Living Forever – Or Darn Close To It

There’s an interesting discussion at The Volokh Conspiracy about the ramifications of radical life extension. That’s the now unthinkable proposition that the human life expectancy can be raised indefinitely.

When dieing at age 65 is “dieing young”, would living to be 100, or 150 be enough for you? Small potatoes. Think what it would be like to expect to live to be 750, or even 1000, as set in Biblical precedent. If you could be healthy and youthful all that time, could you think of it as a good thing ^TM? Or like me, do you perceive problems with this scenario?

There’s so much packed into this discussion, which started with Aubrey De Grey’s conjectures at the Cato Institute, it’s hard not to get sidetracked into sub-discussions that are unimportant to the main discussion.

Ahhhh! You see, that’s the problem. There are no side discussions that are unimportant to the main discussion here. They’re all important. Is it really feasible that we could live that long, healthy? What about the population problem? Would childbirth become a crime (or at least, a bad thing ^TM) in this hypothetical world? Would dictators rule for hundreds of years, the way Castro has ruled for decades – or is this a red herring? Indeed, could change and innovation happen at all when the best minds become inevitably ossified, or at least, much better able to defend themselves from new concepts? And by the way, if we expected to live to be 750 years old, wouldn’t premature accidental death become our overwhelming obsession? Would any of this matter, if you could live that long?

Wouldn’t we all welcome death after we’ve had our fill of life on this third rock from the Sun?

I truly don’t know. I know that, as a Catholic, I don’t fear death, and see eternal afterlife as a situation where all the contradictions of eternal life in this world are resolved.

But life can be sweet. Very, very sweet. And maybe that’s so precisely because we know it ends. How much then is enough? With great relief, I recall that it’s not for me to decide. Not at all.

Owe It To Buffalo

My Bills did not make the playoffs this year. It’s a hard row to hoe when you’re in the in the same division as the New England Patriots these days. That means you’re automatically fighting for one of two wild card slots in a conference that sports the Colts, the Steelers, and the Jaguars – the table stakes are 10 games in the win column, minimum. Not easy to do in the AFC.

But the Washington Redskins made it, in high style, crushing the Cowboys when many called the Dallas team the best in the NFC. Their last loss (to Buffalo, as it happens) was just after the sad loss of their best defensive player, Sean Taylor. To them, congratulations.

Like loyal Buffalo fans, we’ll just quietly note that the ‘Skins defensive coach, Gregg Williams, was Buffalo’s head coach just three years ago. And that Todd Collins played for Buffalo in better days. And oh – yeah we still remember that Ron McDole came from Western New York too (but that was a loooooonnnnngggg time ago). Ahem.

Bills fans leave 2007 with the same cry they shout so many seasons…

Just Wait Until Next Year!

It’s True, It’s True

The experiences of an astronomer are immortalized on YouTube (of course).

Hat tip to Jon at Angry Astronomer.

What I’m curious about is why so many astronomers are 1) such good musicians, and, as I know from personal experience, 2) so good at parody. It’s a wonderment.

Where Have All The Sunspots Gone?

Gone to solar minima everyone…
This view from SOHO on 12/26/07 shows a blank solar disk. Cool. Not completely unusual, just mostly. There was the Maunder Minimum, of course.

The possible absence of sunspots for some 70 years in the 17th century was first pointed out by the Spörer (1887) using the extensive compilation of data by Wolf (1856, 1868). Spörer’s work was summarized by Maunder (1890, 1894), who commented, following Clerke (1894), that this dearth of sunspots apparently coincided with an absence of terrestrial aurorae. We now know that aurorae are caused by sub-atomic particles emitted by the Sun during releases of magnetic energy which often accompany sunspots. To supplement Spörer’s use of Wolf’s data, Maunder quotes the editor of Philosophical Transactions describing the observation of a sunspot in 1671 by Cassini in Paris with the comment that it was the first seen for many years. Much later, Maunder (1922) found a note by Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal, describing a sunspot seen at Greenwich in 1684, in which Flamsteed says that it is the first he had seen since 1674. Flamsteed made several other references to this spot and to his solar observations in general in his correspondence, the definitive edition of which is now nearing completion (Flamsteed 1995). Maunder also took evidence from Herschel (1801), who had referred to Lalande’s (1792) L’Astronomie in which detailed evidence relating to the absence of sunspots in the latter part of the 17th, and early 18th century was cited.

This mpeg of the solar disk for the last two weeks shows that there is one or two good sized groups on the “other side” of the sun.

Hey! Is that the dark side? The one that comes out at night???

Ohhhh – I’ll stop. I’ll be enjoying a few days off, and back with news from the intersection of religion and science (with some personal stuff thrown in for fun) before you know it.

A Christmas Village

Every year I enjoy putting together a Christmas Village for my model railroad. I’m not much of a modeler, but it is fun to do, and it never fails to put me into the Christmas spirit.

This is the village circa 2007, twinkling lights and everything. Yes, it’s just a simple oval, but simplicity is the point, after all.

And the village is much more Candy-land like in the light of the flash.

So I hope you too found the spirit of the season, my friends.

Merry Christmas.

The Assumption of Mediocrity

I have a preference for staying out of the science vs. religion battles these days, mostly because both sets of combatants in this particular war have exhibited a tendency to talk from the other’s turf, where they have no particular expertise. My own particular history puts me squarely in the middle ground between these two camps. From this perspective, if I judge the scientists (not science, mind you) to be the losers, it’s primarily because they’ve made this particular transgression more than the theologians of late.

Not what they taught you in “history” class you say? Don’t be surprised. As Stephen Sondheim said in “West Side Story”, you’re just a victim (of bad teaching, in this case).

One of the biggest problems scientists face is the problem of reviewing previous results. It doesn’t pay. In academia, in government and in business, new results might pay, but checking something that “everyone” regards already as established fact, well, that’s just a chore. That in and of itself is not the problem for science. Remembering what is fact and what is assumption, is.

Copernicus, it is said, moved us away from the center of the universe. Yeah – as if mankind thought he was the center of all things prior to that. In actuality, moving the earth from the center of the solar system to a mere object orbiting the sun does make the math one heck of a lot easier when it comes to predicting planetary positions. Don’t forget, though, that the idea that we are not in a privileged position when it comes to the universe, is just an assumption. It’s gotten us a good bit further down the road to truth, perhaps, but it is just an assumption.

But what if it’s wrong?

Gonzalez has called his view – that Earth’s position in the universe was designed in such a way that we can explore it – a “privileged planet” hypothesis – hence the name of the book.

These are not new ideas in themselves. Similar ideas have been explored in Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee’s Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe.

However, the showing of the Privileged Planet film at the Smithsonian amid much controversy in June 2005 probably drew unfavourable attention to Gonzalez, as did the popular book and DVD themselves. The Smithsonian was the late Carl Sagan’s territory, and it must be said that Privileged Planet explicitly denies the doctrine of St. Carl and all his faithful followers, that Earth is merely a pale blue dot lost in the cosmos.

Not even close, says Gonzalez; we could not be better placed if we had hired consultants. Possibly worse.

Gonzalez has paid a price for this heresy.

Gonzalez is best known for being denied tenure in May 2007 at ISU on account of his sympathies with intelligent design. The recent disclosure of the e-mail trail made clear that his sympathies with intelligent design were the reason for the denial, though some claim that he had also failed unwritten rules.

HT to Uncommon Descent.

And Just In Time For Christmas

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair converts to Roman Catholicism.

His wife and four children are RC.

From Austrialia:

Mr Blair formally left the Church of England to become a Catholic in a ceremony on Friday, after deciding long ago that it would be wisest to wait until he left office instead of giving modern Britain its first Catholic PM.

One of the obvious flashpoints for a Catholic prime minister would be the PM’s role in selecting senior bishops of the Church of England. Mr Blair appointed Rowan Williams as the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2002, and there would have been complaints from many Anglicans if that choice had been made by a Catholic.

Why does the NYT imply that there is less than welcome acceptance of this from “the Church”?

In June, after meeting Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, Mr. Blair met with the papal secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, and accounts by Vatican officials said the cardinal laid out the church’s objections to some of the Blair government’s legislation in uncompromising terms.

Among some Catholics in Britain, there have been questions about how Mr. Blair, who has described himself as an “ecumenical Christian,” could meet the standards normally set for converts.

“St. Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus would pale into insignificance by comparison,” John Smeaton, director of Britain’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said in an interview published earlier this month in The Spectator, a weekly journal popular among conservatives. “We need to hear a full repudiation from him. Without one, having Blair as a Catholic is like having a vegetarian in a meat-eating club. It simply does not make sense”

I. Don’t. Think. So. To paraphrase The Church Lady, “Could it be… um… THE WAR?”

Meet George Jetson

It goes. It’s pretty affordable. It’s even stylish. It might be available as early as next year.

This car makes me think that the price of a gallon of gas is about to become a non-issue for most everyone in relatively short order. At 300 mpg, who would care? Even better, I foresee that pretty soon “cars” (if that’s what they are) won’t be running on gas at all, and the effective mpg will be immeasurable (’cause the gallons you use will be 0).

Most everyone will be buying another car. But I’m not sure anymore that I’ll be buying a second (at least, not a second with an internal combustion engine). Perhaps only people interested in collecting antiques will be buying three in the remainder of their lifetimes. We will be travelling that much differently in the near future.

So, um… how does it drive?

Turn the dial to the D position, and the Aptera accelerates like many other pure EVs, with a constant rush of torque. The powertrain pulls strongly up to 50 mph or so (the fastest the streets on our route would allow). Interestingly, when you floor the accelerator, there’s a moment when the rear-end jacks up slightly as the torque is applied. It’s a slight feeling, as it is on some shaft-drive motorcycles—and it’s kind of fun. It makes the acceleration feel stronger than it is.

Our 20-mile test drive had a few higher-speed corners. And even while we were exceeding the street’s speed limit by a good margin, Aptera’s prototype felt stable and planted. The non-assisted rack and pinion steering takes a little muscle when parking (as most cars do); once you’re up to speed, however, Typ-1 e feels quick and direct.

The vehicle rides much like a soft sports coupe composed but not overly stiff. Step on the non-power brakes, and they do require a bit of leg muscle. But they also stop Aptera’s car quickly. All of these calibrations will likely improve and evolve as the car develops. After all, this is a prototype.

Traffic Jams

I commute in one of the most congested areas in the country, Washington D.C. Yes, it’s awful. The single biggest reason for traffic tie-ups in a city, especially non-rush hour, is red lights (the second biggest reason is driver stupidity, but only by a narrow margin).

This is surprising. I studied waves back in college. This is 19^th century physics, waves is, and there’s not all that much we don’t understand about the mathematics. Traffic should be easily understood as a matter of pulsed waves.

Yet traffic engineers continually screw it up, making matters worse (and more costly to the environment, btw) with each red light they install.

What’s up with this?

The team developed a mathematical model to show the impact of unexpected events such as a lorry (tractor trailer) pulling out of its lane on a dual carriageway (divided highway with median between traffic going in opposite directions). Their model revealed that slowing down below a critical speed when reacting to such an event, a driver would force the car behind to slow down further and the next car back to reduce its speed further still. The result of this is that several miles back, cars would finally grind to a halt, with drivers oblivious to the reason for their delay.

So the ultimate source of these backwards-travelling waves in traffic, is unattentive drivers.

Dr Gábor Orosz of the University of Exeter said: “As many of us prepare to travel long distances to see family and friends over Christmas, we’re likely to experience the frustration of getting stuck in a traffic jam that seems to have no cause. Our model shows that overreaction of a single driver can have enormous impact on the rest of the traffic, leading to massive delays.”

Small Threats

…are sometimes worse.

A surprising report from Space.com.

The infamous Tunguska explosion, which mysteriously leveled an area of Siberian forest nearly the size of Tokyo a century ago, might have been caused by an impacting asteroid far smaller than previously thought.

The fact that a relatively small asteroid could still cause such a massive explosion suggests “we should be making more efforts at detecting the smaller ones than we have till now,” said researcher Mark Boslough, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M.

The actual amount of destruction that occurred in 1908 because of the Tunguska event was constrained to “trees and caribou”, it is said. Because of the luck of timing, no villages or cities were lost. Even then, the trees felled in the explosion were apparently not completely healthy, and many more were blown over than the event would have dictated otherwise. It has misled researchers for a century to think the asteroid was larger than it was.

But the dark cloud in front of this rainbow is that the object that caused the destruction was much smaller than previously thought. And it would have been that much more difficult to spot in advance.

Could we spot something similar today, far enough in advance to make a difference? Very unlikely. I doubt we could spot it at all a day before the strike, even with luck.

What Color Is Your Tree?

Don’t you just love these tests?

What color Christmas Tree should you have?

You Should Have a Blue Christmas Tree

For you, the holidays represent a time of calm, understanding, and peace. You avoid family fights, and you don’t get too stressed out – even when things are crazy! You like to make Christmas about making everyone’s life a little bit better. You don’t get caught up in greed or commercialism. You’re too sincere for that. Your blue tree would look great with: Lots of silver tinsel You should spend Christmas Eve watching: It’s a Wonderful Life What you should bake for Santa: Chocolate chip cookies

What Color Christmas Tree Should You Have?

Tax Dollars At Work and At Play

One of the victims of the fights over the federal budget seems to be science.

The White House and Congress delivered a heavy blow to the hopes of the U.S. science community yesterday as part of a long-delayed final agreement on the 2008 federal budget. As a result, what began as a year of soaring rhetoric in support of science seems likely to end with agency officials and research advocates shaking their heads and wondering what went wrong.

“It’s like someone pulled the rug out from under us,” says Samuel Rankin of the American Mathematical Society, who chairs the Coalition for National Science Funding. “It’s pretty disappointing.”

It’s not real uncommon that science is seen, in the priorities of federal spending, as a luxury that we can’t always afford. These kinds of budget compromises also seem to get reconsidered, after the political fires burn down. The determining factor is, after all, the support given to science by the voting public.

And keep in mind that what is being discussed here is the slash in the size of the increase in science budget.

In the meantime, the European Space Agency’s Mars Express seems to have found an active glacier, on Mars.

In Deuteronilus Mensae, Dr Neukum estimates that water came up from underground in the last 10,000 to 100,000 years.

“That means it is an active glacier now. This is unique, and there are probably more,” said Dr Neukum.

Ancient ice on Mars is expected. Fresh ice isn’t. Think this won’t have an effect on the science budget for fiscal ’09? It will.

If you want to know where your favorite candidate (or other candidates) for president stand on space and other geek-related issues, try here. Each check mark is a link that takes you to the candidates position (and if you can make sense out of some of them, you’re a better man than I, Gunga Din).

And finally, researchers at UC Davis have put a tighter bound on the age of the solar system, or at least on one of the earliest major events during its formation.

UC Davis researchers have dated the earliest step in the formation of the solar system — when microscopic interstellar dust coalesced into mountain-sized chunks of rock — to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years.

And the relationship of this to the other stories is that:

The work is published in the Dec. 20 issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters, and was funded by grants from NASA.

As tax payers we must ask “Does it make our lives better?” Think carefully before answering.

Angry, But Rational?

Jon Voisey calls Christians pathetic.

Not only do you have to emblazon every piece of currency with “In God we trust”, and shove “under God” into a governmentally sponsored pledge, and put your commandments in government buildings, and make every elected official trip over one another to prove themselves the more pious, and force religious nonsense into schools under the guise of science, but apparently, now you need a special resolution of congress to tell you you’re special.

[Update: Just after hitting the publish button, I found this, which expresses a somewhat different point of view:

Hang on. Sit down, in fact. You’re not going to believe this one.

Nine U.S. Representatives voted against a resolution expressing support for Christianity in general and Christmas specifically.

Ho hum, you say? Here’s the punch line to the story. When similar resolutions were put up for a vote on behalf of Ramadan and Diwali, no House members voted against them.

]

That’s interesting. He calls himself angry, after all. I wonder what he thinks of Muslims.

What I’m wondering is, what rational person would think that Christian fundamentalists are more dangerous than Islamic fanatics? Fear might offer a partial explanation of why criticism of the latter would suddenly be avoided entirely after 9/11. But what explains the sharp increase — in tone and volume — of attacks on Western religions? If we assume the attackers are more afraid now of radical Islam than they were before 9/11, this would explain the reluctance to criticize Islam. But fear of radical Islam does not explain the upsurge in attacks on Western religion, unless the fearful classes are involved in projection.

But what is rational about projecting a fear of Islam into a fear of Christianity? That’s like saying Bush is scarier than bin Laden.

Even atheists — who by their own logic ought to condemn all religion equally — often become highly selective when the conversation turns to fundamentalist Christianity vis-a-vis fundamentalist Islam. Very odd, because atheists are freely tolerated in the West, while under Islam….. well, this comes from the Wiki entry on persecution of atheists:

Non-believers–atheists–under Islam do not have “the right to life”. Apostasy in Iran is punishable by death.
But Christianity is worse?

I guess this is not a rational process.

Protestations to the contrary, I guess it’s not.

Weird celestial mechanics.

There are several mysteries about the solar system, but one of the biggest was how Neptune and Uranus formed. Where’d they get so much material, way out there at the furthest reaches of the solar system?

Four billion years ago, Uranus and Neptune switched places during a gentle ride out to their current orbits.

That’s the conclusion of Steve Desch, an astrophysicist at Arizona State University, who thinks that all of the gas giant planets took shape twice as close to the sun as they are at present. His work could cut out much of the mystery of how our “impossible” solar system formed.

The solar system is 4.6 billion years old. The formation of rocky planets, from collisions between ever-larger objects, is a fairly rock-solid theory. But how the outer giants developed remains an open question.

Desch, an astrophysicist at Arizona State University, thinks he knows.

To make our solar system work, Desch elaborated on the “Nice” model of planet formation that debuted in 2005. That theory suggests gassy planets formed about twice as close to the sun as they are now — which means our dusty solar nebula would have been four to 10 times denser than most models predict.

“My colleagues seem pretty shocked by my paper, but they’ve found nothing wrong with it,” Desch said. “Basically, I’m saying we have it all backwards: Planet-forming material had to have drifted outward, not in towards the sun.”

What are the scientific ramifications? [italics]”For Desch’s orbital math to jibe, however, Neptune had to have overtaken Uranus about 650 million years into the solar system’s evolution.”[/italics] Cool! Uranus and Neptune must have swapped orbits!

Are You Going To Attend?

I noticed about fifteen years ago that there was no such thing as office parties anymore.

??? Huh ???

I recall, from the days when I first entered the workforce, Christmas office parties complete with free beer and wine, and yes, “hot and cold running secretaries” (to paraphrase Trapper John from M*A*S*H). Today, no beer, no wine (unthinkable since the company would be held liable for any accident that might occur on or off premises), certainly no “secretaries gone wild” (no secretaries – they’re office managers now and far too educated for that), and certainly no hanky-panky in excess of what occurs any other time of year. The sexual harassment seminars instructed us not to be so bold.

Not much fun, either. But I’m sure that’s a coincidence. People are just too tired, you see.

Megan McArdle noticed too:

Similarly, the wild, drunken office Christmas party used to be a staple of television, books, and movies. Now I feel as if it’s dropped pretty thoroughly out of the popular imagination; the only example I can think of recently is a fleeting scene in Bridget Jones’ Diary. Were office holiday parties really that much wilder in the past? Or have we just stopped noticing, literally?

Oh no, Megan. We’ve noticed. We’ve noticed.

H/T to Ed Driscoll.