UK Scientists: Aliens May Have Sent Space Seeds To Create Life On Earth

In the "out of this world science" category, 

comes this article, allegedly from Huffington Post.

Scientists in the U.K. have examined a tiny metal circular object, and are suggesting it might be a micro-organism deliberately sent by extraterrestrials to create life on Earth.

Don't be fooled by the size of the object in the microscopic image above. It may appear to look like a planet-sized globe, but in fact, it's no bigger than the width of a human hair.

The University of Buckingham reports that the minuscule metal globe was discovered by astrobiologist Milton Wainwright and a team of researchers who examined dust and minute matter gathered by a high-flying balloon in Earth's stratosphere.

"It is a ball about the width of a human hair, which has filamentous life on the outside and a gooey biological material oozing from its centre," Wainwright said, according to Express.co.uk.

"One theory is it was sent to Earth by some unknown civilization in order to continue seeding the planet with life," Wainwright hypothesizes.

That theory comes from a Nobel Prize winner.

"This seeming piece of science fiction -- called 'directed panspermia' -- would probably not be taken seriously by any scientist were it not for the fact that it was very seriously suggested by the Nobel Prize winner of DNA fame, Francis Crick," said Wainwright.

Panspermia is a theory that suggests life spreads across the known physical universe, hitchhiking on comets or meteorites.

The idea of directed panspermia was suggested by Crick, a molecular biologist, who was the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA in 1953. Twenty years later, Crick co-wrote -- with biochemist Leslie Orgel -- a scientific paper about directed panspermia.

The abstract of their manuscript states:

It now seems unlikely that extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the Earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms imbedded in a meteorite. As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the Earth by intelligent beings on another planet.

We conclude that it is possible that life reached the Earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. We draw attention to the kinds of evidence that might throw additional light on the topic.

In contrast to what Crick-Orgel speculated about in 1973, four decades later, a team of scientists, led by astronomer-astrobiologist Chandra Wickramasinghe of the Buckingham Center for Astrobiology, announced they had found fossils with biological properties attached to a meteorite (check out the slideshow at the bottom of this story) that fell in Sri Lanka.

Of course, these controversial claims bring forth the skeptical side of science. I thought that was reserved for religious kooks, like me.

In the case of the meteorite fossils, astronomer Phil Plait wrote that the scientists didn't do a good enough job convincing him there were actual fossils in that meteorite.

Wainwright and his team launched balloons nearly 17 miles into Earth's stratosphere, and when they examined the material collected by one of the balloons (like the one pictured below), they discovered a small crash mark which indicated to them that the microscopic, circular object didn't simply land softly.

stratospheric balloon
University of Sheffield

"On hitting the stratosphere sampler, the sphere made an impact crater, a minute version of the huge impact crater on Earth caused by the asteroid said to have killed off the dinosaurs," Wainwright said.

Even with this more recent discovery of a tiny globe found lodged into a high-flying balloon, the alien space seed proponents know they have a long way to go before that can be proven and accepted by the scientific community.

"Unless, of course, we can find details of the civilization that is supposed to have sent it in this respect, it is probably an unprovable theory," Wainwright conceded.

Time -- and space -- will tell.

My question is, how did they find a microscopic globe on the surface of a balloon that is about 7 stories high? I'm guessing the 'sampler' was of smaller size. Consequently, for a globe to hit the sampler, we must be being bombarded with millions of these little, creature carriers.

Did they do genetic testing on the 'ooze' that came out of it?

Perhaps they are responsible for pimples? Pimples might have little aliens growing in them. Or perhaps an alien infection is responsible for the madness of Islam? I think we should microscopically examine radical Muslims to see if they have evidence of little alien globes in their flesh. While we are at it, we should inspect Republicans and Democrats to see which side has been infected with the evil bug. I think I already know the answer to that question - both!

Astrophysicist Writes Brutally Biased Response To WSJ About Science and God

WSJ - Wall Street Journal, did not print the response, probably because the writer failed to use any scientific facts in the letter, and was clearly biased in his views. It was obvious when the article came out on Christmas Day that some scientist, somewhere, would go berserk at the mere mention of God and science in the same sentence. That, I believe is what we have here, from a website titled Addicting Info:

Eric Metaxas

Laurence Krauss

Recently – Christmas Day, in fact – the Wall Street Journal published an article by a Christian apologist who boldly declared that science was “increasingly” making the case for God, year-after-year.

Eric Metaxas is best known as a biographical writer, but he is also lauded (in conservative circles) for his work promoting the pro-life movement and making sweeping, outrageous conclusions about the existence of God based on whatever tenuous evidence seems handy at the time. If sweeping, outrageous conclusions be Metaxas bread-and-butter, than his Wall Street Journal article is perhaps his magnum opus. It’s a doozy.

After subtitling his work “The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?”, what followed was a meandering journey into the mind of a creationist playing at scientific literacy – but only when it suited his predetermined conclusions.

The arguments aren’t new. If you’ve ever walked into a Christian bookshop and picked up a book “debunking” evolution, you’d find similar jabs. Paragraphs like these abound:

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

One person who is clearly fed up with this kind of pseudoscientific contrived nonsense is Lawrence Krauss, a world-renown theoretical physicist and cosmologist. His actual job, unlike Metaxas’, is to study the Universe – and he doesn’t share Metaxas’ optimism about his discoveries justifying intelligent design.

It should be noted that Krauss' response appears in an anti-religious online web-site, and that Krauss, himself, is listed in Wikipedia as someone works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. So, to put it bluntly, neither the web-site, nor the scientist, can be considered anything close to being unbiased. Admittedly, neither is Metaxas. But Krauss accuses Metaxas of having an agenda while not admitting that he, himself, has just such an agenda.

In a letter to the editor, Krauss systematically dismantles Metaxas’ shallow science and demonstrates that, not only has science not proven God’s existence (or disproven!), but most of the assumptions Metaxas makes are flat-out wrong.

This is a perfect example of the bias I mentioned above. The writer uses blatant hyperbole and mis-states the entire premise of Metaxas' article. The article was entitled, Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God. It was not titled 'Science Proves God'. If the writer cannot distinguish the difference perhaps he should give up his day job.

To the editor:

I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda.  The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations.  For example:

We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of life in the Universe.  We know the many factors that were important here on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a different evolutionary history elsewhere.  

The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ. Talk about inappropriate! Comparing the evolution of life to what that life is doing, is a bit absurd.

We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates of the frequency of life in the universe were first made.  If anything, the odds have increased, not decreased. Sounds a lot more like opinion than fact or science.

The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength of the four known forces was different.  It is true that if the forces had vastly different strengths (nowhere near as tiny as the fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it would probably not evolved.  This is more likely an example of life being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the other way around. See above.

My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming”, but his statement should not be misinterpreted.  The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable efficiency of natural selection.

Anybody need some snake oil? The overwhelming appearance of design might just possibly be because of design. But a closed-minded scientist would have to invent something to explain away what is so obvious to open-minded people who are willing to pursue truth wherever it leads them.
Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super- intellect has monkeyed with physics". Gee, ya think?

Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers. 

I didn't read any religious arguments in Metaxas' article. There was no veil; no attempt to deceive; Metaxas never presented himself as a scientist. Your attitude seems to be that no-one but a scientist can write a report on science. You would put a lot of reporters out of work.

And anticipating Metaxas’ response of “bias” from a secular scientist, Krauss isn’t the only one – on either side of the debate – that has found the Metaxas’ premises to be absurd. Writing for the Huffington Post, (another anti-God publication) Geoffrey A. Mitelman, a rabbi, found the article equally troubling. That's it - doesn't say why or how Mitelman found it troubling, just that he did. I'm beginning to suspect the writer has an allergy to facts.

So, as tempting as it might be for someone like Metaxas to believe it, science doesn’t prove God exists any more than it has for the last several hundred years. Certainly not to someone who has made up his mind that man invented God, not the other way about.

Ironically, contrary to the Wall Street Journal’s opinion, with more and more data coming in from various NASA experiments (including the historic comet landing in 2014), scientists are now growing increasingly convinced (fact or opinion - 'just the facts, mam') that life – or at least the ingredients to make it – are incredibly abundant throughout the Universe. If we haven’t heard from any little green men yet, it may be as simple as this: the Universe is a very, very large place and we’ve only just started looking.

There is an enormous difference between 'having the ingredients to make life' and life itself. Do we even know what ingredients it takes to make life? If we do, why haven't we created life? But we not only have to create life, we have to create it with the ability to nourish itself and to multiply.

The Universe is very, very large, but according to science it is also very, very old. Consequently, there should be multiple civilizations far more advanced than we, and, therefore, capable of conquering the vast distances or suspending time needed to travel the Universe. We should be crawling with little green men.

While Krauss makes a lot of statements here, he actually provides no scientific data to support them. There are far more scientific data in Metaxas' article than in this one. Perhaps Krauss expected everyone to believe everything he said, simply because he said it; while at the same time, expecting us to disbelieve everything Metaxes said, just because he said it.

Creation Without God, or Anything Else, a Musical Adventure

Some physicists think our entire cosmos 

may have sprung out of nothing at all

In the post immediately below, Eric Metaxes makes a case for God by using recent scientific findings. In the interest of fair play and the search for the ultimate truth, below is a presentation by BBC's Robert Adler using recent scientific findings, or theories, to explain how the universe(s) came into being from absolutely nothing.

I invite you to read both articles and compare them, then draw your own conclusions if you wish. I suggest humming Air Supply's 'Making Love out of Nothing at All' while reading this.

People have wrestled with the mystery of why the universe exists for thousands of years. Pretty much every ancient culture came up with its own creation story - most of them leaving the matter in the hands of the gods - and philosophers have written reams on the subject. But science has had little to say about this ultimate question. Just want to point out that this statement presupposes that man created God, not the other way about.

However, in recent years a few physicists and cosmologists have started to tackle it. They point out that we now have an understanding of the history of the universe, and of the physical laws that describe how it works. That information, they say, should give us a clue about how and why the cosmos exists.

Their admittedly controversial answer is that the entire universe, from the fireball of the Big Bang to the star-studded cosmos we now inhabit, popped into existence from nothing at all. It had to happen, they say, because "nothing" is inherently unstable. 

I'm trying to be fair here, but doesn't that strike you as being a most ridiculous statement? Nothing is nothing! For something to have the characteristic of instability, it would have to be 'something', surely. Nothing, by definition, can have no characteristics!

Wikipedia - Nothingness is the state of being nothing, the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing.

This idea may sound bizarre, or just another fanciful creation story. But the physicists argue that it follows naturally from science's two most powerful and successful theories: quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Here, then, is how everything could have come from nothing.

Particles from empty space

First we have to take a look at the realm of quantum mechanics. This is the branch of physics that deals with very small things: atoms and even tinier particles. It is an immensely successful theory, and it underpins most modern electronic gadgets.

Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such thing as empty space. Even the most perfect vacuum is actually filled by a roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles, which flare into existence and almost instantaneously fade back into nothingness.

These so-called virtual particles don't last long enough to be observed directly, but we know they exist by their effects. But where do they come from? If these invisible particles exist, then nothing is no longer nothing and you are no longer dealing with the creation of the universe. You have to deal with where those sub-atomic particles came from to get to the genesis of the universe.

Space-time, from no space and no time

From tiny things like atoms, to really big things like galaxies. Our best theory for describing such large-scale structures is general relativity, Albert Einstein's crowning achievement, which sets out how space, time and gravity work.

Relativity is very different from quantum mechanics, and so far nobody has been able to combine the two seamlessly. However, some theorists have been able to bring the two theories to bear on particular problems by using carefully chosen approximations. For instance, this approach was used by Stephen Hawking at the University of Cambridge to describe black holes.

In quantum physics, if something is not forbidden, it necessarily happens

One thing they have found is that, when quantum theory is applied to space at the smallest possible scale, space itself becomes unstable. Rather than remaining perfectly smooth and continuous, space and time destabilize, churning and frothing into a foam of space-time bubbles.
Here, again, we are no longer dealing with nothing, but 'space' that is filled with 'a roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles'.

In other words, little bubbles of space and time can form spontaneously. "If space and time are quantized, they can fluctuate," says Lawrence Krauss at Arizona State University in Tempe. "So you can create virtual space-times just as you can create virtual particles."

What's more, if it's possible for these bubbles to form, you can guarantee that they will. "In quantum physics, if something is not forbidden, it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability," says Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts.

A universe from a bubble

OK, time to change songs to Don Ho's 'Tiny Bubbles'

So it's not just particles and antiparticles that can snap in and out of nothingness: bubbles of space-time can do the same. Still, it seems like a big leap from an infinitesimal space-time bubble to a massive universe that hosts 100 billion galaxies. Surely, even if a bubble formed, it would be doomed to disappear again in the blink of an eye?

If all the galaxies are flying apart, they must once have been close together

Actually, it is possible for the bubble to survive. But for that we need another trick: cosmic inflation.

"Tiny bubbles in the wine"

Most physicists now think that the universe began with the Big Bang. At first all the matter and energy in the universe was crammed together in one unimaginably small dot, and this exploded. This follows from the discovery, in the early 20th century, that the universe is expanding. If all the galaxies are flying apart, they must once have been close together.

Inflation theory proposes that in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, the universe expanded much faster than it did later. This seemingly outlandish notion was put forward in the 1980s by Alan Guth at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and refined by Andrei Linde, now at Stanford University.

As weird as it seems, inflation fits the facts

The idea is that, a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the quantum-sized bubble of space expanded stupendously fast. In an incredibly brief moment, it went from being smaller than the nucleus of an atom to the size of a grain of sand. When the expansion finally slowed, the force field that had powered it was transformed into the matter and energy that fill the universe today. Guth calls inflation "the ultimate free lunch".

As weird as it seems, inflation fits the facts rather well. In particular, it neatly explains why the cosmic microwave background, the faint remnant of radiation left over from the Big Bang, is almost perfectly uniform across the sky. If the universe had not expanded so rapidly, we would expect the radiation to be patchier than it is.

cosmic gravity

The universe is flat and why that's important

Where's Columbus when you need him?

Inflation also gave cosmologists the measuring tool they needed to determine the underlying geometry of the universe. It turns out this is also crucial for understanding how the cosmos came from nothing.

Einstein's theory of general relativity tells us that the space-time we live in could take three different forms. It could be as flat as a table top. It could curve back on itself like the surface of a sphere, in which case if you travel far enough in the same direction you would end up back where you started. Alternatively, space-time could curve outward like a saddle. So which is it?

There is a way to tell. You might remember from maths class that the three angles of a triangle add up to exactly 180 degrees. Actually your teachers left out a crucial point: this is only true on a flat surface. If you draw a triangle on the surface of a balloon, its three angles will add up to more than 180 degrees. Alternatively, if you draw a triangle on a surface that curves outward like a saddle, its angles will add up to less than 180 degrees.

So to find out if the universe is flat, we need to measure the angles of a really big triangle. That's where inflation comes in. It determined the average size of the warmer and cooler patches in the cosmic microwave background. Those patches were measured in 2003, and that gave astronomers a selection of triangles. As a result, we know that on the largest observable scale our universe is flat.

It may not look flat...

It turns out that a flat universe is crucial. That's because only a flat universe is likely to have come from nothing.

Everything that exists, from stars and galaxies to the light we see them by, must have sprung from somewhere. We already know that particles spring into existence at the quantum level, so we might expect the universe to contain a few odds and ends. But it takes a huge amount of energy to make all those stars and planets.

The energy of matter is exactly balanced by the energy of the gravity the mass creates

Where did the universe get all this energy? Bizarrely, it may not have had to get any. That's because every object in the universe creates gravity, pulling other objects toward it. This balances the energy needed to create the matter in the first place.

Ummm! Doesn't the creation of 'every object' have to precede the gravity it creates? Therefore the energy to create has to precede gravity, and gravity cannot be used as a function of creation, but rather is a consequence of it.

It's a bit like an old-fashioned measuring scale. You can put a heavy weight on one side, so long as it is balanced by an equal weight on the other. In the case of the universe, the matter goes on one side of the scale, and has to be balanced by gravity.

Physicists have calculated that in a flat universe the energy of matter is exactly balanced by the energy of the gravity the mass creates. But this is only true in a flat universe. If the universe had been curved, the two sums would not cancel out.

Universe or multiverse?

At this point, making a universe looks almost easy. Quantum mechanics tells us that "nothing" is inherently unstable, so the initial leap from nothing to something may have been inevitable. Then the resulting tiny bubble of space-time could have burgeoned into a massive, busy universe, thanks to inflation. As Krauss puts it, "The laws of physics as we understand them make it eminently plausible that our universe arose from nothing - no space, no time, no particles, nothing that we now know of."

So why did it only happen once? If one space-time bubble popped into existence and inflated to form our universe, what kept other bubbles from doing the same?

There could be a mind-boggling smorgasbord of universes

Linde offers a simple but mind-bending answer. He thinks universes have always been springing into existence, and that this process will continue forever.

When a new universe stops inflating, says Linde, it is still surrounded by space that is continuing to inflate. That inflating space can spawn more universes, with yet more inflating space around them. So once inflation starts it should make an endless cascade of universes, which Linde calls eternal inflation. Our universe may be just one grain of sand on an endless beach.

OK, cue the Beachboys...

Stephen's Quartet

Those universes might be profoundly different to ours. The universe next door might have five dimensions of space rather than the three – length, breadth and height – that ours does. Gravity might be ten times stronger or a thousand times weaker, or not exist at all. Matter might be built out of utterly different particles.

So there could be a mind-boggling smorgasbord of universes. Linde says eternal inflation is not just the ultimate free lunch: it is the only one at which all possible dishes are available.

As yet we don't have hard evidence that other universes exist. But either way, these ideas give a whole new meaning to the phrase "Thanks for nothing".

We hope you've enjoyed the concert. If the rest of it makes any sense to you, I would like to know why.

Global Warming, Climate Change, Is It Our Fault? Can We Fix It?

I am not endorsing Professor Plimus' stand here, but he sure does raise some interesting points.

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology. 

These are his extensive credentials.

Born               12 February 1946 (age 67)
Residence       Australia
Nationality       Australian
Fields              Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions       University of New England,University of Newcastle,University of Melbourne,University of Adelaide
Alma mater      University of New South Wales, Macquarie University
Thesis              The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Notable awards Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal(2003), Clarke Medal (2004)


Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? 

Professor Ian Plimer's book in a brief summary.

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life. 

I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. 

Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year - think about it.

Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. 

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.

Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why? 

It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bullshitartists got caught with their pants down.

And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.

It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.

But, hey, .....go give the world a hug and have a nice day.

There is no question that the planet is warming. I have no idea where Professor Plimer came up with the idea that it has cooled by 0.7 deg. C in the past century, but I would love to know. 

That man's activities contribute to that warming is also not in question. What the question is is, how much are we contributing, and if we reduce carbon emissions, how much of an affect would it have on global warming. Professor Plimus is saying that the answers to both questions is, 1) 'not very much' and 2) 'not at all'. 

If he is right, then carbon trading and a whole bunch of other 'green' measures are nowhere close to being worth the effort or expense.