NGC 2237, the Rosette Nebula (Tomahide Nakaegawa) http://www.ne.jp/asahi/nakaegaw/piz/)
Season: Currently winter in the Northern Hemisphere (winter began for most people over 55○ N on Sep 21 and will continue two months past March 21st for many up here.)
(Biography: Steve Yaskell is a science author in astronomy and natural history. His articles and insights have appeared in many publications around the world, such as Great Britains' Astronomy Now, as well as Sky & Telescope and The Sciences in the USA, among others. He recently co-authored a book on solar astrophysics and severe global climate change at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. [The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection, WSP:2004])
NAR obtains permission to use material by solicitation. If NAR cannot obtain it at web addresses, NAR publishes with the proviso that NAR will remove it instantly if the discovering author(s)so wishes. All reasonable efforts to contact content contributors are made by NAR. If you wish to reprint articles in whole or part, please obtain permission from NAR. Or drop NAR an email at starthrower1@msn.com. Clearance for rewriting and editing timely news material from Science Magazine was granted by Elisabeth Sandler at the American Association for the Advancement of Science(esandler@aaas.org). This rule generally holds for most scientific journals.
________________________________________________________________
Regular quarterly features
*The quadrant
*Star hopping with
small telescopes (a horse is horse of course, unless it's Monoceros) (Steven H.
Yaskell)
*Star hopping with
large telescopes (Ursa Majoris to neglected parts of Orion with Darrell
Abrahams)
*Coordinates over
50○ N (Sun, Moon, Moon phases and the planets)
*NAR guest feature
(galactic cosmic rays and Earth's cloud cover: what's the connection?) (the
Danish Space Research Institute is in pursuit.)
*Astronomical
science news (getting the low-down on dark matter : how stars are born...a newer
look at the Eagle Nebula: aurora on Saturn...Coronal Mass Ejections - the Sun's
effects on other planets : Machholz from Finland.)
*In
astronomical history (non-mathematical science philosophy: where would Newton
have been without it?)
*Equipment
review (excerpts from Curt Irwin's reviews) (the Orion 120 ST is a good
worker's-grade scope for the price)
*The Star
Splitter (a poem by Robert Frost)
The quadrant
\\\ Winter's
ways______________________________________
The real joyful essence of
the extreme northern astronomer is how long they get to have dark skies. And
this of course means the winter, here. A real experience if there ever was one.
Somewhere deep in between early August and mid April, you can start observing at
two in the afternoon and stop at nine. Around and above Fairbanks, Alaska, USA,
Stockholm, Sweden, and Moscow, Russia, you get natural winter light in intensity
and length such as none other. This is the way of winter here. Take a glass of
vodka, ice cold like the Russians and the Finns like, and muse upon it.
Summer’s a drag, though.
And this is why the next edition of NAR will be a kind of
“spring-summer-“hope-fall-comes-soon” affair. I’ll even have the background
color of the edition the kind of eggshell blue you get here at midsummer.
Midsummer is an ancient festival in Sweden, for those who aren’t initiated. The
pagan Scandinavians felt that if they kept praying in their deep winter
darkness, the light would return. This since they spent so many nights in the
dark, from August until April.
It is so paradoxical that
such a people, confined to darkness most of the year, lit an intellectual lamp’s
revolution that glows to this day. In this issue, we’ll see how Western
Europeans sublimated this darkness for the overall betterment of humanity in an
article on some of the founders of science metaphysics in the West. We routinely
damn metaphysics today, since the Newtonian machine supplies us with compact
computers to soon-to-be-affordable space shuttle tourist rides, and everything
else. But without thinkers like Henry More and Robert Boyle, the Newtonian
synthesis would hardly have been possible. We see in Boyle and More and others
the view that science (and with Boyle, science experimentation) and God are to
be studied in parallel. Boyle's hope that God in these proceedings would
eventually take a back seat to scientific research has largely come true. Still,
"impractical" dreaming concerning hypothesis formation is vital. To re-write a
hackneyed advertising metaphor, a scientific day without metaphysics is like a
day without much grist for making practical human science “sunshine.” The Danish
Space Research Institute is keeping a candlelight vigil here. DSRI is coming to
grips with the question of how deep galactic cosmic rays control the formation
of clouds only a mile or so high in our atmosphere, daring to investigate such
improbable probabilities. But to get our feet back on the ground, take a look at
one of Orion’s better working class products. And if you still have the energy,
get a glass of vodka (or a good cup of Christmas tea or your favorite coffee)
and warm up to one of Robert Frost’s astronomer poems at the end of this
edition. Here where you can’t go out much, or for too long, it’s the way of
winter, after all.
Steve Yaskell
Star hopping with
small telescopes
A horse with no
name, but with some surprises
Steven H. Yaskell
As this holiday season goes
by, thus comes deep winter. We peer now into the deep recesses of outer space.
Warm coats with wind-breaking features are on, as well as caps with hoods. Even
if we have protected viewing places on balconies or our own observatories,
sitting still for too long is a dangerous thing. As our instruments are by
necessity cold for the viewing, so must we endure the icy chill. For when it is
clear this time of year, the best naked eye “seeing” is possible. Hot thermos
drinks are not too far away from our binoculars and telescopes. For those who
remotely scan the sky with computer-guided telescopes, we salute your modern
ways and envy your comfort. But for me, nothing beats the first hand contact of
starlight.
Orion has been dead-eye in
the sky now for nearly two months. By mid evening in the southeast, the three
bright buttons of his belt shine, almost evenly spaced, and lower still, the
even brighter double star Sirius (Alpha Canis Majoris) glitters like steel over
Stockholm, Fairbanks, or Moscow. But have you ever looked further east, right
off Orion’s shoulder at Betelgeuse (Alpha Orionis) farther to the southeast,
under Gemini’s brotherly embrace? It seems a black, empty region. But go ahead
and try it (if you are warm enough). Use Betelgeuse, the first magnitude orange
colored variable star (Orion’s elbow) and sweep with binoculars about 35 minutes
across (but at a 45 degree angle, downward) from Betelgeuse.
You will pass Epsilon
Monocerotis and suddenly strike a small canister of stars that looks to me like
a grasshopper with spread wings. Welcome to the Rosette Nebula, NGC 2237 (at
about 6 hrs 40m, at +5 degrees). You’ve entered the land of the magical “horse”
Monoceros. The constellation for the Unicorn, thought to have been introduced by
Hevelius but charted by ancient Persians, may be a horse with a horn. But other
than the title from Latin for “single-horn” it is a “horse with no name”.as far
as I am concerned.
Why? Because the Unicorn
has something in common with a similar animal, the winged horse, Pegasus, seen
in the autumn. It also appears in a somewhat barren expanse of sky. Thus, like
the horse in the song A Horse With No Name (America, Copyright Warner Bros.
1972) it is lost in a desert (this time a starry one). But with the Rosette
Nebula we have a summer bloom in a dead winter setting, even if you cannot see
the gas cloud around it (except in long exposure photographs). Does it make you
warm inside? (Take a sip of hot coffee!) Five degrees up from the Rosette,
slightly left, you arrive at another of Monoceros’ wonders. This one is the Cone
Nebula (NGC 2264). Another open cluster with a somewhat smaller field, look for
traces of gas (you may even see some around the Rosette Nebula if you use a Deep
Sky filter). Or if you’re cold enough, you could make like Lepus (the Rabbit)
beneath Orion and hop out of the cold toward spring!
(About the photos:
Tomahide Nakaegawa is an amateur astrophotographer from Japan. View his
homepage, “Piz’s Jewel Box.” He has photographed most commonly seen catalogue
objects in a way many small telescope and binocular users see them. )
Star hopping with
large telescopes
Deep winter
sidekicks
Darrell Abrahams
Even though Bullwinkle the
moose is larger than Rocky the flying squirrel, he's still the sidekick. Here
are a few more showpieces that have little sidekicks in the vicinity.
M 42. The Great Orion
Nebula has a quiet neighbor. It's not M 43, the comma-shaped extension on M 42's
north edge (see Autumn edition of NAR, Star hopping with small telescopes). That
doesn't count. It's NGC 1977, 75, 73.
This is a group of bright
nebulae that frame the outline of the Running Man. Frame the Orion Nebula in
your field and push the scope up (north) one field of view. With the view in a
Newtonian, the Orion Nebula has its angel wings reaching up (south) so moving
north (down in the field) one comes upon a chain of three or four stars running
east to west. This chain involves a nice glow of the reflection nebula NGC 1977.
There's a great photo of this region in the December 2004 page of the Royal
Astronomical Society of Canada (RASC) Calendar. Once you've found the band of
NGC 1977, look for the dark wedge of dust jutting into it from the direction of
M 42. Then look for the two glowing balls (fuzzy stars) of NGC 1975 and 1973
immediately north of the band. 1975 is the smaller one. This area is always a
good indicator of sky conditions, especially transparency.
I doubt if anyone can see
the running man except in photos but with north up he's upside down in the
darker region among these nebulae, and to me he looks more like a Sasquatch.
M 81 and M 82 in Ursa
Major. These two look great in wide field eyepieces but be sure to zoom in as
much as the seeing will allow to search for more detail. Then go back to the
wide field and hop from M 82 to M 81 and turn right almost the same distance (a
bit further) to NGC 3077. (If it's not there try turning left) This galaxy is
not as impressive as the other two but it helps put the big ones into
perspective. At magnitude 9.8 and size: 5.4' X 4.5' this one holds well on its
own. It sits right next to an eighth magnitude star. With more magnification
it's an almost round glow with a brighter center.
M 46 in Puppis. Easy to
find. I start with Sirius in my finder, slide 5 degrees west to Beta Canis
Majoris CMa (Mirzam) and then retrace my steps through Sirius and continue east
twice that distance, and bend a bit south to see M 47 in the finder. In good
conditions one can see M 46 right beside it in an 8 X 50 finder. It's the
fainter but better open cluster. M 47 is rather bright and in your face but M 46
has more and fainter stars, and a great sidekick. That's NGC 2438. A lovely
planetary. According to my Uranometria Deep Sky Field Guide it's the same size
as M 57 (76") but is just two magnitudes fainter at 10.8 This planetary is
buried in the north end of the cluster. Usually bag it first with averted
vision. It seems so small since it's in a rich field and with a big cluster. But
just like M 57 you need to magnify (and ignore the cluster) to get the most of
it.
I'll never forget the time
we were up Vedder Mountain on a late, snowless December day. We were 1800 feet
above the fog bound Fraser Valley floor. Rick had my old 4 inch f/11 reflector
and Dennis, his 6 inch acromatic refractor. I had my 8 inch f/8 Newtonian. The
conditions were the best I've ever seen of the winter sky. NGC 1977 was glorious
and NGC 2438 was easy. I pointed out the hop to M 46 and the planetary to the
guys and Dennis found both quickly. He was so proud of his refractor you could
hear his grin (see, my refractor is a match for that 8 inch)! But then Rick
piped up; he had it too in the 4 inch and Dennis' smile faded. We were always
competing, finding something first. What a night that was. The Flame (NGC 2024)
was fantastic and if I'd had a H beta filter I'd have had the Horsehead! Now
Dennis is gone and Rick found a job driving a bus, but those guys were great
sidekicks ... er partners.
(About the author:
Darrell Abrahams is a member of the Fraser Valley Astronomers Society of British
Columbia, Canada, and is an avid deep sky observer.)
Coordinates over 50○
N
Sun, Moon and
planets
Courtesy U.S. Naval
Observatory and Stardate Online
MICA is the Multiyear
Interactive Computer Almanac. With it you can obtain sidereal time to your
specific location for the Sun, Moon and planets. To use MICA Version 1.5
(available as test or download) you will need to know your latitude and
longitude. To find Greenwich Mean Time (which is also Universal Time[UT]) find
your local time zone and count forward - or backward -to the time as it would be
at Greenwich (in the UK). MICA uses Universal Time (UT) for all its
calculations. All you need do it add UT and your latitude and longitude and
press a button to get rising and setting times of various Solar System objects.
(See link below)
To calculate for planetary
and solar postions, see link below NAR guest feature
Galactic cosmic
rays, cloud creation and Earth temperature
From a Carlsberg
Annual Report, the Danish Space Research Institute
Over the last 100 years the Sun has increased its activity in a
way that hasn’t been witnessed by anyone now living (whether they were aware of
it or not, people in the Middle Ages lived through increased solar activity).
And even if other natural phenomena as well as humans contribute to the global
warming now being observed, there is little doubt that the Sun plays a main
role.
The Sun greatly steers
Earth’s climate. The Sun’s variable behavior in long and short periods is well
documented. Earth is constantly bombarded by the Sun’s radiant energy. Yet the
total electromagnetic radiation bombardment of Earth does not end with what we
receive from the Sun. The Sun may discharge the largest portion of radiation and
so be the strongest element in moving global climate (and therefore,
temperature). But even cosmic radiation from deep space makes an imprint on
Earth climate.
The Sun emits a constant
solar wind of varying intensity that consists of charged particles. It’s this
“wind” that pushes out the Sun’s magnetic field all the way into a zone called
the heliosphere. (See Figure 1).
Deep space cosmic rays go
by us and strike us all the time. Deep space cosmic radiation (say, that coming
from exploding stars, or, supernovae) which is “energy-rich” enough can
penetrate deeply into the heliosphere - in spite of Earth’s own strong magnetic
field. The stronger the energy-rich radiation, the less the heliospheric
magnetic field influences it. And this deep space radiation in all likelihood
has a great influence on Earth’s cloud cover.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
NGC 2237 – the Rosette Nebula. Note the stars in the
center. The gas around it giving this open cluster its flowery name is not seen
in telescopes. (Tomahide Nakaegawa)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
To find
Moon phases for the month
http://www.stardate.org/nightsky/moon)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1. The heliosphere and the Solar System. Strong, deep-space cosmic rays penetrate all the way into Earth’s atmosphere affecting cloud cover. (Adapted from Svensmark and Marsh.)
The Sun’s radiative
variation these last 100 years or so shows a medium value of 0.3 Watts per
square meter, a cause of the observed temperature variation over this time
period. A reasonable explanation for this local variation is the cloud cover on
Earth. Here, deep space cosmic rays play a role.
Cosmic radiation is a
reason for almost all ionization of the lower part of Earth’s atmosphere. Ions
in the atmosphere can be a key in what is called atmospheric condensation
particle formation. These have a connection to small water droplets in clouds.
Research results increasingly point out that cosmic radiation plays a leading
role in this process.
When the amount of
atmospheric condensation particles vary, so varies the amount and size of the
tiny water droplets in the clouds. Such a variation influences the total energy
balance in Earth’s atmosphere. This in turn affects Earth’s total energy balance
and so, Earth’s temperature.
It is remarkable to note
that cosmic radiation affects the lowest cloud cover in our atmosphere. Changes
in the lowest cloud deck (3 kilometers up off the Earth’s surface) closely
follow variations in cosmic ray intensity. Changes in clouds’ “microphysics” can
also play a role in cloud size. If one compares data between variations in
cosmic radiation and changes in the characteristics of Earth’s cloud cover, one
sees a correlation. However, there is insufficient knowledge of the cloud’s
microphysics in this connection. Research continues.
That Earth’s lowest cloud
cover is influenced by galactic cosmic radiation means that processes in deep
space influence us more directly than we have ever previously thought possible.
(About the author: used by
permission of Henrik Svensmark at the Danish Space Research Institute [DSRI].
Henrik Svensmark and Nigel D. Marsh are researchers at DSRI. The information
here is taken from a previous Carlsberg Annual Report, ”Solens inflydelse på
jordens klima” http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/ Translated from Danish and edited from
the original Danish text.)
Ongoing laboratory
experiments at DSRI on how cosmic radiation influences the formation of cloud
water droplets in the lower part of Earth’s atmosphere
Earth climate in all time
periods has varied. Volcanic ash in the stratosphere is a reason for global
cooling on the order of 0.5 degrees for a year or more. The same holds for the
atmospheric/oceanic shifts in the Pacific Ocean, known as the El Niño Southern
Oscillation (ENSO). Annual temperature variations are a combination of various
causes, where the Sun’s influence is a factor, among others (such as albedo, or
human-produced air pollution).
In time scales larger than
ten years, the Sun is thought to have the greatest influence on Earth’s varying
climate. This posit is based upon the qualitative agreement between isotopes and
numerous indirect data sources concerning Earth’s temperature over the last
1,000 years.
A remarkable agreement
between the intensity of cosmic rays and the variations shown in Earth’s cloud
cover has been revealed. Clouds are important for Earth’s energy balance, and
the Sun’s influence on clouds is a reason for the observed agreement between
solar activity and Earth’s climate. But this doesn’t guarantee a good
correlation between the physical reasons and the effect. It is extremely
important that we obtain an understanding of the microphysical mechanisms that
unites solar activity with Earth’s cloud cover.
If cosmic rays influencing
Earth’s cloud cover is a reality, then it is reasonable to think that ionization
caused by galactic cosmic radiation influences the microphysics of cloud
formation.
Clouds are the
daily-observed - yet complex - motor that drives Earth weather and so, in part,
Earth’s total climate. Basic questions still surround the physiochemical
construction of aerosols upon which water droplets and ice crystals are later
made. Under some circumstances the ionization of air due to cosmic radiation can
play an important role. It is altogether acceptable that we can conduct
laboratory experiments that replicate natural conditions in this regard.
Experiments are ongoing at
DSRI. Earlier, it was hoped that a cloud formation chamber (Project Cloud) at
CERN could launch this research. But the project hit a financial snag.
The experiments started
with the study of microphysical processes by which cosmic radiation effects the
formation of clouds in the atmosphere. The first program contained five groups
of experiments: the seeding and growth of aerosols, how cloud water droplets are
manufactured, the condensation of water vapor, formation of ice granules, and
the dynamics of stratospheric clouds.
DSRI
Astronomical science
news from Science and Nature
Defining what
dark matter is
We all know those patchy
clouds of white dust far into the depths of space. A thousand of us watch them
at any given time, on any clear night, admiring their beauty.
Something holds them
together with gravity. This defines them sharply in contrast to all that dark
space; something that is posited as non-luminous matter. We know it is out
there. But what is it? Weak Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS) and theorized
particles called “Axions” are currently prime candidates for this non-luminous
matter.
Both WIMPS and Axion
particles have been detected by particle accelerators. “Dark Matter” (DM) can
consist of either of these particles, it is thought. Twenty five percent of our
universe’s energy budget is made up of it. But what makes up dark matter?
The particles’ behavior
defies elementary particle physics.
A possible part of DM -
WIMPS - consist of other particles. One is the Neutrolino, something of a cousin
to the Neutrino. Its postulated weight is about 1,000 Hydrogen atoms. No
particle accelerator has produced one yet, but it is hoped the large Hadron
Collider at CERN in Switzerland can. A more natural way to try and find one is
by attempting to measure the nuclear recoil between Neutrolinos. In vast Nature
(which provides more powerful - though less controllable - natural
supercolliders like the Crab Nebula M 1) they could be found in the collisions.
The particles could get trapped gravitationally by large mass objects (say,
stars and planets) or even by the black hole in our own galactic center after
the particles’ velocities slow. Another way is to check their energy output. The
Neutrolino would put out billions more eVs (electronvolts) than Neutrinos could.
X-ray detectors have witnessed such.
Then there is the “indirect
evidence” of the Axion particle. The other DM candidate. A theory has it that
Axions are made inside the Sun’s hot core by Photons and “virtual” Photons near
atomic nuclei. The Sun’s magnetic field then reconverts the Axion back into a
Photon. As with Neutrolinos, X-ray detectors might find such handoffs, and so,
give “direct” evidence that Axions are real particles.
Both these particles (if
indeed the Axion truly exists) are thought to have been widely created in the
early universe. The hunt for what constitutes dark matter and what it is, is a
major item of the NASA research agenda. One of the possible practical results of
such research could lead to finding substitute energy to satistfy world needs.
(“What is Dark Matter Made Of?”, Zioutas, K., et al Science, Vol 306, 26
November 2004 pp 1485-88)
Low mass stars
give clues to the Sun’s origin: a scientific view of how “a star is born?”
Like other low mass stars,
our Sun formed in a high mass star-forming region. Studying such star forming
regions can give insights into how low mass stars like the Sun are made.
One or some of the stars in
high mass regions went ”supernova.” Our star, then, developed in the vicinity of
a massive star. Such stars emit intense ultraviolet radiation, carve out ionized
cavities, and then literally cook in the dense molecule clouds where stars are
made. These areas are known as Hydrogen II (HII) regions (like the Eagle Nebula,
M 16 in Serpens).
_____________________________________________________________________
Low mass stars should go
through a sequence ultimately resulting in high mass loss, or a so-called
Wolf-Rayet phase. But along the way it must also undergo a stage called
Evaporating Gaseous Globules (EGGS) wherein cores formed at the sequence’s
beginning evaporate. Where the molecular clouds become pinpricks or nobules are
the places EGGS form, one step before Wolf Rayet called ”proplyds” (see
picture). The sequence basically outlined above for low mass star formation
makes Jeff Hester at Arizona State University feel that many testable
predications can be made that are already supported by observation. (J. Hester
et al, Science May 2004 jhetser@asu.edu )
Evidence
traces planetary auroras to the Sun’s CME events
Beyond knowing that
solar-Earth magnetic activity leads to aurora, it is also known that other Solar
System planets have auroras. Authors of a recent Letter to the journal Nature
discovered a strong solar-triggered aurora coupled to a large Coronal Mass
Ejection (or CME) event. That is, solar flaring that pushes forth hot clouds of
plasma that can disrupt and destroy world power grids. The authors of the Letter
observed the particular aurora on Saturn.
In fact, the observers
traced it from Earth, to Jupiter, and then to Saturn. What the observers
established was that shocks from such solar explosions retain their
characteristics and power to trigger auroras throughout the Solar System. It
also goes to show the power of those X-class solar flares that have been popping
up on the Sun lately. The power of some of these CMEs is unprecedented, never
having been witnessed before. (Prange, R. et al, “An Interplanetary Shock Traced
By Planetary Auroral Storms from the Sun to Saturn,” Nature (Letters) 4 November
2004 Vol. 432 pp 78-81.)
C/2004 Q2
Machholz over the northern hemisphere all winter, early spring
_____________________________________________________________________
In astronomical
history...
Building a
platform where other giants could stand
Steven H. Yaskell
“What the thing is”
That Isaac Newton prowled
the edges of experimental science with a bulldog’s glare and concern is well
known in the annals of science. He is alternately hated and loved for it. He
railed, some think unjustifiably strenuously, against the common science tool
called hypothesis.
When defending his
examinations of the essential makeup of white light fellow Royal Society member
Robert Hooke wanted to know what hypothesis Newton cared to bring forward. The
request was a bomb full of nails. So Newton said,
It is true, that from my
theory I argue the corporeity of light, but I do it without any absolute
positiveness, as the word perhaps intimates, and make at most a very plausible
consequence of the doctrine, and not a fundamental proposition…had I intended
any such hypothesis, I should somewhere have explained it. But I knew that the
properties, which I declared of light, were in some measure capable of being
explicated not only by that, but by many other mechanical hypotheses; and
therefore I chose to decline them all, and speak of light in general terms,
considering abstractedly as something or other propagated every way in straight
lines from luminous bodies, without determining what the thing is. (Horsely,
Newton : 1779-85)
Newton does the same to
much else of the phenomena he so well tucked into the mathematical
science-understanding of the universe of forces and motions. For he pretty much
applies the same mental effort (for it can barely be called verbal construction)
towards his understanding of gravity. He dared not define it. It just “was
there.”
It is clear Newton wished to set a strong precedent in the proceedings of experimental natural philosophy from his time, hopefully onward. Words and lengthy definitions, craving an impossible exactness not necessarily useful even if exact - and the inevitable “disputes” they brought about - could open up questions that lead one away from an up-front, useable fact or set of consequences drawn from observed Nature. It can lead the “natural” philosopher astray from the sanctity of the observation itself if it is not workable in some experiment. And many observations, noted Newton, could not be worked into tidy experiments. Perhaps most importantly, if incorrect verbalisms lie about, pristine in logic but barren for the most part of hard proof, how much would such encumbrances someday stymie future natural philosophers? How much (asks Newton without asking!) had they already had? It could also lead, as I hazard Newton felt, away from a worship of God (I’ll get back to this later).
Newton’s “highhandedness” with the “disputers” did not demonstrate an arrogant vanity, per se. His short-shrift of words and clever half-true concepts, and the ultimate care in use of them, or their abnegation altogether, demonstrates a desire to keep an observation pure, or at least in the realm of undefined possibility long enough until the right observer came along - and to keep it out of the “method of science” until it was more concrete. In other words, not jumping to conclusions that invite wordy invective; something hypotheses of his day welcomed far too many of. If anything Newton commanded humility and modesty in such proceedings, wishing mainly to posit demonstrable facts from observations and leaving all basic causes (“fundamental propositions”) which could not be made into laws or near-laws immediately, alone. Newton also shows a deep faith - if they follow his example, here - in the ability of the observer of the future, and their potential contributions. For Newton, the observation led to the mathematically-aided test; a re-examination of the findings, and then a re-test of the findings, using, of course, mathematics as much as possible.
Thus came the end of the
natural philosopher’s link to the “messy”, wordy, verbally-construct-based
philosopher and the maturation of the natural philosopher into a neater, leaner
being we are more familiar with: the scientist. Science thus seemed to abandon
philosophy in its classical sense, altogether. It has not of course. Nor is
hypothesis such a villain,perhaps, as it once had been (Antsey : 2004).
Hypothesis now lives usefully if uncomfortably side by side with the masticating
jaw of the experimental process, sometimes called the “Newtonian synthesis” that
often calls upon the hypothesis to be rigorously tested for falsity. Unlike in
Newton’s time, common sense in scientific experimental research is not called
upon to defend itself against hypotheses as it once commonly was. (But with the
rise of clericalism in the world, I wonder.)
Thus due to the Newtonian
synthesis the laws of nature suddenly were the same for phenomena existing
whether at uncountable distances or under one’s apple tree. This virtually
miraculous, measurable understanding and physical unification of the universe
did not jump into the Seventeenth Century European mind - or only into Newton’s
- unsupported. It had a fat, wide philosophical base. A metaphysical base rose
to support Newton, a base provided by thinkers whom he often corresponded and
not infrequently dined with, and most of whom he deeply respected.
One writer cites “the five”
who contributed to Newton’s early understanding as if it were a breakthrough in
international cooperation between scientists (perhaps it was): Nicolas
Copernicus (Poland) Tycho Brahe (Scandinavia) Galileo (Italy) Johannes Kepler
(Germany) and of course, Newton (England), (Wolf : 1935, 1962). As one great
American philosophy professor put it long ago, Isaac Newton was “the follower of
the tradition of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Descartes.” Yet he was equally
as much the intellectual product of several others, such as the rarely mentioned
William Gilbert, the “father of magnetism,” William Harvey, a medical science
pioneer - and significantly, Robert Boyle - and, as I hazard (thanks to this
same author) the divine, Henry More (Burtt: 1924, 1954, 2003). For Newton stands
at the crossroads of the amalgam of all these thinkers’ toils and troubles, and
the theological, philosophical, and scientific pursuits thus conjoined.
Therefore, Newton “saw
farther than others” since, in his own few words, he “stood on the shoulders of
giants.” Wisely, or perhaps simply keeping faithful to his above-established
precedent for facta non verba in experimental, demonstration-worthy science, he
left how we should interpret this encomium to others. For it is hardly clear
where it begins or ends.
Kudos for theism
In conventional wisdom the
Newtonian synthesis came about by some kind of natural, evolutionary process.
True: for centuries from the Middle Ages on a need for simplicity in thought
drove its way like a spike through European universities. What caused this is
anyone’s guess. Anything from the Great Plague leaving a broad human population
gap to a human population explosion within limited resource bases that drove
more pragmatic needs in a complicating society (take sanitation and health for
instance, or the need for simplifying food distribution over wider areas). In
any case, the scholastics’ classical explanations for things would hardly do any
longer in the face of such pressure, if pressure in these instances was the case
in forcing out contemplative divinity in universities (the “why” of it all) and
inviting more “how to” themes.
But in order to see where
Newton (and therefore all of us) “got to,” it is wise to see where Newton “came
from.” And at the same time, it is vital for us to see what was necessary to be
lost in order for European civilization (only, at that time) to progress into a
more materially-comfortable plane that included an increased life expectancy.
For, cognizant of these needs as people may or may not have been, this was the
haphazard wish of a lump populace foisted upon those who were their elites. This
would be their thinkers in other words. And before Newton, these thinkers were
Church prelates and their university-bound near numbers, the scholastic
professors.
What would come as a shock
to readers today is the theistic connection between research science and the
belief in God (not necessarily Christian, or the belief in Jesus) that preceded
the Industrial Revolution, and which motivated Newton and especially, the
“Father of Chemistry” and Boyle Law author, Robert Boyle. The more-than-heavy
reliance on the one upon the other is something that is almost forgotten in
classical philosophy, let alone in the realms of research science, from which
the mention of “God” (let alone a worship of God and His Scriptures) has long
since vanished. For as we trace the history of what we had to “lose” in order to
“gain,” the connection to theism - the knowing belief in an all purposeful God
who may not be rational in the human sense of the word - is very clear.
A curious parting for a new
awakening
Approaching Copernicus in
the 1500s we see a European Christian world immersed in a supine, dependent
belief in an all purposeful God without possessing even the pretension of
yearning for scientific method. This is understandable enough given the period
where, for the preceding 350 or so of the 500 years before Copernicus’ time, the
Patristic fathers, adumbrating the Greek thinkers, but pushing hard the pure
Christian thinker/worshippers - the St. Augustines - oversaw the mental slumber
over acknowledging much of a physical universe. The widespread and vigorous
Arabic speaking Muslims arguably were more science-oriented at this time than
virtually all of Christendom, the latter a Land of Cokayne.
As if in a glass case with
the words “Break In Emergency” on it, physical nature and its spiritual essence
could not be separated for a “necessary” shattering. (They were virtually
synonymous.) Even if the less common prelates such as Copernicus were privy to
the dire need for a spatial redefinition of the complicated spheres of Ptolemy.
A new cosmic scheme other than the Greek African’s was needed. The placing of
the Sun at the center of the Solar System, with planets concentrically arrayed,
was possible only because it was not impossible. Ptolemy’s geometrical
intricacies were too complicated for Nature, men felt. Observation was almost
unnecessary to confirm this. Copernicus hardly worked in a vacuum, here. There
were any number of classical Greek and Arabic thinkers from Aristarchus to Al
Tusi providing the well-worn road upon which to take the desired journey and
Copernicus had access to all their texts and to any number of their explicators.
All it took was the solemn act to simplify - that key word - the basic cosmic
structure, an act at once simple and at the same time, profound unto ultimate
profundity. It pushed the distances in space up to this time out to a boundary
barely imaginable: certainly farther away than Ptolemy could ever imagine and
farther away than even Copernicus could calculate or contemplate. The step was
to outstrip those taken by any other culture or religion, previous or present,
with no turning back. Like his descendants (only English) Copernicus was a
theist and given the time in which he lived it is no surprise.
With Copernicus, we see in
current cosmic systems the first step, simplicity.
But arguing against, or
being out of synch with, a strict theistic appreciation of Nature must come to
pass. Simplicity “in the universe” now in place, it was time to question the
Master Planner’s methods altogether, if Man might dare. Questioning leads to
answers, if not totally away from a dependent and Holy belief in an ultimate
Creator.
After Copernicus, Galileo worked strenuously for cause and effect in “local” - not universal - motions. The universality of motions conflicted so much with “common sense” observation of the “how” of something that Galileo - perhaps with typical Latin passion - refused to admit them into discussion more often than not, and heatedly so. For they were too abstract and though full of potential truth, they did not solve problems (let the “why” care for itself.) His insistence upon mathematics, geometrical as it mostly was in providing proofs to observations, became preeminent in his conception of the path to rational enquiry. He belatedly accepted the Copernican cosmic design and received castigation in return, only to renounce Copernicanism officially.
Curiously, Galileo rises in
the intellectual circles of Catholicism’s Italian capitol while his
contemporary, Johannes Kepler, perambulates close to the kingdom of
Protestantism’s northern citadel of Scandinavia, with its sympathizers in
Germany and in the Baltic region. We go from the loose robe and sultry Roman air
to the fur collars and frigid nights of the courts of Tycho Brahe the star
measurer. A counter-reformation is afoot, Christianity involved in a schismatic
war across Europe, north and south, and one with the Muslim to the east. For all
this, Catholic Galileo and Protestant Kepler, lords of a new and rising
aristocracy as yet unnamed, write to each other about clerical, royal and
related obstinacy between critiquing their precious ideas. Kepler is half mystic
(as many of these early worthies were); a cabalistic enquirer who worships the
Sun as if it were a prized doll in a doll collection of exceptional value. Half
mathematician, half dreamer, he is as much a theist as is his Catholic
correspondent (both are religious Christians). For this Kepler is rewarded an
insight into the mechanics of universal motion such as no other: the three laws
of planetary motion (note the word “law” for discussion, later.) Galileo, other
than becoming the inventor and patent holder of several practical devices, and a
loud champion of the nascent scientific method of observation and pertinent
measurement, introduces the “Break In Emergency” wished for upon the protective
glass of scholastic science. He succeeds fully in being able to allow a
repeatable, clear and distinct difference between physical nature’s construction
versus its spiritual-religious construction. Brahe provided the measurements
needed for Kepler’s mathematical proof of laws of planetary motion. The Catholic
Church provided the impetus needed to drive Galileo over the edge of worship of
non-motion and change for a nascent acceptance and understanding of the same
-yet in the context of a separation between a “thing’s” physical nature (within
Nature) - say, the Sun and its blemishing spots versus its pure spiritual
significance (still the “father of the heavens” and “perfect” in the spiritual
sense).
Religious war catches
Kepler on his way to publishing the Rudolphine Tables, his and the late Brahe’s
(and our) treasure. This vulgarly put is the first practical star chart. He dies
or is killed on a Counter-reformation battlefield and is buried without a trace.
The venom of the scholastics in and just outside of the Catholic Church stifles
Galileo into an unwanted silence.
The die is cast. In France
while Galileo ages in enforced silence, the Frenchman Rene Descartes forces the
break between a purely theistic appreciation of Nature versus a heavily agnostic
one even further. With Descartes comes perhaps the most crucial perambulation
towards the idea of a separation between God and Man for the act of facing
Nature.
Galileo and Descartes are
the driving intellectual forces for removing Man as “middle man” between God and
Nature.
What Descartes and Galileo
do is essentially decouple the link between Man as a “primary” force in the
presumed eyes of God and, worse (or better, depending on how you view it)
eventually in man’s own eyes. This is one of the greatest things Man has ever
had to lose in order to gain a larger understanding of his universe and better
physical comfort within it. They do this by viewing the primacy of forces
readable only by the thin codex of mathematics. Man cannot “see” the “true”
workings of Nature (force, motion, impenetrable space, the deep inner workings
of the human mind, etc.) since he is stymied by his primitive self or his very
humanness (his emotions, lusts; his physical and intellectual weakness, and
other limitations that prevent him from reading the “primary forces” of Nature
with the unsheathed, pure hand of mathematics; geometry and algebra). Both men
share the idea of force, momentum, a “mathematical universe,” and the
metaphysical imagining of an extended space, only with Descartes, more so. He is
ready to tell us why. Descartes’ strict rationalism, ready acceptance of natural
law, hypothesis, and imaginative free-thinking formulations beg questions of raw
nature, and how raw nature functions, whether God chooses to inform Man or not.
Accepting in part the “why” of it all as the act of God, he is not in a hurry to
have Man talk to God or vice versa. For Descartes it is all in the “how” of
things, though he is not much of an experimental mathematical scientist in the
way of Galileo, nor of Harvey, nor Gilbert. He is in a hurry to rationalize the
existing plane between Man and Nature, and to riddle out the secrets, hand on,
with concepts. Oppressed by Churchmen, and in mortal fear of some, and perhaps
depressed if not driven partially insane due to Counter-reformation court terror
Descartes cites common sense and a heroic urge for Man to rise above his
situation (he echoes science philosopher and materialist Francis Bacon in
England). Any spiritual sensibility could be some kind of thinking aura that
exists just beyond men’s individual bodies perhaps, yet separate from Man (the
essence of his idea of “duality,” as if thought exists independently of Nature).
Whether it has anything at all to do with God’s love for Man or as a
representation of Man’s Holy Spirit is not for him to say. In a time when
perhaps every literate person and armed group or both claimed the Savior was
their own special spokesperson, and took up arms in their belief, Descartes’
explanations appear positively refreshing and uplifting.
There are primary forces
(elemental powers, deep space, forceful winds that are uncontrolled, the inner
working of the psyche) and secondary forces (men’s inner fears, bodily functions
and cravings, his artistic drive and so on). Man is in the second category of
forces since he cannot (except for the elite among men) read Nature’s forces,
many of which control him and crush him. Cartesian “duality” also lies in this
dissection of Man away from the teat of his great sense of himself in the cosmic
arena. Without his feeble, glowing conscience he is almost as much a part of
Nature as mere mass, and not much of that. If he learns enough mathematical
science to read the great book of Nature he may be able to save himself.
Descartes devotes the rest of his life to this latter endeavor.
Cogito ergo sum: declaring
"war" on Nature to help Man
(The man): “I think…I think
I am. Therefore I am…I think?” (The voice): “Of course you are my bright little
star! You’re miles and miles and miles of your forefathers’ fruit. And now to
suit our great computer! You’re magnifunique!” The Moody Blues, “In the
Beginning”(Copyright 1969 Decca Music)
We can muse upon this
strenuous unintentional agnosticism shown by the likes of Kepler, Galileo, and
profoundly, Descartes as some kind of human reaction towards the religious
infighting of their ruling elites, and the barbaric last resorts the Holy kings
turned to in maintaining their worldly power - more often than not in the name
of God. An idiot could ignore the cries of the common man, roiling beneath this
turmoil to the tune of sacrificed thousands. It is hardly responsible to think
that intelligent, able persons such as the aforementioned would sit tamely by
and take it from their lords and masters. And these certainly did not. All men
are a part of their time, and these men lived with a conscious knowledge of how
primitive and terrible their plight was, then. For them, conceiving Copernicus’
wider realm of space, it was as if a cowl had been removed. All three were
benign rebels, with the earlier fourth, Copernicus, perhaps the most
rebelliously benign of them all. We owe our daily comfort and perhaps safety
from persecution indirectly to these people. They lived perilous lives, two of
which ended before their times in flight from perfectly nauseating absolutist
power elites, bandying about the name of God and the Lord Jesus as if the one
were a personal prison warden and the other, their private Holy jailer. (If one
thinks the hypocrisy of the Victorian prelates was bad, it must have been
nothing compared to that of the wealthy man at this time and his personal
spiritual advisors.) These were legion. The Descartes and Galileos were few.
Galileo had to accept a love child, his only love, as a nun who died in poverty
without being able to visit her due to Holy Papal writ. His consolation was
that, against all religious authority, he was secretly buried with her.
Descartes similarly lost a daughter to a viral illness that today would perhaps
have been destroyed by a ridiculously mild antibiotic. His own fitful
dissections of animals were directed in a frantic search for first causes
arising in them from Nature, so as to discern its inner workings. Such
humanitarian men could not bear to witness the writhing masses living in slime
whilst a lucky few indulged in the thin worldly pleasures then available. That
even these answered to unimaginably severe plagues and limitless illnesses was
another reason for forcing the anti-theistic break with an all-ruling God who
chose to reveal unto us when He chose. For it was clear that, if God wanted to
help us, his divine commandment was Man’s dominating himself by reason and
mathematics to read the great book of Nature, alternately, to read Scripture as
a prelude to scientific investigation.
Cogito ergo sum (I think
therefore I am) declared Descartes. Nothing else (other than perhaps God) could
realize themselves as a thinking being so far as he knew in this vale of tears.
It was up to Man himself.
The theistic re-instatement
: the argument
(The man): “I’m more than
that. I know I am. Or at least I think I must be.” The Moody Blues, “In the
Beginning” (Copyright 1969 Decca Music)
A counter-reaction to
Descartes’ philosophy formed in his own adopted country of Holland. This was
Benedict de Spinoza, who strenuously opposed the fierce demarcation between Man
and spirit. Though he taught Cartesian metaphysics Spinoza opposed him. (A
surprising nuance in Spinoza’s “anti-Cartesian” stance was the desire to take a
friendlier approach to Nature without any materialistic motives.)
But the strongest reactions
against Cartesian philosophy came from England, which of course expressed this
negativity towards Descartes through their Protestant channels on the continent.
The only agreement with Descartes’ aim of interpreting all with God as an aid,
but nearly in the backseat, were materialists like Thomas Hobbes and Francis
Bacon. Where Hobbes at last defines the “manners” of men, and exposes their
less-than-godly ways, Bacon wrote the “straight line” for questioning Nature in
the new spirit of the Hobbesian freedom (in fact, Hobbes is the template for the
modern social and political scientist). Yet neither was so quick to separate Man
so neatly from Nature and God, and to containerize the soul, as was the great
Frenchman.
A most powerful reaction to
Descartes’ schism was lodged by Henry More, the English theologian. Where
Descartes considered the soul as being only inside Man, and in a quite specific
locus, More strongly defended its essence as being somewhat outside as well as
inside - a zone that Descartes had clinically labeled “the thinking substance.”
More was convinced of Man’s soul existing within and beyond the body and this
sacred philosophy reached the receptive minds of both Boyle and Newton.
Curiously, however, Hobbes
and Bacon had paralleled thinkers and experimenters like William Gilbert, who
also noted that the soul outside of Man -identifiable or not - almost in terms
of its medieval sense (the “animus”). A man given to magnetic experiment,
indeed, the founder of global magnetism and various applications thereof,
Gilbert was a strong example of the coming species of scientist: the kind who
could perform experiments with a free understanding of the difference between
Man’s spirit, and Nature’s mass content, viz á viz its own spiritual essence.
Harvey similarly worked toward understanding physics, that of the human body,
within the full knowledge of a purposeful and all powerful God. Imbued with
Bacon’s spirit of open minded study, Harvey studied the flow of blood in the
human body where Descartes had discussed this pump as a center of our being.
Descartes spurred on as
well as defined 17th Century’s humanity’s bold drive for mastery over Nature and
itself. He was the metaphysical definition of what Galileo, Kepler and
Copernicus had all stood for. But he and many of his contemporaries were
mechanists and materialists of Nature, with the wish to make it yield to Man a
“special place” that was to lose ground from the 19th Century, onward.
More’s challenge to
Descartes found a solid home in the works and writings of Robert Boyle. Like
Gilbert and Harvey before him, Boyle did not neglect the theistic link between
research science and a belief in God. Boyle in fact stated that one should prize
Scripture over science and research, and indeed, use the former first when
considering going further into the latter. Boyle was there on the intellectual
scene - now expanding into the colonial United States of America and Canada -
long enough to be able to counter the thrusts of the “new” believers in God -
the deists.
The deistic challenge and
the work of the new philosophers : God dismissed
Robert Boyle had hoped and
prayed that research science would open paths and shed intellectual light unto
Man so that an open appreciation of him would no longer be necessary. This would
come to pass in time. This we would receive. (We may have to begin invoking Him
once again however.)
Boyle and Newton were the
last of the theistic scientists of great renown. Growing up all around them
however was a new breed. An entrepreneurial race that thanked the forefathers
for their theistic contributions, yet claimed that, as the “laws” of Nature,
laid bare by the Great Newton for the most part were with us, God could leave
the stage altogether. Nature was a rational essence, insofar as God was a
rational being. This, in effect is the textbook definition of deism. It was only
up to humanity to find the smaller truths from those few basic laws uncovered by
the mighty Newton and his somewhat gifted, though “not so great” colleagues and
forebears upon whose shoulders Newton, demi-godlike, stood. It is doubtful
Newton ever wanted such fame. It is certain that his forebears were in many ways
greater than him.
With Newton, we see the
depths of limitless space enlarged to a point where mathematics can only provide
us the numbers, but no imagination of the physical reality. He is the apex of
the Copernican extension of space, through Descartes, to right this moment.
Yet Newton was adopted by
the later 18th Century thinkers as their poster-boy of deistic appreciation of
Nature and were wrong for it. Most terribly so, as we are now finding out.
The essence of the problem
is discovered in thrown-by-the-way scholarship that points out, for instance,
Boyle’s refutation of the deists, him using skilled logic, that they (and so we)
were apparently immune to. We must understand the influence Boyle had on Newton
and vice versa to come to grips with this issue. And in the refutation of the
deists, Newton is characteristically mute. (The deists would doubtless take this
as a sign of Newton’s “godlike silence” without further need for explication.
Need a demiurge, after all, speak? The modern feminists and post modernists take
Newton’s reticence as a sign of arrogance beyond belief. But the arrogance lays
not with Newton “the demiurge.”) Newton’s words are found in Boyle, a man almost
as theological as More and Newton.
For Boyle pointed logically
out that “laws” are the products of men’s visions and discoveries. They are not
handed down by God, per se, but come about by Man’s obtaining revelation after
study, contemplation and dutiful observation, mostly as God the Almighty grants,
theistic proofs of which exist, for instance, in the Book of Genesis. Therefore,
the possibility for Man to even glimpse such visions and garner discoveries are
his own work, tiny as it is, amidst the incredibly massive edifice of a “real
power” (that is, God, or Lord God) and not puny laws. For the “laws” of man is a
mental construct; a system of a new conception of primary forces, not given as
random and all powerful, but able to be understood. In short, they represent an
understanding, that is, of Nature - and perhaps of God. But they are not the
great “all.” Indeed, our very existence is in itself a path to understanding or
trying to know God, according to More, Boyle, Newton, and most all theists.
For all the fundamental
laws we have obtained, we have not obtained all the laws we could possibly
obtain. How could we? Newton’s very stance of not perverting God’s will with too
many words when there are no “fundamental principals” for the uncovering is
proof positive that we have not obtained all fundamental knowledge of Nature,
and not of God either. Hence Newton’s “arrogant” silence. There could be an
unlimited set of ultimate “fundamental laws of Nature” that remain just beyond
the rim of our current human understanding. Additionally, the laws we know may
vary in time, and even change as time progresses. Hence the words of Newton in
his second edition to the Principia about the Deity (listen for the thoughts of
More, Spinoza, Boyle, Bacon and others),
This Being governs all
things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of
his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God…or Universal Ruler…the Supreme God
is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but as a being, however
perfect, without dominion cannot be said to be Lord God…It is the dominion of a
spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion
makes a true, supreme or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows
that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his
other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect…We know him by his most
wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for
his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion; for
we adore him as his servants; a god without dominion, providence, and final
causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature…And this much concerning God; to
discourse of whom from the appearance of things does certainly belong to natural
philosophy.
As the first tangible fruit
of the Newtonian synthesis started to make itself apparent, from cotton gins to
better plows and steam engines, to blood transfusions, down to today’s 80 year
average life-spans for women and personal computers with motion picture industry
standardized audio and video, all this has been conveniently forgotten or tucked
very tidily away. Perhaps it was the language he used. It was a tone that shamed
away the reluctant from an embrace of God, since language ages. The reference to
some (as Newton suggests) possibly imaginary being having us as his joyous
servants tastes stale in the mouth of a modern human being in the
luxury-indulgent West, used as it is to every possible convenience in an
environment that promises endless more. Yet his own scientific-rationalist
apologists, the deists, became in a way Newton’s intellectual Judas Priests and
our own betrayers, as well as our benefactors.
As the 18th Century wore on
philologist-philosophers such as David Hume appointed themselves the cynical
spokesmen of a questionable deity that apparently held us back. He was suddenly
no longer the source of all knowledge; he was no longer a partaker in it. Hume
and others scraped away at the theistic underpinnings of Western thought
(Burtt:1924,1954,2003). German pedantic philosophers such as Immanuel Kant
hastened this on. God becomes an emblem in these men’s works, not a living,
breathing presence tied preciously to our existence: a common sensibility in the
Middle Ages. As the miracle of Newton’s mathematical sciences led scientists on
to uncover more knowledge of things through a handful of laws, God was blended
further and further into a philosophical appendage, with the help of “scientific
philosophers.” This was done especially by the Greek-obeying continental
philosophers such as Kant (ironically, the more early materialist English
philosophers were more Latin in outlook). Soon God becomes less the Christian
image of the sensibility and more like the classical pagan variety, for all
Kant’s (for instance) opining about our need to believe in Him and an 18th
Century’s Presbyterian’s outlining of moral laws. Later on, in various other
writing, spurred on by the numerous and influential continental European
philosophers, to include the British sooner or later, God collapses and dies. So
the great medieval sense of being and oneness with God once so apparent before
the 17th Century in the West, and the tingling, joyful hope of a resurrection
away from a miserable physical existence, has left us, in this late age, with a
quite pleasant physical existence in the West in many ways, but within a
spiritually testy, if not moribund one. We seek the “heartland” of not only our
souls, but of the great landmasses where people philosophize less and believe
more.
The curious thing about
Newton’s second edition Principia’s words on the Deity is the barely disguised
warning to wayward “servants” who give no worship to the “living, intelligent,
and powerful Being.” That is, if we give this being no place, all else is Fate
(superstition) and Nature - the hard place Newton and his teachers assisted in
first delivering us away from. The philosophy of Hegel and later, Bertrand
Russell, talk much of “Fate” and "Destiny" and other pagan concepts. God is dead
and, voila. We are back to the pagan past of the pre-Christian Druids,
spiritually. Technologically, however, we are armed to the very teeth.
Unlike the demiurge he is
painted as being, such as by plow-improving American presidents like Thomas
Jefferson to neo-Augustan poets like Alexander Pope, all the way to that can-do
Manhattan Project crowd that invented the bomb, Newton saw himself in a less
glamorous light. He did not make gravitation apply to all bodies, and his time
and space appreciations were metaphysical and God-awed in the main. It was his
followers who became his Judas into seeing all these as universal entities,
separating God ultimately from them and the finding of more like them. If
anything, Newton sees himself as a slightly clever servant. Newton’s main
achievement was to define a distraction-free place wherein one could solve
physical problems, much as Galileo and Descartes and others had hoped, and as
Boyle helped him to achieve.
What do we see ourselves as
in this late age? How many new things, new ways of helping our human condition
have passed since the time Boyle and Newton walked the earth? Have we missed any
unseen laws due to our not paying any attention to an “all powerful, living, and
intelligent being?” Do we even think this way any longer?
Given that few new
fundamental laws have been discovered to widen our understanding since their
time, could we “super rationalists” have been deeply in the wrong for listening
to the progressive deists all these years? Could God, in other words, be a
little less “rational” than we think? Is the essence of Kabalos, or cabalistic
interpretation of Scripture, more necessary for extending our understanding of
Nature and so God (in the Hobbesian understanding) due to accepting that His
logic is so deep in the Scriptures that we can only gaze at times and hope for
revelation in paralleling scientific pursuits?
Curious agnostics wait and
see. We may not have the tingly spirit of a medieval Christian God with us any
longer among the elites, once childishly hopeful, if illiterate. But we and,
significantly, our elites, do certainly have the means by which to destroy the
entire planet today.
Sources
Anstey, P.R., “The
methodological origins of Newton’s queries,” Studies in the History and
Philosophy of Science, Vol. 35A, 2 June 2004 pp 247-269
Bacon, F., The New Organon,
or, True Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature (1620)
Burtt, E.A., The
Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (Dover: 2003)
Cohen, I.B., Science and
the Founding Fathers (W.W. Norton: 1995)
Crowe, M.J., Modern
Theories of the Universe from Herschel to Hubble (Dover:1994)
de Spinoza, B., On the
Improvement of the Understanding/The Ethics/ Correspondence (Dover:1955)
Descartes, R., Discourse on
the Method for Conducting One’s Reason Well and Seeking Truth in the Sciences
(1637)
Drake, S., Galileo at Work:
His Scientific Biography (Dover : 1995)
Gaukroger, S., Descartes:
an Intellectual biography (Oxford: 1995)
Harrison, E., Darkness at
Night: A Rid dle of the Universe (Harvard University Press: 1987)
Heisenberg, W., Physics and
Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science (Promethius: 1999)
Huff, T., The Rise of Early
Modern Science: Islam, China and the West (Cambridge University Press: 1995)
Isaaci Newtoni Opera quae
exstant Omnia. Commentaris illustrabat Samuel Horsely, L.L. D etc., 5 vols,
London, 1779-85, 324 (quoted in Burtt, p 217)
McCluskey, S.C.,
Astronomers and Cultures in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge : 1998)
Schroeder, G.L., The
Science of God (The Free Press : 1997)
Toulmin, S. and Goodfield,
J., The Fabric of the Heavens: the Development of Astronomy and Dynamics (Harper
& Row: 1961)
Wolf, A., A History of
Science Technology and Philosophy in the 16th and 17th Centuries, Volumes 1 and
2. (George Allen and Unwin, London, 1961)
Equipment review...
Orion Astroview 120 ST, $429.99
refractor featuring a short f/5 optical system with a 120mm lens (equatorial
mount, 6x30mm finder, and a pair of 10mm and 20mm Plossl eyepieces)
From Curt Irwin reviews
I’ve been an avid amateur
astronomer for about ten years, with my main focus of study being the Moon, the
planets and Deep Sky Objects (DSOs). I’ve had a variety of scopes from a wide
range of binoculars and reflectors and I now have an 8 inch SCT. I’m more of a
general interest observer. If I am short on time I’ll just check out the Moon if
its out or the planets at that time. Perhaps a few of my favorite DSOs like M42
or M31. If I do have more time, I’ll go through the Messier list as much as I
can or I’ll take more time with the Moon and planets.
Reasons for choosing the
Astroview 120ST
As much as I love my Meade
8 inch LX50, I can’t use it as much anymore as I have less time now with three
kids and 2 jobs, in addition to having a bad back. Those factors led me to
finding a low cost, easily portable scope that I could take out at a moments
notice with little or no setup time. It should be noted that I live in north
central Wisconsin. The upper Midwest is known for poor seeing conditions most of
the time, though we do occasionally get some excellent nights. I’ve been an avid
amateur astronomer for about ten years, with my main focus of study being the
Moon, the planets and deep sky objects. So my interest varies between planetary
and stellar observing.
My options were limited to
price, size/weight, ease of setup and versatility. Since I still have my SCT
(that at some point will go into a small permanent observatory) getting a
smaller SCT was not what I was after. Nor did I want to go the route of a
reflector. I started looking into short tube, rich field refractors. The APOs
looked great but were way too pricey. I looked at other low cost alternatives,
but most of the achromats of any kind all had the chromatic aberration caveat.
Together with a ton of reviews and a few good recommendations from some fellow
stargazers, I purchased an Astroview 120ST from Orion Telescopes,
www.telescope.com. I had some reservations about this purchase as most
complained of terrible high power views. I expected this however (as well they
should have) for this short focal length achromatic scope. But Orion has a great
customer service department, so I was not concerned if this was not quite up to
my expectations.
The Astroview 120ST is a
600mm, f/5 short tube refractor, with a 4.7 inch, multi-coated objective lens
that is meant for wide field viewing, not planetary or Moon detail. Orion
clearly states its use as such. But from my first times out, I have been able to
really push the magnification on the moon, Jupiter and Saturn, revealing an
extreme amount of detail for this type of scope. It is lightweight at only 9 lbs
and only 24 ½ inch long so it its size is perfect for me. I can leave it on the
mount and carry the whole thing out side and start observing immediately, which
is important because I have such limited time and sometimes I can’t haul out my
SCT. Also because of its size, I can now take it with me wherever I go as the
whole setup fits easily into any size vehicle.
Equipment and shipping
I received my scope from
Orion in 5 days with standard ground shipping. It all came in one box, with most
every component packaged in separate boxes within. The scope itself was only
wrapped with tissue paper, with bubble wrap around that. I would have expected
some kind of fitted foam for the scope at least. But everything was in perfect
shape.
The Astroview 120ST is sold
as an OTA only or a package. I purchased the package for $429 (shipped) and it
comes with everything you need to start viewing, which includes a 2 inch focuser
(for optional 2 inch accessories), a 1.25 inch diagonal, 1.25 inch - 10mm and
25mm Plossl EP’s, 6 X 30 finderscope with bracket, , tight fitting endcaps, 2
counterweights (about 10 lbs. total), mounting rings and the Astroview (EQ3?)
mount and aluminum tripod...with a nice accessory tray and a hinged leg
stabilizer (which is nice for quick setup and tear down as the legs fold up
quickly without having to remove anything).
When I first looked at the
scope, I was happily surprised at the solid feel of its construction. The tube
finish was a shiny black with the focuser and lens cell assembly made of cast
aluminum that is painted with a black textured paint (rather than the black
anodized finish of more expensive APOs). It felt heavier than I thought 9 lbs.
would. I guess at $429 with a mount, I was expecting a more cheaply made scope,
but it is very well made. I also expected a flimsy, rattling mount. I had owned
a few cheaply made EQ mounts in the past and I thought at this price, the mount
would be similar to those. But I was quite pleased with what is a very solid,
beefy mount for this size (more about the mount later.) My first impression of
the scope and mount was that it was substantially better than I imagined.
Performance
On my first few nights out
with the Astroview 120ST, I could make out Cassini’s division in Saturn and at
least 4 cloud bands on Jupiter as well as gorgeous details on the moon. I’ve
read other’s comments about this scope’s inability to resolve much detail and
that the views “mush out” at anything above 60-80X magnification (which one
would expect from an achromatic refractor of this length), yet I pushed it to
120X with a 10mm EP and a Barlow and it still maintained very sharp images. The
views seemed no different with my Meade 26mm & 10mm Super Plossls than with
the supplied Orion 25mm & 10mm Sirius Plossls. The Barlow is Orion’s 2X APO
shorty.
On star tests, there is a
bit of flaring, both in and out of focus, but only at the edge of field. Stars
when in focus are perfectly round points of light. The field of view is very
wide indeed. With the supplied 25mm EP, this scope engulfs all three stars of
Orion’s belt in the same field of view. Even the Great Orion Nebula was still
quite sharp at 120X and very bright and clean, with the 4 stars of the trapezium
clearly defined. Chromatic aberration is minimal. It is vaguely noticeable on
very bright objects such as the moon and planets…with a hint of either purple or
yellow (only at the very fringe on one side of the object, or the other,
depending on how you move about the EP). There is no other discernable
coloration of objects…no purple or blue tones with anything. Aside from the
fringe color, I get the same colors as with my SCT.
In comparison to my Meade 8
inch LX50 SCT the Astroview has sharper optics and more contrast. My SCT has
perfect collimation and beautiful view and of course a larger aperture so it
should resolve more detail, but in side by side comparisons the Astroview’s
optics reveal crisper and more defined views at about the same magnification.
I’m sure at higher magnifications my SCT will remain sharper, whereas the
Astroview’s short focal length will start degrading the view, though I have not
had a chance to test it at higher than 120X. Others who own the Astroview 120ST
report to me that on nights of good seeing that they have been able to push the
magnification up to 240X and still maintain crisp views, but I have no way of
authenticating it.
The 2 inch focuser has a
1.25 inch adapter. The focuser is solid and smooth. Achieving focus is a snap
and the focuser holds the focus, even without the lock down screw tightened.
Focus is very easy to obtain and sharpen and much easier than similar focusers
I’ve had on reflectors.
The supplied 6 X 30
finderscope is all metal except for the small dew shield. Orion got rave reviews
from Sky & Telescope for their design of the finder bracket’s alignment. It
is so easy to align with only two set screws that push the finder against a
spring loaded pin. At first I thought a 6 X 30 finder scope was a bit cheap as I
am used to the more robust 8 X 50’s, but in reality anything over 6 X 30 is
overkill. The Astroview has such a wide field of view that one could almost star
hop through the finder scope itself. I think a red-dot finder would be most
appropriate for this wide field scope. The only complaint I have about the
finder scope bracket is the manner in which it is attached to the scope housing.
The dovetail seems to be pointing in the wrong direction, because if you are
viewing overhead and the set screw loosens, it will slide right out onto the
ground!
The mount is called an
Astroview, but it looks just like Orion’s EQ3 mount…which I think is either a
CG-4 or CG-5 knock-off. It is very solid and robust. It moves smoothly, though
it is a little stiff, but there is no sticking anywhere. It may just need
adjusting or like the CG mounts, it needs to be taken apart and cleaned and
re-greased. For tracking or astrophotography I will use my SCT and I may even
add a mounting bracket to my SCT’s OTA to mount the Astroview to it as a guide
scope, viewer or wide field photography platform while on my SCT. Unless the
Astroview mount is adjusted or cleaned and re-greased, or both, I wouldn’t add a
drive to it as it is a little stiff, though smooth in operation.
The mount’s setting circles
are so loose (with a lot of play in them) that one could not really use them for
exact location of objects. They seem quite sloppy, cheap and almost an
afterthought. The polar alignment scope that comes supplied with it, according
to the directions, is way too time consuming to bother with, given that one
really wouldn’t want to use this mount as a platform for astrophotography
anyway. I use it more like a more controlled Alt-Az mount since I use the scope
more for quick and easy viewing. The flexible RA and Dec movement cables work
quite nicely for keeping objects in the field of view. The mount gives you the
option of placing them on either side of the mount for easy access. One thing to
keep in mind with this mount is that the mounting rings bolt directly to the
mount. There is no dovetail/saddle assembly for this mount.
The aluminum tripod legs
are not very stable when fully extended (as one would expect), but very solid
when fully retracted and overhead views are not really hindered as this is a
short tube…not the monolithic, four foot long focal length refractor. The height
of the mount (at its base) when the legs are fully extended is 47 inches and
when fully retracted is 26 inches. I found a happy medium in height versus
stability. If the legs are about halfway extended (which allows for fairly
comfortable viewing while standing) the damping time is around three
seconds…which, even at 120X is no bother…and focusing alone does not make it
jitter much, if any. Only bumping into the scope or tripod makes it jiggle, so
overall it is quite stable. This is the exact same mount that Sky and Telescope
reviewed with the Orion StarMax 127 EQ (Makustov) in their March 2002 issue.
To conclude
Overall, I think this scope
is greatly underrated. It is not an APO to be sure, but because of the way it
performs, it certainly acts more like one than your typical achromatic scope,
much less a short tube at that! Still, the mount leaves a lot to be desired for
astrophotography. But for the price of this setup one can hardly complain.
(About the author: Curt
Irwin takes in astronomy equipment reviews online at www.scopereviews.com signed
or - as in this case -anonymously.)
The Star Splitter
Robert Frost
`You know Orion always
comes up sideways.
Throwing a leg up over our
fence of mountains,
And rising on his hands, he
looks in on me
Busy outdoors by
lantern-light with something
I should have done by
daylight, and indeed,
After the ground is frozen,
I should have done
Before it froze, and a gust
flings a handful
Of waste leaves at my smoky
lantern chimney
To make fun of my way of
doing things,
Or else fun of Orion's
having caught me.
Has a man, I should like to
ask, no rights
These forces are obliged to
pay respect to?'
So Brad McLaughlin mingled
reckless talk
Of heavenly stars with
hugger-mugger farming,
Till having failed at
hugger-mugger farming
He burned his house down
for the fire insurance
And spent the proceeds on a
telescope
To satisfy a lifelong
curiosity
About our place among the
infinities. `What do you want with one
of those blame things?'
I asked him well
beforehand. `Don't you get one!'
`Don't call it blamed;
there isn't anything
More blameless in the sense
of being less
A weapon in our human
fight,' he said.
`I'll have one if I sell my
farm to buy it.'
There where he moved the
rocks to plow the ground
And plowed between the
rocks he couldn't move,
Few farms changed hands; so
rather than spend years
Trying to sell his farm and
then not selling,
He burned his house down
for the fire insurance
And bought the telescope
with what it came to.
He had been heard to say by
several
`The best thing that we're
put here for's to see;
The strongest thing that's
given us to see with's
A telescope. Someone in
every town
Seems to me owes it to the
town to keep one.
In Littleton it might as
well be me.'
After such loose talk it
was no surprise
When he did what he did and
burned his house down.
Mean laughter went about
the town that day
To let him know we weren't
the least imposed on,
And he could wait---we'd
see to him tomorrow.
But the first thing next
morning we reflected
If one by one we counted
people out
To get so we had no one
left to live with.
For the least sin, it
wouldn't take us long
For to be social is to be
forgiving.
Our thief, the one who does
our stealing from us,
We don't cut off from
coming to church suppers,
But what we miss we go to
him and ask for.
He promptly gives it back,
that is if still
Uneaten, unworn out, or
undisposed of.
It wouldn't do to be too
hard on Brad
About his telescope. Beyond
the age
Of being given one for
Christmas gift,
He had to take the best way
he knew how
To find himself in one.
Well, all we said was
He took a strange thing to
be roguish over.
Some sympathy was wasted on
the house,
A good old-timer dating
back along;
But a house isn't sentient;
the house
Didn't feel anything, and
if it did
Why not regard it as a
sacrifice,
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________