Congratulation Quotes For Promotion

The white rock

Among the variety of forms, reliefs, landscapes with which we are gratified our beautiful planet, the most beautiful and impressive, no doubt, count the glacial landscapes.
Today, only 2% of surface water is in the form of ice, but this small percentage is enough for 10% of that surface is covered by ice. This percentage largely corresponds to the great inland ice, also called inslandsis , Greenland and Antarctica.
Outside these areas, can be found linked to high altitude, high mountain, associated with the most incredible demonstration of Earth's internal forces, such as the great Cordilleras. Andes, Alps, the Himalayas.
However, Quaternary Geology tells us that thousands of years ago glaciers were related to lower latitudes and altitudes. Glaciers are and have been major shapers and builders of relief. They were and are powerful architects. Think of the majestic valleys U, moraines and other landforms that we see in a trip to the mountain. And this ability is linked with an edifying quality of glaciers, ice, maybe we go unnoticed in a first observation: the ability of ice to flow. And although the ice is a solid, is able to "flow" just like a liquid. And this quality can be explained from a rheological point of view, the science of materials is the study of relations between the stresses and strains.
First, we will deal with how to form a glacier.

NOURISHES WHAT IS A GLACIER?

a first approximation, a glacier can be defined as large accumulations of ice. We all know from personal experience how little it takes for the ice to melt at room temperature.
therefore, that the ice will keep for enormous periods of time, we need appropriate environmental conditions (low temperatures). Such conditions are achieved over the so-called "level of perpetual snow" or snow line is defined as the altitude from which a portion of the snow in winter, "survives" the summer and is able to withstand up the following winter. The end result is that from this level, the accumulation of snow prevail on their merger, and the net balance is that the content of snow will increase over time (technically, in reality, this takes place over the so-called equilibrium line, which is not conceptually the same as snow line, but from a practical point of view can be considered synonymous).
therefore above the limit of perpetual snow, strong water inflows are greater than outflows, and this snow will experience processes that turn into ice, ice that can persist for thousands of years.
The height at which places the snow line will vary with the latitude where we are, to the extent that varies with latitude insolation and annual maximum temperatures. Thus, while in the Kilimanjaro stands at around 5500 meters, in our latitudes is approximately at 3000 meters and 400 meters in Iceland, whereas if we move further north (or south, depending on the hemisphere) above 70 º, this altitude is roughly the sea level.
Another prerequisite for the development glaciers is solid precipitation and snow. Except some exceptional regions, this is not a problem on our planet, because the snow is a more or less daily.
However, what makes the snow on the glacier ice? Let's start.
freshly fallen snow is formed in a 5% snowflakes (with their irregular shapes, corners, edges ...) and 95% by air. Therefore has very low density (about 0.05 grams per cubic centimeter), and from a geological point of view, it can be considered as a sediment wind, not unlike, for example, by an accumulation of grains of sand on a beach (saving the difference in density). In fact, on the surface of freshly fallen snow, wind can also form sand waves, called ripples minidunas or that are used to seeing on the sand of the beach.
After a snowfall, if temperatures remain below freezing, the air is soaking the pores between the flakes causes the sublimation of the ends of the snowflakes, taking place this water condensation in the center of flakes of snow so that is losing its pointed shape gradually gaining a more granular. This causes the granular snow, avalanches so many problems gives skiers. Granular snow an increase of packing and density and some expulsion of intergranular air. As this process continues, the packaging is increasing, the expulsion of air becomes more clear and finally reached the state of firn or snow powder, snow grains are practically small areas of a few millimeters in diameter, porosity reduces to 50% and the density reaches 0.4. The snow is what we found at the end of winter, the snow that has persisted. The accumulation of more snow on the neve, for example the following year, resulting in increased pressure "cryostat" which is an increase of compaction and expulsion of air. The result is that the pores lose communication and small bubbles air remains isolated from each other. The density reaches 0.80. Thus, the firn is compressed, resulting in an aggregate of interlocking ice crystals, was born on the glacial ice, and process that has taken place is called diagenesis, which is nothing more than a process of recrystallization. All this processing can take from a few years, to 100, depending on the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Thus, from a "sludge" (snow) has caused a rock solid: ice.

MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF ICE

Like any material, the ice when subjected to efforts to respond. The main effort is to act on the glacial ice will be its own weight, the force of gravity.
In the 50's, Glenn through experimental studies showed that the rheological model which best describes the behavior of ice is that of a pseudoplastic material. Expressed in a simplified way the behavior of ice by the equation e = K x T-exp (n) where e is the deformation of ice, T and K acting effort n different constants for each glacier.
At first, when the ice is thin (less than 50 meters), will behave as a conventional solid, with an effort will undergo elastic deformation until it exceeds its elastic limit and break. This is what happens in the first 50 meters of the glacier, where we can see bergschrund morphologies such as (deep cracks) or seracs (large ice blocks bounded by fracture surfaces, for which have suffered a relative motion) raising much respect among the mountaineers.
However, once the mass of ice acts an effort equivalent to a column of ice over 50 meters tall, ice behavior conformed to that of a plastic substance: as we increase the effort the material will experience less resistance to deformation, and small increments of effort, strain rates increase sharply. We see therefore that in this situation the glacier flows and moves.
So far we have seen the mechanics of ice. Now is the time to consider the mechanisms involved in this mechanism, ie, as the deformation develops. MECHANISMS

DESPLZAMIENTO

We have seen that a material, at first sight completely solid, such as ice, in front of large efforts and long-term is able to "flow" of travel.
The ways in which a glacier moves can be classified into 2 groups of mechanisms.
- The so-called mechanisms creep or flow, low flow caused by internal deformation of the ice mass.
- sliding mechanisms, namely the displacement of large masses of ice on a surface, without such masses experiencing internal deformation.

In practice, it is very difficult to say which of these 2 mechanisms caused the movement of a particular glacier, as in nature (always so complex), glaciers suffered both mechanisms. Within
flow mechanisms are: the pressure distribution (or diffusion phase change), which is that in every bean ice produces a diffusion of water molecules from the area in which it operates the most comprehensive effort to areas where it operates the maximum extensional stress, leading to a common orientation in all the crystals and a net flow in the direction of efforts to understand (this process is reflected in the equation of Glenn with constant values \u200b\u200bof K very high), another mechanism of intergranular flow are adjustments, rotation and displacement of the grain boundaries of crystals in relation to its adjacent crystals .. This is reflected by the constant n values \u200b\u200bclose to 1. Besides these two, there are other more complex mechanisms, such as recrystallization (Growth and development in solid ice crystals, being a process during which the mechanical energy stored in the ice mass during deformation, is consumed during the growth of new crystals, free of internal strain and the minimum free energy surface for the new conditions), or deformation of the crystal lattice of ice crystals. Within

glides, we have the basal slip (in case this was the mechanism that moves the glacier, the constant n from the equation of Glenn would much higher values \u200b\u200bthan 1), which consists of desplzamiento " to block "on the surface of the glacier the bedrock. This mechanism is more important in warmer climates, where the base of the glacier can be found near the melting point at that pressure, so that the existence of liquid water can "lubricate" and faclitar movement. Another mechanism is called slip slip by refreezing, which involves melting the base of the glacier ice up "of an obstacle (for increased pressure) and freezing" ice below. "

So far, all I could say about the movement of glaciers. Once in motion, the glaciers are able to remove large blocks of ice, and transported to areas far away, are able to dig incisions or grooves on the substrate along which originates and dug huge valleys, and lead to deposits of many types (sub-glacial, moraine fluvioglaciares ...). They are therefore very important highlight modeling agents, not only in areas where they currently remain, but also at low altitudes and areas where there is currently no glaciers, glacial morphologies can look amazing legacy: thus, for example, here in Spain , we can see all sorts of ways glaciers in areas such as Pyrenees, Picos de Europa, Gredos or Béticos, even when there are virtually no glaciers in these areas.
And all this dynamism is able to do a solid, seemingly static, as the ice when it starts moving under its own weight. Perhaps as I said Deborah (biblical figure) mountains (in this case, the glaciers) move in the eyes of God.

Can I Engrave My Bowling Ball

When Earth imitates man ... Geological

Traditionally, large civil engineering works such as bridges, railways, roads ... have been built, considering the time as a variable to despise, or at least to consider only very slightly. Construction techniques advance, and when do these works are made and make that can withstand thinking enough to be profitable until the new means of construction allow to do better. What is this? At most a thousand years. Undoubtedly, that no sane engineer, project manager for construction of a highway, there is the fact that in 25000 years may enter into an ice age and glaciers will this highway.
However, in the twentieth century came a new type of engineering challenge, and with it, a problem which until then had not been raised. With the advent of the atomic age comes a new form of energy. And as ballast to this development, radioactive waste. Thus born calls for deep geological disposal facilities (AGP's).
It was convinced that the most effective and less dangerous to store this waste was its location in deep geological formations.
However, as engineering works are, the AGP's pose a problem: they have to play their role during lengthy periods of time. We no longer speak of centuries, or a thousand years. Otherwise, the tens and hundreds of thousands of years, because we must not forget that they are high-level waste. For this reason, it requires a knowledge of the behavior of these systems over long periods of time.
For the construction of these storage systems Deep, represents an important part of geochemical modeling, ... geology, field observations and experimental studies and laboratory tests.
However, this process of analysis and study, there are always uncertainties, gaps ... that can not be resolved.
Fortunately, one of those rare glimpses of nature (or perhaps because the Earth is more good than is commonly thought, despite the lack of respect that we process), and cases have existed natural phenomena that have operated for scales considerable time, which are similar engineering the problem before us, and whose study can provide a precious, valuable and unique information. Such cases are known as natural analogues . Let
a paradigmatic case.

OKLO CASE: A CLASSIC AND

begin by describing succinctly what a nuclear power plant.
The most important part of what constitutes a nuclear power reactor, the reactor consists of the following components:
- The fuel : Normally Uranium. Is responsible for producing energy by nuclear fisiíon process, which is the "break" of atomic nuclei into lighter ones. In this process off neutrons, subatomic particles moving at high speed, and are used to "break" other uranium atoms (in the new "breaks" are "shed" new neutrons that are used to "break" other atoms, ... and so on in a process known as chain reaction).
- The moderator : The probability of fission processes take place continuously, and may well take place chain reaction, increases with decreasing neutron velocity. Thus, nuclear reactors incorporate a system consisting of a particular chemical compound, such as graphite rods or other light or heavy water (water whose molecules have a hydrogen isotope known as deuterium), whose mission is to "stop" to neutrons. The use of the moderator, makes talk of nuclear reactors slow neutrons (there is another way, the nuclear reactor fast neutrons, which instead of using a moderator, the sample is enriched in nuclei capable of undergoing fission).
- A driver : bars usually consist of a neutron absorbing material such as boron or cadmium, and to control the development of nuclear reaction by acting on the "number" of neutrons. If neutrons exceeds a critical number, the chain reaction would take place in an uncontrolled manner, energy release would be huge, and inexorably, the nuclear reactor explosionaría. Of this element depends, therefore, nuclear reactor safety.
- A refrigerant : The manager of extracting the energy released as heat during fission, carbon dioxide can be pressurized heavy water, ordinary water or liquid sodium.

Now we consider some fuel, uranium. Uranium in its natural state appears as 3 isotopes, of which here we will consider two, Uranium-238 (the most abundant isotope), and Uranium-235. The isotope 235 is an isotope that says "very fissile" when subjected to the action of neutrons, it "breaks" (really, you should say fissions) into 2 lighter nuclei, while emitting 2.5 neutrons (on average). The isotope 238, by contrast, absorbs many neutrons without undergoing fission process. For this reason, a mass of uranium that had only 238 (or too little of 235, as in natural uranium), once initiated the fission reaction, this would end up stopping for a short time alone, since neutrons (necessary as we have seen, to take place the chain reaction) produced by fission would not be enough to offset the losses by absorption and leaks in the system (some neutrons rebels, escape). This explains the relationship Uranium 238 235/Uranio be called enrichment, and a mass of uranium that has a high percentage of uranium-235 is said to be enriched .
In nature, the enrichment is 0.72% (0.72 atoms of the isotope is 235 per 100 of 238, or whatever it is, there are approximately 2 cores of 235 per 300, 238), and this value is insufficient for the fission reaction from spreading. (Later we shall see, as this percentage has remained, much less constant over geological time.)
Because of this, in nuclear power plants it is necessary to enrich uranium-235 fuel to values, which in the case of slow neutron nuclear plants reach 3% (and the fast neutron can reach 15%). The atomic bombs, meanwhile, use masses of almost pure Uranium 235, resulting in massive release of energy (HEU).
One issue that is important to understand then the case is as follows Oklo How is Uranium in its natural state?
Uranium has a high affinity for oxygen and ions dissolved in water to form complex salts very soluble in water, which gives it great mobility from a geochemical point of view (which already poses a first problem for AGP's, because in these facilities is important is that their mobility is reduced). However, under reducing conditions these compounds are reduced, the compound appeared smaller and more important (in terms of abundance and issues of extraction) of uranium, uraninite or pitchblende (uranium dioxide, UO2). And this compound is insoluble. It is important to retain this chemical property (the insoluble, of course) it will be important from a geological perspective in understanding the dynamics of formation of uranium deposits.

It's time to get down to bedrock. Many opponents of nuclear energy, would be surprised if you read the following statement: the first nuclear history, ran for 2000 million years. No, not talking about ancient astronauts, lost civilizations or aliens who visited Earth in the Precambrian. I'll try to explain.

enriqucimiento Returning to the theme. We have said that their natural state value is 0.72%. However, due to their respective peculiarities, Uranium 235 is fissionable uranium faster than 238. As a result, the value of enrichment have gone down with the course of geological time. So at the time of formation Earth 4500 million years ago, its value was 22%, and 2000 million years ago (which, as we shall see, is the date that we will interest) was 3.6%.
On this basis, in the 50s, the British and Inghram Wetherill one hand, and secondly the U.S. Kuroda, suggested the possibility of making 1000 to 2,000,000,000 years in the uranium deposits may have been given the natural conditions that had been effected the process of nuclear fission. To do so would have fulfilled the condition that these deposits, the ore (a mineral deposit, sterile materials accompanying the useful mineral) was not made by absorbing elements neutrons, such as boron.
In 1972, Naudet and Hageman, two scientists from the Atomic Energy Commission of France, who were working in Africa, they found that the mining company product extracted from a mine Franceville, Gabon, Oklo mine had content too low in uranium-235 (0.3%). After an exhaustive study of this extraordinary discovery, it was convinced that 2000 million years ago, the geological system was functioning as a nuclear reactor.
erosion by streams from the surrounding areas, water enriched uranium. When these fluids were found with conditions reductive uranium complexes were reduced to UO2, insoluble, precipitating and forming uranium deposit. This took place on a granite base, a craton, which are very stable geológicamene areas. In this context, moreover, the gang consisted mainly of O, Si, Al, K, Fe and Mg, low neutron-absorbing elements and also the water that ran on the system could play the role of moderator. We, therefore, as 2000 million years ago, in this case met the conditions for the reaction to take place in nuclear fission chain: a substance, the water, which acted as moderator, and because of its properties something absorbers, also played the role of controller, the absence of super absorbent chemicals into the bargain, and the fact that develops in a stable geological area allowed both uranium and the reaction products are not being prosecuted would see major mobility enables the quantity of which are kept in place for training, even to this day (that after 2000 million years!).
The comprehensive field study revealed that a total of 16 outbreaks in which it reached the critical mass of pitchblende (the minimum mass needed to have enough content to take place neutron chain reaction) held in the fission reaction, and that the system was functioning as a reactor for about 500,000 years.
such low values \u200b\u200bwere explained as Uranium 235 because they were drawn by the chain reaction. In support of this idea is the fact that there were similar percentages (by the consideration of elapsed time) to nuclear power plants, very strange compounds in their natural state, and isotope ratios (such as the Neodymium) rare in natural conditions .
It has been reported, although it has not been given much attention, which has probably been many more systems like this, especially if we consider that older than 2500 million years, the general conditions of Earth's atmosphere was reducing (explaining that the vast majority of pitchblende deposits have that old) and enrichment values \u200b\u200bwere more than significant.

Oklo's case is, therefore, as a benchmark when selecting and studying a site in which to house high-level products, for which it is very important that mobility is reduced. Cases like this, or the Cygar Lake (Canada), where a clay coating prevents the uranium reaches surface water (despite being one of the richest uranium deposits in the world) or the similar case Morro do Ferro (Brazil), are excellent examples of natural analogues in which responses to problems that arise when installing AGP's.
The Oklo event in its uniqueness, has received attention from physicists, because it is trying to find in it the answer to the question of whether physical constants like the speed of light, have remained constant Throughout the history of the universe.

I hope this has proved attractive presentation of the amazing world of natural analogues. To another.

Gay Cruising Area Houston

revolutionary act: a matter of pride union

(ITEM WITHDRAWN)

Most Reliable 2009 Laptop Computers

And pregnant, move ...

This year has been declared International Year of Physics. It's been 100 years since 1905, the year that Einstein signed these wondrous items that have become the history of science.
However, there is Einstein's work of what I write. I believe that there is enough information about Einstein, that will give us a lot this year, nor think that I can contribute much (although the year is very long and probably will finish writing something.)
This year, another anniversary occurs scientific, well connected, incidentally, another great German physicist. In this case, a geophysicist. Also part of the history of science. But, paradoxically, and without ever having come to understand it, is usually ignored in reports, books, articles ... the history of science. I am referring to the great geophysicist, meteorologist, climatologist, Berlin astronomer and polar explorer Alfred Wegener. Valga this article as my special tribute to the German scientist. It will serve as an excuse to start a series of 2 or 3 articles devoted to the vindication of a number of science, so convicted (in my opinion) as Wegener ostracism in the field of popular science and the media appreciation of science: Earth Sciences (and more specifically, of the Solid Earth).

Alfred Wegener, the magician of the obvious
Alfred Lothar Wegener
is one of those great examples that occasionally rewards us the history of science. Is an example of those great minds, which is attached a great curiosity and desire to learn, with a boundless capacity to assimilate ideas. One of those people who are able to hold his head encyclopedic knowledge, able to master many disciplines. When this is attached to a prodigious capacity for synthesis, we have the ideal mix for the emergence of revolutionary ideas. On occasion you can not remember, I heard a phrase that "a genius is a person who finds something that has been hidden, but a person who finds it clear that all we had before but we have not managed to do. " In this sense, Wegener was a genius. Spread knowledge gathered from different disciplines (the specialization of science, was beginning to impede communication between disciplines) and found the common idea that emerged from the combination of these ideas. That was Wegener, a magician of the obvious.
In this sense, Wegener is on the intellectual level of other "big" science. Just as Darwin had biology, physics had its Galileo, Newton, Einstien ... the Earth Sciences have had Wegener. Brief biography

Alfred Wegener Alfred Wegener

born in Berlin in November de1880. From a young age, he was attracted by Greenland, who became his passion. Study Natural Sciences and in 1904 he received his doctorate in astronomy at the University of Berlin. However, do not get to spend ever astronomy, tie in your career to the weather, which would make important contributions (making the use of balloons and studied the causes of rainfall).
's desire to become part of an expedition to Greenland was to train hard and become an athlete. Thus, in 1906, along his brother Kurt, beating the world record for staying in the air climbed to a balloon, remain in flight for 52 hours.
this year, in 1906, Wegener was invited to be part of an expedition to Greenland. On that expedition, Wegener became the first scientist to use balloons to study air movement in the atmosphere. Wegener became, well, a pioneer of meteorology.
In 1910, Wegener's hands comes a letter from the German naturalist von Hulmdot (1769-1859), which draws attention to the match between South American and African coasts. Let

a point to explain briefly the history of this idea.
Already in the seventeenth century, the English philosopher Francis Bacon had suggested the similarity between American and African coasts. Hulmdot
also noticed this similarity, but blamed on the Atlantic Ocean was a valley carved by erosion between America and Africa.
Lamarck (the same as evolution), intrigued by the fact that marine fossils can be found in inland areas, proposed a similar mechanism of "continental migration" to that proposed by Hulmdot. According to Lamarck, the erosion of the continents in specific areas, and deposition of erosion products in other areas, determine the migration of continents and oceans over time. In 1882 Fisher
Oswald related the migration of the continents with the formation of the moon from the Pacific. In the late nineteenth century geologist Eduard Suess proposed that all the southern continents had been united.
Back to Wegener.

Initially, Wegener saw this as a curiosity. But in 1911, when he was already a post as professor of meteorology at the University of Marberg, read a report which identified the paleontological similarities between South America and Africa. This is when you start to take the theory seriously and start working on it. Wegener
Simultaneously, and independently by two scientists American, Frank Taylor on the one hand, and Howard Baker on the other, they begin to develop the same idea.

In 1912, Wegener published his classic " On the origin of continents and oceans ." World War I prevented its spread, but when you hang issued new expanded editions, translated into several languages, putting his theory exposed to all the specialists of Earth Sciences.
geodynamics theory prevailing at that time meant that the distribution of continents and oceans had remained constant over geological time, and mountain ranges were formed to "wrinkle" Earth's surface due to the decrease in volume of the Earth since its formation by thermal contraction. Something similar to how an apple is wrinkled as the days and lose water. Wegener
What arose was that 200 million years ago, all the continents had been united into a large supercontinent called Pangea. And that this supercontinent was broken to make way for the current configuration of the earth's surface. This idea provided evidence other authors such as Alexander Steinmann and Gustav du Toit.
However, what was largely his theory of continental drift was critical. By the geology, where they found the more reluctance ideas for motorists was in the U.S. and Russia, not in Europe, where it had some support. In the U.S. the opposition came from an excessively over the principle of uniformity. In Russia, was linked to that prevailing ideas Tectonics and his disciple Tetyayev Beloussov. For tectonic Russian school, the only movements that took place in the earth's crust were vetical (in a way, this thinking is understandable, since it must be remembered that in the Siberian geology, for instance, a cratonic area, the cratons are old continental areas, dominated by vertical tectonics).
But it was the discipline of geology provided the strongest arguments against the ideas of Wegener. Rather, it was geophysics. Major geophysical events such as Harold Jeffreys Hans Cloos or strongly opposed to the theories of Wegener.
Here I have to make a clarification and take up the cudgels on behalf of these scientists. It is often said that the opposition by geophysicists Wegener's ideas came from what looked like an intruder, he was a meteorologist rather than an expert in the solid Earth. I do not think that way. Keep in mind that there were geologists and geophysicists at the time supported the German (du Toit, Arthur Holmes, Vening Meinesz, Argand ...). Told
thus history, it might seem that scientists are a dogmatic, clinging to their ideas even when they are indefensible, for fear of changing established truth.
really did not. These scientists, in order to accept the ideas of Wegener, needed a mechanism by which the continents moved. Failure to respond to that fundamental question, the theory was empty and left many more unanswered questions than answers. And Wegener was unable to propose any convincing mechanism. He suggested that the material they were made of continents was more rigid and less dense than the ocean, and moving like rafts over the denser material and viscous the oceans. However, he was unable to quantify or to suggest force capable of displacing (suggested two: the centrifugal force of rotation of the earth and tidal waves). This explains why
Harold Jeffreys (perhaps the most critical of the new winds blowing from Germany) strongly opposed.
was not until 1938 that Arthur Holmes propose a convincing mechanism, convection currents beneath the bark responsible for the movement of continents. This time supported by geophysical data, gravity data collected by the oceanographer Vening Meinesz.

However, in 1938 and Wegener was not to see it. Partly discouraged by the hostile receptions he had received his theory, and partly because he decided to focus on his passion, Greenland, left his studies of continental drift. In 1924 he wrote along the geographer, great student of the climate, Köppen the book " climate during geological times ." Since that year, served as professor of geophysics at the University of Graz in 1929 published the latest revision of its ideas, again and again to reveal its multifaceted nature and ability to relate ideas, while recognizing that failure to propose a responsible force was a major obstacle, followed vindicating their ideas, and was able to realize that there was a significant relationship between these forces of continental drift and all the processes of fracturing, seismicity, volcanism and changes in sea level (technically, eustatic ).
In the spring of 1930 he returned to Greenland, this time as leader of a scientific expedition that had about twenty members. In November (curiously the same birth month) for the same year, on this expedition, the great German scientist, was killed along with his frozen Rasmus coexpedicionario Willumsen, about 71 degrees latitude, having been heroically to provide supplies to a group of scientists who were isolated. Its bodies were found a year later. The story did not know it deserved honor: Wegener had no opportunity to see his theory consecrated.

In my opinion, there are many similarities between Wegener and Darwin. Both were two scientists who proposed revolutionary ideas that were characterized by their talent and ability to collect ideas from varied disciplines.
In the case of Darwin, he proposed his theory of evolution by natural selection acting on random variations, not directed. However, fundamentally, a mechanism that was able to explain the cause of these variations, it was something that conseguría Darwin.
Here is their similarity (Darwin luckier than Wegener, it must be said): either one or the other, were able to take ideas from varied disciplines, and recognize the evidence based on a surprising fact. However, they were unable to propose a convincing mechanism to explain this fact. The cause was that the two were ahead of their time. In the case of Darwin, had to wait 50 years for the emergence of genetics explicr allow the cause of the variations. For Wegener, it took about 40 years, as a result of the great campaigns of exploration and geophysical research, multidisciplinary and international, should meet a set of data that led to the advent of the modern theory of plate tectonics.

But what happened next?

After the death of Wegener, the fire is not extinguished. The burning wick he continued to burn, and were increasingly those who took seriously their ideas, and at the same time, there were frequent discussions between the two ideas.
We have said that in 1938 Holmes proposed a convincing mechanism. And there were ever more data, this time geophysicists, who supported the ideas for motorists. Meinesz gravimetric observations, studies of the magnetic pole moves along Runcorn times, Blackett and Irwin, the paleomagnetic measurements in the ocean (Mason, Piltman) or continent (such as Bolt), the studies on the ocean floor (by authors such as Dietz, Menard or Ewing), studies of the magnetic strip of the ocean, Fred Vine and Drummond Mathews ...
This, together with geological evidence, stratigraphic, paleontological and paleoclimatic, as pointed out by Wegener and others, was slowly brewing revolution. In 1962
Harry Hess proposed his theory of seafloor spreading, according to which in certain areas of the ocean, ridges , took place the creation of new ocean floor. In 1965, geophysicist Canadian J. Tuzo Wilson, who in 1959 rejected the theory of continental drift, in the paleomagnetic evidence develops, and publishes in Nature a model of continental drift, which has received the name "Wilson Cycle."
With all this, between 1967 and 1968, with authors such as McKenzie, Morgan, Parker or LePichon was born the theory of Global Tectonics or plate tectonics. This theory postulates that the outermost layer of the Earth, the crust , about 100 km thick, is divided into a series of blocks, plates calls that travel over the surface of the Earth following a movement angular can be described as a rotation around a fixed axis passing through the center of the Earth. The seismological work of Isaacs, Oliver and Sykes in 1968 corroborated the theory.
In 1929, Wegener wrote that the issue of the forces that moved the continents would be a problem that would last years. And he was right. Thus, we come to the 70s where we propose two different models (the Morgan and the Orowan-Elsasser) and are Forsith and Uyeda, 1975, the task of determining the forces acting on the surface of the Earth, deciding the debate in favor of the Orowan model. However, the details and more detailed questions about the movement of the crust are issues that still are discussed.

The most important lesson to be drawn from this story is that it could reach the explanation of all the evidence suggesting continental drift by integrating data from different disciplines. The theory of plate tectonics is a global theory. And as such stems from synthesizing data from all parts of the globe; data, moreover, of all types. Its acceptance comes as a result of the merger of previously separate disciplines (such as Geology, Geophysics and Oceanography). And its development comes from the introduction of data from geochemistry, petrology and the use of computers.
An important lesson: the key for multidisciplinary science. Quality which had Alfred Wegener to his credit.
We've gone from a theory geopoetry , as Harry Hess said in 1962, it established the prose of the current Global Tectonics.

Wedding Dress Catalog

And I say ...

First, apologize to the vast gulf of time separating the last published this article. Lately I've been quite busy, and may take a long to write the next, which warn of a possible follower (this is a fictitious entity, similar to Maxwell's demon, in view of the rare visits to my humble blog ) they do not despair. This blog will continue to publish, albeit with a frequency that does not deserve to call themselves journalists, I fear. Made excuses
the required warnings and rigor, I introduce the subject of the article.

a couple of days I've been debating with myself over whether to be published this post, and I finally decided to do so. This article is dedicated to mention the death of Dr. Fernando Jiménez del Oso. Part of my doubts related to the fact that he was not sure whether it is appropriate in a log self-proclaimed "skeptic" is made a dedication to the death of a figure "other side" (I hate the use of the term skepticism for this movement, and I hate that kind Manichean divisions between skepticism and esotericism, or whatever you call, but for practical purposes I will follow). Finally, I overcame my initial reluctance. And I have adopted what can be considered, perhaps, an attitude a bit "unorthodox" in the "skeptical orthodoxy," which I presume part (again, I hate these terms). I will actually castizo English saying that says " in Spain nobody speaks ill of someone after death ."
As justification "official" give the following: the skeptical movement is a reaction against pseudoscience, and the history of pseudoscience Hispanic, as they say, there is a before and after (I hate to fall into the cliché) the charismatic psychiatrist.
Although I must admit that such a justification and I believe it myself.
The reality is quite different. In part, I write to reconcile with the older version of me, my child self. That I, who as a boy was captivated by the television screen with the honorable doctor interventions, interventions that raised in my mixed feelings: from fear of his sepulchral portrait (which has caused me more of a fear of night), and respect and admiration for his sapienzal figure. And I must admit, that some of these emotions that I wake up its image, following this superficiality, had a different feeling inside me: the same sense of intrigue, curiosity, interest, wanting to know more ... (not described) that I caused the dinosaur books to my older brother, of course, each episode of the series "Cosmos" I admired (needless to say) Carl Sagan.
If as I said, I think it was Piaget (psychology is not my thing), the experiences of children living profoundly shape us as adults, this must be the cause of some regret that I was awakened by the death of this character. And perhaps this is the cause of the "atrocities" will say.
In my opinion, differed somewhat Fernando Jimenez del Oso from other writers on "cutting edge." There is a quantitative difference between him and his disciples and colleagues. In my opinion, a critical difference. At this point, I set out to clarify that I will talk about the figure of character Jimenez del Oso, Jimenez del Oso not person, because I knew not. I mean, I will not discuss the allegation of plagiarism that received your magazine, or what to Alternative 3, or the books they used his image to sell ... because I believe that neither is a story, or think that these issues reflect the Jimenez del Oso that was a bad person (which I do not believe, and I even refuse to believe).

Let us return, then, the previous thread, FJO what differentiates from other writers of the paranormal. First, his use of language. Completely different from the journalists of "new generations" of paranormal research literary style of Dr. Bear, in my humble opinion as ignorant on issues of language, was beautiful, elaborate, gimmicky, I remembered, in part, way of speaking of two "experts" of the paranormal, Antonio Ribera and Germanus of Argumosa. I do not agree with any of the 3 in their views on the topics of the speakers, but server can not help but envy his use of language resources. I have always believed that these three people had (and have, in the case of Argumosa) profound erudition. What makes me most surprising his obsession with the paranormal.
other hand, his way of narrating. Dr. Jimenez del Oso rather than responding, asking questions. Sowed doubts. Encouraged to after seeing one of his documentaries, or read one of his articles, cojieses volume of the encyclopedia, or ask your "higher", for more of that than he had spoken "man of mystery" . In this sense, Jimenez del Oso tempt you to think for yourself, question everything. This is, in my opinion, the main difference from other "communicators." It's very difficult to achieve, and he got it. This perhaps contributed their scientific training, they do not forget that was a psychiatrist.
Finally, there is one fact that I think no one can doubt. Fernando Jiménez del Oso was an excellent communicator. To this helped, no doubt, their appearance: those large bags under the eyes, wrinkled skin, his shining bald head, his thick beard. His voice hoarse and granite, his speech slow. That aspect, reminiscent of a stern teacher, but a good heart, this portrait, a mix of jolly Santa Claus and a nasty Greek sage. His independent aspect of time, which marble statue, which made us think it was eternal and older. But on However, his voice. That kind of talk, so special, with that said any banality, supine detail, the more absurd details ... surrounded by an aura of majesty and honor, you had to think that what he was telling was one of the findings of century. He knew perfectly placed at the level of their interlocutor. I would like to
popular science, and English in particular, had a popular figure of the caliber of the psychiatrist. Science suffers from an utter lack of ability to communicate with the public. And this also, and what is most worrisome, educational level (generally speaking, no offense to any teacher). Examples of popular science that they transcended can count on the fingers of the hand, and the low production of popular literature is performed, often is aimed at people with some training. We need someone to explain with words to achieve clear and plain, and at the same time raise curiosity, interest, concerns ... and respect. That attracts both children and adults or the elderly. And these qualities
had the unfortunate Doctor Fernando Jimenez del Oso.
Finally, I would like to point one more thing for this character. His documentaries, managed to captivate so many people. Many people are put in front of the TV to see what she had to have at the time of the only television. That way, people of varied social conditions could know that in Peru, there were giant figures on a plain called Nazca (although in the end, it was not true that they were alien landing strips) in Mexico, there is a pyramid Maya Palenque amazing (although not true that she had a tombstone UFO) ... Anyway, let people (children, workers, university ...) and were curious to know places and things that otherwise would not have known, although explanations were not true.
Many people have made in science that feels genuine passion, this passion often goes back to a point event in childhood: a book that was read in school, a telescope that you got for Christmas, the books you read your brother when you were little, Sagan documentaries ... I am sure that the curiosity and yearning to see a lot of people back to some work of Jimenez del Oso.
Science should invent a Jimenez del Oso. It is a pity that it has existed, not being exploited in the interests of scientific disclosure, I am sure that today we would be talking about one of the greats.
With this, I have written everything I wanted to say and more. Probably a purist skeptical movement considers that this is a daring after I proclaimed himself "skeptical." But in the end, if this hypothetical character is not so and it is real ...! That is going to make cosmic heck!
I do not believe Acámbaro stones do not believe that Dr. Cabrera houses the remains of an ancient human that lived with dinosaurs, do not believe in sicofonías, or visitors from other worlds, and I think the moisture stains a house in rural Andalusia are faces. I do not think Gasparet paint with your hands so that the spirits of great painters is ordered, do not think that taking ayahuasca the soul leaves the body ... But I, The Executioner of the gallows, I refuse to condemn this heresy, because although I think it has sinned, I do not deserve to be hanged for it. From here, my special memories that will always remember as the coach doctor Fernando Jiménez del Oso.

Wall Mount Portable Dvd Player

Life, a powerful geological force

Life, a powerful geological force ("Life as geological force.") This is the title of a work by a Dutch paleontologist Peter Westbroek, a specialist in biomineralization and studied in the Cantabrian Mountains. After this statement, seemingly innocuous, it hides something else: a reflection of a new unified vision of Earth Sciences and Life Sciences, the Gaian approach.
Gaia is a theory (rather than a theory, one could understand as a new way of conceiving the natural sciences), which suggests that the outer surface of the Earth and all living organisms in it, form a self-regulating system and homeostasis, this is a system in dynamic equilibrium, so any disturbance that results in a modification of this system to absorb the effects of the disruption and to maintain appropriate conditions for life. According to this, over time, life, interacting with the environment inert surface, would have maintained the right conditions for their existence. This will provide a framework in which to frame all the knowledge and research, both bio and geosciences.

Gaia theory was proposed by a British chemist, James Lovelock, in the '70s. His inspiration came when, working for NASA on the Viking mission, raised the question of in what way we could find out if a planet had life. The search-based analysis of complex biomolecules such as amino acids or sugars did not satisfy him, for the analysis, depending on location, even in parts of the Earth give negative results. He realized that the most accessible part of a planet is its atmosphere, and to compare the atmospheres of Earth and other rocky planets in the solar system fell account the uniqueness of Earth's atmosphere, the Earth has an atmosphere in a chemical imbalance. Planets like Mars and Venus have an atmosphere whose chemical composition is in equilibrium with the chemical composition of the outer cortex (the part of a planet surface): large amounts of carbon dioxide, with small proportions of other gases. Have an atmosphere "inert" gas it does not react with each other or react with surface rocks. In contrast, the Earth has an atmosphere of balance: its composition is dominated by the nirógeno and oxygen (in that order), very toxic reagents, which tend to react with surface rocks. And another of its peculiarities is its mixture of combustible gases like methane and oxygen, which react vigorously with each other. On the other hand, if these gases react together, the final composition of our atmosphere would be similar to Mars or Venus, incompatible with life, at least on a large scale. The fact that life exists on Earth since at least 3500 million years, indicates that the Earth's atmosphere takes a long time away from the deadly hold the remaining balance of planets.
This apparent contradiction can be resolved only to Lovelock, considering life as a superorganism, capable of tilling the earth according to their interests. Life acting as a powerful machine pumping gas, capable of compensating the losses, which are produced by chemical reaction of atmospheric gases among themselves and with the rocks. Any other consideration of biogeochemical cycles (cycles that abstractly represent the transit of chemicals from the rocks to life and this life again) not take into account the active role of life fail .

Subsequently, the theory was developed by Lovelock himself, in collaboration with biologist Lynn Margulis, and other authors. Laid the groundwork for what Lovelock considers himself a new discipline he calls "geophysiology" which tries to explain the operation of this superorganism.

Gaia has siblings: different versions of Gaia

One of the criticisms to which it was originally submitted Gaia theory was that it was a teleological theory, runner, so that the whole of life the Earth behaves as a single entity and self-regulated, it was necessary that agencies, in some way aware of what they had and that their actions were seeking an end (to maintain appropriate conditions for their existence). Something like the wolf conference "The book of the jungle. "
To address these criticisms, Lovelock proposed a simple mathematical model which he called "the world of Daisies" was a simulation of a planet similar to Earth, which lived only 3 species: daisies, black, gray and white. And that simulation subjected to a steady increase in solar radiation over time (as happens on Earth: As the Sun is consumed will increase the intensity of radiation). The result was parallel to the increase of radiation, the planet went from being dominated at first by black daisies (which absorb sunlight) to daisy gray, and finally when radiation solar was big, white daisies (their greater ability to produce albedo would make part of the reflected solar radiation, keeping the average temperature near the baseline). After a solar RADIATION threshold, the conditions would be impossible for life. With this simple model, showed that one could conceive of an ecosystem to maintain constant environmental conditions (despite external shocks, in this case, increased solar radiation) and suitable for their existence, without conscience or any purpose.

view of the widely circulated popular theory was reached in 1988 organized the American Geophysical Union a conference to discuss the details of the theory. Here, a geophysicist at the University of Berkeley, James Kirchner raised an important clarification: Gaia can be thought of as a collection of theories, where different researchers have proposed different versions of the superorganism. So distinguished between:
- Gaia Theory "strong" teleological theories, which imply an awareness of Gaia herself. As mentioned, this version is far from the original idea of \u200b\u200bLovelock, and are, obviously, unscientific theories. These theories include theories arising Gaia in the light of the movement of "New Era, and establish relationship issues such as Gaia and Atlantis and crop circles. They do not deserve further mention.
- Gaia Theory "weak", among which one could distinguish different approaches: coevolucionaria, the influential ... In general, one can say that these theories suggest that life has substantial influence on the physical environmental conditions. Here, for the purposes of the article, I distinguish between weak Gaia theory in the strict sense (here and encompasses the original, Lovelock) have proposed that as a result of the interaction between agencies and between them and the environment which are based, the physical characteristics Land remains appropriate for the existence of life. And the weak Gaian theories at large (or superdébiles) have proposed that abiotic characteristics of ecosystems are modified in different ways by (Note the nuance between for and for).



Gaia, "accepted theory?

The idea that organisms interact and modify environmental features one would question it.
More discussion, however, is the idea that life has kept these physical characteristics of land suitable for preservation.

IMHO, I think the right point is between what I call "weak Gaia ss" and "Gaia superdébil." Clearly
ideas as "extreme" as those of Don Anderson, a geophysicist who was a life responsible for the existence of plate tectonics seem to "fuck" by the hair.
However, today known facts of the history of the Earth, and processes (such as the so-called climate feedback loops, with the participation of living in many of them), in which shows that life has played a major role in terrestrial conditions at megascopic. I will cite two examples:

- Today, it seems clear that the vast diverisificación achieved by cyanobacteria, (some photosynthetic bacteria) was responsible for the existence of oxygen in our atmosphere. It seems clear that 2500 million years ago, oxygen levels began to rise sharply as a result of the activity of these organisms. On the other hand, seems well established that the actual content of oxygen in the air (21%) is held constant because the contributions made by plants are equal to the losses. Another interesting issue is that in our atmosphere coexisting oxygen and methane, two gases are very reactive with each other and on the other hand, their numbers remain more or less constant over time (industrial activity has led to an artificial source of methane that can break this "equilibrium"). This seems to be due to the contributions made by agencies are needed to offset losses.
- today known processes by which life can intervene in the global climate. An example is that of phytoplankton. Marine phytoplankton, for some reason not yet understood, proliferates in glacial epochs. When the bodies of the agencies "phytoplankton" decompose, emit a chemical, dimethyl sulfide (DMS) in the atmosphere is oxidized to give rise to sulfur acid. But this oxidation is slow and DMS have time to diffuse into the stratosphere. Once there, is where it is oxidized and sulfur acids act as cloud condensation nuclei. These clouds do indeed screen for sunlight and reflect it, so that the Earth's temperature drops (this is what is called albedo). This involves increased proliferation of phytoplankton, and consequently, higher productivity of DMS, and thus lower temperatures. That is, the process feeds itself. But this does not continue forever, there comes a time when water temperatures are below the optimum of phytoplankton, which stops their growth, reducing the contribution of DMS (reduced to This albedo due to stratospheric clouds) and there will be a trend in this area as temperatures increase again. On the other hand, the low temperatures mean a higher amount of bare soil, allowing plant ecosystems are installed, reducing the albedo and somewhat offset the effect due to phyto-plankton.

This last example illustrates how complex the relationships between organisms and their physical environment, and as within the biosphere-geosphere can identify small systems that act as genuine thermostats capable of maintaining the values \u200b\u200bof physical parameters (either temperature, or composition of air, or sea salt) in an optimal point suitable for all agencies. And this without any plot or conniving or awareness on the part of Gaia.

In conclusion, one could say that Lovelock's original idea was bold, but in view of numerous observations, every time you can see that in a sense, the idea that organisms are active in the dynamic external Earth was true. You may be confused with the excessive importance granted because we know that the biosphere is affected by external shocks, about which little or nothing can make your ability to self-regulation. As an example, the fall of a meteorite. It is also true that living beings have not been limited has played the role of secondary character, entirely passive, which are traditionally assumed in the theatrical climate. Today we know that organisms have some ability to control the environment in which they settle, and sometimes this control may have implications worldwide.

Sample Community Service Letter For Court

Science homemade icing and obvious truisms drenched beaches

days ago, to mark the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, we could see in the news as pointing to a few years, rising sea levels as a result of the "global warming" would affect English coast (the English coasts are affected by other problems, not only due to global warming, but from the point of view of the media seems not to matter too much).
that made me remember an old home physics experiment.

Melting "ice caps"
vessel
The simple experiment is entertaining and very educational. Illustrates much about the nature of water also is achievable by anyone (regardless of race, sex and religion, as they are fashionable constitutions and rights issues, lol, take the opportunity to speak).
Let us take a bottle, if it can be graded best (if not, nothing happens) and llenémoslo with a certain amount of water. If the bottle is graduated, look at the height of the Let us note the water column and on paper. If not, make a mark on the bottle.
Once done, let's get a certain amount of water in the bottle (not all) and congelémosla. The remaining water was preserved in the same bottle.
Like cooking programs, we'll skip the step of describing the wait for water to freeze, because in that way is a lot of freedom: each one can be entertained as you like waiting for water to cool.
Once the water is frozen, gather them and throw ice cubes into the bottle, and note how far the water level.
In this experiment, we see that the water level in the glass when we only have water never exceeds the water level of the two water-ice system (For the same mass, of course).
Why does this happen? As we know from childhood: the liquid water is denser than the solid, ice. This implies that for the same body of water, ice take up more than water. This is related to the crystalline structure of ice (ice would be more accurate to say I, which is the ice crystal structure in nature, but they know more ways in which ice can crystallize) is such that the spacing between water molecules are greater than when liquid.

Once the experiment, we heat the ice and see how easy (in terms of time and energy) that is melting the ice and leads us and costs the water cool and freeze, but that's another story we do not care now.

vessel to Earth. The melting of Arctic

The Arctic Circle, the circle limited by geographic Siberia, Greenland and Canada, is a huge block of ice floating on water. As defined for days on "The Edge of the impossible" physical geographer Eduardo Martinez de Pison, is a "Mediterranean ice." A great way to describe it because, unlike the Antarctic (where we have a landmass covered with ice) is a real sea, instead of water is ice. A large cube floating in a glass.
Now we can realize the implications of it, just seemingly innocent home physics experiment that we see above. The melting of the Arctic, in principle, has no implications for sea level rise, in any case, would imply a decline, as the water would occupy less volume.
What really matters, from the perspective of sea level rise is the melting of large ice sheets of Antarctica and glaciers, now in a recession, associated with large mountain ranges (Andes, Alps, Himalaya , ...). These are what have implications for sea level, it does not forget that represent 1.5% of Earth's water (not enough, but exclude seawater, which is 97%, we began to realize what actually represent in terms of quantity, because the river water is 0.0001 and the atmospheric water vapor, the 0.001).
Another thing to discuss is the following fact: the bodies expand when heated. And water is no exception. Although the thermal expansion for water is not very clear, given the enormous amount of water in the oceans, a rise in temperature a few degrees centigrade means a rise of sea water level of many centimeters.

Finally I would stress something else: that the Arctic thawing is irrelevant, it means that I get according to their melting. Whoever does not have implications for sea level, does not mean you have other problems: the melting of the Arctic is a huge input of freshwater to the sea, which represents major changes in their physical parameters, such as salinity, temperature, point freezing ... This has important implications for the environment, weather, and may even, in ocean currents.
In this regard, a geologist paleoclimatologist of Columbia University noted that, paradoxically, a thaw important in the Arctic caused by an increase in temperature was responsible for an episode of sudden, intense glaciation, known as "Younger Dryas" años.Pero 12,000 years as the narrator said at the end of Conan: "That's another history. "

Dont Have Product Number For Quickbooks

I guess we've all seen the television pictures of the Madrid skyscraper fire, the Hotel Windsor. "
Fortunately, there were no human casualties. For this reason, I dare to open a topic in a tone of joke about this desatre, economic (less bad than just that.)
And when we saw the television news about this incident I could not help laughing more than one occasion to the platitudes that were said.
As an initial example. In one of the news that he commented that experts said it was better that the "building falls on itself." I do not need to be skilled: not going to be better than to collapse on the surrounding buildings, releasing quantities of debris and destroying nearby buildings.
But more strange was that we saw in an interview that a journalist was a professor of structures, which asked him something like (not all words of text): "How is it possible that an office building blaze , whether in an office building there that could flammable burning? "To which the professor replied saying that there is much office paper that burns but fine. It was worth seeing the face of the journalist realize the gambazo he had made with the question.
Also, in one of these talk shows (yes, these where he meets a group of people who believed themselves humanists renaissanee, think they have the right to speak freely about everything), one of the cronies said, "It's clear that systems Fire prevention has not worked properly ... "Yeah, do not argue. Is evident. Especially in view of the many images that had been broadcast all weekend week where you could see the burning building, and the building without a façade ... Mind you, if you do not get to say, I had always thought it had worked.
In other news, a correspondent said: "It seems that the building will be demolished from top to bottom." I think it's obvious are not going to demolish from the bottom to fall on them.
the end and leave most of all I could hear platitudes regarding this issue. Finally, I will play a departure from the mouth of the mayor of Madrid. In a press conference I heard him say: "The demolition is irreversible." I think by definition of demolition in our universe, all demolitions are irreversible. I do not know if Mr Gallardón aware of other universes where the second antiley reigns of thermodynamics, and entropy decrease rather than increase. Or perhaps he thought that as the fire seemed a hell, like Maxwell's demon would run making mischief. But I think I should have said is "The demolition is inevitable," but irreversible.
Well if I said I left for the end is, obviously meant that she had the post.

Jardine Enterprise Biella Crib

Falling severe, "Apollo 15" and the speed of the rivers

Before the sixteenth century, before modern science was born from the hand of unique genius as Galileo or Newton (say a few names), science (and physics in particular) was an activity largely reflective. Physics was a physical away from experimentation (this does not mean that prior to the fifteenth century there had been great observers and experimenters, one example, Archimedes). During the Middle Ages, the prevailing thought was Aristotle was the last word of knowledge.
Aristotelian physics (it was Aristotle who coined the name of physics) had some pretty strange ideas in relation to the movement of the stars and the movement of bodies.
a particular idea was the free fall of bodies (the vertical drop of a body from a height). To Aristotelian physics, the decline was faster the more had a body mass. This idea was wrong. But it was assumed, in part (leaving aside the weight that had Aristotle) \u200b\u200bby the absence of experimentation.
However, fortunately for humanity, in the sixteenth century came the great Galileo to help us, and introduced full experimentation in science.
In fact, we now know, thanks to Galileo, that if we drop two objects of different mass from the same height in a space that no air (to avoid friction with air) the two once they reach the ground. The free fall of a body does not depend on its mass.
is said that to demonstrate this fact, Galileo dropped various objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. But as they fell very fast, he managed to slow the fall radically changing the design of the experiment, and that's when he made his famous experience of a slope.

Physics home of the "Apollo"

During the Apollo 15 mission, the mission commander, Dave R. Scott, took the almost total emptiness of the "atmosphere" to emulate Galileo lunar. For this he dropped from the same height a hammer and a feather: indeed, the two arrived at once (this proves to two things: that Galileo was right and that conspiaranoicos are wrong when they say that man walked on the moon). Before the cameras of the mission, it was proven once again that Galileo was right. Eppur si muove.
Basics
energy
What is energy? From a mechanical point of view, energy can be defined as a quantity that quantifies the ability of a body to develop strength, or to develop a movement.
With this definition in mind, is easy to understand that a body in motion, for the simple fact of moving, will have an energy associated with its state of motion. Indeed, this is what is called kinetic energy . And this energy is linked to the speed of the body.
However, this does not mean that a body at rest has no energy. If we recall the definition, says the "ability of a body to develop a movement." Whether a body is at rest, this does not mean it is not able to move or move to another body. Even the strong need rest!
Thus, the bodies will have, apart from the kinetic energy, an energy related to their ability to rest stop. This is what is called potential energy (ironic, that these terms of modern physics have their rationale in the distinction made Aristotle between power and act.) Example of potential energy
: suppose the hammer dropped the astronaut. At the time that the hammer is in the hand of an astronaut, not moving, the hammer has a potential energy, which depends on the distance separating it from the ground. The moment you let go, and falls, hits the ground with a speed: at the moment only has kinetic energy. All the potential energy becomes kinetic. The body has developed a movement, and potential energy in a way, was measuring how much movement we would be able to perform.
This serves to introduce another basic concept of energy: the principle of conservation of energy. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Can only be converted into other forms of energy. Sticking with the example of the hammer, the hammer was initially a potential energy, upon reaching the ground, all that potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. And after the impact, all that kinetic energy is converted into heat, more energy degraded.
Now we can move to the last thread of this article.

Where a river is faster?

A river is a natural system can be considered divided into 3 parts:
- The current high birth. That's where the river reaches its highest slopes, where we are waterfalls and rapids, where there is turbulence, where there is higher incidence of erosion ...
- The middle: where there is a balance between erosion and sedimentation. The slope is lower than in the previous case, and there is no such violent phenomena such as waterfalls.
- The lower course, the mouth. Here the river is nearly horizontal, and there will be a predominance of sedimentation processes.

Now I propose a riddle to a potential reader, who does not intend to spend a long time. Given the above, of those 3 parts, where the river will go faster?

In principle, observation and intuition suggests that where the river is more rapid in the upper, there are more pending, we fast, waterfalls, ... And in the mouth has to go slowly: the river is horizontal, and also that we can see that deposited material.
However, quite the opposite: the higher speeds are reached the river during low and high during the lowest.
Consider a water molecule in the birth of the river, there will be a certain speed (and thus kinetic energy) but also have a potential energy associated with its height relative to sea level (which remember, We measured the ability of the molecule and move down to the ground). When this molecule reaches the lower course of the entire potential energy was in the upper will have become kinetic, thus by definition of kinetic energy, the river will increase speed.

really the fact that the velocity is greater in the lower course contributes not only the issue of energy (in fact, really no influence, because the river bed varies from one area of \u200b\u200bthe river to another section of the channel varies, vary flow, ...) in the upper water follows paths turbulent, erratic, and although the speed of a stream of water can be very high, the various streams of water follow different paths, sometimes even some threads going upstream, upstream. In the lower reaches, however, is laminar flow, all streams of water follow the same direction. Consequently, the average velocity of flow in the lower reaches will be greater than the upper.
Anyway, not all ideas in Earth Sciences are intuitive. Good

Menaupausal Discharge

Starting from scratch: the spider touches ...

everyone. Many days have passed since my last post. In particular about a month, but I've gone busy. If this blog was a frequent visitor, I think I lost. So this is like starting over.
The other day I had a long conversation with a good friend of mine, who loves science and engineering, and above all, eat the head, and I consider a puzzle that really caught my attention. Therefore, we emplazco to share with me this curiosity.

The thing is as follows. Imagine a spider (in case there are any discerning biologist, will give a sort to be satisfied: Tegenaria domestica, or whatever it is, the house spider, for instance). The spider in question is in a room that is shaped like a perfect cube. And is located in the center of the wall (if there is any love of decoration, for less than a biologist, I shall content: the room is unfurnished, and is papered white, the floor, a tiled white also). Now the spider just wants to go downtown on the opposite wall, and wants to do by the shortest route. For some strange reason, the spider does not want to jump, or do funny things. Which way has to follow? However, it has to lose in a straight line, keep walking in a straight line on the floor, and up the opposite wall to the center. Put finest: the spider will move at any time in a plane perpendicular to the vertical line passing through its position. ! Wing, Fried phrase that has been!
far easier. Now the second part. Now the spider, rather than in the previous position, the distance "d" above the center. And instead of wanting to go downtown on the opposite wall, to go to a point on another wall is a distance "d" below the center of the front wall. What path has to follow? The most logical (at least, what I said, but if my system is not processing information-lease brain, is that today I am a bit petulant, works very logic) is a way analogous to anteriot. No, the answer I gave my friend (from here I send a greeting) is as follows: the spider goes in a straight line, walking through the roof, low the ground, walks on the ground and reaches the wall. Or something. Because my friend immediately to the question ametrello most puzzling question: how can mathematically deduce the shortest path?
As answer the question escapes my chances, I propose the eventual challenge to any reader of this post, that if the time to spare and like that of mathematics, try to solve it.

When I raised the puzzle to my little sister (the puzzle itself, not part of the mathematical proof, of course) gave me the most intelligent response you can do: there is no spider think. The time of writing I had saved have thought like her.
A greeting.

Fun Sayings To Do With Bamboo Fan

walls Is science neutral?

Today I read an article on Divulcat neutrality of science, and I have ventured to state my views on the subject, although I must admit my ignorance in deep philosophical issues.

often hear or read statements by senior scientists, in which is seen tremendous confidence in science as a form of knowledge entirely objective and independent of social context in which it operates.

However, in my humble opinion this is certainly not the case.

Compared with other major forms of knowledge, such as religion, philosophy and mythical thinking, it is possible that science itself is concerned more objective knowledge that humans have developed. But far from being free of social influence.
One of the great benefits of science is that it places its own limits. Science only works with assertions that can be falsifiable, so that this restraint, it managed to develop a much more objective understanding of religions or philosophical systems. Apart from this, science has fine tools and powerful weapons to correct its own mistakes and progress (what with a lot of rhetoric, Sagan called baloney detection kit).
In this regard, it is the way to approach the objective reality that has developed.

But this understanding of science, it only takes account of science as an abstract entity. There is no denying that science, in a conceptual, it is objective.
But this is only half true. The science of the abstract is objective, but should not be forgotten, that those who used science, scientists are human and as such humans will only be able to be fairly objective. Very few people would deny that science affects society. The opposite relationship, that society influences science, is more controversial.
Needless to say, technological development, ie, applied science to society, is very influenced by it. The applications of science are determined by society (applications that, unfortunately, are not always just for the benefit of all.) Are the social necesiades (whether meédicas, military, political, ...) that drive technological development. Think of if not the Manhattan Project (which Oppehneimer said represented the time when science met sin).
However, when we walked out of applied science and entered the field of basic science, the thing might not be so clear.
In basic science research there are many interests at stake, and it is they who "ordered" many times the conduct of research projects. Scientific research depends on budgets, so there will be certain lines of study which will enjoy more economic, while others will be more difficult to thrive. Moreover, when a well-established scientific paradigm, those jobs that are out of the conventional paradigm that makes it, do not enjoy good support from the rest of the scientific community, or a large impact. Its most likely destination is the neglect and indifference. Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn-style) take time and are very slow. Recall, for example, which took about 40 years that motorists ideas of plate tectonics was finally installed in geology and geophysics.
These two facts show that science is not free from external influences. There are many issues that influence the "Big Science" to overlook. However, that's what makes it different from any other form of knowledge, science has the powerful ability to recycle itself, and gobbling up their mistakes corrected.

paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote a delightful book, The Mismeasure of Man , which was hiding a fierce critic of the intelligence test. For this work circulated the names of leading scientists of the mind, as Paul Broca, Cesare Lombroso or Cyril Burt, and showed how their work was directly related to the social context in which they developed. According to Gould, all research in psychology of intelligence nineteenth century to mid-twentieth century was strongly influenced by social ideas.
similar conclusions were set out in the work of similar hue, is not in the genes , written, among others, Richard Lewontin, which refute the theories of biological determinism and theories about the genetic basis of differences between human groups and human behavior.
History of Biology provides many examples of how it is influenced by social ideas.
A classification system of living beings, as proposed by Linnaeus in the eighteenth century (in some ways still in force, is the hierarchical classification system based on kingdoms, families, species, ...) only have been possible in a society in which attributed the diversity of life to the action of the Divine Maker, and in which it was believed that species were immutable and static entities.
Cuvier's catastrophic ideas, which were an obstacle to the distribution transformer Lamarck, were, to some extent, influenced by the religious climate of the time. Disregarding the opposition he encountered, from the religious world, the theory of evolution by natural selection of Darwin in his early years.
even later evolutionary thinkers like the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, developed their ultimate vision of the evolution, influenced by his strong religious convictions. Similar example would be for example, the model of evolution by orthogenesis (the idea that evolution agencies cuasidivina by an outside force that directs your changes) that arose in the early twentieth century.

Another good example of influencing society in biology is the question of spontaneous generation: the fact that this idea goes back to Aristotle, and to be defended by the great thinkers of the Church, like St. Thomas or St. Augustine, were sufficient authority for argument has long been assumed to be true.
Biology also has a couple of good examples of use of scientific ideas and legitimating of social ideas, social Darwinism, which involved the use of the idea of \u200b\u200bnatural selection and competition as a justification of capitalism, or the revival and effect of Lamarckism and inheritance of acquired characters throughout the first half of the twentieth century, in the former Soviet Union's hand Tromfin Lysenko. Not only

biology or psychology, or evolutionary thinking have been subjected to social influences. In my view, other branches of science, a priori more sheltered and more objective fashion, such as physics or chemistry, are subject to influence.
And you do not go back to archirepetido example of Galileo's heliocentric theory to justify that statement.
whole theory of heat and thermodynamics is developed from the late eighteenth century, in my opinion, it influenced by the pressure of the Industrial Revolution.

The great physical chemist, recently deceased, Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977, wrote in one of his books and various scientific concepts of time are influenced by philosophical ideas of the physicist in question.

In chemistry, for his part, during the second half of the eighteenth century, the scientific community was divided between mechanistic, trying to explain biological phenomena were explained as inorganic compounds, and vitalistic, posed that organic substances could not be synthesized in the laboratory, and that action could only be built by a "vital force" that separated the living from the inert. Berzelius important organic chemicals such as defending vitalist thesis. It was not until 1828 that Wöhler synthesized urea, since then, other chemicals to do the same with other compounds, such as the acetic Kolbe, Berthelot with methane, ..., so the idea of \u200b\u200blife force was finally banished . It goes without saying that this idea of \u200b\u200bvitalism and life force has certain religious reminiscences, and behind it lies the idea that there is a guiding hand of creation (so-called life force) that the dead live comvierte.

The idea of \u200b\u200bcreating the universe from nothing, as is the Big Bang theory, could only have arisen, I believe, in the West, with our vision Christian world. It is significant that one of the fathers of Big Bang, the French mathematician and astrophysicist George Henri Lemaître, was a priest. So is the fact that, great philosophers and thinkers, atheists and materialists like Kant, Engels and Marx, were supporters of the idea of \u200b\u200ban infinite universe had existed forever.

remember now, too, have read once that the Physical Society of Japan had decided to expel from its meetings any physical work to protest military reaction to the manipulation of science.

In my opinion, these are all examples that show that science is not no means alien to the social context in which they live by scientists (I notice also that the idea is neither new, nor is mine, lol). Perhaps
science as an abstract idea as a tool itself is objective. But its products, different scientific paradigms are far from neutrality and to be free of social influence, or at least the influence of certain "truths" assumed. As well Realizing Heisenberg with his uncertainty principle, the explanation depends on who explains.