Thursday, 25 March 2010
TAE likes to keep himself busy with projects. Currently I am designing:
1. A DIY sous vide cooker for my brother-in-law.
2. A small, battery-charging wind-generator to go out at my parents farm.
3. A wall-clock with a geneva drive for my wife.
4. A new, revolutionary snowboard for Shaun White.
Now I just need to think of a project for me!
_
1. A DIY sous vide cooker for my brother-in-law.
2. A small, battery-charging wind-generator to go out at my parents farm.
3. A wall-clock with a geneva drive for my wife.
4. A new, revolutionary snowboard for Shaun White.
Now I just need to think of a project for me!
_
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
As I scanned the news networks yesterday, trying to find news about anything, anything other than HCR, I noticed that almost everything in this world is bad news. Earthquakes in Central and South America, volcanoes in Iceland, flooding in North Dakota, starvation in Africa, droughts in Australia, conflict in the West Bank, insurgency in the Middle East. Domestically, we've got unemployment soaring, health care costs soaring, deficits soaring, pollution soaring, obesity soaring, unplanned pregnancy soaring, the standard of living difference between our rich and poor is growing, our bellies are growing, the number of people with heart issues is growing and depending on who you ask, this is the most dangerous time in American history to be an American!
So it would be natural to assume, given all these local and international ailments of humanity that all is hopeless, and the best we can do is try to improve our lot a little, and hope the next generation does the same, on and on and on in some intricate but endless dance down a logarithmic curve that grows infinitely close to utopia, but after an infinite amount of time is yet never quite there.
And yet, I remain optimistic. For there is not a single thing I have listed above that we do not currently have the technology to defeat. Disease, hunger, drought, and war are not things that are unconquerable. 60% of HIV transmission in Africa can be remedied using simple hygiene tricks. Some estimate that HIV will be extinct in our lifetimes, as the rate of transmission is plummeting. Obesity and all its related maladies could be instantly remedied if people adjusted their diet by a mere 500 calories a day. Not to mention one third of all cancers are preventable simply by being healthy. The global food production stands at a level where, given the right distribution networks, every human being could eat a nutritious, though simple, diet. Certainly beluga caviar might be less attainable. But in exchange for healthy, bright minds developing all over this planet, that is a small price to pay.
Though dry weather is unavoidable (or is it), what is possible is to rearrange humanity into a less sporadic arrangement that allows us to be shielded from nature's ebb and flow.
As it is, we (humans) clearly possess all the technology necessary to solve all our problems - today. We could build solar energy plants and electric cars and end our use of coal and petroleum-based gasoline completely. We could all start exercising a little more. We could build better transportation systems, and rezone our cities to increase their density and decrease sprawl. We could scrap our SUVs and buy plug-in cars. We could give a little more of our income to set up organizations that built schools and internet infrastructure in developing nations. We could pay teachers more.
I am not a techno-utopian because the implication there is that future technology will lead to future utopia. Instead, I am an extreme cynic because I believe that current technology could give us instant utopia...only our species is so selfish and lazy that it will never happen.
Because really, why am I drinking a Pepsi while I write this? Because I prefer dying a slow death from caffeine poisoning to not having my Pepsi. I prefer my pickup to my old Honda. I prefer living 13 miles from work to living in the city. I prefer not working out every day. I prefer Chipotle burritos with sour cream to grilled chicken salads.
And we are all like that. We all do so many things out of convenience, not accepting, or not knowing, that the repercussions help maintain the status quo of non-utopia on this planet.
Utopia will not come because of technological breakthroughs, this much is clear. Otherwise it would have happened already. Utopia will come because of cultural breakthroughs.
_
So it would be natural to assume, given all these local and international ailments of humanity that all is hopeless, and the best we can do is try to improve our lot a little, and hope the next generation does the same, on and on and on in some intricate but endless dance down a logarithmic curve that grows infinitely close to utopia, but after an infinite amount of time is yet never quite there.
And yet, I remain optimistic. For there is not a single thing I have listed above that we do not currently have the technology to defeat. Disease, hunger, drought, and war are not things that are unconquerable. 60% of HIV transmission in Africa can be remedied using simple hygiene tricks. Some estimate that HIV will be extinct in our lifetimes, as the rate of transmission is plummeting. Obesity and all its related maladies could be instantly remedied if people adjusted their diet by a mere 500 calories a day. Not to mention one third of all cancers are preventable simply by being healthy. The global food production stands at a level where, given the right distribution networks, every human being could eat a nutritious, though simple, diet. Certainly beluga caviar might be less attainable. But in exchange for healthy, bright minds developing all over this planet, that is a small price to pay.
Though dry weather is unavoidable (or is it), what is possible is to rearrange humanity into a less sporadic arrangement that allows us to be shielded from nature's ebb and flow.
As it is, we (humans) clearly possess all the technology necessary to solve all our problems - today. We could build solar energy plants and electric cars and end our use of coal and petroleum-based gasoline completely. We could all start exercising a little more. We could build better transportation systems, and rezone our cities to increase their density and decrease sprawl. We could scrap our SUVs and buy plug-in cars. We could give a little more of our income to set up organizations that built schools and internet infrastructure in developing nations. We could pay teachers more.
I am not a techno-utopian because the implication there is that future technology will lead to future utopia. Instead, I am an extreme cynic because I believe that current technology could give us instant utopia...only our species is so selfish and lazy that it will never happen.
Because really, why am I drinking a Pepsi while I write this? Because I prefer dying a slow death from caffeine poisoning to not having my Pepsi. I prefer my pickup to my old Honda. I prefer living 13 miles from work to living in the city. I prefer not working out every day. I prefer Chipotle burritos with sour cream to grilled chicken salads.
And we are all like that. We all do so many things out of convenience, not accepting, or not knowing, that the repercussions help maintain the status quo of non-utopia on this planet.
Utopia will not come because of technological breakthroughs, this much is clear. Otherwise it would have happened already. Utopia will come because of cultural breakthroughs.
_
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
There is no argument for moon missions I find less appealing than the "we must go there or [insert foreign nation name here] will beat us there." The fact that we are the sole country that has been to the moon in the entire history of humanity means nothing to these people, someone could still beat us there!
So when I received my April issue of Popular Mechanics, and saw Tom Jones article entitled "Don't Kill NASA!" I was a little irritated.
I was also less than surprised that Jones, a FoxNews contributor, glossed very weakly over the fact that President Bush slashed science funding with a zeal known only to crusaders. Nor was I surprised that he barely mentions that President Obama actually increased funding for NASA by $1 billion dollars a year.
Instead he makes vague arguments like "$787 billion was available for stimulus but finding $3 billion for NASA was impossible?"
But what really galls me about this type of thinking is the obscene nationalism that people seem to exhibit when it comes to space. Jones does it in his article; he basically rewrites history and argues that the ISS was built by Americans. He argues that American dominance in space should be a national priority.
Why?
Name a single science fiction novel in which a single nation controls space? In virtually every science fiction series, a global conglomerate has conquered space, and nations are history. For example, in Larry Niven's Ringworld series, the "UN" is the dominant democratic entity that governs all the human worlds in known space.
The building of the ISS was a huge step forward in human spaceflight. For the first time ever, nations came together for the common goal of increasing knowledge of space, and built an international entity, neutral to the conflicts below, where astronauts of many nations could go to conduct experiments. Why not more of that? Why not put this America First bullshit away and concentrate on humanity?
These people huffing and puffing about NASA's budget cuts are the same people who want the government to stay out of health care. "Let free enterprise do its work! The government should stay out of the private sector!" they trumpet, but when President Obama signals that he wants to open space up to the private sector, and pursue other avenues with NASA, they scream and holler.
I can imagine Karl Rove helping Jones with this hilarious tripe:
One final note: when Obama signaled that moon missions weren't going to happen, and gave NASA a fiscal slap on the wrist, it actually increased my interest in space. Responsible, goal-oriented project management (and a little fiscal conservatism?) is what NASA needs, not some vague plan and a cavernous budget. NASA could divert Constellation program funds into education programs, to get youth interested in robotic exploration of space, which anyone with a brain acknowledges is cheaper and easier than manned exploration (why is Afghanistan full of UAVs?).
Jones disagrees:The president's rejection of a clear goal to send humans into deep space by a certain date eliminates a future in space for the brightest of our young scientists and engineers. The space talent pool began emptying Monday, as promising innovators turn to careers in other industries. What student would pursue a career in space science or astronautics with the knowledge that the country deems leadership in space unimportant?
It has been made clear that in early April President Obama will announce his new plan for NASA. What will Jones say if that plan includes education programs and incentive programs aimed at increasing young person's interest in space?
_
So when I received my April issue of Popular Mechanics, and saw Tom Jones article entitled "Don't Kill NASA!" I was a little irritated.
I was also less than surprised that Jones, a FoxNews contributor, glossed very weakly over the fact that President Bush slashed science funding with a zeal known only to crusaders. Nor was I surprised that he barely mentions that President Obama actually increased funding for NASA by $1 billion dollars a year.
Instead he makes vague arguments like "$787 billion was available for stimulus but finding $3 billion for NASA was impossible?"
But what really galls me about this type of thinking is the obscene nationalism that people seem to exhibit when it comes to space. Jones does it in his article; he basically rewrites history and argues that the ISS was built by Americans. He argues that American dominance in space should be a national priority.
Why?
Name a single science fiction novel in which a single nation controls space? In virtually every science fiction series, a global conglomerate has conquered space, and nations are history. For example, in Larry Niven's Ringworld series, the "UN" is the dominant democratic entity that governs all the human worlds in known space.
The building of the ISS was a huge step forward in human spaceflight. For the first time ever, nations came together for the common goal of increasing knowledge of space, and built an international entity, neutral to the conflicts below, where astronauts of many nations could go to conduct experiments. Why not more of that? Why not put this America First bullshit away and concentrate on humanity?
These people huffing and puffing about NASA's budget cuts are the same people who want the government to stay out of health care. "Let free enterprise do its work! The government should stay out of the private sector!" they trumpet, but when President Obama signals that he wants to open space up to the private sector, and pursue other avenues with NASA, they scream and holler.
I can imagine Karl Rove helping Jones with this hilarious tripe:
With no ability to launch humans past the ISS, we will watch, helpless to follow, as China pursues its determination to be the next nation to send its explorers into deep space.Fearmongering at its finest. God help us if those dirty communists manage to land on the fertile, resource-laden rock that orbits us and begin to extract deuterium and helium for their hyperdrive Bussard ramjet reactors on their cloaking device-equipped Klingon Birds-of-Prey.
One final note: when Obama signaled that moon missions weren't going to happen, and gave NASA a fiscal slap on the wrist, it actually increased my interest in space. Responsible, goal-oriented project management (and a little fiscal conservatism?) is what NASA needs, not some vague plan and a cavernous budget. NASA could divert Constellation program funds into education programs, to get youth interested in robotic exploration of space, which anyone with a brain acknowledges is cheaper and easier than manned exploration (why is Afghanistan full of UAVs?).
Jones disagrees:The president's rejection of a clear goal to send humans into deep space by a certain date eliminates a future in space for the brightest of our young scientists and engineers. The space talent pool began emptying Monday, as promising innovators turn to careers in other industries. What student would pursue a career in space science or astronautics with the knowledge that the country deems leadership in space unimportant?
It has been made clear that in early April President Obama will announce his new plan for NASA. What will Jones say if that plan includes education programs and incentive programs aimed at increasing young person's interest in space?
_
Monday, 22 March 2010
Friday, 19 March 2010
Via Freddie deBoer, I have become aware of the intellectual meme circling, and give my own interpretation. While Freddie's list is very impressive, I wax a little more lighthearted. Perhaps the reason for this is that I am a lighthearted person. Or Freddie isn't? I dunno. In any case, here are the five seven books that made me.
1. The Lazy Sunday Book, by Bill Watterson. Was there a better pair for mature humor, cloaked in the innocence of childhood than Calvin and Hobbes? I miss that column, every time I read a paper, but laud Watterson for walking away with both his sanity and his reputation intact. The Lazy Sunday book was the first time I saw Calvin in color, and realized he was a little blonde scamp, like me.
2. Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card. As a 13-year-old, this book taught me two things. The first was that rules of your elders can be bent, but going along with their system serves everyone best. The second was that as a brilliant mind, I should spend my time for the betterment of society, and not waste my life seeking wealth.
3. Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. It is no secret that I grappled with the idea of Jesus being my salvation every day until the day I read this book. I have not grappled with it since.
4. Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen. Early on, I loved writing, and have always loved vocab. Austen's novel still thrills the parts of my brain that long for wordplay. In this world of blogs, articles, and the english language edging sadly closer and closer to NewSpeak, I feel I am writing a hundred years after I should have been.
5. Organic Chemistry, by Francis Carey. Somehow, Carey got it through my head that life exists because of the reactivity of oxygen. Water is not essential for life - the oxygen atom in water is the essential component. When I realized that every chemical reaction was basically all the other atoms trying to make the oxygen atoms happy...my understanding of nature went through the roof.
6. The Prince, by Machiavelli. Read it in high school, boring. Read it during the Bush Administration...all of a sudden it was like the pages came alive. Ruthless destruction of others for theacquisition and maintenance of power is nothing new, it would seem.
7. The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien. This, and a myriad of other fantasy and science fiction novels, built within a young me an intensely well-developed imagination. The best gift I ever received was the sense that "the impossible" was actually just "the difficult but attainable". I continue to believe that. I continue to dream.
_
1. The Lazy Sunday Book, by Bill Watterson. Was there a better pair for mature humor, cloaked in the innocence of childhood than Calvin and Hobbes? I miss that column, every time I read a paper, but laud Watterson for walking away with both his sanity and his reputation intact. The Lazy Sunday book was the first time I saw Calvin in color, and realized he was a little blonde scamp, like me.
2. Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card. As a 13-year-old, this book taught me two things. The first was that rules of your elders can be bent, but going along with their system serves everyone best. The second was that as a brilliant mind, I should spend my time for the betterment of society, and not waste my life seeking wealth.
3. Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. It is no secret that I grappled with the idea of Jesus being my salvation every day until the day I read this book. I have not grappled with it since.
4. Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen. Early on, I loved writing, and have always loved vocab. Austen's novel still thrills the parts of my brain that long for wordplay. In this world of blogs, articles, and the english language edging sadly closer and closer to NewSpeak, I feel I am writing a hundred years after I should have been.
5. Organic Chemistry, by Francis Carey. Somehow, Carey got it through my head that life exists because of the reactivity of oxygen. Water is not essential for life - the oxygen atom in water is the essential component. When I realized that every chemical reaction was basically all the other atoms trying to make the oxygen atoms happy...my understanding of nature went through the roof.
6. The Prince, by Machiavelli. Read it in high school, boring. Read it during the Bush Administration...all of a sudden it was like the pages came alive. Ruthless destruction of others for theacquisition and maintenance of power is nothing new, it would seem.
7. The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien. This, and a myriad of other fantasy and science fiction novels, built within a young me an intensely well-developed imagination. The best gift I ever received was the sense that "the impossible" was actually just "the difficult but attainable". I continue to believe that. I continue to dream.
_
Thursday, 18 March 2010
I write the weekly devotional for Saint Andrew Christian Church, in Olathe Kansas:
_
Is there any time more unpredictable than Spring? This week it is supposed to be upwards of 67 degrees one day...and below 30 the next. In this week alone we are expected to get sunshine, clouds, rain, possible snow (I hope not), wind, calm...the poor meteorologists are perennially flustered this time of year! I went outside today and saw a pair of robins, a sure sign of warm weather. They were gathering nesting material next to a pile of snow that has stoically persisted since Christmas. I cannot till my vegetable garden, the weather stays dry just long enough for me to plan it, and then rains. Two Sundays ago I enjoyed a bike ride in the nearby park...and the next day I listened to the rumble of thunderstorms.
And so in Spring we are gifted with a deep sense that life is not under our control. Despite our best efforts, despite the fact that our species has conquered seven continents and built skyscrapers that literally reach into the clouds, despite the fact that we have developed life-saving therapies for the deadliest diseases and sent people into space and walked on the Moon, despite the fact that I can write this literally anywhere on the planet and you can read it anywhere else on the planet...despite all of this, we cannot control something so simple as when it will rain.
Lent is a time of self-centeredness, a time of personal reflection. It allows us an annual period to pause and reflect upon ourselves. It seems fitting that the period of our calendar devoted to self-reflection should coincide with the period of upheaval in the weather. Should we, while reflecting upon our lives and the life of Christ, see ourselves as helpless in a world of chaos? Or should we see ourselves as champions of this planet, of this universe, and smile at our triumph? I, for one see both. I know in my heart that there are things in my life I cannot control and cannot conquer without His help. But I also take strength in knowing that in the midst of this chaos there is Someone I can absolutely count on to be with me through it all.
And so as we sit here in the warm Spring air (or possibly cold) and enjoy longer days of sunshine (or perhaps cloudiness), perhaps we should take heart that during this time of meteorological chaos there is one thing on which we absolutely can rely. There is one thing that no matter what the weather, no matter how boggled the meteorologists seem to be, we can be sure of. And that one thing, of course, is the rebirth of our King.
_
Friday, 12 March 2010
TPI in the comments here:
For the last two weeks, I have been arguing (validly) that President Obama is right to cut NASA's budget, right to kill the Constellation program, and right to reassess NASA priorities for the coming decade. Does anyone, really, think that just naively throwing money at NASA is better than not throwing money at NASA?
Doesn't anyone want some oversight, and possibly some analysis done about what would best serve America's long-term space interests before we dump billions of dollars on NASA.
How is pre-spending analysis a valid argument for NASA spending, but for environmental spending I should just shut up and be content that any money is being thrown at environmental ideas? Why should I be told "you are right" to chide bureaucrats who want pork space projects (pigs in space, heh heh) funded, but if I mention that green jobs are not the solution to America's economic woes, and are really just fluff that politicians spout to sound "green" and full of ideas, I am told that I'm making things difficult?
The fact is, if we are going to spend money anywhere, we need to analyze how best to spend that money. If the government is going to spend money on "green", then it should do so in the best way for long-term success in this nation, and I believe that would be done best by creating new markets, not by crowding out old ones.
Would you buy a laptop, any laptop, if you needed one, or would you shop around and try to get the best bang for your buck? Please. And no, TPI I disagree with you, tis NOT better to have spent and wasted than to have never spent at all.
_
The debate is not between people who are arguing for a green jobs approach and for people who want an equally ambitious clean-energy agenda focused in a different way. The debate is between people who think climate change and associated environmental problems (including ocean acidification and mass extinction) are real and need a robust public response and people who think they are not real and do not need a robust public response.
For the last two weeks, I have been arguing (validly) that President Obama is right to cut NASA's budget, right to kill the Constellation program, and right to reassess NASA priorities for the coming decade. Does anyone, really, think that just naively throwing money at NASA is better than not throwing money at NASA?
Doesn't anyone want some oversight, and possibly some analysis done about what would best serve America's long-term space interests before we dump billions of dollars on NASA.
How is pre-spending analysis a valid argument for NASA spending, but for environmental spending I should just shut up and be content that any money is being thrown at environmental ideas? Why should I be told "you are right" to chide bureaucrats who want pork space projects (pigs in space, heh heh) funded, but if I mention that green jobs are not the solution to America's economic woes, and are really just fluff that politicians spout to sound "green" and full of ideas, I am told that I'm making things difficult?
The fact is, if we are going to spend money anywhere, we need to analyze how best to spend that money. If the government is going to spend money on "green", then it should do so in the best way for long-term success in this nation, and I believe that would be done best by creating new markets, not by crowding out old ones.
Would you buy a laptop, any laptop, if you needed one, or would you shop around and try to get the best bang for your buck? Please. And no, TPI I disagree with you, tis NOT better to have spent and wasted than to have never spent at all.
_
Thursday, 11 March 2010
I think Megan gets this exactly right:
While I, like Megan, am obviously in favor of a cleaner Earth, I have mentioned before that instead of wasting tax dollars subsidizing cleaner air methods, the government should incentivize methods to sequester carbon, thereby not limiting economies of current products, but rather encouraging growth into new economies of carbon capture (Follow the back and forth with TPI here and here).
_
But green jobs have become the ginseng of progressive politics: a sort of broad-spectrum snake oil that cures whatever happens to ail you. They are the antidote to economic malaise, an underskilled labor force, the inherent unwillingness of the public to suffer any significant economic and personal dislocation in order to save the environment. They enhance nationalistic vigor. (If we don't act now, the Chinese will steal all of our green jobs!) They stave off aging of stale political platforms. And I'm pretty sure they're good for bunions, too.
While I, like Megan, am obviously in favor of a cleaner Earth, I have mentioned before that instead of wasting tax dollars subsidizing cleaner air methods, the government should incentivize methods to sequester carbon, thereby not limiting economies of current products, but rather encouraging growth into new economies of carbon capture (Follow the back and forth with TPI here and here).
_
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Daydream with me. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Drake's Equation is basically correct and 2-10 civilizations as advanced as ours or more exist at any given moment in this galaxy. Given the size of the galaxy, and the number of stars in it (about 400 billion), its pretty unlikely that we would ever hear from them or they from us. I mean, that's something like 1 civilization per billion stars.
But what ho! Ours is not the only galaxy in the cosmos. In our known universe, recent estimates are that 70 sextillion stars exist. Which, plugging this number into the Drake Equation, means that there are potentially 70 trillion races of creatures as advanced as ours in the universe right now. That's 10,000 entire civilizations per human currently on Earth. Side note: I am taking the pessimistic interpretation of the Drake Equation. If optimists are right, add three zeros to the number of civilizations I used.
So it's not hard to believe that with so many civilizations, at least a few hundred million of them predate ours by several millenia. It's not impossible to also believe that of those, a few hundred thousand have the fortunate luck to be on a planet circling a star with more than one habitable planet. Of those, a few thousand have surely sent colonists to the other planets and habitated there, spreading their race and becoming one of the rare civilizations to reside on multiple planets.
Given all this, it isn't hard to believe that of those few civilizations that are equipped to colonize neighboring planets, at least a few hundred or so also have a nearby star system with other habitable planets. Certainly a hundred or so of these civilizations have had the tenacity to send colonists across the cosmos, landing them at that nearby star's planet, staking a claim, and ensuring the survival of their species beyond the death of their home star. And while the civilizations were doing this, at least half of them devised methods to travel back and forth between solar systems with a high rate of speed.
So, once again for the sake of argument, let's assume that faster-than-light FTL travel is indeed possible, given enough energy and a high enough level of technology.
So you've got several dozen civilizations with the ability to travel between stars rapidly. A dozen of these have the gumption to go to other star systems near their own and build Dyson Swarms around those stars, capturing enormous amounts of energy. They use this energy to charge the power systems that supply their FTL engines. And given the ability to travel faster than light, these civilizations can now hop from star to star, setting up camp and colonies.
And like I said, the Universe is not young. It's as likely as not that these civilizations may be millions of years ahead of us in the game of Life.
Given 70 trillion civilizations in a Universe that is 14+ billion years old, and given that ours went from furry tree-dwelling animalia to nuclear-armed, space-exploring bipeds in a mere 2 million years...and went from spear-throwing nomads to industrialized nations in a couple thousand years...it becomes statistically improbable that out there in the Universe there are no other intelligent beings. It becomes statistically unlikely that no other intelligent beings are more advanced than we are. And it becomes doubtful that no species of creature in the Universe has mastered interplanetary travel.
_
But what ho! Ours is not the only galaxy in the cosmos. In our known universe, recent estimates are that 70 sextillion stars exist. Which, plugging this number into the Drake Equation, means that there are potentially 70 trillion races of creatures as advanced as ours in the universe right now. That's 10,000 entire civilizations per human currently on Earth. Side note: I am taking the pessimistic interpretation of the Drake Equation. If optimists are right, add three zeros to the number of civilizations I used.
So it's not hard to believe that with so many civilizations, at least a few hundred million of them predate ours by several millenia. It's not impossible to also believe that of those, a few hundred thousand have the fortunate luck to be on a planet circling a star with more than one habitable planet. Of those, a few thousand have surely sent colonists to the other planets and habitated there, spreading their race and becoming one of the rare civilizations to reside on multiple planets.
Given all this, it isn't hard to believe that of those few civilizations that are equipped to colonize neighboring planets, at least a few hundred or so also have a nearby star system with other habitable planets. Certainly a hundred or so of these civilizations have had the tenacity to send colonists across the cosmos, landing them at that nearby star's planet, staking a claim, and ensuring the survival of their species beyond the death of their home star. And while the civilizations were doing this, at least half of them devised methods to travel back and forth between solar systems with a high rate of speed.
So, once again for the sake of argument, let's assume that faster-than-light FTL travel is indeed possible, given enough energy and a high enough level of technology.
So you've got several dozen civilizations with the ability to travel between stars rapidly. A dozen of these have the gumption to go to other star systems near their own and build Dyson Swarms around those stars, capturing enormous amounts of energy. They use this energy to charge the power systems that supply their FTL engines. And given the ability to travel faster than light, these civilizations can now hop from star to star, setting up camp and colonies.
And like I said, the Universe is not young. It's as likely as not that these civilizations may be millions of years ahead of us in the game of Life.
Given 70 trillion civilizations in a Universe that is 14+ billion years old, and given that ours went from furry tree-dwelling animalia to nuclear-armed, space-exploring bipeds in a mere 2 million years...and went from spear-throwing nomads to industrialized nations in a couple thousand years...it becomes statistically improbable that out there in the Universe there are no other intelligent beings. It becomes statistically unlikely that no other intelligent beings are more advanced than we are. And it becomes doubtful that no species of creature in the Universe has mastered interplanetary travel.
_
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Not a day after my widely-acclaimed open letter to President Obama, William Edelstein, a physicist at Johns Hopkins, tries to disagree with me:
The original crew of "Star Trek" featured as unfortunate examples at a presentation by William Edelstein, a physicist at Johns Hopkins University, at the American Physical Society conference in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 13. The physicist showed a video clip of Kirk telling engineer "Scotty" to go to warp speed.Hilariously, Edelstein is using a Star Trek clip to prove his point, but what he is proving is that he doesn't understand Star Trek.
"Well, they're all dead," Edelstein recalled saying. His words caused a stir among the audience.
Edelstein's work showed that a starship traveling at just 99 percent of the speed of light would get a radiation dose from hydrogen of 61 sieverts per second, when just one tenth of that number of sieverts would deliver a fatal dose for humans. And that's not even the 99.999998 percent of light-speed necessary to make the journey to the center of the Milky Way in 10 years.
What Edelstein is arguing is fundamentally true, and has basically been known for century; any object moving very fast can hit a stationary object and sustain a large amount of damage. This is what Edelstein is arguing. He's saying that the tiny amount of hydrogen freely floating in space, though sparse, would constitute a lethal threat to a spacecraft traveling near the speed of light. Much like bugs on a windshield, except in this case it would come right through the ship, destroying all the electronics and killing the crew.
But what Edelstein isn't acknowledging is that Roddenberry and Co. thought of this. High-speed impacts were not unknown to the science fiction writers of the 60's and 70's. Roddenberry's solution was elegant.
Imagine you are driving your car in a snow shower. Have you ever noticed that once you reach a certain speed (typically around 30 mph), the snow seems to stop hitting the windshield, even though it is falling heavily all around your vehicle? The reason for this is that a laminar airflow pattern that mixes into turbulent has formed a "shell" on the surface of your vehicle. As snow hits this shell, it is carried back and over the car, not landing on the surface. Slow down, and the air-shield breaks down. Essentially, this is because you are carrying some air mass with you. Roddenberry's solution was the same. The "warp field" generated by the warp nacelles on a spacecraft was used to accelerate the mass within the warp field to light speed and above. TAE believes that the free hydrogen in space would be carried around the subspace field the warp drive creates, keeping the crew within it safe. This also explains why the acceleration to warp speed does not fatally slam the crew against the rear walls of the interior of their ship; the mass around the ship is moving too, and so the crew does not feel the effects of the acceleration.
TAE wants to point out that this isn't just science fiction. If the sun is hurling its orbiting planets through space along with it, one has to imagine that Earth's combined speed of its own orbit, plus the orbit of the sun in the Milky Way Galaxy, plus the hurling of the Milky Way Galaxy away from the center of the universe makes for a combined speed that isn't trivial. And yet, I type this, not being bombarded with lethal hydrogen. Nor is the atmosphere of Earth constantly bombarded with lethal hydrogen. Why not?
The answer, though complicated, can be found here.
So while I agree with Edelstein; simply attaching a big rocket to the back of a spacecraft and accelerating it to near light speed would be ill advised, I also disagree. The crew of the Enterprise would not necessarily be dead. And if a fiction writer in 1970 could devise a practical go-around to light speed limitations...what could real scientists create?!
_
Monday, 8 March 2010
Mr. President,I was happy to see your FY2011 budget included some drastic program cuts for NASA. Ending the Constellation program is a significant step forward against pork barrel spending, as almost every review panel agreed the money was just basically being being dumped into large corporations as tech-sector stimulus with open-ended, unattainable goals. Almost no one can name a good reason to return to the Moon. Almost no one can explain what good a permanent moon base would do.
And so President Obama, you are set to make a "major" announcement on April 15th (isn't that the day taxes are due? How ironic if it is). I fear the announcement is this: a bold and expensive new direction for NASA, and by "new" I mean Mars.
President Obama, I know you read my blog. I know this because you are basing most of your NASA policy on my opinions, weak and unsupported as they are. So let me point you to my suggestions for a new direction for NASA. Let me tell you that it chokes me up to think of gifted engineers out of work. It saddens me to think of an estimated 32,000 people trying to find a new career in this economy. But the retirement of the shuttle fleet has been scheduled for 10 years. Scheduled and extended, and extended. These people should know the circus lights eventually do go down. With their high quality lines on their resumes, they should be able to find work, just as easily as the rest of the unemployed, if not easier. And maybe, just maybe, a large percentage of the space-knowledgeable engineers and scientists that are dropped into the private sector will get swooped up by the private companies attempting to develop their own spaceships. They can use their knowledge and skills there, and help ensure America does not stay out of space for long.
President Obama, you are a smart man, and a moral one. And we both share an excitement for technology and space travel. But we need to be realistic about how to get humans there. And getting humans into space in the next ten years is simply not a sustainable, smart option. America needs to remember long-term goal setting, and understand that while "going to Mars" sounds ambitious to the uneducated, it sounds like pointlessly wasted tax-dollars to those with intimate knowledge of the current state of technology.
Someday, in the far future, I have no doubt that we humans shall boldy dash from star system to star system, and wax poetic about the futile, barbaric attempts we made to explore space back in the early 21st century. Our species will land on other planets and stake our claim as the greatest species that God in His wisdom ever evolved. But for now, we need to learn how to do that. Throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at Mars will not get us any closer to Jupiter. We need to break the fundamental barriers of current physics knowledge before we can obtain our rightful place amongst the heavens.
We can start by aggressively pursuing faster-than-light (FTL) travel. In his science-fiction classic "Songs of a Distant Earth," Sir Arthur C. Clarke suggests that the people of Earth spend decades attempting to develop (or prove the impossibility of) the "Quantum Drive", the essential component that would allow humans to travel between stars in a realistic amount of time. Clarke is right, until we have completely proven FTL travel impossible, we must seek it; and if proven impossible, then we must accept that our species will never depart from this solar system in a manned spacecraft.
NASA should also realistically explore cryogenic suspension of humans. Unless we can develop FTL travel in the near future, the only realistic method of sending humans across the depths of space is to freeze them in cryogenic sleep, and then awaken them at their destination. This is simple truth; with current technology going to Mars would take several months...going to the nearest star system would take decades.
NASA should aggressively pursue the identification and utilization of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. If 98% of our galaxy is made of it, it is simply ludicrous to not develop methods to identify it. And upon identification, we can begin to find ways to harness it.
Finally, NASA has recently ramped up efforts to find extrasolar planets. This effort should be massively expanded, and new technologies developed to not only find these planets but to view them through telescopic means. We must develop technologies to send autonomous craft to any planet of interest, as fast as possible, and we must research new ways to receive data back from these craft. Even if it takes 400 years to reach the nearest habitable planet, should we not send a probe there immediately? Even if our progeny, 200 years from now, build a ship that blows the doors off said probe and reaches the aforementioned planet first, should we not still send the probe?
Why can NASA only create goals that are ten years or less long? Why is our country so demanding of immediate ROI? Do I want my great-great-great-grandson to watch the first images of a distant world? Absolutely. Will I be jealous of that gift? Absolutely. Will he be forever indebted to us for sending the probe? Absolutely.
What do we owe the Founding Fathers, for building this nation? Did they expect it to be the most powerful nation in the world within two Presidential terms? No! They assumed that perhaps a hundred years would pass before our nation would rise to its Manifest Destiny.
If you are going to propose a bold, new direction for NASA, Mr. President, I beg you: make it a good one. Don't waste another ten years of human society on pork.
_
Almost like a birthday present (TAE turns 28 today, thanks mom for having me), it is reported in the BBC News that Spain is starting trials of a concept called Road Trains, where basically cars automatically draft each other until one car needs to pull off, at which point it drops out of the train. Cars can join up with the train at will, and should save up to 20% on gas by riding the slipstream of the car in front of them.
This is a step forward, and I like it. You could pull up to the back car in the train, go into "train mode", and then go back to shaving your vagina, or whatever it is you would rather be doing instead of paying attention to traffic. When your exit nears, just leave the train and merge over.
And it's not a big leap forward to imagine that the "lead" vehicle could eventually become a completely autonomous robotic behemoth, blocking wind for a cadre of cars behind it. A city could launch a fleet of such vehicles, in a circuit around the city, and commuters could time their departure from home to meet up with the Road Train, just like they time their departure to meet the subway. They'd pile in behind the automated lead car like ducklings behind their mama!
_
This is a step forward, and I like it. You could pull up to the back car in the train, go into "train mode", and then go back to shaving your vagina, or whatever it is you would rather be doing instead of paying attention to traffic. When your exit nears, just leave the train and merge over.
And it's not a big leap forward to imagine that the "lead" vehicle could eventually become a completely autonomous robotic behemoth, blocking wind for a cadre of cars behind it. A city could launch a fleet of such vehicles, in a circuit around the city, and commuters could time their departure from home to meet up with the Road Train, just like they time their departure to meet the subway. They'd pile in behind the automated lead car like ducklings behind their mama!
_
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
The Large Hadron Collider is starting back up, to smash atoms into sub-atomic particles and find whatever guts lie therein.
It was less than 400 years ago, in 1632 to be exact, that Antonie van Leeuwenhoek built a microscope and observed "cells", or more specifically single-celled organisms.
In 1789, chemists got much, much smaller and Antoine Lavoisier created the term "element" to describe a substance that could be broken down into no smaller parts through chemistry.
By 1803 Dalton coined the term "atom" to describe a single unit of an element, and how atoms combine to create molecules. Atom, derived from atomos means "undividable."
But by 1838 atoms were dividable, and electrons, protons and neutrons were soon identified as essential parts of an atom. Different amounts of each defined what the atom was.
Of course, electrons and protons weren't the end of the story. Scientists soon identified six types of quarks, combinations of which created many "hadrons" including protons and electrons.
Not to mention anti-protons, anti-electrons, anti-quarks, gluons, tauons, muons, baryons, mesons, etc. etc.
The question I have here is: will we ever find the single, tiniest, fundamental micro-nano-hypersmall particle from which the universe is built? Or will our increasingly powerful, increasingly sensitive devices for detecting sub-atomic particles just spiral ever deeper into the cosmic mush, and eventually we'll have this pyramid, miles high, listing sub-atomic particles and their sub-sub-atomic particles ever downward into infinitesmality...
Frankly I'd be content to just find the Higgs Boson, myself.
_
It was less than 400 years ago, in 1632 to be exact, that Antonie van Leeuwenhoek built a microscope and observed "cells", or more specifically single-celled organisms.
In 1789, chemists got much, much smaller and Antoine Lavoisier created the term "element" to describe a substance that could be broken down into no smaller parts through chemistry.
By 1803 Dalton coined the term "atom" to describe a single unit of an element, and how atoms combine to create molecules. Atom, derived from atomos means "undividable."
But by 1838 atoms were dividable, and electrons, protons and neutrons were soon identified as essential parts of an atom. Different amounts of each defined what the atom was.
Of course, electrons and protons weren't the end of the story. Scientists soon identified six types of quarks, combinations of which created many "hadrons" including protons and electrons.
Not to mention anti-protons, anti-electrons, anti-quarks, gluons, tauons, muons, baryons, mesons, etc. etc.
The question I have here is: will we ever find the single, tiniest, fundamental micro-nano-hypersmall particle from which the universe is built? Or will our increasingly powerful, increasingly sensitive devices for detecting sub-atomic particles just spiral ever deeper into the cosmic mush, and eventually we'll have this pyramid, miles high, listing sub-atomic particles and their sub-sub-atomic particles ever downward into infinitesmality...
Frankly I'd be content to just find the Higgs Boson, myself.
_
Monday, 1 March 2010
Freddie gains some spotlight for his posts on religious moderation, and the efforts by New Atheists to build a utilitarian utopia where we are all happily Godless.
Freddie makes a good point (certainly more lucid than the one sentence summary I just gave of it), if everyone was moderate, be they moderate religious or moderate atheist, there's a good chance that sectarian violence, theocratic politics, and religious extremism in general would vacuously decrease.
But what is missing here is the acknowledgment that not all religious extremists are bad. Not every radical act of religion is bad. People should remember that King's "I Have A Dream" speech was written by a Baptist minister in the style of a sermon. King, at no point in his trek to provide equality to blacks in America, chose to pursue political reform without regard to his religion. The speech itself is riddled with religious allusion, quoting Psalms, Amos, and Isaiah. In fact, many of King's speeches were given at religious functions, and many of his speeches stemmed from, or were adaptations of, his sermons.
There are plenty of other examples of good religous extremists, to be sure, especially outside American borders. But the point I want to make is this: I want people to know I am a Christian. I want them to separate me by my beliefs, to know that despite my strong scientific background I am fundamentally in love with a creator God and his Son. I want people to look at my family and quote the words of Tertullian: "Look [at the Christians], see how they love one another. See how they are ready to die for one another."
In a tapioca world of moderation as envisioned Freddie, where vanilla and chocolate have been eliminated...sure, things might be better than they are today with extremists at each other's throats. But as quickly as we point the finger at Muslim radicals and wish they were more rational, more moderate...would we point the finger just as quickly at Mother Teresa?
_
Freddie makes a good point (certainly more lucid than the one sentence summary I just gave of it), if everyone was moderate, be they moderate religious or moderate atheist, there's a good chance that sectarian violence, theocratic politics, and religious extremism in general would vacuously decrease.
But what is missing here is the acknowledgment that not all religious extremists are bad. Not every radical act of religion is bad. People should remember that King's "I Have A Dream" speech was written by a Baptist minister in the style of a sermon. King, at no point in his trek to provide equality to blacks in America, chose to pursue political reform without regard to his religion. The speech itself is riddled with religious allusion, quoting Psalms, Amos, and Isaiah. In fact, many of King's speeches were given at religious functions, and many of his speeches stemmed from, or were adaptations of, his sermons.
There are plenty of other examples of good religous extremists, to be sure, especially outside American borders. But the point I want to make is this: I want people to know I am a Christian. I want them to separate me by my beliefs, to know that despite my strong scientific background I am fundamentally in love with a creator God and his Son. I want people to look at my family and quote the words of Tertullian: "Look [at the Christians], see how they love one another. See how they are ready to die for one another."
In a tapioca world of moderation as envisioned Freddie, where vanilla and chocolate have been eliminated...sure, things might be better than they are today with extremists at each other's throats. But as quickly as we point the finger at Muslim radicals and wish they were more rational, more moderate...would we point the finger just as quickly at Mother Teresa?
_
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)