…the skies proclaim the work of his hands."
Psalm 19:1
Category: Science
A.D. 1879
What happened in 1879?
Well, the California Constitution was ratified.
The Anglo-Zulu War began.
Madison Square Garden opened.
Doc Holliday killed his first man.
The apparition at Knock, Ireland occured.
The Pirates of Penzance was first performed.
Thomas Edison demonstrated incandescent light to the public for the first time.
Oh, and something else happened . . .
The light captured in the above photograph was released.
You're looking at a picture of the year 1879–a picture that was only just taken.
How's that?
It's because the light captured in the picture left the star system cataloged as HR 8799, some 129 light years from earth.
Why do I say "star system" instead of just "star"? Because, while the star is the center blob in the picture, the three small dots are actually planets.
This is the first extra-solar planetary system to be observed and photographed directly.
The planets are about 2 to 2.5 times the size of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, and they orbit the star in periods between 100 and 460 years.
We have this view of them because we're apparently oriented so that we're looking down at the plane of the HR 8799 solar system.
There could be terrestrial planets closer in to the star, but not much chance for life there. The star is too young and too variable, but it's so cool have visible light pictures of another star system.
Large Hadron Rap
I don’t know if you’ve been following the news about the Large Hadron Collider that finally went online last week.
For some time there has been controversy about whether it would generate mini-black holes, strangelets, or other–perhaps unimaginable–things that could do serious damage to the earth.
The majority opinion among physicists seems to be that, while they can’t 100% rule out such bad-day-for-the-planet events, the odds of any of them given our current understanding of physics is so low as to make the risk worth taking given what else the LHC might reveal.
Like what?
Well, the long-awaited Higgs boson particle, for example, or the nature of dark matter, or who knows what else.
This video explains. . . . Sorta.
NewsWeak – “Well, That About Wraps It Up For God”
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.
Dr. Atkins’ Cold Remedy
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.
“Who Needs Gay Adoption?”
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.
Let’s Not Get Too Specific about the Future
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.
It’s Not Easy Being Blue
Don’t try this at home, kids! Argyria is incurable.
Why NOT Embryonic Research?
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.
Chilling Words from the Founder of the Weather Channel
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.