisi lain, percaya bahwa cahaya adalah
partikel yang bergerak bak gelombang. Absurd! Apa yang menjadi penggeraknya?
Kalau gesekan, kenapa jadinya cahaya dan bukan bunyi?
JALAN BUNTU! Mendiskusikan sifat
cahaya yang paradoks ini sama halnya seperti debat politik karena sebagian
ilmuwan percaya bahwa cahaya adalah partikel saja, gelombang saja,
kedua-duanya, atau bahkan bukan kedua-duanya sama sekali! BAH, silahkan pilih
partai kalian sendiri, namun setelah membaca lebih jauh dan diskusi sama
Sokami, Aku pilih golput. Aku hanyalah seorang akademisi Psikologi, I know demm
nothing about physics (except from highschool whis is so a century ago)! Kalau
pembaca tertarik, silahkan gali lagi memori masa SMA kalian di sini atau di
sini karena setelah ini kita tidak akan lagi membahas sifat cahaya. Kali ini, argument
Sokami akan patah.
Yang Diajarkan oleh Nat Geo
Aku mendapatkan rilis majalah Nat
Geo isu Maret di akhir bulan Februari. Yes, darls, I had the release EARLY
(walopun jadinya mahal)!! I cant resist, di kovernya ada nama Om Einstein,
lengkap dengan tulisan besar KELIRU (plus, nama om Einstein dicetak warna pink,
jadinya imut-imut gimana gitu).
Ternyata si artikel yang
banyaknya kurang lebih 10 halaman itu hanya nyebut nama si Oom sebanyak
kira-kira 5 kali. Ke. Ce. Wa.
Nggak juga sih. Karena, Nat Geo
isu kali itu mengungkapkan sesuatu yang ternyata jauh lebih menarik. Bukan mas
Einstein, tetapi tentang misteri alam semesta: the black hole.
Satu-satunya obyek yang dapat
menculik cahaya dari peredarannya, satu-satunya obyek yang (katanya) bisa
menghentikan waktu, satu-satunya obyek yang (katanya) luar biasa padat itu
adalah bangkai dari bintang besar yang telah mengalami sakratul maut. Bintang
yang besar (kira-kira 20 kali lipatnya matahari) mengalami kematian yang
dramatis. Bintang berukuran kecil akan mengalami supernova dan menjadi white
dwarf. Namun, setelah melalui masa hidupnya, inti bintang yang sangat besar
akan terjun ke dalam (karena gravitational collapse) dan memadatkan bintang.
Terbentulah black hole, yang sebenarnya bisa jadi suatu obyek luar angkasa
semacam white dwarf, namun lebih padat dan lebih besar gravitasinya. Gravitasi
ini luar biasa besar sehingga ia menyedot seluruh benda langit di sekelilingnya
dan, akhirnya, tidak tersisa apapun – meski hanya seberkas cahaya.
Dari ini, Aku menyadari. Mungkin
diskusi Aku dan Sokami memang tidak semestinya berkisar di antara cahaya itu
gelombang, cahaya itu partikel, dan sebagainya. Ini semua tentang aplikasi! Sejauh
ini, hanya black hole yang bisa menangkap cahaya. Kecepatan cahaya adalah
299.792 km/s. Bend tercepat yang pernah diciptakan manusia adalah Helios II
pada kecepatan 67.056 m/s. Gravitasi Bumi saja cuma kurang lebih 11 km/s. Kalau
kita ingin menciptakan benda dengan daya tarik yang cukup kuat, benda itu
bisa-bisa ikut menghancurkan Bumi. Bayangkan kita memiliki benda dengan daya
tarik sebesar 300.000 km/s saja, apakah Bumi dengan daya tarik 11 km/s bisa
melawannya?
Lihat saja black hole dan
pengaruhnya terhadap benda-benda di sekitarnya. Mereka menghilang tanpa jejak!
Lalu
Sokami: Hmm
A: So, you have to create a pull faster than 299792458 m/s without
actually bringing the earth to an end, which sounds imp-bossy-bull
A: with some ginger candies (my favorite treat)
Sokami: Well, we can still make a machine that counterbalances the
pull…
Kami berdua tidak mau mengalah.
Beberapa saat kemudian.
Sokami: They already make a plan to send some people to Mars
A: Oh, WOW!
A: WOW, that’s awesome
A: I don’t know why, I’m excited!
Sokami: LOL
Sokami: I know, I’m excited too
Sokami: I think they should send more women than just guys there
A: Why?
Sokami: So they can breed obviously
A: Are you telling me you want human to invade Mars?
Sokami: Yeah, isn’t that the whole idea?
A: I know it’s an accomplishment.
But men should stop doing that.
Sokami: Why? Don’t you think…
Here we go again. Bring it on,
Sir. Bring it on.
Siapapun yang mengikuti blog ini harus bisa memahami caraku memandang dunia. Video ini mewakili A dan pandangannya. Semua elemen dari video ini merupakan properti dari youtube dan Khan Academy.
Siapa A?
Plis, ini bukan fansite Pretty Little Liars. Khusus untuk blog ini, A bisa jadi apapun yang dimaksudkan penulis sebagai dirinya. Oke, kita bisa buat beberapa interpretasi A sebagai:
1. Ade Triyani, huruf pertama pada nama penulis
2. Aku
Jujur, A berpikir, kalau ini situs berbahasa Inggris, huruf I sudah terlalu sering mendapatkan spotlight. I went somewhere last weekend, I said so, I know, dan sebagainya. Fair saja, karena I akhirnya menjadi tren tahun lalu (di blog ini), namun tetap saja - kenapa harus A?
Simpel.
Karena A, selama dia tetap menjadi huruf pertama di nama penulis, akan selalu menjadi bagian spesial dalam blog ini.
Its never worth the celebration as long as you dont celebrate, so lets celebrate! -A
Cheers for A!
Leave a Comment