10 Weird Things Found in Outer Space

I came across this video of interesting things found in outer space.  No UFOs or things like that, but stuff like a massive reservoir of water far larger the amount of water on Earth.

A lizard on Mars?

So it's probably just a rock...but it does look a lot like a lizard!

via ufosightingsdaily.com

H/T

Are we a part of something much larger?

Click image to make it larger.  Seen on the New York Times.

I saw the above image last night and was reminded of my post from a while back titled Some 'What if' questions of what we are part of.  In that post, I wondered if we are the makeup of something larger.  The atoms we are made up of consist of an atomic nucleus with electrons orbiting it.  So I wondered if our sun could be like a nucleus and the orbiting planets like electrons.  Our solar system is a part of our galaxy and our galaxy is a part of our universe.  Could our universe be a part of something much larger?  The image above asks that question.

We are within the universe so we can't really take a picture of it.  But the image of the universe above is just a scientific interpretation of what the universe may look like if you were somehow on the outside looking in.  If the interpretation is accurate, you can certainly see the resemblance.  If our universe is just a neuron in the mind of a larger being, God perhaps, are we just a part of the DNA?  It could also add credence to the existence of the hypothetical multiverse if true.  Our universe may just be one of many in the mind of God.

Some food for thought!

Warp Drives and Acoustic Levitation

I like to watch the Vsauce channels on YouTube, which feature a variety of information including science, art, gaming, and internet culture.  An episode of "Mind Blow" I saw today featured two intriguing topics -- the potential for developing an actual warp drive (yes, the kind from Star Trek used for flying through space) and acoustic levitation.

Warp Drives

A ring-shaped warp drive device could transport a football-shape starship (center) to effective speeds faster than light. The concept was first proposed by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre. Harold White (From Discovery.com)

An article from Discovery news elaborates on the concept:

A warp drive to achieve faster-than-light travel -- a concept popularized in television's Star Trek -- may not be as unrealistic as once thought, scientists say. 

 A warp drive would manipulate space-time itself to move a starship, taking advantage of a loophole in the laws of physics that prevent anything from moving faster than light. A concept for a real-life warp drive was suggested in 1994 by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre, however subsequent calculations found that such a device would require prohibitive amounts of energy. 

 Now physicists say that adjustments can be made to the proposed warp drive that would enable it to run on significantly less energy, potentially bringing the idea back from the realm of science fiction into science.

The article goes on to describe how the process would work:

An Alcubierre warp drive would involve a football-shape spacecraft attached to a large ring encircling it. This ring, potentially made of exotic matter, would cause space-time to warp around the starship, creating a region of contracted space in front of it and expanded space behind. 

 Meanwhile, the starship itself would stay inside a bubble of flat space-time that wasn't being warped at all.

"Everything within space is restricted by the speed of light," explained Richard Obousy, president of Icarus Interstellar, a non-profit group of scientists and engineers devoted to pursuing interstellar spaceflight. "But the really cool thing is space-time, the fabric of space, is not limited by the speed of light." 

With this concept, the spacecraft would be able to achieve an effective speed of about 10 times the speed of light, all without breaking the cosmic speed limit.

The article goes on to say to say that the minimum amount of energy necessary to power a warp drive would be about equal to the mass-energy of Jupiter.  So it's still not really all that feasible...at least not yet.  But hey, at least it is theoretically possible!

Read the whole article at the link below:

THE WARP DRIVE COULD BECOME SCIENCE FACT

Although being a Star Wars guy myself, I'd prefer if they called it a hyperdrive instead of a warp drive!
---------------------------------

Acoustic Levitation

Acoustic levitation got me thinking about old theories that the ancients may have used some form of levitation to move megalithic stones.  While I think it it's unlikely the ancients were floating stones around, I guess I consider myself to be an open-minded skeptic on the subject.  I won't rule out the possibility of an ancient levitation technique just because it seems unlikely considering that acoustic levitation today requires complex machines and electricity and it's only used for liquids and small objects.  But perhaps the ancients found another method of doing so?  We would do well to remember that Edward Leedskalnin famously built the Coral Castle monuments using megalithic stones back in the 1920s and 30s without using modern machinery.  He never revealed his secret for moving and placing the megalithic stones (see my post about Coral Castle here).  Maybe Edward Leedskalnin and the ancients knew something that the rest of us don't?

Nevertheless, acoustic levitation isn't just a theory.  It is reality.

Watch acoustic levitation.



See an article about it here.  Also see how acoustic levitation works here.

-------------------------------------------------
Watch the episode of Mind Blow below.

Europa: Jupiter's Hoth

I recently wrote about Saturn's moon Titan, and how earth-like it appeared to be (at least in comparison to the other planets and moons in the solar system).  However, though the lakes of Titan may give it a somewhat earth-like appearances, it's lakes are not made up of water, but hydrocarbons like methane.  Jupiter's moon Europa, on the other hand, looks more like the 6th planet of the Hoth System (or just "Hoth" for short) from The Empire Strikes Back.

But despite Titan having arguably a slightly more earth-like appearance, the reality is, Europa may actually be more earth-like.  The big difference?  Europa has water...and a lot of it.  It may actually have even more water on it than Earth does.  That's quite a lot considering Europa is smaller than Earth.

Although Europa is also just slightly smaller than our own moon, it's actually the 15th largest object in our solar system.   It's even larger than Pluto.

But what about all that water?  According to NASA, Europa is completely covered in a salt water ocean that is perpetually frozen on the surface because it is so far from the Sun.  They think "tidal heating" causes Europa to be warmer than it otherwise normally would be at the distance it is from the Sun, which opens up the possibility that earth-like organisms could live deep within the ocean of Europa (see an article about the possibility of life on Europa here).

Here are a few more interesting bits of information about Europa:

-Judging from photos taken from the Gallileo spacecraft, scientists believe Europa is made of silicate rock.  They also believe it has an iron core and rocky mantle, much like Earth does.

-The surface of Europa is covered with cracks.  The cracks are thought to be the result of tidal forces beneath the surface caused by Europa's eccentric orbit (oval instead of circular) around Jupiter.  When Europa's orbit comes close to Jupiter, it's possible the tide of the sea may rise higher than normal.  If so, then the constant raising and lowering of the sea may be the cause of the cracks.  It's also believed that the ocean beneath the surface sometimes erupts through the surface and then freezes.

-Europa has a tenuous oxygen atmosphere.

Link for more information.

The European Space Agency (ESA) has already planned to send a probe to Jupiter to study Europa as well as two of Jupiter's other moons, Callisto and Ganymede.  It is suspected that Ganymede and Callisto may also have subsurface oceans.  It would be built in time for a 2022 launch, but it would take  the probe around 8 years to get to Jupiter, so it might be a while before we can glean much more information about Europa and its companions Callisto and Ganymede.

Curiosity's descent to Mars enhanced

Footage of curiosity landing on Mars enhanced frame by frame with sound added for additional effect.


News Link

Do we know how to look for extra-terrestrial life?

On Mars, the Curiosity Rover is investigating whether the planet has any signs of life or any signs of past life.  The other day, NASA announced it found a planet orbiting a binary star system in the so called "habitable zone."  That is...seemingly habitable for us.

But should we assume life can only exist if it is like us?  Could it be that life on earth exists as it does because life on earth is uniquely adapted to living on the earth?  Could it be that elsewhere, life could exist uniquely adapted to conditions on that planet?

We know that 70% of the earth's surface is covered with water.  We also know that up to 60% of the human body is made of water and the brain itself is 70% water.  Is this coincidence?  Or is it that our makeup includes a lot of water because the earth has a lot of water?  Do we exist in the form that we do because this is the form that is suitable for living in the atmosphere, conditions, and temperatures of the earth? Is the size and shape and speed of rotation of the earth a distinguishing factor too?

Could another form of life be adapted to conditions on another world is the real question here though.  So for instance, if life existed on Saturn's moon Titan, what would it look like?

I wrote about Titan recently, noting that Titan had hydrocarbon lakes and rain.  It's not water...but if life existed on Titan, isn't it likely the makeup of that life would include the liquid hydrocarbon (like methane) native to that moon?  Titan is a cold place...but cold to who?  To us?  If life did exist on Titan, then presumably the life would be capable of living in the temperatures on Titan naturally.

So is there life on Titan?  No one has seen any people walking around on Titan, so if there is, it isn't immediately apparent.  But if it did exist on Titan, then what would it look like?  What would a body made up of substances native to Titan and capable of living in frigid temperatures look like?  How big would it be? Would it even look anything like us?

Maybe it looks like nothing because nothing is there.  But Titan is just one example of a world in a universe of galaxies full of planets and moons.  Should we always be looking for something like ourselves on a world that is not our own?  Do we even know how to look for life on a world that is not our own?

If you want a Windows PC, you wouldn't look for it in an Apple store.  But you can still find technology products in an Apple store that are designed to be sold in that store.  Perhaps we should be looking for signs of life that fit the environment of where we are looking instead of looking for signs of something that looks like life on earth.

UFOs on Mars?

An article in the Daily Mail Online posts pictures and video of what appears to be lights in the sky of Mars.  One explanation for one of the images that appear to have hovering lights is just 'dead pixels'.  However, in the case of the video of moving lights, I find that harder to believe.  The lights appear to be moving in a fluid motion, indicating something physically going by.  Whether or not its evidence of an alien presence is debatable.  A meteor is probably a more likely explanation.  And considering Mars has less atmosphere for meteors to burn up in, I would think seeing meteors may be more common on Mars than here, yes? no?

Read the article and see more pictures and videos here.

Martian settlers: A reality show?

The Mars One project has a goal of establishing a human settlement on Mars in 2023.  They've already planned out the various stages of the project and determined what would be needed to accomplish their goal.  How would such a venture be funded?  By making it into a reality show of course!  By creating a media sensation out of the various stages of the plan as well as ultimately having footage of people living on Mars, the project can be funded privately without politics getting in the way or the need for tax payer money.  The public would even get to be involved in deciding who the first people to go to Mars are.  Like a Martian edition of American Idol or something!

But there is a catch.  This project is not just intended for exploration.  The first four people to go to Mars wouldn't just be going as explorers; they'd be going as settlers.  So whoever would be chosen to go to Mars would have to be prepared to spend the rest of their life there.  Watch the video below to learn more.




Visit the website here.

Sounds like a really cool idea, but I don't think I will be volunteering to settle Mars.  If they are successful and develop a significant colony...then maybe I would consider going.  But even then I think I'd still want to have a way back.

Despite their planning and desired method of funding, I'm not sure how viable their project even is though. It may be too soon for a project like that.  A little more research of the red planet by robots would be a better starting point.  Preferably advanced, bipedal, solar powered robots that can walk the planet and extensively document it.  Of course, the problem with that is it would be harder to make a reality show media sensation about sending more robots to Mars.  The various probes and rovers we have sent so far to gather information about the red planet have provided some interesting information, but who really cares that much about the planning stages?  I think most of us are more interested in the data that is provided by such missions, not the planning of such missions.  So I don't know if they could get funding for an advanced robotic mission to Mars by simply attempting to create a reality show on developing robots for a Mars mission.  That might interest some people, but I doubt it would interest enough to actually fund such a mission.  Besides, people wouldn't be able to have the fun of voting for the favorite potential settler if they were just robots!

Sending people to Mars sounds a lot cooler.  But are we really ready for that yet?  And would four people really be enough to start an initial settlement successfully?  I think 40 people would sound a lot better.  That way you could have certified geniuses in a variety of fields to go there and be able to work together to accomplish the common goal and keep each other company.

But is there more to it than that?  Going to Mars isn't like going to Antarctica or the Sahara desert.  As inhospitable as Antarctica and the Sahara are, they are still part of the natural environment of earth.  And we are a part of the earth.  We can create artificial environments in space to suit our needs, but how healthy would it be for a human to live in an artificial environment for an extended period of time?  We've put astronauts in orbit in artificial environments, but only temporarily.  How healthy would it be to live in an artificial environment indefinitely?  And not only that, how well would humans be able to adapt to the difference in gravity on Mars?  Would adapting be simple, or would it ultimately become a long term problem?  I don't know that we can know that yet, since no one has been anywhere with a different level of gravity for an extended period of time before.

Another thing to consider is how well would people adapt to living somewhere where a day and a year would be a different length of time than what they are used to.  A day on Mars isn't really that much longer than a day on earth, but a year on Mars is about twice as long.  This might not be an immediate problem in the short-term, but would it be in the long-term?  The question would be whether humans could adapt to longer seasons or not.  If they can adapt, then that might not really be a big deal.  But what about the female menstrual cycle?  The idea is that Martian settlers would have children there.  But would being on Mars disrupt the natural female menstrual cycle?  Would the difference in the the length of days and the year affect it or not?    And what about the moons?  Would the fact that Mars has two moons cause a disruption?  Or would the female menstrual cycle naturally adapt to a new calendar?  If not, would they even still be able to have children there?  If they were still able to have children though, would those children be able to adapt to the Martian environment easier than the adult settlers since that would be all they had ever known?

So I don't really know the answers to those questions.  But who really does since no one has ever actually been anywhere outside of earth's orbit?  We got an idea about what visiting a barren, alien world might be like by visiting our own moon, but technically, that is still within earth's orbit and they were short visits.  What would it be like further away from our natural habitat for an indefinite period of time?  I think these are questions people should try to answer before actually sending people to Mars.  I think the first trip humans make outside of earth's orbit should probably simply be that, a trip outside of earth's orbit.  See how they do in a space station drifting in space outside of earths orbit.  Or maybe on an asteroid.  If they do fine, then bring them back home and then plan a trip to Mars.  Another possible test of human adaptability they could do here would be to have a colony of people live in an underground base -- or better yet -- and underwater base for an extended period of time....and by extended period of time, I'm talking like 5 to 10 years.  In an underwater base, people could experience living in and maintaining an artificial  environment all the time, and also be forced to wear a diving suit anytime they left the base.  If people can successfully adapt to living in an artificial environment underwater for many years, then maybe people could adapt to Mars too.  If people had trouble adapting underwater here, then they could always pull them out.  But if people had trouble adapting on Mars, they would just be screwed.

So are we really ready to settle Mars?  Maybe we are, but I think we'd do well to do a little more research first before attempting it.  As cool as going to Mars sounds, I wouldn't want to volunteer to be among the first settlers.  But I imagine that a lot of people would.  And if they went ahead and attempted it, I imagine I would want to follow the media sensation that surrounded such a venture.  Maybe the best test for how well humans could adapt to Mars is to just send some there to see?  Personally, I think we humans are very adaptable and could probably pull it off.  But it would be nice to actually confirm our level of adaptability to some degree ahead of time.  Either way, anyone willing to take the risk of being among the first people to settle Mars would be famous and would go down in history.  And they just might create a new civilization and their own history in the process.

Titan: Saturn's Oasis

It's recently been found that Saturn's moon Titan appears to be more earth-like than any other planet or moon in our solar system that has been studied.  Not only does it have an atmosphere, but National Geographic has reported that it not only rains on Titan, but that it also has lakes.  The liquid is not water though, but hydrocarbons, like methane or ethane (although it is thought that there is water ice on Titan).  So it's not exactly the same and obviously much colder, but it's similar.  But could life still develop in an environment like that?  Why not?  Why should we assume that life can only develop the same way it has here?

Images of lakes on Titan from the Cassini probe.

In the 2001 movie Evolution, a meteorite with a alien organism in it crashes on earth.  The organism begins to rapidly evolve into recognizable lifeforms, except the lifeforms are nitrogen based instead of carbon based.  Of course, the movie is fictional, but what if life elsewhere could be based on another element?  If so, what kind of life could potentially be on Titan?  And just how close to the surface would we have to get to be able to see if there is life on it?  If you look at satellite imagery of North America from space, you can't even see that there are bustling metropolises such as New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles on the surface until you zoom in closer to the surface.

While I seriously doubt there are any bustling metropolises on Titan, how close to the surface would we need to get to see if there is any recognizable life there?  Something larger than microbial?  The Huygens probe landed on Titan and took a picture of the surface, and it appeared to be a barren wasteland like Mars.

Surface of Titan

But if a probe from space were to land in the Sahara desert on earth and take a picture, that picture would be of a barren wasteland too.  But the Sahara desert only represents a small fraction of the earth's surface and and even smaller fraction of the earth as a whole.  What if the Huygens probe had landed somewhere else?  Would it still have found a barren wasteland?  Despite the lakes of liquid hydrocarbons and water ice, Titan is still drier than earth, so if there is any recognizable life as we know it there, it may very well be considerably less populated and more confined to a specific area or areas.

Hopefully in time we will learn more about Titan and get more close up images of its surface.  

Ever wondered what the galaxy's center tasted like?

Raspberries and rum apparently, according to this article.

Ancient Aliens and The Mysterious Origins of Man

I've had mixed feelings about the History channel show Ancient Aliens over the course of its run.  When the original special aired a couple of years ago, I thought it was interesting and presented the information well.  I'm not a believer of the ancient astronaut hypothesis it presented, but I'm open to the possibility (at least certain aspects of it).  So when they decided to turn it into a series, I figured I would give it a shot.  After watching a couple of episodes though, I lost interest.  I thought they were just getting silly about it, seemingly assuming aliens had something to do with almost any ancient mystery.  Although inspired by writers like Zecharia Sitchin and Erich von Daniken, ultimately, all they are doing is inserting science fiction concepts that have been developed primarily over the last 60-70 years into history.

But I did catch some second season episodes that sounded like they might be interesting when I didn't see anything better on.  My impression of the show didn't change much, but I did realize that the information they were presenting was interesting, even if their analysis of it could be a bit silly at times.  So I've decided to watch the third season just to see what they bring up.  I figure whatever they bring up will be interesting, even if I don't agree with their theories.

On the other hand, I was surfing around on Youtube today and came across a video called The Mysterious Origins of Man.  It was obviously pretty old since Charlton Heston was the presenter (from 1996, according to Wikpedia), so there isn't any new information in it, but I thought the information was presented well.  It covers topics such as out of place artifacts, Tiahuanaco, and ancient Egypt.  If you're interested check it out below.



Here is a shortened version of that video: http://youtu.be/nne_-j08yMo

Moon Buggy Repair: One of the many uses for duct tape

I've heard jokes before about different things duct tape could be used for, but I didn't know one of those uses was moon buggy repair, and yes, I do mean the kind of moon buggy that astronauts would use on the moon.

Back in 1972, astronauts Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt landed on the moon in a mountain-ringed valley named Taurus-Littrow.  At one point during their mission, part of a fender was accidentally torn off when Cernan brushed up against it and a hammer in his shin pocket caught it.  And apparently, a moon buggy with a missing fender can create a big problem when you're driving it on the moon.

According to NASA, here is why:

The reason is moondust. When a rover rolls across the lunar surface, it kicks up a plume of moondust in its wake. (Astronauts called them "rooster tails.") Without a fender, the rover would be showered by a spray of dark, abrasive grit. White spacesuits blackened by dust could turn into dangerous absorbers of the fierce lunar sun with astronauts overheating inside. Sharp-edged dust wiped off visors would scratch the glass, making helmets difficult to see out of. Moondust also had an uncanny way of working itself into hinges, latches and joints, rendering them useless.

The solution? Duct tape!

Read more about it at NASA's website here.

Some strange claims about a Mars colony

So, earlier today, I came across a link to an article about an alleged secret Mars colony project.  It's not the first time I've heard such claims, but this wasn't just any article about a secret Mars colony; this article was reporting about claims from a 'whistleblower' named Laura Magdalene Eisenhower.  According to the article, she is a great-granddaughter of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The first question that popped into my mind was, "Is this really Ike's great-granddaughter?"  Before I even started reading the article, I did some searching on the internet to see if I could find anyone disputing that claim.  There were 602,000 results for her name on the Google search that I did.  Admittedly, I didn't go through all of the results, but I went through quite a few pages and didn't see anything disputing that claim.  However, I didn't come across anything confirming that claim either.  Actually, most of the results just seemed to take for granted she is who she says she is.

So I finally get around to reading the article.  Now I've heard some far-fetched sounding claims about Mars colonies before.  Alternatively, I've heard some other claims about Mars that may be plausible.  But what I read in this article today was waaaaaaay out there.  This stuff isn't just your regular run-of-the-mill secret government Mars colony conspiracy theory/coverup stuff.  The article mentions stuff about the 'Divine Feminine', Gaia, Sophia the Goddess, and supposedly, Laura is the reincarnation of Magdalene/Sophia/Isis.  This lady sounds like she mixed new age concepts with the Kabbalah, some esoterica, a little bit of mythology, and some government coverup conspiracy theories and just writes her story as she goes.

So the question on my mind is still, "Is this Ike's great-granddaughter?"  But another question on my mind is, "Does it really even matter if she is Ike's great-granddaughter?"  I mean, does being a former President's great-granddaughter really add to her credibility?  I don't even know if she is old enough to have met him.  I wonder if she is just using his name in an attempt to upgrade her status from psychic/new ager to 'whistleblower'.

Anyways, if you want to read the article, go here.  I'd take it with a grain of salt though.

The Infinite Small?

Consider this; the universe is infinite.  It goes on forever.  It just goes on and on and on in all directions. You could say it was "large," but that is a gross understatement if you consider that it goes on forever.  Technically, I don't even think "large" is the correct term to use to describe it.  Essentially, the universe is sizeless.  But for lack of a better term, we'll refer to the universe as the "infinite large."

Now consider time.  Consider how we measure time.  Years, months, days, hours, minutes, and seconds.  If you think about it, you can never pinpoint a moment in time but so specifically.  You can pinpoint a moment down to a second, but you can split a second into an infinite amount of fractions of itself.  You can go to a tenth of second, hundredth of a second, thousandths, millionths, billionths, and so on.

With that in mind, let's now consider the atom.  The atom is a basic unit of matter that can be broken down into protons, neutrons, and electrons.  Protons and neutrons can be further broken down into quarks.  Better observation equipment and microscopes have enabled scientists to find these tiny particles.  But consider this; what is the smallest of the small?  Scientists didn't always know about quarks.  Could there be something smaller than quarks?  And could there be something smaller than whatever that may be?  If so, how small is the smallest of the small?  Or could it be that there is an "infinite small?"  Could the particles that make up an atom be broken down into infinitely smaller particles?  I mean, could you ever really get to the point of saying there's 'nothing else here'?  There's seemingly 'something' everywhere.  Whether it's air, atoms, 'dark matter', photons, or neutrinos; it seems that you can find 'something' everywhere.  How could you ever really break a particle down small enough to get to the point where you could say there is 'nothing else here'?  If you could break something down to the point of saying there is 'nothing else here', then the next question you could ask is, "How is it that there is anything anywhere at all (Because if something isn't made of something, then theoretically, it must be nothing!)?"

To measure something, you need a starting point and an ending point.  You can't measure the universe because it is infinite.  You can only measure things within the universe.  But if you consider that the universe is the "infinite large," could there not also be an "infinite small?"  It's difficult to even comprehend the vastness of infinity.  But it may be even more difficult to comprehend the minuteness of it.

The Messengers

A documentary I was watching last night about the history of angels got me thinking more about a concept I've written about before in my posts Angels, Demons, and Aliens and Those oh so standoffish aliens.  The concept suggests that aliens may be angels and/or demons, or vice versa.

The word "angel" is derived from the Latin word "angelos," which is derived from the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for "messenger."  The Bible doesn't really give a clear description of what angels look like.  Artistic depictions of angels with wings and halos didn't start appearing until around the 5th century AD.  It's pretty obvious that these depictions are just carried over from traditional depictions of pagan gods.  Numerous gods from the ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman pantheons were depicted with wings.  Cupid, Eros, and Hermes are probably the most recognizable (although Hermes' wings were on his sandals, not his back).  Interestingly, Hermes was the messenger of the Greek gods.

In the Bible, it seemed people weren't always aware they were in the presence of angels, such as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19).  But oftentimes, people seemed to recognize the angels as angels.  The Bible never really describes in any great detail what the angels look like though.

I think this fits with the modern stories I've heard of angel encounters. In some stories, people don't even recognize the angel as an angel.  Typically, the angel just seems to come out of nowhere at just the right time to relay a special message or perform some good deed (read some angel stories here).  Othertimes, the angel's appearance may be more obvious, it may be glowing.  Or it may just give off a calming 'presence'.  So various modern stories of angels seem to fit with the ancient stories, sometimes they look like regular people, other times it's more obvious that they are angels.  It seems angels can choose how they want to appear to a person.

Looking to the skies for 'alien' life isn't something new at all.  People have been doing this all along.  The ancients thought of angels as messengers from heaven, and heaven is just another word for sky.  When people capitalize it as "Heaven," then it's considered to be the dwelling place of God.  But the word "heaven" is just a word for the sky and space.  So essentially, the ancients thought of angels as entities from space.

So is it really any different for us to look for aliens from space?  Is it just a case of semantics?

Maybe part of our problem in looking for life in outer space is we are too arrogant.  It seems that people are always looking for "life as we know it," meaning flesh and blood beings who breathe oxygen and drink water and like 70 degree (Fahrenheit) temperatures.  But who's to say that other life, including intelligent life, couldn't exist in environments totally different from what we are accustomed to?  With that in mind, how would an angel from 'heaven' be that much different than an 'alien' from space?  What qualifies as an 'angel' and what qualifies as an 'alien'?  Does it have something to do with how they look?  Or does it have something to do with how they behave?  Or does it have something to do with whether or not they travel on a spaceship?  Are the angels a type of 'alien'?  Or are what we think of as aliens something totally different?  And if angels and 'aliens' are both forms of intelligent life, then what exactly differentiates them each other?  And how many different types are there?

Typically, Greys, Nordics, and Reptilians are the three most common types of aliens some people claim to have seen.  I guess out of those three, the Nordics would be the type that look the most 'angelic'.  But are Nordics the same as angels?  Or would it be more accurate to ask are angels the same as Nordics?  If not, what makes them different?  Of course, it may also be necessary to ask whether 'Nordics' exist at all.

It seems that looking to the sky for 'aliens' may just be a 20th and 21st century interpretation of looking to the sky for angels.  The big question is are they really any different?  And how many different types are there?  And if aliens and angels are different, then what exactly is different about them?  Is it the appearance?  The mode of transportation?  Their behavour?  Their agenda?  Their purpose?

Perhaps sentient life is sentient life, regardless of what form it takes.

What's in your Universe?

Per a request from Autumnforest in my previous post, I'm going to attempt to analyze a theory of multiverses presented in an article on phsyorg.com.  I've read about various theories of multiverses and parallel universes before, but I will go ahead and admit that I've never given it a great deal of thought, and what I have read about them has been mostly relegated to a footnote in my mind.  As such, this may be a rather feeble attempt to analyze the article, but I am nevertheless going to attempt an analysis of it anyways.

The idea of a multiverse has been visited numerous times in the Stargate franchise of television shows.  There are numerous times when the characters find themselves in an alternate reality where things are different, or are visited by an alternate version of themselves from another reality.  In my own life, I have sometimes wondered when making a difficult decision what might happen if I had made the opposite decision.  How might things be different?  Would they be better or worse?  On some occasions, I've also wondered if there isn't alternate version of me who made the opposite decision and is living the life I might have lived if I had made that decision.

It's an intriguing concept, but I doubt its true.  I don't think that it's impossible that it could be true, but it just doesn't seem to fit for me.

To help me write the rest of this post, I'm going to cite some comments from the end of the article.

Here is what 'dmw' wrote:

hm, maybe I've forgotten what my 8th grade science class taught me. I always thought a scientific theory needed some evidence to support it. Am I missing something?

Similarly, 'RobertKLR' had this to say:

So it's settled, there are multiple universes and no proof is required? Maybe I should be laughing at the messenger instead of the subject material.

And here's another from 'frajo':

Non-falsifiable statements are non-scientific statements.

A legitimate theoretical possibility is not equivalent to a scientific theory. "Legitimate" is not a scientific term.

Before I go any further though, here is some clarification from 'ReeseJ2':

Bear in mind that it does say "theoretical possibility", not "scientific fact". All that means is that, theoretically speaking, the concept of multiple universes is not inconsistent with what we do know about physics.

As to frajo's comment, and many others on this thread, I would respectfully point out that the claim "it is possible that our universe is one of many" is distinct from the claim "our universe is one of many". This result, then, can be stated as "IF our universe is one of many, THEN there are at most this many other universes." Furthermore, I agree that it seems strange to use the human brain as the model of an observer--but quantum physics itself reserves a special place for the observer. I think it's valid.

Although ReeseJ2 makes a valid clarification here, that clarification isn't really a refutation of the point being made by the other commenters.  One observation I've made about science, especially theoretical physics, is that some theories are built upon other theories.  If someone were to say that, theoretically, there is a god named Zeus that exists, then someone else could then add on to that by explaining lightning as Zeus throwing lightning bolts from the clouds.  The second theory rests on the first theory as a foundation.  So if the first theory is wrong, then the second theory must be wrong too.  And not only that, part of the evidence to support the secondary theory is that it isn't inconsistent with the original theory!

The multiverse theory presented in that article rests on the Big Bang theory.  So if the Big Bang theory is wrong, then the multiverse theory must be wrong too.  So I guess you have to first ask yourself if you think the Big Bang theory is correct.  Personally, the Big Bang theory doesn't impress me, and I think it's a rather feeble attempt to explain the origin of the universe.  So for me, if the multiverse theory is based on the Big Bang theory as a foundation, I don't give it much credence.

But, some people like the Big Bang theory.  The problem is you don't really have a way to prove it one way or the other.  You can't prove it happened, but who can prove it didn't happen?

Let's look at one more comment, this one from 'HiFlier':

So far the assumption in this article and threads has been that there was ONE big bang. Over an infinite (or very long) period of time perhaps MANY Big Bangs occur, each leading to a different number of universes. This would obviously push the number of universes much higher. Prove me wrong!

So if one could occur, why not more than one?  If so, does that mean there's potentially not just one multiverse, but multiple multiverses??  Can you prove him wrong?  Can you prove there wasn't more than one Big Bang?

A scientist (don't remember his name) one time asked the Dalai Lama what he would do if they proved that reincarnation didn't exist.  The scientist was somewhat surprised when the Dalai Lama said that they (the Buddhists) would say people should not believe in reincarnation anymore (I guess the scientist was expecting the Dalai Lama to try to defend the belief in reincarnation regardless).  But, the Dalai Lama then asked the scientist how he would prove that reincarnation didn't exist.  The scientist didn't have an answer.

So I guess you have to ask yourself whether you believe in reincarnation or not.  Can you really prove whether it exists or not?  So with that in mind, the Big Bang theory isn't that much different than a religious belief.  Sure, there's equations and scientific jargon attached to it, but ultimately, you can't prove that it really happened.

The multiverse theory is intriguing, but I don't think its true.  But...I can't prove that it isn't!  I also don't think there is another me in another universe somewhere.  I'm pretty sure it's just me.  Anybody other than me is...someone else.

But the multiverse theory isn't completely without value.  It's made for some interesting episodes of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis.    J

Stargazing

If you've ever had trouble finding a particular star, planet, or constellation in the sky at night, having your own planetarium could come in handy.  Even if you don't have a domed ceiling with a planetarium projector, you can still download a planetarium application for free at Stellarium.org.  It comes with a default catalogue of over 600,000 stars (and there's extra catalogues with more than 210 million stars).  You can have it connect the constellations together, zoom in, change your location, and more.

Check it out here.

The Dihydrogen Monoxide Scare

Back in 2004, the city councilors of Aliso Viejo, California were so concerned about the potential threat of poisoning from dihydrogen monoxide, they took steps to protect the community from its potential dangers. They even considered banning foam cups after they learned dihydrogen monoxide was used in its production. Here is how one article described it:

Researchers found that the presence of dihydrogen monoxide in Aliso Viejo had reached startling levels: it was present in its crude form, often spilling unmonitored on to the city streets; it was found to be a crucial ingredient in many common chemical compounds; its presence was even detected in that most ubiquitous of civilised artifacts, the styrofoam cup.

And it got worse: dihydrogen monoxide is lethal if inhaled, causes severe burns in its gaseous state, and is the major component in acid rain. Prolonged exposure to solid dihydrogen monoxide can cause severe tissue damage. It can, said the city council report, "threaten human safety and health".

The issue was also raised by a New Zealand MP in 2007. Some people have been pointing out the potential threats of dihydrogen monoxide since the 1990s though. Back in 1997, a high school student named Nathan Zohner garnered attention from newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations, universities, and congresspeople because of his research on the subject. Here are some of the things that have been said about dihydrogen monoxide:

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:

• is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
• contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
• may cause severe burns.
• contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
• accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
• may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Fortunately, the government has never banned dihydrogen monoxide. In the cases above where politicians got involved, someone eventually pointed out to them that dihydrogen monoxide – more commonly abbreviated as H2O – is water.  Zohner titled his science project, "How Gullible Are We?" What a fitting name.

We can laugh about these cases now. But, there is a similar case out there that has garnered way more attention and has even become mainstream now. Instead of saying water is bad though, they tell us carbon is bad. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – the very gas we exhale and that plants breathe – is portrayed to be some kind of 'pollutant'. They try to convince people that increasing CO2 emissions somehow causes global warming. They also like to point out how bad it is to breathe in the CO2 emissions from automobiles and factories…but that is just elementary school science! In elementary school, you learn about how animals exhale CO2, and plants breathe it in. In return, plants provide animals with oxygen. It's just part of the symbiotic relationship of plants and animals on Earth. It's not that CO2 is toxic, it's just that were not supposed to breathe it regardless of what the source is.

Despite what some people may say, there is no scientific consensus that definitively states that global warming is caused by increasing CO2. It's not the first time the Earth has warmed. Did increasing CO2 emissions cause the Medieval Warm Period? The current global warming isn't anything unusual, its just part of the solar cycle. The Earth and the solar system go through periods of warming and cooling based on solar activity. Are our SUVs causing the polar ice caps of Mars to melt? Are Jupiter's increasing temperatures caused by our factories? Any effect CO2 emissions may have on temperatures is minimal. The biggest irony of all this is the so called 'Green movement'. Plants exposed to increased levels of CO2 grow stronger and healthier (one of the documentaries at the end of this post shows a study done about this). It should come as no surprise to anyone with an elementary school education that plants grow better in an environment saturated with the very gas they breathe. So essentially, if you want to be 'green', you better be increasing your carbon output!

What this boils down to is not science, but money. Funding is the driving factor for scientists espousing global warming caused by CO2 emissions. It's political propaganda for those who want a 'global carbon tax'. Yes, there are people that want to tax the very air that you exhale.



So what we have here is not good science, but a way for some people to make a lot of money. One thing you have to understand is data is not infallible. Data is oftentimes up to interpretation, and just as some religious leaders like to take holy books and cherrypick certain scriptures out of context to prove a point, so to can scientists cherrypick certain pieces of data to prove their point. If you choose to watch the videos at the end of this post, you can see how data regarding global warming has been taken out of context by many scientists.

Here is my satirical view of what has happened here:

[Some rich guys hear someone say that global warming may be caused by CO2 emissions.]


Rich guys: Hmm…maybe we can make some money off of this?

Rich guys: Hey, you over there with the PhD…c'mere.

Rich guys: Have you heard anything about global warming being caused by CO2 emissions?

PhD guy: I think I've heard it mentioned before.

Rich guys: Well, we're looking for someone that can confirm that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions. We were wondering if you might be able to do some research about it for us.  [The rich guys open up a suitcase full of money at this point.]

PhD guy: Oh…yes…I think I could do that research for you!

Rich guys: Alright…you do this for us, you'll be a made man.

So what you have here is research inspired by funding. When other scientists see that scientists saying one thing get funded well, they decide to jump on the bandwagon. Truth is truth though. Just because a well funded scientist says something is true, doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Nor does it become true because some younger scientists seeing dollar signs go around repeating what their well funded elder scientists tell them.

The truth is, CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a part of life on Earth. The Earth – and solar system – has warmed in recent years due to increasing solar activity. The effect of CO2 emissions on global warming is minimal, if not negligible.

But there's a lot of money to be made by trying to convince people that factory and automobile emissions are a threat to the environment.

I wonder if the dihydrogen monoxide hoax was deliberately started in response to the carbon dioxide gloom and doom scenarios. Essentially, both are taking one of the essential building blocks of life on Earth and portraying it as some sort of toxic gas. The main difference is the latter is serving a lot of people well financially.


Suddenly, the dihydrogen monoxide scare doesn't seem as funny anymore.

______________________________________________________
Here are some documentaries I recommend about the global warming scare.

Water on Mars

The other day I posted a link to an article about water on the moon.  Today I came across an article on NASA's website saying they've found water on Mars at a latitude lower than what they had expected.  Here's an excerpt from the article:

NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has revealed frozen water hiding just below the surface of mid-latitude Mars. The spacecraft's observations were obtained from orbit after meteorites excavated fresh craters on the Red Planet.

Scientists controlling instruments on the orbiter found bright ice exposed at five Martian sites with new craters that range in depth from approximately half a meter to 2.5 meters (1.5 feet to 8 feet). The craters did not exist in earlier images of the same sites. Some of the craters show a thin layer of bright ice atop darker underlying material. The bright patches darkened in the weeks following initial observations, as the freshly exposed ice vaporized into the thin Martian atmosphere. One of the new craters had a bright patch of material large enough for one of the orbiter's instruments to confirm it is water-ice.

The finds indicate water-ice occurs beneath Mars' surface halfway between the north pole and the equator, a lower latitude than expected in the Martian climate.

"This ice is a relic of a more humid climate from perhaps just several thousand years ago," said Shane Byrne of the University of Arizona, Tucson.

Read the whole article here.

It seems like water is turning up in all kinds of places now.