Showing posts with label Natural Selection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Natural Selection. Show all posts

Friday, September 19, 2014

On the Human Tail (and other rudimentary organs)

On The Human Tail
(and other rudimentary organs)
2012 By Dale Bryant

 The human embryo is indistinguishable from any other vertebrate animal (animals possessing a spinal column, or, notochord with extended extremities, e.g., arms, legs, etc.) This is due to the law of phylogenesis, which covers a period of many millions of years of vertebrate evolutionary development. Another law, the law of ontogenesis, explains the brief period of development from conception to birth.
 
   The embryos of all vertebrates, including us, exhibit our entire evolutionary development, starting out with the fishes, extending to the amphibious vertebrates, then on to reptiles and eventually birds and mammals. Our entire developmental sequence over millions of years is apparent. The human, dog, fish, chimpanzee, tortoise, whale and all other vertebrate embryos have gills, legs (yes, even whales), and tails as well as other rudimentary organs which, in the case of the mammals have been abbreviated or aborted. Humans still possess a short tail, consisting of four to five fused vertebrae at the end of the spinal column, called the coccyx (kok-six).

   This, of course, suggests that all extant life forms (99% of all life that has ever existed is now extinct), developed or evolved from a common ancestor in the remote past and that Man was not instantly placed here on this planet, in his present, "unchanging" form by a Creator with a definite plan outside of mechanical causes. This is a very sensitive issue for those who subscribe to a dualistic approach to creation, and those averse to changing previously accepted thinking. I do feel for you as I was once one of you, but then I transferred my interests from professional astronomy to paleoprimatology and saw for the first time the very obvious.
 
  I can recommend a good book by Ersnt August Haekel titled “The History of Creation” available free online at Google Books. Do it!

See ya!

On Natural Selection

 On Natural Selection
 2012 by Dale Bryant
 
    Still need proof of Darwin’s theory? Read on. The fact that new species develop according to adaptation and inheritance is known as the Theory of Selection, whether it be naturally or artificially induced. It was proposed by naturalist Charles Darwin in the mid-1800’s and is known as “Darwinism”. It’s a common misconception that Darwin was the originator of the Theory of Evolution. Actually, the idea of the formation of new species by descent was proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck 50 years earlier and is called “Lamarckism”. It was even suspected by Aristotle. Darwin only explained the descent of organisms by means of Natural Selection, in his book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”, and only used the term 'evolution' once in this work. In fact, this theory was independently developed by Alfred Wallace at about the same time. Darwin actually put off publishing the results from his observations in his book for twenty-one years, until he was convinced that there was no other explanation possible.
    The fact that breeders of dogs, cats, horses, tomatoes or strawberries breed their stock to achieve some desired result – whether it be a tastier strawberry, a smaller dog, a faster race horse, etc., is the proof. You might think that it is "only a theory", but that implies that theories don't provide proof. All scientific ideas and natural laws are backed by theories. The Theory of Selection is a mathematical constant: that is, the relationship of available space for an organism to exist and the number of organisms competing for that space. Obviously, some organisms thrive while most others die off, an invariable consequence of the mechanism of the 'Struggle for Existence', a.k.a. 'Survival of the Fittest'. The fittest, according to genetic adaptation and inheritance, tend towards survival while the least fit tend towards extinction. Very sensible, is it not? In fact, the seemingly endless variety of organisms, still very much in transitional states today, as can be seen in the rudimentary, atrophied hind legs of whales and dolphins, or the now defunct internal organs of many species, including the appendix of man--can only be explained by the Theory of Selection; otherwise it is left to the unfathomable realm of miracles.
    The Theory of Selection is a self-evident law of nature and requires no further proof any more than you require further proof that more than one breed of dog exists. The fact that people from around the world look differently, or that there are German Shepherds, Chihuahua’s, Beagles and Irish Setters, is all the proof of the Theory of Selection you should require. These breeds, or, sub-species, were intentionally created – bred from a common ancestor of the genus' Canis (dog) and Lupus (wolf). In fact, some breeds of dog are so distantly related that they cannot reproduce together – although they belong to the same genus, they have, through Artificial Selection (selective breeding induced by man) become distinctly separate species. Selection induced by nature is called 'natural selection' and works in exactly the same way, only much more slowly.
 Darwin also provided proof of another weighty philosophical question when he explained natural selection; that is, the question of how arrangements serving a purpose can arise mechanically without causes acting for a purpose. If you’re at all familiar with some simple math and statistics, you’ll see the logic in it immediately. If you still require proof at this point, you either don’t thoroughly understand the theory or are not sufficiently acquainted with the fundamentals of biology; and if that is the case, you really should familiarize yourself with those two components before coming to any conclusions on the subject.
    Oh, just one more thing... I realize this little essay of mine smacks of sacrilege but that is not my motive at all. Like most of my writings, it was only meant to spark a little controversy and bring your blood to near boiling (contrary to popular belief, I like to have a little fun too!) But, unfortunately, like the rest of us, I was not present at The Creation (though I feel I could have given the Creator a few pointers) but, alas, the truth is, I have an agreement with God--I don’t tell Him how to design universes--and He doesn’t tell me how to interpret the obvious.
    I need to stop here – hell, I’m in deep enough as it is!... would it help if I said I didn’t mean it (yes, I did), and I won’t ever do it again (yes, I will)--I promise (no, I don’t!)....
   I’ll end with my favorite quotation on the obvious, as it applies to nature: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck – it’s a duck.”




On Extraterrestrial Evolution

On Extraterrestrial Evolution
2011 by Dale Bryant

Virtually all reports of contact with, or sightings of, alleged creatures of extraterrestrial origin, describe these beings as humanoid, i.e., possessing large heads with two eyes, a thorax or torso, with two pair of extremities or limbs, the lower pair functioning as legs, as these beings primary mode of locomotion happens to be bipedal. This is all very interesting; the form that a body takes is dictated by its geological surroundings - including and especially available food sources, atmospheric composition, air temperature and pressure, amount of received sunlight, natural enemies - even variations in the gravitational pull of the host planet itself according to geographic location. All of these factors are highly variable at any given locale and conspire to shape our bodies - even as finely as the cusps on our molar and pre-molar teeth, to accommodate the foods we will eat as we begin a solid food diet. This is why humans look the way they do and why gazelles, rabbits, fish and spiders look the way they do, not to mention all the different general body types involved (vertebrates, invertebrates, arthropods (those with articulated limbs or segmented bodies), etc.)

The possibility that intelligent extraterrestrial beings would be humanoid in form is barely even remotely possible. The evolutionary chain of events, through the process of natural selection, which includes physical and mental adaptation and inheritance of favorable characteristics, that led to H. sapiens, was a very specific one and occurred only once on this planet; its recurrence on some other world is unthinkable; any life forms on another planet would likely be something other than humanoid and not even remotely resemble any form of life on Earth.
 The humanoid form is based on an anthropoid body plan, one of the many body plans of earthly fauna. The anthropoid cranium positions two eyes, anteriorly, or at the front of the skull. This arrangement provides binocular, or stereoscopic vision to the possessor, which is very sensitive to the movement of its prey, indicating a predatory carnivorous ancestry. Our earliest mammalian ancestors were herbivorous, with eyes positioned at the sides of the head, providing a more panoramic view much less sensitive to movement. The anthropoid body plan also includes four limbs in two pairs--the upper pair was used by our last common ancestor for swinging from branch to branch among the trees and even included hands for that form of locomotion known as brachiation. The bottom pair of limbs became important in our upright, erect posture for moving across large swaths of ground after we transitioned from an arboreal existence to the necessary mode of locomotion adapted for the savanna, bipedalism. To expect that beings from another world would have taken essentially the same evolutionary pathway as human beings is akin to expecting that they speak English too! Given any similarities, it would be even more likely that these alleged humanoid forms are actually us--from a very distant future and evolutionary development--come back to visit ourselves, via some unlikely, but plausible, manipulation of the fourth dimension--time.
 The scientists who study the possibilities of life on other planets are called Astrobiologists and Exobiologists. What do you think an extraterrestrial intelligence, should they actually exist, might look like?


Of an Overpopulated Earth


Of an Overpopulated Earth Nov
2013 Dale Alan Bryant

A friend posted recently on FB that she was wondering how we might be able to solve many of the social issues that continually plague this planet; at the risk of sounding like I didn't understand the question, I offered the following: To approach this monstrosity, we must find a way to reduce the population of our planet by something like two-thirds. Overpopulation is the cause of nearly ALL of society’s ills. There are currently 7,200,000,000 (7.2 billion) people alive today, each one of us competing to survive in all of society’s diversity. In high-density areas of society, tests of our endurance and tolerance can stress us to near insanity - like in cases of the assorted ‘-rages' - for example, ‘road-rage’, and the mishmash of umpteen other possible flavors of ‘-rage’: how about "supermarket check-out isle” rage or "on-line ‘pop-up’-ad rage"? Our social media is full of alarmingly inappropriate and disproportionately bold commentaries - an all-too-obvious form of ‘virtual’ rage. People will say, (or rather, ‘text’) things to each other on-line that they wouldn’t dare say to each other in their right minds face-to-face. This overzealous, false sense of ‘empowerment’ is in itself disturbing. It seems people would rather ‘socialize’ with others by curiously ‘holing-up’ in the peculiar, dark safety of their bathrooms, detectable only by the unearthly glow of their iPad screens, and passively type lifeless, yet “urgent” alerts to trusted, phantom ‘Friends’ (rather than calling and telling them) of any spontaneous cravings for chocolate mousse, urges to booby-trap their bathtubs - or other important current events. When I was born, in 1957, the world’s population was 2,800,000,000 (2.8 billion). That means that, today, I'm running into almost three times as many people in any given situation than I was in 1957; on average, three times as many people on the road, three times as many at the beach, in the theater, and in the Men's room.
  It was my uncle who first introduced the idea of population reduction by means of warfare to me when I was 19. I thought he was nuts! (He was, but that's not really important) He had served in three wars, and in his mind, war was an efficient solution to overpopulation; it not only reduces human numbers, but also stimulates the economy as nothing else could.
  If only we could be smarter than that!
  However, I don't believe that human beings are capable of imposing on themselves such a drastic idea as active, aggressive, voluntary population control, let alone reduction. At our current rate of population increase, we will be at 11,000,000,000 (11 billion) in only 60 years. Your children, and theirs, are going to have to live in that world. There may be an alternative solution. If our society's collective space programs remain healthy, we, as a species, can begin to populate -- and export large numbers of ourselves -- to at least one other planet -- Mars. In fact, the Dutch-based space industry's 'Mars One' Human Habitation Project is well underway in its quest to send six volunteers to the red planet as the pilgrimage of a permanent Martian settlement. This project is slated for a launch date of April 23, 2023. For these volunteers (I have applied for this mission, BTW), it is a one-way, no-return trip. The prospective ‘Martians’ must be dedicated to the idea of living out the remainder of their lives on another planet--there are no plans for returning disillusioned participants. It won't be easy, but exploration involving new and trying situations never was. Other future colonist missions are planned for extending the colony by up to six at a time at roughly two-year intervals, as are periodic supply shipments, until the colonists have become fully self-supporting. As Mars has only a tenuous atmosphere containing almost no oxygen and no open bodies of water, the new Martians will occupy a system of living-pods connected by tunnels, containing the necessary life-support systems. Voice communication with Earth will even be established by radio, and e-mail service via a Mars-Earth Internet web-server will be maintained, but a 3 to 25 minute delay each way will need to be tolerated, due to the nature of the speed limit of light, radio and other electromagnetic transmissions, and the two planet's relative orbital positions. Whatever the answer to an overpopulated Earth may be, I hope it comes in time to prevent a decision by an utterly hopeless humanity to bring itself to extinction for lack of any other way out.

My Friends

My Friends…

 “Cosmos” - Carl Sagan
“The Collapsing Universe”- Isaac Asimov
“A Brief History of Time” - Stephen Hawking
“The Nine Billion Names of God” - Arthur C. Clarke
“ABC of Relativity” - Bertrand Russell
“Starlight Nights” - Leslie Peltier
“The Demon-Haunted World (Science as a Candle in the Dark)” - Carl Sagan
“The Oxford English Dictionary” - Oxford Press
“All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten” - Robert Fulghum
“Childhood’s End” - Arthur C. Clarke
“Science, Numbers and I” - Isaac Asimov
“Burnham’s Celestial Handbook” - Robert Burnham
“A Complete Manual of Amateur Astronomy” - P. Clay Sherrod
“The Encyclopaedia Britannica” - Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” - Charles Darwin
"The Wind from the Sun" - Arthur C. Clarke
“The Decent of Man” - Charles Darwin
“The Naked Ape” - Desmond Morris
“The Holy Bible” - (because I enjoy controversy)
“Write Better, Speak Better” - Reader’s Digest Assoc.
"Future Shock" - Alvin Toffler
"Primate Evolution" - Glenn C. Conroy
“A Father’s Book of Wisdom” - H. Jackson Brown, Jr.


  These books are a few of my best friends. I’ve known most of them since I was small and I visit them from time to time. For the most part, we’ve always gotten along well, albeit with an occasional disagreement here or an argument there. But they’ve been faithful, open, sincere and good company… and they’ll never ask me for a divorce!

2010 -Dale Bryant, misanthrope

It's About Time

It's About Time!

  Is it possible to travel in time? Would you believe that it would be easier to travel into a future that hasn't happened lyet than it would be to travel into a past that has? Odd as that may sound, of the two options, travel into the future would be the more feasible. If we can't travel backwards through time, we can at least see back in time.
  When you see the moon in the sky, you see it as it was one and one-quarter seconds ago, or the sun, eight and one-half minutes ago. This is because it takes light 1 /1/4 seconds to travel from the moon to the Earth; 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun; 4.2 years from the nearest star, Proxima Centauri; 2 million years from the nearest galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy, and 65 million years from spiral galaxy M-66, the galaxy in which I co-discovered a supernova on February 11, 1989 (SN1989b).
  Lets say we were to magically travel to M-66 and brought along a very powerful telescope. If we turned the scope back in the direction of the Earth, we would be able to watch (assuming the scope were sufficiently powerful) Tyrannosaurus Rex and his friends romping about the landscape--for the light that would just be entering our eyes originally left the Earth 65 million years ago. We are able to judge the age of the universe in this way by the distances of the furthest objects we can see (the so-called 'quasars', or 'quasi-stellar' objects at 14.5 billion light-years distant.)
  In an essay I wrote about a year ago, called "The Twin Paradox", I described a space traveler who was traveling in his ship at nearly the speed of light and who had left a twin brother back on Earth. One of the consequences of general relativity is that time passes more slowly for someone traveling at nearly the speed of light than it does for someone (in this case the traveler's Earthbound twin brother, Marvin) who remains at rest.
  When the traveler (Harvey) returns to Earth after a few years, he finds that Marvin has long since passed away of old age, and in fact, that centuries have passed on Earth while only a few years have passed for him. In this way, Harvey has 'traveled' centuries into the future while on his three year journey in his spaceship (since it was Harvey who did the moving it was also he who did the traveling 'forward' in time and not Marvin 'backward' in time.) This interesting and hopelessly un-intuitive phenomenon is called time-dilation and is described in Albert Einstein's second or, 'general' theory of relativity.
  I should mention here that all this traveling and not traveling assumes that events in 'time' are not static events - in other words, they have no 'fixed' place in relation to other events. I am assuming that all events are of the "here and now"; in other words, all events are laid out before us and are available to access on demand. There are no "past" or 'future" events--only events--regardless of how it might appear otherwise, and they can be accessed from more than one vantage point. Depending on one's approach, one event may or may not come before or after another event and, in fact, may be approached in such a way that all events appear to be simultaneous, and in reality, they are simultaneous. Because of this 'fluid' nature of events, time can be manipulated (bear in mind that this is just the opinion of this writer, but it seems to me that Harvey has irrefutably proved this to be the case.) Harvey's travels not only demonstrate time dilation but seem to demonstrate "event dilation" by compressing or expanding one's physical position in space and time, as measured by an outside observer, of course. Harvey experiences the same events as Marvin, but in one order or at one interval, while Marvin experiences them occurring in quite another order or at another interval.

  As far as any traveling 'backward' in time, it doesn't seem to be a possibility, if only in that it would introduce one or more paradoxes, e.g., killing one's mother before one is born, etc.

Air Sucks!

Air Sucks!
©Mar 2014 Dale Alan Bryant

    Keyboard Bill Cosby once posed a question in the title of one of his early, classic albums of stand-up comedy – ‘Why is there air?’ I used to listen to Cosby as a kid and I once told myself that if I ever found the answer to his question, I'd let him know - well, I hope you're reading this, Bill!...
 
 To answer Bill's question, let's start with another fundamental question: “What is air?” In the Earth's case, air is its atmosphere - a blanket of various gases approximately 250 miles deep surrounding its outer crust. Air can be any gas, or combination thereof. Earth's atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, carbon dioxide and argon - but also contains a highly questionable component - oxygen, at 21%. Most planetary atmospheres contain very little oxygen if any, and indeed, the early Earth's atmosphere contained none. Earth's oxygen (O2) is mainly a by-product of living organisms, specifically vegetation. Vegetation converts the ambient CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere into oxygen, which higher forms of life have been adapted to utilize.
 The ‘Great Oxygenation period, as it is known, occurred sometime during the Cambrian period of the Paleozoic era some 542 million years ago, just preceding the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ of life. During this period, vegetation began to spread worldwide, which in turn began producing an abundance of oxygen. Only simple, unicellular life forms existed before this time which had no need of the nasty stuff! Nevertheless, as more-complex multicellular forms arose, they began to adapt to the increased oxygen levels generated by the abundance of early plant life. The present level of oxygen in our atmosphere is, as mentioned, 21%, but it actually got as high as 61% during the reign of the great reptiles, the dinosaurs. By this time, living organisms had begun to utilize oxygen so efficiently, and it was so abundant, that a general trend toward growth and increased size of multicellular forms of life took place - fossilized spiders have been found measuring up to 3 ft. across!
    (Egads, I'm feeling a little faint...)

   Now, earlier, I inferred that oxygen was a bit on the nasty side. Well, fond of the stuff as you may be, this is true. Oxygen is not an inert gas; it is highly reactive, corrosive and poisonous and is almost entirely responsible for all of the corrosion, rusting and decay that takes place on our Earth. As a rule, an atmosphere - and especially one containing oxygen, is not a good thing for anything that comes into contact with it - nor is it even the norm in the universe (the near-vacuum of space is the norm; an average cubic-inch of space contains only around 10 hydrogen atoms and a stray photon or two.)
    So where did all this air come from? Almost all of our solar system’s planets and moons have some type of atmosphere with varying compositions and thicknesses. As the Earth was beginning to cool, shortly after its formation, gases trapped within its rocky mantle and outer crust began to escape through cracks and vents (this is called ‘outgassing’) to uniformly surround the planet. Moreover, because of our atmosphere, conditions here on Earth are just right for the continual re-shaping of its surface.
 
  Air holds both moisture and heat. Moisture, combined with oxygen, causes things to corrode and anything containing iron to rust. Air is also the source of erosion, brought on by rain and wind continually reshaping the planet's surface. Moreover, moisture and heat combined support microorganisms that cause disease and decay. Only in space can the destructive forces of an atmosphere be avoided entirely. Space is cold, dry and still. Nothing can ever rot, burn or erode in space; even food will remain eternally "fresh" there. Moreover, our metallic robot explorers, like Pioneers 10 & 11 and the Voyager spacecraft, launched in the 1970's, are in pristine condition - as new and shiny as the day they were built. (Too bad they didn’t realize this back in 1957 - they could've put a ‘57 Chevy right off the assembly line into orbit and today it’d be in factory-new condition!)
  Now, Earth’s moon has no atmosphere, making conditions on its surface the same as they are in space. Instruments left on the surface, by the astronauts of the Apollo program are in new condition and some are still in working order. Because there is no wind or rain, the boot prints of the astronauts left in the lunar dust are as fresh and crisp as the day they were imprinted there - and will remain so for millions of years to come. Only the extremely slow accumulation of meteoritic dust on the ground, coming from space, will dull their outlines slightly after many millenniums.
    On Earth - and perhaps only on Earth - we have atmospheric conditions that are both conducive and detrimental to life. Oxygen reacts with nearly everything that it touches and is highly flammable. Oxygen fuels our campfires and our spacecraft; liquid oxygen (LOX) has been used in our rockets, from the German V-2, the U.S. Mercury and Gemini program's Redstone, Delta, Agena and Atlas boosters, the Apollo program’s Saturn-V booster, to the Space Shuttle’s triple-engine booster.
  Currently, other astrobiologists, using data from the Kepler Space Telescope, are focusing on searching for exoplanets possessing atmospheres with at least some oxygen content that might support some form of life and that lie within a certain distance from their host suns, termed the habitable, or ‘Goldilocks Zone’. This is a reasonable approach, since most of the only forms of life that we know of - Earth life - utilize both of those conditions. The breadth of the ‘Goldilocks Zone’ in our own solar system runs from Venus out to about Jupiter; Earth is about in the middle.
 
   Nevertheless, with life being as adaptable as we have seen it to be (filling niches from the deepest super-hot oceanic vents to as deep as a mile into the Antarctic ice sheet), we may need to modify our current models of ‘acceptable’ atmospheric content and habitable zone widths.
 Oxygen - and 'Goldilocks' - aren’t necessarily the only shows in town...

E=mc WHAT?!

 E=mc WHAT?!               
May 2012 by Dale Bryant

 Folks, this is a lot easier than you think it is and we're going to demonstrate that together right now before you even get to dessert...
 
 The algebraic equation "E=mc2" is an expression from the first part of Albert Einstein's relativity theory, "The Special Theory of Relativity" which he published in 1905 (his "General Theory of Relativity" was published in 1915) - and here's what he was talking about:
  Although neither matter (mass)
nor energy can be created or destroyed, one can be converted into the other. Think of this as how matter is 'relative' to energy and vice-versa. Einstein showed that matter was, in fact, a form of stored up energy. Einstein's intent was to show that matter and energy are just different states of the same thing, in the same way that ice, water and steam are different states of the same thing. However, the conversion of matter to energy is accomplished through a violent nuclear chain reaction, or, reaction which takes place in the nucleus of an atom and involves tremendous amounts of heat transfer. Now let's take, for instance, an atom of zinc in a penny - one atom setting off a reaction in its nearest neighboring atom and so on and so on, but all of the atoms in the penny converting almost simultaneously. Gamma radiation, or, gamma rays (radiation with a shorter wavelength and even more energetic than x-rays, well above the ultra-violet end of the electromagnetic spectrum) was the first energy to be converted to matter in the lab some time ago, further validating Einsteinian relativity.
 Please pardon any unit substitutions I may use throughout; I use them for familiarity purposes only. The basic premise and magnitude remains unchanged. "E" stands for energy in the form of ergs or joules units. Now ergs and joules aren't units too familiar to many of us, so, though not entirely accurate - but accurate enough for our purposes here - we're going to substitute watts instead. We can all imagine what the energy output from a 100-watt light bulb looks like so we'll save that for later. Now let's take the arithmetical operator "=" to mean "is equal to" so that we can ultimately turn this vague equation into a clear sentence in everyday English. Next is the letter "m" ("m" and "c" are traditionally used lower case). "m" stands for mass measured in grams. One penny is equal to about three grams. In the equation, "m" represents 1 gram, so multiply that by the next letter "c" which stands for the speed of light measured in centimeters per second. One centimeter is about equal to half an inch, and so, is easy to imagine and makes "c" in the equation memorable for this unit of length. Now comes the numeral "2", meaning "squared" or, "c" times itself, or "c x c".
  O.K., you had to figure this was coming - a point where things were going to get a bit messy and, unfortunately, that's going to be in the value of "c" which is 30 billion centimeters. Neither one of us really wants to know that 30 billion centimeters squared is 900 billion billion centimeters, nor is there really a more palatable way to put it even if we had used miles instead of centimeters. But this obscurity and vastness is where all the excitement comes in! Here is the whole thing in a nutshell...

If you could use the total energy "E" (in watts) contained in one-third of one penny "m" (the mass of one-third of one penny) by detonating the penny using mass-energy conversion in the parking lot at the Cape Cod Mall, "c" (the speed of light) times "2" (times the speed of light again) it would immediately transform the town of Barnstable and its villages into chunks and bits and pieces!

  That's where the watts come back into the picture and that's a lot of watts of raw energy. Can you imagine how many 100W light bulbs it would take to create a light equivalent to that kind of energy? In other words, the output, in watts of the explosion is exactly equal to the mass of one-third of one penny times the speed of light squared. The first, and to date most dramatic proof of the conversion of mass to energy came in two basketball-sized masses weighing eight pounds each, of the highly unstable metals Plutonium-239 and Uranium-236 (both isotopes or by-products of the elements proper) used as catalysts for the atomic bombs that destroyed each of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and, sadly, their citizens - in Japan in 1945. Though Einstein showed how an atomic nucleus could be harvested for its energy, he was a pacifist who abhorred violence; it was society that felt it necessary to use the equation's more vicious implications against itself.

Our above equation, "E=mc2", for the conversion of mass to energy and vice-versa is only one aspect of the Theory of Relativity and I chose it as a starting point for its dramatic potential. Other aspects of Relativity include the impossibility of travel faster than the speed of light; length contraction; time-dilation (the slowing down of time as speed/velocity increase); gravitational lenses; infinite mass and quite a bit more...

E=mc2"; use it - don't abuse it!



The Drake Equation

The Drake Equation
Apr 2013 by Dale Alan Bryant

 American astronomer, Frank Drake, proposed a simple algebraic equation in the early 1960’s for determining the number of communicating civilizations in our Milky Way galaxy, as represented by the number N. These would be civilizations that are both capable of, and are, communicating via the electromagnetic spectrum, at some radio wavelength or other EMS emission. These parameters could (and should) be applied to any spiral, or barred-spiral galaxy in the universe, comparable in size and age to the Milky Way.

Here is the equation in its entirety:
 N = R*× fp × ne × fl × fi × fc × L

Where:
N = the number of galactic civilizations releasing detectable Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) signals into space.
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
fp = the fraction of those stars that form planets.
ne = the average number of those planets that lie in the systems potential habitable zone.
fl = the fraction of the above planets that actually go on to develop life at some point.
fi = the fraction of the above life-bearing planets that go on to develop intelligent life.
fc = the fraction of planets harboring intelligent civilizations, who are able to develop a technology that releases detectable signs of the civilization's existence, through EMS emissions into space.
L = the length of time for which a given civilization releases detectable EMS signals into space.

 In 1961, when the Drake Equation was introduced, it was thought that very few stars harbored planetary systems and the conservative value of N was placed at 36 million. As of 2013, it is known that more than half of all stars have orbiting planets (exoplanets: planets orbiting stars other than the Sun) with as many as six orbiting one star, and one planet orbiting four stars and more than 2,400 exoplanets are known to date. These planets all lie within the only sector analyzed so far by the Kepler Space Telescope - an area of sky smaller than the size of a postcard held at arm’s length, just east of the constellation Cygnus the swan (also known as the Northern Cross).

 Though this sounds promising, only one signal-artifact to date was found back in 1977; it is known as the “Wow!” signal. It was neither a repeating sequence, nor was it ever deciphered, nor did it ever recur. All that is known of the “Wow!” signal is that it was not of terrestrial (Earth) origin.

Death of a Star

Death of a Star
May 2010 -Dale Alan Bryant

  A few stars that are overdue and just may go supernova at any moment: "Alnilam" or ε (eta) Orionis, the middle star in Orion's belt; "Betelgeuse" or α (alpha) Orionis, the right shoulder of Orion and "Eta Carina" (ε Carinae), 7th brightest star in constellation Carina. When these stars go, they will be seen during daylight. This is because they are all relatively nearby, within our Milky Way galaxy, at distances of about 700 to 800 light-years. A typical extra-galactic supernova is so bright that, even though it is millions of light-years away, it outshines its entire 'host' galaxy of several billion stars.
  Most known supernovae have occurred in other galaxies but have been bright enough to be seen from Earth.
  It is supernovae that provide the universe with the heavier elements, like iron, nickel and most other metals. These metals are not present inside the star, however; they are forged during the star's collapse and subsequent explosion. The term 'supernova' is used to describe a normal star's catastrophic end-of-life event. 'Supernovae' spend most of their lifetimes, which can be several millions of years, as normal, stable stars, but they are considerably more massive than the sun. Like all stars, they start out as balls of hydrogen.
 At birth, a star is a cold sphere of hydrogen. Because of its large mass, its gravitational center begins to collapse under its own weight, causing the star to compress, gravitation overcoming the nuclear forces that work against collapse. At this point of nuclear and gravitational imbalance, the star's temperature rises with the increase in pressure and it reaches a state where, because of these conditions, thermonuclear ignition occurs and the star begins burning brightly, converting hydrogen into helium. The star remains in this stable hydrogen-helium conversion state for many millions of years.
 At last, by conversion, the hydrogen is depleted and only helium remains. At this time the star undergoes a second collapse where the temperature begins to rise once more under the enormous pressure of the helium, to the point where the remaining helium again reaches thermonuclear ignition and - the star's only remaining fuel is ignited. It continues to burn the helium for millions more years, all the while contracting, until, at last, the helium is finally depleted. At this point, the star collapses even further and its atoms become so densely packed that it becomes a solid; the star's atoms cannot support the weight of the continually condensing mass and finally break down to a state where individual neutrons are actually pressed against one another - the star is literally a ball of neutrons, called a "neutron star". In this state, the neutrons are so tightly packed together that a cubic inch of material from the star, containing trillions more neutrons than normal, would weigh several billion tons!
  With each collapse event, a star shrinks in size; as it shrinks, the entire mass of its atoms is inclined to move towards the center. Gravity increases with the ever-compressing atoms to the point where they can no longer support their own weight - a catastrophic event takes place - the star blows itself up. This is the point at which the star becomes a 'supernova'. Within the supernova, temperatures and pressures become so high that brand new elements are forged, from light elements to heavy elements. The heaviest elements are transformed into all of the known metals: zinc, copper, iron, etc. The lighter elements are the silicates and various other particles of 'dust'. These elements are distributed throughout the cosmos and frequently end up in a nebula of gases and dust particles, where they contribute their rich assortment of the heavier elements.
  Back in February of 1989, I had the good fortune of co-discovering an extra-galactic supernova (later designated SN1989b) that occurred in the spiral galaxy M66 in the constellation Leo, using a reflector telescope. The galaxy itself appears through a telescope as a dim, uniform oval of light. On this particular February night, M66 showed just a hint of a pinpoint or knot of light near one of its outer edges, a tell-tale sign of a very distant supernova explosion. Its not any wonder that this supernova was so dim - M66 is 60 million light-years away!

  Eventually, supernova remnants from our own galaxy become the beautiful nebulae that can be seen through telescopes. Many of these nebulae have areas of uneven mass distribution and appear to have small knots throughout. These knots, or, nodules may contain enough gaseous mass to one day condense into proto-stars and enough metals and silicates to condense into proto-planets.

  This is how stars are born and die. As for our star the sun, it will never go supernova; it doesn't contain enough mass. To become a supernova, a star needs to be roughly 3.2 solar masses. Our sun, however, being only one solar mass, will become a red-giant star after it has used up its nuclear fuel (hydrogen and helium). This will take place in about 4.5 billion years... BTW: our sun's proper name? - "Sol" (pronounced "soul"). Hence, our planetary system, we call, the "Sol"-ar system. Technically, there are no other 'Solar' systems because there are no other stars by that name. There are, however, lots of other 'planetary' systems. Their names are derived using the host star's name as a prefix, e.g., the "Vegan" system, the "Alpha Centauri" system, the "Rigellian" system and so on. These systems contain the now well-known 'exoplanets' (planets outside of our 'Solar' system). The Kepler orbiting telescope has, to date, discovered several thousand exoplanets and their host stars. Hundreds of these exoplanets are Earth-like and may harbor alien life.

'Bad' Science

‘Bad’ Science
APR 2014 –Dale Alan Bryant

  How do you tell if the ‘science’ you're reading is ‘bad’ science or ‘good’ science? If the article you're reading has an unfamiliar tone throughout, is ‘newsworthy’ or even “shocking”, or seems to defy common sense and a lot of ‘facts’ are being thrown around without any standard citations being offered (names of authors or scientists - and their supporting institutions), it’s most probably bogus.
  There is one popular science website, Space.com, that, even though the presented science is real, presents it in a cheesy, ‘tabloid’ style, using hype tactics in their headlines and by-lines to grab your attention. Selling science by sensationalizing the common to grab the consumers attention is just plain wrong. Moreover, trying to pass off pseudoscience as the real, evidence-based thing is “wrong-est” of all. In fact it’s worse than wrong; intentionally misleading an already mislead (worse yet, confused and gullible) reading or viewing audience is nothing if not criminal.
 One of the greatest offenders in these respects is the History channel’s counterpart “History 2”, or, H2 for short. At first glance, H2 appears to be a rather imaginative take on a typically solid subject like history. However, after just a few minutes it becomes shamefully obvious that its subject matter is almost entirely speculation or myth aimed at fostering a “conspiracy theorist” mentality in the casual viewer, rather than thoughtful, rational thinking and preferring to push such improbable entities as ‘Bigfoot’, the ‘Loch Ness’ monster, ‘Ancient Alien’ visitors, ‘werewolves’, ‘Bible codes’, unlikely (and evidence-starved) ‘books of secrets’ and other nonsense, under the all too telling series title, “Monster Quest” (Monster Quest promos even include the throaty snarls and a close-up of the eye of some obviously disgruntled but unidentified creature, as a warning not to mess with it.)
 These speculations are tasty bait to a scientifically naive lay public because they cannot be entirely ruled-out – even though not a shred of evidence exists in their support - if they haven’t yet been proven not to exist, conveniently allowing the myths - and their associated profits and ratings - to ceaselessly string along the gullible, one little inaccuracy at a time.
    None of this is to say that it isn’t O.K. to ask, “What if?” - after all, that’s where imagination comes in - but that question has to imply viable alternative explanations which conform to known laws of science. Otherwise, H2 is a ‘fool’s paradise’.
 Eminent science and science-fiction writer, Sir Arthur C. Clarke (who actually conceived the communications satellite for one of his short stories - 30 years before it became a reality and before aeronautical engineers could even accept the idea that such a gadget could be made to trace an orbit around the Earth without immediately falling out of the sky!), commenting on whether he thought the U.S. government had really been involved in a massive U.F.O. cover-up of the purported ‘Area-51’ crash-site incident responded, “Human nature would never allow such a cover-up, especially one of such endurance. If the incident had actually taken place, the whole thing would have completely unraveled within 24 hours.”
 So where can we find reputable sources of science (besides the far-too humble author of this essay)?          
 Every branch of science has its journals which track the general progress of the science. These journals are the “bulletin boards” for scientists to publish peer-reviewed papers announcing a major discovery or significant research. Some examples are: The Astrophysical Journal, The Journal of Cosmology, The Journal of the American Chemical Society as well as more generalized journals like Nature and Science. You won’t find those publications in the popular magazine racks, though they can be accessed on-line. Several, more conveniently accessible publications, can be found in most any store with a good magazine section, like, Barnes and Noble, CVS or even Stop & Shop: the magazines Psychology Today, Sky & Telescope, Discover, Astronomy, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, National Geographic and many others are reputable resources for real science.
 
 So, what can you do to protect yourself against ‘bad’ science? Use common sense. Question everything; don’t take anything at face value – including this. Check me on it. The information is out there for the taking – all you have to do is the footwork. It’s something no one can do for you. And, as is always the case, particularly with TV programming and advertising, “Let the buyer beware...”





Anthropological 'Epiphany'

Anthropological 'Epiphany' (or
Epi-phony?)
® 2010Dale Alan Bryant
 
  I was fortunate enough to have had what I can only call an anthropological "epiphany", early yesterday morning, around 2:00AM; it doesn't take much to amuse me, folks! I have feverishly searched for an answer to two questions in particular, regarding human origins, for just over two years now. My suspicions were validated when I recently found the answers - but I’m keeping it to myself for now...
  On a related note, I am fuming to have recently discovered that the Boston Museum of Science, as part of its Human Origins exhibit, has compromised the truth, apparently to cultivate inaccurate, "politically correct" propaganda regarding the extant subspecies of Homo sapiens in their present incarnation. The Museum seems to be refusing to recognize individuality in humanity, any further than genus (Homo) and species (sapiens). They state that the topic is 'controversial' - but that controversy is political, not taxonomic. In essence, their opinion is that, Man does not break down into subspecies, or, varieties (in human taxonomy, varieties are races). Not only is their propaganda wrong, but it is an insult to intelligence and the senses, as well as to all cultures and races of humanity. The intentional cultivation of mis-information, is, I feel, (because it involves large portions of society) a criminal act.
  It has long been known to Anthropologists and Taxonomists that, no less than three extant subspecies of Homo sapiens exist, according to the order of their descent by natural selection; they are: Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid. These subspecies may include their own varieties, which would include the aboriginal Australian descendants of the African, or, Negroid race and the Native American descendants of the Asian, or, Mongoloid race. Each race (variety), has a unique set of obvious, distinct physical and mental characteristics, such as hair type, cranial shape, temperament, and susceptibility to diseases, such as 'sickle-cell' anemia, being restricted to the Negroid gene pool.
  It sickens me that an institution of their caliber would succumb to pressures from "PC" groups, who insist on a homogeneous society in the name of 'equal rights'. The division of man into subspecies, or races, is the very essence of Darwinian evolution and is due mainly to adaptation to geographical environment, or, climate. These climates, as we can see for ourselves, are in constant flux, and the varieties of Homo sapiens have become sub-species by adaptation through natural selection and the inheritance of favorable characteristics. Here are their taxonomic trinomial names:
Homo sapiens afers (African or, Negroid descent); Homo sapiens asiaticus (Mongoloid descent); Homo sapiens sapiens (Caucasoid descent); Homo sapiens tasmaniatus (Negroid descent) and Homo sapiens americanus (Native American or, Mongoloid descent).
  There's an old analogy regarding common sense that can be applied here: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's a duck."
  Who do they think they're fooling? Hopefully, this situation with the Museum has been noted elsewhere, particularly in journals like Nature or Science that deal with topics like human-origins.
  If you demand an explanation for all of this - don't shoot the messenger - take it up with God - not me.

P.S. Maybe I ought to shoot a copy of our newsletter, with this article, over to administration at the Smithsonian while in Washington next month--I understand they're in need of an opportunity for a good-natured poke at northeastern academia... Ha!
2010 -Dale Bryant, Homo sapiens chumpis gullibilis

America's First Man in Space


America's First Man in Space:
By Alan B. Shepard, Jr., aboard the “Freedom 7” Mercury spacecraft and Deke Slayton
2013 by Dale Alan Bryant


  I picked up this little cherry of a book - mint condition, first edition hard back of Mercury astronauts Alan B. Shepard, Jr. and Deke Slayton's book "Moon Shot" at a thrift store on Main St. The penciled-in price was $3.75. I already own a soft cover edition of this book but I couldn't resist thumbing through it anyway...
  Alan Shepard was the first American to enter space during a Mercury sub-orbital flight. Deke Slayton, who had been temporarily grounded because of an inner-ear infection was made chief of operations. Shepard's flight lasted 15 minutes from launch at Cape Canaveral, to the edge of space, to splashdown in the Atlantic in his Mercury 7 space capsule, Freedom 7. Alan was one of the original 'Mercury 7' astronauts, along with John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth, whose full-orbital flight in his Friendship 7 spacecraft followed Shepard's. He was able to achieve 3 complete orbits in six hours.
  I was six years old and standing in the twilight on my front doorstep at 56 AMVET's Ave., Falmouth, Cape Cod, when Glenn's star-like, Friendship 7, gleaming by reflected sunlight, passed overhead at dusk that night. I witnessed two of his orbits, approximately 90 minutes apart. How could I have possibly known that just two years later I'd be sitting in the pilot's seat of that very spacecraft...
 
  The Friendship 7 has been on display at the Smithsonian's Institution's National Air & Space Museum, Washington, D. C., since just after Glenn's flight. At the age of eight, while visiting the Smithsonian, (pre-National Air & Space Museum), I was invited by one of the museum staff to board the Friendship 7 and spend some time in the pilot's seat - the only seat in the tiny one-man Mercury spacecraft. Once seated, I distinctly recall a mild claustrophobic sensation--the pale-green steel panels that constituted the ceiling, walls and floor of the cockpit, all being uncomfortably close-by; the hatch--which could only be opened from the outside--just inches from my right shoulder; the main control panel with its small, green circular CRT screen just elbow's reach in front of me; the infinite number of lighted rocker panels, momentary switches and toggles wrapping around both sides of the cockpit enveloping my eight-year-old frame. No one is any longer allowed inside the spacecraft--it is encased in a 1 1/2-inch-thick protective acrylic shell for its preservation.
 
  As for Shepard and Slayton's book, "Moon Shot", imagine my surprise when I opened up the front cover and saw that, on the first leaf, was a bookplate signed by Shepard, indicating that this particular copy was part of Shepard's personal library that was eventually released by his wife, Louise. I had Shepard's signature verified and have seen copies of this book signed in different places among its pages at auction between $950 and $15,000, according to condition on eBay. Happily, my copy is in mint condition but will never appear in an eBay listing--I wouldn't part with this volume at any price.
 
 "Moon Shot" is about the the American Space Program, from the first Mercury and Gemini mission, to the Apollo missions that actually landed on the moon. All three missions were geared toward this end. The book takes you through the daily lives of the astronauts of the original Mercury 7, the drama, the humor, disappointment, the trial and error, Missions that almost didn't get off the ground and on and on. It's their human story, complete with original dialog throughout... The human story of American space exploration.
 
 Alan Shepard's Freedom 7 Mercury spacecraft has been immaculately restored and is, at the time of this writing, on loan to the J.F.K. Library in Boston, since its arrival in Dec., 2012 and will remain at the library until December 15, 2015. It isn't easy getting to the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum in D. C., for most Northern New Englanders to view these and other icons of the golden years of America's Space Program--like Gus Grissom's Mercury spacecraft, Liberty Bell 7 --which spent 45 years at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Sadly, Grissom perished along with fellow astronauts Ed White and Roger Chaffee in the fire that consumed the Apollo 1 command module while it sat atop the launch pad, its pressurized cockpit under 300% pure oxygen, during a routine flight test. They were unable to escape the capsule - it's hatch could not be opened from the inside.
   These were the first few of the original Mercury 7 test pilots and astronauts of America's first committed space program. What they gave in the line of duty, they gave to the men and women and children of a starry-eyed America. John Glenn had piloted the "Friendship 7" in a three-orbit flight in 1962, the first American astronaut to achieve orbit at the ripe old age of 41. He returned to space at age 77, making him the oldest astronaut in history aboard the space shuttle Discovery.
   It's so good to know that it's just a day trip to Boston's J.F.K. Library. Don't let this one slide away from you--log onto the J.F.K. Library's website for further information.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

On Gravity ('n) other stuff...)

On Gravity ('other stuff…)
  
By Dale Bryant
   
  All matter attracts all other matter; nature does, indeed, seem to abhor a vacuum, as if it were trying to recover a unity it once possessed by removing the space and occupying it with matter. However, space is utilized, in that, material objects travel through it from one point to another in trying to assume ventral, or, central positions from distal positions. It takes a measurable amount of time for this repositioning to occur; therefore, because of space, time exists. Time is only a measure of an object's relative position in space against some other position. It is only a perceived interval - an illusion bestowed upon creatures that happen to inhabit a world of three physical dimensions. Remove the space and you have essentially achieved time travel. All physical contact becomes instantaneous.  


  Because space is warped in the presence of material objects, gravity exists. This is what Einstein was referring to in 'space-time'. Space, time, gravity and acceleration are different states of the same thing, in the same way that ice, water and steam are different states of the same thing or that matter and energy are different states of the same thing. Einstein was looking for a way to unite these four things in his quest for a Unified Field Theory. You can see here how space, time and gravity are related. Einstein showed that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. Let’s say you are inside an elevator in a zero-g (free-fall, or, weightless) environment. The control panel indicates you are on the ground floor. You press the button marked ‘penthouse’ on the panel. The elevator starts to move ‘upward’. You feel your feet pressing into the floor of the elevator as you ‘ascend’ at a rate of 1g (one Earth gravity). But you are not only moving - you are accelerating - faster and faster toward the penthouse. As long as this acceleration is maintained, you are moving faster with each passing moment. You will, therefore, feel your feet pressing into the floor of the elevator for the entire trip. Without a window, and unless you knew otherwise, the sensation of your feet maintaining contact with the floor would tell you that you were experiencing normal Earth gravity (1g). This is how acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity. This is how acceleration relates to space, time and gravity - again, all different states of the same entity.

  The unification here is clear. But if this is so, does it negate what is known as 'spooky action at a distance'? ‘Spooky action at a distance’ refers to an instantaneous reaction to some action or stimulus, regardless of distance. Why would 'spooky action' be permissible? Does nature attempt to unite matter even at the risk of making allowances for 'spooky action'?


Exo-planets and the Search for Extraterrestrial Life

Exo-planets and the Search for Extraterrestrial Life 
by Dale Bryant
   
Dedicated to the memory of Neil Armstrong, the first human being to walk on another world...

Though the figures are tough to keep up with as they are changing almost daily, the Kepler space telescope has discovered over 2,300 exo-planets in all.  Those are just the few in existence whose orbital planes lie at a favorable incline from our perspective. Of those 2,300+, at least 207 are Earth-sized and at least 48 lie in the so-called 'Goldilocks' or habitable zone.  The way Kepler achieves this miracle of detection of extra-solar planets is by measuring the varying light curves of their parent or host stars.  As a planet transits or passes in front of a star, as seen from our neighborhood, there is a barely measurable but significant decrease in the star's light, on average about 2%, with another .03% decrease in the presence of a planetary atmosphere.  This is roughly equivalent to the amount of light lost by an observer of a housefly passing in front of a car headlight as seen from several miles away.  When a regular pattern of dimming and brightening can be determined by astronomers, they can deduce that the star has at least one planet in orbit around it.  Stars vary in their brightnesses for other reasons, as was seen earlier, but this may the most exciting one. 

In 1952, Otto Struve suggested that extra-solar planets might be detected by dips in a host star's light during a planet's transit.  Even then, techniques were available to detect such a drop in light but it was forgotten about for decades.  In 1999, two professional astronomers using a 10-centimeter telescope discovered the first tell-tale signs of such a transiting extra-solar planet.  Amateur and professional astronomers have since detected countless candidates.  

One other technique for detecting extra-solar planets is through the measurement of the radial velocity (RV) of a host star, producing changes in the Doppler shift of the stellar lines by the tugging of the planet on the star.  By this technique, Right Ascension, Declination, transit depth and ephemerides can be determined by amateurs possessing modest CCD equipment.

NASA's Ames Research Center lists a table of 70-plus confirmed  exo-planets discovered by Kepler as of May 2012 and designated by the name 'Kepler' followed by a letter.  Planetary charcteristics in the table for each planet  include the following headings: Jupiter Masses, Earth Masses, Jupiter Radii, Earth Radii, Density, Temperature, Transistion Duration, Period, Semi-Major Axis (UA), Eccentricity, Inclination (in degrees) and Distance (in parsecs).  The table also lists characteristics of the host star.  It should be noted here that Kepler 23b - Kepler 30b (15 planets) are planets that are within just a few Earth radii, though they are several hundred times more massive and their orbital periods seem much too short (just a few days) to be within the habitable zone.  But it tells us that exo-planets, roughly the size of Earth, are indeed detectable and are out there.

If life is discovered elsewhere in the universe, is it likely it will be found on Earth-like extra-solar planets - planets that fall into that comfy, cozy distance from their host stars that we refer to as the Habitable Zone?  We humans like to think so, and it may very well be, but life may also be found in much less likely environments.  The diversity of life on Earth itself is staggering in that it can be found in the deepest ocean trenches in waters above 600 degrees Fahrenheit, and pushing well north and south of the Arctic and Antarctic Circles, respectively, on land, in temperatures well below freezing.  It must be remembered that we are products of our environment in the struggle for life.  Nature has tried out many kinds of organisms through the process of natural selection and most of those organisms were ill-suited to the task of survival.  In fact, more species of living things have become extinct than have survived.  But some of them were very well suited, indeed, and lived to write about it! 

Life "as we know it", would require that it evolve on a planet with the exact same physical make-up as Earth. Life here on Earth is carbon-based, but we shouldn't necessarily exclude, say, even silicon-based life on other worlds.  Our body chemistry is that of the Earth.  But life will come in many forms.  It may be possible to detect life on Earth-like exo-planets possessing an atmosphere by measuring gaseous emissions in its atmosphere by spectroscope, such as the oxygen given off by vegetation here on Earth.  Other forms of life give off carbon dioxide and even methane into the atmosphere.  Luckily, the universe operates the same everywhere else as it does locally, so we can know what signs to look for.  The presence of such gases can be determined by measuring a planet's transmission spectrum during its transit across the face of a star.  If a planetary atmosphere is not present, the light fall-off will be the same at all wavelengths.  If certain elements are present in the planet's atmosphere they will absorb some of the star's light.  In one case, sodium present in the atmosphere of a planet made the planet appear to be six percent larger than at other wavelengths.  Another way that exo-biologists expect to be able to detect the presence of life is by spectropolarimetry, or, looking for biosignatures in the reflected polarized light of a host star by one of its planets. 

One method of detecting life elsewhere in the universe not mentioned thus far is, of course, through the long-hoped for detection of artificial radio signals, which is what the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute hopes to do.  As early as 1896, Nikola Tesla suggested that radio could be used to contact extraterrestrial life.  The first modern SETI experiment was conducted by Cornell University astronomer Frank Drake and was called Project Ozma.  Drake used a radio telescope 26-meters in diameter at Green Bank, West Virginia to examine the stars Tau Ceti and Epsilon Eridani near the 1420 gigahertz marker frequency, a frequency called "the water hole" due to its proximity to the hydrogen and hydroxyl radical spectral lines.  With the exception of a couple of minor false alarms, no one has been heard from to date.
  

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Weight and Speed Conversions for the Hand-Held Calculator

Weight and Speed Conversions for the Hand-Held Calculator
Weight and Speed Conversions
Sun        27 x 1g
Mercury 0.378 x 1g
Venus   .907 x 1g
Moon     0.166 x 1g
Mars      0.377 x 1g
Jupiter   2.364 x 1g
Pluto     .067 x 1g


Weight of 180 pound person on:

Sun: 4,872.9 lbs.
Mercury  68 lbs.
Venus: 163.2 lbs.
Moon: 29.8 lbs.
Mars: 67.8 lbs.
Jupiter: 425.5 lbs.
Pluto: 12 lbs.
Speed of Saturn V rocket: 26,000 MPH (0.000037% speed of light)

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Time Troubles

"Time Troubles"
by Dale Bryant
 
  I just calculated something out and the result is rather bleak.... The nearest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri (one of three stars in the Alpha Centauri system). Proxima is 4.3 light-years away. There are 5.8 trillion miles in one light-year (or 5.8 thousand billion, if you prefer), so we're dealing with about 25 trillion miles. That's bad enough. Let's say we decide to send an astronaut to Proxima Centauri in the fastest rocket at the fastest manned-flight speed we've been able to attain (that would be the Saturn V booster for the Apollo missions - a top speed of 26,000MPH).
  Now even if we could send that astronaut at the speed of light (roughly 186,282 miles per second), it would take him or her 4.3 years to complete the trip as measured by an observer on Earth (because of time-dilation, only a few days will have passed as judged by the astronaut - but that's another story).
  Here's the sad part; at 26,000MPH, which is 0.000037% the speed of light, the trip would take 116,000 years - one-way! The duration would be about the same for the astronaut. The effects of time-dilation at such low speeds are negligible so we can dismiss them here. The nearest star with a known planetary system is in the 15 light-year range. So, if we have cosmic relatives somewhere out there, the chances of meeting up with them are about nil. These distances and times involved are the main reason most astronomers don't believe we're being visited by extraterrestrials. They do believe they exist but not that we're being visited by them on a regular basis. The situation isn't much better with radio communications. Even though radio waves travel at the speed of light, a one-way transmission to those hypothetical beings will take 15 years - telepathy would prove much more economical! Another plausible answer would be travel through worm-holes to beat the clock, but that is, at this point, pure speculation.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

A Little Einstein. Anyone?

"A Little Einstein, Anyone?"
by Dale Bryant

  When someone hits on an idea - I mean REALLY gets it right, there is no way to disprove that idea because it is intrinsically correct. In fact the antitheses of such situations are known as "intrinsically impossible" situations in the scientific world - like an object being both cold and hot at the same time. Now this makes sense to most people but believe me, there will be those who will try to refute even that. You can't stop from happening something that has already happened. It's along the same lines as not being able to go slower than stop, or getting colder than absolute zero. It can't be done. That's what makes absolutes absolutes. This is the case with Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity. As hard as some have tried, no one has ever proven it to be in error. In fact, the only error about it in history was Einstein's once thinking that he was in error and was persuaded by a fellow physicist to include a formula known as the "Cosmological Constant" - which itself turned out to be in error! (Einstein referred to that persuasion as "the biggest blunder of my life" - some people try to remember him as referring to his theory of relativity in general as the "blunder" - that is not the case - a little ignorance goes a long way).
  A little light needs to be shed on the word "theory". Most people use the word to mean something "less than" or "just a guess" and use it interchangeably with "hypothesis". But something is left out here. For every "truth" or every "law" - and I'm talking "real" truths and "real" laws (like that it doesn't get "warmer" as the temperature drops, for those of you who are just dying to split hairs) there is the theory behind that truth or law. Who of us would doubt the existence of germs, viruses, etc.? Yet the explanation of these microbes is still called the "germ theory" of medicine. A theory is just that - an explanation of a given set of circumstances. It is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a different animal; it is a best guess. But it almost invariably gets confused with theory. To say that "germ theory" is just a theory or the "theory of evolution" is just a theory makes you wrong from the get-go. Of course, this used to be the case for these ideas before they were proven (for the first time in history, evolution is being observed "as it happens" in a certain cave lizard species in northern Madagascar. The original species has changed so much over just two generations that its descendants can no longer breed with the original line, making the descendants a new species in their own right) - and some people find it hard to let go or are simply unaware of the facts or intentionally "ignore" the facts (a little "ignorance" goes a long way). But rest assured, the "Big Bang" theory isn't far behind in the list of natural laws.


Friday, October 19, 2012

Images

Here are some images I took with the Harvard Center for Astrophysics Robotic Telescope, located in the Arizona desert:

The top image is of galay M-51, the "Whirlpool" galaxy, an interaction of two galaxies in the constellation Canes Venatici just southwest of the Big Dipper.



The next image is of M-1, the "Crab Nebula", a supernova event remnant in the constellation Taurus.








Below that is expolding galaxy M-82, a spiral galaxy in the constellation Ursa Major.


Lastly, is galaxy NGC 253, a nearly edge-on spiral galaxy in the constellation Sculptor.



All of these objects are visible with even a modest backyard telescope.


Atheism poster



Is your understanding of the Universe so complete that you can rule this hypothetical situation out?
Don't knock what you may not understand... this poster doesn't have it quite right, which, of course, is intentional. The idea of something being created from nothing might not make sense, but neither does the existence of God. Where else could something come from but from nothing? There are no other sources. Just because that doesn't make any sense to our (I am so often reminded by Christians) finite minds - ("We just don't understand the mind of God") doesn't make it any less plausible. Take a good look at quantum physics or relativity. Do they make any sense to you? Yet they are true. No scientist worth his salt would rule out the possibility of the implications of this misguided poster. Good scientists don't let their hearts do their thinking for them.

Still need proof for Darwin’s theory? Read on. The fact that new species develop according to adaptation and inheritance is known as the Theory of Selection, whether it be naturally or artificially induced. It was proposed by naturalist Charles Darwin in the mid-1800’s and is known as “Darwinism”. It’s a common misconception that Darwin was the originator of the Theory of Descent. Actually, the idea of the formation of new species by descent was proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck 50 years earlier and is called “Lamarckism”. It was even suspected by Aristotle. Darwin only explained the descent of organisms by means of Natural Selection, in his book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”. In fact, this theory was independently developed by Alfred Wallace at about the same time. Darwin actually put off publishing the results from his observations in his book for 21 years until he was convinced that there was no other explanation possible.

The fact that breeders of dogs, cats, horses, tomatoes or strawberries breed their stock to achieve a desired result – whether the result be a tastier strawberry, a smaller dog or whatever, is proof that the Theory of Selection holds water. You may say that it is only a theory but that doesn’t make it improvable. All scientific ideas and natural laws are backed by theories. The Theory of Selection is a mathematical consequence of the relationship of available space for an organism to exist and the excessive number of organisms competing for that existence. Obviously, some organisms thrive while most others die off. It’s called Survival of the Fittest, or, the struggle for existence. The fittest, according to adaptation and inheritance tend towards survival while the least fit tend towards extinction. Very sensible, is it not? In fact, the seemingly endless variety of organisms, still very much in transitional states today, as can be seen in the existence of rudimentary limbs such as the remnant hind legs of whales, or the now defunct internal organs of many species, including the appendix of man, can only be explained by the Theory of Selection – otherwise it is left to the unfathomable realm of “miracles”.
 
The Theory of Selection is a self-evident law of nature and requires no further proof any more than you require further proof that more than one breed of dog exists. The fact that people from other parts of the world look differently, or that there are German Shepherds, Chihuahua’s, Beagles and Irish Setters, etc., is all the proof of the Theory of Selection you should require. These breeds, or, sub-species, were intentionally created – bred from a common ancestor of the genus Canis (dog) which was bred from Canis Lupus (wolf). In fact, some breeds of dog are so distantly related that they cannot reproduce together – although they belong to the same genus, they have, through Artificial Selection (selection induced by man, or, intentional breeding) become distinctly separate species. Selection induced by nature is called Natural Selection and works in exactly the same way, only much more slowly.  
 
Darwin also provided proof of another weighty philosophical question when he explained Natural Selection; that is, the question of how arrangements serving a purpose can arise mechanically without causes acting for a purpose. If that sounds a bit convoluted, just stop for a minute and think about it. If you’re at all familiar with some simple math and statistics, you’ll see the logic in it right away. If you still require proof, you either don’t thoroughly understand the theory or are not sufficiently acquainted with the fundamentals of biology – and if that is the case, you really should familiarize yourself before making any judgments on the subject.
  
I’ll end here with my favorite quotation on ‘obviousness’ as it applies to biology: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck – it’s a duck.”
  Oh, just one more thing... I realize this little essay of mine smacks of sacrilege but that is not my intention at all. Like most of my writings, it was only meant to spark a little controversy; to bring people’s blood to near boiling, get them thinking and get them out of their heads for a bit (contrary to popular belief, I like to have a little fun too!) And unfortunately, like the rest of us, I was not present at The Creation (though I feel I could have given the Creator a few pointers) but alas, the truth is, I have an agreement with God – I don’t tell Him how to create Universes – and He doesn’t tell me how to interpret facts.