Lifetimes of energy sources

Hubbert's Law is a model for consumption of any non-renewable natural resources. You have to make some assumptions. The initial and final consumption is zero; the initial rise is exponential; it reaches a peak before a decline. Then, high cost drives consumption down, with the consumption eventually at zero.

It fits our model for consumption of oil and petroleum products. There are actually organizations, I learned, studying what they call "Peak Oil". Hubbert predicted in the 50's that we would peak in use in the 1970's, and that actually happened. That's amazing that he could predict it. Well, on top of that, he said we would run out by the end of the 21st century. It looks like cost will definitely be prohibitive to use by that point. All it has taken so far is for gas to reach $4 a gallon, and people have sent in their orders for Priuses.

The Association for the Study of Peak Oil says that eventually, we'll run out of those easy-dig VAST fields of oil. I guess that's true, if people are sniffing around the Barnett Shale for oil. According to my father-in-law, who owns a small oil and gas company, your typical underground reserve in this area will only be the size of a city block, but in the middle east, they might be miles long. These are just little pockets here, but every bit counts now that it's coming up in price.


What do we do, though? We can't all drive a Prius. Some people need trucks to work. Other people have larger families, and I know a Prius won't hold more than three children and their parents comfortably. It's nearly impossible to fit a child, a toddler seat, and an infant carrier in one of those things. It's like... We have this entire culture, this entire system built around the consumption of these non-renewable resources, and we have no way to wean ourselves from it. We're spoiled, aren't we? And are our lives truly happier?

Car thoughts: thinking about everyday forces

"All objects will move in a straight line at constant speed unless something interferes with its motion."

I have a long commute to school in the morning. I never look forward to it. The baby is usually crying in his rear-facing car seat. I often wish I could reach him to comfort him, or pick him up, but I can't. It's 45 minutes to an hour of pain for both of us.

I asked my professor about rear-facing car seats, and he told me it was likely it had to do with inertia on our bodies. He told us that most of the time, when people die in car accidents, it isn't that they get smashed by anything or bang up their bodies so badly; most of the time it's their organs continuing to move within them while the car suddenly changes in speed. I have this horrible image of hearts and lungs getting ripped out from the inside, whether that's accurate or not. With babies under 25 lb, or a year, I have the idea that their lack of strong neck control could put some part of their necks at risk?

I really want to comment on how revolutionary Newton's Laws are to the common-sense understanding of the universe. Without the idea of inertia, I would thing:
1. Car moves because of the engine and gas
2. Car stops because I stop using the engine to move it

Actually, that's not quite right. I'm still in the Aristotelian mindset. Aristotle said that things can only move with constant speed if there is a mover still acting on them, keeping them going at that speed. This is what you can observe in typical circumstances, but that's because of friction and all the other trappings of ordinary living. Really, I should be thinking:
1. Car is set in motion by engine and gas
2. Car continues to be in motion, until it is overcome by the forces of friction and air resistance.

Ah, it's hard to change your way of looking at the world!

Aristotle: great in physics, not so great in metaphysics

This is a medieval drawing of Aristotle's ideas about trajectories.

At my university, ancient philosophy is revered. In part, it comes out of the Neo-scholastic movement that honors the continuum of venerable philosophy in the West, a tradition of reverence to the Fathers of our knowledge. Oddly enough, I'm in a metaphysics class right now, at the same time as a modern physics class. We're reading Aristotle's Physics, which deals with his ideas on natural things and motion. He was such a brilliant man. I think even modern physicists admire the way he sat down and tried to figure out why things happen: he really was a scientist, and he tried to discover the laws of nature.

Aristotle's view of all things happening because of certain causes (aitia) is very good; he says that "Nature us a source (arche) or cause (aitia) of being moved or being at rest to which it belongs primarily" Bk2, Ch1, 192bln22. But, applied to stones falling, this might make you think that a rock was falling to the earth because that is it's natural place, according to the final cause. That's just not so. It's gravity. Thanks, Newton. If you hadn't come along and suggested otherwise, I might have gone along believing the causal definitions of physics!

Unfortunately for the ancient world, he missed his mark when it comes to the laws of motion. Thanks to Newton, modern people can enjoy a few corrections. One of these regards falling bodies. Aristotle wrote, "The heavier a body, the faster it falls." Well, did you actually try that one out, Aristotle? I think one of the reasons he didn't ----- and this is just *my* theory ----- was that he valued intellect as higher than material things. As such, he would do better to have reasoned through it than to condescend to consult matter. Perhaps?

Either way, if you drop a ball of lead and a ball of wood, they will both hit the ground at the same time. Now, as embarrassing as this may seem, I actually... I was actually carrying around the Aristotelian idea! Ok, ok, I know I must have been told a couple times in school that that isn't the case, but it just "seems" right, doesn't it? I think it may have to do with many visions of falling bodies interacting with air resistance: feathers, leaves, paper?

Here's one to remember: All bodies in a vaccum fall at the same constant acceleration.

Pseudoscience - noun, a way to steal your money

It's likely pseudoscience if somebody wants to sell you something too good to be true. I'm thinking of magnet belts that work your abs while you watch television. Or, maybe those healing crystals which claim to "heal the planet one person at a time". The "platonic solid crystal" is only $100-- would you cheat yourself out of all that peace and harmony for a measly one hundred dollars? The FAQ for the crystals promises the store owners personally pray over each crystal before shipping it. They have some amazing claims. But why isn't this real science?

Well, real science has to be measurable. Quantifiable. You need to be able to repeat the results. When they measure the crystals at healingcrystals.com, they use the wrong end of the ruler intentionally, because "the numbers 11 and 12 have a positive healing vibration". How do they base such a claim? Do numbers vibrate? Can we measure that? Can we demonstrate that in ANY way? At this point, we have to say that this kind of therapy would be pseudoscience, bordering on some type of religion. There's an element of faith in it, faith that the crystals can bring some type of healing.

In this way, pseudoscience has a tendency to be abused for monetary gain. Since you don't have to base your claims on real research-- verifiable claims folling the scientific method-- you can really say whatever you want. Snake oil, tonics... You would think that as society becomes more modern, peoople would become savvy enough to outsmart the con-men, but the con-men are getting smarter, too. Sometimes, they even steal people's good name and claim that the person has endorsed them. That actually happened to my professor!