Logical Explanations

Logical Explanations

Posted on June 25,2010

Explaining the Unexplainable: Where I am from, there is an old saying, “If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, buffalo them with bullsh*t.”

Global Warming

Global Warming Demonstration: There is an ad on television where a lady conducts what appears to be a coup de grace experiment demonstrating global warming with co2. She has two jars equipped with a thermometer. One of the jars is filled with air and the other is filled with co2. Then she proceeds to expose both jars to the sunlight and clearly demonstrates that the jar with the co2 gets hotter than the jar with just air. So far so good – there is no beef from me about whether or not co2 absorbs some of the infrared spectrum. After all, co2 is a minor greenhouse gas that is in trace quantities in our atmosphere.

Meaningless Demonstration: There are several elements to her experiment that she should also be telling. For instance, it is true that the co2 trapped some heat, but in that jar, there was only one escape route for the trapped heat and that was by conduction through the jar wall. She was also dealing with a sample of 100% co2 whereas our atmosphere only contains around 394 ppm (parts per million), and is relegated to being an atmospheric trace element. Normally, the heat trapped by the small amount of co2 in our atmosphere is released by means of convection. Our atmosphere is a homogenous blend of several elements but mostly nitrogen and oxygen. We do not have a layered atmosphere like Venus, on which there is a 40+ mile layer of co2 blanketing the planet.

That distinction is important because convection currents prevent a large buildup of heat around our planet. CO2 is only briefly able to hold on to any trapped heat because of the convection currents in our atmosphere. You can see the results of convection by looking up at the sky. You see those big puffy cloud formations? They are the result of convection currents. The warm air rises and loses its heat to the colder upper atmosphere. The moisture in the air condenses because of the heat loss and forms clouds

There is another point to be made. CO2 is heavier than air. It does not gather at the upper levels and form a heat trap that would prevent heat from escaping the planet. The classic definition of a greenhouse is a structure where heat can be trapped. Gardeners and farmers use greenhouses to trap heat in order to grow temperature sensitive plants during cold weather. The Sun is able to warm a greenhouse using the same principle as the lady with the jars. Once warmed, the heat trapped inside the greenhouse has only one main escape avenue and that is by way of conduction through the structure plus a small amount of convection through any leaks that may exist. Please read the information about co2 at the following website: http://nov55.com/index.html That ad with the lady and the jars is just another razzle-dazzle production meant to impress those who have little information on the subject. Taking advantage of ignorance is the tool used most by co2 alarmists.

Complexity Credentials
Red Shift – Blue Shift

Note, this is an opinion article – not a scientific one.

The KISS Formula: KISS (keep it simple stupid) has been around for a long time. But I firmly believe that the older and more grizzled our scientists get, they seem to race to find out who can create the most far-out complicated theories. The more complicated and involved a theory is, the harder it is to disprove. For instance, the expansion of space explained by the red shift – blue shift theory. When a modified version of the Doppler effect is applied to the observations of observable galaxies, an interpretation of an expanding universe can be made. In fact, to explain the color shifts, scientists have determined that space itself is being stretched and warped. One recent article in Scientific American explores the possibility of energy loss from the Universe because of this phenomenon. That finding challenges a fundamental law of physics that states 'energy can neither be created or destroyed'.

When the answer to any enigma is not known, there seems to be a trend by scientists into making absolute statements to bolster their latest and greatest theories. My abhorrence of absolute statements that refer to unproven theories is the motivation behind this piece. For the record, I have no objection to the idea of an expanding Universe, just the objection to an absence of logic to get there.

Sunrise vs. Sunset: Sunrise gives us a view of the Sun from a given position on Earth. Notice an early morning Sunrise and you will be able to discern a reddish hue about the sun as it starts its climb. Why does the Sun have a reddish hue? True, the Earth is not advancing very fast, but our rotation is moving a given spot on the early morning hour towards the Sun at a brisk 1,000 mph. If I were to apply the red shift – blue shift theory to the early morning Sunlight, the color should be somewhat shifted to the blue, not the red.

Sunset yields the same reddish hue as the Sunrise does, only the relative direction between the observer and the Sun has changed.

A Conclusion: At the time of Sunset and Sunrise, the light of the sun is being diffused through the atmosphere along the horizon as opposed to the straight on viewpoint at noon. It is the diffusion through the atmosphere that gives the sun its reddish hue. My question concerns the behavior of light as it is diffused; why can't the same thing be happening to the light from distant galaxies or stars? There isn't much in space, but when the extreme distances are considered, I would think that whatever is out there would add up. Maybe enough stuff that would create a little diffusion and create a reddish appearance. Stretching space is a little beyond my logical receptors. Certainly I don't want to give the impression that those who create those theories are wrong, just a little simpler model would help with the logic.

What is stretched space anyway? We call it space because it is an unoccupied zone. In your house, if you have a place where there are no furnishings, appliances, stored goods, or people you would call it a space. Scientists should offer an explanation of what an empty area, that is stretched out should look like. It isn't logical that an area which for all intents and purposes is empty can be stretched. How do you stretch nothing? If space can be stretched, wouldn't the distance be increased by the stretch to a distant galaxy apply to everything we observe in space? Stretched space is stretched space – I am assuming that by space being stretched that the distance between the observer and the observed has increased.

I think more work needs to be done on the red shift – blue shift theory.

Open Office

MS Office 2010 is here, and I can't see investing more money into a program group that is duplicated for free. Open Office is a suite of programs that duplicates those of the MS-Office suite. Up until now I have been using and investing my money into MS-Office because of its superior grammar correction. Good grammar correction has been a hallmark of MS-Word and one of its main attractions for me.

I will be transferring what I write between the two programs as a test of the grammar prowess of Open Office compared to that of MS-Office Word. Stay tuned for my comparisons between the two. One last note – I had to download an extension for the grammar correction to the Open Office Suite. (It was free as with all Open Source programs.)

"A good listener is not only popular everywhere, but after a while he gets to know something."
-Wilson Mizner

Cheers,

-Robert-

-Privacy Policy-

Robfg.Com does not share any personal information about its readers. Email addresses, or other personal information is strictly confidential.

Unique Visitors