9 Kasım 2012 Cuma

Dr. Oz's Diet Advice

To contact us Click HERE

I was really bored yesterday, August 6, 2012.  Flipping through the channels, I came upon the Dr. Oz show, and I wondered what woo he was pushing today.  Sure enough, he begins the show with metabolism boosters.  
I immediately began to wonder whether a person can really boost their metabolism by simply drinking tomato juice spiked with a little Tabasco sauce and lime juice, but then he said this.
"And while wine snobs may not approve, adding ice chips to your red wine forces your body to burn calories, as it has to use its own energy to warm the liquid to body temperature."
Let's see what science has to say about this.
One learns in both physics and chemistry courses that to raise the temperature of any substance it takes an amount of energy equal to Q = mcdT where m is the mass of the substance, dT is the final temperature minus the initial temperature, and c is called the specific heat. The specific heat takes into account all the complicated physics and chemistry of how energy is distributed among the atoms and molecules.
I went to my freezer and looked at a ice cube - technically it's not a cube, it's a rectangular solid, but I'm being pedantic.  I don't have a kitchen scale, so I'll determine its mass by measuring its dimensions.  My cube is 5 cm by 3 cm by 3.5 cm or about 53 cm3.  The density of ice is 0.998 grams per cubic centimeter, so I can calculate its mass by multiplying the density by the volume.  Therefore, my ice cube's mass is 53 grams.
The ice will melt and cool the wine as cold as 0ºC.  After you drink the wine, your body will warm the liquid to body temperature, about 37ºC.
The specific heat of water is 1 calorie per gram per Celsius degree.  So your body will use 
Q = (53 g)(1 cal/(g ºC))(37ºC–0ºC) = 1961 calories.
But I have to correct something here.  A food calorie is different from a calorie.  A food calorie, also called the Calorie (notice the capital C), is equal to 1000 calories.
So your body has to expend almost 2 Calories to warm the cold wine.  I think you can burn 2 Calories by breathing for a whole minute.

UPDATE: Oops! I made a mistake here.  Your body has to warm all the liquid, not just the melted ice.  If you have a standard serving of wine, 6 oz., then your body expends 8.5 Calories.
You can do a little better by eating the ice, since your body has to melt the ice, too.  I''ll spare you the details, but that takes a whopping 4 10 Calories! Assuming you drink the wine, too.

Even if you live a sedentary lifestyle, you will burn at least 1200 Calories every day by just existing. This is your metabolic activity. If you are active, your metabolic activity can be as high as 3000 Calories.  
If you want a little dieting advice, I share with you the only diet proven to work.  
The Thermodynamic Diet
The 1st law of thermodynamics states that one cannot create nor destroy energy.  All that can be done is to convert energy from one form to another.  Your body converts chemical energy in the food to kinetic energy (energy of motion) and thermal energy (you may call that heat, but that's technically incorrect).  Any energy not converted into these two forms may be converted into another form of chemical energy; that is, weight gain.
So the thermodynamic diet is burn more calories than you ingest.

I'm Being Sued?

To contact us Click HERE

Almost a month ago, I wrote about how I had been banned by a couple of Facebook users FaceBookers, The Question Evolution Project and True Dinos.  In the post I invited both of them to respond.  It took them three weeks, but Cowboy Bob Sorensen did on this blog,and Aaron Tullock did on his True Dinos Facebook FB page.I'm a physicist, not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure I didn't post anything illegally.  Both of the Facebook pages are public, as are their web pages.  I believe that the Fair Use Doctrine may apply.

As to the defamation charge, Aaron needs to know the difference between slander and libel.  Notwithstanding the vocabulary, I think libel is " to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others." [dictionary.law.com]  If Aaron can point out the untruth, I will gladly retract.
By the way, Cowboy Bob and Aaron, calling you out for your scientific nonsense is not ridiculing you for spreading your gospel.  I'm ridiculing you for believing in creationist gibberish.
Lastly, I will take this opportunity to once again invite them to address the issue that led them to ban me.

Both Cowboy Bob and Aaron are biblical literalists.  The bible literally says the Sun orbits the Earth.  [A historical point here.  Galileo was tried and convicted by the Catholic Church in 1633 for promoting the heliocentric model for which Pope John Paul II apologized in 1992.]  Do they adhere to the biblical view or is their bible wrong on this matter?  To make matters easy on them I will once again provide a link to true biblical literalists that know what the bible says on this. Galileo Was Wrong; The Church Was Right.

They are invited to comment here using whatever language they deem appropriate.  I ask that they do not do so anonymously.  They will not be banned.

I wonder if they will extend to me the same courtesy?




Election Year Science

To contact us Click HERE

In election years, science issues rarely rise in importance to the level of ones involving the economy, foreign policy, and the military, but in my not-so-humble opinion, this is dangerous; science affects all aspects of our lives.  Climate change may not influence the way you live your life today, but your children and grandchildren will know a world greatly changed by our dependence on fossil fuels.
I care how you vote, though I care more that you vote.  We need to be responsible for the direction this country takes.  So when you are in the voting booth on Nov. 6, go ahead and vote your self-interests, but also vote for the interests of those we will leave behind.
With that said, let's look at some of our elected representatives and their wrong views on science.  I do not identify these politicians by their party affiliations, because that's not necessarily the issue, even if there is a correlation.
Rep. Todd Akin from Missouri:
 It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.  
 I don’t see [evolution] as even a matter of science because I don’t know that you can prove one or the other. That’s one of those things. We can talk about theology and all of those other things but I’m basically concerned about, you’ve got a choice between Claire McCaskill and myself. My job is to make the thing there. If we want to do theoretical stuff, we can do that, but I think I better stay on topic. 
Well, I’ve taken a look at both sides of the thing. And it seems to me that evolution takes a tremendous amount of faith.  To have all of a sudden all of the different things that have to be lined up, to create something as sophisticated as life, it takes a lot of faith. I don’t see it as even as a matter of science, because I don’t know if you can prove one or the other.
Rep. Paul Broun from Alabama:
All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell.
Gov. Rick Perry from Texas:
[Evolution is] a theory that's out there. It's got some gaps in it. 
Rep. Mo Brooks from Alabama:
The last 4 or 5 years*, have they been cooler or warmer?
We're* being asked to undermine America's economy based on this guesswork speculation.
Rep. Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota: 
The science* indicates that human activity is not the cause of all this global warming. And that in fact, nature is the cause, with solar flares, etc. 
Rep. Joe Barton from Texas: 
Global warming* is 'unequivocal'? It's just flat not true! 
Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma:
This* 97% [of climate scientists accepting human-caused global warming], that doesn't mean anything. I named literally thousands of scientists on the floor...and these were top people. 
The claim* that global warming is caused by man-made emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science. 
C02* does not cause catastrophic disasters-actually it would be benefitical to our environment and our economy.
The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous. 
Rep. Ben Quayle from Arizona: 
Our planet has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time. 
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher from California: 
Is there* some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rain forests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases? Or would people be supportive of cutting down older trees in order to plant younger trees as a means to prevent this disaster from happening?
Rep. Ron Paul from Texas: 
You notice* they don’t call it global warming anymore. It’s weather control.
There is* no consensus in the scientific community that global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin:
Our rovers* on Mars have indicated that there has been a slight warming in the atmosphere of Mars and that certainly was not caused by the internal combustion engine.
I personally* believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything that human beings do.
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney:
My view* is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.
I exhale* carbon dioxide. I don’t want those guys following me around with a meter to see if I’m breathing too hard.
I'll end this with the following comment made by Rep. Ed Markey from Massachusetts during a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce:
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to a bill that overturns the scientific finding that pollution is harming our people and our planet. 
However, I won’t rise physically, because I’m worried that Republicans will overturn the law of gravity, sending us floating around the room. 
I won’t call for the sunlight of additional hearings, for fear that Republicans might excommunicate the finding that the Earth revolves around the sun. 
Instead, we will embody Newton’s third law of motion and be an equal and opposing force against this attack on science and on laws that will reduce America’s importation of foreign oil. 
This bill will live in the House while simultaneously being dead in the Senate. It will be a legislative Schrödinger’s cat killed by the quantum mechanics of the legislative process! 
Arbitrary rejection of scientific fact will not cause us to rise from our seats today. But with this bill, pollution levels will rise. Oil imports will rise. Temperatures will rise. 
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. That is, unless a rejection of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is somewhere in the chair’s amendment pile.
*original sources at http://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php


Magnetic Whine

To contact us Click HERE


I was flying back from Washington, D.C. on Tuesday when I got a little bored.  So I picked up the SkyMall catalog to see what outrageously expensive crap they had. 


These three items piqued my curiosity, so I ripped the page from the catalog.

Put your bottle of 2 Buck Chuck on one of these, and then somehow the magnets "realign the particles." Pardon my language and borrowing from Penn & Teller, but Bullshit!

I've dealt with this issue once before in Swirling Wine.  In my Electricity and Magnetism course, the students understand that magnets interact with other magnets, and they come to understand that a magnet does not necessarily have to be those things we stick to out refrigerator.  Electrical currents (moving electrons) also interact magnetically.  That's why we have electromagnets.

While there might be tiny, tiny amounts of iron in the wine, there is no process in which magnets will change the character of cheap wine.  
Now if I could get golfers to stop buying the magnetic bracelet crap.






The Science of Steak and Wine

To contact us Click HERE

Who would ever eat a good steak without a glass bottle of a good red wine?  Not I.  I prefer an earthy Pinot Noir, but a Cab or a Zin will do just fine.
Gastronomes and chefs know that certain foods pair well together.  But why?
Science now knows.
Drinks such as wine and tea and foods like pickles and sorbets are astringent, and they "elicit ‘dry, rough’ sensations, in part, by breaking down mucinous lubricating proteins in saliva."  Steak and other fatty foods lubricate the mouth that lessens the astringent feelings. The recent work* shows that "oral fatty sensations and astringency represent opposite ends of an oral spectrum extending from ‘slippery’ at one end to ‘dry’ and ‘rough’ at the other. This provides an explanation of how these sensations interplay over the course of a meal and maintain the balance of a moderate position along a tribological scale of oral sensations."  In other words, the alternating bites of a rib eye with sips of red wine leaves the mouth with a nice feeling.
Bon Appetit!
*Opponency of astringent and fat sensations, Catherine Peyrot des Gachons, Emi Mura, Camille Speziale, Charlotte J. Favreau, Guillaume F. Dubreuil, and Paul A.S. Breslin, Current Biology, Vol. 22, No. 19, R830 (2012).

4 Kasım 2012 Pazar

Small Businesses Lifting Off!

To contact us Click HERE


We recently celebrated the fourth of July, the birth of America's independence.  We continue to be grateful and honor all of the men and women who have sacrificed much for us.  A sincere thanks to all of our veterans and troops for their committment to fighting for our country's freedom. 

In reflecting on our nation and its' progress, we can also reflect on our economy's recent progress.   Intuit has recently released June's small business indexes.  Their positive trends are a glimmer of light as they reflect positive trends for employment, employee compensation and employee hours worked for our nation's small businesses.  Even small monthly growth will help us progress to a full economic recovery.  Read more at http://index.intuit.com/.  CPA Practice Advisor has published their analysis at
 http://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/news/10736742/intuit-small-business-indexes-show-strong-employment-growth-decrease-in-revenue?cmpid=email_CCSN120628002&utm_source=CPA+Weekly+Advisor+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CCSN120628002

July 2012 Tax Due Dates

To contact us Click HERE

July 10Employees Who Work for Tips - If you received $20 or more in tips during June, report them to your employer. You can use Form 4070.
July 16Employers - Nonpayroll withholding. If the monthly deposit rule applies, deposit the tax for payments in June.Employers - Social Security, Medicare, and withheld income tax. If the monthly deposit rule applies, deposit the tax for payments in June.
July 31Employers - Social Security, Medicare, and withheld income tax. File Form 941 for the second quarter of 2012. Deposit any undeposited tax. (If your tax liability is less than $2,500, you can pay it in full with a timely filed return.) If you deposited the tax for the quarter in full and on time, you have until August 10 to file the return.Employers - Federal unemployment tax. Deposit the tax owed through June if more than $500.Employers - If you maintain an employee benefit plan, such as a pension, profit sharing, or stock bonus plan, file Form 5500 or 5500-EZ for calendar year 2011. If you use a fiscal year as your plan year, file the form by the last day of the seventh month after the plan year ends.Certain Small Employers - Deposit any undeposited tax if your tax liability is $2,500 or more for 2012 but less than $2,500 for the second quarter.