Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

2016-05-10

Response to Jacob M

This letter is a response to a person who recently asked me to view a video concerning the scientific proof of G-d.

For anyone interested in watching the video:



Greetings!

Since time is of constraint, I have chosen to reply via this post. Thank you very much for sharing this video with me.

The video link sent to me is one I've viewed prior, closer to its published date in 2013. However, I did review it again, minus the question and answer section.

The video in question discusses both the expansion and fine-tuning of the universe. The known expansion of the universe implies a beginning of time and this coupled with the various and specific constants of the universe may very well indicate a creator of the universe. These points do seem to be rather intriguing and may catalyze one to seek for more answers. However, most scientists will view this same information in an evolutionary paradigm. The conclusion is merely considered the result of confirmation bias. To which I say, that's okay.

For myself, I believe in having faith in G-d. If anyone should have the ability to "prove" G-d, our faith would cease to exist and this very faith is what is required for a relationship with G-d.

Heb 11:6 Without faith it is impossible to please him (G-d): for he that cometh to G-d must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. We need to please G-d and if we approach Him not in faith, we can't please Him. The importance of faith is that without faith, you can't please G-d.

Science certainly should not be ignored, but rather than trying to mold the idea of a creator together with science, I have found these ideas are merely heterogeneous, not homogeneous.They simply do not answer the same questions.

If you do not own a concordance, I would highly suggest getting one. You may have one located at the back of your Bible. The internet can work well but sometimes it can be rather limiting. Be sure to look up the passages that deal with "faith."

I have long left organized religion yet I have great respect for Christianity and do find it to be the most inclusive and benign. However, the brand of Christianity I speak of is early Christianity, what the early Christians taught just after Jesus. It is important to study world religions in order to understand history and the civilizations throughout the world. The United States is greatly influenced by Judeo-Christian values. These are the foundation of our court systems and our Constitution.

You may enjoy this video with Camile Paglia. She also touches upon Hitchens, which we only merely touched upon in our prior discussion.



Isaac Newton, the founder of Physics:



The following website I really enjoy, however I don't agree with everything they claim. The conspiracy stuff they publish is nonsensical yet, there are some great Bible studies here and one of my favorite concerns who the real first pope of Rome was. If you're up to the challenge, I warn it will take some time to get through but, here's the link.

I have previously written about the topic of hell; you can find these posts here and here.

I apologize for the long-winded response however, I did not want you to feel as though I have dismissed you. It is merely circumstantial that our time to discuss this is limited and this happens to be a topic of great interest for me.

Best of luck to you in the future and of course you now know where to find me now if you have any further questions or comments.

~Tuesday


2014-02-24

Why Many People Have Difficulty in Accepting Global Warming

It seems rational that human activity can affect the climate. We know it has affected our immediate environment.  After all, we have witnessed natural water resources become polluted; we have witnessed air pollution as well. Most of the pollution have been a result of poorly managed industrial protocols. In many cases government has had to step in and demand that industries change their practices in order to ensure that citizens are protected, keeping their environment safe. Clean air and water is in the best interest of all.

2013-03-25

Autism and Shakespeare

It is now being reported that a new study reveals that children who have autism can be helped with Shakespearian  plays.

The exaggerated expressions and voices found in Shakespeare's plays appear to help children with autism to communicate better.

Shakespeare was without any doubt a genius. It seems as though this study is merely solidifying this fact. How very interesting and exciting for someone to discover this. Hopefully we will hear more about this.


Source: ABC2News.com

2012-10-10

Half Truths - Global Warming/Climate Change/Different Weather/Increasing or Decreasing Temperature

Or...whatever you want to call it. See, the difference between a conservative and a liberal is simple. Conservatives follow a story forever and follow up on it: Liberals take the "facts" they like, stick with them, never follow up, never question themselves or their sources, and when challenged insist everyone else is stupid. In the case of global warming, it's called a "consensus" and if you are not a part of that supposed "large" crowd, you are obviously a denier!

2011-01-03

Back From The Holidays

Yes, I decided to take a little break. The news was boring. The timing was right. 2010 needed to be put to rest in a relaxing way. I can say that I didn't have too bad of a year. I suppose a few things could have been better but, overall, I can't complain.

So, what was I doing while I was away from my blog? I was arguing. I was arguing on Facebook with a bunch of people who refer to themselves as "truthers," which is interesting since they deal with practically everything but the truth.

I am not surprised by people who are skeptical. I have great respect for people that question things. Certainly, I would never advocate believing everything the government tells us. I think anyone can understand that there are some things that the government needs to keep from its citizens. On the other hand, one should not be so skeptical that they push out all rational thought, to the point where they impede themselves from learning, or opening themselves up to new information.

I have a soft spot in my heart for many of these folks, because, I too, used to listen to Alex Jones, and William Cooper. Back then, we didn't have a name of "truthers." There was no name for any of us. Also, originally, I didn't hear about the explosives being planted in the buildings until much later. I watched all of the videos and went on the websites, like inforwars. Wow! I was truly convinced but, I wanted more information.

It basically started when I decided to do some research on the sources that Alex Jones was using and, one source after the next proved that Alex Jones was not telling us what those documents REALLY said. He also would misquote people or, take their words out of context.

It was around this time that I was going back to school and learning things about chemistry and physics. The theory had changed to include explosives and, once that happened, I totally stopped listening to all the nonsense. There are so many problems with making these silly assertions, I finally had enough.

At first I thought maybe Alex Jones really believes what he says and, maybe he's just a lousy researcher but, as the years have gone by, I am 100 percent convinced that him and his ilk are propagandists-- the Tokyo Rose of our time. He is a tool of the left-wing socialists, placed in the public eye to divide us, to prey upon the anti-science, anti-thinkers of our culture.

Let's just start with ONE example of how Alex Jones and the truther movement distort information, making it seem like it's plausible.

Molten Steel. This is one of the first things you will hear these truthers throw at you. They use the same tactics of kids on a playground -- ask questions that are completely absurd and, believe that the fact you asked something, makes it true. They will claim that molten steel was found at the WTC site.

Indeed, there was molten metal but, why do we assume it's steel? We know that much of the temperatures of the fires at the WTC, did not go near the temps that are required to melt steel.


Steel is a homogeneous mixture of iron and carbon, and sometimes alloys can include: manganese, chromium, vanadium, and tungsten. As steel is heated, it will change structure, there are also variances in steel depending on how much carbon is present.  You can read about this all over, but, bottom line is, approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F. However, keep in mind that all metals expand when heated. So, they have this factor that is called the expansion coefficient. The idea behind this is just stating that when a metal is heated, the elements become excited and vibrate. These vibrations create space between the atoms and slowly expand out.

Now, please keep in mind, I am trying to keep this as simple as possible and will provide you with all the links you need but, I just want to put this into a simplistic idea. If you have a pickle jar, the lid is tin, and you can't open it, you just simply run it under some hot water. Why? Well, it temporarily expands the lid, in the slightest way, making it easier to open. Why does it do this?  Well, as I explained before, when any metal is heated, it will expand slightly. It cools and will go right back to the original shape. So, you see, you didn't melt the tin, you just expanded it a little.

This is what happened with steel but, at much greater temperatures. The metal expanded, it cooled, it expanded, it got more and more heat from all the various elements and, eventually, the structure gave way. In fact, because of the fireproofing and the way the buildings were designed, it is a miracle that the buildings stood up as long as they did!

Now, getting back to the molten metal that we are told is steel by the conspiracy theorists. What else was at the WTC? What were the planes made of? Why they were made of aluminum. Not only was the aluminum light but, much of it would have melted almost instantly due to the friction that was experienced when the planes hit the buildings.

Take your hand and rub it back and forth on your pants. Do you feel the heat? This is heat produced by friction. Eventually, you will feel lots of heat. Now, can you imagine how much heat was produced when the plane hit the building going 500 mph? That would be some incredible heat from just the friction alone. Certainly we KNOW that we will find molten aluminum at the WTC site. How could we not? So, when a conspiracy theorist tells you, "look it's molten steel." One has to question what's more logical-- the aluminum that we KNOW was present and would melt at the temperatures of the fire or, the steel that we know the fires, overall, probably weren't able to totally melt?

Just to note it has been reported that there were many pocket of heat that were at the WTC that may have been able to melt some steel but, it is more likely the molten metal the conspiracy theorists are showing you is not at all steel but, aluminum.

Remember too, that hot, liquid aluminum exposed to water and oxygen (from the oxygen tanks in the airplanes), would have resulted in explosions.

Of course the conspiracy theorists make no mention of any of these various things, leaving the readers into thinking that there is something more to the story, that the government is lying to us, that something nefarious is going on, etc. When all along, the truth is very simple. The molten metal is aluminum. The steel lost it's structure from the heat and gave way.

There is much more at this link.

What I believe is mostly missing from the conspirators analysis of events, concerns their lack of understanding about science and how to interpret information. They are very limited in their views, in that they seem to believe or "jump on" the first explanation given to them about something and, afterwords work hard to shut out opposing explanations. What also is lacking is their understanding of logic. It is because, they are working up to a final conclusion, that there is some mass conspiracy, they only allow commentary that allows for the conclusion they have in mind.

Science is not supposed to be about proving an end point that you want. Science is about following a logical path and, where it leads you, for good or bad. Many times, their ideas have been thoroughly debunked but, instead of admitting it's probably not part of a conspiracy, they simply change the story to keep the conspiracy as the end point.

They also do not understand that even in controlled laboratory experiments, the scientists will always find side-reactions, inconsistencies, and a number of various things that were never anticipated occur. Another problem I see, is they appear to explain things as if they occurred in a vacuum. They try and make comparisons to other buildings that were caught on fire -- buildings that were not hit by airplanes and had thousands of pounds of jet-fuel burn inside them, buildings that were constructed completely different, etc. They consistently make these comparisons only dealing with ONE variant, ignoring all other aspects.

The fact is, you cannot do that. You have to understand that this was not only random, we really have no comparable sources for this type of event anywhere. What happened at WTC is the benchmark for this type of incident. It is very important that the information is thoroughly vetted.

To say that there was some conspiracy, it would require: many people in all levels of the government being involved, the firemen, many policeman, I was also informed that anyone who doesn't agree with their movement works for the government (yes, they all repeat this line and, anyone like Popular Mechanics-- they were also paid by the government), the insurance companies underwriters and agents, an extensive demolition team, countless airline employees, all of the press --Fox- CNN-MSNBC-all the alphabet channels, and goodness knows who else...all these people would have to be involved in this massive cover-up.

Does that make more sense to you than, hijackers taking over the planes and crashing them into the Pentagon and WTC?

Here are all the links you'll ever need!


On those pages, you will find even MORE links and MORE information to help arm you with the real science, and not people that are trying to sell a book, or give you half-truths.

2010-06-24

Global Warming, Climate Change, and Basic Principles of Ethical Science

The following article was written by Jason Sents. Please visit his blog for more information. I have asked that he write as a guest on my blog. If you would like to be a guest on my blog, please contact me via Facebook. My account can be accessed by clicking on the badge, located on the bottom and to the right. Thank you. 

Thursday June 24, 2010

Is catastrophic Global Warming happening? Is everything normal? Is it man-made? Is it naturally occurring? These are the common questions you hear moments before the "paid for" Democrat and the "shill for Big Oil" Republican start bickering worse than Bob Beckel after someone steals his jelly doughnut.

There is one very simple, fundamental scientific oversight being made in the whole discussion. That is actually a difficult sentence to find myself writing. The study of ancient climates and long-term global climate change [Paleoclimatology] is literally in it's infancy. How could such a young field of study have completely lost the basic principles of science so soon? Regardless, let's keep it super-simple and examine an important detail that consistently falls by the wayside during almost every discussion on the matter of climate change. That detail is called “measurement precision”.

Consider the mercury thermometer. Yes, the kind that has some of you old timers squealing like a young Ned Beatty in Deliverance. See those little tick marks up the side of the glass along the column of silver or red liquid? Those are called graduations. They denote the referenced and calibrated temperature to the level of the red fluid rising up the column from the bulb. Basic principles here. A heated liquid expands, and in this case rises up into the column. You read the closest graduation to the top of the liquid and note the temperature.

Modern thermometers have little electronic circuits in them that can read to calibrated measurement precision 1/10th a degree [or better]. These are called "digital thermometers". Oooooo.... Sounds fancy and complex like "computer models". If it sounds as fancy like a computer model it must be true! In fact, I've used digital thermometers to measure the temperature of groundwater 400 feet below the ground surface and they report in 1/100th of a degree C. The issue here is not one of analog versus digital thermometers. Suffice it to say that others have tested that, and continue to test it. Then they test again, and again, and again... Then they give all their gear to someone else and they test, test, test, and come up with reproducible results. That repetitive process is known as the scientific method.

Regardless of what the true answer is, it is clearly evident that a discrepancy exists. That in and of itself should raise the red flag of skepticism and critical thought. Being skeptical and thinking critically is a hallmark of great science. The real issue is at some point in the not so distant past, thermometers only had a measurement precision of 1 whole degree. Said another way, it was either 70, 71, or 72°C. There were no 71.46°Cs like some digital thermometric technologies used today.

So the next time you are having any kind of debate with an agenda-driven, ignorant political hack and they blurt out, “Well the temperature of the planet has warmed a half a degree Celsius in the last 100 years!” The first thing out of your mouth should be, “What kind of thermometers were used 100 years ago, and what kind are used today? Because unless they had the exact same measurement precision, that would be comparing apples and oranges.” You'll probably observe them begin shaking like a deranged Borg drone disconnected from the Collective Hive Mind.

The reason it is vital to never forget basic principles like these is that citizens and governmental bodies base public policy decisions on the final results. If a simple error is introduced at the beginning of the scientific process, that error will likely be carried through to the public policy stage. If the governmental bodies have an agenda, however, they will likely use the scientific method as a shield behind which they simply inject manufactured errors to change the final results which, in turn, support their public policy agenda. When all else fails, fall back to the position of basic principles. They act as an antiseptic to dangerous political agendas and error-filled science. Finally, it is for these reasons we as scientists must think critically, remain emotionally neutral, and always maintain the highest standards for scientific ethics. As Galileo Galilei wrote, 'In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.'

Jason Sents is an Environmental Geologist, Mathematical Computer Modeler, and Quaternary Paleoclimatology Researcher. He is a Member of the Association of Engineering & Environmental Geologists – Carolinas Chapter, and he is a Founding Member of Oath Keepers. Visit his new blog where he writes about geology topics and hosts a gallery of his photography at http://geolojay.com/

2010-03-19

Invisible Cloak!?

Sounds like it's pretty far off but, I'm already making plans with what I shall do with mine.

2009-07-23

Stop The Insanity! 9/11 Conspiracy

I have to start this off by saying that I, myself, used to buy into a lot of the conspiracy stuff, especially the stories that surround the events of 9/11.

9/11 is my birthday. I remember that day very well. It was truly horrifying and sometimes, still, I can't believe it actually happened.

So, if I used to believe in this conspiracy stuff, what happened? Why do I no longer subscribe to such lunacy? Well, the answer is simple. I got an education. As a science major, math and physics are also studied. All this stuff these conspiracy people present can be debunked by a first year physics student.

Now, there is a site that I hooked this up to that can explain this a lot better than me. You can also visit this site, ImplosionWorld. They have some interesting information about WTC. You have to look for the link at the bottom.

Now, do I believe our government is perfect? No. I know they want a New World Order. They have been recorded frequently saying that this is their goal. By "they" I mean, several of our presidents and, other government officials. George Bush Sr. and George W. Bush, as well as Clinton and now, Obama are all wanting a NWO.

I don't think 9/11 helped anything. I think it hurt them from pushing forward with the NWO.

See, remember back when the Oklahoma City bomb went off? Remember John Dow number 2, a man of MIDDLE EASTERN decent was everywhere but, they couldn't find him? Then all of a sudden everything is placed on Timothy McVey? They sure put him to sleep pretty quick!

There is quite a bit of evidence showing that terrorists from the middle east were behind that bombing. We were hit several times during the Clinton administration and how he handled it was to just ignore it. World Trade Center bombing in '93 was ignored, USS Cole - ignored, Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - ignored, Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut - ignored, A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta - ignored. Bill Clinton never wanted to address anything! He was too busy with other things, as we all know. He was also too busy LYING.

I think that this seriously pissed them off. They wanted credit for what they did and that's why they went to such an extreme for 9/11. No one would be able to deny it this time. Amazingly enough, we have a bunch of people that do deny 9/11 was caused by terrorists.

Everything that happened doesn't seem to help push this New World Order at all. I think it upset a lot of folks and put them back about 10 years.

Everything I've seen by these conspiracy people seems to be laid out in a logical way but, once you look a little further, you can see that they are either flat out lying about what occurred, or they just don't understand simple things. Forget the fact that literally thousands of people would have to keep their mouths shut about a conspiracy, forget the fact that all these explosive materials would have to have been brought into the buildings well before 9/11 and, no one that worked there knew about it, forget the fact that the buildings did NOT fall on it's own footprint like they claim, you can see it in the video, forget the fact that you can't hear any explosion that is commonly associated with a controlled demolition, yes, we are to ignore quite a bit just to buy these bizarre stories.

There are just people out there that hate this country so much and will do anything to make us look bad.

Now, let's just be fair and play devil's advocate. What if they are right? What if their science, physics, and conclusion is correct? Well, if it is, they certainly haven't proven it with what they've offered. I'm sure willing to listen to anyone's opinions and analysis but, it has to be solid. At best we can say, we just don't know what happened.

I most remember that day and when I was watching the tv, I said, "Those buildings are going to come down." There was just something about it that I could see, I could tell the structure was compromised. Sure, maybe they had designed the buildings to withstand such things, that doesn't mean it worked. Obviously it didn't.

The point is, it's okay to question and be skeptical but, you have to look at both sides and you have to be fair and you have to use reason and common sense. It also helps to know a little about physics, especially when studying this kind of stuff.

There are some great videos on youtube that discuss both sides of this. So, go pick out some and look for yourself.

As for me, I'm not convinced of these conspiracies simply because, each of these arguments are straw men arguments and can be easily explained away. That just isn't going to cut it for me.
  The Alternative Conservative                  
x

Get Our Latest Posts Via Email - It's Free

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner