|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Core question: In a general world wide sense, are plants A: a net user of C02? B: a net producer of C02? C: just a reservoir? A and C -- they "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O2 during the day. At night they are rather dormant. They also grow by incorporating the carbon into the new cells, breaking down the CO2 to release the carbon and the O2.
I'm familiar enough with plants to know that they uptake C02. I also know that decaying plant material produces C02. The "decay" is by microbes consuming the plant material and exhaling CO2. Buried plant material can also be converted to methane (CH4) in wet anaerobic conditions
I hear in the climate discussion that the deforestation of the world is at least partially to blame for rising C02 levels in the atmosphere. ... A lot (most?) of the deforestation is by "slash and burn" which converts the plant material to carbon at the ground level (wood ash) and CO2 in the air (smoke). And there is a lot of CO2 and methane released from the permafrost areas of the arctic as they thaw.
I'm reading all this crap from Morris, etc. regarding how the vegetative state of the world pre-flood (and just after that it) would have been so different that the C02 ratios would have been all screwed up. ... Well he has to cram millions of years of coal formation into a few hundred ...
... Either way, they always seem to imply that the results always go in their YEC favor carbon dating wise. ... What they have to fiddle is the ratio of 14C/12C in a way that doesn't jinx biblical artifact dates, which is what drives them to use the flood to manically change the atmosphere pre flood. Problem for them is that essentially ALL pre-flood life lived and died at the same time and thus they should all have the same 14C/12 ratios, regardless of how they "micky" the CO2 levels pre-flood (when there was no death eh?)
Mosasaurs and Mastodons should date the same. They don't (shocking I know) ... ...(and I'm not sure why Mosasaurs were killed off by the flood ... but that's another problem for another dazed YEC)
At any rate, I'm not looking for any answer to the above paragraph (I don't think there is one), I'm just looking for a biologically sound answer to my core question -- with that answer I can prepare myself to address the YEC claims as they arise. Perhaps there is not simple answer - I'm aware that's one possibility. Also google carbon sequestration Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2402 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
RAZD writes: Also google carbon sequestration Ah yes ... don't know why I didn't think to search that term. The Wiki link for that is excellent. Thanks for that and the other info. JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
It's interesting to read where may YEC sites now say radiocarbon dating is no good past about 4000BC. This allows them to fit it in to the biblical artifacts where they want to use it, but claim it's unreliable otherwise. The YEC sites I have seen often say that radiocarbon dating is not accurate for times before the flood. However, they don't all agree on the exact reasons for that inaccuracy.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2402 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
LOL, yeah - it's that biblical water canopy theory on one site and magnetic fields on another and rotting vegetation on another and sequestered rotting vegetation on another. It's always something.
In reading the history of the multiple failed and surviving creation "science" organizations, it's funny how most of them failed by breakup due to no one being able to agree on what version of the Creation/Flood story to "prove". That's what happens when you dive in with your mind made up ... every story that someone decides on needs a different set of evidence. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Core question: In a general world wide sense, are plants A: a net user of C02? B: a net producer of C02? C: just a reservoir? I think this image from the Wikipedia site on the Carbon Cycle does a good job of answering that question.
You can see that plants take in 120 billion tons annually (bta) and respirate 60 bta for a net intake of 60 bta, so in that way they are net consumers. However, much of that fixed carbon is eaten by animals or decays through seasonal cycles or sequestered in the soil as root mass (which also becomes food for microorganisms). Microbial respiration and decomposition releases 60bta making the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by plants pretty much null. There is a net terrestrial uptake of 3bta, which is rather small, but over 1,000s of years it would add up quite significantly. The number in parenthesis is the estimated carbon sequestered in each carbon sink. Plant biomass is really not very large compared to other carbon sinks - the ocean (in total) contains 80 times the amount of carbon as plant biomass does. So there should be some more choices to the multiple choice D: All of the aboveE: None of the above F: D & E The correct answer is F If your core question hasn't been answered in a way that allows you to address the issue you are trying to get at, try being a bit more specific and I will try to answer in more detail. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
See, the problem is that when you get me to move off the thread you then continue the same discussion without allowing me to answer you. Is that fair? Well, y'know, the grown-ups are talking. We have a place for you to play. I think that's fair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Well, y'know, the grown-ups are talking. We have a place for you to play. I think that's fair. Finally......What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Excellent idea. Different sizes of same materials as well as and same sizes of different materials. Again, going to the Stoke's law for spherical particles ... in the simplified version mentioned in Message 397 (beginning to sound like broken record):
The velocities in question are related to particle size, and Stoke's Law can be used to estimate those velocities:
Particle Size Analysis Lab quote: Bold added. (Essentially this critical velocity goes up with the square of the particle diameter) ... and ~ linearly with density ... so:
Stoke's Law: V = k(d1-d2)D^2 V = velocity k = (assumed) constant (=g/18n) d1 = density of particle d2 = density of water D = particle diameter ... if we assume viscosity and gravity are constant during the experiment (pretty safe), then using density from Densities of common Products for ball-parking the calculations: d(steel) = 2403 kg/m^3 = 2.4 g/ccd(glass) = 1922 kg/m^3 = 1.9 g/cc d(water) = 1000 kg/m^3 = 1.0 g/cc (by definition at 4°C iirc) therefore {d(steel) - d(water)} = 1.4 g/cc (average) and {d(glass) - d(water)} = 0.9 g/cc (average) So the steel balls should be about 1.5 x faster than the marbles of the same size. The steel could represent the iridium (density 22.56 g/cc) even though considerably lighter, while the glass could represent sand (density ~1.6 g/cc) ... (which is 100 x faster than silt) to see if they should end up in the same layer when settling in tranquil water ... ... so iridium dust should settle in water ~1400 x faster than fine (silt/clay size) ash dust and not be mixed in with it in a clay deposit. That they are mixed speaks to deposition on land or deposition over extended period of time (or both).
Now I did a quick&dirty experiment with a vase and a marble:diameter 12 mm depth 9.5" = 0.24 m time = 0.43 seconds (average of 5 falls) velocity = ~0.56 m/s (average) However this went from zero velocity so it was not falling the whole distance at a terminal velocity. If I assume it is accelerating at a constant rate in water for the fall ... d = ½at^2: a = 2d/t^2vt = at = 2d/t = 2*0.24/0.43 = ~1.12 m/s I wonder if anyone has ever worked out any formula for this and was able to predicted the results? Well there are calculator websites like this one that use the Stokes formula above. But using the 12mm glass marble from the test and viscosity from wiki ("The dynamic viscosity of water is") 8.90 10^-4 Pas = 0.00089 kg/ms it gives me v= ~90 m/s ??? off by a factor of 80? Looks like I'm missing ~2 decimal places somewhere ... time for bed morning: I can't see that my test results are off by a factor of ~80, nor that my calculations are wrong ... do I have the viscosity wrong? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : morning Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
Looks like I'm missing ~2 decimal places somewhere ... time for bed
As mentioned in Message 459, The Reynolds number determines which approximation to the nonlinear fluid dynamics equations should be used. Stoke's Law only applies to low Reynolds number situations. For particles in water, this means a diameter << 1 mm. Your marbles are too big for Stoke's law to apply. morning: I can't see that my test results are off by a factor of ~80, nor that my calculations are wrong ... do I have the viscosity wrong? If you want to scale the particle size up to the size of marbles for a demonstration, and still want Stoke's law to apply, you also will need to scale up the fluid viscosity. Something like sugar syrup, corn syrup, or cooking oil might work. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... Stoke's Law only applies to low Reynolds number situations. For particles in water, this means a diameter << 1 mm. Your marbles are too big for Stoke's law to apply. Thanks, I was going nuts trying to figure that out last night (even lost sleep over it). I was ready to go back to the more complicated formulae to see if I could work it out.
If you want to scale the particle size up to the size of marbles for a demonstration, and still want Stoke's law to apply, you also will need to scale up the fluid viscosity. Something like sugar syrup, corn syrup, or cooking oil might work. ooo ... great idea. Corn syrup and cooking oil would also give longer fall times and be easier to measure accurately. Could even compare them to validate the viscosity effect. Might need to get a taller cylinder too.
to do this experiment: Global Energy Services & Equipment | Schlumberger http://www.research-equipment.com/viscosity%20chart.html
quote: Corn oil and corn syrup have the advantage of being clear and recyclable. now I need to convert cps to kg/m*s ... abe: http://www.engr.uky.edu/~egr101/ml/ML3.pdf Another simple lab experiment to determine the determining the viscosity and mass density of an unknown fluid using Stokes’ Law. Cool Edited by RAZD, : added 2nd experimentby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2402 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Wow -- who'da thunk that people have spend entire lives working out the ability to predict such fine details. That really is something that people who have been sheltered (willfully or otherwise) from the world of science don't realize.
I was telling a family member about the CERN large hadron collider and describing it's forerunners (such as SLAC) and the shutdown of the amazing SSC in Waxahatchie. She really had no idea that humans expended SO much effort attempting to learn how things actually work. I could tell she still had no idea as to the scope of human effort planet wide related to science so just to rock her world I explained the 17 mile long tunnel and then showed her this picture:
She couldn't fathom that sort of project just to explore things we can't see. I'm pretty sure she has imagined all her young life that science operates just like the religion she knows -- new knowledge in that realm comes from some charismatic (or charlatan) fundamentalist theologian interpreting portions of the bible in some new way and argument ensues. If enough people are convinced to follow the new guy a split occurs. Groups die and are born based purely on the ability to persuade folk of some meaning of some text. Fingers are pointed. Accusations of apostasy are hurled. In the end, nothing REALLY settles it. Science is SO different from that and I have to figure out ways to show them that. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
She couldn't fathom that sort of project just to explore things we can't see.
Perhaps you mentioned it earlier (or perhaps you don't want to be too specific on a public forum), but what part of what state do you live in? I think you mentioned "the South", but that's a lot of territory. I ask because there are likely some good science labs nearby that you could take your relatives to visit. I'm pretty sure she has imagined all her young life that science operates just like the religion she knows -- new knowledge in that realm comes from some charismatic (or charlatan) fundamentalist theologian interpreting portions of the bible in some new way and argument ensues. If enough people are convinced to follow the new guy a split occurs. Groups die and are born based purely on the ability to persuade folk of some meaning of some text. Fingers are pointed. Accusations of apostasy are hurled. In the end, nothing REALLY settles it. Science is SO different from that and I have to figure out ways to show them that."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2402 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
kbertsche writes: Perhaps you mentioned it earlier (or perhaps you don't want to be too specific on a public forum), but what part of what state do you live in? I think you mentioned "the South", but that's a lot of territory. I ask because there are likely some good science labs nearby that you could take your relatives to visit. After nearly 35 years in the SF Bay area, currently reside near Chattanooga, TN. Suggestions welcome. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
After nearly 35 years in the SF Bay area, currently reside near Chattanooga, TN.
Oak Ridge National Lab would be a good field trip for your friends and relatives. There's lots of good science going on there, including the SNS, which is a high power proton linear accelerator. Suggestions welcome. JB A friend of mine teaches physics at Covenant College (Lookout Mountain, GA). I don't think they have much in the way of labs to visit, but if your SDA group would trust a conservative Presbyterian, maybe he would be willing to talk with them."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2402 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
kbertsche writes: Oak Ridge National Lab would be a good field trip for your friends and relatives. There's lots of good science going on there, including the SNS, which is a high power proton linear accelerator. The ORNL is legendary in my family due to the despicable way they treated Robert Gentry, the Seventh Day Adventist man who while doing research there proved beyond a shadow of a doubt through polonium halos that the earth was created ex nihilo just a few thousand years ago. Once he proved this conclusively and exposed their satanic lies, they blacklisted him from the scientific community and destroyed his reputation and his work. His example is proof that the scientific community is evil and isn't interested in the truth at all but will terrorize anyone brave enough to go up against it. Great story ... all true. (EDIT: I'm not always good about make sure folks get my version of humor. The above story is true only from the perspective of my family). I grew up at the base of Lookout Mountain, staring up at Covenant College soon after it became such. The only scientific instrument I was allowed as a child was a 6" reflector telescope. From my house I entertained myself watching activities through the College windows. I'm staring at it out my window now. Having such a local resource as your friend would be FANTASTIC. Appreciated.JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024