Force mechanism: lever, pulley and gear

Continental Drift Theory. From the discussion of the rock cycle, it has been pointed out that through Earth's external and internal processes. Earth's surface is constantly changing. However, this idea of a changing environment did not conform with the belief of earlier scientists. Rather, they thought that the geographic positions of ocean basins and continents have been static since the beginning of time. It was around the 1500s when Leonardo da Vinci, upon his discovery of fossil seashells found at the high mountains of Italy, first thought of the idea that the areas where mountains are located may have been oceans in the past. Through time, other fossils of marine organisms found far above the current sea level further supported the idea that mountains were uplifted and weathering wore them down. At around the 1800s, most scientists have accepted the idea that Earth's crust is undergoing large vertical movements or uplifting. There was also evidence of possible horizontal movements, but the scientists then were not convinced about it. Alfred Wegener showed evidence of horizontal or lateral movement of the continents in his continental drift theory. According to him, the continents have drifted around the world and have once formed a giant landmass or supercontinent called Pangaea. To support his theory, Alfred Wegener presented a set of geographical, biological, and climatic evidence.Wegener's geographical evidence included the jigsaw puzzle fit of the current continents. He pointed out that the coastlines of South America and Africa seem to fit together. He also pointed the presence of mountain ranges having similar rock types and age but separated by vast oceans, like that of the folded rocks of the Caledonian mountains. The same folded rocks run through West Africa, North America, Newfoundland, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Greenland, and Norway, all of which are now separated by the Atlantic Ocean. A geographical evidence on the similar rock types in West Africa, North America, Greenland, and Europe is found. The biological evidence came in the discovery of similar plant and animal fossils in different continents separated by oceans. The animal fossils of Mesosaurus and Lystrosaurus indicate that they were not capable of crossing the oceans to reach the other continents. If they were, the fossils should have been more widely distributed Africa, Australia, India, and South America were too large to be carried by wind. This indicates that the areas where the fossils were found were closely linked. It has also been found out that the plant only grew in areas with subpolar climate, which would indicate that the landmasses were located near the South Pole.Lastly, for his climatic evidence, Wegener discovered that a glacial period occurred during the late Paleozoic era in Southern Africa, South America, Australia, and India. The initial explanation for this event was global cooling, but it was rejected because large tropical swamps with so much vegetation were found at the same time in the Northern Hemisphere. This further supported the idea that the supercontinent was indeed near the South Pole, and the continents in Northern Hemisphere were once near the equator. The glacial period also left glacial striations, or the scratches glaciers make as they move across on the underlying bedrock, on the aforementioned continents. For such an event to happen, the continents would have to be connected. SCIENCE PIONEER. Alfred Wegener (1880-1930). Alfred Wegener was a German polar researcher, geophysicist, and meteorologist. He was known for his work on the continental drift theory. In his effort to defend his work, he went to the Greenland ice sheet where he died.Even with all the compelling evidence, the continental drift theory hardly convinced the scientific community at that time because Wegener was unable to identify a credible mechanism that drives the continental drift. He was unable to clearly explain how the continents moved and how the larger continents broke through the ocean floor. Eventually, critics of the continental drift began to accept the theory when new evidence supporting the theory was discovered. The new evidence led to a more encompassing theory the theory of plate tectonics. This theory provided a more convincing explanation as to how the continents moved. The evidence that paved the way for the theory of plate tectonics was the idea of wandering poles. Scientists began studying volcanic rocks to determine the location of the magnetic poles. When volcanic rocks crystallize, the minerals with magnetic properties align themselves parallel to Earth's magnetic field at the time the minerals were formed. This finding allowed scientists to determine the polarity of Earth's magnetic field and the magnetic inclination that showed the location of the poles. Upon studying the paleomagnetism of the rocks, geophysicists found out that rocks from various locations point to different magnetic north poles, suggesting that the poles have wandered. Since movement of magnetic poles is very unlikely, scientists have accepted the idea that the continents are indeed moving. And if the continents are moving, scientists thought that maybe the ocean basins are moving too. They also discovered that some rocks showed magnetic reversals, which led them to believe that the magnetic north pole now was not always the magnetic north pole. Seafloor Spreading. After World War II, exploration on the ocean floor became the focus of many geologic studies. It was only then that the ocean ridge system was discovered. A geologist in Princeton University named Harry Hess, along with other scientists, studied this ocean ridge system and hypothesized that the oceanic crust was moving away from the ridge. His hypothesis, known as seafloor spreading, showed that the ocean floor is split along the ridge where the magma rises to form the new ocean floor.Because of this, rocks located near the ridge are younger than those that are located magnetic polarity of Earth is also preserved in those rocks. Withe ridge scientists were able to see the magnetic reversals in the ocean floor, and they were able to make use of information to determine that the ocean floor is moving at a rate of about 10 cm per year. Plate Tectonics. Confirmation of the seafloor spreading hypothesis proved that continents are not moving above the ocean floor. Rather, it is the fragments of the lithosphere. The lithosphere is the rigid layer that is composed of the uppermost mantle and the crust that carry the continents and the ocean basins along. These fragments of the lithosphere are called plates. Underneath the lithosphere is a weaker region in the mantle known as asthenosphere that behaves like a fluid. Thus, the lithosphere floats above the asthenosphere, making it detached and free to move. This became the basis of the theory of plate tectonics. Now that it has been made clear that it is the plates which are moving, the question as to how they move remained. Sir Arthur Holmes proposed the driving force for this plate movement in 1919. He suggested that the movement in the mantle carries the plates along. It was previously discussed that Earth's interior is very hot due to the heat produced by radioactive decay. Convection takes place in the mantle, keeping the asthenosphere hot and weak. The convection currents produced in the asthenosphere are the ones carrying the lithospheric plates and making them move. However, convection currents are not enough. Mechanisms such as ridge push and slab pull aid the convection currents to slowly move the lithospheric plates. Ridge push occurs at mid ocean ridges which are higher in elevation than the surrounding trenches and abyssal plains. The new ocean floor from the ridge is hot and relatively thin. As it moves away from the ridge, it cools down and gets denser, heavier, and thicker. Below this cooling ocean floor is the asthenosphere, which is less dense. This area becomes a massive shear zone and the new ocean floor will effectively slide down the slope of the asthenosphere. When the plate collides with another plate with lesser density, the denser plate sinks and a subduction zone is formed. When the subducting plate sinks, it pulls on the rest of the plate behind it. These mechanisms explain the movement of the plates.Earth has seven major lithospheric plates that account for 94% of Earth's surface. These are the North American Plate, South American Plate, Pacific Plate, African Plate, Eurasian Plate, Indo-Australian Plate, and Antarctic Plate. These plates are constantly moving relative to the other plates. Thus, the interaction of plates occurs mostly along the boundaries. These movements are plotted using information from earthquakes and volcanic activities. There are three main types of plate boundaries: convergent, divergent, and transform boundaries Convergent boundaries are boundaries where two plates move towards each other A convergent boundary is also known as destructive margin since this is where the collision between two plates occhins. There are three types of convergence-oceanic oceanic, oceanic-continental, and continental-continental. Trenches are features of the ocean floor that are present in both oceanic-oceanic boundary and oceanic-continental boundary. Subduction occurs at the trenches, therefore, these are characterized as the deepest parts of Earth. A divergent boundary is the opposite of convergent boundary: two plates move away from each other. Divergent boundaries create new crust; thus, they are also known as constructive margins. The ocean ridge system is a divergent boundary where new ocean floor is produced as magma rises, pushing the older rocks aside.Transform boundary is also known as conservative plate margin since two plates just move past one another, neither creating nor destroying land. Earthquake epicenters are usually detected at transform boundaries because the rocks tend to break and not fold or sink, like in convergent boundaries. Evolution of the Ocean Basins. Both the movement of the plates and seafloor are responsible for the evolution of ocean basins. Along the divergent boundary where ocean ridge systems are found, magma is released and new ocean floor is created. Along convergent boundaries, the ocean floor is being destroyed. The evolution of the ocean basins started during the time when Pangaea was still present and was surrounded by the vast ocean or superocean known as Panthalassa, also called Paleo-Pacific or "old Pacific." Upon the initial break up of Pangaea into Laurasia and Gondwanaland, the Tethys Sea began to form. Then, the Eurasian and North about, forming the North Atlantic. The South Atlantic only started to form when the African Plate and South American Plate separated. The continued movement of the plates created the Himalayas at one side and separated the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean at the other side, which consequently formed the current ocean basins. Both the movement of the plates and seafloor are responsible for the evolution of ocean basins. Along the divergent boundary where ocean ridge systems are found, magma is released and new ocean floor is created. Along convergent boundaries, the ocean floor is being destroyed. The evolution of the ocean basins started during the time when Pangaea was still present and was surrounded by the vast ocean or superocean known as Panthalassa, also called Paleo-Pacific or "old Pacific." Upon the initial break up of Pangaea into Laurasia and Gondwanaland, the Tethys Sea began to form. Then, the Eurasian and North about, forming the North Atlantic. The South Atlantic only started to form when the African Plate and South American Plate separated. The continued movement of the plates created the Himalayas at one side and separated the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean at the other side, which consequently formed the current ocean basins.Continents do not immediately end at the point where the ocean meets the land. They may extend slightly into the oceans. The portion of the continent that is submerged is called continental margin. There are two types of continental margin: passive margin and active margin. A passive continental margin consists of a continental shelf, continental slope, and continental rise. It is not associated with plate boundaries; thus, there are very little tectonic activities. An active continental margin only has a continental shelf and a continental slope. It is associated with plate boundaries; thus, a main feature of this boundary is a trench. The different features of a continental margin are the following: 1. The continental shelf is the gently-sloping submerged portion of the continent. 2. The continental slope is the steep slope after the continental shelf. It is still part of the continent. 3. The continental rise is the gently-sloping area after the continental slope and before the ocean floor. 4. The trenches are the deepest parts of the ocean. These are narrow depressions caused by the subduction of the ocean floor along the convergent boundaries. 5. The mid-oceanic ridge is the mountain range system in the ocean. It is responsible for the production of new ocean floor. This is the region where new magma constantly emerges from. SCIENCE CAREER. A scientific illustrator uses art to inform and communicate complex details and concepts of science. He/She makes use of scientifically informed observations and research along with his/her technical art and aesthetic skills to make accurate representations. In Natural History, the scientific illustrators recreate how the extinct species look like by working with scientists and fossil records. Moreover, with the advances in technology, illustrators are now into 3D modelling, animation, and video making. Earth's History. All the processes that have been discussed require long periods of time to create a noticeable change on Earth's surface. You can just imagine how long it would take to create an oceanas vast as the Pacific Ocean if the ocean floor moves only at about 10 cm/year. It is then important to know the history of Earth to learn the complexities of its past and be able to use it to understand the present. Just like learning the history of a country that requires one to read a lot of books, learning the history of Earth involves studying a lot of rocks. Rocks, especially sedimentary rocks, contain a lot of information about Earth's past. It holds the key to most of the geologic processes that happened on Earth and the key to uncovering how life on Earth evolved. But these discoveries are worthless if there is no time perspective. Thus, one of the most important contributions of geologists to mankind is the geologic time scale, which holds a history that is exceedingly long.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Mechanics: FORCE AND MOTION

Forces in mechanics

Forces in physics and Newton’s law of Mechanics

AP physics C Mechanics, Describe pairs of forces that occur in a physical system due to Newton’s third law

Related quizzes

Related quizzes