300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That’s the number of stars – 300 sextillion – scientists now estimate to be in the observable Universe.

The research, led by Yale astronomer Pieter van Dokkum, is being published by the journal Nature. In an interview with Space.com, von Dokkum said the findings are based on data gathered when the researchers were analyzing “red dwarfs” — stars that are dimmer than our sun and much smaller.

The “faint signatures” of those red dwarfs in eight galaxies “located between about 50 million and 300 million light-years away,” led to the new calculation of how many stars are out there, Space.com writes.

This has also led von Dokkum to speculate that there are likely trillions of Earth-like planets out there. This makes sense given the mundane nature of our solar system. Why wouldn’t there be more planets like ours? And life on those planets? We may be locally rare, but on the scale of the Universe only arrogance could say we’re likely to be exclusive inhabitants.

Massive Exit – Boulders Uphill

This comes from a couple of long time friends of mine, one of whom sometimes posts on FTSOS. It’s an absolutely fantastic song. Please give it a listen.

A response to the pope

Come one, come all

…to The Liberal Cup in Hallowell on Dec 7. I’m going to be co-hosting the weekly trivia game with a friend that night. Bring your friends, put down ten bucks for trivia, buy a few beers (The ‘Cup has the best around), and see if you can get any of my awesome, awesome questions. One special hint for FTSOS readers: no answer is going to “evolution”. That would be lame and probably too easy.

Heck, you can even argue with me in person if you want. But I don’t recommend it. My alcohol consumption will not be considered “light”. Or maybe that would make me all the more formidable. Try your luck.

Catholics create funny sign

There is a sign by American Atheists in New Jersey that says, “You KNOW it’s a Myth. This Season, Celebrate REASON!” I personally disapprove of the capricious capitalization, but the message has reportedly been making an impact.

Mr Silverman said despite the fact that the billboard has only been up for a few days, he and his group are calling the campaign a success.

‘We’re getting a lot of response from closeted atheists saying: “Thank you for putting it up.”’

I’m sure it’s also causing a lot of discussion, and that’s always good for a minority position when it is the minority that is directing the initial talk.

But now the Catholics have responded with a sign of their own.

“You know it’s real,” the newer billboard tells drivers passing the corner of Dyer Avenue and West 31st Street in Manhattan. “This season, celebrate Jesus.”

That capitalization in the Catholic sign is better than in the atheist sign (and not as depicted in the news article), but it could be improved.

But I digress.

Look at how the signs match up. The Catholic sign, intentionally placed on the other side of a New Jersey-New York tunnel as the atheist sign is suppose to be a direct response. The atheist sign says (ignoring its particular capitalization), “You know it’s a myth”, with the Catholic sign responding, “You know it’s real.” Okay, fair enough. That’s pretty straight-forward. Not really all that great or especially effective since it doesn’t distract from the atheist message, instead implying that the atheist message is worthy of some sort of attention, but it’s at least not terrible. But then the next line in the atheist sign is, “This season, celebrate reason!” And how do the Catholics respond? This season, celebrate Jesus.” While I appreciate the decision not to use an exclamation point, do they really want to imply there is a contrast between reason and Jesus? I mean, of course they aren’t trying to do that, and of course there really is quite a stark contrast, but anyone comparing the two billboards is forced to conclude that there is a divide between the two – and the Catholics surely do not want that.

But I guess I shouldn’t expect the Catholic church to offer a thoughtful response.

Thought of the day

The right-wing Christian view of sex that says marriage is primarily for procreation is hilarious. It is perhaps one of the most sexually immature points of view that isn’t a direct product of being in junior high.

Caution: The pope is coming

But there’s more!

Hugh Dallas, head of referee development for the Scottish Football Association has been sacked because he passed on, by eMail, a joke about the pope. His dismissal was called for by a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. This nasty little weasel is called Peter Kearney, Director of the Scottish Catholic Media Office. His details, in case you feel like sending him a message, are as follows:

Peter Kearney, Director, Scottish Catholic Media Office, St George’s Buildings, 5 St Vincent Place, Glasgow G1 2DH
eMail: mail@scmo.org

Similarly, the Chief Executive of the Scottish Football Association, responsible for this craven giving-in to Catholic censorship is Stewart Regan. The address of this coward is Scottish Football Association, Hampden Park, Glasgow G42 9AY
eMail info@scottishfa.co.uk

It would seem, from the YouTube video posted here, that the joke concerned is the one that heads this page, warning children of the approach of the pope. The caption was censored, but it isn’t difficult to find the original. It is at http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/caution-pope.jpg

My suggestion is that we should do our best to make this joke go viral, beginning by sending hundreds of copies of it to these two addresses:
mail@scmo.org
info@scottishfa.co.uk

But there are probably funnier jokes along the same lines, and I would encourage you to send as many as you can find.

Richard

Thought of the day

People who argue for ‘a higher purpose’, or intelligent design, or a ‘necessary creator’, or any other intentionally vague idea are being fundamentally dishonest when they don’t admit that they are merely talking about their specific, cultural god.

Double undue respect

We give undue respect to religion every single time we give a stand to a religious figure who prattles on about something when the reality is that that figure has no qualifications in the given matter. For example, virtually every time the pope opens his mouth there is no reason we ought to be consulting him, yet millions of people still listen to him as if he has something to add to any conversation. This latest incident is no different.

Pope Benedict XVI called Saturday for politicians, the media and world leaders to show more respect for human life at its earliest stages, saying embryos aren’t just biological material but dynamic, autonomous individuals.

Now on top of the undue respect we already give him, the pope is encouraging everyone to respect a bunch of nothing cells. There is no scientific basis for offering respect to embryos. There is no reason we ought to be listening to the pope on this. For instance, he says embryos constitute autonomous individuals (it’s unclear how they might exercise any autonomy), but does anyone for a moment believe he is aware that twinning can occur several days after an embryo initially forms? Does he still want to say that embryo was one individual? Or was it two? Or was it one and then it became two? If that is the case, then did it always have two souls or did a second soul find its way into the process post-twinning? And most importantly, how does the pope know any of this? How does he know he might be wrong? What method is he using to know? Can anyone else consult this method? Are there ways to verify this method?

Cellular potential is not a definition of being a human, the pope has no basis -nor any qualification – for saying otherwise, and we ought not give him any sort of respect on this or any other important issue.

Thought of the day

I’m not saying I’m going to do it, but I shouldn’t be able to easily outrun the majority of my local police department officers. In fact, that goes for members of all police departments. Unfortunately, the fact is that most of the police departments I see around Maine have members who would have no chance outrunning a reasonably fit 20-something male. There ought to be a target point on a BMI chart that, should an officer meet it, results in some sort of monetary reward. Ideally, perhaps we might want to punish officers for not meeting some reasonable standard, but it is effectiveness, not ideology, which matters here.