Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate

I was reading about that on another thread and saw someone say that the constancy of the quasar period proves setterfields speed of light theories wrong. Can someone point me to an article on the web where this was done?

Here is a quote from that paper:Pulsar rotation periods are extremely stable and precise, and for this reason have been extensively studied by astronomers. Periods of over 1,700 pulsars are available for download and study on the website of the Australia Telescope National Facility (ATNF).82 Figure 14 shows the complete set of pulsar data available from the ATNF. As the figure shows, we have data on many pulsars out to 50,000 light years, and a few even out to 180,000 light years. The Setterfield model predicts a slowing-down effect for these periods, with a maximum effect of 180,000/8,000 = 22.5. Do we see such an effect in the period vs. distance data?
There doesn’t seem to be any upward trend with increasing distance in Figure 14, but the scatter in the plotted data makes it difficult to see whether there is any trend at all. Therefore, in Figure 15 we display a moving average (with a moving interval of 100 points). It’s clear that the average pulsar period is constant at about 0.75 over the entire distance range. Figure 15 also shows the prediction that follows from the minimum Setterfield slowing-down effect, as a function of distance. The disagreement is obvious.I think jellison doesn't understand setterfield's hypothesis very well. How does he come to the conclusion that "Setterfield model predicts a slowing-down effect for these periods, with a maximum effect of 180,000/8,000 = 22.5. "?

Here is setterfield's response to the notion that constancy of pulsar periods is in contradiction to his model:Setterfield: Thanks for your question about pulsars. There are several aspects to this. First of all, pulsars are not all that distant, the furthest that we can detect are in small satellite galaxies of our own Milky Way system. Second, because the curve of lightspeed is very flat at those distances compared with the very steep climb closer to the origin, the change in lightspeed is small. This means that any pulsar slowdown rate originating with the changing speed of light is also small. The third point is that the mechanism that produces the pulses is in dispute as some theories link the pulses with magnetic effects separate from the star itself, so that the spin rate of the host star may not be involved. Until this mechanism is finally determined, the final word about the pulses and the effects of lightspeed cannot be given.

For the first time in my life, it is required of me to find out what the scientific literature says regarding a topic. The college has provided several search engines but when I enter several words in the search field, I rarely get results that put all the words together in one sentence. Another problem is that I am finding very little research when I narrow the topic down to what I will be doing doing with my own actual research. Does anybody have expertise in doing online searches in the literature in order to find research that is specifically tailored to what you are doing?

I will be doing research this summer on the correlation between total precipitation and precipitation intensity of individual storms on bank gully erosion. At the end of the summer, I will gather all the sediment collected by the silt fences and compare that to the estimated soil loss as measure by erosion pins. I need to be aware of all the research that has been done before in this particular area of soil erosion. So far, I have pulled up a lot of research on soil erosion in general, and little on gully erosion in particular. Of the gully erosion literature I have found, the bulk of it is rill erosion and ephemeral erosion. Perhaps the problem is not in my method of using the google scholar and other search engines, but there may actually be a scarcity of the exact type of research that I will be doing. I have actually read papers that stated as much. They went even further to say that soil erosion research has also been dominated by simulated rainfall instead of actual rainfall, and that large scale land areas being studies are scarce in comparison to plot sized areas.
It could be true that my exact method of study is not well represented in the literature. That is exactly what I stated in my proposal to the university in order to get grant money for it. I just hope that I was actually accurate in that statement.

thanks

CO₂ + H₂O = H₂CO₃ = H+ + HCO₃- = 2H + CO₃Don't know how to type the ions in.When carbon dioxide is dissolved in the ocean, does all of it immediately react with water to form carbonic acid or is there dissolved, unreacted carbon dioxide in the water too?There are 3 equilibrium equations listed above. Are they endothermic or exothermic in the forward reaction? Which ones are endothermic and which one are exothermic in the forward direction?My whole reason for asking is this: If you do not add any additional carbon dioxide into the oceanic system, will an increase in oceanic temperature make the ocean more acidic or less acidic based on the three equilibrium reactions above?Edited by Admin, : Add subscripting.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

I can see that the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing temperature but how is the disassociation of HCO3 into H⁺ and CO3^- affected by an increase in ocean temperature at the surface?

​

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

​

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

​

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

(6)Loge(Ka' / Ka) = Ho / R . (1/T-1/T')Using this equation, it shows that an increase in temperature makes for a greater disassociation constant. This tells me that as the ocean surface warms, more HCO3 disassociates into H+ and CO3-So, you don't even have to have more CO2 dissolved into the ocean to get greater acidity. All it takes is an increase in ocean surface temperatures.

It all depends on which factor carries the greatest weight in le Chateliers principle.....either greater dissolved CO2 or greater temperature affect on raising the disassociation constant. Greater surface temperatures dissolve less CO2 at the surface and greater surface temperatures change the point of equilibrium to greater disassociation of HCO3. An experiment could be done to find out how much CO2 would have to be dissolved in a liter of sea water to change the pH by 30%, which is the amount said to have occurred in the oceans since records have been kept. Another experiment could be done that raises the temperature of one liter of sea water by.7C, the amount of temperature gain in the same period of time, and see the change in pH. Calculations could then be done to see if temperature has more of an effect than CO2 in raising acidity levels.

I just figured that out for a change in temperature of .7C using the vant hoff equation. The resulting change in pH was miniscule compared to the supposed change of 30% in pH over the same period of time. Even though both disassociation reactions are endothermic, it takes a much greater change in temperature to change the pH by that much.

It is known that colder water can dissolve more carbon dioxide. The deep ocean is more acidic than the surface ocean because of that. The thermohaline circulation brings cold deep water to the surface at certain points. If that upwelling occurs at a steady pace over time, then the extra acidity it brings to the surface cannot be taken into consideration when considering causes of increased ocean acidity. However, if that upwelling occurs at a faster past than normal,an increase in ocean acidity can logically be blamed on it. Scientists claim that an increase in ocean surface temperatures can speed up the thermohaline circulation. If ocean surface temperatures are not rising due to an increased greenhouse effect but due to other causes, an increase in ocean acidity can be blamed on the thermohaline circulation instead of increased carbon dioxide being dissolved.

I am currently almost through with a course in mineralogy. I am having trouble consistently telling the difference between quartz and nepheline and alkaline feldspar that lack obvious twinning. I am also having trouble telling the difference between biotite and hornblende especially when the biotite is very weathered. I am talking about thin sections for these minerals and not hand sample specimens of them.

Yes it does, and I am supposing that interstitial feldspars lack twinning and cleavage more often than euhedral grains?