Authors: Rodney Bartlett
Comments: 3 Pages.
According to “Galileo's Big Mistake” By Peter Tyson - Posted 10.29.02 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/galileo-big-mistake.html) -
"It was in 1595 when Galileo, just shy of his 30th birthday, first came up with his explanation for the tides. The idea occurred to him while traveling on a barge that was ferrying freshwater to Venice. (Galileo lived in nearby Padua and often visited Venice.) He noticed that whenever the barge's speed or direction altered, the freshwater inside sloshed around accordingly. If the vessel suddenly ground to a halt on a sandbar, for instance, the water pushed up towards the bow then bounced back toward the stern, doing this several times with ever decreasing agitation until it returned to a level state. Galileo realized that the Earth's dual motion—its daily one around its axis and its annual one around the sun—might have the same effect on oceans and other great bodies of water as the barge had on its freshwater cargo. The key, as Galileo saw it, was that even though we don't sense it, different parts of our planet move at different speeds depending on the time of day. It's as if the Earth were a barge, which sped up, slowed down, and periodically changed direction.The chief objection to Galileo's argument was that his model should have called for only one high tide a day, whereas there are roughly two. Galileo explained this away by stating that many other factors play a role in creating a specific tidal situation. These include the length of a basin, its orientation, its depth, the shape of its coasts, the effect of winds, and so forth."
I believe an idea of partly revised gravity requires the idea of Newton and Kepler that the moon causes the tides, to be joined with Galileo’s partly correct idea that the Earth’s movements slosh its water.
How will the Indian Department of Atomic Energy construct the biggest underground science laboratory in the world in a sheer zone in the Western Ghats, without repeating the hydro-geological disasters encountered in Gran Sasso in Italy, Rohtang in the Himalayas and Velligonda in the Deccan Plateau? This question regarding the negative impact of tunnelling of the India-based Neutrino Observatory on the nearby aquifers and surface water bodies in Idukki-Theni districts of Tamil Nadu, raised through peer-reviewed science, web and print media has been in the air since September, 2012. The State Governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu ignored the issue and the Central cabinet has cleared the project. The first mega science project in India could have been launched after a detailed assessment of the short term and the long term impacts on the ecosystem. All reports should have been in the public domain, the pros and cons of the project should have been debated. This should have been followed by stakeholder consultancy at all levels. Without any of these, the Department of Atomic Energy and the Department of Science and Technology have decided to bull doze the Western Ghats with a million kg of gelatine.
The Union cabinet has given the final clearance for setting up the India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO) under the mountains in Idukki-Theni districts of the Western Ghats. This is one of the ten mega science project managed by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). With a finished volume of 235,000 cubic meters, INO will be the biggest underground laboratory in the world. The proposed site (77°17′5.32′′E, 9°56′46.20′′N) is in the highly degraded portion of the Suruli Shear Zone and is surrounded by the catchment area of three perennial river systems (Periyar, Vaigai and Vaippar) and 12 dams within a radius of 50 km. DAE has refused to discuss the impact of blasting out 800,000 tons of rock using 1000 tons of gelatine on the aquifers and reservoirs in the area.i
Authors: Hui-Hai Liu
Comments: 6 Pages.
To seek the thermodynamic basis for the well-known Maximum Entropy Production (MEP) principle has recently received considerable attention in the scientific community. However, a little success has been achieved in the reconciliation between the MEP and the currently existing physical laws. In fact, the MEP is not a fundamental physical principle, because it is not consistent with the minimization of energy expenditure rate (MEE) principle that has been supported by observations for water flow on the ground surface. A fundamental physical principle should be able to explain observations from different areas. To resolve the inconsistence, Liu (2014), based on observations from different geological systems, proposed a new thermodynamic hypothesis that states that a nonlinear natural system that is not isolated and involves positive feedbacks tends to minimize its resistance to the flow process through it that is imposed by its environment. He also shows that the MEP is actually a by-product of the minimization of heat transfer resistance in the Earth-atmosphere system under a relatively restrictive condition. This communication further derives that previous result in the more general case for the Earth-atmosphere system. The consistence between the thermodynamic hypothesis of Liu (2014) and Darwin’s evolution theory is also briefly touched on. All these support the validity of the hypothesis of Liu (2014).