Showing posts with label 1277. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1277. Show all posts

Friday, October 23, 2015

Zircons and Earth's First Life

Bits of carbon encased in zircon crystals more than four billion years ago may have come from living creatures.

Then again, maybe not. Either way, we're learning more about Earth's long story.
  1. Zircons and Life's Dawn
  2. Jack Hills Zircons Revisited

Faith - - -



(From Efbrazil, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(This universe, so far: 13,800,000,000 years mapped onto a 12-month calendar.)

We've learned quite a bit in the centuries since in 1 Samuel 2:8 and Psalms 148:4 were written.

I'm confident that God could have made a universe that looked like Mesopotamian cosmology: but that's not what it's like.

This space-time continuum doesn't work like Anaximander's model, either. Anaximander's cosmology had Earth in the center: but he speculated that we might not be standing on the only world, and that worlds change.

Aristotle's cosmology had Earth in the center of the universe, too. He didn't think multiple worlds existed, though.

About 16 centuries later, educated Europeans like Dante Alighieri had a very high opinion of Aristotle. Some may even have had the attitude expressed by Dante, that Aristotle was "the Master ... of those who know."

Meanwhile, some academics said that other worlds might exist. Aristotle's fan base insisted there was only one: because Aristotle said so.

Arguments got heated, so in 1277 the Church stepped in. Some of the 219 points have been rescinded since then, but as far as I know, 27/219 still holds: God's God, Aristotle's not. If the Almighty decides that the visible creation has multiple worlds — that's the way it is.

I've discussed Job 9:6-7, international long-distance telephone service, and extraterrestrial life, before. (August 7, 2015; July 31, 2015; October 10, 2014; February 23, 2014)

- - - Reason, and Truth


If you've read my 'science' posts before, you probably know that I think the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old; Earth isn't flat; Adam and Eve aren't German; poetry isn't science; and thinking is not a sin.

You probably know why I think truth is important, too, so go ahead: skip down to Zircons and Life's Dawn, take a coffee break, go for a walk, or whatever strikes your fancy.

We're born with a thirst for truth.

The search for truth leads ultimately to God — but I don't see a point in ignoring the wonders and beauty of this creation. Besides, scientific discoveries are invitations "...to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator...." (Catechism, 27, 283)

I don't see a problem with studying this universe, because I think God makes it. If we discover something that doesn't fit our preconceived notions: that's out problem, not God's. (Genesis 1:1-31; Catechism, 159, 301)

It's like Pope Leo XIII wrote:
"...God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. ... Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth...."
("Providentissimus Deus,"1 Pope Leo XIII (November 18, 1893) [emphasis mine])
From a Catholic viewpoint, faith is "a personal adherence of man to God." It's also "...a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed...." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 150)

Faith isn't blind, or stupid. It's not supposed to be, at least.
"1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

"This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God,

"and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 2 does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world."
(1 John 4:1-3)
"Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason."
(Catechism, 35)
I add another post to my faith and reason, science and religion link list almost every Friday. Cultural quirks and conflicts of the last couple centuries notwithstanding, it's science and religion, faith and reason. (Catechism, 36, 286, 355-373, 2293)

Goodbye, Hadean Eon?


A supereon is the largest unit of geologic time; a supereon is divided into eons; eons eras; eras into periods, epochs and ages. None of that will help you avoid traffic jams or avoid ring around the collar, but I think stuff like this is fascinating. Your experience may vary.

Nobody talked about the Hadean eon before 1972, because that's when geologist Preson Cloud first used the term. The Hadean is named after Hades, since scientists figured Earth was a hellish place back then — from the time Earth formed to 4,000,000,000 years ago.

It still looks like Earth was a profoundly inhospitable place for life right after it formed. On the other hand, bits of carbon sealed in zircon crystals probably came from living critters.

The crystals are well over four billion years old: which means we have more to learn about Earth's early eras.

1. Zircons and Life's Dawn



(From Elizabeth A. Bell, Patrick Boehnke, T. Mark Harrison, Wendy L. Mao, via PNAS, used w/o permission.)
("Transmission X-ray image of RSES 61-18.8...."
(Elizabeth A. Bell, Patrick Boehnke, T. Mark Harrison, Wendy L. Mao)
"Ancient crystal suggests life on Earth appeared 4.1 billion years ago"
Richard Valdmanis, Reuters (October 19, 2015)

"An ancient zircon crystal unearthed in Western Australia may hold evidence that life appeared on the planet 4.1 billion years ago, or about 300 million years earlier than previously thought, according to a team of U.S. researchers.

"Scientists from Stanford University and the University of California, Los Angeles said they recently collected some 10,000 multibillion year-old zircons in Jack Hills, Australia, including one believed to contain a carbon deposit that is 4.1 billion years old, give or take 10 million years....

"...Scientists have used the fossil record to assert that the history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, in the form of single-celled creatures. Humans are believed to have first appeared on Earth only about 200,000 years ago...."
About that last paragraph. We've found microfossils in the Greenstone Belt, very old exposed rock in South Africa, that are about 3,500,000,000 years old. Graphite found in western Greenland that probably came from the carbon in living critters is about 3,700,000,000 years old.

Here's what scientists who worked with these zircons said:
"...Life on Earth is an ancient phenomenon, with the earliest identified microfossils at nearly 3.5 billion years before present (Ga) (1) and the earliest potential chemofossils at 3.83 Ga(2, 3)...."
("Potentially biogenic carbon preserved in a 4.1 billion-year-old zircon," Elizabeth A. Bell et al. | references to (1) "The oldest records of photosynthesis," Awramik SM, Photosynth Res 33:75-89 (1992) and (2) "Evidence for life on Earth before 3,800 million years ago," Mojzsis SJ, et al., Nature 384(6604):55–59 (1996)
The Reuter article's "...humans are believed..." is fairly accurate — provided you consider anatomically modern humans as "human" and everybody else as "not human." I don't, and I've been over that before. A lot. (September 18, 2015; September 11, 2015; July 11, 2014)

If the carbon in these zircons came from living critters, that means life started on Earth before the late heavy bombardment (LHB) — and survived that cataclysm, or started again, almost immediately after it stopped raining asteroids.

Or maybe the late heavy bombardment didn't happen. The last I checked, scientists were still undecided on whether the LHB is real, or a misinterpretation of data. (July 31, 2015)

Rethinking the Hadean


Zircon, ZrSiO4, is hard, durable, and chemically inert.

When this particular zircon crystal, RSES 61-18.8, formed, it encased tiny bits of carbon. For the next 4,100,000,000-odd years, RSES 61-18.8 remained intact: preserving the carbon.

What makes this carbon special is that it's "isotopically light:" δ13C, or Carbon-13. Isotopes are elements with an unusual number of neutrons. Carbon-13 can come from non-living processes, but it's almost always produced by critters.

Finding carbon that was almost certainly part of something living more than four billion years ago is a big deal, at least for some scientists:
"...Scientists had long believed the Earth was dry and desolate during that time period. Harrison's research — including a 2008 study in Nature he co-authored with Craig Manning, a professor of geology and geochemistry at UCLA, and former UCLA graduate student Michelle Hopkins — is proving otherwise.

" 'The early Earth certainly wasn't a hellish, dry, boiling planet; we see absolutely no evidence for that,' Harrison said. 'The planet was probably much more like it is today than previously thought.'..."
("Life on Earth likely started at least 4.1 billion years ago — much earlier than scientists had thought," UCLA Newsroom)
It's starting to look like life started even earlier than scientists thought. If that's true, we may have to re-name the Hadean eon — or, more likely, revise the geologic time scale again.

That's been going on since the late 18th century, when Abraham Gottlob Werner and others started talking about Urgebirge, Übergangsgebirge, Flötz, and Aufgeschwemmte series. I've mentioned Nicolas Steno and stratiography before. (May 1, 2015)

These scientists — not Werner and company: the PNAS paper's bunch; Bell, Boehnke, Harrison, and Mao — used confocal Raman spectroscopy with a green laser to study the carbon without disturbing the surrounding zircon crystal.

Raman spectroscopy uses inelastic scattering, is named after Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman, and has nothing to do with noodle soup.

More that you probably need, or want, to know about these old zircons:

2. Jack Hills Zircons Revisited



(From Robert Simmon, NASA; NASA Earth Observatory; used w/o permission.)
"Diamonds hint at 'earliest life' "
Jonathan Fildes, BBC News (July 2, 2008)

"Tiny slivers of diamond forged on an infant Earth may contain the earliest traces of life, a study has shown.

"Analysis of the crystals showed they contain a form of carbon often associated with plants and bacteria.

"The rare gems were found inside zircon crystals, formed a few hundred million years after the Earth came into being.

"Writing in the journal Nature, the researchers caution that their results are not definitive proof of early life but do 'not exclude' the possibility.

" 'We're all a little sceptical,' said Dr Martin Whitehouse of the Swedish Museum of Natural History and one of the authors of the paper.

"If the carbon was derived from primitive organisms, it would push back the date for life appearing on Earth by around 500 million years, to beyond 4.25 billion years ago. The Earth itself is just 4.6 billion years old...."
More nitpicking — Scientists are quite sure that Earth is 4,540,000,000 years old, plus or minus 50,000,000. That's pretty close to "4.6 billion," though.

"Dr. Martin Whitehouse," "zircon," and "Jack Hills," gave me enough to find the paper discussing "tiny slivers of diamond:"
The zircon grains those scientists studied were up to 4,252,000,000 years old — and again, the scientists couldn't be absolutely sure that the carbon-13 came from critters. But, as the BBC article said, they couldn't be sure that it wasn't, either.

Recognizing the limits of data and analysis is the sort of healthy skepticism that keeps scientists from jumping off the edge of reality: with occasionally-spectacular exceptions.

I've talked about Boule's Neanderthal, Hawkin's "grim Monsters," H. P. Lovecraft, and SETI, before. Fairly often. (September 11, 2015; July 24, 2015; November 21, 2014; June 27, 2014)

We've learned a lot since I was in high school.

Neuroscientists are learning how our brains are rewired by experiences, astronomers determined how fast this universe is using energy, other scientists are developing mathematical models for continua other than the space-time we're in, and that's another topic. Topics. (August 14, 2015; March 27, 2015; September 26, 2014)

Like I keep saying, there's more to learn:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Science, Faith, and Albertus Magnus

This isn't your usual "religious" blog.

In the last few weeks, I've written about planetary defense against asteroids and comets, why smallpox isn't a threat any more, and how Neanderthal genes may affect folks trying to stop smoking.

My shameless interest in science and flagrant faith flies in the face of the view that religion and science are at war.

My faith doesn't depend on a lively interest in this wondrous creation: but it's not threatened by knowledge, either.

Space Aliens, Authority, and Getting a Grip


(Columbia Pictures. via Space.com, used w/o permission.)

I think UFO religions are a mistake, but that searching for extraterrestrial life is reasonable: and fascinating. I'm not one of the 90.19% who believe space aliens are "out there," but I certainly won't claim that life exists on Earth and only on Earth.

Assuming that there must be life on other worlds makes as much, or as little, sense as assuming that there isn't: given what we know today. Some of us will keep looking for life, and learning about the universe, using science: until we find a better method. (February 7, 2014)

My guess is that the Church won't issue a policy statement about dealing with space aliens until, and unless, we actually meet some. When, and if, that happens, I'm quite certain that we won't be told to shut our eyes and pretend they're not there. We've been through something like the "are we alone?" debate before.

On March 7, 2014, it'll be 737 years since the Church banned claiming that there's only one world.

God's God: Aristotle's Not

I gather that the issue was authority.

Back in the 13th century, educated Europeans had a very high opinion of Aristotle. Some may even had the attitude expressed by Dante, that Aristotle was "the Master ... of those who know."

A few researchers realized that the universe might be much more than our Earth and sky.

Others, predictably, didn't like the new idea: which would have been okay. Insisting that other worlds can't exist: because Aristotle said so? That's a problem, since nobody's opinion outvotes God's.

As I've said before, that's when the Church stepped in. After March 7, 1277, Catholics weren't allowed to claim that Earth must be the only world. (January 29, 2012)

I did a little checking, and learned that the 219 Propositions of 1277 were later annulled. Interestingly, the Wikipedia article about that particular document didn't mention Proposition 27/219, so I'm guessing that the 'God's God, Aristotle's not' principle is still valid.

Evolution and "A State of Journeying"

I've explained why I don't denounce evolution as "the religion of the antichrist." (January 2, 2014)


(From "The Three-Story Universe," © N. F. Gier, God, Reason, and the Evangelicals (1987), via Nick Gier, University of Idaho, used w/o permission.)

I'm sure that God could have created a universe designed along the lines imagined by ancient Mesopotamians: and which was only a few thousand years old.

But I'm also willing to take the universe "as is."

Over the last several centuries, we've learned that we live in a vast and ancient cosmos: which operates under rational physical laws. I don't see how that can interfere with faith in an infinite, eternal, and rational Creator. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159, 202, 279, 301)

We've also learned that things change. Considering what happened when the first of us broke the lease in Eden, I'm very glad that this universe is in a "state of journeying." (Catechism, 302-305) (January 18, 2012)

Dürer, Eden, and Getting a Grip

Believing what the Church says about Adam, Eve, and original sin is one thing. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 355-378, 388-412) (July 11, 2012)

Trying to believe that our first parents were German is daft. (May 16, 2012)

That sort of silliness isn't necessary, since the Bible wasn't written by Americans: or by folks with a contemporary Western worldview.

If I assumed that every word of the Bible is literally true, from the viewpoint of a post-Victorian American, I might not get past the two creation stories in Genesis. (Genesis 1:1-2:4 and Genesis 2:4-9)

I could read the two accounts of creation, notice that they're not exactly alike: and assume they're different because religion is stupid.

Or I could assume they're both literally, word-for-word, true: and that I'm puzzled because thinking is a sin.

Instead, I read Genesis 1:1-2:4 and 2:4-25 as an explanation of God's role in our existence: among other things.

As far as I'm concerned, all that's changed in the last few centuries is how much we know about the "clay" God used. (December 13, 2013)

If anything, I'm impressed at how similar the 'origins' accounts in Genesis and those in other cultures are.

The "Golden Age," Χρυσόν Γένος or Chryson Genos, is unique to ancient Greece and Rome: but a remarkable number of other folks remembered that we've known better days.

Maybe that's because folks around the world share the same basic hopes and fears. Or maybe we're looking at what happens when a scattered humanity tells the same tale around the evening fire for a million years, and that's another topic.

Patron Saint of — Scientists?!

"God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed - the sixth day."
(Genesis 1:31)
This wonder-filled universe is still "very good," and we've still got the Adam's job of tending it. (Catechism, 373, 2402)

Science and technology aren't transgressions, they're tools we're expected to use: wisely. (Catechism, 339, 2292-2296) (March 17, 2013)

It's no wonder, though, that some folks think the Catholic Church encourages superstition: Albertus Magnus is a patron saint of scientists, students, medical technicians, philosophers, and the natural sciences.

And he was interested in astrology.

Back in the 13th century, Albertus Magnus was occasionally called a wizard and magician: hardly surprising, considering his "tampering with things man was not supposed to know," as the fictional Mr. Squibbs put it.

His posthumous career as an alchemist was equally imaginative, but his interest in astrology wasn't.

Astrology, along with any other sort of divination, is against the rules today. (Catechism, 2116)

In the 13th century, being interested in astrology didn't make someone an "astrologer" in today's sense.

Researchers of the late Middle Ages thought that Earth was a small part of the universe: and that what happened 'out there' affected what happened here. They were right about that, but further study showed that the real 'cosmic' influences don't lend themselves to fortunetelling. Astrology isn't astronomy, even though both involve stars and planets.

Wrenching myself back on-topic — Albertus Magnus saw no conflict between worshiping God and studying God's creation.

Neither do I.

As a Catholic, I must believe that God is truth, that truth cannot contradict truth, and that studying this astonishing universe is okay. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159, 214-217)

Related posts:
More about what the Bible is, and isn't:
  • "Understanding the Bible"
    Mary Elizabeth Sperry, Associate Director for Utilization of the New American Bible, USCCB
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, September 20, 2013

Life in the Universe: Learning Where to Look

There's a crosswind in our part of the galaxy, which matters more to astronomers than to most folks; and we still don't know if there's life anywhere except Earth, but scientists are making progress.
  1. Cosmic Winds
  2. Narrowing the Search for Life in the Universe
I don't have a problem with using my head and trying to keep up with science news. I also have the rather counter-cultural attitude that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive.

Faith and Reason

I'm a Catholic, so I don't have to check my brain at the door when I go to church. (August 31, 2011)

The notion that faith and reason don't mix isn't true, but it's deeply ingrained in American culture. I think part of its persistence is that quite a few folks here also seem to believe that faith is all about emotion. It's not.

There's nothing wrong with emotions. They're part of being human. But I'd have trouble with faith if it depended on me feeling 'uplifted' or 'religious' most of the time. (September 8, 2013; April 29, 2012)

Like I said, emotions are part of being human. They're not "right" or "wrong" by themselves. What matters is what we do about them. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1763-1770)
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth...."
("Fides et Ratio," Encyclical Letter, John Paul II (September 14, 1998))
"Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason."
(Catechism, 35) [emphasis mine]
"Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life...."
(Catechism, 1804)

Religion and Science

My faith doesn't require that I keep up with what we're learning about this creation: but it's not threatened by knowledge, either. Human beings are designed to learn about this world, and develop new ways of using it: wisely. (Catechism, 2293)

That's a far cry from the sort of 'we've evolved beyond good and evil' goofiness that's popular in vintage 'mad scientist' films like "X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes." (July 19, 2013; February 10, 2013)

'Because I can' isn't a reason, or excuse, for behaving badly. Science, like anything else humans do, involves ethics. But as long as we pay attention to ethics, moral principles, science is fine:
"...if methodical investigation within every branch of learning is carried out in a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms, it never truly conflicts with faith, for earthly matters and the concerns of faith derive from the same God...."
("Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word-Gaudium et Spes," 36 (December 7, 1965))

Other Worlds, 1277

A little over seven centuries back, educated Europeans had realized that the universe might be a whole lot more than just the Earth and our sky.

Some were excited by the possibility that there might be other worlds: others didn't like the idea. Some started insisting that there couldn't be any worlds except the one we're standing on: because Aristotle said so, I gather.

That's when the Catholic Church stepped in. Ever since 1277, Catholics haven't been allowed to say that there can't be other worlds.

I think it's silly, or worse, to assume that God must cater to our preferences. The Almighty seems to have made a creation that's almost unimaginably vast, and may include more than just the space-time continuum we're in. (April 2, 2013)

These days, most folks I've met seem to accept the idea that other planets exist. On the other hand, quite a few aren't comfortable with what we're learning about how life on Earth has developed in the last 3,000,000,000 years.

Some don't want to believe that there can be life anywhere except Earth. I think it'll be exciting if we learn that God decided to plant life elsewhere. In any case, how I feel about it doesn't count. God's God, I'm not: and I'm okay with that.

Life in the Universe?



Some folks might not be able to endure knowledge that human beings aren't the only flesh-and-blood people in the universe. Others, seeing space aliens, might decide that since they exist: God doesn't. That, in my considered opinion, is silly. (January 29, 2012)

I don't think that space aliens, people with physical bodies, live somewhere in the universe. I don't think that they don't. Right now, we don't know.

I think this gives a pretty good idea of what the Catholic Church thinks about the possibility of life beyond Earth:
"Welcome to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences"
Inauguration of the study week on Astrobiology
Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo (November 6, 2009)

"It is with great pleasure that I welcome all the distinguished scientists convened here, at the invitation of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, to discuss a theme that is as new as it is difficult and fascinating: Astrobiology. It is a field which requires a range of all but the most profound of scientific knowledge, as well as highly refined research techniques.

"Because it means often proceeding on the basis of scarce evidence and formulating hypothesis requiring strict verification, which in turn, can be diversely configured....

"...In research we should not fear the truth. Only the error, which lies in ambush, can cause us fear. But the scientist must also be allowed the possibility to walk paths which do not always lead to positive results, otherwise it would not be research. Nonetheless, even such types of errors are never useless, precisely because, being led by the scientific method, they help us test other paths. And it is thus that the sciences are able to progress, and just as they open humanity to new knowledge, they contribute to the fulfilment of man as man...."

People, Yes; Human, No?

Finding single-celled living creatures on another planet, and being certain that they are not related to life on Earth, would be exciting.

Judging by what Hollywood decides will sell movie tickets, the sort of extraterrestrial life that captures our imaginations most is intelligent life.

Again, I don't think we're alone. I don't think we live in a crowded universe. I think that we do not know.

If we do have neighbors, I'd be astonished if we find them by listening for radio signals. This universe is vast and ancient. The odds that people who aren't human are close to our level of development, say within 500,000 years, are - astronomical. (February 8, 2013)

If we have a half-million-year head start, they probably don't have radios yet. If they worked the bugs out of radio communication five hundred millennia back, that technology is probably about as current for them as flint knapping is for us.

As to what we should think about the possibility of people whose bodies aren't like ours, I agree with this monk:
"...Frankly, if you think about it, any creatures on other planets, subject to the same laws of chemistry and physics as us, made of the same kinds of atoms, with an awareness and a will recognizably like ours would be at the very least our cousins in the cosmos. They would be so similar to us in all the essentials that I don't think you'd even have the right to call them aliens."
(Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial? "Brother Astronomer," Brother Guy Consolmagno (2000))
More of my take on intelligent life on other planets:

1. Cosmic Winds


(NASA/GSFC/UNH, via Space.com, used w/o permission.)
"A view from the Earth and Sun from far above the North Pole. As an interstellar wind blows in from the constellation Scorpio, the sun's gravity captures it and forms a tail. The slower wind (dark blue) is bent stronger than its faster counterpart (light blue). As Earth moved into the interstellar wind in February, IBEX observed the slower wind earlier than the faster wind."
"Interstellar Wind Changes Reveal Glimpse of Milky Way's Complexity"
Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com (September 5, 2013)

"Shifting cosmic winds suggest that our solar system lives in a surprisingly complex and dynamic part of the Milky Way galaxy, a new study reports.

"Scientists examining four decades' worth of data have discovered that the interstellar gas breezing through the solar system has shifted in direction by 6 degrees, a finding that could affect how we view not only the entire galaxy but the sun itself.

" 'The shift in the wind is evidence that the sun lives in an evolving galactic environment,' study lead author Priscilla Frisch of the University of Chicago told SPACE.com via email...."
This "wind" isn't the sort of thing we could feel. The difference between interstellar gas and a perfect vacuum is slight: but measurable. And on an astronomical scale, it acts a bit like the air we're used to.

Wind and Turbulence

"...Charged particles stream off the sun to form a huge invisible shell around the solar system called the heliosphere. Outside of this shell lies the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC), a haze of hydrogen and helium approximately 30 light-years across.

"The LIC is wispy, featuring just 0.016 atoms per cubic inch (0.264 per cubic centimeter) on average. LIC gas tends to be blocked by the heliosphere, but a thin stream makes it past the sun's magnetic field at the rate of 0.0009 atoms per cubic inch (0.015 atoms per cubic cm), researchers said.

" 'Right now, the sun is moving through an interstellar cloud at a relative velocity of 52,000 miles per hour (23 kilometers per second),' Frisch said. 'This motion allows neutral atoms from the cloud to flow through the heliosphere - the solar wind bubble - and create an interstellar "wind." '..."
(Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com)
We don't know why this interstellar "wind" changed direction over four decades. One of the less-unlikely explanations is that we're looking at turbulence on a very large scale.

Our sun moves through the galaxy in the direction of Hercules. The 'local' interstellar wind is coming in from Pegasus, almost at right angles. I gather that the turbulence is sort of like what we experience when driving with a crosswind.

Right now, knowing that there's turbulence in our sun's neighborhood is important to astronomers, and interesting to folks like me: but not particularly important in everyday life.

Decades, centuries, or millennia from now, if folks travel farther than we do now - - - that's another topic.

2. Narrowing the Search for Life in the Universe

"A Super Time for SuperEarths"
Keith Cooper, Astrobiology Magazine (September 5, 2013)

"Summary: A new model could indicate whether an exoplanet has a light but extended atmosphere, or a relatively thin and heavy atmosphere. This knowledge could help refine the targets in the search for planets like Earth capable of sustaining life.

"The headlines have been coming thick and fast – a trio of SuperEarths in the habitable zone of Gliese 667C, two probably rocky planets in the Goldilocks zone around Kepler-62 and possible SuperEarths orbiting Tau Ceti and HD 40307 at just the right distance for liquid water to exist on their surfaces, albeit under certain conditions. These are all just from the past twelve months. Should those exoplanet hunters who are seeking out Earth 2, a planet where life as we know it could possibly exist, start to feel excited?

"Not yet. Our knowledge of these planets is woefully incomplete. However, the times may be changing. While we cannot yet determine whether a planet is hospitable to life, David Kipping of the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has led a team of astronomers to develop a new theoretical model that can tell us with one swift glance whether a SuperEarth - a world with two to ten times the mass of our planet and up to twice the diameter - has an atmosphere that might not be suitable for life. Consequently we could rule such worlds out of our search for analogs to Earth. It's all about whether a planet has an atmosphere and how that atmosphere is connected to the relationship between a planet's mass and diameter...."
Planets aren't all alike. Neither are their atmospheres. Of the Solar system's three 'habitable zone' planets, the atmospheres of two are mostly carbon dioxide. Only the third has enough oxygen to support critters like us.

Although I'm the sort of creature that needs oxygenated air, I see oxygen in the atmosphere as a byproduct of life: not a requirement. I think unstable chemical mixes in the atmosphere, like Earth's, might be an effective way to tell if a planet supports life: and that's almost another topic.
Another way that planets differ is what's below the surface. The Solar system's inner planets are mostly rock and metal, from Jupiter outward they're mostly hydrogen and helium, except for Pluto. Whether or not Pluto is a planet, a dwarf planet, a Kuiper Belt object, or something else is: yet another topic.


(From Lunar and Planetary Institute, via Astrobiology Magazine, used w/o permission.)
"Cutaway diagram of gas giant Jupiter’s atmosphere and core, compared to Earth's."
(Astrobiology Magazine)

Recipe for Life

I've run across some imaginative speculation about life on, or in, gas giants like Jupiter. My guess is that folks who say there's too much turbulence are right. It's not that life needs peace and quiet, quite. Something floating in Jupiter's atmosphere might be in a habitable part one hour and be pulled up or down into places where it's too hot or too cold the next.

My guess is that some sort of critter might survive in conditions like that. Fish like arctic cod have antifreeze that lets them survive being frozen. But I doubt that life could get started in a maelstrom like Jupiter's atmosphere.

Plausible models for how life began on Earth all assume that it needed an area with water and energy. That may have been hydrothermal vents, tide pools, hot springs, or something else. Wherever it was, the area had to have a fairly stable temperature, pressure, and chemical environment for quite a while. How long "quite a while" is could probably be weeks, years: or millennia. We don't know. Not yet, anyway.

Our sort of life needs liquid water, but it needs a broad range of other material too, and energy. That limits which planets could support it. "Water worlds," planets that are mostly water, could enjoy temperatures like we find in Hawaii, but they almost certainly don't have enough other elements and compounds for life.

Places like Mars may or may not have enough water to support life. It looks like Mars may have been damp enough at one time, though, a very long time ago.

That Astrobiology Magazine article includes a chart showing the relation of mass and radius for planets ranging from all-water to all-iron. The values for mass and radius are Earth = 1.

The lines are curved because gravity compresses matter, and that's yet again another topic.


(From Kipping, Sasselov, and Spiegel, via Astrobiology Magazine, used w/o permission.)
"The mass-radius diagram developed by David Kipping, Dimitar Sasselov and David Spiegel. The blue line is the boundary condition for a 100 percent water-world. The blue dashed line is a planet with 75 percent water and 25 percent silicate rock, while the brown line is 100 percent iron and the brown dashed line is 75 percent iron and 25 percent silicate rock."
(Astrobiology Magazine)

God and Reality

From what I've said about hydrothermal vents, life's origins, and fish with antifreeze, it's probably obvious that I don't think God looks like Charleton Heston in his role as Moses.

I also don't think God created the entire universe about 6,000 years ago, and resents it when we use our brains. Sure, the Almighty could have made a small, unchanging, universe. Maybe He did: but that's not how the one we're in works.

I prefer to accept the universe as it really is: a creation far greater than anything we imagined; and, to paraphrase Haldane, probably greater than we can imagine.

Related posts:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Science isn't a Four-Letter Word

I'm a Christian. More specifically, I'm a practicing Catholic. That means that, among other things, I don't have to studiously avoid believing things that folks have learned since 1277, when Proposition 27/219 went into effect.

That's because:
"...the things of the world

and the things of faith

derive from the same God...."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159)

Science, Religion, and (fictional) Christians

Watching television yesterday morning, I ran into an all-too-familiar set of assumptions about science, religion, and Christians.

It was a science fiction show, involving space aliens and an invasion of Earth. Think "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" meets "Contact." The story depends on the idea of life existing on planets other than Earth.

Very early in the story, one of the major characters told another that people had started committing suicide after they learned about space aliens.

The 'alien invasion' plot stopped dead in its tracks as the actor discussed a Christian's untimely demise.

Faced with real, live, space aliens: she could no longer cling to her 'narrow-minded' beliefs. She said that science was right, after all.

Then she killed herself.

The scriptwriters gave the actor more to work with than that, but you've got the gist of it.

Science, Faith, and Getting a Grip

The BBC program came to my household via our cable service. From this, I could conclude that the following are 'Satanic:'
  1. Science fiction
  2. Television
    1. Cable
    2. Satellite
    3. Broadcast
    4. All of the above
  3. The BBC
  4. England
  5. Science
  6. All of the above
My faith isn't of the 'everything I don't like is Satanic' variety, so I see that bit of 'religion opposes science' drama as more of the same silliness I've seen for decades.

Assumptions aren't Facts

Assuming that all Christians are like Fred Phelp's "God Hates You" bunch, or are ardent disciples of the latest 'End Times prophecy,' isn't valid. I don't even think loud, colorful, folks like that are typical of American Protestants.

On the other hand, I've run into quite a few less-wacky folks who are Christians, and are convinced that science is some kind of plot.

I'm about as certain as I can be that they're not right: but I'm also quite certain that they're sincere.

Whoever wrote that BBC script may have been sincere, too. In some circles, it's easy to believed that Christians are, by definition, psychologically fragile ignoramuses.

Suicide is a bad idea, by the way: in part because being dead really limits a person's options. I've been over this before:
Moving on.

1277 and All That

Speculation about other worlds was a hot topic in the year 1277. Then, as now, some folks loudly insisted that God followed their preferences about how the universe worked.

That's when the bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, issued Proposition 27/219. Basically, the bishop said that Catholics must not claim that God couldn't have made more than one world like Earth. He didn't put it quite that way, but I think that's a reasonable summary. As far as I know, Proposition 27/219 hasn't been rescinded, and I've been over this before. (September 2, 2011)

God's God, I'm Not

Dialog in that BBC show did have one nifty idea: the mental image of a 'YOU ARE HERE' map of the universe. I thought it was so nifty, I made my own:



My response to that sort of thing isn't suicidal thoughts. (Yes, I've had them.) It's more along the lines of Psalms 19:
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims its builder's craft."
(Psalms 19:2)

Faith and Science

That quote about "the things of the world and the things of faith" is from a paragraph in the Catechism. Like I said, I'm a practicing Catholic: so I don't have to ignore what we're learning about God's creation:
"Faith and science: 'Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.'37 'Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.'38"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159)
Related posts:
Background (not even close to everything the Church has to say on the subjects):
More:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, September 2, 2011

Space Aliens, Michele Bachmann, and Daft Assumptions

I discussed what The New York Times' executive editor said about religious beliefs and news coverage of political campaigns yesterday:
I ended my post with a list of some topics which Mr. Keller, the editor, had raised in his op-ed:

Sensible Idea; Daft Assumptions

I still think that Bill Keller means well. I also think that his basic idea is sensible, that:
  • religious beliefs matter
  • Political candidates should be asked questions about what they believe
    • And how it affects their perceptions and decisions
On the other hand, Mr. Keller seems to have drearily familiar assumptions about:
  • What "religious beliefs" are
  • How "reality-based" religious people are
  • The dangers of having public officials who take their religious beliefs seriously

Why Discuss What Some Editor Thinks?

Mr. Keller's assumptions are not held by folks at the fringes of society, with little or no practical influence on what the rest of us see, read, and hear.

They're what 'everybody knows' among America's self-described best and brightest. What the rest of us read and view is, to a great extent, determined by their perceptions and preferences.

That's partly because many folks see The New York Times as 'America's newspaper of record.' I think The N. Y. Times is one of New York City's major hometown papers, reflecting the interests and attitudes of the city's 'better' class: and I've discussed that before. Fairly often.1

An executive editor of 'America's newspaper of record' has quite a bit of influence. What he and his associates think is true affects what gets published in the Times: and repeated by less high-profile publications across the country.

People With Religious Beliefs are Crazy, Stupid, or Both: Right?

Sadly, Mr. Keller is ill-informed about "religious beliefs," and folks who take them seriously.

Bottom line? The folks in this Reuters photo aren't typical 'religious people.' They're not even typical of American Protestants:



I think it's time for Mr. Keller and others in America's upper crust to examine their assumptions. Basing beliefs on innuendo, rumors, and what your buddies think is easy. Believing that 'those religious people' are real-life analogs of Archie Bunker and Frank Burns may help someone gain acceptance from the local upper crust. But using biases as the foundation of a world view isn't, I think, a healthy way to live: and that's another topic.

Now, about Mr. Keller's assumptions about religious beliefs and the people who have them.

Space Aliens and the Coming Election

Mr. Keller's op-ed starts by equating belief "that space aliens dwell among us" with having religious beliefs:
"If a candidate for president said he believed that space aliens dwell among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him? Personally, I might not disqualify him out of hand ... I would certainly want to ask a few questions. Like, where does he get his information? Does he talk to the aliens? Do they have an economic plan?

"Yet when it comes to the religious beliefs of our would-be presidents, we are a little squeamish about probing too aggressively. Michele Bachmann was asked during the Iowa G.O.P. debate what she meant when she said the Bible...."(Bill Keller2)
I'll get back to Michele Bachmann in a bit.

Space Aliens, Other Worlds, and Proposition 27/219 (1277)

I was - impressed - by assuming that religious beliefs, and believing that space aliens live among us: but not because I believe that space aliens do not exist.

I don't believe "that space aliens dwell among us." Some entertaining stories have been written with that premise: but that's fiction.

I don't believe that space aliens can't exist, either. As a practicing Catholic, that'd be against the rules: and has been, since the 13th century. That's when "all who hold the Aristotelian position 'that the first cause cannot make more than one world' " were told they were wrong. (The bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, Proposition 27/219 (1277))3 To the best of my knowledge, Proposition 27 hasn't been rescinded.a

Is saying we mustn't claim that God can't create what He wants being narrow-minded? I don't think so: more like acknowledging the power of God.

Michele Bachmann, Ephesians, and Getting a Grip

Getting back to Mr. Keller's op-ed:
"...Michele Bachmann was asked during the Iowa G.O.P. debate what she meant when she said the Bible obliged her to 'be submissive' to her husband, and there was an audible wave of boos - for the question, not the answer...."2
Oh, dear. I'd like to know the answer to that myself. Ephesians 5:21-30 is another of those parts of the Bible where folks don't read the whole thing. I know there are groups who say otherwise, but 'shut up and fetch the beer' isn't the message to women. Again, I've posted about that sort of thing.4

As for booing the question? I don't know enough about the context of that meeting to have an opinion.

Educating a Conscience, Assumptions, and the GIGO Rule

A thousand years ago, some of my ancestors were conducting human sacrifices. I don't think that was right: at least partly because I've got information they didn't.

We call the ability to tell the difference between good and bad, and decide to do good, the conscience. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1777) The Church says that listening to our conscience is important. (Catechism, 1779)

So is training our conscience:
"Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

"The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart."
(Catechism, 1783-1784)
Anyone who's programmed, and many who work with computers, know about GIGO: "a rule stating that the quality of the output is a function of the quality of the input; put garbage in and you get garbage out." (Princeton's WordNet)

I think the same rule applies to people. A person who mistakes assumptions for facts could use the finest logic: and come to a wrong conclusion. It's a 'been there, done that' situation for me. I've had to give up some cherished beliefs, like the clockwork universe notion; and using contraceptives. And I'm still working at educating my conscience. Like the Catechism says, it's a life-long job.

And distinguishing between assumptions and facts is vital.

Fact, Fiction, and Bias

I've got more to say about Mr. Keller's assumptions about religious belief, and living in the real world. But that will wait.

Related posts:
Views:
1 I think hometown papers serve a useful function, and are important to the communities they serve. By reflecting assumptions and preferences of their readers, they arguably contribute to their community's sense of identity.

In the case of The New York Times, a newspaper which caters to the preferences and assumptions of the local elite has national influence. I don't mind New York City's upper crust having their very own paper. I do think the rest of us should remember what 'America's newspaper of record' is really like:
2 Quotes are from:
3 Toward the end of Europe's Middle Ages, European scholars had studied the works of Aristotle, and took what the ancient Greek said very seriously. So far, so good: Aristotle was a very smart man, and made huge contributions to Western Civilization.

Aristotle doesn't seem to have liked the idea that there could be worlds other than the one we live on. At any rate, he said that we're on the only habitable place.

That's just one man's opinion. But when that man is Aristotle, it makes a difference:
"...Beginning about 1100 a.d., text after text of the great Greek philosopher Aristotle reached the West, and Christians were suddenly confronted with a unified, well- constructed account of the universe, an account written by a pagan. Aristotle denied that there could be a plurality of worlds. Of course, if there could not be a plurality of worlds, then the question of extraterrestrials was moot.

"There were three reactions to Aristotle's purely natural, non-Christian philosophical account: vehement rejection (the radical Augustinians), careful embrace (St. Thomas), and passionate embrace (the radical Aristotelians).

"Around 1265 a conflict between the two radical wings began to heat up, resulting in the famous (or, for Thomists, infamous) 219 Propositions in 1277, issued by the bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier. Proposition 27 condemns all who hold the Aristotelian position 'that the first cause cannot make more than one world.'

"It should be stressed that the aim of this condemnation was not to affirm a plurality of worlds but to affirm God's omnipotence against any account of nature that seemed to restrict God's powers. Aristotle's insistence that there could only be one world accorded nicely with the Genesis account of creation, but it appeared to the radical Augustinians to make God the servant of natural necessity rather than its master...."
("Alien Ideas Christianity and the Search for Extraterrestrial Life," Benjamin D. Wiker, Crisis 20, no. 10 (November 2002))
A little over seven centuries later, we still don't know for sure whether there's life anywhere except on Earth.

But, as a practicing Catholic, I'm not going to say that God couldn't have created a space-time continuum with life on more than one ball of rock. I've discussed this before:
Background:
4 I'm slightly sympathetic with the folks who booed that question about Bachmann's take on 'submitting' to her husband. I've gotten a trifle fed up with how folks don't get Ephesians 5:21-30 myself. Despite what some folks assume, it doesn't say that wives should be doormats. Ephesians 5:15 tells me to love my wife "even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her."

Posts about Ephesians and assumptions:
a Update (February 22, 2014)

I've since learned that the Propositions of 1277 were later annulled: but not, I think, because the Church decided that Aristotle had more klout than God. ☺
Posted by 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Like it? Pin it, Plus it, - - -

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More

Visit Brian H.'s profile on Pinterest.

Advertisement

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Popular Posts

Label Cloud

1277 abortion ADD ADHD-Inattentive Adoration Chapel Advent Afghanistan Africa America Amoris Laetitia angels animals annulment Annunciation anti-catholicism Antichrist apocalyptic ideas apparitions archaeology architecture Arianism art Asperger syndrome assumptions asteroid astronomy Australia authority balance and moderation baptism being Catholic beliefs bias Bible Bible and Catechism bioethics biology blogs brain Brazil business Canada capital punishment Caritas in Veritate Catechism Catholic Church Catholic counter-culture Catholicism change happens charisms charity Chile China Christianity Christmas citizenship climate change climatology cloning comets common good common sense Communion community compassion confirmation conscience conversion Corpus Christi cosmology creation credibility crime crucifix Crucifixion Cuba culture dance dark night of the soul death depression designer babies despair detachment devotion discipline disease diversity divination Divine Mercy divorce Docetism domestic church dualism duty Easter economics education elections emotions England entertainment environmental issues Epiphany Establishment Clause ethics ethnicity Eucharist eugenics Europe evangelizing evolution exobiology exoplanets exorcism extremophiles faith faith and works family Father's Day Faust Faustus fear of the Lord fiction Final Judgment First Amendment forgiveness Fortnight For Freedom free will freedom fun genetics genocide geoengineering geology getting a grip global Gnosticism God God's will good judgment government gratitude great commission guest post guilt Haiti Halloween happiness hate health Heaven Hell HHS hierarchy history holidays Holy Family Holy See Holy Spirit holy water home schooling hope humility humor hypocrisy idolatry image of God images Immaculate Conception immigrants in the news Incarnation Independence Day India information technology Internet Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jesus John Paul II joy just war justice Kansas Kenya Knights of Columbus knowledge Korea language Last Judgment last things law learning Lent Lenten Chaplet life issues love magi magic Magisterium Manichaeism marriage martyrs Mary Mass materialism media medicine meditation Memorial Day mercy meteor meteorology Mexico Minnesota miracles Missouri moderation modesty Monophysitism Mother Teresa of Calcutta Mother's Day movies music Muslims myth natural law neighbor Nestorianism New Year's Eve New Zealand news Nietzsche obedience Oceania organization original sin paleontology parish Parousia penance penitence Pentecost Philippines physical disability physics pilgrimage politics Pope Pope in Germany 2011 population growth positive law poverty prayer predestination presumption pride priests prophets prostitution Providence Purgatory purpose quantum entanglement quotes reason redemption reflections relics religion religious freedom repentance Resurrection robots Roman Missal Third Edition rosaries rules sacramentals Sacraments Saints salvation schools science secondary causes SETI sex shrines sin slavery social justice solar planets soul South Sudan space aliens space exploration Spain spirituality stem cell research stereotypes stewardship stories storm Sudan suicide Sunday obligation superstition symbols technology temptation terraforming the establishment the human condition tolerance Tradition traffic Transfiguration Transubstantiation travel Trinity trust truth uncertainty United Kingdom universal destination of goods vacation Vatican Vatican II veneration vengeance Veterans Day videos virtue vlog vocations voting war warp drive theory wealth weather wisdom within reason work worship writing

Marian Apparition: Champion, Wisconsin

Background:Posts in this blog: In the news:

What's That Doing in a Nice Catholic Blog?

From time to time, a service that I use will display links to - odd - services and retailers.

I block a few of the more obvious dubious advertisers.

For example: psychic anything, numerology, mediums, and related practices are on the no-no list for Catholics. It has to do with the Church's stand on divination. I try to block those ads.

Sometime regrettable advertisements get through, anyway.

Bottom line? What that service displays reflects the local culture's norms, - not Catholic teaching.