Latest Writings
Between Realms: Anything or Everything
My only published work as of 2026, Anything or Everything can be read as the very last story in the Between Realms anthology by Dragon Soul Press. Watch this video for more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcw37NREixA
Writing Update – June 2026
On my Youtube channel, you can watch this video where I talk about my current projects. I finished the first draft of My Life as a Sloth Dancer, wrote a short story called Wolves of Saturn, ad am planning to start a new novel in September. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fk-mJbt03I
Bilbo’s Encounter With Charon (Analytical Essay 2016)
Bilbo’s Encounter With Charon
In ancient Greek mythology the Underworld is the place where the souls of the dead are sent to be judged and dwell for the rest of eternity. The place is ruled and run by Hades, the brother of Zeus and Poseidon. The descent to the Underworld is dark and dreary, and the place is filled with fire and darkness, at least for those who did not earn their way into the paradise called Elysium. In mythology live several legends, heroes who managed to make their journey to the Underworld and return to the surface, still living, a journey which is called Katabasis. Among these heroes are Orpheus, Heracles, Odysseus, Aeneas, Demeter, Dionysus, and Bilbo Baggins.
This Katabasis is a key element in Joseph Campbell’s description of a hero’s journey. He says that at one point the hero descends into “the belly of a whale”, and reemerges, symbolizing leaving the mother’s womb in a rebirth. In his novel The Hobbit, Tolkien uses parallels to Greek mythology to show Bilbo’s Katabasis and rebirth as he descends into the mountain and encounters Gollum.
Before Bilbo encounters Gollum he and his company descend into the earth from a mountain cave. As they are captured and escape from the goblins they continue to descend (60-65). This directly parallels to the Greek Underworld which is far beneath the earth. Bilbo, like the dead, made a long and dark journey downward to an unknown realm. This is also consistent with Joseph Campbell’s hero model, which includes a descent into an abyss, often called the belly of the whale. In this case it is represented by the earth, and is the belly of a mountain.
The Underworld model is supported by the moment when Bilbo is forced to part from the others. He is knocked unconscious by a goblin and after an undetermined amount of time “opened his eyes” to complete darkness (68). Bilbo’s death, or journey to the underworld, is represented by this circumstance. Bilbo did not simply walk down, he fell against his will, lost consciousness, and awoke to complete darkness. All of these are similar representations of death and awakening in another place, namely the realm of Hades, and are used to further demonstrate that Bilbo is undergoing a transformation. A transformation which a rebirth, a descent into the belly of the mountain, and a return journey to the surface, all of which are characteristic of the hero with a thousand faces.
Bilbo then encounters the ferryman of the underworld, known in the text as Gollum. He is described as slimy, with eyes that “burned with a pale flame” (83). This is also characteristic of Charon, who was the ferryman who carried all of the dead across a river into the Underworld. Charon was described as a filthy old man with eyes that burned like a furnace, for which the ferryman earned his name, which comes from the word for “keen eyes” in ancient greek. In this way Gollum is portrayed as a guardian of the way forward in the depths of the earth. Many of the great heroes of ancient Greece encountered Charon, who met all that entered the land of the dead. Thus Bilbo is compared to these same Greek heroes as he has very similar key experiences.
Gollum has various other resemblances to Charon, one of which is the boat he uses to travel across the lake on which he lives. Gollum paddled about quietly with his hands making “never a ripple” (71). Charon also used a boat which he used to ferry the dead across the river of pain called Acheron. Charon also, like Gollum, appeared quietly making no sound or ripples in the water. In this way Gollum is represented as a ferryman, or for Bilbo the way onward and out of the belly of the mountain. Gollum is one of the strongest similarities that The Hobbit shares with Greek mythology and the Underworld. Tolkien uses this representation to create a heritage for Bilbo consistent with the hero’s journey alongside the great heroes of Greek mythology, who also pass through a rebirth by entering and leaving the Underworld.
However, Gollum never kept his deal to guide Bilbo to the exit. Instead he accused Bilbo of stealing his ring and chased him down the tunnel (83). This is done to show that Bilbo never crossed to the land of the dead, but was able to escape alive. However, Bilbo becoming invisible after his encounter with Gollum may be considered a portrayal of him as a spirit who has passed into Hades’ realm. Either interpretation draws similarities between Bilbo’s journey through the mountain, and a Greek hero’s journey through the Underworld.
Charon required a fee of a single coin to ferry the dead across the river, which in the Hobbit is represented by the ring, which Gollum desires, but never receives (84). This may be presented as Bilbo’s failure to pay the fee, and he is thus denied the opportunity of Charon, or Gollum, guiding him to the way beyond. Thus Bilbo did not descend all the way down into hell, but reemerged, alive and reborn. The hero’s journey includes this descent and rebirth as a key turning point for any hero.
All of these references to Greek mythological tales are used to associate Bilbo with the ancient Greek heroes who also journeyed into the deep underworld and returned. Bilbo descends into the earth, he is knocked unconscious and awakes as if he has died, and Gollum shares many characteristics with Charon, a guardian of the entrance to the Underworld. In this way Bilbo undergoes a rebirth in the womb of the mountain’s belly and exits the cave as a new creature. Tolkien’s use of Greek imagery portrays Bilbo not as a silly child-like fool, dependant upon others and reluctant to take risks and places him on a pedestal, conquering evil alongside many of the greatest heroes in all of legend.
Harper’s Attempt (Narrative Essay 2016)
Harper’s Attempt
In 1859 a man named John Brown attempted to raid a federal arsenal in the eastern corner of West Virginia near the borders of Maryland and Virginia. His aim was to start a slave revolt, thinking that slaves and other abolitionists would rush to join him and his men to establish freedom through rebellion. However his attempt was unsuccessful, and he was hung for treason. The town he raided was called Harper’s Ferry, which sits on a corner of the riverbanks where the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers converge. That was where we were heading.
I had gone tubing down this section of the river once before on a boy scout trip, but today we were here for a different purpose. Where the rivers meet, on one side of the Potomac is the historic town of Harper’s Ferry; on the other side is a 150 foot cliff of ashy gray rock. Into its side is a carved square sign, like a plaque, too indistinct to read.
My excitement grew as we approached it. I’d never done a rappel that high before, and the view looked beautiful. My parents were along for the adventure, as well as my sisters, Nicki and Sarah, their husbands, Ben and Dustin, my nephew Conner (who was nearly two), and some friends, Dave and Nicole, who was six months pregnant.
We started the hike up to the top of the cliff. Dustin and I carried the cooler stuffed with food between us. The weather was clear, but hot. Trees rose high over the dirt trail, casting webs of shadows on our heads. As we climbed upward, the cooler became heavier. The hike was much longer than we had anticipated, taking more than an hour to reach our destination. My dad tied off the rope, and we started taking our turns to go down. The cliff was not sheer, it had several ledges and round rock formations making it a difficult rapel. Because of the length of the hike, each person would only be able to go down once, so we decided that I would be the last to rappel, and Dave and Ben would hike the supplies back down.
Many of us sat on the rocks and enjoyed the view, as well as the food. My dad made the rappel with my nephew Conner strapped in a carrier on his back. This made for some good pictures and was entertaining for all of us, but Conner was not as pleased. On the way down, his arm rubbed up against the rope, giving him a rope burn. Afterwards, we decided to tie up the cooler and send it down to those waiting below. Having a few eagle scouts among us, we tied it up as best we could and began lowering it down the cliff face. However, the cliff was not a straight shot to the ground, and the cooler bounced and flipped off the various ledges. As it came over one rock it flipped and the top busted open spilling our trash and leftovers all over the cliff. The cooler did make it all the way down though, it was just empty. As Sarah went down afterwards, she did her best to grab some of the spilled items but there was just too much and the trash was too scattered to make much difference.
As I sat and waited for my turn, I had ample time to examine my surroundings. The sun bore down into our skin like an open furnace. Several skinny blue lizards darted across the rocks. To my left across the Potomac lay a vast expanse of green forest, full of tall, Virginia oaks. Snaking off into the distance was the skinny Shenandoah river, disappearing between the woods on either side. To my right, the wide Potomac spilled across the landscape. My dad said that when he was a kid, they called it the “Pot o’ muck”, but that was an outdated reputation. The water was shallow, but clear and blue.
Two bridges spanned the Potomac from our side over to the small town, one for trains and one for cars. Crossing the rivers on both sides of the town were rows of stone pillars rising from the water. The remnants of old bridges, covered in foliage, and many of the carefully laid stones had fallen from their places.
Most prominent on the landscape, however, was the quaint little town that lay between the banks of both rivers. Many of the buildings were of brick, designed to resemble those of the 1800’s. The town’s historical significance had led to a prominent tourist industry. The spires of a Catholic church rose above the rest of the rooftops near the rivers’ convergence. Neatly ordered streets with slow-moving cars lay between the buildings.
Finally, I took control of the rope up top. There were only two of us left to go: Nicole, and then myself. Dave helped me strap her into the harness with the carabiner and the figure eight. When the moment came for her to make the descent, she became very nervous. She had never been rappelling before, was six months pregnant, and felt as though she had no other option than to go down. We were nearly out of water and dehydrated. She knew if she didn’t do the rappel, she’d have to make the long hike back down the trail. We tried walking her through it to calm her nerves.
“Just lean back like you’re sitting down and walk down the cliff.”
“Keep one hand behind your back, that will stop you from going down.”
“If you slip at all my dad is belaying at the bottom, he’ll stop you from falling.”
“And we’ll be here every step to talk you through it.”
“It’s easy.”
She looked worse than before.
I grabbed the rope and showed it to her. “Nicole, this rope can hold two thousand pounds, it will hold you. Trust it.”
Tears streamed from her eyes, and she started to hyperventilate. That was it. We helped her out of the harness, and her husband comforted her, giving her water and a quick priesthood blessing. Ben felt the need to help in some way, so he started running back down the trail to the rest of my family. I quickly packed up the rope and the rest of the gear. After everything was ready, the three of us- Nicole, Dave, and myself -started slowly working our way down the trail.
Dave and I were both very concerned for Nicole, and I wanted to make sure he wasn’t panicking too much. We drank what was left of our one water bottle and snacked on a bag of peaches and cucumber slices which helped with the thirst. We also found some wild raspberries along the trail’s edge which were small, but sweet. I’d read a book once that said if you sucked on a pebble it would help with your thirst, so I tried it. I don’t know if it really helped with the thirst, but it kept me occupied in some way. As we were nearing the bottom, Nicki and Dustin met us with two bottles filled with cold water, which was extremely refreshing.
Finally we were able to rejoin my family. My mom was thrilled. I took off my shoes and walked straight into the Potomac’s cool running waters, burying myself up to my neck. The water swirled around me, soaking through my jeans and t-shirt. I lay there, extremely grateful that things had not gone worse. It had been tense and scary at points, and we had all been worried, maybe even a little panicked, but we were all safe and together. I hadn’t gotten to do the rappel either, but that didn’t matter. The water washed away the dirt and sweat and I felt at peace. I felt even more at peace on the way home after downing a pork burrito from Cafe Rio.
Only You Can Let it Burn (Research Essay 2016)
Only You Can Let It Burn
In 1988 Yellowstone National Park in the United States caught fire. The wildfires burned for several months eventually becoming a threat to visitors areas. The fires started out as smaller, isolated incidents that combined into one, affecting 36% of the park, nearly 800,000 acres. The fire was initially allowed to let burn, being considered a natural occurrence and possibly a benefit to the productivity of the ecosystem in the future. However, it burned out of control, threatening national buildings and private properties. At one point more than 9,000 firefighters were assigned to Yellowstone, as well as many members of the U.S. military. Even with all their efforts the fires were only extinguished in late fall when colder, moister weather arrived. The expenses of fighting the fires totalled to 120 million dollars, not including property damage costs.
This dramatic incident led authorities and the people of the United States to reconsider the current policies concerning wildfires. Yellowstone is undoubtedly the most famous forest fire in modern U.S. history, however, wildfires occur in nature thousands of times each year by both natural causes, and because of the actions of people, and government policies in this regard have been debated for many years. Letting wildfires run their course can have some attractions and benefits. Some of these are environmental benefits of burning, long-term implications and results of fire prevention, national budget, and the impacts of human intervention on the environment.
Still, much effort is made to detect and put out forest fires, especially in government owned parks. Mostly because of the negative impacts of several large fires previously, government policy has promoted the extinguishing of nearly every forest fire. Many are employed by watching specific areas to report any fires sighted. Wildfires can begin in a variety of ways. The Yellowstone fire occurred partly because of drought. Other contributing factors may be accumulated dead trees, lightning, extreme heat, and any number of human-related activities.
Letting a fire burn applies only in wild areas, not in any area inhabited by people. Wildfires are never allowed to freely burn where there are residences. As such, the debate being considered mostly concerns the impact of such fires on the environment, and how they should be properly dealt with. Even though extinguishing all wildfires seems to be the right thing to do, letting many natural fires burn is beneficial for the environment to increase resistance to quick burning, and is part of the cycles nature has gone through for thousands of years.
Many downsides are of course apparent in letting wildfires burn. Kayla R. Phelps reminds us that “risk is an inescapable component of living with wildfire” (7). Wildfires can burn very hot, very fast, large, and long. They often pose a threat to public and private property, especially those that live near forested areas. This is one of the main concerns and dangers when wildfires are allowed to burn. In the past wildfires have caused the injury and death of many people, but mostly to property. Entire residencies and towns have been destroyed by wildfires. Fire is very destructive and dangerous and should be kept under careful control. If wildfires are allowed to spread they will undoubtedly come near to people and homes. But if fires were suppressed in the early stages it would be much less likely that they would damage human life or property.
Fighting wildfires is very expensive, and so the budget is an important factor to consider when deciding how to best deal with them. Stephen J. Pyne stated that from experience forest authorities had learned
“that it was far cheaper to hit fires when they were small than after they had become large. Attacking every fire, even smoking snags on talus slopes, avoided having to guess which such ignitions might, eventually and through unforeseen means, become problems. The expense of even a single large fire could be so exorbitant that it made the cumulative cost of suppressing many tiny ones trivial in comparison. If one could reach such fires, it was better to attack them than to trust to weather and luck.” (71)
Thus from a budget standpoint, it is much wiser and easier to extinguish any fire that is spotted, preventing them from becoming too large and difficult to put out. Large fires are much harder to control than small ones, and much more likely to damage property and become a threat to human life and safety. When a fire starts in a large forested area it can spread very quickly, and burn for a long time before going out naturally, especially during a dry period. Putting out small fires prevents the risk of them becoming large and out of control, which is incredibly difficult to predict, and often much less costly than putting out only those fires that become large and out of control.
In Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction from the General Accounting Office, the downsides posed by wildfires are listed, stating that “fires and the resulting damage not only compromise the forest’s ability to provide timber, outdoor recreation, clean water, and other resources, but also pose increasingly grave risks to health, safety, and property” (1). A great many things are damaged by fires. As stated in the quote, a forest that has been burned can no longer provide valuable resources for industry and recreation, as well as posing risks to the health and safety of those nearby. Smoke poses a large threat to the health of any who inhale it. Property can be damaged or destroyed possibly harming people as well. A burned forest cannot provide timber for construction or the making of goods. It will not have clean drinking water, but water that is contaminated with dirt and ash. Hiking, camping, tourism, or visitation at all is inhibited, and a forest cannot be enjoyed when it is burned. Overall, wildfires damage and frustrate many things necessary and enjoyable for human life today.
Federal policy seems to support the suppression of wildfires, but Gregory Aplet argues that this is not the case. He states that due to gathered scientific evidence and societal opinion, “federal fire management policy strongly supports wilderness fire” (9-10). There seems to be a culture in the United States against wildfires. Smokey the Bear, the fires of 1910, and the Yellowstone fire of 1988 have all contributed to the idea that wildfires are bad and should always be prevented. Written federal policy however is mostly in support of letting wildfires burn, because this is what the evidence seems to support. Whether or not these policies are implemented the way that they are written is a different story, but there are many reasons that fires should be allowed to burn, some of which will be elaborated upon hereafter. People often look at wildfires in a very negative light, failing to recognize the potential benefits and natural cycles of fire that have occurred for centuries. Seeing a forest burnt, or animals that have been hurt because of fire is often very sad and discouraging, but emotions should not govern federal policy and the way the environment is treated. When the facts are presented strong evidence is shown in favor of letting many wildfires burn, especially in the long-term.
Fires have occurred as long as there has been fuel for them, and many ecosystems in the United States had become adapted to frequent burning and recovery. However, Jack Cohen explains that in many of these ecosystems, such as western ponderosa pine forests, frequent fire suppression has affected the condition of these forests. This practice has resulted in “significant changes to the species composition and increases in the amount of live and dead vegetation” (21-22). Also, within the vegetation the fuel content and arrangement has changed as the forests have become less adapted to frequent burning. These changes have actually increased the likelihood of intense forest fires within these regions (22). Human’s actions have untold impacts upon the environment which much be carefully considered whenever we seek to alter it in any way. Because of efforts to suppress wildfires the potential for these same fires to occur in more devastating ways has increased, and nature’s own defenses have been lowered. Fires have been happening for millions of years and haven’t destroyed life yet because nature has learned to preserve itself. It may seem odd to consider the environment this way, but it has its own ways of protecting itself and adapts to ensure the greatest chances of survival, each species for itself. However, if people assume the responsibility to fight nature’s battles for it it no longer needs these defenses and will not put forth the effort to produce them. If trees don’t burn very often, they will stop composing themselves of material that does not burn easily because it is not a threat, and so if that threat comes into play the trees will have no means of defense and will burn like matches.
Scott L. Stephens and Lawrence W. Ruth, both federally recognized graduates from the University of California, corroborate this statement saying that “the recent trajectory of wildland fire in the United States… reveals that the average annual area burned is increasing. Further, this increase is occurring despite a parallel rise in resources and funds utilized to manage fuels and suppress fire” (539). Even though the United States has continually increased the budget and resources expended to suppress wildfires, the area of wildland burned is also increasing. This could possibly be because people are becoming less aware and careful in preventing forest fires and are causing more of them each year. However, because of the many efforts made to educate on the prevention of forest fires and the safe use of materials in nature, this seems unlikely to be the cause. So if the activities and policies of people within the United States have been increasingly against forest fires, yet the impact of forest fires have increased, then it can strongly be suggested that it is the environment that is changing, gaining more and more potential for catching aflame. Therefore it must be considered that human suppression of forest fires has caused wildlands to become more susceptible to large-scale burning.
Stephen Arno and Carl Fiedler explained in more detail, stating that the “suppression of fires for nearly a century and logging of fire-resistant old growth trees spawned an overcrowded growth of smaller trees vulnerable to intense blazes” (1). Because of human interference and control over the forests, namely the suppression of fires and logging, have changed the composition of forests in the western U.S. The former century old trees have been replaced by smaller, newer trees which are much less fire-resistant. This of course is why the prevalence of wildfires has increased so dramatically. Forests are simply easier to burn. For future benefit, forests should often be allowed to burn so that they can adapt and return to their previous, more fire-resistant state. This of course may seem distressful and undesirable, but it would prevent future generations from having to fight the fire-fight as much as the people do at the present.
If forests are so far gone from their original state, naturally it should be sought to return them to the way they were originally. David J. Parsons proposes that “if wilderness is to truly be preserved in its ‘natural condition,’ ways must be found… to allow natural ignitions to burn significantly larger areas” (276). If the goal of conservation is to preserve the wilderness’ natural state than in many cases this involves attempting to reverse human actions previously taken. The forests in the western United States had withstood, and were able to withstand and recover from wildfires long before they began to be suppressed. If these fires are to return to their original state and be able to better withstand fire as they did before, they must be allowed to experience fire again. Some have used purposefully started or prescribed fires to do this, but fires occur naturally, and it is much preferable to let them run their course, under close supervision, than to start lighting new ones. If naturally started fires are allowed to burn the forests are much more likely to once again develop a resistance to being burned.
Wildfires can be very destructive and dangerous, but they have always been a part of the ecosystems in which they occur. Because of human intervention these forest ecosystems have lessened their resistance to fire, and have become much more vulnerable to intense blazes. More natural burning should be allowed to occur so that the ecosystem can return to its original state, and be able to withstand the ragings of wildfires.
Works Cited
Aplet, Gregory H. “Evolution of Wilderness Fire Policy.” International Journal of Wilderness
12.1 (2006): 9-13. Web.
Arno, Stephen F., and Carl E. Fiedler. Mimicking Nature’s Fire: Restoring Fire-prone Forests in
the West. Washington: Island, 2005. Print.
Cohen, Jack. “The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem.” Foresthistory.org. Fall 2008. Web.
4 June 2016.
Phelps, Kayla R. National Wildland Fire Management Strategy and Action Plan. New York:
Nova Science, 2014. Print.
Parsons, David J. “The Challenge of Restoring Natural Fire to Wilderness.” Wilderness.net.
USDA Forest Service, n.d. Web. 8 June 2016.
Pyne, Stephen J. Tending Fire: Coping with America’s Wildland Fires. Washington, DC: Island,
2004. Print.
Stephens, Scott L., and Lawrence W. Ruth. “Federal Forest-Fire Policy In The United States.”
Ecological Applications 15.2 (2005): 532-42. Web. 4 June 2016.
Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better Identify and Prioritize Lands
Needing Fuels Reduction. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 2003. Print.
Living Infectors (Research Essay 2016)
Our lives are surrounded by living things, in our homes, in the media, under our feet, and inside our very bodies. But what makes the difference between something living and something that is not? This debate has been occurring among biologists for many years, and a definite conclusion still has not been reached.
The main difficulty is defining what life truly is. The majority of scientists have concluded that there are seven basic processes which identify biological entities as living. These are, taking in substances from the environment to provide nutrition, respiration which is releasing energy that was converted for an organism’s use, increasing in size or number of cells through growth, the removal of undesired substances through excretion, responding to stimuli in their environment, some sort of movement, and passing on their information to other organisms through reproduction (Viruses, np).
One of the most controversial of organisms in this debate are viruses. Viruses are strands of DNA or RNA surrounded by proteins. Impossible to see without an electron microscope, viruses are extremely small, but also extremely prevalent in our world. They infect all the kinds of organisms known to man. However, viruses do not carry out several of the processes stated to be characteristic of all living things, which has led many scientists to conclude that viruses are not living organisms. Although many biologists claim that viruses are not living things, viruses are living things because they reproduce and contain nucleic acids.
Of the seven processes widely agreed upon to be characteristic of life, viruses complete none of these when they are not in contact with another living cell, and complete only reproduction when a living cell is present (Viruses, np). All terms used in the scientific world must be defined to avoid confusion and inconsistency in the findings of scientists around the world. Life is one of these terms which has been defined to be any biological entity which completes these seven processes. As an example, the definition of a planet is subjective to scientific interpretation, as illustrated when it was determined that Pluto was not a planet because it did not meet the established definition of what a planet was. Viruses carry out only one of the seven activities set as those carried out by living things, and only when in contact with the living cell of an organism, not on their own. If the definition of life were rethought, perhaps viruses could be considered life, however, as it stands, viruses do not meet the qualifications.
As stated in the British Medical Journal, Sir Gowland Hopkins pointed out that “the possession of an independent metabolism… is the hallmark of living things” (Nature, 667-668). It has not been shown by current research whether or not viruses have an independent metabolism or not, because they only reproduce inside other living cells, making it seemingly impossible to determine if they metabolize when on their own. All known living organisms metabolize independent of other organisms. Viruses do not. This makes them inherently different from living things. If it were to be discovered that viruses do metabolize independently there would be strong evidence for their being alive, but since it cannot be verified that viruses carry out this process, it is unreasonable to claim that viruses belong to the same group as other living things.
Ross Aiken Gortner provides a hypothesis as to the nature of viruses which strengthens the argument that they are living things. He proposes that viruses are not so different from known parasites, which require other organisms to obtain nutrients or perform functions necessary for their survival. Viruses could represent the same relationship, only simplified even more from parasites in that they need other organisms to carry out basic processes such as reproduction (Gortner, 529-530). With the aid of another living cell, a virus is capable of responding to stimuli, movement, and reproduction, all of which are characteristics of living things. Viruses may have been break offs from early parasitic organisms which simply stopped carrying out processes which were no longer necessary, because of the aid received from their host. This categorizes them as descendents of living things, and in the same group as all other life.
Harald Brussow also concludes that viruses are alive because of many different traits which are also representative of living things. Viruses contain a distinct DNA sequence, which is also the building block of instructions for all cells (Brussow, 2263). It has been proposed that RNA, similar in structure to DNA, is the very origin of life. DNA is found in all living organisms and is used in protein coding. Proteins are also rampant in living things. These two molecules, proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), are what make up viruses. Nucleic acids are used to pass on a virus’s information, and proteins are used to maintain its shape and infect cells with their genetic information. Viruses use the same molecules for building blocks as do living cells. By injecting their genetic information into a cell, they are able to reproduce and carry on their genes.
Viruses are able to pass on their genetic information using the same tools used in living things, proteins and nucleic acids. They also share characteristics with parasites by relying upon a host to complete the processes necessary for their sustenance. Viruses do not carry out several of the processes characteristic of life, which many biologists would use to claim that viruses are not alive. However, viruses share sufficient traits with those of living things to be categorized in the same group as living organisms.
Works Cited
Brüssow, Harald. “The Not so Universal Tree of Life or the Place of Viruses in the Living
World”.Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 364.1527 (2009):
2263–2274. Web…
Gortner, Ross Aiken. “Viruses–living or Non-living?”. Science 87.2267 (1938): 529–530.
Web…
“Nature of Viruses, The”. “The Nature of Viruses”. The British Medical Journal 2.4055
(1938): 667–668. Web…
“Viruses: Living or Not?” (2006). Science Reference Center. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
The Physics of Dragons (Physics essay 2016)
Physics of Flying Lizards
One theme common across many cultures is that of giant lizards which often possess the ability to breath fire and to fly. Although very few similar creatures exist in the world, for centuries stories of these lizards, called Dragons, have captivated the imagination and filled the storybooks. All of these stories beg the question, could this be possible? Could dragons really exist? This question will be examined here.
Giant Lizards
The first question is whether lizards of such a size could necessarily exist. Dragons tend to range from around horse-sized, to the size of a large hill. The largest lizard still alive today is the Komodo Dragon, which is around ten feet long and weighs around 300 pounds, still not big enough for a good dragon. Crocodilians however are reptiles, share many characteristics with lizards, and are much larger. In ancient times they could reach sizes of around forty feet long. Dinosaurs also lived around this time and were thought for many years to be lizards. It has since been found that dinosaurs much more closely resemble modern birds. However, this shows that creatures of this size did exist, and perhaps dragons could combine aspects of both dinosaurs and reptiles. Lightweight yet strong bone structure similar to dinosaurs would be able to support a dragon, and plate-like scales similar to crocodilians would provide a dragon’s armored hide. Flying dinosaurs also existed, one of the biggest reaching the size of a modern giraffe, illuminating the possibility of giant flying lizards. (Largest Prehistoric Animals)
Fiery Breath
The film Flight of Dragons (1982) provides a possible explanation for how dragons manage to produce fire in their bodies. Dragons would need to eat limestone, which is high in calcium. In order to grind this limestone they would swallow hard gemstones, similar to other animals who swallow stones to grind their food. The calcium in the limestone when mixed with stomach acid would produce hydrogen. Hydrogen is flammable, and dragons would possess a place in their mouth (called a thimble in Flight of Dragons) which could produce electricity, igniting the hydrogen. This seems perfectly reasonable, seeing as in the nervous system electrical signals are used, and other animals such as electric eels are able to produce electrical signals.
Flight
The same hydrogen which is used by dragons to produce fire also helps them to lift off the ground. Hydrogen is less dense than earth’s atmosphere which is composed mainly of nitrogen, so the same volume of hydrogen weighs less than air, and has less gravity working on it. A higher pressure below the dragon and lower pressure above would cause a buoyant force on the dragon, which with enough hydrogen would overcome the force of gravity on the dragon and enable it to fly. (Flight of Dragons) Of course dragons are very large and have a large force of gravity pulling them back towards earth. As dragons breathe fire, the hydrogen inside them would be used up, reducing the buoyant force. However, another lift force may keep them in the air. Similar to an airplane, dragons would have wings that curve upward. As a dragon flies the air above the wing would be forced to move faster than the air beneath, causing a greater air pressure below the wing than above. This difference in pressure would also give lift to a dragon as it flies quickly, in the same way an airplane rises above the earth. (Shaw)
Conclusion
From this exploration of findings it can be determined that Dragons theoretically could exist, however unlikely they may be, considering the factors of size, fiery breath, and flight.
Bibliography
L. (1982). Motion picture. United States: Rankin/Bass Productions. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0j0Bjy6hFc
Largest prehistoric animals. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2016, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_prehistoric_animals
Shaw, D. J. (Ed.). (2014, June 12). Dynamics of Flight. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/UEET/StudentSite/dynamicsofflight.html
A dança dos cumes (Portuguese poem 2016)
Join Mailing List
I don’t currently have this set up. Come back later and I will hopefully have a mailing list.