Skeptophilia (skep-to-fil-i-a) (n.) - the love of logical thought, skepticism, and thinking critically. Being an exploration of the applications of skeptical thinking to the world at large, with periodic excursions into linguistics, music, politics, cryptozoology, and why people keep seeing the face of Jesus on grilled cheese sandwiches.

Monday, January 4, 2021

Ghost rings and interstellar mysteries

I love a good mystery.  There's something about the phrase "there's something going on here, but we don't know what it is" that immediately makes my ears perk up.  And for someone of that bent, there's no field like astrophysics.

The whole science of astrophysics is a relatively new invention.  Astronomy, of course, has been around for millennia; there are complex star charts made by Chinese astronomers that date back to the eleventh century, and our observations of the constellations and planets goes back to the time of the Babylonians.  

We've been looking up for a long, long time.

The problem, of course, is that looking at the stars from a distance is one thing, but finding out anything about what they actually are when we can't physically go there is quite another.  Even finding out what they're made of was a baffling question with no obvious answer.  Up until (very) recently, our best telescopes weren't sufficient to see any detail at all on even the largest stars; even through the Mount Wilson Observatory Telescope they just look like points of light with no discernible features whatsoever.  

The first step toward seeing more than that came from research by German physicist Joseph von Fraunhofer in the early nineteenth century, when he invented the spectroscope -- basically a very well-made prism -- and found that in the light from the Sun there were dozens of dark lines (now called Fraunhofer lines in his honor).  Fraunhofer himself died at the young age of 39 without ever finding out what caused them -- poisoned by vapors from the heavy metals he used in his profession as a glassmaker -- but the research was taken over by Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen, who showed that the lines were the absorption spectra of specific elements.  Basically, these lines occurred in the light emitted by a heated, glowing gas mixture, and could be used to identify what elements were in the mixture.  In fact, it was through its unique spectral fingerprint within the solar spectrum that British astronomer Norman Lockyer discovered the element he christened helium (after Helios, the Greek sun god) -- the first element that was identified out in space before it was detected here on Earth.

What this did was allow us to study the stars at a distance.  Their spectra told us for certain what stars thousands of light years away were composed of.  Through this new science of astrophysics we found out that most of the ordinary matter in the universe (96%, in fact) is hydrogen and helium; all of the other familiar heavier elements put together make up the other 4%.  It also led directly to the discovery of the expanding universe and the Big Bang when astronomer Edwin Hubble found that the familiar spectral lines of hydrogen in distant stars were red-shifted -- stretched out in the same fashion that the sound waves of a passing train get stretched, lowering the pitch as it passes you.  And it turns out that unlike trains, galaxies have a peculiar relationship between their distance and their speed.  The farther a galaxy is away from us, the more the spectral lines get red-shifted, so the faster it's moving.

The result: the universe is expanding, meaning at one point 13.8 billion years ago, it was coalesced into a single point.  All that, from the lines produced when you heat something hot enough to emit light.

Anyhow, all of this comes up because of a new discovery that has the scientists scratching their heads.  Astrophysicists Anna Kapinska and Emil Lenc were analyzing images from the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) telescope, and found ghostly rings of radio emission that have no known source.  Here's one of them, dubbed ORC-1 ("odd radio circle"):


In an amusing parallel to the famous (and still unexplained) "Wow!" signal -- a narrow-band radio signal discovered in 1977 and so named because astronomer Jerry Ehman was so taken aback when he found it he wrote "Wow!" in the margin of the printout -- these ORCs have become known as "WTFs" because that's what Kapinska wrote on the photo of the first one she found.  Since then there have been dozens of WTFs found, and they still have no convincing explanation.  There doesn't seem to be anything at the center, such as the pulsars found in the middle of nebulae that are supernova remnants; they aren't star-formers like the Orion Nebula; and they don't show the spectral distortion you see with gravitational lensing, when a distant light source has its light warped around a massive object between it and us.

In short, we still have no idea.  Two Russian scientists have actually (seriously) suggested that we might be looking down the maw of a wormhole -- a thus-far theoretical astronomical object linking two different places in space-time, made famous by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.  But that explanation is pretty out there (literally and figuratively), and to be scrupulously honest, at the moment they're still just... WTFs.

So once again, we have a demonstration that however far we've come from our ancestors looking up at the skies and seeing dogs and bears and scorpions and so on, we still have a long distance to cover before we'll have a convincing explanation of whatever we see up there.  I, for one, find that thrilling.  If in the past two centuries we've gone from stars being points of light to being able to detect and analyze radio emissions from billions of light years away, where will we be in another two hundred years?  And during that time, how many mysteries will cause scientists to say "WTF"?

Boggles the mind.

*******************************************

What are you afraid of?

It's a question that resonates with a lot of us.  I suffer from chronic anxiety, so what I am afraid of gets magnified a hundredfold in my errant brain -- such as my paralyzing fear of dentists, an unfortunate remnant of a brutal dentist in my childhood, the memories of whom can still make me feel physically ill if I dwell on them.  (Luckily, I have good teeth and rarely need serious dental care.)  We all have fears, reasonable and unreasonable, and some are bad enough to impact our lives in a major way, enough that psychologists and neuroscientists have put considerable time and effort into learning how to quell (or eradicate) the worst of them.

In her wonderful book Nerve: Adventures in the Science of Fear, journalist Eva Holland looks at the psychology of this most basic of emotions -- what we're afraid of, what is happening in our brains when we feel afraid, and the most recently-developed methods to blunt the edge of incapacitating fears.  It's a fascinating look at a part of our own psyches that many of us are reluctant to confront -- but a must-read for anyone who takes the words of the Greek philosopher Pausanias seriously: γνῶθι σεαυτόν (know yourself).

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]



Saturday, January 2, 2021

Razor's edge

A few weeks ago, I ordered some replacement blades for my electric razor, and last week I was complaining to a friend that the result was being inundated afterward by advertisements for replacement blades for electric razors.

You'd think the advertisers would have figured out by now that if someone buys something, it generally makes no sense to screech at them immediately afterward to buy the same thing again.  The problem (from the advertisers' perspective) is that there's no way to calculate accurately when would be immediately prior to my needing to replace the blades, which would be the time to do it.  But either way, sending advertisements to me immediately afterward seems kind of silly.

Anyhow, this all comes up because my friend emailed me yesterday with a link and the message, "Hey, maybe you won't need to replace your blades again!"  The link was to a site called "Pyramid Razor Sharpener: It Actually Works! Make Your Own In 10 Minutes!"

This is the first I've seen any pyramid-power bullshit in a while -- the last one I recall was back in 2012, when someone took a photo of one of the pyramids at Chichen Itza and found that it had a mysterious beam of light shooting upwards from it.  It turned out that the whole thing was easily explainable as a common digital camera malfunction, but that didn't prevent the woo-woos from jumping around making excited little squeaking noises about how everything they'd said about pyramids was true after all, take that, you dumb ol' skeptics, etc.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Ricardo Liberato, All Gizah Pyramids, CC BY-SA 2.0]

So I suppose it's unsurprising that there is still a lot of latent interest in pyramids lying around, waiting for some unsuspecting nimrod to come along and pick it up.  This at least partly explains the "Pyramid Razor Sharpener" website, wherein we find out how wonderful pyramids are for sharpening razors by having the words "Pyramid Razor Sharpener" thrown at us (no lie) fifteen times.  Here are a few of the other things we learn:
  • A pyramid is a "cone shape, but with flat sides and corners."  Which is true in approximately the same fashion as saying that a cube is "a sphere shape, but with flat sides and edges."
  • Razor blades and other sharp metal objects become dull not because use wears and blunts the edges, but because of "a crystalline build-up on the blade, static electricity and dehydration."
  • It's especially hard on razors to use them for shaving, because the "repeated rubbing of the blade on the face hairs induces an ionic crystal formation of the water molecules upon the skin."
  • Pyramids work because "alignment with the magnetic field provides for the naturally present charged particles to be 'entrapped' by the pyramid and their resulting focus at the corners."  Whatever the fuck that means.
  • It can't be a different shape than a pyramid (such as a cylinder, which is like a cube shape but with flat circles on the end) because "the particular dimensions of the pyramid cause a concentration, or focus of a negative static charge at one third of its height at an equal distance from the four corners."
  • Because we're talking about static charges, here, you shouldn't build your pyramid out of something that conducts electricity.  He suggests cardboard.  (I bet the ancient Egyptians wish they'd realized this before they busted their asses hauling around all of those gigantic rocks.)
  • If you put your dull razor under the pyramid, it will become sharp because of ions.  More specifically, the "positive ions of the crystals on the blade are effectively neutralized by the negatively charged ion concentration inside the pyramid.  The crystals are stripped of their bonds and water molecules are released.  This results in the dehydration (this is the same with mummification) of the crystals, which are destroyed.  The blade is now clean and feels sharp once again."  So q.e.d., as far as I can tell.
The funny thing about all of this, besides the fact that in order to believe any of it your science education would have had to cease in the fourth grade, is that this guy doesn't appear to be selling anything.  He doesn't wind up by saying "send me fifty bucks, and I'll tell you how!" or "for a hundred bucks, I'll send you a build-your-own-pyramid kit!" or "for the low price of only $199.99, I'll send you my motivational lecture series 'Things I've Learned While Sitting Under a Pyramid,' with a bonus set of ultra-sharp razor blades as a FREE gift!"  He seems to be openly and honestly sharing something he feels to be a legitimate and scientifically-supported life hack, despite the fact that way back in 2005 pyramid power was tested on Mythbusters and found to be (surprise!) completely bogus.

So there's something kind of endearingly earnest about this guy, even though if he thinks that water forms "ionic crystals" he really should sign up for a chemistry class.  (He did say that he'd written his "scientific explanation" of how it works in such a way as "not to sound too sciencey," and I'd say he succeeded at least as far as that goes.)  My general conclusion, however, is that you probably should stick to ordinary strops and knife sharpeners, and/or doing what I did, namely buying new razor blades when yours get dull.  Even if you built your pyramid out of scrap cardboard, you're better off recycling it and finding a different way to "neutralize your positive ions."

******************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is apt given our recent focus on all things astronomical: Edward Brooke-Hitching's amazing The Sky Atlas.

This lovely book describes our history of trying to map out the heavens, from the earliest Chinese, Babylonian, and Native American drawings of planetary positions, constellations, and eclipses, to the modern mapping techniques that pinpoint the location of stars far too faint to see with the naked eye -- and objects that can't be seen directly at all, such as intergalactic dust clouds and black holes.  I've always loved maps, and this book combines that with my passion for astronomy into one brilliant volume.

It's also full of gorgeous illustrations showing not only the maps themselves but the astronomers who made them.  If you love looking up at the sky, or love maps, or both -- this one should be on your list for sure.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]



Friday, January 1, 2021

Time marches on

Happy New Year 2021 to all of my readers, and I hope this one brings you everything you hope for.  Given the shitshow 2020 was, my wishes for the new year are more fervent and heartfelt than they usually are.  Personally, I'd like to finish the novel I'm currently halfway through writing; I'd like to get my 5 K race time down below 27 minutes; and I'd like to get back to lifting weights every day.  On a larger scale, I'd like it if between vaccination and people being smart about social contact, the COVID pandemic starts to wane; and I'd like it if Donald Trump doesn't incite his followers to start a civil war when Joe Biden is inaugurated in three weeks and Trump will finally have to face up to the fact that for the first time in his life, someone told him "no" and there's nothing he can do about it.

I'm hoping all that's not too much to ask for.

But speaking of calendars, milestones, and benchmarks, you may not have heard that apparently there's been a proposal to revamp our calendar.  According to a video by the Munich-based filmmakers that call themselves "Kurzgesagt" (German for "in brief"), we shouldn't be in the year 2021, we should be in 12,021.

The reason for this proposal is that basing the most commonly-used calendar in the world on the beginning of Christianity gives it a fairly arbitrary zero year, given how many people in the world aren't Christian.  Plus, having a great swatch of history marked by the calendar-running-backwards "B.C." scale is confusing and unnecessary. So Philipp Dettmer and his friends at Kurzgesagt have suggested a new scale, and one that conveniently would only require the addition of a "1" at the beginning of our current year.

So what happened 12,021 years ago that's so special?  Dettmer says this is when the first known permanent stone building was built in the hills of southern Anatolia, in what is now Turkey, marking the point at which we began to "build a new world on top of the old one."  At that point, we set in motion the massive terraforming operation that has characterized humanity ever since.

This would mean that we would do away with the old "B.C." and "A.D." designations; all years on the calendar after that point (and thus all of recorded history) would run forward and would be "H.E."  (Human Era).

Roman calendar from the 1st century B.C.E., or the 99th century H.E., whichever you prefer [Image is in the Public Domain]

Okay, there are a few problems with this.

First of all, the temple that Dettmer et al. are referencing -- Göbekli Tepe, near the town of Şanlıurfa -- was not built 12,021 years ago, it was founded around 11,150 years ago, which is a 900-odd year discrepancy.  This is according to the oldest radiocarbon dates we have from the site, so it seems like a good estimate.  So if you really do want to measure the years based on the founding of this temple, you'd have to do more than simply adding a "1" to the beginning of the current calendar year, you'd have to add 9,129, which is not nearly as convenient.

Second, I wonder if they've considered the level of conniption that would be thrown by the Religious Right if this was seriously proposed.  These, after all, are the same people who founded the War on Christmas trope, which claims (among other things) that Starbucks changing its winter cup design was the moral equivalent of assassinating the Three Wise Men while they were on their way to Bethlehem.  These are also the same people who regularly send me hate mail when I use "B.C.E." and "C.E." ("Before Common Era" and "Common Era") instead of B.C. and A.D.  (One memorable one said, "You're so much in love with your lord and master Satan you can't even bear to write Christ's name in an abbreviation.  You're despicable." Which became a lot funnier when the final sentence made me think of reading the whole thing in a Daffy Duck voice, so I did.  You should try it.)

Hell, we're the culture that couldn't even agree to switching over to using metric units.  Nope, gotta stick with feet, inches, pounds, ounces, hundredweights, and furlongs per fortnight.  'Murika!  Fuck yeah!

Then there's a third issue, which is that it's not like we don't have commemoration of other deities in other parts of our timekeeping system, such as the days (Tiw, Woden, Thor, and Freyja) and months (Januarius, Februarius, Mars, Maia, Juno).  The difference is that pretty much no one worships any of these gods any more, which in Thor's case is kind of a shame because he was a serious badass, and that's not even considering how breathtakingly hot Chris Hemsworth is.

Of course, it's not like calendar-keeping ever was a particularly exact science.  Our current zero year (well, 1 A.D., as there's no Year Zero in the contemporary calendar) is supposed to be based on the birth of Jesus, but the problem is, the most recent scholarship on the topic -- calculated from known dates of Roman emperors' reigns and the lives of biblical figures such as Herod -- has concluded that Jesus was born in 4 B.C.  He also wasn't born on December 25, but probably some time in the spring, given that "the shepherds were tending their lambs in the fields."  The settlement on December 25 as the date for the celebration of Jesus's birth probably started some time mid-4th century, and a lot of folks think that the date was chosen because it coincided with the part of the year when the Romans celebrated Saturnalia, a solstice festival associated with meals, get-togethers, and gift-giving (sound familiar?).  The idea was that if you sanctified the date by putting a Christian spin on the celebration, you could let the former pagans still have their party but pretend it was something holier.  The church fathers figured with luck, the recent converts would eventually forget about the pagan part and focus only on the holy part, which 1,700 years later still hasn't happened, given Christmas trees, Santa Claus, and Black Friday specials at Walmart.

Now, my point is not that any of the above stuff is exact, either; the spring 4 B.C. date for Jesus's birth still rests on a lot of guesswork.  It's more that our calendar-keeping isn't based on anything real as it is.  It's hard enough to keep up with the inevitable vagaries that are engendered by the fact that the Earth's rotation and revolution cycles don't line up especially well, which is why we have leap days every four years, and also is what necessitated a reshuffling of the calendar back in the sixteenth century when it was noticed that the calendar dates of holy days had kind of come unglued from what day it was as calculated by the position of the Sun and stars.  But even this proved to be a major balls-up to fix, because (of course) not everyone agreed to implement the new calendar at the same time (Russia and Serbia actually held out until 1918!), so if you asked someone what day it was, it would differ depending on what country they were from.  (This was the reason for one of the most wonderful twists in Umberto Eco's incredible novel Foucault's Pendulum, only one of many fantastic aspects of that brilliant, byzantine labyrinth of a story.)

So anyhow, my point is, trying to make a world-wide major-scale change to calendar-keeping and getting everyone to agree would be entirely too much for us.  Hell, we still have people who can't wrap their brains around concepts like "Earth round, not flat," "vaccines good, diseases bad," and "evolution actually happened."  Changing the calendar, even if there was a good reason to, would be a complete non-starter.

Me, I think if we're really serious about having a meaningful calendar, we should start with the real milestone, which is the Big Bang.  Now that's what I'd call a Zero Year.  And with that thought, I'll end here, and pause only to reiterate my wish that your 13,800,002,021 A.B.B. is a special one.

******************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is apt given our recent focus on all things astronomical: Edward Brooke-Hitching's amazing The Sky Atlas.

This lovely book describes our history of trying to map out the heavens, from the earliest Chinese, Babylonian, and Native American drawings of planetary positions, constellations, and eclipses, to the modern mapping techniques that pinpoint the location of stars far too faint to see with the naked eye -- and objects that can't be seen directly at all, such as intergalactic dust clouds and black holes.  I've always loved maps, and this book combines that with my passion for astronomy into one brilliant volume.

It's also full of gorgeous illustrations showing not only the maps themselves but the astronomers who made them.  If you love looking up at the sky, or love maps, or both -- this one should be on your list for sure.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]



Thursday, December 31, 2020

Sawney Bean and the veracity of folklore

One of the creepiest legends to come out of old Scotland is the tale of Sawney Bean (or Beane), whose cave-dwelling, cannibalistic family allegedly ran amok in South Ayrshire in the 16th century.  Bean, born Alexander Bean in East Lothian, was said to be the son of a manual laborer, but had a vicious streak from childhood that was exacerbated when in his late teens he married a woman who was worse.

The couple set up housekeeping in a deep cave in Bennane Head, a promontory between Ballantrae and Girvan on the west coast of Scotland.  There, he and his evil wife were the progenitors of quite a brood; eight sons, six daughters, and thirty-two grandchildren (many of them born to incestuous unions).  The Beans survived in their remote abode by waylaying travelers...

... and eating them.

"Sawney Beane at the Entrance of his Cave."  Note the woman in the background -- holding a severed human leg.  [Image is in the Public Domain]

Local villagers knew about the disappearances, and sometimes they'd find bones and other body parts -- but in an apparent case of "How dumb exactly are you people?" it never occurred to them that the culprits were a crew of depraved cannibals living nearby.   The local law enforcement cast a suspicious eye on local innkeepers and pub owners, since they were often the last people to see the victims alive.  But eventually one lucky guy fought back against the Beans when attacked, survived (his wife, apparently, wasn't so lucky) and brought back a tale of being swarmed by men and women intent on murdering him.  King James VI of Scotland (later James I of England) launched an attack on the family, sending soldiers in to destroy them and their stronghold.

The Beans were defeated, and those not killed in the skirmish were brought back to Edinburgh in chains.  The men were executed by having their hands, feet, and genitals chopped off, and allowed to bleed to death; the women were burned at the stake.  One daughter, "Black" Agnes Bean, who had escaped before the attack and attempted to settle down in Girvan under an assumed name, was eventually found out and hanged.

So that was the end of the Beans.  But the question that I'd like to ask is: is any of it true?  How would we know if it was?

One reason we might cast a skew glance at the tale is how varied the different versions of it are.  Sean Thomas wrote a piece on the Bean clan in Fortean Times, a bit of which was excerpted at the site The Spooky Isles (the original article, unfortunately, seems no longer to be available):
... from broadsheet to broadsheet, the precise dating of Sawney Bean's reign of anthropophagic terror varies wildly: sometimes the atrocities occurred during the reign of James VI [ca. early 1600s], whilst other versions claim the Beans lived centuries before.  Viewed in this light, it is arguable that the Bean story may have a basis of truth but the precise dating of events has become obscured over the years.  Perhaps the dating of the murders was brought forward by the editors and writer of the broadsheets, so as to make the story appear more relevant to the readership...  To add to the intrigue, we do know that cannibalism was not unknown in mediaeval Scotland and that Galloway was in mediaeval times a very lawless place; perhaps nothing on the scale of the Bean legend took place, but every story grows and is embroidered over time.
While the main part of the story itself doesn't involve the supernatural -- something that would lead me to doubt the whole thing -- there's a paranormal twist to the execution of Agnes Bean in Girvan:
Historically, Girvan was significant as the home of the Hairy Tree.  According to legend, the Hairy Tree was planted by Sawney Bean’s eldest daughter in the town’s Dalrymple Street.  However, when her family was arrested, the daughter was implicated in their incestuous and cannibalistic activities and was hanged by locals from the bough of the tree she herself planted.  According to local legend, one can hear the sound of a swinging corpse while standing beneath its boughs.
When you add to this the fact that there is an ongoing dispute amongst the people in Girvan regarding which tree in the town is the authentic "Hairy Tree," it does tend to make you wonder how much of the rest of it can be true.

Another suspicious factor is the similarity of the Bean story to an earlier tale from Scotland, that of "Christie Cleek."  Christie Cleek, born Andrew Christie in Perth in the mid 14th century, was driven to murder and cannibalism during the horrible famine that followed the ravages of the Black Death in the British Isles in the 1350s.  "Cleek" means "shepherd's crook" -- the tool Christie used to pull down travelers and pluck riders from their horses.  Like the Beans, Christie Cleek and his family lived in hiding, feasting on human flesh and striking fear into the hearts of the locals.  It has a different ending, though -- after the famine eased, an armed force was sent in to rid the countryside of the menace.  Everyone in the family was killed but Christie himself -- he escaped, and lived to a ripe old age under an assumed name.  The name "Christie Cleek" became a synonym in that part of Scotland for the bogeyman, useful for scaring children to the pants-wetting stage during late-night storytelling sessions around the fire.

So the inconsistencies and variations in the Bean story, plus the analogies to earlier tales, makes you wonder.  The most likely answer is that Bean himself (and possibly his savage wife) were real, but that a lot of the excesses attributed to them and their progeny were exaggerations.  About the veracity of the details, there is simply not enough hard documentation to be certain.

It's a gruesome and fascinating story.  Certainly a good one for a shiver up the spine.  It'd be nice to know if it was true, but as with most things in the distant past, it's probably not possible.  So like a lot of folklore, we have to let it be -- filed under the heading of "Who knows?"
******************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is apt given our recent focus on all things astronomical: Edward Brooke-Hitching's amazing The Sky Atlas.

This lovely book describes our history of trying to map out the heavens, from the earliest Chinese, Babylonian, and Native American drawings of planetary positions, constellations, and eclipses, to the modern mapping techniques that pinpoint the location of stars far too faint to see with the naked eye -- and objects that can't be seen directly at all, such as intergalactic dust clouds and black holes.  I've always loved maps, and this book combines that with my passion for astronomy into one brilliant volume.

It's also full of gorgeous illustrations showing not only the maps themselves but the astronomers who made them.  If you love looking up at the sky, or love maps, or both -- this one should be on your list for sure.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]



Wednesday, December 30, 2020

The Guardians, the fourth dimension, and a lawsuit from Saturn

Given how surreal this year has been, I was thinking a few days ago that it was a little surprising that we haven't had any completely batshit insane stories lately.  But far be it from 2020 not to rise to such a challenge and say, "y'all hold my beer and watch this."  Just yesterday, two different loyal readers of Skeptophilia sent me unrelated links (at least I think they're unrelated, although as you'll see, it's a little hard to tell) that wind up the year with style.

If by "style" you mean "wearing an enormous tinfoil hat."

In the first, we have a guy named Mark Russell Bell over at Metaphysical Articles commenting on the Trump administration's decision that the "U.S. Space Force" sounded way too much like something that would be led by President Skroob and Dark Helmet, and decided to find something with fewer comical associations...

...so they settled on "The Guardians."  

A lot of us thought this was pretty amusing, but Mark Russell Bell loves it.  The reason why he loves it has to do with some weird combination of the following:

  • "deep trance mediumship"
  • the "Higher Self" and "Christ Consciousness"
  • Thomas Edison
  • a rejection of "pseudo-scientific flubdub"
  • "the incursion of the aeroform space people"
  • a "fourth-dimensional" explanation of flying saucers
  • light, heat, color, sound, and motion all being attributable to the flow of electrons
  • something about vaporizing and recondensing a brick
  • frequency being dependent on the inverse square root of the mass-density of the ether

Along the way you get the impression that (1) Mark Russell Bell is extremely serious, and (2) that he loathes people like me who are orthodox science types and require evidence before they'll believe in something.  My sense is he'd be entirely in favor of coming after people like me with a machete.  So if Mark Russell Bell ever reads this, allow me to mention that my wife and I recently moved to a small uncharted island off the coast of Mozambique.

In the second story, we meet someone with an even poorer grip on reality, one Rickia Collings of Allen, Texas.  Collings, who prefers to go by "Capricornus God of Sun Rickia," has filed suit with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, claiming that his civil rights had been violated by the federal government...

... given that he actually comes from Saturn.

[Image is in the Public Domain courtesy of NASA/JPL and the Hubble Space Telescope]

"Capricornus" also includes as defendants in the lawsuit the United Kingdom and the United Nations, and states that the alleged civil rights violations began on July 4, 1776, which is a little odd in the case of the United Nations because it wasn't founded until 1945.  As far as how this could all work, "Capricornus" claims he's way older than he looks and has been living on the Earth since before the American Revolution.

The lawsuit itself, which you can read at the link provided, is highly entertaining.  Some highlights include his national origin, in which he says he is from "Saturn and Capricorn," his mother is "w/ Picies [sic, I'm assuming he means Pisces] from Neptune and Jupiter" and his father is "w/ Aquarius from Uranus W.O.G. III."  In the section where he's asked to describe how the defendant(s) discriminated against the plaintiff, he says, and I quote:

Moon KAF = the Messiah.  DA6T = the Messiah, which from of make a person or an animal lame.  A small enclosure in which a sheep or other domestic animals are kept put or keep in a pen, confine someone to a restricted place.  A rare astrological aspect involving any celestial body 3 plants, points, planets are sextile to each other& both are then quincunx to a 3rd.  Beginning history and reconstruction -- the first morning tet. book = kreate [sic] a fighter.  Hand, mouth, connected to speech, drum beats.  That which from of mitzvah of Torah child of commandment, law, ordinance, statute, contained in Torah, for that reason to be observed by all practicing Jews.  A mixture of natural & manmade landmarks.  To see and rejoice in the goodness and greatness of God.

See affidavit.

Well, from that stinging indictment, I think we can all agree that the United States, United Kingdom, and United Nations will have no choice but to make significant reparations.

If the above didn't meet your desired quota of weirdness, the affidavit "Capricornus" refers to is seven pages long, and having waded all the way through it, I can say that it makes precisely the same amount of sense as the bit I quoted above.  It does bear mention, however, that a central point he makes has to do with the fact that "Si" (the chemical symbol for the element silicon) can also stand for "systematic internaliser," "standing instruction," and the sacroiliac joint.

How this has anything to do with violating his civil rights, I have no idea.

If you look at the lawsuit paperwork, you'll see that it's all been officially stamped by the District Court, so apparently they're required to take it seriously.  I wonder on what basis they'll throw it out?  Perhaps because Saturn isn't technically in east Texas?  Will "Capricornus" get his day in court even so?  Will his father and mother show up from Uranus and Neptune and/or Jupiter in support of their son's cause?

These questions and more will be answered on next week's episode of Wingnuts on Parade!

So anyway, as you can see, although 2020 may be in its last week, we're not done with complete lunacy yet.  I keep on making the mistake of saying "Well, what more can happen?", and somehow, "more" always seems to "happen."  I'm rather looking forward to Friday and New Year's Day, although as a friend pointed out, 2021 is just 2020 reaching legal drinking age, so maybe my expectation that next year will be marginally saner is doomed to disappointment.

That's what seems likely from my knowledge of "pseudo-scientific flubdub," anyhow.

******************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is apt given our recent focus on all things astronomical: Edward Brooke-Hitching's amazing The Sky Atlas.

This lovely book describes our history of trying to map out the heavens, from the earliest Chinese, Babylonian, and Native American drawings of planetary positions, constellations, and eclipses, to the modern mapping techniques that pinpoint the location of stars far too faint to see with the naked eye -- and objects that can't be seen directly at all, such as intergalactic dust clouds and black holes.  I've always loved maps, and this book combines that with my passion for astronomy into one brilliant volume.

It's also full of gorgeous illustrations showing not only the maps themselves but the astronomers who made them.  If you love looking up at the sky, or love maps, or both -- this one should be on your list for sure.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]



Tuesday, December 29, 2020

The flora of prehistory

I grew up around plants.  Well, everyone does, more or less, but my parents were dedicated gardeners and naturalists.  My dad grew show-quality tea roses and taught me how to recognize the trees of my native Louisiana from the shapes of the leaves and texture of the bark when I was still in elementary school.  My mom's flower gardens more than once had people pulling over to take photographs.

Regular readers of Skeptophilia are well aware of my fascination with prehistoric animals -- like many kids I grew up with books on dinosaurs (and posters of dinosaurs and models of dinosaurs...).  So it shouldn't have been a surprise that I was thrilled when I found out that just like the animals of prehistory, the plants of prehistory were different than the ones we have today.  But I recall that my interest was mixed with shock -- if I went back to the Cretaceous Period, not only would there be T. rexes and triceratopses stomping about, but the plants through which they'd have been stomping wouldn't have been the familiar oaks and ashes and hollies and camellias that were so familiar, but an entirely different flora in which I doubt there'd have been a single species I could have identified.

Well, maybe a couple, if not to species, at least to family.  Some of the earliest flowering plants were magnolias, and from the fossilized flowers, they look pretty much like... magnolias.  Ferns have been around for a long, long time (far predating the dinosaurs, in fact), and conifers like the common pines, cedars, and cypresses I saw every day were plentiful all the way back in the Triassic Period, 240-odd million years ago.  

But that's about it.  And although some of the groups were there, the species themselves would have been different ones than what we see around us today.  Imagine it: forests of plants with huge and wonderful biodiversity, in which you wouldn't recognize a single one that's familiar.

The reason I'm thinking about all this floral prehistory is a link to some cool research that showed up last week in Geology that a friend and frequent contributor to Skeptophilia sent me, about a discovery of a phenomenally well-preserved flower in hundred-million-year-old amber from Myanmar.  

Valviloculus pleristaminis, flower in lateral view.  Image credit: Poinar, Jr. et al., doi: 10.17348/jbrit.v14.i2.1014.

Dubbed Valviloculus pleristaminis (the genus name comes from the Latin valva -- "a folding door" -- and loculus -- "compartment;" the species name means "lots of stamens"), the little flower is only distantly related to any extant species.  Botanists think that Valviloculus might be allied to one of two rather obscure families of plants native to the Southern Hemisphere -- Monamiaceae and Atherospermataceae -- but that's only a preliminary analysis.

Atherosperma moschatum, an Australian species that may be one of the closest living cousins to Valviloculus [Image is in the Public Domain courtesy of photographer Peter Woodard]

"This isn't quite a Christmas flower but it is a beauty, especially considering it was part of a forest that existed 100 million years ago," said emeritus professor George Poinar, Jr., of Oregon State University, who led the research into the newly-discovered species.  "The male flower is tiny, about two millimeters across, but it has some fifty stamens arranged like a spiral, with anthers pointing toward the sky.  Despite being so small, the detail still remaining is amazing.  Our specimen was probably part of a cluster on the plant that contained many similar flowers, some possibly female."

What's even more mind-blowing is something I've pointed out before; given how difficult it is to form a good fossil and then have it survive intact for millions of years, the species we know about (both animal and plant) probably represent about 1% of what was actually alive back then.  The vast majority of species came and went, leaving no traces.  So if we were to travel back to the mid-Cretaceous, when Valviloculus was living and flowering in the prehistoric forests, not only would we see it, but literally hundreds of other long-gone species as varied, attractive, weird, and fascinating as the ones we have today.

Imagine the colors, shapes, and scents, plants from tiny sprigs all the way to towering trees, and none of which we still have with us now.  Truly, in Darwin's words, evolution produced -- and continues to produce -- "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful."

******************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is apt given our recent focus on all things astronomical: Edward Brooke-Hitching's amazing The Sky Atlas.

This lovely book describes our history of trying to map out the heavens, from the earliest Chinese, Babylonian, and Native American drawings of planetary positions, constellations, and eclipses, to the modern mapping techniques that pinpoint the location of stars far too faint to see with the naked eye -- and objects that can't be seen directly at all, such as intergalactic dust clouds and black holes.  I've always loved maps, and this book combines that with my passion for astronomy into one brilliant volume.

It's also full of gorgeous illustrations showing not only the maps themselves but the astronomers who made them.  If you love looking up at the sky, or love maps, or both -- this one should be on your list for sure.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]



Monday, December 28, 2020

Guest post: Smaller than a dust mote

Today we're fortunate to feature a guest post by my friend, fellow blogger, and twin-separated-at-birth, Andrew Butters, whose blog Potato Chip Math is a must-read.  Like myself, Andrew is a devotee of astronomy, and here he'll take us on a voyage into deep space -- and give you a change of perspective you might never have considered.

Enjoy!

***************************************

I'll admit it, I'm a space nerd. I have been since high school and only got more intense when I started studying Applied Physics at university. There is a lot of weird science at the astronomical level and to comprehend it you have to wrap your head around concepts that you won't ever encounter in your daily life and then understand how to measure them. The two measurements that trip up just about everyone who hasn't studied them are time and distance. At an astronomical level those two things are astonishingly gigantic, so much so that to the average person they might as well have no meaning at all.

This is why, when I read a recent article on space.com, my mind, which studied this at a university level for several years, was sufficiently blown. Space.com does a decent job putting in lay terms what authors Linhua Jiang, Nobunari Kashikawa, Shu Wang, Gregory Walth, Luis C. Ho1, Zheng Cai, Eiichi Egami, Xiaohui Fan, Kei Ito, Yongming Liang, Daniel Schaerer, and Daniel P. Stark of the published article, "Evidence for GN-z11 as a luminous galaxy at redshift 10.957," explained in painstaking mathematical and scientific detail for the journal Nature Astronomy. I'll summarize it even further: space is fucking huge.

In the article, the authors prove rather conclusively that the farthest observable galaxy to date is a whopping 13.4 billion light years away. Don't let the word "years" in there fool you. A light year is a measure of distance and 13.4 billion of them are the equivalent of 127 nonillion kilometers (127,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 km). To put that into a different perspective, there are 3600 seconds in an hour, a million seconds is a little over 11.5 days, and a billion seconds is 31.7 years. What about 127 nonillion seconds? That's 4.25 x 10^22 centuries or roughly five orders of magnitude longer than the age of the Universe itself.

So, space is huge. So what? Well, for me, it puts my existence on this third rock spinning in circles around a rather average sun as part of a rather average galaxy into perspective. As with any good conversation on this topic, it’s probably a good idea to lead with a little Carl Sagan. Many of you have seen this picture before:

[NASA – Image in the public domain]

It was taken in 1990 by the Voyager I probe on February 14 at the request of Carl Sagan. It took a decade for the request to come to fruition, but after it did here’s what he had to say about it:

"We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

"The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

"Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It’s been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known."
— Carl Sagan, speech at Cornell University, October 13, 1994

To give you an idea of exactly how far away Voyager I was when it took that photograph, here’s a picture, though it’s not to scale. As we’ll see in a bit the scale of the Solar System, and indeed the Universe, is staggeringly massive.

Joe Haythornthwaite and Tom Ruen [CC BY-SA 4.0], from Wikimedia Commons

How far away is that? It’s far. I mean, really far. The Pale Blue Dot photograph was taken 6 billion kilometers away. Voyager 1 launched in September 1977 and traveled at an average speed of roughly 60,000 km/h, and it still took thirteen years for it to get that far away. Neptune, the most distant planet in the Solar System takes 165 years to make a single trip around the Sun. When Neptunians say, “Winter is coming,” and have a look of concern on their faces it’s for good reason.

What if the Moon were the size of a single pixel on your screen right now? It’s a cool exercise to ponder and it gives us a real sense of the vastness of our surroundings. In fact, someone thought it was so cool that they created a model for it. Spend a few minutes scrolling (and scrolling and scrolling and scrolling) through it.

If the Moon Were 1-Pixel

This is all well and good, but what about beyond our Solar System? We orbit but one star out of hundreds of billions in our galaxy alone and our galaxy is but one of trillions in the observable Universe. To get a sense of what lies immediately beyond our Sun there are a couple of really cool, interactive sites you can visit Our Stellar Neighborhood, http://stars.chromeexperiments.com/, which allows you to zoom and pan and view 100,000 of the nearest stars. Solar System Model, https://www.solarsystemscope.com/, is a similar tool, but this one has more features and also includes options to show spacecraft, constellations, dwarf planets, comets, and a lot more. Still, nothing we’ve seen so far gets us out of our galaxy, the Milky Way, at the center of which is a black hole.

What about beyond our galaxy? A few years ago, while pondering the vastness of the Universe, some smart person at NASA decided that they would take the Hubble Telescope and point it at a small square of nothingness to see what they could see. Suffice it to say they were not disappointed.


Every bit of light you see in that picture is a galaxy. In each galaxy are hundreds of billions of stars. This picture represents only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the sphere of our night sky. To photograph the rest of it you would need to take another 12,913,983 pictures.

Which is all fine and dandy, but again, people have a hard time comprehending the scale. All of our reference points are too small and too slow. Fortunately, someone at NASA put together something that shows that even if you travel at the upper limit for speed – the speed of light – it takes a really long time to get anywhere. One could say that the speed of light in that respect is rather slow. Put another way, space is huge.


How long it takes for light to travel between the Earth and the Moon

How long it takes for light to travel between the Earth and Mars 

Finally, for anyone wondering where God and religion fit in, I will leave you with this (enlarge the photo when it loads and scroll): 



******************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is apt given our recent focus on all things astronomical: Edward Brooke-Hitching's amazing The Sky Atlas.

This lovely book describes our history of trying to map out the heavens, from the earliest Chinese, Babylonian, and Native American drawings of planetary positions, constellations, and eclipses, to the modern mapping techniques that pinpoint the location of stars far too faint to see with the naked eye -- and objects that can't be seen directly at all, such as intergalactic dust clouds and black holes.  I've always loved maps, and this book combines that with my passion for astronomy into one brilliant volume.

It's also full of gorgeous illustrations showing not only the maps themselves but the astronomers who made them.  If you love looking up at the sky, or love maps, or both -- this one should be on your list for sure.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]