Nothing specifically has happened to me that's really interesting. I usually don't get involved in life changing trips.
The most interesting thing would probably be having teacher O as a teacher. Its cause he changed my perspective of school. In the past, usually i just burned through the day and blew off all the homework until it was almost too late. ( ya, i know its hard to believe but I'm unbelievably lazy when it comes to homework, or work in general). Teacher O is such a cool ole teacher and he makes learning fun. The class is loud and fun and we always learn tons. The best part is you don't have to worry about grades as long as you do your stuff. It makes school much easier to get through when you get something fun to do in the middle of the day. We do a ton of writing in that class. You don't have a choice because if you don't, you'll get your butt kicked by classmates, so it helped me with my laziness. I'm actually doing some of my homework at home now and its probably because of the 150 or so front and back pages of writing i did in teacher O's class.
Another thing teacher O did for me is make me much more aware of current events. we play it every week in his class for bonus points. Bonus points are good motivation because I am pretty competitive. So i started reading magazines. (not the fun ones either, REAL ONES. i know! my parents didn't think it would ever happen! I am now reading through National Geographic and Newsweek and The Economist and Time. They don't help that much but I kept doing it anyways. Now I'm in a habit and its a good habit and its basically thanks to having teacher O as a teacher.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Been A While
Its been forever since I posted anything so I'll just say that the boat races went pretty well even though no one really compared to the Poke"Float." If we start going on a blogging roll again, I'll probably have to blog day and night to make up the points lost. Fun times ahead.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Election 08
This is the most controversial topic so far. Even more than global warming because it is more relevant to us at the moment. I can't vote (of course), so I don't pay as much attention to this race as some people do (marta). I read a few articles in yahoo/politics and the Washington Post.
Before I discuss the candidates, I will discuss my views. My biggest concern is the economy. That is my absolute biggest concern. The U.S. economy sucks. We are trillions of dollars in debt. We are sinking into a recession. The dollar is losing its value and the price of food and oil have skyrocketed. It is well over $100 a barrel for oil. Every time we are at the pump, we are not only sucking our wallets dry, we probably are contributing to terrorism. Why is the country failing? The reason is the War in Iraq. We have spent nearly 2 trillion dollars in a war that most of the country thinks we shouldn't be in. It has cost us 4,000 lives. What have we been rewarded with? Nothing significant. If we hadn't gotten involved in this mess, we would not be in debt. We would be prosperous. $2,000,000,000,000. We could have had universal health care, been freed from our dependence on oil, have secure borders, and be the strongest country in the world. Economically and militarily. My main goal in the new president would be to elect a president who will withdraw from Iraq A.S.A.P. Now, on to the candidates.
McCain has the Republican's nomination secured over his wins in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. I disagree with McCain on many issues and I don't like him. He is an old, worn-out, geezer. He supports the War in Iraq which I think is pretty stupid. I think I have made my views on the War pretty clear. Also, McCain panders. Thats lame. McCain has some pluses. He has got experience which is usually good but not all important. Time magazine has recently written a big article on how experience does not matter as much as we think. It basically says that someone with 10 years of experience will do about the same as someone with 30 years. Overall, he is a calm person but he has got a small temper. He is willing to cooperate with Democrats, that means he could bring the country closer together. He is good on national security, maybe a little too good. On science, he probably won't do anything. He is a republican and republicans aren't good for change. Thats basically my view on him. I would hate it if he got elected.
Hillary Clinton. She is ok. I think her Health Care plan might be a little too much since we are already in debt trillions of dollars. She addresses global warming, thats cool. I like her tax plans and economy stimulus plans. He doesn't support the War and wants us out. Thats good. Overall, I like her views. What I don't like about her is that she is boring, old, and I don't like her style. Its just that she keeps using the fact that she is a woman as a platform which is unfair. Obama almost never speaks of his race. He runs simply on the platform that he is the best candidate. I don't like the fact the Bill Clinton is campaigning for her. Its like cheating and it didn't work anyways. As for science, she will probably increase funding for scientific development. I like that.
Obama is similar to Clinton on many views. His health care plan isn't as extreme. Obama voted for a 40 mpg mandate but Clinton didn't. I with Obama on that vote. Obama is more liberal. I guess that is ok. Other than that, they are almost the same. However, Obama is young, fresh, and ready to roll. He is inspiring which will allow him to unite the country and rebuild alliances with other countries. Obama is the better candidate to defeat McCain. Obama wants change which I'm cool with. So I am an Obama supporter. He is the candidate for change and that includes science too. He is a huge supporter for scientific developments so he will naturally fund those programs when he can.
My parents are McCain supporters. It must be an old people thing. Good thing they can't vote yet. Well thats all I got.
Before I discuss the candidates, I will discuss my views. My biggest concern is the economy. That is my absolute biggest concern. The U.S. economy sucks. We are trillions of dollars in debt. We are sinking into a recession. The dollar is losing its value and the price of food and oil have skyrocketed. It is well over $100 a barrel for oil. Every time we are at the pump, we are not only sucking our wallets dry, we probably are contributing to terrorism. Why is the country failing? The reason is the War in Iraq. We have spent nearly 2 trillion dollars in a war that most of the country thinks we shouldn't be in. It has cost us 4,000 lives. What have we been rewarded with? Nothing significant. If we hadn't gotten involved in this mess, we would not be in debt. We would be prosperous. $2,000,000,000,000. We could have had universal health care, been freed from our dependence on oil, have secure borders, and be the strongest country in the world. Economically and militarily. My main goal in the new president would be to elect a president who will withdraw from Iraq A.S.A.P. Now, on to the candidates.
McCain has the Republican's nomination secured over his wins in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. I disagree with McCain on many issues and I don't like him. He is an old, worn-out, geezer. He supports the War in Iraq which I think is pretty stupid. I think I have made my views on the War pretty clear. Also, McCain panders. Thats lame. McCain has some pluses. He has got experience which is usually good but not all important. Time magazine has recently written a big article on how experience does not matter as much as we think. It basically says that someone with 10 years of experience will do about the same as someone with 30 years. Overall, he is a calm person but he has got a small temper. He is willing to cooperate with Democrats, that means he could bring the country closer together. He is good on national security, maybe a little too good. On science, he probably won't do anything. He is a republican and republicans aren't good for change. Thats basically my view on him. I would hate it if he got elected.
Hillary Clinton. She is ok. I think her Health Care plan might be a little too much since we are already in debt trillions of dollars. She addresses global warming, thats cool. I like her tax plans and economy stimulus plans. He doesn't support the War and wants us out. Thats good. Overall, I like her views. What I don't like about her is that she is boring, old, and I don't like her style. Its just that she keeps using the fact that she is a woman as a platform which is unfair. Obama almost never speaks of his race. He runs simply on the platform that he is the best candidate. I don't like the fact the Bill Clinton is campaigning for her. Its like cheating and it didn't work anyways. As for science, she will probably increase funding for scientific development. I like that.
Obama is similar to Clinton on many views. His health care plan isn't as extreme. Obama voted for a 40 mpg mandate but Clinton didn't. I with Obama on that vote. Obama is more liberal. I guess that is ok. Other than that, they are almost the same. However, Obama is young, fresh, and ready to roll. He is inspiring which will allow him to unite the country and rebuild alliances with other countries. Obama is the better candidate to defeat McCain. Obama wants change which I'm cool with. So I am an Obama supporter. He is the candidate for change and that includes science too. He is a huge supporter for scientific developments so he will naturally fund those programs when he can.
My parents are McCain supporters. It must be an old people thing. Good thing they can't vote yet. Well thats all I got.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The God Particle
The source of this article and picture is this link
My first thought on this article was that is was interesting. There were some things I already knew about the topics in the article. I read about quarks, gluons, and bosons briefly during the Nuclear Energy Project. Basically, quarks and leptons make up protons and neutrons. Gluons simply glue quarks together. I had also heard of particle accelerators but I didn't know much about them. Its just a bunch of magnets with enormous electrical power that smash particles together or break them apart. So it made some sense to me.
This whole thing about finding the god particle sounds a little absurd. There probably are particles smaller than quarks or subatomic particles that decay in .00000000001 seconds but we just don't have the power to find them. It was mentioned in the article that there have been attempts to find more about the subatomic particles in U.S.A. but nothing has been found recently. The new device probably has more juice but I still doubt they'd find something significant. I would still support it however. There is a small chance something would be found but if there is, it'd be huge. The article had numerous examples on how sub-atomic discoveries led to amenities we rely on today. Some examples are laptops and iPods. I don't really care if were spending billions of dollars on it. The governments of the world waste billions of dollars all the time (and I'm not talking about the war in Iraq). If you want proof, look up "government waste" on Google. For an example of such a site, click this message.
I think you, Mr. V could've given us a basic overview on quarks and gluons. You never know if it'll come in useful. Quarks & gluons do make up everything in the universe, as far as we know.
If a big discovery is made, it could lead to amazing new inventions/better understanding of the universe and how it began. If it doesn't work, we just wasted a couple billion dollars. Have to wait and see...
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Plan for the Future
This could change at any time but currently, I have 2 possible choices on what I would like to be as an adult.
These jobs don't really have a connection to those activities I listed earlier.
- Doctor. This strikes me as a respectable and satisfying job. It is respectable because it takes a lot of studies and experience. Because of this, you are trusted. When someone has got a problem, they will look to you for answers which you will have 99% of the time. It is also satisfying because you know that you are improving the health and quality of life for whoever your patient is. For more info on doctor/health jobs, click this message.
- Financial manager. Anything with money involved sounds good to me. This job would not be as satisfying. It will be much more boring than being a doctor. It will mainly be analyzing data, being able to lead projects, and organizing data. However, this job has its advantages. Firstly, the minimum requirement is a bachelor's degree which is quite simple. Skills strongly needed would be mathematics, statistics, economics, and computer programming/skill. I don't mean to brag or anything but I'm exceptionally skilled in all those areas. Also, its a high paying job [usually $105,000 to $350,000 depending on employer and type of managing]. Also, with your economical experience, it would be likely that you would prospect stocks on the market and possibly pull off a few good investments leading to even bigger profits. For more info on financial managers, click this message.
These jobs don't really have a connection to those activities I listed earlier.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Mr. Voight
I feel that Mr. Voight shouldn't get fired or suspended. He said in his blog that his outburst was purposeful and he had good reason behind it. I too am a little tired or the language I'm hearing (i do a pretty good job of not swearing, at least in public).
Here is a link to Mr.V's response to his outburst
Here is a link to Mr.V's response to his outburst
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Favorite Activity
I can't think of one specific activity because I get bored of things and do different things but then get back to the same thing all over again.
Here are my favorite activities:
Some things that all of these activities have in common that I like about them are:
Here are my favorite activities:
- Baseball
- Tennis/badminton
- Video gaming (real gaming, not the lame, from time-to-time one) We aren't talking mmorpgs or rpgs because they are too boring and slow. I'd prefer multi-player shoot-em-ups(Halo) or DDR, (I'd own you, don't even try). However, i haven't played any games for almost a month, I wanted to make sure I didn't have an addiction.
Some things that all of these activities have in common that I like about them are:
- They all have a winner/or a group of winners
- Good for your health (video gaming increases IQ, google it)
- Allows you to have a lot of fun with friends. I usually don't game alone because there would be no motivation.
- Develops character (not always a good one)
- Makes you happier, if you lost the game of base-ball, you still had fun with your team so its not too bad.
- Takes away your stress though i usually don't have much of it
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Chemical Changes
C6H12O6 (glucose) 
2 C2H5OH (ethyl alcohol) + 2 CO2
You know what that is? No, you don't. This is when glucose (simple sugar) ferments to ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. The sugar in grapes or from grain ferments with yeast to make the alcohol and carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is the gas that bubbles out of beer or champaign. Why do i like this reaction? CAUSE IT MAKES BEER.
WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Why do i like beer? I DON'T KNOW! Have i tried beer? Haven't even touched a bottle yet. So why do i like it again? I like it cause beer makes people happy and makes them them momentarily forget about their problems.
If this reaction did not happen anymore, that would screw over millions, maybe billions of people. There would be riots, and violence because of their dependence. The suicide hot line would have a huge waiting list. (That was dark, was it not)?
How would it affect me? It wouldn't unless i got anger taken out on me by a alcoholic who wants his beer.
2 C2H5OH (ethyl alcohol) + 2 CO2You know what that is? No, you don't. This is when glucose (simple sugar) ferments to ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. The sugar in grapes or from grain ferments with yeast to make the alcohol and carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is the gas that bubbles out of beer or champaign. Why do i like this reaction? CAUSE IT MAKES BEER.
WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Why do i like beer? I DON'T KNOW! Have i tried beer? Haven't even touched a bottle yet. So why do i like it again? I like it cause beer makes people happy and makes them them momentarily forget about their problems.
If this reaction did not happen anymore, that would screw over millions, maybe billions of people. There would be riots, and violence because of their dependence. The suicide hot line would have a huge waiting list. (That was dark, was it not)?
How would it affect me? It wouldn't unless i got anger taken out on me by a alcoholic who wants his beer.
Monday, January 28, 2008
State of The Union
Some Links Up FrontGeorge Bush on Cloning
I'm on my laptop watching the State of The Union address by Mr. Bush. He brings up an interesting point. Go here for more info on this state of the union address.
"The buying, selling, patenting, and cloning of human beings should be permanently banned"
The buying and selling part, we can all agree with. Stem cells have had 'breakthroughs' and soon, there probably won't be an ethical debate about it.
I don't get much about patenting human beings. Guess they are talking stem cells again
Cloning is the cool part. Humans have never been cloned before and no one could know what'd happen. Would they rebel or drive us insane. Would they be able to feel emotion as a human can. Can they replace someone completely. Cloning makes great movies, ya? For some info on cloning, go to this link.
Mr. Bush is completely against cloning as you can tell but not everyone is. I think cloning would be cool, as long as it was controlled. We already got a population crisis around the world. It could be used medically maybe. You could make a clone, then use their body parts as transplants for people. If someone dies and someone gets depressed, you could clone him/her the dead guy, cheer him/her up a little and send em' along. Then, you could kill the clone or keep it as a pet. Haha, jk. Maybe you could send them to the Moon or something. Just dump them there. I DON'T KNOW.
Could the clones become part of human life. What could clones do to society. If some dude is looking for a girl, who would he choose, a perfect clone, or an average woman. The clone obviously. Then there's gonna be a huge debate between Naturals vs. Clones. (that would make a great movie). There could be a cbay instead of an ebay. "Buy your clones today, fresh from the factory, ready to do whatever you want. Just $5,000 + shipping and handling." That would be ...interesting...
Well, just thought I'd put my 2 cents in.
Houston, We got a problem
OK, the new template apparently doesn't show links. So, my recent posts, I put the links in bold but the older ones i haven't 'cause i can't find them.
Good Luck Mr.V
Good Luck Mr.V
Change/Models
Here be the link to my site that I have to I'll be using. New Technique Quickly Detects Cancer
This article really has nothing to directly with change and models but the discovery did create change. A technique that quickly detects cancer could save many lives, maybe thousands over the long run.
My original answer to "what causes change" was , in one word, necessity. However, there was never a need to find a way to find cancer a little quicker. The scientists that researched this aren't desperately poor and they don't need to find some kind of discovery. They did it because they wanted to.
I could go on to conclude that change can also be caused by want. If someone or something wants to do something, it will. If someone wants to drive around in a 38 mpg hummer instead of a Toyata pre-s, they can increase the CO2 levels of Earth. This may cause global warming. If some idiot wants to go out drinking with her boyfriend she met 10 minutes ago in a nightclub, she may become pregnant. If someone wants to ride a dirt bike down a 400 foot ramp and try to do a double back-flip, they may lose consciousness and wake up breathing through a tube. You never know.
This article really has nothing to directly with change and models but the discovery did create change. A technique that quickly detects cancer could save many lives, maybe thousands over the long run.
My original answer to "what causes change" was , in one word, necessity. However, there was never a need to find a way to find cancer a little quicker. The scientists that researched this aren't desperately poor and they don't need to find some kind of discovery. They did it because they wanted to.
I could go on to conclude that change can also be caused by want. If someone or something wants to do something, it will. If someone wants to drive around in a 38 mpg hummer instead of a Toyata pre-s, they can increase the CO2 levels of Earth. This may cause global warming. If some idiot wants to go out drinking with her boyfriend she met 10 minutes ago in a nightclub, she may become pregnant. If someone wants to ride a dirt bike down a 400 foot ramp and try to do a double back-flip, they may lose consciousness and wake up breathing through a tube. You never know.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Why do we learn science?
I got a few answers to this question. I think that the whole point of school is to open up careers to their students. Whatever the students find interesting, they pursue it. Science is taught because there is and always will be a huge amount of career opportunities based on science. For those who want a job in science, they will need to become specialists in an area.
Looking for a science job, try this site. New Scientist Jobs
Obviously, learning science would be pretty important if you were to choose a scientific career. Science would be the most important and useful to these people. However, science is also useful to those who aren't pursuing a scientific career and is still worth learning. Science helps you understand the world around you. It makes it all clearer. If you see a firework going off, you can think, wow, I know how it works. I like Madelyn's blog on how science is useful to those who aren't looking for science to be the center of their life. She says that knowing basic science keeps us safe. I agree with that. If we didn't know about conductors of electricity, we might go hide up against a metal fence during a thunderstorm and get shocked to death or go try to call our family on a public phone during a storm.
If we didn't know chemical properties of substances, we couldn't know if it is flammable or not. It would take a while to light limestone on fire. In natural science, you could learn that threatened skunks will go through an elaborate routine of hisses and foot stamping and tail-high threat postures before resorting to the spray. This could be pretty useful if you are in a park and you happen to see a skunk hissing at you. If you didn't know any better, you'd probably try to go pet that cute little skunk.
Basically, science helps you understand the world better, avoid hazards, and get through life easier.
Looking for a science job, try this site. New Scientist Jobs
Obviously, learning science would be pretty important if you were to choose a scientific career. Science would be the most important and useful to these people. However, science is also useful to those who aren't pursuing a scientific career and is still worth learning. Science helps you understand the world around you. It makes it all clearer. If you see a firework going off, you can think, wow, I know how it works. I like Madelyn's blog on how science is useful to those who aren't looking for science to be the center of their life. She says that knowing basic science keeps us safe. I agree with that. If we didn't know about conductors of electricity, we might go hide up against a metal fence during a thunderstorm and get shocked to death or go try to call our family on a public phone during a storm.
If we didn't know chemical properties of substances, we couldn't know if it is flammable or not. It would take a while to light limestone on fire. In natural science, you could learn that threatened skunks will go through an elaborate routine of hisses and foot stamping and tail-high threat postures before resorting to the spray. This could be pretty useful if you are in a park and you happen to see a skunk hissing at you. If you didn't know any better, you'd probably try to go pet that cute little skunk.
Basically, science helps you understand the world better, avoid hazards, and get through life easier.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Global warming Add-on
I've been asked to post links of some of my sources
Of course, (assuming global warming is real) there is a lot more that needs to be done. If global warming isn't real, well then, you can do these things to help out the environment. Alternative fuels would be a great asset in helping the environment and possibly stopping global warming. A humble suggestion to the government, they should offer rewards to helping create alternative fuels. For example, if someone were to come up with a practical and reasonably priced way to create a solar powered car, he should be rewarded in cash (or check), given a patent, and possible a medal/prize for his discovery that helped the environment. A reward of 10 million dollars would be a good way to convince the smart peeps out there to get thinking. Now in order to really help the environment, emissions have to be cut. This is where it gets tricky. I believe a carbon tax would not work out at the moment. There are way too many companies out there and there is too much CO2 being emitted. You would need to take this slowly. First, there needs to be an agreement between countries to cut emissions. It has to be a group effort. If one person does it nicely but no one else does, it is useless. An example is Switzerland, the greenest country of them all. The level of difference they made in the world's environment- not so much. A major, well thought-out contract has to be agreed to and strictly followed. Maybe a 10 point plan to cut 30% of CO2 emissions globally. (I don't know what the 10 points are) ( what i do know is that it will take cooperation and a lot of $$$)
Well, you would think I'm done but you are wrong. I now have to talk about the social aspects. In all due respect to Al Gore, i believe that he exaggerated the effects of global warming. The media is making global warming sound a lot worse then I along with many to believe. The exaggeration has pros and cons however. Pros- helps promote greener environment. Cons- they lied to us. Society is split because of global warming. Some say it exists, some say it doesn't. some say we should help out either way, and some just don't care. I really doubt that the general community would all bond together and say " lets stop global warming" until it is a little too late or " lets not stop global warming" when its a little too early. Society won't come to a consensus any time soon. What the media should try to say is instead of " global warming is real and we should take drastic measures now", they should say " global warming or not, lets help out the environment." At least they would be telling the truth.
If it were to be decided that global warming is bogus, then society would continue living as it does now. If it is decided that it was real, then society would do a 180 and have to change the way they live. They would bike and walk more. Recycling would be a must. They might have to switch their electricity and appliances into their more environmentally friendly counterparts. New cars would need to be bought or old cars modified. Everything would change and some people just aren't ready for that.
What a messy issue.
- National Geographic on Global Warming Storms
- Map of the World
- Polar Ice Caps
- Effect of Global Warming ( probably biased)
Of course, (assuming global warming is real) there is a lot more that needs to be done. If global warming isn't real, well then, you can do these things to help out the environment. Alternative fuels would be a great asset in helping the environment and possibly stopping global warming. A humble suggestion to the government, they should offer rewards to helping create alternative fuels. For example, if someone were to come up with a practical and reasonably priced way to create a solar powered car, he should be rewarded in cash (or check), given a patent, and possible a medal/prize for his discovery that helped the environment. A reward of 10 million dollars would be a good way to convince the smart peeps out there to get thinking. Now in order to really help the environment, emissions have to be cut. This is where it gets tricky. I believe a carbon tax would not work out at the moment. There are way too many companies out there and there is too much CO2 being emitted. You would need to take this slowly. First, there needs to be an agreement between countries to cut emissions. It has to be a group effort. If one person does it nicely but no one else does, it is useless. An example is Switzerland, the greenest country of them all. The level of difference they made in the world's environment- not so much. A major, well thought-out contract has to be agreed to and strictly followed. Maybe a 10 point plan to cut 30% of CO2 emissions globally. (I don't know what the 10 points are) ( what i do know is that it will take cooperation and a lot of $$$)
Well, you would think I'm done but you are wrong. I now have to talk about the social aspects. In all due respect to Al Gore, i believe that he exaggerated the effects of global warming. The media is making global warming sound a lot worse then I along with many to believe. The exaggeration has pros and cons however. Pros- helps promote greener environment. Cons- they lied to us. Society is split because of global warming. Some say it exists, some say it doesn't. some say we should help out either way, and some just don't care. I really doubt that the general community would all bond together and say " lets stop global warming" until it is a little too late or " lets not stop global warming" when its a little too early. Society won't come to a consensus any time soon. What the media should try to say is instead of " global warming is real and we should take drastic measures now", they should say " global warming or not, lets help out the environment." At least they would be telling the truth.
If it were to be decided that global warming is bogus, then society would continue living as it does now. If it is decided that it was real, then society would do a 180 and have to change the way they live. They would bike and walk more. Recycling would be a must. They might have to switch their electricity and appliances into their more environmentally friendly counterparts. New cars would need to be bought or old cars modified. Everything would change and some people just aren't ready for that.
What a messy issue.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Global warming
Mr. Voight, if you didn't know has assigned us another ... assignment on global warming. Go here for details. Now, since no one has posted on this topic, I'll have to start it off.
Global warming is a very controversial topic that will not be resolved anytime soon. As Mr. Voight said, several decades ago, people thought there was global cooling but it wasn't true. This would mean that global warming could be untrue as well but is it? CO2 levels are higher then ever and almost all scientific reports state that that is increasing temperatures. If this is true then global warming is a serious threat to the environment. An argument against this is a increase in CO2 levels is too minor to be considered a major reason for increasing temperatures. We even have people saying that global warming is unstoppable and if it is going to happen, it will.
What do i think of global warming? I believe that at this moment, temperatures are warming and we should do something about it. Even if global warming turns out to be a farce, by the time temperatures got in control, there could be 20 more level 5 hurricanes hitting the coasts of many continents. For example, let us say that the word gets warmer for the next 30 years and then controls itself as some say it will. That could be a 2 degree Fahrenheit rise and and it could greatly increase the amount of hurricanes and floods in this world. That could result in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people. If the world were to come together to seriously invest in slowing down global warming in any way, it would be worth it. If, for example, the U.N. agreed on a plan to cut carbon emissions by 30%, that could cause the temperature in 2030 to rise by 1 degrees instead of 2. In terms of hurricanes, floods, polar ice melting, that is a huge difference.
What would i say to those who believe global warming is unstoppable? I would say that even if is unstoppable, we are effecting it. If we were to cut down on carbon. The temperature could only increase by 2 degrees instead of 4 ( assuming that the world continues warming)
To those that believe global warming is definitely happening, well then, start cutting emissions.
In any situation, it is better to be safe then sorry. Nature is unpredictable and no matter what happens in the future, nothing bad would happen because we began cutting emissions, using alternative fuels, and saving energy.
I also feel that it is really stupid that we have 5% of the worlds population and we emit 25% of the carbon. If we want other countries to cut emissions ( like India or China), we should cut our own emissions first.
Go ahead and comment on your views on global warming
Global warming is a very controversial topic that will not be resolved anytime soon. As Mr. Voight said, several decades ago, people thought there was global cooling but it wasn't true. This would mean that global warming could be untrue as well but is it? CO2 levels are higher then ever and almost all scientific reports state that that is increasing temperatures. If this is true then global warming is a serious threat to the environment. An argument against this is a increase in CO2 levels is too minor to be considered a major reason for increasing temperatures. We even have people saying that global warming is unstoppable and if it is going to happen, it will.
What do i think of global warming? I believe that at this moment, temperatures are warming and we should do something about it. Even if global warming turns out to be a farce, by the time temperatures got in control, there could be 20 more level 5 hurricanes hitting the coasts of many continents. For example, let us say that the word gets warmer for the next 30 years and then controls itself as some say it will. That could be a 2 degree Fahrenheit rise and and it could greatly increase the amount of hurricanes and floods in this world. That could result in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people. If the world were to come together to seriously invest in slowing down global warming in any way, it would be worth it. If, for example, the U.N. agreed on a plan to cut carbon emissions by 30%, that could cause the temperature in 2030 to rise by 1 degrees instead of 2. In terms of hurricanes, floods, polar ice melting, that is a huge difference.
What would i say to those who believe global warming is unstoppable? I would say that even if is unstoppable, we are effecting it. If we were to cut down on carbon. The temperature could only increase by 2 degrees instead of 4 ( assuming that the world continues warming)
To those that believe global warming is definitely happening, well then, start cutting emissions.
In any situation, it is better to be safe then sorry. Nature is unpredictable and no matter what happens in the future, nothing bad would happen because we began cutting emissions, using alternative fuels, and saving energy.
I also feel that it is really stupid that we have 5% of the worlds population and we emit 25% of the carbon. If we want other countries to cut emissions ( like India or China), we should cut our own emissions first.
Go ahead and comment on your views on global warming
Change and Electromagnetic Force
I have 2 answers to how electromagnetic force causes change.
First of all, electromagnetic force states that opposites charges attract and same charges repel.
Scientifically speaking, electromagnetic force is the cause of chemical bonding. Because of electromagnetic force, we have covalent, metallic, and ionic bonding. These bonds create everything in the universe. In covalent bonding, electrons are shared and the reason the electrons stay in place is because of electromagnetic force. The positively charged protons pull on the electrons from both sides and that causes the the electrons to be held in place. In ionic, the electrons are given and taken. That causes one atom to become positively charged and one atom to become negatively charged. Electromagnetic force causes these 2 atoms to combine. In metallic, there are few electrons in the valence shell and that causes the electrons to stray away from the shell and form a sea of electrons around the atoms. The electrons in the sea are able to slide past each other like molecules in water. This gives the metal malleability and ductility. The two metal atoms gain the feeling that there valence shells are complete because of the sea of electrons around them. Because of the attraction between positive ions and negative electrons ( electromagnetic force), it is very difficult for electrons to overcome it and stray away from the atoms.
There are some real world examples as well on how opposites attract. But all the ones i can think of are already posted in different blogs so why don't you go look at them (maybe here), (or here), (or here),
First of all, electromagnetic force states that opposites charges attract and same charges repel.
Scientifically speaking, electromagnetic force is the cause of chemical bonding. Because of electromagnetic force, we have covalent, metallic, and ionic bonding. These bonds create everything in the universe. In covalent bonding, electrons are shared and the reason the electrons stay in place is because of electromagnetic force. The positively charged protons pull on the electrons from both sides and that causes the the electrons to be held in place. In ionic, the electrons are given and taken. That causes one atom to become positively charged and one atom to become negatively charged. Electromagnetic force causes these 2 atoms to combine. In metallic, there are few electrons in the valence shell and that causes the electrons to stray away from the shell and form a sea of electrons around the atoms. The electrons in the sea are able to slide past each other like molecules in water. This gives the metal malleability and ductility. The two metal atoms gain the feeling that there valence shells are complete because of the sea of electrons around them. Because of the attraction between positive ions and negative electrons ( electromagnetic force), it is very difficult for electrons to overcome it and stray away from the atoms.
There are some real world examples as well on how opposites attract. But all the ones i can think of are already posted in different blogs so why don't you go look at them (maybe here), (or here), (or here),
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
What Causes Change add-on
Troy, brought up a good point. The need to change arises when there is a change in the environment. That change was brought about by another change in its environment and so on.
Also, from reading other posts, I can agree with the statement that change can be stopped (without stopping time.) If a non-human object (a living being would age) were to be in complete isolation, such as in the vacuum of space surrounded by emptiness and absolutely nothing to trigger any motion or reaction whatsoever, you would be unable to change. This idea was gained from here.
Also, from reading other posts, I can agree with the statement that change can be stopped (without stopping time.) If a non-human object (a living being would age) were to be in complete isolation, such as in the vacuum of space surrounded by emptiness and absolutely nothing to trigger any motion or reaction whatsoever, you would be unable to change. This idea was gained from here.
What Causes Change
Change will happen as long as the universe exists. There are many types of changes and one would be changes that are caused by the need for change. If you were to participate is modern warfare with stones and mediocre bows and arrows, you wouldn't get very far. The situation requires for you to change and adopt the use of more effective weaponry such as guns, airplanes, tanks, etc.
Another example of change would be evolution. Basically, all helpful traits that are useful for survival and reproduction become increasingly common and those traits that are no longer useful to survival and reproduction become obsolete. Slowly but surely, this creates considerable change in the world we live in. For more information on evolution, click here.
Change by need can be traced down to the sub-atomic level as well. All atoms want to be "happy" and in order for that to happen, their valence shell has to be complete. Non-metal atoms form covalent bonds with one another in order to satisfy their need and create completely new substances because of it. Here is a crudely drawn example of an a chemical compound.
.
Notice that each valence shell is complete. This is sugar for those who don't know.
There are other ways change can be caused. It could be caused by another object. When you kick a ball, you transfer energy to the stationary item and cause motion. On a larger scale, if a meteor were to hit the Earth, that would quite a large energy transfer and it would cause a major change. I would also, in this section, talk about global warming but it is a controversial issue so I'll avoid it.
Those are my thoughts on what causes change.
Another example of change would be evolution. Basically, all helpful traits that are useful for survival and reproduction become increasingly common and those traits that are no longer useful to survival and reproduction become obsolete. Slowly but surely, this creates considerable change in the world we live in. For more information on evolution, click here.
Change by need can be traced down to the sub-atomic level as well. All atoms want to be "happy" and in order for that to happen, their valence shell has to be complete. Non-metal atoms form covalent bonds with one another in order to satisfy their need and create completely new substances because of it. Here is a crudely drawn example of an a chemical compound.
.Notice that each valence shell is complete. This is sugar for those who don't know.
There are other ways change can be caused. It could be caused by another object. When you kick a ball, you transfer energy to the stationary item and cause motion. On a larger scale, if a meteor were to hit the Earth, that would quite a large energy transfer and it would cause a major change. I would also, in this section, talk about global warming but it is a controversial issue so I'll avoid it.
Those are my thoughts on what causes change.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
