This blog feature amusing and heartwarming stories about our late Leonberger dog Bronco, as well as other Leonbergers. It also has a lot of information about the Leonberger breed, the history, care, training, Leonberger organizations, etc. I also wrote a Leonberger book, which I am featuring in the sidebar.
Category: Non-Leonberger Topics
Other topics not necessarily related to Bronco, Leonbergers or dogs.
As I mentioned in a previous post I would like to launch a second a blog. The topic would be facts and insights that are either widely disputed or often misunderstood amongst the public, yet important and known to be true to the experts and scientists in the relevant field. I’ve identified hundreds of such cases.
In my previous post I discussed the fact that despite the fact that the scientific community states that Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that humans evolved over millions of years a 2019 Gallup poll, showed that 40% of US adults believe that God created humans in their current form within the last 10,000 years. As a teenager I believed that myself. That was before I knew much about science. I had read agenda driven books that left out, or wrongfully dismissed the evidence for an old earth while presenting faulty arguments for a young earth. Just learning about the relevant science was enough for me to realize that I had been bamboozled. At first, I dug my heels in, but I eventually realized that the belief that earth was 6,000 years old was not tenable and unsupportable by science.
Is Earth 4.5 billion years old or 6,000 years old? Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
My goal for the blog is not to be an exhaustive source for these kinds of topics, or a deep dive into these topics, but just to collect a large set of these unnecessarily controversial topics and provide some insight into the surrounding misunderstandings. Not a complete insight into the topics, but some. Perhaps my blog will lead to some new insights for some, or intellectually honest reflection as well as interesting and friendly discussions.
Perhaps some new insight. Perhaps some intellectually honest reflection. Photo by Keegan Houser on Pexels.com
The format I decided on is to present the evidence for the fact or insight in question as a headline in bold followed by a list of failed objections to that evidence. Then, if applicable, failed arguments for the opposing point in bold as well, followed by an explanation as to why the argument does not work. It may seem like this setup is biased. However, the point is that the fact or insight in question is not commonly contested among the experts for good reasons, and therefore this setup is natural. Naturally, I would be open to counter arguments. I could, of course, be wrong and then I have to remove the fact/insight from my list.
I will certainly be open to counter arguments but let’s keep it friendly. Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels.com
Radiometric dating of meteorite material, terrestrial material and lunar samples demonstrate that earth is 4.5 billion years, or more precisely 4.54 billion years old.
Radioactive decay rates have changed: This objection does not work because rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can “tunnel” out of the nucleus of the atom. Analysis of spectra from quasars show that the fine structure constant has not changed over the last ten billion years. There are dozens of radiometric dating methods that are consistent with each other throughout time. Also, for a young earth you would need the decay rates to have been millions of times faster in the past, which would require changes in fundamental properties that would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay, not to mention the radiation being millions of times stronger than today. It would have fried everything.
Young earth creationists sometimes make the claim that the initial ratios between isotopes may have been different: That the initial ratios/condition were different in the past and therefore radiometric dating is unreliable. This is a better objection, but it also fails. In this case you must take it case by case for each radiometric dating method and situation. But in many cases the amount of the daughter isotope is known to have been zero, which makes it easy and reliable.
Radioactive decay wasn’t a million times faster 6,000 years ago. Stock Vector ID: 2417370135 by grayjay
We can see galaxies that are billions of lightyears away. This does not establish the age of the earth, but it makes a young earth and a young universe implausible.
A common objection to this observation is that lightspeed in vacuum has changed: Similar to above this objection does not work because the light speed in vacuum is a fundamental constant that is not believed to change. It has been measured and no change has been seen. An example is the Einstein’s equivalence of energy and mass E = mc2. If the speed of light once was millions of times faster than now, the energy contained in a kilogram would be a trillion times larger than now. Where did all that energy go? The speed of light is determined by the inverse of the square root of the electric constant multiplied by the magnetic constant. You would have to drastically change the strength of the electric and magnetic fields (by the trillions) to get the speed of light to be millions of times faster. Wouldn’t that be noticeable? The light speed in vacuum shows up in many other physical relations as well. It is not a tenable objection.
A couple of equations in which the speed of light in vacuum is a fundamental constant.
We know stars are old because they develop according to certain physical processes that for some stars take billions of years. An example is our sun. It has fused (burned up) up five billion years’ worth of hydrogen.
The heavier elements in our solar system originate with older stars that burned out and exploded.
Electromagnetic radiation, including light, heat transfer if you will, travels from the inside of the sun to the surface and this takes 100,000 years. The photons are emitted and reabsorbed over and over, which is why the electromagnetic transfer is lower than in vacuum. If the sun is only 6,000 years old, how can we see it?
Finally, some objections to old earth by young earth creationists.
The earth’s magnetic field has been weakening during the last 130 years as if it was formed from currents resulting from earth being a discharging capacitor (claim by Thomas Barnes). This would make an impossibly strong magnetic field already 8,000 years ago. I remember this being the argument in a young earth creationist book I read as a teenager.
The first problem with this argument is that there is no good reason to believe that earth’s magnetic field acts this way.
We know that earth’s magnetic field has reversed itself several times thus disproving the discharging capacitor model.
Thomas Barnes’ extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field.
Conclusion, this objection is not reasonable.
Earth’s magnetic field. Stock Vector ID: 1851166585 by grayjay.
If the earth and the moon were billions of years old there would be a hundred feet thick dust layer from meteorites on the moon. The moon landing proved otherwise. This is another argument I remember reading in a young earth creationist book (Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris) as a teenager.
The problem with this argument, as I would later find out, is that Morris’ claims about a hundred feet thick dust layer was based on faulty and obsolete data. The expected depth of meteoritic dust on the Moon is less than one foot (after billions of years).
If I had known and understood any of this when I was 14 years old, I would not have been bamboozled by the young earth creationists, but it was not the only time I was bamboozled.
Anyway, this is how I envision one blog post in my upcoming blog post adventure. It is a brief overview of why experts/scientists can be trusted in regards the topic of the post. I have not yet decided on a name for my new blog.
I have not posted in a while, and I have not read blog posts either because I’ve been focused on the annual Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) conference and lobby days in Washington DC. Part of this event was about 1,000 CCL volunteers having meetings with more than 400 congressmen and senators. I organized and participated in a meeting with senator Ted Cruz’ office (Texas) and I participated in a meeting with Senator Wicker’s office (Mississippi). I also had a small one-man (just me) meeting with the office of another Texas congressman and a delivery to my own congresswoman Beth Van Duyne (Texas district 24).
CO2 emissions dial. Shutter stock Photo ID: 1928699927 by NicoElNino
Some technical background. The United States congress consist of two houses, the house of representatives with 435 congressmen, and the Senate with 100 Senators, two from each state. Each proposed law or bill/act has a number in the house of representatives on the form H.R.xxxx and S.xxxx in the Senate. To become a law, a bill/act must be approved by the house of representatives with a vote of at least 50% as well as approved by the Senate with a vote of at least 60% (filibuster rule) or 50% if you can make it part of a budget bill (so called budget reconciliation). I can add that the president can also veto a bill that has passed both houses.
How it looked like when I arrived at the Capitol building in Washington DC the early morning of Tuesday June 11, 2024.
The majority of the house of representatives is Republican and the majority of the Senate is Democratic, but the split is very even. Unfortunately, the current congress is also very partisan, and pretty much war like, making passing any laws nearly impossible. Most bills are introduced to impress respective side’s partisan base and for grandstanding, not with the intention of it becoming law. I’ve read that the current congress is the most dysfunctional in United States history. Into this mess CCL is proposing or supporting climate related legislation that is bipartisan, or introduced jointly by Democratic and Republican congressmen, and therefore has a chance of passing. CCL is a bipartisan organization and has good relations with both Democrats and Republicans.
The CCL group meeting with Senator Ted Cruz’ office. The staff member, Jackson Tate, is standing the furthest to the right. I am standing in the middle, immediately to the right of the flag.
Our favorite piece of legislation is the carbon fee and dividend, but we did not discuss it for reasons I will soon explain. The carbon fee and dividend policy consist of three parts. First, a price/fee/tax is placed on carbon emissions. This makes sense because ruining the atmosphere for everyone on earth should not be free of charge. Second, the proceeds are returned to people/consumers on an equal basis, as a dividend, a check or a direct deposit. Most people will receive more money than they lose from paying higher prices, while the incentive to buy less carbon intensive products will remain. You are rewarded for polluting less than the average. Thirdly, a carbon border adjustment, or a fee at the border, will be enacted on imported carbon intensive products that are produced with higher carbon emissions than the average for the United States. A subsidy is applied to exported products created using less carbon emissions. According to economists, a carbon fee and dividend is a very effective policy in reducing emissions. In fact, an optimal way of reducing carbon emissions. At the same time, it does not harm the economy. This is why CCL loves it.
Unfortunately, it is currently not politically viable. In Canada something similar has been implemented and even though 80% of Canadians come out ahead financially from this policy, almost no one believes it because doing the accounting is not easy. It is also incorrectly blamed for inflation. Add the fact that the Republican party has turned against it, thus making it a partisan policy (no longer bipartisan). Therefore, we have to wait.
This graph is showing US annual carbon emissions. The black line is the actual US emissions up to the end of 2023. The multicolored graphs are estimated emissions reductions resulting from different policies. The blue triangle corresponds to a specific quite reasonable form of carbon fee and dividend, but we can’t use it right now. The second largest triangle, the dark red triangle, correspond to clean energy permitting reform, a policy area that is very bipartisan and viable.
For this year we had four “Asks”. Four policy proposals or areas for which we are asking support from congress.
Prove It Act S.1863
Energy Permitting Reform
Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act of 2023 S.1164 / H.R.5015
Increased TSP Access Act of 2023 S.1400 / H.R.3036
The CCL group meeting with Senator Wicker’s office. The staff members were Julia Wood, Flannery Egner, and Wade Roberts. Julia and Flannery are standing front left and Wade middle back. I am standing on the far right.
Below are the summaries of our four asks. Below each short summary I have included the full text from our flyers. I don’t expect anyone to read the full text, but naturally you can if you are really interested.
Prove It Act S.1863
This bipartisan act introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) would require the Department of Energy to study the emissions density of certain emissions intense products, cement, aluminum, steel, fossil fuels, etc., in the United States and in other countries. US products are much cleaner than the same products from many other countries such as China and India. Having the data will help us capitalize on this advantage, for example, in trade negotiations and attracting foreign buyers of these products. It is good business for the United States.
Full CCL text of Prove It Act S.1863
The bipartisan Providing Reliable, Objective, Verifiable, Emissions Intensity and Transparency Act of 2023 (S.1863), or PROVE IT Act, introduced by Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND), would require the Department of Energy (DOE) to study the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of certain products — including aluminum, cement, crude oil, fertilizer, iron, steel, plastic, and others — that are produced in the United States and in certain covered countries. The PROVE IT Act is not a carbon tax or carbon border tariff.
The PROVE IT Act was approved by the Senate EPW Committee in a large bipartisan vote (14-5) in January and is expected to be introduced in the House by Reps. John Curtis (R-UT-03) and Scott Peters (D-CA-50) in the coming weeks.
Greenhouse gas emissions are a global issue, and trade and the power of the American market are some of the best tools we have to reduce global emissions. Since many U.S. industries are among the least carbon intensive in the world, producing products here is good for the U.S. economy and good for the climate. In addition, U.S. industries have had to unfairly compete with industries from higher-polluting foreign countries with lax labor and environmental standards. As Sens. Coons and Cramer have said, “The PROVE IT Act would put high-quality, verifiable data behind these practices and bolster transparency around global emissions intensity data to hold countries with dirtier production accountable.”
The PROVE IT Act is endorsed by the American Petroleum Institute, American Conservation Coalition Action, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, American Iron and Steel Institute, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Climate Leadership Council, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, Environmental Defense Fund, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Third Way, Progressive Policy Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, Steel Manufacturers Association, and the United States Chamber of Commerce.
The PROVE IT Act is an important bipartisan step to protect American industry and drive down global carbon pollution. Citizens’ Climate Lobby urges all members of Congress to cosponsor the PROVE IT Act and take action to pass the bill this Congress.
Energy Permitting Reform
The biggest obstacle to expanding the utilization of clean energy isn’t building clean energy but building the power lines needed to bring the power from the clean energy sources to households. It takes 10-20 years to get a powerline approved while building a wind power facility takes months. There are also energy technology specific hurdles for building, for example, nuclear power stations and renewables including endless judicial reviews and several layers of bureaucratic approval processes. We can’t wait decades for yes or no. It is important to speed up the process for building America’s clean energy infra structure. Some has been done but more needs to be done. This is an area that will make a big difference that both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on.
Full CCL text of Energy Permitting Reform
Citizens’ Climate Lobby believes it is critical to speed up the process for building America’s clean energy infrastructure. Changes to the current process for permitting energy projects must be made so America can lower greenhouse gas emissions and ensure American households have access to affordable clean energy. CCL appreciates that the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 included some provisions that will help streamline clean energy permitting and several new agency and FERC rules intended to speed the energy permitting process have been finalized. However, more comprehensive permitting reform is still needed and should be done in a way that protects communities, preserves their ability to provide input, and maintains environmental standards. We also know that further changes to our permitting process will need to have bipartisan support.
In each of the past three years, at least 84% of the new energy capacity built in the United States was clean energy. More than 95% of new energy projects currently awaiting permits are solar, wind, and battery storage. Building a new electrical transmission line, on average, takes over a decade and solar, wind, and transmission projects are litigated at higher rates than other infrastructure projects. If construction of energy infrastructure continues at this pace, we will not be able to lower our emissions at the speed and scale necessary and ensure Americans have affordable and reliable energy in the 21st century.
We still need key reforms to our energy permitting process, such as but not limited to:
Allow transmission lines to be permitted and built much faster: We must permit, site, and build interregional transmission and require that regions be able to transfer significant power between regions.
Reasonable timelines for judicial review: There are new time limits for NEPA reviews, but litigation still has the potential to delay needed energy projects almost indefinitely. We need a reasonable statute of limitations that allows impacted communities to have a voice and stop bad projects but does not allow for infinite delays.
Ensuring robust and early community engagement: Any permitting reform must still provide a thorough, accessible process for community engagement and input.
Technology-specific permitting: There is also a critical need to modernize permitting for specific technologies like nuclear, hydropower, and geothermal power.
We urge Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to enact needed changes to our energy infrastructure permitting process. We believe both parties must come to an agreement on reforms that can pass both the House and Senate and be signed into law.
Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act of 2023 S.1164 / H.R.5015
The Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act was introduced by Texas Senator John Cornyn (R), and a couple of Democrats jumped on board as well. It will authorize the secretary of agriculture to carry out eco system restoration activities particularly the development of seedling nurseries, which will significantly aid forest recovery from wildfires. It is part of CCL’s Healthy Forest initiative.
Full CCL text of Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act of 2023 S.1164 / H.R.5015
The Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and in the House by Rep. Leger Fernandez (D-NM-03). The legislation ensures that funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 is available to support the development of seedling nurseries to improve and expand reforestation efforts.
Specifically, the bill would:
Authorize the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, to enter into contracts, grants and agreements to carry out certain ecosystem restoration activities.
Clarify that funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is available for the development of seedling nurseries at state forestry agencies, local or non-profit entities and institutions of higher education.
The Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act has the potential to significantly aid in forest recovery from wildfires. From 2001 to 2021, the nation lost 11.1 million hectares of tree cover from wildfires and 33.1 million hectares from all other loss. Although the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides funding for replanting programs, it does not address the need for expanded nurseries. The Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act rectifies this omission by providing funding for crucial seedling nurseries to further our nation’s progress toward resilient forestry. The bill complements another one of CCL’s secondary asks, the Save our Sequoias Act, through aiding its regeneration efforts.
On April 16, 2024, the House version of the Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act was voted out of the Committee on Natural Resources by unanimous consent. It now awaits action by the full House. The Senate companion was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on March 3, 2023, where it awaits review.
Increased TSP Access Act of 2023 S.1400 / H.R.3036
There is a current Technical Service Providers Shortage that needs to be addressed. Farmers and ranchers need help with resilient and climate smart practices, and this bill streamlines and improves the certification process. It was introduced by Senators Mike Braun (R-IN) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) in the Senate and Representatives James Baird (R-IN-04) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA-07) in the House. It is a small step forward but easy and inexpensive to do.
Full CCL Text of Increased TSP Access Act of 2023 S.1400 / H.R.3036
The bipartisan Increased TSP Access Act of 2023 has been introduced by Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) in the Senate and Reps. James Baird (R-IN-04) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA-07) in the House. The bill would address the current Technical Service Providers (TSPs) shortage, which is impacting the ability of agricultural producers to fully utilize current conservation and climate programs.
As extreme weather events increase in frequency and strength, we are seeing increasingly devastating effects throughout our agricultural and food systems. Farmers, ranchers and forest-owners are on the front lines of climate change and can also mitigate its effects through resilient and climate-smart practices.
TSPs help producers to access USDA conservation programs through one-on-one assistance. For example, TSPs can help producers to develop grazing management plans, nutrient management plans and sustainable forestry plans. TSPs will be key to leveraging the recent $20 billion investment in agricultural conservation programs and conservation technical assistance.
USDA’s current TSP program has failed to adequately train and certify TSPs, even though the 2018 Farm Bill included language (Section 2502) that would allow USDA to approve non-Federal entities to certify TSPs. The Increased TSP Access Act would address the TSP shortage by expanding on the framework first envisioned in the 2018 Farm Bill.
Non-Federal Certifying Entities: The bill directs USDA to establish a process to approve non-Federal certifying entities within 180 days of enactment. The bill ensures that USDA’s process will allow agricultural retailers, conservation organizations, cooperatives, professional societies and service providers to become certifying entities. It also puts clear deadlines on USDA to ensure that the agency is responsive in administering the program.
Streamlined Certification: The bill directs USDA to establish a streamlined certification process for TSPs who hold appropriate specialty certifications (including certified crop advisors) within 180 days of enactment. This guarantees that applicants with other certifications aren’t burdened with duplicative training, but are still trained in the competencies needed to serve as a TSP.
Parity in Compensation: The bill ensures that TSPs—who are often paid using conservation program dollars—are paid the fair market rate for their services.
The Increased TSP Access Act was referred to the House Agriculture Committee, Subcommittee on Conservation, Research and Biotechnology, and to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on May 2, 2023, where it awaits consideration.
But wait a minute! That’s not what the bill says.
I should mention that the full CCL texts of the aforementioned bills above are still summaries of the real bills that are even longer. This makes the Senators and the Representatives job difficult, which is why they have their staff read and summarize the bills for them. The staff is often young kids making this a little bit risky.
One of the Senators that we (including me) met with had voted no on one of the bills above in committee. The bill had still passed out of committee to be voted on in the Senate later, but we wanted to know why he voted no. The reason given made no sense. He had misunderstood the bill. This was a great opportunity for us to correct the misunderstanding. Hopefully, he will vote differently in the Senate.
Would you be willing to visit your representatives regarding matters you would like to address?
As I mentioned in a previous blog post I’ve been thinking about launching a second blog. The topic would be facts, or insights that are widely disputed or misunderstood amongst the public, yet important and known to be true. However, I am also thinking about adding another aspect to the blog and that is facts, or insights that are highly surprising to people, yet important and known to be true. Curious or strange facts if you will. Not strange trivia but important stuff. People wouldn’t necessarily dispute these facts, well they might, but they may appear unintuitive to a lot of people. So, the true facts that people are disputing would be “cluster-A” and the facts that just would seem strange, ponderous, or counter intuitive would be “cluster-B”. I will post about both.
This particular blog post gives an example of a cluster B fact. To express myself a little bit simplistic, science does not know everything (otherwise it would stop), but it knows a lot. By studying the light from a distant star, we can determine what elements it is composed of. The star may be composed of 71% hydrogen, 27% helium, 1% Lithium, and 1% other elements, and we can know that just from its light. We can determine the distance to the star, how it is moving compared to us, its temperature, roughly its age and longevity, and more. 150 years ago, we could not have dreamed of this capability.
We can know so much about a star from its light. Shutter Stock Illustration ID: 566774353 by Nostalgia for Infinity.
Yet we know that there are things we can never know, no matter how advanced science becomes. Infinite experimentation, super intelligence, a quintillion super genius, infinite time, cannot breach some knowledge. The universe itself forbids some knowledge. It also means that the statement “nothing is impossible” is false. My natural reaction to such a claim is, “come on you can’t say that with certainty”, and I expect many others will feel the same. However, the reason some knowledge will never be attainable is that physical laws as well as mathematics and logic forbid some knowledge. Some things are not meant to be known. I will explain in the four sections below: the event horizon, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, beyond the observable Universe, and Gödels incompleteness theorem.
I should say in my future blog I will explore each of the four examples below more in depth, and put them in their own blog posts, and I might add or remove examples as I learn more.
The Event Horizon of a Black Hole
A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing, including light, can escape it. The boundary of no escape is called the event horizon. If you pass the event horizon you cannot come back out no matter how much energy, you expand. Nothing can escape, no matter, no radiation, not light or other electromagnetic radiation, and no information. Nothing at all can escape. The curvature of time and space itself forbids it. I should add that right at the event horizon, there is so called Hawking radiation, but without complicating things it is not the same thing as escaping a black hole.
Black Hole Stock Photo ID: 2024419973 by Elena11
Some black holes are formed when large stars die and collapse. These black holes are estimated to have a mass of five to several tens of solar masses. However, there are also super massive black holes that reside in the center of galaxies. The super massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way, is called Sagittarius A* and is estimated to have a mass of four million times the mass of our sun. The largest known supermassive black hole TON 618 is 66 billion times more massive than our sun. There are an estimated 100 million black holes in our own galaxy, the Milky Way. One interesting fact is that celestial objects can orbit a black hole, just like planets orbit the sun, but as you get too close you will rush, at the speed of light, into the depths of the black hole You are “poff and gone”.
The fact that nothing, including information, can escape a black hole means that we can never observe what is on the inside. You can venture inside and be lost. You can extrapolate from physical laws what might be inside, but you can never observe and report what is inside to planet Earth.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it’s not possible to know the position and momentum of an object with perfect accuracy at the same time. Another way of saying that is that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy. The formula is: dX * dP >= h/4pi , uncertainty in position (dX) times uncertainty in momentum (dP) is larger than half of Planck’s constant, which is very small. There is also an energy and time precision : dT * dE >= h/4pi. It basically means that there are no perfectly exact measurements or knowledge. Everything is a bit fuzzy. Planck’s constant is very small, so Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not matter for everyday objects, but it matters when sizes are very small (positions, energies, etc.) Note, Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not regarding a limitation of our equipment, but a limit set by a law of physics. It is a limitation set by the Universe.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle Shutter Stock Vector ID: 2380436193 by Sasha701
Beyond the observable Universe
The observable universe is a ball-shaped region of the universe consisting of all matter that currently can be observed from Earth or its space-based telescopes. The radius of the observable universe is 46.6 billion light-years. The size of the observable universe is growing. Unfortunately, at those distances, space itself is stretching/expanding faster than the speed of light. Since no signal or information can travel faster than the speed of light we are losing, not gaining, celestial objects from the observable universe. Further, in the past we’ve lost many galaxies this way. I can add that the universe may be infinite. Since the expansion is accelerating, we will keep losing more galaxies beyond the boundary of the universe and some galaxies were always lost (with respect to observation).
A view of a galaxy full of stars. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
If we are wrong about the fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, then perhaps we can observe more galaxies in the future. But if not, then there are galaxies that we have never observed, galaxies that we can never observe, and there are galaxies that will become unobservable in the future. Depending on the size of the universe we may never be able to observe more than an infinitesimally small portion of the universe. Again, the universe is stopping us from knowing something.
Gödels incompleteness theorem(s)
The theorem states that in any reasonable mathematical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proved. In other words, to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible. There are forever hidden truths in mathematics. For the case of natural numbers this means that there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable. I can add that there is also a second incompleteness theorem that states that a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent. Basically, there are limits to mathematics set by logic.
There are forever hidden truths in mathematics in the form of unprovable truths. Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com
I have a book on Gödels incompleteness theorem, which I have not read, but I will read it before I make a post about it.
Some other topics for strange yet important facts
Light speed in vacuum is a Universal Constant.
Time is relative (deeper explanation).
Non-simultaneity and simultaneity are relative.
The strange double slit experiment.
Quantum Tunneling.
Quantum entanglement.
The Monty-game-door trick, 3-doors.
The butterfly effect.
Mandela effect.
What do you think about mixing in some very strange but important facts in my future blog about facts people dispute even though they are known to be true?
I’ve been thinking about launching a second blog for quite a while. The topic would be facts, or insights that are widely disputed or misunderstood amongst the public, yet important and known to be true. I believe I have identified hundreds of such facts so far. These facts and insights are not seriously disputed amongst the experts and scientists in the relevant fields and the evidence for their veracity is overwhelming. Therefore, verifying the accuracy of these facts and insights should not be difficult, just ask the respective expert community. However, finding the best way to express and explain these facts, determining whether they are important, and verifying that they are widely disbelieved may be more difficult.
One example of such a fact is that the Earth is a lot older than a few thousand years old (6,000 or 10,000 years old). Despite the fact that the scientific community states that Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that humans evolved over millions of years a 2019 Gallup poll, showed that 40% of US adults believe that God created humans in their current form within the last 10,000 years. The evidence from a large variety of scientific fields, biology, geology, paleontology, physics, astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, etc., contradicts young earth creationism whilst the attempts to discredit the old earth narrative have fallen short.
Trilobite fossil Shutter Stock Photo ID: 1323000239 by Alizada Studios
The reason for wanting to do this is not to prove anyone wrong, but because it is interesting, and it provides a growth opportunity for everyone including myself. In the past I believed false facts and I probably still do. Discovering these and learning about why you most likely are wrong could sometimes be unpleasant at the same time as it is an opportunity for growth and an opportunity to better understand the world. I am hoping to make the site interactive. Readers can suggest such facts, politely dispute my assessments, and add evidence. However, I should say I would like to avoid politics.
When I was a teenager, I believed that Earth and the Universe was 6,000 years old, and that evolution was a hoax. I read young earth books that appeared scientific, and which presented a long list of objections to the established scientific narrative. My religious background had something to do with it, but I also thought that I had the scientific facts on my side. I was interested in science, and I got accepted to “Naturvetenskaplig linje”, a Swedish high school program for students with good grades and who showed aptitude for science. This program was like taking lots of AP classes in math/calculus, physics, biology, and chemistry, and it prepared me well for my university level studies in engineering physics and electrical engineering.
In physics I learned about radiometric dating. Sure, that topic had been mentioned in the young creationist books as well, but they had insisted that radiometric dating was unreliable, and they had suggested that radioactive decay rates might have changed. Now I learned why radiometric dating was very reliable, why radioactive decay rates remained constant, about the physical laws involved, not to mention the facts that highly sped up radioactive decay rates would have resulted in not just a very radioactive world, it would have forced changes to physical laws that would have broken the world. In thermodynamics I learned that the claim that the second law of thermodynamics contradicted evolution was based on a very simple, in fact silly, misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
Second law of thermodynamics Shutter Stock Vector ID: 2342031619 by Sasha701
From astronomy and astrophysics, I learned that it takes 100,000 years for light to travel from the inside of the sun to its surface. I learned that distances between stars and galaxies were thousands, millions, and even billions of lightyears, yet we could see them. How can we see a galaxy whose light has been traveling for 10 billion years if the Universe is only 10,000 years old? The young earth answer to that was that light might have travelled at a much faster speed in vacuum in the past, neglecting the fact that the speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant that is part of a lot of formulas E= mc2 (energy content of mass), the ratio of the electric and magnetic force, time and space formulas, the size of black holes, Einstein’s gravitational constant (strength of gravity). 10 billion years versus 10,000 years means that the speed of light must have been a million times faster, gravity a trillion trillion (septillion) times weaker, and according to E = mc2 99.99999999% of the Universe’s energy must have vanished.
Black Hole Stock Photo ID: 2024419973 by Elena11
As time went on every single claim that the young earth creationist had made fell apart. In other words, knowing some science made the young earth narrative not only untenable but silly. To be honest with myself I had to give up the young earth belief system. Naturally, the universe could have been created yesterday, our memories could be implanted, and we could all be dreaming like in the Matrix. Science isn’t 100% certain, but some beliefs are much more plausible than others.
Young earth creationism wasn’t the only time I had been bamboozled. I think because I have a fairly strong science background combined with the facts that I have been bamboozled and I have accepted that reality, and the fact that my interests are so wide makes me a good candidate for launching this type of blog. I would like to present the fact and instead of arguing just give the reader a basic and understandable overview of the evidence with links to reliable sources. The reader can then sort it out for themselves. Again, I am hoping to get some help with suggestions and growing it to eventually thousands of examples/posts. Then I want to select, let’s say, the 100 best ones. Below are some examples of what I am interested in.
We know that the world is a lot older than 10,000 years old and yet many dispute that.
Evidence for evolution is strong, evidence against it is lacking, something many don’t know or deny.
We know that economic externalities are real (market failures), yet market fundamentalists are unaware of this.
Someone creating a duplicate account of you on Facebook does not mean you were hacked, yet many make that assumption.
Wind power is not a major cause of bird death. Fossil fuels and cats are a lot worse (hundreds of times).
We know that homeopathy does not work, yet it is widely used.
Global warming is real and is known to be caused by us, yet many deny this.
Plastic is not a big environmental problem for the US.
Poverty, violence, child mortality has been sharply reduced worldwide to the surprise of many.
My question now is what should I call the blog? Super Facts, Deep Insights, Eye Openers, Transformative Facts, Bamboozle Medicine, Big Memos, ….
Responding once more to CCL’s (Citizen Climate Lobby) request to start conservations about climate change I am posting about three Conservative/Republican friends who are engaged in climate change solutions. Well, Bob Ingliss, the former Republican Congressman from South Carolina is not a personal friend, but I’ve met him, seen him speak several times, and I am a member of his organization. The other two, Larry Howe and Jack Zimanck are personal friends, and they have blogs (but not on word-press). I am posting this with their permission. If you don’t mind perhaps, you could check out their blogs a little bit (links below).
I should mention that Citizen Climate Lobby is a non-partisan / bipartisan volunteer organization promoting climate solutions. CCL does a lot of things but one of our main focuses is to speak to politicians, which is where “Lobby” comes from. However, we are just regular citizens / constituents. We don’t have money, unlike other lobbyists, not even donuts, but we vote, and we are many (200,000+). RepublicEN is an organization for Republican Environmentalists, and they are also promoting climate solutions.
CO2 emissions dial. Shutter stock Photo ID: 1928699927 by NicoElNino
Larry Howe
Larry Howe is a retired electrical engineer and engineering manager and a lifelong conservative. He embraces free market climate solutions, and he volunteers for republicEn.org and Citizens Climate Lobby Conservative Caucus. After initially being skeptical about climate change, he took a deep dive into the topic/science. He came to realize that he needed to accept the science, and the fact that global warming is happening and that the cause is us. You can read about his climate journey here. This is the link to his home page .
Life before harnessing energy from the combustion of fossil fuels was cold, dark, and short. We owe many of the benefits of our wonderful modern way of life to harnessing energy from burning fossil fuels. However, we now know that the accumulated CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels poses a grave threat to our well-being.
Human society has dumped trillions of tons of excess heat-trapping CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100+ years by combusting hydrocarbons for energy. That excess CO2 doesn’t just go away. Each year about half of what is emitted adds to the atmospheric concentration which then persists for hundreds to thousands of years. The rest is redistributed from the atmosphere to the land and ocean which are reaching limits of what they can further sequester. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased 50% in the last 100+ years trapping more and more heat. We shouldn’t continue doing it…….
This is Larry Howe, a retired electrical engineer and manager. He is a lifelong conservative/republican who promotes climate solutions.
Jack Zimanck
Jack Zimanck is a retired business leader and consultant who is exploring how businesses can be part of the solution to climate change and environmental problems. He is not associated with any particular political ideology. This is what he says in his latest blog post Sustainable Growth | Challenges and Opportunities. The institution of business may be our most powerful force for positive change
Businesses of various types provide the food, shelter, water, energy, and sanitation that allows more people to live safe, comfortable lives than ever before. Business provides the entertainment, transportation, and technology we enjoy each day. In reality, business is the economic framework that enables life in the 21st century.
Yet, it is important to understand that this constant stream of goods, service, and benefits has also brought unintended consequences and challenges to our ability to sustain this remarkable bounty for current and future generations…..to read more click on the link above. This is the link to his blogs main page.
Jack Zimanck, retired business leader and business consultant focusing on how businesses can help solve the climate crises and other environmental problems.
Bob Ingliss
Bob Ingliss, a former Republican Congressman from South Carolina won his district in 1994 and 1996 by 70%. His interest in climate change began after he asked his 11-year-old son if he would vote for him, and he said no because his stance on climate change was bad. So, Bob Ingliss studied the subject, and he came to change his mind. He realized it was a real problem that we humans had caused, and he announced his new stance on the topic publicly. His son was happy. However, despite a 93.5% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and his endorsements from the NRA Political Victory Fund and National Right to Life Committee he lost his primary election in 2010. Republican primary voters felt that he had moderated his views. Bob Ingliss went onto found RepblicEN and the ECORight. You can read more about him here.
Former Congressman Bob Ingliss. From Wikipedia public domain.
I’ve mentioned in other posts that I am a volunteer for a non-partisan organization called Citizen Climate Lobby, CCL for short. The name is maybe misleading insofar as we are not “normal” lobbyists, just volunteers, without money, who are trying to get politicians interested in climate change related legislation. We do many things, but one thing we do is meeting with congressmen, house representatives as well as senators, state legislators, including state representatives and state senators, and mayors and city council members, as well as corporations, organizations, and grass roots, that’s regular folks. Naturally we discuss different things with a US senator compared to a city council member. We discuss national legislation with a US Senator and local pollution issues with a city council member.
CO2 emissions dial. Shutter stock Photo ID: 1928699927 by NicoElNino
CCL has been successful
Overall, I think CCL has been quite successful. We are well known in congress, we have a good reputation, and people tend to want to meet with us. We have been instrumental in passing legislation and in 2016 a Climate Solutions Caucus was created in the house by one Republican congressman and one Democrat congressman. It was CCL that was behind this and who brought the two congressmen together. The first two years the caucus had an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. Before the election in 2018 there were 40 Democrats and 40 Republicans on the caucus. After the election many of the typically moderate Republicans in the climate caucus lost and the numbers are no longer equal. I can add that I am the CCL liaison for Senator Ted Cruz office.
Senator Ted Cruz TXJR with Citizens Climate Lobby in 2017. The senator is standing immediately to the right of the American flag, and I am standing immediately to the left of the American flag. My wife and daughter are also there.
Be Organized and Polite
I think the reason that CCL has been successful is that the CCL volunteers are trained to be polite, to listen and ask questions. Politicians and their staff are flooded by angry, rude and toxic messages from opiniated people on both sides of an issue, and they have delete-buttons and trashcans for that. Protesting, screaming, insulting, threatening, showing your feelings, is not as effective as some people think. When you push people, they will push back or ignore you. You need to win people over, not alienate them.
We’ve had a few accidents when some volunteers lost their temper but otherwise, when someone acts dismissive or hostile to your message you still try to find common ground, or you can ask if you can get back to them with research articles or other information from reliable sources. You don’t argue and you definitely do not get angry. In addition, you need to listen, ask them why they believe what they believe, and write it down for future purposes. You also need to be well informed. If you don’t know something, promise to get back them, research it, and then give them the information by email once you have it. Keep all communication to the point and easy to understand. Don’t ramble. Respect their time. You have one issue. They have a hundred and one.
This photo is from the CCL meeting with Ted Cruz office June 2023. I set up the meeting, but I was not there because my son was getting married at the same time.
How to Set Up a Meeting
To set up meetings with congress, call/write to the scheduler the first time around about 2-4 weeks ahead of when you want to meet with them. If you already have the emails or phone numbers of a staff member then use that. Don’t just walk in and don’t try to schedule too far ahead. Keep the request simple, short and humble but clear, and don’t expect an immediate response. Suggest a time but be open to other times. Don’t start spamming them if they don’t reply. Give it a few days and then email them again or call them. Refer to / include your previous email to remind them that you have already tried to request a meeting. It is a little easier to get a meeting with a council member than a US senator.
The most common is that you will meet with one or more staff members. Don’t expect to meet the congressman, not the first time. If you are meeting with a state representative or a city council member you have a better chance of getting to speak to your representative. Don’t bring too few and not too many people. Five or six people is a recommended group size. Try to have at least one constituent in the group. A constituent is someone who lives in the congressman’s district or the city council member’s district. Ask how much time you have. At a congressional office you typically have half an hour. Respect that time. It is best to ask for two things. First, what you really want. That’s the “primary ask”. Then an easier version of the “primary ask” or an alternative. That’s called the “secondary ask”. The reason is that psychology has shown that if they are against the “primary ask” and have to say no, they’ll try to please you by saying yes to the secondary ask. Thank them for meeting with you before and after the meeting.
Be aware that requests that require the politician to spend money or raise taxes are more difficult for them to accept. The climate legislation that Senator Ted Cruz voted yes on, the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which was about supporting farmers and forest landowners doing things sustainably, required very little government assistance. Once when I sent an email to my Dallas city council member (a libertarian), whom I already knew, I asked him to replace diesel buses with EV buses. It was a Sunday. His immediate reply (within 5 minutes) to me was along the lines: Hi Thomas. The EV buses cost money and since I promised not to raise taxes, I’ve got to cut something else. I am at city hall right now working on the budget. Could you please come down to city hall and help me find which item to cut. I am having a really hard time with this. I thought that once you find the item to cut for me maybe you could volunteer to take the blame for cutting it.
A bit snarky maybe, but I got his sarcastic tone, and I dropped the subject. I told him “Never mind”. I should mention that he voted yes on another issue that we had asked of him, despite him at first telling us no. However, that issue required no tax money. I can also add that a few years later Dallas got EV buses.
I am a volunteer for an organization called Citizen Climate Lobby, CCL for short. CCL is a grassroots bipartisan organization consisting of 200,000 volunteers from the entire political spectrum, from conservative, libertarian, independent, and liberal / left. Considering that we are volunteers and just regular people the part of our name that says “Lobby” may seem out of place. However, it refers to the fact we visit congressional offices and talk to politicians. We don’t bring any gifts, like real lobbyists, not millions of dollars, not even donuts. What we bring is useful information, our voices, community leaders, our votes, and gratitude and respect for our representatives, whether we agree with them or not.
Citizens Climate Lobby, or CCL, is volunteer organization seeking to create political will for climate solutions. Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels.com
I am the liaison for Senator Ted Cruz office. Despite him not being a “climate champion” he voted Yes on one of the resolutions we supported, the Growing Climate Solutions Act (Senate bill S.1251, house bill HR.2820). They typically meet with us 3 or 4 times a year and they have never turned down a meeting request. We have a good relationship with the vast majority of congressional offices despite the partisanship that’s ripping congress apart. I remember having a really good meeting in one office then having another great meeting with a congress woman who told us about how evil the guy we had just met was. It felt funny getting along well with two people who seemed to hate each other (or maybe that’s just how they talk). So, in addition to the climate question, I think we are helping to heal some of the divisions in congress as well.
A note about the bill numbers. Any law/resolution must pass both houses and they have different numbers in each house even though they are essentially identical. For the senate it is S.####, and for the house HR.####. Even though a bill passes both houses there are things like the filibuster in the senate and Presidential vetoes, so passing a bill is not easy.
Senator Ted Cruz TXJR with Citizens Climate Lobby in 2017. The senator is standing immediately to the right of the American flag, and I am standing immediately to the left of the American flag. My wife and daughter are also there.
I should say that I used to be quite “skeptical” of “global warming”. I knew, of course, that greenhouse gases cause a warming effect (like a blanket), that’s just hundreds of years old basic science, like we breathe oxygen or that the pressure in an enclosed gas container will increase when heated. However, I thought that the issue was politicized, and that there were natural explanations for the warming such as the sun, orbital cycles, cosmic radiation, volcanoes, etc. I was misinformed because at the time I almost exclusively read rightwing media and literature.
The sharp uptick at the end is not natural, for example, because the distribution of the warming vertically, geographically and temporally (the fingerprint) matches exactly the greenhouse gases we’ve released and contradicts natural causes.
After studying scientific literature and keeping an open mind I came to realize that I was wrong. It had been known for decades that Global Warming, or Climate Change, as it would be called later on, was mostly caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuels, and scientists knew that it was a serious problem. Not necessarily a “we are all going to die” issue, but a serious problem that we should not hand over to our children and grandchildren without trying to mitigate. After reading the book “The Storms of my Grand Children” by the physicist Dr. James Hansen I decided to volunteer. I wanted a non-political organization, if possible, so I chose the Citizens Climate Lobby. You can read more about my Climate Journey here.
Front cover of the Storms Of My Grandchildren by Dr. James Hansen.
CCL is focused on four areas.
Carbon Pricing
CCL’s favorite carbon price policy is what is called a carbon fee and dividend. There is currently a resolution in the house, the Energy Innovation Act, HR.5744 which implements this policy. A senate version S.#### has not yet been introduced.
Carbon Fee: This policy puts a fee on fuels like coal, oil and gas. It starts low and grows over time.
Carbon Dividend: The money collected from the carbon fee is allocated in equal shares every month to the American people to spend as they see fit. The carbon fee would raise the prices on carbon intensive products but since the money is returned to households the dividend would more than make up for the shortfall. This would financially benefit low-income families, specifically the lower 2/3 of income.
Border Carbon Adjustment: To protect U.S. manufacturers and jobs, imported good will pay a border carbon adjustment, and goods exported from the United States will receive a refund under this policy. This also allows American businesses to reap the rewards of their carbon advantage over other countries.
America’s natural resources — forests, grasslands, wetlands and oceans — act as natural climate solutions by pulling carbon out of the air. We can manage these natural resources to maximize their climate change-fighting impacts. CCL has supported a number of forest or agriculture related bills in congress.
By upgrading our homes and buildings to be electric and making them more energy efficient, we can save money and eliminate a major source of carbon pollution.
Building electrical powerlines is very complicated in the United States. Building a wind power station takes months, getting approval for a powerline can take decades. The bureaucracy is daunting. This is a big problem as we try to expand the use of renewables, but it is also a threat to our energy supply regardless of energy source. America’s transmission shortfall is contributing to grid outages across the country and inflating energy prices for American families and businesses.
Permitting reform will make it possible to unlock the clean energy infrastructure that’s waiting to be built, and by getting that clean energy to American households and businesses. About half of the potential emissions reductions delivered by Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2030 are lost if transmission expansion is constrained to 1% per year, and roughly one quarter are lost if growth is limited to 1.5% per year. There are bills in congress which address this, such as the the BIG WIRES Act (Senate version of the bill is S.2827, and house version is HR.5551). Note, CCL did not come out in support of IRA because it was a partisan bill, but many of us liked it.
The Conversation
More than 70% of Americans are worried about climate change. But most of us still avoid discussing it because we feel like it’s too political, too doom and gloom, or too overwhelming. But we can’t solve a problem if we don’t talk about it. Therefore, for the month of April CCL have requested that we volunteers initiate 25,000 climate conversations. So that is what I am doing here. Preaching is not conversation and therefore I invite you all to agree or disagree with me, and to consider the following questions.
Are you worried about climate change ?
Would you consider joining a climate organization ?
What’s your impression of CCL ?
What do you think about the four policy areas ? Would you like to add some ? Remove a policy area ?
What we saw today. Solar Eclipse Stock Photo ID: 2344355767 by aeonWAVE
When I made my blog post Dallas On April 8 2024 I promised to follow up with what happened. We had a small solar eclipse barbeque. It was just me and my wife, our daughter, grandpa and grandma and our dog Rollo. Our daughter dressed up Rollo in a vampire dog cap and put bows on the beer glasses, my wife prepared the food, and I grilled chicken and hot dogs. Then we enjoyed the show. It was a great show, and we were lucky with the weather.
Grilling and drinking a Westvleteren 12 a Belgian Ale Quadrupel from Brouwerij de Sint-Sixtusabdij van Westvleteren in Belgium, ABV 10.2%.Our patio table. The little brown packages contain AAS / ISO certified solar eclipse glasses.Our daughter holding a Westvleteren 12 glass with a bow. Grandpa and grandma in the background.Rollo our mini-Australian Shepherd on the patio.
The Partial Eclipse
It was partially cloudy during the partial eclipse, but we were able to get a good look at the eclipse as it progressed. To see the partial eclipse, you have to use good solar eclipse glasses. It is primarily for safety reasons, but it is also pointless to look at the sun during a partial eclipse. You won’t see the eclipse because the powerful light from the sun overwhelms your view. I had a little filter that was placed in front of my phone camera as I took a few pictures. Admittedly they were pretty bad. I have an old Samsung Galaxy S8+ but even using newer phones it is difficult to get decent photos of something like this. This is why I need to invest in a real camera.
Partial eclipse photo taken with my old Samsung Galaxy phone and a filter.
The Total Eclipse
1:40PM Dallas time the total solar eclipse happened and luckily it was not covered by clouds. At this point it suddenly got dark and it was safe to look straight at the sun without using the eclipse glasses. The total eclipse lasted four minutes. I have included a shutter stock photo below which closely represents what we actually saw. We saw a black circle and around the black circle was a wispy white fog like light. This was the sun’s corona and it shone with about the same power as the full moon. It kind of looked like a black hole. Our phone cameras distorted what we saw quite a bit, especially mine. The corona was blown up to 3 times its actually size and it looked messy, perhaps because it got dark. One thing this photo does not show is that the stars came out, which provided us with a little surprise.
What we saw today. Solar Eclipse Stock Photo ID: 2344355767 by aeonWAVE
The Venus Surprise
Below is a photo my daughter took with her phone. The sun looks tiny (it wasn’t) and the corona is overblown and does look like it actually did. However, you can see a star looking object down on the right above and on the left of the cloud and left of the airplane contrail. I used the Google Sky Map App to find out what star it was, but it wasn’t a star. It was the planet, Venus. It was located straight south high in the sky three quarters to zenith. I have certainly never seen Venus in that position in the sky before, and it was unusually luminous as well. I’ve seen Venus many times low in sky in the west soon after sundown (then called the evening star) and I’ve seen Venus many times low in sky in the east in the morning (then called the morning star), but never like this. The total solar eclipse provided an unexpected Venus show.
Total solar eclipse photo that my daughter took. Can you find Venus?
Total Eclipse Photos
These eight pictures above were taken with cell phones by my daughter Rachel, Denise Mosier-Wanken, and Margaret Weiss Bloebaum.
Leonberger Life 