The final nail in the coffin of AGW comes from chemistry. The first two are in the previous post. (I am particularly partial to chemistry.) It lies in the term heat capacity and relative heat conductivity. (Gee, I love that kind of talk.)
Heat capacity is the amount of energy, or heat, that a body or substance can contain. The relative heat transfer rate is how fast the substance can move heat from itself to another body. Here is an example. Take two objects, one of iron and the other wood, Heat them in an oven for 10 minutes. Then pick up both pieces. Well, let's just imagine holding them.
Which will produce a more serious burn? Even without doing the experiment we know that the metal will produce a more severe injury. Metal holds more heat, pound for pound, than wood. And even though both were the same temperature, the iron will feel hotter and ultimately cause a worse burn due to the faster rate of heat transfer.
And now we find the real problem with AGW. Air has a much lower heat capacity than water. AGW, by the way, hinges on heat being trapped in the atmosphere by CO2 and then moving from the air into water to make the temperature of the oceans to increase. This increasing temperature will melt the ice caps, raise the mean temperature of the globe, and in general, make life on earth impossible. Extinction event!
We will discover that the basic link of air to water transfer seems to be in doubt. First, air cannot hold enough heat to increase the temperature of the water. Here are the details. (There are several references cited below for anyone who is interested.)
On a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 for water to 1 for air. This means that to heat 1 volume of water by 1°C it would take 3300 volumes of air that was 2°C hotter, or 1 volume of air that was about 3300°C (technically 3302 degrees) hotter or some combination of those numbers.
To complicate matters, we consider the amount of air compared to water on earth. Instead of doing the math, which you can read in the cited references, let's just summarize. The relative amounts of air heat capacity and water capacity means that to heat the entire ocean by one degree, the atmosphere would have to be between 3000 degrees and 4000 degrees hotter. The CO2 alarmists cannot propose a mechanism or method for the air to become so hot without destroying life on earth.
The problem is that the air has not increased in temperature to the extent that was expected by the CO2 concentration increments. Lacking that, we now have an alternative that the ocean is absorbing the heat and "storing" it for later, when it will unleash its havoc on the globe. Weak. It cannot heat the air higher than the ambient temperature at the air-water interface, in a "rebound" or delayed heat exchange.
One last impediment is that hot air does not transfer energy to water rapidly enough to cause the oceanic temperature gradients that are predicted. Here is another experiment. Heat a quart of water in the microwave until it boils. (100 Deg C) Then place it in an oven for 30 minutes and measure the temperature of the air and water.
Then heat the oven to 212 Deg F (100 C), turn off the oven, and place one quart of water into the oven. (Use the same containers for both experiments and the same oven to eliminate variables.) After 30 minutes measure the temperature of the air and water.
Even without doing the experiment, we know that the hot water in the oven will heat the air more than hot air will heat the water. What a bummer. "CO2-trapped" heat will not heat the oceans, even if we merely restrict our attention to the top 100 feet of water or so. We also know that warm water is lighter than cold air, so heating the top will not be an effective means of heating the entire body.
Even convection ovens prove the problem. Convection ovens do not use convection. Air must be forced to circulate in order to transfer heat to the cooler object. Oops, we hit another problem. When the ambient air temperature is lower than the water, no heat is transferred, down that is. In fact the cooler air is warmed by passing over the warmer water.
And a more pressing perplexing problem arises. When the supposedly warm air comes into contact with the cooler water, there will be some cooling of the air and concomitant warming of the water. And here our second "insurmountable" problem occurs. Warm water is less dense than cool water and thus it will not sink, but sit on top of the cooler water, acting as a bit of an insulator. (Some conductive heat transfer will occur, but that will exacerbate the problem because now there is a thicker layer of warm water between the warmth of the air and the cooler water.)
The same phenomenon will occur in reverse, in the air. When the air in contact with the water cools, it becomes more dense and the warmer air will continue to float on top of the cooler air, which is a pretty good insulator. The transmission of heat from air to water adds another impediment to the global warming scenario. The "science" of global warming seems to argue against this possibility rather than support it.
Science is certainly an inconvenient impediment to the proposed anthropomorphic global warming.
http://nov79.com/gbwm/htcap.html
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/05/09/csfe-heat-capacity-air-ocean/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/energy-content-the-heat-is-on-atmosphere-vs-ocean/
http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/http://
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Friday, May 12, 2017
Police
Imagine that you are a police officer. Take a quick peek at the following, not atypical, news lead: A standoff in Arkansas came to an end Thursday with the arrest of a suspect after a sheriff's deputy was shot dead during a traffic stop and two women were found dead....
Now you initiate a traffic stop. The ___ (fill in the blank) runs from the car. As you pursue him a 357 Magnum falls from his pocket. (Now you might not recognize the gun, but a police officer would. Pretend you are one.) The ___ (fitb) picks up the gun, points it at you, and refuses to respond to your repeated commands to drop it and get down. He turns away from you, but....
Any training that you may have had would certainly cover the "maneuver" of turning and snapping off a quick shot as the ___ (fitb) begins to flee. Sitting in a comfortable chair we have time to evaluate the situation.
First, we observed a traffic violation. (One) Second, the driver of the car begins to flee potentially eluding capture. (Two) As the officer attempts to apprehend the driver, said driver resists vigorously. (Three) Then a revolver falls from his pocket or waistband. (Potentially Four). Next he retrieves the firearm from the ground, points it at the officer, and refuses the order to drop it. (Five or Six with the threat of pointing )
Is he now turning to flee or merely feinting in preparation to fire? Five potential violations or crimes have been perpetrated in the few seconds involved. What inspires you to doubt that he will not add to the total with an attempt to shoot a police officer? After the fact we learn that he was a convicted felon and prohibited from carrying a weapon,(Seven) but that was unknown at the time, except to the driver/runner/eluder/gun-holder.
You are now the officer standing in the street. A man who is moving away (fleeing?) from you looks back over his shoulder. Oh yes all the preceding has elapsed in less than 60 seconds.
The officer in the first paragraph made the wrong decision. The details are not identical, but the scenario is. The Arkansas officer used his Taser first and it cost him his life as the subject fired.
Some in Nashville are condemning the officer for his actions in a local case. The family of the Arkansas officer would gladly trade a public protest over their still living son, father, husband, colleague, and friend, for the upcoming funeral.
Once again, if you are stopped: window down, hands on the wheel, mouth shut. Listen and nod. And live.
Now you initiate a traffic stop. The ___ (fill in the blank) runs from the car. As you pursue him a 357 Magnum falls from his pocket. (Now you might not recognize the gun, but a police officer would. Pretend you are one.) The ___ (fitb) picks up the gun, points it at you, and refuses to respond to your repeated commands to drop it and get down. He turns away from you, but....
Any training that you may have had would certainly cover the "maneuver" of turning and snapping off a quick shot as the ___ (fitb) begins to flee. Sitting in a comfortable chair we have time to evaluate the situation.
First, we observed a traffic violation. (One) Second, the driver of the car begins to flee potentially eluding capture. (Two) As the officer attempts to apprehend the driver, said driver resists vigorously. (Three) Then a revolver falls from his pocket or waistband. (Potentially Four). Next he retrieves the firearm from the ground, points it at the officer, and refuses the order to drop it. (Five or Six with the threat of pointing )
Is he now turning to flee or merely feinting in preparation to fire? Five potential violations or crimes have been perpetrated in the few seconds involved. What inspires you to doubt that he will not add to the total with an attempt to shoot a police officer? After the fact we learn that he was a convicted felon and prohibited from carrying a weapon,(Seven) but that was unknown at the time, except to the driver/runner/eluder/gun-holder.
You are now the officer standing in the street. A man who is moving away (fleeing?) from you looks back over his shoulder. Oh yes all the preceding has elapsed in less than 60 seconds.
The officer in the first paragraph made the wrong decision. The details are not identical, but the scenario is. The Arkansas officer used his Taser first and it cost him his life as the subject fired.
Some in Nashville are condemning the officer for his actions in a local case. The family of the Arkansas officer would gladly trade a public protest over their still living son, father, husband, colleague, and friend, for the upcoming funeral.
Once again, if you are stopped: window down, hands on the wheel, mouth shut. Listen and nod. And live.
Education (Amended)
Recently I was privileged to participate in a forum discussing education, what is happening, and how we might improve it. There were eight of us ranging from graduate level scientists to retired workers, to parents, to single non-parents. It was an interesting cross section of the society and experience. Here are my conclusions.
Our overall question was what should we do, and will it work? Looking at the overall picture of education, from pre-school to post-graduate it appears that the most successful educational programs are built around a single philosophical framework. Overall, the majority of successful educational enterprises are parochial in one way or another. Catholic and Protestant schools dot the landscape and seem to rise to the top of the crop in terms of most of the educational criteria that we discussed. We can include military academies and specialized sports schools, like Oak Hill Academy. And a lot of the latter two are also somewhat religiously oriented. Charter or magnet schools locally also populate the ranks of "successful programs."
One of my first observations is that schools lack a philosophy of education, specifically to teach students to think. Most "current" institutions seem to focus on telling their students what to think rather than training them how to think. The component of the parochial schools that seems to be missing in "public" schools is a spiritual aspect. Humans are tripartite, consisting of body, soul, and spirit.
Public, secular schools focus on the body, health training, physical safety, and nutrition. The second focus is on soul or mind aspects of the entity. That is academic enterprises. But this two-pronged approach will fail, as we have seen in over 50 years of "secularization" of education.
Being a three-part being is equivalent to a three-legged stool or a tricycle. If one leg or wheel is removed, the implement is very unstable and essentially worthless. It is possible to sit on a one-legged stool if the leg is situated in the center of the seat and extends perpendicular to the seat. But a three-legged stool with one leg missing is virtually impossible to balance. (I have tried.) In the same way, a trike that is missing any of its wheels is very difficult, if not impossible to ride.
Education without the spiritual component portrays the same deficient outcomes we see in many schools. One thing that is strikingly evident in a study of the founding documents of our country and Constitution, is that all of the prime movers were cognizant of the crucial and indispensable role spiritual component to both education and society. The role of religious matters in all of society is evident. They buttressed and circumscribed the role of religion in the First Amendment. It is not the "separation of church and state," but the prohibition of "establishment" of any particular church.
Please amend your consideration of the argument. I would try a French apology my me culpa (I'm culpable?) but would probably mess that us. How about "Entschuldigen Sie, bitte."
No particular church should be favored by government. But at the same time, the influence and restraint of religion in general was deemed to be a fundamental factor in developing and maintaining our society and nation.
All of the attempts at educational reform basically amount to decorating the two legs of an unstable stool. The sometimes trite mantra of "What would Jesus do?" could provide the solution to the totality of issues we discussed.
Education is the harbinger of society and culture. If we continue to produce substandard or deficient "product" from schools, we will experience continued deterioration in our society. As we excised God from education, we have denied His role in blessing and prospering our nation.
The United States was established on a reverence for, and a fear of, God. As that respect morphed into complacency, indifference, and finally contempt, the protection and provision from the Almighty has diminished. We have literally sown the wind and are reaping the whirlwind.
This discussion is critical in developing strategies to reverse the trajectory of education and our society.. Hopefully those who are investigating this issue will be able to generate some helpful and useful strategic solutions to this aspect of American life. Our existence as a nation may well depend upon it.
Our overall question was what should we do, and will it work? Looking at the overall picture of education, from pre-school to post-graduate it appears that the most successful educational programs are built around a single philosophical framework. Overall, the majority of successful educational enterprises are parochial in one way or another. Catholic and Protestant schools dot the landscape and seem to rise to the top of the crop in terms of most of the educational criteria that we discussed. We can include military academies and specialized sports schools, like Oak Hill Academy. And a lot of the latter two are also somewhat religiously oriented. Charter or magnet schools locally also populate the ranks of "successful programs."
One of my first observations is that schools lack a philosophy of education, specifically to teach students to think. Most "current" institutions seem to focus on telling their students what to think rather than training them how to think. The component of the parochial schools that seems to be missing in "public" schools is a spiritual aspect. Humans are tripartite, consisting of body, soul, and spirit.
Public, secular schools focus on the body, health training, physical safety, and nutrition. The second focus is on soul or mind aspects of the entity. That is academic enterprises. But this two-pronged approach will fail, as we have seen in over 50 years of "secularization" of education.
Being a three-part being is equivalent to a three-legged stool or a tricycle. If one leg or wheel is removed, the implement is very unstable and essentially worthless. It is possible to sit on a one-legged stool if the leg is situated in the center of the seat and extends perpendicular to the seat. But a three-legged stool with one leg missing is virtually impossible to balance. (I have tried.) In the same way, a trike that is missing any of its wheels is very difficult, if not impossible to ride.
Education without the spiritual component portrays the same deficient outcomes we see in many schools. One thing that is strikingly evident in a study of the founding documents of our country and Constitution, is that all of the prime movers were cognizant of the crucial and indispensable role spiritual component to both education and society. The role of religious matters in all of society is evident. They buttressed and circumscribed the role of religion in the First Amendment. It is not the "separation of church and state," but the prohibition of "establishment" of any particular church.
Please amend your consideration of the argument. I would try a French apology my me culpa (I'm culpable?) but would probably mess that us. How about "Entschuldigen Sie, bitte."
No particular church should be favored by government. But at the same time, the influence and restraint of religion in general was deemed to be a fundamental factor in developing and maintaining our society and nation.
All of the attempts at educational reform basically amount to decorating the two legs of an unstable stool. The sometimes trite mantra of "What would Jesus do?" could provide the solution to the totality of issues we discussed.
Education is the harbinger of society and culture. If we continue to produce substandard or deficient "product" from schools, we will experience continued deterioration in our society. As we excised God from education, we have denied His role in blessing and prospering our nation.
The United States was established on a reverence for, and a fear of, God. As that respect morphed into complacency, indifference, and finally contempt, the protection and provision from the Almighty has diminished. We have literally sown the wind and are reaping the whirlwind.
This discussion is critical in developing strategies to reverse the trajectory of education and our society.. Hopefully those who are investigating this issue will be able to generate some helpful and useful strategic solutions to this aspect of American life. Our existence as a nation may well depend upon it.
Responders
Two recent stories, very different, but related in results, stirred an old memory. One was about a lady who was hit trying to rescue or aid a dog that had been injured on the street. The second was by a critic claiming that police are taught to "make sure you get home." His thesis was that the "get home safe" mind set predisposed police officers to "shoot first and ask questions later."
This is not to comment on either of the acts or comments. My intent is to dissect emergency and uncontrolled situations and the threats inherent in such events. I have both a background and training in emergency response, both as a first responder and as a participant in hazardous conditions.
One of the primary caveats for any responder is to be of assistance and not become part of the problem. True story: A worker observed that a co-worker had collapsed in his work area. Reflexively, he rushed into the enclosure and was himself overcome by the toxic gases the first worker had encountered.
Granted, immediate response is our initial impulse. But the existence of an "event" should trigger a warning. Something caused that situation and it might be still in residence. We often see this on TV shows where our "hero" rushes to aid a colleague and is overcome by the villain who is lurking in hiding.
Make sure that you do not fall victim to that same threat whatever it is.. The few seconds required to assure the safety of the environment and situation will undoubtedly pay off in the efficacy of the rescue or extraction.
First, a few seconds is less damaging to the injured party than the minutes or even hours that might elapse before a second rescue can be mounted. (Always working in teams is one critical element of ongoing security, but at this point we are past that consideration.)
Let's count the cost. If the first responder succumbs we now have two victims. This requires two rescuers, at least, so now we have four lives in jeopardy. And the two additional responders are not available to aid others in a larger scale emergency, so two more victims are ignored or postponed. That makes six lives. A measured response would have kept the "cost" factor at two: One victim and one responder.
Think before you act. Our humanitarian friend suffered the ultimate "cost" for trying to rescue the injured dog. Calling for assistance would have been a far superior option. And incidentally, the dog died anyway.
The second situation involves an officer placed "in harm's way." If he responds in any way less than decisively, he not only risks his own well being and even life, but he is exposing the surrounding society to the threat he now faces. It is not a question of the officer "getting home," it is a matter of preventing the invasion of the homes that he is charged with protecting.
A "home safe" officer or responder means that something has gone right that day. Our mantra is, "think before you act, then act decisively."
This is not to comment on either of the acts or comments. My intent is to dissect emergency and uncontrolled situations and the threats inherent in such events. I have both a background and training in emergency response, both as a first responder and as a participant in hazardous conditions.
One of the primary caveats for any responder is to be of assistance and not become part of the problem. True story: A worker observed that a co-worker had collapsed in his work area. Reflexively, he rushed into the enclosure and was himself overcome by the toxic gases the first worker had encountered.
Granted, immediate response is our initial impulse. But the existence of an "event" should trigger a warning. Something caused that situation and it might be still in residence. We often see this on TV shows where our "hero" rushes to aid a colleague and is overcome by the villain who is lurking in hiding.
Make sure that you do not fall victim to that same threat whatever it is.. The few seconds required to assure the safety of the environment and situation will undoubtedly pay off in the efficacy of the rescue or extraction.
First, a few seconds is less damaging to the injured party than the minutes or even hours that might elapse before a second rescue can be mounted. (Always working in teams is one critical element of ongoing security, but at this point we are past that consideration.)
Let's count the cost. If the first responder succumbs we now have two victims. This requires two rescuers, at least, so now we have four lives in jeopardy. And the two additional responders are not available to aid others in a larger scale emergency, so two more victims are ignored or postponed. That makes six lives. A measured response would have kept the "cost" factor at two: One victim and one responder.
Think before you act. Our humanitarian friend suffered the ultimate "cost" for trying to rescue the injured dog. Calling for assistance would have been a far superior option. And incidentally, the dog died anyway.
The second situation involves an officer placed "in harm's way." If he responds in any way less than decisively, he not only risks his own well being and even life, but he is exposing the surrounding society to the threat he now faces. It is not a question of the officer "getting home," it is a matter of preventing the invasion of the homes that he is charged with protecting.
A "home safe" officer or responder means that something has gone right that day. Our mantra is, "think before you act, then act decisively."
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Science Deniers
Some of the most damning and derisive epithets hurled against skeptics of manmade global climate change and evolution, is "science deniers." This discussion is not to compare the relative merits of those two positions, as it has been done previously.
But the charge of "denying science" would appear to apply to certain segments of the society who tend to lean away from a more conservative position. One, is the abortion advocates or defenders. The "science" clearly proves that a baby is a human from conception until the end of gestation. And, hopefully, the debate will not continue to the postnatal existence.
The only points of differentiation between an unborn child, a newborn baby, a mature adult, and a convalescent senior citizen are their environment, their state of development or their dependency, and their value to society. None of these differentiations determines the humanness or personhood of an individual.
Therefore, any argument justifying the ending of life in any stage of existence is in defiance of science. It is a person by any scientific definition.
And the debate over sexual orientation, sexuality, gender identity, and whatever is also anti-science. Proof comes from the mouth of a defender. When he, she, or it, was confronted with the biological evidence that sex is determined by X and Y chromosomes, the proponent responded, "Why limit it to two. There are 26 letters in the alphabet!"
The "science" is a little weak there. The letters, X and Y, are not the determinants of sex, they are, excuse the term, designations that science uses for particular chromosomes. Every human has two sex determining chromosomes, one X from the mother, and the other is either X or Y from the father. Females are XX and males are XY. When they mate, each partner contributes one chromosome to the new entity. There are only two possible combinations.
So our friend from above, in propounding multiple genders, based on 24 additional genetic markers, has left science and plunged into fantasy. There are different expressions of sexuality. For instance some males have high voices, very little body hair, and slender builds. They still do, however have an XY genetic configuration.
Conversely some females have very low voices, though not as low as a growling bass, copious body hair, and robust builds. However, their genetic makeup is XX. That is science.
On a practical level, if we are going to have "identified gender" bathrooms, we actually need several dozen. Or maybe we can just revert to the old "outhouse" I grew up with. It had one hole and a hook on the inside of the door. Problem solved.
As an old scientific philosopher once affirmed. "Science is neither good nor bad. It is neutral. How you use science is what makes it good or bad." Wise man.
But the charge of "denying science" would appear to apply to certain segments of the society who tend to lean away from a more conservative position. One, is the abortion advocates or defenders. The "science" clearly proves that a baby is a human from conception until the end of gestation. And, hopefully, the debate will not continue to the postnatal existence.
The only points of differentiation between an unborn child, a newborn baby, a mature adult, and a convalescent senior citizen are their environment, their state of development or their dependency, and their value to society. None of these differentiations determines the humanness or personhood of an individual.
Therefore, any argument justifying the ending of life in any stage of existence is in defiance of science. It is a person by any scientific definition.
And the debate over sexual orientation, sexuality, gender identity, and whatever is also anti-science. Proof comes from the mouth of a defender. When he, she, or it, was confronted with the biological evidence that sex is determined by X and Y chromosomes, the proponent responded, "Why limit it to two. There are 26 letters in the alphabet!"
The "science" is a little weak there. The letters, X and Y, are not the determinants of sex, they are, excuse the term, designations that science uses for particular chromosomes. Every human has two sex determining chromosomes, one X from the mother, and the other is either X or Y from the father. Females are XX and males are XY. When they mate, each partner contributes one chromosome to the new entity. There are only two possible combinations.
So our friend from above, in propounding multiple genders, based on 24 additional genetic markers, has left science and plunged into fantasy. There are different expressions of sexuality. For instance some males have high voices, very little body hair, and slender builds. They still do, however have an XY genetic configuration.
Conversely some females have very low voices, though not as low as a growling bass, copious body hair, and robust builds. However, their genetic makeup is XX. That is science.
On a practical level, if we are going to have "identified gender" bathrooms, we actually need several dozen. Or maybe we can just revert to the old "outhouse" I grew up with. It had one hole and a hook on the inside of the door. Problem solved.
As an old scientific philosopher once affirmed. "Science is neither good nor bad. It is neutral. How you use science is what makes it good or bad." Wise man.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Airplanes and Abortion
The current pending legislation in Tennessee to ban abortions after the baby is 20 weeks old is opposed by several factions. One of the arguments cited is that nearly all of the abortions in Tennessee occur before the 16th week of gestation. Therefore the proposed ban is superfluous and extraneous. One might even postulate that it is similar to regulations in 1917 banning airplanes from flying faster than 200 mph.
With all due respect and deference to our friends, some might recall that on the "same sex" discussion years ago a similar situation presented itself. When urged to propose and support a "one man, one woman" marriage amendment to the US Constitution, a Republican President demurred. He gave two reasons for his position. First, our society would never come to that point. For thousands of years marriage had been universally held to be between one man and one woman. That would not change.
His second argument was that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) already defines marriage and it will protect against any same sex incursions. Reconsider our 200 mph airplane.
Aero technology advancements and expertise soon enabled routine flying speeds far in excess of the supposed "speed limit." The same thing happened, metaphorically to the marriage debate. Unforeseen changes in societal norms overwhelmed even legislative barriers and the country was presented with a fait accompli.
Regardless of one's position on same sex marriage, it does not result in dead babies. The 20 week abortion ban presents a gruesome possibility. Should so-called "abortion technology" proceed to the point that later abortions may be effected, a prohibition regarding that is not a superfluous or extraneous backstop.
And as an aside, anecdotal evidence of post viability abortions are easily located in stories of survivors and mothers who now feel that they were violated by the process. It may be "rare" but, like an airliner crash, it is devastating to those involved.
Tennessee and all states should implement a 20-week limit to abortions.
With all due respect and deference to our friends, some might recall that on the "same sex" discussion years ago a similar situation presented itself. When urged to propose and support a "one man, one woman" marriage amendment to the US Constitution, a Republican President demurred. He gave two reasons for his position. First, our society would never come to that point. For thousands of years marriage had been universally held to be between one man and one woman. That would not change.
His second argument was that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) already defines marriage and it will protect against any same sex incursions. Reconsider our 200 mph airplane.
Aero technology advancements and expertise soon enabled routine flying speeds far in excess of the supposed "speed limit." The same thing happened, metaphorically to the marriage debate. Unforeseen changes in societal norms overwhelmed even legislative barriers and the country was presented with a fait accompli.
Regardless of one's position on same sex marriage, it does not result in dead babies. The 20 week abortion ban presents a gruesome possibility. Should so-called "abortion technology" proceed to the point that later abortions may be effected, a prohibition regarding that is not a superfluous or extraneous backstop.
And as an aside, anecdotal evidence of post viability abortions are easily located in stories of survivors and mothers who now feel that they were violated by the process. It may be "rare" but, like an airliner crash, it is devastating to those involved.
Tennessee and all states should implement a 20-week limit to abortions.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Vernal Equinox
For those who do not know, VE is the day that the sun is directly over the equator on its way north go provide summer for the northern hemisphere and winter for the southern boys. It is also know as (AKA) the first day of spring.
You may wonder why I seem to have a fixation on the vernal equinox. To be frank, I do too. Then Easter came. Easter is celebrated on different dates every year. Did you ever wonder why?
Easter was "fixed" by the early church when someone realized that the Passover did not always fall on Friday. The full moon after or on the vernal equinox starts a 14 day countdown to Passover. It can be any day, which left the church with a minor conundrum because they wanted to celebrate the resurrection on a Sunday.
The date of Easter Day is usually the first Sunday after the first Full Moon occurring on or after the March equinox. This means that it can vary from March 22 to April 25, depending upon the phase of the moon. (I have always wanted to say that and have it be true.)
So the vernal equinox begins the countdown to Easter when the equinox and the full moon are not on a Sunday. If they are, Easter is here. If not, we wait for the full moon, then the next Sunday. This year the full moon, and also Passover was on April 11, a Tuesday. So Sunday, April 16 was Easter or Resurrection Day.
Aren't you glad to get that straightened out? Vernal equinox, then full moon, then Easter Sunday. Simple.
I heard a guy named J. John who commented that, "We are Easter Christians in a Good Friday world."
https://www.gotquestions.org/date-easter-determined.html
You may wonder why I seem to have a fixation on the vernal equinox. To be frank, I do too. Then Easter came. Easter is celebrated on different dates every year. Did you ever wonder why?
Easter was "fixed" by the early church when someone realized that the Passover did not always fall on Friday. The full moon after or on the vernal equinox starts a 14 day countdown to Passover. It can be any day, which left the church with a minor conundrum because they wanted to celebrate the resurrection on a Sunday.
The date of Easter Day is usually the first Sunday after the first Full Moon occurring on or after the March equinox. This means that it can vary from March 22 to April 25, depending upon the phase of the moon. (I have always wanted to say that and have it be true.)
So the vernal equinox begins the countdown to Easter when the equinox and the full moon are not on a Sunday. If they are, Easter is here. If not, we wait for the full moon, then the next Sunday. This year the full moon, and also Passover was on April 11, a Tuesday. So Sunday, April 16 was Easter or Resurrection Day.
Aren't you glad to get that straightened out? Vernal equinox, then full moon, then Easter Sunday. Simple.
I heard a guy named J. John who commented that, "We are Easter Christians in a Good Friday world."
https://www.gotquestions.org/date-easter-determined.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)