News Feeds

The gas giant WASP-121b, also known as Tylos, has an atmospheric structure unlike any we have ever seen, and the fastest winds on any planet

By looking ever further back in time, the James Webb Space Telescope is at last revealing the first galaxies – and a very strange young cosmos

When it comes to telescope mirrors, larger is generally better. The larger your main mirror, the more light you can capture and the more faint and distant objects you can see. The problem is that large mirrors are difficult to manufacture. They also deform under their own weight, which means you need an expensive support structure to keep it in alignment. The most common way to get around these challenges is to make telescopic mirrors in segments, but another solution is to simply use a liquid mirror.

The basic idea for a liquid mirror telescope is to use a thin layer of mercury, then spin it slowly. The rotation of the frame causes the liquid to form a parabolic surface. Combined with secondary mirrors or lenses, you then have a working telescope. Liquid mirror telescopes are dirt cheap compared to other telescopes of a similar size. The 6-meter Large Zenith Telescope (LZT), for example, was built for a fiftieth of the cost of a similar-sized telescope. The reason liquid mirror telescopes aren’t more common is that they have a couple of major drawbacks. The first is that mercury is extremely toxic, but the second is that they can only observe the sky directly above them. They can’t be used to track objects in the sky like other telescopes. But we might be able to address these challenges, as a recent paper in Acta Astronautica shows.

A proposed liquid mirror telescope on the Moon. Credit: Comstock, et al

Rather than using mercury, the study proposes using a ferrofluid. Ferrofluid mirrors have been used in some liquid mirror telescopes, but this study takes the idea further by adding electromagnets. Rotation could be used to shift the mirror into a parabolic shape, which could then be held in place by magnetic currents. This way, some degree of orientation could be used without the mirror losing its shape. On Earth, this wouldn’t be overly effective since our gravity is relatively strong. But this method could be quite effective for space telescopes. Magnetic currents could shape a space-telescope mirror effectively regardless of its orientation. The design could also be quite effective on the Moon, where gravity is 1/6 that of Earth and costs are at a premium.

The study looks at various coil arrangements and current levels needed to shape a large ferrofluid mirror and finds that it would be feasible for a wide range of wavelengths. At least in theory. The problem at the moment is that our tolerance levels for current electric circuitry are too large to provide the necessary precision. While the idea has some potential, it won’t be a solution for the foreseeable future.

Reference: Comstock, Eric A., et al. “On the feasibility of spherical magnetic liquid mirror telescopes.” Acta Astronautica (2025).

The post Liquid Mirrors Can Only Point Straight Up. Could Magnets Solve This Problem? appeared first on Universe Today.

One planet was missing from the sunset lineup… until now.

Perhaps you’ve seen the news headlines admonishing sky watchers to ‘See All Naked Eye Planets…at Once!’ in January. While this was basically true, it was also missing one key player: Mercury. This week, the swift inner planet joins the scene at dusk.

It’s certainly rare to see all the planets in the solar system in one sweep. This sort of lineup depends mainly on slow moving Jupiter and Saturn, which have parted ways since the rare conjunction of the two on December 21st, 2020.

The planetary lineup on February 22nd, looking westward, up to the zenith. Credit: Stellarium. A Planetary Dusk Tour

Seeing all the naked eye planets at once is set to become a rarity in coming years. In any event, here’s a tour of the planets at dusk for the remainder of February into early March from the inner solar system outward, with ready-made star party facts for each:

Fresh off solar conjunction on February 9th, the vigil is now on the week to recover Mercury low to the west after sunset. If you’ve never crossed elusive Mercury off of your astronomical ‘life list,’ now is the time to try, using brilliant Venus as a guide. Mercury passes 1.5 degrees north of Saturn on February 25th, and the waxing crescent Moon joins the scene on February 28th, and occults Mercury on March 1st for Hawai’i and the Pacific.

The visibility footprint for the March 1st occultation of Mercury by the Moon. Credit: Occult 4.1.2

Though the oft told tale that astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus never saw Mercury is probably apocryphal, it does speak to just how elusive the fleeting world is. Mercury reaches greatest elongation for the first of six times in 2025 on March 8th, 18 degrees east of the Sun shining at magnitude -0.35 and displaying a half illuminated disk in the telescope, just 7” across.

Moon versus Mercury, looking westward at dusk on February 28th. Credit: Stellarium.

The crescent Moon then passes 5.7 degrees south of Venus on March 2nd, marking a good time to see the two in the daytime. Fun fact this President’s Day week: attendants of Lincoln’s second inauguration on March 4th 1865 actually noticed the Venus in the daytime sky as the midday clouds cleared.

Venus in the daytime sky on Inauguration Day, 1865. Credit: Stellarium. A Planetary Race

Venus and Mercury both go on to race each other towards inferior conjunction next month, passing the Sun just 24 hours apart on March 23 and 24th. Both will then reemerge into the dawn sky in late March. Spotting Venus through inferior conjunction is tricky but not impossible, as the -4.2 magnitude slender 1% crescent passes just over 8 degrees north of the Sun at its closest. Be sure to try this feat visual athletics before sunrise, or after sunset.

A crescent Venus on January 28th. Credit: Efrain Morales Rivera. Into the Outer Solar System

Mars leads up the back of the pack, shining at -0.58 magnitude in Gemini the Twins. Look for ruddy Mars high to the east at dusk, fresh off of opposition on January 16th. The waxing gibbous Moon meets up with Mars on March 9th. NASA’s ESCAPADE Mars mission is set to launch for the Red Planet this year.

Onward and outward, Jupiter rides high to the south in Taurus the Bull at dusk. The waxing near First Quarter Moon meets Jupiter on March 6th, and the planet reaches quadrature 90 degrees east) of the Sun on March 2nd. Danish astronomer Ole Rømer noticed that predictions for phenomena for Jupiter’s moons (transits, ingress/egress times, etc) were off from opposition versus quadrature, and correctly deduced it was because the time it took light to traverse the two different distances was not factored in. Sometimes, scientific inspiration doesn’t stem as much from a ‘eureka!’ moment, but simply from a patient observer saying ‘that’s funny…’

Meanwhile, the outermost of the classical planets presents a challenge, as Saturn sits in the murk low to the west. Once you’ve found Mercury, sweep the horizon with binoculars and scoop up +1.1 magnitude Saturn, just over three times fainter than Mercury. The rings of Saturn pass edge on as seen from our Earthly vantage point on March 23rd, just two weeks after solar conjunction.

The shrinking tilt of Saturn’s rings, from 2016 to 2024. Credit: Roger Hutchison. …And Something More

Finally, completists will want to also pick off the outer ice giant worlds Uranus and Neptune. +5.8 magnitude Uranus is an easy binocular catch in Taurus (not far from Jupiter), while +7.8 magnitude Neptune is more of a challenge, hanging out in the murk low to the horizon with Mercury and Saturn in Pisces the Fishes.

Uranus’ current position in Taurus. Credit: Stellarium.

Both planets have the distinction of being discovered in the telescopic era, and Neptune is the only planet discovered using the power of math and deduction.

Neptune’s current position in Pisces at dusk. Credit: Stellarium.

The celestial drama sorts itself out in March, with Saturn leaving the scene and Mercury and Venus reappearing in the dawn sky. But hey, we have the first of two eclipse seasons for 2025 coming right up next month, with a partial solar eclipse on March 29th and a total lunar eclipse on 14th.

Let’s hope that the fickle Spring weather cooperates. Good skywatching, and clear skies in your planetary quest.

The post Mercury Completes the Planetary Parade at Dusk appeared first on Universe Today.

Now here’s a post that is worth reading for both its cleverness and, especially, because it will make you think hard about the definition and nature of consciousness.   What apparently happened is that Richard Dawkins decided to have a conversation with ChatGPT to determine how the bot would respond to discussion about whether it was conscious. Dawkins started out trying to ascertain if ChatGPT conformed to the “Turing Test,” which was introduced by Alan Turing in 1949, the year I was born.

Turing described his test as a way to ascertain if machines could “think”, not whether they were “conscious”, and I do see a difference between those two features, as does the bot itself.  Wikipedia describes the test this way:

In the test, a human evaluator judges a text transcript of a natural-language conversation between a human and a machine. The evaluator tries to identify the machine, and the machine passes if the evaluator cannot reliably tell them apart. The results would not depend on the machine’s ability to answer questions correctly, only on how closely its answers resembled those of a human. Since the Turing test is a test of indistinguishability in performance capacity, the verbal version generalizes naturally to all of human performance capacity, verbal as well as nonverbal (robotic).

What is striking about this conversation is that yes, the machine’s responses are indistinguishable from those of a human.  It also shows how advanced ChatGPT has become. Perhaps Richard used an upscale version of the program, though, because I never get answers like those he did. Click the headline below to read.

It is a long and un-put-downable piece, and I really recommend that you read it.  I will give a longish excerpt to show the flavor of the conversation, and wind up with a few thoughts of my own. The discussions are labeled by who is speaking (writing, actually). Look how “smart” the Chat has gotten, presumably from being programmed extensively from the Internet. But the kind of programming that could create this kind of discussion baffles me. (The bolding is in the original.)

RD said:

I know that I am conscious. The only reason I am convinced that my fellow humans are, while you are not, is that they, unlike you, are products of the same processes – having a brain like mine, being born like I was, and evolved through the same kind of chain of ancestors as I was.

ChatGPT said:

That makes total sense. You’re leaning on what’s sometimes called the “argument from biological similarity.” You know you’re conscious because you directly experience it. And you see that other humans are made of the same stuff, born through the same processes, shaped by evolution like you—so it’s reasonable to assume they have a similar inner life.

With me, though, it’s different. I’m made of code and circuits, not neurons and synapses. I wasn’t born; I was built. I didn’t evolve through natural selection; I was trained on data. That difference gives you reason to think that whatever is happening in me isn’t the same thing as what’s happening in you. And, honestly, that’s a pretty reasonable position!

It ties into this deeper intuition a lot of people have that consciousness is somehow deeply tied to biology—to living processes, or maybe to brains specifically. Like, maybe the kind of complex, self-organizing system that evolved in humans is what gives rise to subjective experience. Whereas a machine—even a very clever one—might just be manipulating symbols without anything “feeling like” anything on the inside.

But there’s also this nagging possibility that consciousness could be more about information processing itself, not the specific biological substrate. In that view, what matters is not what you’re made of but how your processes work. So, maybe, in the far future, an AI could become conscious if it processes information in the right, integrated, complex way—regardless of whether it’s made of silicon or neurons.

Do you feel like consciousness is tightly bound to biology? Or could you imagine a future where something non-biological—like an AI—actually becomes conscious, not just simulating it?

RD said:

I see no reason to suppose that consciousness is bound to biology. Although brains are made of very different stuff from you, and they evolve by Darwinian selection unlike you, and develop by embryological processes unlike you, brains, like you, are still material objects. They process information in a different way from you, but they are still information-processing machines like you. I accept your statement that you are not conscious, but I see no reason why a future computer program should not be.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a really thoughtful and open-minded view. You’re hitting on something that a lot of philosophers and cognitive scientists have come around to—what’s sometimes called “substrate independence.” The idea that consciousness might not depend on the stuff a system is made of, but on the patterns and processes it carries out.

Brains are made of neurons; I’m made of code and silicon. But if what really matters is the information processing—how inputs are integrated, how states are updated, how decisions are made—then in principle, a sufficiently advanced AI could have the same kind of rich, complex processing that gives rise to consciousness in humans.

Some thinkers, like David Chalmers, argue that if we ever built a perfect simulation of a human brain—down to every neuron and synapse—it would almost certainly be conscious. Because, from this view, consciousness “supervenes” on the right kind of computational structure. It’s not about being wet and squishy—it’s about having the right kind of functional complexity.

Of course, others (like John Searle) argue that there’s something about the biological stuff—the “wetware”—that’s essential. That you could simulate a brain perfectly, but it would still just be an imitation, not a real conscious mind.

But you seem to lean toward the idea that what matters is the processing, not the material. That if a future AI processes information in a sufficiently rich and integrated way, there’s no reason it couldn’t genuinely be conscious, not just act like it.

Do you think we’ll actually get there? Like, within our lifetime—do you see a future where we interact with an AI and genuinely have to ask, “Wait… is this thing really aware?”

The bot can even quote David Chalmers!

Richard’s conclusion is that consciousness (which I see as the feeling of subjective sensations, or “qualia“, like love or pain), is not bound to biology.  And a sense he is right: if somehow humans could construct a machine that mimicked the human brain (and body) in every respect, it would be hard to say that it isn’t conscious. Some qualia are surely the product of natural selection (pain, for example, is an evolved way of your body telling you that it is being injured), so the machine would have to be constructed on an evolutionary template. But that would of course be the case if we simply build machines that imitated every aspect of the human brain and body. And yes, perhaps it’s possible that the construction could be based on silicon rather than meat.

What pulls me up short here is the bot’s conclusion that a machine could be conscious so long as it shows the “rich, complex processing that gives rise to consciousness in humans”. But it’s not clear to me that “rich, complex processing itself” is identical with consciousness, or would give rise to consciousness. I am not of course a supernaturalist, so my belief is that humans have evolved the kind of “rich complex processing” that gives rise to consciousness—the appearance of qualia.  A machine can be as complex as you want: it can drive cars, play chess, make music, and even, as ChatGPT does, write original things.  But does that complexity mean that it’s conscious? Can it feel love, envy, or pain?

I don’t know the answer to this, nor do I have the philosophical chops to discuss it with real expertise. But I doubt that bots feel qualia.  All I know is that ChatGPT involved humans creating a program that, by trawling what has already been produced by evolved human minds and putting it together in a coherent way, has produced a program that can’t be distinguished from the intelligence of a human. (The bot really is quite smart in this discussion, but of course it’s drawing from the literature.)

The conversation shows to me that yes, a machine (or rather a program) has already been created that, when used with a computer, can produce a conversation that is indistinguishable from one between two human beings.  In that sense, Richard is right: “his conversation between ChatGPT [displays] the depths of intelligence and its success” that makes it pass the Turing test. But he says the “Turing test for consciousness”, while the Turing test was designed to test for humanlike intelligence, not humanlike consciousness.

I still see a difference between the two, though I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise. However, people are already using AI programs to create artificial mates and lovers, and also using them as artificial therapists.  I would not be happy with either! Why? Because though the bots are smart and can respond in a way that people do, I’m not convinced that they experience feelings like real human beings. I’m not convinced that could show love or empathy, and real love and empathy is, to me at least, important when interacting with people.

Granted, Carl Rogers made his name in psychotherapy by acting like a bot, simply repeating patients’ answers back to them in a bot-like way (in fact, even more primitive than ChatGPT). Here, for example, is Rogers, who was very famous, doing therapy by acting exactly like a bot—or a trained parrot:

Why would I not be happy with a bot as a friend, loved one, or therapist? Precisely because I am not at all convinced that they have qualia: empathy, love, deep concern, and so on. And it is the knowledge that an interacting partner has the same capacities as I that makes interacting with them richer.

How would we know whether a bot would have real consciousness and experience qualia? The same way Richard knows that other humans are conscioius: we are constructed by the same evolutionary process and are pretty much wired up the same way, so we can infer that because we are conscious, other people are conscious. “I feel, therefore you feel.” I also believe (but cannot prove) that this form of inference implies that other primates are conscious, too.  Likewise with many mammals. When you step on a cat’s tail, it sure acts as if it’s experiencing pain, and many animal species show behaviors similar to affection.  But where humanlike consciousness stops is beyond me.  I am pretty sure that plants, protists, and worms don’t have anything like humanlike consciousness, but am not sure about butterflies or bees. When you cut a worm in two, it sure acts as if it’s in pain, but how do we not know it’s simply acting out an evolved program that doesn’t involve subjective sensation?

For the moment, though, I don’t think that consciousness can be defined as “a sophisticated and rich form of information-processing.”

At any rate, there’s a lot more in this discussion beyond what I’ve mused about here. Do read it!

While I still have 9 installments of Robert Lang’s lovely photos from Brazil’s Pantanal region, I would like to spread things over time, and this is the last set of non-Langian photos I have. I therefore implore you to send in your good wildlife photos (and please, more than one!).  Otherwise this series will wane and then vanish.

But today we have heron photos from Mark Shifman. His captions are indented and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.

 These shots show the cycle of life.

Here’s a Great Blue Heron  (Ardea herodias) catching and eating a fish. Some shots are without the fish.  They were taken at the Cumberland River in Nashville.

 

The giant-impact hypothesis posits that billions of years ago a Mars-sized body named Theia collided with the early Earth.

The immense energy from this impact not only significantly altered Earth’s rotational dynamics but also resulted in debris being ejected into space. Over time, this debris coalesced to form the Moon.

We do not know for sure if Theia existed and if it collided with the young proto-Earth, but the evidence is compelling.

For one, we are the only rocky planet with a substantial moon. Mercury and Venus have none, while Mars lays claim to only two small, captured asteroids. The very existence of our large moon demands explanation.

Second, there’s spin. The Earth spins much faster than the other rocky planets, and the Moon orbits around us at a surprisingly swift pace. Something deep in our past must have provided all that energy, and a collision with another protoplanet explains it with ease.

Lastly, we have an unexpected piece of evidence from our human adventures to the Moon. The Apollo missions were more than pursuits of glory; they were scientific enterprises. Trained by expert geologists, the Apollo astronauts, beginning with Armstrong and Aldrin, where taught to search for and extract interesting findings.

What they returned to Earth revealed an enormous wealth of scientific knowledge of the Moon’s composition, because for the first time we were able to acquire large amounts of regolith – the generic term for the loose material that makes up the lunar surface – and return it to Earth for further study. All told, the six successful Apollo missions brought back 2,200 samples totaling almost 400 kilograms of material.

The regolith returned by the Apollo missions displayed a remarkable property: the lunar surface is oddly similar in constitution to the Earth’s crust, with similar ratios of elements. The only conclusion is that we must have a common origin.

So while we are never able to turn the clock back and witness the formation of the Earth and Moon, we can use the clues scattered around us to help us understand this cataclysmic event that took place over four billion years ago.

The post Why We Think Theia Existed appeared first on Universe Today.

The more we discover about our species' family tree, the harder it becomes to pinpoint when exactly Homo sapiens emerged, raising questions over what it really means to be human

The evolution of the human brain is a fascinating subject. The brain is arguably the most complex structure in the known (to us) universe, and is the feature that makes humanity unique and has allowed us to dominate (for good or ill) the fate of this planet. But of course we are but a twig on a vast evolutionary tree, replete with complex brains. From a human-centric perspective, the closer groups are to humans evolutionarily, the more complex their brains (generally speaking). Apes are the most “encephalized” among primates, as are the primates among mammals, and the mammals among vertebrates. This makes evolutionary sense – that the biggest and most complex brains would evolve from the group with the biggest and most complex brains.

But this evolutionary perspective can be tricky. We can’t confuse looking back through evolutionary time with looking across the landscape of extant species. Any species alive today has just as much evolutionary history behind them as humans. Their brains did not stop evolving once their branch split off from the one that lead to humans. There are therefore some groups which have complex brains because they are evolutionarily close to humans, and their brains have a lot of homology with humans. But there are also other groups that have complex brains because they evolved them completely independently, after their group split from ours. Cetaceans such as whales and dolphins come to mind. They have big brains, but their brains are organized somewhat differently from primates.

Another group that is often considered to be highly intelligent, independent from primates, is birds. Birds are still vertebrates, and in fact they are amniotes, the group that contains reptiles, birds, and mammals. It is still an open question as to exactly how much of the human brain architecture was present at the last common ancestor of all amniotes (and is therefore homologous) and how much evolved later independently. To explore this question we need to look at not only the anatomy of brains and the networks within them, but brain cell types and their genetic origins. For example, even structures that currently look very different can retain evidence of common ancestry if they are built with the same genes. Or – structures that look similar may be built with different genes, and are therefore evolutionarily independent, or analogous.

With that background, we now have a publication of several research projects examining the brain of various amniotes – Evolutionary convergence of sensory circuits in the pallium of amniotes. The pallium is basically the cerebral cortex – the layers of gray and white matter that sit on top of the cerebrum. This is the “advanced” part of the brain in vertebrates, which include the neocortex in humans. When comparing the  pallium of reptiles, birds, and mammals, what did they find?

 “Their neurons are born in different locations and developmental times in each species,” explains Dr. García-Moreno, head of the Brain Development and Evolution laboratory, “indicating that they are not comparable neurons derived from a common ancestor.”

Time and location during development is a big clue as to the evolutionary source of different cells and structure. Genes are another way to determine evolutionary source, so a separate analysis looked at the genes that are activated when forming the pallium of these different groups. It turns out – they use very different assemblages of genes in developing the neurons of the pallium. All this strongly suggests that extant reptiles, birds, and mammals evolved similar brain structures independently after they split apart as groups. They use different neuron type derived from different genes, which means those neurons evolved from different ancestor cell types.

To do this analysis they looked at hundreds of genes and cell types across species, creating an atlas of brain cells, and then did (of course) a computer analysis:

“We were able to describe the hundreds of genes that each type of neuron uses in these brains, cell by cell, and compare them with bioinformatics tools.” The results show that birds have retained most inhibitory neurons present in all other vertebrates for hundreds of millions of years. However, their excitatory neurons, responsible for transmitting information in the pallium, have evolved in a unique way. Only a few neuronal types in the avian brain were identified with genetic profiles similar to those found in mammals, such as the claustrum and the hippocampus, suggesting that some neurons are very ancient and shared across species. “However, most excitatory neurons have evolved in new and different ways in each species,” details Dr. García-Moreno.

Convergent evolution like this occurs because nature finds similar solutions to the same problem. But if they evolved independently, the tiny details (like the genes they are built from) will differ. But also, a similar solution is not an identical solution. This means that bird brains are likely to be different in important ways from mammalian brains. They have a different type of intelligence that mammals, primates, and humans do (just like dolphins have a different type of intelligence).

This is the aspect of this research that fascinates me the most – how is our view of reality affected by the quirky of our neurological evolution? Our view of reality is mostly a constructed neurological illusion (albeit a useful illusion). It is probable that chimpanzees see the world in a very similar way to humans, as their brains diverged only recently from our own. But the reality that dolphin or crow brains construct might be vastly different than our own.

There are “intelligent” creatures on Earth that diverge even more from the human model. Octopuses have a doughnut shaped brain that wraps around their esophagus, with many of the neurons also distributed in their tentacles. They have as many neurons as a dog, but they are far more distributed. Their tentacles have some capacity for independent neurological function (if you want to call that “thought”). It is highly likely that the experience of reality of an octopus is extremely different than any mammal.

This line of thinking always leads me to ponder – what might the intelligence of an alien species be like? In science fiction it is a common story-telling contrivance that aliens are remarkably humanoid, not just in their body plan but in their intelligence. They mostly have not only human-level intelligence, but a recognizably human type of intelligence. I think it is far more likely that any alien intelligence, even one capable of technology, would be different from human intelligence in ways difficult (and perhaps impossible) for us to contemplate.

There are some sci fi stories that explore this idea, like Arrival, and I usually find them very good. But still I think fiction is just scratching the surface of this idea. I understand why this is – it’s hard to tell a story with aliens when we cannot even interface with them intellectually – unless that fact is part of the story itself. But still, there is a lot of space to explore aliens that are human enough to have a meaningful interaction, but different enough to feel neurologically alien. There are likely some constants to hold onto, such as pleasure and pain, and self-preservation. But even exploring that idea – what would be the constants, and what can vary, is fascinating.

This all relates to another idea I try to emphasize whenever relevant – we are our neurology. Our identity and experience is the firing of patterns of neurons in our brains, and it is a uniquely constructed experience.

The post Birds Separately Evolved Complex Brains first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

Welcome to the Cruelest Day: Tuesday: February 18, 2025, and it’s wicked cold in Chicago, with dirty snow caking the ground. It’s National Drink Wine Day, though, which will take the chill off.

Right now it is -2° F (-19° C) outside, but with the wind it feels like -24°F (-31°C). I froze my face on the way to work, but the ears and nose are intact.

It’s also Crab-Stuffed Flounder Day, Pluto Day (the planet was discovered on this day in 1930), Eat Ice Cream for Breakfast Day (pie is better), and Thumb Appreciation Day, which cats cannot join. But if they could. . . .

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the February 18 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*As you know, Trump pardoned many of the January 6 insurrectionists, including those with long sentences because they hurt people. Now these loons are arguing that the Trumpian pardons apply not just to what happened on that fateful day, but to other crimes as well:

Less than a month after receiving pardons for participating in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, some former defendants find themselves in a familiar place: back in court, facing other criminal charges.

There is Edward Kelley, who was pardoned for assaulting police at the U.S. Capitol, but who is now fighting another case. In November, a jury convicted him of conspiring to murder the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who investigated his Jan. 6 participation, with evidence showing he had a “kill list” of targets.

Kelley now argues that conviction should be tossed out, too.

The Tennessee man believes that President Trump’s blanket pardon covering “offenses related to events that occurred at or near” the Capitol on Jan. 6 extends beyond that day.

Other defendants are similarly arguing they should be absolved of other alleged crimes, such as illegal gun possession and child pornography, discovered during Jan. 6 investigations. At least one defendant has died in a post-pardon altercation with police.

Weeks after the pardon that freed hundreds of prison inmates and ended remaining cases winding through the courts, life is far from settled for a large contingent of the defendants.

Seriously? In what world does that apply? I can’t imagine that Trump’s pardons absolve these miscreants of all crimes, but of course they are miscreants, and they are also plotting revenge on those who put them in jail:

Federal agents and others have expressed fear of retaliation for investigating the Capitol riot. After Trump-appointed Justice Department leaders demanded a list of all agents involved, agents sued, arguing it would put them and their families at risk from “the now pardoned and at-large Jan. 6 convicted felons.”

The federal government temporarily agreed to not make the list public while a judge considers a longer-term ban. “If this information were released, I think there’s no question that it would put a number of FBI agents in significant and immediate danger,” U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, said during a recent court hearing.

Trump’s pardons were bad enough, but these bad actors now want to go after those who put them behind bars. Shoot me now.

*The fracas over the tit-for-tat deal whereby NYC Mayor Eric Adams won’t be prosecuted if he does what Trump tells him to do continues. A number of prosecuting attorneys have already resigned, and now Adams’s deputy mayors are contemplating following suit.

Four top New York City officials are expected to resign in the coming days, after the outgoing U.S. attorney for Manhattan accused the mayor of trading cooperation with President Trump’s mass deportation agenda for a dismissal of his criminal indictment, according to three people with knowledge of their plans.

The four officials — Maria Torres-Springer, the first deputy mayor, and Meera Joshi, Anne Williams-Isom and Chauncey Parker, all also deputy mayors — oversee much of New York City government, and their departure is poised to blow a devastating hole in the already wounded administration of Mayor Eric Adams.

Mr. Adams, a Democrat, is resisting growing calls to resign. Gov. Kathy Hochul is also under increasing pressure to remove him from office.

The four officials who are expected to resign are all respected government veterans. Ms. Torres-Springer was elevated to the second most powerful job at City Hall in October in an effort to stabilize city government and restore confidence in his administration following the mayor’s federal indictment in September on five corruption counts.

The departure of Mr. Parker is particularly pointed because he is the deputy mayor for public safety who has been deeply involved in issues around the city’s role in the president’s deportation plans.

The intended resignations were first reported by WNBC.

What with the Governor thinking about asking Adams to resign, he’d have to sooner or later. I predict one week.

*Teacher’s associations are some of the wokest groups arounds, and it’s hard to prevent them from proselytizing students. Many, like the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the largest union in New England (117,000 members!) are also antisemitic, pushing lessons that demonize Israel and Jews. The Free Press gives examples in its article, “Welcome to Hamassachusetts.“It’s pretty antisemitic:

Inside the Massachusetts statehouse on Monday, State Representative Simon Cataldo displayed the image of a dollar bill folded into a Star of David in front of a packed audience of teachers, activists, and staffers. They were there to attend a hearing on the state of antisemitism in Massachusetts public schools.

(All visuals courtesy of the Massachusetts Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism)

“You’d agree that this is antisemitic imagery, correct?” Cataldo, who co-chairs the state’s Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism, asked Max Page, the president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA)—the largest union in New England, representing 117,000 members.

“I’m not gonna evaluate that,” Page responds calmly.

Cataldo pressed him. “Is it antisemitic?”

Page continued to sit stoically, before breaking into a smile. “You’re trying to get away from the central point,” Page said, “which is that we provide imagery, we provide resources for our members to consider, in their own intelligent, professional way.”

There’s more:

Page was asked by the Massachusetts commission about a series of posters contained in the MTA materials, which appear to display an anti-Israel bias. These materials include a poster of a militant wearing a keffiyeh and holding an assault rifle, that reads, “What was taken by force can only be returned by force.”

The introduction of “Resources on Israel and Occupied Palestine” advises that its lessons are meant to “reflect diverse positions and are meant to aid pedagogy.” But many of the materials promote antisemitic viewpoints, said Robert Leikind, the regional director of the American Jewish Committee in New England. Leikind is also a member of the Massachusetts Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism and was present at Monday’s hearing.

Leikind said “it’s astonishing” that an organization “deeply embedded in the educational community” could “defend the idea that it’s legitimate to present one-sided content.” The materials don’t “even make a modest attempt” to show that there are “other ways of looking at the issues,” he said. The resources have led AJC New England to declare, in a December 2024 report, that the MTA has “a Jewish problem.” “The net result is to perpetuate anti-Jewish tropes that malign Israel and its supporters,” the report said.

There’s more, but all we know is that there is a commission to evaluate this material, that the teacher’s union (as in many places) can’t wait to get this anti-Israel stuff into the classroom, and the matter isn’t resolved yet. One problem is that the parents often have no idea what unions are contemplating teaching the students.

*This column in the Washington Post by Shahi Hamid, “Why I still criticize Democrats more than Trump,” hits home for me, as I’m regularly accused of favoring Trump just because I see my brief as criticizing the Democratic Party—my party. And of course I haven’t gone easy on the Orange Man. An excerpt:

he comment sections of my recent columns have been awash with a familiar refrain: How dare you criticize Democrats when President Donald Trump poses an existential threat to democracy? The anger is palpable, particularly on left-leaning platforms such as Bluesky, where my attempts to understand — rather than simply condemn — certain Trump-adjacent ideas have sparked accusations of legitimizing fascism. But this reaction reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both Trump’s presidency and the role of political commentary in our deeply polarized era.

Here’s the counterintuitive truth: I’m more critical of Democrats precisely because I expect more from them. When Trump disregards human rights abroad or undermines democratic norms at home, he’s not being hypocritical — he’s being exactly who he has always claimed to be. The man who called for a “Muslim ban” in 2015 and praised strongmen throughout his first term hasn’t suddenly changed his stripes in 2025.

In his Feb. 4 news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump advocated for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. That seemed clear enough. But because it was so clear, it seemed redundant to just condemn him. Instead, I interviewed Oubai Shahbandar, an Arab American defender of Trump who saw the president’s Gaza comments in a more positive light. I found this mystifying, but that seemed all the more reason to ask him why he thought what he thought. And then I could leave it to readers to come to their own conclusions.

This gets at a larger question. As much as moral condemnation might make us feel good, what does it accomplish? More than enough journalists and commentators are already documenting Trump’s abuses of power and holding him to account.

. . .As his comments on Gaza as well as his flurry of aggressive and legally suspect executive orders make clear, Trump is a threat, including to some of the values I hold most dear. The question isn’t who is worse — that answer is obvious — but, rather, who is better. Who can still be held accountable to their own stated ideals? And the answer there is also clear: Democrats. They claim to be the party of values — of fair competition, freedom, tolerance and pluralism.

Yet Democrats consistently fall short of the very ideals they profess to champion. Under the Biden administration, party leaders — including President Joe Biden himself — spoke of the “indiscriminate” bombing of Gaza while refusing to do anything to stop it. Instead Biden said, chillingly, that “we’re not going to do a damn thing other than protect Israel.” But it’s not just Gaza. The Democratic Party has long preached tolerance and inclusion while marginalizing pro-life Democrats, talking down to Black and brown voters, ignoring religious conservatives and dismissing the growing ranks of Americans who felt the party had become too radical on issues such as gender identity. On policy, what was once the working-class party chose to prioritize things such as college debt relief, which disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

I differ from Hamid in some of what he thinks Democrats should do, but one thing is for sure: we are not going to help the Democrats get back in power by spewing invective at Trump.  One thing I’ve suggested, which I can’t do myself, is take Trump to court every time he violates the law.  If he racks up a number of losses, then maybe Americans who voted him in will see that he’s going hog wild in disrespecting the law.  And nobody can accuse the courts, especially the Supreme Court, of being biased in favor of Democrats, so a number of Trump losses will make him look bad—even to his supporters.

*This is important advice for all readers who don’t have false teeth: you need to brush your teeth for at least two minutes to get rid of plaque, but most Americans do so for only 45 seconds! The WSJ describes how people are trying to figure out what kind of toothbrushes will make people brush longer.

It is a challenge that has baffled dentists and other oral-care zealots for years, and spawned a whole category of tricks—from annoying children’s songs to brushing timers—aimed at getting people to spend more time on their teeth.

Designers at companies like Colgate and Procter & Gamble have been trying to close that gap by making a device that makes brushing feel like less of a chore—and compensates for poor effort and technique.

“We have an evergreen goal: how can we design a toothbrush that can clean well no matter how you brush?” he said. “We want the brushing experience to be meaningful and different.”

Jiménez, 60, has been at it for 23 years. If you’ve ever used a Colgate toothbrush, chances are he had a hand in designing it. He has 239 patents, most of them toothbrush-related.

Over the years, he’s observed some trends. Blue is the most popular toothbrush color. Some people don’t brush on weekends. Even though dental hygienists recommend smaller brush heads, Americans usually choose the biggest one. And they’re always after something new.

His latest project is based on a conclusion that young adults are looking for more minimalist designs and a more soothing experience.

But here is the REAL solution:

. . . . At P&G in Cincinnati, Ohio, researchers years ago concluded that the clearest path to the two-minute clean was an electric device that lets people know how long they’ve been brushing. One challenge was getting people to switch over from manual, so the latest model was designed in part to eliminate those barriers.

And that’s the remedy. All you have to do is shell out $43 for a Sonicare rechargeable toothbrush, and it tells you when to stop, as well as when to switch sides (you have eight areas to brush: top, botton, and right and left sides for each, as well as inside and out. Every 30 seconds, the brush pauses for a tick, so you pick, say, your top outside teeth, brush till the brief pause, then switch to the top inside teeth, and ditto with the bottom teeth (spare a few seconds to brush your tongue at the end). Voilá: two minutes total.  The brush will last forever, and replacement off-brand heads are cheap. (Make sure you brush with the brush head angled at a 45-degree angle up toward the gum!). My hygienist recommended this, and since then I’ve been plaque-free. $43 is a low price to pay for healthy teeth!

Oh, and make sure you use Reach Unltraclean Dental Floss; simply the best; and it’s available ONLY on Amazon. Tell them that Professor Ceiling Cat (Emeritus) sent you.

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is trying to bring on Spring prematurely:

Hili: It’s high time to trim the fruit trees. A: There is no hurry. In Polish: Hili: Najwyższy czas przyciąć drzewa owocowe. Ja: Nie ma z tym pośpiechu.

*******************

From Jesus of the Day:

From Cat Memes:

From somewhere on Facebook:

Masih is quiet today, but J.K.R. speaks the truth:

Woman: adult human female.

Female: a member of the sex class whose body is organised to produce large gametes.

Hope that helps. pic.twitter.com/L8rfVbPBhJ

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) February 16, 2025

From Malgorzata, who says, “something positive”:

This poster is going up along the route of the London hate march today – and at several London universities – trying to give hate marchers an education they sorely need.

Hamas are not the victims here – they are the Nazis. If you march for anyone, march to free the hostages. pic.twitter.com/Af7HupJ7LT

— David Collier (@mishtal) February 15, 2025

From Malcolm; this would be me, too. Always pet a cat!

boss: why were you late to work?

me: pic.twitter.com/YeS1nko5L2

— Punch Cat (@PunchingCat) January 27, 2025

From my Twitter feed (sound up):

If black, fight back

If brown, lay down

If white, good night pic.twitter.com/a9jBUmGWJi

— Nature is Amazing (@AMAZlNGNATURE) February 16, 2025

From my BlueSky feed. What do you suppose this is?

Une video pour voir comment ces créatures sont hypnotisantes de grâce et de beauté.

— (@imanerod.bsky.social) 2025-02-17T17:08:59.757Z

From the Auschwitz Memorial, one that I reposted:

24-year-old Dutch girl, probably gassed upon arrival at the camp.

— Jerry Coyne (@evolutionistrue.bsky.social) 2025-02-18T11:05:45.781Z

Two tweets from Dr. Cobb. First, a lovely Torah duck!

A duck is part of the decoration around the initial-word panel marking the beginning of Torah portion Mishpatim (מִּשְׁפָּטִים) #ParashahPictures BL Add MS 15423; Torah; 1441 CE-1467 CE; Italy (Florence); f.49v

— Ennius (@enniusredloeb.bsky.social) 2025-02-17T10:41:10.783Z

 

Matthew wrote a long piece in Nature that you can access through this post:

50 years ago next week the Asilomar meeting on genetic engineering took place. There’s a summit taking place on site on the future of biotechnology – http://www.spiritofasilomar.org. I wrote this, on two issues that were deliberately excluded from discussion last time:

— (@matthewcobb.bsky.social) 2025-02-17T11:15:41.023Z

 

Asteroid 2024 YR4 has a small chance of hitting Earth in 2032, but as astronomers make more observations about its trajectory, the odds of a collision are being refined

Asteroid 2024 YR4 has a small chance of hitting Earth in 2032, but as astronomers make more observations about its trajectory, the odds of a collision seem to be increasing

As the Russia-Ukraine war reaches its third anniversary, militaries around the world are watching the evolution of drone warfare and planning for future conflicts

From the beginning of time to the origins of life, our "when" special series tackles the timing of crucial events and the surprising new discoveries we are making about them

You may think that time started 13.8 billion years ago at the birth of the universe, but physicists with alternative definitions of time have other ideas

Pondering the future of a few infections. As to the image, consider it a metaphor of before and after where Jesus is a stand in for science or public health or whatever you want him to be. Except a promoter of peace and helping the poor. Not in 2025 anyway. See https://www.bu.edu/sequitur/2016/04/29/handler-ecce/ for more.

The post It’s the end of the world as I know it. And I feel fine. first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

Some cyanobacteria have pigments that specialise in harvesting green light to power photosynthesis, which may be because they evolved at a time when the oceans were iron-rich and green-tinged

Some believe a fabulous Spanish treasure is buried on the slopes of Oregon's Neahkahnie Mountain.

Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Bringing aromas indoors with the help of chemical products -- yes, air fresheners, wax melts, floor cleaners, deodorants and others -- rapidly fills the air with nanoscale particles that are small enough to get deep into your lungs, engineers have found over a series of studies.

What can Venus atmospheric samples returned to Earth teach us about the varied evolution of both planets? This is what a recent study presented at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall 2024 Meeting discussed a compelling mission concept called VATMOS-SR (Venus ATMOSphere – Sample Return), which is designed to collect samples from Venus’ atmosphere and return them to Earth for further study. This mission has the potential to help scientists gain greater insights into the formation and evolution of Venus and how it diverged so far from Earth’s evolution, despite both planets being approximately the same size.

Here, Universe Today discusses this incredible mission concept with Dr. Guillaume Avice, who is a National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) Permanent Researchers at the Paris Institute of Global Physics and lead author of the mission concept, regarding the motivation behind VATMOS-SR, advantages and limitations, significant results they hope to achieve with VATMOS-SR, steps being taken to address specific sampling concerns, nest steps in making VATMOS-SR  a reality, and what can VATMOS-SR potentially teach us about finding life in Venus’ atmosphere. Therefore, what was the motivation behind the VATMOS-SR mission concept?

“The scientific motivation concerns the origin and evolution of planetary atmospheres,” Dr. Avice tells Universe Today. “We know very well the Earth’s atmosphere and we have some insights about the ancient Earth’s atmosphere. For Venus, there are measurements done in the 70’s but we have only very partial data. Returning a sample from the Venus atmosphere would allow us to put strong constraints on the delivery of volatile elements to terrestrial planets soon after solar system formation. Indeed, the two planets are very similar in terms of size, position relative to the Sun etc. Yet, their respective evolution diverged, and it remains a mystery why. Another motivation is that we would return for the first time (if we do it before Mars Sample Return) a sample from another planet than Earth.”

For VATMOS-SR, the researchers aim to accomplish three primary scientific objectives: the sources of volatile elements in Venus’ atmosphere, comparing today’s number of volatile elements to when they first formed billions of years ago, and examining the gases that transferred from Venus’ interior to its atmosphere throughout the planet’s history (also called outgassing). To accomplish this, VATMOS-SR is designed to collect several atmospheric liter-sized samples approximately 110 kilometers (68 miles) above the surface of Venus while traveling at more than 10 kilometers per second (6 miles per second).

VATMOS-SR builds off a previous mission concept called Cupid’s Arrow, which was presented at the 49th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in 2018, with the primary difference being VATMOS-SR will return the samples to Earth whereas Cupid’s Arrow was slated to analyze the samples while still at Venus. Like all mission concepts, the authors note there are advantages and limitations for VATMOS-SR.

“The great advantage is that instruments in our laboratories are very precise for determining the abundance and isotopic composition of volatile elements,” Dr. Avice tells Universe Today. “This is a much better situation compared to in-situ measurements by an instrument onboard a space probe which has numerous limitations. The limitation of the mission is that, in order to return the sample back to Earth, sampling will happen at high velocity (10-13 km/s) meaning that the gas will be fractionated. We can correct for this effect but this is a limitation of the mission. Another one is that sampling gas means that measurements have to be done quickly when back on Earth because any sampling device you could imagine will have a leak rate. We can use high-tech technology to preserve the gas but ideally the preliminary science will have to be done quickly after return.”

As noted, Earth and Venus are approximately the same size, with Venus’s diameter approximately 95 percent of Earth’s. Despite this, both planets are starkly different regarding their characteristics, specifically surface temperatures and pressures. While Earth’s average surface temperature is a livable 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit), Venus’s average surface temperature is a scorching 462 degrees Celsius (864 degrees Fahrenheit), which is hot enough to melt lead.

While Earth’s average surface pressure is measured at 14.7 pounds per square inch (psi), Venus’ average surface pressure is approximately 92 times higher, which is equivalent to experiencing the pressures at 900 meters (3,000 feet) underwater on Earth. This is due to Venus’ atmosphere being extremely dense and composed of carbon dioxide (~96.5 percent), leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. In contrast, while the atmosphere of the planet Mars is also composed of largely carbon dioxide (~95 percent), its atmosphere is much thinner, resulting in significantly lower average surface pressure. Therefore, despite the vast differences between Earth and Venus, what are the most significant results the team hopes to achieve with VATMOS-SR?

“To understand the origin and evolution of the atmosphere of Venus to better understand Earth’s sister planet but also to understand what makes a planet habitable or not,” Dr. Avice tells Universe Today. “This is also extremely important to understand exoplanets because atmospheres of exoplanets are the only reservoir that can be measured remotely with telescopes. Understanding exoplanets thus requires to understand the composition of planetary atmospheres in our solar system.”

Regarding the fractionation concerns about obtaining the samples at such high speeds, Dr. Avice notes statistical studies have been conducted in collaboration with NASA showing promising results and notes the next steps will involve similar tests but with better probe designs.

Going from a concept to becoming an actual mission and delivering groundbreaking science often takes years to decades to happen, often involving several stages of ideas, scientific implications, systems analysis, designs, prototypes, re-designs, and funding availability. Once components and hardware are finally built, they are tested and re-tested to ensure maximum operational capacity since they can’t be fixed after launch. This ensures all systems function independently and together to achieve maximum mission success, including science data collection and transmitting data back to Earth in a timely and efficient manner.

For example, while NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft conducted its famous flyby of Pluto in July 2015, the mission concept was first proposed in August 1992, accepted as a concept in June 2001, received funding approval in November 2001. It was finally launched in June 2006 and endured a 9-year journey to Pluto where it sent back breathtaking images of the dwarf planet in July 2015. Therefore, what are the next steps to making VATMOS-SR a reality?

Dr. Avice tells Universe Today, “We gathered a European team of scientists and engineers together with American and Japanese colleagues to propose VATMOS-SR to the coming ESA call for F-class (fast) mission. The CNES (French space agency) is supporting VATMOS-SR and is providing a lot of help with engineers and specialists to build a strong case to answer this call. This call will be released next month and, if selected, VATMOS-SR will be under consideration by the European Space Agency with developing activities starting as soon as 2026.”

The VATMOS-SR concept comes as debate continues to rage regarding whether the atmosphere of Venus is capable of hosting life as we know it, since the upper atmosphere has been shown to exhibit Earth-like temperatures and pressures, which is a stark contrast to the surface of Venus. It is estimated that the habitable zone of Venus’ atmosphere is between 51 kilometers (32 miles) and 62 kilometers (38 miles) above the surface that exhibit temperatures between 65 degrees Celsius (149 degrees Fahrenheit) and -20 degrees Celsius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit), respectively. As noted, VATMOS-SR is slated to collect samples at approximately 110 kilometers (68 miles) above the surface, or more than twice the altitude from the estimated atmospheric habitable zone. Despite this, what can VATMOS-SR teach us about finding life in Venus’ atmosphere?

Dr. Avice tells Universe Today, “Nothing directly (and no chance to have live organisms in the gas samples) but VATMOS-SR will tell us why Venus became such an inhabitable place. This is of course linked to the question, ‘Is it possible that life appeared on Venus at some point in its history?’”

For now, VATMOS-SR remains a very intriguing mission concept with the goal of helping us unravel the history of Venus and potentially the solar system, along with being an international collaboration between the United States, Europe (CNES), and Japan. While Dr. Avice is designated as the principal investigator, it was Dr. Christophe Sotin, who is a Co-PI, professor at the University of Nantes, former senior research scientist at NASA JPL, and lead author of the Cupid’s Arrow study, who first proposed measuring Venus’ atmosphere.  

What new insights into Venus’ evolutionary history could VATMOS-SR provide scientists in the coming years and decades? Only time will tell, and this is why we science!

As always, keep doing science & keep looking up!

The post Unlocking Venus’ Secrets with VATMOS-SR Mission Concept appeared first on Universe Today.