Happy As Kings

Spiritually speaking: Japan’s earthquake as a sign of Apocalypse Soon

Anyone can be 'published'

A Yahoo writer wrote that God means the earthquake-tsunami in Japan to be a sign about Jesus returning to earth.  The person used three disaster dates, allegedly with 11 in them (World Trade Center, Haiti and Japan), and a Bible verse numbered 11 that includes the word "earthquakes."  The writer got one of the dates wrong (the Haitian earthquake was on a 12th, which eliminates one of the 11s) and chose only a single '11-verse' out of 260 possible '11-verses' throughout the New Testament.

As disasters go, the writer failed to include the recent flooding in Australia (31 December), and the Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand (22 February).

Stacking the Bible

Biblically, John is left out of the earthquake prediction business, but in the book of Luke, the earthquake verse is 11.  In the book of Matthew, it's number 7.  In Mark, the earth quakes verse 8. If sending coded messages by natural disaster is the way the Almighty communicates with people, does this mean that when the Holy Spirit was guiding the hands of those who divvied up the Greek writings into chapters and verses for Bibles that the Holy Spirit was hedging the Holy Spirit's bets for staging disasters?  [insert coy tone] "I'm coming!"

With earthquake verses having different numbers, did the Holy Spirit choose the 7th, 8th or 11th of … of what?  Wouldn't the likely dating be in Jewish months?  Since time-counting by lunar cycles does not synchronize with solar cycles - lunar calendars slip 'ahead' of the solar calendar we're accustomed to use - was the Holy Spirit thinking ahead?  Is this why the Holy Spirit went with synchronizing New Testament verses with dates using Western months long before people who would be Western needed months?  The Holy Spirit was also savvy about figuring in the calendrical changes convenient for catastrophes, such as the time the calendar "lost" eleven days.

Can't you just see the H.S. scratching His Head as he 'did the math' for that one so that after 2001, all natural catastrophes would fall on the 11th of each month?

I would think that in a court of law that these 11-connections wouldn't qualify even as circumstantial evidence.

 

Probability and science

That devastating events happen on similarly-numbered days is coincidence.  As a non-mathematician, non-statistician, non-probability figurer-outer (no clue as to what that person's job title is), I'm guessing the odds of events happening on similarly-numbered days is roughly 1-in-30.  Year after year, decade after decade, century after century we code events as happening on roughly one of more or less 30 days per month.

Over millennia, with 'stuff' happening all the time, it is likely that there will be significant events that fall on the 'same day,' but since 2001, if it has an 11 in it (instead of 10 for the hurricane of 1780, or 8 for the Chicago fire, or 31 for the Johnstown flood or the Galveston hurricane, or 18 for the San Francisco earthquake, or 25 for the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, or 1 for a Mississippi River flood and an Aleutian tsunami, or 3 for Hurricane Diane, or 9 for the Rapid Creek flood in South Dakota, or 17 for another San Francisco earthquake that people watching the World Series saw on television) we all see the numerical equivalent of Tarot's Death card.

 

Back to the Bible

Now even if you take these connections seriously, what is it that you're actually serious about?

• In Luke, since that was the Yahoo Writer's choice of verse, it appears to be the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.  We would file that under "old news." 
• In Mark, it's not so clear.  Could be the temple, could be Jesus' return. 
• Matthew is equally unclear.

What is clear, though, is who, in this cast of characters, is going to 'know.'

Go to Mark, chapter 13. Skip down from the earthquake verse, number eight, to verse 32.  We'll leave aside verses 30 and 31 about that generation not passing before all the earthquakes, wars and nations rising against each other, that was about 100 generations ago, and we're here, not them. Mark 13:32 states in English (depending on your translation), "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Only the Father, not Jesus the Son, not Luke the disciple, and definitely not the Yahoo Writer.  Since the Father apparently keeps his lip zipped, no HeaveniLeaks that I've noticed, can we stop with the scare stuff?

 

What's the point?

I can't tell what the Yahoo writer means by writing what s/he did.  Warning? Threat? What?  What's the point?  The Earth has been seismically active throughout its life.  It's going to stay that way because of plate tectonics and magma. Scientists have documented at least 27 earthquakes of the magnitude of the Japan catastrophe since the 'time of Jesus' (as that's when the destruction was first promised).

As people try to find some small comfort in which to wrap themselves against the effects of the power of nature, and our helplessness against much of it, this person seems to revel in the idea of divine global catastrophe. Isn't it enough for the Yahoo Writer that tens of thousands of people are dead, drowned in terror as the deep crashed over them, suffocating their screams as the fouled nightmare water rolled them like ants being washed away by a stream from a gardener's hose?

Not only do I not understand that way of looking at things, I don't want to understand it.

Climate change disproved by cold winters?

It's snowing and blowing, therefore the overall increase in global temperatures is a hoax.

Probably not.  Climate change, and the overall warming of temperatures around the world, do not mean that winter won't ever be winter in places where winter can be cold and snowy, or where arctic winds can sweep the landscape.  Part of the climate change projection is that weather could become increasingly extreme, from a comfort standpoint for the standard Earthling, whether that Earthling has two legs, four legs, no legs, scales, feathers or hair.  Extreme goes colder, as well as warmer.

As an explanation for why I credit climate change, I have reasons.

1. Upon visiting an Austrian glacier along the Hochalpenstrasse about fifteen years after first seeing it in 1977, I was shocked to see how much smaller it was.  This was before many of the 'global warming' news reports (and our English-language news in Europe was limited), so I was unprepared to see a smaller glacier. The glacier continues to shrink.
2. The conclusion, while sitting in traffic and thinking, about the use by people of internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum that has re-released the carbon from an earlier, warmer period in the Earth's history.  As I sat in my car, Paleozoic carbon floated free all around me.  On the scale that this carbon is freed, it has to have an effect, regardless of who has manipulated what (or not).  The human frame of reference does not constitute the known world.

My reasons are miniscule and completely anecdotal, but they were formative for me.  I haven't yet found anything to disprove the shrinking of the glacier, or the re-release of carbon into the environment.  However, for iron-clad evidence, I have to look elsewhere, which is where part of the trouble begins.

A difficulty in finding specific information, either pro or con in the discussion, is the apparent lack of a central, or centrist, collection of information understandable by the average person (such as myself).  Climatologists probably know where to look, but that is not helpful for the everyday citizen who just wants information with as little bias as possible.  Searching the Internet reveals too much information that Ms. Everyday cannot assess for accuracy.  Good writers can convince us of the ridiculous, and, much more easily, of the debatable.  Good performers, even more so. Information, again, is lost in the 'noise.'

Another difficulty is the problem in talking across political outlooks.  The source Person A values is scorned by Person B, while Person B's valued sources are dismissed by Person A.  How can we have a discussion when the people discussing the subject cannot agree on the basic facts of the discussion?  It's almost like American baseball players advising German cookie-bakers about shoeing Spanish horses.

Yet another difficulty in coming to more closely shared views is how do people accept trends that do not fit with their outlooks?  During one of the earlier elections in the 2000s I heard or saw a report in which people admitted that candidate A's expressed viewpoints made more sense to them than candidate B's viewpoint, but that the person was going to vote for candidate B anyhow because that B's 'presence'/'aura'/'story' better fit that voter's view of 'how things should be.'  The mental model trumped each person's own logic, and the interviewed people admitted it, but clung to their choices.

Then there is our own model of what is 'right.'  Today's blizzardy weather around Kansas City reminds me of my childhood winters in South Dakota.  To me, and to my New York-born husband, what we're having now is 'normal' and while we need to be sensible about low temperatures and the chill from the wind, the view from the living room window looks like the weather that properly slows molasses in January.  I must also wonder about the residence of the writer of the song, "Over the river and through the woods."  How many of us would be able to ride to Grandma's in a horse and sleigh through the white and drifted snow in November?  Many of the Thanksgiving and Christmas stories from my childhood Childcraft books reflect this cold-enough-to-snow weather.  But does that reflect the formative memories of most people today?  Perhaps now, a warmer model is 'normal,' and these older stories (if the stories are even in most people's mental library) are catalogued with fairy tales.  Earlier times-with-no-computers must equal legendary landscapes.  Are scientific data enough to trump a mental model?

Perhaps because of all these variables, each time we have any cooler-to-colder weather, remarks such as "Gee, where's the global warming?" begin to be heard, as if no local weather can be affected by the normal chaos of weather systems.  Meanwhile, the global warming is in the oceans where coral reefs are dying, in the deserts where pastuarge for grazing animals is lost, and in the changing habitat of wild animals.  While people fiddle around arguing with each other, the planet (in some respects) burns.

• Climate scepticism: The top 10, BBC News
• James Burke's '2050' crystal-ball look (actually from 1989) at the effects of global warming, and cooling, and warming ... 
  (I wouldn't have been so surprised by the glacier had I known about, and could find, James Burke's videos)

Jupiter's 'job' is to protect the Earth?

The other day on an email list, the moderator sent out a message that seemed to be about science education; astronomical science to be particular.  The event that prompted the message to the list's moderator was another hit on Jupiter by something big enough to leave a scar in that planet's clouds.

I like 'stars and stuff,' so I started reading the message, only to be put off by the admonition that, "If you don't believe in God" to not bother.  That was a clue that I probably would not agree with the conclusion of the person educating us readers about astronomy, but it has nothing to do with my own conclusions about whether or not God exists.

In the message, the writer concluded that Jupiter's 'purpose' (and the purpose of the other outer planets in the solar system) is to protect Earth from "hits by comets, meteors and the like."  The writer credited God with wanting to protect the people of Earth.  That may be a comforting thought to Earthlings, but the geography of the solar system (in human scale a bowling ball in a mile-wide field, circled by objects ranging in size from the head of a pin to a pecan), leads me to think that if the gas-giants are indeed the bouncers of the Solar System, then the "God" that put them in place either needed to attend Astronomy 101 at a good community college, or be fitted with a decent pair of glasses.

Yes, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune capture space objects that come near them and they absorb any hits, but they also attract objects already falling towards the sun and give them a boost towards us causing potentially real Jovian thunderbolts.   Also, since the area covered by the gravitational pull of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is larger than the planets themselves, it seems (to me) to be more likely that they will slingshot these space objects rather than score the bulls-eye of a direct 'catch.'  O is bigger than o.

Even though Jupiter is "the huge monster planet" with "massive gravity pull" there is still the vastness of the area it covers to contend with, and its relative size in relation to that vastness.  Using the general distance of about 8 minutes from the Sun at the speed of light to the Earth as the basic measure (1 Astronomical Unit, an AU), consider:

• the sizes of the planets relative to each other
• Pluto is roughly 40 AU from the Sun, which makes the diameter of the solar system roughly 80 AU 
• Since the formula for finding the area of a circle is A = pi r², the general area of the Solar System should be in the neighborhood of 3.14 times 40 times 40.  That comes out to 5,024 square AU, which means 5,024 squares whose sides are the distance from the Earth to the Sun.  Trim off the corners of the 80 x 80 AU diameter and that comes out to about 70 x 70 AU.  Seventy times the distance from the Earth to the Sun, by seventy times the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

That is a big chunk of virtually empty real estate, and may still be too hard to visualize.  Instead, consider a Solar System built on a human scale with a bowling ball-sized Sun, a peppercorn-sized Earth, and a pecan-sized Jupiter.  I'll leave out the other planets for the sake of simplicity.  Now set the bowling ball, the peppercorn and the pecan in a well-mown field: 

• bowling ball's in the middle
• peppercorn is 26 paces from the bowling ball
• pecan is 135 paces from the bowling ball (a pace being two steps).

In this model, it will take the pecan-Jupiter 12 Earth years to roll around the bowling ball-Sun, which the peppercorn-Earth does in one.  It is easy to see that, while the peppercorn 'passes' the pecan 12 times in the time it takes the pecan to go once around the bowling ball, the peppercorn is 'in danger' for much of its transit.

"But," someone says, "I think you're leaving out part of the equation.  What about Saturn, Uranus and Neptune?  Don't they also 'protect' the earth?  Perhaps they're all 'staggered' so that their paths pick up what Jupiter misses?"

Let's go back to the field in which are laying the bowling ball, the peppercorn and the pecan.  To see what effect Saturn, Uranus and Neptune would have, we'll have to add an acorn, a peanut and another peanut.

The acorn (Saturn) will have to go 112 paces beyond the pecan.  The first peanut (Uranus) will be 249 paces beyond the acorn, and the second peanut will be 281 paces beyond the first peanut, for a total of 777 paces, roughly 3,885 feet.

The acorn needs about 30 years to go around the bowling ball.  The first peanut needs about 85 years.  The second peanut needs 165 years.

But, where are these protectors?  Are they staggered 'north,' 'south,' 'east,' and 'west' in the Solar System so that each quadrant is 'swept?' From this representation of the current positions of the planets, it does not look that way.

In this picture, the entire 'north' side of the solar system is untended.

Add to the unprotected 'side' of the Solar System the fact that Earth is surrounded (at a distance) not only by an Asteroid Belt that lies between Jupiter and Mars, but by the Kuiper Belt and the probable Oort Cloud.

With the bowling ball's gravitational pull attracting objects from 360º around the Solar System, if the objects are nudged out of their paths by gravitational forces from passing stars, and with the paths of the outer gas-giants -- the pecan, the acorn and the two peanuts -- never  guaranteeing absolute protection (and in some cases being co-conspirators in The Attack of the Killer Comets), the thinking behind "God is protecting us from "hits by comets, meteors and the like" is sloppy.

Does Jupiter attract space objects and keep them from Earth?  Yes.  But, Jupiter also attracts space objects and flings them at Earth, just like a cartoon Jove perched on a cloud throwing those thunderbolts.  Jupiter just 'is,' and thinking one way or the other is nanoscopically unlikely to have any real effect on us.

I think it is unlikely that a person who embraces the conclusion that the pecan, the acorn and the two peanuts are in place to spare the peppercorn the wrath of the pinheads will ever be in a position in which this conclusion will be critical since this conclusion will probably cause low scores on qualifying tests.  However, the habits of mind encouraged by sloppy science in the everyday world can kill:  "Wis. mom of dead girl: Sickness was test of faith."

When considering matters of science, think scientifically.

School science standards? No.

From Greg Laden via Daryl.

Federally-imposed national science standards. Homeschooling, for a change, isn’t mentioned. What’s also missing is a discussion of the rather unconstitutional nature of the proposal.

Compulsion associated with education seems to often wind up with some kind of 'thought police' overtones, as in Someone, Somewhere mandating Right Answers, which may not be true answers.

When I was in 5th grade, I got a globe and a planetarium for Christmas. The globe handbook had the neatest revelation about how the earth is closest to the sun during the northern hemisphere's winter, and the reason for our winter-when-we're-closer is because of the earth's tilt. (I can't remember if a proposed reason for the tilt was addressed) I was thrilled with this counter-intuitive information and shared it at school when Christmas vacation ended ... and was told by my sicence teacher that it wasn't true. (this scarred me deeply, deeply I tell you)

Now, of course, this little story is anecdotal, and it may be that my teacher would have changed her mental model if the information about the earth's tilt had come from a more reliable source than a 10-year old (although I'm fairly sure earth-tilt-info was past the cutting-edge in 1960). My point, though, is that, given the length of time needed to change scientific information in the textbook system that feeds the public school curriculum, how much behind-the-curve standardized misinformation is already 'compulsively' doled out?  If I had been tested on earth-tilt information by that teacher, would I have had to choose between marking an answer I believed to be wrong, or purposely missing a question?

I understand that someone, somewhere has to decide what gets taught (especially when public money is footing the bill), but it seems like an increasingly worse idea than mere 'compulsion to attend' to conjure up "national standards" (probably imposed on state schools via conditions on the acceptance of federal cash) in a field that changes as quickly as do the various scientific fields. "National standards" would just slow down the process of getting our most-accurate information into classrooms, and (as Daryl points out concerning religion) politicization of "standards" could lead to some weird effects.

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

Research in the Soviet Union in science and humanities was placed from the very beginning under a strict ideological scrutiny. All research had to be founded on the philosophical base of dialectical materialism. All humanities and social sciences were additionally tested for strict accordance with historical materialism.

Haven't we already had suppressed research here? (and as a digression, doesn't our pop-science mindset already produce weird-science results such as the CSI effect?)

(Fwiw, my solution about "science standards" is to use New Scientist magazine as a textbook)

Hubble deep-field image

My current 'continuing education' interest is a course from The Teaching Company that I checked out from the library.  (I really heart the Teaching Company)  The course is My Favorite Universe, taught by Neil deGrasse Tyson.  The lecture I'm up to is "Onward to the Edge" and Mr. Tyson is describing the images from the Hubble telescope that comprise the Deep Field project.

Particulars of this project were:

• project took 10 days
• images are from the "most boring" part of the sky (northern sky by the Big Dipper)

• image field is the size of "Abe Lincoln's eyeball" on a penny held at arm's length

The images are gorgeous.

  (image courtesy of Wikimedia Commmons)

Each 'spot' in the image is not a star, but a galaxy.  Each one is a Milky Way seen from afar.

I've been an astronomy buff since I was a kid, so I'm 'intellectually aware' that the universe is bigger than I can imagine.  I still give myself shivers when I gaze up at the sky and think just how big it all is.  This series of images multiplies my shivers exponentially.

I am enjoying Professor Tyson's lectures, and I recommend them for a general overview of astronomy.

Rainbows in sprinklers = HAARP?

This is what I get for doping off for a day, surfing the 'Net. A lot of work.

  

When I first watched this video, I thought the woman who filmed this had, perhaps, a ... 'loose' understanding of the effect of sunshine-at-the-correct-angle on water droplets. After looking at the video again and Googling the title information, it seems that an entire evil conspiracy has escaped my notice: High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program(HAARP).

Whether HAARP is dangerous or not is something I'm not in the least qualified to determine, but how can this woman have enough modern education to enable her to ...

1. learn how to use a computer
2. learnhow to upload a digital image to YouTube
3. become aware of HAARP

... but has never heard of rainbows 'near the ground?'

• Viewmaster reels of Niagara Falls

Apparently, I'm a day late and a dollar short when it comes to critiquing the lady who is amazed by rainbows in her sprinkler, but I was late on Numa numa, too. 

More 'evidence' of the HAARP ... effect? damage? Armageddon? is from China:

  

In this case, high altitude ice crystals in the cirrus clouds refract sunlight when the light strikes at the appropriate angle to make the clouds rainbow-colored.  The phenomenon is called a "sundog."

As for not ever seeing rainbows-in-sprinklers 20 years ago, I wonder ifthe lady who posted the first YouTube clip would understand that in 1939, King George VI dedicated the site of the Rainbow Bridge at Niagara Falls.  Rainbow + 1939 = more than 20 years ago.  (we won't mention Noah, even though his rainbow was ... after the rain?)

News reports about creationist kids

The headline is:  Home-Schoolers Learn to Argue Against Evolution, which is about as useful a report as "House painters learn to argue against evolution." 

It isn't as if the point of view of people effects reality one way or the other.  And it isn't as if the view of homeschoolers (whatever they are), effects anything either.  After all, some of us homeschoolers are "evolved homeschoolers."  So there we are.  Some homeschoolers think evolutionary science is solid, some don't.  Just like the American people. 

What is so scary/amazing/significant/admirable/ about 'homeschoolers' who find that either science conflicts with Bronze Age texts, or that they don't understand the nuts and bolts of evolutionary science?  My own mind boggles at the concept of alternating current and the changing polarity (and thinking about the speed of pulsars makes me almost as lightheaded as contemplating infinity) but I doubt that an article about 'homeschool mom says nothing can move that fast' would be newsworthy.

One of the humorous parts of the article, at least to me, is:

"People say, 'I don't believe in evolution.' But they don't know why," Snavely said in an interview. "They ask me how to answer a co-worker who says we evolved through random mutations."

I can honestly say that, in all the jobs I've held, and in all the social interactions I've had, no one has approached me in casual conversation about either evolution or random mutation.  The only place I've heard any discussion was in relation to homeschooling, and even then none of the conversation was direct Q&A, or challenging statements.  It was always about "this curriculum is Bible-based" or something along those lines.  Do people really find themselves talking random mutation at work?

Another odd comment is:

Evolutionary scientists say there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution -- no more than there are credible alternatives to the theory of gravity. While its details are debated, evolution is unassailable in scientific circles.

"Scientific circles."  That makes it sound as if there are a few people in society who don't get out much and spend their time together talking about arcane and esoteric "science," the basis of which is cast as doubtful.  To my mind, "science" is everywhere, and "scientific circles" encompass us all through technology.

• aerodynamics (how many flights a day are there?)
• fluid dynamics (water pumped into homes)
• medicine (just watch the drug ads on television)
• agriculture (from photosynthesis to Round-Up)
• food (shelf-stable goods)
• petro-geology (work to extract oil from shale in the American mid-west)
• clothing (synthetic fibers)
• music (CD-ROMs)
• health (routine doctor appointments)
• space (we sent men to the MOON and back, for crying out loud!)
• interior decoration (scrubbable paint doesn't grow on trees)
• communication (I'm wifi-ing from my dining room table, perhaps to your dining room table)
• more communication (my daughters send me photos from their telephones)
• photography (I no longer have to stand in a darkroom breathing chemicals to 'develop' my photos)
• cleanliness (the myriad cleaning solutions available)
• more cleanliness (I have a brand new robot that vacuums my floors and then finds its way back to its charging station -- I heart my Roomba and Scooba is next!)

Why is all the science that leads to the lives we enjoy valid science, but the science that describes the evolutionary process as we know it so far is flawed?  Why aren't people who object to evolutionary science also learning to argue against vacuuming robots, detergents, digital photography, wireless communication, car paint that withstands rain, wind, sleet, snow and car washes, the international space station, etc?

Science is among [a 14-year-old girl's] favorite classes. Before Snavely's seminar, she had already studied evolution to better understand what "our opponents" believe, said the ninth-grader from Elizabethtown.

She knows some Christians view the Bible differently and accept evolution. That's confusing to her because the Bible clearly says God created man in his present form, she said.

It is difficult to say anything about this line of thinking without insulting the speaker, which is unfair when the speaker is just 14.  Still, it would be nice if the child was as familiar with the history of the Bible as she is with what "the Bible clearly says."

"I believe the reason most people believe in evolution is they don't want to believe the Bible," she said.

Science doesn't require "belief," it just is.  Whether or not I "believe" in gravity, we're all still stuck to the Earth.  I find it hard to "believe" that energy from the sun can travel through the vacuum of space, through the layers of atmosphere around the Earth, and through the windows of my porch and still warm the air inside during a northern hemisphere January -- but it happens whether I'm a Doubting Thomasina or not.  On the other hand, what is stated in the Bible (depending on what you're reading) is not objectively observable.  Science is based on what is, or isn't, regardless of what the observer "believes" -- and may change over time as our methods of observation improve.

The reported commotion about the homeschool connection to conservative Protestantism makes no newsworthy sense.

Lunar eclipse

Unfortunately, my shots aren't nearly a good as Daryl's.  I don't think my settings were well-set but it was +10F with wind, and running in and out to adjust everything would have left the lens cloudy. Checking the actual images would have taken me so long that I would have missed more than I shot.

I hope the 2010 eclipse is in the summer.

   

   

The clouds were moving in, as well.  I didn't get to see the 2nd half of the eclipse.

   

   

I did come in to thaw out for a moment, and watch everyone else play with the baby.

   

   

This one includes some stars.

   

   

Going.

   

   

Going.

   

   

Almost completely gone.

   

   

And then the clouds covered everything.

Oh, well.  It was still a thrill.

Evolution

Linked from the Bad Astronomy blog.

stomach flu's the pits

:Þ