Month: May 2025

From the daily skeptic

By James Alexander

Some time ago I wrote about how characters like Anthony Fauci, Michael Mann, Susan Michie, also Boris Johnson, Chris Whitty etc. etc. from 2020 to play with science and politics. Ah, you thought it was politics under this trophy, but it was actually science! If not “science”.

Note how nobody ever referred to something like “politics”.

Nobody ever says: “Politics says that climate change takes place.”

No, we always say: “Science says that climate change happens.”

Why?

Well, politicians are either 1) uniform, our overlords: sovereign, government, the ruling class or 2) partly the 24-hour policy party. And one way or something we don't like it: either something is imposed on us from above or it is pushed onto one or the other.

Let me interpret this in textbooks:

Politics in modern times depend on the partisanity.

However, the partisanity is not decisive.

In these two lines we have the source of all of our defendants about modern politics. This old Habermas always spoke about “legitimation crisis”. What does it mean? It means that if I enable it in Shakespearians (about ancient politics), the king is a usurpator. Read Richard II or Henry IV Part I to understand.

But the thought is incomplete. Politics or government always suffered from this type of regular legitimation crisis: usurpation and how to refine them. This is ancient politics. But an unmistakably modern policy is a 24-hour policy of politics: What does Machiavelli and John Stuart Mill mean for no negative thing (as everyone in the entire history of the world had thought-“let's avoid civility to avoid at all costs), but possibly a positive thing: antagonism between rival fractions that were fertile than Machiavelli, like Machiavelli, like Machiavelli, Like Machiavelli, and the vitality, and possibly, and possibly as Machiavelli saw.

So our legitimation crisis is not that of Bolingbroke-Cum-Henry-IV: it is permanent. Party of political. No trump or stammer or someone will ever be legitimate. Only Charles III is the anointed gentleman. Don't touch him. But you can touch everyone else: Touch them in the PG Wodehouse sense for money and ask them in the sense of you, throw the strange egg or the paper cups of warmed up on you and ask you an intelligible BBC questions.

(If we talk about the BBC, everyone should have known that something very bad was going on when the BBC Evelyn Waugh 'interviewed at the time (as we say if we couldn't bother the date) and it was considered the right to be unfriendly. BBC: But nobody knew at the time that Orwell had seen the BBC in 1984.

Anyway, my point is that, since our legitimation crisis is permanent – nobody has authority – nobody in politics has authority – according to the secular equivalent of religion and find conspiracy of thinking in this high -spirited donation, which is known as “science”.

Language, language. Science is only the Latin word for knowledge, scientia. What we call science is called natural philosophy or by the Greeks “physics”, ie the study of nature (physique). The word “science” only started in the 19th century when William Whewell from Trinity College in Cambridge shaped the word “scientist”. It became a concept of identification. I identify myself as a scientist. Since then, the world has been affected by science and scientists, cocky, little justified and privileged and well-blown-out goalkeeper-overton-wind circuit runners who are. Little busy, oh so oriented termites.

But they have authority. The authority of science. Science = knowledge. You know. While we don't know. We have opinions. Politicians have opinions, partly. In the land of one -eyed political partisans, the scientist is a small god. Hence all genocation lenses for 'The Science' in 2020.

Note how language drifts.

I said nobody ever talks about “politics”. But we talk about “science”.

Why?

It is decisive. Politics needs authority. Politicians who lack religion, or even tradition, and worried from Machiavelli and mill antagonisms, fall back on science: uniform, relevant science. That speaks as one.

Hold:

1. “The scientists say that climate change takes place.”

Hum. That still sounds a bit shaky: what if one or two scientists do not agree? Oh dear, I checked and you disagree. Right, then. Let us re -formulate:

2. “The scientific consensus is that climate change takes place.”

Good Good. It makes no sense to only allow scientists an agency. If you do not agree, we show on the “consensus”: what has the advantage of being a unit to speak in one voice. Yes, the consensus, I like it. But a second thought, isn't it the case that a consensus sounds a bit as if it is not based on knowledge, but based on the opinion? You know, “We agreed on something.” Sounds a bit pragmatic as if everyone had been paid for or driving to Grouthink.

Hum. What about it?

3. “Science says that climate change takes place.”

That's it. The full reproduction. Very good.

Science.

With a specific article.

(Be silent.)

Of course it's not good.

In our time, some of us have started to doubt whether science is actually only a kind of conspiracy for universities, military planning and bright dealers. We recently had a piece in the daily skeptic, who looked at Aria, the farm -named company, exactly one of the legacies of Dominic Cummings for the nation: Darpa's British equivalent, which is read in books about the history of the computer. America had military industrial complexes and IBM. We had Clive Sinclair and Alan Sugar. Enjoyment like Dominic Cummings observed the difference and thought that we should have a small payment of funds for the not very eccentric to transform snake oil sellers into professional pharmacies.

It's just politicization.

A enterprising Finnish political thinker, Kari Palonen, has written some good books on politics and parliamentarianism. In one of his old articles, he drew attention to the word “politicization”. He defined politicization as the phenomenon in which something has so far not been considered politically, now brought into the category of politics. Politicization is the opposite of the policy. Therefore, Covid-19 was the politicization of a virus and climate crisis the politicization of the occasional heat wave. The Supreme Court, Quangos, Devolution, the stupidity of politicians, EU logic and globalism are all contributions to the Politician of England.

I would like to suggest, and this is only to see things a little clearer that things can be politically or politicized on three or three phases. I will use visual analogies to help the argument.

The first is frame.

The second is cancer or empire.

The third is the color adjustment.

First of all, we may have crucified something like Christ or ring the Chinese fireworks or the Big Bang or Tree, things that are amusing and interesting: beliefs, conversations, hypotheses, observations. But then we can put them in a political framework. They are framed and become political. Because they are framed by political imperative: someone pays, there are institutions and faith/entertainment/hypothesis/observation is used. At least here, although the original is twisted, it is not damaged. It is used politically, but is not political itself. Science is still science.

Second, we have cancer. Here, politics extends in the scale, so that their financing and institutional support corrupt the original. His nature is politicized. People do not explode out of interest or amusement, but to hunt things more effectively. This is the purpose. The purpose is political: the use is no longer a result. The use is a cause. Useless things are not financed.

But the third is worse than cancer. Here, the color changes slowly as it is used when old cathode tubes -TVs fail and became pink or another color. This is the kind of politicization that is creeping and totally: where everything is politicized in terms of the purposes of the state. Here we are now. Centralization, supported by the technology, has led Apace: And we have a fully saturated political order: framed, ready to cancer, pink. It was so effective that many of us still didn't know before 2020: trick due to the slow color adjustment and not noticed that our complexion became pink and pink.

From Gammon!

This is the world we live in. The system has an extremely unpleasant relationship with real freedom of thinking or eccentricity. Almost everyone repeats mantras who hear them. I do it too, but I read books.

My advice. Read books. Not Douglas Murray's book. But real old books, with leather bonds or in penguin orange and blue, something from a booked shop window, something like that you will find in Oxfam for a quid. At the moment I read Kermode's Shakespeare's language that I see that I bought for a fiver, second hand. Incidentally, Shakespeare is actually quite revealing about the imperative of politics, although he knew nothing about the characteristic contrasts in modern politics or science.

Shakespeare? The first thing he would have done is to write an empty verse, how when it comes to science is not a science, because power is not a science and – but I am not Shakespeare: However, you know how it would work …

I examined how I can compare

This prison in which I live in the world;

And because because the world is populous,

And here is not a creature, but myself,

I can't do it; But I'll take it out. Richard II, Act V, Scene 5 in Kermode, p. 44.

James Alexander is a professor at the Ministry of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.

Like this:

How Load…

Related

Do you discover more from watts?

Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.

In this and in the next decade, several space agencies send missions to the moon, with plans to establish infrastructure that enable many returns. This includes the Lunar Gateway and the Artemis Base camp of NASA, the Chinese Roscosmos International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) and the Moondorf of the ESA. With so many space agencies and commercial companies that concentrate on moon research, there are also several plans for the determination of research institutions and scientific experiments.

In particular, NASA, China and the ESA have proposed to create radio astronomy experiments that would work on the other side of the moon. In a recently carried out work, an international team of European astronomers proposed a single ultra long wave length radio interferometer, which could examine the cosmological periods that are known as cosmic dark age and cosmic dawn. Known as The Dark Age Explorer (Dex), this telescope could provide new insights into one of the least understood periods in the history of the universe.

The study was headed by Christiaan Brinkerink, a scientific engineer of the Radio Radio Lab (RRL) at Radboud University Nijmegen. He was JOINED BY Researchers from the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy (Astron), The Eindhoven University of Technology, The Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), The Laboratory for Instrumentation and Research in Astrophysics (Lira), The Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, The Cambrige Institute of Astronomy, The Kavli Institute for Cosmology, The European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) and the European Space Research and Technology Center of the ESA (ESTEC).

Consider cosmic dawn

According to current cosmological models, the early universe (approx. 380,000 to 1 billion years after the Big Bang) was penetrated by neutral hydrogen. During this era, known as the “cosmic dark age”, the only light sources in the universe were photons from the first electrons and protons that came together during the recombinations era (approx. 380,000 years after the Big Bang) and those who during the era of rice sionization (approx. 250 to 500 million years after Big Bang.),

While the former are now visible as a cosmic microwave background (CMB), today the latter are only visible as a “hydrogen line” (also known as 21 cm). This refers to photons that were released by neutral hydrogen because it was irritated by the ultraviolet radiation, which was released by the first stars and galaxies in the universe. This time is known to the astronomers as “cosmic dawn” (approx. 50 million to a billion years after the big bang) and is considered the final limit of astronomy and cosmology.

Due to the associated distances, the light becomes visible from this time to the point at which it is only visible in the UHF band of the microwave window in the Ultrahohoh Frequency (UHF) band (Ultrahohe frequency). So far, thanks to instruments such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), astronomers have received a look at what is behind the veil of the cosmic dark age. As Brinkerink said today by e -mail, there are still many unanswered questions about this cosmological time:

“We have a trust model for how the structure formation has progressed from the time of the CMB to the formation of the first stars (whereby the lumps of dark matter was excavated by cooling by radiation from baryonic matter), but significant uncertainties remain over the rate in which this structural formation has made progress.

“The observation of the signal made of neutral hydrogen (the red-drawn 21 cm line) is basically the only way to examine this period directly. With the results of JWST, it is likely that we do not fully understand the phase of structural education that is present before the existence of the first stars.”

In particular, the early observations of WebB showed a surprising number of galaxies that were also brighter than expected. Astronomers also found that the “seeds” of the first super massive black holes (SMBHS) were larger than expected. These results were “tension” with earlier cosmological models and strengthened previous research such as the experiment to detect the global EOR signature (edges). This experiment showed an absorption feature in the global spectrum around 70 MHz (about twice as high as expected), which indicates that we do not fully understand the active processes during cosmic dawn.

The “tension” generated by these results has inspired new theories about early galaxy and the Smbh formation. It has also provided an additional incentive to create institutions of the next generation to examine the early universe deeper. The Dex aims to carry out these secrets by measuring the spectrum of the neutral hydrogen signal across an area of ​​red shifts. This will first cover the cosmic dawn (red shifts from Z = 28 to 14) and finally the dark age (z = 50 to 28). As Brinkerink explained:

“The red shift area is divided, since these areas lay very different requirements for the size of the array size, the antenna size and placement. By measuring the spatial range of services as a function of red shift, we can make a film about how the early universe develops and create the role of darkness in the failure and acceleration of this process.

“Dex continuously creates Sky snapshots (pictures) In many frequencies in its observation bandwidth, which are integrated over time (~ minutes per integration) to manage the starting data rate. Back on earth, these Sky snapshots can be inserted into a processing pipeline that execute the spatial and spectral variations and the foreground.

The other side of the moon has long been considered the ideal place for observatories, including radio, optical and other telescopic species. These facilities would be shielded from radio frequency disorders (RFI) in front of the earth, and the atmospheric distortion would not be a factor. However, the technical challenges in building and maintaining such a observatory would be significant.

Enter Dex

Your study builds on earlier works by the ESA. In 2020, the ESA created the astrophysical moon observatory topical team (alo TT) to realize a cosmological radio array on the moon based on moon. This team comprises approximately 60 researchers, engineers and trading partners from universities, institutes and companies from Europe and beyond. This was followed by an ESA study on the simultaneous construction study (CDF) entitled “Assessment of an astrophysical lunar object on the other side of the moon”, which examined the feasibility of a lunar object using today's technologies with high technological standby level (TRL).

According to Brinkerkirk, the results confirmed that such an array with technology would be possible, which is available in the not too distant future:

“The CDF study carried out by ESA in 2021 showed that the scale, in which a moon array with existing technology can be realized, does not yet connect to what we have to bring for a new science: a 4×4 array was considered feasible, but for the science that we need at least 32×32 array. ~ 200×200 m and show us towards a relatively young surface (Less craters and boulders).

The study also focused on the southern polar region of the moon, since NASA plans to carry out regular missions through the Artemis program. Data relay services are also possible in this region because they will be most of the time in view of the Mondgateway. The temperature fluctuations are lower during the lunar cycles in the polar area and range from about 54 ° C (130 ° F) to low from -203 ° C (-334 ° f), compared to high highs of 121 ° C (250 ° f) and lows of -133 ° C (-208 ° f) near the equator. With Brinkerink and his colleagues, this creates greater technical challenges that medium-sized Latitudes cover a better sky and ultraviolet.

Your design study took many different strength scenarios into account. The classic method, he said, generated from a central facility and distributed with conductive cabling, would make up to 50% of the total mass of the system, which makes it very expensive for transport and use. Such a system would also affect the placement of antennas, since it would require electricity distribution centers near the antennas. Therefore, the team took into account alternatives, including the transmission of optical fibers and radio frequency data.

However, they also looked at distributed systems that were used near the antennas, but excluded this because it would create a source for locally generated RFI. In addition, the team identified several technological developments that are necessary to make Dex possible. In particular, they found that the mass budget for sending the necessary elements to the moon could be treated with a film-based structure for the radiant elements. As Brinkerkirk described:

“These make it possible to develop, handle or remove them as provision methods. The amplifiers with low recording must be temperature tolerant directly in the moon environment due to their exposed placement. Even with protective measures, the temperature range that they are exposed is still even greater than the survival span for more standard solutions.

“In addition, we need a reliable and efficient array deployment system that ensures that all antennas are placed in a predictable pattern, since all deviations from the nominal antenna positions lead to a reduction in the quality of the scientific edition (in the form of the spatial mix in the power spectra).”

Ultimately, the study found that the number of antennas that are required to achieve the primary scientific goals of the observatory is not yet possible. Nevertheless, Brinkenkirk and his colleagues emphasize how it also creates a way for the technological development, which could lead to a realistic and valuable experiment in the next or two. In the meantime, the development of these technologies will have spin-off applications here on Earth. To Brinkenkirk:

“[C]Omunication systems in small satellites benefit from the foil-based-based technology, and radio recipients who have to work over longer periods in rough thermal environments can use the implementations developed for Dex. In terms of science, the measurement of spatial power spectra from the dark age and cosmic dawn with the actual attitude of the structure of the lumps in these epochs (dark age/cosmic twilight omography), which can help us understand the development of super massive black holes and the role of early galactic feedback in galaxy growth. “

The paper that recently describes its concept appeared online and is checked for publication in the Experimental Astronomy Journal.