If the Drake Equation is correct, then there are roughly 10,000 planets or other celestial bodies that have intelligent life on them at any given time in our galaxy, the Milky Way. So roughly, for every 1,000 light years, we should find one of these planets or moons containing intelligent life. The light (or images) from the closest of these celestial bodies would take 1,000 years (due to the speed of light) to get here even if we are viewing via telescope. So if we could observe spaceships leaving a planet's atmosphere, that would mean that this is what happened ... oh ... maybe 1,0000 years ago. The possibility also exists that we could be looking at a planet with intelligent life, that currently is in their space age, but we are looking into their bronze age because the image takes so long to get here. Mind-boggling once you start thinking about it.
It goes the other way as well. If an aliens species were watching us at this very minute, they could be watching the signing of the Magna Carta or the rise of the Pueblo civilization. They would not see our current highly advanced societies with our satellites circling the Earth not until the light we are transmitting reaches their telescopes some 1,000 or so years from now.
With this being said, one would think that the chances of a highly advanced technical people contacting each other, with two way communication, is not very likely. A very large window (time span) would have to be open when their respective civilizations overlapped. A world like that one portrayed in Star Trek, which is very pleasing and dreamy, is just not going to happen. We will never travel a short amount of time to meet alien cultures. I love that idea, it is a great plot device. But make no mistakes, Star Trek is good television, not good science.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Tacitus and the Ancient Germans
Much of what we know of as Europe, the nations that scatter that continent's map, was formed after ancient Rome fell and during its decline. Sometime around first or second century AD, the Roman army was over extended. Once they started retracting their units, the locals had to learn to protect themselves. There were some drawbacks to being under the protection of the Roman army, but one of the many benefits was that there was order and protection from foreign invasion and barbarian uprising. Once that protection was gone, the locals took charge, sometimes anarchy ensued, new tribes were formed and new boundaries were drawn.
It was right about this time that we start hearing about the German people. They were described as a fierce tribe of people who lived in a region with harsh weather. They were tall, had blue eyes, reddish blond hair and sternness in their gaze. When they went into battle, entire families would accompany them and would cheer from the side lines like we do now at sporting events. The most of what we know of these people come from the Roman scholar, senator and historian, Tacitus. In his book, Germania, (written around 98 AD), he describes them as an isolated nation of "noble savages" that had not mixed with the Roman empire, as the Nazis would later refer to as being "pure."
Copies of the book disappeared for centuries until the 15th century. It has been called one of the most dangerous books ever written. It was used to inspire the German invasion of Turkish land in the 15th century and more recently by Heimlich Himmler of the Nazi regime as a guidebook to resurrect Germany. Hitler found it so important he sponsored raids to seize copies of text. Many of the ideas promoted about the superiority of the German came right out of its text.
It is amazing to me how a text written by an ancient Roman senator in the first century AD indirectly affected millions of people in 20th century and possibly beyond.
It was right about this time that we start hearing about the German people. They were described as a fierce tribe of people who lived in a region with harsh weather. They were tall, had blue eyes, reddish blond hair and sternness in their gaze. When they went into battle, entire families would accompany them and would cheer from the side lines like we do now at sporting events. The most of what we know of these people come from the Roman scholar, senator and historian, Tacitus. In his book, Germania, (written around 98 AD), he describes them as an isolated nation of "noble savages" that had not mixed with the Roman empire, as the Nazis would later refer to as being "pure."
Copies of the book disappeared for centuries until the 15th century. It has been called one of the most dangerous books ever written. It was used to inspire the German invasion of Turkish land in the 15th century and more recently by Heimlich Himmler of the Nazi regime as a guidebook to resurrect Germany. Hitler found it so important he sponsored raids to seize copies of text. Many of the ideas promoted about the superiority of the German came right out of its text.
It is amazing to me how a text written by an ancient Roman senator in the first century AD indirectly affected millions of people in 20th century and possibly beyond.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Curie and the Prize
Marie Curie is the only person to receive a Nobel Prize in two distinct scientific disciplines. In 1903 she was awarded the Prize for physics (shared it with her colleague Antoine Henri Becquerel and her husband Pierre) and in 1911 for chemistry. She was not originally included on the prize in 1903 until her husband, Pierre, complained. He wrote: "If it is true that one is seriously thinking about me [for the Nobel Prize], I very much wish to be considered together with Madame Curie with respect to our research on radioactive bodies." The letter was written to mathematician
Gösta Mittag-Leffler who was an advocate for women in science. Neither of the Curies showed up in Stockholm for the ceremony citing illness.
In 1911, when Marie accepted the prize alone for her work in chemistry, she was a widow. Pierre died in a fluke accident involving a horse drawn carriage. In Paris, in a heavy rain, he was knocked over by the carriage and the wheel crushed his head. Some think that he may have survived the crash if not for his weakened state due to exposure to radiation.
Marie Curie coined the phrase, "radioactivity" in her theory of radioactivity. She developed techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes and discovered two elements, polonium and radium. At the time, it wasn't known how dangerous radiation exposure was to your health. Much of her work was done without proper protection. Considering this, it is amazing that she lived until 1934 and died at the age of 66. She often walked around with test tubes of radioactive isotopes in her pocket, stored then in her desk and sometime took the train with a suitcase full of radioactive material. She died of aplastic anemia, a result of a long term exposure to radiation, which is a condition where your bone marrow no longer produces new cells anymore.
In 1911, when Marie accepted the prize alone for her work in chemistry, she was a widow. Pierre died in a fluke accident involving a horse drawn carriage. In Paris, in a heavy rain, he was knocked over by the carriage and the wheel crushed his head. Some think that he may have survived the crash if not for his weakened state due to exposure to radiation.
Marie Curie coined the phrase, "radioactivity" in her theory of radioactivity. She developed techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes and discovered two elements, polonium and radium. At the time, it wasn't known how dangerous radiation exposure was to your health. Much of her work was done without proper protection. Considering this, it is amazing that she lived until 1934 and died at the age of 66. She often walked around with test tubes of radioactive isotopes in her pocket, stored then in her desk and sometime took the train with a suitcase full of radioactive material. She died of aplastic anemia, a result of a long term exposure to radiation, which is a condition where your bone marrow no longer produces new cells anymore.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Romanian Irony
Most of the time I am proud of my country. The creativity, innovation and spunk of the American populace is inspiring. But all too often I am embarrassed. While the much of the world is rioting for human rights and a lot of other things we take for granted, what do we riot over? We riot over a Penn State football coach being fired. I can't wrap my head around what is going on over at Penn State. I am a sport fan. I have been known be fanatical over the Red Sox. But if any member of the Red Sox (like Terry Francona, Jim Rice or even Ted Williams) had ever been fired for the covering up of pedophilia, I don't think I would be rioting. I can't speak for all Sox fans, but I am willing to bet there wouldn't be a riot but some depression and/or denial. I would probably even agree with the firing. I will just have to add the Penn State riots to the long list of things I don't understand and ... move on.
I don't remember the Romanian riots in 1989. I was a bit self-absorbed back then. I only vaguely remember the slew of other violent revolts in Warsaw Pact countries that year, but as I read about them they seem an awful lot like the revolutions (aka the Arab Spring) in the Middle East this past year. Since the revolutions in Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Poland and Romania lead to the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union a short time later, you really have to wonder what the long term affect of the Arab Spring will be. It is exciting when I think about it.
I don't know much about Romania out of side of what I have read in Bram Stoker's Dracula. Castles and underfunded orphanages come to mind. In 1965, the year I was born, Nicolae Ceauşescu became the Communist dictator of Romania. With the intention of molding the people into the model of the "New Socialist Man," he created sweeping reforms throughout the country. One of then was one of the strictest laws ever against abortion with the intent of strengthening the Romanian population. Not only that, but all forms of contraception were banned and women were taxed, "a celibacy tax," if there were not getting pregnant. These laws had the desired affect in that the birthrate doubled within a year. But the children of this generation's quality of life was much lower than just a few years earlier in every way. The grades were lower, crime rates were higher and when they got older the job market was stretched thin. In Romania, like anywhere else, when a child is born into a family that doesn't want him/her, the results are usually not good. The irony here is that in 1989, when Ceauşescu was overthrown and he and his wife were executed, he was done so by a mob that were made up mostly of young people. Mobs of people in their late teens and earlier 20's were erupting in Bucharest and all the other big cities in Romania. If not for his policies, much of these young people would never have been born.
I don't remember the Romanian riots in 1989. I was a bit self-absorbed back then. I only vaguely remember the slew of other violent revolts in Warsaw Pact countries that year, but as I read about them they seem an awful lot like the revolutions (aka the Arab Spring) in the Middle East this past year. Since the revolutions in Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Poland and Romania lead to the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union a short time later, you really have to wonder what the long term affect of the Arab Spring will be. It is exciting when I think about it.
I don't know much about Romania out of side of what I have read in Bram Stoker's Dracula. Castles and underfunded orphanages come to mind. In 1965, the year I was born, Nicolae Ceauşescu became the Communist dictator of Romania. With the intention of molding the people into the model of the "New Socialist Man," he created sweeping reforms throughout the country. One of then was one of the strictest laws ever against abortion with the intent of strengthening the Romanian population. Not only that, but all forms of contraception were banned and women were taxed, "a celibacy tax," if there were not getting pregnant. These laws had the desired affect in that the birthrate doubled within a year. But the children of this generation's quality of life was much lower than just a few years earlier in every way. The grades were lower, crime rates were higher and when they got older the job market was stretched thin. In Romania, like anywhere else, when a child is born into a family that doesn't want him/her, the results are usually not good. The irony here is that in 1989, when Ceauşescu was overthrown and he and his wife were executed, he was done so by a mob that were made up mostly of young people. Mobs of people in their late teens and earlier 20's were erupting in Bucharest and all the other big cities in Romania. If not for his policies, much of these young people would never have been born.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Superman Fighting the KKK
As a life-long Marvel Comics fan, I have always turned my nose up to DC Comics. DC comics always seemed too simplistic. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman may have seemed really creative when they were created in the 1940's but for my post-hippy angst, Marvel was much more appealing. Stan Lee created characters like Spiderman, the Hulk and X-men in the 1960's. They are much more complex. Their stories have an edge to them and have a lot more social commentary in them with themes of racism, otherness and individuality.
I just finished a chapter in Freakonomics (by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner) that gave me new appreciation for Superman, not the comic but the radio show. In the 1940's political activist Stetson Kennedy went undercover with the Ku Klux Klan with the intention of publishing a book about their inner workings. He learned a lot of their secrets like their recruiting techniques, passwords, handshakes and terminology. For example, when a Klansman went on the road, they could find other Klansmen by asking around for "Mr Ayak" which stood for "Are you a Klansman?". If a Klansman heard someone asking for Mr. Ayak at a bar, a church etc., they could identify themselves by replying "Yes, and I also know a Mr. Akai" which stood for "A Klansman Am I."
The Klan was growing strong. Kennedy thought that just another journalistic book would not affect the spread of bigotry enough, he had a better idea. He contacted the producers of the very popular Superman radio show. Superman was running out of villains. Why not take on the Klan? "The Clan of the Fiery Cross" was born in 1946. For 16 episodes Superman battled the Klan. In these episodes the Ayak/Akai passwords were revealed and the Klan mystique was demystified. If the following years the Klan attendance dropped and recruitment plummeted. What was once a secret code was now common and afloat in the pop culture airways.
Levitt and Dubner call Kennedy, the "biggest blow" to the KKK in their history. They may have over stated this, but the idea that tolerance is good business may have started here. Nonetheless my appreciation for Superman, real world or otherwise has greatly increased.
I just finished a chapter in Freakonomics (by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner) that gave me new appreciation for Superman, not the comic but the radio show. In the 1940's political activist Stetson Kennedy went undercover with the Ku Klux Klan with the intention of publishing a book about their inner workings. He learned a lot of their secrets like their recruiting techniques, passwords, handshakes and terminology. For example, when a Klansman went on the road, they could find other Klansmen by asking around for "Mr Ayak" which stood for "Are you a Klansman?". If a Klansman heard someone asking for Mr. Ayak at a bar, a church etc., they could identify themselves by replying "Yes, and I also know a Mr. Akai" which stood for "A Klansman Am I."
The Klan was growing strong. Kennedy thought that just another journalistic book would not affect the spread of bigotry enough, he had a better idea. He contacted the producers of the very popular Superman radio show. Superman was running out of villains. Why not take on the Klan? "The Clan of the Fiery Cross" was born in 1946. For 16 episodes Superman battled the Klan. In these episodes the Ayak/Akai passwords were revealed and the Klan mystique was demystified. If the following years the Klan attendance dropped and recruitment plummeted. What was once a secret code was now common and afloat in the pop culture airways.
Levitt and Dubner call Kennedy, the "biggest blow" to the KKK in their history. They may have over stated this, but the idea that tolerance is good business may have started here. Nonetheless my appreciation for Superman, real world or otherwise has greatly increased.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Corn People and Corn Cattle
It is that time of year again. It is corn time. Not the corn growing season, of course, certainly not here in Vermont. It is corn season because the Iowa Caucus is approaching and politicians just love corn this time a year. To survive in Iowa, you have to express your undying love for corn, corn subsidies and ethanol. Ethanol is a dead-end environmentally, but that doesn't matter to our so-called liberal president, he supports it. At this point, it seems that only Fox News thinks Obama is a liberal.
In 2008, John McCain was the only major candidate to be honest and come out against corn. Of course, in the Iowa Caucus that year he came in a distant third to Huckabee and Romney, confessed corn lovers. More recently, in this year's Republican Primary race, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty promoted "phasing out" corn subsidies. What happen to him? He dropped out of the race after a very poor showing in the Iowa Straw Poll. Why is the Straw Poll so important? With such a poor showing, donations to his campaign would dry up.
Newt is crazy about corn subsidies. He finds it to be a national security issues. He wants us to wean off oil and pump ethanol in our cars or heat our homes with it but that would require much more land to be farmed than is possible. This is just another nutty, Newty idea that has little basis in reality.
The US is, by far, the largest producer of corn on the planet, producing almost half of the supply. The US has 400,000 farms growing 10 billion bushels, using 72.7 million acres for cash receipts of $15.1 billion. Corn and soy beans are our two biggest crops. Where does all this corn go? Very little of it is for direct consumption of humans. 32% are exported overseas, 18% of it goes to sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup and then rest goes toward feed stock for cattle. Most of our overseas corn goes to feeding cattle as well. Corn fed cattle grow faster thus costing less money.
The digestive systems of cattle aren't exactly equipped for all this grain. They usually feed on grass, but most cattle in the US have a diet of at least 90% corn feed. This causes ulcers in the animals among other things. To combat the illnesses they are given antibiotics. 70% of the antibiotics used in the US are used by the meat industry. You feeling a hankering for a burger about now? No, worries, even farmed salmon are fed corn now.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The 27th Amendment
The US Constitution states that two-thirds of the states need to ratify an Amendment to become the law of the land, but there is no expiration date to this ratification (see Coleman vs. Miller). The 27th Amendment (the Madison Amendment) is the latest Amendment to our Constitution which became law in 1992, but it was originally introduced to Congress by James Madison 203 years before. Madison wasn't president yet; he was a Congressman at the time.
The 27th Amendment is not very interesting or controversial. It basically states that Congressional pay raises can only be granted directly after a House of Representatives election. So after a increase is voted in, an election must take place before it can go into effect. Six states originally ratified it: Maryland, Vermont, Virginia, Delaware and the Carolina's. At the time, 10 states were needed to make it a law. Ohio ratified it in 1873 and Wyoming in 1978. It wasn't until 1982 that it started getting wider recognition by the rest of the states. An under-graduate student at the University of Texas, Austin, Gregory Watson, started a letter writing campaign to get the rest of the states to ratify it. It took ten years. On May 7th, 1992, Michigan and New Jersey became the 39th and 40th states to ratify the Amendment. There are still five states that did not ratify it: Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York and Pennsylvania.
The 27th Amendment is not very interesting or controversial. It basically states that Congressional pay raises can only be granted directly after a House of Representatives election. So after a increase is voted in, an election must take place before it can go into effect. Six states originally ratified it: Maryland, Vermont, Virginia, Delaware and the Carolina's. At the time, 10 states were needed to make it a law. Ohio ratified it in 1873 and Wyoming in 1978. It wasn't until 1982 that it started getting wider recognition by the rest of the states. An under-graduate student at the University of Texas, Austin, Gregory Watson, started a letter writing campaign to get the rest of the states to ratify it. It took ten years. On May 7th, 1992, Michigan and New Jersey became the 39th and 40th states to ratify the Amendment. There are still five states that did not ratify it: Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York and Pennsylvania.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)