Starliner, Dream Chaser, and Beyond: The Sky is Not the Limit

Posted on June 8, 2024 by Brian H. Gill
NASA's photo iss065e049854: view from a SpaceX Crew Dragon Endeavour window, two of the International Space Station's main solar arrays and Earth's horizon, 271 miles above the south Atlantic between Argentina and South Africa. (May 20, 2021)
Low Earth orbit scene: Solar arrays of the ISS, seen from SpaceX Crew Dragon Endeavour. (May 20, 2021)

Stanley Kubrick/Geoffrey Unsworth's '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968)When I was young, the future was exciting: cities on the Moon, computers that can fly spaceships, and more.

Then we tried making those dreams a reality; which we’ve been doing. In part.

One goal of this week’s Starliner test flight was having a human pilot handle part of the spacecraft’s approach and docking at the International Space Station. It was a methodical process, pretty much the opposite of dramatic. Starliner handled the actual docking; which, again, was a methodical process. And successful.

If you read nothing else in today’s post, by the way, read Butch Wilmore’s “Just a Thought”, a Few Minutes Before Liftoff. Or check out whatever looks interesting:

Boeing Starliner Crew Flight Test

Screen captures from NASA TV's Launch coverage of the June 1, 2024, Boeing Starliner Crew Flight Test.
Second try for Crew Flight Test, scrubbed 3 minutes, 50 seconds before liftoff. (June 1, 2024)

The Boeing Starliner has flown before, but not with people aboard. The first crewed test flight was supposed to be in 2017. Uncrewed orbital flight tests in 2019 and 2022 weren’t flawless, but the Starliner came back in one piece each time.

Screenshots from NASA's coverage of 'Boeing Starliner Crew Flight Test Launch'. (May 6,2024) via YouTubeI talked about that, and what would have been the first Starliner test flight carrying people, last month. Briefly, an oxygen relief valve wouldn’t stop buzzing at about 40 cycles per second, so decision-makers canceled that launch.

They tried again last Saturday. That time a ground launch sequencer balked.

“NASA, Mission Partners Target June 5 Crew Flight Test Launch”
Danielle Sempsrott, NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test (June 2, 2024)

“…Technicians and engineers with ULA (United Launch Alliance) worked overnight and on Sunday to assess the ground support equipment at the launch pad that encountered issues during the countdown and scrubbed the June 1 launch attempt. The ULA team identified an issue with a single ground power supply within one of the three redundant chassis that provides power to a subset of computer cards controlling various system functions, including the card responsible for the stable replenishment topping valves for the Centaur upper stage. All three of these chassis are required to enter the terminal phase of the launch countdown to ensure crew safety….”
[emphasis mine]

“NASA, Mission Partners Forgo June 2 Launch of Crew Flight Test”
Elyna Niles-Carnes, NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test (June 1, 2024)

“…Saturday’s launch to carry NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to the International Space Station scrubbed due to an observation of a ground launch sequencer. The system was unsuccessful in verifying the sequencer’s necessary redundancy….”
[emphasis mine]

There’s probably a detailed description of ground launch sequencers somewhere, but I didn’t find it. Instead, I’ll paraphrase what folks doing NASA TV coverage of Saturday’s launch attempt said.1

Speaking of which, it’s a delight to have coverage of a launch done by folks who actually know something about spacecraft, technology, and science.

Saturday’s Attempt, a Ground Launch Sequencer, and Paying Attention

Anyway, the ground launch sequencer is a computer — software running on a computer, actually — that sends instructions to equipment, and keeps track of the equipment’s responses.

If a piece of equipment doesn’t respond, or responds oddly, then the ground launch sequencer stops the countdown and tells a human that’s something’s not right.

At this point I could have conniptions over computers controlling our lives. But I won’t.

Launching a spacecraft involves thousands of devices doing what they’re supposed to do, when they’re supposed to do it. That sort of meticulous attention to detail is something computers are good at. Humans, most of us, not so much.

So I’ll be glad that the ground launch sequencer spotted something amiss, three minutes and 50 seconds before launch: and that the humans decided to pay attention.

Another Glimpse Inside Starliner’s Crew Capsule

Screen capture from NASA TV's Launch coverage of the June 1, 2024, Boeing Starliner Crew Flight Test. View inside the Starliner capsule, after launch scrubbed.
View inside Starliner capsule, gear packed for launch. (June 1, 2024)

Boeing's infographic: Starliner design. (2024) via BBC News, used w/o permissionI’m probably more interested than most in how spacecraft designers make the most use of very limited cabin volume.

I spent more time than I probably should have this week, trying to find something more up-to-date and detailed than last month’s BBC News infographic. And finding nothing either recent or consistent with other descriptions.

I suspect my frustration’s partly due to Boeing’s having changed details in their design over the last decade, and partly to Starliner’s flexibility. The capsule carries up to seven people, or a mix of crew and cargo.

Or will, assuming that it gets crew-rated.2

Launch Complex 41, the Crew Access Arm, and — Starliner: Lucky 13??

Screen capture from NASA TV's Launch coverage of the June 1, 2024, Boeing Starliner Crew Flight Test. View inside the Starliner capsule, after launch scrubbed.
Inside Space Launch Complex 41’s Crew Access Arm, reconnecting with Starliner. (June 1, 2024)
Google Maps: John F. Kennedy Space Center, Launch Pad 39A, CCAFS Launch Complex 41, Space Launch Complex 40. Used w/o permission.
John F. Kennedy Space Center, including CCAFS Launch Complex 41. Google Maps.

Launch Complex 41 predates Boeing’s Starliner by a half-century. It’s been in use since the mid-1960s; launching the Helios, Viking, and Voyager probes. Enough name-dropping.

In 2015, Launch Complex 41 started getting set up for human spaceflight: including the Crew Access Tower and its Crew Access Arm.

Together, the tower and arm let crew enter or leave their spacecraft in comparative safety. And without tracking dust and dirt into the spacecraft.

The Crew Access Arm swings out of the way for launch.

From the screenshots I took, it looks like the ULA Crew Access Arm is custom-fitted for the Boeing Starliner. Which makes sense, since it’s probably the only crewed spacecraft that’ll be launched from that particular site. In the immediate future, at any rate.

In the long run, though, I think crew access arms will be more like today’s passenger boarding bridges: those one-size-fits-all movable corridors connecting airport terminals and airplanes.

We’re still very early in the Space Age.

So far, only a dozen types of spacecraft have carried people into space: defined in this case as 50 miles or more above Earth’s sea level.3

  • Spacecraft carrying people
    • Vostok (1961-1963)
    • Mercury (1961-1963)
    • X-15 (1962-1968)
    • Voskhod (1964-1965)
    • Gemini (1965-1966)
    • Soyuz (1967-still in use)
    • Apollo (1968-1975)
    • Space Shuttle (1981-2011)
    • Shenzhou (2003-still in use)
    • SpaceShipOne (2004-still in use)
    • Crew Dragon (2020-still in use)
    • New Shepard (2021-still in use)
    • Starliner (2024-flight test scheduled)
  • Space stations
    • Salyut (1971-1986)
    • Skylab (1973-1974)
    • Almaz (1974-1977)
    • Mir (1986-2000)
    • International Space Station (ISS) (2000-still in use)
    • Tiangong program (2012-2016)
    • Tiangong Space Station (2021-still in use)

The Boeing Starliner would be the 13th type of crewed spacecraft. About that:

Superstition: The attribution of a kind of magical power to certain practices or objects, like charms or omens. Reliance on such power, rather than on trust in God, constitutes an offense against the honor due to God alone, as required by the first commandment. (2110)
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary)

“Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.”
(Catechism, 2111)

Butch Wilmore’s “Just a Thought”, a Few Minutes Before Liftoff

Screen capture from NASA TV's Launch coverage of the June 5, 2024, Boeing Starliner Crew Flight Test, third countdown. Liftoff from CCAFS Launch Complex 41. (June 5, 2024)
ULA/Boeing Starliner Crew Flight Test launch. (June 5, 2024)
Screen capture from NASA TV's Launch coverage of the June 5, 2024, Boeing Starliner Crew Flight Test, third countdown. One minute, four seconds, after liftoff, view from booster. (June 5, 2024)
Starliner Calypso on its way to orbit. (June 5, 2024)

Flag of the United States of America.On the whole, I like being an American.

That doesn’t mean I’m a conservative.

I’m not a liberal, either.

I’m a Catholic, and think that what Calypso’s mission commander Barry “Butch” E. Wilmore said about unity, resilience, and unified efforts for the common good, makes sense.

“… Just a thought … As we were reached the pad … there’s that American flag … on the side of the rocket itself, and we know that that represents unity, and resilience, and unified efforts for the common good. And that’s what Suni and I have witnessed this last month: each of you displaying what this nation’s forefathers envisioned: a people committed to God, family and country, a people who use their gifts and talents for the common good, and are passionate, and tough. And we all know that when the going gets tough … the tough get going … Let’s get going….”
(Barry “Butch” E. Wilmore, astronaut, a little over four minutes before launch of the Starliner Calypso, from NASA video coverage (June 5, 2024))

And get going they did, a few minutes later. Calypso matched orbit with the International Space Station Thursday.

The docking happened about an hour later than it would have on a perfect flight. A few thrusters didn’t fire correctly during a step-by-step test of that system. More about that, and why it wasn’t a major problem, from NASA:

Commercial Spaceflight

NASA's infographic: Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destinations, Commercial Low Earth Orbit Development Program. (February 3, 2022)
Looking ahead: proposed low Earth orbit commercial space stations. (2022)

The last I checked, the International Space Station will be deorbited in January of 2031. Probably after detaching several modules for use elsewhere.

What’s left of Earth’s largest space station will be dropped in the South Pacific’s “spacecraft cemetery”. That’s not an ideal recycling solution, but it’s the best we’ve got right now.

As the ISS transitions from working laboratory to historic memory, it looks like we’ll have a growing number of smaller orbiting stations.

“Next-Generation Commercial Space Stations Are Serious Business for NASA”
Commercial Low Earth Orbit Development Program, NASA
(February 3, 2022)

“Over two decades ago, NASA and an international team of space agencies began something long dreamt of and quite remarkable: a permanent human presence in space aboard the International Space Station. About the size of a football field, the orbiting laboratory and human habitat is a bastion of science and discovery where research is making life better on Earth and paving the way to the Moon and Mars….

“…While individual commercial space stations will have more niche, specialized uses, the capabilities of future space destinations overall will become much more versatile. Right now, the International Space Station is primarily focused on scientific research and technology demonstrations, making it more akin to a lab where astronauts live and work amongst scientific equipment. Some future commercial destinations will contain the lab equipment that NASA needs to advance its mission in low-Earth orbit. Non-NASA space travelers flying to low-Earth orbit, like private individuals or companies, may seek out commercial space stations that serve as hotels or perhaps even a movie studio to shoot a film.…”
[emphasis mine]

I haven’t checked on the status of the Axiom Port Module, Nanoracks, Northrup Grumman, Blue Origin, and other proposed space stations. I like the sound and idea of Blue Origin’s Orbital Reef, and that’s almost another topic.4

We Can’t Go On Flying Like This

NASA photo: Northrop Grumman's Cygnus cargo craft, held by the Canadarm2 robotic arm, shortly before being released from the International Space Station. iss058e011401 (February 8, 2019)
Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus cargo craft, at the International Space Station. (2019)

I can imagine an airline that throws away aircraft after each flight, and stays in business.

But I’ve got a lively imagination. Profligateaire’s clientele would be ultra-rich nitwits with a favorable — to Profligateaire — brains-to-cash ratio.

Even so, I’m not convinced that Profligateaire [a thoroughly fictional company] would really work.

Then again, I once saw an advertisement for solid-gold diamond-tipped swizzle sticks. But only once. Decades back. Looks like there’s a limit to human folly. Or maybe marketing for such things isn’t wasted on folks in my socioeconomic strata. And I’m wandering off-topic.

The point I’m groping for is that commercial spaceflight is viable now, despite all launch systems being single-use, at least in part.

Confirming my impression that commercial human spaceflight is currently confined mostly to space tourism, and that space tourism is limited to a fraction of the world’s very rich, would take more time and effort than I like.5

But the rest — companies that put communications, Earth observation, and other satellites in orbit — apparently are making a profit, even with today’s throwaway launch technology.

That’s impressive, but not an argument for accepting space technology’s status quo.

For one thing, I see no problem with outfits like Orbital Sciences Corporation‎ and SpaceX making higher profits. For another, we’re learning that there are limits to how much junk we can safely drop into landfills. Or the South Pacific’s “spacecraft cemetery”.

Which is why I think designing partly-reusable spacecraft like Dragon and Starliner was a good idea. Designing fully-reusable ones would be even better: but that’ll take time.

Dream Chaser Tenacity: Another Step in the Right Direction

NASA/Kim Shiflett's photo: 'Dream Chaser Tenacity, Sierra Space's uncrewed cargo spaceplane, is processed inside the Space Systems Processing Facility (SSPF) at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Monday, May 20, 2024.'
Dream Chaser Tenacity, cargo spaceplane, at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. (May 20, 2024)

“NASA, Sierra Space Deliver Dream Chaser to Florida for Launch Preparation”
Jamie Groh, Brian Newbacher; Kennedy Space Center, NASA (May 20, 2024)

“As part of NASA’s efforts to expand commercial resupply in low Earth orbit, Sierra Space’s uncrewed spaceplane arrived at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida ahead of its first flight to the International Space Station.

“The Dream Chaser spaceplane, named Tenacity, arrived at Kennedy on May 18 inside a climate-controlled transportation container from NASA’s Neil Armstrong Test Facility in Sandusky, Ohio, and joined its companion Shooting Star cargo module, which arrived on May 11….”

Development of the Sierra Space Dream Chaser has been similar to the SpaceX Dragon’s.

The version that’s now ready for flight testing carries cargo only. I gather that getting an airworthiness (spaceworthiness?) okay is easier for cargo carriers than getting human-rating certification.

The Dream Chaser was originally planned as a spacecraft that carries up to seven people into low Earth orbit and back.

Sierra Space apparently still plans to build a human-rated Dream Chaser. How long it will take for that version to be ready, or if it ever will be, I don’t know.

Dream Chaser Tenacity, a cargo-only version, should be ready for flight testing in September. Whether it’s successful, and where it’ll land: that, I also don’t know.

Dream Chasers are designed to land as gliders at commercial airports, like Huntsville International Airport. Taking off again is another matter.

The Dream Chaser rides into space on the top of a conventional launch vehicle. So again, part of the launch system is still single-use. Except for the SpaceX Falcon series, if that’s an option: and even those aren’t fully reusable.

Another throwaway part of the Dream Chaser system is its Shooting Star module, with extra cargo space and solar panels.6 Cool name, but — I’ll leave it at that.

Spacecraft: One Step at a Time

Max Valier's rocket-propelled aircraft concepts. (ca. 1920s)I mentioned Max Valier’s spaceplanes last month, and discussed a might-have-been 20th century that didn’t happen a couple years back.

Valier’s transatlantic propeller-driven airliners with rocket boosters look weird these days. But I think Ron Miller is right about Valier’s “greatest contribution”:

“…Valier’s greatest contribution was that he developed an incremental, evolutionary approach to the development of the spaceship. He began with an ordinary commercial aircraft. Step-by-step through different generations of design, this would gradually develop into rocket-assisted flight and then into full-fledged rocket transport. Finally, it would result in a wingless interplanetary spacecraft. He also promoted the idea of a transatlantic passenger rocket. He envisioned that this would make the trip from Berlin to New York in less than an hour….”
“By Rocket Plane Across the Atlantic“, Ron Miller/io9, HistoricWings.com (March 23, 2018))

A century later, outfits like SpaceX and Sierra Space have been taking a similarly “incremental, evolutionary approach to the development of the spaceship….”

The Dragon 1 and 2 spacecraft have been making supply runs to the International Space Station since 2012. By this time next year, the Dream Chaser may be world’s first commercial spaceplane.7

Artist's concept of Blue Origin's 'Orbital Reef': a 'mixed-use business park' for commercial activities and tourism.A decade from now, fully-reusable spacecraft may be making regular runs to orbiting labs, manufacturing stations, luxury resorts: and businesses we haven’t invented yet.

Meanwhile, some of us will be preparing for longer journeys.

“…Given ships or sails adapted to the breezes of heaven, there will be those who will not shrink from even that vast expanse….”
(Johannes Kepler (1610) from “Kepler’s Conversation with Galileo’s Sidereal Messenger” , trans. Edward Rosen (1965) via Wikiquote)

The sky is no longer the limit:

1 The crew, the spacecraft, and a little background:

2 More background:

3 A PBB by any other name:

4 Space stations, and a temporary solution:

5 Business, but not as usual:

6 (Somewhat) reusable spacecraft:

7 Something old, something new:

Posted in Discursive Detours, Science News | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

June 6, 2024: Something a Little Different This Week

Posted on June 6, 2024 by Brian H. Gill

There’s routine medical stuff happening Friday, so I’ve been getting this week’s ‘Saturday’ post written and ready to go today.

Some of that “ready to go” will have to wait until this afternoon, since part of what I’ve been talking about is the in-progress Starliner Crew Test Flight. Which, so far, has been going rather well.

That, for me, is good news. More about that this week’s ‘Saturday’ post. Where the medical stuff falls on the good news – bad news continuum: that, I’ll learn tomorrow.

Posted in Journal | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Alcubierre Drive: a New, Subluminal, Physical Solution

Posted on June 1, 2024 by Brian H. Gill
From 'Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution', Jared Fuchs et al., 'Figure 1: Example of an Alcubierre warp trajectory with three phases of flight: (i) Passenger enters the warp bubble at rest w.r.t to the reference observer at point A. The passenger will not have any coordinate velocity compared to the reference observer ... (iii) Warp bubble decelerates to a stop at point B at rest w.r.t to the reference observer and the passenger exits the drive.' (2024)
Example of an Alcubierre warp trajectory, from “Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution”. (2024)

It’s been 30 years since a Mexican theoretical physicist said that a warp drive was possible: hypothetically. And published math that backed up his claim.

Last month, a team of scientists showed how we could build a warp drive: again, with math backing up their claim.

This year’s variation on the Alcubierre drive couldn’t travel faster than light. But it can, they say, be built with materials we have today.

This is a very big deal. And it’s what I’m talking about this week. Along with whatever else comes to mind.

Speed of Light, Math, and Approaching Infinity

Pulsar Fusion's illustration: their Direct Fusion Drive (DFD) test vehicle. (2023)
Direct Fusion Drive (DFD) test vehicle. (2023)

First of all, we can’t make a vehicle travel faster than light. Not now. Not with any propulsion technology that’s even remotely conventional. And maybe not ever.

The ‘light barrier’ isn’t like the sound barrier — although both involve equations that give answers approaching infinity when approaching the phenomenon’s speed.

Early, very simple, math describing airfoil drag as a function of speed showed that drag became infinite at the speed of sound. According to those early equations.

But scientists had been studying things that travel faster than sound, like meteorites.

And they’d occasionally fire experimental airfoils at supersonic speeds. Which helped them develop more accurate mathematical models. So they knew that accelerating something beyond the speed of sound was possible.

“Breaking the sound barrier” was mainly an engineering issue.

D.H.'s diagram: 'Kinetic energy in special relativity and Newtonian mechanics. Relativistic kinetic energy increases to infinity when approaching the speed of light, thus no massive body can reach this speed.'. (2012)The ‘light barrier’, on the other hand, involves how matter and energy work in this universe.

In physics, momentum is the form of energy an object has due to its motion. The faster it goes, the more energy it has; and the more massive it is — but that’s an angle of relativity I’ll leave for another time.

Newton’s math is an excellent model for objects that are traveling at tiny fractions of the speed of light.

As we pump more energy into an object, making it go faster, though, things get interesting. As an object approaches speed of light, its momentum approaches infinity. For anything that has a rest mass greater than zero, that’s not possible.

This increase in mass was detected at least by 1901.

Since then, increasingly accurate tests of relativistic mass increase have confirmed that this universe does, in fact, have a speed limit.1

New “Warp Drive” Approach: This One is Testable

From 'Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution', Jared Fuchs et al., 'Figure 3: Metric creation method where trial solutions are used and then modified to construct a physical shell solution. The process starts with density on the left and then generates a solution on the right.' (2024)
Simplified diagram: metric creation method for constructing a physical shell solution. (2024)

The metric creation method outlined above is from the “warp drive” research paper published last month. I’ll be talking about what they found, but not the math.

First, though, I’ll share what a scientist had to say.

Paul Sutter, physicist and “science communicator”, did a pretty good job of discussing this latest analysis of a “warp drive”.

I’m not overly fond of the “warp drive” moniker. But the idea, and the name, got traction with Alcubierre’s “LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity”.2 (Classical and Quantum Gravity, 1994)

“New warp drive concept does twist space, doesn’t move us very fast”
“While it won’t make a useful spaceship engine, it may tell us more about relativity.”
Paul Sutter, Ars Technica (May 23, 2024)

“…Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a toolkit for solving problems involving gravity that connects mass and energy with deformations in spacetime. In turn, those spacetime deformations instruct the mass and energy how to move. In almost all cases, physicists use the equations of relativity to figure out how a particular combination of objects will move. They have some physical scenario, like a planet orbiting a star or two black holes colliding, and they ask how those objects deform spacetime and what the subsequent evolution of the system should be.

“But it’s also possible to run Einstein’s math in reverse by imagining some desired motion and asking what kind of spacetime deformation can make it possible. This is how the Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre discovered the physical basis for a warp drive—long a staple of the Star Trek franchise….”

“…While tantalizing, Alcubierre’s design has a fatal flaw. To provide the necessary distortions of spacetime, the spacecraft must contain some form of exotic matter, typically regarded as matter with negative mass. Negative mass has some conceptual problems that seem to defy our understanding of physics, like the possibility that if you kick a ball that weighs negative 5 kilograms, it will go flying backwards, violating conservation of momentum. Plus, nobody has ever seen any object with negative mass existing in the real Universe, ever….”

“…But there is a way around it, discovered by an international team of physicists led by Jared Fuchs at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. (The team is also affiliated with the Applied Propulsion Laboratory of Applied Physics, a virtual think tank dedicated to the research of, among many other things, warp drives.) In a paper accepted for publication in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, the researchers dug deep into relativity to explore if any version of a warp drive could work….”
[emphasis mine]

Gravity, Newton’s Law, Einstein’s Math, and — Negative Mass?

CERN's photo: inserting the ALPHA-g apparatus.
Inserting the ALPHA-g apparatus, used in gravity experiments, at CERN’s Antimatter Factory. (2023)

Backing up a bit, gravity is a very basic part of this universe.

Describing it as a force, as Newton’s law of universal gravitation did, works very well for stuff that’s standing still or moving at tiny fractions of the speed of light.

Wiley Miller's Non Sequitur, Danae's 'petition to end science tyrrany', to repeal the law of gravity. (September 21 2017)Scientific laws, by the way, aren’t like laws written in the United States Code.

They’re regularities scientists have noticed, studied, and described. These descriptions, in turn, let scientists predict what will happen in given situations.

Predicting what will happen sounds a bit like divination. Saul tried something of the sort, getting a postmortem interview with Samuel. (1 Samuel 28:7–25) That was a bad idea. So is divination. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2115-2117)

But noticing how this universe works, and using that knowledge, is part of being human. It’s what we’re supposed to do. Ethics matter, the same as any other part of our lives, and that’s another topic. (Catechism, 2293-2295)

One more thing, before getting back to my last excerpt from Paul Sutter’s article.

He said that negative mass has never been observed. He’s right about that.

In this context, negative mass is a part of space which has, for some observers, a negative mass density.

Maybe that’s physically impossible.

But the condition fits Einstein’s math.3

“…Us physicists like it when all of our theories line up and agree on the nature of the Universe. So if the energy conditions set real limits on physics—limits where things like negative mass don’t just not exist, but can’t exist—then we’d like a physical theory that says that from the beginning, instead of relying on add ons like the energy conditions.

“Exploring how a warp drive might (not) work, and under what conditions and restrictions, is a step in that direction. For years physicists thought that the energy conditions outlawed all kinds of warp drives, yet the new research shows a possible way around that. What comes next will be a win no matter what; whether we get a fancy superluminal warp drive or not. That’s because whatever comes out of future lines of inquiry along these directions, we’re going to learn more about the force of gravity, and just possibly revolutionize our understanding of it.

“And who knows what we’ll get once we understand gravity better.”
“New warp drive concept…“, Paul Sutter, Ars Technica (May 23, 2024) [emphasis mine]

Math, My Father, and Me: A Digression

From 'Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution', Jared Fuchs et al., detailed version of the process outlined in Figure 3. 'The starting assumption of the density profile ρ' is that of a spherical shell with an inner radius of R1....' (2024)
Some of the math in “Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution”, Jared Fuchs et al. (2024)

Much as I’d like to explain how those equations work, I can’t. Which is doubly frustrating, since I enjoy understanding stuff and sharing what I’ve learned — and those standardized tests in high school said I should be good at math.

Maybe so, but I’m guessing that I’m a lot like my father that way.

He told about one question in a calculus test he took. It was partly multiple choice: describing two cylinders, asking for the volume they shared, with five possible answers.

My father did what I would have done. He looked at the two cylinders with his mind’s eye, saw how much space their intersection occupied, and checked off the answer that matched that quantity. Then he tried filling in the “show your work” part of the question.

My father’s equations were garbage. But he was the only one in the class to check off the correct quantity.

He and I emphatically have not lived with aphantasia. That’s not being able to form mental images: first described in 1880 and pretty much ignored ever since. Although I gather there’s been an uptick in interest, and I’m wandering off-topic.4

My experience with calculus was less noteworthy.

I took, but didn’t pass, a calculus class. A couple times I got that familiar ‘aha!’ moment, when ideas fall into place. But each time that happened, my attention flickered — and the ‘aha’ was lost without a trace. Frustrating.

“Exotic Solutions” Offering a “Novel Means of Transportation”

ESO/INAF-VST/OmegaCAM, OmegaCen/Astro-WISE/Kapteyn Institute; via Wikimedia Commons; used w/o permission.That won’t keep me from talking about what scientists do, since I can read what they say about their math.

“Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution”
Jared Fuchs, Christopher Helmerich, Alexey Bobrick, Luke Sellers, Brandon Melcher, Gianni Martire; preprint draft (May 4, 2024) via arXiv, Cornell University

“Abstract
“Warp drives are exotic solutions of general relativity that offer novel means of transportation. In this study, we present a solution for a constant-velocity subluminal warp drive that satisfies all of the energy conditions. The solution involves combining a stable matter shell with a shift vector distribution that closely matches well-known warp drive solutions such as the Alcubierre metric. We generate the spacetime metric numerically, evaluate the energy conditions, and confirm that the shift vector distribution cannot be reduced to a coordinate transformation. This study demonstrates that classic warp drive spacetimes can be made to satisfy the energy conditions by adding a regular matter shell with a positive ADM mass.”

Before I move on, a few definitions. ADM mass involves energy, and metric tensors is geek-speak for describing a space-time. I’ve put links in the footnotes.5

“In general relativity, the metric tensor (in this context often abbreviated to simply the metric) is the fundamental object of study. The metric captures all the geometric and causal structure of spacetime, being used to define notions such as time, distance, volume, curvature, angle, and separation of the future and the past….”
(Metric tensor (general relativity)) [emphasis mine]

A Testable Warp Solution: Exciting!

Fuchs et al. 'Figure 15: Diagram of the light-ray test. The emitters, detectors, and mirrors are comoving with the shell of interest. Note that both beams pass through the center, but are offset in the diagram for visual clarity. Emitter-detector B is vertically aligned with the mirrors on the left and emitter-detector A is vertically aligned with the mirrors on the right. Emitter-detectors A and B are equidistant to the center of the shell. The return path of the two light beams can be anywhere outside of the shell. The Warp Shell's warp effect is in the horizontal direction away from B and toward A.' (2024) from preprint draft.
From “Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution”, Fuschs et al. — how to test their idea. (2024)

“Conclusion
“…This exciting new result offers an important first step toward understanding what makes physical warp solutions. Moreover, the warp drive spacetime constructed here is a new type of warp drive beyond the Natario class and hence not subject to the same scope discussed in [9] and [18] due to its use of modified spatial terms in the metric. This new solution shows that a more generic constant velocity warp drive spacetime can be constructed that satisfies the energy conditions.

“We intend to explore this solution further and find areas of optimization to improve the mass-to-velocity ratio required to maintain physicality….”
(“Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution“; Jared Fuchs, Christopher Helmerich, Alexey Bobrick, Luke Sellers, Brandon Melcher, Gianni Martire; preprint draft (May 4, 2024) via arXiv, Cornell University)

“Excited” pretty well sums up my reaction to this research. That’s not a common response. Not these days, not to this extent.

Collage: Apollo 11 Moon landing; July 16, 1969. A global, and historic, event.I graduated from high school shortly before the Apollo 11 landing. There’ve been quite few “exciting” events since then.

But this? For me, this is the biggest thing since I ran across “Warp Field Mechanics 101” on the NASA website: and the next day NASA (apparently) ‘went black’. I’ll talk about that a little later.

I do not think this means we’ll soon have fast interplanetary travel. Even though the scientists mention “exotic solutions” offering “novel means of transportation” and “passengers”.

“…1.2 Designing Warp Drive Spacetimes
“The transportation element of warp drives is about designing timelike curves for passengers to travel between points A and B in spacetime. In this paper, we will go about developing a warp solution in the following steps….”
(“Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution“; Jared Fuchs, Christopher Helmerich, Alexey Bobrick, Luke Sellers, Brandon Melcher, Gianni Martire; preprint draft (May 4, 2024) via arXiv, Cornell University)

What’s genuinely fascinating here is that their ideas can be tested, using light sources, detectors, mirrors, and a “stable shell of matter”: ordinary matter. Nothing exotic or hypothetical.

The only other example of practical “warp drive” laboratory test equipment I’ve run across is the 2011 White-Juday warp field interferometer.

The last I heard, the White-Juday warp field interferometer gave inconclusive results. If it generated space-time distortions, they could have been masked by electronic noise and ionized air.6

What astonished me about the White-Juday warp field interferometer was that scientists thought there was even a remote chance of (1) generating detectable space-time distortions (2) with contemporary technology.

ArchonMagnus' 'The Scientific Method as an Ongoing Process' diagram of the scientific method, an adaptation of a diagram by Whatiguana. (2015) From Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.This year’s revisiting of “warp drive” physics may also yield inconclusive results.

But — and I think this is important — these scientists outlined how others could test their ideas: and said they “intend to explore this solution further”.

No matter how the tests come out, we’ll be learning more about how space-time works.

Then, as Paul Sutter said, “…who knows what we’ll get once we understand gravity better.”

The Day “Warp Field Mechanics 101” Disappeared

AllenMcC.'s graphic: a two-dimensional illustration of an Alcubierre metric tensor. From Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.A little over 11 years back, I felt as if I’d dropped into a science fiction thriller. Briefly.

…March 18, 2013. I’d been looking through NASA’s discussions of ‘next generation’ and ‘beyond next generation’ propulsion technology.

Two documents caught my eye:

My habits include downloading information for later study.

Usually it’s not necessary. This time it was.

March 19, 2013. I went back to the NASA website.

NASA wasn’t there. Apart from a few polite statements that data was not available.

NASA had gone black.

Classic Science Fiction Thriller (or) Another SNAFU

I’ve read enough stories to recognize a classic science fiction thriller plot.

But I was pretty sure that folks at NASA hadn’t inadvertently leaked Top Secret Stardrive Documents. Cool as that might have been.

As it turns out, someone had hacked into United States government databases.

Information Technology folks couldn’t tell exactly how much had been accessed.

Someone higher in the administrative food chain realized that at least some of the compromised data shouldn’t be shared with everyone. And so the whole NASA website went offline. Along with other U.S. government sites….

NASA eventually came back online, I stayed interested in “warp drive” research, and I talked about NASA ‘going black’ in 2013:

I didn’t find any references to the March, 2013, hacking incident then. I did this week: but only two. And I’m not sure about a 2018 reference to “an attack in 2013”.7

Anyway, I said I’d talk about the day NASA ‘went black’, and I still think it’s a good story.

History —

Esther C. Goddard's photo: Robert Goddard and his liquid fueled rocket: the world's first. (March 8, 1926) via Wikipedia, used w/o permission. Date cited by Wikipedia as coming from National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian. see https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/robert-goddard-and-first-liquid-propellant-rocketHistory doesn’t repeat itself. Not exactly.

But I’ve noticed that patterns to recur.

So I could note that Konstantin Tsiolkovsky published his rocket equation in 1903, Robert H. Goddard launched the first liquid fueled rocket in 1926, and Apollo 11 landed on the Moon in 1969.

Then I could say that, since it was 23 years since Alcubierre first published his math, someone flight-tested a warp drive in 2017.

And that the first interstellar ship with a warp drive will reach Alpha Centauri in 2060: 43 years after the 2017 flight test, just like Goddard and Apollo.

I could, but I won’t. Paul Sutter was right. Variations on the Alcubierre drive would need something like dark matter. And nobody has observed such a thing. Not directly.

Einstein’s math suggests that dark matter could, hypothetically, exist. And if it does, then it explains oddities like the orbits of stars in spiral galaxies.

But even if it’s real, we’re not even close to manufacturing or collecting the stuff, let alone using it in a propulsion system.

I suspect a closer analog to Alcubierre’s 1994 letter to the editor might be William Moore’s “On the Motion of Rockets both in Nonresisting and Resisting Mediums”. (1810)

That paper wasn’t exactly lost, but it wasn’t widely available either.

So about a century later, Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, and Hermann Oberth came up with pretty much the same results. Independently.8 Which shouldn’t be surprising, since all four scientists were studying the same universe.

— And Being Human

SIO, NOAA, US Navy, NGA, GEBCO, image Landsat (04/09/2013) Rick Potts, Susan Antón, Leslie Aiello's image: oldest known spread of genus Homo, 1,900,000 to 1,700,000 years ago. (2013) via Smithsonian MagazineOne thing of the many that had changed, a century after William Moore’s research, was that technology was starting to catch up with the math.9 Awkward metaphor, but it’s Friday afternoon and I’ll let it stand.

Again, history doesn’t repeat itself: but I’ve noticed the occasional pattern emerge from humanity’s long story.

One thing that hasn’t changed in the uncounted ages before we started keeping written records is our wondering what’s over the next hill. We’re now living on every one of Earth’s continents; although I’ll grant that our Antarctic settlements are more camps than towns.

Even if something drastic happens in the next few decades, I’d be astounded if we don’t eventually get around to revisiting the Moon — following our robots to Mars — and finding a way of reaching the stars.

I’ve also noticed that at least some theoretical physicists have gone from saying that a warp drive is impossible — to showing ways it might work, once we develop the technology. And find something that’ll work like dark matter would.

Maybe — a century, or a millennium, from now — we’ll learn how to build warp drives.

Or maybe we’ll learn that there isn’t a fast way to the stars.

Either way, I think that’s where we’re headed.

I’ve talked about this sort of thing before:

1 Sound, light, physics, and technology:

2 Alcubierre’s letter to the editor and paper, 1994 and 2000? I haven’t learned the story behind that/those:

3 Mostly recent science, with a glance back at where we’ve been:

4 Mental imagery and a little math:

5 Three physicists, and ideas that I didn’t try discussing this week:

6 Applied physics, an Applied Physics outfit that’s not with Johns Hopkins University, the White-Juday warp field interferometer, and two (?) papers by Miguel Alcubierre:

7 That March, 2013, cybersecurity mess is almost entirely off the radar now:

8 Dark matter and dreamers:

9 Goddard’s March 16, 1926, test flight was the first; but as usual, it’s complicated:

Posted in Journal, Science News | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Science, Religion, and Saying Goodbye to the 19th Century

Posted on May 25, 2024 by Brian H. Gill
Friedrich Graetz's political cartoon (March 5, 1883): 'An appalling attempt to muzzle the watch-dog of science', from the cover of Puck magazine. (March 14, 1883) and see https://loc.getarchive.net/media/an-appalling-attempt-to-muzzle-the-watch-dog-of-science-f-graetz
“An appalling attempt to muzzle the watch-dog of science” on the cover of Puck. (March 5, 1883)

I think the notion that someone can either be a Christian or appreciate the cosmic scale and wonders of God’s creation is fading.

Sincerely believing in a conflict where champions of science and reason opposed the dark forces of religion didn’t, arguably, start in the 19th century.

But that’s when the idea got traction. In England and America, at any rate.

Even so, fallout from the 19th century could be worse. I could be living in a culture where religiously earnest folks insisted that diamagnetism is diabolical.

This week I’ll be talking about faith, reason, cultural baggage, and why using my brain is a good idea.

“The Watch-Dog of Science” and Cultural Baggage

Cover of Punch (March 14, 1883), with cartoon by Friedrich Graetz: 'An appalling attempt to muzzle the watch-dog of science'. (Caption dated March 5, 1883)That cartoon’s big watch-dog is Herbert “survival of the fittest” Spencer, English philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, and a big fan of Darwin.

The caption is a quote from “Tel. London”, which may or may not be the Daily Telegraph & Courier (London).

“An appalling attempt to muzzle the watch-dog of science“
Puck magazine (March 14, 1883)

“‘The Society for the Suppression of Blasphemous Literature proposes to get up cases against Professors Huxley and Tyndall, Herbert Spencer, and others who, by their writings, have sown widespread unbelief, and in some cases rank atheism.’ — Tel. London, March 5, 1883″
(via Public Domain Media, Library of Congress) [emphasis mine]

Agnosticism, Diamagnetism — and Levitating Frogs

The 'Flammarion Woodcut, from his 'L'Atmosphère: Météorologie Populaire.' (1888)Huxley, Tyndall, and Spencer, don’t have all that much name recognition these days, so here’s a quick introduction:

  • Thomas Huxley: English biologist, anthropologist; nicknamed “Darwin’s Bulldog”; coined “agnosticism”
  • Herbert Spencer: English philosopher, anthropologist, biologist, psychologist, sociologist; coined “survival of the fittest”; agnostic
  • John Tyndall: Irish physicist; often seen as agnostic

Agnosticism, very briefly, is the idea that we can’t know whether or not God exists. I can see how that might make sense in the late 19th century. Particularly in England.

All three — Huxley, Spencer, and Tyndall — had a reputation for being agnostic. Huxley and Spencer were pretty clear about being agnostic.

My guess is that John Tyndall got pegged as an agnostic because he was a physicist; and, despite being Irish, known for being pretty smart.

NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, Danny Milisavljevic (Purdue University), Ilse De Looze (UGent), Tea Temim (Princeton University)'s images: supernova remnant Cassiopeia A (Cas A) as captured by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope's (left) NIRCam (Near-Infrared Camera) and (right) MIRI (Mid-Infrared Instrument). (December 10, 2023)Tyndall probably realized that, smart as we humans are, God-level understanding is beyond us.

“…If you ask him [the materialist] whence is this ‘Matter’ of which we have been discoursing–who or what divided it into molecules, who or what impressed upon them this necessity of running into organic forms–he has no answer. Science is mute in reply to these questions. But if the materialist is confounded and science rendered dumb, who else is prepared with a solution? To whom has this arm of the Lord been revealed? Let us lower our heads, and acknowledge our ignorance, priest and philosopher, one and all….

“…I compare the mind of man to a musical instrument with a certain range of notes, beyond which in both directions exists infinite silence. The phenomena of matter and force come within our intellectual range; but behind, and above, and around us the real mystery of the universe lies unsolved, and, as far as we are concerned, is incapable of solution….”
(“Fragments of Science: A Series of Detached Essays, Addresses, and Reviews“, V. 1-2, John Tyndall (1879) via Gutenberg.org)

Photo of Irish physicist John Tyndall, taken mid-career; from the Tucker Collection, New York Public Library Archives, via Wikipedia, used w/o permission.John Tyndall’s reputation as an agnostic may be due to his being one of the few high-profile British physicists of his day who weren’t insisting that science and religion were, if not on the same page, at least in same book.

I’m not sure what accounts for Tyndall’s lack of infamy these days.

Or why diamagnetism hasn’t been denounced something fierce. Not the way Darwin’s ideas about evolution were.

At any rate, Tyndall’s early research involved diamagnetism.

Diamagnetism is a bit of natural weirdness that’s been studied since 1778, when someone noticed that magnets repel bismuth.

Since Tyndall’s day, we’ve learned that it’s a quantum mechanical effect. And that, given enough power, we can use it to levitate frogs.1

It’s probably just as well that John Tyndale’s interest in diamagnetism remained mostly a nerdy science topic.

Checking Our Cultural Baggage

'Man is but a Worm' cartoon, caricaturing Darwin's theory, from the Punch almanac for 1882. (1881)I talked about Victorian politics, the Church of England, and England’s educational establishment last month.

Basically, folks who liked the status quo thought that Henry VIII’s national church should keep its tight grip on England’s education system. Folks who thought maybe they weren’t living in the best of all possible Englands — didn’t.

Vastly oversimplified? Yes.

Essentially accurate? I think so.

Among the reasons I am profoundly glad that “the good old days” are not returning? Definitely.

An example of how cultural baggage — beliefs, customs, folklore, laws, social behavior and norms; everything a person grows up with — can get in the way of common sense?

I think so.

But that doesn’t mean I see either Huxley and company or the Society for the Suppression of Blasphemous Literature (SSBL hereafter) as ‘good guys’ or ‘bad guys’.

I suspect Huxley, Spencer, and all, sincerely felt that they were struggling for truth and freedom of thought. And that the SSBL sincerely believed they were defending the British public against blasphemy and atheism.

Being calm and collected about the SSBL, Huxley, and political satire of the 1880s is easy.

results from 'Scopes trial' query in my Google News feed. (May 22, 2024)Particularly since we’ve had our own brouhahas: including analogs of the SSBL vs. Huxley embarrassment. Repetition reduces their shock value.

It’s been nearly a century since William Jennings “Cross of Gold” Bryan — unintentionally, I think — helped establish the idea that someone could either be scientifically literate, or be a Christian.2

The 1925 Scopes trial is now part of my country’s cultural baggage. I can’t change that, but I can suggest that unconscious assumptions aren’t necessarily a good match with current realities.

Remembering the Freethought Road

Watson Heston's illustration: 'Two Ways to Go', from 'The Freethinkers' Pictorial Text-book'. (1896) via Wikipedia, used w/o permission.
From “The Freethinkers’ Pictorial Text-book”, Watson Heston. (1896)

Detail, Watson Heston's illustration: 'Two Ways to Go', from 'The Freethinkers' Pictorial Text-book'. (1896) via Wikipedia, used w/o permission.Backing up a bit: sincerity is nice, but it won’t make something real.

For example, I could sincerely believe that anything I do is right: because I’m one of the ‘good guys’.

That would make me delusional, or a flaming hypocrite. Now I’ve probably insulted someone, and that’s another topic.

Presenting religion, particularly Christianity, as the cause of hypocrisy — “the Vale of Tears” leading to ignorance, cruelty, and superstition — was arguably an easy sell in 1896, when The Truth Seeker Company published “The Freethinkers’ Pictorial Text-book”.3

Back then, an American version of Christianity was widely accepted.

I’m reasonably sure that finding someone who identified as Christian, but didn’t act the part, was easy. Maybe even unavoidable. Contrasting that unpleasant reality with the unrealized promises of Watson Heston’s Freethought Road could feel good.

About waypoints on Freethought Road, and its ultimate goal: they sound good.

I have no problem with reason, education, humanity — good grief, I am human; of course I’m okay with humanity — justice, science, virtue, love, liberty, and truth.

That was true before I became a Catholic. What’s changed is that now using my brain, acting as if I love my neighbors, and seeking truth, are obligations.

Another obligation is keeping my priorities straight. Putting anything or anyone ahead of God is a bad idea and I shouldn’t do it. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2112-2114)

Valuing truth, though, isn’t a problem. Or shouldn’t be.

That’s because God is the source of all truth, and I’m expected to “live in truth”. (Catechism, 2464-2503)

Protecting Their Country From People Like Me

'The Freethinkers' Pictorial Text-book', p. 149: 'The Theologian's Conception of Clerical Privileges'. Designs by Watson Heston, The Truth Seeker Company (1896) via Internet Archive, used w/o permission.
A familiar assumption, from “The Freethinkers’ Pictorial Text-book”. (1896)

Excerpt from 'Allah Had No Son' and 'The Death Cookie,' Chick Publications. (retrieved September 9, 2021)“The Freethinkers’ Pictorial Text-book” reminded me of today’s Chick tracts. Mainly because of the book’s tone, and effective use of illustrations.

“…Pictorial Text-book” had more text, fewer pictures, the usual anti-Catholic attitude, plus noting that other Christians didn’t act like Christians either. With, of course, a Freethinker’s view of those religious people.

“The Church and Slavery”, for example, on pages 270-271, discusses “The Ghost in the Methodist Church-Yard”. And that’s yet another topic. Topics.

So: how can I reasonably be a Christian, and a Catholic, in a world where Christians and Catholics aren’t all perfectly perfect people?

Let’s put it this way. I’m not a perfectly perfect person. Complaining because the Church lets people like me be Catholics doesn’t make sense. Although a similar thought did make a good joke.

“I sent the club a wire stating, ‘PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON’T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER’.”
(Groucho Marx, Telegram to the Friar’s Club of Beverly Hills to which he belonged, as recounted in Groucho and Me (1959) via Wikiquote)

If that gag seems familiar, it should. I used it three weeks ago.4

Since I’m one of those “ignorant followers” of “privileged characters”, I could hardly blame freethinkers from wanting to protect their country from people like me.

But I do not think their fears were justified.

Partly because I know there’s more to Christianity than folks desperately trying to stop the publication of scientific research. Granted, folks like the 20th century Anti-Evolution League of America tend to get attention. I talked about them last month.5

Darwin, Divinity, and Letter From an English Priest

Photo by Lastenglishking: 'Newman's desk in the Birmingham Oratory'. (July 6, 1985)
His Eminence Saint John Henry Newman’s desk in the Birmingham Oratory.

St. John Henry Newman — the English John Newman, not the Bohemian-American St. John Neumann — was not your typical 19th century Catholic.

For one thing, he was a cardinal. And a convert to Catholicism.

Cardinals are next step down in the Church hierarchy from pope. I won’t try summarizing who does what, from laity like me up to the servant of the servants of God. Not this week. We’ve been around for two millennia and — it’s complicated.

The point of that ramble is that John Henry Newman was a Catholic priest when he wrote a letter to J. Walker of Scarborough, but wouldn’t be a cardinal for another 11 years. Here’s an excerpt from that letter:

“…If Mr Darwin in this or that point of his theory comes into collision with revealed truth, that is another matter — but I do not see that the principle of development, or what I have called construction, does. As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. Mr Darwin’s theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that ‘the accidental evolution of organic beings’ is inconsistent with divine design — It is accidental to us, not to God….”
(John Henry Newman to J. Walker of Scarborough on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (May 22, 1868) via Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion & Science [emphasis in original text])

Maybe St. John Henry Newman’s “accidental” in the last sentence has the word’s philosophical meaning: a property that doesn’t necessarily connect to an item’s essence.

A chair, for example, might “accidentally” be made of wood or plastic. But either way, it would would be “essentially” a chair.6

Or maybe he was playing with words and ideas, and meant that we don’t have a God’s-eye view of reality. Which is something I’m comfortable with.

I like knowing things and understanding stuff. But I’m okay with knowing that God’s God and I’m not.

That brings me to a counter-cultural idea.

Thinking is Not a Sin

'The Freethinkers' Pictorial Text-book', p. 133: 'The Bible and Geography'. Designs by Watson Heston, The Truth Seeker Company (1896) via Internet Archive, used w/o permission.
From “The Freethinkers’ Pictorial Text-book”, Watson Heston: old and new cosmologies. (1896)

Non Sequtur's Church of Danae and faith-based physics. From Wiley Miller, used w/o permission.Before talking about sin and thinking, a quick overview of how I should act.

I should love God, love my neighbor, and see everybody as my neighbor. Everybody. (Matthew 5:43–44, 22:36–40; Mark 12:28–31; Luke 6:31, 10:25–37; Catechism, 1789)

When I don’t love God and my neighbors: that’s sin. Sin gets in the way of healthy relationships. It’s an offense against reason, truth, “right conscience”, and God. (Catechism, 1849-1851)

Since I’m a Catholic, I think faith and reason get along. (Catechism, 35, 50, 154-159)

My faith is a willing and conscious decision to embrace God’s truth. All of God’s truth, including what we can see in this universe. Studying God’s work makes sense, since I think God creates everything. (Genesis 1:1–31, 2:4–25; Catechism, 31-35, 142-155, 325-349)

I also think each of us is made “in the image of God”, with body AND soul. And that because I’m human, I’m “an animal endowed with reason”. (Catechism, 355-373, 1951)

But I have free will. So using reason, thinking, is an option: not a hardwired response. It’s also an obligation, and vital when I’m deciding what I’ll do or not do. (Catechism, 1730, 1749ff)

Truth matters, both in science and in faith. (Catechism, 31, 159, and more)

God is the source of all truth. (Catechism, 2465)

Since all truth points toward God, both studying God’s creation and taking God seriously isn’t a problem. (Catechism, 27, 31-35, 41, 74, 282-289, 293-294, 341, 1723, 2294, 2500)

“The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: ‘It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.'”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 283) [emphasis mine]

“…The order and harmony of the created world results from the diversity of beings and from the relationships which exist among them. Man discovers them progressively as the laws of nature. They call forth the admiration of scholars. The beauty of creation reflects the infinite beauty of the Creator and ought to inspire the respect and submission of man’s intellect and will.”
(Catechism, 341) [emphasis mine]

Again: thinking is part of being human, or should be. It’s what I’m supposed to do.

I keep saying that. A lot. Mostly because the notion that science and religion can’t mix has been so deeply embedded in my culture.

Punctured Pride?

Unknown artist's 'The Lion of the Season' cartoon published in Punch issue 1036 (Th 'Alarmed flunky': 'MR. G G-G-O-O-O-RILLA!' (May 18, 1861)I don’t know why anti-evolution books often had their own section in “Christian” bookstores, while anti-physics tomes — now that I think about it, I can’t remember seeing any.

Maybe it’s because most proper English gentleman-physicists of a bygone era weren’t upsetting applecarts.

While, in sharp contrast, folks like Huxley were openly agnostic: and actually said that humans weren’t utterly separate and distinct from — shudder — animals. The very idea!!!

I suspect — strongly — that anti-evolution sentiments are at least partly rooted in punctured pride.

I’ve got my share of self-esteem above and beyond the call of reason. But I’ve looked in a mirror, and have seen apes in Como Zoo.

In any case, I don’t have a problem with thinking that we’re made “in the image of God” and from the stuff of this world. I’ve read Genesis 1:27 and 2:7, don’t think Sacred Scriptures were written by English-speaking literalists, and that’s yet again more topics.7

Perspectives

Nighttime photo of the 1939 World's Fair, New York City. (September 15, 1939.)
The “Dawn of a New Day” in “the world of tomorrow”. World’s Fair, 1939-1940 .

“Indeed, before you the whole universe is like a grain from a balance,
or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth.
“But you have mercy on all, because you can do all things;
and you overlook sins for the sake of repentance.”
(Wisdom 11:22–23)

Waldemar Kaempffert's 'Miracles You'll See in the Next Fifty Years', Popular Mechanics (February 1950) via David S. Zondy's Tales of Future Past https://davidszondy.com/futurepast/life-in-2000-ad.htmlI do, at times, miss the old panegyrics of progress, proclaiming that science, technology, and electric hair clippers would lead us into a shining utopia.

We’ll be cleaning up the mess left by mass-produced kitsch and throwaway durables for generations — but at least the era’s attitude was occasionally cheerful.

I don’t miss the triumphalist tone of articles contrasting science and high ideals with superstition, ignorance, and other (alleged) manifestations of religious beliefs.

And I emphatically don’t miss loudly-religious folks who seemed determined to demonstrate that freethinkers and their successors were right about religious people.

That sort of thing seems to be going out of fashion.8

I don’t mind a bit.

I think it’s high time we acknowledge that the 19th century is over.

Hubble/ESA/D. A. Gouliermis (MPIA) image: LH 95 stellar nursery in the Large Magellanic Cloud. (2007) via Wikipedia, used w/o permission; see https://esahubble.org/products/calendars/cal200705/)Finally, a few of my favorite quotes about truth, science, not knowing everything — and studying God’s universe.

“…It’s something too many of us forget, that reality has layers. Occasionally people ask me how I can be Catholic and a science journalist. The answer is simple: Truth does not contradict truth. Both science and religion are pursuit of truth. They’re after different aspects of truth, different layers of reality, but they’re still both fundamentally about truth.…”
(Camille M. Carlisle, Sky and Telescope (June 2017)) [emphasis mine]

“…Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be: ‘On to God!’”
(Religion and Natural Science, a lecture delivered in May, 1937, originally titled Religion und Naturwissenschaft. Complete translation into English: “Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers“, Max Planck (1968); via archive.org) [emphasis mine]

“…God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures — and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. … Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth.…”
(“Providentissimus Deus“, Pope Leo XIII (November 18, 1893)) [emphasis mine]

“Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air…. They all answer you, ‘Here we are, look; we’re beautiful.’…
“…So in this way they arrived at a knowledge of the god who made things, through the things which he made”.
(Sermon 241, St. Augustine of Hippo (ca. 411))

More of my take on faith, reason, and using our brains:

1 Science, and a cultural context:

Grant Hamilton's cartoon comment on William Jennings Bryan's 1896 'Cross of Gold' speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.2 Cultural baggage —

3 Viewpoints:

4 Art, life, and a few good ideas:

5 Some Christians are alternatively-reasonable —

6 Three Catholics, and a little background:

7 Ideas, old and new:

8 Faith, reason, science, religion, and a bit of the 20th century American experience:

Posted in Discursive Detours | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Two Pilots, Flight Technician, Iranian President Dead: Briefly

Posted on May 20, 2024 by Brian H. Gill

A helicopter carrying two pilots, a flight technician, and at least five other folks crashed yesterday. They’re all dead. One of them was Iran’s president: which made the aviation accident international news.

I am not happy that at least eight people died in that helicopter. I am particularly troubled, because at least one of those deaths may make life difficult for a great many other folks.

All of which may take a little explaining.

I think human life matters. All human life. Each human life: no matter how young or old, healthy or sick we are. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2258, 2261, 2268-2283)

The life of everyone in that helicopter mattered because each of them is human. What each one did, and may have believed, doesn’t change that. (Catechism, 360, 1700-1706, 1932-1933, 1935)

Life matters. So does responsibility and justice.

Like everyone else, I can try helping or hurting others. And I’m responsible for my actions. (Catechism, 1701-1709, 1730-1738, 2258)

I’ve talked about death, life, and making sense, before:

Posted in Discursive Detours | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment