Waxing science, waning religion

Note: Per the tagline, I wrote this 12 years ago. While doing a search on my computer recently, I came across it and realized I'd never posted it here.

The slimmest clarion of new crescent moon 

Strives against being horizontally swallowed 

By a modern, urbanized mix 

Of haze, smog, high-rise skyline and near-solstice summer sunset. 

A totem of a more simplistic time 

(Whether simple or not) 

When times were measured by moons 

Along with sacrifices and other aspects of worship 

As the stench of old, dried, burnt blood 

Coated stones, steles, tabernacles and temples; 

Nasty, brutish, short and simplistic, even if not simple. 

Nor bygone. 

Yet today several million lobster loathers, 

And a billion followers of an illiterate itinerant peddler, 

Mark their calendars by that same crescent, 

While well more than a billion adherents 

Of a dead rebel Jew they cluelessly deify 

Mark his death by that same lunar orb. 

What would Earth by like without that Moon? 

No science of Galileo and Apollo landings, 

But no madness of Middle Eastern myths. 

 — May 31, 2009

Per the last stanza, a lot of people have written about how astronomy might be far different without Earth having a satellite, especially one as close as our Moon. And, that sets aside the issue of how the biology of our plant would be different without that.

But, given the centrality of lunar issues to many world religions, even if lunar month observances were secular, as a way of marking time, as well as endowed with religious import, I don't think you can talk about how science would be changed without talking about how religion would as well.

Why "Planet Goldilocks" likely isn't

All the science stories in the last 24 hours have been touting the alleged "Planet Goldilocks" as the first outside our solar system compatible for life similar to ours.

Fact one - its revolution and rotation are synchronous, so that it eternally turns the same face to its home star. At a distance of just 19 million miles, then sunlit side is getting fried more than Mercury. And, unless it has a thick enough atmosphere, the star-based side is chilling. That said, it would also be a fine line between "just enough" atmosphere to keep the dark side warmed up a bit, and so thick an atmosphere that you get Venerean effects.

Besides, if the atmosphere is that thick enough, that close to the home star, with that short of a revolutionary period, what sort of storms might be generated?

Beyond that, we're talking massive solar wind that close to the home star, with a planet that might well not have enough magnetic field to keep the planetary surface from heavy bombardment.

So, Goldilocks it ain't.

Plus ça change, even for the universe?

Looks like Old Man Universe might have changed over 13 billion or so years.

Specifically, the fine-structure constant may not be so constant.

Why is this important? If the constant is inconstant, then the strengthe of the electromagnetic force isn’t constant, either.

There had been some hints at this in the past few years, but with the question of whether the inconstancy was space-based or time-based. New evidence seems to not only support the inconstancy, but that it’s time-based. (Which makes more sense to me.)

Anyway, read all about it.

Why SETI likely won't find ET

New Amazon reviews up: Paul Davis has a great new book on why SETI hasn't found "anybody" yet ... and probably won't.

Is Frank Drake right about an intelligent galaxy?

Write your own Drake equations and make your guess on intelligent life in other solar systems!

Those of you familiar with the SETI project will love this. MSNBC lets you fill in your own guesstimates on the parameters of the Drake equations.

I tried it more than once. The first time, I got a Drake number of “1,” meaning I believe we’re all alone in this galaxy. The second time, being much less conservative, my calculations returned an estimate of 7,650 planets, still below Drake’s current guesstimate of 10,000.

While my “1” may be low, I think it’s a lot closer to the truth than 7,650, let alone 10,000; a third calculation gave me a Drake number of 988. I think Drake and some other people like him are somewhat of what I’ll call “secular salvationists,” wanting science to provide a quasi-metaphysical jolt to life on mundane Tellus Mater. In any case, I think they are WAY too optimistic.

The main bottleneck I see is on Drake point 3, how many planets in a solar system are habitable by virtue of having liquid water. I think that number is less than one per average solar system, something like 0.7 or so. I see lesser bottlenecks in the likelihood of life to develop, point 4, and that life to develop to our level of intelligence or more, point 5.

The world’s oldest computer

“Computer” might be a bit of a stretch, but this 2,100-year-old astronomical calculator is a mechanical marvel:

A 2,000-year-old mechanical computer salvaged from a Roman shipwreck has astounded scientists who have finally unravelled the secrets of how the sophisticated device works. …

Since its discovery, scientists have been trying to reconstruct the device, which is now known to be an astronomical calendar capable of tracking with remarkable precision the position of the sun, several heavenly bodies and the phases of the moon. Experts believe it to be the earliest-known device to use gear wheels and by far the most sophisticated object to be found from the ancient and medieval periods. ...

Using modern computer x-ray tomography and high resolution surface scanning, a team led by Mike Edmunds and Tony Freeth at Cardiff University peered inside fragments of the crust-encased mechanism and read the faintest inscriptions that once covered the outer casing of the machine. Detailed imaging of the mechanism suggests it dates back to 150-100 BC and had 37 gear wheels enabling it to follow the movements of the moon and the sun through the zodiac, predict eclipses and even recreate the irregular orbit of the moon. The motion, known as the first lunar anomaly, was developed by the astronomer Hipparcus of Rhodes in the 2nd century BC, and he may have been consulted in the machine's construction, the scientists speculate.

Remarkably, scans showed the device uses a differential gear, which was previously believed to have been invented in the 16th century. The level of miniaturisation and complexity of its parts is comparable to that of 18th century clocks.

One of the remaining mysteries is why the Greek technology invented for the machine seemed to disappear. No other civilisation is believed to have created anything as complex for another 1,000 years.

So, per people attacking Susan Jacoby and claiming how we moderns are so intelligent, let’s just stop and think that one over.
The world’s oldest computer

While enjoying late-night skies

NIGHTTIME LIGHTS, NIGHTTIME CLOUDS

Nighttime city clouds
Puffy altocumulus
Reflect city lights.

I stand in wonder
At man-made surreal color
But without portent.

While staring upward
I wonder within myself
Am I the only one?

Am I the only one
To stare with childlike wonder
And well past midnight?

Camera is tempting
But I resist the siren
For it is useless.

No film or sensor
Has such sensitivity
As my poignant eye.

— Dec. 13, 2005