Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Astrobiologia. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Astrobiologia. Mostrar todas as mensagens
quarta-feira, 22 de julho de 2026
Drab Majesty - Cold Souls
sábado, 27 de junho de 2026
PJ Harvey - Voyager
Dark nights, dark days
Frozen, silent
Bearing Earth-songs
Earth-songs
Force fields, high winds
Cold moons, bright rings
Hear my signal
Will you follow?
Look back at us
As a speck of dust
Darkness our home
Bear it through love
Last note, last sign
Neptune, Triton
Fading signal
Choose light, choose love
Voyager, look back
At a pale blue dot
All we don't know
A flake of snow
Dust in a sunbeam, blue dot
So far, so cold
Kindness, kindness
Care for
Our shelter, tender, tender
PJ Harvey lançou esta quarta-feira (24 de junho) um tema novo, ‘Voyager’.
O tema é inspirado pelo Programa Voyager, da NASA, iniciado em 1977. Foi composto durante as sessões de gravação para o próximo álbum de PJ Harvey, ainda sem data de lançamento definida.
Em comunicado à imprensa, a artista britânica disse-se “entusiasmada com o desafio de compor uma canção com a ‘voz’ da Voyager 2”, sonda lançada em agosto de 1977 e que se encontra, atualmente, fora do Sistema Solar. “Perguntei-me: que nos diria ela se pudesse?”. ‘Voyager’ conta, ainda, com uma citação do já falecido astrónomo Carl Sagan.
"Voyager", o single de PJ Harvey lançado em junho de 2026 a convite do físico Brian Cox para a sua digressão mundial Emergence, afasta-se do rock visceral de guitarras do início da sua carreira para abraçar uma sonoridade espacial, flutuante e de gravidade zero. A faixa insere-se no panorama do ambient e do art pop eletrónico, sendo construída sobre pulsações eletrónicas lentas e minimalistas e sintetizadores modulares, onde se destacam o Prophet-5 tocado por Harvey e o baixo de sintetizador Juno tocado pelo próprio Brian Cox. Há uma utilização intencional de efeitos que simulam distorções de fita e pequenas falhas de áudio, como se a música fosse um sinal de rádio enfraquecido a viajar pelo espaço, uma atmosfera que ganha uma imensa sensação de amplitude e grandiosidade cinematográfica graças aos arranjos de cordas criados por Dario Marianelli e executados pela Orquestra de Miraval. Sobre esta massa instrumental, a voz de PJ Harvey surge de forma etérea, fantasmagórica e descorporificada, acentuando uma profunda sensação de solidão cósmica.
O conceito central da canção é uma das propostas mais fascinantes da carreira da artista, uma vez que a letra é escrita e cantada sob a perspetiva da própria sonda espacial Voyager 2, lançada pela NASA em 1977 e que hoje navega pelo espaço interestelar, a milhares de milhões de quilómetros da Terra. Harvey revelou ter-se inspirado na questão de saber o que a espaçonave nos diria se pudesse falar, mimetizando os relatórios da sonda ao cruzar os limites do nosso sistema solar através de versos que mencionam forças de campo, ventos fortes, luas frias e anéis brilhantes. O significado da canção desdobra-se em camadas emocionais e filosóficas, prestando uma homenagem direta ao astrónomo Carl Sagan, que idealizou o Disco de Ouro da Voyager e poeticamente batizou o nosso planeta de "Ponto Azul Claro", uma ideia que a artista recupera ao usar metáforas que nos reduzem a um floco de neve ou a um grão de poeira na imensidão do cosmos. Ao olhar para a Terra através dos olhos da máquina distante, a música funciona como uma meditação sobre a nossa extrema pequenez e fragilidade, sugerindo que, diante do vazio absoluto do universo, os conflitos e as fronteiras humanas perdem totalmente o sentido. Apesar de mergulhada num ambiente frio e mecanizado, a mensagem final que PJ Harvey extrai dessa vastidão é profundamente humanitária e otimista, culminando num apelo urgente à sobrevivência e à união para a humanidade que ficou para trás, sintetizado no verso que nos incita a escolher a luz e a escolher o amor.
domingo, 31 de maio de 2026
Movies that completely changed my Life (and why you should watch them)
We’ve all experienced that unique magic: the lights dim, the screen glows, and for the next two hours, you are completely transported. But every now and then, a movie does something deeper. It doesn't just entertain you for an evening; it fractures your worldview, shifts your priorities, and stays with you long after the credits roll.
These are the ten films that fundamentally changed how I view the world—and why they deserve a spot on your watch list tonight.
1. Dead Poets Society (1989)
The Lesson: Carpe Diem is easy to say, but terrifying to live.
On the surface, this is a movie about an unconventional English teacher at a strict boarding school. But beneath that, it is a masterclass in existential courage.
How it changed me: It forced me to confront the reality of my choices. Am I living the life expected of me, or the life I actually want? It taught me that "sucking the marrow out of life" requires shaking off conformity, standing on your desk, and daring to find your own voice.
Why you should watch it: If you feel stuck in a routine or find yourself living to satisfy other people’s expectations, this film is the gentle, poetic wake-up call you need.
The Lesson: We accept the reality of the world with which we're presented.
Jim Carrey plays Truman Burbank, a man who has no idea his entire life is a 24/7 reality TV show broadcast to the entire planet.
How it changed me: It made me hyper-aware of the invisible scripts we follow in society. Truman's journey isn't just about escaping a literal television set; it’s a metaphor for breaking free from the comfort zones, biases, and artificial structures that keep us safe but completely unfulfilled.
Why you should watch it: In an era dominated by social media algorithms and curated feeds, The Truman Show feels more relevant than ever. It forces you to look at your own "set" and ask: If I walked to the edge of my world, would I have the courage to open the door and leave?
The Lesson: If you knew how your story would end, would you still live it?
When mysterious spacecraft touch down across the globe, a linguistics professor named Louise Banks is recruited to communicate with the extraterrestrial visitors. As she learns their non-linear language, her perception of time and memory begins to change.
How it changed me: Without spoiling the ending, this movie completely rewired how I look at grief, love, and time. It taught me that the beauty of life doesn't lie in a happy ending, but in the willingness to embrace the journey fully - sorrow and all. It’s a profound shift from asking "Why me?" to saying "Yes to life."
Why you should watch it: This isn't your typical alien invasion action flick. It is a deeply philosophical, quiet sci-fi masterpiece that will leave you staring at the ceiling for hours after it ends, rethinking every relationship in your life.
The Lesson: Passion is not a choice; it’s a necessity.
Set during the grueling 1984–1985 UK miners' strike, the film follows an 11-year-old working-class boy who trades his boxing gloves for ballet shoes, facing fierce opposition from his family and community.
How it changed me: It completely redefined my understanding of resilience and identity. Watching Billy turn his frustration, anger, and isolation into explosive, raw choreography taught me that art is not just a hobby—it is a vital survival mechanism. It made me realize that staying true to who you are often requires fighting the very environments meant to shape you.
Why you should watch it: If you have ever felt like an outsider in your own world, or if you're struggling to defend a dream that others find foolish, Billy Elliot is an emotional powerhouse. It will make you laugh, cry, and want to dance through the streets.
5. Apocalypse Now (1979)
The Lesson: The thin veneer of civilization is easily stripped away away from societal control.
Francis Ford Coppola's Vietnam War epic follows Captain Willard on a secret mission down a river into Cambodia to assassinate a rogue Green Beret Colonel, Walter E. Kurtz, who has gone insane and set himself up as a god to a local tribe.
How it changed me: It forced me to look into the darkest corners of human nature. It's not just a movie about war; it is a psychological descent into darkness. It made me realize how fragile our moral compasses really are when separated from social rules. Kurtz isn't just a villain—he is a reflection of what happens when a man stares too long into the hypocrisy of civilization and completely breaks.
Why you should watch it: If you want a cinematic experience that challenges your understanding of morality, sanity, and the dual nature of man (good vs. evil), this hallucinatory masterpiece is mandatory. It is heavy, surreal, and unforgettable.
The Lesson: True love and faith often look like madness to the rest of the world.
Set in a deeply religious and isolated Scottish community, Lars von Trier's masterpiece follows Bess, a naive young woman who marries an oil rig worker, Jan. After an accident paralyzes Jan, he convinces Bess that she can keep him alive and heal him by sleeping with other men and telling him the stories.
How it changed me: It shattered my conventional views on morality and altruism. Lars von Trier strips away all Hollywood sentimentality to ask a brutal question: what does absolute, unconditional sacrifice actually look like? It taught me that genuine grace and faith are rarely neat or socially acceptable; often, they are messy, deeply misunderstood, and painful.
Why you should watch it: This is raw, emotionally demanding cinema at its finest. Driven by a devastating, career-defining performance by Emily Watson, it is a haunting exploration of psychological isolation, religious rigidity, and spiritual transcendence that you will never forget.
The Lesson: You cannot rebuild a broken past just by showing up; some distances are internal.
A mute, disheveled man named Travis wanders out of the desert after being missing for four years. Reconnecting with his brother and the young son he abandoned, Travis gradually begins a quiet, agonizing search across Texas to find his missing wife, Jane, trying to patch together the ruins of his former life.
How it changed me: It completely redefined how I perceive emotional estrangement, forgiveness, and love. Travis trying to learn how to be a father again through old home movies broke my heart. The famous peep-show conversation between Travis and Jane through a one-way mirror taught me that sometimes, the only true act of love left is knowing when to let go and disappear back into the landscape.
Why you should watch it: Anchored by Robby Müller’s gorgeous, neon-soaked cinematography and Ry Cooder’s haunting slide guitar soundtrack, it is a masterpiece of slow-burn emotional devastation. If you’ve ever loved someone deeply but realized your own brokenness stood in the way, this movie will speak directly to your soul.
The Lesson: The most dangerous journey is the one we take into our own obsession.
Wim Wenders' ultimate road movie follows a woman tracking a mysterious man carrying a device that records visual data directly from the human brain, allowing the blind to see—and users to view their own dreams. The pursuit spans nine countries, ending in the Australian outback right as a global nuclear crisis threatens to break society apart.
How it changed me: It was a prophetic warning about the digital age that completely shifted my relationship with technology. Long before smartphones existed, Wenders showed characters becoming hopelessly addicted to viewing their own subconscious memories on handheld screens, ignoring the real world around them. It made me realize that the "end of the world" isn't always a physical apocalypse; sometimes it is the moment we stop looking each other in the eye and retreat completely into our personal digital loops.
Why you should watch it: It is a sweeping, visually mesmerizing epic with one of the greatest rock soundtracks in cinema history. Watch the Director's Cut if you can; it is an unmatched philosophical exploration of global wanderlust, the power of images, and human connection at the edge of existence.
The Lesson: We are all exhausting ourselves playing roles for an audience that might not even exist.
Over the course of a single day, we follow Monsieur Oscar, a mysterious man who travels through the streets of Paris in a white stretch limousine. Guided by his driver, Celine, he transitions between 11 different "appointments," completely transforming his appearance each time to play different characters: a beggar, a dying old man, a motion-capture stuntman, and a monstrous creature.
How it changed me: It completely redefined my view on modern identity. Carax uses this surreal journey as a brilliant metaphor for social existence. In life, just like Oscar, we shift masks continuously—from professional colleague to digital persona, to caregiver, to lover. It taught me that the great modern tragedy isn't that we play roles, but the exhaustion that comes from doing it when the "invisible cameras" have stopped rolling and we no longer know who we are underneath.
Why you should watch it: It is a wildly original, anarchic, and gorgeous fever dream. Driven by Denis Lavant's staggering physical performance and featuring an unforgettable accordion intermission, it challenges everything you think you know about traditional narrative storytelling.
The Lesson: The hardest place to look is into the center of your own desires.
In a dystopian wasteland, a guide known as a "Stalker" leads a melancholy Writer and a cynical Professor into "The Zone"—a dangerous, post-apocalyptic region sealed off by the government. At the heart of the Zone lies a legendary room that is rumored to grant the deepest, most subconscious desires of anyone who steps inside.
How it changed me: It completely shifted my understanding of what a movie can achieve. Tarkovsky doesn't use Hollywood special effects; instead, he uses rain, damp soil, rusty metal, and time itself to create an atmosphere of immense spirituality. It taught me a terrifying but beautiful truth about human nature: we often think we know what we want, but if our truest, most hidden subconscious desires were suddenly granted, they might reveal us to be monsters or cowards. It made me realize that faith and self-reflection are not comforting answers, but exhausting, ongoing psychological journeys.
Why you should watch it: Stalker is not a film you simply watch—it is an experience that you absorb like a meditation. If you are willing to slow down your breathing, accept its mesmerizing rhythm, and let its philosophical poetry sink in, it will permanently change the way you look at a cinema screen and your own soul.
sábado, 25 de abril de 2026
Apoptygma Berzerk - Eclipse
quarta-feira, 8 de abril de 2026
Depeche Mode - Cover Me
sexta-feira, 20 de fevereiro de 2026
Brad Kunkle
.jpg){kind=spacer} |
| Brad Kunkle -"Apotheosis" (2023) |
Nascido em 1978 na Pensilvânia, Estados Unidos, Brad Kunkle é um dos nomes mais singulares da pintura contemporânea atual. Formado em Belas Artes pela Kutztown University em 2001, o artista consolidou uma carreira que equilibra o rigor técnico da tradição clássica com uma estética mística e surrealista, fortemente marcada pela fusão entre a figura humana e elementos da natureza.
Kunkle é profundamente influenciado pelos Pré-Rafaelitas e pelo artista Maxfield Parrish, além da estética das fotografias antigas (daguerreótipos).
O grande diferencial da sua obra reside na técnica magistral de aplicação de folhas de ouro e prata. Kunkle utiliza esses metais preciosos não apenas como ornamento, mas como um elemento dinâmico: as superfícies metálicas reagem à luz do ambiente e à posição do espectador, conferindo à pintura uma vida própria que se transforma conforme a iluminação. Esta abordagem foi inspirada tanto pelo seu passado como pintor decorativo quanto pela observação de ícones religiosos e obras clássicas no Museu do Louvre.
Estilisticamente, o seu trabalho é frequentemente associado ao Simbolismo, apresentando mulheres em estados de transe ou profunda conexão com o mundo natural — muitas vezes rodeadas por folhas secas, pássaros ou névoas densas. Para contrastar com o brilho opulento do ouro, Kunkle utiliza frequentemente a técnica de grisaille, pintando a pele e as vestes em tons de cinza ou paletas muito limitadas e suaves. O resultado é uma atmosfera onírica e atemporal, que convida o público a uma reflexão sobre a intuição e a beleza do invisível.
Curiosidade
O impacto da sua obra é tal que o seu trabalho foi incluído no Lunar Codex, uma cápsula do tempo digital enviada à Lua em parceria com a NASA, garantindo que a sua arte perdure para além da Terra.
quinta-feira, 19 de fevereiro de 2026
Cientistas resolvem mistério sobre origem da vida complexa na Terra
Cientistas descobriram que os nossos antepassados microbianos usavam ambos oxigénio, resolvendo o mistério presente na teoria de que a vida complexa na Terra surgiu após a união de dois micróbios muito diferentes, foi esta quarta-feira divulgado.
O problema da teoria "mais amplamente aceite" para a evolução das "plantas, animais e fungos, conhecidos coletivamente como eucariotas" era não conseguir explicar como é que os dois micróbios estavam tão próximos para se unirem, quando um precisa de oxigénio para sobreviver e o outro era conhecido por viver em espaços sem este gás.
Estudo revela que antepassados "usam, ou pelo menos toleram, o oxigénio"
Segundo um estudo publicado na revista científica Nature, algumas arqueias Asgard, grupo de organismos do qual fazia parte um daqueles antepassados e que hoje em dia vivem sobretudo nas profundezas do mar e noutros espaços sem oxigénio, "usam, ou pelo menos toleram, o oxigénio".
"A maioria dos Asgards vivos de hoje foram encontrados em ambientes sem oxigénio", diz um dos autores do estudo, Brett Baker, professor associado de Ciências Marinhas e Biologia Integrativa na Universidade do Texas, nos Estados Unidos, citado num comunicado de divulgação do estudo desta instituição.
"Mas aqueles que estão mais relacionados com os eucariotas vivem em locais com oxigénio, como sedimentos costeiros pouco profundos, flutuando na coluna de água, e têm muitas vias metabólicas que utilizam oxigénio. Isto sugere que o nosso antepassado eucariótico provavelmente também possuía estes processos", acrescenta.
Teoria de Baker diz que a vida evoluiu num ambiente rico em oxigénio
A mais recente descoberta da equipa de Baker, que investiga genomas de arqueias Asgard, descobrindo novas linhagens, expandindo a diversidade enzimática e explorando as suas vias metabólicas, dá mais credibilidade à ideia de que a vida complexa evoluiu como a teoria previa e aparentemente num ambiente rico em oxigénio.
De acordo com a ciência, até há cerca de 1,7 mil milhões de anos a atmosfera terrestre tinha muito pouco oxigénio, mas os níveis do gás aumentaram drasticamente durante o período conhecido como o Grande Evento de Oxidação e "algumas centenas de milhares de anos" depois "surgiram os primeiros microfósseis de eucariotas conhecidos", o que indica que a presença de oxigénio pode ter sido importante para a origem da vida complexa.
"O facto de alguns dos Asgardianos, que são os nossos antepassados, serem capazes de usar oxigénio encaixa muito bem nisso", adianta Baker.
"O oxigénio apareceu no ambiente e os Asgardianos adaptaram-se a ele. Descobriram uma vantagem energética na utilização de oxigénio e, então, evoluíram para eucariotas".
Para os cientistas, os eucariotas surgiram quando uma arqueia Asgardiana desenvolveu uma relação simbiótica com uma alfaproteobactéria e esta terá evoluído, tornando-se "uma organela produtora de energia dentro dos eucariotas, chamada mitocôndria".
A coautora Kathryn Appler, investigadora de pós-doutoramento no Instituto Pasteur, em Paris, França, destaca "o enorme esforço de sequenciação e a sobreposição de métodos de sequenciação e estruturais" realizados pelos cientistas e que permitiram" ver padrões que não eram visíveis antes desta expansão genómica."
Investigação começou com a extração de ADN de sedimentos marinhos em 2019
Segundo o comunicado, esta investigação resulta do trabalho de doutoramento de Appler no Instituto de Ciências Marinhas da Universidade do Texas, que começou com a extração de ADN de sedimentos marinhos em 2019.
A equipa da UT e os seus colaboradores reuniram mais de 13 mil novos genomas microbianos, tendo conseguido "centenas de novos genomas de Asgard" e "quase duplicando a diversidade genética" do grupo que era conhecida.
Com base em semelhanças e diferenças genéticas, os cientistas construíram uma árvore da vida alargada das arqueias de Asgard, tendo os novos genomas permitido também descobrir novos grupos de proteínas, "duplicando o número de classes enzimáticas conhecidas".
De seguida, analisaram a Heimdallarchaeia e compararam as proteínas que produz com proteínas eucarióticas envolvidas no metabolismo energético e do oxigénio. Usando um modelo de inteligência artificial chamado AlphaFold2, previram como estas proteínas se dobram em formas tridimensionais. As formas, ou estruturas, das proteínas determinam o seu funcionamento. Os resultados mostraram que várias proteínas produzidas pela Heimdallarchaeia se assemelham muito às utilizadas pelos eucariotas para o metabolismo energético eficiente baseado no oxigénio.
Os ex-investigadores da UT Xianzhe Gong (atualmente na Universidade de Shandong, na China), Pedro Leão (agora na Universidade Radboud, Países Baixos), Marguerite Langwig (agora na Universidade de Wisconsin-Madison, Estados Unidos) e Valerie De Anda (atualmente na Universidade de Viena, Áustria) são outros autores do estudo.
terça-feira, 1 de julho de 2025
O Mundo de Edena
Antes de entrar na obra em si, cabe falar um pouco sobre o autor, Jean “Moebius” Giraud. Foi um artista francês que trabalhou com quadrinhos e também cinema. Começou a sua carreira desenhando um faroeste chamado Blueberry poduzido em parceria com Jean-Michel Charlier. Sua obra de maior reconhecimento, O Incal, foi feita em parceria com Alejandro Jodorowsky.
"O Mundo de Edena" (no original, Le Monde d'Edena) destaca-se pelo seu visual onírico, simbolismo filosófico e abordagem existencialista, sendo considerada uma das obras-primas do autor.
📘 Visão geral da série
Autor: Moebius (Jean Giraud)
Género: Ficção científica, espiritualidade, aventura, utopia/distopia
Publicação inicial: 1983 (como álbum completo em 1988 e uma republicação em 2022)
Volumes: 6 principais
📚 Livros da série
- Na Estrela (Sur l'Étoile) – Introdução ao universo de Edena
- Os Jardins de Edena (Les Jardins d’Edena) – Primeiras explorações do planeta
- A Deusa (La Déesse) – Transições psicológicas e metafísicas
- Estrela (Stel) – Mudanças interiores e busca de sentido
- Sra. (Sra) – Reflexões sobre identidade e género
- Os Consertadores (Les Réparateurs) – Última fase da jornada
🧑🚀 Enredo
A história segue Stel e Atan, dois viajantes espaciais que caem num planeta desconhecido. À medida que exploram Edena, são forçados a abandonar a tecnologia e confrontar a natureza, os seus corpos e a própria consciência. Ao longo da saga, Moebius aborda temas como:
- Regresso à natureza
- Sexualidade e identidade
- Autoridade e opressão
- Iluminação espiritual
🎨 Estilo artístico
Moebius usa um traço claro e detalhado, com cores suaves e paisagens surreais que evocam tanto o maravilhamento quanto a estranheza. A arte é simbólica e muitas vezes onírica, convidando o leitor a interpretações múltiplas.
💡 Curiosidades
A série foi inspirada por experiências pessoais de Moebius com meditação, dieta macrobiótica e busca espiritual.
Edena começou como uma história promocional para a Citroën (!), mas foi rapidamente expandida numa saga ambiciosa.
A personagem Stel representa o Eu espiritual e consciente; Atan representa o Eu condicionado e apegado à norma.
📚 Edições em português
A série foi publicada em português por diferentes editoras, como a ASA (Portugal) e outras no Brasil. Em anos recentes, algumas editoras lançaram edições integradas com todos os volumes.
Biografia completa aqui
segunda-feira, 9 de dezembro de 2024
Clara Pinto Correia - Antares
.webp)
A obra passa-se em Antares, um planeta distante escolhido pela humanidade para colonização e estudo. Um grupo de cientistas, exploradores e técnicos é enviado em missão para analisar as condições do planeta, compreender a sua biosfera e avaliar a possibilidade de vida humana permanente.
1. A chegada a Antares
A equipa humana aterra num ambiente alienígena que, embora com paralelos à Terra, possui ecossistemas, organismos e ciclos biológicos completamente diferentes. Logo surgem dificuldades de adaptação — tanto físicas como psicológicas.
2. Vida alienígena e estranheza biológica
O ponto central do romance é a forma como os humanos observam e interagem com as criaturas de Antares. A autora, bióloga, cria organismos extremamente originais, com fisiologias e comportamentos que levantam questões sobre:
- evolução convergente e divergente
- modelos alternativos de reprodução
- sistemas de ecologia complexos
- limites da compreensão humana perante o “Outro” biológico
A narrativa mistura maravilhamento científico com estranheza quase filosófica.
3. Tensões humanas
A convivência no planeta e a pressão da missão fazem emergir:
- conflitos internos do grupo
- dilemas éticos entre explorar e preservar
- tensões políticas e pessoais
- alterações psicológicas causadas pelo ambiente alienígena
Os humanos percebem que estão a mudar — não apenas no corpo, mas na forma como pensam e se relacionam.
4. A grande pergunta da obra
A autora explora uma questão:
até que ponto a humanidade é apenas um produto do ambiente que habita?
O planeta começa, de forma simbólica e literal, a moldar os visitantes.
as alterações humanas não são reversíveis
o ADN e a fisiologia foram alterados
as mentes começam a sintonizar-se com padrões do planeta
Antares não é uma força maligna, mas absorve a equipa da mesma forma que integra qualquer forma de vida.
Alguns resistem até ao fim — outros entregam-se completamente.
5. Mistério e metamorfose
Progressivamente, a equipa percebe que Antares não é apenas um espaço físico, mas um processo que influencia a vida que o atravessa. Há elementos de suspense e transformação que culminam numa visão muito própria da autora sobre:
- adaptação
- hibridação
- o papel da humanidade no cosmos
6. A transformação irreversível
O planeta transforma os humanos porque:
- é assim que o ecossistema funciona
- não distingue “estrangeiros” de “locais”
- tudo o que vive ali torna-se parte do ciclo
- resistência é inútil, aceitação traz harmonia
Antares não é uma força maligna, mas absorve a equipa da mesma forma que integra qualquer forma de vida.
7. O desfecho final
O final é aberto mas claro na sua implicação:
- parte da equipa morre (por conflitos, acidentes, ou falhas fisiológicas)
- outros transformam-se e tornam-se parte do ecossistema de Antares
- os poucos que tentam fugir já não têm condições biológicas para voltar à Terra
- o planeta continua indiferente e harmonioso
O livro termina com a sugestão de que a humanidade talvez não seja a “forma final” da evolução, e que Antares poderia ser um próximo passo — mas apenas para quem se dispõe a abandonar a noção rígida de identidade individual.
Não há final feliz nem final trágico absoluto.
É, acima de tudo, um final profundamente ecológico, biológico evolutivo.
Antares é uma metáfora para a ideia de que a vida no universo pode ser cooperativa, interligada e mutável — e que a humanidade só é “humana” enquanto vive num ambiente que define essa humanidade.
quinta-feira, 25 de julho de 2024
James Webb deteta ‘super Júpiter’ que demora mais de um século a dar a volta à sua estrela
 |
| O aglomerado de galáxias SMACS 0723 em primeiro plano |
Um ‘super Júpiter’ foi avistado em torno de uma estrela vizinha pelo Telescópio Espacial James Webb, revelou na quarta-feira uma equipa de cientistas, acrescentando que o planeta tem também uma ‘superórbita’.
O planeta tem aproximadamente o mesmo diâmetro que Júpiter, mas com seis vezes a massa. A sua atmosfera é também rica em hidrogénio como a de Júpiter.
A grande diferença é que este planeta demora mais de um século, possivelmente até 250 anos, a dar uma volta em torno da sua estrela. É 15 vezes mais a distância para a sua estrela do que da Terra ao Sol.
Os cientistas já suspeitavam há muito tempo que um grande planeta orbitava esta estrela a 12 anos-luz de distância, mas não tão massivo ou longe da sua estrela. Um ano-luz tem cerca de 9,46 triliões de quilómetros.
Estas novas observações mostram que o planeta orbita a estrela Epsilon Indi A, parte de um sistema de três estrelas.
Uma equipa internacional liderada por Elisabeth Matthews, do Instituto Max Planck de Astronomia, na Alemanha, recolheu as imagens no ano passado e publicou as descobertas na quarta-feira, na revista Nature.
Os astrónomos observaram diretamente o gigante gasoso incrivelmente antigo e frio — um feito raro e complicado —através do uso de um dispositivo de sombreado especial no Webb.
Ao bloquear a luz das estrelas, o planeta destacou-se como um pequeno ponto de luz infravermelha.
O planeta e a estrela têm 3,5 mil milhões de anos, 1 mil milhões de anos mais novos do que o nosso sistema solar, mas ainda assim considerados antigos e mais brilhantes do que o esperado, de acordo com Matthews.
A estrela está tão próxima e brilhante do nosso sistema solar que é visível a olho nu no hemisfério sul.
“Este é um gigante gasoso sem superfície dura ou oceanos de água líquida”, explicou Matthews, em declarações à agência Associated Press (AP).
É improvável que este sistema solar tenha mais gigantes gasosos, realçou mas pequenos mundos rochosos podem estar à espreita.
Mundos semelhantes a Júpiter podem ajudar os cientistas a compreender “como estes planetas evoluem em escalas de tempo de giga anos”, acrescentou.
Os primeiros planetas fora do nosso sistema solar – apelidados de exoplanetas – foram confirmados no início da década de 1990.
A contagem da NASA é agora de 5.690 em meados de julho. A grande maioria foi detetada através do método de trânsito, em que uma queda fugaz da luz das estrelas, repetida a intervalos regulares, indica um planeta em órbita.
Os telescópios no espaço e também no solo estão à procura de ainda mais, especialmente planetas que possam ser semelhantes à Terra.
Lançado em 2021, o telescópio Webb da NASA e da Agência Espacial Europeia é o maior e mais poderoso observatório astronómico alguma vez colocado no espaço.
segunda-feira, 29 de abril de 2024
Poema - A Lua
Envolve-se em mistério e encanto,
No firmamento, segredos trilha,
Nos corações, desvenda o seu manto.
Nos seus raios, desabafos se lançam,
Sob o véu da noite, confissões voam,
Na vastidão do universo, esperanças dançam,
E a paixão em cada estrela se entoa.
Oh lua, guardiã dos segredos mais profundos,
Testemunha silenciosa dos anseios do coração,
Em teu fulgor, desvendamos os mundos,
E encontramos na noite a nossa redenção."
João Soares, 28.04.2024
Lua hoje.
sábado, 25 de novembro de 2023
Michael Marder
"Planets are errant stars; they fascinated the ancients because unlike other stars they did not stay put in the night sky. Humanity is an errant species; perhaps this is why it is a planetary species, dreaming of becoming interplanetary. In their wanderings, planets are nevertheless bound to stars they orbit, not to mention the gravitational fields organizing the spacetime around them. Does our errant, nearly lost, kind have any analogous bonds left?"
Michael Marder
sexta-feira, 24 de novembro de 2023
Conectividade - Um ensaio de Michael Marder
Por Michael Marder
"O mal-estar na civilização", um livro que Sigmund Freud escreveu há quase cem anos, começa com uma consideração sobre “o sentimento oceânico”, “um sentimento de algo ilimitado, ilimitado”, “um sentimento de um vínculo indissolúvel, de ser um com o mundo externo como um todo.” Freud, que confessou ser incapaz de descobrir esse afecto em si mesmo, certamente não cunhou o termo, que apareceu pela primeira vez numa carta de 1927 de seu amigo, o escritor francês e vencedor do Nobel Romain Rolland. O que o psicanalista propõe é uma interpretação original, segundo a qual a sensação de “ser um com o mundo externo como um todo” é um sintoma de desvanecimento das fronteiras do ego, lembrando o estado de uma criança no seio materno, ainda incapaz de “ser capaz de lidar”. distinguir seu ego do mundo externo como a fonte das sensações que fluem sobre ele.”
Na fusão primária e secundária com o mundo, porém, já não existe ou ainda não existe uma relação com esse mundo: fundir-se no outro é tão prejudicial para a lógica da relacionalidade como a separação e o desapego absolutos. Será que, como resultado, relações de qualquer tipo dependem de atos cuidadosos de calibração da distância (física ou não) entre o que se relaciona e o que se relaciona? Talvez, mas esta intuição deixa escapar algo crucial sobre relações e conexões que não são posteriores aos termos inter-relacionados nem limitadas às suas aproximações positivas. É necessário cavar ou aprofundar um pouco mais para começar a entender como eles funcionam.
A textura elementar do sentimento que Rolland expressa em palavras e sobre a qual Freud expressa as suas dúvidas é importante. O sentimento oceânico dissolve, ao liquefazer, as fronteiras entre o ego e o mundo. Hoje, outro tipo de sentimento está em ascensão, o “sentimento terreno”, que é o análogo do sentimento oceânico, desta vez direcionado para a terra. Tanto os críticos do Antropoceno como os defensores da ecologia profunda ou da teoria de Gaia têm este sentimento, tingido de um misto de nojo e fascínio, repulsa e atração. Ao contrário da água, a terra é um substrato duro para a existência física, mas também é múltipla na sua unidade, combinando, acomodando todos os outros elementos na sua superfície e nas suas profundezas. Não podemos nos fundir com ele por fusão, mas podemos decair nele, tornando-nos parte dele, como resultado, que é o que acontece na morte, pelo menos de acordo com alguns ritos funerários. E também podemos obstruí-lo com materiais não decomponíveis. Qualquer que seja a nossa posição, o século XXI obriga-nos a estabelecer uma relação com a terra e a clarificar a própria lógica da relacionalidade no processo.
Como é possível calibrar a nossa relação com a Terra numa situação em que estamos simultaneamente demasiado longe e demasiado perto dela?
A dificuldade da tarefa em questão é que a inclusão imanente no rebanho terreno do ser chamado “humano” (o grego antropos) é simultaneamente perturbada e exacerbada hoje. A era das viagens espaciais, pressagiada pelo movimento intelectual conhecido como cosmismo russo, coloca-nos à distância do planeta, mesmo que nunca tenhamos saído da sua superfície. O avanço tecnológico que nos permitiu ver a Terra tal como ela é vista do espaço exterior atribui-nos o papel de observadores externos, desvinculados do planeta. Na formulação contundente de Kelly Oliver, “as fotografias da Terra vistas do espaço provocam a reação de ‘ame-a ou deixe-a’ que alimenta a ilusão de controle e domínio ao sugerir que devemos, ou podemos, escolher um ou outro, mas não ambos. ” Ninguém pode deixar de ser afetado por esta provocação; até o príncipe William opina sobre o assunto. Por outro lado, o Antropoceno, com resíduos industriais incrustados nos estratos da Terra e presentes em todos os ecossistemas do planeta, sinaliza o envolvimento inextricável dos nossos “corpos tecnológicos” transgeracionais na geofisicalidade do planeta. Como é possível calibrar a nossa relação com a Terra numa situação em que estamos simultaneamente demasiado longe e demasiado perto dela? Não será a relação da Terra connosco, em última análise, desregulamentada e irregulável, apesar de toda a ousadia da geoengenharia?
sábado, 26 de agosto de 2023
22 Messages of Hope (and Science) for Creationists
Fonte e imagens aqui
No snark, no sarcasm, no judgement, just the genuine, honest answers to 22 creationist messages.
“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” -Carl Sagan
Yesterday, a two-and-a-half hour debate took place on the topic of evolution and creationism. Earlier today, I saw this Buzzfeed post being shared left-and-right everywhere I looked, which appeared to make fun of creationists by showcasing the “ridiculous-and-condescending” 22 messages and/or questions they had for people who believed in evolution.
The thing is, if all you do is mock the people who disagree with you, you miss your chance to honestly engage with them, learn about where they come from, and — just maybe — teach them a little piece of something that they might not have known before. Now, I’m not a professional biologist; I’m a professional astrophysicist, for full disclosure, but when I saw these 22 messages, it made me think of a large number of young people I’ve encountered throughout my life in various schools, classrooms and educational situations. If these were messages posed to me, what would I say? Without further ado, here we go!
1. Are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?
t’s very tempting to demonize anyone who doesn’t share the same perspective or beliefs as you. I myself have been chastized by christians for not being christian, by atheists for not being atheist enough, by jews for not being jewish enough, by the cool kids for being too nerdy and by the outcasts for being too mainstream, and by people of all virtually all political leanings for not having identical political leanings to them. So when you ask me (and — confession — I’m not Bill Nye), I’ve always been of the mindset that no matter what anyone else claims, you can always ask the very powerful question: how do you know?
And if you can pose a question that can be answered by looking to the Universe and asking it questions about itself, you can not only learn what we know, but also how we know it. To empower someone like that — to teach them how to seek answers to whatever questions they may have — I can’t think of a single way in which that’s a negative influence. Can you?
2.) Are you scared of a Divine Creator?
I think there is this idea out there that every scientist who doesn’t believe in the divine word of scripture thinks that science will eventually tell a complete, whole story of the Universe, including every aspect of where it came from and why. I am going to come forward and just say it right now: we know that is false. The Universe is vast — some 46 billion light years in radius — with at least 200 billion galaxies and around 10^25 planets, total, in just the part of it that’s observable to us. There are some 10^91 particles existing in the Universe right now, all of which were created some 13.8 billion years ago. But as big as these numbers are, they are finite. And because of that, so is the total amount of information present in the Universe accessible to us. We maybe able to extrapolate back to the Big Bang and even a little bit before, but the scope of what is knowable to us, even in principle, is limited.
So I understand that I can never know for certain every aspect of where this Universe came from and why, and that whatever I cannot rule out, I must admit as a possibility, however much it defies my sensibilities. Although my conception of what a Divine Creator would have to be to create our entire Universe may differ from yours, I can conceive of one. Thinking about it awes me and maybe does scare me a little; there is a Greek word that springs to mind — δεινός — that very much encapsulates how I feel.
3.) Is it completely illogical that the Earth was created mature? (I.e., trees created with rings… Adam created as an adult…)
When I was a child, after reading a particularly good Choose Your Own Adventure book, I remember having the idea that perhaps the Universe wasn’t as it seemed, and that the entire thing was created just for me at the moment of my birth. That everyone I knew who was older than me — my parents, grandparents, friends and other relatives — were created along with the rest of the Universe on the day I was born, with memories, feelings and experiences of their past that never really happened. It also occurred to me that, if this were the case, there would be no way to disprove it. But if I accepted this view of the world, there would be a great number of things I could never learn.
I could never learn about history before 1978, because it would all be a great fiction to me. I could never learn about biology, geology or astronomy, because my worldview would conflict with the evidence I’d get by asking the Universe about itself. It isn’t necessarily illogical to believe that the Universe was created in medias res, but it’s very limiting, and unnecessarily so. If ever an assumption of a 13.8 billion year old Universe conflicted with something we were able to observe and verify, I hope I would be among the first to question our assumptions.
4.) Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?
Very quickly, no. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy (a physically quantifiable and measurable entity) of an isolated system can never decrease. And I definitely understand that when you look at the total entropy on the surface of the Earth today — versus the surface of the Earth some 4.5 billion years ago — we clearly are in a lower entropy state today.Image credit: Christian Joore of http://kindaoomy.com/ (L), NASA (R).
The question is: is the Earth’s surface, oceans and atmosphere an isolated system? Given that we receive energy both externally from the Sun, internally from the Earth’s core, and also a little bit cosmically from sources beyond our Solar System, the answer is no. In addition, we also radiate energy away, back out into the Universe. By all accounts, the Earth is not an isolated system. If it were — if we prevented it from absorbing or emitting any radiation or information with the outside Universe — only then could we apply the second law of thermodynamics to it.
5.) How do you explain a sunset if [there] is no God?
I think this is an outstanding question. How can you explain the sunset, in all its beauty, without appealing to the divine? You and I may have differing opinions on what makes something beautiful, but you’d have to be someone I couldn’t understand at all if you said that the sunset didn’t fall into the beautiful category.I
But this is something that science can explain quite wonderfully, including the different colors, gradations, atmospheric effects and visual illusions. To me, at least, everything is more beautiful the more you know about it.
6.) If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?
Now, we’ve already taken a look at whether the laws of thermodynamics disprove evolution in question number 4, above, and concluded that they don’t, because the Earth is not an isolated system. But it can be argued that our observable Universe is. So let us ask: has the entropy of our Universe, from the moment we could first describe it with the Big Bang Theory, ever had a moment where its total entropy decreased?
The answer is no. The entropy is always increasing. With every nuclear reaction in the heart of a star, with every gravitational collapse, with every chemical bond formed or broken, when you take all of the initial-and-final products and reactants involved and look at them together, the entropy is not only increasing overall, it increases-or-stays-the-same for every single reaction. The laws of thermodynamics don’t debunk these theories, but instead make predictions about them and provide tests for them; that they pass these tests is in fact evidence that they are not invalidated.
7.) What about noetics?
Now, I’ll confess, I had to look this one up. I had been under the impression that noetics was only something that Aristotle wrote about, but a little research shows that it’s actually about: “how beliefs, thoughts, and intentions affect the physical world.” Well, this sounds like an interesting question: do beliefs, thoughts and intentions affect the physical world? And if so, how?
If you want to show that beliefs, thoughts and intentions actually do affect the physical world, all you have to do is perform a repeatable, quantifiable and measurable experiment that shows that there is an effect. You don’t even need to explain how; you just need to show that there is an effect that you can measure and quantify, and that you can repeat the effect whenever you repeat the experiment. I don’t know of any experiments at present that do this, but if you can find (or perform) them, I’m open-minded.
8.) Where do you derive objective meaning in life?
This is a tough one, and the first one where I’ll have to confess that I don’t think I do. In fact, I might even go a little farther and say that I don’t think anyone does.
There may be an objective meaning to this life or there may not be, and I may believe there is an objective meaning or I may not. But whatever the case may be, I am unable to define it without being inside my own mind. How can I (or anyone, for that matter) truly be objective about my life’s meaning when I’m unable to conceive of my own life without experiencing it. As far as I know, my life had a beginning, it is going on right now, and at some point in the future, it will end. I don’t think my life had any objective meaning before I ever existed, and although I am sure that my existence has affected (and continues to affect) the Universe, I don’t know that that fact is objectively meaningful. I just know that the Universe is different than what it would have been without me.
9.) If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?
This is a question where I’m proud to say “I don’t know.” Because it’s true: I don’t, but perhaps someday we will! You are asking one of the biggest questions of all: how did life come to exist in this world? And the answer is that — right now — we don’t know.
But scientists are working on it. There’s a lot that we do know that’s related to that question, but the big one — how we went from non-life to life in the Universe — is still an open one. I hope I live long enough to be there when we figure this puzzle out; don’t you?
10.) I believe in the Big Bang Theory… God said it and BANG it happened!
One of the wonderful things about this existence is that no one can ever invade your own mind and force you to think or believe something against your will. As I wrote under question number 2, there are a great many things that we do know about this Universe, and there are still a great many more things that we know about the Big Bang.
If you’re interested in learning what some of them are, I wrote a piece a couple of years ago on The Big Bang for Beginners, and I think it’s a wonderful introduction to the subject. We think we know what came before the Big Bang, but we’re not sure what came before that. If you think that there’s a God there who made it happened, I have no evidence to disprove it, but I would ask you to ask yourself this question: is that the best explanation that we have, given the evidence? Or can we learn more by not making that assumption?
11.) Why do evolutionists / secularists / [humanists] / non-God believing people reject the idea of [there] being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?
This is a pretty good question. In other words, could life have originated elsewhere in the Universe and then came to Earth? The answer seems to be absolutely yes. Let me show you a multiwavelength picture of the center of our galaxy, filled with the atoms-and-gas expelled from many generations of stars that no longer shine in our Universe.
We find many “organic” molecules in here, created naturally and spontaneously. We find sugars, we find amino acids, we find polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. We find ethyl formate, the molecule that gives raspberries their scent. In short, we find a great number of the building blocks of life. If there are trillions of planets in our galaxy alone, wouldn’t it be unnecessarily restrictive to claim that aliens or other extraterrestrial sources couldn’t have existed in the Universe prior to life on Earth?I
12.) There is no in between… the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an “official proof.”
Lucy, for those of you who don’t know, is a fossilized ape-like creature who lived roughly 3.2 million years ago. Lucy is classified as a hominid, and represents a significant fossil find — a 40% complete fossil — of something more human-like than any of our extant ape relatives, yet less hominid like than more recent evolutionary ancestors.
For decades, Lucy was the only Australopithicus afarensis ever discovered, and the fact that the fossilized remains of even one such creature existed was seen as a remarkable serendipitous discovery. But then in 2000, the skull of Selam was discovered! Another Australopithicus afarensis, Selam lived about 120,000 years before Lucy, but this is definitely the same creature. There are many things we don’t know: is this an evolutionary ancestor or a mere “cousin” of humans? But hopefully, as more fossil discoveries happen into the future, maybe we’ll find out!
13.) Does metamorphosis help support evolution?
There are two meanings to that word “metamorphosis” that I know of, and I don’t know which one you mean. On the one hand, rocks can be metamorphic. Geologically, sedimentary rocks form in layers, as deposits build up over time. When creatures are buried in that sediment, they can fossilize over time, and given enough time, those rocks can metamorphose, usually destroying any fossils inside. In that instance, I’d say, no, metamorphosis doesn’t help support evolution; it’s a tremendous annoyance for fossil hunters.
On the other hand, some species undergo multiple life stages, such as tadpoles that turn into frogs, caterpillars that turn into butterflies, or larvae that turn into flies. Metamorphosis is simply how an organism develops and it can be easily understood in the context of evolution, although that is certainly not a required path for evolution to have taken. But there isn’t a conflict there; all of that information is encoded in the organism’s DNA.
14.) If evolution is a Theory (like creationism or the Bible), why then is Evolution taught as fact?
You are asking about the burden of proof for a theory to become accepted as a scientific truth, and that’s a very important question to ask. In fact, it’s something I’ve written about very recently, and so I’d like to quote from that piece, if you don’t mind:
“You need the data to support the foundations of your reasoning. You need the laws and correlations to build your theoretical framework atop them. You need a hypothesis or an idea of how it all fits together and can be explained by (relatively) simple principles. And finally, only if you have multiple lines of evidence and multiple tests and confirmed predictions, can you begin to rightly call your idea a theory.
“… So although it’s true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there is a burden of proof that must be met before we’re willing to promote an idea or hypothesis to the status of scientific theory. Once we’re there, however, we take the predictions of that theory very seriously, and are willing to consider not only the possibility but the probability that those new predictions — even the ones for which we do not yet have evidence — might be correct, no matter how assumption-challenging they may be.”
I recommend reading the whole thing if you want the full answer.
15.) Because science is by definition a “theory” — not testable, observable nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?
Let me personally be clear: I think that creationism or intelligent design has every place in a classroom on literature, politics or social studies, just not in a science classroom. Why? Because it isn’t a scientific theory. Again, I want to ask you to read this piece where it’s explained in full, but let me quote you a different part that I think explains the difference:
Scientific laws can tell you what’s going to happen under certain conditions, but they haven’t yet advanced to the point of a scientific theory. You see, a scientific theory is even more advanced than this, and posits an explanation and/or a mechanism from which scientific laws arise. And that’s where science can really show off its true power.
You see, as the generations pass, living organisms give rise to subsequent generations of living organisms; that’s data.
Those organisms are different in measurable ways from their predecessors; that’s the scientific law of evolution.
But the mechanism behind it — that organisms have the information for their traits encoded in their DNA, that DNA mutates and (in the case of sexually reproducing organisms) combines from two parents to form an offspring’s genetic makeup, and that the least fit organisms for survival are selected against, naturally — that’s a scientific theory.
Scientific theories are the deepest and most powerful explanations of how a scientific process takes place. The germ theory of disease is a theory; biological evolution is a theory; the atomic (and subatomic) theory of matter is a theory; and the theory of gravity is a theory.
I hope this helps.
16.) What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?
Have you ever made a photocopy of a document, and noticed some imperfections in the copy when you compared it to the original? How about photocopying a photocopy? Does it get worse? It sure does, and this is something that any imperfect copying technology will get you, from the JPEG file format to DNA.
Most of the time, genetic mutations have negative-or-neutral consequences; on rare occasion, they’re beneficial. But whenever you have a mutation that gives rise to a genetic code that didn’t exist before, that’s an increase in genetic information! In fact, genetic mutation is one of two key ingredients (the other being selection) necessary for evolution to occur. If you have them both, evolution is inevitable!
17.) What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?
I promised to be honest with you in answering these questions, and in this case, that means I’m very likely going to give you an answer that you aren’t going to be able to relate to. I believe that the purpose of my existence is to increase the knowledge, understanding, and awareness that we have of the world around us, as well as the amount of kindness in it. I don’t know if that is a worthy purpose of an existence, or if it is the one that a divine being intended — if one exists and if that being has an intention for me — but it is one I have chosen for myself. If, at the end of my life, I discover there is some form of salvation, perhaps I will have earned it by living the best life I was able to live. If not, I lived a life true to the purpose I chose for myself.
18.) Why have we found only 1 “Lucy,” when we have found more than 1 of everything else?
You and I haven’t met, but I am Ethan Siegel. There are many others with that name, but there is only one Ethan Siegel that is me. Whoever she (or he) was, there was only one Lucy as well. But as far as Australopithicus afarensis, there are at least nine known extant fossil fragments of that species. In fact, in 2011, new fossil evidence was discovered showing that the foot-bones of this species were more human-like than we had realized, and that it almost certainly walked upright. There is only one “Lucy,” but there are many Australopithicus afarenses, and I’m hopeful that there will be even more to come as excavations continue!
19.) Can you believe in “the big bang” without “faith”?
There is no doubt that I can and do “believe” things. Some things, I suppose, I do take on some level of faith, in that I have faith that other scientists who came before me were scrupulous in taking their data. That they reported their results accurately. That the people who repeated and verified their work subjected it to rigorous scientific scrutiny. And that the conclusions we draw from that body of evidence are going to continue to have their predictions borne out by experiments and observations.
But if not, I am willing to change my conclusions. If bona fide evidence came in contradicting the Big Bang, if the Big Bang no longer described the Universe accurately, I would no longer believe in the Big Bang. It is possible to believe based on evidence alone, and to have a level of underlying uncertainty to your beliefs, where I can tell you exactly what sort of evidence could change my mind. I like to think that I “believe” all of the conclusions of science without “faith” in that regard.
20.) How can you look at the world and not believe Someone Created/thought of it? It’s Amazing!!!
It sure is amazing; you’ll get no disagreement from me there. The thing is, there are so many things out there that are also amazing, I don’t want to detract from the wonder of those other worlds, those other solar systems, and surely those other life forms that are out there in the Universe. I don’t know for certain where it all came from, before the Big Bang, before cosmic inflation, but when I look out at the amazing Universe we live in, this is what I think of.
I think of the billions upon billions of galaxies out there, and the trillions of worlds that exist in each one. I think of the uniqueness and diversity of each one, and I wonder at how many of them have life, and whether any of them have intelligent life out there like us? I wonder if anyone over there is wondering about any of us over here? And I wonder if, someday, two lonely species of intelligent beings will ever journey across the distances between the stars and find each other. I don’t know whether it was designed to be this way or not, and I don’t know how we can know that. But I do know that in my time here, I want to figure out as much of what we can know as possible. I’d even bet that’s something we have in common.
21.) Relating to the big bang theory… Where did the exploding star come from?
When you hear the word “bang,” it’s only natural to think of an explosion, isn’t it? But the Big Bang is no such thing; it’s one of the most common misconceptions about it. There was no primeval star that exploded, but rather a rapid expansion of space itself, and a rapid cooling of all the matter-and-radiation present therein. This piece may help explain that a little bit; instead, may I suggest this as a more accurate picture.
It wasn’t until many millions of years after the Big Bang that the first stars were able to form, and that came about due to gravitational collapse of the leftover matter from the Big Bang. It was when the most massive among them exploded that — for the first time — the Universe became filled with heavy elements. After generations of stars living and dying like that, there were finally enough to give rise to rocky planets, complex molecules, and eventually, life as we know it.
Travel the Universe with astrophysicist Ethan Siegel. Subscribers will get the newsletter every Saturday. All aboard!
And finally…
22.) If we come from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?
This is one of the most common questions I’ve seen about evolution. You might think that evolution is a picture where single-celled organisms turned into jellyfish, then into arthropods, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates and finally us. Well, that’s kind of true, but it’s more accurate to say that single-celled organisms gave rise to a diversity of descendents, some of which are single-celled organisms and some of which were multicellular ones. Of the multicellular ones, some of those gave rise to jellyfish, while some of those gave rise to animals with spinal cords. Of the ones with spinal cords, some of those gave rise to amphibians. And so on. Evolution isn’t a linear progression, but a complex structure with many branches.Image credit: Leonard Eisenberg, 2008, via http://evogeneao.com/.
The monkeys that existed millions of years ago evolved into both modern monkeys and modern apes, and the apes that lived just a few million years ago evolved into the modern great apes as well as — very recently, evolutionarily speaking — modern humans.
And that is what I’d have to say to any creationists who had any of these questions for someone who believed in evolution. I hope you enjoyed it!
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)