Tag Archives: Science

06.21.13
by

Galaxy Interactions

Image

penguingalaxy

Hubble never ceases to amaze me. This picture of two galaxies, one essentially ripping the other apart, is gorgeous. Never mind the fact that when you look at it it resembles a penguin (NGC 2936), guarding its egg (NGC 2937). This combination of galaxies is known as ARP 142. I am probably an odd sort, as I always like to play “spot the other galaxies” in Hubble pics, I can see at least 10 that I’m pretty sure of, there is probably more, and no I don’t have anything better to do…

What I find intriguing here, is that usually when two galaxies interact there is a mutual warping of structure. In this case, at this point in time, the fuzzy blob galaxy (NGC 2937) appears unperturbed while the penguin (NGC 2936) is being ripped to shreds. The penguin was before this incident, an often seen spiral galaxy. The fuzzy blob was and still is what is known as an elliptical galaxy, that seems unconcerned of its devastating force being exerted upon what once was a beautiful spiral structure.

I wonder why is the NGC 2937 not noticeably distorting? Is its gravitational pull so strong it simply overwhelms the penguin? If that is the case, it must be a hugely dense galaxy. I wonder what an infared pic might reveal here? I also wonder when the penguin gets pulled closer and closer, will the fuzzy blob inevitably begin to distort? I can’t imagine that not being the case. Only time will tell I suppose, and I won’t live long enough to know the answers. In the meantime I can only look on in amazement as the galactical drama unfolds. Reality TV at its best.

Something else I’m curious of in the pic, is the filaments of darker material, that often lines the arms of spiral galaxies. Much of it appears to have been yanked free of the spiral arms, and has formed into the long strands that seemingly are being sucked down the drain, so to speak. As if, during the reshaping process, that matter was distilled out of the arms, and coalesced into the cloud-like strands seen here. Or maybe it is just loose material swept up in this reorganization. I do hope someone with a better grasp of this situation does a full write up, so I can get a better understanding of what is going on.

More here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130620132225.htm

…and much more needed to satisfy my curiosity. Paging Phil Plait…

 

EDIT: My favorite professional astronomer Phil Plait,  got around to doing a blog post on this subject. So for more info on the matter (pun?) go here:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/07/15/galaxy_sculpting_cosmic_collision_shapes_a_galaxy_into_a_hummingbird.html

06.13.13
by

Black Holes Galore

Image

NASA’s Chandra observatory has with a recent observation, turned up several more black holes, than previously known, near the center of our closest galactical neighbor Andromeda. This survey has raised the number of known black holes there from 9 to 35.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/bonanza.html

One of the interesting findings, is that some are associated with globular clusters. Globs as they are appreciatively known by amateur astronomers, like yours truly, do not have that distinction in our own galaxy. At least as far as we know at this point in time, it is kind of difficult to observe your home galaxy in a detailed manner, due to the predicament of being located in said galaxy. Hard to get a distant perspective, plus the fact that all kinds of dust, and accumulated matter, make it difficult to peer inside our galaxy, making a thorough investigation difficult at best. The article goes on to explain that Andromeda’s central bulge is quite a bit bigger than our own, allowing more black holes to form. I doubt I will live long enough to see if there indeed is a chance of a glob in our galaxy sporting a black hole. It is the possibilities, and the desire to know, that keeps scientific investigation alive, and imaginations working overtime. (I think I am safe to assume, that not all of the existing globs in our galaxy have been discovered, or shown to not have a black hole. As always, I am open to evidence)

At any rate, I love to observe globular clusters, and galaxies when I’m cruising our galaxy on a moonless night, with my small yard cannon, a 12.5″ Newtonian telescope. Planets are fun too. Oh and planetary nebula’s, and double stars, and catching a stray meteor when I’m out there looking up, and supernova remnants, and open clusters, and stellar nursery’s, and yeah…I’m a geek.

 

06.11.13
by

Supernova

Image

 

 

The Bad Astronomy blog ran by Phil Plait, is one of my regular stops every morning. This morning I was blown away by this photo of a supernova remnant. So much so, I decided to post it here. This supernova’s name, SNR 0519-69.0, seemingly docile enough of a description, belies it’s violent, recent past. This is one huge explosion and we are fortunate it is in one of the Milky Way’s dwarf galaxy companions, the Large Magellanic Cloud, and not right next door. Well as galaxies go it is right next door,  but far enough away not to give us any more than a beautiful panorama of a massive explosion.

Much more, and quite a bit better explanation, with a lot of the science to go with it…here: 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/06/10/supernova_remnant_the_wispy_remains_of_an_exploded_white_dwarf.html

I have been an amateur astronomer for a long time now, and two of the objects I like to hunt down and observe often are the Veil Nebula and M1, (Messier object # 1), both supernova remnants. This SNR 0519-69.0 is well out of reach of my modest land based telescopes. Heck, from my location I cant even see the Large Magellanic Cloud…We are so fortunate to have Hubble up there, still after all these years, bringing us fantastic pictures of the cosmos, and guys like Phil Plait to to give excellent accounts of the science behind them.

 

06.10.13
by

Cruising the Blogosphere

I haven’t been overly inspired lately with news items or local events, tripping my desire to write trigger. Sure there are floods and murder and mayhem on the loose, but nothing that begs me to respond. So I have been perusing blogs here at Word Press and some of my responses to some articles were IMO darn near blog worthy in their own right. The following are my responses to some blogs, each response will have the appropriate blog site link posted. It would take up a lot of space and time to try and chronicle it all here, and doubtful anyone would want to read through it all, if you are that bored hit the links for the full perspective..first up:

Here’s my take, I read blah, blah blah, “Science does not provide meaning” We live in a universe without meaning. This is a cold uncaring place that will  kill you dead, with no concerns about your beliefs, your family, your aspirations, or your desire to continue living. The universe, this world, does not care. We humans have emotions, we want to survive, we want to be with our kids, we want to experience life to its fullest, and we have ascribed meaning to a world devoid of it. Religion today is no better than the bone tossing shamans of centuries past. Simply an institution developed to take advantage of the human desire to live…and a half assed attempt to explain away the scary things. A security blanket for those afraid of the dark.

Then…blah blah blah “science is BAD” Then “science is both good and bad, therefore on equal ground with religion” Science has brought us many unique ways to kill, but is it science that uses these methods? Or is it someone with an axe to grind, or a vendetta to settle, or a war to win that uses them? Often as not religion is used as a justification to use the machines of science as a means of destruction. Science is an investigation for knowledge, where that leads can be good or bad, but it rarely starts off with bad intent. I am sure a few examples can be provided that show bad intent from the get go, such as the development of arms, but most scientific endeavors are a simple quest for knowledge, and you can’t lump them all in the same category.

Then blah blah, something about a debate with a perceived winner by the author, yay! I think?

Then blah blah blah specific scientific fields cannot “perceive the whole picture at any one point.” No, but now take all of the many branches of science, with many facts from each branch, lining up with facts from other fields, each validating the other, all leading to a consensus. Soon the big picture develops, with a much more meaningful definition of the reality we live in. “Evidence Based Reality”. This is the beauty of science.

Then, the one thing I agree with “Religions have always evolved, arisen out of other religions, and required responses to changing understandings and social realities.” Slow but sure, it takes centuries for religion to change, but it does. Many cannot see this simple truth, even religion evolves over time. Modern xianity is nothing like its beginnings. People seem to like the fact that they don’t need to offer bloody sacrifices anymore, but you never hear them talking about it. Heck, even the Catholic church, dogmatic as it is, has conceded evolution (though a tad misguided attribution to a god guided process). It is a shame Islam, appears to be entrenched in the dark ages. I hope at some point that one matures, but I see no hope of that in the near future, it would be nice if it could evolve a bit. Sooner the better but I am straying off topic. Yes, religion evolves, but at a snails pace, and never in a proactive way, but reactionary to changing times and only in an effort to save itself from declining membership, or to save face. Such a moral high ground eh?

http://mysteryjourney.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/religion-and-or-is-it-versus-science/comment-page-1/

next: 

I’m sorry, but that is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever heard.

Aging: I don’t recall anyone saying science could stop aging.
Getting Sick: can you say immunization?
Not Dying: can you say CPR?
Reproduction: can you say condom, or “the pill”?
Moral issues: really? can your dog stop these things?
Weather/Earthquakes: isn’t your dog responsible for these?
Look Into the Past: can you say telescope?
Abiogenesis: you are right, cant say for sure when or where, but can say it happened.

Most of your arguments are common fallacies. Mostly, “Argument from Ignorance”, “False Equivalencies” , and lets not omit outright lies. This argument is riddled with holes. You have achieved nothing here worth noting. Except a big patting yourself on the back for thinking you have all of the answers. The answers you claim do not exist, are out there, it is up to you to become more educated on the matter. I strongly doubt you have the capacity to do it. It would require reading some actual fact based sciency stuff, and not the babble.

Faith, believing that which has no evidence whatsoever to support it. Kinda like this blog post.

http://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/what-science-cannot-do/

next: 

Great Post. I agree with your perspective entirely.

The comments that suggest science requires faith, is to me a bit misinformed. Science does expand into areas of unobservable probabilities (black holes, string theory), but this requires not faith, but a deep understanding of physics and math, that is way over my head. I trust those with the knowledge do do the physics and math, to come to a reasonable conclusion that may well be testable in the future. Those guys and gals can work it out, and I trust in their abilities. Is that faith? I think not. That is an assumption that people way more educated than I have the faculties to do their job adequately. Indeed we know now that black holes DO exist, they were once theoretical, but no more, and we can now see how matter interacts with them. I’d call that a scientific success. Faith is more a belief in something, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support it.

What about all the sciences such as geology, astronomy, genetics, biology, and all the rest of the “ologies”? Do they require faith? I think not. Science is a conclusion, based on observable, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, facts. Same can be said for atheism. Faith is for those without the reasoning skills or the desire to grasp the reality of science.

Any attempt to reconcile one with the other, is futile. Science is grounded in reality, science has the “E” word (evidence) to back it up, and not just a little evidence, tons of it. Faith as I said before, is a belief in something despite the fact there is no evidence to support it. They are polar opposites and not compatible…unless you want to discuss cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization.

http://ryan59479.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/science-and-religion/   I like this guy’s stuff.

and lastly:

The entire history of all religions is done by graduates of the well known institution MSU. Better known as Making Stuff UP. You don’t expect them to stop now, or start using well researched arguments do you?

It’s a house of cards based on out dated mythologies and made up stuff, that requires constant rationalizations to keep itself afloat. This is the only kind of science they are capable of. No facts necessary.

http://eyeonicr.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/not-so-giant/

That concludes my recent journey’s in the blog ether world. I do regret the apparent necessity to constantly define faith, but it is so often used as a positive aspect of someones else’s perspective, or as an attribute of science, that it demands pointing it out from a rationalists perspective.

06.07.13
by

Cool Factor 10

Quantum teleportation? Yes, really. Researchers at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen have improved upon a quantum teleporter they developed in 2006. By directing a laser, that somehow has been loaded with some kind of information (yes, the details don’t offer a lot of detail) from one glass chamber, with a magnetic field, to another glass chamber with a magnetic field, the laser sends the info to the second container. Apparently the results are perfect every time, meaning no loss of information at all through the process.

Now what I want to know is, what kind of information exactly is being sent? A recipe for grandma’s rhubarb pie? A picture of someones cat? Details man, details.

The next big question is, how far are we from being able to digitize say a coffee cup? Then load that digital info into the laser, and have our very own sci-fi flick? That’s the first thing that popped into my head after reading this. The next logical step of course is being able to digitize living tissue, then full blown living breathing critters. Just make sure there aren’t any flies in the room, we already know what happens then.

You know I have to say it…”Beam me up Scotty”  Of course tech like this is far from reality, all jokes and silliness aside, this is really neat stuff. I am anxious to see where it goes. The very last sentence of the article tells us the real life expectations:   “The stable results are an important step towards the quantum communication network of the future.”   No matter how you slice it, this is cool stuff, with very cool possibilities. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130606140844.htm

06.06.13
by

Oldest Known Primate Fossil

New fossil described as the oldest known primate. 7 million years older than previously known primate fossils. This new find (well I say new find but according to the article, they have been working on the paper about this fossil for 10 years) has been dubbed Archicebus. 

Going by the tree representation at the link, this critter is at a major fork in our ancestral tree. If you like this kind of stuff, click the link below for a must read article. I do love living in the information age.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130605133552.htm

In a semi related topic, noted creationist, famed liar, and the P.T. Barnum of our time, Ken Ham…gets his trousers all in a bunch because someone called him an ape. It’s hilarious how he acts about the situation, as if he knows better, and implores his dim witted followers to go watch the video. Here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra 

or here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/

Relative comments and conjecture at both sites. Did I mention how much I love living in the information age?

Hey Hambone, we are all apes…dumb-ass!

06.05.13
by

Old Movie, and New Science

Clint Eastwood, mostly known for his Spaghetti Westerns, and his “Make my day” Dirty Harry movies, also made a movie a while back about being able to manipulate the weapons systems of a Soviet jet with brain waves. Firefox, I don’t recall it being a blockbuster of any sorts, but I saw it at some point, every fan of Eastwood probably did… At any rate, as far as I know, the ability to operate systems in a jet via brain waves, was pretty much the realm of science fiction.

Browsing Science Daily this morning, I see a story about flying a toy helicopter, directed by guess what? Yep, brain waves. 

A Professor Bin He, from the University of Minnesota College of Science and Engineering said, and I quote: “Our study shows that for the first time, humans are able to control the flight of flying robots using just their thoughts, sensed from noninvasive brain waves.” While the stated goals of the study are to benefit those with disabilities, I can’t help but think of the military and private sector possibilities.

I think its really neat when reality catches up with sci-fi. More on the story at the following link.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130605090259.htm

05.30.13
by

Evolution, “It’s Just a theory”

Recently I stumbled across a blog here (wordpress) that offered some opinion on the insidious Westboro Baptist Church. In the comments there is yet another of the multitudes that have no idea what a scientific theory is, let alone what the word theory means in that context. A comment  there:  “Actually, evolution isn’t a fact. It’s called a theory and it’s one that hasn’t been proven.”

You see this a lot in internet land, a wild misconception that is so easily explained, yet so widely used you almost have to think it is done on purpose. The only other option is that people who use this lame ass lie are mind numbingly ignorant. Either way, it goes a long way to illuminating the  mind of a creationist.

I could not overpower the urge to comment, so I did, and here is my reply:

“Bzzzzt! Wrong. Evolution only has 150 years of facts supporting its “Theory”

X-ians, please learn the definition of a scientific theory.

The scientific theory definition is basically “an explanation that best fits the evidence” This explanation can be revised upon the addition of new facts. Which is something you will never have. A scientific theory can also have strong predictive power, you know, being grounded in reality and supported by multiple lines of evidence. Science does not pretend to know everything (unlike religion) and is constantly striving to learn more about the world we live in, and places beyond. (also unlike religion, you just happen to have all the answers you think you need) A scientific theory is as close as you can possibly get to understanding a subject.

The layman’s definition of theory goes something like this: Billybob’s theory of why his tire is flat, is that Bigfoot came along and sucked the air out of it.

Now can you spot the difference? Given the level of disconnect I’ve seen this deep in the comments…I don’t have much hope of your answers being a “yes”. Please, please, learn to distinguish the difference here.This misunderstanding of the the use of the word theory, is far too commonplace. So much so I have to wonder if it isn’t intentional.”

I also did a follow up reply referring to another comment:

“There are plenty of Biblical scholars that have created tons of resources in support of the Biblical account of creation. It’s fascinating to study and I highly recommend it.” and…”Related to evolution, there’s plenty of science and math that disproves this.”

My reply: 

“So where is this fascinating information you keep jabbering about?
The “plenty of math and science that disproves this”? Show us where you are getting your information.

Dollar to a doughnut its AIG*, or the DI*. Both institutions dedicated to the keeping of the wool pulled over the rube’s eyes, with bogus scientists pretending to do science stuff. If they were really doing any science, where are the results? Where do they show the science they have done? What methods did they use to reach their conclusions? What credentials do their “scientists” have? Oh right…they don’t really “do” science, that stuff is too hard, all they do is stand on the sidelines proclaiming to know better than real scientists, and scream about how evolution cant work because (insert discredited mumbo jumbo here)

There is so much evidence to support evolution, that any genuine scientist will tell you that the theory, is a fact, Jack. AIG and the DI, are whats known as damage control.

Couple of questions: are you a YEC? Did man co-exist with dinosaurs? How old is the earth? Is the earth the center of the universe? Does the sun orbit the earth? Is the sky held up on 4 pillars? Do you believe that germ theory and the theory of gravity are just “theories”? Did you know that real scientists recently proved that there was never a genetic bottleneck of just 2 people? Were fossils put there to test your faith? Are fossils really as old as scientists say they are, or is there an issue with the dating technique? Why is it that every year a new flu vaccine has to be developed? Why do antibiotics lose their effectiveness? Is it plausible for a man to live inside a whale for 3 days? What is the secret behind steel* chariots and the resistance they have against god’s magic powers? Do you take medicine when you get sick, if so why? Is there an issue with the speed of light changing over time? Do you wear cotton blends? Do you know what rationalize means? I could go on and on, but that should be enough for your head to explode. Unless of course the CD is fully developed, then you will be fine.” …and I added this to address the OP: “Oh and the WBC is a fine example of the poison that is religion.”

In conclusion, the only people who would conflate the meaning of the word theory, are either hopelessly ignorant, or deliberately doing so in the hopes  the former will never bother to actually look it up and learn for themselves. This is a common condition apparently, and those that would take advantage of it, do so often. Authoritarianism, a topic for another day.

Here is the blog in question: http://faithfullydoubting.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/westboro-baptist-the-best-christians/

I said in a blog post recently something about NOT participating in an activity that can reduce your IQ by 50 points. Using either link below can most assuredly have that effect. Do so at your own risk.

*AIG :  www.answersingenesis.org

*DI:     http://www.discovery.org  

* I meant iron, instead of steel…