Al-Qaida in America October 6, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Evolution and Creationism, Global Warming, Nostradamus and 2012, Science.add a comment
I recently responded to some individuals that commented on one of my postings concerning a simple experiment to prove the greenhouse effect. These postings culminated in the third response to my global warming skeptic challenge. I was a bit rough on this guy, even to the point of violating the Wiccan Rede (As you harm none, do as ye will). It could be said that it was rather un-Wiccan of me to say some of the things I said.
Yes, and it bothers me some. Not because I feel bad about what I said, but because there is a bigger issue here, the issue that some people are working hard to advance civilization, while others are working hard to drag us down. As a scientist, I find myself tied up with trying to convince these people they are wrong. I will give them the scientific evidence. I will show them how experiments have been done and the results support the scientific theories. I will show them how their theories are flawed and why. I will direct them to references to support everything I say. They, on the other hand, are unable to do any of that (see my $1000 challenge to global warming skeptics as an example). Then, after that, they are unfazed in their beliefs.
The only thing I accomplish is to waste my time on them when I could spend it on more productive issues. The reason I do is to try and keep other people from falling in the same trap.
That is why I am so rough on these guys and why I feel it would actually be un-Wiccan for me to do otherwise. These believers are afflicted with an incurable disease. The only thing I can do is to try and reduce the number of people that get that disease. If being rough on them will help, then that’s what I’m willing to do.
We have very serious problems that must be dealt with. Dealing with these people is hurting that effort. Worse, this small community has the effect of causing the scientific community to spend its time fighting this bunk instead of the real problems. We are fighting a fight to keep us from falling backwards instead of working to move us forwards.
And that is why I call these people Al-Qaida in America (AQA).
AQA is simply, all of those people that subscribe to some impossible belief and insist on dragging the rest of down with them. Its OK if you want to believe in something weird, that’s your business. But, when you start believing in something that cannot be supported by any science or logic and insist that everyone else must conform to you, then there’s a problem. These people all have one thing in common – they are trying to drag us back to the 12th century before there was any modern science. Hence the name.
Example of people that are in AQA are creationists, global warming skeptics, face on Mars advocates, alien abduction advocates, Nostradamus fans and 2012 believers. I came across another one last night that I had almost forgotten about – people that believe ancient astronauts were responsible for basically everything.
I watched part of this show on the History Channel about the claims by some people that we were visited by ancient aliens. This show illustrated perfectly why I call this whole group of people Al-Qaida in America. Several statements just stood out.
For instance, this one guy that publishes a magazine devoted to the idea stated that if you look at all the evidence the only conclusion you can reach is that there were ancient astronauts. The real truth is, if you look at all the evidence you cannot possibly reach that conclusion.
I read Chariots of the Gods in the early 70s when it first came out and several other related books. They were very fascinating and I really enjoyed them. However, the more I learned the more I realized they are complete bunk. They, and other similar books, make these claims that amount to “I don’t know how it was done, therefore it had to have been done by aliens.”
In the show last night they were talking about the carvings on Easter Island. These carvings have been positively proven to have been done by the islanders. There are even unfinished carvings in the quarry and remnants of the tools they used have been identified. The show made a big deal about how similar they are to carvings in Bolivia. Well, duh! It has been shown that the islanders in Easter Island came from South America. Thor Hyerdahl showed without doubt that you could take the kind of boats they used back then and drift westward to the islands. Modern genetics has shown the people there originated in South America. So, the reason they look so similar isn’t because they are modeled after the same aliens, but because the same group of people made both.
The topic of pyramids is another perfect example of this line of reasoning. It has long been claimed that the great pyramids were made by aliens. This is despite the fact that there are copious records concerning the construction of the pyramids, there are hundreds of pyramids (not just three), and we find examples showing how they had to adjust their construction techniques. There is an extensive history of the pyramids and there is no doubt at all that the pyramids were constructed by hired workers (not slaves).
The list just keeps going on and every one of their claims have been conclusively shown to be false. But, they really don’t care about that. They have decided aliens were responsible for just about everything in the ancient world and no amount of evidence will ever alter that opinion.
This illustrates the whole problem. They will look at the evidence and totally disregard anything that does not fit their preconceived notions. No possible amount of scientific evidence can ever convince these people that they are wrong. Worse than that, it is not even possible to convince them that they are not considering all of the evidence. This is the true hallmark of some kind of psychosis. There is certainly something wrong with someone when you can show them, without question, that their conclusion is wrong on a topic, yet they insist on just going their merry way as if nothing ever happened without even addressing what you showed them.
Then, they aren’t happy in their delusions by themselves. It is their mission to convince everyone else. In this way, they drag down the gullible and tie-up the scientific community. Instead of working on advancing science, we are stuck with the task to keeping us from falling back into the pre-Renaissance state of civilization.
The History Channel really has become the Crackpot Channel.
Besides, it is both arrogant and demeaning to suggest all of these things were done by aliens.
First, they suggest we are never clever enough to figure out anything for ourselves. This is kind of like the parent that always does everything for their kids because they don’t think the kids are smart enough.
At the same time, its rather arrogant to think the aliens are traveling vast distances to come and do things for a bunch of dumb cavemen. What’s their motive for that? (Hey, Galactic Congress! I would like you to give me a cazillion quonots so that I can fly across the cosmos and carve stone figures on the shore of a little island!)
So, I enjoyed the book and still enjoy the discussion. But, now I enjoy it because it causes me to think objectively. Its a good mental exercise to hear this arguments and to find the flaw (or usually, flaws) in their logic.
So, if you believe in one of the beliefs I cited above and are feeling offended that I classify you as an enemy of modern society, too bad. And, if you are offended that I have bunched your belief in with other beliefs that you find offensive, then I suggest you take a critical look at your beliefs. Maybe the reason you are being bunched with the others is because you have so much in common with them.
As both a Wiccan and a scientist, I cannot, in good conscience, sit by while this group of people work to undermine modern society and not do something about it.
Did Obama Lie? September 20, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Op-Ed.add a comment
Even a guy like me that doesn’t follow the news heard about the Congressman that yelled ‘You lie!’ during Obama’s speech to Congress.
So, the question is, did Obama actually lie when he said no health care would be provided to illegal aliens?
When I heard that the plan was to deny health care to illegal aliens, it made me recall a court case in Texas a number of years ago. There was a law in Texas that denied education benefits to illegals. The law was challenged in court and decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Plyler v. Doe. You can read the court decision here.
Basically what the court said was that the state cannot provide benefits to one group of people and deny those benefits to another group. The law was struck down.
Government provided health care would certainly fall under the definition of government provided benefits. By Plyler v. Doe, it would then be unconstitutional for the government to deny those benefits to a group of people within the U.S. while providing it to another. Illegal aliens will have full access to any government provided health care.
Now, the question isn’t whether or not this is acceptable. The question is, did Obama lie when he said illegals would not have access to government provided health care. Well, Obama was a constitutional law professor before running for office and is surrounded by a lot of very smart, well educated lawyers. If some yokel like me can figure this out, it is not plausible that all of these experts did not know it.
Since I’m on active duty, I don’t want to say anything that might be construed as being disrespectful of the Commander-in-Chief, so I won’t draw a conclusion here. Instead, I’ll leave that for you to decide if he lied or not.
FOLLOW-UP
It was pointed out that this editorial on Fox News was saying much the same thing I did. Note that the writer of this editorial is a judge.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Here is what Obama said in his speech to Congress:
There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
Some Comments on Back Radiation September 8, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Global Warming.2 comments
I received a series of comments over the weekend from a person identifying himself as Gord and David. These comments were in response to a posting I made some time ago about a simple greenhouse gas experiment I had devised. To put it bluntly, the comments were yet another series of crackpot comments about how manmade global warming wasn’t real and this individual claimed he could prove it with a big ‘gotcha’ moment. In short, he thought he was smarter than all of the scientists in the world and could single-handedly prove them all wrong. This guy was going off on so much of a diatribe that I finally had to cut him off and refused to allow any more of his comments.
As bad as this guy was, he was really only the most recent example of this kind of individual. Now, I know that it is impossible to ever convince this guy that he made a mistake. No amount of evidence or logic will ever accomplish that. Such are the benefits when you decide to leave the realm of reality like he has. However, there are other people out there that might still be persuaded before they lose their minds. So, I thought I’d address the issue that this individual has raised. The worst part is that he isn’t even original. This complaint has been around for a while and has been debunked. But, I’ll give it another turn.
This ‘gotcha’ moment consisted of a detail in a figure showing Earth’s energy balance. This figure is well known and is used for illustrative purposes in many briefs. The complaint Gord had was with the red arrow on the right labled ‘Back Radiation’ and showing 324 watts per square meter going in a downward direction.
Gord’s claim is that back radiation cannot move from a ‘cold’ atmosphere to a warm Earth by the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, this entire figure is wrong and the entire argument of anthropogenic global warming is false. Quite a stretch, but that’s his claim.
Its also completely wrong in more ways than I care to cover here. But, let’s begin with a few.
First, the claim that heat cannot move from a ‘cold’ atmosphere to a ‘hot’ Earth is false. All the laws of thermodynamics say is that heat must move from a hot object to a cold one. The error Gord (and people like him) make is that they assume that the atmosphere is colder than the Earth, a claim that is not true much of the time. In fact, the atmosphere is hotter than the surface during much of the day.
Also, an ‘object’ like the atmosphere is not an object at all, but a vast collection of smaller objects. In this case, the atmosphere is a collection of gaseous molecules. The mistake the global warming skeptics make is to claim that all of the molecules in an object must have the same temperature. In fact, something like the atmosphere will have molecules with a whole range of temperatures. ‘Hot’ molecules in the atmosphere can transfer energy to ‘cold’ molecules in the Earth, even when the temperature in the air is less than the temperature of the surface. In this way, heat can move from an ice cube to the warm air around it because, no matter how cold the ice or how warm the air, there will be molecules in the ice that are hot and molecules in the air that are cold. Its just that there will be many more ‘cold’ molecules in the ice than ‘hot’ ones, and vice versa for the air.
According to Gord’s line of reasoning, blankets would never work. If I were to lay down on a bed, I would be radiating my heat out and cooling off. Not bad on a hot summer night, but I could get very chilly this way in the winter. So, I place a blanket on myself. AH HAH! According to Gord, this makes no difference! That is because the blanket would be cooler than my body and COULD NOT RADIATE HEAT BACK AT ME! The effect, according the the rationale of the global warming skeptics is that heat can ONLY flow from my hot body to the cold one of the blanket and NEVER be radiated back at me. This radiation back at me is ‘back radiation’ and they claim it cannot exist.
Even a small child knows this line of reasoning is false. Yet, I receive this argument on a consistent basis. Its really amazing to talk to these people and see in their eyes how they really think they have shown all the scientists to be wrong.
This is how they are wrong. The blanket and the atmosphere work the same way.
All things with internal energy radiate energy out as electromagnetic radiation in the form of infrared light. And, everything has internal energy, therefore everything is radiating energy. But, when things radiate light, they do so in all directions at once. The blanket on the bed absorbs heat from my body (which is in the form of IR light), then radiates that heat out again. But, now it radiates it in all directions. Some goes upwards, some sideways, some downward back to my body. The rate that I will lose heat depends on the temperature differential between my body and the environment around me. The warmer the surrounding environment is, the slower I will cool off. This is because some of that IR light is reradiated back to me at the same time I’m radiating energy out. So, while I’m radiating out at the same rate with the blanket as I was without it, I am now also absorbing some radiation. The skeptics want to claim that is is not true and is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. But, as I showed above, there are molecules in my body that are colder than others, and there are molecules in the blanket that are hotter than others. Heat will flow from those ‘hot’ molecules in the blanket to the ‘cold’ molecules in my body. If you are skeptical of this, lie on a bed without a blanket for awhile, then cover up with a blanket and see how much of a difference there is.
Really, only a fool would argue that an observed event can’t occur because its impossible by the laws of nature. Their first thought should be that maybe they don’t understand the laws of nature as well has they think they do. But, that just doesn’t occur to them.
The atmosphere works the same way as the blanket. The atmosphere absorbs heat from the ground, then reradiates it away. This radiation goes in all directions. Some will leave the atmosphere and go back into space. (Strange how the skeptics never complain about how the heat is going from a cold atmosphere into hot space.) Some of the radiation will go to the ground. And, some will be absorbed by air molecules to be reradiated yet again. Without this effect, the temperature on the surface of the planet would plunge every night, like it does on the Moon when it drops to below 200 degrees below zero. Instead, our atmosphere acts like the blanket and keeps the planet warm.
All of the radiation that does not go into space is called back radiation.
What is happening to our atmosphere is to increase its ability to store heat, thus making the temperature higher. It is like throwing an extra blanket on the bed.
There is a question that I like to ask these skeptics. They agree that the atmosphere absorbs heat from the Earth. So, I ask them, what ever happens to that heat, if it can’t be reradiated?
I’m still waiting for an answer from them.
Their argument is very silly and shows a lack of understanding of the laws of physics.
But more than that, its only a figure and can’t prove or disprove anything. Even if there really was an error in the figure, that doesn’t mean anything about the physical reality of the dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere.
I guess this is the modern equivalent of believing in voo-doo dolls. Stick a pin in the figure and disprove global warming.
Global Warming Skeptic Challenge #3 September 7, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Global Warming.1 comment so far
NOTE: This challenge was submitted as comment to ‘Greenhouse Gas Experiment.” My comments are embedded in the challenge. They are separated from the challenge by rows of asterisks and are preceded with the word “COMMENT.”
*************************************
You said…
“If you feel that you can prove, via the scientific method, that global warming is not real, then you can take my $1000 challenge. It is still sitting there and no one had claimed it. This pretty surprising since so many people like you state with so much certainty that it isn’t, you would have thought someone would have been able to prove it by now. One word of caution, nothing you have written here even begins to approach a valid argument.”
First, I have not made any claims that Global Warming is not real. We are currently still coming out of the last Ice Age and the Earth is warming compared to that reference point.
If you use another reference point, like 50 Million Years ago when the Earth’s temp was +22 deg C then the current Earth temp of +15 deg C clearly shows a long term COOLING trend.
The Past and Future of Climate
(See Fig.9 Climate over Geologic Time)
http://climatepolice.com/Past_Future_climate.pdf
—————
What I say is that the Greenhouse Effect and AGW is completely falsified by established Laws of Science and actual measurements.
Scientific method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
1.Define the question
2.Gather information and resources (observe)
3.Form hypothesis
4.Perform experiment and collect data
5.Analyze data
6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7.Publish results
8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
——————–
1. Define the question.
Is the Greenhouse Effect and AGW real?
The links I provided to the Greenhouse Effect and Trenberth’s Energy Balance Diagram all show that the Greenhouse Effect and AGW can only occur by Radiative Heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth surface (This is called Back Radiation). Thus, disproving this will disprove the Greenhouse Effect and AGW.
*********************************************
COMMENT: NOTE: The Trenberth figure that the poster is referring to can be found here:
Contrary to your repeated claims, the figure does not show the Earth being heated by back radiation. The numbers by each of the sources indicates the amount of heat provided by that source. What we see is that 342 watts/square meter enters the Earth’s atmosphere. This is the source of almost all heating of the planet. All other arrows in the diagram indicate what happens to that that source of energy. The back radiation you refer to is energy reradiated by the atmosphere after it has absorbed energy that has, in turn, been reradiated by the surface of the Earth. This amount of energy can be measured easily and with great accuracy. Notice that this is less than the amount of incoming energy. This precludes it from being considered a ‘source’ of energy. No claim is being made that this energy is warming the Earth. Instead, what is being shown is that this process of warming the atmosphere which then reradiates the energy in all directions will work to SLOW the cooling of the Earth. If there was no back radiation, the Earth would cool dramatically at night to temperatures that would be fatal, such as what is witnessed on the surface of the Moon. The Moon has no atmosphere, hence no greenhouse effect.
Your argument fails in two respects.
First, there is certainly no violation of the second law here. That would be like saying a blanket doesn’t keep you warm in the winter. Your body heat is absorbed by the blanket and reradiated in all directions. Some of it is reradiated back to you and keeps you warm.
Second, this is merely a figure for illustrative purposes and cannot prove or disprove anything. This figure is not scientific data and is not part of the scientific method. This is a point that you should embrace, since it disproves your earlier claim. Global warming advocates cannot cite this as proof to how wrong you are because it is merely a figure and not data.
What you are trying to do is make a claim that the figure is wrong, therefore the theory of global warming is invalid. This is a false argument.
*********************************************
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
The information gathered was:
- a number of Greenhouse Effect explainations produced by reputable sources.
- Trenberth’s Energy Balance Diagram (Trenberth’s diagram is widely accepted and is found in virtually all AGW literature including the IPCC)
- a number of Physics links (2nd Law, The Law of Conservation of Energy, Heat Transfer, Electomagnetic Radiation) all widely accepted and used.
- an actual measurement done by the Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University.
*********************************************
COMMENT: Nearly all of these claims have been previously addressed in responses to your previous comments to the ‘Greenhouse Gas Experiment’ posting. They have been shown to be scientifically invalid and don’t need to be readdressed.
I’ll address the Brigham Young experiment you refer to.
Your claim that this experiment proves your point is dependent on your claim that the flow of energy involves some kind of bulk motion and can move in only one direction. Actually, if you read the whole experiment you will see that the experiment disproves your claim. The experimenters state:
“One possible reason that daytime cooling was not greater has to do with the different types of solar radiation. There are two kinds of solar radiation; direct and diffuse. Direct radiation is the portion of light that appears to come straight from the Sun. Only direct radiation can be focused. Diffuse radiation is sunlight that appears to come from all over the sky. When sunlight hits the Earth depending on cloud cover more or less radiation is diffused. [2] During daytime cooling I am turning the solar cooker away from the direct radiation however; I am unable to turn it away from the diffuse radiation.”
This statement, and their supporting data, clearly shows that diffuse heat (i.e., back radiation) is providing warming energy to the oven. The oven is cooling, but heat is coming in from the atmosphere at the same time.
This experiment actually goes to show that the Earth can be kept warmer by back radiation.
Once again, your lack of understanding is fatal to your argument.
*********************************************
3. Form hypothesis.
- The Greenhouse Effect and AGW is FALSE.
4. Perform experiment and collect data.
- The physical experiment and data collected was done by the Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University.
- An analysis of the Greenhouse Effect, Trenberth’s Energy Balance Diagram and a Heat Transfer examples were done.
*********************************************
COMMENT: There is no data or scientific argument here to discuss.
*********************************************
5. Analyze data.
The analysis shows that:
The Greenhouse Effect descriptions and Trenberth’s Energy Balance Diagram violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Electromagnetic Physics, Heat Transfer Physics, The Law of Conservation of Energy and are in conflict with actual measurements.
*********************************************
COMMENT: There is no data or scientific argument here to discuss. Your claims have been investigated and shown to be false.
*********************************************
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions.
Only one violation of Any Law of Science or any valid measurement is required to dis-prove the Greenhouse Effect and AGW.
There are numerous violations of Laws of Science and established Physics. Actual measurements confirm that Back Radiation cannot heat a warmer Earth.
*********************************************
COMMENT: Each of these statements is false.
First, it has been shown that no laws of physics have been violated.
Second, even if some laws were violated, or some hypotheses were shown to be incorrect, it only means that they hypotheses need to be corrected. Your argument is the same as saying we have to throw out all modern medicine if even one patient doesn’t respond the way we think he should.
*********************************************
7. Publish the results.
They have been posted here as well as a number of other sites for review.
*********************************************
COMMENT: They have been reviewed and they fail the test of the scientific method, as shown.
*********************************************
8. Retest
There has never been any counter arguments supported by Laws of Science or measurements to dis-prove my conclusions. in fact, there has never been even One Law of Science or even One measurement produced that shows that Back Radiation reaches the Earth.
——————
CONCLUSION BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The Greenhouse Effect and AGW is not real.
The Greenhouse Effect and AGW is completely falsified by established Laws of Science and actual measurements.
All my statements have the support of Laws of Science and actual measurements.
Only one violation of Any Law of Science or any valid measurement is required to dis-prove the Greenhouse Effect and AGW.
There has never been even One Law of Science or even One measurement produced that shows that Back Radiation reaches the Earth.
Falsifiability
Quotations:
- No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. — Albert Einstein
- The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. — Karl Popper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
———————–
There you go, proof, via the scientific method, that anthropogenic global warming is not real and I take your $1000 challenge.
PS: If your $1000 Challenge is anywhere close to being realistic then Your “opinion” is not enough to dismiss what I have posted. You have to use the scientific method as well.
****************************
COMMENT: Just as almost everything you say, this statement is false. I do not need to use the scientific method to prove you wrong. I only have to show that you failed to use the scientific method. The purpose of my challenge was to show that no scientific evidence exists to support the claim of global warming skeptics. You have demonstrated the validity of my claim.
****************************
Consensus ‘opinion’ of any group of AGW ’scientists’ is NOT proof of anything. Correlation is NOT proof of anything.
****************************
COMMENT: It is true that ‘consensus opinion’ is not proof of anything. At the same time, global warming skeptics like to say that as proof of their beliefs, and it isn’t. The fact is ‘consensus opinion’ is a necessary part of the scientific method. All results must be reproducible by anyone. If only one individual, or even a small group, is getting a given result and that result cannot be reproduced by the general community, then it is likely invalid. The claims of cold fusion are a textbook example of how that works. So, while ‘consensus opinion’ is not proof, it is a very excellent indicator. And, making that statement certainly does nothing to prove any errors that may exist.
*****************************
Good luck!
*********************************************
COMMENT AND CONCLUSION:
This ‘proof’ is invalid in virtually all claims that it makes. There is no evidence, so support from the laws of physics, and no scientific argument to support your ‘CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.’
I have no doubt that you will reject the evidence I have supplied to you. You have left the realm of reality and have based all of your conclusions on what you WANT to see, not what is real. I did not spend my time to try and change your mind or educate you, you’ve shown that it would be an impossible task. What I am hoping is that someone that is searching for answers, and might otherwise be persuaded by the likes of you, can see for themselves that your arguments are false.
*********************************************
Obama At The Naval Academy May 27, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Arnold, Old Lyme, Op-Ed.add a comment
I have now had the privilege of seeing two different presidents make commencement addresses at military academies. I saw George W. Bush in 2007 at the Coast Guard Academy and I saw Barack Obama at the Naval Academy this year. This gives me a chance to compare the two, not only from my own perspective but also based on the comments other people made about each of them.
Bush was an eloquent speaker, not at all like his critics like to portray him. His speech was well delivered and he did not exhibit any of the claimed misspeaks and mispronunciations that are frequently attributed to him, even though his speech included many people and places with difficult to pronounce names. Obama was a very charismatic speaker with a pleasant voice. He delivered this speech quite well. As speakers, I would rate the two as being equal.
But, the they were really far apart on the topic of their speeches. Bush’s speech was very substantive. He gave a speech that dealt with acts of terrorism that had been prevented. This information was classified up until the day of the speech. Obama gave what amounted to a campaign speech. There was no substance and their was no message. He was all over the place and made a bunch of feel-good statements that are appealing to a crowd, but really mean nothing. When it comes to substance, Bush was way ahead of Obama and there is no debate, Bush’s speech was much superior.
You might chalk it up to Bush’s more than six years experience in the Whitehouse in 2007 to Obama’s four months worth. That would be fine, but there were several comments that Obama made that I found interesting. For instance, when he said,
It’s a promise that as long as I am your Commander in Chief, I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support you need to get the job done.
I really hope this was just a statement to please the crowd and that he doesn’t really mean it. This country has been sending its military into combat without the necessary training and equipment since the first Continental Congress and every president since then has followed suit. The first thing you do when there’s a military situation is send a military force there in the hope that if you can’t stop it quickly, you can at least get some control over the situation. I hope the commander-in-chief of this country would never decide that he was not going to take the necessary actions to defend the country because he didn’t feel the troops had the necessary training or equipment.
The crowd, I thought, was friendly, but not enthusiastic. The biggest cheer of the day occurred when Senator McCain was introduced by the graduating class (Senator McCain’s son graduated this year). I read once that McCain carried over 80% of the military vote and this reaction would reflect that (By the way, how I actually voted is my business, but I’ll say that I was not part of the 80%).
I talked to several people after both speeches and I heard mostly the same thing, so it wasn’t just my perception of the speeches. I think the conclusion I can reach is that Bush’s reputation for bad speeches was not warranted and Obama needs to put more effort into his military academy speeches.
But, if you just want a nice sounding speech without substance, it was a fine speech.
Did A Meteor Kill The Dinosaurs? May 12, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Science.1 comment so far
The popular theory is that a massive meteor struck the Earth 65 million years ago near what is now known as Chicxulub, Mexico. The effects of this impact destroyed the environment and caused the extinction of about 85% of the world’s lifeforms in what is known as the Cretaceous-Tertiary, or K-T, extinction.
The evidence that a large impact occurred is conclusive. It is also clear that this impact caused widespread destruction of an unbelievable magnitude. Gigantic tsunamis ringed the world, earthquakes of a severity that we can’t imagine radiated out from the impact, returning debris caused firestorms, the suspended dust in the air caused climate change. And, of course, the impact site itself was totally obliterated with absolutely nothing surviving.
I became aware of this theory over 25 years ago and, at first, was skeptical. I read the comments that geologists and paleontologists made and they argued the evidence did not support the theory. As I continued with my education, I learned more and more about this theory and remained skeptical. I met many of the people that were involved with investigating it and even met Walter Alvarez, who first proposed the theory with his father, physicist Louis Alvarez, and got to talk to these people first hand. I have read a great deal about it and have studied the evidence.
This is one case when the evidence was enough to cause me to change my opinion. Or, at least to stop voicing my opposition. Many times, when I came up with an objection to the theory, the investigators were able to find the necessary evidence to show I was wrong.
One of the principle claims of the theory is that the impact put so much dust in the air that it blocked out the sunlight and caused what is known as a ‘nuclear winter.’ The idea of the nuclear winter has been discredited and found to be wrong. Placing giant amounts of dust in the air will not cause the world to go into massive climate change on the scale that was being proposed. When people pointed at some volcanic eruptions that had caused some climate change, I argued that it wasn’t the dust, it was the sulfur that was the source of the effect. Investigation later showed that the impact area had very large sulfur deposits which would have been put into the atmosphere as an aerosol. I argued this still would not cause a winter lasting for decades, as claimed, but my objections were not as strong.
I argued that the fossil evidence showed that many of the animals that went extinct actually survived the impact by as much as hundreds of thousands of years. Further analysis of those fossil records showed that the fossil beds had been disturbed, possibly even by the impact itself, and this disturbance had relocated the fossils out of the geologic sequence.
On and on it went. I made objections and they were able to counter them. Eventually, I began to accept they might have been right, after all. The answer to all of my objections, I decided, was just still buried and was simply waiting to be discovered. The fact that we didn’t know all of the answers didn’t make the theory invalid. It just meant we had to continue the research.
And yet, I always had a nagging problem with the whole scenario. Some of their claims did not make sense to me under the laws of physics.
One of the greatest problems I have had and continue to have is the description of worldwide firestorms that would, in essence, incinerate everything in the world. Under this scenario, the debris lifted out of the crater would rain back down all over the world with so much energy that it would turn the world into an oven with temperatures as high as thousands of degrees. This, I said, was not possible.
The amount of debris excavated by the impact, when distributed over the entire planet, would be very thin. It is not possible that it could carry enough energy to cause the temperature of the entire planet to skyrocket. But, they were able to show there was a layer of soot that dated to just after the impact. The claim is that this is soot from the worldwide fires. Not so, I said. All this shows is that soot was deposited. The accuracy of the thin sedimentary layer cannot show if that soot was deposited over 1 year or 100 years. It is undeniable that the impact occurred and it would certainly have caused enormous destruction. Certainly, entire forested regions would have been killed by the resulting cataclysm. With all of this dead wood sitting around, it would only be a matter of time before it caught fire. This kind of event would be repeated all over the world, resulting in just such a layer of soot as was observed.
I did some calculations of the amount of energy released by the impact. My estimates came in around 5 x 10^23 joules of energy. The accepted value is that it was probably around 4 x 10^23 joules, so I was very close. This is a truly unbelievable amount of energy. To put this in context, a 100 mega-ton atomic bomb, larger than any ever detonated, would release about 10^17 joules. In other words, the impact released the amount of energy in one million such bombs. This amount of energy is about 50 times as much as the second largest know explosion in history, the La Garita Caldera in Colorado. This was an explosive volcanic event that occurred some time about 26 million years ago and released around 10^22 joules, about 1/50th the size of the Chicxulub impact. This caldera is so large that geologists studied it for decades before they realized what it is.
But, even this extreme amount of energy would not result in the cataclysm that is claimed. Using a radius of the Earth of 6400 kilometers and an atmosphere thickness of 150 kilometers, I find that this would have resulted in about 10^3 joules per cubic meter, on average. This is enough to melt about 10 ice cubes and is far below what would be needed to result in the devastation claimed. Plus, the overwhelming majority of the released energy would have been concentrated in the immediate vicinity. This would have been a very large vicinity measuring many hundreds of miles across, but still small on a global scale. The resulting amount of energy for most of the planet to absorb would have been much less than the average.
So, I have listened to the theories and even teach it in my astronomy class, but there has always been a nagging problem in my mind that it just didn’t fit the laws of physics, at least not the way they were claiming. Now, evidence is starting to mount that the theory might be wrong after all and I read a recent NSF release with great interest. This report tells of how researchers have shown that the impact occurred long before the extinction, maybe as much as 300,000 years before. They have done some very nice research and uncovered some very strong evidence to support their claims. It will be very difficult to explain away what they have produced.
So, it looks like my gut instincts might have been right after all. I believe the impact occurred and that it was devastating. But, I’m skeptical about its role in the K-T extinction. I just don’t think this theory fits the laws of physics. There clearly is more research that needs to be done.
The Politics of Greed May 11, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Arnold, Op-Ed.add a comment
I consider myself to be an extreme optimist. My ex-wife was against me joining an optimist club because she thought they were pessimists compared to me. But, I find myself being a pessimist concerning the nation today.
I was having a conversation with a neighbor the other night and it left me depressed. What is most interesting to me is the fact that this guy was so optimistic and just bubbling with enthusiasm. The more I listened to him, the more troubled I was.
He was going on about how things are going so much better now and that the country is on the ‘right track.’ The stimulus bill and the spending by Congress and the President was going to make everything right. The mid-term elections in 2010, he said, would be really wonderful if things kept going the way they are. And, I realized he was right. And, that’s what made me depressed.
What I heard was someone that sounded like a teenager with a new credit card. Take that card and spend the money. Buy a new TV, new furniture, get a fancy car! While we’re at it, let’s buy a house on subprime terms so we can afford it. Life is good!
Of course, we all know the downside to this line of thought. Sooner or later, the card will be maxed out and you have to then pay the bills on it. The subprime loan becomes due and you find out you bought more house than you can afford, or even sell. And, since you’re spending a large percentage of your money on the finance charges, your standard of living begins to drop. Eventually, you are forced to file for bankruptcy.
We’ve seen all of this before. We’ve seen it on the personal level with the average person. We’ve seen it at the corporate level with all of the corporate greed gutting giant businesses. And, we’ve seen all of these entities collapse. But, now, we’re witnessing it at the government level and, somehow, people think its a good thing.
Tell me, what happens when the government can no longer make its payments? Do you really think that’s a crazy idea? Servicing the national debt is now the third largest item in the government budget. The amount of money spent on interest payments in 2008 was $412 billion. Obama and this Congress will have increased the national debt by 20% in the just the first year of his term. Servicing the national debt will be proportionally more expensive in the future and is about to become the largest single item in the budget. That is money that could have gone to something else.
But, you say, its OK as long as tax revenues increase enough to cover these payments. First, and most importantly, that is not the case. Interest payments have been growing faster than tax revenues. And, I’m very certain that tax revenues will not grow 20% this year.
But, that is a false argument to begin with. I am very conservative with my own money. With the exception of my mortgage, I have no debt. I don’t use credit cards, I pay cash for everything. When I bought my car I borrowed the money only because it was a 0% interest loan – there were no finance charges. I still have that car after six years and hope to keep it for another 7-8 years. I keep my money in interest bearing accounts so I don’t pay interest, I earn it. I live by a simply creed, ‘If I can’t pay cash for it, I don’t need it.’
How much difference does this make? You can probably see for yourself. Take all of your bills for the last month and add up the finance charges you paid. That is how much extra money I have in my pocket every month that you don’t. If you’re like most people, you may be paying over a thousand dollars every month for finance charges. I can do a lot with $1000 a month.
These same principles apply to the government. We need some debt to provide a sound financial system in the country. But, we don’t need to be spending this much every year. The effect has become to undermine the financial system, not support it. The government doesn’t even have to default on its payments, just the idea that government securities might be downgraded will be enough to cause a worldwide financial panic on a scale that has never been seen before.
And, this takes me back to the conversation with my neighbor. After everything we’ve seen the last year, you would think we would learn our lesson.
We’ve seen the collapse of the home mortgage industry as millions of people found they had bought more than they could reasonably afford. They, people said, were greedy fools.
We’ve seen the collapse of one giant corporation after another as the executives and unions have robbed the company of everything it had, diverting income streams into their pockets and benefits, instead of back into the company. They, people said, were greedy fools.
Now, the government is spending like crazy, giving everyone that can vote money for their pet projects. But, somehow, this is a good thing and the country is viewed as being on the ‘right track.’ How is it that we just don’t learn our lessons?
I really don’t need to go any further than my own family to witness the politics of greed first hand. My family is hard working. We all have jobs and don’t live on handouts. We’re all educated. All nine of us kids have at least some college education and there are several graduate degrees among us. I like to think that we are all intelligent. But, when the issue of the stimulus bill came up, I would hear my brothers and sisters say that they supported it because money was going to go to this or that, something they liked and supported. The fact that this was borrowed money that would have to be payed back was never mentioned.
And, that is why I think my neighbor is right about the 2010 elections. People don’t care that the money has to be paid back. They reason that it has to be paid back by the government, not by them. Of course, at least in theory, they are the government and the money the government spends is coming out of their pockets.
But, that isn’t the way people think. Taxes are taken out automatically and people never see that money, so they don’t feel like they lost anything. But, if they had to sit down every month and write a check to the government to pay for their taxes they would have a very different opinion. Take a look at your earnings statement. Compare the amount of taxes withheld from your pay to the amount of money you have to spend after all of your bills are paid.
And, of course, that money won’t have to be paid back by 2010, or even 2012. That will be left for some future administration and they will have to be the villains that cut the budget to pay for today’s politics of greed.
Do We Have A Soul? May 2, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Musings.add a comment
Certainly, that is an age-old question and I won’t be able to give a definitive answer here. But, I do have some thoughts.
I cannot prove the existence of the world. Its is possible that everything I witness is an illusion created in my mind. I wouldn’t say that its very possible, but I cannot completely discount it either. The fact stands, I cannot prove without doubt that you exist, that the Internet exists, that the room around me exists. I cannot even prove that my body exists. It could all be a very elaborate illusion.
But, I can prove one thing without question, if only to myself. I can prove that I think. I can’t prove it to you and you can’t prove to me that you think. But, I know, without any doubt, that I think. And, following the eloquent argument of Rene Descarte, ‘I think, therefore I am,’ I can then prove without question that I exist. Again, I can prove it to me, but not to you.
So, I know that I exist. There is something inside this body that is me. But, is that something a soul? In other words, is the something separate from the body and will it continue to exist after the body ceases to function? Is it possible that I am nothing more than animated chemicals? Again, I have to conclude that it is possible. It is possible that I exist only while this body continues to live. I don’t think it is very likely, but it is possible.
But, let’s go back to my earlier conclusion. I know that I exist. I cannot come up with any other possibility. Any form of alternative always leads back to that conclusion. You cannot take away my existence and leave my thinking in place.
So, if I exist, where did I come from? What is the ‘I’ that exists? If I loose my legs, I am still me. If I then loose my arms, I still exist. If I loose my eyes and ears and tongue, I still exist. Take away all body parts that are not necessary for the immediate demands of my living body (even if it would eventually die) and I still exist. This certainly seems to show that the body and the ‘I’ are not one and the same.
But, of course, if you take away the brain, the body can live for a long time, but the person is gone. This would seem to indicate the brain and the consciousness are linked. Is the ‘I’ in the brain? Or, is the brain merely the means for the individual to inhabit the body? Even then, not all parts of the brain are critical to this. You can loose parts of the brain and still be the person you were.
Its a conundrum and I don’t have an answer.
But, if there is an ‘I’ inside this body, it begs a couple of questions: “Where did I come from?”, and “Where am I going?”
I have no memory of any past lives. I have met people that claim they have such memories. I cannot do anything to prove or disprove those claims. And, there have been many people over the years that have made such claims. General George Patton, for instance, claimed to remember six prior lives. But, look at the list of lives he said he remembered: A prehistoric warrior who “battled for fresh mammoth” and “warred for pastures new”; a Greek hoplite who fought the Persians of King Cyrus; a soldier of Alexander the Great at the siege of Tyre; a legionnaire with Julius Caesar in northern Gaul; an English knight at the battle of Crecy during the Hundred Years’ War; and a Napoleonic marshal at a time “when one laughed at death and numbers, trusting in the emperor’s star.” All of these memories are of soldiers. Patton was a great scholar, especially of military matters. As far as I know, he never had memories of non-soldiery activities. All of these ‘memories’ could be explained as being recollections from his studies over the years. These ‘memories’ certainly don’t constitute proof.
There are many stories of people that had detailed memories of prior lives that were investigated and confirmed. There are stories of people that had some kind of knowledge, such as fluency in a foreign language, that could not be explained. The problem with all of these stories is that they are just that. None of this stuff has ever been rigorously confirmed. And, there have been frauds that have been revealed, indicating that there really are people that would fake these kinds of things. Again, there is no proof there.
The same for life after death. Lots of people claim to have near-death experiences where they claim to have seen the after-life. There have been many scientific investigations into this with some results indicating its merely brain activity in the dieing brain. But, the scientific results cannot prove it one way or another. I have never experienced it myself, so I don’t have any comments about it.
So, we can’t prove anything about where we come from or about where we’re going. But, that still takes me back to my original conclusion. I know I exist. Based on that absolute, I must have come from somewhere, and it is necessary that I will eventually go somewhere. If I exist, both of these conclusions are inescapable. I don’t know where those places are, but the fact that I came and will go indicates there is more than just a body to me, there is an ‘I’.
In other words, I believe I have a soul and that soul is separate from my body. And, just like everyone else, someday I will get a definitive answer to the question. Hopefully, not for quite some time, though.
National Science Foundation Report on Climate Change May 1, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Global Warming.add a comment
I’ve written numerous reports concerning climate change and global warming. Click on the link to the right to see a list of them. I submitted a proof that man is responsible for global warming and have responded to at least two people that argue that mankind’s activities are not changing the climate. I’ve tried to include links and references to scientific data and refereed resources in this debate.
So, I thought I would include a link to the NSF report on climate change. I found it to be very interesting and a valuable resource.
It is becoming increasingly more difficult for the skeptics to deny the issues of global warming. I have stated that it is impossible for any skeptic to successfully challenge global warming based on a scientific argument and using scientific data. I have defended that statement and continue to stand by it. This report only strengthens the validity of that statement.
I would be very interested in having a skeptic show why this report is not valid. If you’ll excuse me, I’ll be doing something more worthwhile during the long wait.
Making the Most of a Bad Situation April 27, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Arnold.add a comment
So, my son got into a fistfight at school the other day. Even the school administration said it wasn’t his fault. The other kid was taking my son’s lunch away from him and harassing him, trying to start a fight. Instead, my son tried to walk away, but the other kid hit him and it started. The other kid was hitting my son in the head, so my son hit him back, hitting him right in the nose. The other kid went down to the floor with blood all over his face. My son backed up away from him and tried to get away. By the time the other kid got back to his feet the police officer was there and broke it up.
I told him that I was actually proud of him. He tried to walk away from the fight, not pursue it. When he was attacked, he defended himself. And, when the other kid was down, he didn’t take advantage to clobber him. I told him he made some mistakes, like not going for help, but I confessed to him that I’m not sure I would have done any better. I could tell he was feeling very down about the whole thing and that made him feel better.
Even though the school admits he wasn’t at fault, the policy is that anyone in a fistfight gets a five day suspension from school. I support this policy. Having had to fight my way through junior high school, I know what its like to have to spend your time at school worrying about the next bully. School should be a place for learning, not bullying. So, my son is at home all this week.
But, he has the idea that this is a week off and he’s going to play around all week. I’ve made it clear to him that he is wrong on that count. This is still a school week and he has to go to bed and get up at the normal times. He also has to do all of his normal school work and I’m sitting down with him every night to review what he did. Failure to study results in consequences. I guess this is the problem with having a teacher for a father.
I’ve tried to explain to him how he can make this a positive thing. If he works at it, he will go back to school next week ahead of his classmates, not behind. By using this time to invest in his school work, he can become more proficient at it and actually raise his grades. This, I’ve been telling him, is how you take a bad situation and turn it to your advantage. He could go back and be the bad guy that gets into fights. Or, he could be Hester Prynne, an analogy that he didn’t get.
That, I think, is one of the biggest secrets to success. It is inevitable that something bad is going to happen to you. There is nothing you can do to prevent bad situations from coming your way. You can make all of the right decisions in life and you can minimize them, but they will still occur. And, how are you going to act when they do? Are you going to mope and sink low? Or, find a way to make the most of it?
I, of course, have had quite a lot of experience at it, so its pretty easy for me to talk about it. There’ve been times when, if I wasn’t getting in trouble, I would wonder what was wrong. Even when I work at making the right decisions, it seems like I’m a magnet for trouble. So, I really know what I’m talking about here.
I’m sure from my son’s perspective, this is double punishment. Not only is he suspended from school, but he has to listen to his dad talk about what an opportunity he has. It doesn’t get much worse than that for a teenager.
