1979: The Abandoning of Science

[YWD67]

I am going to do something that I have not attempted on ZP or any other forum I have posted on before.
I am going to do a series on threads on a single topic.

The topic being the attempted abandoning of scientific reasoning by the different powers of the world.
The powers being, industry, government, and religion.
I picked the date 1979 as the point of such, based on the song title of the group Smashing Pumpkins, and my own personal observations.

The information that I will put forth, will be in the form of personal observation and fact based information of credible source.

I welcome any kind of input on this topic, and that means pro and con.
Regardless of which one is the case, all that I ask is that you show either a personal valid observation or data of a fact based scientific origin.

What I am try to avoid is disinformation or spin doctoring that has a minimum of factual truth that is pushed off as truth.
As always please forgive my numerous mispellings and gramaticle errors.
With the boring formalities out of the way, here goes.

Being one of the ancient ones in terms of age here, I have seen what I beleived has been the abandoning of scientific reasoning in the current American culture.

I base this on personal observation as well as the decrease in the U.S. eduational system
Since the start of the 1980's there has been a dramatic reduction in the teaching of the following fields of science:
Astronomy
Geology
Palaentology
These topics have senn a marked decrease in a vast majority of public education systems in the U.S. over the last 30 yrs.

I have my own personal opinion why this has taken place, but I would like other opinions if this is true or not.
As stated before, either give a personal observation or one of a sound fact based information.

[Mels_Smileys45]

I am looking forward to these posts! I will offer up my thoughts, if I have any, on this wondrous subjects!!!!

I am not sure if the modern youth has abandoned scientific reasoning or not. IN the area of religion it would seem that free thought is starting to grow because many have dropped any structured religions and are asking the tough questions the older folk do not want to think about.

In many other areas I think todays youth is becoming very confused. Mostly because internet hucksters have become very good at creating blogs and videos that skew the facts in ways that can fool even very educated people. In general people seem to want to be lead around and not be burdened with answering the hard questions for themselves. They seem to like to be ensured by a leader or leaders and once convinced its hard to change the minds of some of these people. I see a lot of hatred all around the world and the States seem to be a breeding ground for contempt and hatred.

The LEADERS in the states have chosen their words carefully as to not upset the masses and I am not sure they believe the crap they shovel out or not. Like when Bush denied evolution I am not sure that even he is that stupid. The governments are only going to say what they feel will make their constituents happy with them, make them trust them, and make them follow their beloved leaders into the 7th gate of HELL if need be.

I say "I am not sure" a lotbecause I am...not sure. When ever you hear a person say "Thats how it is and no one can change my mind!" then its time to put that person on ignore. A person must always be willing to change their mind because none of us have all the answers and we must not be to proud, smug or afraid to say we have changed our minds or that we were wrong.


I think I strayed from the topic at hand and indeed went all over the place to say one important thing but I do feel these topics will be very fun and possibly exciting!:tired:

:blowjob::popworm::32::haha:

[YWD67]

For the last ten years, any subject of science that has any kind of main stream excepted fact that conflicts with certain religious beliefs, is absent or lightly touched on in public education.

From my own experience with my last child graduating two years ago, geology, space science and anthropology are virtualy non existant in course study.

It would be interesting to know the education background and attained grade level and grades in general, of the people who condem or poo poo main stream science.

I will never forget about 15 yrs ago when I heard Rush "to judgement" state that the oceans can not rise if the poles melt because the north and south poles are nothing but ice and have no land mass under them.

I am guessing that, if a sixth grade science test was given to the most vocal of anti-main stream science talking heads, they would be lucky to get half of the questions right.

[Excrement_Cranium]

For the last ten years, any subject of science that has any kind of main stream excepted fact that conflicts with certain religious beliefs, is absent or lightly touched on in public education.

From my own experience with my last child graduating two years ago, geology, space science and anthropology are virtualy non existant in course study.

It would be interesting to know the education background and attained grade level and grades in general, of the people who condem or poo poo main stream science.

I will never forget about 15 yrs ago when I heard Rush "to judgement" state that the oceans can not rise if the poles melt because the north and south poles are nothing but ice and have no land mass under them.

I am guessing that, if a sixth grade science test was given to the most vocal of anti-main stream science talking heads, they would be lucky to get half of the questions right.

That is an interesting statment... oceans can't rise if ice melts.

It almost sounds plausible, when once considers the strange property of water when it freezes - compared to most other matter, water actually expands when it freezes.

However, one must also consider the fact that a lot of this ice is floating on, and not in, the oceans.

Also consider the fact that a mass influx of fresh water affects the ion concentration of the oceans as a whole.

I can't find the article, but this last week I read a flip-flop that stated that the scenario in the movie The Day After Tomorrow could actually be plausible. It was dismissed when the movie was new and in heavy circulation.

[mountain_rage]

That is an interesting statment... oceans can't rise if ice melts.

It almost sounds plausible, when once considers the strange property of water when it freezes - compared to most other matter, water actually expands when it freezes.

However, one must also consider the fact that a lot of this ice is floating on, and not in, the oceans.

Also consider the fact that a mass influx of fresh water affects the ion concentration of the oceans as a whole.

I can't find the article, but this last week I read a flip-flop that stated that the scenario in the movie The Day After Tomorrow could actually be plausible. It was dismissed when the movie was new and in heavy circulation.

There are two ideas that are missing from people who explain away flooding by using the ice in a glass example. First of all, they ignore the fact that although water forms hydrogen bonds when it forms, increasing the water volume, liquid water still expands when heated. So all the liquid water mass on the planet will expand when heated, this is not debatable, its based on fact, I even have the thermodynamic tables in front of me stating the increase. On top of that it ignores the fact that a lot of the worlds ice mass is not sitting in the water, but on land masses. So although the ice floating wont change the volume, the ice not floating will. So in the end the sea level will rise, from both the melting of ice and the water volume expansion from the increase in temperature. This doesn't even take into consideration the chemical bonds that may take place as a result of the increased temperature and chemical concentrations.

[YWD67]

There are two ideas that are missing from people who explain away flooding by using the ice in a glass example. First of all, they ignore the fact that although water forms hydrogen bonds when it forms, increasing the water volume, liquid water still expands when heated. So all the liquid water mass on the planet will expand when heated, this is not debatable, its based on fact, I even have the thermodynamic tables in front of me stating the increase. On top of that it ignores the fact that a lot of the worlds ice mass is not sitting in the water, but on land masses. So although the ice floating wont change the volume, the ice not floating will. So in the end the sea level will rise, from both the melting of ice and the water volume expansion from the increase in temperature. This doesn't even take into consideration the chemical bonds that may take place as a result of the increased temperature and chemical concentrations.

I should have went further with my Rush story.
He went on to state that if you have a glass of Pepsi with ice and it melts the glass does not over flow.
Rush had no clue the the Artic is an actual land mass and with oce on the surface. The melting of such ice on the surface as run off will cause a rise in sea levels.
For years I though I imagined what he had said. I later found out what I heard was correct.

This can be varified in the book Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Liar, written By Al Franken.
Correction, Senator Al Fraken.
The book was written about ten years ago I believe.

The desalination of sea water with fresh water will affect the flow of the Gulf Stream.
That is a chemical scientific fact.
Not an opinion, or possiblity, But a chemical reaction fact.

As for water expanding as it is heated is well stated.

I worked in or city's coal fired electric power palnet for a few years.

The average temperature of steam used to produce electricity is over 1000 degrees.

You can heat a teaspoon of water to such a degree that it can expand in the forum of vapr to the point that it can fill a 10X10 room.

So not only is the melting of Artic Ice adding to the sea level, the heating of the water adds to rise as well.

Does anyone now how much water expands for every degree of temperature increase?

[mountain_rage]

Does anyone now how much water expands for every degree of temperature increase?

Depends on the pressure, and purity of the water. Since the worlds water ways are neither pure, nor constant in pressure its hard to say. The deeper you go the higher the pressure, I believe this pressure is caused by the force of gravity acting on the water above it, but I can't remember if that is accurate or not. You would need to create a related rates formula to figure it all out. But I think its safe to say that it would be an increase of about 0.0000002 to 0.000001 m^3 per Kg of water. I would figure out a rough estimate, but it seems like it would be lengthy and I don't have the time to dedicate to it at the moment.

[YWD67]

Water has mass and weight like anything else so gravity acts upon it like everything.

The more you put above as you dive, is the same as piling weights on your body.

Water though can not be compressed like the weights.

If that was the case can you imagine the density of water at the bottom of "The Seven Mile Trench".
The density of water just below the surface of the ocean has the same density at the bottom of the ocean doesn't it?


Thank you for the guesstimate
MR.

[mountain_rage]

The density of water just below the surface of the ocean has the same density at the bottom of the ocean doesn't it?

Well I'm not sure, from what I understand it should be denser at the bottom since more force is being applied to the atomic structure compressing the bonds. It makes sense but I might be missing some other concept that would explain my theory away. But as far as I know water at greater depth is denser than water at the surface. This also follows the theory of buoyancy, where masses with the smallest density float above objects with higher density. So the denser water is sitting at the bottom of the ocean.

Also pressure with greater depth also has to do with the fact that gravitational forces are greater the closer you get to the center of the earth. So not only is the mass above greater, but the force of gravity is increased as well.

[YWD67]

Well I'm not sure, from what I understand it should be denser at the bottom since more force is being applied to the atomic structure compressing the bonds. It makes sense but I might be missing some other concept that would explain my theory away. But as far as I know water at greater depth is denser than water at the surface. This also follows the theory of buoyancy, where masses with the smallest density float above objects with higher density. So the denser water is sitting at the bottom of the ocean.

Also pressure with greater depth also has to do with the fact that gravitational forces are greater the closer you get to the center of the earth. So not only is the mass above greater, but the force of gravity is increased as well.

I don't believe either one would be the case. If water were to become denser with the increase of depth, wouldn't it be harder and then impossible for, say a fish to move through the deeper you go.

As for the increase in gravity, there are minds several miles below deep that have no effect on thw eight of the miners or their equipment.

Your theroy though would hold true though for a black hole. The closer you get to the singularity in the black hole the greater the increase in gravity.
Infact the difference in the pull of gravity between your feet and head would increase as you got closer to the center. Theory holds that your body would begin to stretch and stretch as the difference in gravity bewteen your feet and head ecame greater and greater. This would continue on till your body was stretch into infinitive greatness. This process is refered to as "Spaghettification". Don't laugh that is it's realy name.
Scientist do have a sense of humor and a sense of irony concerning their work.
The same thing happens here on earth. However the difference in gravity between your head and feet is very, very, very small.

The amount of gravity an object has depends on its mass and not it's size I beleave.

[Excrement_Cranium]

http://www.cpo.com/Weblabs/solig2.htm


O_o

Have fun with it.

I was simply thinking Boyle's law - but that largely applies to gasses ("ideal gasses" as explained in the linked article).

Anyway, in the short run - if you have mass, you add in pressure, you subtract volume, you get decreased density (at a constant temperature).

*edit*

The word should have been "increased" density.

[YWD67]

Great link and site. Been looking for one like that.
Love the government cover up joke for the X factor.

Isn't Boyls law where if you had different kinds of gasses in identical containers with the same temperature and preasure, all three would have the exact same amount of atoms?

[mountain_rage]

I don't believe either one would be the case. If water were to become denser with the increase of depth, wouldn't it be harder and then impossible for, say a fish to move through the deeper you go.

As for the increase in gravity, there are minds several miles below deep that have no effect on thw eight of the miners or their equipment.

Gravity is directly proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance from the center of the masses. For all intents and purposes when you move around the earth the change of gravity is insignificant. But the distance from the center still has a minute effect. For most situations we just consider it constant, I'm just being overly analytical.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Great link and site. Been looking for one like that.
Love the government cover up joke for the X factor.

Isn't Boyls law where if you had different kinds of gasses in identical containers with the same temperature and preasure, all three would have the exact same amount of atoms?

More or less, and also that volume and pressure relate inversely with each other.

At a constant temperature V1P1=V2P2 - so as volume or pressure rise, the other must decrease proportionately to compensate.

[YWD67]

This says it all for me and scares the holyshit out of me. TX's is the largest purchaser of school texts in the U.S. Many publishers of such texts base their printing for the rest of the nation on the content that comes from TX.
The make up of the state board that reviews sets the guidelines of what goes in the books is one of the most evangelical and conservative defined groups to have held that position ever.
BE AFRAID!! BE VERY AFFRAID!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nearly a third of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time, and more than half disagree with the theory that humans developed from earlier species of animals, according to the University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.

Then the article discusses the results of four questions “about biological history and God” that were asked:

38 percent said human beings developed over millions of years with God guiding the process and another 12 percent said that development happened without God having any part of the process.

Lumping natural and theistic evolution together, that’s 50% of Texans who gave a reasonable response. Let’s read on:

Another 38 percent agreed with the statement “God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago.”

That’s a lot of young-earthers! We continue:

Asked about the origin and development of life on earth without injecting humans into the discussion, and 53 percent said it evolved over time, “with a guiding hand from God.” They were joined by 15 percent who agreed on the evolution part, but “with no guidance from God.”

That’s 68% who gave a reasonable response to the question. On the other hand:

About a fifth — 22 percent — said life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time.

Here’s more:

Most of the Texans in the survey — 51 percent — disagree with the statement, “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.” Thirty-five percent agreed with that statement, and 15 percent said they don’t know.

And this is the most amusing part:

Did humans live at the same time as the dinosaurs? Three in ten Texas voters agree with that statement; 41 percent disagree, and 30 percent don’t know.

There’s more information in the article, especially about the religious and political breakdown of the responses. Here’s a sample:

Republicans are less likely to believe that humans developed from earlier species of animals; 26 percent agree, while 60 percent disagree. Among Democrats in the survey, 46 percent agree that humans evolved from earlier species; 42 percent disagree. [Governor] Perry’s voters were most hostile to this premise — 67 percent disagree.

And this is interesting: Regarding the question of whether dinosaurs and humans lived on the planet at the same time, as expected — Perry supporters were a good share of such respondents, but Kay Bailey Hutchison had the largest share of voters who believe in that coexistence.

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress....gnorance-poll/