Let me refer to the Genesis of the Solar System post. (Sorry about it being so long. That is the edited version, incidentally.) When confronted with such a dichotomy as the pressure–gravity barrier, I occasionally have people respond like this. They do not know how, or why, or where it (gas giants in this instance) came from, but it is here. So it must have happened. In other words, it is a fait accompli and they do not need to explain it. They just observe, take data, note regularities, make hypotheses, and test them.
The last sentence is exactly the role and operation of “science.” It does not make things happen. It observes what happens and tries to find an explanation for why it happens. This is “real” science as opposed to historical science which tried to explain things that “are” but which cannot be examined.
Take the gas giants, for instance. Since we know that gravitational energy can hold them together, example Jupiter, then we theorize that the gravitational energy pulled it together and voila` here we are. Fait accompli. The same argument is applied to evolution in general. We see that there are almost uncountable numbers of different types of life and we can trace (supposedly) the trail from simple to elegant and complicated, so therefore they must have evolved. Fait accompli.
When confronted with the staggering barriers to such an occurrence, they say, “Well, it must have happened, because ‘here we are.’” Fait accompli.
When discussing this very problem with a PhD student and asking about Sagan’s comment that the chances of evolution occurring were one with two hundred billion zeros behind it, he glibly replied, “That is the chance of it happening AGAIN.”
I had to agree, that it is impossible for it to happen again, but how did it occur the first time? His answer is classic. “We cannot know that, because we cannot observe it.” He did not see the disconnect between his statement and his belief in (the first) evolution.
This is not to belittle nor demean people who believe evolution. (Are convinced that it is true, actually.) But to help “creation warriors” to know how to approach the discussion. We can focus on facts and not on speculation. This belief–data “barrier” is what we must breach. It does work. I have read and talked to several creation experts who started out to prove that creation was wrong. As they encountered the factual data and not just propaganda, they were convinced that creation fits the data better than macro-evolution.
I just wish we could have a “fait accompli” and everyone would believe.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Genesis of the Solar System
Disclaimer of sorts: This is kind of long and technical. I tried to get it into "layman's language" and will let you be the judge of that.
Earlier (Thoughts on Winter Solstice) we considered the “luck” or design of the earth in regard to the tilt of its axis. It is tilted at 23.5 degrees which is just about ideal for life as we know it. But let’s look at a broader picture and consider the whole solar system.
The solar system revolves around a ball of hydrogen that is essentially a giant fusion bomb. Then there are nine, plus or minus, depending upon whim and definition, planets that orbit around the sun. All nine of these are lined up like peas on a platter and not scattered like the iconic atomic model that we often see with electrons whirling around it, completely encasing the center nucleus. The solar system resembles a frisbee and not a giant ball.
According to planetary cosmology theory, this whole thing began as a giant explosion, the Big Bang, that flung newly formed matter (out of nothing, it seems) out into the universe. That matter consisted mainly of hydrogen gas and a few “heavier” elements. By “heavier” we mean all of the other elements. (Incidentally, the “explosion” theory of elemental formation stops at iron. Nothing heavier can be made in “natural” or unguided atomic fusion reactions. But we will leave that for another day.)
There are approximately 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6 times 10 to the 23) stars in the universe, so there must have been that many discreet “globs” (scientific term) of matter ejected from the original explosion. If it had been evenly scattered, there would be nothing but the original splash of matter evenly distributed around the solar system. According to the theory, the particles in the globs attracted the other particles in the globs and began to coalesce into discreet bodies. Take the sun, for instance.
It was mostly hydrogen and the hydrogen molecules began to attract, by gravity, each other and begin to condense into a ball. As the theory goes, the mass became so great and hot that the gravitational forces smashed the hydrogen molecules into each other with such force that it began a fusion reaction that we know of as the hydrogen bomb.
Just for reference, any significant amount of hydrogen gas that we can “ignite” in that manner as in the hydrogen bomb uses an atomic bomb as the trigger. The atomic bomb forces the hydrogen molecules together with enough force to “fuse” them into a heavier element, helium. This smashing theoretically can continue with the heavier elements smashing into each other to make even heavier ones. (Up to iron, that is. More on that another time.)
A small disclaimer here. We cannot do that with actual hydrogen. Our fusion reactions are completed using a “heavy” hydrogen called deuterium that has a proton and a neutron. Natural hydrogen is only one proton. We cannot force two single hydrogen atoms together and make them “stick.” Theoretically the process would require at least three and probably four hydrogens, four protons, and slam them together in such a way that two of the protons change into neutrons and then combine with the other two protons to make helium. Helium usually has two protons and two neutrons. (He 4) He 3 (two protons, one neutron) is very rare on earth and probably the sun.
The compression of the hydrogen gas to produce the massive ball that can burst into nuclear fusion causes heat. We can measure the interior of the sun and it is roughly 15.6 million degrees K. The heat helps to initiate the fusion reaction, but also causes a problem for our theory.
Follow this reasoning. As we put more air molecules into a container, two things happen. Either the container will expand, like a balloon, or the pressure inside the container will increase, like a basketball. And when the pressure goes up, the temperature does too. That is the explanation as to why the sun can “catch fire.” The extreme pressure inside of the compressed ball of hydrogen is high enough, combined with the elevated temperature, to initiate an atomic reaction.
And you can begin to see the problem. Back to the beginning. The glob of hydrogen begins to collapse due to gravitational attractions. As this happens, the pressure of the coalesced gas also increases, resisting further compression. Without any constraint, like the shell of the basketball, the gas will spread out until the outward gas pressure is equal to the inward gravitational attractions. It will become a static ball of gas, neither expanding nor contracting. End of solar story. Cold, dark, and silent.
Just for the record the gravitational attractions must be very high to hold the hydrogen molecules together. Did I forget to mention that they are in motion? They are zipping around like a bunch of super balls in a blender. Only they do not get chopped up. To hold them together takes a very strong force. There is very little hydrogen in the atmosphere of earth, because the hydrogen is so energetic that it is escaping the earth’s gravity into open space. So for our glob to hold together, it would have to generate more gravitational force than the earth does. See the problem?
And as the glob compresses, the temperature increases, increasing the amount of force needed just to keep it together, let alone continue to compress. There is no scientific answer as to how this pressure-temperature barrier could be breached naturally. Not only do we have no sun, there are not any stars either. And many of them are much larger than old Sol. Once you get them together, the nuclear forces involved in the reactions can maintain the “ball” but there is not mechanism for getting to the top of the hill.
No sun, no solar system. But just for kicks, we will take a quick look the problems with the solar system generation. First, recall that the first four planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars are called “rocky” planets, meaning that they consist of heavier elements. The rest, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are more gaseous planets. They have very little if any iron and silicon or the other elements needed to make a “solid” planet. They are mainly compressed, frozen gasses.
How is it that the heavier elements concentrated in the inner part of the solar system while a giant mass of hydrogen was at the center, and also in the outer rings? Did the sun attract the elements into the planetary positions from “outer space?” If it did, why did it stop attracting after it had “pulled” them all the way in from out there? They should have just fallen into the sun after coming from so far away. You remember, I am sure, that the closer things are together, the stronger the attraction is. So to pull them from way out with “weak” attraction, then stop when they are closer makes no sense.
And then how did they form bodies? Gravity again? Again we have the temperature-pressure barrier to overcome. But just in the chance that it did, we still have some problems. First remember the “platter” configuration? How is it that the sun pulled all 9 planets and all of the asteroids only on a single plane?
More problems arise when we think of the planets themselves. How did they begin to rotate? And the sun, itself, also rotates, like the earth and the planets. Getting all of this motion going would require some sophisticated computer calculations. And it was just random. Humm.
Kind of looks like some design was required from the initial formation of matter to the final configuration of the planets orbiting a burning sun. And Carl Sagan took us farther into the realm of believability when he stated that the chances are about one to the two hundred billion power that man could have evolved as he did. (The number is 2 with two hundred billion zeros behind it as opposed to the 23 above.)
And we have not even considered the tilt of the earth, or the problems with attracting a viable atmosphere. We have about 20% oxygen with 79% nitrogen and 1% everything else. Changing the oxygen to nitrogen ratio by more than 2 or 3 points would render the earth uninhabitable.
And we have only begun to plum the wonders of design. If the earth were 1% closer or farther from the sun–no life. If the moon were not there, no life and no world. Just luck, I guess.
The incredibly complex system that we see when we look anywhere in the natural world demands an intelligent design. The real science deniers are those who see the design but refuse to acknowledge it.
Disclaimer–of sorts: I did a Google search on star formation and every one that I could find said that once the mass of gas becomes large enough for the gravity to overcome gas pressure, the star will continue to contract, heat, and eventually begin the fusion reaction. Not one mentioned the barrier of getting past the pressure–gravity boundary. They simply assumed that it happened and once the cloud was massive enough, it would form a star.
Just for kicks, I am including a nice little two page PDF that gives all of the formulas for the gravity–pressure problem. If anyone is math oriented and wishes to flagellate themselves with the formulas, have at it. The author proved that Jupiter was stable because the internal gravity exceeds the gas pressure and it remains a stable planet. How it got there is omitted or ignored.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/math/gravity_vs_pressure.pdf
Earlier (Thoughts on Winter Solstice) we considered the “luck” or design of the earth in regard to the tilt of its axis. It is tilted at 23.5 degrees which is just about ideal for life as we know it. But let’s look at a broader picture and consider the whole solar system.
The solar system revolves around a ball of hydrogen that is essentially a giant fusion bomb. Then there are nine, plus or minus, depending upon whim and definition, planets that orbit around the sun. All nine of these are lined up like peas on a platter and not scattered like the iconic atomic model that we often see with electrons whirling around it, completely encasing the center nucleus. The solar system resembles a frisbee and not a giant ball.
According to planetary cosmology theory, this whole thing began as a giant explosion, the Big Bang, that flung newly formed matter (out of nothing, it seems) out into the universe. That matter consisted mainly of hydrogen gas and a few “heavier” elements. By “heavier” we mean all of the other elements. (Incidentally, the “explosion” theory of elemental formation stops at iron. Nothing heavier can be made in “natural” or unguided atomic fusion reactions. But we will leave that for another day.)
There are approximately 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6 times 10 to the 23) stars in the universe, so there must have been that many discreet “globs” (scientific term) of matter ejected from the original explosion. If it had been evenly scattered, there would be nothing but the original splash of matter evenly distributed around the solar system. According to the theory, the particles in the globs attracted the other particles in the globs and began to coalesce into discreet bodies. Take the sun, for instance.
It was mostly hydrogen and the hydrogen molecules began to attract, by gravity, each other and begin to condense into a ball. As the theory goes, the mass became so great and hot that the gravitational forces smashed the hydrogen molecules into each other with such force that it began a fusion reaction that we know of as the hydrogen bomb.
Just for reference, any significant amount of hydrogen gas that we can “ignite” in that manner as in the hydrogen bomb uses an atomic bomb as the trigger. The atomic bomb forces the hydrogen molecules together with enough force to “fuse” them into a heavier element, helium. This smashing theoretically can continue with the heavier elements smashing into each other to make even heavier ones. (Up to iron, that is. More on that another time.)
A small disclaimer here. We cannot do that with actual hydrogen. Our fusion reactions are completed using a “heavy” hydrogen called deuterium that has a proton and a neutron. Natural hydrogen is only one proton. We cannot force two single hydrogen atoms together and make them “stick.” Theoretically the process would require at least three and probably four hydrogens, four protons, and slam them together in such a way that two of the protons change into neutrons and then combine with the other two protons to make helium. Helium usually has two protons and two neutrons. (He 4) He 3 (two protons, one neutron) is very rare on earth and probably the sun.
The compression of the hydrogen gas to produce the massive ball that can burst into nuclear fusion causes heat. We can measure the interior of the sun and it is roughly 15.6 million degrees K. The heat helps to initiate the fusion reaction, but also causes a problem for our theory.
Follow this reasoning. As we put more air molecules into a container, two things happen. Either the container will expand, like a balloon, or the pressure inside the container will increase, like a basketball. And when the pressure goes up, the temperature does too. That is the explanation as to why the sun can “catch fire.” The extreme pressure inside of the compressed ball of hydrogen is high enough, combined with the elevated temperature, to initiate an atomic reaction.
And you can begin to see the problem. Back to the beginning. The glob of hydrogen begins to collapse due to gravitational attractions. As this happens, the pressure of the coalesced gas also increases, resisting further compression. Without any constraint, like the shell of the basketball, the gas will spread out until the outward gas pressure is equal to the inward gravitational attractions. It will become a static ball of gas, neither expanding nor contracting. End of solar story. Cold, dark, and silent.
Just for the record the gravitational attractions must be very high to hold the hydrogen molecules together. Did I forget to mention that they are in motion? They are zipping around like a bunch of super balls in a blender. Only they do not get chopped up. To hold them together takes a very strong force. There is very little hydrogen in the atmosphere of earth, because the hydrogen is so energetic that it is escaping the earth’s gravity into open space. So for our glob to hold together, it would have to generate more gravitational force than the earth does. See the problem?
And as the glob compresses, the temperature increases, increasing the amount of force needed just to keep it together, let alone continue to compress. There is no scientific answer as to how this pressure-temperature barrier could be breached naturally. Not only do we have no sun, there are not any stars either. And many of them are much larger than old Sol. Once you get them together, the nuclear forces involved in the reactions can maintain the “ball” but there is not mechanism for getting to the top of the hill.
No sun, no solar system. But just for kicks, we will take a quick look the problems with the solar system generation. First, recall that the first four planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars are called “rocky” planets, meaning that they consist of heavier elements. The rest, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are more gaseous planets. They have very little if any iron and silicon or the other elements needed to make a “solid” planet. They are mainly compressed, frozen gasses.
How is it that the heavier elements concentrated in the inner part of the solar system while a giant mass of hydrogen was at the center, and also in the outer rings? Did the sun attract the elements into the planetary positions from “outer space?” If it did, why did it stop attracting after it had “pulled” them all the way in from out there? They should have just fallen into the sun after coming from so far away. You remember, I am sure, that the closer things are together, the stronger the attraction is. So to pull them from way out with “weak” attraction, then stop when they are closer makes no sense.
And then how did they form bodies? Gravity again? Again we have the temperature-pressure barrier to overcome. But just in the chance that it did, we still have some problems. First remember the “platter” configuration? How is it that the sun pulled all 9 planets and all of the asteroids only on a single plane?
More problems arise when we think of the planets themselves. How did they begin to rotate? And the sun, itself, also rotates, like the earth and the planets. Getting all of this motion going would require some sophisticated computer calculations. And it was just random. Humm.
Kind of looks like some design was required from the initial formation of matter to the final configuration of the planets orbiting a burning sun. And Carl Sagan took us farther into the realm of believability when he stated that the chances are about one to the two hundred billion power that man could have evolved as he did. (The number is 2 with two hundred billion zeros behind it as opposed to the 23 above.)
And we have not even considered the tilt of the earth, or the problems with attracting a viable atmosphere. We have about 20% oxygen with 79% nitrogen and 1% everything else. Changing the oxygen to nitrogen ratio by more than 2 or 3 points would render the earth uninhabitable.
And we have only begun to plum the wonders of design. If the earth were 1% closer or farther from the sun–no life. If the moon were not there, no life and no world. Just luck, I guess.
The incredibly complex system that we see when we look anywhere in the natural world demands an intelligent design. The real science deniers are those who see the design but refuse to acknowledge it.
Disclaimer–of sorts: I did a Google search on star formation and every one that I could find said that once the mass of gas becomes large enough for the gravity to overcome gas pressure, the star will continue to contract, heat, and eventually begin the fusion reaction. Not one mentioned the barrier of getting past the pressure–gravity boundary. They simply assumed that it happened and once the cloud was massive enough, it would form a star.
Just for kicks, I am including a nice little two page PDF that gives all of the formulas for the gravity–pressure problem. If anyone is math oriented and wishes to flagellate themselves with the formulas, have at it. The author proved that Jupiter was stable because the internal gravity exceeds the gas pressure and it remains a stable planet. How it got there is omitted or ignored.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/math/gravity_vs_pressure.pdf
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Three (or more) Party System
During the past election some have lamented the travesty of our two party system. They have advocated multiple parties to better represent all citizens of the nation. There are several instances of such political systems, but we can see a very illustrative version of what usually happens in Syria.
First we have the government faction, backing President al-Assad. Opposing them are a group that the media calls the “rebels.” They have been attempting to overthrow the present regime for years. Add to that the ISIS group that originated variously in Iran and Iraq. Reading the news is both interesting and confusing. Adding to the fun is the fact that Russia backs al-Assad and the United States backs the rebels.
So when battles are reported, ISIS is attacked by both of the opponents and when they are defeated, the “allies” then fight each other for control of the “liberated” territory. If we had a three or more party system, every Presidential election would be finished in the House of Representatives. And if that august body body is likewise fractured, we might never elect another President. Welcome to the Banana Republic of North America.
Two parties seem to work pretty well.
First we have the government faction, backing President al-Assad. Opposing them are a group that the media calls the “rebels.” They have been attempting to overthrow the present regime for years. Add to that the ISIS group that originated variously in Iran and Iraq. Reading the news is both interesting and confusing. Adding to the fun is the fact that Russia backs al-Assad and the United States backs the rebels.
So when battles are reported, ISIS is attacked by both of the opponents and when they are defeated, the “allies” then fight each other for control of the “liberated” territory. If we had a three or more party system, every Presidential election would be finished in the House of Representatives. And if that august body body is likewise fractured, we might never elect another President. Welcome to the Banana Republic of North America.
Two parties seem to work pretty well.
Happy Holiday or Merry Christmas
“Merry Christmas or Happy Holiday?” That is the question often asked these days. As one of the “older generation,” who, according to the media, prefer the “Merry Christmas” greeting, let me propose a solution.
Let the “Holiday” guys pick any day of the year and designate it Happy Holiday Day. Then we will see how many pick up on that, how soon it becomes a national–federal holiday, and how fast it becomes a standard holiday over most of the planet. As we know, Christmas was designated as a remembrance, a memorial to the birth of Christ.
Are those who refuse to say, “Christmas,” ignoring or negating this life? For the “tolerant” who wish to never offend other beliefs, consider how often they “mask” their holidays. Instead of Ramadan, Hanukkah. Kwanza, and others, do they ever refer to their celebration as “holiday?”
This is not to belittle any other celebration. There are different “thanksgiving” days in other countries, as well as independence days. We do not offend or deny others when we celebrate our day. Labor Day, Memorial Day, ML King Day, even Valentine’s day are celebrated without offense. So why disguise Christmas as if it were unwholesome or even shameful? “Happy New Year” seems to escape unscathed.
Practical suggestion: If anyone is offended by Christmas, let him work a full day and just ignore the rest of us. Just for the record, I have never missed a day of work for Cinco de Mayo, nor have I been offended at those who celebrate it.
Did you ever hear about the Battleship Mayonnaise? It sailed into the Cuban harbor of Havana. It was am endearing nickname the sailors called the Maine. Some type of bomb exploded on-board and the ship was destroyed. A terse message went out all across the land. “They sinko de Mayo!” And the Spanish American War was on.
Good day and Merry Christmas. (Notice for Facebook censors: The previous historical reference was fanciful, or false news. Please do not terminate my account as it was whimsical satire.)
Let the “Holiday” guys pick any day of the year and designate it Happy Holiday Day. Then we will see how many pick up on that, how soon it becomes a national–federal holiday, and how fast it becomes a standard holiday over most of the planet. As we know, Christmas was designated as a remembrance, a memorial to the birth of Christ.
Are those who refuse to say, “Christmas,” ignoring or negating this life? For the “tolerant” who wish to never offend other beliefs, consider how often they “mask” their holidays. Instead of Ramadan, Hanukkah. Kwanza, and others, do they ever refer to their celebration as “holiday?”
This is not to belittle any other celebration. There are different “thanksgiving” days in other countries, as well as independence days. We do not offend or deny others when we celebrate our day. Labor Day, Memorial Day, ML King Day, even Valentine’s day are celebrated without offense. So why disguise Christmas as if it were unwholesome or even shameful? “Happy New Year” seems to escape unscathed.
Practical suggestion: If anyone is offended by Christmas, let him work a full day and just ignore the rest of us. Just for the record, I have never missed a day of work for Cinco de Mayo, nor have I been offended at those who celebrate it.
Did you ever hear about the Battleship Mayonnaise? It sailed into the Cuban harbor of Havana. It was am endearing nickname the sailors called the Maine. Some type of bomb exploded on-board and the ship was destroyed. A terse message went out all across the land. “They sinko de Mayo!” And the Spanish American War was on.
Good day and Merry Christmas. (Notice for Facebook censors: The previous historical reference was fanciful, or false news. Please do not terminate my account as it was whimsical satire.)
Monday, December 19, 2016
Baby, It's Cold Outside (Non-political comment)
Have you ever heard anyone say that it is too cold to snow? Well, that is right and wrong. Actually the statement is “true” but it is a consequence and not a cause. I am a chemist. You have to humor me on occasion.
Snow, as we probably all know comes from water vapor (not steam that we see, but water in the gas form–invisible) in the air. Most often we refer to the “humidity,” when actually we mean the relative humidity. Now for the chemistry.
The amount of water vapor that the air can “hold” is dependent on the temperature. Warm air can hold more water. So when you dry your hair, you usually use a “dryer” that warms the air, making it thirstier, if you please. More water can evaporate in warm air than in cold. The “relative” part comes from comparing the actual amount of water vapor in the air compared to the theoretical amount that it can hold according to its temperature.
When it reaches 100% relative humidity it is ready to rain. Any change, like more water evaporating, or more likely, a drop in temperature will cause the water to condense and fall to the earth. This is precipitation and snow if the temperature is right.
When the air temperature is below freezing, the condensation is frozen. Rain that is cooled and condenses is hail or sleet. Water vapor that changes directly into a solid is snow. As more water molecules accumulate on the flakes, they eventually become heavy enough to fall to earth. Big globby flakes are formed when there is a lot of water in the air, i.e. warmer air. If it condenses very rapidly when cooled to a lower temperature, it will result in big flakes.
If the actual amount of water vapor and the relative limit are lower, or it is cooled more slowly, the water solidifies more slowly and forms smaller flakes. This is why some snow is big heavy flakes and other is light and fluffy.
Now to the temperature. As the temperature decreases, the amount of water vapor the air can hold also decreases. At temperatures below 0 degrees F, or so, there is very little water vapor, so even cooling it farther causes very little snow to form. Or, it is too cold to snow.
One of the common scenarios for snow is “warm” moist air is in place and a cold mass drives under it, raising it up and cooling it at the same time. (Cold air is heavier, denser than warm air.) As the air continues to cool, the amount of water left in the air is less and the snow diminishes. Eventually it will stop as the air becomes so dry that further temperature depression does not produce precipitation.
Occasionally a cold air mass is in place and a warm mass rides up over it. The cooling air then can produce snow. Most of the “really cold air” snow is caused by this rather than the previous method described. A “blizzard” consisting of extremely large amounts of snow accompanied by very cold temperatures and high winds usually results from this situation. If the “warm mass” has a good supply behind it, the snow can last for a longer time as the water is “pumped” up over the cold air mass to replenish the water that has condensed.
Too cold to snow? Not really, but once the water vapor is removed from the air, even much colder temperatures cannot “wring,” if you please, more water from the dry air. Hence the observation that it rarely snows in really cold weather.
You may now return to your normal web surfing. Keep warm.
Snow, as we probably all know comes from water vapor (not steam that we see, but water in the gas form–invisible) in the air. Most often we refer to the “humidity,” when actually we mean the relative humidity. Now for the chemistry.
The amount of water vapor that the air can “hold” is dependent on the temperature. Warm air can hold more water. So when you dry your hair, you usually use a “dryer” that warms the air, making it thirstier, if you please. More water can evaporate in warm air than in cold. The “relative” part comes from comparing the actual amount of water vapor in the air compared to the theoretical amount that it can hold according to its temperature.
When it reaches 100% relative humidity it is ready to rain. Any change, like more water evaporating, or more likely, a drop in temperature will cause the water to condense and fall to the earth. This is precipitation and snow if the temperature is right.
When the air temperature is below freezing, the condensation is frozen. Rain that is cooled and condenses is hail or sleet. Water vapor that changes directly into a solid is snow. As more water molecules accumulate on the flakes, they eventually become heavy enough to fall to earth. Big globby flakes are formed when there is a lot of water in the air, i.e. warmer air. If it condenses very rapidly when cooled to a lower temperature, it will result in big flakes.
If the actual amount of water vapor and the relative limit are lower, or it is cooled more slowly, the water solidifies more slowly and forms smaller flakes. This is why some snow is big heavy flakes and other is light and fluffy.
Now to the temperature. As the temperature decreases, the amount of water vapor the air can hold also decreases. At temperatures below 0 degrees F, or so, there is very little water vapor, so even cooling it farther causes very little snow to form. Or, it is too cold to snow.
One of the common scenarios for snow is “warm” moist air is in place and a cold mass drives under it, raising it up and cooling it at the same time. (Cold air is heavier, denser than warm air.) As the air continues to cool, the amount of water left in the air is less and the snow diminishes. Eventually it will stop as the air becomes so dry that further temperature depression does not produce precipitation.
Occasionally a cold air mass is in place and a warm mass rides up over it. The cooling air then can produce snow. Most of the “really cold air” snow is caused by this rather than the previous method described. A “blizzard” consisting of extremely large amounts of snow accompanied by very cold temperatures and high winds usually results from this situation. If the “warm mass” has a good supply behind it, the snow can last for a longer time as the water is “pumped” up over the cold air mass to replenish the water that has condensed.
Too cold to snow? Not really, but once the water vapor is removed from the air, even much colder temperatures cannot “wring,” if you please, more water from the dry air. Hence the observation that it rarely snows in really cold weather.
You may now return to your normal web surfing. Keep warm.
Thursday, December 8, 2016
Change the World Series
What a travesty the World Series has become. It does not crown the most popular, or sometimes even the team with the most wins in a season. It comes down to an archaic method of choosing the champion handed down from over 100 years ago. The hue and cry has begun. Change the World Series!
For those who are not as “into” sports as others, the World Series begins with a playoff series in which season records are completely ignored, except for choosing the opponent in the elimination games. A “small” market team can be matched against a “big” market team with no handicap or bonus.
Take this year’s finals for instance. Cleveland was ultimately matched against Chicago. Chicago’s population is approximately 2.7 million while Cleveland is roughly 400,000. With all those extra “voters” Chicago should have had some sort of advantage. Just last year, Kansas City defeated New York, a terrible travesty for democratic baseball.
The arguments are becoming as incessant, irritating, incoherent, and, well, ignorant as those against the Electoral College. You would think that people did not know how such things were conducted. Choosing a World Series champion, like the President, is a specific protocol. The “winner” is the one who fulfills those requirements. All other considerations are statistical considerations for someone, sometime to study. But they do not have a bearing on the outcome.
For instance, maybe we should re-examine the best 4 of 7 criteria. Why not use the total runs scored in the series? That would demonstrate a superior quality of play. This year that total was a tie, at 27. Maybe we should choose “runs scored at home versus on the road.” Nah, that is too much like soccer. Nobody understands that. And besides, they play a different number of home and away, so that would be an unfair advantage for the team with four away games.
Also akin to soccer would be the margin of victory in each game. But, alas, that also came out to be equal over the series. Wait, I have it. Let’s look at the games won margin. The first game began, of course, with zero for both teams. Then Cleveland won it, so their games won margin was 1. The Cubs erased that lead in game two, so each team got a zero. Cumulative was Cleveland “led by” 1, Chicago, 0 after game two. Game three was won by Cleveland, giving them another one game lead and total of ledby 2 to nothing for Chicago.
By winning game four Cleveland, at 3-1, increased its ledby total to 4 to nothing. Game five had Chicago fighting back to win and cut the lead, 3-2, to 1, but the total of ledby is now 5 to nothing, Cleveland. Game six ended with the teams tied at 3-3, so the ledby score remained 5 to 0 in favor of Cleveland. We all know that Chicago won game seven giving them a 1 in the ledby category. 5-1
Cleveland was clearly the winner of the series, 5 to 1, in the ledby category. In the Presidential election, Mrs. Clinton won some states by larger margins than Mr. Trump won his states, but Mr. Trump won more states.
And here, in the opinion of some, is the genius of the Founding Fathers. They devised a weighted system to avoid imposing a disadvantage on either the small states or the large states. The “big” guys get more weight because they represent more voters. But the “small” states are not overwhelmed by the sheer force of numbers. And everyone in between has an equally, weighted impact on the decision. Mrs. Clinton made the tactical mistake, or perhaps “liberal” handicap, of putting the focus on population centers and ignoring the “grass roots” or “fly over” areas.
The Cubs, to their credit, hit all the right balls and bases and pulled it out in overtime. The system performed as it was designed. The only challenge is to devise some extraneous measure to impose upon the decision process like the ledby score. The Electoral College has functioned to produce a President. It is a carefully reasoned and designed process to give everyone a significant “say” in the election.
Let’s keep the World Series the same...and the Electoral College. Cubs win! Cubs win! Cubs win!
For those who are not as “into” sports as others, the World Series begins with a playoff series in which season records are completely ignored, except for choosing the opponent in the elimination games. A “small” market team can be matched against a “big” market team with no handicap or bonus.
Take this year’s finals for instance. Cleveland was ultimately matched against Chicago. Chicago’s population is approximately 2.7 million while Cleveland is roughly 400,000. With all those extra “voters” Chicago should have had some sort of advantage. Just last year, Kansas City defeated New York, a terrible travesty for democratic baseball.
The arguments are becoming as incessant, irritating, incoherent, and, well, ignorant as those against the Electoral College. You would think that people did not know how such things were conducted. Choosing a World Series champion, like the President, is a specific protocol. The “winner” is the one who fulfills those requirements. All other considerations are statistical considerations for someone, sometime to study. But they do not have a bearing on the outcome.
For instance, maybe we should re-examine the best 4 of 7 criteria. Why not use the total runs scored in the series? That would demonstrate a superior quality of play. This year that total was a tie, at 27. Maybe we should choose “runs scored at home versus on the road.” Nah, that is too much like soccer. Nobody understands that. And besides, they play a different number of home and away, so that would be an unfair advantage for the team with four away games.
Also akin to soccer would be the margin of victory in each game. But, alas, that also came out to be equal over the series. Wait, I have it. Let’s look at the games won margin. The first game began, of course, with zero for both teams. Then Cleveland won it, so their games won margin was 1. The Cubs erased that lead in game two, so each team got a zero. Cumulative was Cleveland “led by” 1, Chicago, 0 after game two. Game three was won by Cleveland, giving them another one game lead and total of ledby 2 to nothing for Chicago.
By winning game four Cleveland, at 3-1, increased its ledby total to 4 to nothing. Game five had Chicago fighting back to win and cut the lead, 3-2, to 1, but the total of ledby is now 5 to nothing, Cleveland. Game six ended with the teams tied at 3-3, so the ledby score remained 5 to 0 in favor of Cleveland. We all know that Chicago won game seven giving them a 1 in the ledby category. 5-1
Cleveland was clearly the winner of the series, 5 to 1, in the ledby category. In the Presidential election, Mrs. Clinton won some states by larger margins than Mr. Trump won his states, but Mr. Trump won more states.
And here, in the opinion of some, is the genius of the Founding Fathers. They devised a weighted system to avoid imposing a disadvantage on either the small states or the large states. The “big” guys get more weight because they represent more voters. But the “small” states are not overwhelmed by the sheer force of numbers. And everyone in between has an equally, weighted impact on the decision. Mrs. Clinton made the tactical mistake, or perhaps “liberal” handicap, of putting the focus on population centers and ignoring the “grass roots” or “fly over” areas.
The Cubs, to their credit, hit all the right balls and bases and pulled it out in overtime. The system performed as it was designed. The only challenge is to devise some extraneous measure to impose upon the decision process like the ledby score. The Electoral College has functioned to produce a President. It is a carefully reasoned and designed process to give everyone a significant “say” in the election.
Let’s keep the World Series the same...and the Electoral College. Cubs win! Cubs win! Cubs win!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)