Proposal-writing hell

Currently being sucked into the 6th level of hell — that’s the one reserved for scientists writing proposals. I’m not the actual scientist writing the proposal, but I’m getting sucked in because I agreed to help out…the only end in sight is at 1PM tomorrow when another scientist is bringing the proposals down to HQ. Please say an uplifting spell for me…

UPDATE — 7:52 PM: Still here. No end in sight. Jack (the PI) still hasn’t read over more than the first three pages of the proposal…no one has read to the end…eyes are getting crusty…

UPDATE — 12:13 AM: Still here. Actually, I’m taking a bit of a break. Yay Lorna! She left me an apple and some cookies. I’m going to go splash some water on my face, and then get back to it.

UPDATE — 2:08 AM: If I closed my eyes for a couple seconds, I think I would fall asleep. Must keep up with the caffiene…

UPDATE — 3:40 AM: Almost up for 24 hours now…just another 2 hours. My head is swimming…

UPDATE — 4:51 AM: Just asked Magic 8 Ball if I’d be getting out of here any time soon…it said “Doubt It”. Crap. Magic 8 Ball is never wrong.

UPDATE — 5:55 AM: Busy collating CVs…no, that doesn’t mean that we are almost done. No, this is just something I can do while Jack continues reading through the text (he hasn’t actually read through the whole thing yet…ugh).

UPDATE — 7:38 AM: Been here almost 24 hours now. At this point I don’t really want to leave until 10AM due to the morning rush-hour, but I’m not sure things will be done even by then. I hate scientists… (yes, I am one, but not “one of them” yet)

Tags: rant, work

I hate Word!

I want a “I hate Word” t-shirt after I’m done with this sinking proposal. Any suggestions where to get one?? If there aren’t any for sale, I might design one and use those cheesy print-your-own-t-shirt-iron-on thingies from Microcenter…

Tags: rant

Cosmologists and Religion in Cahoots?

Last time I was on the Ask a High Energy Astronomer hotseat, I stumbled across this article: The “Big Bang” is Just Religion Disguised as Science [The article moved or is gone – Jan 2014]. Wow. Fortunately, the article is difficult to find if you go straight to the What Really Happened page, but there you’ll find some other wacked-out theories (I’m assuming, based on the headlines — I didn’t actually read through anything).

This particular article starts out with a long introduction about how the geocentric model of the Universe was based on religion, and how later generations clung to the model because it served the agenda of the Church. Okay. A bit clunky, and rambling, but not entirely inaccurate.

Then the article gets weird. It brings up the discovery by Hubble that all galaxies appear to be receding from us. The article states:

Religious circles embraced the idea of an expanding universe because for the universe to be expanding, then at some point in the past it had to originate from a single point, called the “Big Bang”. The “Big Bang” coincided nicely with religious doctrine and just as had been the case with epicycles (and despite the embarrassment thereof) religious institutions sought to encourage this new model of the universe over all others, including the then prevalent “steady state” theory.

Huh? I’m not sure which religion the author is from, but most of the ones I’m familiar with (namely, the Protestant Christian ones) hate the idea of the Big Bang. They contend that the Universe cannot be as old as Big Bang cosmology indicates, and blast anyone who dares promote the Big Bang. The debate has not yet reached the level of the evolution controversy, but it’s just a matter of time.

The article then goes into more current work on Big Bang cosmology:

An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the “Cosmic Background Radiation”, the presumed energy echo from the primordial explosion. and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up.

Yes, the CMB (cosmic microwave background) is viewed as a large piece of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory. However, the CMB was discovered more by accident than as a search for evidence to back up the BB.

But just as the theory of epicycles did not accurately predict the observed motion of the planets, the Big Bang Theory turned out to be less than accurate about the radiation signal detected in space. When the satellite COBE was sent up to analyze the Cosmic Background Radiation, it discovered instead of the smooth featureless glow predicted by the cosmologists a highly complex and detailed structure.

Actually when the first COBE results were posted, the astronomers were impressed by how smooth the results were, but were also a bit worried that it was too smooth. After longer exposures, COBE finally showed the complexities in structure that had, indeed, been expected.

The article finally gets to the point it wants to make. It presents the theory that the redshifts observed for distant galaxies can be caused by the remnant of a nearby supernova — that there is an old remnant of a planetary nebula Earth is sitting in.

The evidence presented in the article are scant

• We’re made of heavy elements — Okay, that’s right, but they came from generations of stars successively enriching the interstellar medium. But, we are, in fact, sitting in the “Local Bubble”, which is likely due to an ancient, relatively nearby supernova. But, there’s no evidence of a remnant planetary nebula, and astronomers have known about this “Local Bubble” for a while now.
• Redshifts in some studies of distant galaxies show that they are quantized — This is not directly supported by the idea that there was a nearby supernova, but was “quite possibly triggered” by it. By what method? Besides, redshift is not the only way that astronomers measure distances — it’s the one commonly used for the furthest objects, but other things, like Type Ia Supernovae confirm the idea of redshift as distance indicators (at least, to a certain distance)
• Um..that seems to be it.

The author seems to want to “shame” astronomers into considering his theory because apparently we’re clinging to a “religious view” of the Universe. I’m sorry to inform him that it’s not going to work that way. For astronomers to reexamine a well-established (and well-supported, for that matter) theory, there needs to be compelling new evidence that has been well-tested (and well-established). The first response to the initial evidence for “dark energy” was skepticism. Since then, there have been numerous studies that have confirmed the original results — only then did astronomers and cosmologists start to reformulate their view of the Universe.

Tags: rant, science

HST Servicing Plans Axed

Let’s say you have two choices: putting some money into servicing an established, functioning, NSF-endorsed satellite that is returning amazing science results for over 10 years, or putting that money into a pie-in-the-sky, underfunded, and ill-concieved plan to send humans to Mars. If you’re the administration in the White House, you choose the latter.

White House Cuts Hubble Servicing Mission from 2006 Budget Request:

The White House has eliminated funding for a mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request and directed NASA to focus solely on de-orbiting the popular spacecraft at the end of its life, according to government and industry sources.

[…]

That budget request, according to government and industry sources, will not include any money for Hubble servicing but will include some money for a mission to attach a propulsion module to Hubble needed to safely de-orbit the spacecraft with a controlled re-entry into the Pacific Ocean. NASA would not need to launch such a mission before the end of the decade to guide the massive telescope safely into the ocean.

No one is saying that the exploration BS initiative is the cause of the HST servicing mission getting cut from the budget. However, it was about a year ago that the exploration initiative was announced, and it was about a year ago when they first talked about cutting the HST servicing mission.

According to the article, “With both robotic and shuttle-based servicing options expected to cost well in excess of $1 billion, sources said, NASA was told it simply could not afford to save Hubble given everything else NASA has on its agenda, including preparing the shuttle fleet to fly again.” Hmmm. $1 billion. Wasn’t that the extra that NASA was supposed to get for the exploration initiative (Plus $10 billion redirected from existing NASA programs)? What a coincidence.

The final approval for the budget, however, comes from Congress. This might be a good time to write a letter to your local congress members.

[via Preposterous Universe]

Tags: rant, science

Worst Commute Ever

We got about an inch of snow here in DC, so the idiots were on the road. I knew the commute would be bad, so I left work at 11:30 AM, after a half-day. I got home at about 3 PM. Yup. Three and a half hours to go 35 miles.

It took 30 minutes to get the 2 miles from work to the Beltway. Another 30 minutes to get off the Beltway at the next exit (about another mile); turned out that the Beltway was essentially closed there due to a multi-car accident, and despite a police, firefighter, and ambulance presence, traffic was still chaos. Then I took an hour getting back to the Beltway (I cut across the inside “corner” of the Beltway). Then another hour and a half to get the remaining 15 or so miles.

At least I didn’t get into an accident.

Tags: life in the city, rant

ID @ AAS

This morning’s invited session at the American Astrophysical Society meeting in San Diego was by Eugenie C. Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, entitled “Intelligent Design and the Creation/Evolution Controversy”.

I have been following some of the Intelligent Design (ID) proponents’ efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution in our schools on Phayrngula’s weblog. This means that much of the talk was more of a review of the subject than completely new material.

For those of you unfamiliar with ID, it is the creationist’s sadly veiled attempt at cloaking “creation” into a science. The problem, of course, is that scientific theories, by definition, must be testable. ID is basically a process of elimination — we can’t currently explain some complex biological system, therefore there must be some designer of some sort that designed it that way. One thing that Scott brought up was one major problem with ID as a “scientific theory” is that it does not distinguish between the unknown and the unknowable. Just because we don’t understand the workings of a complex biological system doesn’t mean that we will never be able to understand that system. However, just because we start understanding that one system, we will not undermine or discorage the ID propoenents — there will always be something else that we don’t understand yet.

One telling illustration she made was how the science community deals with a new theory versus how the ID community would have us do it (I do not include ID in the scientific community — it’s not science). It looked something like this (though more spiffy in PowerPoint):

Science community:
Great Idea –> Research –> Peer Review –> [Feedback loop between Research and Peer Review until…] –> Scientific Consensus –> Classroom and Textbook coverage of Great Idea

ID community:
Great Idea –> Classroom and Textbook coverage of Great Idea

The ID community wants the scientific community to acknowledge the work of ID even though there has been no peer reviewed papers on ID in any respected scientific journal (the Stephan Meyer “peer reviewed” paper notwhithstanding). In fact, the ID community wants science classes across the US to include their “science” in the curriculum…without any credible research or peer review. Yeah. Right.

The fundamental problem, however, with ID and with scientists fighting ID is that the ID doctrine has turned the “belief” in evolution into the non-belief in God. People react strongly against being told that their God doesn’t exist, of course. However, the “belief” in evolution (there’s nothing to believe or disbelieve here, it’s a well-established scientific theory), does not have to be a disbelief in God…they just want everyone to think that.

Her suggestions for what we, the scientific community, could do:

• Explicity teach the nature of science
• Explicitly teach evolution (evolution of the stars, galaxies, as well as biological system)
• Keep up with local school board happenings
• Join the AIBS/NCSE list -serve for news on local ID/creationist/evolution news

Unfortunately, because ID proponents have turned this into an emotional and religious issue, these items will not ultimately work. ID proponents do not listen to logic; instead they spout the party line and ignore scientist’s refutations of their claims. Their main tactic is to shout louder. Sadly, I don’t know what can be done to prevent the ID attacks on our science education; right now we can only fight them as they come.

Tags: rant, science