America Has Stopped Dreaming (No Longer the "Home of the Brave")

Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Edward H. White, Roger B. Chaffee, Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith A. Resnik, Ronald E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, S. Christa McAuliffe, Rick D. Husband, William C. McCool, David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Michael P. Anderson, Laurel B. Clark, IIam Roman.

These seventeen (17) names are the forgotten heroes of America.  The brave men and women on this list were not soldiers (though some had served in the Armed Forces), thus their legacy has nothing to do with war or dying in battle.  They never stormed a beachhead or secured a strategic hill; they never triumphantly lead a force into combat or eliminated some foreign threat.  Yet with all of that being said, these seventeen souls are the greatest of human heroes. Why?  Because they dared to venture into the unknown for nothing more than the quest for greater knowledge and further exploration. And while the soldiers of war are certainly deserving of the honor they have dearly earned, these seventeen soldiers of curiosity, whose battlefield lies in the stars and whose enemy is the ignorant, dared to escape the bonds of Earth to dance with the gods on a stage far greater than anything our puny little planet has to offer, thus making them, in my opinion, the greatest of heroes. 

For over 50 years, one organization has done more to wage this war for greater knowledge and exploration than any other in human history.  Founded in 1958, NASA has given America (and the world at large) more opportunities for growth, more avenues for progress and more desires to dream that big dream than any other organization in the history of our species.  And throughout its history, brave men and women have answered the call to breach our earthly atmosphere and to reach for the stars, and today provides us all with an opportunity to say thanks.

Ten years ago today, the Space Shuttle Columbia was destroyed while attempting to return to Earth, claiming the lives of seven brave astronauts.  And though this day belongs primarily with their memory, I believe that this occasion also affords us the chance to recognize the sacrifice of all seventeen brave NASA astronauts who have died in the ultimate line of duty: the quest for greater human knowledge.  The Apollo I, STS-51L (Challenger) and STS-107 (Columbia) missions all serve to remind us that our greatest possible quest, the human pursuit to explore, comes, at times, at a very high cost.

Ironically enough, all three NASA tragedies occurred on roughly the same dates (they are separated by 6 days on the calendar), so it's only natural for us to remember all of them when we honor one of them. Twenty-seven years ago (January 28, 1986) the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded during liftoff, while forty-six years ago (January 27, 1967), the astronauts of the Apollo I mission were burned to death in a cabin fire during a routine launch pad test.  These two national tragedies, along with the Columbia disaster which we mark today, are hallowed anniversaries that should compel us to reflect upon that which we hold most dear.  The natural human drive to explore, expand and soak in all the knowledge that we can is, by far, the single greatest characteristic that separates humans from all other known living things.  We aspire.  We dream of the impossible.  We fantasize about becoming more than we are.  In the words of Mark Twain, we humans dare to "Throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in [our] sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." 

But sadly, this dream is dying a quick and painful death.  The drive to continue our exploration of the heavens is running out of fuel faster than a rocket during liftoff.  The public, by and large, has grown ignorant of the immensity of the challenge before us and has erroneously regarded space travel as "routine."  This, coupled with the fact that incompetent leaders have lost sight of the vitality of space exploration to the human race, has mothballed NASA and placed its agenda on the back burner.  Too often we hear national leaders and ignorant citizens foolishly proclaim that we have "nothing more to explore" or that there is "nothing out there worth our while" or that "other pressing matters take precedence."  These idiotic statements, along with many others like them, would be laughable if the implications weren't so tragic.  Space exploration is, without question, the most important, most galvanizing, most essential endeavor that we can hope to embark upon.  There is absolutely zero justification for us to simply discard or downgrade the space program.  As Gene Krantz, the former flight director for NASA during the Apollo program stated:

We have the young people, we have the talent, we have the imagination, we have the technology.  But I don't believe we have the leadership and the willingness to accept risk, to achieve goals.  I believe we need a long-term national commitment to explore the universe.  And I believe this is an essential investment in the future of our nation.

No financial crisis, no global pandemic, no natural disaster, however severe, can serve to justify our wanton disregard for humanity's greatest challenge and adventure.

But that is EXACTLY what we have done.  We have allowed economic pressures, global fears and partisan political paranoia to derail us from what is absolutely essential to our survival, and yes, space exploration is absolutely essential to our survival.  I say that not because of the fact that eventually our species will be forced to migrate to another world, but because space exploration lies at the very heart of human exceptionalism.  If we truly hope to become more than we are we must push ourselves towards the horizon.  Space exploration is vital because of what it brings out in us as a society.  It forces humanity to look past the pettiness of so much that we esteem to be of "value" in this world.  It affords us the chance to discover new scientific, technological and medical breakthroughs.  It inoculates our culture from becoming too complacent and too lazy.  It makes us dream bigger, work harder, and think deeper.  In short, space exploration is the "hard thing" that will make us all stronger.  In the words of Kirk, Spock and Picard, space truly has become "the final frontier." 

Now, you may be thinking to yourself that all of this is achievable without sending rockets and astronauts into space and you may be right...to a point.  I suppose we could achieve much of this without landing a man on the moon or venturing to Mars and beyond but I maintain that NOTHING has forced us to dream bigger, think deeper or work harder than NASA and the manned space program.  As a result, there is no more efficient manner in which we could improve conditions than by continuing to push the envelope of space.  Yes, more astronauts will die and more multi-million dollar space vehicles will be destroyed, but the ends more than justify the means.

Consider for a moment what the Apollo program gave humanity.  Aside from bringing home moon rocks and cool pictures, the Apollo astronauts (and NASA as a whole) gave society some very practical and important innovations such as:

Memory foam, freeze-dried food, hand vacuums, CAT scans, MRI scans, cordless power tools, ear thermometers, huge improvements in insulation, satellite television, GPS navigation, shoe insoles, scratch resistant lenses, smoke detectors, improved water filtration, fire resistant suits, solar panels, pacemakers, improved and simplified kidney dialysis, athletic equipment, physical therapy, cochlear implants, LED technology, artificial limbs, anti-icing for aircraft, radial tires, enriched baby food, powdered lubricants, Velcro, AED heart resuscitation, invisible braces and Tang!

And this doesn't even take into account all of the innovations that the Apollo program brought to computers.  Everything from smaller and more reliable components to the development of micro-chip processors, digital watches, fibre optics, flat screen televisions (eventually), video games and much more can be directly linked to the great space race of the 1960s...that's right...the 1960s!!!  One can only imagine what we could have achieved by now had we not simply chosen to give up on serious space exploration.  For too long we have been content with doing circles around our own globe and putting satellites into space (which is all fine and good) when we could have been venturing out much deeper into the infinitude of space.  By now Mars should even be in our rear view mirror.  Pathetic that we haven't done more, isn't it! If there is a God in heaven, he must surely be disgusted with the fact that we have settled for the scraps when we could have had the stars.

But all of these technological advances pale in comparison to what the space program has done for American culture.  The Apollo program not only gave birth to the next generation of scientists, but it also redefined American culture.  In the following lecture, Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson illustrates, in great detail, just how dramatic the space program was on American culture, in ways most people don't even realize:



Too often we hear partisan political hacks on both sides complain about the erosion of American culture taking place before our very eyes.  And though their assessment of the situation is accurate, their solutions for the problem are bogus.  Having been hampered by the near-sighted vision of partisan bigotry, their remedies almost always consist of petitions for society to adhere to the narrow and one-sided view of their respective political leanings.  In other words, as long as society accepts the tenants of their particular dogma all will be right with the world.  But these proposals, unfortunately, fail to address the larger picture.  American (and world) culture is eroding not because of political strife or religious apathy; it is eroding because we no longer dream the impossible dream.

Sure, we still have collective dreams as a society, but more times than not, those dreams consist of narcissistic ambitions based on the meaningless acquisition of personal wealth.  We dream of "striking it big" by picking the right combination of numbers in the Lotto or winning a huge lawsuit.  We define success as getting that job promotion or creating the next "big idea" that guarantees us a huge pay day.  And though these dreams are, for the most part, acceptable, not a one is capable of delivering us the desired cultural change we seek. 

The problem is that the "American Dream" is a self-serving dream.  Sure, a white picket fence and a stable job is great and is a noble thing to work for, but it doesn't bring about cultural change.  To truly change a culture we must shift our paradigm of thinking.  We must dream the impossible dream.  And I'm not talking about the impossible dream of becoming the next NFL or NBA star, or of becoming the next winner of American Idol or Next Top Model.  I'm talking about those big dreams that come to us all as we gaze up at the night sky.  Is it any wonder why so many children want to become astronauts or fantasize about traveling to new worlds?  This isn't just science fiction taking over their minds.  It is pure, raw, undisturbed imagination at work.  The dream that we can shoot for the stars.  This is what we need in order to change our culture. The LeBron James', Kim Kardaishian's and even the Barack Obama's and/or Ronald Reagan's of the world can only do so much.  It takes a Neil Armstrong or a Christopher Columbus to truly expand our collective world view.

But the fact of the matter is that nobody wants to make the necessary change because we are now a culture that is based on fear.  The collective paranoia of the masses has created a society that cannot embrace the needed change because we are too frightened by our own shadow.  And I'm not just talking about a fear of terrorists or plots to destroy our democracy.  The fear I speak of is far more subtle.  It is the fear of letting go and embracing the unknown.  Like the starving man who frantically scavenges for the scraps under the table, thus missing the feast above him, we as a culture cling to our iPod, cell phone, On Demand, flat screen, GPS society without realizing that we could have something even greater.  Our frantic paranoia prevents us from embracing the unknown, which then reinforces the fear factor. 

We are no longer the "Home of the Brave."

We are the home of the complacent.  The lazy.  The self-serving.  The comfortable.  But certainly NOT the "Home of the Brave."  And yes, it takes much more than valiant soldiers and mighty armies to be considered a truly brave society. We've convinced ourselves that the pointless political and social matters that we obsess over today actually reveal our valor when in fact they reveal our cowardice, unwillingness to embrace the unknown and our lack of resolve to make any actual change in the way we perceive the world. There is nothing brave about our collective rejection of dreaming the big dream. 

Case in point: as the clocks turned to February 1st, the top stories on all the major news websites were:

On MSN: Joe Biden on how new gun laws won't stop shootings, how service animals help the elderly, Kim Kardashian's pregnant belly starting to show, Beyonce admitting to lip-syncing at the Inauguration, the NFL union chief ranting about concussions in football and underwater explorers discovering a giant squid.

CNN featured leading articles on an X-Games snowmobiler who had died, and more drama about guns.

Fox News: More gun crap, an article on Obamacare, and a deadly explosion in Mexico.

In fact, not a SINGLE MAJOR NEWS OUTLET featured any leading story about the Columbia anniversary!

This is an obscenity!  The collective lack of recognition for humanity's greatest achievement and most daunting quest, that being manned space flight, reveals just how warped we have truly become.  We insult the memory of the crew of STS-107 (Columbia), along with all the others who have died for the cause of exploration by essentially blotting them from our collective memory and discourse.  We have belittled their contributions to little more than a "special interest" or a novelty act. 

But make no mistake, NASA and the manned space program is no special interest.  In fact, it should be our MAIN interest.  All other concerns and priorities pale in comparison.  What could possibly be more important than exploring God's playground?  We can either use our resources to uncover the mysteries of this tiny and relatively insignificant blue rock or we can use them to reveal the wonder of the cosmos.

How much would you be willing to pay for the universe?

As we remember the seven brave astronauts who perished on board Columbia, along with the ten others who died during other missions, let us recognize the fact that our ability to dream the big dream is what truly makes humanity special.  Without it we might as well return to our caves and draw stick figures on the walls.  If the legacies of Apollo I, STS-51L and STS-107 teach us anything it is that mankind can achieve just about anything it sets its mind to...so long as we dream big and act brave.  As Christopher Columbus stated:

You cannot discover a new world unless you first have the courage to lose sight of the shore.

Thank you, brave astronauts for revealing to us the true nature of humanity and the correct perspective we should all embrace!

A brief video tribute to the seventeen brave astronauts of Apollo I, Challenger and Columbia:

Neil Degrasse Tyson on the importance of space exploration:

Religion v. Science

and the Pitfalls of Literalism
in Both Camps

This past week I purchased a book on my Kindle Fire (thank you, God for the Kindle Fire) that I have been wanting to read for quite a long time: Proof of Heaven by Ebon Alexander. The book chronicles the alleged near-death experience of Dr. Alexander, a revered neurosurgeon who fell into a deep coma that completely rendered his neocortex (the part of the brain that allegedly controls human conscience) completely inactive.

Of course, there is nothing unique about Dr. Alexander's claims of his "spirit" journeying to the beyond.  Thousands of people from all cultures have made such claims.  But there are a few special circumstances surrounding Dr. Alexander's account.  First, it is a documented fact that the "thinking" parts of Dr. Alexander's brain were totally shut down for at least seven days.  Second, as an accredited neurosurgeon, who has lectured at schools like Harvard and Yale, Dr. Alexander was inherently a skeptic of things like near-death experiences.  As a result, Dr. Alexander attempts to analyze his experience through the lens of a scientist as opposed to the traditional approach that most survivors of NDE's take.

With all of this being said, I wish I could report that I found Dr. Alexander's book particularly enlightening.  Sadly, I was very disappointed.  The book, which seemed more like a bio of Dr. Alexander's life rather than an account of his experience, was, for me, a huge let down.  I also found little scientific analysis into his experience (for example, Dr. Alexander stated that "all of his questions" were answered by "god" but he never tells us what those questions were.  Not very "scientific.").  Long story short, the book was a lot of fluff with very little substance (in my opinion).

Anyway, the intent of this blog post is not to provide a review of Dr. Alexander's book.  I mention it here as a lead-in to a much larger and more difficult topic that never seems to go away: the topic of religion v. science and how both sides cooperate/clash with one another.  And whether you believe him or not, Dr. Alexander's story is the perfect illustration of just how messy this topic can be.  Even though most of us will never have the "privilege" of experiencing a NDE like Dr. Alexander, we all come to the same crossroad that he arrived at: where does human reason and scientific inquiry end and divine light and spiritual faith begin?

Of course, there is no possible way to answer this question and my simple little blog post will do little to address it today, but I do think we can clarify a few of the "rules of the game" that I find particularly troubling.  After all, it is impossible to even attempt an honest discussion on an issue like this if both sides cannot agree on a general code of conduct.  This is my goal today.

The first fact we must accept is that religion and science, though operating on fundamentally different playing fields, are essentially two different languages trying to tell the same general story: who are we? where did we come from? where are we going?  Religion, which is inherently dogmatic, resistant to change and often dictatorial in nature, provides a nuanced view on things like morality, kindness, charity and forgiveness, and the eternal value these intangible attributes have over what the palpable world offers.  Science, on the other hand, is self-reflective, always changing and based on verifiable realities, which places almost all value upon the provable, observable and rational.

And though these differences in approach to truth seem to regularly lead both parties into a head-on collision with one another, I believe that most of the wreckage comes as a result of both parties being either unwilling to concede any ground on even the most basic of principles and/or taking ridiculous cheap shots at the other side's weakest elements.

Take for example the works of scientists like Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan: two men whom I admire for their scientific expertise and prowess with the written and spoken word.  Few men in the scientific world have the ability to inspire and persuade as Dawkins and Sagan do.  But their powerful prose notwithstanding, I am regularly disappointed to see these (and other) accredited scientists resorting to childish attacks on the low-lying fruit of religion.  They treat religion with such blatant contempt that it becomes impossible for them to be truly "scientific."  In other words, they take the worst of religion, portray it as a rigid monolith, that when compared with the best of science (which is fluid and evolving) makes any and all believers look like ridiculous, uninformed buffoons.  Such an approach is both unscientific and immature, and certainly unworthy of "sophisticated" minds like those of Dawkins and Sagan.  It is cheap shot, bush league nonsense.  In short, men like Dawkins and Sagan may be/have been great scientists, but they are/were piss-poor theologians.

But as is the case with any dysfunctional debate, it takes two sides to tango.  When we look at religion's contempt for science, we often see reason and common sense being replaced with suspicion and paranoia masquerading as "faith."  Religious leaders, bent on preserving the "integrity" of their holy books, resort to some of the most ridiculous arguments in human history.  Men like Ken Ham, who cannot accept the FACT that the world is billions of year old, have twisted reality to such an appalling level all in the name of protecting the Bible.  Such a narrow-minded view of reality, all in the name of literal biblical Christianity, is an embarrassment to religious people everywhere.  For men like Ken Ham the bottom line is this: Religion has had to concede so much ground over the years because of the FACT that so much has been proven wrong.  To believe, in the modern era, that Adam and Eve were the first human beings, living in a perfect garden only 6,000 years ago, until a talking snake convinced Eve to eat a naughty apple, thereby causing death and sin to enter the picture, which eventually caused a man named Noah to build a magic ark to save all animals from a global flood, isn't an example of a person's faith; it's an illustration of a person's ignorance.

But there can be a balance between both science and religion.  As Galileo stated during his bogus trial:

The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go...In my mind God wrote two books. The first book is the Bible, where humans can find the answers to their questions on values and morals.  The second book of God is the book of nature, which allows humans to use observations and experiment to answer our own questions about the universe.

Admittedly, there is a lot wrong with Galileo's summation, but I think that we all can see what he was getting at.  At the risk of sounding insensitive to scriptural literalists, taking the Bible, Qur'an, Book of Mormon or any other holy book as literal, factual undeniable truth is, at best, stupid.  But to discredit the moral lessons found in scripture for those same reasons is equally stupid, and the scientists who regularly slam scripture for such reasons would do well to watch their tongue.  After all, I wonder how scientists might react if theologians were to judge their mistakes by the same standard.  Whether taking the form of alchemy, the four humors, social Darwinism, or bloodletting (which killed our first president), science hasn't exactly batted 1.000 either and would be equally wrong to claim literalism.

Of course, Science doesn't judge itself by as strict a literalist standard and does a MUCH better job of learning from its mistakes than does religion.  After all, science doesn't claim to know the will of God.  But science does make it a regular practice to discredit that which requires faith, as if faith were a hindrance to an honest quest for truth.  But such an approach makes a mockery out of some of the basic elements of humanity...that being primarily our HUMANITY.  As Emily Dickinson wrote:

Faith -- is the Pierless Bridge
Supporting what We see
Unto the Scene that We do not --
Too slender for the eye

It bears the Soul as bold
As it were rocked in Steel
With Arms of Steel at either side --
It joins -- behind the Veil

To what, could We presume
The Bridge would cease to be
To Our far, vacillating Feet
A first Necessity.

So if taking too literal of a religious or scientific approach is a bad thing then what is the solution?  I'm not sure there is one.  Perhaps it would be a good starting point for both religion and science to take the best from one another.  Science would do well to recognize that there is much about the world that is not provable, verifiable or testable but is still a reality (dark matter, dark energy, quantum gravity, etc.) and that much of what religion esteems of worth (kindness, charity, etc.) cannot be tested in a laboratory.  There is real value to sincere prayer, meditation, positive thought, and devout devotion.  To simply say, "I don't need church" is far too simplistic.  Sure, I would agree that one can live a good life without a faith, but a faith doesn't hurt.  In fact, it helps...a helluva lot.  As a recent Gallup poll shows, those who go to church are, by and large, happier, more successful and more charitable.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Attending church, like attending school, helps us to grow our understanding of what faith really is.  Benamin Franklin once stated that, "Genius, without education, is like silver still trapped in the mine."  Might I be so bold as to say that faith/hope/charity, without religion, is like silver still trapped in the mine as well.

On the flip side, religion would do well to recognize that science has CONCLUSIVELY proven some of religion's most archaic ideas and teachings to be completely untrue.  As a result, religion is going to have to learn how to be flexible.  This is where science blows religion away.  Nobody (or at least very few) in the scientific community get as crazy as those of the religious community when their ideas/beliefs are challenged.  Science is about challenging EVERYTHING, and religion would do well to challenge at least a few things.  As Thomas Jefferson apty stated:

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion.  Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

Questioning things is not a sign of weakness or a lack of faith.  In fact, I believe that an argument can be made that any faith, without a healthy dose of honest skepticism, isn't really faith at all.  It is both right and good that we change how we think about the nature of God.  For example the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent god doesn't even exist in the oldest Hebrew texts of the Bible.  It may just be a mistake based on the Aristotelian thought of the Medieval era that God was nothing more than a mystical but simple unmoved mover.  Perhaps he isn't the celestial dictatorial magician we think He is but rather a teacher, motivator and persuader of good?

The bottom line is this: anyone who insists upon taking an absolute, literalist approach to either religion or science could probably benefit from learning a little more about religion and/or science.  After all, there is little REAL merit in the atheist argument that tries to explain away religious belief through reason and psychology.  To the believer know this: you don't have to listen to their ilk.  In the end, all they are saying is something like this:

"I'm an atheist because I am strong, rational and thoughtful; you're a believer because you are all about wish fulfillment and emotional response.  Therefore religious people are weaker, less sophisticated and more prone to deception that us atheists." 

Again, the Carl Sagan's and Richard Dawkins's of the world are far more eloquent in how they say it, but make no mistake; this is EXACTLY what they are saying...and it's bullshit.

And for the religious zealot who rebukes any and all verifiable claims of science by simply regurgitating the line, "because the Bible says so," all I can say is...GOD HELP YOU!  Your INTENTIONAL stupidity does your cause no good, but instead weakens the hand you have been dealt. Instead of taking such a hard-lined stance on what your holy book says, try to simply accept truth wherever it can be found.  I've often wondered as to whether or not biblical literalists believe in Jesus or in the Bible?  Or if Muslim literalists believe in Allah or the Qur'an?  In other words, has your holy book become such an idol for worship that you cannot look past it any longer?  Are you seriously that diluted in your thinking?

I don't mean to be harsh but sometimes harsh speech can shake people from apathy.  I think I have said enough.  Instead, let me leave you with the words of astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, from his excellent book, Death by Black Hole.  He writes:

Let there be no doubt that as they are currently practiced, there is no common ground between science and religion...history reveals a long and combative relationship between religion and science, depending on who was in control of society at the time.  The claims of science rely on experimental verification, while those of religion rely on faith.  These are fundamentally irreconcilable approaches to knowing, which ensures an eternity of debate wherever and whenever the two camps meet.  Although just as in hostage negotiations, it's probably best to keep both sides talking to each other.

I couldn't agree more.  What is most important is that we keep talking...a lot...and often.  Both sides stand to lose too much by backing into their respective caves and relying exclusively on their own "truths."  Or as Albert Einstein put it, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."  In conclusion, I leave you with the words of the good Doctor Ebon Alexander.  Perhaps his near-death experience illustrates the strange but important dichotomy that exists between religion and science better than I originally thought:

Today many believe that the living spiritual truths of religion have lost their power, and that science, not faith, is the road to truth. Before my experience I strongly suspected that this was the case myself. 

But I now understand that such a view is far too simple. The plain fact is that the materialist picture of the body and brain as the producers, rather than the vehicles, of human consciousness is doomed. In its place a new view of mind and body will emerge, and in fact is emerging already. This view is scientific and spiritual in equal measure and will value what the greatest scientists of history themselves always valued above all: truth.

Only time will tell I suppose.

Venus and the Birth of America

Over at my group blog (American Creation) Author and Unitarian Pastor Gary Kowalski (who wrote this excellent book in 2008) explains how the orbit of Venus, which crossed in front of the Sun today, has a unique link with America's founding.  In his post, Kowalski writes:

Today the planet Venus makes a rare transit across the face of the sun.  During the eighteenth century, the astronomical alignment took place twice, in 1761 and 1769, drawing observations from scientific teams all over the world, including North America.  Astronomers at that time were able to produce the first truly accurate measurements of the distance between the Earth and the sun, vastly expanding the known universe and kindling the human imagination with an understanding of Deep Space.

The Declaration of Independence, a short time later, would receive its first public reading from atop a tower constructed in Philadelphia to view the transit.  The American Philosophical Society, the scientific body Benjamin Franklin founded, which built the tower and organized the astronomical viewing under the leadership of David Rittenhouse (who constructed the telescope, quadrant, pendulum clock and other precision instruments necessary to do the siting) is located just next door to Independence Hall.  The new cosmology went hand in hand with the new political paradigm, no longer based up the heavenly mandate of a hereditary king, but upon the equal access of all to the heavenly realms and their motions. 

The Royal Astronomer of England, upon receiving a report of the American measurements, wrote that “the first approximately accurate results in the measurements of the spheres given to the world [was made] not by the schooled and salaried astronomers who watched from the magnificent observatories of Europe, but by unaided amateurs and devotees to science in the youthful province of Pennsylvania.” 

What else might come out of these colonies, where men by their own wits and abilities could vie with the lords of the Old World?   Today you can watch the transit online or with protective filters—your last opportunity to see what America’s Founders saw and wonder at an event that won’t be repeated for 105 years.

The following is a fascinating video on the transit of the planet Venus:

 

Einstein Was Wrong?!?

One of my favorite organizations to follow is CERN: the European Organization for Nuclear Research. CERN, which is best known for its studies with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has afforded physicists a deeper understanding of our universe and its origins. And though I am FAR from understanding everything going on with CERN (I'm no scientist), I have enjoyed reading about some of their incredible discoveries.

One of CERN's biggest discoveries has to do with neutrinos. Neutrinos are one of the fundamental subatomic particles that make up our universe. They function somewhat like an electron except for the fact that they cannot carry a charge. While conducting studies on neutrinos in the Large Hadron Collider (which essentially accelerates particles to the speed of light and then forces them to collide), scientists discovered something remarkable: neutrinos can apparently travel faster than light. From the Associated Press:

Scientists at the world's largest physics lab said Thursday they have clocked neutrinos traveling faster than light. That's something that according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity — the famous E (equals) mc2 equation — just doesn't happen.

"The feeling that most people have is this can't be right, this can't be real," said James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, outside the Swiss city of Geneva.

Gillies told The Associated Press that the readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.

[...]

Scientists agree if the results are confirmed, that it would force a fundamental rethink of the laws of nature.

Einstein's special relativity theory that says energy equals mass times the speed of light squared underlies "pretty much everything in modern physics," said John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at CERN who was not involved in the experiment. "It has worked perfectly up until now."

"This would be such a sensational discovery if it were true that one has to treat it extremely carefully," said Ellis.

And though this discovery probably doesn't stand out to most people it is a massive discovery for physicists, for it challenges one of the fundamental theories of Albert Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.



One of the fundamental teachings of Einstein's Theory of Relativity is that nothing in the universe can travel faster than light (approximately 186,287 miles per second). This is important because Special Relativity teaches that time is relative to one's motion and position in space. Simply put, the faster a person is moving, the slower he/she will perceive time.


So if neutrinos really do travel faster than light does that mean they are traveling back in time? I won't even pretend to think that I understand physics well enough to answer this question. But what everyone, expert or not, is recognizing is the fact that if this discovery is true, our understanding of the universe will once again have to change. It will force physicists to reevaluate the notion that light is the "speed limit" of the universe.

But before we all rush out and buy our Deloreans and Flux Capacitors don't get too excited. As is the case with any major alleged scientific discovery, skeptics have questioned these findings. As one physicist states:

The things you need to know about this result are:

• It’s enormously interesting if it’s right.

• It’s probably not right.

By the latter point I don’t mean to impugn the abilities or honesty of the experimenters, who are by all accounts top-notch people trying to do something very difficult. It’s just a very difficult experiment, and given that the result is so completely contrary to our expectations, it’s much easier at this point to believe there is a hidden glitch than to take it at face value. All that would instantly change, of course, if it were independently verified by another experiment; at that point the gleeful jumping up and down will justifiably commence. This isn’t one of those annoying “three-sigma” results that sits at the tantalizing boundary of statistical significance. The OPERA folks are claiming a six-sigma deviation from the speed of light.

But that doesn’t mean it’s overwhelmingly likely that the result is real; it just means it’s overwhelmingly unlikely that the result is simply a statistical fluctuation. There is another looming source of possible error: a “systematic effect,” i.e. some unknown miscalibration somewhere in the experiment or analysis pipeline. (If you are measuring something incorrectly, it doesn’t matter that you measure it very carefully.) In particular, the mismatch between the expected and observed timing amounts to tens of nanoseconds; but any individual “event” takes the form of a pulse that is spread out over thousands of nanoseconds. Extracting the signal is a matter of using statistics over many such events — a tricky business.

In other words, verifying that neutrinos are traveling faster than 186,000 miles per second is a difficult thing to do, even with all of the technology and expertise at CERN. Despite these difficulties we can all rest assured that the good folks at CERN will do all they can to get this right. If the finding is true, then we can look forward to improving our understanding of the universe. If not, it just confirms that we already are on the right track. Either way, this alleged discovery does prove one thing right beyond a shadow of a doubt: science is alive and well in our day and age!

Space: The Final Frontier...But Who Cares

A couple of days ago my family and I had the privilege of gathering around the television to watch the final launch of the space shuttle.



It was a nostalgic moment to say the least. As I watched Atlantis rocket off into space for the last time I could recall seeing similar launches throughout my life. Of course I remembered being a young boy, not much older than my two sons, and witnessing Challenger explode live on that cold January day in 1986 with all of my fellow 2nd grade classmates. I remember how my teacher, who was unsure as to how we might react, quickly turned the television off and diverted our attention to something else. But as all parents know, kids aren't stupid. We all knew that we had seen first-hand something amazing, tragic, and dare I say special. We saw, as President Ronald Reagan stated later that night, seven heroes who "slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God." Despite the Challenger tragedy, Americans (of all ages) were united in our commitment to expand our knowledge of the universe. We were determined to not let the loss of Challenger deter us from our exploration of the final frontier.

Fast forward seventeen years (almost to the day). I remember returning home one weekend from college to visit family and watching with my Dad (who would pass away 4 days later) the news coverage of the Shuttle Columbia disaster. Of course the comparisons with the Challenger explosion were only natural but something was different about Columbia. It seemed as though Americans were indifferent to NASA's "other seven" who had perished upon their reentry into Earth's atmosphere. Perhaps it was the fact that Challenger was a more dramatic tragedy than Columbia. After all, Columbia didn't explode before our very eyes.

Or perhaps there is another reason for our apparent national disinterest in Columbia's disaster.

Over the years, Americans have begun to see space travel as routine. Whether it be shuttle launches, satellites being put into orbit or space stations being constructed, humanity's incredible adventure into the vastness of space has lost its luster. Since the end of the Apollo program, Americans have been less interested in funding space exploration and have even argued that such a program is pointless, since our nearest heavenly neighbors (the moon, Mars, etc.) hold little hope for long term human colonization. And it doesn't look like this sentiment will change anytime soon. In a recent GOP presidential debate, virtually all of the candidates were unanimous in their position that NASA should receive less funding. With such an apathetic view towards one of the most incredible achievements of humanity, it is any wonder why the Columbia disaster is often held in less regard than the Challenger explosion? Have we lost our nerve/interest in exploring the final frontier?

Now fast forward to last Friday, as the Space Shuttle Atlantis made its final trip into the heavens. How many Americans are even aware that the space shuttle program is now over? How many Americans care? As NASA Shuttle Commander Mark Kelly stated: "I'm not sure so many Americans actually know that we're not going to have a human space flight program for a while...nor do I think many care". Sadly, Commander Kelly is probably right. As long as we have our iPads, smart phones, GPS systems, and On Demand television we don't care.

But just where do people think we get all those cool gadgets?

Politicians say we cannot afford to fund NASA the way we used to, due to all of our economic issues; I say we cannot afford to NOT fund NASA more now than ever.

Americans seem to regard space flight as routine and lackluster; I say there is nothing routine about breaching the confines of Earth.

The powers that be seem to find nothing of value in our continued exploration of the heavens; I say that the thing of most value is to venture into the vastness of the unknown and to take a step into the darkness. As President John F. Kennedy stated when posing the challenge of landing a man on the moon:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.

There is no doubt that the continued exploration of the heavens will require great sacrifice of both wealth and manpower. It will require patience, sacrifice, bravery and fortitude. Yes, more astronauts will be lost in the process and more children will see first-hand the unfortunate consequences of human exploration, but is there a greater lesson to be learned? Would we not prefer to have our children emulating people like Neil Armstrong, Christa McAuliffe and John Glenn instead of Katy Perry, Kim Kardashian and the cast of Jersey Shore? Shouldn't our goals be to land a man/woman on Mars instead of becoming the winner of American Idol or Next Top Model?

We reap what we sow.

As the Space Shuttle program comes to a conclusion I hope it will mark the beginning of greater things to come. When Apollo ended it was replaced with the Shuttle, and now we must ask ourselves what will replace the shuttle. Do we replace the shuttle with something greater or do we just let it rust in a museum as a relic of days gone by? Do we choose to break the shackles of self-imposed security and go deeper into God's playground, or are we content to simply send communication satellites into orbit while remaining "safe" here on the confines of Earth? Do we honor the brave men and women of Challenger, Columbia and the space program in general by daring to venture further into the heavens or by simply stating that we can't afford it any longer?

If we value progress, if we value leaning, if we value humanity, then we cannot permit the conclusion of the Shuttle Program to mark the end (whether permanent or temporary) to human exploration. We must resist the climate of complacency that infects us today and choose to sail the infinite seas of space. As Christopher Columbus aptly put it over 500 years ago: "You can never cross the ocean unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore."

In conclusion, I leave you with some of the words from the men of the Apollo program, who best understand the importance of humanity's further exploration of space:

"I had the earth in my window and all I wanted to do was keep going."
-Michael Collins

"The view of the Earth from the Moon fascinated me - a small disk, 240,000 miles away...Raging nationalistic interests, famines, wars, pestilence don't show from that distance. Only the perfection of God's hand"
- Frank Borman

"If somebody said before the flight, 'Are you going to get carried away looking at the earth from the moon?' I would have say, 'No, no way.' But yet when I first looked back at the earth, standing on the moon, I cried."
- Alan Shepard

"The world itself looks cleaner and so much more beautiful from space. Maybe we can make it that way — the way God intended it to be — by giving everybody that new perspective from out in space."
- Roger B Chaffee

"From now on, we live in a world where man has walked on the moon. It wasn't a miracle, we just decided to go."
- Jim Lovell

"We can continue to try and clean up the gutters all over the world and spend all of our resources looking at just the dirty spots and trying to make them clean. Or we can lift our eyes up and look into the skies and move forward in an evolutionary way."
- Buzz Aldrin

"The important achievement of Apollo was demonstrating that humanity is not forever chained to this planet and our visions go rather further than that and our opportunities are unlimited."
-Neil Armstrong

Aliens Amongst Us? Where are the Men in Black?

Former astronaut and renowned astronomer, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, who was the 6th human being to walk on the moon during the Apollo 14 mission, has some interesting things to say about ALIENS visiting Earth. To be honest, I have no idea what to think of this., I don't typically make posts like this on my blog, but due to the fact that Mitchell isn't some average Joe Shmoe but rather a legitimate astronomer and astronaut, I think it's worth at least listening to. Enjoy!




For those of you who know me, you know that I am NOT a fan of conspiracy theories. This one, however, gives me pause. I'm not saying that I buy into what Mitchell is saying but it does make you wonder...just a little bit. Perhaps it's mostly nonsense and if I were a betting man I would bank on that, but if I am wrong, I would be thrilled to admit so.

"E.T. Phone Home."

Large Hadron Collider Rap

One of the coolest inventions of mankind, the Large Hadron Collider (known as CERN) in France and Switzerland will be coming online in the near future. Though I am no physicist and have less than an elementary understanding of particle physics, I have been following the progress of CERN for the past 10 months or so. It is absolutely fascinating what they are doing over there and what they may discover. If all goes to plan we could have a completely new understanding of the universe, the origin of matter, etc. Or if you believe what other "experts" say, the collider could create a black hole and completely destroy Earth and possibly the universe. Sadly, many religious fundamentalists have been actively criticizing what scientists are doing over at CERN. Since many of their ideas go against the biblical teaching of a seven-day creation and the notion that the earth is only a few thousand years old, many religious leaders are crying foul over the scientific discoveries of CERN.

Here is a funny (but pretty accurate) rap done on the CERN particle collider:



Here is a brief explanation of what they are doing at CERN: