Science Lesson (Another One)

[Hollie]

Old Biologist is still stuck on 1859 thinking. "It's as real as gravity. All the physicists say 'gravity is as real as evolution!', right?"

I guess you types feel better about yourselves believing that biological evolution is a grand, worldwide conspiracy of those evilutionist atheists.

 

[Newtonian]

My earlier post, Lesson Within a Lesson, demonstrated how a large number of people can arrive at completely different conclusions, or no conclusion at all, based on the same set of facts or information. It's extremely difficult to begin with one set of facts, and arrive at opposite conclusions both of which are correct. One exception which comes to mind is the fact that electrons are particles and they are waves. While seemingly self-contradictory, two different scientists received Nobel Prizes for proving the seeming contradictions.

I now refer you to the August 1991 issue of National Geographic magazine. Cover attached.
Please look at page 38 and scrutinize the pictures, then comment. I don't expect any of you to notice what the other 8,000,000 NG readers all missed. But try. It's right in front of you!

It is fun to have fun but you have to know how. - The Cat In The Hat

OK, chem engineer - help me to respond better. Please.

I clicked on p. 38 pictures but am too tired now to notice what you want us to notice.

On the tangent about contradictory conclusions of scientists - I think specialization is one problem. An example is Miller-Urey type synthesis experiments which assumed a methane (CH4) & ammonia (NH3) atmosphere without considering the geological evidence of a CO2 atmosphere (e.g. oxidized minerals as one reason Oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust).

Or astronomers thinking early earth was cooler (based on solar output) while geologists thinking early earth was hotter (solidification of shield rock, etc.).

In those cases, both contradictory conclusions cannot both be accurate, can they? Contradictory dating conclusions don't help - few dating estimates take into consideration the rate of the geological carbon cycle responsible for the vast carbonate (CO3 as in CaCO3/limestone/calcite) deposits in earth's crust (over 64 million petagrams of carbon is those carbonate deposits).

The higher proportion of Calcium carbonate over Potassium and Sodium carbonates I think is due to the biological carbon cycle (e.g. sea shells) rather than simply due to the geological carbon cycle - am I correct?

Otherwise, why the predominance of Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters? I think Sodium ions predominate in oceans now, am I correct? (as in salt (NaCl) water) Is it simply that the biological and geological carbon cycles tend to remove Calcium ions more than Sodium ions, leaving the current predominance of Sodium?

 

[ChemEngineer]

My earlier post, Lesson Within a Lesson, demonstrated how a large number of people can arrive at completely different conclusions, or no conclusion at all, based on the same set of facts or information. It's extremely difficult to begin with one set of facts, and arrive at opposite conclusions both of which are correct. One exception which comes to mind is the fact that electrons are particles and they are waves. While seemingly self-contradictory, two different scientists received Nobel Prizes for proving the seeming contradictions.

I now refer you to the August 1991 issue of National Geographic magazine. Cover attached.
Please look at page 38 and scrutinize the pictures, then comment. I don't expect any of you to notice what the other 8,000,000 NG readers all missed. But try. It's right in front of you!

It is fun to have fun but you have to know how. - The Cat In The Hat

OK, chem engineer - help me to respond better. Please.

I clicked on p. 38 pictures but am too tired now to notice what you want us to notice.

The picture of the cave was printed UPSIDE DOWN ! ! ! Note the stalagmites at the bottom. No corresponding stalagmites on the ceiling. Then look at the mushroom shape near the top. Drippings drip up. I wrote NG and the agreed it was printed upside down but failed to print a correction the next month.

The lesson is that even when we are all looking at the same set of data, some people miss out due to lack of discernment or interpretation. This is widespread.

The higher proportion of Calcium carbonate over Potassium and Sodium carbonates I think is due to the biological carbon cycle (e.g. sea shells) rather than simply due to the geological carbon cycle - am I correct?

Otherwise, why the predominance of Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters? I think Sodium ions predominate in oceans now, am I correct? (as in salt (NaCl) water) Is it simply that the biological and geological carbon cycles tend to remove Calcium ions more than Sodium ions, leaving the current predominance of Sodium?

I'm sure sodium is higher in sea water than calcium due to as you say the formation of shells and coral. Sodium salts are far more soluble than calcium salts.

Incidentally, as a health precaution, NOBODY should take calcium carbonate supplements. It forms kidney stones and they hurt like hell. I had two surgeries to remove mine.
Take calcium citrate I believe it is. Much mo bettah. You do not want stones.

 

[Hollie]

My earlier post, Lesson Within a Lesson, demonstrated how a large number of people can arrive at completely different conclusions, or no conclusion at all, based on the same set of facts or information. It's extremely difficult to begin with one set of facts, and arrive at opposite conclusions both of which are correct. One exception which comes to mind is the fact that electrons are particles and they are waves. While seemingly self-contradictory, two different scientists received Nobel Prizes for proving the seeming contradictions.

I now refer you to the August 1991 issue of National Geographic magazine. Cover attached.
Please look at page 38 and scrutinize the pictures, then comment. I don't expect any of you to notice what the other 8,000,000 NG readers all missed. But try. It's right in front of you!

It is fun to have fun but you have to know how. - The Cat In The Hat

OK, chem engineer - help me to respond better. Please.

I clicked on p. 38 pictures but am too tired now to notice what you want us to notice.

The picture of the cave was printed UPSIDE DOWN ! ! ! Note the stalagmites at the bottom. No corresponding stalagmites on the ceiling. Then look at the mushroom shape near the top. Drippings drip up. I wrote NG and the agreed it was printed upside down but failed to print a correction the next month.

The lesson is that even when we are all looking at the same set of data, some people miss out due to lack of discernment or interpretation. This is widespread.

The higher proportion of Calcium carbonate over Potassium and Sodium carbonates I think is due to the biological carbon cycle (e.g. sea shells) rather than simply due to the geological carbon cycle - am I correct?

Otherwise, why the predominance of Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters? I think Sodium ions predominate in oceans now, am I correct? (as in salt (NaCl) water) Is it simply that the biological and geological carbon cycles tend to remove Calcium ions more than Sodium ions, leaving the current predominance of Sodium?

I'm sure sodium is higher in sea water than calcium due to as you say the formation of shells and coral. Sodium salts are far more soluble than calcium salts.

Incidentally, as a health precaution, NOBODY should take calcium carbonate supplements. It forms kidney stones and they hurt like hell. I had two surgeries to remove mine.
Take calcium citrate I believe it is. Much mo bettah. You do not want stones.

“The lesson is that even when we are all looking at the same set of data, some people miss out due to lack of discernment or interpretation. This is widespread.”

That’s terribly flawed. I wouldn’t necessarily expect a non-technical person (perhaps a graphic artist assembling a collection of photographs), to understand the difference between stalagmites and stalactites.