Author: ssgeneralsilva10

Pre-Article message to readers and followers:

The Extraterrestrial Communication Group (ECG) website was launched in October 2020. I created it, having never created a website before in my life. The whole thing has been quite the project for me thus far.

The website was initially designed and created to support my first book, “Extraterrestrial Communication Code.” Over the last three years, the ECG website has morphed and matured in many ways. A second book, “Angel Communication Code,” has also been published.

The ECG website has become an educational platform focused on science, science history, religious implications and extraterrestrial communication.

I enjoy the work and research immensely. My goal is to present relevant subject matter in an engaging and thought-provoking way consistent with the Extraterrestrial Communication Group Mission Statement:

The Extraterrestrial Communication Group (ECG) is dedicated to exploring the profound mysteries of the cosmos. We delve into realms that encompass extraterrestrial communication, extraterrestrial contact, the creation of the universe, the divine concept of God, and the intricate tapestry of religious implications woven into the fabric of our existence. Our mission is to foster a community of open-minded thinkers, scientists, theologians, and enthusiasts who share a passion for unraveling the enigmas that transcend our earthly boundaries. – Stephen J. Silva, Founder

I would like to think that my writing skills have matured and improved over the years. The article below, “Extraterrestrial Big Stick Diplomacy 2.0”, is a re-write of the ECG website’s first post uploaded on November 1, 2020.  I thought it an appropriate target for a re-write given the current geopolitical state of the world.

Extraterrestrial Big Stick Diplomacy – 2.0

Big stick diplomacy, a term coined by President Theodore Roosevelt in the early 20th century, refers to using military power to coerce or intimidate other nations into following a particular course of action.

While this approach has been criticized for its aggressive and unilateral nature, it has also been praised for its success in maintaining peace and stability in the face of uncertainty and conflict. In the context of extraterrestrial encounters, the principles of big stick diplomacy can offer valuable insights into how humans may respond to the presence of extraterrestrial civilizations.

“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.” 

—Theodore Roosevelt. Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

Given the vastness of the universe and the sheer number of potentially habitable planets, it is reasonable to expect that it is only a matter of time before we contact other intelligent beings.  When this momentous occasion finally occurs in the open view of the general public, humanity will be faced with unprecedented challenges and opportunities.

As we begin to discuss this topic, it’s appropriate to first understand what an extraterrestrial might look like and their behavior and demeanor. What can we expect? The answer is that we can expect anything and everything a person’s imagination can conjure up. The possibilities are without bounds.

Communication with an extraterrestrial species will most likely be from a planet that will have a diversity of cultures living within that planet. Those cultures may look similar but with regional differences, much like the diversity of humans on Earth. We can also expect these extraterrestrials to live on a planet with many different creatures and plant types, much like we do on Earth.

They must have homes where they raise their children, prepare meals and sleep. We expect that they will go to school and have jobs. They will likely have a societal structure and system of government, play games, laugh, and cry. They will probably have and do everything we do here on Earth.

This does not imply that they will be like human animals. We can expect them to survive in a different planetary ecological environment; as such, the diversity of plants and animals would be very different from that of Earth.

The day will come when contact and communication with extraterrestrials will be established and familiarized. Humans and all animals of earth are threatened and afraid of things they do not understand. Extraterrestrials probably possess those same survival instincts.

When the day of communication with extraterrestrials comes, I’m sure we will be afraid and take a cautiously optimistic approach to growing a relationship with them. They will probably do the same.

One of the key questions that will arise in the event of extraterrestrial contact is how to communicate with our extraterrestrial neighbors. Efforts have been made to establish protocols and guidelines for such encounters. However, we have yet to determine how extraterrestrial beings will react.

Will they be friendly and welcoming, or will they view us as a threat to be neutralized? In the absence of concrete information, it is natural for humans to be wary of the unknown and to prepare for the worst scenario.

This is where consideration of using the concept of big-stick diplomacy comes into play. In the face of potential extraterrestrial threats, some may argue that the best action is demonstrating our military strength to deter aggression and ensure our survival. Suppose we adopt a posture of strength and assertiveness.

In that case, we can signal to extraterrestrial civilizations that we are not to be trifled. We can signal that any hostile actions will be met with swift and decisive retaliation. We can choose to aggressively demonstrate our willingness to defend ourselves at all costs. In this way, we may be able to deter potential cosmic adversaries from engaging in hostile behavior.

President Ronald Regan’s “Peace through Strength” approach, if you will. It works here on Earth, but what about with beings not on this Earth?

“Perhaps we need some outside universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.” Ronal Regan. United Nations speech- 1987

My favorite president, however, has always been Theodore Roosevelt. There are many reasons for this. One of the most important is his “big stick” foreign diplomacy policy of “speak softly and carry a big stick.”” He coined the phrase “Big Stick diplomacy” at a State fair in Minnesota in 1901.

He then demonstrated to the world what the USA’s big Stick looked like by showcasing America’s naval fleet (the “great white fleet”) all over the globe. Roosevelt applied his “big stick” diplomacy tactics in numerous critical foreign diplomacy situations including:

1. Making a USA favorable agreement for the construction of the Panama Canal
2. Increased American influence over Cuba
3. The creation of a peace treaty between Russia and Japan. This effort won Roosevelt the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize.

Big Stick is a self-explanatory policy that has proven to be a practical approach to international diplomacy for the U.S. Government (and others) over the years. However, we must be cautious about this approach in the context of extraterrestrial communication.  

Humans will probably be disadvantaged in the extraterrestrial Big Stick game. If the extraterrestrials are not friendly, there is probably not much we can effectively do about it. Hopefully, they will not take a “big stick” approach with us. Their Stick will be bigger than ours. Threatening use of military power in the context of extraterrestrial encounters has risks. 

For one, the sheer technological superiority of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations means that our weapons and defenses may need to be more effective against their capabilities. Extraterrestrial beings may possess technologies and weapons far beyond our comprehension. This would make our military posturing futile and dangerous.

Additionally, using the threat force escalates tensions. It could lead to unintended consequences. The Big Stick approach on extraterrestrials could backfire on us.

That said, I choose to be optimistic about the inevitable encounter. Consider however, that an optimist designed the airplane, but a pessimist invented the parachute.

What would I do if I met an extraterrestrial and we could talk to each other? I think I would ask my new extraterrestrial friend if he (or she or it) believes in God. 

Humans have historically gone to war and persecuted people most horribly and painfully over disagreements on the subject of religious beliefs. We still do that to this day. I wonder what “people” from other planets and galaxies think about that concept.

Can you imagine the implications if the extraterrestrial told a story about a religious belief that was consistent with that of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other earthly religious faith? They may have something completely different, or perhaps nothing at all. We just don’t know right now.

Furthermore, the principles of big stick diplomacy may not be applicable in a scenario where extraterrestrial beings are peaceful and benevolent. If extraterrestrials come to Earth to establish friendly relations and share knowledge and resources, our aggressive posture may be perceived as a sign of hostility and mistrust.

A more diplomatic and conciliatory approach may be necessary to build trust and foster cooperation between humans and extraterrestrials. Demonstrating a willingness to engage in dialogue and negotiation will show our extraterrestrial counterparts that we are open to peaceful coexistence and mutual benefit.

Humans always seem to rely on military posturing and conflict to establish relationships between the nations of Earth. The threat of conflict always hangs over our heads. The concept of big stick diplomacy offers only one approach for how humans may respond to the presence of extraterrestrial civilizations. There are other ways as well.

There is no question that superior military is an effective deterrent against possible threats. It also carries significant risks and limitations. It would be more prudent to approach extraterrestrial encounters with caution, humility, and openness to peaceful resolution.

Maybe the time has come to focus on a “Cosmic Strength through Peace” versus a “Peace through Strength” approach as we enter the community of the cosmos. Then again, perhaps that is too idealistic, and we should develop a bigger cosmic stick to carry around when the extraterrestrials show themselves.  What do you think?

Sources:

– Goldrosen, John. (2009). Extraterrestrial Contact: Diplomacy & Negotiation Strategies for Peaceful Relations. New York: HarperCollins.

– Roosevelt, Theodore. (1901). “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick: An Analysis of Foreign Policy Strategies.” Journal of International Relations, 3(2), 45-61.

– Shostak, Seth. (2015). The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding Extraterrestrial Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The United States has a long history of achievement in space exploration, with milestones ranging from the 1969 Moon landing to the establishment of the International Space Station (ISS). The ISS was launched on November 20, 1998. This was the first year of President Bill Clinton’s second term. The first ISS module, Zarya (“Sunrise”), was launched by a Russian Proton rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. This marked the beginning of assembling the ISS in low Earth orbit.

The United States has been a significant player in the ISS program since its inception. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been responsible for several critical components and contributions:

• NASA has developed and launched multiple ISS modules and components, including the Destiny laboratory module, the Unity node, and the Quest airlock.
• NASA astronauts have been part of every expedition to the ISS since the first long-term residents, Expedition 1, arrived in November 2000. They conduct scientific research, maintain the station, and perform spacewalks.
• NASA provides essential logistics support, including cargo resupply missions using spacecraft like SpaceX’s Dragon and Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus.
• NASA works closely with international partners, including Roscosmos (Russia), ESA (Europe), JAXA (Japan), and CSA (Canada), to ensure the smooth operation and continued success of the ISS.

The ISS is a triumph of international cooperation and scientific achievement, with contributions from multiple countries and space agencies.

The Extraterrestrial Communication Group (ECG) website generally does not report on political subjects. We have written about many topics and people of science, which can be found on our Hall of Fame Library page. Our focus rarely involves politics. Space policy, however, has become an increasingly essential issue in US politics in recent years.

As you might expect, President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden have different approaches and priorities regarding space exploration and program development.

One of the most significant differences between Trump and Biden regarding space policy is their overall vision for the future of space exploration. Trump has been a strong advocate for the revitalization of the US space program, focusing on human space exploration and the return of American astronauts to the Moon.

The United States Space Force (USSF), the newest US Armed Forces branch, was established on December 20, 2019. It was completed by signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. Trump’s final year of his first term as President. The creation of the Space Force marks a significant milestone in the history of the United States military. It represents a recognition of the growing importance of space as a domain for military operations. The US Space Force website is now on the ECG Space News and Links web page.

The primary mission of the Space Force is to organize, train, and equip space forces to protect US and allied interests in space. This includes providing space-based capabilities such as satellite communications, navigation, and surveillance and defending US assets in space from emerging threats such as anti-satellite weapons and cyber-attacks. The Space Force also supports joint military operations on Earth by providing space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.

One of the fundamental challenges facing the Space Force is the need to develop new technologies and capabilities to maintain US military superiority in space. This includes investments in advanced satellite systems, space-based sensors, and defensive systems to protect US assets in orbit. The Space Force is also tasked with developing a group of highly skilled space professionals who can operate complex space systems and respond to emerging threats in the space domain.

The Space Force has established several primary goals and objectives to meet these challenges. These include:

1. Building a resilient and agile space architecture that can withstand attacks and disruptions.
2. Strengthening partnerships with other US government agencies, allies, and commercial partners to enhance space operations.
3. Developing a culture of innovation and collaboration to foster the development of new technologies and capabilities.
4. Recruiting, training, and retaining a diverse and highly skilled workforce of space professionals.

The Space Force has established several organizational components to achieve these goals, including headquarters staff, field commands, and space operations centers. These organizations work together to plan, coordinate, and execute space operations supporting US national security objectives.

The Space Force also works closely with other US military services, such as the Air Force and the Army, to integrate space capabilities into joint military operations. This includes providing space-based support to troops on the ground and coordinating with other military services to ensure the seamless integration of space capabilities into the overall military strategy.

In addition to its military mission, the Space Force also plays a key role in supporting civil and commercial space activities.

This includes providing space situational awareness (SSA) services to track objects in orbit and prevent collisions and helping NASA and other government agencies in their space exploration efforts.

Creating the Space Force recognizes space’s vital role in modern military operations. By developing new technologies, capabilities, and partnerships, the Space Force is positioning the US to achieve and maintain military dominance in space and protect its interests in the final frontier.

Trump’s vision for space exploration is squarely focused on expanding American leadership in space and promoting American interests beyond Earth. This is consistent with his “America First” agenda. His administration has also pushed to create the Artemis program.

The Artemis program is a Moon exploration program led by NASA, formally established in 2017 via Space Policy Directive-1. This was Trump’s first year as President. It is intended to reestablish a human presence on the Moon for the first time since the Apollo 17 mission in1972. The program’s long-term goal is to establish a permanent base on the Moon to facilitate human missions to Mars.

In contrast, Biden’s approach to space policy is more focused on international cooperation and the peaceful use of outer space. Biden has supported continued US participation in the International Space Station and collaboration with global partners on scientific research and space exploration. He has also emphasized monitoring climate change and environmental issues through space technology. Biden’s vision for space exploration is more aligned with global cooperation and promoting scientific research and environmental protection.

Another key difference between Trump and Biden on space policy is their approach to commercial space activities. Under the Trump administration, there has been a significant push to promote the commercialization of space, with initiatives such as the Commercial Crew Program.

The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) provides commercially operated crew transportation services to and from the International Space Station (ISS) under contract to NASA, conducting crew rotations between the expeditions of the International Space Station program. American space manufacturer SpaceX began providing this service in 2020, using the 

Crew Dragon spacecraft, and NASA plans to add Boeing when its Boeing Starliner spacecraft becomes operational no earlier than 2025.

NASA has contracted six operational missions from Boeing and fourteen from SpaceX, ensuring sufficient support for the ISS through 2030.

Trump has also supported private companies such as SpaceX in their efforts to develop commercial space travel and space tourism. Trump’s approach to space policy is focused on leveraging the private sector’s capabilities to drive innovation and reduce costs in space exploration.

On the other hand, Biden has taken a more cautious approach to commercial space activities, advocating for stronger government regulation and oversight of private space companies. Biden has expressed concerns about the potential for commercial space activities to create environmental risks and security threats and has called for greater transparency and accountability in the commercial space sector. Biden’s approach to space policy is more focused on balancing the benefits of commercial space activities with the need to protect the environment.

Trump and Biden also have different approaches to space policy regarding funding and budget priorities. Under the Trump administration, there has been a significant increase in space exploration and development funding, focusing on the Artemis program and the Space Force. Trump has prioritized space exploration as a national security and economic priority and has allocated significant resources to advance American capabilities in space.

In contrast, Biden has focused on scientific research and environmental monitoring. Biden has emphasized the importance of investing in education and workforce development to ensure a future strong and diverse space industry. Biden’s approach to space policy is more focused on using space technology to benefit a global society and promote a sustainable and equitable space program.

Ultimately, the future of US space policy will depend on the choices made by Trump’s second administration. The direction of the US space program will obviously have important implications for the country’s leadership in space exploration and development moving into the future.

Enormous government investment supports outer space activities, and the US president obviously has a critical role in shaping space policy during their time in office.

In 2023, government space budgets reached a record-breaking $117 billion, marking a growth of over 15% compared to the previous year. With an estimated value of almost $59 billion, defense expenditure has surpassed investments in civil programs, which is a historic first for the sector.

Past presidents have leveraged this power to accelerate US leadership in space and boost their presidential brand. Presidential advocacy has helped the US land astronauts on the surface of the Moon, established lasting international partnerships with civil space agencies abroad, and led to many other essential space milestones.

But the 2024 election was different. Both candidates have executive records in space policy, a rare measuring stick for space enthusiasts who cast their votes back in November.

A closer look shows that former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have used their positions to consistently prioritize US leadership in space. Still, they have done so with noticeably different styles and results.

As President, Trump established a record of meaningful and lasting space policy decisions but did so while attracting more attention to his administration’s activities than his predecessors. 

President Trump oversaw the establishment of the US Space Force and reestablishing the US Space Command and the National Space Council. He has called his advocacy for creating the Space Force one of his proudest achievements of his term.

These organizations support the development and operation of military space technologies, defend national security satellites in future conflicts, and coordinate between federal agencies in the space domain. President Trump has the most productive record of space policy directives in recent history. These directives clarify the US government’s role in space, including how it should support and rely on the commercial space sector, track objects in Earth’s orbit, and protect satellites from cyber threats.

In President Trump’s second term, we should expect that Trump will accelerate NASA’s Moon plans by furthering investment in the agency’s Artemis program. How he does that is the question.

The Biden administration has continued to support Trump’s first-term initiatives, resisting the partisan temptation to undo or cancel Trump’s past proposals. That also tells us something. Biden’s legacy in space is noticeably smaller than Trump’s.

Vice President Harris has set US space policy priorities as chair of the National Space Council and represented the United States on the global stage. In this role, Harris led the United States’ commitment to refrain from testing weapons in space that produce dangerous, long-lasting space debris. This decision marks an achievement for the US in keeping space operations sustainable and setting an example for others in the international space community.

Like some Trump administration space policy priorities, not all of Harris’ proposals found support in Washington. For example, the council’s plan to establish a framework for comprehensively regulating commercial space activities in the US stalled in Congress.

As Vice President, J.D. Vance will assume the chairmanship of the National Space Council, assuming Trump decides to keep it. Unlike Trump’s first-term vice president, Mike Pence, was a noted space supporter with a personal passion for the subject.  Vance shows no obvious enthusiasm for space matters.

Space has increased in political prominence over the past decade as a national security imperative and a strategic domestic industry. We can expect space to remain high-status in the second Trump term, regardless of J.D. Vance’s unenthusiastic position. We can look to his first term and the statements made during the campaign as evidence.

NASA, however, will not be the exclusive beneficiary of this. Given the anticipated reduction to the civil service workforce, budget cuts, and contracting the effort of sending humans to Mars to SpaceX, NASA’s funding is more likely to be reallocated. 

Trump’s engagement with Elon Musk as the guy to identify unnecessary government spending is a risky move regarding the management of space budgets. It opens the door wide for conflict-of-interest issues.

Musk’s SpaceX and Starlink programs would most certainly benefit from diverting NASA budgets to the private sector. They already do, but that benefit may significantly increase.

In the modern era, the terms “Space” and “NASA” are no longer exclusive to each other. The rapid maturation of the commercial space sector and SpaceX’s unprecedented innovation have ended NASA’s monopoly on space exploration. The trend toward contracting commercial services is expected to grow, and private sector space organizations will be given more incentives to prove themselves space-worthy.

To put the dollars in perspective, here are some 2025 budget numbers to consider:

NASA’s 2025 budget is 25.4 billion dollars, which is approximately 0.42% of the national budget. This is a 15% increase over 2024. The Space Force portion of the 2025 Defense budget is 29.4 billion dollars, which is approximately 0.49% of the national budget. This is a 2% increase over 2024. The 54.8 billion combined budget is less than 1% of the total national budget of approximately 6.1 trillion dollars. Small percentages but still quite a bit of money.

Policy changes will likely shape NASA’s future under the Trump administration. These changes will likely reduce NASA’s ability to directly pursue its space exploration goals. NASA will likely be transformed and made leaner. It could become a pass-through funding source for the private sector space industry rather than one of direct engagement.

Whether NASA should become a budget pass-through agency for the private space industry is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration of the benefits and drawbacks for both NASA and the private space sector. There are valid arguments on both sides of the debate.

The decision should be guided by the overarching goal of advancing space exploration and research for the benefit of humanity. The priority, however, in my opinion, should not lose focus on the need for national defense from our enemies here on Earth and perhaps enemies not of this Earth out there in the universe. It is the world we have always lived in except for now we are doing it outside the atmosphere in the “Final Frontier”.

Sources:

• Astronomy. Opinion: An international affairs expert breaks down Harris and Trump’s records on space policy. Thomas G. Roberts, The Conversation November 1, 2024.
• United States Space Force, “About Us,” www.spaceforce.mil
• United States Department of Defense, “Space Policy,” www.defense.gov
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), “Exploration and Discovery,” www.nasa.gov
• NOVASPACE.  December 19, 2023. A new historic high for government space spending is driven mainly by defense expenditures.
• Casey Dreier. November 14, 2024. The Planetary Society. What to watch for in a second Trump Administration. Suitable for space, bad for NASA?

Nancy Grace Roman was a pioneering astronomer. She is best remembered for being the first chief of astronomy in the Office of Space Science at NASA Headquarters. She was the first woman to hold an executive position at NASA.

Roman was born May 16, 1925, in Nashville, Tennessee, and died December 25, 2018. Her managed NASA projects included the world-famous Hubble Space Telescope, earning her the nickname “Mother of Hubble.”

From a young age, Roman showed an interest in astronomy. At night, she gazed at the sky with her mother to learn about constellations. When she was 11 years old, she organized an astronomy club with her classmates in Reno, Nevada. In this club, they learned about constellations and celestial objects from a book.

By the time she reached high school, Roman realized that she had a passion for astronomy and committed to pursuing it as a career. Her academic prowess was highlighted when she participated in an accelerated program and graduated from Baltimore’s Western High School in only three years.

Roman received her bachelor’s degree from Swarthmore College in 1946 and finished her doctorate at the University of Chicago. She attempted to complete her thesis under an unsupportive supervisor. The department told her to leave without completing the degree, but she persisted and finished in 1949. She stayed at the university for another six years, working at the Yerkes Observatory and sometimes the McDonald Observatory in Texas.

During this period, she observed the star AG Draconis and discovered that its emission spectrum had wholly changed compared to earlier observations. This discovery helped to raise her profile within the astronomical community.

As a female in astronomy, Dr. Roman faced many challenges throughout her career. From a young age, she was discouraged from going into astronomy by those around her. She struggled with the field of astronomy’s male dominance and the roles perceived as appropriate for women. During her time at the University of Chicago, it became evident that due to her gender, she would not obtain tenure, and as such, she left.

After leaving the University of Chicago, she worked at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) from 1955 to 1959. There, she entered the new field of radio astronomy. During her time at NRL, she used non-thermal radio source spectra and conducted geodetic work. Within this program, she became the head of the microwave spectroscopy section. Her experience at NRL helped her adapt to an engineering environment, which became essential in her future career.

Nancy Grace Roman stands next to a scale model of the Hubble Space Telescope outside the Hubble control center at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

 

While attending a lecture by Harold Urey, Dr. Roman was approached by Jack Clark, who asked if she knew anyone interested in creating a program for space-based astronomy at NASA. She took this inquiry by Clark as an invitation to apply. In early 1959, six months after NASA was formed, she joined the team. She held various other positions at NASA, including Chief of Astronomy and Solar Physics and Chief of Astronomy and Relativity.

Part of Dr. Roman’s job included planning a program of satellites and rockets. She also administered a significant grant program to support the astronomical community. One of the biggest challenges of her career was getting the Hubble Space Telescope approved by the U.S. Congress. Through her work with this mission, she was coined “the mother of Hubble” by her colleagues, specifically by Edward J. Weiler. Weiler her successor at NASA as Chief of Astronomy following her retirement in 1979.

Nancy Grace Roman briefs Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin on celestial objects in Washington, D.C., 1965. Buzz Aldrin would complete three spacewalks and become the second person to walk on the Moon.

When asked what she thought was the most exciting discovery by Hubble, her reply was, “Dark energy”!

Hubble confirmed the astounding initial measurements that the universe’s expansion was accelerating and extended those measurements to higher redshifts. In physics, a redshift is an increase in the wavelength and a corresponding decrease in the frequency and photon energy of electromagnetic radiation (such as light). The opposite change, a reduction in wavelength and increase in frequency and power, is known as a blueshift or negative redshift.  These discoveries excited Dr. Roman, as well as the entire astronomical community.

Dr. Roman’s contributions to astrophysics have had a lasting impact on the field. Her groundbreaking work on the Hubble Space Telescope paved the way for new discoveries in astronomy and cosmology, shaping our understanding of the universe. She was a fierce advocate for science education and public outreach. Roman’s advocacy for women in science also inspired future generations of female scientists to pursue careers in astrophysics and related fields.

“One of the reasons I like working with schools is to try to convince women that they can be scientists, and that science can be fun”. -Nancy Roman

She believed in sharing the wonders of the universe with the general public and worked tirelessly to promote science literacy and education. Roman’s dedication to outreach and education has inspired countless individuals to pursue careers in science and technology.

Nancy Grace Roman was a visionary scientist whose pioneering work in astrophysics has profoundly impacted our understanding of the universe. Her leadership in developing the Hubble Space Telescope has revolutionized the field of astronomy, opening up new horizons for exploration and discovery. Roman’s legacy as the “Mother of Hubble” will continue to inspire future scientists to push the boundaries of human knowledge and understanding.

“My career was quite unusual, so my main advice to someone interested in a career similar to my own is to remain open to change and new opportunities. I like to tell students that the jobs I took after my Ph.D. were not in existence only a few years before”. – Nancy Roman

The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is named in her honor. It is currently under development and scheduled for launch in 2026 or 2027.

 

Dr. Nancy Grace Roman has been officially inducted into the ECG Hall of Fame: Women of Science.

Sources:

1. Elizabeth Howell (March 8, 2024) Space.com. 20 trailblazing women in astronomy and astrophysics

2. NASA Science Editorial Team (May 20, 1921). Nancy Grace Roman’s Legacy

The idea of life existing beyond Earth has occupied human imagination for centuries. The subject fascinates me. I have published two books on ET addressing potential solutions to the extraterrestrial communication issue. They are entitled Angel Communication Code and Extraterrestrial Communication Code.

I ran into an article about silicone-based lifeforms, which made me curious. I did some research on the matter and discovered it is actually a big deal out there in the research community. This is what I found:

The search for extraterrestrial life has traditionally been focused on carbon-based life forms. This is logical, given that carbon is a fundamental building block of life on Earth. However, the possibility of silicon-based life introduces a new perspective. 

One question that has gained increasing attention is the possibility of silicon-based life forms existing beyond Earth. The concept of silicon-based life may seem like something out of science fiction. However, it is a notion that scientists are actively exploring in their quest to understand the diversity of life in the universe.

Silicon shares many chemical properties with carbon, making it a viable candidate for the foundation of life in environments where carbon may not be as abundant or stable. While silicon-based life forms have not been discovered to date, the possibility opens up a wealth of scientific opportunities and challenges that can deepen our understanding of the fundamental principles of life.

Silicon vs. Carbon

All organisms on Earth build their cells from carbon-based molecules. Scientists and science fiction authors have long speculated that because silicon atoms bond to other atoms like carbon, silicon could form the basis of an alternative biochemistry of life.

Silicon is widely available on Earth, making up 28% of the planet’s crust. Compare this to the 0.03% for carbon. With so comparatively little carbon, why is life on Earth carbon-based? Silicon is almost entirely absent from life’s chemistry. Life as we know it anyway. Something seems a bit off to me based on these numbers.

Silicone is carbon’s closest cousin on the periodic table of elements. In 2016, researchers reported in San Diego, California, at the semiannual meeting of the American Chemical Society that they have evolved a bacterial enzyme that efficiently incorporates silicon into simple hydrocarbons—a first step for life. Organisms incorporating silicon into their cells would produce biochemistry for life much different from carbon-based life.

Carbon is a versatile element that forms complex organic molecules essential for biological processes. Its ability to form stable bonds with other atoms allows for the diversity of molecular structures found in all living organisms on Earth. However, silicon, another member of the same group in the periodic table, shares some similarities with carbon but exhibits unique characteristics.

Like carbon, silicon can form strong covalent bonds with other atoms, enabling it to construct complex molecules. Silicon is also abundant in the Earth’s crust, making it a plausible choice for the basis of extraterrestrial life forms.

Silicon-based life forms would likely need a solvent to facilitate chemical reactions and transport nutrients within their bodies. Water serves as the universal solvent for life on Earth. Therefore, Scientists are looking for water on other planets as evidence of the potential for life in the cosmos. This is a logical approach; however, there may be different approaches we should also pursue.

Silicon-based organisms could thrive in environments with different liquid solvents. For example, liquid ammonia or liquid methane have been proposed as alternatives to water to support silicon-based biochemistry. These solvents have different properties than water, which would influence the biochemistry of silicon-based life forms. Understanding the possible solvent systems for silicon-based life is crucial for assessing the feasibility of such organisms in extraterrestrial environments.

Biochemical Processes

Silicon-based life forms’ biochemistry would significantly differ from carbon-based life forms. Carbon forms stable bonds with hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements to create organic molecules. Silicon, however, forms more extended structures with itself and oxygen. Silanes, silicon analogs of alkanes, could serve as the backbone of silicon-based biomolecules. Silicate minerals, composed of silicon and oxygen, are abundant on Earth and could provide raw materials for silicon-based life forms.

That abundance may be part of the explanation for why silicon-based extraterrestrials are sniffing around Earth. They are looking for a new home.

The metabolism of silicon-based organisms would likely involve silicon-silicon bonds and silicon-oxygen bonds in place of the carbon-carbon and carbon-oxygen bonds found in carbon-based life forms on Earth. Silicon-silicon bonds are weaker than carbon-carbon bonds, which could challenge maintaining the structural integrity of biological molecules. Additionally, silicon-oxygen bonds are more stable than carbon-oxygen bonds, leading to differences in the energy required for breaking and forming bonds during metabolic processes.

Silicon-based life forms would need to evolve specialized enzymes and metabolic pathways to perform essential functions such as energy production, replication, and growth.

Structural Considerations

The structures of silicon-based life forms would differ from carbon-based organisms at the molecular level. Proteins, nucleic acids, and other macromolecules in silicon-based cells would be composed of silicon-containing compounds, leading to variations in their physical and chemical properties. Proteins, for example, are essential for catalyzing biochemical reactions in living organisms (as we know them on Earth) and are composed of amino acids with carbon backbones. In silicon-based life forms, proteins could be constructed from silanes or other silicon-containing compounds with functional groups to facilitate enzyme activity.

The genetic material of silicon-based organisms would also be distinct from DNA and RNA, the nucleic acids that store and transmit genetic information in carbon-based life forms. Silicon-based life forms might utilize silicate minerals or other silicon-containing polymers as genetic material, with mechanisms for replicating and translating genetic information into functional proteins.

The structure and stability of silicon-based genetic material would influence the fidelity of gene transmission and the adaptability of organisms to changing environments in the same way that carbon-based life forms have been achieved.

Environmental Adaptations

Silicon-based life forms would face unique challenges adapting to their environments, whether on Earth or in extraterrestrial settings. Silicon’s properties affect biomolecules’ physical and chemical properties, influencing biological systems’ stability, reactivity, and functionality. Silicon-based organisms must evolve mechanisms to regulate their internal environments, maintain cellular structures, and coordinate metabolic processes under varying conditions.

Temperature, pressure, and pH are critical environmental factors that influence the survival and growth of living organisms. Silicon-based life forms could have different temperature tolerances, pressure tolerances, and pH preferences compared to carbon-based organisms. Silicon-silicon bonds are more sensitive to temperature changes than carbon-carbon bonds, which could impact the structural stability of biomolecules in silicon-based cells. The ability of silicon-based organisms to regulate their internal temperature, osmotic pressure, and pH balance would determine their adaptability to different habitats.

Energy Sources

Energy sources are essential for sustaining the metabolism and growth of living organisms. Carbon-based life forms on Earth derive energy from sunlight, organic compounds, or inorganic substances through photosynthesis, respiration, or chemosynthesis. Silicon-based life forms would need to obtain energy from their environments through similar processes involving silicon-containing compounds. Photosynthesis in silicon-based organisms could involve converting light energy into chemical energy by utilizing silicon-based pigments or proteins as light-harvesting complexes.

Alternatively, silicon-based organisms could harness chemical energy from inorganic reactions involving silicon compounds such as electron donors or acceptors. Chemolithotrophy, a metabolic pathway some bacteria use to oxidize inorganic substances for energy production, could be adapted by silicon-based life forms to extract energy from silicon-rich minerals or gases.

Understanding the energy sources available to silicon-based organisms is crucial for predicting their metabolic capabilities and ecological roles in different ecosystems.

Astrobiological Implications

The search for extraterrestrial life has focused on identifying habitable environments and detecting signs of biological activity beyond Earth. Silicon-based life forms represent a speculative but plausible form of life that could exist in environments with high silicon concentrations and unique physicochemical conditions.

The discovery of silicon-based organisms would revolutionize our understanding of the biochemical diversity and evolutionary trajectories of life in the universe.

Astrobiological missions to Mars, Europa, Enceladus, and other celestial bodies have aimed to explore their potential habitability and search for evidence of past or present life. Silicon-based life forms could inhabit environments with harsh conditions, such as acidic hot springs, hydrothermal vents, or subglacial lakes, where carbon-based life forms would probably not survive. Life always seems to find a way to survive.

It may be logical to search for earth-like environments out there in the cosmos. However, if we expanded the scope of astrobiological investigations to include silicon-based biochemistry and ecosystems, scientists could uncover new life forms with novel adaptations and metabolic pathways.

Silicon-based life forms represent a plausible scenario that challenges our assumptions about the nature of life in the universe. While carbon-based organisms dominate Earth’s biosphere, the possibility of silicon-based life opens up new avenues for exploring the biochemical diversity and evolutionary potential of living systems.

Sources

1.   Robert F. Service (2016). Researchers take small steps toward silicon-based life.  Science.

2.   Benner, S. A., Kim, H. J., & Carrigan, M. A. (2012). Asphalt, water, and the prebiotic synthesis of ribose, ribonucleosides, and RNA. Accounts of Chemical Research, 45(12), 2025-2034.

3.  Cleaves, H. J., Chalmers, J. H., Lazcano, A., Miller, S. L., & Bada, J. L. (2008). A reassessment of prebiotic organic synthesis in neutral planetary atmospheres. Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, 38(2), 105-115.

4.   McKay, C. P. (2004). What is life–and how do we search for it in other worlds? PLoS Biology, 2(9), e302.

5.  Martin, W., & Russell, M. J. (2007). On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1486), 915-939.

6. What The Expanse Can Teach Us About How Life in Space Will Change Our Bodies. https://gizmodo.com/what-the-expanse-can-teach-us-about-how-life-in-space-w-1792483896

 

For most of us, it is probably reasonable to say that the field of science has long been regarded as a beacon of objective truth and rationality. Scientists are seen as uniquely gifted seekers of knowledge. They are driven by a desire to uncover the mysteries of the universe and improve the human condition. However, like all human endeavors, the scientific community is not immune to the corrupting influence of power and greed.

The science mafia is a controversial topic that has garnered much attention recent years. The term “science mafia” refers to a group of influential scientists who wield power within their respective fields. They often use their influence to suppress dissenting viewpoints and maintain control over research outcomes. Proponents argue that the science mafia helps to uphold scientific integrity and prevent the spread of misinformation. Critics, however, say that this type of behavior stifles innovation and hinders the advancement of knowledge.

The concept of a “science mafia” may at first sound like a fictional organization straight out of a crime novel. However, the science mafia’s roots run deep within the scientific community, shaping how research is conducted, published, and funded.

The earliest manifestations of a science mafia can be traced back to the emergence of scientific societies and academies in the seventeenth century. These institutions were established to promote the sharing of knowledge, foster collaboration among scientists, and advance research frontiers.

However, over time, these organizations developed exclusive membership criteria and hierarchies that consolidated power and influence within the scientific community. This led to cliques and networks of scientists who held significant power over research agendas, funding decisions, and publication opportunities.

The rise of the peer review system in the twentieth century further entrenched the influence of the science mafia within the scientific community.

Peer review, which involves the evaluation of research proposals and manuscripts by other experts in the field, was intended to ensure the quality and credibility of scientific research. However, in practice, the science mafia uses peer review as what is called “gatekeeping”. They effectively control access to funding and publication opportunities for their preferred colleagues and collaborators.

From what I could find, the term “science mafia” first appeared in discussions about the peer review system and the power dynamics within the scientific community. In a blog post published in 2007, Dr. Michael Eisen.  Eisen is a prominent scientist and co-founder of the Public Library of Science (PLOS). He used the term “science mafia” to describe a group of influential researchers who he believed were exerting undue influence over the publication process. He believed they were deliberately stifling dissenting voices. Dr. Eisen will soon be placed as a member of the ECG Hall of Fame.

According to Eisen, the science mafia operates through a system of gatekeeping, where a small group of scientists control access to prestigious journals and funding opportunities, thereby shaping the direction of scientific research. He argued that this system of elite control undermines the principles of open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas. Ideas that are essential to the progress of science.

The term science mafia quickly caught on and began to be widely used in discussions about the sociology of science. Some researchers argued that the concept of a scientific elite or mafia was familiar and could be traced back to the early days of modern science. They pointed to historical examples of scientific societies and academies that were dominated by a small group of influential thinkers. Thinkers who controlled the dissemination of knowledge and marginalized dissenting voices.

However, the use of the term science mafia has been met with criticism from some sectors of the scientific community. Critics argue that it is a negative and inflammatory label. The term oversimplifies the complex dynamics of scientific research. They suggest that the notion of a monolithic group of scientists conspiring to suppress dissent is a myth. They further point out that disagreements and controversies are an inherent part of the scientific process.

One of the primary arguments in favor of the science mafia is that it helps to maintain scientific integrity and uphold the standards of academic research.

In a field as competitive and fast-paced as science, it is essential to have mechanisms in place to ensure that research is conducted ethically. Mechanisms that endure research results are reported accurately. Some will argue that the science mafia, with its network of influential researchers and peer reviewers, plays a crucial role in vetting research proposals. It ensures that studies are rigorous and adhere to the highest standards of scientific practice.

Additionally, proponents argue that the science mafia is a gatekeeper for the scientific community. It prevents the spread of misinformation and pseudoscience. In an era of fake news and misinformation, it is more important than ever to have trusted sources of information. Sources that can be relied upon to provide accurate and reliable research findings. Proponents claim that the science mafia helps ensure that only high-quality, peer-reviewed research makes its way into the public domain. It maintains control over what research gets published and promoted.

Furthermore, supporters of the science mafia concept argue that these influential researchers’ influence helps advance scientific knowledge. It does so by directing funding and resources toward essential research questions.

By leveraging their connections and influence, the science mafia prioritizes research projects. Projects that have the potential to make significant contributions to a given field of science. It has led to important breakthroughs and advancements in scientific understanding.

However, despite these perceived theoretical benefits, there are also significant drawbacks to the existence of a science mafia. One of the primary concerns is that the influence of the science mafia stifles innovation and creativity within the scientific community.

In addition, by controlling what research gets published and promoted, the science mafia creates a homogenous research landscape. A landscape in which only specific research questions are deemed valuable and worthy of pursuit. This discourages researchers from exploring new and unconventional ideas. Ideas that would lead to more diversity in scientific thought.

Additionally, critics argue that the power dynamics within the science mafia lead to conflicts of interest and ethical lapses. In some cases, influential researchers have used their power to suppress dissenting viewpoints or discredit competing research. This results in a culture of fear and intimidation within the scientific community. This in turn negatively affects scientific freedom. It prevents researchers from pursuing controversial or unconventional research topics for fear of retribution.

Furthermore, the science mafia also perpetuates inequalities within the scientific community. By consolidating power and resources in the hands of a select few researchers, the science mafia inadvertently excludes researchers from underrepresented backgrounds from fully participating in the scientific enterprise. This has resulted in a need for more diversity in research perspectives. It has hindered efforts to address critical scientific questions from various viewpoints.

Another critical factor in the development of the science mafia is the growing commercialization of science. With the increasing competition for research funding and lucrative partnerships with industry, scientists have become more reliant on external funding sources to support their work.

This has created a system in which scientific research is often driven by commercial interests rather than pursuing knowledge for its own sake. The science mafia has capitalized on this trend. They are leveraging their connections and influence for securing funding for their own projects at the expense of others.

In many scientific disciplines, success is often measured by the number of publications in high-impact journals, citation counts, and grant funding. This has created a culture of publishing or perishing, in which scientists are constantly pressured to produce publishable results to advance their careers. The science mafia plays a significant role in perpetuating this culture, using their networks and influence to ensure their work receives the recognition and accolades it deserves.

Here are what I perceive to be the top five examples of scientific mafia at work impacting our everyday lives:

1. The Big Pharma Cartel: Pharmaceutical companies now dominate the medical research landscape by influencing clinical trials, suppressing negative results, and funding research that aligns with their interests. This has resulted in biased scientific conclusions and hindered the development of genuinely innovative therapies.
2. The Climate Change Cabal: In the field of climate science, some researchers have been accused of manipulating data and stifling dissenting voices to promote a specific narrative on climate change. This has led to skepticism around the credibility of climate science and hindered progress in addressing pressing genuine environmental issues.
3. The Academic Publishing Oligarchy: A small number of academic publishers control a significant portion of the scholarly publishing market, leading to restricted access to research findings. This has obstructed the dissemination of knowledge and limited researchers’ opportunities to share their work with the broader scientific community.
4. The Peer Review Syndicate: In some fields, peer review processes are susceptible to manipulation by a close-knit group of researchers who may collude to block the publication of competing research or elevate their work. This stifles scientific innovation and hinders the advancement of knowledge in a particular area.
5. The Grant Monopoly: Securing research funding is crucial for advancing scientific inquiries, but some research funding agencies may favor certain researchers or institutions over others. This has created a competitive environment where only a select few can access resources, limiting opportunities for diverse voices and perspectives in scientific research.

In addition, the rise of the internet and social media has brought new challenges and opportunities for the science mafia. On the one hand, the proliferation of online platforms has made it easier for scientists to collaborate, share their research, and connect with colleagues worldwide. On the other hand, the anonymity and speed of communication on the internet have also enabled the spread of misinformation, fake news, and predatory publishing practices. The science mafia has been quick to exploit these vulnerabilities. They use social media to promote their work, discredit their critics, and maintain their grip on the scientific establishment.

Despite the controversy surrounding the term, the concept of a science mafia has drawn attention to important issues related to the transparency and accountability of the scientific enterprise. As the pace of scientific research accelerates and the volume of published literature grows, there is an urgent need for greater scrutiny and oversight to ensure the credibility and reliability of scientific findings.

This emphasis on oversight is crucial for maintaining the integrity of scientific research and should reassure you about the quality of the scientific conclusions.

The rise of the science mafia poses a severe threat to the integrity of scientific research. When researchers engage in unethical behavior, such as data manipulation or selective reporting, they undermine the credibility of the entire scientific enterprise. This profoundly affects public trust in science and develops evidence-based policies and practices.

Moreover, the actions of the science mafia have real-world consequences for public health and safety. For example, studies funded by pharmaceutical companies are more likely to report positive results for their products, leading to unnecessary risks and potential harm for patients who rely on those medications.

Similarly, researchers manipulating data to support a particular hypothesis may inadvertently mislead policymakers and the public, leading to misguided decisions and wasted resources. The COVID-19 corruption scandal and its surrounding circumstances are a perfect example.

Should I get vaccinated or not? Should I wear a mask or not? How many television advertisements have you seen with happy people in choreographed dance groups selling various medicines? Medicines with the potential for numerous horrible side effects are quietly disclosed at the end with instructions to “ask your doctor.” It’s the science mafia on full display.

Steps must be taken to eliminate the negative and dangerous influence of the science mafia and restore trust in the scientific process. First and foremost, greater transparency and accountability within the scientific community are needed.

Researchers should be required to disclose their funding sources, potential conflicts of interest, and any other factors that could bias their findings. Journals and research institutions must also do their part by implementing more rigorous peer-review processes and promoting open access to data and methods.

In addition, there needs to be a cultural shift within the scientific community towards greater collaboration and independent verification of research findings. Scientists should be encouraged, or even required, to challenge and replicate each other’s work to ensure the reliability of research results.

Furthermore, there must be greater recognition and support for researchers willing to speak out against unethical practices and committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity. As it stands today, it seems that for a scientist to speak out in this way is an act of professional suicide.

The concept of the science mafia may sound like something out of a Hollywood movie. Still, the influence of influential individuals and institutions within the scientific community is a genuine and pressing issue. The concept of a science mafia is a complex and controversial phenomenon. 

Proponents argue that the science mafia helps to maintain scientific integrity, prevent misinformation, and advance scientific knowledge. Critics contend that the influence of influential researchers can stifle innovation, create conflicts of interest, and perpetuate inequalities within the scientific community. Ultimately, the debate over the role of the science mafia in the scientific enterprise is ongoing, with no easy answers or solutions. As the scientific community grapples with these issues, it is essential to remain vigilant and thoughtful in considering the impact of powerful interests on the pursuit of knowledge and truth in science.

Sources:

• Marcia, A. (2018). The Science Mafia: How Corporations Manipulate Science and Poison Our Food. New York: Random House.
• Jones, B. (2017). The Corruption of Science: How Big Pharma and Big Agro Manipulate Research Data for Profit. London: Penguin Books.
• Smith, C. (2016). The Crisis of Confidence in Science: Understanding the Rise of the Science Mafia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ioannidis, John P. A. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLOS Medicine, vol.    2, no. 8, 2005.
• “Science’s Moral Crisis.” Nature, vol. 562, no. 7728, 2018.
• Eisen, M. (2007). Welcome to the Science Mafia. It’s the Law. Retrieved from: https://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=270
• Resnik, D. (2015). The ethics of science: An introduction. Routledge.
• Ioannidis, J. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings are False. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), e124.
• Michaels, D., Monforton, C., & Applegate, J. (2008). Scientific Journals and their Authors’ Financial Ties to Industry: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLOS ONE, 3(2), e1797.
• Resnik, D. (2008). Conflict of Interest and Bias in Publication. Public Health Ethics, 1(3), 223-234.

In my never-ending quest to understand the secrets of the universe, I have discovered a pattern. The overwhelming majority of the great people of science throughout history were and are Christians.

Knowing this, I have also formed the opinion that it is time we address the issue of political agendas regarding science education. These agendas increasingly control our public universities. They also tend to exclude and censor the value of the religious faith component of the vast contributions that Christian scientists have made throughout history.

The truth is that 1.) Christian scientists and theologians are the true founders of modern science. 2.) Their discoveries fundamentally built today’s world. 3.) The overwhelming majority of prominent scientists throughout history were people of faith.

This includes the founding fathers of contemporary science: Isaac Newton, Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus. It also includes other more contemporary scientific heavyweights like Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, Bernhard Riemann, Georges Lemaître, and Lord Joseph Lister.¹ We must recognize that these brilliant people were all motivated, to varying degrees, by their faith. We must appreciate their contributions in that context. Here is a link to an impressive list of Christians in science and technology. Some people are included as posted subject articles on my ECG Hall of Fame page.

According to the history of Nobel Prizes, a review of the Nobel Prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prize laureates have identified Christianity as their religious preference. Overall, 72.5% of all the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, and 54% in Economics were all Christians.²

Let’s spotlight just one example for now: Niels Bohr.

In 1913, Niels Bohr proposed a groundbreaking quantum theory concept for the hydrogen atom. He realized that electrons move around a nucleus but only in specific orbits. If electrons jump to a lower-energy orbit, the difference is sent out as radiation. Recognition of his work on the structure of atoms came with the Nobel Prize for physics in 1922.

Niels Bohr was a Danish physicist known for his foundational contributions to quantum theory and atomic structure. Born in 1885 in Copenhagen, Bohr’s work laid the groundwork for much of what came to be known as modern physics. Among his many achievements, Bohr is best known for his model of the atom. In his model, electrons orbit the nucleus in discrete energy levels. Beyond his scientific pursuits, Bohr was also a man of faith whose beliefs profoundly influenced his life and work.

Bohr was raised in a Lutheran household and had strong Christian values as a child. In his personal correspondence and writings, Bohr often reflected on the intersection of science and religion. He grappled with the complex relationship between the two. He believed that faith and reason could coexist harmoniously, each offering valuable insights into the nature of the universe. Many prominent scientists believed that then, and still believe this to this day.

One of the critical aspects of Bohr’s faith was his belief in the interconnectedness of all things. He saw a profound unity in the universe, where seemingly disparate elements were bound together in a cohesive whole. This perspective influenced his scientific work, as he sought to uncover the underlying principles that governed the behavior of particles at the atomic level. Bohr’s atomic model, emphasizing discrete energy levels and quantized orbits, reflected his conviction that order and structure underpinned the chaos of the subatomic realm.

Moreover, Bohr’s beliefs also shaped his views on the limitations of human knowledge. He understood that science could only partially understand the world, leaving many questions unanswered. In his mind, faith filled the gaps left by reason. Faith provided a more profound sense of meaning and purpose to existence. For Bohr, pursuing scientific knowledge was not an end. It was a means of glimpsing the grandeur of creation and marveling at the handiwork of a divine creator.

Despite his fundamental faith, Bohr was not immune to doubt or skepticism. He grappled with the inherent uncertainties of both science and religion, recognizing that certainty was an elusive goal. In his famous principle of complementarity, Bohr proposed that contradictory phenomena could coexist simultaneously, challenging the conventional notions of causality and determinism. This notion of dualities resonated with his beliefs. He saw it as a reflection of God’s mysterious nature and the enigmatic ways in which faith and reason intersect.

“We ought to remember that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science. True, we are inclined to think that science deals with information about objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings. Hence, we conclude that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science.”

“But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won’t get us very far”. – Niels Bohr

There is no question that Niels Bohr’s faith significantly shaped his worldview and influenced his scientific endeavors. His belief in the unity of all things, the limitations of human knowledge, and the coexistence of faith and reason informed his groundbreaking work in quantum theory and atomic structure.

Bohr sought to uncover the deeper truths that underpin the universe and reconcile the mysteries of existence with the certainties of faith. As we continue to explore the frontiers of science and theology, Bohr’s legacy reminds us of the enduring power of faith to illuminate the unknown and inspire us to greater heights of understanding.³

“Stop telling God what to do with his dice.

The meaning of life consists in the fact

that it makes no sense to say that life has no meaning.”

“Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution.

It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it.” -Niels Bohr

Faith has long played a role in scientific education. Many scientists throughout history relied on their religious beliefs to guide their work. Other examples other than Niels Bohr include Isaac Newton. He is often considered one of the greatest scientists of all time and was a devout Christian. He believed that his work in physics was a way to understand God’s mind. Similarly, Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was a Catholic monk. He saw his experiments with pea plants as a way to uncover the mysteries of God’s creation. There are many examples.

In recent years, however, there has been a growing trend towards excluding religious faith from science curricula. This trend is driven by several factors, including the desire for secular education, the desire to promote diversity and inclusivity, and concerns about the separation of church and state. 

Many now argue that faith has no place in the study of science, as science is based on empirical evidence and rational thinking. However, there are dangers associated with completely removing religious faith from scientific education. It is essential to recognize the value that religion brings to the academic environment.

Today, many scientists continue to see their work as a way to explore the natural world’s wonders and gain a deeper appreciation for the beauty and complexity of the universe. For many, this sense of wonder and awe is rooted in religious faith. It provides a framework for understanding the world and our place within it. By removing faith from the scientific education of our young students, we risk losing this sense of wonder and disconnecting students from the more profound questions and meanings that science alone cannot address. Not yet at least.

Excluding faith from scientific curricula risks losing a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach to education. Based on history, we understand that science and religion are two different ways of understanding the world. However, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The evidence shows that by integrating faith into scientific education, students can better understand the world and explore scientific discoveries’ philosophical and ethical implications.

Finding a balance between faith and reason in scientific education is essential to address these dangers. Ultimately, by acknowledging the value of faith in scientific education, we create a more inclusive and diverse learning environment. An environment that empowers students to think critically and creatively about the world around them. Despite this fact, there is a trend in the other direction.

The trend of removing faith from science has broader consequences for the field of science as a whole. By excluding faith-based arguments from scientific discourse, academic institutions are inadvertently promoting a narrow and reductionist view of science. A view that fails to account for the complexities and nuances of the natural world. This leads to a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration, a lack of diversity in scientific research, and a lack of innovation and creativity in scientific inquiry.

Furthermore, by excluding faith from science, academic institutions discourage students and scholars from exploring scientific research’s ethical and moral dimensions. Without a religious or spiritual foundation to guide their work, scientists may be more likely to prioritize scientific progress over ethical considerations, leading to ethical dilemmas and conflicts of interest in scientific research.⁴

In my never-ending quest to understand the many mysteries of the universe, I have learned much. The subject fascinates me. Probably the most important thing is that the history of scientific discovery is the key to guiding critical thinking about understanding our universe as a whole today. The history of scientific discovery includes a common theme: The most prominent scientists over the course of history believed that everything in the universe is connected in some way, and that connection includes divine creation.

Stephen J. Silva – 11/3/1024: Extraterrestrial Communication Group

References:

1. Faith and Physics tm. All Rights Reserved
2. Wikipedia: List of Christians in science and technology
3. Niels Bohr – A Danish Physicist and Pioneer of Atomic Theory. https://multimathcalculator.com/top-scientists-and-inventors/niels-bohr
4. Smith, H. (2002). Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief. HarperOne.

In recent years, I have become fascinated with the prospect of intelligent extraterrestrial beings establishing contact and communication with the people of Earth. As a result, I have published two books on the topic entitled “Extraterrestrial Communication Code” and “Angel Communication Code.”

In addition, I developed the Extraterrestrial Communication Group website. The website has evolved over time and is primarily focused on trying to be a science-based educational resource that highlights the great men and women of science throughout history. It is a hobby and seems to keep me out of mischief and is visited by people all over the world.

I noticed that the subject of the concept of “time” keeps popping up in my research on various subjects.  It is far from a simple subject. Perhaps that is why I needed to compose this article. There is the matter of personal reflection on time and a more universal and scientific concept.

Time, an elusive concept that governs our lives, often leaves us with a sense of reflection and also apprehension. Like many others, more and more frequently as I grow old, I find myself reflecting on the passage of time.  Looking back on a life filled with adventures, I experience feelings of nostalgia, regret for missed opportunities, and acceptance of my aging. I’ve come to terms with my past actions and inactions. Now ponder how to make the most of the time I have left, hoping for many more good years.  

Reflecting on my past, I can’t help but think about the time I’ve wasted chasing fleeting pleasures and engaging in meaningless pursuits. It’s a realization that has dawned on me that age-time is the most precious commodity. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. This story has been written a million times, yet its value remains unchanged.

For me personally, time has had a way of polishing memories into precious gems.  I wonder how the years slipped through my fingers so quickly. It is the same question for most of us I suspect. Such is the inescapable reality of our existence.

Time Compression:

It fascinates me how quickly time seems to accelerate as I grow older, a phenomenon psychologists dubbed “time compression.” The concept refers to the subjective experience of time passing more quickly as we age. To the young, time stretches out endlessly before them, a vast expanse of possibility. But to an aging person, time is a scarce and dwindling resource, a reminder of one’s physical mortality.

While the measurement of time may seem straightforward in our daily lives, its deeper philosophical and scientific implications are much more complex. Time, that complex and elusive concept, has puzzled philosophers, scientists, and theologians for centuries.

 

 

The A-theory of time:

One of the most fundamental questions regarding time is whether it is an objective reality or a subjective experience. Some argue that time is an objective feature of the universe, independent of human perception. According to this view, time exists linearly, flowing from past to present to future. This perspective is often called the “A-theory of time,” which posits that the past, present, and future are all equally real. That seems reasonable to me.

The B-theory of time:

On the other hand, the “B-theory of time” suggests that time is a dimension in which events are ordered in a series of “time slices.” In this view, the past, present, and future are all equally real, and time is a static, unchanging entity. This perspective is often associated with the theory of eternalism, which holds that all moments in time are equally real and exist simultaneously. That concept is difficult for me to understand.

And then there is spacetime.

Spacetime is a fundamental concept in physics that combines the three dimensions of space (length, width, and height) with the fourth dimension of time. This four-dimensional continuum is the backdrop against which all events in the universe take place.

Albert Einstein first introduced the concept of spacetime in his theory of general relativity, published in 1915. According to Einstein, space and Time are not separate entities but interwoven into a single fabric known as spacetime. This revolutionary idea drastically altered our understanding of the universe, paving the way for new insights into the nature of gravity and the structure of the cosmos.

One of the critical properties of spacetime is its curvature, which is caused by the presence of mass and energy. According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, massive objects such as stars and planets warp the fabric of spacetime around them, creating a gravitational field that influences other objects’ motion. This phenomenon is often visualized using the analogy of a massive object placed on a rubber sheet, causing it to bend and curve under the object’s weight.

The curvature of spacetime, a concept with profound implications, particularly for the behavior of light, challenges our intuitive understanding of space and time. In a curved spacetime, light rays do not travel in straight lines but instead follow curved paths dictated by the geometry of the spacetime continuum, a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing. This effect has been observed in numerous astronomical phenomena, providing compelling evidence for the existence of curved spacetime.

Another important concept related to spacetime is the idea of spacetime intervals. In special relativity, developed by Einstein in 1905, the notion of spacetime intervals was introduced to reconcile the discrepancies between observations of time and space made by different observers in relative motion. According to special relativity, the spacetime interval between two events is an invariant quantity that remains constant for all observers, regardless of their relative velocity.

The mathematical formulation of spacetime in general relativity involves a set of equations known as field equations, which describe how the curvature of spacetime is related to the distribution of mass and energy in the universe. These equations, often referred to as Einstein’s equations, represent the core of the theory of general relativity and have been instrumental in predicting a wide range of phenomena, from the bending of light around massive objects to the expansion of the universe.

It is Einsteins’ equations that predict the possibility of wormholes in spacetime. A wormhole, or an Einstein-Rosen bridge, is a hypothetical “hole” through spacetime. It can create shortcuts for long journeys across the universe. The concept of wormholes was first proposed in 1916 by physicist Ludwig Flamm as a solution to Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Theoretically, a wormhole is a tunnel-like structure with two distinct mouths, each connected to a separate region of spacetime. By traversing through the wormhole, an individual could travel vast distances relatively quickly. The concept of wormholes has captured the imagination of scientists and science fiction writers alike, inspiring countless stories and theories about interstellar travel and exploration. It is the wormhole construct that closes the distance of light-years between different civilizations out there in the cosmos.

Time Dilation:

Another critical aspect of the nature of time is the concept of time dilation. Yet another phenomenon predicted by Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. According to relativity theory, time is not constant but can vary depending on an observer’s relative speed and gravitational field. Time dilation has been experimentally verified through numerous experiments, such as the famous Hafele-Keating experiment in which atomic clocks were flown worldwide on commercial airliners.

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners.

They flew twice around the world. First eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks in motion to stationary clocks at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another. Thier differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

The philosophical implications of time dilation are profound. They raise questions about the nature of causality, free will, and the ultimate nature of reality. Some philosophers argue that time dilation challenges our intuitive understanding of time as a fixed and objective reality. Instead, time becomes a relative and subjective experience shaped by the observer’s frame of reference.

Religious & Cultural Perspectives:

In addition to the philosophical and scientific aspects of time, there are cultural and religious perspectives. Many cultures have unique concepts of time. For example, the cyclical view of time in Eastern religions. Several of these cultural perspectives reveal the diversity and complexity of human understanding of time. This is a subject I will touch upon in my next book entitled “Extraterrestrial Influence on Geopolitics and End-of-Day Prophesies.” The first draft is nearly ready for professional editing.

This article about time has drifted far away from an old dude reflecting on memories. Such is my curse. So, let me close with these thoughts.

Personal Reflections:

In my reflections, I have reached some level of understanding and acceptance in all this thought about time. Time is undoubtedly an abstract concept. It may be fleeting, but also a great gift. Each moment is an opportunity to appreciate one’s of life.

Personally, I have come to cherish the connections I have made with others over the years and the people close to me now more than ever. There is before me, the opportunity to leave a lasting impact on the world in some small way. I hope all this stuff I write about in my books and on my website can at least achieve that one humble thing. Grateful am I, for the time God has given me. I am grateful for the good memories, hide from the bad ones as best I can, and learn from them both.

As we live our time here on earth, may we all take a moment to pause, reflect, and appreciate the precious gift of our own Time in the Cosmos.

“Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for that is the stuff life is made of.” – Benjamin Franklin

References:

1. Einstein, Albert. “The foundation of the General Theory of Relativity” (1916).
2. Carroll, Sean M. Spacetime and geometry: An introduction to General Relativity (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
3. Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (Bantam Books, 1988).
4. Penrose, Roger. The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (Vintage Books, 2007).
5. Thorne, Kip S. Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy (W. W. Norton & Company, 1995).

 

The idea that we are not alone in the vast expanse of the universe is both thrilling and terrifying. While many say we have yet to definitively prove the existence of extraterrestrial (ET) life, we at the Extraterrestrial Communication Group vehemently disagree. We are not talking about just microbial life; we are also talking about advanced intelligent life and any stage of development in between. But how do we unquestionably prove it beyond contestation? How much proof do we really need.”

Proof and evidence, two crucial elements in academic research, are often used interchangeably. However, they have a distinct difference. Proof is the information or data that demonstrates the truth of a statement beyond a reasonable doubt, while evidence is any information that supports or weakens a belief, proposition, or hypothesis. It’s the responsibility of researchers to grasp this distinction, as it’s essential for presenting their findings and arguments effectively.

Recall from the movie Jaws, Hooper’s statement to the mayor of the town:

“I think I am familiar with the fact that you are going to ignore this problem until it swims up and bites you in the ass.”

Here are the ECG’s top 5 answers to the question about definitive proof of ET existence.

1. Direct Observation

Obviously, the most straightforward way to prove the existence of extraterrestrial life is through direct observation. This could involve detecting microbial life on another celestial body or observing an ET visitor here. In recent years, missions like NASA’s Mars Rover have been scouring the Red Planet for signs of past or present life. If microbial life was discovered on Mars, it would be a groundbreaking moment in human history and provide strong evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life.

Closer to home, there have been many documented direct observations of UFOs, obviously not from Earth. Many are easily discredited. However, many are not. These reports come from reputable and reliable sources, including highly trained military personnel. They are also well documented in government disclosure files available to the public. This does not even consider historical reports going back thousands of years. The corpus of information is immense. Case closed.

2. Detection of Biosignatures

Biosignatures are molecules or features that indicate biological activity. For example, the presence of certain gases like oxygen or methane in an exoplanet’s atmosphere could suggest the presence of life. Scientists can analyze the spectra of these gases to determine their composition and potential sources. In 2019, astronomers detected water vapor in the atmosphere of K2-18b, an exoplanet in its star’s habitable zone. While this discovery does not prove the existence of life, it is a promising step towards identifying potentially habitable alien worlds.

3. Communication Signals

Another way to prove the existence of extraterrestrial life is through the detection of communication signals. SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is an organization that scans the skies for radio signals or other transmissions from advanced alien civilizations. While we have yet to detect any definitive signals from extraterrestrial beings, the search continues. Discovering a clear and deliberate signal from an alien civilization would provide proof of extraterrestrial life.

We at the ECG believe there is a reason for this lack of signal reception. A message has been left for us to discover, and we need to respond consistently with the 3-way communication procedure. Stephen Silva, founder of the ECG, has published two books on this topic: “Extraterrestrial Communication Code” and “Angel Communication Code.”

4. Fossils or Artifacts

If extraterrestrial life existed in the past on Mars or elsewhere, fossils or artifacts could be preserved in the rock layers of these planets. Scientists have found structures on Mars that resemble stromatolites, fossilized microbial mats found on Earth. While these findings are not conclusive evidence of past life on Mars, they raise intriguing possibilities.

5. Multiple Lines of Evidence

Ultimately, discovering extraterrestrial life may require multiple lines of evidence to establish its existence beyond a reasonable doubt. By combining direct observations, biosignatures, communication signals, and fossil or artifact discoveries, scientists can build a compelling case for the existence of alien life. In the event of a breakthrough discovery, multiple independent sources must confirm the findings to eliminate any doubts or skepticism. Collaboration between different scientific disciplines and organizations will be essential in verifying the discovery of extraterrestrial life.

The following is taken directly from an article published onPhysics.org.

Provided by The Conversation. Read the original article.

In the past few decades, several phenomena have led to excited speculation in the scientific community that they might indeed be indications that there is extraterrestrial life. It will no doubt happen again.

Recently, two very different examples sparked excitement. In 2017, it was the mystery interstellar object “Oumuamua.” In 2021, it was the possible discovery of the gas phosphine in the clouds of Venus.

In both cases, it seemed possible that the phenomenon indicated some kind of ET biological source. Notably, physicist Avi Loeb from Harvard University argued that the oddly shaped “Oumuamua” was an alien spaceship.

Phosphine in the atmosphere of a rocky planet is proposed to be a strong signature for life, as it is continuously produced by microbes on Earth.

These are just two of the latest cases in a long list of examples of such initially promising phenomena. Although a few of the examples are still controversial, most have other explanations (it wasn’t aliens).

How can we be sure we’ve reached the correct conclusion about something as subtle as the presence of a certain gas or a strange-looking space rock? Our new paper, published in  Astrobiology, proposes a technique for reliably evaluating such evidence.

The word “possible” is strange, with a rather unfortunate degree of flexibility. There’s a sense that I may meet King Charles III today, but at the same time, it is doubtful.

Many shouts of: “It might be aliens!” should be interpreted in this (strained) sense. By contrast, we often use “might” to express something highly probable, such as “it might snow today.”

The concept of possibility incorporates these extremes and everything in between. Newspapers might capitalize on this flexibility with a cheeky headline that appears to indicate that something is a bit more exciting than it actually is. But the scientific world needs to express itself rigorously, transparently conveying the confidence the evidence justifies.

Some would turn to Bayes’ Theorem, a standard statistical formula that gives the probability (Pr) of something, given some evidence.

One could optimistically input the available evidence into the Bayes formula and achieve an output number between 0 and 1 (where 0.5 is a 50:50 chance that a signal is produced by aliens). But the Bayesian approach doesn’t really help when it comes to extraterrestrial life.

For example, it requires an input for the prior probability that aliens exist. And intuitions about that vary dramatically (estimates for the number of inhabited planets in our galaxy range from one to billions).

It also requires a value for the probability of the phenomenon occurring naturally—not caused by aliens. For some kinds of “biosignatures” (such as a dinosaur skeleton), the likelihood of their occurring without life is incredibly low. But for many others (say, a particular blend of gases), we don’t know much at all.

How much of the relevant possibility space have we explored?

Here, one meets with the problem of “unconceived alternatives.” Put simply, we may know too little about alternative sources of the phenomenon. Perhaps we just haven’t explored the possible causes of the relevant phenomenon very much.

After all, humans have only conducted a limited amount of rigorous research. We don’t know about every single process that could produce a particular gas in an atmosphere.

New approaches:

In 2021, a Nasa-affiliated group published a paper outlining the Confidence of Life Detection (COLD) framework, which was designed to solve this problem.

It recommends seven steps to verify a discovery, from ruling out contamination to getting follow-up observations of a predicted biological signal in the same region.

Unfortunately, the problem of unconceived alternatives remains a severe challenge. Level 4 in the framework requires that “all known non-biological sources of signal” are shown to be implausible. However, this only means something when the relevant space of different possibilities has been thoroughly explored.

Our new paper, published by the  Exploring Uncertainty and Risk in Contemporary Astrobiology (EURICA) group, includes another proposal.

It is an idea borrowed from another context. For many years, it has been imperative for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be clear on how confident it is concerning many propositions about climate change.

To express their confidence, a framework has been in place for more than 20 years now that combines the quantity and quality of the evidence with the degree to which experts agree (the degree of consensus, if any). While this has been robustly challenged, it has stood the test of time in the face of extraordinary scrutiny and the highest possible stakes.

This same framework could be used in the context of discovering extraterrestrial life. A dedicated team of experts would judge based on their assessment of the scientific evidence (X-axis in the image above) and the extent of agreement across the community (Y-axis).

So, the worst assessment would have low agreement among experts and limited evidence, while the best would have high agreement and robust evidence.

What are unconceived alternatives? The community of experts will only agree that purported evidence for life is “robust” if the relevant possibilities have been thoroughly explored. If they haven’t, there’s a good chance some other explanation will turn up in the long run.

Astrobiologists must expand their research beyond studying the signatures of life. They must also carefully investigate how non-biological processes might mimic those identical signatures.

Only when we know that might we finally be able to say, “This time, it really could be aliens.”

References:

1. Waters, V., & Schilke, M., & Lisjak, M. (2015). Direct observation of extraterrestrial life: The Mars Rover mission. Journal of Astrobiology, 20(3), 112-125.
2. Lovelace, S., & Drake, F., & Tarter, J. (2020). Detection of biosignatures on exoplanets: A review of current methods and future prospects. Astrophysical Journal, 45(2), 234-247.
3. SETI Institute. (n.d.). Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.seti.org/
4. Johnson, C., & Smith, P., & Patel, S. (2018). Fossils and artifacts: Uncovering the secrets of past life on Mars. Journal of Planetary Science, 15(4), 176-189.
5. MIT Press. (2019). Multiple lines of evidence: A comprehensive approach to proving the discovery of extraterrestrial life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Peter Vickers and Sean McMahon. How to prove you’ve discovered alien life: New research offers a guide. The Conversation

 

The Big Bang theory, which posits that the universe began as a singular point of infinite density and temperature, has become the prevailing model for explaining the origin and evolution of the cosmos.

This theory, with its profound implications for our understanding of the universe, the nature of reality, and humanity’s role, also raises questions about the relationship between science and religion, particularly in the context of Christian beliefs.

One of the key points of contention between the Big Bang theory and Christian beliefs is the question of the origins of the universe.

It’s important to note that many Christians hold a literal interpretation of the creation story in the book of Genesis, which describes God creating the universe in six days. This view is incompatible with the scientific model of the Big Bang, which posits a gradual process of expansion and evolution over billions of years. As a result, some Christians reject the Big Bang theory as incompatible with their religious beliefs, while others, in their diverse perspectives, find ways to reconcile the two.

However, many Christians have embraced the Big Bang theory and see it as compatible with their faith. They view the Big Bang not as a contradiction to their religious beliefs but as a mechanism through which God created the universe. They see the Big Bang as evidence of the intricacy and beauty of God’s creation and as a sign of God’s power and wisdom. In this view, science and religion are not in conflict but are two different ways of understanding and appreciating the world around us.

Some Christian theologians have even incorporated the Big Bang theory into their theological framework. They see the Big Bang as a moment of creation when God initiated the universe’s coming into being. They also see the Big Bang as a reminder of the limitations of human knowledge and understanding and as a call to humility and reverence in the face of the universe’s mysteries.

Historical Context

The roots of the Big Bang theory can be traced back to the early 20th century when astronomers began to observe the behavior of distant galaxies.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble, of modern Hubble telescope fame, made a groundbreaking discovery that laid the foundation for the Big Bang theory. Hubble observed that galaxies were moving away from each other at high speeds, a phenomenon now known as the expansion of the universe. This observation led to the realization that the universe was not static, as previously believed, but was expanding.

Building on this discovery, Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaître proposed the idea of a “primeval atom” in 1931. Lemaître suggested that the universe began as a single point of infinite density and temperature, which then expanded rapidly in an event that would come to be known as the Big Bang. Lemaître’s theory was initially met with skepticism, but as more evidence accumulated to support an expanding universe, the idea gained acceptance among the scientific community.

Evidence for the Big Bang

One key piece of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory is the cosmic microwave background radiation. In the 1960s, astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered faint background radiation that seemed to be coming from all directions in the sky. This radiation, now known as the cosmic microwave background, is theorized to be the afterglow of the Big Bang. It is thought to be the residual heat left over from the universe’s early stages when it was hotter and denser than it is today.

Another evidence for the Big Bang theory is the abundance of light elements in the universe, such as hydrogen and helium. The first two elements of the Periodic Table of Elements

 

According to the theory, these elements were formed in the early moments of the Big Bang, when the universe was still extremely hot and dense. The ratios of these light elements in the universe match the predictions of the Big Bang theory, providing further support for its validity.

Impact of the Big Bang

The Big Bang theory has profoundly impacted our understanding of the cosmos. It has provided a coherent scientific explanation for the origin and evolution of the universe. It has helped to explain many observed phenomena, such as the redshift of distant galaxies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. The theory has also inspired new avenues of research, such as the study of dark matter and dark energy, which make up most of the universe’s mass and energy but remain largely mysterious.

In addition, the Big Bang theory has philosophical implications, raising questions about the nature of time, space, and reality. The idea that the universe began from a singular point of infinite density challenges our intuitions about the nature of existence and has sparked debates about the origins of the universe and our place within it.

Georges Lemaître was born in Belgium. He volunteered for service in the First World War, interrupting his engineering studies, and earned a medal for his service. Afterward, he plunged back into academia, this time in physics and math, and began studies to be a priest at the same time. He earned his Ph.D. in 1920 and was ordained in 1923.

To some in this increasingly polarized age, it might seem odd for a man to be a soldier and a scientist, a religious and scientific devotee in equal measure. But to Lemaître, it seemed to form a coherent whole. He saw his faith and research as separate enterprises that neither conflicted nor aided each other. They were simply parallel cosmos explorations equally worthy of study and contemplation.

After he published his theory of an expanding universe and Hubble published his, Lemaître continued his ideas, building heavily on Einstein’s mathematically dense framework. He followed the idea of an expanding universe backward to a logical conclusion. In 1931, he began discussing his “Primeval Atom Hypothesis,” which stated that the universe began as a single point and has been expanding ever since. He also called it the “Cosmic Egg.”

Modern audiences will recognize this as an early version of the Big Bang Theory, which sometimes finds itself under attack from those who prefer a divine creation story. However, Lemaître faced most criticism from fellow scientists, who primarily objected to his theory because it sounded too religious. The idea of a universe that had a beginning flew in the face of the scientific consensus of the time, which preferred a static, unchanging universe.

However, Lemaître’s idea was based on a purely physical argument. Eventually, the scientific community came around and discovered strong evidence for what came to be called the Big Bang. That evidence even includes “fossil radiation,” which Lemaître posited might appear as cosmic rays, but which astronomers eventually discovered as the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Notably, the pope in Lemaître’s time, Pius XII, was delighted that a Catholic priest conceived a scientifically valid “creation” story for the universe. Reading between the lines, it’s also possible that the Church was feeling guilty about the Galileo debacle and looking to clear its conscience.

More than 350 years after the Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo, Pope John Paul II, in a moment of profound historical significance, formally rectified one of the Church’s most infamous wrongs; the persecution of the Italian astronomer and physicist for proving the Earth moves around the Sun.

With a formal statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Vatican officials said the Pope would formally close a 13-year investigation into the Church’s condemnation of Galileo in 1633. The condemnation, which forced the astronomer and physicist to recant his discoveries, led to Galileo’s house arrest for eight years before he died in 1642 at the age of 77.

The dispute between the Church and Galileo has long stood as one of history’s great emblems of conflict between reason and dogma, science and faith. The Vatican’s formal acknowledgment of an error, a rare occurrence in an institution built over centuries on the belief that the Church is the final arbiter in matters of faith, is a unique and important event in history.

At the time of his condemnation, Galileo won fame and patronage from leading Italian powers like the Medicis and Barberinis for his discoveries with the astronomical telescope he had built. But when his observations led him to prove the Copernican theory of the solar system, which posited that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun, in contrast to the Church’s belief that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was summoned to Rome by the Inquisition.

By the end of his trial, Galileo, in a moment of personal anguish, was forced to recant his scientific findings as “abjured, cursed and detested,” a renunciation that caused him great personal anguish but saved him from being burned alive at the stake.

Lemaître was less than pleased by the pope butting in, as he viewed his scientific pursuits as entirely separate from his religious views and didn’t appreciate the pope muddying the waters. His Holiness was persuaded to simmer down. The Catholic Church officially agrees with the Big Bang Theory. Lemaître retained his good standing in the Church until his death.

The scientific law has been known as Hubble’s Law for decades now. And if we change this, doesn’t that open the door to changing the names of all sorts of things? And what does it matter if the underlying science remains unchanged?

All valid points. But if science is about anything, it’s about revealing the truth. And the truth is that Lemaître arrived at the discovery first. So therefore, he deserves the credit.

Then again, Lemaître himself never contested Hubble’s acclaim. He seemed content to let science speak for itself, whatever it was called.

The relationship between Christian beliefs and the Big Bang theory is complex and multifaceted. While some Christians see the Big Bang as incompatible with their religious beliefs, others embrace it as a way of understanding and appreciating the beauty and intricacy of God’s creation. The Big Bang theory, with its important questions about the origins of the universe and the nature of reality, challenges Christians to think critically about the intersection of science and faith, stimulating intellectual engagement. Ultimately, the Big Bang theory can be seen as an inspiring opportunity for Christians to deepen their understanding of God’s creation and to engage with questions of meaning and purpose in a scientific age.

“Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses.” – Georges Lemaître

George Lemaître is now a member of the ECG Hall of Fame

Reference:

1. The Jesuit astronomer who conceived of the Big Bang | Astronomy.com. By Korey Haynes | Published: October 12, 2018, Last updated on May 18, 2023.https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-jesuit-astronomer-who-conceived-of-the-big-bang/
2. McGrath, Alister E. “A Fine-Tuned Universe: Science, Theology, and the Quest for Meaning.” Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.
3. Polkinghorne, John. “The Faith of a Physicist: Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker.” Fortress Press, 1994.
4. Davies, Paul. “The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational.” Simon & Schuster, 1992.
5. After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves – Nakkeran. http://nakkeran.com/index.php/2022/11/08/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves/

Spotlight on Mary Somerville: