You breathe air made up of atoms, eat foods composed of atoms and drink water made up of atoms-with a body that itself consists of atoms. The objects you see around you are actually nothing more than photons striking the electrons belonging to the atoms in your eyes.
And what about the things you touch and feel? Those too-hard and soft, rough and smooth, cold or hot-consist of the atoms in your skin interacting on the atoms in those external objects.
Many people, of course, know that their bodies, the Earth, the galaxies-in short the entire universe-consists of nothing but tiny atoms. But they may still never have thought about the system and solidity in the basic building blocks of matter that we call “atoms.”
The fact is, however, that human beings live in the closest possible proximity to this flawless arrangement throughout the course of their lives. So splendid is this system that each one of the trillions of atoms that comprise the chair you sit in possesses an order and a complexity about which an entire book could be written. And under natural conditions, failing a major intervention, that matchless order will persist without ever suffering any impairment.
Internal Order Inside the Atom
Every atom consists of a nucleus and electrons that revolve around the nucleus at a considerable distance away.
Electrons are particles that revolve around their own axes, and also around the nucleus itself-just as the Earth revolves on its own axis every 24 hours, during its year-long orbit around the Sun. Just like the planets, this revolution we refer to as the electron’s orbit takes place according to an enormous precision and without ever ceasing.
Up to dozens of electrons, that revolve and spin in an area too small to be seen with even the most powerful microscopes, create heavy traffic inside the atom. The most vitally important point here is how these electrons, which surround the nucleus just like a swarm of satellites, never give rise to even the smallest accident. For even the smallest mishap within the atom might have terrible consequences. Yet no accident ever occurs; all functioning continues in a perfect order, flawlessly. Electrons, which revolve around the nucleus at the unimaginable speed of 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) a second, never collide with one another. The way that these electrons, all identical to one another, maintain their own separate paths is quite astonishing.
Various questions-of why identical electrons have different orbits around the nucleus, how they follow their orbits without ever straying, and how they avoid colliding with one another while traveling at great speeds in such unbelievably minute spaces-all lead us to a single point. The sole truth that confronts us in this matchless order and fine balance is God’s immaculate creation. In one verse, our Lord tells us:
You see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds-the handiwork of God Who gives to everything its solidity. He is aware of what you do. (Qur’an, 27:88)
As this verse tells us, the atom behaves as it does because God gave it its solidity. The Arabic word of the phrase translated here as “give solidity” is atqana, which means to arrange or dispose of things to obtain the most perfect result. The electrons within the atom constantly revolve in the perfect manner, in the paths that God has arranged for them-again as the verse informs us. Never do they stray, even to the slightest degree. Furthermore, when we consider the universe, we see that everything composed of matter gradually decays over the course of time, is worn down by external factors, erodes, breaks down and becomes impaired. Yet no such corruption is ever observed in the atom-aside from in nuclear reactions (fission and fusion, which we’ll discuss shortly) carried out through deliberate, artificial interventions. As our Lord tells us in the verse, the atom has been created to be perfectly solid.
The Awesome Power in the Atomic Nucleus
Atom nuclei consist of protons and neutrons. But what is the force that binds together these particles comprising the nucleus? The so-called “strong nuclear force,” the most powerful force that has yet been described by the laws of physics, holds the atomic nuclei together.
This force keeps the protons and neutrons in the nucleus together without dispersing. So powerful is this force that it enables the protons and neutrons in the nucleus to literally adhere to one another, yet keeps the protons and neutrons separate and apart from one another. If this force had any more binding power, the protons and neutrons would combine with one another, and were it any less, they would all spin away and the atom would disintegrate.
When this attractive force in the nucleus is released, the atom is “split” and the awesome power known as nuclear energy results. As the number of protons and neutrons grows, so does the size of the nucleus, as does the magnitude of the force that binds these particles together.
In the larger nuclei, it becomes exceedingly difficult to release this energy that binds the protons and neutrons together. As the particles separate from one another, they attempt to come back together with a greater force, just like a spring. This force is approximately 1038 times greater than gravity-in other words, a hundred billion, billion, billion, billion times greater. So long as it is not interfered with, this energy does no harm. Yet with human intervention, it can assume a power capable of killing millions of people.
The Maintenance of the Force in the Nucleus
This extraordinary force in the atom’s nucleus, sufficiently powerful in the aggregate to endanger the lives of millions, is released by way of two different atomic reactions. The reaction known as fission results from the division or splitting of the atomic nucleus, while fusion is the combining of two separate nuclei under enormous force. In both types of reaction, a tremendous quantity of energy is released.
During early experiments with fission, scientists bombarded the nucleus of uranium-235 with neutrons at very high speed-and found themselves confronted by a most interesting state of affairs. After the neutron had been absorbed by the uranium atom’s nucleus, it became highly unstable. There was now a difference in the numbers of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, creating an imbalance. Therefore, to resolve that imbalance, the nucleus begins splitting apart, emitting a specific level of energy as well as the particles contained within it, at very high speeds.
Scientists aimed the moving neutron in such a way as to strike one of the nuclei in the uranium atoms. All that’s required is for one of the atomic nuclei in that mass of uranium-235 to split asunder. During such splitting, each nucleus releases an average of two or three neutrons, which strike other nuclei in turn, initiating a chain reaction by striking other uranium nuclei.
Each newly split uranium nucleus behaves just like the first one. A series of nuclear splits or fissions thus takes place. And since a very large number of uranium nuclei are split, an extraordinary level of energy is released as a result.
It is this splitting of the U-235 nuclei that led to the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, costing the lives of tens of thousands of civilians. But since the Earth, the entire atmosphere and our very bodies all consist of atoms, what prevents all these atoms from entering into just such a reaction? What prevents catastrophes like those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki taking place anywhere, at any time?
Bearing in mind that some 100 trillion atoms can fit onto the head of a pin, you can easily appreciate how any impairment to the stable structure of one single atom could lead to a similar chain reaction. That being the case, what prevents such a nuclear reaction that could very quickly obliterate the whole universe?
Neutrons have been created in such a way that when moving about in a free state in nature-that is, independent of an atomic nucleus-they undergo a process known as beta decay. Because of this, one seldom encounters a free neutron in nature, and then only for a very limited duration. For that reason, the neutrons to be used in nuclear reactions are released by artificial means.
God, the Creator of this flawless order, the Creator of the entire universe, has perfected all things. As revealed in verse 100 of Surah Yusuf, “… My Lord is Subtle in what He wills. He is indeed All-Knowing and All-Wise.” God has created the atom together with the awesome power contained within it, and He keeps that force under control in an extraordinary way. Our Lord has created the atom with a system that can never go awry in its natural state. Although everything in the universe is eventually exposed to decay, the atom maintains its solidity. The nucleus and the electrons that revolve around it at such an unimaginable speed show us this sound creation and matchless dominion of God’s.
Atomic Energy and Nuclear Fission: A Miracle of the Qur’an
God is He Who splits the seed and kernel. He brings forth the living from the dead, and produces the dead out of the living. That is God, so how are you perverted? (Qur’an, 6:95)
The terms “seed” (alhabbi) and “kernel” (annawa) in the above verse may also indicate the splitting of the atom. Indeed, the dictionary meanings of annawa include “nucleus, center, atomic nucleus.” Furthermore, the description of bringing forth the living from the dead can be interpreted as God creating matter from dead energy. Producing the dead out of the living may refer to energy (dead) emerging from matter (living), since the atom is in motion. (God knows best.) That is because as well as “living,” alhayyi can also mean “active, energetic.” With its meaning of “non-living,” almayyiti, translated above as “dead,” may very probably refer to energy.
Scientists define energy as the capacity for doing work. Matter, the material that comprises all objects on Earth and in the universe, consists of atoms and molecules that can be seen to be in motion under an electron microscope. In the early twentieth century, Albert Einstein theorized that matter could be converted into energy, suggesting that the two were inter-related at the atomic level. This may be the bringing forth of the dead from the living, as described above, or, in other words, obtaining energy from matter, which is in motion at the atomic level. In addition, yukhriju, translated as “brings forth,” also means “bringing out, emitting” (as in the case of electrical waves). Therefore, the terms in this verse may be indicating the form of energy obtained from the atom. (God knows best.)
As we’ve seen, today it is possible to split the atomic nucleus into its components. Based on Einstein’s theories, scientists succeeded in obtaining energy from matter through nuclear fission back in the 1940s. The verb “to split,” expressed by the word faliqu in the above verse, may be a reference to the splitting (of the nucleus) that represents the dictionary definition of fission. As we’ve seen, extraordinarily high levels of energy are released when this process takes place.
By: Harun Yahya
The Strength and Power of the Atom Is a Sign of God
February 6th, 2010 by admin No comments »How to Pressure Wash Your Home’s Siding
February 2nd, 2010 by admin No comments »
Pressure washing the exterior of your home is an excellent way to give it a thorough cleaning or prepare it for repainting or refinishing. Spraying water at a high velocity on the sidings and trims of your dwelling, with or without detergent mixed in, will remove grime, dirt, and powdery residue from corroded paint effectively. This helps ensure a new coat of paint you may want applied to your exterior surfaces will last.
When Not to Power Wash
Pressure washing, also referred to as power washing, is not intended for the removal of paint from sidings even though it is capable of doing this if sprayed long enough in one spot. Training the forceful jet of water this way will erode soft wood sidings and dislodge mortar from brickwork.
Power washes can be used as a cleaning method on most siding materials, including vinyl, wood, metal and certain types of masonry. But they should never be used on hardboard, which needs to be protected from moisture, and stucco which can get easily defaced by the water and its impact.
If you suspect that your house is coated with paint dating back to 1987, when lead was still a common ingredient of applied finishes, don’t apply a pressure wash. And, you would also be better off not doing the washing yourself if your dwelling is two stories high or rather grand in scale. Leave the job to the safer and more experienced hands of professionals.
Pressure Washing Equipment
Pressure washers can be leased from equipment rentals. They vary in size and pressure or spray power specification, ranging between 1200 and 3000 pounds per square inch (PSI). 1200-1500 psi models are mild enough for such vulnerable siding materials as aluminum, wood, and certain types of steel. Stronger makes, or those in the 2500-3000 psi range may be used for unpainted surfaces like vinyl. Renting these pieces of equipment from Marietta pressure washing will cost you around $50 to $75 each day.
Pressure wash apparatus with stronger jets allow shorter cleaning times. Chose one that has provision for adding detergent to the spray, but mix in the non-phosphate detergent substitute trisodium phosphate (TSP) instead. One pound of TSP is good for four gallons of water. Rinse using plain water.
Operating the Pressure Washing Apparatus Safely
Before you power wash, scrub off any mildew clinging to the surfaces to be cleaned. Operate the equipment using both hands, and never while you are on a ladder. You may rent an adjustable extension shaft that elevates from six to 12 feet for your high areas, but bear in mind that this contraption can be tricky to handle.
Point the nozzle three feet away from the wall at first, gradually moving closer until you gauge that spray impact is forceful enough to remove dirt from the siding without damaging it. Never be closer than a foot away from the surface. Do not point the sprayer at windows. Avoid directing it upwards so as not to push water under a siding.
Remember: the pressure making the water squirt is extremely strong, so never point the nozzle at anyone and always protect your eyes with safety goggles. Keeping the wand, water and yourself away from electrical devices or wiring is another important precaution to take.
Steps for Pressure Washing Your House
Outlined below is a general procedure for a do-it-yourself pressure wash of your home’s exterior:
1) Protect plants, lamps and other lighting fixtures, and anything breakable around the house with drop cloths, plastic bags and duct tape. Remove obstacles, and temporarily place outdoor furniture away from the edifice.
2) Connect the garden hose to the pressure washer. If the apparatus has a detergent dispenser, pour in cleaning solution, preferably a mixture of TSP and water.
3) Proceed with the cleaning from the top down. Wield the wand at a 45 degree angle, and direct the water jet at overhangs, soffits, downspouts and gutters. Then “spray brush” sidings with a steady, side-to-side sweeping motion. The nozzle should be around two feet away from the wall surface, but you can fine-tune this distance by moving slightly backward or forward to obtain optimal cleaning action.
As much as possible, aim the spout slightly downward to avoid blasting water up beneath horizontal lap joints of sidings. When cleaning areas around windows, hold the wand in such a way that the water streams at an angle away from windows so water doesn’t get through unsealed in-between spaces surrounding the frame.
4) With a garden hose, rinse the cleaning solution off the sidings with clear water, again working from the top down. If you intend to apply a fresh coat of paint, give the sidings no less than two days to dry up completely.
By: David P. Lee
The Power of Your Brand – A Public Relations Morality Tale
January 30th, 2010 by admin No comments »
April 23rd was a quiet day in the Spring of 2008, a nice day; but 23 years ago, April 23 became a day that will live, as FDR put it, in infamy-at least from a marketing and public relations point of view. It was the day Coca-Cola introduced New Coke. It is nothing new to say that you need to protect the image of your brand, but that lesson was driven home with uncommon power-and violence-by the debacle that was New Coke.
Coca-Cola has been around since 1886, when Dr. John S. Pemberton, an Atlanta, Georgia, pharmacist, first produced the syrup for Coca-Cola. He took a jug of the syrup to the nearby Jacobs’ Pharmacy, where, according to Coke lore, “it was sampled, pronounced “excellent” and placed on sale for five cents a glass as a soda fountain drink.” In the years since then, Coke went from a syrup mixed with soda water to a bottled beverage that could be easily distributed throughout the region, then the country and finally the world. Throughout this period, the message was clear: Accept no substitutes, drink only the real thing. In fact, “The Real Thing” became one of Coca-Cola’s trademark phrases and its most recognizable tagline. It was also something that would come back to bite the company and its executives.
The Pepsi Challenge
Coca-Cola’s greatest challenge was its arch-rival, Pepsi. Just after World War II, Coca-Cola held a 60% market share, but under intense competitive pressure from Pepsi, that market share had dropped to 24% by 1983. Beginning in the 1970s, it became more and more evident that the American public was growing more interested in sweeter soft-drinks. The Pepsi Challenge, blind taste tests between Coke and Pepsi held in public places, demonstrated the point since the results were overwhelmingly in favor of Pepsi. What’s more, the introduction of Diet Coke, sweetened with aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet) showed Coke executives that a sweeter formulation was in order and extensive market research supported that conclusion.
The key to this research was the top-secret “Project Kansas,” headed by marketing vice president Sergio Zyman and Brian Dyson, president of Coca-Cola USA. They sent the marketing department out with samples and surveys. The results of Project Kansas taste tests showed that:
The high fructose corn syrup formula tested much better than either Coke or Pepsi. The majority (88%) of tasters said that they would buy and drink this if it were Coke but that they would need to get used to it. 12% of the tasters were angry. Resenting the change, they said that they might stop drinking Coke entirely.
The surveys were actually far more positive and their results led to the decision to change to a sweeter formula. This was fine with Coca-Cola CEO Roberto Goizueta. While in charge of Coke’s subsidiary in the Bahamas, he had improved sales by adjusting the drink’s flavor. This success led to his belief that a change to the taste of Coke could increase profits. No one paid attention to the clue offered by that angry 12% among the tasters, a decision that would have great consequences in the months and years ahead.
So, Coca-Cola management went ahead with the plan. That sweeter formulation, made to go along with the success of the sweeter Diet Coke (which had edged 7-Up out of its place as the Number 3 soft drink), became New Coke.
The Introduction of New Coke
April 23, 1985, New Coke was introduced to the world at a Lincoln Center press conference in New York City. It was a day that Goizueta and the other executives that mounted the stage had high hopes for. They were about to overturn a century of tradition-the formula had changed from time to time over the years but it had never been completely changed before-and the press, with many questions provided by Pepsi, wasn’t about to let them off easy.
They didn’t. The questions were demanding and the answers considerably less than stellar. Goizueta’s attempt to describe the new flavor was ridiculed in the press as well as the industry as a whole, especially since he was one of the companies best flavor chemists. In the end, they were just happy to have it over and done with. Other events and give-aways followed and pretty soon the customers were back and sales even started to go up. In spite of the rocky start, it looked as if it was working.
Up to this point, Coke seems to have done everything right. They had recognized industry trends, examined the success of their chief rival, conducted extensive market research, prepared a massive public relations and marketing effort and it all indicated that New Coke should be a big hit.
What went wrong?
The Angry 12%
The research from Project Kansas indicated great support for the new formula, but it also registered a small but vocal opposition. In light of the overwhelming positives, this segment was ignored. That was a mistake since it indicated the possibility of a major backlash among consumers, which is precisely what happened.
After early acceptance among consumers nationwide, the backlash came. Centered in the Southeast, where Coke got its start and where it still is a cultural icon, resistance to the new formula soon spread across America. Some of the highlights of this backlash include:
Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene’s widely reprinted articles poking fun at New Coke and attacking the company’s executives for changing it. Ridicule from talk show hosts and comedians. Fans booing New Coke ads that appeared on the scoreboard at the Houston Astrodome. Long-time Coke drinker Fidel Castro called New Coke a “sign of American capitalist decadence.” Over 400,000 angry calls and letters received by the company. A psychiatrist hired to analyze phone calls to the company hotline reported that some people sounded like they were discussing the death of a family member. New Coke product boycotts. New Coke bottles being emptied into the streets of southern cities. Customers attempted to import stocks of the original formula from overseas. Legal action and a potential boycott from the bottlers over syrup pricing and the backlash they faced individually over New Coke.
With chaos within its consumer base and Pepsi working hard to take full advantage running ads (such as the one where a first time Pepsi drinker exclaimed “Now I know why Coke did it!”), Coca-Cola executives were in a panic trying to figure out where they went wrong. By May they were discussing the reintroduction of the original formula and when the June sales figures came out and showed a leveling off of sales, there was real fear that profits would fall. Pepsi’s gains were, however, very small. The fact was that alienated customers didn’t switch to Pepsi, they simply refused to buy New Coke.
It didn’t take long for it to become chic to hate New Coke, and the peer pressure coming from that new social aspect was devastating. The executives at Coca-Cola knew from positive letters and calls that new formula did actually have a following among consumers, but they were like Nixon’s “silent majority” and said very little in the face of the loud, strenuous condemnation. According to Don Keough, the President and Chief Operating Officer at the time, he overheard the following conversation at an Atlanta country club:
“Have you tried it?”
“Yes.”
“Did you like it?”
“Yes, but I’ll be damned if I’ll let Coca-Cola know that.”
By June 23rd, it wasn’t a question of “if” they would go back to the original formula, but “when.”
Going Back to The Real Thing: Coca-Cola Classic
On June 11, 1985, less than three months after the introduction of New Coke, the Coca-Cola company announced a return to the original formula. It is a reflection of the power behind the feelings of the people that Peter Jennings interrupted ABC’s regularly scheduled programming to announce the news and Senator David Pryor brought attention to it on the Floor of the Senate, referring to the reversal as “a meaningful moment in U.S. history.”
New Coke continued as Coca-Cola while the original formula-now based on high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar cane-was called Coca-Cola Classic. By 1992, the new formula was marketed as Coca-Cola II and after a while it was taken off the shelves here in the United States (it lasted in certain areas around Chicago until 2002). It has, however, a following in certain foreign markets. In 2006, Coke II was still selling in Micronesia, American Samoa and French-speaking Quebec, Canada.
Lessons from New Coke
“There is a twist to this story, which will please every humanist and will probably keep Harvard professors puzzled for years,” said Keough at that July 11th press conference. “The simple fact is that all the time and money and skill poured into consumer research on the new Coca-Cola could not measure or reveal the deep and abiding emotional attachment to original Coca-Cola felt by so many people.”
Coke spent over $4 million and came close to losing their business altogether just to learn the lessons of New Coke, all of which can be summed up in the advice of Polonius to his son, Laertes, in Act I, Scene III of Shakespeare’s Hamlet:
This above all: to thine ownself be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
For a century, Coca-Cola had developed its following on being “The Real Thing.” Yet, when they felt the pinch from Pepsi-a pinch that had more to do with its merger with the Frito-Lay company and the benefits of the new distribution channels and shelf-space agreements that came with it than direct soft drink competition-their executives didn’t stand on the quality of their product, they decided to change it. They were not true to themselves, true to their customers, true to their brand or true to their product. Perhaps, they thought that they were being true to their stockholders, but in the end it really doesn’t matter what they thought they were doing or being. What matters is the fact that they had the most recognizable product in the world and they decided to change it to make it more like the competition.
When you take your products or your services and make them more like your competition, what does that accomplish? If it is a long-standing brand, it leads to trouble with your market. However, it leads to more than that. It removes any real difference between you and your competitors. In the days of New Coke, I switched between New Coke and Pepsi without a thought since to me there was no discernable difference between them. I no longer cared, the only question I had was, “which one is on sale?”
Your brand is important to you. It is your name in the marketplace, your reputation among your customers and it represents what sets you apart. These things make it valuable and deserving of your attention and protection. In their panic and zeal, the executives at Coca-Cola forgot that and it cost them a lot of money and even more prestige. How much would it cost you if you were to forget?
To thine ownself be true!
By: Charles Cooper