Podcasts about Arthur Eddington

The star Spica, which is quite close to the Moon tonight, is quite different from the Sun. It consists of two stars, not one. Both stars are many times bigger and heavier than the Sun. And their surfaces are tens of thousands of degrees hotter, so the stars shine blue-white. On the other hand, the Sun and Spica are made of almost exactly the same ingredients: mainly hydrogen and helium, with only a smattering of heavier elements. That composition was figured out by an astronomer who was born 125 years ago tomorrow, in England. Cecilia Payne caught the astronomy bug when she saw a lecture by Arthur Eddington, one of the world’s leading astronomers. She started her education in England, then finished in the United States. She earned a Ph.D. in 1925. And her doctoral thesis shook up the field. Decades later, in fact, Otto Struve, the first director of McDonald Observatory, called it the most brilliant thesis ever written in the field. Astronomers already had the techniques for measuring what stars are made of. Their work led them to believe that stars contain the same mixture of elements as Earth. But Payne used a new way to analyze the readings, taking into account the charge of atoms. She concluded that stars were made mainly of hydrogen and helium – elements formed in the Big Bang. By a few years later, just about everyone accepted her analysis – completely changing our concept of the stars. Script by Damond Benningfield

Albert Einstein, Genel Görelilik'i yazmış, hemen ardından bu teorisini gözleme dayalı bir şekilde kanıtlamıştı. Evrenin şifrelerini çözecek bir noktaya gelmişti artık. Kağıt üzerindeki tüm tahminleri evrende sıfır sapmayla karşılık buluyordu. Tüm gözler onun üzerindeydi. Ama o bunlarla da yetinmeyecekti. Kendince son bir misyonu daha vardı... Bilimin kutsal kasesini, yani Her Şeyin Teorisini bulmak.Hiçbir Şey Tesadüf Değil'deki Albert Einstein serimizin dördüncü ve son bölümünde bu hikayeye odaklanıyoruz. Einstein'ın son yıllarında yaşadıklarını ve Her Şeyin Teorisi'ni ararken başından geçenleri mercek altına alıyoruz.------- Podbee Sunar -------Bu podcast, Kuveyt Türk hakkında reklam içerir.Miles&Smiles Kuveyt Türk, ayrıcalıklı Mil dünyası ve size özel fırsatlarıyla her devirde yanınızda! Siz de mobilden Kuveyt Türklü olarak Miles&Smiles Kuveyt Türk kart başvurunuzu yapın, ayrıcalıklardan faydalanmaya başlayın. Detaylı bilgi için web sitesini ziyaret edebilirsiniz.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Warum leuchtet die Sonne? Das haben wir überraschend lange nicht gewusst. Mittlerweile wissen wir Bescheid: In ihrem Inneren findet Kernfusion statt. Und wenn wir das auch auf der Erde hinkriegen könnten, wäre das super. Das ist aber gar nicht so einfach. Wie die Kernfusion im Inneren der Sonne funktioniert und wo das Problem mit der künstlichen Kernfusion liegt, diskutieren Eva und Jana in dieser Folge. Ihr könnt uns gerne bei [Steady](https://steadyhq.com/de/cosmiclatte/), [Patreon] (https://patreon.com/CosmiclattePodcast) oder [Paypal](https://paypal.me/cosmiclattepod) unterstützen!

In Folge 117 wird es wieder einmal finster. Ruth hat jede Menge Neuigkeiten von schwarzen Löchern mitgebracht. Es geht um die Hawking-Strahlung, die auch ohne schwarze Löcher funktionieren könnte, um eventuell falsche Bilder eines schwarzen Lochs und dann vor allem um ein schwarzes Loch im jungen Universum mit einem enormen Fressflash. Evi erzählt uns dann etwas über schwarze Monolithen, die aus Planeten Sterne machen können. Allerdings nur in der Science Fiction… Wenn ihr uns unterstützen wollt, könnt ihr das hier tun: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/PodcastDasUniversum Oder hier: https://steadyhq.com/de/dasuniversum Oder hier: https://www.patreon.com/dasuniversum

Why does time move forward but not backward? Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder explains. Why does time move in only one direction? This still-unsolved question was posed in 1927 by the British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington, and the concept came to be known as the arrow of time. As theoretical physicist @SabineHossenfelder explains, there's a longstanding mystery in the foundations of physics: If we look at the laws for microscopic constituents, like elementary particles, they work the same way forward in time as they do backward in time. But the same does not hold true on macroscopic scales. In this Big Think video, Hossenfelder dives into this mystery and explores how it has captivated the minds of so many scientists and science fiction writers. Chapters: 0:00 The arrow of time 1:14 Why doesn't anyone get younger? 2:39 Can we stop human aging with entropy control? 4:01 Is ‘maximum entropy' how the universe will end? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- About Sabine Hossenfelder: Sabine Hossenfelder is a physicist, author, and creator of "Science Without the Gobbledygook". She currently works at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy in Germany. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- About Big Think | Smarter Faster™ ► Big Think The leading source of expert-driven, educational content. With thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, Big Think helps you get smarter, faster by exploring the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century. ► Big Think+ Make your business smarter, faster: https://bigthink.com/plus/ Get Smarter, Faster With Interviews From The Worlds Biggest Thinkers. Follow This Podcast And Turn On The Notifications Rate Us With 5 Stars Share This Episode --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bigthink/message Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Albert Einstein's relativity was just another theory at first, speculative and unproven—until Arthur Eddington and a special eclipse. Meet the weirdo scientist who made Einstein into *Einstein*...Our Sponsors:* Check out Rosetta Stone and use my code TODAY for a great deal: https://www.rosettastone.com/Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In this episode, Mike discusses Arthur Eddington and the Eclipse. Take a shot with us! Listen and Subscribe to us on: Anchor.fm Spotify YouTube Apple Podcasts Google Podcasts Cosmoswithcosmos.com Follow Us! Twitter: @drinkingcosmos Instagram: @cosmoswithcosmos Credits: Eric Skiff - Resistor Anthems http://EricSkiff.com/music Theme Music Remixed by: Ron Proctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC__fjzKFm0X0BQWHjYX8Z_w Check Out: Wildixia https://www.etsy.com/shop/Wildixia?ref=profile_header Rolling Bluff Planetarium https://www.rollingbluffsplanetarium.com/

Ruim een eeuw geleden leefde er een astronoom met de naam Arthur Eddington. Daar gaat deze aflevering niet over, maar wel over een mysterieus Röntgen object dat lak lijkt te hebben aan Eddington's limiet.NASA Study Helps Explain Limit-Breaking Ultra-Luminous X-Ray Sources:https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-study-helps-explain-limit-breaking-ultra-luminous-x-ray-sourcesOrbital Decay in M82 X-2:https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d67/pdfUltraluminous X-ray source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraluminous_X-ray_sourcePulsars:http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/LifeCycle/pulsars.htmlArthur Eddington:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_EddingtonDe Zimmerman en Space podcast is gelicenseerd onder een Creative Commons CC0 1.0 licentie.http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0

Vor 140 Jahren kam in Kendal im Nordwesten Englands Arthur Eddington zur Welt. Der Astrophysiker prägte in der ersten Hälfte des vergangenen Jahrhunderts viele Bereiche der Himmelsforschung. Vor 140 Jahren wurde er geboren.Von Dirk Lorenzenwww.deutschlandfunk.de, SternzeitDirekter Link zur Audiodatei

Proof is the wrong word. We don't “prove” there is beauty in the artwork or that our spouse is in love with us. But we know it—and it is true and very real. Is it reasonable to believe in God and in the Christian story? We interpret facts on the ground through the lens we have already chosen. Detective work doesn't start with what evidence we want to have in front of us, but what we actually have in front of us. And it doesn't help if I tell you I have a secret code you don't have, or I only will consider evidence that already fits into my system but nothing else. No…I want us to look at what is readily available to just about anyone, and see what it suggests. So I'd like to look at some clues…that's the phrase I prefer…clues…that point me to the story that defines my life. In this lesson, we look at clues in nature, in people, and in the story itself that has given rise to faith all over the world.The sermon today is titled "A Faith Worthy Of Our Examination." It is the third installment in our "Worthy Faith" Series. The Scripture reading is from Deuteronomy 4:39. Originally preached at the West Side Church of Christ (Searcy, AR) on November 6, 2022. All lessons fit under one of 5 broad categories: Begin, Discover, Grow, Learn, and Serve. This sermon is filed under Begin: A Satisfying Faith.Click here if you would like to watch the sermon or read a transcript.Footnotes (Sources and References Used In Today's Podcast):St. Augustine, Confessions."I believe in Christianity, like I believe the sun has risen" (C. S. Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?" in The Weight of Glory)Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (2001).Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978)Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe (1933)Odds of life: 1 in 10(299). Lee Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos (Oxford, 1999). See also this article in Scientific American.H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.A. N. Wilson, "Why I Believe Again" New Statesman (2009)I'd love to connect with you!Watch sermons and find transcripts at nathanguy.com.Follow along each Sunday through YouTube livestream and find a study guide and even kids notes on the sermon notes page.Subscribe to my email newsletter on substack.

On this ID The Future, Return of the God Hypothesis author Stephen Meyer again speaks with radio host Michael Medved about the extraordinarily powerful new James Webb space telescope. One researcher, Eric Lerner, has claimed that what the Webb telescope is seeing many billions of light years away (and therefore, many billions of years in the past) undercuts the Big Bang theory. But according to Meyer, the new photographs coming back from Webb actually further confirm the reality that our universe had a beginning (“the Big Bang”) and that it has been expanding ever since. What these Webb images are forcing a rethink on, Meyer says, is the conventional wisdom among cosmologists on galaxy formation in the early universe. Meyer Read More › Source

Episode: 2238 Cecilia Payne-Gospochkin and the Golden Apples of the Sun.  Today, we ask what the sun's made of.

Earendel, la estrella más lejana jamás encontrada, nos da una nueva cifra para el tamaño del universo conocido.El telescopio espacial Hubble detecta la estrella más lejana jamás vista y fue llamada Earendel, una palabra del inglés antiguo, se traduce como ‘estrella de la mañana' o ‘astro naciente'. Es muy lejana, la luz que esta emitió y que el Hubble acaba de ver en 2022 tardó unos 13.000 millones de años en llegar. Está tan lejos que su luz ha tardado 12 mil 900 millones de años en llegar a la Tierra. Un año luz es una unidad de longitud utilizada para medir distancias astronómicas que equivale aproximadamente a 9,46 × 10¹² km. Es la distancia que recorre la luz en un año terrestre. Por primera vez estamos viendo la luz de una estrella tan distante, de una sola estrella. Por la lejanía de su luz, los científicos están seguros de que pertenece a la primera generación de estrellas en la historia del Universo. La estrella ya está muerta, explotó hace miles de millones de años, su luz llegó al Hubble y a ojos humanos porque la luz de la galaxia donde estaba fue distorsionada por lentes gravitacionales haciendo un efecto físico equivalente a la amplificación que daría una lente. Una ayuda para el Hubble El telescopio espacial Hubble, o simplemente Hubble, es uno de los telescopios espaciales más renombrados de la astronomía moderna que orbita en el exterior de la atmósfera terrestre, en órbita circular alrededor del planeta Tierra a 593 kilómetros sobre el nivel del mar, con un período orbital entre 96 y 97 minutos. El telescopio Hubble es muy poderoso, pero tiene un límite de qué tan lejos o qué tan atrás en el tiempo puede ver. A mayor distancia, mayor demora en el viaje de la luz. En este caso la capacidad del Hubble recibió la ayuda del fenómeno de lente gravitacional. En astrofísica una lente gravitatoria, también denominada lente gravitacional, se forma cuando la luz procedente de objetos distantes y brillantes como quasares se curva alrededor de un objeto masivo situado entre el objeto emisor y el receptor. Es un fenómeno que fue predicho por Albert Einstein. Eisntein había sido capaz de predecir el comportamiento de la luz de las estrellas al pasar por las cercanias del Sol. Fue predicho por Einstein en 1912, unos años antes de la publicación de la teoría de la relatividad general en 1916. Igual que el vidrio curvado de una botella deforma la imagen cuando miramos a través suyo, una lente gravitacional deforma y amplifica la imagen de las galaxias lejanas produciendo imágenes dobles o múltiples, arcos, etc. Y si existe una galaxia-lente exactamente enfrente de una galaxia de fondo, produce el llamado “anillo de Einstein”. La luz de una fuente que viaja, en vez de hacerlo en una línea recta es desviada o doblada por la presencia de un cuerpo masivo, que deforma el espacio-tiempo. Es como si la luz fuese atraída por la gravedad de un cuerpo masivo. Un anillo de Einstein es un caso especial de desviación gravitacional de la luz, causado por la alineación exacta de la fuente, la lente y el observador. Esto causa una simetría alrededor de la lente, causando una estructura parecida a un anillo. El astrónomo Arthur Eddington, durante un eclipse solar, observó que la luz procedente de las estrellas lejanas se curvaba cuando pasaba cerca del Sol. y básicamente es que los cuerpos de grandes masas actúan como un lente, desvían la luz de objetos que vienen desde atrás como si fueran un lente y la amplifican. Es un telescopio natural. Los fenómenos de lentes gravitatorias pueden utilizarse también para detectar la presencia de objetos masivos invisibles, tales como agujeros negros. Las distancias cósmicas tan grandes hubieran hecho imposible la observación de Earendel sin el Hubble y sin la lente gravitacional. La galaxia que alberga a la estrella Earendel ha sido ampliada y distorsionada por lentes gravitacionales particulares en una forma de media luna larga que también se conoce como Arco del Amanecer. Earendel nos permitirá aprender más sobre el universo primitivo. Como se formó cuando el universo era muy joven, podemos aprender cómo eran las estrellas en esa época y cómo han evolucionado con el tiempo. Más lejos que Ícaro Hubble ha hecho más de 1,5 millones de observaciones en su vida operacional. Antes de que Earendel se llevara el récord de ‘estrella más lejana' en el Universo, una estrella igualmente antigua ostentaba el título. Descubierta también por el Hubble, ‘Ícaro' era un astro azul cuya luz tardó 9 mil millones de años en llegar a la Tierra. Sí, el telescopio Hubble tiene más de 30 años, fue puesto en órbita en 1990 pero sigue funcionando perfectamente. El hallazgo se publicó el 30 de marzo de 2022 en Nature, y marca un hito en la observación astronómica contemporánea. Según el equipo de Universidad Johns Hopkins, Earendel es observable por la posición en la que se encuentra en la onda espacio-tiempo. La más vieja: Aunque efectivamente ésta es la estrella más lejana jamás encontrada por la humanidad, no debe de confundirse con la más antigua. Ese puesto todavía lo ocupa «Matusalén», encontrada en 2013 por el mismo telescopio. El telescopio espacial Hubble sigue dándonos una ciencia increíble y esperamos que siga funcionando de la misma forma por muchos años más. Como sucesor del Hubble, será trabajo del Telescopio James Webb descubrir cuál es su composición.  Y descubrir estrellas aún más lejanas. El artículo científico: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04449-y

Earendel, la estrella más lejana jamás encontrada, nos da una nueva cifra para el tamaño del universo conocido.El telescopio espacial Hubble detecta la estrella más lejana jamás vista y fue llamada Earendel, una palabra del inglés antiguo, se traduce como ‘estrella de la mañana' o ‘astro naciente'. Es muy lejana, la luz que esta emitió y que el Hubble acaba de ver en 2022 tardó unos 13.000 millones de años en llegar. Está tan lejos que su luz ha tardado 12 mil 900 millones de años en llegar a la Tierra. Un año luz es una unidad de longitud utilizada para medir distancias astronómicas que equivale aproximadamente a 9,46 × 10¹² km. Es la distancia que recorre la luz en un año terrestre. Por primera vez estamos viendo la luz de una estrella tan distante, de una sola estrella. Por la lejanía de su luz, los científicos están seguros de que pertenece a la primera generación de estrellas en la historia del Universo. La estrella ya está muerta, explotó hace miles de millones de años, su luz llegó al Hubble y a ojos humanos porque la luz de la galaxia donde estaba fue distorsionada por lentes gravitacionales haciendo un efecto físico equivalente a la amplificación que daría una lente. Una ayuda para el Hubble El telescopio espacial Hubble, o simplemente Hubble, es uno de los telescopios espaciales más renombrados de la astronomía moderna que orbita en el exterior de la atmósfera terrestre, en órbita circular alrededor del planeta Tierra a 593 kilómetros sobre el nivel del mar, con un período orbital entre 96 y 97 minutos. El telescopio Hubble es muy poderoso, pero tiene un límite de qué tan lejos o qué tan atrás en el tiempo puede ver. A mayor distancia, mayor demora en el viaje de la luz. En este caso la capacidad del Hubble recibió la ayuda del fenómeno de lente gravitacional. En astrofísica una lente gravitatoria, también denominada lente gravitacional, se forma cuando la luz procedente de objetos distantes y brillantes como quasares se curva alrededor de un objeto masivo situado entre el objeto emisor y el receptor. Es un fenómeno que fue predicho por Albert Einstein. Eisntein había sido capaz de predecir el comportamiento de la luz de las estrellas al pasar por las cercanias del Sol. Fue predicho por Einstein en 1912, unos años antes de la publicación de la teoría de la relatividad general en 1916. Igual que el vidrio curvado de una botella deforma la imagen cuando miramos a través suyo, una lente gravitacional deforma y amplifica la imagen de las galaxias lejanas produciendo imágenes dobles o múltiples, arcos, etc. Y si existe una galaxia-lente exactamente enfrente de una galaxia de fondo, produce el llamado “anillo de Einstein”. La luz de una fuente que viaja, en vez de hacerlo en una línea recta es desviada o doblada por la presencia de un cuerpo masivo, que deforma el espacio-tiempo. Es como si la luz fuese atraída por la gravedad de un cuerpo masivo. Un anillo de Einstein es un caso especial de desviación gravitacional de la luz, causado por la alineación exacta de la fuente, la lente y el observador. Esto causa una simetría alrededor de la lente, causando una estructura parecida a un anillo. El astrónomo Arthur Eddington, durante un eclipse solar, observó que la luz procedente de las estrellas lejanas se curvaba cuando pasaba cerca del Sol. y básicamente es que los cuerpos de grandes masas actúan como un lente, desvían la luz de objetos que vienen desde atrás como si fueran un lente y la amplifican. Es un telescopio natural. Los fenómenos de lentes gravitatorias pueden utilizarse también para detectar la presencia de objetos masivos invisibles, tales como agujeros negros. Las distancias cósmicas tan grandes hubieran hecho imposible la observación de Earendel sin el Hubble y sin la lente gravitacional. La galaxia que alberga a la estrella Earendel ha sido ampliada y distorsionada por lentes gravitacionales particulares en una forma de media luna larga que también se conoce como Arco del Amanecer. Earendel nos permitirá aprender más sobre el universo primitivo. Como se formó cuando el universo era muy joven, podemos aprender cómo eran las estrellas en esa época y cómo han evolucionado con el tiempo. Más lejos que Ícaro Hubble ha hecho más de 1,5 millones de observaciones en su vida operacional. Antes de que Earendel se llevara el récord de ‘estrella más lejana' en el Universo, una estrella igualmente antigua ostentaba el título. Descubierta también por el Hubble, ‘Ícaro' era un astro azul cuya luz tardó 9 mil millones de años en llegar a la Tierra. Sí, el telescopio Hubble tiene más de 30 años, fue puesto en órbita en 1990 pero sigue funcionando perfectamente. El hallazgo se publicó el 30 de marzo de 2022 en Nature, y marca un hito en la observación astronómica contemporánea. Según el equipo de Universidad Johns Hopkins, Earendel es observable por la posición en la que se encuentra en la onda espacio-tiempo. La más vieja: Aunque efectivamente ésta es la estrella más lejana jamás encontrada por la humanidad, no debe de confundirse con la más antigua. Ese puesto todavía lo ocupa «Matusalén», encontrada en 2013 por el mismo telescopio. El telescopio espacial Hubble sigue dándonos una ciencia increíble y esperamos que siga funcionando de la misma forma por muchos años más. Como sucesor del Hubble, será trabajo del Telescopio James Webb descubrir cuál es su composición.  Y descubrir estrellas aún más lejanas. El artículo científico: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04449-y

Otro pódcast recomendado: https://bit.ly/CommandLineHeroesES Earendel, la estrella más lejana jamás encontrada, nos da una nueva cifra para el tamaño del universo conocido.El telescopio espacial Hubble detecta la estrella más lejana jamás vista y fue llamada Earendel, una palabra del inglés antiguo, se traduce como ‘estrella de la mañana' o ‘astro naciente'. Es muy lejana, la luz que esta emitió y que el Hubble acaba de ver en 2022 tardó unos 13.000 millones de años en llegar. Está tan lejos que su luz ha tardado 12 mil 900 millones de años en llegar a la Tierra. Un año luz es una unidad de longitud utilizada para medir distancias astronómicas que equivale aproximadamente a 9,46 × 10¹² km. Es la distancia que recorre la luz en un año terrestre. Por primera vez estamos viendo la luz de una estrella tan distante, de una sola estrella. Por la lejanía de su luz, los científicos están seguros de que pertenece a la primera generación de estrellas en la historia del Universo. La estrella ya está muerta, explotó hace miles de millones de años, su luz llegó al Hubble y a ojos humanos porque la luz de la galaxia donde estaba fue distorsionada por lentes gravitacionales haciendo un efecto físico equivalente a la amplificación que daría una lente. Una ayuda para el Hubble El telescopio espacial Hubble, o simplemente Hubble, es uno de los telescopios espaciales más renombrados de la astronomía moderna que orbita en el exterior de la atmósfera terrestre, en órbita circular alrededor del planeta Tierra a 593 kilómetros sobre el nivel del mar, con un período orbital entre 96 y 97 minutos. El telescopio Hubble es muy poderoso, pero tiene un límite de qué tan lejos o qué tan atrás en el tiempo puede ver. A mayor distancia, mayor demora en el viaje de la luz. En este caso la capacidad del Hubble recibió la ayuda del fenómeno de lente gravitacional. En astrofísica una lente gravitatoria, también denominada lente gravitacional, se forma cuando la luz procedente de objetos distantes y brillantes como quasares se curva alrededor de un objeto masivo situado entre el objeto emisor y el receptor. Es un fenómeno que fue predicho por Albert Einstein. Eisntein había sido capaz de predecir el comportamiento de la luz de las estrellas al pasar por las cercanias del Sol. Fue predicho por Einstein en 1912, unos años antes de la publicación de la teoría de la relatividad general en 1916. Igual que el vidrio curvado de una botella deforma la imagen cuando miramos a través suyo, una lente gravitacional deforma y amplifica la imagen de las galaxias lejanas produciendo imágenes dobles o múltiples, arcos, etc. Y si existe una galaxia-lente exactamente enfrente de una galaxia de fondo, produce el llamado “anillo de Einstein”. La luz de una fuente que viaja, en vez de hacerlo en una línea recta es desviada o doblada por la presencia de un cuerpo masivo, que deforma el espacio-tiempo. Es como si la luz fuese atraída por la gravedad de un cuerpo masivo. Un anillo de Einstein es un caso especial de desviación gravitacional de la luz, causado por la alineación exacta de la fuente, la lente y el observador. Esto causa una simetría alrededor de la lente, causando una estructura parecida a un anillo. El astrónomo Arthur Eddington, durante un eclipse solar, observó que la luz procedente de las estrellas lejanas se curvaba cuando pasaba cerca del Sol. y básicamente es que los cuerpos de grandes masas actúan como un lente, desvían la luz de objetos que vienen desde atrás como si fueran un lente y la amplifican. Es un telescopio natural. Los fenómenos de lentes gravitatorias pueden utilizarse también para detectar la presencia de objetos masivos invisibles, tales como agujeros negros. Las distancias cósmicas tan grandes hubieran hecho imposible la observación de Earendel sin el Hubble y sin la lente gravitacional. La galaxia que alberga a la estrella Earendel ha sido ampliada y distorsionada por lentes gravitacionales particulares en una forma de media luna larga que también se conoce como Arco del Amanecer. Earendel nos permitirá aprender más sobre el universo primitivo. Como se formó cuando el universo era muy joven, podemos aprender cómo eran las estrellas en esa época y cómo han evolucionado con el tiempo. Más lejos que Ícaro Hubble ha hecho más de 1,5 millones de observaciones en su vida operacional. Antes de que Earendel se llevara el récord de ‘estrella más lejana' en el Universo, una estrella igualmente antigua ostentaba el título. Descubierta también por el Hubble, ‘Ícaro' era un astro azul cuya luz tardó 9 mil millones de años en llegar a la Tierra. Sí, el telescopio Hubble tiene más de 30 años, fue puesto en órbita en 1990 pero sigue funcionando perfectamente. El hallazgo se publicó el 30 de marzo de 2022 en Nature, y marca un hito en la observación astronómica contemporánea. Según el equipo de Universidad Johns Hopkins, Earendel es observable por la posición en la que se encuentra en la onda espacio-tiempo. La más vieja: Aunque efectivamente ésta es la estrella más lejana jamás encontrada por la humanidad, no debe de confundirse con la más antigua. Ese puesto todavía lo ocupa «Matusalén», encontrada en 2013 por el mismo telescopio. El telescopio espacial Hubble sigue dándonos una ciencia increíble y esperamos que siga funcionando de la misma forma por muchos años más. Como sucesor del Hubble, será trabajo del Telescopio James Webb descubrir cuál es su composición.  Y descubrir estrellas aún más lejanas. El artículo científico: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04449-y

Episode 99 Last time, we talked about relativistic time and its implications for faith in a theistic god. That conversation was... heady to say the least. So, here to help us further understand what all that means is our good friend Dr. Timothy Maness. We talk about the flow of time, where/when God is, fate, and more. Ready to have your mind blown?    Timothy Maness is a scholar of science and religion whose recent dissertation, which he is currently adapting into a book, discusses ways of reconciling relativistic physics with a flowing model of time, in which past, present and future are really distinct from one another. It also explores how a relativistic theory of flowing time can complement Abrahamic theology, and serve as the basis for a view of existence centered on personhood.    Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast   More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/   produced by Zack Jackson music by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis    Transcript  This transcript was automatically generated by www.otter.ai, and as such contains errors (especially when multiple people are talking). As the AI learns our voices, the transcripts will improve. We hope it is helpful even with the errors.     Zack Jackson 00:06 You are listening to the down the wormhole podcast exploring the strange and fascinating relationship between science and religion. Our guest today is an incredible scholar of science and religion whose recent dissertation which he is currently adapting into a book discusses ways of reconciling relativistic physics with a flowing model of time, in which past, present and future are really distinct from one another. It also explores how a relativistic theory of flowing time can complement Abrahamic theology, and serve as the basis for a view of existence centered on personhood, here to unpack what all of that means, and more is our good friend, Dr. Timothy Maness. Welcome to the podcast. Tim.   Tim Maness 00:50 Hi. It's great to be here. Yeah, I've been I've been a regular listener. And I've been I've been wanting to get on for quite some time.   Zack Jackson 00:57 I have been, we have been talking about having you on since almost the beginning of the podcast. So I do apologize.   Tim Maness 01:03 I know you guys have had a lot of things to talk about to, to clarify for our listeners, the wonderful Sinai and Synapses fellowship that is, is run by the the Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, the the same cohort of fellows were the hosts of the podcast met, I also had the privilege of meeting them as well. So we were we were all friends in that, that fellowship. So we've known each other for a while now. It was   Zack Jackson 01:33 a very good cohort. And the very first time that I met him, I remember us standing awkwardly as people do when they first meet, maybe nibbling on a bagel or something and saying, What are you doing? And of course, I felt completely out of place. Because, you know, I'm a, I'm a pastor who likes science, and I'm in a room filled with people with advanced degrees and understandings of things that are beyond my, my understanding, and that, you know that what do they call it? That imposter syndrome that everyone? You know, everyone will? I do? Say everyone, because we all think we're imposters, right? Yep, yep. Yeah, I was really feeling it. And I was all I had done some work in seminary on on relativistic time, and theology and our understanding of God and salvation. And so when I asked him, What is he was working on. And he said, he explained some of his dissertation and how it was exactly what I had been working on, I got so excited, I said, we need to talk, I need to read this, I need to, we need to hear it. And then when he started explaining it, to me, it went so far over my head, I realized how much I still had to learn. And I have and he's been really helpful in helping me to understand some things and inspiring me to learn more and to dig deeper into the things I thought I knew, and the implications that I thought were there. And so it's, it's, it's really nice to have you here to help unpack and open up some of this stuff. I think it was St. Augustine that said, I understand time fully until you asked me to explain it. I,   Tim Maness 03:07 that's that's one of my go to quotations, I think might be the introduction of my dissertation starts with that.   Zack Jackson 03:15 Oh, well, there you go. That's, that'd be fun to defend, I would imagine, where you just start off by saying, I can't explain any of this stuff.   Tim Maness 03:24 Yeah, yeah. But one of the things I want to argue is that is that you know, the average person, but But you, dear listener, understand time in you that you have in an important understanding of time, that, that you that ought to be taken into account. And that one of the ways that, that a lot of the philosophy of time over the past, you know, century and a bit has has failed, is in failing to take our everyday experience of time into account. So, I think that, you know, I want to be careful about trying about about going over people's heads. I think it was Einstein, who said that, if that happens is that one of the things that that's a sign of is that the person who is explaining doesn't understand their subject as well as they should.   Zack Jackson 04:25 So yeah, that's the, that's what sets like Jesus's teachings apart is that you can say a whole lot in a little bit because you really get it or Mr. Rogers. Yeah. So maybe you can help us to understand a little bit, you mentioned that we have an experience of time. I think that kind of goes without saying that the past is what you did. The present is what you're doing in the future is what you will do, and they're all connected causally. But that's about it. Right? You know, and that there's a static flow of time like a conveyor belt, almost Right, but that's not, that's not exactly how things panned out in the early 1900s.   Tim Maness 05:06 Yes, that's true. There are these these three modes of time, these three sort of general tenses, you might say there, if you get into the grammar, but you can come up with more that, that constitute our relationship with time. The, the philosopher, Immanuel Kant talked about PILOTs, one of the categories of our experience, you know, this thing that sort of gives shape to, to the way we experience the world. And, you know, we experienced that the past is accessed through through memory, that's the past is, is this set thing that we, that we, that we know, of, it's definite for us. To some extent, it's definite, but we forget things as well. But it's it's set, it has its own existence, and the future doesn't exist yet. It's some, it's the, the domain of, of sort of planning and also guesswork. It's, it's there to be defined, and the present is where those two things come together. But it's also more than that. It's, it's the, it's the way of, of the mode of times existence in which we can act, in which we make decisions, and, and do things. And it's those decisions, that that shape, the future. And all of those things are, are, are deeply tied in to our way of living in the world as human beings. Right, you know, that's all of those have a very sort of narrative kind of character to them. That it's like, it's like a story, right? That we talked about having a beginning and a middle and an ending. And even before Einstein, a lot of philosophers and scientists were kind of suspicious about that way of talking about time, precisely because it was so human. So, you know, the, the great philosopher, Bertrand Russell, who, you know, contributed so much to the philosophy of mathematics, among other things. Writing before Einstein said that, basically, the fact that this way of thinking about time has so much of the human in it has so much of our subjective, personal way of, of experiencing things into it, that, but there must be something wrong with it. Basically, that in order to be really scientific, where a scientific, you know, is considered to mean the same thing as rigorous. And, you know, and well thought out, then, a way of thinking also has to be objective, it can't rely on any particular point of view. And so Rafal, among others, thought it was better to imagine that that time, was I didn't really have this, this past present future character, that the differences among these three ways of, of experiencing time, were just an illusion, that are brought on by by some, some weird thing about human consciousness or another. And that, in reality, all events in time, exist in the same kind of way. In my work, and in the work of a lot of philosophers of time, we draw on the A category that got set up by this, this philosopher named James McTaggart, who wrote about sort of two ways that we have of talking about time, the A Series and the B series, like many philosophers, he was not really great at creative names. And so the A Series is, is it involves differences in past and present and future in that way that we talked about, imagines that, that the time flows, you might say that, that an event is, is in the future, and then it's in the present, and then it's in the past. And it has all of these different characteristics of past present and future as time goes on. And then on the other hand, there is the B series, and in the B Series events don't have the past, present and future relationships. All they have are the relationships with earlier and later on So for instance, if you can imagine looking at like a history textbook, and you see events on a timeline, where, you know, pen 66, the, the, the Norman invasion of England happens. And, you know, there's in, in this month of that year, this happens. And then a later month of the year, this happens and all of the events are sort of laid out next to each other on a line. All of those events sort of have the same kind of existence. They're, they're, they're sort of different modes of existence that used to see in the A series, the past, the present, and the future stuff. And in our daily lives, we use both of these all the time. Whenever you are planning out your schedule for the day, you are thinking about time in a B Series kind of way. You're saying, Well, alright, I'm gonna sit down to record this podcast at 9am. And then, you know, for my, you know, I should probably have lunch in there somewhere. So it's penciled in for noon, I've got this this other phone call that's scheduled at 330. And you're sort of laying these things out. That way, sort of, in kind of as though you're laying them out in space. And, and again, it's just, it's just an earlier later kind of relationship. But in order to, to take that schedule and translate it into something that you actually do, you also have to bring in the A series there comes a point where, you know, it's not enough just to say, you know, alright, I am starting this podcast at 9am, you are not able to actually do the things necessary to start the, you start the podcast, until unless you have the the impression that at some point 9am is now and and now is a concept that the B series does not have. There is there is no one moment that it picks out is having that special characteristic of noun, it's that moment where, you know, we are where we are acting in the present where things are present to us. You know, there's there's just earliness and lateness and, and so it takes that that intersection between the A Series and the B series in order to to make the the events that we schedule happen. So we have both a ways of picking the time and B ways of taking that time and we use them both all the time. McTaggart his question, or his way of framing the question is, which one of these two ways of thinking is the more fundamental one? Is it the case that time is is really like the B series that, you know, events all have the same kind of existence, and they're ordered by earlier and delayed earlier and later? And our sense of past, present and future is some weird kind of illusion that comes out of our brains? Or is it the case that time really has a past or present in the future, and the B series just comes out of our way of writing things down? And it turns out that, that McTaggart actually thought that neither of these was true, and that he thought that time was the time was just an illusion. But the use terminology sort of gave names to two of the major camps, the people who think that the past present future way of thinking about time is the more fundamental one tend to call themselves a theorist or talk or to talk about flowing time and the people who think that the B series of time the earlier and later there is no now, way of thinking about time is more fundamental They call themselves the B theorists. So, for instance, Bertrand Russell is is a good example of a a b theorist. And you have you know, even quite quite distinguished philosophers and and scientists people like like the, the eminent French, the French philosopher Ali Belkacem was a major proponent of the a theory. The the physicist Arthur Eddington was a major proponent of the a theory. So, this is this is already a hot topic of discussion coming into the 20th century, when Einstein is still a patent clerk and hasn't haven't made a name for himself yet. But then comes relativity as as as Zack has has already talked about, dear listeners and, and that throws a wrench in everything. thing. And it turns out that the assumption that was made in Newtonian physics and, frankly, has probably been made by just about everyone else ever. That, that everybody shares the same now. And that, you know, now is the same moment, you know, here on the East Coast of the United States, as it is in, you know, on the west coast that, you know, it might be the case that the time that we call, you know, 1030, on the east coast, is 630. On the west coast, we, you know, we assign it to different times on the clock, but we can agree that it's now, right, that, you know, you see this in like in like, you know, TV scheduling, for instance, you know, or at least you know, in the days before streaming, we used to we used to talk about TV scheduling this way, but you know, this thing is this, the show is going to come on at, you know, 730 Eastern 630 Central. That, you know, we assign the time when the show begins different moments on the clock, depending on the timezone, but we can agree that the time when the show starts is the same, even if people assign it to two different moments on the clock. So, so this assumption that, that there's the same now that exists here on the East Coast, and over there on the West Coast, and over on the planet Mars, and over in the Andromeda Galaxy, it is all one now, Einstein says, nope, nope, that's not true. That how we experience time, depends on where we are and how fast we're moving. And that people are going to disagree about how long things take. And about what things take place at the same time as each other, depending on how they're moving relative to the events that they're talking about. And that this sort of multisyllabic way of talking about that concept is the relativity of simultaneity. Simultaneous the fact of happening at the same time, simultaneously, the quality of happening at the same time. That's relative in in Einstein's terms, and, and the sort of classic example that that we have for that is, goes back to Einstein. It involves trains. And I think that the trains are going to come up a lot as an image has, as I talked about this. So you mentioned you've got a train that's that's moving past a station. And in the middle of one of the train cars, there is a flashbulb that will go off, let's say for an art project. And the flashbulb goes off in the middle of the train. And light starts coming out of the flashbulb and going towards the two ends of the train. You remember from the previous episode on relativity, that the speed of light is invariant, it's the same for all observers, we might say, for observers in all reference frames, for all points of view. And so a person who is sitting in the middle of the train next to the flashbulb, let's say it's the artist is going to, from that person's point of view, since the light bulb is in the middle of the train, light from the light bulb, is going to hit both ends of the car at the same time, light bulb is exactly in the middle, lightest traveling at the same speed. So it is going to take the same amount of time to hit both ends of the of the car, the front in the back. So from in that person's reference frame, the reference room with the artist on the train, the moment when the light hits the front of the car. And the moment when the light hits the back of the car are going to be simultaneous will happen at the same time. From the perspective of a person who is sitting on a platform as the train goes by, you know, presumably they're waiting for the local and this is the Express that's passing. And they're they're looking at this car wondering what on earth is going on with this flashbulb in this train car. From their perspective, the back of the car is is instead of moving toward this, this is the place where where the where the light was emitted, and the front of the car is moving away from it. So from the perspective of the person who is, you know, sitting at sitting on the platform with the train cars moving past, the light will hit the back of the train earlier than it hits the front of the train. So those two events are not simultaneous, one happens before the other. And the weird thing about relativity, or one of the many weird things about relativity is that it tells us that, that neither of these people is right, and neither of them is wrong. It's not the case that that motion is introducing some kind of distortion into things and that the person who was sitting still is right, because you can't say who's sitting still and who's in motion, all you can do is say that, you know, this is in motion with respect to this. So there's no matter of fact, about whether or not these two events happen at the same time, they happen at the same time in one reference frame, and they don't happen at the same time in in another reference frame. And that's all you can say, the the simultaneity of these two events is relative. So, if that's the case, then the idea of now becomes kind of complicated. You can't say that, you know, you can't say definitively I should say that, you know, a given set of events are all happening at the same time, a time that we can call now, some people moving at some speed with respect to those events are going to assign them all to the same. Now, some people are going to say that, you know, events, A and B are in the past of events C, and some people are going to divide things up differently altogether. So, past and present and future, from a point of view of relativity become a lot harder to divide up. And so, a lot of people, what they get out of this is the idea that this must mean that relativity is basically giving us a knockdown, scientific physical argument, that the are not just an argument that are proof that the beef theory, the the only earlier and later no past present, and future way of looking at time, is really the more fundamental one, that past and present and future are just things that human beings with their weird little brains are imposing on the the grand, impersonal scientific universe. How are we doing so far?   Zack Jackson 23:06 Great.   Ian Binns 23:07 I'm just listening. Because it still always blows my mind. All the time just blows my mind.   Zack Jackson 23:14 It's mind blowing. Well, anytime you say that, anytime you say that. You experience it this way. But the mathematics suggests that it's this other way. I mean, that in and of itself, you know, you've heard it said, But I say to you, right, you're blowing minds.   Tim Maness 23:29 Right? And, and, and that's, you know, that plays in with, with that, that way of thinking about science that Russell had, right? That, you know, here we have this this problem that philosophers were debating about, for centuries and centuries, and long come the physicists, and they solve it. Right? That, that, you know, it's the philosophy is, is about endless, fruitless debate. And science comes in and cuts the Gordian knot, and gives us, you know, the way things really are, and, you know, avoids all of this fog of mere language and gives us the truth in mathematics. And, you know, that's, that's something that philosopher after philosopher in the 20th century, brings out of this. And one of the things that they that they do, not universally, but really kind of a lot is that they, they go on from saying, mathematics is, you know, is reliable in a way that subjectivity and language aren't to saying that basically, the human experience of personhood is an illusion of of a similar kind. That, that all of all of our the subjectivities of our experience What what is sometimes called qualia, the hardness of our perceptions, you might see people talk about the redness of a rose, as opposed to the knowledge that you know, light is being reflected off of the rose itself in such a, such a wavelength, you know, or the, the, the emotional side of, of hearing music, as opposed to just being able to describe it in terms of, you know, frequency and amplitude, that all of that stuff is, you know, is is illusion. And that the, the math of those experiences is all that's really real. So, that has a lot of implications for religion, right? Because, so much of you know, of, of our religious experience is personal. In this way. One of my my favorite philosopher theologians, the, the Dane with the rather difficult to pronounce, name of Sir and Kierkegaard, you know, has has this, this whole book, where he talks about how the sort of basis of, of religious experience is this thing that happens inside of you that you can never fully communicate to someone else. And that all of our attempts to talk about religion are attempts that fail, more or less, to take this inexpressible thing, and put it out where other people can see it. And, you know, and and you hear you have this, this, this emerging philosophical viewpoint that, that claims to have, you know, to perceive basically scientific proof for itself, that that's just nonsense, that that nothing that's inexpressible in mathematics can even really exist, that anything else is a delusion. And even if you don't follow things quite that far, even if you don't take from this, the, that, you know, the science is really showing that human subjectivity is an illusion. Taking this, this sort of be theory view of time, poses a lot of problems for religion by itself. So if the B theory is true, time looks a lot like space. And all, you know, all the parts of space, all spots in space exists sort of alongside each other. And in the same way. Here's where here's where I bring in another one of my training analogies, that lots of train, what's the train analogies train?   Zack Jackson 27:55 Well, they go in straight lines. So it's very convenient.   Tim Maness 27:57 Most of the time, you know, if you're, if you're, if you're, if you're in the loop in Chicago, all bets are off for a lot of reasons. But so but but imagine that I'm going to train this traveling in a reasonably straight line, I'm on the Amtrak going up the East Coast, right? And imagine that my train is temporarily stopped in Philadelphia. And you know, maybe I'm going to get off at the station and grab a cheese steak and then get on before I move on north. So when I'm there on the train in Philadelphia, right. Washington DC still exists, even though I've left it, right. It's not present to me now. But it's still there. And New York and Boston, even though I haven't gotten there yet, exist, they're real. There are things going on there that are that are happening, even though I don't perceive them, they are real. So the, in this be theoretic way of looking at time now is like Philadelphia, and the pastor's like, DC. And the future is like New York and Boston. The past is still there, even though that's not where I am now. And the the future is out there that exists, like York and Boston do even though I'm not there now. And the present doesn't have anything really special about it. It's just where I happen to find myself at a particular moment. Right. So if that's the case, if that really is the best description of how time is and a lot of the stories that we tell, that involve time, which is to say all stories that we tell become, well, they become sort of different. So, in, in, in religion, right, we have a lot of stories about, say about people changing their lives. Right? Where, you know, in, in, in the Bible, God says to God says to people, you know, turn your lives around. And then as a result of your turning your life around, this will happen to you. Or if you don't turn your life around, this won't happen to you. Yes. So that sort of way of thinking about about the stories of people's lives depends on a particular way of talking about time, right? The the events, after you make that that critical decision to turn your life around or not to, you know, have some conversion or some repentance or some whatever else, that depends on an idea that the future doesn't exist yet, but it's there to be shaped by your decisions. And so it makes sense to talk about the events that happen after that, that decision as being in some way more important than the events that happen before. Right? That what happens later, can change the meaning of what happened earlier, can in some limited way, maybe make up for what happened earlier, can be more relevant than what happened earlier. This, this is sounding plausible, based on on, you know, the way that you think about time and, you know, regular everyday way   Zack Jackson 31:44 I hear kind of, at least in the scriptural analogy, there's kind of two stories that popped to my mind, I think of that whole, that whole paradigm is so important for the province, right? They they come before the people and they say, here's what you've done. Here's what you need to change, or else, this is what will happen, right? That's sort of the formula of every one of the problems, they're giving you a chance to repent, to change to move. So your future is not totally decided yet. The future is uncertain, it's being written now. And then the other story I think of is that of Moses and Pharaoh, where God tells Moses, go to Pharaoh say, Let my people go. And he goes to Pharaoh and says, Let my people go. And then God hardens Pharaoh's heart, because God has an ending in mind already, and is going to, like the future is unchangeable. In that story, there was always going to be plagues always going to be an exodus always going to be that. And God is still telling Moses to do this thing now, despite the fact that it's not going to change anything, because God is going to intervene, because the future is fixed. All right. And of those two stories, people generally tend to accept the prophetic version a lot easier than the the future is already fixed. And God is behind the scenes, you know, making this a deterministic situation, right? Because then they think, why do I even bother? Yeah, what's the point of any of this if the future is already if the future is already real? And whatever, you know, I should just sit back and do nothing. Yeah. Yeah.   Tim Maness 33:23 And which is not to say that there haven't been some theologians who have tried to embrace that, that sort of the future is set way of looking at things, right. Where you have people who are in favor of have a strong view of looking what gets hold predestination, where, where God has already set out your entire future for you, where all of the events of your life exists, like, like, you know, like, like, all the events in a book, right, where everything has already happened, even before you've in a circumstance, even before you've read it, it's just a matter of, you know, going through the pages, until you get to the the ending that was already there. And people like, you know, like John Calvin, in the in the Christian tradition, tend to have a strong view of predestination. That's, that is a really common view in, in Muslim theology. It's, you get a lot of Muslim thinkers who have that that particular strong view that God has planned out all of history. It's very uncommon in Judaism, you will find very few Jewish thinkers who wouldn't rather go with that sort of open future. There's there there's very little Jewish support for the idea of predestination. So yeah, you have you have, you can find some theologians who are going to be on either side of this debate. But on the whole, you're right people do like to they do like to opt for the idea of the open future because it makes our choices more meaningful. Right? It means that our choices are made, or at least, are potentially made by us. They aren't sort of written out ahead of time for us by God. And that means, for instance, that, that if we're making our own choices, that that that has implications for God's responsibility for evil in the world. If God has already made everybody's choices for everybody beforehand, then that means that God is responsible for all of the evil that people do. That God decided already decided, every time somebody was going to commit a murder. God made that happen, rather than than the person choosing to commit that murder against God's will.   Zack Jackson 35:57 Yeah, it's holding a marionette responsible for its puppeteers act. Right. Exactly.   Ian Binns 36:03 The idea of fate, right? No.   Tim Maness 36:05 Yeah. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Right. Yeah, that's that's our   Ian Binns 36:09 that's already written or something like that. Is that kind of the same?   Tim Maness 36:13 thing? I think that's that's, that's a great one syllable way of putting it this is this is exactly fate. Right, in the way that that many cultures have had had it that the way you sometimes see like Greek and Roman ways of talking about the world, where everybody has their fate. It's laid out, you if you try to avoid it, it will just you'll just end up coming at it in a way that you didn't expect.   Zack Jackson 36:38 Yeah, that's all edifice. Yeah, there. Yeah.   Tim Maness 36:43 And that's, you know, it's not to say that that's, that that's a way of looking at God, that doesn't make sense, in a sort of abstract kind of way. But it's one that poses a lot of problems, especially for an Abrahamic view of God, where we want to talk about God as as loving, and as good. And in, it causes a lot of problems for the way we want to talk about the end of time. Right? We have this idea that at the end of time, God will will will wipe will wipe away every tear from people's eyes will make things okay. And that God will, to some extent treat people based on the choices that they've made during their lives. And if God has decided everybody's choices for them all along the line, then that makes a lot less sense. If people's, you know, if the will, the changes that people make in their lives. If the events that happen after those changes always exist, and the events that happen before those changes always exist, and they exist in the same way, then it doesn't seem like there's no particular reason to treat the events afterward as being more important than the events that happened before. Right? It's it's not as though if you're looking at a map of the US, right? But you would say, all right, everything that happens east of the Mississippi cancels out everything that happens west of the Mississippi, you know, that would be ridiculous. And if, if all events are laid out in time, the way, you know, places are laid out in space, then it seems ridiculous in the same way to talk about events, later, canceling out events that happened earlier. So there's, there's there's no particular reason for God to assign people to treat people differently based on on changes that they make. There's no sort of final victory of good over evil, because the evil always exists, it doesn't pass away. It's always there. In the same way that the good that God eventually brings him to be is always there. So even if you're if you even if you're not following these along these these be theorist philosophers in saying that, you know, the human personality doesn't really exist. The B theory causes all kinds of problems for for Abrahamic theology, and the the predestination list of theologians who would be happy to go along with the B theory. They don't have a lot of responses beyond Well, it's a mystery. You know, God see thing, God sees things differently. And it's not necessarily going to make sense to us. And that's something that we as theologians have to say a lot of the time because, you know, part of the way that we think about God is that yeah, God is different from us. And God does see things differently. But when you basically have to take that same explanation and apply it to literally everything in the way that we talk about God interacting with human beings, then speaking for myself, I don't find it very satisfying. It feels to me like, though it does make sense to say that there are there are things about God that we're not going to understand that we should, at a minimum, have some things that we can understand about the way God interacts with us in our own lives. If anything should be comprehensible to us, it seems like it should be that we should be able to understand the impact of what we do.   Zack Jackson 40:38 Yeah, that we can't necessarily understand the nature the full nature of a being that exists outside of our experience our universe, but we should be able to at least understand our experience of that. Right.   Tim Maness 40:57 Right. And especially if we're if retail was   Ian Binns 41:01 gonna, yeah, please go ahead. I was gonna ask about in, you just alluded to it that, Zach, that, because again, it's still this is still cooking my brain here a little bit, but so the idea that God would exist outside of our understanding of time, right, like, even based on all this stuff that you're talking about here, Tim? Um, is that okay, in a theological way or not? Okay, I'm not permission, but what are your thoughts on approaching it that   Tim Maness 41:31 way? Well, yeah, I mean, that's, that's, that's another big problem, that, that, that sort of exists at right angles to this one, right, you can have sort of different positions on that. And, and imagine it as impacting the way we think about time in different ways. Right? So people usually want to talk about God as knowing some things that exist in the future, right? Prophecy is, is assuming to some degree that God knows some things before they happen? And how are we going to reconcile that with the way that we think about time? Well, people have have proposed different things. You know, if the B theorists are right, and all events already exist, and that becomes very simple to explain, you know, God knows things. God knows everything that happens, because God sort of created it all. At you know, as it were, at the same moment, you know, God brought all that into existence together. With the great theologian, Augustine, the Christian theologian, Augustine, he, drawing on some, some sort of Greco Jewish ways of thinking about time, proposes that the time is this created thing. That, that, that there is no time, until God creates the universe. And when God creates the universe, you know, as God is saying, what it'd be like, then then time comes into being with things as as, as they start. And that would mean for Augustine, for instance, that God is is outside of time, in the same way that we say that God is outside of space. Right, that God doesn't you know, that God isn't located in space, you know, there's, there's not some place that you can go to the specialty that you've been, you know, getting the spaceship and travel to apply. And that's where God is, you know, this is one of the reasons why Star Trek five is a bad movie. And I'm wondering if   Ian Binns 43:31 you're gonna do that.   Tim Maness 43:34 And in the same way, there's, there's no particular moment where we're God is in time. And, and so, if God is outside of time, in that way, then then you could ask, you know, what is God's relationship to time like, there's this, this, this other Christian thinker on amblyseius, who has a way of thinking about time that has some subtle differences from Augustine, that we may or may not end up getting into he has this sort of famous image of God as it's the God's way of looking at time as is like a person in a watch tower looking down the road, right, that the person is not on the road, and what they see all events on the road from where they sit. So So God is sort of looking at time from outside and seeing it that way. And some people argue that God's knowledge of future events doesn't determine future events because God isn't really knowing them before they happen in a strict sense, because God isn't in the scheme of before and after.   Zack Jackson 44:53 That sounds like the sorts of ways that they handle pre cognition in dune Is that the he doesn't actually see what will happen. He sees what they describe as a series of threads that all come out and branch off of each other of possible probable futures based on where things are. And so when he has visions, they're things that don't necessarily happen, but are possible happenings and then is then current actions can then determine whether or not those potential futures happen. Yeah,   Tim Maness 45:30 you are it's also talked about that way in what is arguably the first time travel story. Christmas Carol. Where were we?   Zack Jackson 45:43 Oh, man, yeah, I hadn't thought about the Christmas Carol is as a time travel,   Tim Maness 45:48 we're screwed says to to the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come Are these the shadows of things that will be your those might have been things that might be only. And, and there's a moment there are other ways of looking at at time in which God's relationship to time is like that, in which God is in time with us. And that the future doesn't exist for God either. And that, that God has, maybe you might say that God knows, to some extent what might happen, because God knows us really well. In the same way that that, you know, you might say, if your best friend, or if some close family member, well, if you put this person in this situation, I don't know for certain what they would do. But I bet they do this. That if you have really good knowledge of someone, you have an idea of how they would react in a given situation. And so maybe God's knowledge of the future is like that, where God has perfect knowledge of all of the physical conditions, and God has really good knowledge of our personalities. So God can say with a high probability, yeah, this is what's likely to happen. But it's up to you.   Zack Jackson 47:06 When I was in seminary, I was a, I was in an arrogant little seminary, all army was all the things. And I had a professor who accused me of being more influenced by Greek philosophy than by the, you know, Christian theology, and which is fighting back against that   Tim Maness 47:31 theologians have been accusing each other of since the first century.   Zack Jackson 47:36 Sure, because it's true. Because what I was talking about with the the omnis of God, that God is omnipotent, so all powerful, omniscient, so all knowing omnipresent, so all prayer, all places, omnibenevolent, all loving these ideas of the omnis, which don't actually appear in Scripture, but that so very color, the way we think about God, and so what I was talking about what God being all knowing, so God knowing all of the things, and he challenged that and he said you where do you find that? And honestly, my basis of it was just the things that I was taught in Sunday school, that God these are the foundational characteristics of God, but not necessarily in Scripture other than in like the Psalms, which will say, you know, God, you've searched me, you know, me high and low, all those things. But he said, What if we follow instead, the line of thinking from Philippians? Two, and what we talked about kenosis, the emptying of God, and that instead of saying that God knows everything, what if you were to say that God knows what God chooses to know, that God is able to know everything, but in a way of as a way of interacting with finite beings, chooses instead to not know everything in order to interact with humanity. And so there is a kind of self emptying in order to enter into our world which, you know, if you imagine a three dimensional object, trying to interact in a two dimensional world, that three dimensional object would have to lose some of its three dimensional pneus and be emptied of its depth in order to interact with one of those.   Tim Maness 49:21 Edwin Abbott's great book Flatland.   Zack Jackson 49:24 Right, which ended up being I mean, that book was about economics, but ended up being a great illustration for all kinds of they also horribly   Tim Maness 49:32 sexist, I should I should point that out. So be warned. If you go in if you go in there, there's some some really awful stuff about the female.   Zack Jackson 49:43 Yeah, it's just a good illustration. But that's about   Tim Maness 49:46 I want to be careful. I call it a great book. And I want to be careful about that because there are ways we did is a super bad book.   Zack Jackson 49:55 That's kind of where where process theology comes up, that God is intimately involved. In the process of the unfolding of time that God has emptied God's self. And that's how God interacts in time and space is by leaving, the the timelessness and the unchanging pneus of the whatever imagined other dimensions and instead becoming, made flesh in in this existence. And that sounds really nice. Until I started learning about relativistic time and that there is no privileged present moment. And that so then in what moment, is God present in the now? At that point? Yeah, there is an acrobat now, actually, that does God exist in a black hole? Where the where time flows, so drastically different? does? Does God exist on the photons? Does God exist in the now of, you know, objects moving near the speed of light? It all kind of fell apart. And then yeah, wonderful narrative of God, growing and changing and loving and weeping with the death of the planet, all of that kind of fell apart, too. And I was sad to lose my beautiful theology,   Tim Maness 51:07 you might be interested to know that there are philosophers and theologians out there who are struggling mightily to take that beautiful theology and make it compatible with relativity.   Zack Jackson 51:22 Your being you being one of them?   Tim Maness 51:24 Well, yeah, I mean, in my dissertation, I talked about a couple of different ways that people try to, to reconcile that, that theology was depends so much on pulling time with relativity. And that idea of God is in time with us, is one of the ones that I look at. It's, that's, that's a way of looking at things that is being defended by by, for instance, William Lane, Craig, and John Lucas. I think, you know, I think that the way that they go about or I should say, specifically, the way that Craig goes about, trying to make this work, and relativity leaves some, some really big unanswered questions. So I think it's, it's maybe the less satisfying, of, of the two. But when I was finishing the dissertation, but before I had time to really do the research, and, and incorporate this, I was seeing some stuff about other physical ways of looking at time, that made me think, maybe, if I were to sit down and, and look at this in a future project, there might be more to be said, for, for that, that sort of God in time, way of of dealing with relativity. So that that may be a future project. And I should also say that, that specifically that idea of, of God not knowing the future, because it's not, you know, is is more characteristic of Lucas's way of looking at things than Craig's, because I think Craig takes a lot of the advantages of that way of thinking and first, not the window, again, by insisting that God has to know everything that happens in detail. Um,   Ian Binns 53:24 well, so, you know, I know we are slowly getting, you're starting to run out of time. I'm curious, how has the all this work that you've done the dissertation work, you just talked about, you know, future ideas, future things, you're curious about? How, if at all, has it impacted or influenced your personal theological journey?   Tim Maness 53:48 Well, personally is exactly the word for it. So, that, that brings me I guess, to the other way of trying to reconcile flowing time with relativity, that I think is the more satisfying one which comes out of the work that the the theologian Barbara John Russell, who is working at the the graduate theological Union are in Berkeley, the director of the Center for theology of the natural sciences, is instantly been a great friend tonight, a great friend to me. The way that that he tries to reconcile this is to say that a lot of the problems that that relativity causes here or that we we think of relativity as causing come from taking the idea of a now and trying to extend it in space. Right, to say that there should be a single now that can encompass, you know, where I am here and where you are there and where somebody else is on Mars and we're aliens are the Andromeda galaxy right? whereas one of the things that relativity should tell us is that the idea of now is inseparable from the idea of here. The what you have is not so much a universal now that we meet, you can fall about it, but here now, so I have one particular now. And, you know, you in in North Carolina, have a slightly different one, and use Zack in eastern pa have a slightly different one. And, you know, the farther you are away, but the more different your now is. And that the philosophers who want to say that, you know that everything breaks down, because you can't fundamentally assign things to a past and present and future, the mistake that they're making is trying to take different nouns and combine them into one to say that what is real for me, is real T is real to you. Because we exist in this, you know, that because we can interact with each other. You know, for instance, if I'm on the phone with one of you, right, and you're looking out your window, and you're seeing the squirrels doing something weird out there, the way they do that, even if even if you're not talking to me about the squirrels that those squirrels, and what they're doing is real to me on the other end of the phone. You know, that's the way we normally think about things happening, right? That what's real to you where you are, is real to me where I am, even if I don't know anything about it. And what Russell and a few others is saying is that maybe this is another one of those ideas that relativity should force us to abandon. Maybe what we should be thinking about is, rather than then one, universal now that encompasses everyone, maybe there are a myriad of individual here now that go with each particular observer, in each particular reference frame, whatever it might be, and they don't line up with each other, but maybe they don't have to. Maybe, because, you know, the thing is that all you disagree, we can disagree about what happens at the same time, or in some cases about the order that events take place. But we will never disagree about the causality of events. Right. That's that's one of the things that the big the big caveat to this story about, we tell about how relativity changes everything up is that relative even in relativity, even with all of these shenanigans about time, relativity never mixes up the order of events that are causally related to each other, you can always agree, no matter what reference frame you're in, that the cause happens before the effect. So in the end, we have different perspectives, but they kind of come out in the wash. And even though you might know something that I would consider repeated, so you might know something now that I would consider the time that you would call now that I was considered to be in the future. One of the things about relativity is that you can't get that information to me, before it would come to me anyway. You can't get me you can't transmit a signal to me at the speed of light in such a way that I find out about that event with advanced knowledge. So maybe what we should do, in Russell's point of view is rather than saying that, that God exists in a single universal now that defines what now really means, the way Craig would have done it to say that God is with us, each of our individual mouths. And that that's God's way of, of perceiving the universe is by looking at it through the eyes, so to speak, more or less metaphorically of everything in the universe, that that rather than, than sort of looking down at what's happening on the stage of creation from the Royal box, so to speak, that God is seeing what happens through the eyes of each of the actors. And for that matter, potentially through the through the eyes of all the props and all the pieces of scenery and if Go to a couple of theologians, or a number of theologians who get called the Boston personalist. Boston because they worked at Boston University. We find that they have, even outside the framework of relativity already come up with a way of thinking about God's interaction with the creation. It looks a lot like this. One of them incidentally, Edgar Brightman was Dr. Martin Luther King's PhD advisor. So when he was becoming Dr. King, he was working with Edgar Brightman. So I think these two things kind of fit together in a really productive, generative way. The idea that, rather than personhood, being this distortion of a timeless, pure mathematical, non linguistic reality, maybe personhood, is the core of what is maybe our individual, different irreconcilable ways of looking at the world is a really important feature of how the world is. And that because God, who created the universe who brought the universe into existence is a person. Not exactly in the same way that we are, because God is infinite, and has all sorts of characteristics that as we talked about, we can't know about or even talk about very well. But But God's personhood is in some way analogous to ours. And so that personhood becomes a really important thing for us to keep in mind as we talk about existence. And that if we can't translate that personhood into mathematics, then that's okay. Because mathematics doesn't have to be the only tool that we use to describe how things are.   Zack Jackson 1:01:57 Yeah, your explanation reminds me a lot of the way that Teresa of Avila saw the way that God interacts with people. Or she said, Christ has no body but yours, no hands, no feet on Earth, but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks compassion on the world, yours are the feet with which he walks to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses all the world, yours are the hands, yours are the feet, yours are the eyes, yours are the body. Christ has no body now on Earth, but you're right.   Tim Maness 1:02:24 And even I think this works beautifully. Well, even talking about Christ's incarnation, you know, during those 30 Some years in, in Judea, right? That, that when God became incarnate speaking, he was a Christian, that it was as a particular human being, in a particular time and place, that God was this one guy with a very, who only walked around a very small area of the earth. Right, that God did all that God had to do in that incarnation, even with this perspective, that was very circumscribed. Very short, in terms of of time, and very localized in terms of space. And, and that's okay, that's, that's just how things are.   Zack Jackson 1:03:16 Tim, as, as always, Tim, you've given me things to think about. You've given me scientific things to reread, as well as new perspectives on my own personal faith and theology to reconsider. So thank you again, for that. Any idea when this will all be turned into a book that everyone can read?   Tim Maness 1:03:40 The ways that publishers are mysterious to us mere mortals?   Ian Binns 1:03:45 Yes, this is true.   Tim Maness 1:03:47 And so one of the things that they unfortunately don't necessarily teach you in grad school is hard to put together a book proposal. So that's something that I'm having to learn on my own. But hopefully, it shouldn't be too long. You know, though, of course as as, as CS Lewis has gotten the former bass line saying I call all time soon.   Ian Binns 1:04:15 definitely agree with it. Yeah.   Zack Jackson 1:04:18 Yeah, with a quote from Aslan.   Tim Maness 1:04:20 Yeah. So it's been such a joy to to be a guest on the podcast and just to talk to you two guys, you're so great. And thanks.   Zack Jackson 1:04:29 We'll have to have you back on again sometime soon to   Tim Maness 1:04:32 say the word say the word and I am there and also then   Zack Jackson 1:04:36 alright at yes then and there at the same time. Yes, it also not and oh wibbly wobbly timey. Why me? Yep. God bless you all.

Arthur Eddington was committed to testing Einstein's General Theory of Relativity during the 1919 Solar Eclipse, not only to remove all doubts about the theory but also to demonstrate the value of scientific internationalism. But the British Army was determined to send him to the Front. Eddington faced the greatest challenge of his life: proving his opposition to violence and his dedication to science were both a matter of conscience. Conscientious objectors in Britain could be sent to prison if their claims were rejected by local tribunals. Many were sent to solitary confinement, while others were put to hard labor. This prisoner is standing on a stool to get a glimpse of the sky. Some COs were subjected to field punishment. Field punishment was introduced in 1881 following the abolition of flogging in the Army--so I guess that's a good thing? The punishment was applied to soldiers who disobeyed orders, which included COs who had been denied official status and continued to refuse to fight. Men would be tied up to a fixed object for up to two hours a day. Conscientious objectors were despised by the general public and often mocked in political cartoons. In this image, as in many, COs were depicted as unmanly cowards--as "sissies" with a major dose of homophobia. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity describes space as curving in response to the mass of heavy objects. The amount of the curvature depends on the mass of the object, so the Sun will cause greater curvature than the Earth. The Earth orbits the Sun because it is caught in the well of the Sun's gravity. One of the problems with most explanations of relativity theory, including my own, is that they imply that massive objects sit on top of space. In fact, they existing within space. This graphic tries to represent this concept. Eddington arranged for two expeditions to view the 1919 eclipse. One went to Sobral in northern Brazil and the other to Príncipe in the Gulf of Guinea. Príncipe is a gorgeous tropical island with misty mountains and white beaches. Eddington was amazed at the lush landscape and tropical fruits; he ate about a dozen bananas a day. Some fifteen years before Eddington arrived, the world learned that the cocoa plantations in Príncipe, which primarily supplied Cadbury's Chocolate, were worked by enslaved laborers kidnapped from Angola. The Portugese government promised to stamp out the practice, but political instability meant that these efforts received little attention. It is unclear in 1919 if Eddington saw free or enslaved laborers at work. Northern Brazil, meanwhile, had been struck by a devastating drought in 1915 that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Many of those who survived fled the region, but the government feared they would cause instability if they arrived in Brazil's cities. What can only be called concentration camps were established and people were forced to live in them, as seen here. The drought was beginning to lessen in 1919, but the region was struggling. The eclipse observation teams arrived with telescopes, cameras, glass photographic plates, developer chemicals, motors, clocks, waterproof tents and more. Here you can see the set up in Sobral. The light from the Hyades had been traveling about 153 years when it reached Eddington's telescope. Scientists now know that at least one of the stars within the cluster has three planets, one roughly the size and composition of the Earth. It is considered unlikely any advanced life exists on the planet, but anything is possible. This is one of Eddington's original photos of the eclipse. It has been scanned, and the stars that he was measuring are circled and labeled. You can see that the stars are incredibly dim and hard to spot even when pointed out. The announcement by Eddington and Dyson caught the world's attention and newspapers struggled to make sense of the discovery. The Illustrated London News did a fairly good job of explaining what the astronomers were looking for. The New York Times, on the other hand, was more bombastic that clear. I can only imagine readers were perplexed by this announcement, which seems at pains to tell everyone that (a) no one understands what has happened but (b) you don't need to worry about it. I suppose with everything else going on, readers did like having that reassurance. The bit about "A Book for 12 Wise Men" refers to a story that circulated widely at the time. Supposedly, Einstein had gone to a publisher about writing about book about his theory, but the publisher replied that since only about 12 wise men in all the world would understand it, there was no point in publishing. This story seems to have been completely made up but got a lot of traction in the years to come. (Also, apparently only men of science were more or less agog. No word on the women of science, who, while small in number, did exist.) Einstein made his first visit to Britain in 1921. He toured the United States first (a tour he found exhausting and "horrendous" because of all of the press attention) and then journeyed to the UK on his way back to Germany. In this image, he and his wife Elsa stand on deck during their journey. Einstein met Eddington for the first time on this trip, but I haven't found any photos of the occasion. Einstein made multiple visits to Britain over the years and often met with Eddington. Here the two men sit and talk in 1930. I don't know where this photo was taken, but I wonder if they are at Eddington's house in Cambridge. His sister Winifred found great joy in her garden. The Theory of Relativity as been confirmed and reconfirmed in the last 100 years. The distortion of light by large masses is well known today and described as "gravitational lensing." It has become an important tool in modern astronomy because it allows astronomers to study objects that are incredibly far away. It also provides a way to measure the mass of distant galaxies and therefore to estimate the amount of invisible dark matter within. You can read more about this in the sources I've linked to below. This image shows one galaxy distorted into a ring that appears around a galaxy positioned directly in front of it. Here is another example of lensing. The blue curve is the light of a galaxy located behind the bright yellow galaxies, its light distorted by their mass. This amazing image from the Hubble telescope shows multiple examples of lensing. The stretched out and arced lines of light are distorted images of far-away galaxies. Some galaxies might even appear more than once as their light is split and sent along different paths. Eddington could have had no idea how dramatic the effects of lensing could be, or how important they are for modern astronomers. I hope you will take the time to watch this video of Neil Gaiman reading his poem about Arthur Eddington. (The actual poem begins at about 4:18.) You can also read along on the Brain Pickings website. (https://www.brainpickings.org/2019/10/29/in-transit-neil-gaiman-eddington/) Warning, there is one NSFW word in the poem, but I think you all can handle it. It captures so much about Eddington--his passion, his reticence, his brilliance, and, perhaps, his desperate need to keep hidden one essential part of his identity, his homosexuality.

In 1914, most scientists claimed their work knew no borders, but the Great War slammed the door on international scientific cooperation. So when a obscure German physicist named Albert Einstein presented a radical new explanation of gravity, he feared no one outside of Germany would be willing to help confirm his theory. He had no idea that his work would come to the attention of the one man able to make the critical observations and willing to explore German ideas--the pacifist astronomer Arthur Eddington. Arthur Stanley Eddington was born in 1882 to a devout Quaker family. He would remain a faithful member of the Society of Friends his entire life and shared their deep conviction in pacifism and opposition to war. Eddington's first total solar eclipse was in October 1912. This map show the path of totality. Eddington was stationed with several teams from around the world in Passa Quatro, Brazil. Unfortunately, the eclipse was rained out--an all-too-common occurance. While in Brazil, Eddington was likely told about the work of the still-obscure German physicist Albert Einstein. Einstein, seen here with his first wife Mileva, had already published several groundbreaking papers and had begun his work on general relativity. In 1913, he moved to Berlin to teach at the University of Berlin and become the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics. Einstein discussed his Theory of General Relativity with the German astronomer Erwin Freundlich, seen here looking like the villian in an early silent movie. Freundlich passed the ideas on Charles Dillon Perrine, who most likely described them Eddington. Freundlich mounted an expedition to observe the 1914 eclipse in Russia to prove Einstein's predictions on the deflection of starlight. The 1914 eclipse passed over Sweden and Norway, into Russia, and down through the Ottoman Empire and Persia. Astronomers believed they would have the best conditions in Ukraine and Crimea, and many of them set up there in late summer 1914. War broke out before the eclipse took place. Freundlich and his German team were detained by Russian officials. British and American teams were able to go on with their work, but again, the eclipse was rained out. The teams then face the difficult task of getting out of war-time Russia. They all had to leave their equipment behind, and getting it back was a lingering headache. The American team didn't receive their telescope and cameras until 1918. This fascinating graphic from the weekly British illustrated newspaper The Graphic combines a map of the path of totality with a map of the conflict in Belgium and northern France, Serbia, and the Russian border. The graphic ominously describes "The Shadow Sweeping Across Europe." Allied outrage at German atrocities in Belgium prompted a spirited defense of German actions by scientists, writers, artists and theologians including Fritz Haber. The "Manifesto to the Civilized World," (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Ninety-Three) also known as the "Manifesto of the 93," offended Allied scientists and prompted many to call for complete repudiation of German science. Einstein refused to sign the Manifesto. British scientists relentlessly hounded German-born astronomer Arthur Schuster, despite the fact he had moved to Britain as a teenager. His son served in the British army and was wounded in the Dardanelles. At the same time, British physicist James Chadwick, who was studying in Germany in 1914, was detained in a former racetrack. He remained in German custody under dire conditions until the Armistice. Einstein published his complete Theory of Relativity in November 1915. One of the few German scientists who showed any interest was astronomer Karl Schwartzchild. Schwartzchild was serving in the army on the Russian front, where he put his advanced mathematic skills to use calculating artillery trajectories. In his spare time, while under heavy Russian fire, he worked through the math in Einstein's paper. He demonstrated that the math worked beautifully to calculate the movements of planets and stars. He also inadvertently, and without at all realizing it, discovered black holes. Britain tried to fight the Great War with a volunteer army, but by 1916 it was clear conscription would be necessary. Men could claim exemption for hardship, work of national importance, and conscientious objection. The goverment established tribunals to issue these exemptions but offered no guidance on qualifications. Conscientious objectors were deeply suspect as slackers and cowards. In this editorial cartoon, a lazy conscientious objector lounges before a fire with a cigar ignoring images of his entire family doing war work. It is titled "This little pig stayed home." Meanwhile, light from the Hyades star cluster continued on its way toward Earth from 153 light years away. (Image copyright Jose Mtanous, from science.nasa.gov (https://science.nasa.gov/hyades-star-cluster).

1. To find the many in the one he sweated under foreign skies to see the stars behind the sun. So space and time were now undone reality was undisguised. We found the many in the one. There is no photograph, not one, that shows the mind behind the eyes. He saw the stars behind the sun. Not with a sword, or knife, or gun, a simple picture severed ties. He found the many in the one. Light bends around us. So we run, as gravity reclassifies the stars we saw behind the sun. To see the world beyond the skies, to know the mind behind the eyes, To find the many in the one he showed us stars behind the sun. 2. Unfucked, or anyway retiring, in the awkward sense. Retirement will never be an option. The gruff gentleman with the cap who understands what the numbers mean remembers a bicycle ride when he was younger. The smoke of the cigarettes he does not smoke kicks at his lungs mixing with the buzz of the booze he doesn't ever drink a convivial pint after the ride into the country gave him such a thirst. And afterwards they lay on their back in the stubble staring up at the stars. Together. All the stars Countable as the words in a Bible, countable as the hairs on his friend's head, all accountable, and that is why they never truly touched. The shadow of prison or disgrace perhaps moving between them like the shadow of an eclipse. And, in another life, at another time, to see the stars behind the sun, he takes his photographs fighting the cloud cover. Becoming the thing that happened in Principe. when he proved that the German was right, that light had weight, half a year after the Armistice. A populariser, but not courting popularity. Somewhen a boy is counting stars. Somewhen a man is photographing light. Somewhen his finger strokes the stubble on another's cheek, and for a moment everything is relative. Twitter：@camelliayang Website: https://www.camelliayang.com/ Sign up for Chiwi Journal monthly newsletter.

From a leading philosopher of the mind comes this lucid, provocative argument that offers a radically new picture of human consciousness—panpsychism.Understanding how brains produce consciousness is one of the great scientific challenges of our age. Some philosophers argue that consciousness is something “extra,” beyond the physical workings of the brain. Others think that if we persist in our standard scientific methods, our questions about consciousness will eventually be answered. And some even suggest that the mystery is so deep, it will never be solved. Decades have been spent trying to explain consciousness from within our current scientific paradigm, but little progress has been made.Now, Philip Goff offers an exciting alternative that could pave the way forward. Rooted in an analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of modern science and based on the early twentieth-century work of Arthur Eddington and Bertrand Russell, Goff makes the case for panpsychism, a theory which posits that consciousness is not confined to biological entities but is a fundamental feature of all physical matter—from subatomic particles to the human brain. In Galileo’s Error, he has provided the first step on a new path to the final theory of human consciousness.Philip Goff is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Durham University. His research focuses on how to integrate consciousness into our scientific worldview. He has authored an academic book with Oxford University Press, called ‘Consciousness and Fundamental Reality’ and a book aimed at a general audience called ‘Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness’. Dr Goff has published over 40 academic articles as well as writing extensively for newspapers and magazines, including Scientific American, The Guardian, and the Times Literary Supplement. Goff’s interview by Pulitzer Prize winning author Gareth Cook was one of the most viewed of the most viewed articles in Scientific American of 2020.To learn more about Prof. Philip Goff and his work, go to philipgoffphilosophy.comTo get your copy of Galileo’s Error, please visit our Amazon affiliate link. To learn more about Provocative Enlightenment Radio, go to http://www.provocativeenlightenment.com

From a leading philosopher of the mind comes this lucid, provocative argument that offers a radically new picture of human consciousness—panpsychism. Understanding how brains produce consciousness is one of the great scientific challenges of our age. Some philosophers argue that consciousness is something “extra,” beyond the physical workings of the brain. Others think that if we persist in our standard scientific methods, our questions about consciousness will eventually be answered. And some even suggest that the mystery is so deep, it will never be solved. Decades have been spent trying to explain consciousness from within our current scientific paradigm, but little progress has been made. Now, Philip Goff offers an exciting alternative that could pave the way forward. Rooted in an analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of modern science and based on the early twentieth-century work of Arthur Eddington and Bertrand Russell, Goff makes the case for panpsychism, a theory which posits that consciousness is not confined to biological entities but is a fundamental feature of all physical matter—from subatomic particles to the human brain. In Galileo’s Error, he has provided the first step on a new path to the final theory of human consciousness. Philip Goff is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Durham University. His research focuses on how to integrate consciousness into our scientific worldview. He has authored an academic book with Oxford University Press, called ‘Consciousness and Fundamental Reality’ and a book aimed at a general audience called ‘Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness’. Dr Goff has published over 40 academic articles as well as writing extensively for newspapers and magazines, including Scientific American, The Guardian, and the Times Literary Supplement. Goff’s interview by Pulitzer Prize winning author Gareth Cook was one of the most viewed of the most viewed articles in Scientific American of 2020. To learn more about Prof. Philip Goff and his work, go to philipgoffphilosophy.com

En este segundo episodio sobre eclipses solares les explicamos un poco sobre los tipos de eclipses solares que podemos ver desde la Tierra y la gran coincidencia cósmica entre la Luna y el Sol. También les contamos de 2 historias de la ciencia, donde científicos como Arthur Eddington buscaban probar la Teoría de la Relatividad de Einstein, o de una multitud de astrónomos que a finales del siglo 19 cazaban eclipses solares con la esperanza de ver un planeta llamado Vulcano.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/jugodeciencia)

* A Fun RSR List Show: For this Thanksgiving weekend, a special rebroadcast. In  our List of the Fine-Tuned Features of the Universe, Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart quotes leading scientists and their astounding admission of the uncanny and seemingly never-ending list of the just-perfect finely-tuned parameters of the physical features of the Earth, the solar system, and the entire cosmos. This program is brought to you by God, maker of heaven and earth and other fine products! * The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe: Barrow & Tipler, in their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, admit that "there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe." Examples include the wildly unlikely combination of: - there is the same number of electrons as protons to a standard deviation of one in ten to the thirty-seventh power, that is, 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (37 zeros) - the 1-to-1 electron to proton ratio throughout the universe yields our electrically neutral universe - all fundamental particles of the same kind are identical (including protons, electrons, down quarks, etc., even, in QED, photons!) - energy exactly equals mass (times the conversion factor of c²) - the electron and the massively greater proton have exactly equivalent opposite charges - the electron to proton mass ratio (1 to 1,836) is perfect for forming molecules - the baryon (protons, neutrons, etc.) that decays must conserve the number of baryons - the free neutron decays in minutes whereas it is stable within the nuclei of all the non-radioactive elements (otherwise eventually only hydrogen would exist because the strong nuclear force needs neutrons to overcome proton repulsion) - the proton can't decay because it is the lightest baryon (otherwise all elements would be unstable) - the electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned for the stability of stars - the gravitational and inertial mass equivalency - the electromagnetic force constant is perfect for holding electrons to nuclei - the electromagnetic force is in the right ratio to the nuclear force - the strong force if changed by 1% would destroy all carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and heavier elements - the precise speed of light, the square root of the inverse of the product of space's permeability and permittivity (i.e., its magnetic field resistance, 4π * 10-7 Weber/Amps * meter, multiplied by its electric field resistance, or 8.8542 * 10-12 Coulomb2 /Newton * meter2), or 186,282 MPS, is integral for life - etc., etc., etc. (including the shocking apparent alignment of the universe with the orbit of the Earth) Leading atheist physicist and biologist admit* The Most Famous Scientist Atheists Agree: The world's most famous scientist atheists in physics and biology have fully admitted half the question as to fine tuning, that the world APPEARS to have been fine tuned. Richard Dawkins: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Stephen Hawking: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted..." * An Atheist's Index to Replies: Here's an index to (failed) attempts to rebut the fine-tuning argument for God's existence.  * Omitting the Cosmological Constant: We have omitted from this list the commonly reported fine-tuning of the cosmological constant to one part in 10 to the 120th. This is so very precise that if the entire universe had as much additional mass as exists in a single grain of sand, it would all collapse upon itself. That is, if a big bang actually formed our universe, and if it created a miniscule additional amount of mass than it is claimed to have created, then no planets, stars, or galaxies could exist. Conversely, if the universe had less mass, by that same quantity, matter never would have coalesced to become planets, stars, and galaxies, and again, we would not exist. So, why doesn't Real Science Radio include this astoundingly fine-tuned parameter in our list? Well, as physicist John Hartnett points out, the cosmological constant is only a fine-tuning problem for the big bang theory, so it is an argument only against a big bang universe, whereas in our actual universe, it is not a fine tuning issue. So, the cosmological constant problem, also known as the vacuum catastrophe, does refute big bang cosmology, at least, for anyone who is objective, has common sense, and is not desperately trying to ignore the evidence for the Creator. (By the way, since NASA says that the confirmed predictions of the big bang theory are what validates it, you might want to Google: big bang predictions, and you'll find our article ranked #1 out of half-a-million, at rsr.org/bbp, presenting the actual track record of the predictions of the theory. Also, if you Google: evidence against the big bang, you'll find our article on that topic near the top of the first page of Google results!) * The Whopping Physics Coincidence: NewScientist reports about gravity and acceleration that, "a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence" for, regarding gravitational and inertial mass, "these two masses are always numerically exactly the same. The consequences of this coincidence are profound..." * The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Solar System include: - Our Sun is positioned far from the Milky Way's center in a galactic Goldilocks zone of low radiation - Our Sun placed in an arm of the Milky Way puts it where we can discover a vast swath of the entire universe - Our Sun is in the unusual Local Bubble, 300 light years of extremely diffuse gas, 1/500th of the average - Earth's orbit is nearly circular (eccentricity ~ 0.02) around the Sun providing a stability in a range of vital factors - Earth's orbit has a low inclination keeping its temperatures within a range permitting diverse ecosystems - Earth's axial tilt is within a range that helps to stabilize our planet's climate - the Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons - the Moon's distance from the Earth provides tides to keep life thriving in our oceans, and thus, worldwide - the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05) makes its influence extraordinarily reliable - the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses - the Earth's distance from the Sun provides for great quantities of life and climate-sustaining liquid water - the Sun's extraordinary stable output of the energy - the Sun's mass and size are just right for Earth's biosystem - the Sun's luminosity and temperature are just right to provide for Earth's extraordinary range of ecosystems - the color of the Sun's light is tuned for maximum benefit for photosynthesis - the Sun's low "metallicity" prevents the destruction of life on Earth -

* A Fun RSR List Show: For this Thanksgiving weekend, a special rebroadcast. In  our List of the Fine-Tuned Features of the Universe, Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart quotes leading scientists and their astounding admission of the uncanny and seemingly never-ending list of the just-perfect finely-tuned parameters of the physical features of the Earth, the solar system, and the entire cosmos. This program is brought to you by God, maker of heaven and earth and other fine products! * The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe: Barrow & Tipler, in their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, admit that "there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe." Examples include the wildly unlikely combination of: - there is the same number of electrons as protons to a standard deviation of one in ten to the thirty-seventh power, that is, 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (37 zeros) - the 1-to-1 electron to proton ratio throughout the universe yields our electrically neutral universe - all fundamental particles of the same kind are identical (including protons, electrons, down quarks, etc., even, in QED, photons!) - energy exactly equals mass (times the conversion factor of c²) - the electron and the massively greater proton have exactly equivalent opposite charges - the electron to proton mass ratio (1 to 1,836) is perfect for forming molecules - the baryon (protons, neutrons, etc.) that decays must conserve the number of baryons - the free neutron decays in minutes whereas it is stable within the nuclei of all the non-radioactive elements (otherwise eventually only hydrogen would exist because the strong nuclear force needs neutrons to overcome proton repulsion) - the proton can't decay because it is the lightest baryon (otherwise all elements would be unstable) - the electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned for the stability of stars - the gravitational and inertial mass equivalency - the electromagnetic force constant is perfect for holding electrons to nuclei - the electromagnetic force is in the right ratio to the nuclear force - the strong force if changed by 1% would destroy all carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and heavier elements - the precise speed of light, the square root of the inverse of the product of space's permeability and permittivity (i.e., its magnetic field resistance, 4π * 10-7 Weber/Amps * meter, multiplied by its electric field resistance, or 8.8542 * 10-12 Coulomb2 /Newton * meter2), or 186,282 MPS, is integral for life - etc., etc., etc. (including the shocking apparent alignment of the universe with the orbit of the Earth) Leading atheist physicist and biologist admit* The Most Famous Scientist Atheists Agree: The world's most famous scientist atheists in physics and biology have fully admitted half the question as to fine tuning, that the world APPEARS to have been fine tuned. Richard Dawkins: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Stephen Hawking: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted..." * An Atheist's Index to Replies: Here's an index to (failed) attempts to rebut the fine-tuning argument for God's existence.  * Omitting the Cosmological Constant: We have omitted from this list the commonly reported fine-tuning of the cosmological constant to one part in 10 to the 120th. This is so very precise that if the entire universe had as much additional mass as exists in a single grain of sand, it would all collapse upon itself. That is, if a big bang actually formed our universe, and if it created a miniscule additional amount of mass than it is claimed to have created, then no planets, stars, or galaxies could exist. Conversely, if the universe had less mass, by that same quantity, matter never would have coalesced to become planets, stars, and galaxies, and again, we would not exist. So, why doesn't Real Science Radio include this astoundingly fine-tuned parameter in our list? Well, as physicist John Hartnett points out, the cosmological constant is only a fine-tuning problem for the big bang theory, so it is an argument only against a big bang universe, whereas in our actual universe, it is not a fine tuning issue. So, the cosmological constant problem, also known as the vacuum catastrophe, does refute big bang cosmology, at least, for anyone who is objective, has common sense, and is not desperately trying to ignore the evidence for the Creator. (By the way, since NASA says that the confirmed predictions of the big bang theory are what validates it, you might want to Google: big bang predictions, and you'll find our article ranked #1 out of half-a-million, at rsr.org/bbp, presenting the actual track record of the predictions of the theory. Also, if you Google: evidence against the big bang, you'll find our article on that topic near the top of the first page of Google results!) * The Whopping Physics Coincidence: NewScientist reports about gravity and acceleration that, "a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence" for, regarding gravitational and inertial mass, "these two masses are always numerically exactly the same. The consequences of this coincidence are profound..." * The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Solar System include: - Our Sun is positioned far from the Milky Way's center in a galactic Goldilocks zone of low radiation - Our Sun placed in an arm of the Milky Way puts it where we can discover a vast swath of the entire universe - Our Sun is in the unusual Local Bubble, 300 light years of extremely diffuse gas, 1/500th of the average - Earth's orbit is nearly circular (eccentricity ~ 0.02) around the Sun providing a stability in a range of vital factors - Earth's orbit has a low inclination keeping its temperatures within a range permitting diverse ecosystems - Earth's axial tilt is within a range that helps to stabilize our planet's climate - the Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons - the Moon's distance from the Earth provides tides to keep life thriving in our oceans, and thus, worldwide - the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05) makes its influence extraordinarily reliable - the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses - the Earth's distance from the Sun provides for great quantities of life and climate-sustaining liquid water - the Sun's extraordinary stable output of the energy - the Sun's mass and size are just right for Earth's biosystem - the Sun's luminosity and temperature are just right to provide for Earth's extraordinary range of ecosystems - the color of the Sun's light is tuned for maximum benefit for photosynthesis - the Sun's low "metallicity" prevents the destruction of life on Earth -

Understanding how brains produce consciousness is one of the great scientific challenges of our age. Some philosophers argue that consciousness is something “extra,” beyond the physical workings of the brain. Others think that if we persist in our standard scientific methods, our questions about consciousness will eventually be answered. And some even suggest that the mystery is so deep, it will never be solved. Decades have been spent trying to explain consciousness from within our current scientific paradigm, but little progress has been made. Now, Philip Goff offers an exciting alternative that could pave the way forward. Rooted in an analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of modern science and based on the early twentieth-century work of Arthur Eddington and Bertrand Russell, Goff makes the case for panpsychism, a theory which posits that consciousness is not confined to biological entities but is a fundamental feature of all physical matter — from subatomic particles to the human brain. In Galileo’s Error, he has provided the first step on a new path to the final theory of human consciousness. Shermer and Goff discuss: the problem Galileo’s approach to science solved, Galileo’s error in solving the consciousness problem, that is the qualitative, Dualism, Monism, Panpsychism, Material Monism, Mind Monism, and Idealism, hard problem of consciousness defined, how consciousness is at the bottom of reality, why science cannot discover the ultimate nature of reality, Model Dependent Realism, philosophy, and science, Arthur Stanley Eddington and Bertrand Russell build panpsychism back into science, philosophical zombies and the “other minds problem,” free will, determinism, compatibilism, and panpsychism, objective moral values and science, fine tuning and the multiverse, and implications of panpsychism for attitudes toward nature and the meaning of life. Philip Goff is a philosopher who teaches at Durham University. He is the author of Consciousness and Fundamental Reality and has published more than 40 academic papers. His writing has also appeared in many newspapers and magazines, including The Guardian and The Times Literary Supplement, and he has guest-edited an issue of Philosophy Now. He lives in Durham, England.

Conoce la historia de cómo el astrónomo inglés Arthur Eddington demostró la teoría de la Relatividad de Einstein observando un eclipse. Escucha además las anécdotas del Fin de temporada. Para comentarios o sugerencias, escríbeme a: Laika.podcast@gmail.com

Are you ready for a super fun and nerdy podcast? Dr. Stanely has been an important thinker for my current research project. His book on renowned Quaker physicist Arthur Eddington was one I kept on telling friends about. When his new book Einstein's War came out I knew it would make for a good reason to have him on the podcast. My high expectations for the conversation were not just met but exceeded. As a historian of science who works in the conversation between religion and science, there were a bunch of different topics that came up we both love talking about. Hopefully this will not be his last visit on the podcast. In the conversation we discuss: how bad the conflict model of religion and science is the life of Arthur Eddington is Buddhism a religion? the emergence of scientific naturalism and why it isn't necessary the relationship of Einstein and Eddington how Einstein changed the scientific picture of the world how scientists got arrested for being spies the connection between physics, pacifism, and internationalism why Einstein's War should be a movie the limits and nature of science shout out to how the hippies saved physics the nature of truth within cultural/religious traditions PS: Einstein's War: How Relativity Triumphed Amid the Vicious Nationalism of World War I, just came out in paperback. As you will hear in the interview, it is too good to miss. Matthew Stanley is professor of the history of science at New York University's Gallatin School of Individualized Study. He has published two academic books and has written for Physics Today, Physics World and the Los Angeles Review of Books. He has a podcast, What the If?!?, and has appeared on documentaries on the History Channel, BBC and NPR. Check Out his books! Einstein's War: How Relativity Triumphed Amid the Vicious Nationalism of World War I,  Practical Mystic: Religion, Science, and A. S. Eddington, and Huxley's Church and Maxwell's Demon: From Theistic Science to Naturalistic Science. Follow the podcast, drop a review, send feedback/questions or become a member of the HBC Community. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Are you ready for a super fun and nerdy podcast? Dr. Stanely has been an important thinker for my current research project. His book on renowned Quaker physicist Arthur Eddington was one I kept on telling friends about. When his new book Einstein’s War came out I knew it would make for a good reason to… Read more about Matthew Stanley: Science & Religion Beyond the Conflict Model

Den 29 maj 1919 inträffade en total solförmörkelse. Den gjorde det möjligt för två forskarteam att testa Einsteins allmänna relativitetsteori. Den höll - och Einstein blev en stjärna. Arthur Eddington reste till ön Principe utanför Afrikas kust och Frank Watson Dyson till ön Sobral utanför Brasilien. Båda passade de på när solen var förmörkad, att undersöka om stjärnor som de skymtade nära solens kant verkade ligga på fel ställe. Det gjorde de - eftersom solens gravitation böjde ljusets väg. Det här blev det första riktiga belägget för Einsteins teori om gravitationen, den allmänna relativitetsteorin. Den passade bra in i en tid då allt ställdes på ända också inom konst och politik konstaterar Kalle Grandin, professor i vetenskapshistoria vid Kungliga Vetenskapsakademin. 1919 års belägg för den allmänna relativitetsteorin är en av de viktigaste händelserna i fysikens och hela naturvetenskapens historia, enligt Ulf Danielsson, professor i teoretisk fysik vid Uppsala Universitet. Programmet är en repris från den 29 maj 2019. Programledare: Camilla Widebeck camilla.widebeck@sverigesradio.se

Sejam bem-vindos ao septingentésimo quinquagésimo oitavo Spin de Notícias, o seu giro diário de informações científicas... em escala sub-atômica. E nesse Spin de Notícias falaremos sobre... Astronomia! *Este episódio, assim como tantos outros projetos vindouros, só foi possível por conta do Patronato do SciCast. Se você quiser mais episódios assim, contribua conosco!*

Sejam bem-vindos ao septingentésimo quinquagésimo oitavo Spin de Notícias, o seu giro diário de informações científicas... em escala sub-atômica. E nesse Spin de Notícias falaremos sobre... Astronomia! *Este episódio, assim como tantos outros projetos vindouros, só foi possível por conta do Patronato do SciCast. Se você quiser mais episódios assim, contribua conosco!*

  I had an argument with someone about the concept of time, things got heated this episode is inspired by that altercation.     Brief History Arrow of time, or times arrow is the idea that time is linear. British astronomer Arthur Eddington developed the...

Nel 1919 Arthur Eddington mise alla prova la teoria di Einstein. E fu un successo. Cent'anni dopo, ricordiamo quell'esperimento.

Nel 1919 Arthur Eddington mise alla prova la teoria di Einstein. E fu un successo. Cent'anni dopo, ricordiamo quell'esperimento.

Is the Universe Conscious? In this episode, I host Dr Philip Goff, an Assistant Professor at the University of Durham. We talk about panpsychism, the theory that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the physical world, and its implications for science and philosophy, through the views of Bertrand Russell and Arthur Eddington. Further, we talk about the relation between panpsychism and evolution and make a distinction between qualitative and quantitative aspects of physical objects, discussing Philip’s latest book, Galileo's error. Twitter: twitter.com/PremisePodcast Facebook: facebook.com/PremisePodcast Soundcloud: @PremisePodcast The podcast is also available on Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, and Spotify. Email: premisepodcast@gmail.com Please consider supporting Premise Podcast on Patreon to help bring philosophy to the public and also enjoy all the benefits of becoming a patron for Premise Podcast. Patreon: www.patreon.com/PremisePodcast

Welcome to the The Year That Was: 1919. I'm so excited to announce this new project. I've always been fascinated by year-by-year approach to history, and I'm thrilled to be taking a close look at 1919. Over the course of the next few months, we're going to look at wars and revolutions, peace conferences and treaties, scientific discoveries and artistic innovations, scandals and triumphs. The podcast launches September 3rd. Make sure to subscribe now so you don't miss a single episode. Meanwhile, here are some notes on today's trailer: Gilbert M. Hitchcock, a Democrat from Nebraska, served as U.S. Senator from 1911 to 1923 and was Chairmas on the Foreign Relations Committee until 1918. He was a supporter of President Woodrow Wilson and a strong advocate for the League of Nations. In 1919, he recorded a speech on the League as part of a Columbia Gramaphone Company series called "Nation's Forum." You can listen to the full speech on the Library of Congress website (https://www.loc.gov/item/2004650544/). Nannie and James Pharis told their story about the Spanish Flu Epidemic as part of the Piedmont Social History Project. They were recorded at their home on January 8, 1979. The entire interview is fascinating, and you can hear it and read the transcript (https://exhibits.lib.unc.edu/exhibits/show/going-viral/oral-histories) on the Going Viral website, a project of the Southern Oral History Program at the University of North Carolina dedicated to documenting the impact and implications of the 1918 flu pandemic. (Scroll down to see the Pharis interview--it's the second on the page.) Rilla of Ingleside is the last book in the Anne of Green Gables series by Canadian author Lucy Maud Montgomery. This is the cover of the first edition of the novel. The book was published in 1921, but Montgomery began writing it in 1919 immediately after World War I ended. It is, as best I can tell, the only contemporary account of World War I from the perspective of women on the homefront. Rilla of Ingleside is widely available, including from Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Rilla-Ingleside-Anne-Green-Gables/dp/0553269224/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TYV4V9Y9TYL0&keywords=rilla+of+ingleside&qid=1565625766&s=gateway&sprefix=rilla+of+in%2Caps%2C187&sr=8-1) and most libraries. You can also listen to a free audio recording by LibriVox, which offers free recordings of books in the public domain. That's where I found my clips of Karen Savage reading the novel. You can find the LibriVox recording here (https://librivox.org/rilla-of-ingleside-by-lucy-maud-montgomery/). William Butler Yeats was one of the most important poets of his generation. A mystic with a strong belief in the supernatural, he channeled his reaction to current events into powerful symbolic imagery. You can read the entire poem The Second Coming (https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming) or see actor Dominic West reading it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI40j17EFbI) in a powerful performance. Tsar Nicholas II, ruled as the last autocrat of all Russias but was brought down in 1917 by the Russian Revolution. His entire family, pictured here, were executed by Bolshevik forces. You can see the entire BBC documentary (https://www.britishpathe.com/programmes/day-that-shook-the-world/episode/asc/playlist/5) from which I quote on the British Pathe and Reuters Historical Collection website. Eamon de Valera dedicated the early part of his life to achieving independence for Ireland from British rule. He fought during the Easter Uprising, served time in British prisons, and was elected president of Sinn Fein and the shadow Irish assembly Dail Eireann. He spent 18 months of his presidency in the United States raising money and lobbying for the Irish cause. During his months in the U.S., he recorded this speech as part of the Columbia "Nation's Forum" series. You can listen to the entire speech and read a transcript (https://www.loc.gov/item/2004650653/) on the Library of Congress website. An unnamed Palestinian man spoke to the BBC in 1936 about life in the British Mandate territory. In 1919, the British took over Palestine and began welcoming Jews with the goal to create a Jewish homeland. You can see the man's entire statement (https://www.britishpathe.com/video/VLVAFULNK7G0W2S5G4HI807ST516-P5120) on the British Pathe and Reuter's Historical Collection website. "How Ya Gonna Keep 'Em Down on the Farm (After They've Seen Paree)" was a 1919 hit with music by Walter Donaldson and words by Joe Young and Sam M. Lewis. You can listen to the entire song by Arthur Fields (https://archive.org/details/78_how-ya-gonna-keep-em-down-on-the-farm-after-theyve-seen-paree_arthur-fields-le_gbia0047025a) from an original 1919 78 record on the Internet Archive website. W.E.B. Du Bois was a sociologist, historian, civil rights activist, author, writer, editor and all-around amazing person. He was one of the founders of the NAACP and edited the organization's monthly magazine The Crisis beginning in 1910. He published the essay "Returning Soldiers" in The Crisis in 1919 calling on African-American servicemen returning from war to take up the causes of lynching, disenfranchisement, education and equal rights. You can read the entire essay (https://glc.yale.edu/returning-soldiers) on the website of Yale University's Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance and Abolition. You can also hear a longer excerpt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Hzao4sjNs&t=21s) from the American Experience documentary The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Sufferin' Till Suffrage is the Schoolhouse Rock recounting of the passage of the 19th Amendment, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwjlnvKbeQA) which granted voting rights to women in the United States. It's a delight. You should go watch it immediately and sing it exuberantly the rest of the day. "How Are You Going To Wet Your Whistle (When the Whole Darn World Goes Dry)" was one of many songs written in the anticipation of Prohibition, which took effect in January 1920. You can listen to the entire song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBIi3oYIL2I&list=PLjdzLbJeDxijwbTX6BoenTLSr6q0BPppM&index=5) on YouTube, sung by Billy Murray and uploaded by Bruce "Victrolaman" Young. Marcel Duchamp, seen here wearing an absolutely enormous fur coat, repeatedly transformed the art world without ever seeming to care about art--or anything else, for that matter. You can see him discussing his career, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzwADsrOEJk)including the Dada movement, in this 1956 interview. Arthur Eddington, British astronomer and physicist, was one of the first scientists outside of Germany to understand and appreciate Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. He decided to prove the theory during a solar eclipse in 1919. You can see the clip from the film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xwGE1oUoSU) Einstein and Eddington in which David Tennant plays Eddington and explains Einstein's understanding of gravity with a tablecloth, a loaf of bread, and apple. (The dinner-party explanation begins at about 1:50 minutes.) Shoeless Joe Jackson was an outfielder and power hitter who was caught up in the Black Sox scandal. Jackson admitted to agreeing to take money to throw the 1919 World Series, although the circumstances have never been fully explained. You can see the clip from the 1988 movie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEUB2LSsbe8) Eight Men Out in which Jackson, played by D. B. Sweeney, confronts a young fan on the courthouse steps. (The key scene begins at about 1:45 minutes.)

This episode contains: It was Devon’s birthday, he didn’t do much. He spent his B-day moving a desk. Devon doesn’t do gifts. Steven celebrated his anniversary. Devon is getting a piano. Junk In the Trunk: New causes of autism found in ‘junk’ DNA. Using machine learning, researchers have demonstrated that mutations in ‘junk’ DNA can cause autism. This is the first study to link such mutations to the neuro-developmental condition. This is the first clear demonstration of non-inherited noncoding mutations causing a complex disease or disorder. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190527111726.htm Get Physical: It’s the 100 year anniversary of the confirmation of the theory of relativity. 100 years ago British astronomer Arthur Eddington used a solar eclipse to measure the change in the positions of stars to show the mass of the sun warped space and thus bent light. https://www.space.com/einstein-relativity-1919-solar-eclipse-100-years-ago.html?fbclid=IwAR2WvHtsghFyE6GAgfoB8egUJb0gEZvYrPAlKxD-1nr4c1hBdNZvwKeccWs Sci-fi: Steven gives us his take on See You Yesterday. Devon gives us his review of How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe by Charles Yu. We talk about the West World III preview. Steven is reading Earth Abides by George R. Stewart. Steven is also reading The Golden Compass. Devon met a huge Star Trek fan that hasn’t watched any of Discovery.

Ehun urte bete dira erlatibitatearen teoriaren lehen froga lortu genuenetik. Arthur Eddington astrofisikaria Principe Uhartera joan zen eta 1919ko maiatzaren 29an Eguzki-eklipse oso bat ikusi zuen, eta bertan baieztatu zuen Eguzkiaren masa handiak argi izpien ibilbidea okertzen duela, erlatibitate orokorrak iragarritako fenomeno bat. Guk mendeurrena aitzaki hartuta, erlatibitateaz eta garai hartako zientziaz hitz egin dugu....

Den 29. mai 1919 gjorde den britiske astronomen Arthur Eddington observasjoner av stjernelys som passerte en solformørkelse. Det han så førte til at det gamle verdensbildet måtte forkastes, og at Einstein blei superstjerne over natta. I denne spesialepisoden er det ingen spørsmål, og bare en ekspert: Astrofysiker Jostein Riiser Kristiansen

Den 29 maj 1919 inträffade en total solförmörkelse. Den gjorde det möjligt för två forskarteam att testa Einsteins allmänna relativitetsteori. Den höll - och Einstein blev en stjärna. Arthur Eddington reste till ön Principe utanför Afrikas kust och Frank Watson Dyson till ön Sobral utanför Brasilien. Båda passade de på när solen var förmörkad, att undersöka om stjärnor som de skymtade nära solens kant verkade ligga på fel ställe. Det gjorde de - eftersom solens gravitation böjde ljusets väg. Det här blev det första riktiga belägget för Einsteins teori om gravitationen, den allmänna relativitetsteorin. Den passade bra in i en tid då allt ställdes på ända också inom konst och politik konstaterar Kalle Grandin, professor i vetenskapshistoria vid Kungliga Vetenskapsakademin. 1919 års belägg för den allmänna relativitetsteorin är en av de viktigaste händelserna i fysikens och hela naturvetenskapens historia, enligt Ulf Danielsson, professor i teoretisk fysik vid Uppsala Universitet. Programledare: Camilla Widebeck camilla.widebeck@sverigesradio.se

Chris Smith answers YOUR questions with Pippa Hudson.... Why does temperature change food flavour? Does the full moon impact the human body? Why do car wheels move in reverse in films? Were early humans vegetarians? Can you produce electricity in a vacuum? Does Vitamin-C cure a cold? Do 5G networks affect health? Plus, celebrating 100 years of Arthur Eddington and the eclipse that made Einstein's laws of gravity famous. Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Chris Smith answers YOUR questions with Pippa Hudson.... Why does temperature change food flavour? Does the full moon impact the human body? Why do car wheels move in reverse in films? Were early humans vegetarians? Can you produce electricity in a vacuum? Does Vitamin-C cure a cold? Do 5G networks affect health? Plus, celebrating 100 years of Arthur Eddington and the eclipse that made Einstein's laws of gravity famous. Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Compie cento anni una storica missione scientifica: la prima verifica della relatività generale di Einstein, guidata dall'astronomo britannico Arthur Eddington

How history can shape science, and how science can change the tide of history? NYU Professor Matthew Stanley is our guest, here to discuss about his latest book: Einstein's War: How Relativity Triumphed Amid the Vicious Nationalism of World War I . Brian Keating, associate director of the Clarke Center and professor of physics at UC San Diego, talked to Professor Stanley about his interest in the history of science and the relationship between science and society. We learn about Einstein's first failed attempt at proving his theories with a disastrous expedition at the outbreak of WW I in 1914, and Arthur Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse experiment that made Einstein famous around the world. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How history can shape science, and how science can change the tide of history? NYU Professor Matthew Stanley is our guest, here to discuss about his latest book: Einstein's War: How Relativity Triumphed Amid the Vicious Nationalism of World War I . Brian Keating, associate director of the Clarke Center and professor of physics at UC San Diego, talked to Professor Stanley about his interest in the history of science and the relationship between science and society. We learn about Einstein's first failed attempt at proving his theories with a disastrous expedition at the outbreak of WW I in 1914, and Arthur Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse experiment that made Einstein famous around the world.

This year, Nature celebrates its 150th birthday. To mark this anniversary we’re rebroadcasting episodes from our Pastcast series, bringing to life key moments in the history of science.As the First World War draws to an end, astronomer Arthur Eddington sets out on a challenging mission: to prove Einstein’s new theory of general relativity by measuring a total eclipse. The experiment became a defining example of how science should be done.This episode was first broadcast in March 2014. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Philip Ball's tale is of a solar eclipse 100 years ago observed by Arthur Eddington, a British astronomer who travelled to the remote island of Principe off the coast of West Africa and saw the stars shift in the heavens. His observations supplied the crucial proof of a theory that transformed our notions of the cosmos and turned a German physicist named Albert Einstein into an international celebrity. But this is also a tale of how a Quaker tried to use science to unite countries. The reparations imposed on Germany after the war extended into science too as many in Great Britain and other Allied nations felt that German science should be ostracised from the international community. As a Quaker, Eddington wanted just the opposite: to see peaceful cooperation restored among nations. Picture: Image of the 1919 Solar eclipse taken by Arthur Eddington (1882-1944), Credit: Science Photo Library Producer: Erika Wright

Eddington's Eclipse and Einstein's Celebrity Philip Ball's tale is of a solar eclipse 100 years ago observed by Arthur Eddington, a British astronomer who travelled to the remote island of Principe off the coast of West Africa and saw the stars shift in the heavens. His observations supplied the crucial proof of a theory that transformed our notions of the cosmos and turned a German physicist named Albert Einstein into an international celebrity. But this is also a tale of how a Quaker tried to use science to unite countries. The reparations imposed on Germany after the war extended into science too as many in Great Britain and other Allied nations felt that German science should be ostracised from the international community. As a Quaker, Eddington wanted just the opposite: to see peaceful cooperation restored among nations. Producer: Erika Wright

Panpsychism can seem like a bonkers theory of consciousness, but according to Philip Goff and a growing chorus of leading thinkers - from philosophers to neuroscientists - it might just be right… In this episode we discuss why Philip rates panpsychism as 'the worst solution to the problem of consciousness - apart from all the others.' We explore his dramatic claim that Bertrand Russell and Arthur Eddington did for consciousness science what Darwin did for the science of life, how 'Galileo's Error' made it impossible for science to ever fully explain the experience of seeing a rose, and why the taste of Marmite can never be satisfactorily explained by neuroscience. We also cover why physics can never tell us about the intrinsic nature of stuff - just how it behaves. And Philip shares his proudest moment in philosophy - when he persuaded Daniel Dennett he was wrong...  Links Philip's book Galileo's Error: A New Science of Consciousness is available to order now, but will be released in August 2019, published by Rider in the UK, Pantheon in the US.  Find Philip on twitter @philip_goff. Check out his personal website including links to his academic publications here: www.philipgoffphilosophy.com And his blog for a general audience: www.conscienceandconsciousness   Follow us on Twitter @NSthepodcast    

In this episode, we look at the dispute between British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington and Indian prodigy Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar over white dwarf objects and the fate of higher mass stars.

Released: 25 January 2018 Duration: 21 minutes, 51 seconds   A hundred years ago cosmologists were struggling to understand the nature and structure of the universe, and at the heart of this struggle was the island universe hypothesis. Today we find ourselves confronted with a similar question posed at a far greater scale. As we confront these great questions of cosmology, whether a hundred years ago or today, we find ourselves faced with as many philosophical questions as scientific questions when we challenge the boundaries of our understanding. In Part II we focus on cosmological scales of time and what this means for human observation of a very old universe. Links: The Realm of the Nebula, Edwin Hubble   Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, Immanuel Kant   The Great Debate   The Scale of the Universe, Shapley and Curtis   The 1920 Shapley-Curtis Discussion: Background,Issues, and Aftermath, V. Trimble   NGC 6822, a remote stellar system, Edwin Hubble   F. H. Bradley   deep time   Stellar Movements and the Structure of the Universe, Arthur Eddington   The Retrodiction Wall   Addendum on the Retrodiction Wall   Eternity in six hours: Intergalactic spreading of intelligent life and sharpening the Fermi paradox, Stuart Armstrong and Anders Sandberg   The End of Cosmology? Lawrence M. Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer   Credits: Writer and Host: Nick Nielsen Voiceover and Producer: Paul Carr Music: Jason Robinson

Released: 21 January 2018 Duration: 19 minutes   A hundred years ago cosmologists were struggling to understand the nature and structure of the universe, and at the heart of this struggle was the island universe hypothesis. Today we find ourselves confronted with a similar question posed at a far greater scale. As we confront these great questions of cosmology, whether a hundred years ago or today, we find ourselves faced with as many philosophical questions as scientific questions when we challenge the boundaries of our understanding. In Part I we focus on the original problems of constructing the cosmological distance ladder.   Links: The Realm of the Nebula, Edwin Hubble   Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, Immanuel Kant   The Great Debate   The Scale of the Universe, Shapley and Curtis   The 1920 Shapley-Curtis Discussion: Background,Issues, and Aftermath, V. Trimble   NGC 6822, a remote stellar system, Edwin Hubble   F. H. Bradley   deep time   Stellar Movements and the Structure of the Universe, Arthur Eddington   The Retrodiction Wall   Addendum on the Retrodiction Wall   Eternity in six hours: Intergalactic spreading of intelligent life and sharpening the Fermi paradox, Stuart Armstrong and Anders Sandberg   The End of Cosmology? Lawrence M. Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer   Credits: Writer and Host: Nick Nielsen Producer and Voiceover: Paul Carr Music: Jason Robinson

This week we look at the work of a number of astrophysicists including Cecilia Payne, Arthur Eddington, Hans Bethe and Charles Critchfield, and Fred Hoyle and Willie Fowler to better understand how the elements are made within the cores of stars. Special introduction by Stephen Guerra of the History of the Papacy and the Beyond the Big Screen podcasts.

Le télescope Hubble est à nouveau à l'origine d'une petite prouesse scientifique : mesurer l'effet de déflexion gravitationnelle produit par une seule étoile, le même type de mesure qui permit à Arthur Eddington il y a près d'un siècle de confirmer la théorie de la Relativité Générale d'Einstein. Cette mesure de Hubble permet de mesurer directement la masse d'une étoile proche (une naine blanche) en appliquant les équations de la Relativité Générale.

As the First World War draws to an end, astronomer Arthur Eddington sets out on a challenging mission: to prove Einstein’s new theory of general relativity by measuring a total eclipse. The experiment became a defining example of how science should be done. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What is spacetime? (Hold on tight!) What is a spacetime continuum? (Testing Einstein's Universe, Stanford University) What is spacetime? (Wikipedia) What is spacetime, really? (Stephen Wolfram) CERN scientists simplify spacetime in 3 short videos (Ted-Ed) Golden syrup (CSR) What is at the edge of the universe? (Futurism) Scientists glimpse 'dark flow' lurking beyond the edge of the universe (The Telegraph) What lies beyond the edge of the observable universe (The Daily Galaxy) How far can we travel in space?...turns out we'll only ever see 0.00000000001% of the universe (Devour) Warning: take with a grain of salt - the balloon analogy of the expanding universe (Physics Forums) Brian Cox (Wikipedia) The Big Bang theory (ESA kids) The Big Bang theory (BBC) The universe's photo album: Chronology of the universe (Wikipedia) Everything in the universe came out of the Big Bang (Why-Sci) The initial singularity is proposed to have contained all the mass & spacetime of the universe...then BOOM! (Wikipedia) So what was there before the Big Bang?...There's no such thing as nothing (Jon Kaufman) What is nothing? Physics debate (livescience) Why is there something rather than nothing? (BBC) The beginning of time (Stephen Hawking) The illusion of time: What's real? (Space.com) At the third stroke: George the talking clock now on atomic time (SMH) What is redshift? (BBC) Red shift & the expanding universe (Exploratorium, Hubble) Cosmological red shift (Cosmos, Swinburne University) The Doppler Effect - animations (UNSW, School of Physics) Redshift occurs when an object goes further away; blueshift when it's coming closer (Space.com) What is gravity, really? (NASA Space Place) Space as a rubber sheet (University of Winnipeg) Gravity visualised - the rubber sheet in action (YouTube) Objects with mass bend spacetime - even you! (American Museum of Natural History) Gravity is still a mystery (livescience) Brian Cox explains gravity & all things General Relativity (The Infinite Monkey Cage, podcast) What is a gravitational well? (Qualitative Reasoning Group, Northwestern University) What is a Higgs Boson? Explained by a Fermilab scientist (YouTube) The Higgs Boson & mass: Universe doomsday? (livescience) Newton & his apple (New Scientist) As the earth rotates, we're moving at about 1,000 miles/hr or 1,600 km/hr (Scientific American) How fast are you moving when you're sitting still? (Astronomical Society of the Pacific) Circumference of a circle: 2πr, where r = radius (BBC) We're travelling at ~1.6 million miles/day around the sun (Physics & Astronomy Online) Boy Meets Girl wines Naked Wines How do we know this is all true? Putting relativity to the test (National Center for Supercomputing Applications) The Mercury transit of the sun test (Wikipedia) The Mercury transit of the sun test (National Center for Supercomputing Applications) The bending of star light around the sun test (Wikipedia) The bending of star light around the sun test (National Center for Supercomputing Applications) Original newspaper clipping from Arthur Eddington's 1919 light bending experiment (Testing Einstein's Universe, Stanford University) An original photo from 1919 of light bending around the sun (Wikipedia) May 29, 1919: A major eclipse, relatively speaking (Wired) Space & time warps (Stephen Hawking) Picture: bending of spacetime around Earth (The Conversation) Picture: bending of spacetime around the sun (Wikipedia) The 3D-spacetime episode of the Simpsons - audio a bit crackly, but whatever (YouTube) Special relativity came first in 1905 - then general relativity was developed in 1907-1915 (Wikipedia) Time isn't constant throughout the universe - it's aaall relative (Physics for Idiots) Newsflash: Time may not exist (Discover) Einstein reckons 'time travel' is possible (NASA) How the Star Trek transporter works (Wikia) The Star Trek warp drive lets them travel faster than light speed (Wikipedia) Warp drives & transporters: How Star Trek technology works (Space.com) Gravitational waves are 'ripples' in the fabric of spacetime (LIGO) LIGO can detect gravitational waves (LIGO) Why should we care about gravitational waves? (LIGO) Gravitational waves are proof that space & time are getting stretched (ABC, Australia) Light behaves as both a particle & a wave - here's the first ever photo of that (Phys.org) The real reason nothing can ever go faster than light (BBC) Gary Lineker (Wikipedia) There's something called 'spacetime foam' ... mad! (Wikipedia) Corrections Johnny may have got the Mercury transit & light bending tests mixed up: The light bending was the 'great exciting newspaper front page' (Testing Einstein's Universe, Stanford University) Can't find support for Johnny's 'light travels on a crisp' theory, but here's some smart people debating 'What stops photons from traveling faster than the speed of light' (Quora) Cheeky review? (If we may be so bold) It'd be amazing if you gave us a short review...it'll make us easier to find in iTunes: Click here for instructions. You're the best! We owe you a free hug and/or a glass of wine from our cellar

Don Kurtz, of the University of Central Lancashire, discusses asteroseismology in a lecture entitled Songs of the Stars: The Real Music of the Spheres. He explains how sound waves are helping to locate distant Earth-like planets, study solar storms and explain what happens in the core of stars.

Don Kurtz, of the University of Central Lancashire, discusses asteroseismology in a lecture entitled Songs of the Stars: The Real Music of the Spheres. He explains how sound waves are helping to locate distant Earth-like planets, study solar storms and explain what happens in the core of stars.

Don Kurtz, of the University of Central Lancashire, discusses asteroseismology in a lecture entitled Songs of the Stars: The Real Music of the Spheres. He explains how sound waves are helping to locate distant Earth-like planets, study solar storms and explain what happens in the core of stars.

We can thank Arthur Eddington for much of our current understanding of stars. He provided some of the breakthrough concepts that explain what's going on, deep inside the hottest places in the Universe. Sadly, the spacecraft associated with his name wasn't so successful. 

Transcript: Mass is the fundamental quantity that controls stellar evolution. The main sequence on an HR diagram is a correlation between the properties of luminosity and effective temperature. The main sequence runs from high luminosity hot stars down to low luminosity cool stars, but the underlying variable on the main sequence is the mass of the star. High luminosity hot stars are high mass and low luminosity cool stars are low mass. The principles of stellar evolution were first worked out by the English theorist Arthur Eddington in the 1920s. He used the idea of pressure force balancing the gravity inward force in a star to deduce the way that stars evolved. This hydrostatic equilibrium that applies at every point within a star creates a stable situation where the rate of evolution is governed by mass.

Presented by Professor Richard Ellis on 7th September 2010.In 1919, Arthur Eddington demonstrated Einsteins's prediction that the Sun's gravity deflects the path of light rays. This phenomonon, termed 'gravitational lensing' is now one of the most powerful tools of the modern astronomer. Professor Ellis reviews the history and progress in charting how dark matter is distributed and how easily galaxies can be located using gravitational lensing.

Presented by Professor Richard Ellis on 7th September 2010.In 1919, Arthur Eddington demonstrated Einsteins's prediction that the Sun's gravity deflects the path of light rays. This phenomonon, termed 'gravitational lensing' is now one of the most powerful tools of the modern astronomer. Professor Ellis reviews the history and progress in charting how dark matter is distributed and how easily galaxies can be located using gravitational lensing.