1

General Science / Re: How Can I Change the Mind Of A Flat-Earther ?

« on: 07/05/2018 23:02:20 »

They don't believe in gravity in the same way that we do. They believe that the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 meters per second squared, thus emulating gravity.

Gravity is not exactly 9.8m/s across the entire Earth ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

If it was a disc accelerating it would be constant across Earth's surface.

BTW after a mere decade accelerating at 9.8m/s², disc-Earth would be close to the speed of light.
Colliding with interstellar gas at that speed would irradiate Earth : we'd be cooked.

2

Marine Science / Re: How can climate scientists claim 30% acidification of the ocean due to CO2?

« on: 05/05/2018 22:34:07 »

Ocean Acidification
by The Ocean Portal Team; Reviewed by Jennifer Bennett (NOAA)

Even though the ocean is immense, enough carbon dioxide can have a major impact. In the past 200 years alone, ocean water has become 30 percent more acidic

<-- This is a massive blunder by NOAA. It shatters my confidence in "climate scientists".

I think she meant to say that there is 30% more CO2 in the ocean than pre-industrial times.

The statement "30% more acidic" is wrong for 2 reasons:
1) When CO2 (carbon dioxide) dissolves in water only 0.3% of it becomes carbonic acid according to the equation:

CO2(aq)  +  H2O(aq)  <=>  H2CO3(aq)

Most of the CO2 simply dissolves in water without making carbonic acid.

2) Carbonic acid is a weak acid with a Ka = 4.2E-04. Meaning less than 1% of that dissociates according to the formula:

H2CO3(aq) + H2O(aq) <=> H3O+(aq) + HCO3-(aq)

I'd need to check, but those equilibria are linear functions.
If you put 30% more CO2 in the water then, as you say,  only 0.3% actually reacts to form carbonic acid.
But only 0.3% of the stuff that was there before was in the form of carbonic acid.
So the increase in carbonic acid is 30%

Similarly, if there's an equilibrium where only a small fraction actually dissociates then that same equilibrium means that most of the carbonic acid that was present pre-industrially was dissociated.
and again, that factor affects both the "before" and the "after" so the simplistic expectation is that the acidity rises by 30%

What stops it is the buffering effect of the carbonate ions present. There simply isn't enough data presented to answer the question properly.
But that capacity is finite.
It's also not an equilibrium system- we are adding CO2 faster than the calcite deposits can react with it.

Once you have this  scenario "the shells of some animals are already dissolving in the more acidic seawater" you actually have a problem.
Trying to blame poor reporting  isn't going to solve that.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we measure the one way speed of light?

« on: 02/05/2018 09:51:18 »

Hi Jeff- Great question as always. Not only can it be done but it has been done. Its required knowledge for very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) in radio astronomy. It requires having two synchronized clocks at each location of each station, Dave Cooper thought it was impossible but to me it merely seems that he lacks a full understanding of clock synchronization, There are more than one way to synchronize clocks, People always seem to think that it its not done the way Einstein explained i then its not a real synchronization. On the contrary. Two atomic clocks can be synchronized at one place and then each clock is transported at a sloe speed (driving a car perhaps) and the clocks will still read the same time within experimental limits. If the one way speed of light was different depending on direction then inconsistencies with be found in the data, None were found,

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Which is the Closest Star to Planet Earth ?

« on: 20/03/2018 07:44:47 »

In terms of a runner-up, it depends on when you look...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs#Future_and_past

Scholz's star passed through the Sun's Oort cloud about 70,000 years ago, passing within 1 light year from the Sun. But it is a very faint star, and would not have been visible to the human eye, even at its closest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholz%27s_star#Solar_System_flyby

5

Technology / Re: Are scientists responsible for the fake news media?

« on: 24/02/2018 11:15:24 »

No
People who deliberately tell lies for their own selfish purposes are responsible for fake news.

The aim of this discussion is to marry science with politics, see if there is any compatibility.

There is compatibility to exactly the degree that politics is evidence based.
(You may need a microscope to find it)