The recently activated Kepler Mission is already paying off great dividends. The deep space observatory has reportedly found up to 140 planets that may be habitable, Earth-like bodies. This is just after six weeks on the job.
These are but a part of over 700 new planets identified by the mission.
Dimitar Sasselov, professor of astronomy at Harvard University and a scientist on the Kepler Mission, noted “The figures suggest our galaxy, the Milky Way [which has more than 100 billion stars] will contain 100 million habitable planets, and soon we will be identifying the first of them.”
What is most revealing for me is how programs like Kepler yield such fantastic results — an argument against the massive cuts imposed on NASA by the Obama Administration. These programs cost a tiny fraction of what we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like national parks, it appears that our most successful programs are the first to be cut by politicians because they lack a powerful lobby in Washington.
Source: Daily Mail
Buddha,
Do you think that Tootie’s equilibrium has been punctuated many times over the years?
Elaine,
I would exactly be referring to punctuated equilibrium.
Buddha,
Would you, by any chance, be referring to punctuated equilibrium?
Gyges,
I’m with you on “Signal to Noise” by Eric Nylund is an excellent novel. I keep meaning to read “A Signal Shattered” but just haven’t gotten around to it yet.
In re Tootie, your statement “To expect the hard-wiring of a species to change that quickly is just wishful thinking. We haven’t even adapted all that well to living in groups larger than small tribes” is correct, but I’m going to quibble a bit with word choice. I don’t think “expect” or “wishful thinking” apply quite so much “hope” and “overly optimistic” as there is evidence that evolution is not a smooth curve, but rather operates in a combination smooth curves with intermittent abrupt transitions.
Of but Mespo,
Read the word of yet another Englishman…
Breathe deep in the gathering gloom
Watch lights fade from every room
Bedsitter people look back and lament
Another day’s useless energy’s spent
Impassioned lovers wrestle as one
Lonely man cries for love and has none
New mother picks up and suckles her son
Senior citizens wish they were young
Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight
Red is grey and yellow white
And we decide which is right
And which is an illusion?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l8rq0PYVfo&hl=en_US&fs=1]
Slartibartfast:
Your efforts to set Tootie straight are admirable, but, I think, doomed to fail. You are dealing with a person for whom words and established concepts are infinitely malleable, and devoid of any objective or historical meaning. As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice:“When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” Your cogent replies to Tootie place you squarely in the “Alice camp” as you ask: “…whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.” Your unworthy adversary replies, “The question is which is to be master – that’s all.” Exquisitely literate, but not altogether original –Lewis Carroll has the copyright.
Slarti and Buddha,
I like “Mote,” but always thought Lem’s “Solaris” described a much more likely first contact scenario. Humanity didn’t really known the alien was alive for awhile, and even when we figured that out, we still had no way of knowing if it was intelligent, or even really an it and not a them.
“Signal to Noise” was a good other side of the coin to Sagan’s “Contact”; why would we assume that a technological race means an altruistic race? We have only one good example of a technological race, and we don’t hold up to our own ideals all that well.
My problem with the majority of first contact books (and I include “Contact,” “Signal…” and “Mote…” in this) is they’re basically dressed up myths that replace either gods or fairies (depending on the level of technology the humans have at the time) with aliens. The assumption is that an intelligence most be OUR kind of intelligence, just further along than us.
Those two plus Tootie:
I know several people who just aren’t wired in a way that lets them consider the idea of morality without a god.
If one considers evolution to be a the best explanation for how life is then in order for religion to be as ubiquitous as it’s proven to be, it either provided an advantage to early humans, or was a side effect of something that did. It’s only very recently (in evolutionary terms) that humanity has been able to come up with answers to the question “if not God then what?” that don’t involve just as much faith and guess work as “God did it.” To expect the hard-wiring of a species to change that quickly is just wishful thinking. We haven’t even adapted all that well to living in groups larger than small tribes.
Saying that people like Tootie are afraid to not have a god is like saying that a my computer is afraid not to have an OS with a graphic interface, it just sort of misses the point and obscures more fundamental matters.
On the other hand, saying that religion is required for morality simply glosses over any discussion of what morality is and what function it serves in human interactions.
Tootie posted:
Which shows that you are an anti-scientific fool.
Science in no way confirms the bible (nor would you want it to, I think – religion wouldn’t be much at all without faith…). The fact that you even look for a correlation between the bible and science is an indication of your muddled thinking about science, in my opinion.
That word.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
I wouldn’t characterize the above sentence as ‘using logic’ in any way so much as I would call it making a specious argument based on your fallacious, bigoted assumptions about the reasoning of people who do not share your faith. Let’s take a closer look, shall we? First off, I don’t believe in evolution – I believe in the scientific method which tells me that the theory of evolution is the best explanation that we currently have of how there came to be a multitude of species on this planet. While it is possible for some details of evolution to be incorrect it is incredibly improbable that the general idea of evolution will ever be falsified. I should also point out that the theory of evolution says nothing about how life originated – in the past you’ve tried to conflate abiogenesis with evolution (at least you’ve linked to sources who have done this) since as a less mature theory, abiogenesis is more easily attacked. Second, I have never requested that you trust the scientific method (although you would be wise to do so). I just object to you trying to pass off your bigoted interpretation of a pre-scientific creation myth in a book written by ignorant tribesmen millennia ago as science. I don’t object because of any personal rancor that I have for you, but because I believe that the pernicious lies you are telling can seriously damage our society if they are not shown for the pack of venomous lies in service of your theocratic agenda that they are. It is your implication that because I don’t share your narrow-minded faith that I can’t possibly feel that my life has any meaning (or have a well-developed moral code) that I find bigoted and insulting. Finally, I would remove the word ‘merely’ from the rest of the sentence and have no problem find meaning in a life that is a bundle of chemicals bumping into each other mindlessly and randomly without a knowable purpose. In fact, it could be said that the fact that we are made up of randomly interacting molecules plays a large role in how I find meaning in my life (professionally speaking).
Wow. Can I have some of what you’re smoking? The truth is that I can’t have any truth? I’m guessing that I have a far more sophisticated idea of what truth is than you do. First off, it has a very specific meaning in formal logical systems (you know, the kind of systems you do math in) and a different meaning in science but I don’t think you’re interested in a nuanced discussion of the nature of truth, but you were rather trying to say something that you thought sounded intelligent and would score you points. You were wrong on both counts. Countless philosophical systems exist that have no problem defining truth, morality and law without any reference to the christian god whatsoever. Science has its own definition of truth and no one says you have to subscribe to it, but you don’t get to change that definition and you can’t say that you are being scientific if don’t use it.
It’s all just random bumping about the universe!
LOLOLOLOL
Mommy, Group Tootie Inc called me a bundle of random and pointless chemicals in a meaningless existence…..whaaa…whaa…whaaa
sniff…
LOL
Well argued. It’s that undeniable logic that has me quaking in my boots. Thank you for helping me find meaning in my life and increase truth in the universe by answering your twaddle. Buddha really hit the nail on the head about the ‘watch without a maker’ idea terrifying you, didn’t he?
Buddha,
If that ever happens you should keep in mind that I have a communications laser (well, a laser pointer, anyway… I’ll distract you with a point of light on the wall. ;-)). I was thinking more along the lines of ‘The Mote in God’s Eye’ (best first contact novel I’ve read), but I’m a big fan of Known Space as well. Niven is good about putting the science in science fiction.
AY-
I’ve heard of Thomas the Train–but I’ve never seen it. I don’t know if Thomas was around when my daughter was little. My daughter never liked dolls. She loved her Matchbox cars and would play with them for hours.
Elaine,
I’ve read that one. It was a good read. The material is probably a little dated now, but I like Jastrow’s style.
Elaine M.,
Ya know most people would not let there children knowingly listen to Carlin but then again who doesn’t love Thomas the train…Yes he is the voice…….
Speaking of astrophysics–has anyone ever read Robert Jastrow’s “Red Giants and White Dwarfs: The Evolution of Stars, Planets and Life?” It’s an oldie. I think the first edition was published in the late 1960s. (I’m “aging” myself.)
Carlin was the best! I’ll check out Jaynes.
Hey slarti,
When I was in college I sorta took an Astrophysic class, I was assured that it was required and boy did it take me places. Then I found out that it was a elective-recreational (misnomer) class and then things mellowed out fairly well….but then again when college started for me in the mid 70’s, I was almost assured that it was mandatory. Then I found out different.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfqjKDRQvWI&hl=en_US&fs=1]
Slarti,
I’m a huge Niven fan. I think in my next life I want to be a Kzin.
It’s also one of the reasons I love words so. Julian Jaynes and George Carlin. How’s that for a mixed bag of influences. 😀
Elaine,
It’s fairly scholarly. When I said a bit drier than Sagan’s work, I was being kind. But still an interesting book. Here’s what Wiki says about Jaynes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes
I took an astrophysics course as an undergrad (the only class I could find when I changed majors from physics to math and my schedule got screwed at the last minute) and it was pretty cool. Stuff like calculating the energy balance of gravity versus light pressure in a star or the strength of the solar wind – you never know when you might have to plot a course for a vessel with a solar sail, right? (At least if you’re living in the universe Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle write about…) If I had stayed in physics I would have liked to study the research of Hans Alfven (he won the Nobel prize in physics in 1970 for his work in magnetohydrodynamics) he had some very cool ideas about intergalactic magnetic fields (and it would be cool to better understand how the aurora works ;-))
Buddha–
“The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind”
Now that sounds like light reading! I’ve never heard of that book.
I understand that he had a number of health issues and was going fairly good and then Letterman and he got into it, something that I picked up on was he suffered from life long depression….
Elaine,
Speaking of “Broca’s Brain”, it led me to a much drier but just as interesting work that Sagan referenced in the actual segment about Broca. “The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Julian Jaynes. Interesting book.