Mind your P&Qs: A Test of Faith.

Here I will give you some insight into what goes on in the Mind of Phil and his Quirky Quartz

Q: So Phil, do you believe in God?

P: Well there’s gotta be summit out there. I mean summit doesna cum outta nuffin does it?

Q: It seems that is what some atheists believe.

P: I know! Can ya baleeve it! I aff t’admire t’enormuss fayth t’em’atheists av fer believin wer’all made frum nuffin!

Q: Some might call it blind faith. They say you can’t see ‘nothing’ so to put your faith in the idea that from nothing came something is a very blind thing to do.

P: Them’athiest boffins says they proved it scientifically wiv a bit a maffs n all!

Q: Yes, they have a concept called symmetry and shown that all laws of physics are based on symmetries.

P: Theyze relly stoopid then! They orta luk at’em selves in t’mirror like, then they’ll knows wot symmetry is!

Q: Hmmm, one of these guys is a man called Victor Stenger, he’s written several books claiming that science clearly shows that there is no God. He says that out of the void of emptiness came the universe we know today, one full of mass and energy. He explains that something is more stable than nothing, so nothing had to turn into something. I know that’s it’s true that all things in the known universe behaves naturally in the direction from instability to stability.

P: An there wuz ah thinkin I’m men’ally unstable. Ah got sum ’ope then that ah gonna get more stable wen I’m alder. Am confuze cuz ah thot ah wuz gettin worse!

Q: Only, I learned later that his definition of nothing doesn’t actually mean nothing in the absolute sense. In his book “Has Science found God?” he explains very well the concept of symmetry and how it applies to all the well known laws of physics. He explains the concept of the void as best as he can in terms of empirical physics and readily admits that if we were to talk about nothing as “no” thing then it has no properties, but what he talks of as the ‘void’ he explains that it has the same symmetrical laws that also applies to the laws of physics.

P: An so wot yer sayin is: t’nuffin state in t’sense ov uh void is unstable n cun only b’cum sumfin cuz its more stable.

Q: Precisely Phil. He uses this natural symmetry concept to illustrate that you don’t need God as a component ‘force’ to have made the orderly universe because the creation of ‘order’ is a totally natural progression supported by all the known laws of physics and are based on symmetry. I enjoyed reading about this symmetry concept and for once I found it a concept that is not so difficult to understand.

P: Don ya jus luv uh genius oo explains thins’ n a way ah cun’understand. T’is brilliano!

Q: Yes only it’s not so ‘brilliano’ as you put it! Stenger uses the symmetry concept to dismiss the idea that there is a God. In my view, he could be right to the point that it removes certain conceptions of how God has created the universe. In fact, he is presenting very logical and convincing arguments to show what God is not. I would go as far to suggest that what he has shown might actually be a physical attribute of God – that is all things material within the known physical universe behave and happen naturally according to the laws of physics.

P: OMG Q! Ya deserve uh Nobel Prize fa realizin that!

Q: Let’s not go that far! I think Stenger’s books do make very worthwhile reading and he is capable of presenting intelligent and convincing arguments to dispel many a myth of Judeo-Christian-Islamic concepts of God along with the many ‘dreamed up’ and non-scientific theories that attempt to explain alternative medicine and the existence of psi and so on. But he’s wrong if he is trying to dismiss the whole caboodle of God. What he has done is shown that physical laws can never ever be used to prove the existence of the ‘supernatural’ or the metaphysical because all physical phenomena occur only according to the natural order of things. The metaphysical and the supernatural can never ever be reproduced in a scientific laboratory ever.

P: Ya goin by t’argument that Science n God don’t mix ain’t ya!

Q: And never the twain shall they meet! So Phil, do you believe in God?

P: Hey Q! Is this menna be uh test ov ma fayth?

Comments from Yahoo 360

(4 total)

• moonl…

Nice discussion, thanks Phil!

Thursday 22 March 2007 - 08:40AM (CDT)

• Moon

Zezz..., u r like a gecko with full of colours :-P (will explain by request later). Anyway - good blog my dear! X

Thursday 22 March 2007 - 02:07PM (GMT)

• Roo

You should talk to yourself more often, it's very enjoyable.

Thursday 22 March 2007 - 02:15PM (EDT)

• Phil-…

Athiests are an irony. Without them we would not know some of what we know today. I say "Thank God for Athiests!"

I am also humoured by athiests. It's like they strip a piece of bark off the tree and they say this bark does not exist.

Sunday 25 March 2007 - 04:45AM (GMT)

Pluto, we hardly knew you

Extract from the San Francisco Chronicle:

The recent news of the demotion of the planet Pluto to "dwarf planet" status took a lot of people by surprise. With the use of confidential sources, The Chronicle has been able to acquire the exclusive rights to the following correspondence. We feel it adds to the debate of this critical issue.

Memo: To Pluto

From: The Solar System

Subject: Demotion to dwarf planet status.

Dear Pluto:

Whew. This is a tough one. First, I just want you to know that we all feel terrible about this. I think I speak for us all -- Mars, Venus, the whole gang -- when I say you've been like a sun to us. Seriously.

Look, I can't say this is fair. It isn't. Downsizing is just a fact of life these days. It's universal. One minute you're on the "Children's Guide to the Solar System," and the next you're a black hole. Who knows how they make these calls at headquarters?

I do have to say, in all honesty, that there were some problems. A lot of it was just image stuff. We've talked about this before. Like, what makes Mercury so hot anyhow? It is hard to fight perceptions like that.

And, to be brutally honest, you probably could have done a better job with your presentation. There were times when you were seen as distant, aloof, even cold. Nobody saw you much. We ran in the same circles for years and years, but I don't think anybody really got to know you. It wasn't just your "eccentric orbit," you know. There were plenty of whispers that you were "way out there," or "too spacey."

As for the jokes, well, I don't think there was much you could do about that. "Hey look, isn't that Pluto? Out by Uranus?" How many times did we hear that one? No matter how many times we explained that Neptune is the planet next to you, it didn't matter. Sophomoric humor is a force that transcends astrophysics.

At the end of the day, I think we all realize that what it really comes down to is Earth. (I know, who made them the center of the universe?) Earth, with its big, gassy atmosphere and all those peeping pointy-headed scientists with their telescopes.

They act like they created planets. Hello? Big Bang? Ten billion years ago? Frankly, I don't get it. First they name us, then they take it away. For seventy-some years you were a planet. Now you're a "dwarf planet." What's next, changing your name to "Dopey"?

But there was a time, eh, when you were a star. Back in the 1930s, you were mysterious and theoretical. Astronomers on Earth stayed up nights thinking about you. They'd hang around the observatory, just hoping to catch a glimpse of you on a night when you were out with Neptune.

Remember the excitement when they finally saw you? There was all the talk about what your name should be. The New York Times got involved, suggesting Minerva, which sounds like a name for a new kitchen range. And then, an 11-year-old girl from England, Venetia Phair, suggested Pluto, and it stuck. (Personally, I'd say if anyone needed a new name it was Venetia Phair, but that's probably just solar snark.)

And all right, as it turned out, Pluto was probably not the most awe-inspiring choice. Jupiter gets to be the giant of the skies, and you turn out to be Mickey Mouse's dog. A bad break, no doubt about it.

Still, there was a window of opportunity there, a chance to make a name for yourself. And I'll be honest, you didn't do much to help matters. It seemed you were never available for photographs. And you projected a chilly, frigid atmosphere. It wasn't inviting, frankly.

The more they got to know you, the more there were doubts. They said you lacked "gravitas." The whisper campaign began. You were smaller than seven moons in the solar system, even -- and this was a killer -- Earth's moon.

I don't have to tell you how it all unraveled from there. There was sniping about your "oblong orbit." (Hey, we all accept the orbit we're given. It's a universal law.) A low point had to be when that big ball of ice, UB313, was put up for planethood in 2003. Hey, it's a solar system, not a Little League team. Not everybody gets to play, OK?

Yanking your planet status is a blow, no doubt about it. More than anything, I suppose, it is embarrassing. But you'll get over it. The sun will come up again in another 162 hours, just like always.

The good news is, you still have a chance to shine. Earth scientists say they are going ahead with the $700 million New Horizons spacecraft flyby. It is expected to pass you on July 14, 2015.

We're all pulling for you when that happens. We know that when they see you up close and in person they will understand that you are not some dwarf, or a "minor planet," but a key part of the solar system. We'd just say that you should always remember who you are and what we think of you.

You rock.

C.W. Nevius' column appears regularly in The Chronicle. His blog, cwnevius.blog, and podcast, "News Wrap," can be found on SFGate.com. E-mail him at cwnevius@sfchronicle.com.

Monday 28 August 2006 - 04:27AM (GMT)

Astronomical Error of Science

And so we now have a new 'scientific' definition for the word planet... Pluto get's to be called a dwarf planet. So now there are just eight classical planets and a whole load of dwarf planets most yet to be named. That's fine. No honestly, I mean it, it really is fine.

What's not fine is the definition.

Here's the IAU's two resolutions that were voted on and approved last Thursday:

RESOLUTION 5A
The IAU therefore resolves that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet"¹ is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape² , (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects³ except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".

---

¹The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
²An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories.
³These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

---

IAU Resolution: Pluto

RESOLUTION 6A
The IAU further resolves:

Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.

Download text Word-format

It all seems ok until you read the words... " has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". Scientific definitions are required to be clear, concise and objective in their statements. This to me seems not at all clear and certainly not objective. How does one interpret clearing the neighbourhood? Of what? To what extent?

I'm no astronomer and I'm no scientist. I'll admit that. But I am sure that the IAU have blundered with this defintion. Somehow, the IAU consider that the eight planets from Mercury to Uranus have all cleared the neighbourhood around their orbits. Presumably of other significant celestial objects. If they want to keep along the lines of "cleared the neighbourhood around it's orbit" then they must define this much more clearly because as it stands it is far too ambiguous.

I suppose this resolution will probably stay in place for a while. I should look on the bright side... not that Pluto has much of a bright side. Pluto has joined a new class of planets called dwarfs. He might feel more at home among friends more like himself. I look forward to getting to know the names of all his new classmates.

Here's an article from the Hindustan Times that makes a very valid point:

Which of these would you say is a dog: a German Shepherd or a Chihuahua? This is the kind of question put before delegates of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) General Assembly who powwowed in Prague over Pluto's planet-hood. No wonder hardly 300 of the 2,700 astronomers at the meet even bothered to vote for, or against, stripping the ninth rock from the Sun of its planetary status and making it a 'planet dwarf' instead.

The planets in our solar system have been traditionally divided into two main groups. The inner band of relatively small worlds - Mercury to Mars - is followed by a wide gap, where the 'minor planets' or asteroids move. Beyond this is the realm of the four giants - Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

Pluto's 248-year journey around the Sun is unusual for two reasons. First, its narrow, elliptical orbit edges it closer to the Sun at times than Neptune. Second, if you imagine planetary orbits as discs and look at their edges, they will appear to lie close to each other. Pluto's disc, however, is different, being tilted at an angle of 17 degrees away from Earth's orbit.

This prompts some astronomers to suggest that Pluto is not a 'real' planet, and could even be a former moon of Neptune. With new telescope technologies enabling scientists to find more and more objects orbiting far from the Sun, some of which are similar to Pluto, the clamour for downgrading the planet has become louder.

Under the new IAU guidelines, a celestial object qualifies as a planet only if it orbits a star, without itself being a star, and is large enough for gravity to pull it into a roughly spherical shape. Besides, it must dominate its orbit, clearing away other objects. Pluto's detractors point to its highly elliptical orbit, which overlaps that of Neptune, to relegate it to a new category called 'dwarf planets'.

The problem is, this will obviously also affect Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune, none of which has a clear orbital zone. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids, while Jupiter's path is littered with over 100,000 'Trojan asteroids' (chunks of rubble left over from the solar system's formation more than four billion years ago).

As for Neptune, if it were to clear its zone, there would be no Pluto in the first place! Astronomers would've been better off wondering what Pluto is like, rather than what it is. For only by learning more about the outer planets can we get to know more about how the inner solar system was formed.