This fun graphic novel for all ages was written by Chris Bolton and illustrated by his brother Kyle. I got it because I attended a workshop led by Chris Bolton, who is about the nicest guy ever, and from what he said I figured I would learn a lot about formatting a graphic novel.
I still haven't read all the way through it (sorry!) but have read the beginning, which is really good and would have drawn me in if I hadn't been so pressed for time. And I've enjoyed picking it up and opening it randomly to pages to see how the dialogue bubbles are done and admire the art.
Another reason I'm not writing a big huge review here is that I'm not that much of a reader of graphic novels, so I don't have a framework to fit this in...yet. But it looks great! And I'll write about it soon, after I've read it, promise!
Here's a synopsis of the story, from the authors' Web site:
Like many 10-year-old boys, Andrew Ryan is short, lacking in athletic
and social skills, and daydreams about being a superhero. Unlike other boys, however, Andrew’s dream actually comes true when he gains super powers and becomes the costumed crimefighter known as Smash!
So yesterday, the kids got in a big fight over who got to read
Smash. Saiph had finished it, but then Rigel read it and loved it and
had only like 10 pages left to go, and Saiph admitted that he hadn't
read it from beginning to end, he'd started reading somewhere in the
middle and like it but it didn't completely make sense to him. Rigel
insisted that he had to read it from the beginning because it was SO
GOOD and it would make more sense to him. So then Saiph started
reading again but Rigel wanted to finish the last 10 pages and it
turned into a physical fight over the book. Then this morning, Rigel
came to me and said, "Can you write to Grandma and ask her if
there's a sequel for Smash?" I said that I didn't think there
was but I'd ask. And now you have a good sense of what kind of
graphic novels they love!
Oh, do I ever enjoy alliteration. And I also enjoy reading about a word I've heard before but didn't know was unusual enough for anyone to be writing about. Like "welp."
People are acting like this is a "new" word, but I remember my dad saying it all the time, as in: "Welp, that settles that," or "Welp, it couldn't have happened at a better time."
Apparently it's being used now on social media as a way of signaling "tone," which is a good idea.
According to this Slate.com article, "Welp occurs when someone abruptly closes off the word well—an occurrence known as a bilabial stop, as linguist Ben Zimmer explained to me—and is akin to the similar slang words yep and nope."
Also from that article:
As Grant Barrett, co-host of the public radio show A Way With Words put it, “Give me an American who says well where all others say welp
and I’ll reveal that person to be an offworld alien who has failed at
fitting in. Probably a lonely alien, too. He’ll need to learn that word
if he wants to abruptly start or finish uncomfortable topics, just like
the natives.”
Madama Butterfly. Yes! I love this song --- assuming this is the one you mean, "O mio babbino caro," which I think is absolutely the most beautiful song ever written:
One thing I love about this as a love song is that it's NOT sung to the person she's in love with, but to her beloved father (Here are the lyrics, from Wikipedia):
Italian
Literal translation
Singable English
O mio babbino caro,
mi piace, è bello, bello.
Vo'andare in Porta Rossa (it)
a comperar l'anello!
Sì, sì, ci voglio andare!
e se l'amassi indarno,
andrei sul Ponte Vecchio,
ma per buttarmi in Arno!
Mi struggo e mi tormento!
O Dio, vorrei morir!
Babbo, pietà, pietà!
Babbo, pietà, pietà!
Oh my dear papa,
I love him, he is handsome, handsome.
I want to go to Porta Rossa
To buy the ring!
Yes, yes, I want to go there!
And if my love were in vain,
I would go to the Ponte Vecchio
And throw myself in the Arno!
I am anguished and tormented!
Oh God, I'd like to die!
Papa, have pity, have pity!
Papa, have pity, have pity!
Oh my beloved father,
I love him, I love him!
I’ll go to Porta Rossa,
To buy our wedding ring.
Oh yes, I really love him.
And if you still say no,
I’ll go to Ponte Vecchio,
And throw myself below.
My love for which I suffer,
At last, I want to die.
Father I pray, I pray.
Father I pray, I pray.
And thanks to Wikipedia for all this information, which may seem boring to some people but which I find fascinating:
"The short aria consists of 32 bars and takes between 2½ and 3 minutes to perform. It is written in A-flat major with the time signature of 6/8 and a tempo indication of andantino ingenuo (=120). The vocal range extends from E♭4 to A♭5, with a tessitura of F4 to A♭5. The 5-bar orchestral prelude, in E-flat major and 3/4 time, consists of octavetremolos by the strings; in the opera, these five bars are Gianni Schicchi's words ("Niente!") at the end of his preceding dialogue with Rinuccio. Many recital arrangements start with a presentation of the melodic theme; the remaining accompaniment uses strings and a harp playing broken chords."
Time to Say Goodbye (Con te Partiro). Yes, I love this song, too. Here it is, sung by Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman:
Besame mucho. Yes! Here it is sung by Andrea Bocelli:
No llores por mi Argentina. Yes, again! And this is a love song to a country.
Bring 'em on! I keep thinking of more, too; and I'm going to keep writing about love songs and posting YouTube videos of them here.
Here's this great love song, by Andrea Bocelli. It reminds me of another theme repeated often in love songs: "Wise men say...." and "Fools rush in...."
Love songs have existed as long as humans have sung any kind of song. In fact, maybe love songs were the first songs ever.
And I'll bet lullabies are the second kind of song ever sung. I don't know why this should be so except that, according to the reviewer of "Love Songs: The Hidden History," written by Ted Gioia, love songs were historically written by women...and slaves.
Anyway, I'm wondering: What's YOUR favorite love song of all time?
Here are some choices. If your favorite isn't one of these, that's okay. Tell me what yours is.
Okay, first, "Addicted to Love": Even though this isn't a classic love song by any means, it strikes a familiar theme of love songs: That feeling of being addicted, lost from the rest of your life because of this love (or whatever it is you're feeling).
This one, "Lady in Red," is one of my all-time favorites. It's not the classic song of longing for someone who may not return the love, but a song for the lady who has already accepted the singer's love. Listen to the notes that go with the three words, "Lady in red." These four notes go up, that's all they do, and there are four notes just going up like this in a lot of songs, so why are they so plaintive and ... lovely?
Prokofiev's "Romeo and Juliet" balcony scene: Again, four notes going up, different rhythm, then a fifth note. What is it about this sound?
The "Andante" section of Mozart's 21st piano concerto, which I first realized was a love song when I saw the movie "Elvira Madigan": And again I want to know what it is about those rising notes that make it sound so longing. Answers, anyone?
In contrast, though I could listen to this beautiful melody (Bach's Air on the G String) over and over again, it doesn't sound like a love song to me:
And neither does this one, "Sheep May Safely Graze":
But maybe this is only because I haven't heard them in the context of a love song. Here are the Piano Guys with their version of "I Can't Help Falling in Love With You":
Of course this IS a love song, sung by many but made most famous by Elvis Presley.
And it turns out that a lot of our contemporary love songs, and other songs, make use of a little sampling, so to speak. Here's a list of some of them.
"Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children" is supposedly a YA (young adult) novel, but it's one of those not YA novels that's not really just for young adults. I enjoyed it even more than I thought I would, even after seeing the great book trailer made by the author himself:
This book is now out in paperback, and you can even get a used copy of it if you like. The second in the series, "Hollow City," will be coming out later this month, and I can't wait to read it. (You can pre-order it at Amazon.com.)
Okay, so, what's so special about the book? The premise is startling and original, the characters are really well done, and the photos are a great addition, but then...the plot is perfect for a YA novel:
A teenaged boy, unhappy and unsettled, with parents who don't understand him --- all the elements right there! --- finds out his grandfather, who loved him but was dismissed years ago by the boy and all the family as crazy, was not crazy after all. So the boy travels to an island in Wales where he meets Miss Peregrine and her collection of peculiar children.
Sorry I can't tell you any more, because to do so would spoil the story for you. So, read it for yourself! I think you'll like it.
But I wonder what it is about the perfect fourth! From Wikibooks: "The perfect fourth is the inversion of the perfect fifth. In common
practice music, it can be both consonant and dissonant: in this case, it
has a need for resolution when unsupported by lower notes, in which
case it is dissonant even though it sounds as "good" as the fifth. The
fourth is always consonant when supported by a lower third or perfect
fifth, for example, E-G-C-E is consonant, but G-C-E is dissonant. In
more contemporary music, many consider the fourth to always be as
consonant as the fifth."
It's fascinating to me. It sounds majestic and marchful. (I made up that word!) Where else do we find it? Aha! Here's a list of songs for interval recognition, including the perfect fourth.
Went for a walk yesterday, and what did I hear but that high whistling sound of a red-tailed hawk. Looked up to see it, and saw instead a Steller's Jay in the tree above me. It whistled again, then flew away.
Aha! I wonder how many other times in my walks along that lake I've thought I heard a red-tailed hawk, and really it was that Steller's Jay.
So I looked it up, and it turns out this isn't the only Steller's Jay who does this. Check it out:
And that's not the only mimicry these super-smart birds engage in:
"A raucous call and a bold flash of blue at your feeder means a jay has
arrived. East of the Rockies, your visitor is quite likely a Blue Jay
(left). Out west, you're probably seeing a Steller's Jay. These daring
blue dandies sound the alarm, announcing the approach of a predator.
Often the loud call sends the predator packing. If not, a family of jays
may gang up and mob the intruder. And, if that doesn't work, the jay
may mimic the call of a Bald Eagle or Red-tailed Hawk -- birds at the
very top of the pecking order -- to dissuade the invader. "
I've had a copy of this book for years, and I love to pick it up and devour the photos and read bits and pieces again about these intelligent birds. I found a copy the other day at my local public library's Three-Dollar table of books people have donated, and quickly bought it. I told the librarian, "I can't believe anyone would give this book away!" (But then I did give it away, myself, to Don and Cassie.)
What a laugh! --- Unless you find out it's a drug you've been taking.
And who's to blame? Not just greedy manufacturers, not just unethical researchers, but the Food and Drug Administration, whose mandate is to protect us.
Charles Seife writes:
When the FDA finds scientific fraud or misconduct, the agency doesn’t
notify the public, the medical establishment, or even the scientific
community that the results of a medical experiment are not to be
trusted. On the contrary. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a
pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever
finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which
drugs might be on the market under false pretenses. The FDA has
repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public,
but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were
deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even
a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a
dangerous drug couldn't get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to
protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be
spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus
science from the public.
I'm sure more will be coming to our attention about this. Meanwhile, I'll tell you what: I don't take herbal supplements any more, and I have already, on several occasions, declined to take medicines my well-intentioned doctor has prescribed for me. Even though she makes a point of writing in my chart, "Declines treatment," just covering her own rear end, of course. While I cover mine.
Because even if the drugs she has prescribed for me haven't been exposed in the way the ones mentioned in this article have been, here's the thing: I have read the research that has been reported on them, and I know enough about reading research articles and interpreting statistics to recognize when a prescription isn't really necessary. And I'm just waiting until those same medicines will be found out by researchers like Seife to have even more problems than we suspect now.
And, yes, I'm writing about this now because I have a lot more to say about this whole issue: science, research and researchers, and statistics.
(Because, as Mark Twain so famously said, quoting Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.")
And now, the latest scandals in herbal supplements: I've been taking various herbal supplements over the years. And sometimes I've wondered if they were doing me any good. I would read up on them before I took them (of course), and I would be amused by the conflicting data about their usefulness. But I never thought that maybe they weren't doing any good because what I thought I was taking wasn't even in the pills! Walmart, Target, and GNC have been accused by New York State’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman of selling "scam herbal supplements.
In fact, according to Schneiderman's investigation, "best-selling supplements not only didn’t work, but were potentially
dangerous, with four out of five of the products not even listing any
herbs in their ingredients–instead, the supplements contained fillers
including powdered rice, houseplants and asparagus. Fraudulent products include echinacea, ginseng, St. John’s wort, garlic, ginkgo biloba and saw palmetto."
....These drugs are not subject to the F.D.A.’s approval because of a loophole in a 1994 federal law (spearheaded by Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch
who received funding from supplement makers), fraudulent products can
easily reach consumers without accountability or oversight.
Right...So why should we trust politicians who say vaccinations are good and necessary for our children, or companies that sell supposedly health-promoting products, or the government, which is supposed to be protecting us from frauds and scams like this? Yep, I certainly do understand the frustrations and doubts of the anti-vaxxers, even though I don't agree with them for a single minute.
Since I've been writing about this a lot lately, I want to share an article I found that puts all of the hoopla into perspective.
Of course we've all realized that so-called anti-vaxxers aren't just crazy tofu-sprout-liberals roaming the aisles of your local Whole Foods market (though supposedly you can map measles zones around areas where these stores are located), nor are they just crazy wing-nut government-fearing paranoid conservatives (though these people tend to grouped together, too).
No, the fear of the MMR and other childhood vaccines crosses socio-economic and political lines, and centers around this:
A very understandable lack of respect for authority.
That's right: Whether you decline vaccinations because you believe "science" is a bunch of hogwash and medical research is a bunch of lies, or because you think the government which is requiring vaccines is not to be trusted, you have every reason to doubt the reasons behind the vaccines.
The crisis of authority is by no means limited to anti-vaccination loons
and climate deniers, and is not exclusively found on the right. For the
past half-century and more it has largely been the left that has
challenged social, cultural and political orthodoxy on white supremacy,
the Vietnam War, nuclear power, the oppression of women and LGBT people
and the destruction of the environment for profit, among many other
things. Until recently, American conservatives saw themselves first and
foremost as defenders of authority and moral order, buttresses around a
fortress of shared values that was buffeted by a corrosive tide. That
impulse still exists, as with the recent rush to embrace “American
Sniper” and the petulant NYPD protest, but at this point it’s mostly
nostalgia. The fortress has been swamped, the moral order is in ruins
and the shared values have been scattered like driftwood. All that is
solid melts into air, and even the right has become relativistic: the
anti-establishment strain of radical and conspiratorial thought that was
once found only on the discredited John Birch fringe has become the
conservative mainstream.
Like Mr. O'Hehir, I completely understand the lack of respect for the authority figures by doubters from all sides of the political spectrum, because I, too, do not respect the so-called "authority" of, well, you name it:
---Doctors and researchers who fake data so they can get published;
---Big pharma which fakes data so they can sell products of questionable value;
---Politicians who vote for the campaign contributors with the largest purses; and
---Public health officials who change their requirements and reasons every few years.
As O'Hehir writes, "Trust in science, my ass."
And that sums it up very nicely.
"Questioning science is an urgent and necessary
aspect of contemporary critical thinking, and the questions that
anti-vaxxers start with are entirely legitimate: What are you putting in
my kid’s body? Is it safe, and is it necessary? Who’s making money off
this, and what do we know about them? And even beyond that: Can I trust that you are telling me the truth? My kids have had all their shots, and I believe that people who refuse
vaccination are putting together shreds of old anecdote and flawed
evidence and conspiratorial ideology to reach a faulty conclusion. As we
have recently discovered, this can have unfortunate public health
consequences. But I speak for many parents when I say that I don’t
begrudge those people their doubts, because I have shared them. That
last question, which lies at the heart of both the vaccine issue and the
entire crisis of authority — “Why should I trust you, after all the
lies I’ve been told?” — still gives me a twinge sometimes."
And all this is one of the reasons I've been writing about science lately. As science and scientists take over the role of authority figures that used to be held by religion and religious leaders, and even politicians and public leaders, we're all questioning their worthiness, their actual authority. And they're not giving us very satisfactory answers, are they.
A friend of mine recently posted on Facebook a clip of part of an interview of Stephen Fry, you know, the wonderful actor/comedian who used to play Jeeves, in which he expressed his very candidly bad opinion of God. In The Telegraph's accounting of the interview:
The problem, as the comedian explained in a television interview last week, is
that God is “utterly evil, capricious and monstrous”. On God’s watch, said
Fry, the world has become a place of “pain and injustice”, where there are
insects with no other purpose than to eat children’s eyes out. Thus, if God
exists, it is perfectly obvious “that He is monstrous, utterly monstrous,
and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish Him, life becomes
purer, simpler, cleaner and more worth living.”
(I'm not posting the interview here. I didn't even look for it online. Because I don't care what Stephen Fry thinks about God, even though he's a funny guy when he's not talking about religion, and I've loved sharing his early work with my nieces and nephews.)
While Stephen Fry delighted a lot of atheists and outraged a lot of religious people with his views, the hugely vast majority of the people on Earth either (a) didn't hear anything about this interview and/or (b) didn't and don't and never will care what Stephen Fry said about God or anything/anyone else.
Among those who don't care about the views of Fry and other atheists were millions who were suffering pain and injustice, without casting reproach on their Creator. And I think it's worth noting that the people who are most likely to claim the reason for their disbelief in God is that God created imperfect humans and insects who "eat children's eyes out" (huh?) and He doesn't step in to solve all the world's problems for everyone are not the ones who have spent much actual time suffering.
The approach to life that I appreciate and want to emulate is that of those who believe in God and are suffering without blaming God for their problems.
For example, in Thomas S. Monson's book "Consider the Blessings," which Jason and I are reading now, we found the story last night of the woman who, at the end of World War II, had to leave her home with her four children (her husband already having been killed in the war) and walk over a thousand miles. Pres. Monson writes:
She had only a small wagon with wooden wheels in which to convey the family's few possessions. Besides her children and these meager necessities, she took with her a strong faith in God and in the gospel as revealed to the latter-day prophet Joseph Smith.
One by one, her children died and she buried them. When her baby daughter died in her arms, Pres. Monson writes:
Her grief welled up as she knelt beside the little grave, considering all she had lost. She wondered, Was it worth going on? How could she bear it?
As she considered the awful possibilities for ending her own life, something within her said, 'Get down on your knees and pray.' She ignored the prompting until she could resist it no longer. She knelt and prayed more fervently than she had in her entire life:
'Dear Heavenly Father, I do not know how I can go on. I have nothing left---except my faith in Thee. I feel, Father, amidst the desolation of my soul, an overwhelming gratitude for the atoning sacrifice of Thy Son, Jesus Christ. I cannot express adequately my love fir Him. I know that because He suffered and died, I shall live again with my family; that because He broke the chains of death, I shall see my children again and will have the joy of raising them. Though I do not at this moment wish to live, I will do so, that we may be reunited as a family and return---together---to Thee.'
When she finally reached her destination of Karlsruhe, Germany, she was in the throes of starvation. But in a Church meeting shortly thereafter, she bore witness of her happiness and her sure testimony of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. She had no doubt that, if she remained true to the gospel, she would be reunited with her loved ones in the celestial kingdom of God.
This is the approach to life that poor Stephen Fry is missing: faith and gratitude. This is the approach to life I hope to keep.
Subject: Dinner party etiquette
I
am a grad student in my late 20s, and I find that often when I organize
parties at home, my guests tell me enthusiastically that they are
attending, but then on the day of, I receive a flurry of texts
explaining how they can't come after all. Most recently, this led me to
cancel the party outright, and left me nursing hurt feelings. I pride
myself on my cooking abilities, and I try to think through the guest
list carefully to make sure that everyone has someone to talk to. I
suspect that this is an etiquette problem rather than a personal snub.
My question is, as a hostess, how can I handle it gracefully when my
party unravels around me because most of my guests suddenly can't come?
Emily YoffePlease
invite me! I will come with a bottle of wine, be delighted to have
someone cook for me, and will try to make entertaining conversation.
This is not a new problem, but I think it’s exaggerbated by technology.
People your age have come of age being able to spontaneously make and
change plans because you have a device in your hands that makes this
instantly possible. So social plans have a rather contingent quality.
Dinner parties aren’t contingent. They require a lot of work and money,
and in the absence of a death in the family, or a trip to the emergency
room, it is not acceptable to flake at the last minute. People you
weren’t close to who you wanted to know better, just cross off the list.
People who are good friends who bail -- well, go ahead and explain
their sudden absence really stung. When do make these plans, make clear
to everyone this is a dinner party. When you
send out your reminder, feel free to send it to everyone and say, “Look
forward to seeing all of you Friday at 7:00.” Don’t give up on gracious
entertaining, just cull your guest list so you are only entertaining
gracious people.
See it? In this sentence: "This is not a new problem, but I think it’s exaggerbated by technology."
I just want to warn all those people who think science can be proven by the Bible, or the Bible by science, that I'm never going to try either one of those "proofs." And here's why: They're not meant to prove one another, so trying to do that is a waste of time, just as it's a waste of time to try to DISPROVE either one using the other.
So I think those religious believers who get all excited about the Big Bang theory being a "proof" of the Bible's creation story are going at it all wrong.
The article, originally published in New Scientist in 2004, begins:
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and
dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would
be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and
the predictions of the big bang theory.
"In no other field of physics would this continual recourse
to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between
theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY." (emphasis in the original)
(Actually, I disagree with their statement that other fields of physics don't accept "new hypothetical objects" as "a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation." It appears to me that most fields of physics do exactly that, quite often. But I digress.)
"Firstly, despite colossal advances our knowledge of the observable universe is limited by
the power of even the largest telescopes, radio-signals and space-probes, to provide
information. Secondly and more seriously the way in which these results and observations
are interpreted in a highly speculative manner, frequently bordering on mere mysticism.
All too often, one has the impression that we have indeed regressed to the world of the
Creation Myth (the "Big Bang"), complete with its inseparable companion, the Day
of the Final Judgement (the "Big Crunch")."
The article goes on to quote another article in New Scientist, 10 year before the one just cited, and notes:
"The New Scientist (7th May 1994) published an article entitled In the Beginning Was the
Bang. The author, Colin Price, trained and worked as a scientist, but is now a
Congregationalist minister. He begins by asking: "Is the big bang theory
disconcertingly biblical? Or to put it another way, is the Genesis story disconcertingly
scientific?" And he ends with the confident assertion: "No one would have
appreciated the big bang story more than the authors of the first two chapters of the book
of Genesis." This is quite typical of the mystical philosophy which lies behind what
Mr. Price, no doubt with tongue in cheek, but quite accurately describes as the big bang
story."
(I really suggest reading this fascinating article and following the links in it. I think it's so fascinating to me because it's so angry and full of sarcasm, a refreshing change from the usual language of science which is hard for me to read in part because it puts me to sleep!)
"The titanic structure, known simply as the Large Quasar Group (LQG),
also appears to break the rules of a widely accepted cosmological
principle, which says that the universe would look pretty much uniform
when observed at the largest scales.
"'It could mean that our
mathematical description of the universe has been oversimplified—and
that would represent a serious difficulty and a serious increase in
complexity,' [a researcher] said.
"Significant
not only for its record-breaking size, the massive structure could
possibly shed light on the evolution of galaxies like our own Milky Way.
Quasars, which pump out powerful jets of energy, are among the
brightest and most energetic objects from when the universe was still
young. They represent an early, but brief, stage in the evolution of
most galaxies."
Oh, yeah, I get it: The headline is a tease. Dang those scientists, trying to make their extremely boring work more exciting for the rest of us. Hey, scientists: It doesn't work. It just encourages the crazies.
Speaking of crazies, the bonus in all this stuff (yeah, stuff) for me comes in reading the comments. Here's one comment:
"Ok
my name is john and cosmology is my passion. I have an interesting
insight of a theory to explain not only quasars but black holes as well.
In laimence terms black holes gravitational pull is so enormous that
all matter even light is sucked in and can't escape. In theory black
holes are often referred to as wormholes to different dimensions or
universes. It's known that their gravity warps time nd space. I believe
that quasars are the receiving end of these "wormholes" emitting light
matter energy and dark matter from virtually know where. Could they be
connected to a black hole in the neighboring dimension or even from
across our own universe. If there are other universes in other
dimensions then most problematically they have black holes as well as
quasars. Could it be they are all linked nd forever intertwined in a
undetectable complex " tunnel" system linking universe to universe or
dimension to dimension or even from across great distances of our own
universe. If anyone finds this theory intriguing or infeasable please
reply with your facts or opinions would love to here them!!!}"
And one of the replies to that comment:
"See, this is the problem with Astronomical Physics. Even people who
can't spell "Layman's Terms" get to make up crazy ideas that sound just
as plausible as the actual theories. [Emphasis added by me!] It makes me laugh that a bunch of
ants on a tiny blue orb look through a lens and decide that they know
how things work an infinite distance away from them."
One particularly interesting one points the reader to a whole new idea about the origins of the universe, the "Jet Hypothesis." (And I thank its author, Mr. Abdul Alim, for humbly calling his ideas a hypothesis, not a theory, even though he seems to have explained "all the questions related to [the] universe" with it.) Here's the first paragraph:
"Energy, time and space are infinite in the nature. Hydrogen produced in the space from energy. Clouds are formed by the accumulation of hydrogen. Due to the gravitational force large amount of clouds collapsed at a point and the stars were formed in different places at different time. Due to the effect of centripetal force and lack of centrifugal force, these stars started falling at a point and the rotation of stars started around that point like a cyclone, and the galaxies were formed. A number of galaxies have fallen ata point to form the cluster of galaxies. In the same way, due to the effect of centripetal force and lack of centrifugal force, all the clouds, stars, galaxies and cluster of galaxies have fallen at a point."
And here's the conclusion:
"All the questions related to universe may be answered from this model and all the mathematical equations and observational data may be fit to this model."
What can I say? Maybe I should come up with my own theory of the origins of the universe. Unfortunately, it would sound like gobbledygook (surprise!). So I'm sticking with the Biblical account. Because I love to read and *try* to understand all the astronomy stuff, but I'm not basing any of my life choices on it.
So, when that new supposed evidence came out in March 2014 about the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang, a lot of religious people jumped all over it as proof of the Genesis account of the creation.
The Times of Israel reported then, "That there was a creation event as described in Genesis is indisputably
confirmed by this week’s Big Bang scientific breakthrough, an Israeli
physicist who is also an Orthodox Jew claims."
According to the article, Professor Nathan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University said the announcement "make[s] it
clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as
described in the Book of Genesis. To deny this now is to
deny scientific fact.”
Planck map of the effect of dust on our galaxy's magnetic field.
It was observations like this used by BICEP2 scientists to calibrate
their own of the early Universe (Copyright ESA/Planck Collaboration.)
Oops! Does the fact that this evidence was preliminary and incomplete mean that the Genesis account is not true?
This is what I hate about the ongoing and unnecessary argument between current science and religious apologists: If you're going to pounce on every new scientific breakthrough as a confirmation of your beliefs, what are you going to do when the breakthrough is broken?
This is why I think it's great when our religious and scientific understandings coincide, but I never personally base my religious faith on any confirmatory scientific evidence.
It's not that I hold my religion in one pocket and my science in another (as Henry Eyring so vividly described some people's way of dealing with contradictory teachings), but that I get that science and religion are just different approaches to understanding.
With science, I am quick to take a grain of salt with reports of new discoveries, because I'm well aware that these can be quickly refuted and/or refined. In fact, they SHOULD be refined and changed, and refuted if necessary, because that's the way science progresses.
I don't need my religion to be confirmed by scientific evidence. The evidence for religious belief and understanding comes in a different way, which I'll be talking about sometime soon.
I must, say, though, that I absolutely LOVE that the Pope has come out to say that evolution and the Big Bang theory are real and that God is not "a magician with a magic wand." And I LOVE that Sir Elton John has labeled the Pope as his "hero."
Newsweek reports, “The evolution in nature is not
opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the
creation of beings that evolve,” Pope Francis said....“When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk
imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able
to do everything. However, it was not like that. He created
beings and left them to develop according to the internal laws that He
gave each one, so that they would develop, and reach their fullness.”
The Pope also said that the creation of the universe was not a singular event but “went forward for centuries and centuries,
millennia and millennia until it became what we know today.” And I love that, as Newsweek reports, the Pope's remarks are "not controversial among Roman Catholics." Of course they're not!
Since the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe has been
generally accepted by scientists, more empirical evidence (i.e.,
astronomical observations and inferences) has been gathered to explain
the details of the event and its aftermath. Here's a fascinating timeline of the history of the universe from the very beginning until now.
Researchers studying cosmic "inflation" used instruments housed on
this building, located near the geographic South Pole in Antarctica,
among the best places on Earth for observing space because it is so
clear and so dry.
National Science Foundation
As the Physics of the Universe site notes, "Since the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago*, the universe
has passed through many different phases or epochs. Due to the extreme
conditions and the violence of its very early stages, it arguably saw
more activity and change during the first second than in the all the
billions of years since."
(*Note: The age of the universe is still not certain; current science speculation puts it somewhere between 13.7 and 13.82 billion years.)
"Reaching back across 13.8 billion years to the first sliver of cosmic time
with telescopes at the South Pole, a team of astronomers led by John M.
Kovac of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics detected
ripples in the fabric of space-time — so-called gravitational waves —
the signature of a universe being wrenched violently apart when it was
roughly a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old.
They are the long-sought smoking-gun evidence of inflation, proof, Dr.
Kovac and his colleagues say, that Dr. Guth was correct.
"Inflation
has been the workhorse of cosmology for 35 years, though many,
including Dr. Guth, wondered whether it could ever be proved.
"If
corroborated, Dr. Kovac’s work will stand as a landmark in science
comparable to the recent discovery of dark energy pushing the universe
apart, or of the Big Bang itself. It would open vast realms of time and
space and energy to science and speculation."
Another Web article explained, "'Before this work, the earliest period we had direct evidence for was a
few minutes after the Big Bang,' says Dr. Mac Low. 'Now we have data
from the first 10-36 seconds.'” In this video, Dr. Low explains about cosmic microwave background.
He explains that right after the Big Bang, "the observable universe was
minute and as dense as the interior of a black hole." But then, the "inflation" happened: The "the universe appears to have expanded at
astonishing velocity.”
This violent expansion, researchers
hypothesized, formed the “ripples” --- gravitational waves that today still permeate the universe. The evidence, from observations of the cosmic microwave background, was "the light had been polarized in a pattern that could
only have been produced by the hypothesized gravitational waves."
Okay, so what's my point? All this supposed evidence of the supposed "inflation" right after the supposed "Big Bang" has turned out to be "far weaker" than originally claimed; and, in fact, it is disappointing to astronomers who initially greeted the research with accolades.
As Phil Platt writes, all this hoopla was based on preliminary and insufficient evidence:
And here’s the bummer part: They were using preliminary Planck data. When better data from Planck were released, the astronomers used that,
and found that the amount of galactic dust in their view was much
higher than they previously thought. That weakens their case
considerably.
And here's one reason I enjoy reading Mr. Platt's columns: He's so honest and forthright, as, in this case, he admits:
"On a personal note, I reported on this last year as straight news. I
assumed that such an announcement had been vetted and the results
peer-reviewed. They hadn’t been at that time. As such, I think it’s up
to the scientists making the claim to make that clear, and to be more
circumspect in their announcement … just as it’s up to those of us
reporting on big news to be skeptical and make sure that the process of
peer review has been fully respected. That’s on me, and I blew it."
He adds that he doesn't mind it when scientists announce preliminary data, but he wishes they would make it clear that the data are preliminary:
"Mind you, I don’t necessarily have a problem with big announcements that
are made when the scientists themselves aren’t sure what they mean.
Specifically, I’m remembering the faster-than-light neutrino announcement,
when the scientists said, basically, “Look, we’ve investigated this as
much as we can, and we know it sounds crazy, but our results seem to say
that FTL particles are possible. What did we miss?” They were very
skeptical, and were asking for others to pitch in and see what they
found. It turns out there was a loose cable in the equipment (yes,
seriously), that messed up their timing experiments.
Mr. Platt concludes:
"And there’s a final irony here: This new announcement was made by the
BICEP2 team, but their results aren’t yet published. They’ve been
submitted to a physics journal, and the Planck data they used will be
made public next week. So even these results aren’t peer-reviewed yet!
"The difference, though, is that this is not a paradigm-shifting
announcement, but a retraction. The bar is set lower for such things, so
I feel safe enough reporting on it. If, however, someone else comes
along and says the retraction needs to be retracted, well, we’ll deal
with that if it comes up.
"Science is messy sometimes, and it’s made messier by the need and
pressure to announce results … and the need and pressure on some of us
to write about them. We all need to be more careful in the future."
So, why am I making a big deal out of this? Because it's a new and fresh illustration of how science, our understanding of the universe, expands (get it, expands!) --- and then retreats, or contracts, or goes back to a new starting point, as researchers continue to make new observations and refinements on earlier conclusions.
And, since I'm thinking and writing about all these issues as a way of approaching the issues that seem to divide science from religion, I'm asking:
Is this in any way like religion? Well, yes, it is very much like my understanding of religion. I'm going to write about that soon. Because I think that the people who see a huge conflict between science and religion are biased by their view of religion and the claims of religion.
No, too much jogging is NOT going to kill you! Well, let me clarify:
If by "too much" you mean you're planning to spend all day, every day, jogging, without stopping for food, water, or bathroom breaks, then, yes, you'll probably die.
But if by "too much" you mean more than (a) your mother-in-law or some other relative or (b) some quack trainer or nutritionist or self-proclaimed healer or (c) some duck or other farmyard animal thinks you should --- because they want you to (a) stay home and cook for them or (b) follow their very expensive "health" plan for their financial well-being or (c) I don't know, I just threw that in because, "quack" --- then, no.
And, see, here's the problem with all these "scientific studies," as reported by the popular media "science writers":
They're full of quack.
The latest, a so-called study which supposedly found that "too much" jogging is bad for people, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) and summarized in countless online publications. If you want to read the whole thing, you have to have a subscription to the journal, which I don't have, and I'll bet those science writers don't have, either. Here's what is available to the public online:
Abstract
Background
People who are physically active have at least a 30% lower
risk of death during follow-up compared with those who are inactive.
However, the ideal dose of exercise for improving longevity is
uncertain. Objectives
The aim of this study was to investigate the association
between jogging and long-term, all-cause mortality by focusing
specifically on the effects of pace, quantity, and frequency of jogging. Methods
As part of the Copenhagen City Heart Study, 1,098 healthy
joggers and 3,950 healthy nonjoggers have been prospectively followed up
since 2001. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed
with age as the underlying time scale and delayed entry. Results
Compared with sedentary nonjoggers, 1 to 2.4 h of jogging per
week was associated with the lowest mortality (multivariable hazard
ratio [HR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11 to 0.80). The
optimal frequency of jogging was 2 to 3 times per week (HR: 0.32; 95%
CI: 0.15 to 0.69) or ≤1 time per week (HR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.72).
The optimal pace was slow (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.10) or average
(HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.66). The joggers were divided into light,
moderate, and strenuous joggers. The lowest HR for mortality was found
in light joggers (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.47), followed by moderate
joggers (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.38) and strenuous joggers (HR:
1.97; 95% CI: 0.48 to 8.14). Conclusions
The findings suggest a U-shaped association between all-cause
mortality and dose of jogging as calibrated by pace, quantity, and
frequency of jogging. Light and moderate joggers have lower mortality
than sedentary nonjoggers, whereas strenuous joggers have a mortality
rate not statistically different from that of the sedentary group.
Read that conclusion again! And then, let me tell you that it is NOT actually borne out by the study. And most especially the headlines inspired by the study, such as The Telegraph's "Fast running is as deadly as sitting on the couch," The Chicago Tribune's "New study shows casual joggers outlast ironmen over long term," and Time's "When Exercise Does More Harm Than Good."
Thanks to Forbes for publishing this summary of the statistical analysis!
Forbes has done a brilliant analysis of the actual results of the study and how it can be correctly interpreted. Briefly, (1) it is just an observational study, (2) conducted on a group too small to do a valid statistical analysis, (3) the authors themselves wrote in a separate editorial article, "...we still need more data to truly determine ‘is more actually worse?’
regarding exercise dose and prognosis"; and (4) the authors themselves "are among the leading proponents of the 'less is more' exercise
philosophy, so they would be inclined to support this study if the
support were at all warranted."
The Forbes writer concludes, " Journalists and scientists have an obligation to fairly and accurately
report the results of individual studies, and they have the further
obligation to place those results in the context of what is already
known in the field. By reporting the results of this one quite limited
study with little or no critical perspective of its details or the
larger context of the research, they have once again helped perpetuate
the scientific illiteracy and innumeracy that is fast becoming one
of the hallmarks of our time.."
But I'm writing about it again because some politicians have stepped into the fray: Chris Christie and Rand Paul.
I am so outraged I can hardly believe it. Chris Christie, by the way, whose qualifications for commenting on vaccines are .... wait for it .... absolutely none, "walked back" his earlier comments, clearly made to court the irrational and idiotic Tea Party members of his party.
Christie was in England, posing for photos in which he wore a ridiculous mask apparently so as to avoid people mentioning his ridiculous hug in a football game a few weeks ago, by missing the Super Bowl (Huh? Yeah, that's what I'm asking: Huh?). His office had to make the statement that he was just pointing out that individual states set guidelines (AKA laws) for vaccinations.
He also mentioned, “Mary Pat and I have had our children vaccinated and we think that it’s
an important part of being sure we protect their health and the public
health." So what's good for his own children is not good for everyone else? Puh-leeze, Mr. Christie. Get a grip. You're not even going to make it through the Republican primary, let alone be elected as president. So take a look at yourself and turn yourself around and show some integrity.
Paul said, "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children
who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."
Of COURSE you have, Dr. Paul. So have we all heard of "many tragic cases"---from idiots. And of course being elected is more important to you than integrity. (Even though you have the same chance of making it through the Republican primary as Chris Christie.)
And Carly Fiorino came out of nowhere, again, to make herself heard on the issue (even though she has less than the chance of a snowball in that very very hot place of getting nominated to the Republican ticket): She said she thinks "...vaccinating for measles makes a lot of sense.” She added, “But that’s me. I do think parents have to make
those choices. I mean, I got measles as a kid. We used to all get
measles… I got chicken pox, I got measles, I got mumps.”
Yes, Ms. Fiorino, a lot of us got those diseases. And we survived. But don't you remember how miserable you felt when you were sick with those diseases? And don't you remember that children died from them?
And what about the babies, too young to be vaccinated, and the older people whose immunity is compromised, who might be exposed to one of these diseases by some unvaccinated child of some parent who wants to "make those choices"?
So, who do you trust about vaccinations? Please, trust these politicians no farther than you can throw them.
How did the universe begin? Most astronomers now believe it began with the so-called Big Bang, more than 13.8 billion years ago:
The universe went from a small and dense ball of nothing to a rapidly expanding chaotic mess of a lot of things.
By the way, I just found out that the term "Big Bang" was coined by the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle --- coined derisively because he thought this theory was wrong.
He himself believed in the Steady State theory, the idea that, as Wikipedia puts it, "... new matter is continuously created as the Universe expands, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle (the principle that the observable universe is basically the same in any time as well as any place)." The idea is that even though the universe is expanding, it doesn't change its appearance over time.
How can one believe in a theory that was concocted by three guys who had just watched the movie "Dead of Night" and were inspired by the movie's circular plot*?
Really? I mean, really? So, what inspired the Big Bang theory? Did some scientists watch "Fantasia" or "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe"? (Both of these movies came out in 1940.)
Just kidding. Actually, the Big Bang theory has become accepted by scientists because it is borne out by observation.
Wikipedia also has a very complete (at least I think it's complete---it's certainly more than I've ever known before about this subject, and more than I thought I would ever want to know) summary of the theory and its development and expansion.
From the Wikipedia article, I learned that the idea was first noted by George Lemaitre in 1927 that an expanding universe "might be traced back
in time to an originating single point." Since then, observations have led scientists to accept this theory, rather than the Steady State theory. As early as 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered evidence that galaxies are drifting apart at high speeds, evidence of the Big Bang theory. Then, in 1964, cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, as predicted by the Big Bang model.
And, as noted in Wikipedia, "The known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the Universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density andtemperature."
One more thought about Hoyle and his Steady State theory, again, from Wikipedia:
"Dr. Virginia Trimble, an astrophysicist at the University of California
at Irvine, said that Dr. Hoyle's opposition to the Big Bang, while
considered a mistake, 'was significant in that it went a long way
toward making cosmology a true science'' in which competing theories
were tested by observations."
I'm making such a big deal about this because I want to emphasize three points: first, that science as we know it today has developed from a mish-mash of what we would be ashamed nowadays to call science; second, that science as we know it today is still evolving; and, third, that what I call "true science" continues to evolve as "competing theories [are] tested by observation" and deductive reasoning.
In the past year, our understanding of the expansion of the universe from the time of the Big Bang has changed again, and then again. I'll be writing about that next.
*Here's a summary of the plot, and, in case you're supremely bored or need some help getting to sleep, you can buy this ancient (1945) movie from Amazon.com, if you still have a VHS player. (Just kidding: It's also available on DVD. But it won't play on most North American DVD systems.) (BTW, the Screenonline people note: "Warning: screenonline full synopses contain 'spoilers' which give away key plot points. Don't read on if you don't want to know the ending!."
--- A former Playboy model and professional idiot who thinks that because her child received a childhood vaccine and her child is also autistic, the vaccine must have caused the autism?
--- The discredited researcher who published a so-called study which supposedly found a connection between autism and vaccines, but later admitted he was wrong and retracted the paper?
--- Actual, real research which shows absolutely no connection between vaccines and autism?
--- Actual, real-life research which shows that "herd immunity," offered by vaccinating the large majority of the population, protects us from getting diseases like measles, smallpox and chickenpox, and polio?
--- Actual, real-life results which show that kids with measles get very, very sick; and pregnant women who are exposed to measles may give birth to children with preventable maladies?
"Typically, the M.M.R. shot is given to infants at about 12 months and
again at age 5 or 6. This doctor, Andrew Wakefield, wrote that his study
of 12 children showed that the three vaccines taken together could
alter immune systems, causing intestinal woes that then reach, and
damage, the brain. In fairly short order, his findings were widely
rejected as — not to put too fine a point on it — bunk. Dozens of
epidemiological studies found no merit to his work, which was based on a
tiny sample. The British Medical Journal went so far as to call his
research “fraudulent.” The British journal Lancet, which originally
published Dr. Wakefield’s paper, retracted it. The British medical authorities stripped him of his license."
I hope you'll watch the video in this link, which lays out better than I can the issues involved in vaccines: the deadly childhood diseases involved, the media hype, and the misunderstanding and, let's admit it, continued distortions by famous people, and so on.
"The notion that you would take a 12-person case study and make claims about a population as a whole is ridiculous," as the RetroReport.org documentary points out. The original doctor was found to have distorted even the data in that original case study and acted unethically to make himself famous. Why would you trust this man?
And here's another video, shorter, and funnier, from Larry Wilmore's Nightly Show:
These anti-vaccine people are guilty of the "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy: "After this, therefore because of this," or, in other words, "My kid was vaccinated, and he suffers from autism, so his autism must be the direct result of the vaccine."
From the same article quoted above:
"Nonetheless,
despite his being held in disgrace, the vaccine-autism link has
continued to be accepted on faith by some. Among the more prominently
outspoken is Jenny McCarthy, a former television host and Playboy
Playmate, who has linked her son’s autism to his vaccination: He got the
shot, and then he was not O.K. Post hoc, etc.
"Steadily,
as time passed, clusters of resistance to inoculation bubbled up. While
the nationwide rate of vaccination against childhood diseases has
stayed at 90 percent or higher, the percentage in some parts of the
country has fallen well below that mark. Often enough, these are places
whose residents tend to be well off and well educated, with parents
seeking exemptions from vaccinations for religious or other personal reasons."
This is infuriating. As a member of the generation before the MMR and polio and chickenpox vaccines were commonplace, and who in my childhood got measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and chickenpox, I don't understand why these people are letting their own children be vulnerable to these horrible diseases --- AND making other kids, and parents, and pregnant women, and old people, susceptible to getting them, too.
One more quote from the article, emphasizing again the importance of people getting these vaccinations:
"Mass vaccinations have been described by the C.D.C. as among the “10
great public health achievements” of the 20th century, one that had
prevented tens of thousands of deaths in the United States. Yet diseases
once presumed to have been kept reasonably in check are bouncing back. Whooping cough
is one example. Measles draws especially close attention because it is
highly infectious. Someone who has it can sneeze in a room, and the
virus will linger in the air for two hours. Any unvaccinated person who
enters that room risks becoming infected and, of course, can then spread
it further. Disneyland proved a case in point. The measles outbreak there showed that it is indeed a small world, after all."
I am a grad student in my late 20s, and I find that often when I organize parties at home, my guests tell me enthusiastically that they are attending, but then on the day of, I receive a flurry of texts explaining how they can't come after all. Most recently, this led me to cancel the party outright, and left me nursing hurt feelings. I pride myself on my cooking abilities, and I try to think through the guest list carefully to make sure that everyone has someone to talk to. I suspect that this is an etiquette problem rather than a personal snub. My question is, as a hostess, how can I handle it gracefully when my party unravels around me because most of my guests suddenly can't come?