Rock On #1
Using ordinary means (fire, sunlight, our digestive systems) we can take matter apart into smaller and smaller pieces, and the smallest pieces we typically produce are Atoms. Quarks. Neutrons. Protons. Nuclei.
Atoms We can break matter down into atoms (Greek for "not cuttable" because the Greeks didn't have atom smashers or other exotic tools that would allow cutting atoms into smaller pieces). All of the wrong answers here are smaller pieces of atoms, but cannot normally be isolated by "ordinary" tools.
Two neutral atoms have the same number of protons in the nucleus, but different numbers of neutrons. These are: Different isopleths of the same element. Different packaging of the same cola. Different elements. Different ions of the same element. Different isotopes of the same element.
Different isotopes of the same element. The element is determined by the number of protons, so if each atom has the same number of protons, the atoms are the same element. Changing the number of neutrons primarily affects the weight, giving a different isotope of the same element. (Changing the number of neutrons too much can introduce radioactivity, so the isotope won't hang around forever.) Ions are made by gaining or losing electrons. Isopleths are lines on a map connecting places with the same concentration of something that someone has measured, not exactly relevant here. And cola requires making atoms into molecules, and then mixing molecules of several sorts (water, sweetener, coloring agent, flavoring agent, perhaps caffeine) to make cola.
The jobs of geologists include: Supervising taste-tests between Coke and Pepsi, and not telling anyone that the geologists drink coffee at home. Cloning new organisms to sabotage competing companies. Writing new computer viruses, to make people really depressed. Supervising taste-tests between Coke and Pepsi. Finding valuable things in the Earth, warning about hazards, learning how the Earth works, and educating and entertaining people.
Finding valuable things in the Earth, warning about hazards, learning how the Earth works, and educating and entertaining people. Most jobs in geology involve finding valuable things: oil, clean water, ores, and more. But, geologists also teach and communicate in other interesting and entertaining ways, warn about hazards, and help understand the Earth system.
Which is more likely to contain reliable information? The views of public figures reported in a newspaper article. A magazine article summarizing recent newspaper and television reports. A refereed article in a learned journal. A cola commercial. A web page posted by an independent "think-tank".
The views of public figures reported in a newspaper article. No source of information is perfect, but the refereed articles in learned journals put immense effort into "getting it right". The web has reliable information, of course, but probably most of the information on the web is not especially reliable. The web is very inexpensive, and lots of people put junk on it. Think tanks also often are pushing an agenda, and try to "spin" information their way. Most newspapers are around for the long haul, and try to make the news fairly accurate, although some newspapers do have agendas, and the editorial pages are not especially accurate. But, if the report is on the views of a public figure, the newspaper may accurately report what the public figure said, but what the public figure said may be less than completely accurate. Some magazines are quite good and careful, but many are pushing a belief or just overhyping things to tease you into buying the magazine. And while you are welcome to believe that drinking a particular cola makes you sexy... don't count on it.
Scientists often speak of consensus—the scientific community agrees that a particular theory is better than the competitors. What is such scientific consensus based on? The decision of the Nobel prize committee to give the inventor of the idea a lot of money. Statements in the old textbooks that the scientists studied when they were in school. The insistence of a single scientist that he or she is correct. A single experiment had an outcome that was predicted accurately by the favored theory and not by the competitors. Correct! A number of different experiments by different people that all had outcomes that were predicted accurately by the favored theory and not by the competitors.
A number of different experiments by different people that all had outcomes that were predicted accurately by the favored theory and not by the competitors. Agreement on scientific theories is a contentious, drawn-out, and sometimes acrimonious business. Scientists are no better (and no worse!) than everybody else: we think we are right and those who disagree with us are dunderheads! I put forward my idea, and the experiments that I did that show the idea is a good one... then everybody else piles on and pooh-poohs my idea. BUT, they go out and do experiments that try and show my ideas are wrong... and they can't do it! So eventually all those experiments accumulate, and finally people agree that my idea is a good one. (Sometimes accompanied by a sneer: "...but of course I knew that all along. I just didn't bother to publicize it..." I told you, scientists are no better and no worse than the rest of the world.)
The best description of a scientist's job is that she or he: Invents new ideas, and shows that some ideas are false. Invents new ideas, and proves that some ideas are True. Uses the scientific method to learn the Truth. Uses only high-tech equipment. Is always sexy.
Invents new ideas, and shows that some ideas are false. Much of the fun in science is coming up with great new ideas (hypotheses, if you like fancy words). But for your new idea to "win", you have to show that it does better than old ideas, so you have to prove those old ideas false (or incomplete, or not-quite-right, or whatever "nice" word you might prefer). The scientific method is a powerful way for humans to learn to do things, and learn what does and doesn't work, but the results of science are always open to improvement, so are not claimed to be Truth, and probably are not Truth. Some scientists still use pencils and look at things, and there are probably a few non-sexy scientists around somewhere.
The final arbitrator between two alternate theories (for example Aristotle's and Newton's ideas) is: The Nobel Prize Committee in Stockholm, Sweden. Nature, and experiments conducted to test each idea. A committee of "wise men" who gather twice a year to arbitrate such disputes. A public opinion poll conducted by Gallup, ABC News, and Fox News.
Nature, and experiments conducted to test each idea. Unlike painting or literature, scientific inquiry has a well-defined procedure for figuring out if Newton's ideas are better or if Aristotle had it right all along. In looking at a painting, we can ask different people what they think, or we can make up our own mind on whether we like it or not, and that is perfectly valid. In science, we have to ask: does the idea fit with the way the world works? Can I predict the speed of a falling object better using Newton's ideas or Aristotle's? As it turns out, Aristotle's ideas didn't predict things very well, and Newton's did.
Human population continues to grow. Looking at many of the things we use on Earth (farmland and land for wood and other things, fish in the sea, etc.): We use almost all of the dilithium crystals for our warp drives. Our use is large but not everything; we are approaching use of half of all that is available. We use almost everything, 99% or more, so we're in deep doo-doo for the future. We use almost all of the Diet Pepsi springs but with huge natural reserves of Diet Coke. We use less than 1% or so, the tiniest bit, with vast amounts out there in the wilderness somewhere.
Our use is large but not everything; we are approaching use of half of all that is available. We have removed perhaps 90% of the large fish in the ocean, and we raise crops or cut trees on much of the land surface. In very round numbers, we are approaching use of half of everything available on the planet, with the likelihood that we will greatly increase our population in the future.
National Parks are: Regions containing key geological resources that have been set aside for the enjoyment of the present generation. Regions containing key biological resources that have been set aside for the enjoyment of future generations. Regions containing key roller coasters that have been set aside for the enjoyment of you and your immediate friends. Regions containing key biological, geological or cultural resources that have been set aside for the enjoyment of the present generation and future generations. Regions containing key cultural resources that have been set aside for the enjoyment of the present generation and future generations.
Regions containing key biological, geological or cultural resources that have been set aside for the enjoyment of the present generation and future generations. Old Faithful, the giant sequoias, and Mesa Verde's cliff dwellings are waiting for you, and your grandchildren.
Before they can be published, scientific papers must be peer-reviewed. This means that: Some other scientific experts read the papers and guarantee that they are True. Everyone in the world is given the opportunity to comment on the papers through a specially maintained blog. Government bureaucrats read the papers, to be sure that the papers do not insult the political positions of the current officeholders. An editor reads the papers, to make sure that all the semicolons are in the correct places. Some other scientific experts read the papers and provide quality control by eliminating many mistakes.
Some other scientific experts read the papers and provide quality control by eliminating many mistakes. Reviewers work hard to identify errors of any sort, almost always identify many, and then the reviewers and editors insist that those errors be fixed before publication. Review is done voluntarily by scientists; this is part of the cost of being a member of this great human undertaking. Science doesn't claim Truth; although science strives to be as accurate as humanly possible, that is often well short of Truth.
The scientific study of the origin of the planet has taken a lot of effort, and still generates much discord outside the scientific community although almost no discord within the scientific community. The scientifically accepted history is: The Earth formed from older materials that fell together under gravity about 4.6 billion years ago. The Earth formed three minutes after the Big Bang, as the cosmic microwave background radiation cooled off, about 14 billion years ago, as chronicled in Steven Weinberg's famous book "The First Three Minutes". The Earth formed from older materials that fell together under gravity about 6000 years ago. The Earth formed in the Big Bang about 6000 years ago. The Earth was formed from the deep-space wind, generated by the gas-passing activities of giant space marmots, about 4.6 billion years ago.
The Earth formed from older materials that fell together under gravity about 4.6 billion years ago. The Big Bang is estimated as having occurred about 14 billion years ago. Stars that eventually formed in the wake of the Big Bang led to production of elements such as iron and silicon that are common in the Earth—we are formed from second-generation stardust, which "got it together" to make the planet about 4.6 billion years ago.
Nuclei of atoms are made up of: Protons, usually with electrons added. Protons, usually with neutrons added. Neutrons. Neutrons, usually with electrons added. Protons.
The simplest nucleus is the single proton in "ordinary" hydrogen. All other nuclei include protons and neutrons. Electrons make the cloud around the nucleus.
Scientists receive government funding primarily because: They help humans do useful things. They are all sexy. They use a careful method. They all drink Diet Pepsi because they think it makes them look sexy. They learn the Truth.
They help humans do useful things. The government is often interested in seeing people live longer, or improving the economy, or having better and more-accurate explosive devices for the military, or in many other things that improve our lives, and science plus engineering and scientific medicine are better than any other human activity at delivering these. A cynic might say that politicians are often not all that interested in finding the Truth. And a realist would note that science is being improved all the time, and because you cannot improve on the Truth, science has not (yet?) learned the Truth. There are many methods in the world, some of them are careful, and many of them are not funded by the government. Some of our spouses or significant others may think that some scientists are sexy, but many other sexy persons are not funded by the government. One of the professors has been known to drink a competitor of Pepsi on occasion, and some scientists refrain from soft drinks entirely.
The law that established Yellowstone as the first national park: Clearly was written by politicians running for reelection, because it required that the parks make people happy today even if things are damaged for the future. Was written by socialists, because it mentions the word "society". Was written by communists, because park rangers have installed commodes in commodious outhouses. Was written to help people today and in the future, by requiring that the parks provide enjoyment today while preserving the parks for the future. Clearly was written by political conservatives, because it required conservation of the parks even if that means locking people out today.
Was written to help people today and in the future, by requiring that the parks provide enjoyment today while preserving the parks for the future. The law that established Yellowstone as the first national park required "conservation... unimpaired for...future generations" and "to provide for the enjoyment" of the parks. But what if so many people want to visit that they scare the wolves, or trample the soil and kill the roots of the big trees? Enjoying and preserving at the same time isn't easy!
If you could drill a hole straight to the center of the Earth, and keep track of what the hole is going through, you would find: You would go through one sort of material all the way to the center, because the planet is all mixed up. If your hole started at the equator, you would go through different layers of different materials, but if your hole started at the North Pole, you would go through one sort of material all the way to the center. You would strike Diet Pepsi when you got to the center. If your hole started at the North Pole, you would go through different layers of different materials, but if your hole started at the equator, you would go through one sort of material all the way to the center. You would go through one sort of material, and then a different, denser material, and then a still-different, still-denser material, because the planet is made of concentric layers, sort of like an onion.
You would go through one sort of material, and then a different, denser material, and then a still-different, still-denser material, because the planet is made of concentric layers, sort of like an onion. The planet is onion-like, with an inner core, then an outer core, a mantle (which has several sub-layers), and a crust. The core is waaaaay too hot and high-pressure for Diet Pepsi.
