March 26, 2008
NewsWeak - "Well, That About Wraps It Up For God"
(Tim Jones)
As always, the rumor of God's demise is a tad premature. The journalist (and I use the term only in the driest academic sense) of this piece is all a-twitter because an upcoming experiment might provide evidence of a particle that might lead to more experiments that might one day lead to a Great and Glorious Unified Theory that permanently consigns God to the dustbin of history, and she wants to be there with a dustpan.
Archimedes is once supposed to have said something like "Give me a lever long enough, and a place to stand, and I can move the world". Journalist Ana Elena Azpurua is all giddy over the mere rumor of a "lever long enough", but fails to consider the lack of any place to stand.
Her problem is this; How does she expect scientists to mathematically disprove the existence of God, when they can't prove the existence of mathematics? I'm puzzled how she hopes Science will go about proving that faith is unreasonable, when it can't begin to demonstrate even that reason is reasonable. All Ms. Azpurua's faith is in Scientism, her chosen religion, and she is on the verge of a religious ecstacy, overtaken by mysterious utterances that sound a great deal like gibberish;
"At some point will it be possible to find proof that God or the Ultimate Designer does not exist?" or, "What about possible contributions toward finding a final theory? Would that upset religious believers?"
I don't care how many theories and equations you stack on one another, explain "2+2=4". For that matter, explain why "2" is not just a private concept to which you have some inexplicable sentimental attachment. Face it, madame, the first and fundamental action of Reason is an unreflective leap of blind faith. Faith in our senses, first, and in our ability to rely on reasonable guesses after that. You (and your interview guest) are as thoroughly religious, in your fashion, as any cloistered nun.
Add to that the fact that we learn absolutely nothing of scientific interest from the interview, and you begin to understand how such science groupies as Ms. Azpurua are doing more to destroy real science than any tub-thumping fundamentalist preacher could ever hope to. She's too busy salivating (over the prospect of mankind handing God his pink slip) to actually ask any questions that have to do with, you know, science. It makes the article not only silly, but mind-numbingly dull.
Way to go, Newsweek.
(Visit Tim Jones' blog Old World Swine)
Posted by Tim Jones in Other Religions, Science | Permalink | Comments (61)
February 07, 2008
Dr. Atkins' Cold Remedy
(Jimmy Akin)
I very seldom get colds. I normally go years between getting a cold.
But when I get them, I get them bad, and I'm sick as a dog for two weeks.
But not this time.
A few weeks ago I started getting a cold--a bad one--and I decided to try a nutritional formula recommended by Dr. Robert Atkins (you know, the diet guy) to nip it in the bud.
Boy, did it work!
I didn't even take the remedy until Day Two of the cold, and by Day Four, I was cured!
The idea behind the formula is that it's a bunch of nutritional supplements designed to give your immune system a short, sharp boost to fight off the infection, so in theory it can help with any infectious disease, not just colds.
I have to admit, though, that I did add two cold-specific treatments to my regimen: Since colds are commonly caused by rhinoviruses (viruses that like to live in your nose), I flushed my nasal cavity a couple three times a day with saline solution (Simply Saline is the brand I like best). I also use a small amount of Zicam, which is a zinc-based nasal gel (zinc has anti-viral properties).
Now, if you're a fan of saline or Zicam, you might attribute all or part of my rapid recovery to those, but whatever it was, I got over my cold much faster than normal.
So I thought I'd describe the cure here, in case others can benefit from it.
First, here's the nutritional supplement regimen:
INITIAL DOSE (taken as soon as possible after onset of symptoms; preferably immediately after first clear symptom):
Vitamin A (40,000-80,000 IU)
Beta carotene (60,000-120,000 IU)
Balanced B complex (100 mg)
Vitamin C (10-20 grams)
Garlic (2400-3200 mg)
Zinc (200-400 mg)
Bioflavonoids (800-1600 mg)
MAINTENANCE DOSE:
Vitamin A (10,000-20,000 IU)
Beta carotene (15,000-30,000 IU)
Balanced B complex (25-50 mg)
Vitamin C (2-4 grams)
Garlic (2400-3200 mg)
Zinc (50-100 mg)
Bioflavonoids (200-400 mg)
I took my initial dose on Day Two of my cold and a maintenance dose on both Day Three and Day Four, by which point that "sick" feeling was gone--far earlier than normal with a cold for me.
Note that you shouldn't take this much of these nutrients every day. They're to combat an illness that's in progress, not a general preventative measure. These amounts also are for adults, not children. Since it was the first time I had used the formula, I did *not* put myself on the highest doses in each category (e.g., I tried only 10 grams of C, not 20) to test my tolerance for them. Your mileage may vary.
I got this formula out of Atkins' book Dr. Atkins Vita-Nutrient Solution, which I *highly* recommend. It contains not only information about each nutrient, its uses, and side-effects, it also contains formulas like the above that may be helpful in dealing with a wide variety of medical issues.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (30)
February 06, 2008
"Who Needs Gay Adoption?"
(Jimmy Akin)
That's a question some may be asking if certain scientists are able to achieve the latest subversion of human sexuality.
GET THE STORY (WARNING: Clinical terminology for human reproductive cells, as well as conceptual grossness.)
CHT to the reader who e-mailed.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (25)
February 04, 2008
Let's Not Get Too Specific about the Future
(Jimmy Akin)
An interesting post over at New Scientist's Short Sharp Science blog reveals something interesting:
Rasa Karapandza and Milos Bozovic of Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona, Spain, first analysed the 10-K reports produced by 100 companies between 1993 and 2003.
They found that the reports that focused more on the future – using the terms "will", "shall" and "going to" – tended to do worse, performance-wise, over the coming year. Perhaps it isn't all that surprising, since companies faring badly may tend to focus more on the future to direct attention away from current woes.
But, more strikingly, the pair did the same thing for presidential debates from 1960 to 2000 and found a very similar pattern. Again, the candidate who focused most on the future did worse on polling day. It wouldn't be so surprising if the incumbent candidate always won, because they might tend to talk less about the future than about their recent record. But the pattern held true for both incumbents and newcomers.
Something in me says this is related to the phenomenon of successful politicians making only few and fuzzy campaign promises, lest they be held accountable for them later. Yet . . . this is supposed to hold true before a candidate is elected president, and regardless of whether he's running for a second term. So maybe the connection is somewhat indirect: Perhaps successful candidates learn early on in their careers not to talk too much about the future and it's part of the overall package of being a good politician--the overall package being what helps them win presidential elections, not just the don't-talk-about-tomorrow part.
I don't know if the results of the above study are dependable--or how dependable they are--but if the pattern holds in the current election cycle, then this piece of information is interesting:
A transcript of a Republican debate held on 30 January showed that "will", "shall" or "going to" were used 26 times by McCain, 27 times by Huckabee and 32 times by Romney, suggesting that McCain should ultimately win the candidacy.
And, a transcript of a democratic debate held the following day reveals that "will", "shall" or "going to" were used 70 times by Clinton and 71 times Obama, meaning Clinton should eventually win by a nose.
I don't know about the relative levels of futurism among the candidates in each party, but not the discrepancy between the two parties.
Time will tell.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (7)
January 04, 2008
It's Not Easy Being Blue
(Jimmy Akin)
Don't try this at home, kids! Argyria is incurable.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (59)
November 21, 2007
Why NOT Embryonic Research?
(Tim Jones)
I heard about this new stem cell research yesterday on NPR, which broadcast a brief debate on the subject between Sean Tipton, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, and Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Basically, Dr. Doerflinger takes this advance as Great News in that soon there may be no scientific (let alone moral) justification to continue controversial research on human embryonic stem cells, whereas Dr. Tipton thinks such research should continue - just in case. He sees stem cell research as a race to the finish line (his analogy) and whatever it takes to get there is fine, even though "some people" have moral problems with it.
It wasn't so much his point of view that puzzled me (after all, you can't expect someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes to behave as if they do*) but the way he defended it; So, why should we continue with controversial research, even in the face of grave moral misgivings? Because "we live in a pluralistic society".
H'okay...
Now, I'm sure Dr. Tipton could give a better, more well-rounded defense than that, if pressed, but tho whole idea (very popular, of late) that a "pluralistic society" must allow scientists to pursue "whatever works" is just freaky. Never mind advanced ethical philosophy, has Dr. Tipton never seen Frankenstein or Them or even The Hideous Sun Demon? Hollywood had this all sussed many decades ago... there are Some Things that Man was Not Meant to Tamper With.
And, the question must be asked; if Moral Pluralism is the standard, the foundational dogma of our modern society, then what is NOT to be allowed, and why? Aren't all ethical frameworks equally - that is subjectively - valid? Why NOT eugenics? Why NOT a genetically modified warrior race? Why NOT chemical and biological weapons?
The natural law would proscribe all these things on the basis that they are offenses against human dignity. Pluralism might find them all wrong now (because most people find them morally repugnant, even if they can't say why), but there can be no guarantee about the future. If most people - or even if enough of the right people - become okay with it at some point, well, we can expect these kinds of examples of the New, Improved Dynamic Morality.
"How beautious mankind is! O brave new world: That has such people in't!".
*This touches on a recent mammoth combox debate on morality and ethics. There is this idea that one may arrive at a workable moral framework in a number of ways and that there will be little practical difference in the end. But that is not true. Toss out moral absolutes and the divergences in ethical philosophy and practice are profound and immediate.
Posted by Tim Jones in Current Affairs, Science, Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (265)
November 07, 2007
Chilling Words from the Founder of the Weather Channel
(Jimmy Akin)
I thought this was interesting . . . (CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)
The founder of The Weather Channel is remarkably cool toward the idea of man-made global warming.
He writes:
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
More:
Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (389)
October 31, 2007
Teenage Pregnancy Crisis among the Dinosaurs!
(Jimmy Akin)
It's true!
Like humans . . . and tribbles . . . dinosaurs apparently became pregnant while they were still adolescent!
And look at what happened to them!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (55)
September 13, 2007
All The Action Is In The Back
(Jimmy Akin)
If you listen to certain airline officials, they'll tell you that that there is no particular seat on a modern air liner that is safer than another.
They're making that up.
In reality, the seats toward the back of an air liner are safer than those at the front.
Keep that in mind the next time you travel by air . . . or just the next time you watch Lost.
I've got a number of airline journeys lined up the next few months.
I'll be sitting in the back.
As every good Catholic knows, it's where the action is.
GET THE STORY.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (50)
June 19, 2007
The Importance Of Play
(Jimmy Akin)
You ever see two puppies or kitties wrestling?
They do it naturally, and they have a high old time at it (at least until somebody bites or scratches a little too hard).
Why do they do that?
I mean: Why are they programmed to engage in fun, mock fights when they are young?
Because they're going to have to engage in real fights when they're grown. The rough-and-tumble play instinct lets them practice in a safe way what they will have to do in earnest later on. It exposes them to situations that are like real fights so that they can get accustomed to them, but without the danger that a real fight has.
That's why this playful wrestling is fun. It's to get the creatures to do it (they get the reward of fun) while they're simultaneously learning about something that will not be so fun later on.
And humans have the same instinct, which is one of the reasons human boys wrestle and engage in rough-and-tumble play and play cowboys and indians or cops and robbers or whatever the local cultural variant of the game is.
It's also part of why we get a thrill out of reading suspenseful or scary stories: We mentally put ourselves through dangerous situations in such stories (vicariously, through the characters) so that we'll be able to better handle danger ifwhen we encounter it in real life.
This kind of play thus has an important function.
But what happens if you get a society full of parents that are overprotective of their kids and who think that is the duty of parents to completely shield children from risk rather than helping them learn how to accept and manage risk?
MORE THAN YOU MIGHT THINK.
(CHT: Instapundit.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (24)
June 14, 2007
Priorities for the Future
(Jimmy Akin)
Economics is the study of the use of limited resources that have alternative uses. Any time you have to "economize"--limit the amount of resources you're devoting to something--you're dealing with economics.
There are so many needs in the world today that we can't possibly address all of them--at least in the way that we'd like to address them if we had unlimited resources.
So we have to set priorities about where we're going to spend our resources--what problems should get our attention first.
We can do this either unreflectively (kind of the way Congress tackles pork barrel spending, with legislators sticking in their pet projects without a real effort to ask "Do we really need a Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska?") or we can do it reflectively--trying to figure out a list of priorities systematically rather than piecemeal.
That's what this guy is trying to do (CHT to the reader who e-mailed!). . .
Now, I'll note that I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, or even that he's identified the right list of things to work on--and this is a rather theoretical question anyway since he doesn't have the 50 billion dollars he uses in his example (or I assume he doesn't). I'd also say that we do need to devote some funds to projects that we don't yet have the technology to address (research, including basic research, is important)--though of course there are big questions about whether it should be handled in the public or private spheres.
I also have questions about whether this guy's folks have taken adequate account of the effects of corruption and institutional resistance to letting people address some problems (e.g., sure we could provide clean water infrastructure for Africa, but will the corrupt African governments let us do it or will they put up barriers to letting it be done for disfavored groups or will the funds vanish into the pockets of African dictators?). And I certainly don't like the idea of the UN--or any other single global agency--setting forth to do all this (I much prefer a distributed approach in which different individual groups feel call to do different things). And I have questions about precisely how they want to prevent AIDS (I'm guessing it involves the use of condoms). And then there's the fact that people NEED FOR JESUS isn't on the list at all.
But I appreciate the effort to try to think realistically about what temporal problems can be solved and at what cost and what that says about what our temporal priorities should be.
So why is this post in the "Science" category rather than the "Economics" category, you ask?
Because of what his different teams of prioritizers concluded about where global warming belongs in the list of priorities--and these were of experts who were assuming that human-caused global warming is real.
(WHAT THE COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS IS.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (13)
June 13, 2007
Not Quite The Most Terrifying Video I've Ever Seen
(Jimmy Akin)
That's not to say it's not a good effort. (CHT to the reader who sent the link.)
What the gentleman in the video is doing, essentially, is applying decision theory to the question of global warming in the style of Paschal's Wager.
The gentleman states his case well, has clear talent as a producer of online videos, and--best of all--he's got a good attitude and a willingness to subject his argument to examination, which he expressly invites.
Unfortunately, I don't think his argument works. There are two basic reasons.
First, he does not fully detail the cost and benefit analysis of the different options he explores. Under the option for global warming being false and us making vain efforts to stop a non-real phenomena, he treats the costs purely in terms of money, noting that there would be monetary costs that could (in a hypothetical and admittedly extreme scenario) lead to a global depression.
Opposite this on his diagram is the cost of global warming being true and us doing nothing to stop it. For that option he lists not only the monetary impact of global warming but also polical, social, and health costs (again, for purposes of the thought experiment, pushed to an extreme case).
The basic problem here is that he is cashing out the costs in detail in the latter possiblity but not in the former. In the "false and we waste our efforts" box he's not fully attending to the fact that money is just a symbolic system used to regulate the flow of goods and services which have an impact on human existence. That means that if you divert monetary resources toward one goal you are thereby not pursuing other goals.
In fact, that's tied to the definition of economics itself, which is the study of the use of limited resources that have alternative uses.
Our presenter, as well spoken as he is, is not attending to the alternative uses to which the wasted investment to cure global warming would have.
Let me put it this way: Each billion dollars that you spend trying to cure global warming is a billion dollars that you don't have to put toward feeding people, or doing cancer research, or doing AIDS research, or developing new technologies that will extend and improve lives, or buliding housing, or anything else.
The effort to cure global warming thus has not just a monetary cost but a human cost.
Or let's look at it this way: What happens if we have the global depression that the presenter asks us to consider?
Well, what happens in major depressions? People starve to death. They don't get medical care. They can't get educations that will help them for the rest of their lives. They can't get jobs. They lose their homes. There are riots and political indability. Wars can start. Governments can get toppled or become more restrictive and authoritarian to keep control of the populace. Crime and black markets soar.
What we see then is that if we cash out the "global depression" scenario in terms of its human costs, we find a picture not unlike that presented in the "global warming is real and we don't do anything to stop it" disaster scenario. There will be monetary, political, social, health, and other costs in both worst case situations.
This makes it impossible to distinguish between them in the way that the presenter wishes us to.
How many people will die if we bring on a global depression by messing up the world economy in a vain effort to stop global warming? I don't know, but most of them will be in the third world, where economic development is desperately needed to prevent people from dying for all sorts of reasons, from malnutrition to AIDS to malaria to war.
Allowing economic development to proceed globally by not messing up the world economy in a vain effort to stop global warming will save lives.
Will it save more lives than if global warming is real and we do nothing to stop it?
There is simply no way to know in the abstract, by pitting hypothetical worst case scenarios against each other. If you imagine a global warming horror story that kills X number of people, I can imagine a global depression that kills exactly the same number.
Which brings up one of the limitations of this application of decision theory. I'm a big fan of Pascal's Wager, but Wager-type reasoning is useful in a limited number of situations, and this isn't one of them.
When you can point to comparable hypothetical disasters on both forks of the logic tree, you have to start asking which disaster is more likely to occur.
The presenter actually invites us to do this, but he doesn't explore the effects of that, presumably because he thinks that the global warming disaster scenario superdominates the decision, such that even if it isn't likely, it is so bad that we just can't take the risk.
But if we flesh out the global-warming-is-false-and-we-vainly-try-to-stop-it scenario, we realize that the alternative doesn't superdominate, and so we must turn from looking strictly at possible results of our actions to the likely results of our actions.
We simply can't look at hypothetical disaster scenarios and base policity decisions on the fact that they are possible, without asking how probable they are.
Consider this scenario: It is possible (certainly logically possible, and most would say ontologically possible as well) that there is an alien fleet speeding toward earth right now to destroy it with some kind of spiffy planetkilling technology (say, something that manipulates the sun to cause massive, instantaneously fatal global warming). The planetkiller will get here shortly, and the only chance we have to survive as a civilization is to throw the entirety of the world's economic resources into building a massive planetary defense system to shoot down the planetkiller before it can mess up our sun.
While we already have the Apple computer needed for the effort, we don't yet have all the other technology, and the only way we'll get it is if we shut down absolutely all world economic activity and focus on this. That's how tough the aliens are.
In contemplating this scenario, we could construct a grid like the one our presenter did and, if we paint the effects of the alien planetkiller in sufficiently vivid terms and then don't explore in comparable detail the consequences of throwing all of our economic resources into developing a planetary defense system (like, for example, everyone starving) then it might look like the alien planetkiller scenario superdominates the discussion.
It would even superdominate manmade global warming!
But common sense tells us that we should not shunt all of the world's economic activity into producing such a planetary defense system. The odds of there being such a fleet on its way to destroy us, and the odds of us being able to stop it if it gets here any time soon, are too remote.
It would be foolish and a waste of resources--and therefore a waste of human lives--to undertake that project.
And thus Pascal's Wager can't get us out of competing hypothetical disaster scenarios. If all a disaster has to be is possible in order to justify large-scale efforts being made to stop it then we will quickly run the world economy into the ground becaue there are a limitless number of possible-but-very-unlikely disasters that could happen.
What we have to do is go about the messy business of asking how likely are these disasters and what are the benefits and costs of undertaking particular projects to address them.
That's not to say that we shouldn't engage in disaster preparedness or undertake specific projects to avoid potential disasters--even somewhat unlikely ones--but it is to say that hypothetical disasters of this sort--and global warming in particular--do not superdominate the decision.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (58)
June 05, 2007
There Ain't Anything You Can't Fix With Duct Tape!
(Jimmy Akin)
That's what they say back home in the South.
And it seems true elsewhere, too. When I was in Rome recently I saw a parked car that had its driver's side rear view mirror reattached with duct tape.
But it seems there are interesting things you can fix with salad dressing, too.
Like precious works of art.
GET THE STORY.
P.S.: Tim J! This could be what happens to your stuff in a couple hundred years!
Or maybe future folks will just take off the grime with duct tape.
You know what they say!
P.P.S.: My favorite kind of duct tape is the kind that has the cute little ducks printed right on it.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (20)
May 21, 2007
Be Careful Buying Those Carbon Offsets
(Jimmy Akin)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (9)
May 09, 2007
It Came From Beneath The Sea!
(Jimmy Akin)
It's 7-10 feet long, and they don't know what it is.
Exactly.
Actually, they think they know kinda what it is, but there not 100% sure--and therein lies a mystery (or at least a little uncertainty).
The critter to the left (the long, greyish-white one) was filmed in the waters off Florida, and both the diver and the Smithsonian Institute aren't exactly sure what it is.
INFO ON THE GENERAL KIND OF CREATURE THEY THINK IT IS.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (18)
April 30, 2007
Type 1 Diabetes Breakthrough
(Jimmy Akin)
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the body loses its ability to manufacture insulin. It's an extremely serious condition that must be treated in order for life to be preserved.
But it can only be treated, not cured.
Until now, it seems.
A new technique has been developed using a person's own stem cells to apparently cure type 1 diabetes.
The catch is: It only works when the condition is newly diagnosed, so unfortunatley it can't be used for those who already have established type 1 diabetes.
Still, it's an advance--assuming the results can be replicated and expanded out into a standard medical treatment.
It also involves the use of adult stem cells, though that didn't keep The Times from spinning it as an argument for promoting embryonic stem cell research.
GET THE STORY.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (266)
April 12, 2007
Real Life Invisibility Cloak?
(Jimmy Akin)
(Okay, okay. It's not a complete invisibility cloak, but still. . . .)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (41)
April 05, 2007
German study: NFP as effective as the Pill
(SDG)
SDG here (not Jimmy) with a (slanted) story from Scientific American that nevertheless offers some encouraging evidence regarding acceptance of the effectiveness of natural family planning among secular researchers.
Here's their (slanted) headline:
Modified Rhythm Method Shown to Be as Effective as the Pill—But Who Has That Kind of Self-Control?
The slant is also evident through the story, from the "Vatican roulette" reference in the lede (opening paragraph) to one researcher's disparaging remarks about the term "natural family planning":
"For many couples this is highly unnatural. 'Natural' is methods that you don't have to think about, that allow you to be spontaneous…"
Sorry, but there's nothing "natural" about latex barriers (which you certainly do "have to think about") or barrages of hormones specifically designed to short-circuit the natural functioning of a major bodily system (which you ought to be thinking about).
NFP, meanwhile, is entirely "natural" in the most meaningful and relevant sense: It accords with natural law, with the truth about human nature. It may or may not come "naturally" to couples raised in a sex-obsessed immediate-gratification contraceptive culture, but then neither do things like fidelity and lifelong commitment. Unsurprisingly, couples who do have "that kind of self-control" also turn out to be a lot better than their contracepting peers at the latter things too.
Posted by SDG in Science | Permalink | Comments (225)
March 30, 2007
Saturn's North Pole Hexagon
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
Any thought on THIS?
I was re-reading Lovecraft’s “A Shadow out of Time” yesterday and later in the day this odd image makes the news.
Maybe it’s an inter-planetary elder sign or maybe the “stars are right” for you know who’s return. I think Lovecraft would have found it amusing to make it into a part of his Mythos.
I think you're right that Lovecraft definitely would have worked it into his mythos, if he'd known about it.
Clark Ashton Smith would have had fun with it, too, if he'd known about it when writing The Door to Saturn.
My own thoughts are these:
1) It's very, very strange that Saturn would have a hexagonal storm at it's north pole.
2) Maybe the Saturnian Santa Claus has a thing for geometry.
3) I expect Kara Thrace to fly out of it as part of her destiny to lead the rag-tag fleet to Earth.
(CHT to the second reader, who also spotted the Kara Thrace connection!)
The first reader also asks:
By the way, several months ago you blogged about “the Mound” story. It’s been many years since I’ve read it and I was wondering how you knew the exact location to have found it by the satellite images?
I discovered that the story The Mound was based on a real geological formation known as Ghost Mound, between Hydro and Binger, Oklahoma and found its latitude and longitude recorded in a list of GPS coordinates for people wanting to visit various mound formations in the area. (Here's another source listing them.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (16)
March 21, 2007
CPR Update
(Jimmy Akin)
HERE'S AN INTERESTING STORY ABOUT DOING CPR ON SOMEONE SUFFERING FROM CARDIAC FAILURE.
It turns out that the use of mouth-to-mouth respiration as part of keeping someone alive may actually decrease their chance fo survival. The more important thing is doing chest comrpessions to keep their blood moving. Taking time away from doing chest compressions to try to force air into their lungs may do more harm than good. It also may deter people from helping them in the first place, since many have an aversion to mouth-to-mouth.
Something to think about in case you're ever in an emergency situation in which someone needs CPR.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (8)
March 19, 2007
Surf Mars!
(Jimmy Akin)
Okay, you won't be able to do it any time soon.
I mean, Virgin Galactic and its competitors haven't gotten off the groundplanet yet, and there's all that terraforming that would have to be done, but it looks like the raw materials are there for a totally tubular Martian vacation.
We've known for some time that Mars has water on it, but until recently we haven't known how much.
Now there are reports that Mars' polar caps--if melted--would provide enough liquid water to cover the planet with an ocean 36 feet deep.
That would be if the planet's surface were totally smooth, which it isn't, of course, so what you'd get is patches of land poking up through the water--islands and stuff (Olympus Mons would probably be a continent)--and that means just one thing . . .
BEACHES!
Lots and lots of red sand beaches.
Oh, and there's one other thing you'll need for really good surfing on a terraformed Mars: a big moon to cause tidal forces. Phobos and Deimos just won't cut it. So we'll need to tow into orbit a really big hunk o'rock that some other planet isn't using. Maybe one of the Jovian sattelites or something.
Just think of the interesting wave dynamics that would be possible with Mars' lower gravity. I'm imagining really big curls or something.
In the meantime,
P.S. The story also says that they've detected traces of possible liquid water on Mars right now--a possible habitat for microbial life, so be sure and get your shots before you go.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (37)
March 16, 2007
Dev-a-stat-ing
(Jimmy Akin)
The following documentary was produced by BBC4. It's called The Great Global Warming Swindle. And it's devastating.
It's also an hour and thirteen minutes long, but well worth it.
HERE'S A SUMMARY FROMTHOMAS SOWELL.
Sowell's summary is good, but no substitute for watching the whole thing.
And now for our feature presentation . . .
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (205)
March 07, 2007
"Vell, He's Just Zis Guy, You Know?"
(Jimmy Akin)
I'm sure that's what his private brain care specialist would say about Br. Guy Consolmagno, who's part of the Vatican's crack astronomy team or "Astro Force."
CHT to the reader who e-mailed THIS STORY from the Concord Monitor about Br. Guy.
EXCERPTS:
"Science is a way of praising God," he said in an interview yesterday afternoon.
As the Vatican's curator of meteorites, Consolmagno sends meteorites where requested for exhibits or experiments. The crown jewel, he said, is a fist-sized meteorite that landed on and killed a dog in Nakhla, Egypt, in 1911. It was once a part of Mars. [FLASH! MARS ATTACKES EARTH DOG!] He also conducts his own research, has traversed Antarctica collecting meteorites and takes daily walks in the [Castel Gandolfo] palace gardens. [MARS ATTACKS ANTARCTICA! ARE PALACE GARDENS NEXT?]
Consolmagno said every physical scientist starts with three inherently "religious assumptions": The universe exists and is not a figment of the imagination. The universe is dictated by discoverable rules. And discovering those rules is something that's worth doing.
That third tenant is tied to intuition. When a scientist, even without data, pursues a hypothesis based on intuition, he blends faith and science.
"You say, 'That is so elegant that I'm willing to bet two years of my life following this up,' " he said. "That is something that comes from the soul. That's not something that a computer can work out."
The second tenant may be a statement of fact today. But hundreds of years ago, the basic laws of science had not yet been discovered.
"It's interesting to note that those people, the first scientists, were all monks, they were all clerics," he said. "And their sense that the universe makes sense came from, first of all, their belief that God created the universe in a logical way."
Consolmagno said many Catholics have been taught that Catholicism and science don't mix, though they always have. The Big Bang theory that theEarthuniverse originated in an extremely dense and hot space and expanded was developed by a Belgian priest. Though many people believe that Galileo was shunned by the Church for saying the sun was the center of the universe, he was close to many church leaders. Consolmagno said church officials don't advocate for a strict interpretation of the book of Genesis, which includes the Christian creation story.
"The cosmology of Genesis is not only not the cosmology of the 21st century. It wasn't even the cosmology of the second century," he said. "The Romans knew that the world looked different from a flat plane with a bowl over it and water above and below. And that didn't seem to bother them."
The conflict between evolutionary science and creationism in the United States comes from the Protestant tradition, not the Catholic one, he said.
"American Catholicism is in a Protestant culture," he said. "We borrow a lot of our attitudes, along with a lot of our hymns, and not always the best of either."
"The Heavens proclaim the greatness of God," he said. "That's why we study the heavens."
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (57)
March 06, 2007
Just Passing By
(Jimmy Akin)
CHT to the reader who sent THIS MOVIE of the moon passing in front of the sun. The film is taken in extreme ultra violet light, and it's really quite striking to watch it in motion--striking enough to make it NASA's astronomy picture of the day on Saturday.
MORE INFO.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (16)
February 23, 2007
How Do You Like Your Calamari? Large, Extra-Large, Giant, Or Colossal?
(Jimmy Akin)
CHT to the reader who sent in
THIS STORY ABOUT WHAT MAY BE THE BIGGEST SQUID EVER BROUGHT ASHORE.
It's a colossal squid that is 39 feet long and weighs 990 pounds. (That's 15 kilometers and 852 grams, for those of you who use metric.)
It was caught in Antarctic waters off New Zealand and weighs 50% more than the previous biggest catch (which was 660 lbs. or 428 grams).
This one was so big that
If calamari rings were made from the squid they would be the size of tractor tires, one expert said.
Now, this is a colossal squid, not a giant one. There's a difference. Colossal squid are gianter than giant squid.
Giant squid get almost as long as colossal squid, but they don't weigh as much. Both of them apparently have severe tussles with whales, given the scars we find on whales who lived to tell the tale. (In the whale community, they probably have entire ballads about fighting giant and colossal squids.)
I find these creatures fascinating because we know so little about them. They're just down there in the water, skulking about, doing their sinister business, and rarely coming up to where we can get a good look at them. I mean, they never come over and visit or anything.
We only just recently got video of a live giant squid.
HERE'S MORE INFO ON COLOSSAL SQUID.
AND ON THE VAMPIRE SQUID FROM HELL.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (61)
February 21, 2007
Cardinal Takes On Global Warming
(Jimmy Akin)
Here's what Cardinal Pell of Sydney had to say:
Global warming doomsdayers were out and about in a big way recently, but the rain came in Central Queensland and then here in Sydney. January also was unusually cool.
We have been subjected to a lot of nonsense about climate disasters as some zealots have been painting extreme scenarios to frighten us. They claim ocean levels are about to rise spectacularly, that there could be the occasional tsunami as high as an eight story building, the Amazon basin could be destroyed as the ice cap in the Arctic and in Greenland melts.
An overseas magazine called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics while a U.S.A. television correspondent compared skeptics to “holocaust deniers”.
A local newspaper editorial’s complaint about the doomsdayers’ religious enthusiasm is unfair to mainstream Christianity. Christians don’t go against reason although we sometimes go beyond it in faith to embrace probabilities. What we were seeing from the doomsdayers was an induced dose of mild hysteria, semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition.
I am deeply skeptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence. I would be surprised if industrial pollution, and carbon emissions, had no ill effect at all. But enough is enough.
A few fixed points might provide some light. We know that enormous climate changes have occurred in world history, e.g. the Ice Ages and Noah’s flood, where human causation could only be negligible. Neither should it be too surprising to learn that the media during the last 100 years has alternated between promoting fears of a coming Ice Age and fear of global warming!
Terrible droughts are not infrequent in Australian history, sometimes lasting seven or eight years, as with the Federation Drought and in the 1930s. One drought lasted fourteen years.
We all know that a cool January does not mean much in the long run, but neither does evidence from a few years only. Scaremongers have used temperature fluctuations in limited periods and places to misrepresent longer patterns.
The evidence on warming is mixed, often exaggerated, but often reassuring. Global warming has been increasing constantly since 1975 at the rate of less than one fifth of a degree centigrade per decade. The concentration of carbon dioxide increased surface temperatures more in winter than in summer and especially in mid and high latitudes over land, while there was a global cooling of the stratosphere.
The East Anglia university climate research unit found that global temperatures did not increase between 1998 – 2005 and a recent NASA satellite found that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years. Is mild global warming a Northern phenomenon?
While we might have been alarmed by the sighting of an iceberg off Dunedin as large as an aircraft carrier we should be consoled by the news that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there.
The science is more complicated than the propaganda!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (98)
February 20, 2007
Cord Blood Banks
(Jimmy Akin)
Actually,
Neither is the idea of donating cord blood, as long as donor privacy is protected.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (4)
February 14, 2007
Gattica! Gattica!
(Jimmy Akin)
If a House bill goes through in its current form and becomes law, we'll be one step closer to the genetic dystopia of GATTACA.
The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins writes:
A bill with serious ramifications for the disabled and others medically at risk is scheduled for mark-up in the House Education and Labor Committee on Wednesday. As I previously mentioned, H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), was introduced to prevent insurance companies and employers from refusing to cover individuals or families based on the results of genetic tests. Unfortunately, due to a large loophole in the bill's language, the definition of "family member" does not include children who are "to be born" or those who are in the process of being placed for adoption. Without an amendment to expand the definition, an insurance company could, on the grounds of a prenatal test, cancel a woman's insurance--or encourage her to have an abortion because it doesn't want to pay for the costs of a special needs child with an illness or disability such as Down Syndrome. When the bill was first introduced in 2005, sponsors said the language would be clarified. However, with the House now poised to act on the legislation, this has not been done. In our conversations with House members, we've learned that an amendment will likely be offered in committee to favorably change the bill. We encourage all representatives to vote for this equitable pro-family clarification.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (45)
February 12, 2007
Grand Canyon Opens Deep Divisions!
(Jimmy Akin)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (16)
The Chillling Stars?
(Jimmy Akin)
COSMIC RAYS CAUSE GLOBAL COOLING; ACTIVE SUN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING?
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (95)
February 01, 2007
A Cure For Cancer?
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
Is this for real?
I know it is from a student newspaper, but if this is for real... yikes!
HERE'S THE LINK THE READER IS TALKING ABOUT.
And despite the fact that it's from a student newspaper, it is indeed for real. I did some checking and found other references to the same possible cancer cure, and it's been picked up by other news outlets.
HERE'S THE ARTICLE ON IT IN NEW SCIENTIST.
And, of course, it's found its way onto Wikipedia.
HERE'S THEIR ENTRY ON THE REPORTED CURE.
For those who haven't immediately zoomed off to read the above links, here's a synopsis of the story: Researchers in Alberta have found a chemical--dichloroacetate or DCA--that appears to kill cancer cells while leaving normal cells unaffected. The links above contain details on precisely how it does this, but there are two striking things about this chemical: (1) It appears to work on a wide variety of different types of cancer cells and (2) it's cheap--really cheap--because it can't be patented.
The latter point is a significant part of the story because, since it can't be patented, it can't make a boatload of money for some drug company. Consequently, drug companies aren't interested in doing the research needed to find out if it actually works in humans, what the therapeutic dosages are, what the side-effects are, etc.
This is not a new story in medicine, though it may be the first time some readers have run across this phenomenon. In fact, drug companies spend millions and millions of dollars so that they can produce near-knockoffs of natural or already-known substances so that they can patent the near-knockoff and use it to make money, when the already-existing substance that they're imitating would treat the same condition just as well or better.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I OFTEN RECOMMEND THIS BOOK.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not down on drugs or conventional medicine. I simply recognize the distorting effects that economic interests can have in this area, as in every other. Sometimes a drug is the best way to treat something. Sometimes a nutritional approach is better. It just depends.
Having said that, I am very intrigued by the reports concerning DCA and will be trying to find out more.
The odds are always against something like this panning out, but I would love it if this one did! A cheap and effective cancer cure would be the answer to countless prayers throughout the world.
One note: For people who are suffering from cancer or who know someone who is, there is going to be a huge desire to try personal therapies with DCA even before human clinical trials are done. It's understandable that people would want to do this. I do not yet know if DCA is commercially and legally available in the US, but even if it is available and legal, caution is warranted here. There are side-effects if DCA is taken in the wrong dosages.
Remember the first law of toxicology: "The poison is in the dose."
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (30)
January 26, 2007
Moon To Explode And Fall Out Of Sky!
(Jimmy Akin)
IT'S TRUE!
I mean . . . it's not scheduled to do that tomorrow or anything, but one day.
Yes, our moon--"Luna" as some people want to call it (though anyone who's ever lived there just calls it "the Moon")--it's going to blow up and rain down out of the sky.
You know what they say, "No boom today. Boom tomorrow. They're always a boom tomorrow"--only the tomorrow in question is a ways down the road, long after all of us should have pushed up all the daisies that we're going to.
Here's the idea:
[T]he Moon is being pushed away from Earth by 1.6 inches (4 centimeters) per year and our planet's rotation is slowing.
If left unabated the Moon would continue in its retreat until it would take bout 47 days to orbit the Earth. Both Earth and Moon would then keep the same faces permanently turned toward one another as Earth's spin would also have slowed to one rotation every 47 days.
[But billions of years from now . . . ]
The Sun's mutation into a red giant provides a huge stumbling block to the Moon's getaway and is likely to ensure the Moon ends its days the way it began; as a ring of Earth-girdling debris.
'The density and temperature both increase rapidly near the apparent surface (photosphere) of the future giant Sun,' Willson explained. As the Earth and Moon near this blistering hot region, the drag caused by the Sun's extended atmosphere will cause the Moon's orbit to decay. The Moon will swing ever closer to Earth until it reaches a point 11,470 miles (18,470 kilometers) above our planet, a point termed the Roche limit.
'Reaching the Roche limit means that the gravity holding it [the Moon] together is weaker than the tidal forces acting to pull it apart,' Willson said.
The Moon will be torn to pieces and every crater, mountain, valley, footprint and flag will be scattered to form a spectacular 23,000-mile-diameter (37,000-kilometer) Saturn-like ring of debris above Earth's equator. The new rings will be short-lived. Theory dictates they'll eventually rain down onto Earth's surface.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (28)
January 16, 2007
Capsaicin To The Rescue?
(Jimmy Akin)
Capsaicin is the substance that makes chili peppers hot. I've loved the taste of it for years, and hot sauce has been a frequent guest at my table.
It also has medical applications. It's used for a variety of conditions and is often found in creams for topical application and in the form of nutritional supplements. It helps with joint pain, muscle strain, and other complaints. It's even been found to kill certain cancer cells.
THIS IS MY FAVORITE BOOK ON NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS, AND IT INCLUDES INFO ON CAPSAICIN.
But it turns out that capsaicin may have just unlocked one of the most troubling medical issues of our day: diabetes.
I've been meaning to blog on this for a while, and news has undoubtedly already raced through the diabetes community, but a team of Canadian researchers used capsaicin as part of a treatment that at least temporarily cures Type 1 diabetes in mice.
The researchers noticed abnormalities in the pain receptor cells in the pancreas of those affected with diabetes and conjectured that these were involved in the condition. They then took mice with Type 1 diabetes and injected their pancreases with capsaicin to deaden the pain receptor nerves. To their amazement, these mice almost immediately began producing insulin. They also injected a neuropeptide called Substance P, which helped, too. The upshot is that some of the mice have remained free of diabetic symptoms for as much as four months after a single treatment.
If this finding holds up, it turns a lot of thinking about the nature of Type 1 diabetes on its head and may open the door to an equivalent human treatment that could revolutionize the lives of those with diabetes.
It's too soon to say whether this will all pan out, but human trials are expected to begin soon, and it's definitely a subject to keep an eye on--and to keep praying about.
MORE ON THE DIABETES DISCOVERY.
AND MORE.
HERE'S THE ORIGINAL JOURNAL ARTICLE ON THE DISCOVERY (SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED).
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (17)
December 26, 2006
Aquatic Tribbles Found In South Carolina!
(Jimmy Akin)
EXCERPT:
Two new invasive species have recently been found along the South Carolina coast — a massive barnacle that dwarfs those found in the state as well as the Asian green mussel, which reproduces quickly and can pose a threat to floating docks.
The barnacle is native to the Pacific coast from southern California to South America. It is so big, colonies have been known to sink navigational buoys, slow boats and clog coastal water pipes.
The barnacle, the megabalanus coccopoma [PICTURED], was found by a College of Charleston student doing research this fall on the Folly River. It reproduces quickly, and, although only one has been found, scientists worry it could spread.
I know they're a navigational hazard, but ever since I was a boy playing on the beach of Trinity Bay at Baytown, Texas, just down the hill from my Paw-Paw's house, I've thought barnacles were neat.
Be sure to note the piece of Catholic trivia regarding the Barnacle Goose.
P.S. FIDDLER CRABS ARE COOL, TOO.
AND HERMIT CRABS.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (23)
December 07, 2006
Black Hole Eats Star. Film At 11.
(Jimmy Akin)
It seems that we've just observed the central black hole of a galaxy eating a star.
The galaxy in question is 4 billion light years away and in the constellation Bootes.
This is apparently not an every day event. EXCERPTS:
Scientists used NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer, an orbiting telescope sensitive to two bands of ultraviolet wave lengths, to detect an ultraviolet flare coming from the center of a remote elliptical galaxy.
"This ultraviolet flare was from a star literally being ripped apart and swallowed by the black hole," Suvi Gezari of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and lead author of the paper describing the findings in Astrophysical Journal Letters, said in an interview.
"This is the first time that we've actually been able to monitor the flare of radiation from such an event in detail. Only once every 10,000 years will a star pass close enough to a (galaxy's) central black hole to be ripped apart and swallowed in this manner," Gezari said.
Scientists continue to use the telescope to observe the ultraviolet light as it fades while the black hole snacks on the final table scraps from the devoured star.
"We looked at the galaxy in 2003 and there was no ultraviolet light coming from the galaxy at all," Gezari said. "And then in 2004, we suddenly saw this very bright source."
"The only way to explain such a luminous ultraviolet flare is if the black hole swallowed a star," Gezari said.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (29)
November 22, 2006
Stupid Definition Of Planet To Get Revisited
(Jimmy Akin)
I predicted that the International Astronomical Union's ABSURD definition of what counts as a planet would not stand the test of time and would get revised.
Now others are saying the same thing (EXCERPTS):
Rather than crafting an acceptable definition, the IAU alienated members, put the group's authority in jeopardy and fueled schisms among astronomers on theoretical grounds and even nationality.
The controversial planet-definition resolution, passed Aug. 24 in a vote of just 424 IAU members, will not stand as worded. Some 300 astronomers have pledged not to use it, and many others say it must be redone to eliminate contradictions. It will be reworked, at the least, and possibly overturned at the 2009 IAU General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
The Great Pluto War alienated many of the roughly 10,000 professional astronomers around the world who did not have a chance to cast a vote.
Good. Now let their voices be heard.
It really is appalling to me that the IAU adopted such a boneheadedly short-sighted definition that only covers objects in our solar system and is based on irrelevancies such as what kind of orbit it has as whether or not it has cleared its orbit of competitor bodies.
The author of the piece makes some very good points, though I don't agree with everything he says. He is of the opinion, for example, that we will never have a definition for what counts as a planet. I don't think we'll have one soon, but eventually common sense will prevail.
There is a perfectly common-sense definition of "planet" that is easy to understand and will unambiguously apply to the vast majority of planets we find outside the solar system, regardless of what kind of orbit (if any) that they have: A planet is something big enough to be round because of its own gravity but not big enough to start nuclear fusion and become a star.
With the progression of time, the obviousness of this definition will force itself more and more on the astronomical mind and, in coming years and decades and centuries, the definition of planet will more and more approximate what I just wrote.
Yes, this definition leads to our solar system having considerably more planets than the ancients thought.
So what.
You don't want to know more than the ancients did?
Yes, it leads to the Moon being a sister planet of Earth's.
So what.
The Moon was one of the seven classical planets recognized by the ancients. Mankind has thought of the Moon as a planet before and--if common sense prevails--it will so again. Modern attempts to define what a planet is and discover more of them are attempts to build on the nature of the classical planets, and the definition I gave above fits six of the seven classical planets.
I'm willing to concede, of course, that further learning since ancient times has revealed that the sun is more like the stars in its nature and not the other planets, and so we today think of the sun as a star.
We should, however, think of the Moon as a sister-planet.
Because that's what it is.
GET THE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (17)
October 17, 2006
Spider Men
(Jimmy Akin)
Soon your friendly, neighborhood spider man may be living closer than ever before--even right next door.
Yet because of his secret identity, you may never know it.
Actually, it's not so much a matter of a secret identity as medical confidentiality.
What am I talking about?
It seems scientists are now trying to find ways to use spider silk in medical applications (EXCERPTS):
Spider web silk, the strongest natural fiber known, could possess untapped medical potential in artificial tendons or for regenerating ligaments, scientists now say.
Studies on animals have revealed that spider silk triggers little if any immune responses, which cause rejection of medical implants.
Scientists are also developing spider silk to make exceptionally fine sutures for stitching up surgeries or wounds to nerves or eyes, to potentially help them heal without scarring.
"Right now we haven't even optimized the silks we've produced yet, and we're in the ballpark of the material properties you'd want for artificial tendons and ligaments," Lewis told LiveScience.
And where will scientists get all of the silk needed for such applications?
To mass-produce spider silk, Lewis said "our lab is pursuing the production of spider silk in alfalfa." Other researchers are experimenting with producing spider silk proteins in goat milk. Scientists generate these proteins outside spiders by inserting the genes for them into target cells.
Having artificial, spider silk tendons might (for the sake of argument) let you jump long distances, but there is no word about whether applications are being developed that would allow you to stick to walls or have an innate danger sense.
Scientists should, however, bear in mind one thing as they seek to use spidery substances to develop new medical applications . . .
NO ORGANIC WEB SHOOTERS!
In the meantime,
GET THE STORY.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (24)
October 04, 2006
"Behold My Works, Ye Mighty, And Despair!"
(Jimmy Akin)
Here is a Harvard-made video of the inner life of a cell.
(CHT: Steve Ray.)
Now if only I had enough molecular biology background to understand it all--or someone to explain it all to me.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (14)
September 07, 2006
What The Pluto-Haters Have Wrought
(Jimmy Akin)
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)
Yeah, the ending is a little dark, but it should only cause the Pluto haters to think more deeply about what they have done.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (29)
August 28, 2006
Woo-Hoo! Two New Planets!
(Jimmy Akin)
The International Astronomical Union, meeting last week, adopted an official definition of what constitutes a planet, with the result that we have two new planets: Ceres and "Xena"! Yippie!
Now, before you say to yourself, "What planet has he been on?", yes, yes, I know: Under the IAU definition these bodies--together with Pluto--are classified as "dwarf planets," rather than planets sans phrase, but dwarf planets are still planets, just as dwarf humans are still humans.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :-P
Now, let's talk about the definition they finally coughed up:
The IAU . . . resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
(1) A "planet" [1] is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.
(3) All other objects [3] except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".
Footnotes:
[1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
[2] An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either "dwarf planet" and other categories.
[3] These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.The IAU further resolves:
Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects [SOURCE].
The condition that keeps Pluto, Ceres, and "Xena" from being planets sans phrase is condition 1c, which is that the body "has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit."
That's totally stupid.
Not only is it unacceptably vague (just how clear does the orbit have to be?), it also has nothing to do with the nature of an object. It has to do with the object's relationship to other objects, and as I've already said, what an object is is more important than where it is if you want to talk about its nature. By including a relational term in the definition, the IAU seeks to establish "planet" as a partly natural, partly relational category, and that's just scientifically inelegant.
(Incidentally, criterion 1a--about going around the sun--is another dumb relational term.)
What we should be trying to do here, in coming up with a definition for a planet, is try to capture the natural essence of those bodies which have come to be regarded as planets, and the only essential criteria that I can see for them is that they (a) don't glow (no fusion) and (b) are big enough that their gravity causes them to be round.
Saying that they've cleared their orbit is superfluous. That means that you could have an object the size of Jupiter in an orbit filled with asteroids and deny it the status of a planet sans phrase on that basis. It would make the Jupiter-sized object a "dwarf planet" even though it drawfs the Earth!
Dumb! Dumb! Dumb!
In fact, some folks have argued that this situation is precisely the one that we're in:
There continues to be much criticism regarding the final draft of the definition. For instance, the lead scientist on NASA's robotic mission to Pluto, Dr Alan Stern, contends that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also not fully cleared their orbital zones either. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path. "If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he added [SOURCE].
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, IAU! Jupiter as a "dwarf planet"!
Fortunately, I think this definition is likely to get revisted in the future. Not only is it scientifically gerrymandered, but
The orchestration of the final vote has come under criticism because of lack of participation due mainly to the time of the vote. The final vote was taken on the last day of the 10-day event after many had left or were preparing to leave. Over 2,700 astronomers attended the conference, but only 424 remained on the last day. There is also the issue of many astronomers who are unable to make the trip to Prague [SOURCE].
Once the broader membership of the IAU has had a chance to weigh in, a considerable fight may start and the issue may get revisited at a future convention.
Further, the inelegant nature of the definition may force itself upon the minds of current or future astronomers with sufficient force to force a reconsideration. Or further scientific discoveries may.
Let's hope that next time they get it right: Figure out the essence of the object you're talking about and go with that, regardless of what the conclusions are.
In the meantime, I'm happy to be living in a solar system with eleven planets: eight planets sans phrase and three dwarf planets.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (44)
August 22, 2006
Planetary Update
(Jimmy Akin)
Things are happening fast and furious at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) regarding the upcoming planet definition vote that's scheduled for this Thursday.
And Wikipedia's on the story!
In the open-source information age, their 2006 Redefinition of Planet page has not only been created since last week's announcement of a proposed definition but has been updated to reflect the current state of play.
I was particularly interested to see some of the criticism directed against the proposed definition. Not only have other critics agreed with me that one shouldn't limit planets to just things that are orbiting stars, they have also made the same criticism I did of defining a moon based on where the barycenter of a planetary system is located.
In fact, they went beyond what I said and made new criticisms of this (dumb) idea:
[W]hile the Moon is defined as a satellite of the Earth, over time the Earth-Moon barycentre will drift outwards (see Tidal acceleration) and be situated outside of either body. This would then upgrade the Moon to full planet according to the redefinition. The time taken for this to occur is expected, however, to be billions of years.
In the extreme case, where a double body has the secondary component in a very eccentric orbit, this could lead to a drift of the barycentre in and out of the primary body, leading to a shift in the classification of the secondary body as a satellite or planet, depending on where in its orbit it is.
All of which underscores the point I made last time: What an object is rather than where the object is should determing whether it is a planet.
Now, I don't know what the IAU will do this Thursday when they finally vote. Wikipedia reports that one group voted early with negative results:
According to Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, a subgroup of the IAU met on August 18, 2006, and held a straw vote on the draft proposal: only 18 were in favour of the draft proposal, and over 50 against. The 50 in opposition preferred an alternative proposal drawn up by Uruguayan astronomer Julio Ángel Fernández.
That alternative proposal would demote Pluto from planetary status.
Whether or not the draft definition passes, I doubt that Thursday's vote will see this kind of lopsided vote in favor of the Fernandez alternative. The group in question was (a) relatively small (68 people, when there are more than 2000 at the meeting) and (b) clearly highly motivated on the subject or they wouldn't have held a preliminary vote like this. This strikes me more as an attempt to influence the course of events than a representation of what opinion in the IAU is on the topic.
A different indicator of opinion in the IAU is as follows:
Owen Gingerich, an historian and astronomer emeritus at Harvard who led the committee which generated the original definition, predicted the Executive Committee, "will undoubtedly come before the membership with a single resolution. They may make some adjustments." He added that correspondence he had received had been evenly divided for and against the proposal.
YEE-HAW!
Who doesn't like a cliffhanger scientific scrap!
GET THE STORY.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Science | Permalink | Comments (29)
August 17, 2006
Thoughts On The Proposed Planet Definition
(Jimmy Akin)
Earlier I said I'd offer my own thoughts on the proposed IAU definition of what a planet is, so here goes . . .
I am largely . . . pleased.
The basic reason that I'm pleased is that the number of planets is going up. What could be better than new planets? In fact, if the definition sticks, the largest expansion of the number of known planets in human history may occur in our lifetimes! Yee-haw!
It would be a real downer, in fact, if they had gone with a definition that stripped Pluto of its status as a planet. That would have been a disappointment. It would have created a feeling that there was an eighty-year mistake that was being undone, and since the definition of "planet" is largely arbitrary (as is the case for most words), why go through the hassle of trying to convince everyone in the world that Pluto is not a planet when a definition could be crafted that could easily accomodate the idea?
I mean--I know that some people (such as canonist Ed Peters, and more power to him) have been gleefully dancing on Pluto's grave for some time--but the idea of Pluto is a planet is just too deeply embedded in our culture to try to get everyone to stop referring to it as a planet. Think about the practicalities of doing that. Ick. It'd be much easier just to accomodate the definition of "planet" so that Pluto counts.
Put another way: It's easier to get people used to the idea of accepting new planets than declassifying ones they grew up with.
So I think the IAU's committee made the right decision in keeping Pluto as a planet.
This still leaves open the question of what kind of definition they would use.
One definition that I would have been okay with would be to simply draw an arbitrary line and say "Pluto is the smallest planet by definition. Any thing with a larger radius or mass than Pluto is a planet. Anything that has a smaller radius and mass than Pluto is something else."
I'd be okay with that--and on that formulation we'd only get one new planet (Xena)--but it's scientifically inelegant. It just draws an arbitrary line instead of basing the definition on a natural kind.
A natural kind (as the term is here being used) is a distinct type of thing that you find in nature. For example, lions and ants and daisies and geodes and geysers and rainbows are natural kinds. They aren't all living, and they are categories that have fuzzy boundaries, but they are things that you find in the universe that are significantly similar to each other to form a kind and sufficiently distinct from other things that humans are inclined to come up with a unique word for them.
I'd much rather see the definition for "planet" be based on the kind of object that people have traditionally called a planet than simply drawing an arbitrary line.
One reason for this is that the arbitrary line that could have been drawn for Pluto is quite close to the kind of line that would suggest itself if we based the definition of planets off of natural kinds.
One thing that all the traditional planets have in common is that they are at least roughly spherical (i.e., they're sphereoids), and this is no accident: It's because they all have a certain mass, which compresses them into a sphereoidal shape, rather than letting the structural properties of the material they're made out of determine their shape (as with many asteroids, which are basically chunks of rock that aren't spherical at all or at least aren't spherical due to gravity).
This mass-based definition also coheres with our intuition that a planet should be a body of a certain size, rather than any ol' fleck of rock we find in the solar system.
If we go with a natural kind-based definition, the obvious lower threshhold for what counts as a planet is the massive-enough-to-be-a-sphereoid level. That's still a fuzzy line that leaves room for further clarification (just how sphereoidal does it have to be?), but at least it's not completely arbitrary.
The problem with proposing this as a lower threshhold is that a lot of objects in the solar system meet this test, and in coming years we're probably going to find many more. Personally, I find the idea of lots of new planets cool, but it's also quite an adjustment for many people, and so I'm impressed by the IAU's willingness to go with the more scientifically elegant definition rather than an arbitrary definition based on Pluto's size that would be more restrictive of the number of new planets.
What I've said above covers the lower threshhold of what counts as a planet under a natural kinds definition, but that still leaves the question of what the upper threshhold would be. This is something the IAU's proposed definition doesn't deal with, but I think there is an obvious natural kinds-based line to be drawn there as well: If an object becomes so massive that--at some point during its life cycle--it undergoes nuclear fusion then it is no longer a planet but a star (or a dead star if it's nuclear fuel is spent and fusion has stopped).
My preferred natural kinds-based definition of a planet is thus:
An object is a planet if and only if:
1) It is massive enough that its shape is dictated by its gravity rather than by structural factors (i.e., it's massive enough to be a sphereoid) and
2) It is not so massive that nuclear fusion naturally occurs in it at some point.
Unfortunately, the IAU didn't go all the way to my preferred natural kinds definition. It didn't treat the second criterion explicitly (though it did distinguish planets from stars), and it went beyond my definition by adding what I consider to be an inelegant, arbitrary, and . . . frankly . . . stupid criterion--one based on where an object is.
Specifically, the IAU's proposed second criterion was:
(b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.
This is just dumb, and I suspect it won't survive long term.
One reason is that not all planets are in solar systems. There are bound to be objects that are otherwise identical to planets that have been flung off from solar systems, and to refuse to call intersolar planets "planets" just because they aren't orbiting around stars is dumb. If we had a close encounter with something that knocked one of the classical planets out of our solar system, we wouldn't say it should be declassified as a planet just because it isn't orbiting the sun any more.
The other bit of this criterion that I don't like is that to count as a planet an object must not be "a satellite of a planet."
A satellite--as they're using the term--means any object that is non-massive enough that the barycenter it orbits is within another object.
Now, in case it's been a while since you had physics or astronomy or an equivalent course, a barycenter is a point that two or more objects are orbiting. Y'see (forgive me if I oversimplify a bit), whenever two or more objects are in a stable orbital system (or subsystem), the masses of the objects are all pulling on each other in a way that they orbit a single point.
This point is not simply the center of the largest object, so when the Moon "orbits" the Earth, it isn't swinging around the center of the Earth. It's swinging around a point that is part way between the center of the Earth and the center of the Moon. That point is known as the barycenter, and--because of the relative masses of the Earth and the Moon and their distance from each other, the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system is inside the Earth.
But it doesn't have to be that way. If you had two equally massive objects orbiting--if there was Earth and Counter-Earth, let's say--then the barycenter would not be inside either of them but between them.
That's the case with Pluto and its former moon, Charon. Pluto and Charon are equal enough in mass that the barycenter of their system isn't inside Pluto but between the two bodies and, since Charon is big enough to be a sphereoid under its own gravity, it would get counted as a planet in the new definition.
Good for Charon, but I think it's dumb to base whether or not something is a planet on something as arbitrary whether the barycenter it's orbiting is above or below the crust of a neighboring body. Based on that criterion, any object, no matter how much it looks like a planet--even one as massive as Jupiter--would cease to be a planet if it were pushed into orbit around a sufficiently massive n