The Universe and its Beginnings

For my research questions I have chosen to research and write about the first few seconds of our universe and the Big Bang. Most of the questions that my research is based off of are the questions that a person will most likely ask themselves sometime in their lifetime. Questions that are based off of the big questions that have been thought about by humanity for a very long time indeed. The most readily available question is, “How did the Universe begin?” This question has driven most of my research that has led me to this article that I found on Academic Search Premier called, Astronomy’s 5 Big Questions, this article deals with what most astronomers find to be the hardest questions to answer and the big bang is included. Not only that but the Big Bang is the start of all of the questions that the people who study astronomy have come up with over the years. I have also found in various other articles that deal with different missions from NASA that intend to study the Big Bang, as crazy as that may sound, and come up with theories about it. Missions Like WMAP, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, which measured the radiant heat of the Universe left over from the Big Bang and mapped out what the very early Universe probably looked like. WMAP and other missions like it are what I am finding are the real keys to unlocking what the very early universe looked like as well as the immense force that created it almost 13 billion years ago.

Annual Reviews in Astronomy and Astrophysics

I chose the science Journal. Annual Reviews for my scholarly journal. It is a peer invited source which means that it meets all of the requirements of a peer reviewed source and the journal itself is composed every year by experts in the respective fields which are written about.

In this particular Journal the subject is Astronomy and Astrophysics and it appears that this journal is intended to be read mostly by scientists in the field or people who are very interested in the field. This is mostly due to the fact that the journal is written in a very scientific way and it doesn’t make much of any attempt to try and reach out to people who would not understand it.

Instead the journal sticks to its purpose that is to simply document the steady progress of human understanding of both the cosmos and it’s inner workings. For example there are articles on black holes, theories on life, observations of subdwarf stars and other various things which might have the average reader make better use of the journal as a pillow rather than a source of reading material.

This Journal doesn’t seem to necessarily ask a specific question. Instead it demonstrates the advancements of science in the past year. This really interests me because it gives me a chance to see what science is all about instead of just getting some of the opinionated tidbits that are often found in the magazines like Astronomy or Scientific American. Therefore I feel that this would be a very good source to look at as far as a scholarly Journal is concerned.

2 more blogs

For this assignment I went in search of 2 more websites which covered more of the material that deals with space science, and technology. I found that there were many other blogs out there but I finally decided on the two that seemed to be the most credible, and the ones that focused more on the technology itself and less about the opinions about it. For the first blog I chose a site called, Science Blog, in a nutshell this site is a constantly updating feed on science and technology which is relevant to today’s world. Because of the nature of the site the exigence of each article must be examined separetly from the entire site, but often the exigence lacks a call to action or a new idea that must be taken up, rather it simply intends to show the reader what research is going on in the world and how it could possibly change it. Although the site lacks a direct argument which can be read aloud, there is an overall underlying argument that is inferred by the reader when they simply look at the site, this argument is that technology, research and science are the only way to better the world that we live in. The second blog I found was, Wired Science, I chose this site because it again was concerned with science and technology and the advancements within the field. This blog was different from Science Blog because it was not updated nearly as quickly, and it goes into more fields of science. Instead of being limited to the technology and research side, Wired Science, went into many different arenas of science to report anything interesting, including paleontology, astronomy, and botany. The exigence of the site was again subdued because the site was more concerned with the reporting of what was going on and why. However there was the promotion of why science was needed in everyday life, and that without science we would still be in the dark about our world and the universe that surrounds us. Again with this blog there is no specific argument made but the inferred argument is the same as before due to the nature of what is being written about and how it is written.

Astronomy blog debunks myths and legends

For this assignment I chose to use the blog, Bad Astronomy, which I found that deals with space exploration and science and the myths that surround it. The blog is written by Phil Plait who takes time, whenever he feels the need, to try and enlighten his readers about the nature of space and how things really work out in the universe. Most of the arguments he makes are scientific in nature about various subjects, missions to Jupiter, the moon landings, and other things which may be up for debate for people who are less informed. Due to the blog being scientific in nature Plait does a very good job of backing up his opinions and facts with credible sources, which adds to his ethos. Along with this Plait uses almost no pathos in his arguments and instead fills his blog with logos which is appropriate for the blog which he is writing and it adds to his credibility by showing you that he is not just another raving maniac on the internet.
The article that is currently the front page of Mr. Plait’s website is one that talks about the idea which was held that the Galileo spacecraft might turn Jupiter into a brown dwarf by starting a fusion reaction in the core of Jupiter with the plutonium pellets on board of Galileo. He debunks this through reference to the Nasa website and discussing that plutonium can only produce a fission reaction and not a fusion reaction first off, and second off the reactor design of Galileo would not allow for even a fission reaction to take place once the spacecraft reaches Jupiter. Because of these reasons I think I have found a pretty valid internet blog written by an author who not only cares about the subject which they are writing about, but also who actually takes the time to properly research his subject matter.

JFK Speech “We Choose to go to the Moon”

I chose to write about this speech by President Kennedy not only because of the subject which he talks about, going to the moon, but also because of the rhetoric he uses and the appeals he uses. I found that throughout his speech President Kennedy uses all three types of the appeals Logos, Ethos, and Pathos to both convince the people who my not have agreed with his proposal, and to solidify the reasons of why the United States was headed to the moon for those Americans who already supported the program. President Kennedy uses the Logos appeal to show the American people and the rest of the world that even though it is expensive and dangerous to go into space it is worthwhile to do so in order to promote peace and cooperation, and to further our understanding of the universe around us. The Ethos appeal is inferred by the audience because the speaker, President Kennedy, was one of the best liked presidents in all of U.S. history and he had shown that he could handle many different situations in the past, like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy then used the Pathos appeal to instill pride in the U.S. audience by telling them that they were headed to the moon because it was a worthy challenge for the American people and they could not be left behind in the space race, otherwise they would lose their position of power in the world. Then near the end of the speech Kennedy goes back to the Logos appeal by comparing the cost of the space program to be about what people in the United States spent of tobacco products every year. This not only helped show how much money they were actually spending, but to put it in easy to understand terms for his audience. Through his choice of words and the different appeals Kennedy uses in this speech he creates an argument which is both well put forth and very convincing.

In Response to Bitzer

I have chosen to write about the authors purpose of the argument which was given in the text we read.  I found the purpose of Bitzer’s article, “The Rhetorical Situation,” to be mostly to try and show what rhetoric is and how it is used through definition, sample, and example.  Bitzer first takes an analytical approach to what rhetoric, and a rhetorical situation is by first showing an example of a rhetorical situation in its entirety to show his audience what the rest of his argument will be over.  Bitzer then takes the examples which he presented in the begining and takes them from the realm of reality to the abstract to more readily show that a rhetorical situation is not just a way of saying something but it must also have a proper context and situation to have it make sense.  After this is thoroughly accomplished Bitzer then describes situations which have no rhetorical situation in order to show that there are some things in this world that cannot be changed with rhetoric to mean something than the original idea itself, he lists ideas of death, and natural disasters.  Then Bitzer goes on to define what is a rhetorical audience which he defines as people who can be influenced by the discourse of an argument.  Where as a reader is merely a person who can read an argument and not be influenced or convinced to change because of it.  These might be because either the person doesn’t care enough about the subject to change, or they simply agree with the person who is arguing their point.  These and other aspects of Bitzers argument make for not only a compelling read but a good source of information for those confused about rhetoric.

Is anyone really paying attention?

Seriously, is anyone actually reading this?