Moon above Jupiter at nightfall February 2

Tonight, and for the next several nights, the planet Jupiter should be yours to behold, given a clear sky after the sun sets. That’s even if you don’t know your cardinal directions – or if reading sky charts is not your forte. On the nights of Feburary 2, 3 and 4, 2015, the moon will be near Jupiter in the night sky. And Jupiter is now nearly as bright as it will be for this entire year. The result is a beautiful sky scene. Don’t miss it!

Simply look for the full-looking moon as darkness falls. The moon may appear full to the eye after the sun sets on February 2, but it won’t be astronomically full – most directly opposite the sun – until February 3. No matter. Just find tonight’s full-looking moon, and the dazzling starlike object near it will be the king planet Jupiter.

If you miss out this evening because of cloudy skies, try again tomorrow as the full moon couples up even more closely with Jupiter on February 3. Miss them both nights? Then try February 4, when the moon still be nearby.

Live by the moon with your 2015 EarthSky lunar calendar!

The moon appears above Jupiter as darkness falls on February 2, with Jupiter on February 3 and with the star Regulus (Jupiter nearby) on February 4. The sky chart is for North America. On these same dates in the world’s Eastern Hemisphere – Europe, Africa and Asia – the moon will be somewhat offset toward the previous date. The green line depicts the ecliptic, or sun’s path across our sky.

Jupiter is the third-brightest celestial object to light up the evening sky, after the moon and the planet Venus. But you’re not likely to mistake Venus for Jupiter. At dusk and nightfall, Venus is seen pretty much opposite of the moon and Jupiter, beaming low in the west as Jupiter and the moon ascend in the east.

In fact, if you don’t look for Venus at dusk or early evening, you might miss Venus altogether. It sets at relatively early evening. Meanwhile, Jupiter stays out all night.

Look westward at nightfall for the planets Venus and Mars. They set by early evening, while Jupiter shines all night long.

Possibly, with no moon to guide you, you could mistake Sirius, the brightest star in the nighttime sky, for Jupiter. As darkness falls on these February evenings, Jupiter is seen in the eastern sky, while Sirius is found in the southeast, some distance to the right of Jupiter in early evening (assuming you’re in the Northern Hemisphere). Practiced sky watchers use the prominent constellation Orion to confirm that they’re looking at Sirius. The three stars of Orion’s Belt always point to nighttime’s brightest star.

There’s another way to distinguish Jupiter from Sirius. Planets tend to shine with a steadier light than the twinkling stars. If you can find both Jupiter and Sirius tonight, note how steadily Jupiter shines in contrast to Sirius. Sirius oftentimes sparkles wildly, especially when it’s near the horizon, flashing in all the colors of the rainbow.

Not sure which is Jupiter and which is Sirius, the sky’s brightest star? Orion’s Belt always points to Sirius. Plus, Sirius tends to sparkle wildly when it’s near the horizon, while Jupiter exhibits a steadier light.

Bottom line: On the nights of February 2-4, 2015, Let the bright moon be your guide to the king planet Jupiter!

Donate: Your support means the world to us

Looking for a sky chart? EarthSky recommends…

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1tO81tT

Tonight, and for the next several nights, the planet Jupiter should be yours to behold, given a clear sky after the sun sets. That’s even if you don’t know your cardinal directions – or if reading sky charts is not your forte. On the nights of Feburary 2, 3 and 4, 2015, the moon will be near Jupiter in the night sky. And Jupiter is now nearly as bright as it will be for this entire year. The result is a beautiful sky scene. Don’t miss it!

Simply look for the full-looking moon as darkness falls. The moon may appear full to the eye after the sun sets on February 2, but it won’t be astronomically full – most directly opposite the sun – until February 3. No matter. Just find tonight’s full-looking moon, and the dazzling starlike object near it will be the king planet Jupiter.

If you miss out this evening because of cloudy skies, try again tomorrow as the full moon couples up even more closely with Jupiter on February 3. Miss them both nights? Then try February 4, when the moon still be nearby.

Live by the moon with your 2015 EarthSky lunar calendar!

The moon appears above Jupiter as darkness falls on February 2, with Jupiter on February 3 and with the star Regulus (Jupiter nearby) on February 4. The sky chart is for North America. On these same dates in the world’s Eastern Hemisphere – Europe, Africa and Asia – the moon will be somewhat offset toward the previous date. The green line depicts the ecliptic, or sun’s path across our sky.

Jupiter is the third-brightest celestial object to light up the evening sky, after the moon and the planet Venus. But you’re not likely to mistake Venus for Jupiter. At dusk and nightfall, Venus is seen pretty much opposite of the moon and Jupiter, beaming low in the west as Jupiter and the moon ascend in the east.

In fact, if you don’t look for Venus at dusk or early evening, you might miss Venus altogether. It sets at relatively early evening. Meanwhile, Jupiter stays out all night.

Look westward at nightfall for the planets Venus and Mars. They set by early evening, while Jupiter shines all night long.

Possibly, with no moon to guide you, you could mistake Sirius, the brightest star in the nighttime sky, for Jupiter. As darkness falls on these February evenings, Jupiter is seen in the eastern sky, while Sirius is found in the southeast, some distance to the right of Jupiter in early evening (assuming you’re in the Northern Hemisphere). Practiced sky watchers use the prominent constellation Orion to confirm that they’re looking at Sirius. The three stars of Orion’s Belt always point to nighttime’s brightest star.

There’s another way to distinguish Jupiter from Sirius. Planets tend to shine with a steadier light than the twinkling stars. If you can find both Jupiter and Sirius tonight, note how steadily Jupiter shines in contrast to Sirius. Sirius oftentimes sparkles wildly, especially when it’s near the horizon, flashing in all the colors of the rainbow.

Not sure which is Jupiter and which is Sirius, the sky’s brightest star? Orion’s Belt always points to Sirius. Plus, Sirius tends to sparkle wildly when it’s near the horizon, while Jupiter exhibits a steadier light.

Bottom line: On the nights of February 2-4, 2015, Let the bright moon be your guide to the king planet Jupiter!

Donate: Your support means the world to us

Looking for a sky chart? EarthSky recommends…

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1tO81tT

Proving God Exists [EvolutionBlog]

Broadly speaking, there are two general strategies for proving that God exists. One we might call the scientific approach. This is where you point to some empirical fact and argue that it is beyond the reach of natural forces. The classic example is Paley’s version of the argument for design. Paley argued that just as the complex, functional interweaving of parts in a watch immediately implies a watchmaker, so too does the complex functionality of living organisms demand a creator. This was a compelling argument for its time, and there is a reason it was accepted by almost everyone. But Darwin and his successors showed that it is based on a false premise. Natural forces can, under the right circumstances craft complex, functional systems. It just takes them a very long time to do so.

Modern ID proponents proceed in this manner, but their arguments are very weak. They assert that certain biological systems are “irreducibly complex,” or that they exhibit “complex, specified information,” and that such things are beyond the reach of purely natural forces. Such claims as they have made in this regard are easily shown to be false, their refusal to accept this fact notwithstanding. Sometimes they prefer instead to argue from physics, pointing to the fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe. This argument is marginally better, since it is not based on any obviously false premises. However, it is plainly an argument from ignorance. We know next to nothing about why the constants are what they are, and the possibility of a multiverse explains fine-tuning without any need for God. The only reply you get from the ID folks on this one is mockery. But it is unclear, to put it politely, why the idea of a multiverse, which is strongly suggested by several lines of thought in modern physics, is somehow to be deemed less likely than the alternative theory that an omnipotent magic man poofed the universe into existence with an act of will.

The scientific approach is not successful, but the arguments made along these lines do, at least, provide food for thought.

By contrast, the second general strategy, which we might refer to as the philosophical approach, is far less interesting. When arguing in this vein, we try to reason our way from non-controversial premises about reality to the conclusion that God must exist. The ontological argument, which in its various forms essentially argues that our ability to conceive of God entails that He exists, is just a non-starter. It reflects poorly on philosophers that so much ink has spilled over it. Thomas Aquinas also argued in this manner, with his famous five proofs of God’s existence. There’s a reason, though, that modern philosophers are all but unanimous in finding Aquinas’s arguments unpersuasive. When Aquinas’s arguments are stated with proper precision, it is never hard to spot the dubious premise.

As a case in point, here’s Michael Egnor, of the Discovery Institute, presenting his version of Aquinas’s fifth way:

1. Unintelligent things in nature tend to some outcomes rather than to other outcomes.


2. Tending to specific outcomes entails a kind of foresight, which is a manifestation of intelligence.


3. An Intelligence therefore guides natural outcomes of unintelligent things.


4. This is what all men call God.

He fleshes out this argument as follows:

The universe behaves in accordance with consistent physical laws. Notice I said consistent — the remarkable thing is not so much that the laws are complex or elegant or specific, but that they are consistent. There is directedness to the universe.

It is the consistent directedness of change in nature — the fact that atoms and rocks and bodies and planets and galaxies and the entire universe have tendencies to do one thing and not another — that leads via reason to the existence of God.

And later:

The directedness of natural processes is salient. A single electron orbiting a single proton in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics is every bit as powerful a demonstration of God’s existence as the whole of cosmology. When you drop a pebble and it falls to the ground, and not to the sky, you demonstrate God’s existence. When you strike a match and you get a flame, and not ice, you demonstrate God’s existence.

Do you find this argument convincing? I sure don’t. In fact, I’d say premise two is just flatly ridiculous.

Inanimate objects behaving in a consistent manner is pretty much the opposite of showing intelligent foresight. We can probably imagine a universe governed by different physical laws from the ones we know, but I defy you to imagine a world in which inanimate objects behave unpredictably. If Egnor’s pebble sometimes fell to the ground, sometimes floated upwards, and sometimes just hovered in place, that’s when we would conclude that powerful intelligent agents were at work. Consistent behavior is precisely what we expect from inanimate objects. It is inconsistent behavior that suggests intelligent intervention.

We can contrast Egnor’s argument with another common argument for God’s existence. It is often claimed that the reality of miracles implies that God exists. Miracles are generally understood to be events that occur in defiance of natural laws, or at least events that would normally be considered too improbable to have occurred naturally. It would seem, then, that theists are trying to have it both ways. When things behave in defiance of natural laws, that is evidence that God exists. But when they behave in accord with natural laws? Well, that’s also evidence that God exists. Who knew it was so easy?

Egnor is very casual with the word “teleology.” He acts as though it is a magical incantation that ought to have atheists quaking in their boots. (In ID parlance, the word “information” plays a similar role.) He seems unaware that “teleology” can mean different things in different contexts. Usually the word is used to refer specifically to the goals exhibited by intelligent agents. When the word is applied instead to the sort of goal-directedness we find in nature, philosophers are usually careful to modify it in some way, say by referring to “natural teleology.” Biologists in particular will sometimes use the word “teleonomy” specifically to distinguish the sort of goal-directedness we find in the evolutionary process from the true teleology exhibited by intelligent agents. These distinctions exist because most people regard it as obvious that goal-directedness is not the exclusive province of intelligent agents. Why Egnor is confused on this point is unclear to me.

This is typical of philosophical arguments for God’s existence. There always seems to be a premise that is just pulled out of thin air. Contingent existence in nature does not imply a necessary existent at the start of it all (and a necessary existent would not have to be God even if it did), and the reality of change or motion does not entail a first cause to start everything off. But those are subjects for another day.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1zL6aZw

Broadly speaking, there are two general strategies for proving that God exists. One we might call the scientific approach. This is where you point to some empirical fact and argue that it is beyond the reach of natural forces. The classic example is Paley’s version of the argument for design. Paley argued that just as the complex, functional interweaving of parts in a watch immediately implies a watchmaker, so too does the complex functionality of living organisms demand a creator. This was a compelling argument for its time, and there is a reason it was accepted by almost everyone. But Darwin and his successors showed that it is based on a false premise. Natural forces can, under the right circumstances craft complex, functional systems. It just takes them a very long time to do so.

Modern ID proponents proceed in this manner, but their arguments are very weak. They assert that certain biological systems are “irreducibly complex,” or that they exhibit “complex, specified information,” and that such things are beyond the reach of purely natural forces. Such claims as they have made in this regard are easily shown to be false, their refusal to accept this fact notwithstanding. Sometimes they prefer instead to argue from physics, pointing to the fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe. This argument is marginally better, since it is not based on any obviously false premises. However, it is plainly an argument from ignorance. We know next to nothing about why the constants are what they are, and the possibility of a multiverse explains fine-tuning without any need for God. The only reply you get from the ID folks on this one is mockery. But it is unclear, to put it politely, why the idea of a multiverse, which is strongly suggested by several lines of thought in modern physics, is somehow to be deemed less likely than the alternative theory that an omnipotent magic man poofed the universe into existence with an act of will.

The scientific approach is not successful, but the arguments made along these lines do, at least, provide food for thought.

By contrast, the second general strategy, which we might refer to as the philosophical approach, is far less interesting. When arguing in this vein, we try to reason our way from non-controversial premises about reality to the conclusion that God must exist. The ontological argument, which in its various forms essentially argues that our ability to conceive of God entails that He exists, is just a non-starter. It reflects poorly on philosophers that so much ink has spilled over it. Thomas Aquinas also argued in this manner, with his famous five proofs of God’s existence. There’s a reason, though, that modern philosophers are all but unanimous in finding Aquinas’s arguments unpersuasive. When Aquinas’s arguments are stated with proper precision, it is never hard to spot the dubious premise.

As a case in point, here’s Michael Egnor, of the Discovery Institute, presenting his version of Aquinas’s fifth way:

1. Unintelligent things in nature tend to some outcomes rather than to other outcomes.


2. Tending to specific outcomes entails a kind of foresight, which is a manifestation of intelligence.


3. An Intelligence therefore guides natural outcomes of unintelligent things.


4. This is what all men call God.

He fleshes out this argument as follows:

The universe behaves in accordance with consistent physical laws. Notice I said consistent — the remarkable thing is not so much that the laws are complex or elegant or specific, but that they are consistent. There is directedness to the universe.

It is the consistent directedness of change in nature — the fact that atoms and rocks and bodies and planets and galaxies and the entire universe have tendencies to do one thing and not another — that leads via reason to the existence of God.

And later:

The directedness of natural processes is salient. A single electron orbiting a single proton in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics is every bit as powerful a demonstration of God’s existence as the whole of cosmology. When you drop a pebble and it falls to the ground, and not to the sky, you demonstrate God’s existence. When you strike a match and you get a flame, and not ice, you demonstrate God’s existence.

Do you find this argument convincing? I sure don’t. In fact, I’d say premise two is just flatly ridiculous.

Inanimate objects behaving in a consistent manner is pretty much the opposite of showing intelligent foresight. We can probably imagine a universe governed by different physical laws from the ones we know, but I defy you to imagine a world in which inanimate objects behave unpredictably. If Egnor’s pebble sometimes fell to the ground, sometimes floated upwards, and sometimes just hovered in place, that’s when we would conclude that powerful intelligent agents were at work. Consistent behavior is precisely what we expect from inanimate objects. It is inconsistent behavior that suggests intelligent intervention.

We can contrast Egnor’s argument with another common argument for God’s existence. It is often claimed that the reality of miracles implies that God exists. Miracles are generally understood to be events that occur in defiance of natural laws, or at least events that would normally be considered too improbable to have occurred naturally. It would seem, then, that theists are trying to have it both ways. When things behave in defiance of natural laws, that is evidence that God exists. But when they behave in accord with natural laws? Well, that’s also evidence that God exists. Who knew it was so easy?

Egnor is very casual with the word “teleology.” He acts as though it is a magical incantation that ought to have atheists quaking in their boots. (In ID parlance, the word “information” plays a similar role.) He seems unaware that “teleology” can mean different things in different contexts. Usually the word is used to refer specifically to the goals exhibited by intelligent agents. When the word is applied instead to the sort of goal-directedness we find in nature, philosophers are usually careful to modify it in some way, say by referring to “natural teleology.” Biologists in particular will sometimes use the word “teleonomy” specifically to distinguish the sort of goal-directedness we find in the evolutionary process from the true teleology exhibited by intelligent agents. These distinctions exist because most people regard it as obvious that goal-directedness is not the exclusive province of intelligent agents. Why Egnor is confused on this point is unclear to me.

This is typical of philosophical arguments for God’s existence. There always seems to be a premise that is just pulled out of thin air. Contingent existence in nature does not imply a necessary existent at the start of it all (and a necessary existent would not have to be God even if it did), and the reality of change or motion does not entail a first cause to start everything off. But those are subjects for another day.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1zL6aZw

Sunday Chess Problem [EvolutionBlog]

This week we continue our look at helpmates. This week’s problem has very different feel from the two helpmates we have seen thus far. It was composed by Joao Santiago and Nenad Petrovic, back in 1951. The stipulation calls for helpmate in four:

Let me remind you that in a helpmate, white and black cooperate to contrive a position in which black is checkmated. We assume that black moves first. Even though white and black are cooperating, normal chess rules apply. In particular, if either side is placed in check during the solution, then that person must get out of check on his next move.

There is only one solution in this one. In solving a problem like this, you must try to visualize the mating position. After staring at it for a while, you might notice the following sequence: 1. pass Nd6 2. Be8 Nb7 3. Kf7, leading to this position:

Now, if white could pass, the solution would conclude with 4. Qg6 Nd8 mate:

Sadly, the rules of chess do not permit white to pass. And he has no waiting move with which to mark time. Black, however, also wanted to pass. Which means that we can make this work, so long as black uses his first move to provide white with a waiting move at move three. It turns out that black has exactly one way of doing that.

The solution is to start with 1. Rc2:

The point of this becomes obvious after 1. … Nd6 2. Be8 Nb7 3. Kf7 Kb1 4. Qg6 Nd8 mate:

Very nice! The sole purpose of black’s first move is to anticipate that his fourth move will cover b1, leaving white without a waiter at move three.

In previous entry in this series, I discussed the issue of making the genre fit the content of a problem. In the previous entry I showed how sometimes a selfmate problem is better cast as a stalemate problem. Something similar sometimes happens in helpmates. It sometimes happens that you feel like black and white are making their moves independently of one another. That is, you might imagine that black could make all of his moves at once, and then white could make all of his moves, with the result being mate.

This tends to make for a weak helpmate. In a true helpmate, you want white and black working together to achieve the goal. And that is what makes this week’s problem so appealing. If you trace out the logic of why the white and black moves must be played in the precise sequence they are, you see the two sequences (white’s moves and black’s moves) are hopelessly intertwined. And that’s a good thing!

See you next week.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1BMbKWL

This week we continue our look at helpmates. This week’s problem has very different feel from the two helpmates we have seen thus far. It was composed by Joao Santiago and Nenad Petrovic, back in 1951. The stipulation calls for helpmate in four:

Let me remind you that in a helpmate, white and black cooperate to contrive a position in which black is checkmated. We assume that black moves first. Even though white and black are cooperating, normal chess rules apply. In particular, if either side is placed in check during the solution, then that person must get out of check on his next move.

There is only one solution in this one. In solving a problem like this, you must try to visualize the mating position. After staring at it for a while, you might notice the following sequence: 1. pass Nd6 2. Be8 Nb7 3. Kf7, leading to this position:

Now, if white could pass, the solution would conclude with 4. Qg6 Nd8 mate:

Sadly, the rules of chess do not permit white to pass. And he has no waiting move with which to mark time. Black, however, also wanted to pass. Which means that we can make this work, so long as black uses his first move to provide white with a waiting move at move three. It turns out that black has exactly one way of doing that.

The solution is to start with 1. Rc2:

The point of this becomes obvious after 1. … Nd6 2. Be8 Nb7 3. Kf7 Kb1 4. Qg6 Nd8 mate:

Very nice! The sole purpose of black’s first move is to anticipate that his fourth move will cover b1, leaving white without a waiter at move three.

In previous entry in this series, I discussed the issue of making the genre fit the content of a problem. In the previous entry I showed how sometimes a selfmate problem is better cast as a stalemate problem. Something similar sometimes happens in helpmates. It sometimes happens that you feel like black and white are making their moves independently of one another. That is, you might imagine that black could make all of his moves at once, and then white could make all of his moves, with the result being mate.

This tends to make for a weak helpmate. In a true helpmate, you want white and black working together to achieve the goal. And that is what makes this week’s problem so appealing. If you trace out the logic of why the white and black moves must be played in the precise sequence they are, you see the two sequences (white’s moves and black’s moves) are hopelessly intertwined. And that’s a good thing!

See you next week.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1BMbKWL

Everything you need to know: Groundhog Day 2015

Ah, Groundhog Day. This U.S. and Canadian tradition comes every year on February 2. It has its roots in astronomy, in the sense that it’s a seasonal festival, tied to the movement of Earth around the sun. In the U.S. and Canada, we call it Groundhog Day – a great excuse to go outside and enjoy some revelry during the winter months.

We all know the rules of Groundhog Day. On February 2, a groundhog is said to forecast weather by looking for his shadow. If it’s sunny out, and he sees it, we’re in for six more weeks of winter. On the other hand, a cloudy Groundhog Day is supposed to forecast an early spring.

… the great weather prognosticator, His Majesty, the Punxsutawney Groundhog. See Phil on the far left? Image via Wikimedia Commons.

It can’t be cloudy, or sunny, everywhere at once. And many towns in the U.S. and Canada have their own local groundhogs and local traditions for Groundhog Day. But by far the most famous of the February 2 shadow-seeking groundhogs is still Punxsutawney Phil. He’s in Punxsutawney, in western Pennsylvania, which calls itself the “original home of the great weather prognosticator, His Majesty, the Punxsutawney Groundhog.”

Since 1887, members of the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club have held public celebrations of Groundhog Day. Punxsutawney is where Bill Murray was in the movie Groundhog Day. From the looks of things … a good time is had by all.

What you might not know is that Groundhog Day is really an astronomical holiday. It’s an event that takes place in Earth’s orbit around the sun, as we move between the solstices and equinoxes. In other words, Groundhog Day falls more or less midway between the December solstice and the March equinox. Each cross-quarter day is actually a collection of dates, and various traditions celebrate various holidays at this time. February 2 is the year’s first cross-quarter day.

Of course, the division of the year into segments is common to many cultures. Our ancestors were more aware of the sun’s movements across the sky than we are, since their plantings and harvests depended on it.

Neo-pagan wheel of the year. Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

In the ancient Celtic calendar, the year is also divided into quarter days (equinoxes and solstices) and cross-quarter days on a great neopagan wheel of the year. Thus, just as February 2 is marked by the celebration of Candlemas by some Christians, such as the Roman Catholics, in contemporary paganism, this day is called Imbolc and is considered a traditional time for initiations.

The celebration of Groundhog Day came to America along with immigrants from Great Britain and Germany. The tradition can be traced to early Christians in Europe, when a hedgehog was said to look for his shadow on Candlemas Day.

Try this old English rhyme:

If Candlemas Day be fair and bright, winter will have another flight. But if it be dark with clouds and rain, winter is gone and will not come again.

Or here’s another old saying:

Half your wood and half your hay, you should have on Candlemas Day.

In Germany it used to be said:

A shepherd would rather see a wolf enter his stable on Candlemas Day than see the sun shine.

There, a badger was said to watch for his shadow.

A friend on Facebook said that, in Portugal, people have a poem about February 2 related to the Lady of Candles. Here is the poem:

Quando a Senhora das Candeias está a rir está o inverno para vir, quando está a chorar está o inverno a acabar. [Translation: If she smiles (Sun) the winter is yet to come, if she cries (Rain) the winter is over]

Image Credit: WoodTV8

One final note. It’s supposed to be bad luck to leave your Christmas decorations up after Groundhog Day.

The National Geographic Society once studied the groundhog and found him right only one out of every three times. But what the heck? It’s all in good fun. So whether you celebrate with a real groundhog and a real shadow – or just pause a moment on this day to reflect on the passing of the seasons.

Bottom line: This U.S. and Canadian tradition comes every year on February 2. It has its roots in astronomy, in the sense that it’s a seasonal festival, tied to the movement of Earth around the sun. In the U.S. and Canada, we call it Groundhog Day – a great excuse to go outside and enjoy some revelry during the winter months.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/18Fc8z0

Ah, Groundhog Day. This U.S. and Canadian tradition comes every year on February 2. It has its roots in astronomy, in the sense that it’s a seasonal festival, tied to the movement of Earth around the sun. In the U.S. and Canada, we call it Groundhog Day – a great excuse to go outside and enjoy some revelry during the winter months.

We all know the rules of Groundhog Day. On February 2, a groundhog is said to forecast weather by looking for his shadow. If it’s sunny out, and he sees it, we’re in for six more weeks of winter. On the other hand, a cloudy Groundhog Day is supposed to forecast an early spring.

… the great weather prognosticator, His Majesty, the Punxsutawney Groundhog. See Phil on the far left? Image via Wikimedia Commons.

It can’t be cloudy, or sunny, everywhere at once. And many towns in the U.S. and Canada have their own local groundhogs and local traditions for Groundhog Day. But by far the most famous of the February 2 shadow-seeking groundhogs is still Punxsutawney Phil. He’s in Punxsutawney, in western Pennsylvania, which calls itself the “original home of the great weather prognosticator, His Majesty, the Punxsutawney Groundhog.”

Since 1887, members of the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club have held public celebrations of Groundhog Day. Punxsutawney is where Bill Murray was in the movie Groundhog Day. From the looks of things … a good time is had by all.

What you might not know is that Groundhog Day is really an astronomical holiday. It’s an event that takes place in Earth’s orbit around the sun, as we move between the solstices and equinoxes. In other words, Groundhog Day falls more or less midway between the December solstice and the March equinox. Each cross-quarter day is actually a collection of dates, and various traditions celebrate various holidays at this time. February 2 is the year’s first cross-quarter day.

Of course, the division of the year into segments is common to many cultures. Our ancestors were more aware of the sun’s movements across the sky than we are, since their plantings and harvests depended on it.

Neo-pagan wheel of the year. Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

In the ancient Celtic calendar, the year is also divided into quarter days (equinoxes and solstices) and cross-quarter days on a great neopagan wheel of the year. Thus, just as February 2 is marked by the celebration of Candlemas by some Christians, such as the Roman Catholics, in contemporary paganism, this day is called Imbolc and is considered a traditional time for initiations.

The celebration of Groundhog Day came to America along with immigrants from Great Britain and Germany. The tradition can be traced to early Christians in Europe, when a hedgehog was said to look for his shadow on Candlemas Day.

Try this old English rhyme:

If Candlemas Day be fair and bright, winter will have another flight. But if it be dark with clouds and rain, winter is gone and will not come again.

Or here’s another old saying:

Half your wood and half your hay, you should have on Candlemas Day.

In Germany it used to be said:

A shepherd would rather see a wolf enter his stable on Candlemas Day than see the sun shine.

There, a badger was said to watch for his shadow.

A friend on Facebook said that, in Portugal, people have a poem about February 2 related to the Lady of Candles. Here is the poem:

Quando a Senhora das Candeias está a rir está o inverno para vir, quando está a chorar está o inverno a acabar. [Translation: If she smiles (Sun) the winter is yet to come, if she cries (Rain) the winter is over]

Image Credit: WoodTV8

One final note. It’s supposed to be bad luck to leave your Christmas decorations up after Groundhog Day.

The National Geographic Society once studied the groundhog and found him right only one out of every three times. But what the heck? It’s all in good fun. So whether you celebrate with a real groundhog and a real shadow – or just pause a moment on this day to reflect on the passing of the seasons.

Bottom line: This U.S. and Canadian tradition comes every year on February 2. It has its roots in astronomy, in the sense that it’s a seasonal festival, tied to the movement of Earth around the sun. In the U.S. and Canada, we call it Groundhog Day – a great excuse to go outside and enjoy some revelry during the winter months.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/18Fc8z0

Quran apologists are ridiculous [Pharyngula]

Yet again, another defender of Islam hangs the truth of his holy book on the scientific accuracy of the text. It’s amazing how defensive these fundies get over the possibility that the author was merely transmitting the guesswork of the time, and like any scientific hypothesis, stands a risk of being shown to be wrong by later work.

In this case, the apologists are confronted with a verse from the Quran, which they happily translate literally as (Man is) created from gushing water (which) comes out from between the backbone and the ribs. I think the Arabs of the 7th century knew exactly where the spine and ribs are — you don’t need to chop a corpse open to find them — and saying that something was located between the spine and the ribs is clearly equivalent to saying the source of semen is in the chest. Which is wrong. Obviously wrong. And they know it is wrong. But watch as they spend 8 tortuous minutes explaining that it’s not really wrong, and all those old Greeks really got it wrong, anyway, unlike Mohammed.

You don’t want to watch that tedious video, I know, so I’ve pulled out a few key frames.

First, here is where they state the premise of their argument: it is implied that this literal translation of a verse of the Quran is correct, and that it is true that semen is found between the backbone and the ribs prior to ejaculation.

They then show us an accurate mid-saggital section through the human body, showing the location of the prostate, the seminal vesicle, and the various ducts (it’s cute that they’ve blacked out the penis — you can show a cartoon of the interior of a colon, but that dangly bit is just too much). They even circle the main sources of seminal fluid, and they’re all clearly down around the pelvic floor, between the coccyx and the pubic bone. No ribs or spine are even in the diagram. So what do they do? They draw two black lines, one in front which they label “ribs”, and one in back which they label “spine”, and announce, look, the prostate is between the ribs and spine!

No. Just no. I assert that Mohammed knew full well where the spine and ribs were, and also knew confidently where the pelvis was located, and that if he actually had divine knowledge of what the prostate did and where it was located, he would not have been at all confused about whether the prostate was best described as resting in the chest or the hips. The only reasonable conclusion is that he had no idea of the source of semen, and was communicating the guesses of other scholars.

But wait! They have an answer for this!

That’s really reaching. They’re claiming that the text is scientifically accurate, but are also trying to justify a half-meter error in the location of an organ by appealing to colloquial usage. You don’t get to have it both ways. I might as well be able to claim that calling Muslim fundamentalists “dickheads” is scientifically accurate, because their heads face the front of their bodies, just like their penises, even though it is too high.

The rest of the video is sneering at Hippocrates, who got many things wrong about biology, unlike Mohammed, who never made a mistake, therefore this misinformation couldn’t possibly have come from ancient Greek sources.

Except that it did. The Greek hypothesis about reproduction was that it involved pangenesis, that is, the gathering of material from all over the body that was transported to the gonads and assembled into a miniature human being — that babies had fingers because little bits of finger stuff came from the parents’ fingers, they had hearts because essence of heart was drawn into the testicles, that a little tiny bit of Daddy’s eye went into the homonculus assembly area. The Quran, which is not a science textbook, transmitted a poetically rendered brief summary of this common idea, and that’s why it doesn’t mention the prostate, the epididymus, the Wolffian ducts, or any of the details an anatomist or embryologist would know.

At least they got one thing right. Islam is for dummiez.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1CnjbZE

Yet again, another defender of Islam hangs the truth of his holy book on the scientific accuracy of the text. It’s amazing how defensive these fundies get over the possibility that the author was merely transmitting the guesswork of the time, and like any scientific hypothesis, stands a risk of being shown to be wrong by later work.

In this case, the apologists are confronted with a verse from the Quran, which they happily translate literally as (Man is) created from gushing water (which) comes out from between the backbone and the ribs. I think the Arabs of the 7th century knew exactly where the spine and ribs are — you don’t need to chop a corpse open to find them — and saying that something was located between the spine and the ribs is clearly equivalent to saying the source of semen is in the chest. Which is wrong. Obviously wrong. And they know it is wrong. But watch as they spend 8 tortuous minutes explaining that it’s not really wrong, and all those old Greeks really got it wrong, anyway, unlike Mohammed.

You don’t want to watch that tedious video, I know, so I’ve pulled out a few key frames.

First, here is where they state the premise of their argument: it is implied that this literal translation of a verse of the Quran is correct, and that it is true that semen is found between the backbone and the ribs prior to ejaculation.

They then show us an accurate mid-saggital section through the human body, showing the location of the prostate, the seminal vesicle, and the various ducts (it’s cute that they’ve blacked out the penis — you can show a cartoon of the interior of a colon, but that dangly bit is just too much). They even circle the main sources of seminal fluid, and they’re all clearly down around the pelvic floor, between the coccyx and the pubic bone. No ribs or spine are even in the diagram. So what do they do? They draw two black lines, one in front which they label “ribs”, and one in back which they label “spine”, and announce, look, the prostate is between the ribs and spine!

No. Just no. I assert that Mohammed knew full well where the spine and ribs were, and also knew confidently where the pelvis was located, and that if he actually had divine knowledge of what the prostate did and where it was located, he would not have been at all confused about whether the prostate was best described as resting in the chest or the hips. The only reasonable conclusion is that he had no idea of the source of semen, and was communicating the guesses of other scholars.

But wait! They have an answer for this!

That’s really reaching. They’re claiming that the text is scientifically accurate, but are also trying to justify a half-meter error in the location of an organ by appealing to colloquial usage. You don’t get to have it both ways. I might as well be able to claim that calling Muslim fundamentalists “dickheads” is scientifically accurate, because their heads face the front of their bodies, just like their penises, even though it is too high.

The rest of the video is sneering at Hippocrates, who got many things wrong about biology, unlike Mohammed, who never made a mistake, therefore this misinformation couldn’t possibly have come from ancient Greek sources.

Except that it did. The Greek hypothesis about reproduction was that it involved pangenesis, that is, the gathering of material from all over the body that was transported to the gonads and assembled into a miniature human being — that babies had fingers because little bits of finger stuff came from the parents’ fingers, they had hearts because essence of heart was drawn into the testicles, that a little tiny bit of Daddy’s eye went into the homonculus assembly area. The Quran, which is not a science textbook, transmitted a poetically rendered brief summary of this common idea, and that’s why it doesn’t mention the prostate, the epididymus, the Wolffian ducts, or any of the details an anatomist or embryologist would know.

At least they got one thing right. Islam is for dummiez.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1CnjbZE

Long-necked dinosaur roamed China 160 million years ago

Artist’s concept of newly discovered long-necked dinosaur, called Qijianglong. Credit: Xing Lida

Among dinosaurs, it seems, there were long necks and there were looooonnnnnggggg necks. Paleontologists reported on January 26, 2015 in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology on the discovery in China of a new species of dinosaur, a creature that was half neck. They are calling it Qijianglong (pronounced CHI-jyang-lon), meaning dragon of Qijiang, for its discovery in Qijiang, a district of the municipality of Chongqing, China. Construction workers in 2006 stumbled on the fossil site. Scientists ultimately unearthed of series of large neck vertebrae stretched out in the ground – with the head of the dinosaur was still attached. Altogether, scientists say, Qijianglong was about 45 feet (about 14 meters) long. Best estimates suggest it lived about 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic.

University of Alberta PhD student Tetsuto Miyashita, who was a co-author in the study, was quoted in Science20.com as saying:

Qijianglong is a cool animal. If you imagine a big animal that is half neck, you can see that evolution can do quite extraordinary things.

It is rare to find a head and neck of a long-necked dinosaur together because the head is so small and easily detached after the animal dies.

China is home to the ancient myths of dragons. I wonder if the ancient Chinese stumbled upon a skeleton of a long-necked dinosaur like Qijianglong and pictured that mythical creature.

The city of Chongqing in the Chongqing Municipality is called “a city built on dinosaur’s backs.” Fossils’ of dinosaurs are found in most of the 40 regions of Chongqing Municipality, which has an area of 82,000 square kilometers. Image via Archaeologynewsnetwork

Qijiang is one of the districts in Chongqing Municipality where dinosaurs’ tracks and fossils have been found. Map via Archaeologynewsnetwork

The Science20.com post also said:

The new species belongs to a group of dinosaurs called mamenchisaurids, known for their extremely long necks sometimes measuring up to half the length of their bodies. Most sauropods, or long-necked dinosaurs, have necks only about one third the length of their bodies.

Unique among mamenchisaurids, Qijianglong had neck vertebrae that were filled with air, making their necks relatively lightweight despite their enormous size. Interlocking joints between the vertebrae also indicate a surprisingly stiff neck that was much more mobile bending vertically than sideways, similar to a construction crane.

Mamenchisaurids are only found in Asia, but the discovery of Qijianglong reveals that there could be as many differences among mamenchisaurids as there are between long-necked dinosaurs from different continents.

The Qijianglong skeleton is now housed in a local museum in Qijiang.

Bottom line: Scientists reported last week (January 26, 2015) on the discovery of a new species of dinosaur called Qijianglong. It’s one of the group of dinosaurs called mamenchisaurids, whose necks sometimes measure up to half the length of their bodies. It was unearthed in Qijiang, a district of the municipality of Chongqing, China, where many other dinosaur fossils have been found.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1uPlpJk

Artist’s concept of newly discovered long-necked dinosaur, called Qijianglong. Credit: Xing Lida

Among dinosaurs, it seems, there were long necks and there were looooonnnnnggggg necks. Paleontologists reported on January 26, 2015 in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology on the discovery in China of a new species of dinosaur, a creature that was half neck. They are calling it Qijianglong (pronounced CHI-jyang-lon), meaning dragon of Qijiang, for its discovery in Qijiang, a district of the municipality of Chongqing, China. Construction workers in 2006 stumbled on the fossil site. Scientists ultimately unearthed of series of large neck vertebrae stretched out in the ground – with the head of the dinosaur was still attached. Altogether, scientists say, Qijianglong was about 45 feet (about 14 meters) long. Best estimates suggest it lived about 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic.

University of Alberta PhD student Tetsuto Miyashita, who was a co-author in the study, was quoted in Science20.com as saying:

Qijianglong is a cool animal. If you imagine a big animal that is half neck, you can see that evolution can do quite extraordinary things.

It is rare to find a head and neck of a long-necked dinosaur together because the head is so small and easily detached after the animal dies.

China is home to the ancient myths of dragons. I wonder if the ancient Chinese stumbled upon a skeleton of a long-necked dinosaur like Qijianglong and pictured that mythical creature.

The city of Chongqing in the Chongqing Municipality is called “a city built on dinosaur’s backs.” Fossils’ of dinosaurs are found in most of the 40 regions of Chongqing Municipality, which has an area of 82,000 square kilometers. Image via Archaeologynewsnetwork

Qijiang is one of the districts in Chongqing Municipality where dinosaurs’ tracks and fossils have been found. Map via Archaeologynewsnetwork

The Science20.com post also said:

The new species belongs to a group of dinosaurs called mamenchisaurids, known for their extremely long necks sometimes measuring up to half the length of their bodies. Most sauropods, or long-necked dinosaurs, have necks only about one third the length of their bodies.

Unique among mamenchisaurids, Qijianglong had neck vertebrae that were filled with air, making their necks relatively lightweight despite their enormous size. Interlocking joints between the vertebrae also indicate a surprisingly stiff neck that was much more mobile bending vertically than sideways, similar to a construction crane.

Mamenchisaurids are only found in Asia, but the discovery of Qijianglong reveals that there could be as many differences among mamenchisaurids as there are between long-necked dinosaurs from different continents.

The Qijianglong skeleton is now housed in a local museum in Qijiang.

Bottom line: Scientists reported last week (January 26, 2015) on the discovery of a new species of dinosaur called Qijianglong. It’s one of the group of dinosaurs called mamenchisaurids, whose necks sometimes measure up to half the length of their bodies. It was unearthed in Qijiang, a district of the municipality of Chongqing, China, where many other dinosaur fossils have been found.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1uPlpJk

February evenings will be great for planet-watching!

February 2015 will be a grand month for watching planets in the evening sky. Venus, the sky’s brightest planet, and modestly-bright Mars appear close together in the western sky after sunset. And magnificent Jupiter, the sky’s second-brightest planet, beams low in the east as darkness falls.

In fact, February 2015 presents Jupiter’s finest moment in the sun for this year. Jupiter shines opposite the sun this month – in what astronomers call opposition to the sun – directly reflecting the light of the sun back to Earth and shining at its brightest best for this year. Jupiter’s opposition will happen when Earth passes between Jupiter and the sun on February 6.

Because it’s opposite the sun this month, Jupiter is out from nightfall until morning dawn. Look for Jupiter low in the east at early evening, highest up around midnight, and low in the west at daybreak. You can’t miss it! It’s brighter than any star (but not as bright as Venus).

Donate: Your support means the world to us

Jupiter is splendidly bright, in the east at nightfall. Earth will pass between Jupiter and the sun on February 6. The moon will be sweeping Jupiter past it this week. Don’t miss them! Read more about Jupiter and the moon.

Venus is indeed brighter than Jupiter, brighter in fact than any sky object except the sun and moon. Look for Venus and Mars shortly after sunset, because they’ll follow the sun beneath the horizon by early evening.

Dazzling Venus will be hard to miss. Although Mars is considerably fainter than Venus, it’s still bright enough to see with the eye alone. See if you notice Mars’ reddish color.

In the great race of the planets around the sun, Venus closes the gap between itself and Mars throughout the first half of February. These two worlds will have a wondrous conjunction on February 21, 2015 – their closest pairing until October 25, 2017.

If you have trouble seeing Mars, take advantage of the fact that Venus and Mars will take stage in the same binocular field for a few weeks, centered on February 21.

And don’t wait until February 21 to see Venus and Mars! They’ll be fun to watch all month. Watch for them especially on Feburary 20, when Venus and Mars bunch up with the moon after sunset.

Live by the moon with your 2015 EarthSky lunar calendar!

Circle February 20 on your calendar. It’ll be a beautiful sky scene, seeing the moon, Venus and Mars all grouped together. Read more about the February 20 sky.

Bottom line: Starting the night of February 1, 2015 – and for the rest of the month – watch the great planet show in the evening sky! You’ll find Venus and Mars edging close – and Jupiter at its brightest!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1tO80pV

February 2015 will be a grand month for watching planets in the evening sky. Venus, the sky’s brightest planet, and modestly-bright Mars appear close together in the western sky after sunset. And magnificent Jupiter, the sky’s second-brightest planet, beams low in the east as darkness falls.

In fact, February 2015 presents Jupiter’s finest moment in the sun for this year. Jupiter shines opposite the sun this month – in what astronomers call opposition to the sun – directly reflecting the light of the sun back to Earth and shining at its brightest best for this year. Jupiter’s opposition will happen when Earth passes between Jupiter and the sun on February 6.

Because it’s opposite the sun this month, Jupiter is out from nightfall until morning dawn. Look for Jupiter low in the east at early evening, highest up around midnight, and low in the west at daybreak. You can’t miss it! It’s brighter than any star (but not as bright as Venus).

Donate: Your support means the world to us

Jupiter is splendidly bright, in the east at nightfall. Earth will pass between Jupiter and the sun on February 6. The moon will be sweeping Jupiter past it this week. Don’t miss them! Read more about Jupiter and the moon.

Venus is indeed brighter than Jupiter, brighter in fact than any sky object except the sun and moon. Look for Venus and Mars shortly after sunset, because they’ll follow the sun beneath the horizon by early evening.

Dazzling Venus will be hard to miss. Although Mars is considerably fainter than Venus, it’s still bright enough to see with the eye alone. See if you notice Mars’ reddish color.

In the great race of the planets around the sun, Venus closes the gap between itself and Mars throughout the first half of February. These two worlds will have a wondrous conjunction on February 21, 2015 – their closest pairing until October 25, 2017.

If you have trouble seeing Mars, take advantage of the fact that Venus and Mars will take stage in the same binocular field for a few weeks, centered on February 21.

And don’t wait until February 21 to see Venus and Mars! They’ll be fun to watch all month. Watch for them especially on Feburary 20, when Venus and Mars bunch up with the moon after sunset.

Live by the moon with your 2015 EarthSky lunar calendar!

Circle February 20 on your calendar. It’ll be a beautiful sky scene, seeing the moon, Venus and Mars all grouped together. Read more about the February 20 sky.

Bottom line: Starting the night of February 1, 2015 – and for the rest of the month – watch the great planet show in the evening sky! You’ll find Venus and Mars edging close – and Jupiter at its brightest!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1tO80pV