Thought of the day

This is a scheduled post I’m writing in the middle of December because of a trip to Argentina. I begin my journey back home today.

You can assume I’m filled with detestation for the process of traveling.

Fun fact of the day

Most people assume that metal tends to stay cooler than other objects in a room. For instance, touch the nearest piece of metal to you. For me, it’s on my chair. It feels cold compared to my hand. Now if I touch my desk, which is made out of some cheap composite material, I notice what feels like a clear difference in temperature. Assuming my laptop hasn’t warmed my desk, though, there is no difference. The reason has to do with specific heat capacity.

Specific heat capacity refers to the amount of energy it takes to raise an object’s temperature by a particular amount. For instance, at room temperature, it takes 4.187 joules to raise a kilogram of water by 1 degree (Kelvin). (I remember that number well from my days in a physics class. Why the professor let us round the acceleration due to gravity to 10, but not the specific heat capacity of water to 4.2, I don’t know.) This number, however, will change depending upon what we’re measuring. Metals, for example, tend to be very low. Aluminum is only .897. Copper is .385. This is why your pots and pans heat up so quickly on the stove or why the zipper on your pants is so much hotter than everything else when you finish your laundry.

Going back to that piece of metal near you. If you were so inclined and had the right thermometer, you could be quick to find that it’s the same temperature as the rest of the room. So is any other random object you see that isn’t a light bulb, TV, laptop, etc. The reason why it feels cold is because you’re probably much warmer than the air around you, so when you touch it, the heat from your hand is quickly sapped up. Heat is transferred to metals more quickly than it is to most other common objects.

(Incidentally, this is why ocean temperatures are so important to global warming. It takes a long time to heat up and cool down water. The fact that we’re seeing the swings we are means there is a lot of energy going into the seas.)

Donate if you can

Once again, I want to mention the fundraising I’m doing for Camp Sunshine. Along with Atheists of Maine, I’m hoping to raise a couple of thousand dollars for this awesome camp retreat for kids with life-threatening illnesses.

So if you can, please donate. All of the money goes directly to Camp Sunshine.

If all goes well…

I’m scheduling this post well ahead of time (it’s December 15th as I type this), but if all goes well, I should be at the top of this little hill today:

Aconcagua

Thought of the year

There still isn’t any evidence for God.

Year in review

I’ll hit the high points:

  • Rush Limbaugh said women who have ‘too much’ sex are sluts. Conservatives doubled down for some stupid reason.
  • NASA landed its rover. Everyone loved the guy with the mohawk.
  • The Olympics were okay.
  • Nate Silver used science and math and junk to accurately predict the election. Republicans ignored this devil magic, finding themselves hugely shocked the day after the election.
  • Speaking of which, that skinny fella won re-election, beating out that cliche bad guy character who, I presume, wanted to bulldoze a beloved children’s playground to make way for a strip mall.
  • I am in Argentina, so it’s actually the middle of the month as I write this (scheduled) post. I presume we saw a last minute deal on this fiscal cliff stuff. If not, I may just stay in Argentina.

Gigantopithecus

So here’s a neat picture:

Gigantopithecus

I don’t have much to add to this because there is already an excellent review of this creature, but I will note that our ancestors lived alongside these huge cousins of ours for about half a million years. Also, it is not Bigfoot.

Should we ask our politicians specific science questions?

Every time a politician is asked if he believes in evolution or how old he thinks Earth is, there is the inevitable complaint from the right: “It’s a gotcha question!” It’s as if to say the whole point is to make certain people, usually Republicans, look stupid during their run for public office. I’ve got to disagree, though.

I find these sort of questions to be valid for at least two reasons. First, it gives us a very general idea of the background of the person. Someone who says he rejects the fact of evolution is almost certainly a young Earth creationist, and I think that’s important to know. (It’s important even if he’s an old Earth creationist.) We expect just about every politician in the U.S. to express some religious piety (unfortunately), but it’s hard to believe at least a few them aren’t mailing it in. The ones who actively reject significant fields of science, though, are probably sincere. I want to know that so I can be confident in my vote against them.

Second, this can give us a general gauge on intelligence. Now, I’m not saying people who reject evolution or global warming or any other scientific fact are stupid. I wouldn’t be so clumsy as to play into such an atheist caricature. What I’m saying is we can get a grip on the scientific literacy of a person based upon some of these questions. Of course, this is sort of a one-way street: A person who reject science can be deemed to have low literacy, but a person who accepts the facts of a few key issues is not necessarily engrossed in science. Regardless, these questions do often correlate with other facts in a useful way. For a prime example, look up anything the likes of Sarah Palin has said about fruit fly research and funding.

I think people should have a pretty good idea about a lot of theses issues, such as evolution or the age of Earth, but even if they’re ignorant, that’s no crime. If someone running for office is asked how old the world is and he doesn’t know the exact number, it would suffice to say something like, “Millions or even billions. I’m not sure.” He would get corrected, but no one would make that big of a stink about it. The stink only arises when a politician starts spouting off things about 6,000 years and ‘no missing lin’k. There’s just no excuse for that sort of stuff.

Thought of the day

I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: It delights me when theists attempt to call atheism a religion. It isn’t because it is – of course it isn’t. It’s because inherent in their attempt is an implied invalidation of atheism. Why, if I prove it’s religious in nature, then it loses credibility.

I fully realize that theists don’t intend to insult religion like that, but there’s no way around it. And I agree with what they’ve done. If something is religious in nature, if it’s underpinned by the odiousness of faith, then it does lose credibility.

The national debt explained