The Truth is Somewhere

by Brad Nelson5/2/19
Drudge featured a couple articles on UFOs today, including this one. The general recent preponderance-of-serious-articles suggests there might be something to these sitings.

This is where you are expected to put on your Art Bell tin-foil hat and have some fun with this. No opinions will be ridiculed. Check that. Likely ridicule is the point.

Let me state my point of view which will be riddled with enough holes to fly a fleet of UFOs through: Maybe. I mean, “maybe” is the most enthusiasm I can come up with. But there are people who really believe. And there are certainly some interesting reports on sitings of something from credible witnesses. [Insert your favorite anecdote here.]

This is a subject similar to “climate change.” It can never be disproved because the idea works like a scaffolding upon which you can throw any idea. And everything sticks because the threshold of proof is low or non-existent.

Parse this subject as you will. The universe is a big one. If we are here it makes sense that others could be elsewhere, perhaps in close enough proximity to have visited us. I like one intrepid commentor to that article who quotes the Bible as evidence of visitations:

“3.14 So the spirit lifted me up, and took me away, and I went in the heat of my spirit; but the hand of the Lord was strong upon me.
“3.15 Then I came to them of the captivity at Tel a bib, that dwelt by the river Che-bar, and I sat where they sat, and remained there astonished among them for seven days.”
(Ezekiel, “The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel,” ‘The Old Testament,’ circa 1000 BCE.)

We all know about those South American figures (the Nazca Lines) that can best be seen only from the sky. I’ve always put that in the category of “interesting” or “suggestive.” But I think men built the pyramids. I don’t think alien technology helped the Egyptians to levitate the stone blocks. (Hmmm…why do they call it the Leviathan?)

Many commentors mentioned that aliens have interbred with earthlings. One quipped, “so true – AOC was one that didn’t take – alien and jackass.” That’s the spirit of the thing right there. Or maybe that’s not such a crazy idea.

There is the common “just add water” theory of life. If a planet has water, given time, it must produce advanced space aliens who can fly through interstellar space (or bypass it altogether using wormholes or whatever). The pervasiveness of Darwinism is the cause of that. It is another scaffolding upon which you can throw any idea. And everything sticks because the threshold of proof is low or non-existent.

But life is a function of information. Water is merely (as far as we know) a necessary component but hardly the decisive or directing one. Is there a place in all the universe more amenable to life than our Earth? And yet nowhere do we see life bubbling out of water. We see only life in its complete forms. Never half forms or quarter-forms — as you would expect if the “just add water” theory is correct.

Still, it’s possible Earth has been seeded by an alien culture. Maybe there really is a hierarchy of Gods as the Hindus understand it. Our “Gods” would be whatever alien race seeded the Earth. Their “Gods” would be whoever created them until you get presumably to God Almighty who started the whole thing going.

There is much to be said for the “seeded Earth” theory. For over a billion years there was apparently nothing on Earth but single-celled bacteria (blue-green algae). Then there was the Cambrian Explosion. Could that have been no more than the aliens accidentally tipping over a pack of seeds? All gardeners have done that a time or two.

So whadda you think?


Brad is editor and chief disorganizer of StubbornThings.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (164 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to The Truth is Somewhere

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Listen, I know there are extraterrestrials because I have seen them on TV.

    Na noo, na noo!

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Current theory is that Robin Williams was one of those who was a result of inbreeding with aliens. Whether the alien was his mother of father, I don’t know.

      People believe all kinds of weird and wild things. I can understand the charm of believing in space aliens. By visiting the Earth, they already out themselves as being an advanced-technology culture. That makes them rock stars for a certain (and large) segment of society which values cool tech stuff uber alles.

      These aliens could potentially become much more useful than a fuzzy image of God Almighty. They might have all kinds of useful technology, including many medical advances. The hope, of course, would be that they would be here to serve man, not “To Serve Man.” We’d like help making our solar cells more efficient, not be on their menu for breakfast. (And will they reveal to us if breakfast really is the most important meal of the day?)

      My own thought is that the last thing we want is to run into space aliens. Chances are they will be a particularly aggressive species. Hundreds of sci-fi books and TV episodes are based on various scenarios. One of my favorite is the smug Klaatu from “The Day the Earth Stood Still.” Who’s he to give us an ultimatum? Did they ever give to the universe anything like Sinatra, The Beatles, or Elvis?

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I still think “The Day the Earth Stood Still” one of the best SciFi movies every made. I always liked Klaatu (Michael Rennie) and Gort.

        On the other hand, “To Serve Man” was one of the creepiest/scrariest SciFi pieces I ever saw.

        Both were good films.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, “To Serve Man” is actually a third-season Twilight Zone episode. I believe Richard Kiel was the Kanamit. The original story (which they followed pretty well, other than using codebreakers rather than translators) is by Damon Knight.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Ask Gort. He was in charge, a point specifically made in the original story (“Farewell to the Master” by Harry Bates). Incidentally, in one of the Coneheads episodes on Saturday Night Live, one of the words they come up with while playing Scrabble with neighbors is “klatu”.

        ADDENDUM: When some tabloid claimed a bunch of senators were space aliens, the spokesmen for Phil Gramm said his only comment was “Klaatu barada nicto”.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Military pilots have reported some very strange and inexplicable flying objects. And of course a UFO is just an “unidentified flying object”. I saw one once with a cousin over 50 years ago when we were doing something or other in his sandbox. Something drew our attention to the sky, where we saw a round, silvery object moving along. What was it? We had no idea, though there are perfectly reasonable possibilities. Or maybe . . . Mary had a little lamb, whose fleece was white as snow.

    Harry Turtledove once had a very short piece in Analog in their “Probability Zero” about some aliens visiting Earth and finding out that something was wrong with their aquarium, so they dumped it out in the nearest body of water. It ended with a short quote about the unknown origin of the Cambrian explosion.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Something drew our attention to the sky, where we sound a round, silvery object moving along. What was it?

      Ya gotta figures that alien drone technology would be way in advance of our own. But with our own drone technology developing fast, any report of a “UFO” is going to have to be taken with a double grain of salt.

      No doubt the aliens seeded a tech company or two with instructions and materials on how to build cheap, lightweight drones. How else to hide their own drone program? Brilliant. Hey, they’re not an advanced civilization for nuttin’.

  3. Steve Lancaster says:

    There was a science fiction story sometime in the 60s, I think Art Clark, but it might have been Asimov, about a man who asks a computer, what is the solution to entropy of the universe?

    The computer, worked on the solution through millions of years and successors, all knowledge was known except this question. At last the solution by a quantum computer existing in several dimensions—-Let there be light.

    So maybe the matrix is real, or maybe its not.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      That was by Isaac Asimov, and he considered it one of his best stories. I think the title is “The Last Question”.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      At last the solution by a quantum computer existing in several dimensions—-Let there be light.

      I had not heard of that sci-fi story (“The Last Question”), Steve. At this link, Asimov himself reads the story.

      “Let there be light.” It’s difficult to know what to think about that. But it leads me to consider a passage from John Lennox’s God and Stephen Hawking that I read some time back and recently mentioned to Mr. Kung:

      A supernatural being or god is an agent who does something. In the case of the God of the Bible, he is a personal agent. Dismissing such an agent, Hawking ascribes creative power to physical law; but physical law is not an agent. Hawking is making a classic category mistake by confusing two entirely different kinds of entity: physical law and personal agency. The choice he sets before us is between false alternatives. He has confused two levels of explanation: agency and law. God is an explanation of the universe, but not the same type of explanation as that which is given by physics.

      Suppose, to make matters clearer, we replace the universe by a jet engine and then are asked to explain it. Shall we account for it by mentioning the personal agency of its inventor, Sir Frank Whittle? Or shall we follow Hawking: dismiss personal agency, and explain the jet engine by saying that it arose naturally from physical law?

      It is clearly nonsensical to ask people to choose between Frank Whittle and science as an explanation for the jet engine. For it is not a question of either/ or. It is self-evident that we need both levels of explanation in order to give a complete description. It is also obvious that the scientific explanation neither conflicts nor competes with the agent explanation: they complement one another. It is the same with explanations of the universe: God does not conflict or compete with the laws of physics as an explanation. God is actually the ground of all explanation, in the sense that he is the cause in the first place of there being a world for the laws of physics to describe.

      And…

      The world of strict naturalism, in which clever mathematical laws all by themselves bring the universe and life into existence, is pure (science) fiction.

      Theories and laws do not bring matter/ energy into existence. The view that nevertheless they somehow have that capacity seems a rather desperate refuge from the alternative possibility implied by Hawking’s question cited above: “Or does it need a Creator?”

      If Hawking were not as dismissive of philosophy he might have come across the Wittgenstein statement that the “deception of modernism” is the idea that the laws of nature explain the world to us, when all they do is describe structural regularities. Richard Feynman, a Nobel Laureate in physics, takes the matter further:

      The fact that there are rules at all to be checked is a kind of miracle; that it is possible to find a rule, like the inverse square law of gravitation, is some sort of miracle. It is not understood at all, but it leads to the possibility of prediction–that means it tells you what you would expect to happen in an experiment you have not yet done.

      We can wonder about the fundamental nature of light. What we can also do is note that “Let there be light” describes a volitional at of agency.

      I contend atheists are dishonest. Or, if that disturbs you, you could say that atheism as a philosophy is dishonest. Nothing that Lennox notes gives any hint to who God is or what religion best represents him. But what Lennox does do is cut to the heart of what I think is not a misunderstanding but an active deception, often a self-deception.

      “Let there be light” describes the creation of something from nothing. “Laws of nature” describe the structural regularities of that creation. But those law in no way logically can account for creation in the first place.

      But they try, thus the structurally dishonest idea of the multiverse. Who needs a Creator if universes are cranked out infinitely, each with a different set of physical laws? The problem with this is that the creative force of great agency that is able to do this is intentionally blurred away from the “C”-word. Whatever could crank out all these universes would, by definition, be a Creator, giving them all specific characteristics and the supreme and sublime attribute of existence itself.

      Lennox notes:

      What is very interesting in all of this is the impression being given to readers of The Grand Design that God is somehow rendered unnecessary, or non-existent, by science. Yet when one examines the arguments one can see that the intellectual cost of doing so is impossibly high, since it involves an attempt to get rid of the Creator by conferring creatorial powers on something that is not in itself capable of doing any creating–an abstract theory.

      Tim Radford captures this very cleverly in his review of The Grand Design [of Hawking’s multiverse and M-theory]: “In this very brief history of modern cosmological physics, the laws of quantum and relativistic physics represent things to be wondered at but widely accepted: just like biblical miracles. M-theory invokes something different: a prime mover, a begetter, a creative force that is everywhere and nowhere. This force cannot be identified by instruments or examined by comprehensible mathematical prediction, and yet it contains all possibilities. It incorporates omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, and it’s a big mystery. Remind you of Anybody?”

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Note that Asimov himself, was an atheistic of Jewish background (and a leftist who voted for Henry Wallace in 1948, unsurprisingly). But he wrote a lot about the Bible, including a 2-volume guide. And, in this case, a short story with the Universal AC eventually becoming God.

        Richard Dawkins once tried to show how random change would work by showing how quickly random change could turn a random sequence of letters into a particular message from Shakespeare (I think it was “It is very like a whale”). Did he not realize that his providing a target (changes that didn’t match the target were rejected) provided the agency he denied existed?

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Those quotes from Lennox are very good. I will check if this book is in my local lending library.

        I suspect that most of the dishonest atheists are aiming their bile at 1st Christianity and 2nd Judaism. These are the traditions in which they grew up and like most who rebel against something greater than themselves i.e. religion, they rebel against the specific religion which they are most familiar with. They often find exotic religions, about which they know little, (read Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism) fascinating or full of truth mainly because these are not Christianity and disagree with it.

        Azmov’s “Let there be light” trope is cute, but dishonest because it misses that which you and Lennox are talking about i.e. a creative agent, God. In the case of the computer, it is just spewing out an idea. Computers ain’t God.

        I still think the most mysterious verses in the Bible are;

        “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

        The same was in the beginning with God.

        All things were made by him; and without him, was not any thing made that was made.

        In him was life; and the life was the light of man.

        And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness; comprehended it not.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I suspect that most of the dishonest atheists are aiming their bile at 1st Christianity and 2nd Judaism. These are the traditions in which they grew up and like most who rebel against something greater than themselves i.e. religion, they rebel against the specific religion which they are most familiar with. They often find exotic religions, about which they know little, (read Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism) fascinating or full of truth mainly because these are not Christianity and disagree with it.

          I couldn’t agree more. And even those who haven’t fled all-out to atheism tend to believe the same thing, if in a slightly gentler package named “secular.”

          And I hold it to be a thoroughly dishonest view. Much is the result of just sheer indoctrination. But we have to understand (as I know you do) that the real problem lies in the fact that the idea of God Almighty puts limits on personal autonomy. The appeal of liberalism is that you can do what you want without constraint (someone else will have to pick up the pieces and pay for your excesses). This is the corrupt heart of libertarianism as well

          Do any of us want some crazed Bible-thumper telling us we can’t watch football on Sunday? No. But it wasn’t the bible that has been rejected, per se. It’s the idea of limits. So now we kill millions of unborn children simply because they are inconvenient to our libertine lives.

          And soon the rejection of limits becomes the veneration of anti-limits. In this culture of immature and infantile adults, this is pursued with the same gusto that children or teenagers do regarding forbidden things. There is a thrill in breaking boundaries. And that thrill is one of the fundamental organizing principles of our society. That’s why a man can pretend to be a woman and compete in a woman’s sport and no one complains in any substantial way. This idea of the thrill of breaking limits for the sake of doing so is so engrained. It’s unthinkable for most to apply a dose of Vitamin N (“No!”) because who are they to say what someone else can do?

          Same as “Who is some Christian to say what someone else can do?” In the process of throwing out God they’ve ushered in the substitutes of environmentalism, consumerism, and the various offshoots of Marxism to justify and sanctify their excesses. What could possibly go wrong?

          I’m still not at all sure what any of that stuff in Genesis means. I’m very much looking forward to Dennis Prager’s upcoming book on that chapter. (It’s available for pre-order here. Expected publication date is May 7.)

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            that the real problem lies in the fact that the idea of God Almighty puts limits on personal autonomy. The appeal of liberalism is that you can do what you want without constraint

            In the process of throwing out God they’ve ushered in the substitutes of environmentalism, consumerism, and the various offshoots of Marxism to justify and sanctify their excesses.

            You will note that the left has chosen sex as the area to allow complete freedom, including perversion. Yet they have no problem on restricting freedom in the economic and other spheres. No paper straws, high taxes on fossil fuels, etc. I believe this is because they know that sex is the most powerful impulse in mankind. If you let the masses baste themselves in sex any time and all the time you not only have captured their desires, but have also restricted their attention to a very narrow area. This gives the left a lot of room for maneuver while the dummies are occupied elsewhere.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Yes. They pay for the big sins with the equivalent of Indulgences regarding environmental stuff (like plastic straws) — the small sins.

              And certainly most, if not all, destructive cults have used sex as a controlled substance (or uncontrolled, as it were).

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I believe this applies to more than just religion. Reading some libertarian writing, I got the impression that they often hated the United States more than the Soviet Union. The USSR might be worse than the USA, but all governments are evil and the USA was the particular one oppressing them. Writings like that by Harry Browne are why I never remotely considered him when he was the LP presidential nominee.

            It all comes from a form of egocentrism. For example, people who don’t smoke often don’t consider the many state bans on smoking in buildings open to the public as impositions on freedom. If it doesn’t restrict what they want to do, it doesn’t count.

            In that sense, it’s like the oddity that both sides in the War on the Rebellion fought for freedom. Southerners fought for their personal freedom (including the right to own slaves), whereas Northerners eventually fought for the freedom of the slaves.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I believe this applies to more than just religion. Reading some libertarian writing, I got the impression that they often hated the United States more than the Soviet Union. The USSR might be worse than the USA, but all governments are evil and the USA was the particular one oppressing them.

              I’m not a big believer in Freud, that human behavior (or at least the maladies) can be explained in terms of phobias and trying to work out psychoses and such.

              But clearly one would have to be willfully blind not to see the inherent childishness of the Left. They have the vibe of forever juveniles rebelling against their parents.

              Which makes the idea of “God the Father” particularly egregious. God the Mother Earth, maybe. But never God the Father.

              Worse, God does not fulfill our every need (not as government can for some). God allows us to suffer. But rare is the politician who will stand for suffering (even deserved suffering). It’s something that must be fixed or else one is “uncaring.”

              So god doesn’t fit into the paradigm of comfort, self-actualizing 24/7, and non-stop gratification. I do think this is one reason my older brother fell off the wagon and went atheist recently. For reasons probably too personal to share here, God did not fulfill his wishes. So what use is he?

              And I quite agree on those terms. God is apparently of not much use to anyone trying get a loan, trying to stay safe in the face of lawlessness and thugs, trying to stay healthy and fight off infirmities, and just trying to live in a just world that is full of corruption. We see this new reality deeply embedded in Catholicism which has transformed from a soul-elevation and god-connection endeavor to a mere poverty program. This has left it vulnerable to being taking over by homosexuals because they have lost site of their central mission. You don’t say “no” to anyone drilling holes in the lifeboat if you forget that the point is to stay afloat.

              You could say the same for much of Protestantism and Judaism. God is falling far behind, in a concrete and material way, what government and do-gooders can do for you (or say they can do for you). Who needs God? We have science. And scientific advances and medicine have arguably done far more than any belief in God has done.

              So who needs God? God is an inconvenient idea seemingly promising only what we can’t do and putting a damper on our appetites — not to mention that it’s government, not God, who comes to our immediate aid if there is a flood or fire.

              These issues have been openly dealt with in the Bible including the story of Job. That doesn’t mean (at least to my mind) that there has ever been a satisfactory resolution to it. But it has been dealt with. But atheists (dishonest, the lot of them) pretend they are the first to ever think about these things.

              In the end, despite whatever shortcomings one might thrust upon God, the choice is between God Almighty as your formative model — the Creator of all that is — or AOC and the Communists. And we already know the latter by their rotten fruits. Or should know.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                It’s a great irony that leftists hate authority figures (in my review of The Twilight Zone, I think I mentioned that Marc Scott Zicree’s book on the show is heavily marred by this) while supporting a heavily authoritarian or even totalitarian Behemoth of a government.

        • Gibblet says:

          KFZ,
          I, too, find it fascinating to attempt to comprehend the concepts of eternity and timelessness, while living under the linear constrictions of time.

          Here’s another passage descibing Jesus Christ:

          “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
          Colossians 1:15‭-‬17 ESV
          https://bible.com/bible/59/col.1.15-17.ESV

          I think it was St. Augustine who first published the concept of time being a necessary by-product of creation. C. S. Lewis illustrated the relationship between time and eternity with a sheet of paper. The paper is blank (signifying eternity going out in all directions), except for a small dash, or line, drawn in the middle of the paper (signifying time; the dimension we live in). God, as Creator and outside the constraints of time, can and does exist everywhere on the paper. Christ and the Holy Spirit as One with God (the Trinity), are everywhere at all times.

          What tickles my brain, is when I try to combine the reality of the finite nature of time (due to the introduction of death into Creation) with the concept of ever-present eternity. Since eternity and time coexist, then all things relating to time are happening simultaneously (although we live through time chronologically)…unless and until a new creation supercedes the old.

          Recently, when the photos of the Black Hole were published, I revisted this train of thought in order to consider the purpose of Black Holes.

          Could these Black Holes be the mechanism through which the raw materials of the old creation are being remade into the new creation?

          “And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Revelation 21:5

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            Could these Black Holes be the mechanism through which the raw materials of the old creation are being remade into the new creation?

            There is a theory that quasars are portals through which other universes flow to new universes, or something like that.

            When I was a teenager, I sort of posited that everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is taking place now where we are. It is a fun thought, but unfortunately, not subject to any sort of proof so I didn’t spend a lot of time worrying about it.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              SF writer Jerry Pournelle (a conservative, by the way, who signed Poul Anderson’s pro-Vietnam War statement 50 years ago) once discussed a lecture by Stephen Hawking on black holes. Apparently they collapse or in some way things come out of them — and Hawking said anything could come out. Even great Cthulhu, as Pournelle put it.

            • Gibblet says:

              Like deja vu all over again.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            while living under the linear constrictions of time.

            You’ve obviously never heard of Daylight Saving’s Time, Gibbnonymous. But we’ll let that pass and get on to your main point.

            C. S. Lewis illustrated the relationship between time and eternity with a sheet of paper. The paper is blank (signifying eternity going out in all directions), except for a small dash, or line, drawn in the middle of the paper (signifying time; the dimension we live in).

            That’s a nice illustration. Others have used the sand paradigm:

            To see a World in a Grain of Sand
            And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
            Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
            And Eternity in an hour.

            I won’t get into esoterica and posit that time is an illusion, that we are all really “one,” that our separateness is a mirage, that the ongoing series of Marvel comic book movies is worth the celluloid they are printed on.

            But as children (perhaps as adults as well), we have had timeless moments when we lose track of all time and the day seems to last forever. I wonder if having clocks and watches around us all the time isn’t the real tool of the Devil. They rob us of this experience, of this sublime knowledge.

            I’m not sure that even the top physicists understand this world any better than you or I. Actually, although I think the data and theories they put together are interesting — and perhaps even real — I dismiss them all as having any meaning in our lives. They are interesting pursuits, for sure. But I don’t think it matters a whit what a black hole does with its time.

            What we can understand is hierarchies, dependencies, and relationships. You can’t make an omelette without breaking an egg. If we are to enjoy the flowers, a little rain must fall. “I am the vine; you are the branches.”

            Our minds can in no way grasp what time really is, what eternity is, or even why sometimes we feel like a nut, sometimes we don’t. But we can know that we “come from,” “depend upon,” “live through,” and “exist with.” We can hang onto the vine even if we don’t know the mechanics of how everything is attached.

            Could these Black Holes be the mechanism through which the raw materials of the old creation are being remade into the new creation?

            You mean like movie remakes? Yes…makes sense. No wonder so many of them are so dark and dull. But there is a theory (even if just a cinematic one) that the matter and energy that are captured by a Black Hole are spewed again from a White Hole. (One of my favorite episodes.)

  4. Gibblet says:

    “…and Hawking said anything could come out. Even great Cthulhu, as Pournelle put it.”

    Considering the high sulphur content of celestial matter being sucked into black holes, it is concievable that hellish creatures could, indeed, be found lurking around.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Given your obvious savant-like knowledge of astrophysics, you will be pleased to learn about the Rotten Egg Nebula — so-called because of its high sulfur content.

      You have to wonder what some of these stars are eating. The description from the article says:

      This image taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope shows the star going through a rapid transformation from a red giant to a planetary nebula, during which it blows its outer layers of gas and dust out into the surrounding space. The recently ejected material is spat out in opposite directions with immense speed — the gas shown in yellow is moving close to one million kilometers per hour

      That sounds like a bad taco on a cosmic scale.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The odor of rotten eggs comes from hydrogen sulfide, so there may actually be a lot of that in a high-sulfur nebula. That makes it an apt name.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        That is an interesting photo. I have little interest in astrophysics and perhaps less understanding, but looking at such photos and reading that nebulas are blowing out matter at speeds of about 1 million mph, make me realize (to a small degree) the enormous amount of energy involved in such events.

        I believe the actual amount of matter which was converted from mass to energy in each atomic bomb explosion over Japan was only about a teaspoon’s worth. That is mind boggling.

  5. Gibbsterrestrial says:

    “Given your obvious savant-like knowledge of astrophysics, you will be pleased to learn about the Rotten Egg Nebula — so-called because of its high sulfur content”

    The photo of the Rotten Egg Nebula, which you linked above, looks very similar in form to an illustration of a Tachyon Particle. I may be an astrophysics savant (and thanks for noticing), but i dont know how to post a link to the illustration…

    • Timothy Lane says:

      How can there by anything more than a speculation of what a tachyon particle would look like? No one has ever proven that tachyons exist, and it’s not clear that this could even be done.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I may be an astrophysics savant (and thanks for noticing), but i dont know how to post a link to the illustration…

      You hurl the link into the nearest black hole and it will get positioned here automatically. Short of that, you can just cut and paste the entire link address. It will work.

      As far as what a tachyon particle would look like, as Timothy brings up, I have no doubt of their existence or else much of sci-fi literature would fall apart. But the fact is, they’re moving too darn fast for anyone to ever know what they look like. The shutter speed of my Nikon D3300 DSLR goes up to 1/4000 of a second. That’s not fast enough either. “Blink of an eye” doesn’t work either. I’ve tried blinking my eyes. Nothing.

      And I hear that if you get in front of a swarm of tachyons, they are traveling so fast (although their mass is pretty much nil) that you can feel them on your skin. Thus this is the actual source of feeling “goosebumps.” Tachyons are attracted to strong emotions. I’m not making any of this up. I read it in one of Hawking’s books. It’s a subset of M-theory.

      The precise reason they are called tachyons is because the original theorists theorized (that’s what they do, after all) that the particles were gold with black spots on them — like cheep imitation leopard sweatpants, especially size 9’s when worn by a size 12 person. They were tacky looking. Theorists have since re-theorized and concluded that there was something on the lens of the microscope.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I get the feeling that all of you are caught in a vortex of:

        Take
        A
        Chit
        You’re
        On
        Next
        Silly

        May I suggest you listen to this short piece which should help relieve any stress you have felt up to now. It brings joy to me whenever I listen to it.

        https://www.bing.com/search?q=loggins%20and%20messina%20full%20sail%20album%2C%20watching%20the%20river%20run&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=loggins%20and%20messina%20full%20sail%20album%2C%20watching%20the%20river%20run&sc=1-59&sk=&cvid=4DC9828BE2E1469880509D5A35922503

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I couldn’t get the above link to work. But here’s another YouTube presentation of Watching The River Run

          One commenter below the video had some interesting observations:

          After about 40 years of distance between my dad and I, I asked him one day to come with me on a hike to the Ohio River. I took him to a remote area on the Indiana shore where we would spend the day looking for artifacts, projectile points. My two oldest sons were with me, dad in the front seat. I put this song on the stereo casette tape in the van as we descended down the road toward the river. We parked and dad was so curious as to how we could just walk along and spot a beautiful 5,000 year old artifact. Less than 20 minutes after we arrived, he found a St. Charles dovetail point, made of a sandy colored chert. Success was achieved in the hunt for artifacts, and the hunt for a better relationship between us. Every time I hear this song, I remember that day and how it was a turning point in my life. Dad passed away about two years later, but this one day totally erased the previous 40 wasted years. A wonderful time, a wonderful memory. Allow me to quote from the Counting Crows song, Mrs Robinson’s Lullaby : ” If dreams are like movies, then memories are films about ghosts.” Happy & sad simultaneously.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I love this song on its own, and it also brings back memories.

            My best friend (who is now deceased) and I used to sing this together back when the album first came out. Either of us could take the melody or harmony line, but I normally sang the harmony as I was a 1st tenor and he more of a 2nd tenor.

            We met each other in 3rd grade and stayed close until his death. During that time, we sang together in numerous school choirs as well as in something called the Dallas Boys Choir. This was back around 1963. Each elementary school in Dallas sent a couple of boys to audition at Maple Lawn Elementary School for this new boys choir, which was being put together for a concert to be given at McFarlin Auditorium. Our elementary school sent my friend and me and we were both chosen to become members of the choir.

            The piece, I recall, was Benjamin Britten’s “War Requiem.” I can still hear our opening lines in my head. “Domine, Jesu Christe, Jesu Christe Rex Glorie.”

            Boy sopranos have beautiful voices.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Those are tackyons, not tachyons. I’m sure there would no problem showing what they look like. And don’t forget tawdryons. Look at any Demagogue and you’ll see one or the other. Maybe even both.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Then there are the Bernieons. Much like baryons, a Bernieon is a quark-based particle. It carries the force between socialism and equality. It’s made up of an up quark, a down quark, and a free-stuff quark. And as with neutrinos, they can pass through just about anything without making contact. The can pass through a lightyear’s worth of Truth and Fact, for example, without being slowed down in the least.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            And there are the targets of the bernieons, the leaptons. As time goes by (Casablanca references are always good), more and more leaptons become invisible even to the sharpest electron microscope.

            There are also the egocentric followers of the bernieons, the mesons.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I am convinced that the real basic components of Bernieons are in fact either hot air or illusions/delusions.

            I use illusions/delusions intentionally to show the quantum-like nature of these things. Which of these one perceives depends on whether one serving up the illusion or swallowing the delusion. Sometimes, one can do both at the same time.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              So the bernieon is made from the hot air, illusion, and free stuff quarks. Reasonable. Oddly enough, the illusion and free stuff quarks also go into the meson, along with the tribalism quark. By contrast, the leapton is made from the truth and free speech quarks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *