Latest Photos of Pluto Released: Show Details of Icy Mountains

NASA has released the newest photos of Pluto and its moon Charon.  Here is the view from 3 billion miles away!

The Icy Mountains of Pluto (NASA)

See more pictures at the NASA website, here.

Pluto: Spacecraft to Fly By Planet Today, Following 9 Year Journey from Earth

Today the New Horizons spacecraft completed a journey of 9+ years and 3+ billion miles:  it will fly past Pluto, the most distant planet (planetoid?) in our solar system.  The spacecraft's closest approach to the planet will take it 7,750 miles above the surface.

Images from the fly-by will be processed and released tomorrow, Wednesday, July 15, 2015.

Here's the nearest-ever photo released for Pluto.  It was taken yesterday, July 13.  (Image credit = NASA)

A Rainy Day, a Good Cigar, God and the Near Death Experience

I delivered some bookkeeping reports and checks to a client in Gilroy this morning, then swung by the Morgan Hill Cigar Company in Morgan Hill.  I bought five Churchill cigars for $7 each, and am enjoying one right now.  I am sitting in the backyard gazebo; the sky is completely overcast and the air is cold and moist with rain.  Great nap weather, and I shall avail myself of it after my cigar.

As I grow older, I think more and more about death and what comes next.  I am not afraid of death, but feel I need to prepare for it.   I am not a member of any religion, but I believe in God, not a big man in the sky with a giant beard, but as a force that permeates and includes the universe and anything beyond.

I have been reading books on the near death experience (NDE), and find them very interesting.  One of the best was Science and the Near Death Experience, How Consciousness Survives Death, by Chris Carter.  Carter discusses quantum mechanics and posits that consciousness is not produced by the brain, though it uses the brain to carry out bodily functions in the here and now.  Carter gives examples of how consciousness is greatly expanded at times when the brain is near death or otherwise nonfunctioning.  Of course, he points to NDEs as proof.  (Note:  it is not true that a nonfunctioning brain makes one into a Democrat, though the mistake is understandable.)  Carter spends some time refuting skeptic theories about the NDE.

Near Death Experiences sometimes occur when someone flatlines and is near physical death.  The person experiences an out-of-body perspective, where he or she watches from above a team of doctors working to save his or her life, from a vantage point on the ceiling.  If the NDE continues for a time, the voyager is pulled into a dark tunnel with a bright light at the end, and finds himself speeding toward the light, which grows bigger and nearer.  He meets and communicates with departed friends and relatives. He may experience a life review, where every moment of his life is replayed for his viewing and lessons learned. Wonderful gardens, colors and music are often experienced during the NDE as well.  The greatest impression NDE voyagers describe is being enveloped in great love, with a feeling of peace, acceptance and well-being.

Finally, those who live to tell about the experience are sent back to this life.  They are told "it's not your time, you have to go back," at which time they are returned to their body.  NDEs are fairly common, and have been described in many cultures and time periods.  One's religious persuasion usually has little effect on what the voyager sees, hears and experiences.  Most people who have an NDE lose all fear of death, and may find renewed purpose and meaning for their lives.

Another book I am reading is The Experience of God, by David Bentley Hart.  Hart's book seeks to clarify issues and terms for atheists, so that deists and atheists can at least be on the same page in the great debate.  His book clarifies some concepts for me, but his writing is highly technical and filled with vernacular, so frequent use of the dictionary is necessary.  The reader has to work quite hard to get to the meaning of his essays, and I suspect many will give up before finishing the book.  It is not written for the layman, unfortunately.

The opponents of both these writers are generally called "materialists," that is, people who believe there is no reality beyond our physical existence.  If they can't see it, smell it, taste it or measure it, then (or so they believe) it does not exist.  Needless to say, I am not a materialist.

World Renowned Neurosurgeon Doesn't Believe In Evolution

Dr. Ben Carson

Dr. Ben Carson has a sterling reputation as a surgeon and an inspiring personal story to boot.  He is to give a commencement address at Emory University in Atlanta.

However, academicians are in a lather when it was revealed that Dr. Carson doesn't believe in evolution.  A very devout man, Dr. Carson's views are apparently based on his religious beliefs.   The biology professors at Emory are quite upset.  Whatever happened to Group Think?  So what do you do with a black man who isn't solidly rooted in the liberal plantation?

I don't care what the good doctor believes about evolution (I have serious doubts about it myself).  However, it is amazing to me how the Biology professors at Emory are all in a lather because someone holds a different belief than they do.

Read more about it here.

Voyager 1 Spacecraft to Exit Solar System Soon

Voyager 1

Wow, Voyager 1 is a space probe that was launched in 1977.  After a journey of 33 years it has reached the edge of our solar system.  It is now the furthest man-made object from earth, about 10 billion miles away.

Funny, after three decades it still provides electronic transmission of data back to earth!  That is impressive -- all my electronic stuff breaks way earlier than that.  Well except for a coffee grinder I got in 1976 -- it ground my morning coffee today.

Scientists say this space probe will soon exit our solar system and enter interstellar space.  Well, by "soon" they mean in about four years.  After that, perhaps it will enter another star system sometime in the distant future.  Or to coin a phrase from the Beatniks, "Far Out!"

Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created Itself From Nothing

Created Itself Spontaneously.

I shouldn't pick on Stephen Hawking.  He is severely disabled and is now in retirement.  Perhaps his judgment and scientific analysis are not as keen as they once were.

Nevertheless, I found it curious that Hawking believes the universe created itself.  He said:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

Okay. Maybe if I want a pizza, it will create itself from nothing.  I will call this "the Stogie Theory of Pizza."  I just hope it doesn't spontaneously create any anchovies.  Well, a few on the side is okay.

Hawking also stated that he does not believe a personal God exists.  Am I offended by this?  No.  But it seems so stereotypical of the establishment,  materialistic scientist, who can't see beyond his rack of test tubes.  Scientists are generally so cause-and-effect in their thinking (and that's a good thing), that it is curious to hear Hawking describe something so completely illogical and irrational in human terms:  that the universe created itself from nothing.

Maybe God created it.  Okay, but then who created God?  There is no plausible cause-and-effect scenario there, either.  Right.  I do agree.  Whether we are talking about God or the universe, the very existence of either is utterly impossible if we rely solely on human observation and experience.

But that's what human logic tells us -- and human logic is limited.  Human logic is based only on phenomena and natural laws that we can measure and observe, with our limited senses. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Lord Rees is said to be the greatest scientist in the United Kingdom, and he, like I, believes that the why and the how of the universe is beyond human understanding.  I always like to use my pet analogy, i.e. that we can no more understand the existence of the universe than a boll weevil can understand higher calculus.  No matter how hard that boll weevil studies math, or how advanced its calculator, it will never be able to understand E=MC2.  This is true even though the boll weevil has a big ego and believes there is nothing beyond the reach of his massive brain.

Lord Rees has his own analogy, and it ain't bad.  He says:

Some aspects of reality – a unified theory of physics or a full understanding of consciousness – might elude us simply because they’re beyond human brains, just as surely as Einstein’s ideas would baffle a chimpanzee.

Some other man, one J.D.S. Haldane described my position exactly when he said:

Now my own suspicion is that the universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.

Ah, great minds do think alike!

A materialist looks at a sky full of stars and sees a cosmic accident with no meaning or purpose. I, however, am more optimistic than that.   I see in the same sky a complex system that was purposely set into action, and though I do not understand it, that mankind is an important part of it all.  And it is good.

Update:  Reader Courtney sent me the attached graphic, "Atheism," in her comments on this post.  I liked it and I am adding it here!

Fun With Math (?): Converting Centigrade to Fahrenheit and Vice Versa

Some Background:
The global warming alarmists often live in Europe, so we see lots of references to temperatures in centigrade.  Here in the U.S. we are still used to reading temperatures in Fahrenheit.  It's useful to be able to convert from one temperature scale to another, especially to put alarmists arguments into a more familiar perspective.

My Screw Up at YouTube:
There is a National Geographic video at YouTube showing the ecological disaster that would allegedly occur if global temperatures increased even 5°C.  Well I whipped out the conversion formula I learned in high school and tried to convert that increase to its Fahrenheit equivalent, which has more meaning for me as an American.  So I computed 5°C * (9/5) +32 = 41°F.  Well now, I thought, we'd have to have the sun become a supernova before such an increase would happen, so the whole argument is moot, cause it ain't ever gonna happen, at least not for billions of years.

Thinking It Through
However, my thinking was wrong.  We weren't comparing two temperatures, we were comparing an increase in temperature, an interval rather than a point on the thermometer.  So how do you convert an interval, say, how is an increase in 5°C converted into °F?

Well, let's see.  The centigrade thermometer is based on a 100 degree scale:  start at 0 degrees (freezing point for water) and end at 100 degrees (boiling point for water).  The Fahrenheit thermometer is based on a 212 degree scale.  It starts at 0 and ends at 212 degrees.  Freezing (for water) is at 32 degrees and boiling of water occurs at 212 degrees.  Okay, so converting an interval, C to F, should be C * 212/100, I thought.  That converted 5°C to 10.6°F.  Sounds reasonable.  If correct, I should be able to convert back to C by the upside down version of the formula:  C = F*(100/212).  However, this did not convert 10.6 °F back to 5°C. It converted it to 2.36°C.  My formula didn't work, but why?

Eureka!
Aha, it dawned on me.  Water freezes at 0°C and at 32°F.  The scales are not really comparable because the F scale covers a greater range of temperatures.  To make them comparable, I had to knock off the first 32° from the F scale (212 - 32 = 180).  So the formula for comparing temperature intervals are these:  F = C*(180/100) and C = F*(100/180).

So an increase of 5°C is equal to an increase of 9.0°F, and vice versa.  This formula works both ways, so it seems correct.

So now, in order to evaluate National Geographic's nightmare scenario, I have to think:  what ecological disaster would occur if global temperatures increased 9.0 °F?  That would be hot, indeed.  The Medieval Warming Period is said to have increased only 7°F, at the most.  However, that period saw longer growing seasons, easier living conditions and greater longevity.  The warming was beneficial to man, not deleterious.

So even if temperatures did increase 5°C, would it really destroy the planet?  I doubt it.  I also doubt that the temperatures ever will increase that much, barring some unforeseen ecological change (man made carbon emissions won't do it.)

Okay, for those who are interested, here are the formulas for converting temperatures.

Converting From Centigrade to Fahrenheit:
It the temperature is 5 degrees C, what is the temperature in Fahrenheit?  Use the formula:

F = (9/5 * C) + 32

So to convert 5°C to F:  (9/5 * 5) + 32 = 41°F.

Converting From Fahrenheit to Centigrade:
If the temperature is 41°F, what is it in centigrade?  Use the formula:

C=(F-32) * 5/9

So to convert 41°F to C:  (41-32) * 5/9 = 5°C

Now, if the temperature increases by 5°C, how much did it increase in F?  The answer is not 41 degrees, because we aren't measuring two temperatures, but the interval between two temperatures. The formula to compute this is:  C * 180/100 = F.

So an increase in 5°C = 5* (180/100) = an increase of 9.0°F

To convert a temperature interval from F to C, the opposite formula is used:
F * (100/180) = C.

So an increase in temperature of 9.0 °F, expressed in C, is as follows:
9.0 * (100/180) = 5°C.

Now that I have put you all to sleep, pleasant dreams!

UPDATED: UFO? Sign of the "End Times"? Strange Spiral Light Over Norway is Both Beautiful and Frightening

Infidel Bloggers was first to blog about the strange lights appearing over Norway this week.

The light is a giant white spiral, with a blue light shining forth from the center, also in a spiral pattern.

You can't tell by the still photos, but the light is moving, spiraling.

Go here to read news and see videos on this strange light.

Also see Infidel Bloggers post here.

UPDATE:  The Russians have now stated that it was their failed rocket launch that caused the spectacular light show.  The devil you say!  I suspect a worldwide conspiracy to suppress news of a Martian attack....

Scientists Want to Know: Is There Water in Tehran?

A few weeks ago NASA bombed the moon to see how much water would be present in the dust kicked up by the blast.  Some wags stated that the USA had declared war on the moon with a preemptive attack, and that Harry Reid immediately declared the war lost.

Now it appears that the test showed there is indeed water on the moon.  Why this is important isn't immediately obvious to me.

I know a lot of scientists, particularly Israeli ones, who are anxious to test for water in Tehran.

Poking Holes in the Theories of Militant Atheism

This past week I read David Berlinski's book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. Berlinski is a secular Jew with a PhD from Princeton in Philosophy and completed postdoctoral fellowships in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has taught philosophy, mathematics and English at various universities.

Berlinksi came to my attention after spanking John Derbyshire at National Review Online over Derbyshire's erroneous and unfounded attack on Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." The article referenced "The Devil's Delusion," so I bought it.

In the book, Berlinski discusses major scientific theories like Newtonian mechanics, the theory of the electromagnetic field, special and general relativity and quantum mechanics. All of these theories are valuable and useful, but all contain gaps in our knowledge as well, which Berinski calls "the God of the gaps." Much of scientific theory employs supposition, inference, and what molecular geneticist Emile Zuckerlandl calls "unobservable entities": universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, and quantum fields." Berlinski notes "Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians, Zuckerlandl does not say."

In other words, much of scientific theory is based on faith, not verifiable hard data. Berlinski notes: "If religious belief places the human heart in the service of an unseen world, the serious sciences have since the great [scientific] revolution of the seventeeth century done precisely the same thing." Science often answers questions as to the how and why of natural phenomena, and almost always creates even more questions in the process.

We open one door to find many more. There is a vast amount of what we do not know, and perhaps cannot know. Scientific atheism has its own kind of faith, that everything in the universe will eventually be explained by mathematics or other sciences. That, however, assumes the human mind is adequate to perceive all questions and comprehend all possible solutions. This ignores the probability that we can no more fully comprehend the cosmos than a boll weevil can understand quantum mechanics.

Underlying the dispute of science versus religion is a determination by scientific atheists to never admit the possibility of a Creator. As geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked, "We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Berlinski notes many facts that make atheist physicists uncomfortable. Some of these are as follows:

1. The Big Bang theory. Scientists once believed that the universe must have existed from "everlasting to everlasting," that it had no beginning and no end. Now there is substantial evidence that the universe appeared suddenly about 14 billion years ago, i.e. it had a definite beginning. What created it? Scientists do not know and cannot explain it. Perhaps it is unexplainable in human terms.

2. The existence of life. Science has described no mechanics by which life emerged from inert matter. What created it? We don't have a clue.

3. The universe appears to be "a put-up job," that is, appears to have been created intelligently and fine-tuned to support life. Various scientists have admitted this, including physicist Paul Davies, who observed "Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - that the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient 'coincidences' and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal." Physicist Leonard Susskind observed: "Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the Intelligent Design critics."

4. The human mind. Berlinski notes "We do not have a serious scientific theory explaining the powers and properties of the human mind. The claim that the human mind is the product of evolution is not unassailable fact. It is barely coherent."

5. Weaknesses in the theory of evolution. Berlinksi devotes a lot of space to evolution. One of his most persuasive arguments against it is that the fossil record does not support the theory of gradual emergence of new species from old. He quotes scientists themselves to support his argument. Robert Carroll, a committed evolutionist, noted that "most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account" of evolution. Scientist Eugene Koonin published a peer-reviewed paper in 2007 titled "The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution." He concluded: "Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity." So much for the theory of "natural selection."

Berlinski believes, as I do, that scientific atheism is based on arrogance and immaturity. He describes the feelings of many when he writes "Indeed, they [scientific atheists] are widely considered self-righteous, vain, politically immature and arrogant." One example he gives of this is militant atheist Richard Dawkin's remark: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution that person is ignorant, stupid or insane."

Militant atheism, however, is its own kind of faith, and as Berlinski notes "And like any militant church, this one places a familiar demand before all others: Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

My conclusions are simple: People of faith have nothing to fear from science or militant atheism. Considering how little scientists actually know, the religious views of creation are as good as any to explain the origins of the universe and life on earth. Or, to quote an older book, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."