Category: Science

Millions and Billions

A billion is a big number. I mean, it’s really big. Most people don’t have a true grasp on how big a billion really is. However, there is another problem. What is the numerical value of a billion? Well, that could depend on where you live. You see, there are two systems: the “American” system and the “Britsh” system of counting. (Both of which were made by the French.) Here is what a billion looks like in each numbering system:

    1 000 000 000 American billion
1 000 000 000 000 British billion

(Source: AskOxford)

Professional Amateurs: Victorian Science

In Grade 12 I read the story the French Lieutenant’s Woman. It takes place in the United Kingdom during the reign of Queen Victoria. One of the themes in the novel was the rise of the middle class becoming the upper class. The so-called “new money” of the 18 hundreds. These were people who worked hard and became very successful. The capitalists of their day, one might say.

This was contrasted by the upper class of the time. It was seen as being uncivilized to have to work for you money. The upper class managed their estate, but took little interest in its operation. They didn’t lower themselves to actually working for their money.

The result of this was that they had a remarkable amount of free time. Most scientists in the England at this time were rich ne’er-do-well amateurs. One might almost say that science progressed merely because people had nothing better to spend their time on.

Take Charles Darwin, for example. He is one of the most famous people who lead us to the modern view of evolution. Most of Origin of Species were his musings on what he had seen while sailing around the world as a doctor aboard Her Majesty’s Navy.

I recently heard a debate between socialism and capitalism. One thing people are fond of saying is that in a socialist or communist system, there would be no progress because there would be no point: you can’t get rich. When I heard this I thought of this example of rich people making progress, but not to become richer.

In fact, one might say that the Open Source community is socialist, or communist, in its very nature. Free software, owned by the coders. Distributed freely among the people. Firefox is made this way. As is Linux, which is the operating system which runs this web server.

And people love to work merely for the challenge of things. Everyone? Surely not. Especially since we’ve been dumbed down in the last hundred years. But that spark of curiosity still remains in most people. I think that progress itself will continue if we need it or not. Every problem is of interest to someone.

Though there are areas of socialism/capitalism that may have problems with it, this is not one of them. And the remaining ones may be swept aside by nanotechnology, which could bring the cost of raw material to almost zero. But people, like monkeys, are curious beings. If there is a problem to be solved, there is a person who wants to solve it. And that is the very nature of progress.

Science: Re-entry

While ready a review of the Bad Astronomy in Star Wars III, I learned something that was new, and interesting:

Also, a point I like to make, even though it’s not mentioned in the movie: re-entering ships don’t heat up due to friction. It’s actually due to the object compressing the air ahead of it. Compressing a gas heats it up (think about how warm a bike pump can get when you use it), and a ship entering the atmosphere is moving really quickly. It compresses the gas a lot. That is what actually heats up the Shuttle, and meteors, and Republic warships.
(Source: Bad Astronomy: Star Wars III)

Solar System: How Many Planets?

How many planets are there in our solar system? Soon, it may be as few as 8 or even over 12. This is because we don’t have a clear definition of what a planet is. There are lots of objects that go around our sun. Most of them are much smaller than the Earth’s moon.

But consider the planet Pluto. It is only 50% larger than the Earth’s moon. Although some people think the moon sized planet should be considered an official planet of our sun, others think it should not. What’s more, if moon sized object are planets, than there are several other “planets in waiting” ready to bump the number of planets in our solar system even higher. Although it’s very unlikely that we will find any large planets out there in the solar system, it is possible that there are other, smaller planets further out.

Currently, the International Astronomy Union is trying to define exactly what is or is not a planet. But even if moon sized objects are not going to be planets, Pluto may stay a planet because your random Joe likes Pluto being a planet.

Star Wars: What’s physics, anyway?

After I watched Episode III I got together with some of my friends and we nit picked the errors George Lucas made in the science of Star Wars. One of my friends is in his last year of studying to be a civil engineer. He generally mocks any attempts to talk about “science” and “Star Wars” in the same conversation. “It’s fantasy,” he said, “in a futuristic setting.”

And he’s right. But just in case there was any doubt, I’ll leave you with the following links. WARNING: they contain spoilers! If you don’t want spoilers, go to the Bad Astronomy: Bad Movies.

Evolution: Being Taught Wrong

I was first taught about evolution in grade 7 or 8. My teacher used an example of a deer in a general Canadian winter. Deer, she said, need longer legs to be able to get around in the winter. Because they would not be able to run away from predictors, or run after food, they grew longer legs to survive.

This example is wrong. This does not correctly explain how evolution happens. I bring this up because evolution debates are a big thing in politics south of the border. In North America, specifically in Canada and the United States, there is wide spread misunderstanding about what exactly evolution is. More often than not teachers give out wrong information about evolution when they teach it. Even biology teachers in high school may get the theory of evolution wrong when they explain it to their students. This is because even to be a biology teacher in high school you don’t have to major in biology. They may have some misunderstandings of evolution.

Of course, we know that deer have “evolved” longer legs. But, how this happened was misrepresented in the above paragraph. If you think that example explains evolution really well, then you don’t understand evolution as well as you thought you did.

And preachers, priests, ministers, and Sunday school teachers also misrepresent evolution in the same way. Not becayse they are lying, but ill informed. My point is that many people misunderstand evolution. While there is nothing wrong with this, I think that it is sad that so many people try to change the science curriculum based on their lack of understanding.

To learn more about evolution check out Talk Origins and Don Lindsay’s Creation/Evolution Controversy.

Letter to Adbusters: Science for Sale

What follows is a letter to the editor I sent to Adbusters Magazine.

In the article “Science For Sale” (Adbusters #58), Chris Tenove attacks the scientific community, declaring throughout the article that they, the scientists, are unprincipled money hoarders that care nothing for truth or discovery.

Chris goes so far as to say that scientists make silly claims, like how the universe is made up of strings. He compares this with religion, saying that although it’s claims are equally fantastic, they are at least understandable. Everyone can understand what we mean when we talk about Jesus walking on water. But strings? Material is made up of mostly nothing? Chris clearly can’t believe it, as it goes against common sense. As though common sense is ever common, or ever makes sense.

Chris seems to expect to understand advanced scientific theory, that took a community of the brightest minds hundreds of years to construct. This is like trying to understand the insides of computers; how ones and zeros make text, pictures, sounds, and videos. It takes years of study to design or understand the minute details of modern computers. It’s just the same with the physical sciences, and most other fields of study.

But just because the author of this article can’t understand it, we’re supposed to chalk it up to nonsense. Chris’ prejudice towards science is very clear. The article tries to prove that scientists can be sold to the highest bidder. Ironically, every example Chris can drag up disproves the title of the article! Chris says that universities are greedily making money off of government patents, but then talks about corporations making money off those patents. Chris says that scientists can be bought, and then tells us a story about Dr. Nancy Olivieri who lost her job instead of bowing to pressure—and money—from the pharmaceutical industry. Every example disproves Chris’ thesis. In fact, it seems the culprit is corporate America; specifically, the pharmaceutical industry.

Chris does, however, admit that the over generalizations he makes are false: It turns out that it’s only a minority of scientists that sell their souls to the corporations. In this way scientists aren’t different than any other group of people. I have to then ask, what’s all the fuss about? Why was Chris attacking all of science and insulting all scientists because of a few people who were paid for by the pharmaceuticals?