It's interesting to think of the ways people speak about time, and their relationship to it. Certainly, the subject of time has been the study of not only scientists in recent times, but even more so by mystics, sages, and saints throughout the ages. Saint Augustine, one of the early church Fathers of Christianity and a major philosopher of his day, wrestled with the question of time, saying of it, "if one asks me I know, if I try to explain it to someone, I know not...my soul is on fire to understand the great enigma". He sensed that he would achieve a new level of spiritual development if he could penetrate the mystery of time. And he was right. The yogis of ancient India HAD penetrated the mystery of time to it's core. And they came to the same understanding by the power of insight that Einstein reached at the beginning of 20th century using the power of science and mathematics: simply put, time does not exist. We do not live in time, time lives in us. We create time with the mind. We might say time is the way the mind organizes experience. Whether you believe it or not, it is true. As Einstein proved, time is a relative phenomenon, and it is relative to motion. Truly understanding this, and developing the capacity to function on the basis of this understanding, (at least some of the "time") will not only enrich your life, but is one of the vital attributes of a true artist, and necessary to the creation of true art. There are two levels of functioning in relation to time: the mundane, and the mystical. They are both necessary, useful, and appropriate in their proper context. If a Mack truck is moving toward you at 100mph, it isn't appropriate to remind yourself that time does not actually exist because practically speaking, it DOES exist for you in relation to the speeding truck, and it might be a good idea to respect that fact, get into mundane mode, and get some serious relative motion happening in relation to that truck! The mundane level of time is useful for everyday functioning, it gives us power. We can measure, and we can control, as in meeting someone at 3 o'clock. It adds to our survival potential on the physical level, and that is why we have developed the tool we call time. We can make the trains run on time, and we can measure things like the amount of time we practice guitar, and how long a quarter note lasts. However, just as humans have invented language to represent Reality, and then mistake the symbols for the Reality, so it is with time. We forget that we have literally "made it up". Early man observed the motion and cycles of nature (sun up, down, that sort of thing), and related directly to motion and change itself, without postulating the idea of a "stream of time" in which the motion took place. Infants don�t live in time. It doesn�t exist. Their experience of time is one big "forever", and remains so until the child begins to grow and becomes increasingly aware of the phenomenon of motion around them. All of us became aware of the repetitious nature of our experience. It's light, it's dark, over and over. Mommy wakes us up, mommy puts us to sleep. Movement. Repetition. Rhythm. But no matter what is happening, no matter what "time" it is, to the child it is always "NOW". And that is why the child is capable of being intensely alive. Children have that magical ability to feel pure joy merely from the fact of existing because they float in a sea of "timelessness". But "in time", he or she will probably lose that ability. The child will be made to adapt to the "real" world, the one where being alive is an experience measured by a metal bar swinging around a circle of numbers, and a bunch of little squares on a calendar, each with its own name. Little sections, some where we are free (days off) and most where our "time" is owned by someone else. We become unable to have the direct experience of our own awareness, our own consciousness, as we learn to package it into minutes, hours, days, weeks and years. We LEARN to live in time, we LEARN the idea of past and future, and then it becomes a psychological reality. It also becomes a psychological prison. Gradually, we come to really believe that the universe runs on some gigantic clock, with numbers, dates and years written in stone. Belief in "the past" becomes an act of identification of remembered streams of events, and that becomes "who we are", and so we cannot change. Belief in "the future" becomes worry and anxiety. Since we think we exist in time, and don't see that time exists in us, we fear that nasty �future" as if it were out there right now, like a train station waiting for us to pull in, rather than seeing that we are creating the "future" right NOW. And remaining in that prison through the tyranny of time, we are locked out of that one place Reality is actually to be found: NOW. NOW is not the same thing as time. NOW cannot be measured, only experienced. And when it is fully experienced, the experiencer disappears! Time is made of minutes, which are definable. NOW is made of "moments" which are indefinable, wholly qualified only by their subjective content, not by any objective standard. All of this conditioning must be undone and unlearned, or at least that process must begin, if we are to become artists, or even capable of practicing the guitar correctly. This is what I mean in The Principles when I say we must have Beginners Mind as a constant awareness. It is also what Jesus meant when he said of the little child on his knee, "you must become as one of these if you are to enter the Kingdom of Heaven". It is also what Pepe Romero means when he says "you must practice with the mental simplicity of a child". The corrupting influence of allowing the mind to live in time, as if time were an objective reality, deadens our ability to really be alive. As the years go by, and the accumulation of experience mounts, the tyranny of time takes its toll. Time becomes our enemy. We need to �kill it", we "waste it", or find ways to "pass it". Rather, since it is a tool man has made for his use, we should be using it, not being used by it. From the mundane point of view, the highest use of time is to SPEND it, and spend it wisely. We should spend it wisely, and make a profit for our effort. If we do, we become rich. We should be very careful to whom and to what we lend it as well. From the beginning of playing the guitar, I jealously guarded my time, spending it like a miser, and investing it like a Wall Street tycoon, setting weekly practice goals, writing down schedules, and grading myself for how many hours I got in each week. This was the single biggest reason I got real good real fast. After becoming wise in our use of time, after making it our friend instead of our enemy, it is time to learn the highest use of time, which is the non-use of time. Like any good friend, once in a while we need to tell it to go home, we need to be alone now. This is the mystical relationship to time, where the mind in fact stops creating what it learned to create so long ago. I call this relationship to time being "lost in time". This is the timeless world of the child, the mystic, and the artist. It is what made me pick up the guitar at age 14 and start practicing 3 hours a day without really noticing I was doing so. It is what any great artist does when they are playing their best, it is what any great athlete does when they are "in the zone". The mind has stopped creating time, and the self that was experiencing becomes one with the experience. Only a witnessing awareness remains, without any center. We are "lost in time". To become lost in time is simply what it sounds like. We have all done it, most of us still do at some time or the other. Its when the clock stops. The clock doesn't even stop, its just that there is no clock. There is only "what is happening". There is no us doing something, there is only the doing. There is motion, but it is not relative to something else, so there is no time. There is no "us" there anymore, in the usual way, to be relative to what is happening. It is usually described as a "oneness". For us guitarists it means we lose awareness of an "us" playing the guitar, there is just "playing the guitar". The inspiration of the artist is always NOW, as is any experience wherein we feel truly alive. We have all been in this place, but many have forgotten how to go back there. Some even believe they shouldn't go there. They are wrong. If you wish to be a great guitarist, you must find your way back to this, your natural state. When you play your guitar, you must be able to become "lost in time", lost in NOW. There must be no concern for a future that takes your Attention out of the NOW. I have sat and watched so many would be guitarists allow their anxiety for future attainment prevent them from seeing what needs to be seen, in order for them to really have the future they want. They are so concerned about being better than they are, their Attention is not in the NOW, and they can't discover their own obstacles. Our power to change is in the NOW. Because they are so concerned with getting somewhere, they are not aware of where they ARE. And so, they have no ability to move anywhere else. When you practice, and you are at the Bottom of your Practice, you should be lost in time. Your attention to NOW should be very complete and powerful. For Principled Players, No Tempo Practice (along with Posing) are the foundation of our practice approach. A tempo implies linear time. In no tempo practice, time stops, and we have all the "space" we need to direct our attention anywhere we wish, anywhere it is needed, in order to develop the primary quality of all great players: Awareness. We bring that Awareness back with us when we return to time, and play with a tempo. At first, many people are simply unable to do this. The first job of the teacher is to train them to have this ability. This is why attitudes and emotions must be dealt with sometimes by the teacher, because they will often be at the root of the inability to become lost in time. Likewise, when you play, you should be lost in time, not moving an inch in either direction out of NOW. The "me" is lost in the music. We all have our "Mack Truck Moments" when the tool of time must be used, and such moments are dealt with automatically, in their moment, in their NOW. Clocks, calendars and schedules are there to serve us, not rule us. In general, we must learn to float in the sea of timelessness as we did as children, especially when we practice or play the guitar. Whenever you feel the pull of the clock, trying to make you feel like you�d better hurry up before time runs out; before you sacrifice your NOW, jump back into the sea of timelessness with this thought: You should always feel like you have all the time in the world, because, since you are creating it, you do! For more information, and to get answers to your questions, visit my site. The Zeta Reticuli Incident by Terence Dickinson with related commentary by: Jeffrey L. Kretsch, Carl Sagan, Steven Soter, Robert Sheaffer, Marjorie Fish, David Saunders & Michael Peck. Astronomy, December, 1974 A faint pair of stars, 220 trillion miles away, has been tentatively identified as the "home base" of intelligent extraterrestrials who allegedly visited Earth in 1961. This hypothesis is based on a strange, almost bizarre series of events mixing astronomical research with hypnosis, amnesia, and alien humanoid creatures. The two stars are known as Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli, or together as simply Zeta Reticuli. They are each fifth magnitude stars -- barely visible to the unaided eye -- located in the obscure souther constellation Reticulum. This southerly sky location makes Zeta Reticuli invisible to observers north of Mexico City's latitude. The weird circumstances that we have dubbed "The Zeta Reticuli Incident" sound like they come straight from the UFO pages in one of those tabloids sold in every supermarket. But this is much more than a retelling of a famous UFO incident; it's an astronomical detective story that at times hovers on that hazy line that separates science from fiction. It all started this way: The date is Sept. 19, 1961. A middle aged New Hampshire couple, Betty and Barney Hill, are driving home from a short vacation in Canada. It's dark, with the moon and stars illuminating the wooded landscape along U.S. Route 3 in central New Hampshire. The Hills' curiosity is aroused when a bright "star" seems to move in an irregular pattern. They stop the car for a better view. The object moves closer, and its disklike shape becomes evident. Barney grabs his binoculars from the car seat and steps out. He walks into a field to get a closer look, focuses the binoculars, and sees the object plainly. It has windows -- and behind the windows, looking directly at him are...humanoid creatures! Terrified, Barney stumbles back to the car, throws it into first gear and roars off. But for some reason he turns down a side road where five of the humanoids are standing on the road. Apparently unable to control their actions, Betty and Barney are easily taken back to the ship by the humanoids. While inside they are physically examined, and one of the humanoids communicates to Betty. After the examination she asks him where they are from. In response he shows her a three-dimensional map with various sized dots and lines on it. "Where are you on the map?" the humanoid asks Betty. She doesn't know, so the subject is dropped. Betty and Barney are returned unharmed to their car. They are told they will forget the abduction portion of the incident. The ship rises, and then hurtles out of sight. The couple continue their journey home oblivious of the abduction. But the Hills are troubled by unexplained dreams and anxiety about two hours of their trip that they can't account for. Betty, a social worker, asks advice from a psychiatrist friend. He suggests that the memory of that time will be gradually restored over the next few months -- but it never is. Two years after the incident, the couple are still bothered by the missing two hours, and Barney's ulcers are acting up. A Boston psychiatrist, Benjamin Simon, is recommended, and after several months of weekly hypnosis sessions the bizarre events of that night in 1961 are revealed. A short time later a UFO group leaks a distorted version of the story to the press and the whole thing blows up. The Hills reluctantly disclose the entire story. Can we take this dramatic scenario seriously? Did this incredible contact with aliens actually occur or is it some kind of hallucination that affected both Barney and Betty Hill? The complete account of the psychiatric examination from which the details of the event emerged is related in John G. Fuller's 'The Interrupted Journey' (Dial Press, 1966), where we read that after the extensive psychiatric examination, Simon concluded that the Hills were not fabricating the story. The most likely possibilities seem to be: (a) the experience actually happened, or (b) some perceptive and illusory misinterpretations occurred in relationship to some real event. There are other cases of alleged abductions by extraterrestrial humanoids. The unique aspect of the Hills' abduction is that they remembered virtually nothing of the incident. Intrigued by the Hills' experience, J. Allen Hynek, chairman of the department of astronomy at Northwestern University, decided to investigate. Hynek described how the Hills recalled the details of their encounter in his book, 'The UFO Experience' (Henry Regnery Company, 1972): "Under repeated hypnosis they independently revealed what had supposedly happened. The two stories agreed in considerable detail, although neither Betty nor Barney was privy to what the other had said under hypnosis until much later. Under hypnosis they stated that they had been taken separately aboard the craft, treated well by the occupants -- rather as humans might treat experimental animals -- and then released after having been given the hypnotic suggestion that they would remember nothing of that particular experience. The method of their release supposedly accounted for the amnesia, which was apparently broken only by counterhypnosis." A number of scientists, including Hynek, have discussed this incident at length with Barney and Betty Hill and have questioned them under hypnosis. They concur with Simon's belief that there seems to be no evidence of outright fabrication or lying. One would also wonder what Betty, who has a master's degree in social work and is a supervisor in the New Hampshire Welfare Department, and Barney, who was on the governor of New Hampshire's Civil Rights Commission, would have to gain by a hoax? Although the Hills didn't, several people have lost their jobs after being associated with similarly unusual publicity. Stanton T. Friedman, a nuclear physicist and the nation's only space scientist devoting full time to researching the UFO phenomenon, has spent many hours in conversation with the Hills. "By no stretch of the imagination could anyone who knows them conclude that they were nuts," he emphasizes. So the experience remains a fascinating story despite the absence of proof that it actually happened. Anyway -- that's where things were in 1966 when Marjorie Fish, an Ohio schoolteacher, amateur astronomer and member of Mensa, became involved. She wondered if the objects shown on the map that Betty Hill allegedly observed inside the vehicle might represent some actual pattern of celestial objects. To get more information about the map she decided to visit Betty Hill in the summer of 1969. (Barney Hill died in early 1969.) Here is Ms. Fish's account of that meeting: "On Aug.4, 1969, Betty Hill discussed the star map with me. Betty explained that she drew the map in 1964 under posthypnotic suggestion. It was to be drawn only if she could remember it accurately, and she was not to pay attention to what she was drawing -- which puts it in the realm of automatic drawing. This is a way of getting at repressed or forgotten material and can result in unusual accuracy. She made two erasures showing her conscious mind took control part of the time. "Betty described the map as three-dimensional, like looking through a window. The stars were tinted and glowed. The map material was flat and thin (not a model), and there were no noticeable lenticular lines like one of our three-dimensional processes. (It sounds very much like a reflective hologram.) Betty did not shift her position while viewing it, so we cannot tell if it would give the same three-dimensional view from all positions or if it would be completely three-dimensional. Betty estimated the map was approximately three feet wide and two feet high with the pattern covering most of the map. She was standing about three feet away from it. She said there were many other stars on the map but she only (apparently) was able to specifically recall the prominent ones connected by lines and a small distinctive triangle off to the left. There was no concentration of stars to indicate the Milky Way (galactic plane) suggesting that if it represented reality, it probably only contained local stars. There were no grid lines." So much for the background material on the Hill incident. (If you want more details on the encounter, see Fuller's book). For the moment we will leave Marjorie Fish back in 1969 trying to interpret Betty Hill's reproduction of the map. There is a second major area of background information that we have to attend to before we can properly discuss the map. Unlike the bizarre events just described, the rest is pure astronomy. According to the most recent star catalogs, there are about 1,000 known stars within a radius of 55 light-years of the sun. What are those other stars like? A check of the catalogs shows that most of them are faint stars of relatively low temperature -- a class of stars astronomers call main sequence stars. The sun is a main sequence star along with most of the other stars in this part of the Milky Way galaxy, as the following table shows: Main sequence stars 91% White dwarfs 8% Giants and Supergiants 1% Typical giant stars are Arcturus and Capella. Antares and Betelgeuse are members of the ultrarare supergiant class. At the other end of the size and brightness scale the white dwarfs are stellar cinders -- the remains of once brilliant suns. For reasons that will soon become clear we can remove these classes of stars from our discussion and concentrate on the main sequence stars whose characteristics are shown in the table. Characteristics of Main Sequence Stars Class Proportion of Total Temperature (Degrees F) Mass (Sun=1) Luminosity (Sun=1) Lifespan (billions yrs) - A0 1% 20,000 2.8 60 5 Vega A5 - 15,000 2.2 20 1 - F0 3% 13,000 1.7 6 2 Procyon F5 - 12,000 1.25 3 4 - G0 9% 11,000 1.06 1.3 10 Sun G5 - 10,000 .92 .8 15 - K0 14% 9,000 .8 .4 20 Epsilon Erandi K5 - 8,000 .69 .1 30 - M0 73% 7,000 .48 .02 75 Proxima Centauri M5 - 5,000 .2 .001 200 - The spectral class letters are part of a system of stellar "fingerprinting" that identifies the main sequence star's temperature and gives clues to its mass and luminosity. The hottest, brightest and most massive main sequence stars (with rare exceptions) are the A stars. The faintest, coolest and least massive are the M stars. Each class is subdivided into 10 subcategories. For example, an A0 star is hotter, brighter and more massive than an A1 which is above an A2, and so on through A9. This table supplies much additional information and shows how a slightly hotter and more massive star turns out to be much more luminous than the sun, a G2 star. But the bright stars pay dearly for their splendor. It takes a lot of stellar fuel to emit vast quantities of light and heat. The penalty is a short lifespan as a main sequence star. Conversely, the inconspicuous, cool M stars may be around to see the end of the universe -- whatever that might be. With all these facts at hand we're now ready to tackle the first part of the detective story. Let's suppose we wanted to make our own map of a trip to the stars. We will limit ourselves to the 55 light-year radius covered by the detailed star catalogs. The purpose of the trip will be to search for intelligent life on planets that may be in orbit around these stars. We would want to include every star that would seem likely to have a life-bearing planet orbiting around it. How many of these thousand-odd stars would we include for such a voyage and which direction would we go? (For the moment, we'll forget about the problem of making a spacecraft that will take us to these stars and we'll assume that we've got some kind of vehicle that will effortlessly transport us to wherever we want to go.) We don't want to waste our time and efforts -- we only want to go to stars that we would think would have a high probability of having planets harboring advanced life forms. This seems like a tall order. How do we even begin to determine which stars might likely have such planets? The first rule will be to restrict ourselves to life as we know it, the kind of life that we are familiar with here on Earth -- carbon based life. Science fiction writers are fond of describing life forms based on chemical systems that we have been unable to duplicate here on Earth -- such as silicon based life or life based on the ammonium hydroxide molecule instead of on carbon. But right now these life forms are simply fantasy -- we have no evidence that they are in fact possible. Because we don't even know what they might look like -- if they're out there -- we necessarily have to limit our search to the kind of life that we understand. Our kind of life -- life as we know it -- seems most likely to evolve on a planet that has a stable temperature regime. It must be at the appropriate distance from its sun so that water is neither frozen nor boiled away. The planet has to be the appropriate size so that its gravity doesn't hold on to too much atmosphere (like Jupiter) or too little (like Mars). But the main ingredient in a life-bearing planet is its star. And its star is the only thing we can study since planets of other stars are far too faint to detect directly. The conclusion we can draw is this: The star has to be like the sun. Main sequence stars are basically stable for long periods of time. As shown in the table, stars in spectral class G have stable lifespans of 10 billion years. (Our sun, actually a G2 star, has a somewhat longer stable life expectancy of 11 billion years.) We are about five billion years into that period so we can look forward to the sun remaining much as it is (actually it will brighten slightly) for another six billion years. Stars of class F4 or higher have stable burning periods of less than 3.5 billion years. They have to be ruled out immediately. Such stars cannot have life-bearing planets because, at least based on our experience on our world, this is not enough time to permit highly developed biological systems to evolve on the land areas of a planet. (Intelligent life may very well arise earlier in water environments, but let's forget that possibility since we have not yet had meaningful communication with the dolphins -- highly intelligent creatures on this planet!) But we may be wrong in our estimate of life development time. There is another more compelling reason for eliminating stars of class F4 and brighter. So far, we have assumed all stars have planets, just as our sun does. Yet spectroscopic studies of stars of class F4 and brighter reveal that most of them are in fact unlike our sun in a vital way -- they are rapidly rotating stars. The sun rotates once in just under a month, but 60 percent of the stars in the F0 to F4 range rotate much faster. And almost all A stars are rapid rotators too. It seems, from recent studies of stellar evolution that slowly rotating stars like the sun rotate slowly because they have planets. Apparently the formation of a planetary system robs the star of much of its rotational momentum. For two reasons, then, we eliminate stars of class F4 and above: (1) most of them rotate rapidly and thus seem to be planetless, and (2) their stable lifespans are too brief for advanced life to develop. Another problem environment for higher forms of life is the multiple star system. About half of all stars are born in pairs, or small groups of three or more. Our sun could have been part of a double star system. If Jupiter was 80 times more massive it would be an M6 red dwarf star. If the stars of a double system are far enough apart there is no real problem for planets sustaining life (see "Planet of the Double Sun", September 1974). But stars in fairly close or highly elliptical orbits would alternately fry or freeze their planets. Such planets would also likely have unstable orbits. Because this is a potentially troublesome area for our objective, we will eliminate all close and moderately close pairs of systems of multiple stars. Further elimination is necessary according to the catalogs. Some otherwise perfect stars are labeled "variable". This means astronomers have observed variations of at least a few percent in the star's light output. A one percent fluctuation in the sun would be annoying for us here on Earth. Anything greater would cause climatic disaster. Could intelligent life evolve under such conditions, given an otherwise habitable planet? It seems unlikely. We are forced to "scratch" all stars suspected or proven to be variable. This still leaves a few F stars, quite a few G stars, and hoards of K and M dwarfs. Unfortunately most of the Ks and all of the Ms are out. Let's find out why. These stars quite likely have planets. Indeed, one M star -- known as Barnard's star -- is believed to almost certainly have at least one, and probably two or three, Jupiter sized planets. Peter Van de Kamp of the Sproul Observatory at Swarthmore College (Pa.) has watched Barnard's star for over three decades and is convinced that a "wobbling" motion of that star is due to perturbations (gravitational "pulling and pushing") caused by its unseen planets. (Earth sized planets cannot be detected in this manner.) But the planets of M stars and the K stars below K4 have two serious handicaps that virtually eliminate them from being abodes for life. First, these stars fry their planets with occasional lethal bursts of radiation emitted from erupting solar flares. The flares have the same intensity as those of our sun, but when you put that type of flare on a little star it spells disaster for a planet that is within, say, 30 million miles. The problem is that planets have to be that close to get enough heat from these feeble suns. If they are farther out, they have frozen oceans and no life. The close-in orbits of potential Earthlike planets of M and faint K stars produce the second dilemma -- rotational lock. An example of rotational lock is right next door to us. The moon, because of its nearness to Earth, is strongly affected by our planet's tidal forces. Long ago our satellite stopped rotating and now has one side permanently turned toward Earth. The same principles apply to planets of small stars that would otherwise be at the right distance for moderate temperatures. If rotational lock has not yet set in, at least rotational retardation would make impossibly long days and nights (as evidenced by Mercury in our solar system). What stars are left after all this pruning? All of the G stars remain along with F5 through F9 and K0 through K4. Stephen Dole of the Rand Corporation has made a detailed study of stars in this range and suggests we should also eliminate F5, F6 and F7 stars because they balloon to red giants before they reach an age of five billion years. Dole feels this is cutting it too fine for intelligent species to fully evolve. Admittedly this is based on our one example of intelligent life -- us. But limited though this parameter is, it is the only one we have. Dole believes the K2, K3 and K4 stars are also poor prospects because of their feeble energy output and consequently limited zone for suitable Earthlike planets. Accepting Dole's further trimming we are left with single, nonvariable stars from F8 through all the Gs to K1. What does that leave us with? Forty-six stars. Now we are ready to plan the trip. It's pretty obvious that Tau Ceti is our first target. After that, the choice is more difficult. We can't take each star in order or we would be darting all over the sky. It's something like planning a vacation trip. Let's say we start from St. Louis and want to hit all the major cities within a 1,000 mile radius. If we go west, all we can visit is Kansas City and Denver. But northeast is a bonanza: Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York and more. The same principle applies to the planning of our interstellar exploration. The plot of all 46 candidate stars reveals a clumping in the direction of the constellations Cetus and Eridanus. Although this section amounts to only 13 percent of the entire sky, it contains 15 of the 46 stars, or 33 percent of the total. Luckily Tau Ceti is in this group, so that's the direction we should go (comparable to heading northeast from St. Louis). If we plan to visit some of these solar type stars and then return to Earth, we should try to have the shortest distance between stops. It would be a waste of exploration time if we zipped randomly from one star to another. Now we are ready to return to the map drawn by Betty Hill. Marjorie Fish reasoned that if the stars in the Hill map corresponded to a patter of real stars -- perhaps something like we just developed, only from an alien's viewpoint -- it might be possible to pinpoint the origin of the alleged space travelers. Assuming the two stars in the foreground of the Hill map were the "base" stars (the sun, a single star, was ruled out here), she decided to try to locate the entire pattern. She theorized that the Hill map contained only local stars since no concentration would be present if a more distant viewpoint was assumed and if both "us" and the alien visitors' home base were to be represented. Let's assume, just as an astronomical exercise, that the map does show the sun and the star that is "the sun" to the humanoids. We'll take the Hill encounter at face value, and see where it leads. Since the aliens were described as "humanoid" and seemed reasonably comfortable on this planet, their home planet should be basically like ours. Their atmosphere must be similar because the Hills breathed without trouble while inside the ship, and the aliens did not appear to wear any protective apparatus. And since we assume their biology is similar to ours, their planet should have the same temperature regime as Earth (Betty and Barney did say it was uncomfortably cold in the ship). In essence, then, we assume their home planet must be very Earthlike. Based on what we discussed earlier it follows that their sun would be on our list if it were within 55 light-years of us. The lines on the map, according to Betty Hill, were described by the alien as "trade routes" or "places visited occasionally" with the dotted lines as "expeditions". Any interpretation of the Betty Hill map must retain the logic of these routes (i.e. the lines would link stars that would be worth visiting). Keeping all this in mind, Marjorie Fish constructed several three-dimensional models of the solar neighborhood in hopes of detecting the pattern in the Hill map. Using beads dangling on threads, she painstakingly recreated our stellar environment. Between Aug. 1968 and Feb. 1973, she strung beads, checked data, searched and checked again. A suspicious alignment, detected in late 1968, turned out to be almost a perfect match once new data from the detailed 1969 edition of the Catalog of Nearby Stars became available. (This catalog is often called the "Gliese catalog" -- pronounced "glee-see" -- after its principal author, Wilhelm Gliese.) The 46 Nearest Stars Similar to the Sun Name Distance (light-years) Magnitude (visual) Luminosity (Sun=1) Spectrum Tau Ceti 11.8 3.5 .4 G8 82 Eridani 20.2 4.3 .7 G5 Zeta Tucanae 23.3 4.2 .9 G2 107 Piscium 24.3 5.2 .4 K1 Beta Comae - - - - Berenices 27.2 4.3 1.2 G0 61 Virginis 27.4 4.7 .8 G6 Alpha Mensae 28.3 5.1 .6 G5 Gliese 75 28.6 5.6 .4 K0 Beta Canum - - - - Venaticorum 29.9 4.3 1.4 G0 Chi Orionis 32 4.4 1.5 G0 54 Piscium 34 5.9 .4 K0 Zeta 1 Reticuli 37 5.5 .7 G2 Zeta 2 Reticuli 37 5.2 .9 G2 Gliese 86 37 6.1 .4 K0 Mu Arae 37 5.1 .9 G5 Gliese 67 38 5.0 1.2 G2 Gliese 668.1 40 6.3 .4 G9 Gliese 302 41 6.0 .6 G8 Gliese 309 41 6.4 .4 K0 Kappa Fornacis 42 5.2 1.3 G1 58 Eridani 42 5.5 .9 G1 Zeta Doradus 44 4.7 2.0 F8 55 Cancri 44 6.0 .7 G8 47 Ursa Majoris 44 5.1 1.5 G0 Gliese 364 45 4.9 1.8 G0 Gliese 599A 45 6.0 .6 G6 Nu Phoenicis 45 5.0 1.8 F8 Gliese 95 45 6.3 .5 G5 Gliese 796 47 5.6 .5 G8 20 Leo Minoris 47 5.4 1.2 G4 39 Tauri 47 5.9 .8 G1 Gliese 290 47 6.6 .4 G8 Gliese 59.2 48 5.7 1.0 G2 Psi Aurigae 49 5.2 1.5 G0 Gliese 722 49 5.9 .9 G4 Gliese 788 49 5.9 .8 G5 Nu 2 Lupi 50 5.6 1.1 G2 14 Herculis 50 6.6 .5 K1 Pi Ursa Majoris 51 5.6 1.2 G0 Phi 2 Ceti 51 5.2 1.8 F8 Gliese 641 52 6.6 .5 G8 Gliese 97.2 52 6.9 .4 K0 Gliese 541.1 53 6.5 .6 G8 109 Piscium 53 6.3 .8 G4 Gliese 651 53 6.8 .4 G8 Gliese 59 53 6.7 .4 G8 This table lists all known stars within a radius of 54 light-years that are single or part of a wide multiple star system. They have no known irregularities or variabilities and are between 0.4 and 2.0 times the luminosity of the sun. Thus, a planet basically identical to Earth could be orbiting around any one of them. (Data from the Catalog of Nearby Stars, 1969 edition, by Wilhelm Gliese.) The 16 stars in the stellar configuration discovered by Marjorie Fish are compared with the map drawn by Betty Hill in the diagram on page 6. If some of the star names on the Fish map sound familiar, they should. Ten of the 16 stars are from the compact group that we selected earlier based on the most logical direction to pursue to conduct interstellar exploration from Earth. Continuing to take the Hill map at face value, the radiating pattern of "trade routes" implies that Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli are the "hub" of exploration or, in the context of the incident, the aliens' home base. The sun is at the end of one of the supposedly regular trade routes. The pair of stars that make up Zeta Reticuli is practically in the midst of the cluster of solar type stars that attracted us while we were mapping out a logical interstellar voyage. Checking further we find that all but two of the stars in the Fish pattern are on the table of nearby solar type stars. These two stars are Tau 1 Eridani (an F6 star) and Gliese 86.1 (K2), and are, respectively, just above and below the parameters we arrived at earlier. One star that should be there (Zeta Tucanae) is missing probably because it is behind Zeta 1 Reticuli at the required viewing angle. To summarize, then: (1) the pattern discovered by Marjorie Fish has an uncanny resemblance to the map drawn by Betty Hill; (2) the stars are mostly the ones that we would visit if we were exploring from Zeta Reticuli, and (3) the travel patterns generally make sense. Walter Mitchell, professor of astronomy at Ohio State University in Columbus, has looked at Marjorie Fish's interpretation of the Betty Hill map in detail and tells us, "The more I examine it, the more I am impressed by the astronomy involved in Marjorie Fish's work." During their examination of the map, Mitchell and some of his students inserted the positions of hundreds of nearby stars into a computer and had various space vistas brought up on a cathode ray tube readout. They requested the computer to put them in a position out beyond Zeta Reticuli looking toward the sun. From this viewpoint the map pattern obtained by Marjorie Fish was duplicated with virtually no variations. Mitchell noted an important and previously unknown fact first pointed out by Ms. Fish: The stars in the map are almost in a plane; that is, they fill a wheel shaped volume of space that makes star hopping from one to another easy and the logical way to go -- and that is what is implied by the map that Betty Hill allegedly saw. "I can find no major point of quibble with Marjorie Fish's interpretation of the Betty Hill map," says David R. Saunders, a statistics expert at the Industrial Relations Center of the University of Chicago. By various lines of statistical reasoning he concludes that the chances of finding a match among 16 stars of a specific spectral type among the thousand-odd stars nearest the sun is "at least 1,000 to 1 against". "The odds are about 10,000 to 1 against a random configuration matching perfectly with Betty Hill's map," Saunders reports. "But the star group identified by Marjorie Fish isn't quite a perfect match, and the odds consequently reduce to about 1,000 to 1. That is, there is one chance in 1,000 that the observed degree of congruence would occur in the volume of space we are discussing. "In most fields of investigation where similar statistical methods are used, that degree of congruence is rather persuasive," concludes Saunders. Saunders, who has developed a monumental computerized catalog of more than 60,000 UFO sightings, tells us that the Hill case is not unique in its general characteristics -- there are other known cases of alleged communication with extraterrestrials. But in no other case on record have maps ever been mentioned. Mark Steggert of the Space Research Coordination Center at the University of Pittsburgh developed a computer program that he calls PAR (for Perspective Alteration Routine) that can duplicate the appearance of star fields from various viewpoints in space. "I was intrigued by the proposal put forth by Marjorie Fish that she had interpreted a real star pattern for the alleged map of Betty Hill. I was incredulous that models could be used to do an astronometric problem," Steggert says. "To my surprise I found that the pattern that I derived from my program had a close correspondence to the data from Marjorie Fish." After several run-throughs, he confirmed the positions determined by Marjorie Fish. "I was able to locate potential areas of error, but no real errors," Steggert concludes. Steggert zeroed in on possibly the only real bone of contention that anyone has had with Marjorie Fish's interpretation: The data on some of the stars may not be accurate enough for us to make definitive conclusions. For example, he says the data from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Catalog, the Royal Astronomical Society Observatory Catalog, and the Yale Catalog of Bright Stars "have differences of up to two magnitudes and differences in distance amounting to 40 percent for the star Gliese 59". Other stars have less variations in the data from one catalog to another, but Steggert's point is valid. The data on some of the stars in the map is just not good enough to make a definitive statement. (The fact that measurements of most of the stars in question can only be made at the relatively poor equipped southern hemisphere observatories accounts for the less reliable data.) Using information on the same 15 stars from the Royal Observatory catalog (Annals #5), Steggert reports that the pattern does come out differently because of the different data, and Gliese 59 shows the largest variation. The Gliese catalog uses photometric, trigonometric and spectroscopic parallaxes and derives a mean from all three after giving various mathematical weights to each value. "The substantial variation in catalog material is something that must be overcome," says Steggert. "This must be the next step in attempting to evaluate the map." This point of view is shared by Jeffrey L. Kretsch, an undergraduate student who is working under the advisement of J. Allen Hynek at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. Like Steggert, he too checked Marjorie Fish's pattern and found no error in the work. But Kretsch reports that when he reconstructed the pattern using trigonometric distance measurements instead of the composite measures in the Gliese catalog, he found enough variations to move Gliese 95 above the line between Gliese 86 and Tau 1 Eridani. "The data for some of the stars seems to be very reliable, but a few of the pattern stars are not well observed and data on them is somewhat conflicting," says Kretsch. The fact that the pattern is less of a "good fit" using data from other sources leads Kretsch and others to wonder what new observations would do. Would they give a closer fit? Or would the pattern become distorted? Marjorie Fish was aware of the catalog variations, but has assumed the Gliese catalog is the most reliable source material to utilize. Is the Gliese catalog the best available data source. According to several astronomers who specialize in stellar positions, it probably is. Peter Van de Kamp says, "It's first rate. There is none better." He says the catalog was compiled with extensive research and care over many years. A lot of the published trigonometric parallaxes on the stars beyond 30 light-years are not as accurate as they could be, according to Kyle Cudworth of Yerkes Observatory. "Gliese added other criteria to compensate and lessen the possible errors," he says. The scientific director of the U.S. Naval Observatory, K.A. Strand, is among the world's foremost authorities on stellar distances for nearby stars. He believes the Gliese catalog "is the most complete and comprehensive source available." Frank B. Salisbury of the University of Utah has also examined the Hill and Fish maps. "The pattern of stars discovered by Marjorie Fish fits the map drawn by Betty Hill remarkably well. It's a striking coincidence and forces one to take the Hill story more seriously," he says. Salisbury is one of the few scientists who has spent some time on the UFO problem and has written a book and several articles on the subject. A professor of plant physiology, his biology expertise has been turned to astronomy on several occasions while studying the possibility of biological organisms existing on Mars. Salisbury insists that while psychological factors do play an important role in UFO phenomena, the Hill story does represent one of the most credible reports of incredible events. The fact that the story and the map came to light under hypnosis is good evidence that it actually took place. "But it is not unequivocal evidence," he cautions. Elaborating on this aspect of the incident, Mark Steggert offers this: "I am inclined to question the ability of Betty, under posthypnotic suggestion, to duplicate the pattern two years after she saw it. She noted no grid lines on the pattern for reference. Someone should (or perhaps has already) conduct a test to see how well a similar patter could be recalled after a substantial period of time. The stress she was under at the time is another unknown factor." "The derivation of the base data by hypnotic techniques is perhaps not as 'far out' as it may seem," says Stanton Friedman. "Several police departments around the country use hypnosis on rape victims in order to get descriptions of the assailants -- descriptions that would otherwise remain repressed. The trauma of such circumstances must be comparable in some ways to the Hill incident." Is it at all possible we are faced with a hoax? "Highly unlikely," says Salisbury -- and the other investigators agree. One significant fact against a charade is that the data from the Gliese catalog was not published until 1969, five years after the star map was drawn by Betty Hill. Prior to 1969, the data could only have been obtained from the observatories conducting research on the specific stars in question. It is not uncommon for astronomers not to divulge their research data -- even to their colleagues -- before it appears in print. In general, the entire sequence of events just does not smell of falsification. Coincidence, possibly; hoax, improbable. Where does all this leave us? Are there creatures inhabiting a planet of Zeta 2 Reticuli? Did they visit Earth in 1961? The map indicates that the sun has been "visited occasionally". What does that mean? Will further study and measurement of the stars in the map change their relative positions and thus distort the configuration beyond the limits of coincidence? The fact that the entire incident hinges on a map drawn under less than normal circumstances certainly keeps us from drawing a firm conclusion. Exobiologists are united in their opinion that the chance of us having neighbors so similar to us, apparently located so close, is vanishingly small. But then, we don't even know for certain if there is anybody at all out there -- anywhere -- despite the Hill map and pronouncements of the most respected scientists. The only answer is to continue the search. Someday, perhaps soon, we will know. The View from Zeta Reticuli The two stars that comprise the Zeta Reticuli system are almost identical to the sun. Thy are the only known examples of two solar type stars apparently linked into a binary star system of wide separation. Zeta 1 is separated from Zeta 2 by at least 350 billion miles -- about 100 times the sun-Pluto distance. They may be even farther apart, but the available observations suggest they are moving through space together and are therefore physically associated. They probably require at least 100,000 years to orbit around their common center of gravity. Both Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 are prime candidates for the search for life beyond Earth. According to our current theories of planetary formation, they both should have a retinue of planets something like our solar system. As yet there is no way of determining if any of the probable planets of either star is similar to Earth. To help visualize the Zeta Reticuli system, let's take the sun's nine planets and put them in identical orbits around Zeta 2. From a celestial mechanics standpoint there is no reason why this situation could not exist. Would anything be different? Because of Zeta 2's slightly smaller mass as compared with the sun, the planets would orbit a little more slowly. Our years might have 390 days, for example. Zeta 2 would make a fine sun - - slightly dimmer than "old Sol", but certainly capable of sustaining life. The big difference would not be our new sun but the superstar of the night sky. Shining like a polished gem, Zeta 1 would be the dazzling highlight of the night sky -- unlike anything we experience here on Earth. At magnitude -9 it would appear as a starlike point 100 times brighter than Venus. It would be like compressing all the light from the first quarter moon into a point source. Zeta 1 would have long ago been the focus of religions, mythology and astrology if it were in earthly skies. The fact that it would be easily visible in full daylight would give Zeta 1 supreme importance to both early civilizations and modern man. Shortly after the invention of the telescope astronomers would be able to detect Jupiter and Saturn sized planets orbiting around Zeta 1. Jupiter would be magnitude +12, visible up to 4.5 minutes of arc from Zeta 1 (almost as far as Ganymede swings from Jupiter). It would not make a difficult target for an eight inch telescope. Think of the incentive that discovery would have on interstellar space travel! For hundreds of years we would be aware of another solar system just a few "light-weeks" away. The evolution of interstellar spaceflight would be rapid, dynamic and inevitable. By contrast, our nearest solar type neighbor is Tau Ceti at 12 light-years. Even today we only suspect it is accompanied by a family of planets, but we don't know for sure. From this comparison of our planetary system with those of Zeta Reticuli, it is clear that any emerging technologically advanced intelligent life would probably have great incentive to achieve star flight. The knowledge of a nearby system of planets of a solar type star would be compelling -- at least it would certainly seem to be. What is so strange -- and this question prompted us to prepare this article -- is: Why, of all stars, does Zeta Reticuli seem to fit as the hub of a map that appeared inside a spacecraft that allegedly landed on Earth in 1961? Some of the circumstances surrounding the whole incident are certainly bizarre, but not everything can be written off as coincidence or hallucination. It may be optimistic, on one extreme, to hope that our neighbors are as near as 37 light-years away. For the moment we will be satisfied with considering it an exciting possibility. Commentary Editor's Preface The lead article in the December 1974 issue of ASTRONOMY, entitled "The Zeta Reticuli Incident", centered on interpretation of a map allegedly seen inside an extraterrestrial spacecraft. The intent of the article was to expose to our readers a rare instance where astronomical techniques have been used to analyze a key element in a so-called "close encounter" UFO incident. While not claiming that the analysis of the map was proof of a visit by extraterrestrials, we feel the astronomical aspects of the case are sufficiently intriguing to warrant wide dissemination and further study. The following notes contain detailed follow-up commentary and information directly related to that article. The Age of Nearby Stars By Jeffrey L. Kretsch The age of our own sun is known with some accuracy largely because we live on one of its planets. Examination of Earth rocks -- and, more recently, rocks and soil from the moon -- has conclusively shown that these two worlds went through their initial formation 4.6 billion years ago. The formation of the sun and planets is believed to have been virtually simultaneous, with the sun's birth producing the planetary offspring. But we have yet to travel to any other planet -- and certainly a flight to the surface of a planet of a nearby star is an event no one reading this will live to witness. So direct measurement of the ages of nearby stars -- as a by-product of extrasolar planetary exploration -- is a distant future enterprise. We are left with information obtained from our vantage point here near Earth. There is lots of it -- so let's find out what it is and what it can tell us. When we scan the myriad stars of the night sky, are we looking at suns that have just ignited their nuclear fires -- or have they been flooding the galaxy with light for billions of years? The ages of the stars are among the most elusive stellar characteristics. Now, new interpretation of data collected over the past half century is shedding some light on this question. Computer models of stellar evolution reveal that stars have definite lifespans; thus, a certain type of star cannot be older than its maximum predicted lifespan. Solar type stars of spectral class F5 or higher (hotter) cannot be older than our sun is today. These stars' nuclear fires burn too rapidly to sustain them for a longer period, and they meet an early death. All main sequence stars cooler than F5 can be as old or older than the sun. Additionally, these stars are also much more likely to have planets than the hotter suns. There are several exciting reasons why the age of a star should be tracked down. Suppose we have a star similar to the sun (below class F5). If we determine how old the star is, we can assume its planets are the same age -- a fascinating piece of information that suggests a host of questions: Would older Earthlike planets harbor life more advanced than us? Is there anything about older or younger stars and planets that would make them fundamentally different from the sun and Earth? Of course we don't know the answer to the first question, but it is provocative. The answer to the second question seems to be yes (according to the evidence that follows). To best illustrate the methods of star age determination and their implications, let's select a specific problem. "The Zeta Reticuli Incident" sparked more interest among our readers than any other single article in ASTRONOMY's history. Essentially, that article drew attention to a star map allegedly seen inside an extraterrestrial spacecraft. The map was later deciphered by Marjorie Fish, now a research assistant at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. In her analysis, Ms. Fish linked all 16 prominent stars in the original map (which we'll call the Hill map since it was drawn by Betty Hill in 1966) to 15 real stars in the southern sky. The congruence was remarkable. The 15 stars -- for convenience we will call them the Fish-Hill pattern stars -- are listed on the accompanying table. Since these stars have been a focus of attention due to Ms. Fish's work and the article mentioned above, we will examine them specifically to see if enough information is available to pin down their ages and (possibly) other characteristics. This will be our case study star group. The Fish-Hill Pattern Stars Gliese Cat. No. Alternate Name Spectral Type W - Velocity Total Space Velocity Galactic Orbit Eccentricity Galactic Orbit Incl. 17 Zeta Tucanae G2 -38 70 .1575 .0529 27 54 Piscium K0 10 45 .1475 .0260 59 HD 9540 G8 1 26 .0436 .0133 67 HD 10307 G2 0 45 .1057 .0092 68 107 Piscium K1 3 43 .1437 .0134 71 Tau Ceti G8 12 36 .2152 .0287 86 HD 13445 K0 -25 129 .3492 .0269 86.1 HD 13435 K2 -37 41 undetermined undetermined 95 HD 14412 G5 -10 33 .1545 .0025 97 Kappa Fornax G1 -13 35 .0186 .0078 111 Tau 1 Eridani F6 14 81 .0544 .0078 136 Zeta 1 Reticuli G2 15 79 .2077 .0321 138 Zeta 2 Reticuli G1 -27 127 .2075 .0340 139 82 Eridani G5 -12 37 .3602 .0310 231 Alpha Mensae G5 13 22 .1156 .0065 Sun Sol G5 0 0 .0559 .0091 All the stars listed here are main sequence or spectral group V stars. Tau Ceti has a slight peculiarity in its spectrum as explained in the text. W- velocity is the star's motion in km/sec in a direction above or below (-) in the galactic plane. Total space velocity relative to the sun is also in km/sec. Data is from the Gliese Catalog of Nearby Stars (1969 edition). Consider, for example, the velocities of these stars in space. It is now known that the composition and the age of a star shows a reasonably close correlation with that star's galactic orbit. The understanding of this correlation demands a little knowledge of galactic structure. Our galaxy, as far as we are concerned, consists essentially of two parts -- the halo, and the disk. Apparently when the galaxy first took shape about 10 billion years ago, it was a colossal sphere in which the first generation of stars emerged. These stars -- those that remain today, anyway -- define a spherical or halolike cloud around the disk shaped Milky Way galaxy. Early in the galaxy's history, it is believed that the interstellar medium had a very low metal content because most of the heavy elements (astronomers call any element heavier than helium "heavy" or a "metal") are created in the cores of massive stars which then get released into the interstellar medium by stellar winds, novae and supernovae explosions. Few such massive stars had "died" to release their newly made heavy elements. Thus, the stars which formed early (called Population II stars) tend to have a spherical distribution about the center of the galaxy and are generally metal-poor. A further gravitational collapse occurred as the galaxy flattened out into a disk, and a new burst of star formation took place. Since this occurred later and generations of stars had been born and died to enrich the interstellar medium with heavy elements, these disk stars have a metal-rich composition compared to the halo stars. Being in the disk, these Population I stars (the sun, for example) tended to have motions around the galactic core in a limited plane -- something like the planets of the solar system. Population II stars -- with their halo distribution -- usually have more random orbits which cut through the Population I hoards in the galactic plane. A star's space velocity perpendicular to the galactic plane is called its W-velocity. Knowing the significance of the W-velocity, one can apply this information to find out about the population classification and hence the ages and compositions of stars in the solar neighborhood -- the Fish-Hill stars in particular. High W-velocity suggests a Population II star, and we find that six of the 16 stars are so classified while the remaining majority are of Population I. A further subdivision can be made using the W-velocity data (the results are shown in the table below. Population Classification of the Fish-Hill Stars Old Population I (1 to 4 Billion Years Old) Gliese 59 Gliese 67 107 Piscium Older Population I (4 to 6 BillionYears Old) Tau 1 Eridani Tau Ceti Alpha Mensae Gliese 95 Kappa Fornax 54 Piscium Sun Disk Population II (6 to 8 Billion Years Old) Zeta 1 Reticuli Zeta 2 Reticuli Intermediate Population II (About 10 Billion Years Old) Zeta Tucanae Gliese 86 Gliese 86.1 82 Eridani According to this classification system (based on one by A. Blaauw), most of the 16 stars are in the same class as the sun -- implying that they are roughly of the same composition and age as the sun. The sun would seem to be a natural unit for use in comparing the chemical compositions and ages of the stars of the Fish-Hill pattern because it is, after all, the standard upon which we base our selection of stars capable of supporting life. Three stars (Gliese 59, 67 and 68) are known as Old Population I and are almost certainly younger than the sun. They also probably have a higher metal content than the sun, although specific data is not available. The Disk Population II stars are perhaps two to four billion years older than the sun, while the Intermediate Population II are believed to be a billion or two years older still. For main sequence stars like the sun, as all these stars are, it is generally believed that after the star is formed and settled on the main sequence no mixing between the outer layers and the thermo-nuclear core occurs. Thus the composition of the outer layers of a star, (from which we receive the star's light) must have essentially the same composition as the interstellar medium out of which the star and its planets were formed. Terrestrial planets are composed primarily of heavy elements. The problem is: If there is a shortage of heavy elements in the primeval nebula, would terrestrial planets be able to form? At present, theories of planetary formation are unable to state for certain what the composition of the cloud must be in order for terrestrial planets to materialize, although it is agreed to be unlikely that Population II stars should have terrestrial planets. But for objects somewhere between Population I and II -- especially Disk Population II -- no one really knows. Although we can't be certain of determining whether a star of intermediate metal deficiencies can have planets or not, we can make certain of the existence of metal deficiencies in those stars. The eccentricities and inclinations of the galactic orbits of the Fish-Hill stars provide the next step in the information sequence. The table above also shows that the stars Gliese 136, 138, 139, 86 and 71 have the highest eccentricities and inclinations in their galactic orbits. This further supports the Population II nature of these four stars. According to B.E.J. Pagel of the Royal Greenwich Observatory in England, the correlation between eccentricity and the metal/hydrogen ratio is better than that between the W-velocity and the metal/hydrogen ratio. It is interesting to see how closely the values of eccentricity seem to correspond with Population type as derived from W-velocity -- Old Population I objects having the lowest values. Since the two methods give similar results, we can lend added weight to our classification. So far all the evidence for metal deficiencies has been suggestive; no direct evidence has been given. However, specific data can be obtained from spectroscopic analysis. The system for which the best set of data exists also happens to be one of the most important stars of the pattern, Zeta 1 Reticuli. In 1966, J.D. Danziger of Harvard University published results of work he had done on Zeta 1 Reticuli using wide-scan spectroscopy. He did indeed find metal deficiencies in the star: carbon, 0.2, compared to our sun; magnesium, 0.4; calcium, 0.5; titanium, 0.4; chromium, 0.3; manganese, 0.4; iron, 0.4; cobalt, 0.4; nickel, 0.2, and so on. In spite of the possible error range of about 25 percent, there is a consistent trend of metal deficiencies -- with Zeta 1 Reticuli having less than half the heavy elements per unit mass that the sun does. Because Zeta 1 Reticuli has common proper motion and parallax with Zeta 2 Reticuli, it probably also has the same composition. Work done by M.E. Dixon of the University of Edinburgh showing the two stars to have virtually identical characteristics tends to support this. The evidence that the Zeta Reticuli system is metal deficient is definite. From this knowledge of metal deficiency and the velocities and eccentricities, we can safely conclude that the Zeta Reticuli system is older than the sun. The question of terrestrial planets being able to form remains open. The other two stars which have high velocities and eccentricities are 82 Eridani (Gliese 139) and Gliese 86. Because the velocities of these stars are higher than those of Zeta Reticuli, larger metal deficiencies might be expected. For the case of Gliese 86, no additional information is presently available. However, some theoretical work has been done on 82 Eridani concerning metal abundances by J. Hearnshaw of France's Meudon Observatory. Although 82 Eridani is a high velocity star, its orbit lies largely within the galactic plane, and also within the solar orbit. Its orbit is characteristic of the Old Disk Population, and an ultraviolet excess indicates only a mild metal deficiency compared to the sun. Hearnshaw's conclusions indicate that the metal deficiency does not appear to be any worse than that of the Zeta Reticuli pair. Because Gliese 86 has a velocity, eccentricity and inclination similar to 82 Eridani, it seems likely that its chemical composition may also not have severe metal deficiencies, but be similar to those of 82 Eridani. Tau Ceti appears to be very much like the sun except for slight deficiencies of most metals in rarely seen abnormal abundances of magnesium, titanium, silicon and calcium. Stars in this class are known as alpha-rich stars, but such properties do not appear to make Tau Ceti unlikely to have planets similar to the sun's. Tau 1 Eridani, an F6V star, has a life expectancy of 4.5 billion years -- so it cannot be older than the sun. The low eccentricities and low moderate velocity support an age and composition near that of the sun. Gliese 67 is a young star of at least solar metal abundances, considering its low velocity and eccentricity. Having covered most of the stars either directly or simply by classifying them among the different Population classes, it is apparent that there is a wide age range among different stars of this group as well as a range of compositions. It is curious that the stars connected by the alleged "trade routes" (solid lines) are the older and occasionally metal deficient ones -- while the stars connected by dotted lines seem to be younger Population I objects. A final point concerning the metal deficiencies is rather disturbing. Even though terrestrial planets might form about either star in the Zeta Reticuli system, there is a specific deficiency in carbon to well within the error range. This is disturbing because carbon is the building block of organic molecule chains. There is no way of knowing whether life on Earth would have emerged and evolved as far as it has if carbon were not as common here. Another problem: If planets formed but lacked large quantities of useful industrial elements, could a technical civilization arise? If the essential elements were scarce or locked up in chemical compounds, then an advanced technology would be required to extract them. But the very shortage of these elements in the first place might prevent this technology from being realized. The dolphins are an example of an intelligent but nontechnical race. They do not have the means to develop technology. Perhaps some land creatures on another planet are in a comparable position by not having the essential elements for technological development. (This theme is explored in detail in "What Chariots of Which Gods?", August 1974.) This whole speculation certainly is not strong enough to rule out the Fish interpretation of the Hill map given our present state of knowledge. Actually in some respects, the metal deficiencies support the Fish hypothesis because they support an advanced age for several of the stars -- suggesting that if cultures exist in these star systems, they might well be advanced over our own. The fact that none of the stars in the pattern is seriously metal deficient (especially the vital branch high velocity stars 82 Eridani and Gliese 86) is an encouragement to the Fish interpretation -- if terrestrial planets can form in the first place and give rise to technical civilizations. Once again we are confronted with evidence which seems to raise as many questions as it answers. But the search for answers to such questions certainly can only advance knowledge of our cosmic environment. Jeffrey L. Kretsch is an astronomy student at Northwestern University working under the advisement of Dr. J. Allen Hynek. For more than a year Kretsch has been actively pursuing follow-up studies to the astronomical aspects of the Fish-Hill map. More of his studies and comment s appear in In Focus. Pattern Recognition & Zeta Reticuli by Carl Sagan & Steven Soter "The Zeta Reticuli Incident" is very provocative. It claims that a map, allegedly shown on board a landed extraterrestrial spacecraft to Betty Hill in 1961, later drawn by her from memory and published in 1966, corresponds well to similar maps of the closest stars resembling the sun based on stellar positions in the 1969 Gliese Catalog of Nearby Stars. The comparison maps were made by Marjorie Fish using a three dimensional physical model and later by a group of Ohio State University students using a presumably more accurate (i.e., less subjective) computer generated projection. The argument rests on how well the maps agree and on the statistical significance of the comparison. Figure 1 [not available here] show the Hill map and the Ohio State computer map with connecting lines as given in the ASTRONOMY article. The inclusion of these lines (said to represent trade or navigation routes) to establish a resemblance between the maps is what a lawyer would call "leading the witness". We could just as well have drawn lines as in the bottom of Figure 1 to lead the other way. A less biased comparison of the two data sets, without connecting lines as in Figure 2, shows little similarity. Any residual resemblance is enhanced by there being the same number of points in each map, and can be accounted for by the manner in which these points were selected. The computer star map includes the sun and 14 stars selected from a list of the 46 nearest stars similar to the sun, derived from the Gliese catalog. It is not clear what criteria were used to select precisely these 14 stars from the list, other than the desire to find a resemblance to the Hill map. However, we can always pick and choose from a large random data set some subset that resembles a preconceived pattern. If we are free also to select the vantage point (from all possible directions for viewing the projection of a three dimensional pattern), it is a simple matter to optimize the desired resemblance. Of course such a resemblance in the case of selection from a random set is a contrivance -- an example of the statistical fallacy known as "the enumeration of favorable circumstances". The presence of such a fallacy in this case appears even more likely when we examine the original Hill drawing, published in The Interrupted Journey by John Fuller. In addition to the prominent points that Betty Hill connected by lines, her map also includes a number of apparently random dots scattered about -- evidently to represent the presence of background stars but not meant to suggest actual positions. However, three of these dots appear in the version of the Hill map used in the comparison, while the others are absent. Thus some selection was made even from the original Hill map, although not to the same extent as from the Gliese catalog. This allow even greater freedom to contrive a resemblance. Finally, we lear from The Interrupted Journey that Betty Hill first thought she saw a remarkable similarity between her UFO star map and a map of the constellation Pegasus published in the New York Times in 1965 to show the position of the quasar CTA-102. How many star maps, derived from the Gliese catalog or elsewhere, have been compared with Betty Hill's before a supposed agreement was found? If we suppress information on such comparisons we also overestimate the significance of the result. The argument on "The Zeta Reticuli Incident" demonstrates only that if we set out to find a pattern correlation between two nearly random data sets by selecting at will certain elements from each and ignoring others, we will always be successful. The argument cannot serve even to suggest a verification of the Hill story -- which in any case is well known to be riddled with internal and external contradictions, and which is amenable to interpretations which do not invoke extraterrestrial intelligence. Those of us concerned with the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence must take care to demand adequately rigorous standards of evidence. It is all too easy, as the old Chinese proverb says, for the imprisoned maiden to mistake the beating of her own heart for the hoof beats of her rescuer's horse. Steven Soter is a research associate working under the advisement of Carl Sagan, director of Cornell University's laboratory for Planetary Studies. Reply: by Terence Dickinson The question raised by Steven Soter and Carl Sagan concerning the pattern resemblance of the Hill map and the computer generated projection of the Fish pattern stars is certainly a key question worthy of discussion. Next month two authors will make specific comments on this point. Briefly, there is more to discounting the Fish interpretation than pattern resemblance. We would have discounted the Fish interpretation immediately on pattern resemblance alone. The fact that all the connecting lines join stars in a logical distance progression, and that all the stars are solar type stars, is significant. Ms. Fish tried to fit hundreds of other viewpoints and this one was the only one that even marginally fit and made sense in three dimensions and contained solar type stars. in this context, you could not "have just as well drawn the lines...to lead the other way". Naturally there was a desire to find a resemblance between a group of nearby stars and the Hill pattern! That's why Marjorie Fish built six models of the solar neighborhood containing the relative positions of up to 256 nearby stars. The fact that she came up with a pattern that fits as well as it does is a tribute to her perseverance and the accuracy of the models. Stars cannot be moved around "to optimize the desired resemblance". Indeed Marjorie Fish first tried models using nearby stars of other than strictly solar type as defined in the article. She found no resemblances. The three triangle dots selected from the background dots in the Hill map were selected because Mrs. Hill said they were more prominent than the other background stars. Such testimony was the basis of the original map so we either accept Mrs. Hill's observations and attempt to analyze them or reject the whole incident. We feel there is sufficient evidence compelling us not to reject the whole incident at this time. We too are demanding rigorous standards of evidence to establish the reality of extraterrestrial intelligence. If there is even the slightest possibility that the Hills' encounter can provide information about such life, we feel it is worth pursuing. The map is worthy of examination by as many critical minds as possible. Reply: by David R. Saunders Last month, Steven Soter and Carl Sagan offered two counterarguments relating to Terence Dickinson's article, "The Zeta Reticuli Incident" (ASTRONOMY, December 1974). Their first argument was to observe that the inclusion of connecting lines in certain maps "is what a lawyer would call 'leading the witness'." This was used as the minor premise in a syllogism for which the major premise was never stated. Whether we should consider "leading the witness" a sin or not will depend on how we conceive the purpose of the original article. The implied analogy between ASTRONOMYmagazine and a court of law is tenuous at best; an expository article written for a nonprofessional audience is entitled, in my opinion, to do all it can to facilitate communication -- assuming that the underlying message is honest. Much of what we call formal education is really little more than "leading the witness", and no one who accepts the educational goals objects very strongly to this process. In this context, we may also observe that Soter's and Sagan's first argument provides another illustrative example of "leading the witness"; the argument attacks procedure, not substance -- and serves only to blunt the reader's possible criticism of the forthcoming second argument. This paragraph may also be construed as an effort to lead the witness. Once we have been sensitized to the possibilities, none of us needs to be further misled! The second argument offered by Soter and Sagan does attack a substance. Indeed, the editorial decision to publish the original article was a responsible decision only if the issues raised by this second line of possible argument were fully considered. Whenever a statistical inference is made from selected data, it is crucial to determine the strenuousness of that selection and then to appropriately discount the apparent clarity of the inference. By raising the issue of the possible effects of selection, Soter and Sagan are right on target. However, by failing to treat the matter with quantitative objectivity ( by failing to weigh the evidence in each direction numerically, for example), they might easily perform a net disservice. In some situations, the weight of the appropriate discount will suffice to cancel the clarity of a proposed inference -- and we will properly dismiss the proposal as a mere capitalization on chance, or a lucky outcome. (It is abundantly clear that Soter and Sagan regard the star map results as just such a fortuitous outcome.) In some other situations, the weight of the appropriate discount may be fully applied without accounting for the clarity of the inference as a potentially valid discovery. For example, if I proposed to infer from four consecutive coin tosses observed as heads that the coin would always yield heads, you would properly dismiss this proposal as unwarranted by the data. However, if I proposed exactly the same inference based on 40 similar consecutive observations of heads, you would almost certainly accept the inference and begin looking with me for a more systematic explanation of the data. The crucial difference here is the purely quantitative distinction between 4 and 40; the two situations are otherwise identical and cannot be distinguished by any purely qualitative argument. When Soter and Sagan use phrases such as "some subset that resembles", "free also to select the vantage point", "simple matter to optimize", and "freedom to contrive a resemblance", they are speaking qualitatively about matters that should (and can) be treated quantitatively. Being based only on this level of argument, Soter's and Sagan's conclusions can only be regarded as inconclusive. A complete quantitative examination of this problem will require the numerical estimation of at least three factors, and their expression in a uniform metric so that wee can see which way the weight of the evidence is leaning. The most convenient common metric will be that of "bits of information", which is equivalent to counting consecutive heads in the previous example. One key factor is the degree of resemblance between the Hill map and the optimally similar computer-drawn map. Precisely how many consecutive heads is this resemblance equivalent to? A second key factor is the precise size of the population of stars from which the computer was allowed to make its selection. And a third key factor is the precise dimensionality of the space in which the computer was free to choose the best vantage point. If the first factor exceeds the sum of the other two by a sufficient margin, we are justified in insisting on a systematic explanation for the data. The third factor is the easiest to deal with. The dimensionality of the vantage-point space is not more than three. A property of the metric system for weighing evidence is that each independent dimension of freedom leads us to expect the equivalent of one more consecutive head in the observed data. Three dimensions of freedom are worth exactly 3.0 bits. In the end, even three bits will be seen as relatively minor. The second factor might be much larger than this, and deserve relatively more discussion. The appropriate discount for this selection will be log2C, where C is the number of distinct combinations of stars "available" to the computer. If we were to agree that C must represent the possible combinations of 46 stars taken 14 at a time, then log2C would be 37.8 bits; this would be far more than enough to kill the proposed inference. However, not all these combinations are equally plausible. We really should consider only combinations that are adjacent to one another and to the sun, but it is awkward to try to specify exactly which combinations these are. The really exciting moment in working with these data came with the realization that in the real universe, our sun belongs to a closed cluster together with just six of the other admissible stars -- Tau Ceti, 82 Eridani, Zeta Tucanae, Alpha Mensae, and Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli. The real configuration of interstellar distances is such that an explorer starting from any of the seven should visit all of them before venturing outside. If the Hill map is assumed to include the sun, then it should include the other members of this cluster within an unbroken network of connections, and the other connected stars should be relatively adjacent in the real universe. Zeta Reticuli occupies a central position in all of the relatively few combinations that now remain plausible. However, in my opinion, the adjacency criteria do leave some remnant ambiguity concerning the combination of real stars to be matched against the Hill map -- but only with respect to the region farthest from the sun. The stars in the closed cluster and those in the chain leading to Gliese 67 must be included, as well as Gliese 86 and two others from a set of five candidates. Log2C for this remnant selection is 3.9 bits. we must also notice that the constraint that Zeta Tucanae be occulted by Zeta Reticuli reduces the dimensionality of the vantage-point space from 3.0 to 1.0. Thus, the sum of factors two and three is now estimated as only 4.9 bits. The first factor is also awkward to evaluate -- simply because there is no standard statistical technique for comparing points on two maps. Using an approximation based on rank-order correlation, I've guessed that the number we seek here is between 11 and 16. (This is the result cited by Dickinson on page 15 of the original article.) Deducting the second and third factors, this rough analysis leaves us with an empirical result whose net meaning is equivalent to observing at least 6 to 11 consecutive heads. (I say "at least", because there are other factors contributing to the total picture -- not discussed either by Dickinson or by Soter and Sagan -- that could be adduced to enhance this figure. For example, the computed vantage point is in good agreement with Betty Hill's reported position when observing the map, and the coordinate system implicit in the boundaries of the map is in good agreement with a natural galactic coordinate system. Neither have we discussed any quantitative use of the connections drawn on the Hill map, which were put there in advance of any of these analyses.) In the final interpretation, it will always be possible to argue that 5 or 10 or even 15 bits of remarkable information simply isn't enough. However, this is a matter for each of us to decide independently. In deciding this matter, it is more important that we be consistent with ourselves (as we review a large number of uncertain interpretations of data that we have made) than that we be in agreement with some external authority. I do believe, though, that relatively few individuals will continue a coin-tossing match in which their total experience is equivalent to even six consecutive losses. In scientific matters, my own standard is that I'm interested in any result that has five or more bits of information supporting it -- though I prefer not to stick my neck out publicly on the basis of less than 10. Adhering to this standard, I continue to find the star map results exceedingly interesting. Dr. David R. Saunders is a Research Associate at the University of Chicago's Industrial Relations Center. Reply: by Michael Peck Carl Sagan and Steven Soter, in challenging the possibilities discussed in "The Zeta Reticuli Incident", suggest that without the connecting lines drawn into the Hill map and the Fish interpretation there is little resemblance between the two. This statement can be tested using only X and Y coordinates of the points in the Hill map and a projection of the stars in the Fish pattern. The method used for the comparison can be visualized this way: Suppose points of the Hill map and the Fish map are plotted on separate glass plates. These plates are held parallel (one behind the other), and are moved back and forth and rotated until the patterns appear as nearly as possible to match. A systematic way of comparing the patterns would be to adjust the plates until corresponding pairs of points match exactly. Then the other points in the patterns can be compared. Repeating this process for all the possible pairs of points (there are 105 in this case), the best fit can be found. Mathematically, this involves a change of scale and a simple coordinate transformation. A computer program was written which, using X and Y coordinates measured from a copy of the Hill map and a projection of the Fish stars, and using the Hill map as the standard, computed new X and Y coordinates for the Fish stars using the process described. >From these two sets of coordinates, six quantities were calculated: the average difference in X and Y; the standard deviation of the differences in X and Y, a measure of the amount of variation of the differences; and correlation coefficients in X and Y. The coefficient of correlation is a quantity used by statisticians to test a suspected relation between two sets of data. In this case, for instance, we suspect that the X and Y coordinates computed from the Fish map should equal the X and Y coordinates of the Hill map. If they matched exactly, the correlation coefficients would be one. If there were no correlation at all, the value would be near zero. We found that, for the best fitting orientation of the Fish stars, there was a correlation coefficient in X of 0.95 and in Y of 0.91. In addition, the average difference and the standard deviation of the differences were both small -- about 1/10 the total range in X and Y. As a comparison, the same program was run for a set of random points, with resulting correlation coefficients of 1/10 or less (as was expected). We can conclude, therefore, that the degree of resemblance between the two maps is fairly high. From another point of view, it is possible to compute the probability that a random set of points will coincide with the Hill map to the degree of accuracy observed here. The probability that 15 points chosen at random will fall on the points of the Hill map within an error range which would make them as close as the Fish map is about one chance in 10 to the fifteenth power (one million billion). It is 1,000 times more probable that a person could predict a bridge hand dealt from a fair deck. Michael Peck is an astronomy student at Northwestern University in Illinois. Rebuttal: To David Saunders and Michael Peck by Carl Sagan and Steven Soter Dr. David Saunders last month claimed to have demonstrated the statistical significance of the Hill map, which was allegedly found on board a landed UFO and supposedly depicted the sun and 14 nearby sunlike stars. The Hill map was said to resemble the Fish map -- the latter being an optimal two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional model prepared by selecting 14 stars from a positional list of the 46 nearest known sunlike stars. Saunders' argument can be expressed by the equation SS = Dr -(SF + VP), in which all quantities are in information bits. SS is the statistical significance of the correlation between the two maps, DR is the degree of resemblance between them, SF is a selection factor depending on the number of stars chosen and the size of the list, and VP is the information content provided by a free choice in three dimensions of the vantage point for projecting the map. Saunders finds SS = 6 to 11 bits, meaning that the correlation is equivalent to between 6 and 11 consecutive heads in a coin toss and therefore probably not accidental. The procedure is acceptable in principle, but the result depends entirely on how the quantities on the right-hand side of the equation were chosen. For the degree of resemblance between the two maps, Saunders claims that DR = 11 to 16 bits, which he admits is only a guess -- but we will let it stand. For the selection factor, he at first takes SF = log2C = 37.8 bits, where C represents the combinations of 46 things taken 14 at a time. Realizing that the size of this factor alone will cause SS to be negative and wipe out his argument, he makes a number of ad hoc adjustments based essentially on his interpretation of the internal logic of the Hill map, and SF somehow gets reduced to only 3.9 bits. For the present, we will let even that stand in order to avoid becoming embroiled in a discussion of how an explorer from the star Zeta Reticuli would choose to arrange his/her/its travel itinerary -- a matter about which we can claim no particular knowledge. However, we must bear in mind that a truly unprejudiced examination of the data with no a priori interpretations would give SF = 37.8 bits. It is Saunders' choice of the vantage point factor VP with which we must take strongest issue, for this is a matter of geometry and simple pattern recognition. Saunders assumes that free choice of the vantage point for viewing a three-dimensional model of 15 stars is worth only VP = 3 bits. He then reduces the information content of directionality to one bit by introducing the "constraint" that the star Zeta Tucanae be occulted by Zeta Reticuli (with no special notation on the Hill map to mark this peculiarity). This ad hoc device is invoked to explain the absence of Zeta Tucanae from the Hill map, but it reveals the circular reasoning involved. After all, why bother to calculate the statistical significance of the supposed map correlation if one has already decided which points represent which stars? Certainly the selection of vantage point is worth more than three bits (not to mention one bit). Probably the easiest circumstance to recognize and remember about random projections of the model in question are the cases in which two stars appear to be immediately adjacent. By viewing the model from all possible directions, there are 14 distinct ways in which any given star can be seen in projection as adjacent to some other star. This can be done for each of the 15 stars, giving 210 projected configurations -- each of which would be recognized as substantially different from the others in information content. And of course there are many additional distinct recognizable projections of the 15 stars not involving any two being immediately adjacent. (For example, three stars nearly equidistant in a straight line are easily recognized, as in Orion's belt.) Thus for a very conservative lower bound, the information content determined by choice of vantage point (that is, by being allowed to rotate the model about three axes) can be taken as at least equal to VP = log2(210) = 7.7 bits. Using the rest of Saunders' analysis, this would at best yield SS = zero to 4.4 bits -- not a very impressive correlation. There is another way to understand the large number of bits involved in the choice of the vantage point. The stars in question are separated by distances of order 10 parsecs. If the vantage point is situated above or not too far from the 15 stars, it need only be shifted by about 0.17 parsecs to cause a change of one degree in the angle subtended by some pair of stars. Now one degree is a very modest resolution, corresponding to twice the full moon and is easily detected by anyone. For three degrees of freedom, the number of vantage points corresponding to this resolution is of order (10/0.17) cubed ~ (60) cubed ~ 2 X 10 to the fifth power, corresponding to VP = 17.6 bits. This factor alone is sufficient to make SS negative, and to wipe out any validity to the supposed correlation. Even if we were to accept Saunders' claim that SS = 6 to 11 bits (which we obviously do not, particularly in view of the proper value for SF), it is not at all clear that this would be statistically significant because we are not told how many other possible correlations were tried and failed before the Fish map was devised. For comparison, there is the well-known correlation between the incidence of Andean earthquakes and oppositions of the planet Uranus. It is unlikely in the extreme that there is a physical causal mechanism operating here -- among other reasons, because there is no correlation with oppositions of Jupiter, Saturn or Neptune. But to have found such a correlation the investigator must have sought a wide variety of correlations of seismic events in many parts of the world with oppositions and conjunctions of many astronomical objects. If enough correlations are sought, statistics requires that eventually one will be found, valid to any level of significance that we wish. Before we can determine whether a claimed correlation implies a causal connection, we must convince ourselves that the number of correlations sought has not been so large as to make the claimed correlation meaningless. This point can be further illustrated by Saunders' example of flipping coins. Suppose we flip a coin once per second for several hours. Now let us consider three cases: two heads in a row, 10 heads in a row, and 40 heads in a row. We would, of course, think there is nothing extraordinary about the first case. Only four attempts at flipping two coins are required to have a reasonable expectation value of two heads in a row. Ten heads in a row, however, will occur only once in every 2 to the tenth power = 1,024 trials, and 40 heads in a row will occur only once every 2 to the fortieth ~ 10 to the twelfth power trials. At a flip rate of one coin per second, a toss of 10 coins requires 10 seconds; 1,024 trials of 10 coins each requires just under three hours. But 40 heads in a row at the same rate requires 4 X 10 to the thirteenth power seconds or a little over a million years. A run of 40 consecutive heads in a few hours of coin tossing would certainly be strong prima facie evidence of the ability to control the fall of the coin. Ten heads in a row under the circumstances we have described would provide no convincing evidence at all. It is expected by the law of probability. The Hill map correlation is at best claimed by Saunders to be in the category of 10 heads in a row, but with no clear statement as to the number of unsuccessful trials previously attempted. Michael Peck finds a high degree of correlation between the Hill map and the Fish map, and thereby also misses the central point of our original criticism: that the stars in the Fish map were already preselected in order to maximize that very correlation. Peck finds one chance in 10 to the fifteenth power that 15 random points will correlate with the Fish map as well as the Hill map does. However, had he selected 15 out of a random sample of, say, 46 points in space, and had he simultaneously selected the optimal vantage point in three dimensions in order to maximize the resemblance, he could have achieved an apparent correlation comparable to that which he claims between the Hill and Fish maps. Indeed, the statistical fallacy involved in "the enumeration of favorable circumstances" leads necessarily to large, but spurious correlations. We again conclude that the Zeta Reticuli argument and the entire Hill story do not survive critical scrutiny. Dr. Steven Soter is a research associate in astronomy and Dr. Carl Sagan is director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies, both at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. Is the Fish Interpretation Unique? by Robert Sheaffer The story of Marjorie Fish's attempts at identifying the star patterns sketched by Betty Hill was told in "The Zeta Reticuli Incident" by Terence Dickinson in the December 1974 issue. This pattern of solar type stars unquestionably bears a striking resemblance to the map that Betty Hill says she saw while she was being examined aboard a flying saucer. But how significant is this resemblance? Is there only one pattern of stars which will match the sketch convincingly? Betty Hill herself discovered an impressive resemblance in a star map published in the New York Times. In 1965 a map of the stars of the constellation Pegasus appeared in that newspaper, accompanying the announcement by a Russian radio astronomer (Comrade Sholomitsky) the radio source CTA-102, depicted in the map, may be sending out intelligent radio signals. Intrigued by this remarkable claim, Betty Hill studied the map, and added the corresponding star names to her sketch. As you can see, the Pegasus map -- while not exactly like the sketch -- is impressively similar. If CTA-102 -- appearing near the "globes" in her sketch -- was in reality an artificial radio source, that would give the Pegasus map much additional credibility. However, the case for the artificial origin of quasar CTA- 102 soon fell flat. Other scientists were unable to observe these reported strange variations which had caused Sholomitsky to suggest that CTA-102 might be pulsing intelligently. In 1966, when Marjorie Fish was just beginning her work, Charles W. Atterberg (employed by an aeronautical communications firm in Illinois) also set out to attempt to identify this star pattern. "I began my search by perusing a star atlas I had on hand," Atterberg explained. "I soon realized that this was a pointless and futile project." Any star pattern useful for interstellar navigation, he reasoned, would not be Earth-centered as are the familiar constellation figures. Thus Atterberg began to look in three dimensions for a pattern of stars that would approximate the Hill sketch. Working from a list of the nearest stars, Atterberg "began plotting these stars as they would be seen from various directions. I did this by drawing the celestial position of a star, I would draw a straight line penetrating the sphere at a known position, and measure out to the distance of the star...It at first took me hours to plot this out from any one particular direction." When plotting the stars as seen from a position indefinitely far away on the celestial equator at 17 hours right ascension, Atterberg found a pattern of stars conspicuously similar to the Hill sketch. After much work he refined this position to 17 hours 30 minutes right ascension, -10 degrees declination. The resulting map resembles the Hill sketch even more strongly than does the Fish map, and it contains a greater number of stars. Furthermore, all of the stars depicted in the Atterberg map lie within 18.2 light-years of the sun. The Fish map reaches out 53 light-years, where our knowledge of stellar distances is much less certain. Carl Sagan states in Intelligent Life in the Universe that, excluding multiple star systems, "the three nearest stars of potential biological interest are Epsilon Eridani, Epsilon Indi and Tau Ceti." These three stars from the heart of the Atterberg map, defining the two spheres in the very center of the heavy lines that supposedly represent the major "trade routes" of the "UFOnauts". Epsilon Eridani and Tau Ceti were the two stars listened to by Project Ozma, the pioneering radio search for intelligent civilization in space. Other heavy lines connect the spheres with the sun, which we know has at least one habitable planet. Thinner lines, supposedly representing places visited less frequently, connect with Groombridge 1618, Groombridge 34, 61 Cygni and Sigma Draconis, which are designated as stars "that could have habitable planets" in Stephen H. Dole's Rand Corporation study, Habitable Planets for Man. Of the 11 stars (not counting the sun) that have allegedly been visited by the aliens, seven of them appear on Dole's list. Three of the four stars which are not included are stopping points on the trip to Sigma Draconis, which Dole considered to have even better prospects than Epsilon Eridani or Epsilon Indi for harboring a habitable planet. Another remarkable aspect of the Atterberg map is the fact that its orientation, unlike the Fish map, is not purely arbitrary. Gould's belt -- a concentration of the sky's brightest stars -- is exactly perpendicular to the plane of the Atterberg map. Furthermore, it is vertical in orientation; it does not cut obliquely across the map, but runs exactly up and down. A third curious coincidence: The southpole of the Atterberg map points toward the brightest part of Gould's belt, in the constellation Carina. The bright stars comprising Gould's belt might well serve as a useful reference frame for interstellar travelers, and it is quite plausible that they might base a navigational coordinate system upon it. No other map interpreting the Hill sketch offers any rationale for its choice of perspectives. The problem with trying to interpret Betty Hill's sketch is that it simply fits too many star patterns. Three such patterns have been documented to date. How many more exist undiscovered? Robert Sheaffer is a computer systems programmer currently working at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. Reply: by Marjorie Fish Basically, Robert Sheaffer's contention is that at least three patterns can be found that are similar to Betty Hill's map, and therefore, more such interpretations are likely. If one stipulates that any stars from any vantage point can be used, then I agree that many patterns can be found similar to the map. However, if one uses restrictions on the type of stars, according to their probability of having planets and also on the logic of the apparent travel paths, then it is much more difficult. The three maps were: (1) Betty Hill's interpretation of the constellation Pegasus as being similar to her map, (2) Charles Atterberg's work, and (3) my work. When I started the search, I made a number of restrictions including: The sun had to be part of the pattern with a line connected to it, since the leader of the aliens indicated this to Betty. Since they came to our solar system, they should also be interested in solar type stars (single main sequence G, probably also late single main sequence F and early single main sequence K). These stars should not be bypassed if they are in the same general volume of space. Since there are a number of the above stars relatively near the sun and the pattern shows only 12 stars, the pattern would have to be relatively close to us (or else they would be bypassing sunlike stars, which is illogical). The travel pattern itself should be logical. That is, they would not zip out 300 light-years, back to 10 light-years, then out 1,000, etc. The moves should make a logical progression. Large young main sequence stars (O, B, A, early F) which are unlikely to have planets and/or life would not be likely to be visited. Stars off the main sequence with the possible exception of those just starting off the main sequence would probably be avoided as they are unsuitable for life and, due to their variability, could be dangerous. If they go to one star of a given type, it shows interest in that type star -- so they should go to other stars of that type if they are in the same volume of space. An exception to this might be the closest stars to the base star, which they might investigate out of curiosity in the early stages of stellar travel. For example, they would not be likely to bypass five red dwarfs to stop at the sixth, if all six were approximately equal in size, spectra, singleness or multiplicity, etc. Or, if they go to one close G double, they would probably go to other close G doubles. The base star or stars is one or both of the large circles with the lines radiating from it. One or both of the base stars should be suitable for life -- F8 to K5 using the lowest limits given by exobiologists, or more likely, K1 given by Dole. Because the base stars are represented as such large circles, they are either intrinsically bigger or brighter than the rest or they are closer to the map's surface (the viewer) than the rest -- probably the latter. This was later confirmed by Betty Hill. Mrs. Hill's interpretation of Pegasus disregards all of these criteria. Atterberg's work is well done. His positioning of the stars is accurate. He complies with criteria 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8; fairly well with 4; less well with 9, and breaks down on 7 and 10. I will discuss the last three of Atterberg's differences with my basic criteria in the following paragraphs: Relative to point 9, his base stars are Epsilon Indi and Epsilon Eridani, both of which are near the lower limit for life bearing planets -- according to most exobiologists -- and not nearly as suitable as Zeta 1 and 2 Reticuli. Concerning point 7, I had ruled out the red dwarfs fairly early because there were so many of them and there were only 12 lined points on the Hill map. If one used red dwarfs in logical consecutive order, all the lines were used up before the sun was reached. Atterberg used red dwarfs for some of his points to make the map resemble Betty Hill's but he bypassed equally good similar red dwarfs to reach them. If they were interested in red dwarfs, there should have been lines going to Gliese 65 (Luyten 76208) which lies near Tau Ceti and about the same distance from Epsilon Eridani as Tau Ceti, and Gliese 866 (Luyten 789-6) which is closer to Tau Ceti than the sun. Gliese 1 (CD-37 15492) and Gliese 887 (CD-36 15693) are relatively close to Epsilon Indi. These should have been explored first before red dwarfs farther away. Red dwarfs Gliese 406 (Wolf 359) and Gliese 411 (BD + 36 2147) were by passed to reach Groombridge 1618 and Ross 128 from the sun. Barnard's star would be the most logical first stop out from the sun, if one were to stop at red dwarfs, as it is the closest single M and is known to have planets. Since Atterberg's pattern stars include a number of relatively close doubles (61 Cygni, Struve 2398, Groombridge 34 and Kruger 60), there should also be a line to Alpha Centauri -- but there is not. Relating to point 10, Atterberg's base stars are not the largest or brightest of his pattern stars. The sun, Tau Ceti, and Sigma Draconis are brighter. Nor are they closer to the viewer. The sun and 61 Cygni are much closer to the viewer than Epsilon Eridani. The whole orientation feels wrong because the base stars are away from the viewer and movement is along the lines toward the viewer. (Betty Hill told me that she tried to show the size and depth of the stars by the relative size of the circles she drew. This and the fact that the map was alleged to be 3-D did not come out in Interrupted Journey, so Atterberg would not have known that.) Sheaffer notes that seven of Atterberg's pattern stars appear on Dole's list as stars that could have habitable planets. These stars are Groombridge 1618 (Gliese 380, BD + 50 1725), Groombridge 34 (Gliese 15,BD +43 44), 61 Cygni, Sigma Draconis, Tau Ceti, Epsilon Eridani and Epsilon Indi. Of these seven, only Epsilon Eridani, Tau Ceti and Sigma Draconis are above Doles' absolute magnitude minimum. The others are listed in a table in his book Habitable Planets for Man, but with the designation: "Probability of habitable planet very small; less than 0.001." Epsilon Eridani was discussed earlier. Sigma Draconis appears good but is listed as a probable variable in Dorrit Hoffleit's Catalogue of Bright Stars. Variability great enough to be noticed from Earth at Sigma Draconis' distance would cause problems for life on its planets. This leaves Tau Ceti which is one of my pattern stars also. Another point Sheaffer made was that orientation of my map was arbitrary compared to Atterberg's map's orientation with Gould's belt. One of my first questions to Betty Hill was, "Did any bright band or concentration of stars show?" This would establish the galactic plane and the map's orientation, as well as indicate it was not just a local map. But there was none indicating that if the map was valid it was probably just a local one. The plane of the face of my model map is not random, as Sheaffer indicated. It has intrinsic value for the viewer since many of the pattern stars form a plane at this viewing angle. The value to the viewer is that these stars have their widest viewing separation at that angle, and their relative distances are much more easily comprehended. My final interpretation of the map was the only one I could find where all the restrictions outlined above were met. The fact that only stars most suitable for Earthlike planets remained and filled the pattern seems significant. Marjorie Fish is a research assistant at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Zeta Reticuli -- A Rare System by Jeffrey L. Kretsch Zeta Reticuli is a unique system in the solar neighborhood -- a wide physically associated pair of stars almost exactly like the sun. After searching through a list of stars selected from the Gliese catalog on the basis of life criteria, only one other pair within a separation of even 0.3 light-years could be found. (This pair -- Gliese 201 and Gliese 202, a K5e and F8Ve pair separated by 0.15 light-years -- is currently being investigated.) Zeta Reticuli is indeed a rare case. Based on the Fish interpretation of the Hill map, the Zeta Reticuli pair forms the base of the pattern. If the other stars in the patter fit, it is a remarkable association with a rare star system. In order to deal with this problem, I decided to computer the three-dimensional positions of the stars and construct a three-dimensional model showing these stars positions. Speaking quantitatively, I discovered the two patterns are certainly not an exact match. However, if one considers the question of match from the standpoint of how the Hill pattern was made as opposed to the derived pattern's means of reproduction, the quantitative data may not be a complete means of determining whether the two patterns "match" or not. For example, the Hill pattern was drawn freehand -- so one would have to determine how much allowance one must give for differences in quantitative data. In such areas, I am not qualified to give an opinion. However, because the map was drawn freehand from memory, the fact that the resemblance between the Fish map and the Hill map is a striking one should be considered. In my work I was able to verify the findings of Marjorie Fish in terms of the astronomy used. Jeffrey L. Kretsch is an astronomy student at Northwestern University. Official Comments NICAP Home scambrig selfabeami The Anti-Trust Case Against Microsoft Since 1990, a battle has raged in United States courts between the United States government and the Microsoft Corporation out of Redmond, Washington, headed by Bill Gates. What is at stake is money. The federal government maintains that Microsoft�s monopolistic practices are harmful to United States citizens, creating higher prices and potentially downgrading software quality, and should therefore be stopped, while Microsoft and its supporters claim that they are not breaking any laws, and are just doing good business. Microsoft�s antitrust problems began for them in the early months of 1990(Check 1), when the Federal Trade Commission began investigating them for possible violations of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts,(Maldoom 1) which are designed to stop the formation of monopolies. The investigation continued on for the next three years without resolve, until Novell, maker of DR-DOS, a competitor of Microsoft�s MS-DOS, filed a complaint with the Competition Directorate of the European Commission in June of 1993. (Maldoom 1) Doing this stalled the investigations even more, until finally in August of 1993, (Check 1)the Federal Trade Commission decided to hand the case over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice moved quickly, with Anne K. Bingaman, head of the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, leading the way.(Check 1) The case was finally ended on July 15, 1994, with Microsoft signing a consent settlement.(Check 1) The settlement focused on Microsoft�s selling practices with computer manufacturers. Up until now, Microsoft would sell MS-DOS and Microsoft�s other operating systems to original equipment manufacturers (OEM�s) at a 60% discount if that OEM agreed to pay a royalty to Microsoft for every single computer that they sold (Check 2) regardless if it had a Microsoft operating system installed on it or not. After the settlement, Microsoft would be forced to sell their operating systems according to the number of computers shipped with a Microsoft operating system installed, and not for computers that ran other operating systems. (Check 2) Another practice that the Justice Department accused Microsoft of was that Microsoft would specify a minimum number of minimum number of operating systems that the retailer had to buy, thus eliminating any chance for another operating system vendor to get their system installed until the retailer had installed all of the Microsoft operating systems that it had installed.(Maldoom 2) In addition to specifying a minimum number of operating systems that a vendor had to buy, Microsoft also would sign contracts with the vendors for long periods of time such as two or three years. In order for a new operating system to gain popularity, it would have to do so quickly, in order to show potential buyers that it was worth something. With Microsoft signing long term contracts, they eliminated the chance for a new operating system to gain the popularity needed, quickly.(Maldoom 2) Probably the second most controversial issue, besides the per processor agreement, was Microsoft�s practice of tying. Tying was a practice in which Microsoft would use their leverage in one market area, such as graphical user interfaces, to gain leverage in another market, such as operating systems, where they may have competition.(Maldoom 2) In the preceding example, Microsoft would use their graphical user interface, Windows, to sell their operating system, DOS, by offering discounts to manufacturers that purchased both MS-DOS and Windows, and threatening to not sell Windows to companies who did not also purchase DOS. In the end, Microsoft decided to suck it up and sign the settlement agreement. In signing the agreement, Microsoft did not actually have to admit to any of the alleged charges, but were able to escape any type of formal punishment such as fines and the like. The settlement that Microsoft agreed to prohibits it, for the next six and a half years from: * Charging for its operating system on the basis of computer shipped rather than on copies of MS-DOS shipped; * Imposing minimum quantity commitments on manufacturers; * Signing contracts for greater than one year; * Tying the sale of MS_DOS to the sale of other Microsoft products;(Maldoom 1) Although these penalties look to put an end to all of Microsoft�s evil practices, some people think that they are not harsh enough and that Microsoft should have been split up to put a stop to any chance of them forming a true monopoly of the operating system market and of the entire software market. On one side of the issue, there are the people who feel that Microsoft should be left alone, at least for the time being. I am one of these people, feeling that Microsoft does more good than bad, thus not necessitating their breakup. I feel this way for many reasons, and until Microsoft does something terribly wrong or illegal, my opinion will stay this way. First and foremost, Microsoft sets standards for the rest of the industry to follow. Jesse Berst, editorial director of Windows Watcher newsletter out of Redmond, Washington, and the executive director of the Windows Solutions Conference, says it best with this statement: "To use a railroad analogy, Microsoft builds the tracks on which the rest of the industry ships its products." ("Why Microsoft (Mostly) Shouldn�t Be Stopped." 4) With Microsoft creating the standards for the rest of the computer industry, they are able to create better standards and build them much faster than if an outside organization or committee were to create them. With these standards set, other companies are able to create their applications and other products that much faster, and better, and thus the customers receive that much better of a product. Take for instance the current effort to develop the Digital Video Disc (DVD) standard. DVD�s are compact discs that are capable of storing 4900 megabytes of information as apposed to the 650 megabytes that can be stored on a CD-ROM disc now. For this reason, DVD�s have enormous possibilities in both the computer industry and in the movie industry. For about the last year, companies such as Sony, Mitsubishi, and other prominent electronics manufacturers have been trying to decide on a set of standards for the DVD format. Unfortunately, these standards meetings have gone nowhere, and subsequently, many of the companies have broken off in different directions, trying to develop their own standards. In the end, there won�t be one, definite standard, but instead, many standards, all of which are very different from one another. Consumers will be forced to make a decision on which standard to choose, and if they pick the wrong one, they could be stuck down the road with a DVD player that is worthless. Had only one company set the standards, much like Microsoft has in the software business, there wouldn�t be the confusion that arose, and the consumers could sit back and relax, knowing that the DVD format is secure and won�t be changed. Another conclusion that many anti-Microsoft people and other people around the world jump to is that the moment that we have a company, such as Microsoft, who is very successful, they immediately think that there must be something wrong; they have to be doing something illegal or immoral to have become this immense. This is not the case. Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft has not gained its enormous popularity through monopolistic and illegal measures, but instead through superior products. I feel that people do have brains, and therefore have the capacity to make rational decisions based on what they think is right. If people didn�t like the Microsoft operating systems, there are about a hundred other choices for operating systems, all of which have the ability to replace Microsoft if the people wanted them. But they don�t, the people for the most part want Microsoft operating systems. For this reason, I don� t take the excuse that Microsoft has gained their popularity through illegal measures. They simply created products that the people liked, and the people bought them. On the other side of the issue, are the people who believe that Microsoft is indeed operating in a monopolistic manner and therefore, the government should intervene and split Microsoft up. Those who are under the assumption that Microsoft should indeed be split up, believe that they should either be split into two separate companies: one dealing with operating systems and the other dealing strictly with applications. The other group believes that the government should further split Microsoft up into three divisions: one company to create operating systems, one company to create office applications, and one company to create applications for the home. All of these people agree that Microsoft should be split up, anyway possible. The first thing that proponents of Microsoft being split up argue that although Microsoft has created all kinds of standards for the computer software industry, in today�s world, we don�t necessarily need standards. Competing technologies can coexist in today�s society, without the need for standards set by an external body or by a lone company such as Microsoft. A good analogy for this position is given in the paper, "A Case Against Microsoft: Myth Number 4." In this article, the author states that people who think that we need such standards, give the example of the home video cassette industry of the late 1970�s. He says that these people point out that in the battle between the VHS and Beta video formats, VHS won not because it was a superior product, but because it was more successfully marketed. He then goes to point out that buying an operating system for a computer is nothing at all like purchasing a VCR, because the operating system of a computer defines that computer�s personality, whereas a VCR�s only function is to play movies, and both VHS and Beta do the job equally. Also, with the development of camcorders, there have been the introduction of many new formats for video tapes that are all being used at once. VHS-C, S-VHS and 8mm formats all are coexisting together in the camcorder market, showing that maybe in our society today, we are not in need of one standard. Maybe we can get along just as well with more than one standard. Along the same lines, there are quite a few other industries that can get along without one standard. Take for instance the automobile industry. If you accepted the idea that one standard was best for everyone involved, then you would never be tempted to purchase a BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, Saab or Porsche automobile, due to the fact that these cars all have less than one percent market share in the automobile industry and therefore will never be standards. Probably the biggest proponent of government intervention into the Microsoft issue is Netscape Communications, based out of Mountain View, California. Netscape has filed law suits accusing Microsoft of tying again.("Netscape�s Complaint against MicroSoft." 2) This time, Microsoft is bundling their world wide web browser, Internet Explorer 3.0 into their operating system, Windows 95. Netscape is the maker of Netscape Navigator, currently the most widely used internet browser on the market, and now, facing some fierce competition from Microsoft�s Internet Explorer. Netscape says that in addition to bundling the browser, Microsoft was offering Windows at a discount to original equipment manufacturers (OEM� s),("Netscape�s Complaint against MicroSoft." 2) to feature Internet Explorer on the desktop of the computers that they shipped, thus eliminating any competition for space on the desktop by rival companies such as Netscape. If the OEM wants to give the consumer a fair and even choice of browsers by placing competitors� browser icons in a comparable place on the desktop, Netscape has been informed that the OEM must pay $3 more for Windows 95 than an OEM that takes the Windows bundle as is and agrees to make the competitors� browsers far less accessible and useful to customers.("Netscape�s Complaint against MicroSoft." 2) Another accusation that Netscape is making against Microsoft is that they are doing the same type of things with the large internet service providers of the nation. They are offering the large internet providers of the nation, such as Netcom and AT&T, space on the Windows 95 desktop, in return for the internet provider�s consent that they will not offer Netscape Navigator, or any other competing internet software to their customers.("Netscape�s Complaint against MicroSoft." 3) Netscape is becoming ever more concerned with Microsoft�s practices, because for now, they are going untouched by the government and it looks as if it will stay that way for quite some time now. The are very much worried, as they watch the numbers of users switching to Microsoft�s browser, and the number of users using Navigator slipping. Besides all of the accusations of monopolistic actions Netscape lay down on them, Microsoft does seem to have one advantage when it comes to the browser wars. Their new browser, version 3.0, matches Netscape�s feature for feature, with one added plus: it is free and Microsoft says that it always free. So is their internet server, Internet Information Server. Whereas Netscape charges $50 and $1500 for their browser and their web server, respectively.("Netscape�s Complaint against MicroSoft." 3) With all the information that has been presented for both sides of the issue, you are probably left in a daze, not knowing what to think. Is Microsoft good? Or is Microsoft bad? Well, the answer is a little bit of both. Even though the Justice Department found that Microsoft might be practicing some techniques that are less than ethical, they did not find that Microsoft was breaking any anti-trust laws, nor did Microsoft actually admit to the accusations when they signed the agreement. If anything, them signing the agreement was more of a sorry than an full fledged admission of guilt. Other people might disagree with me, and there might be a lot of allegations floating around from different companies, but the fact of the matter is plain and simple. Microsoft has not been formerly charged and found guilty of any illegal practices pertaining to them being a monopoly. I believe that the government should stay out of the affairs of the economy, rather than get tangled up in a mess, and just end up deadlocked like the FTC did in 1990. And even if the government did get involved, due to the extremely fast paced nature of the computer industry, and the extremely slow nature of the government, there may not be any resolve for quite a while. God Speaks Through The Mouths Of Poets Every poem has an element of God in it's words. Just as God spoke through the writings of Peter or Matthew, elements of His word are in the beautiful themes in poetry. In this essay, I will compare the poems of William Blake and William Wordsworth with the written Word of God, in five poems: The Lamb, The Chimney Sweeper, The Tyger, My Heart Leaps Up, and London 1802. My aim is to show that the writings of great poets are truly the words of God. Little Lamb, who made thee? Dost thou know who made thee? These begin the words of William Blake's The Lamb. Just as God asks us, Blake questions our understanding of our creator. If we are seen as the lambs of God, meek and tender, can we really understand the generosity and glory of a God who gave us life? He did give us life, and Blake tells us that we take this great gift for granted. So, he asks "Dost thou know who made thee?" So God created man in His own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female, He created them. Genesis 1:27 Anyone who has seen a lamb knows that it is a weak creature; unable to protect it's self from the strength of an evil predator. If we are the Lamb, then we must rely on the protection of our Shepherd, God. Why would Blake call us a Lamb then? Aren't we stronger than any other animal upon this earth? I think that God would tell us "No," for it is He who gives us life strength, as Blake says in the next few lines� Gave thee life & bid thee feed, By the stream & o're the mead; Gave thee clothing of delight, Softest clothing wooly bright, What strength could man have without the gifts of God: life, food, clothing. We would have none! And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." John 6:33 William Blake saw that the individual man was so removed from Nature and his Creator. As science progressed, and society seemed so wrapped up in it's money making, it's industry and it's politics, haven't we lost touch with what is truly important? While we see ourselves as giants, Blake reminds us that we are just lambs. A lamb is just a baby, and needs the love of it's mother to survive. Who are we to ignore the one who gives us life and gives us food? Because we think we have grown, we believe we do not need to ask ourselves, "Who made thee?" In Blake's next poem, The Chimney Sweeper, he shows us just how much we still need God. Throughout history, man has been so inhumane to his fellow man. Every culture has experienced some sort of slavery or oppression. When one thinks of how man has even enslaved his own young, I wonder how muc lower we can degrade ourselves. The Chimney Sweeper is a poem speaking of such inhumanity. As I read the words, "� I was very young, And my Father sold me while yet my tongue could scarcely cry weep! weep! weep! weep�" I wonder if there is any God left in the hearts of men. Blake points out our faults, our inhumanity. He is telling us to look at ourselves, and stop this pain we cause. Just as God told us to love one another, Blake tells us the same. "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. John 15:12 This is Blake's message to the oppressors of this world! Yet, in the same short poem, Blake has a message for the oppressed: the young chimney sweeper child will still have hope in the words of Jesus. That is the hope that God will send an angel to free them, with only one small condition: that the child loves his God and follows his commandments. Then naked & white, all their bags left behind, They rise upon clouds, and sport in the wind. And the Angel told Tom, if he'd be a good boy, He'd have God for his father & never want joy. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. John 15:10-11 The two above quotes give us the same message! No matter how painful your life may be, God will give us joy if we follow his commandments. It is as if God has spoken his word through the writings of John and of Blake, that God has given both men the gift of beautiful writing, so that they may sing the words of God! As often as our Lord has given us scripture in the Bible of his love and tenderness, there is also a reminder of His ultimate power! Just as Blake's poetry is a combination of asking us to embrace God's love, it is also a reminder that His strength must be feared! The Tyger warns us that the hands of God not only give love, but also possess a strength far beyond any other. Tyger! Tyer! burning bright In the Forests of The night, What immortal hand or eye Could frame thy fearful symmetry? The "immortal hand" that created the tiger is the same hand that offers us eternal joy, if we follow Him. What fool would tell Him "No?" Just as a child sometimes tests the limits of his or her parent's patience, we test the limits of God's patience with us. Children often run wild if they know that their parent will never punish them for their misbehavior. If God only gave us the message of love & joy, we may never fear his rule over us. Thus says the Lord God of the Hebrews� I will send all my plagues to your very heart, and on your servants and on your people, that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth. Now if I had stretched out My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, then you would have been cut off from the earth. But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth. Exodus 9:14-16 What strength in these words! Surely it makes the sinner fear God. Blake creates the same message, in a slightly different way. He tells us of the tiger, his symmetry and strength in his shoulder, his strong heart, his fiery eyes, the grasp of his hands and feet, his quick brain. Surely, the tiger is one to be feared, for he may take your life in an instant! But, what of his creator? Isn't it true that the creator of the tiger is surpassing in strength? So, Blake asks us one last question, is the one who made the tender lamb, the same that made the fearful tiger? Such words and questions bring the same message, that is that God is one to be feared, for like the tiger, He may take your life away from you in an instant! The poetry of William Wordsworth is very different in style, but still contains elements of God's influence. Rejoicing in God's symbol, the poem My Heart Leaps Up. At first, the poem is a celebration of the beauty in nature, and the wonders of the elegant rainbow. Then, he reminds us of the rainbow as God's symbol of protection. I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. Genesis 9:13 Wordsworth makes an interesting segue when he says "the Child is father of the man," he is speaking of Jesus Christ as the Child, and also the idea that the child will become the man. In all of Wordsworth's poems of nature, he views his surroundings in a child- like wonder. Many of the natural beauties around us are ignored by adults, who have lost touch with their roots in nature; however, the child is very different. The child sees everything through the eyes of innocence and wonder: the rainbow is truly a miracle of God, to the child. This is why he says "And I wish my days to be bound by each by natural piety." What a subtle and beautiful statement of faith and appreciation of God's nature and beauty! London 1802, although a poem titled by it's date of birth, is so timeless. Easily, it could be re-titled, "The World Today," for it addresses the problems of men that still exist after almost two-hundred years. It represents a world in decline; a world that has become so ungodly. In the brevity of the poem, we are shown our faults: stagnation, loss of inner happiness, selfish greed, lost manners and virtue. All of these aspects are of a society that has forgotten God. London 1802 holds a mirror to our faces, and asks us, "Do you walk this ungodly path?" And, this path is described by egocentricism, greed and selfishness. For what is a man profited if he gains For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone the whole world, and loses his own who is among you, not to think of himself more soul? Or, what will a man give in highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as exchange for his soul? Matt 16:26 God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. Rom 12:3 He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require you But to do justly, to love mercy And to walk humbly with your God? Mic 6:8 In five poems, I have shown only a small sample of the similarities in poetry and the words of God. Five seemingly very different poems all have this one aspect alike. Is it just a coincidence? God often talks to men on earth in many subtle ways. Every Sunday school student learns that God has granted each and every one of us a special gift or talent, that God may work his miracles through. The sight of a beautiful painting or the sound of a beautiful song is godly, as if He, Himself, is painting through the hands of the artist, or speaking through the mouth of the singer. The effect is breathtaking! The poet is the most gifted, for the poet can deliver us the message of God in a beautiful way, that we may want to read it again and again. Followers of the Christian Faith agree that the men who wrote the scripture in the Bible were writing the words of God, because God was speaking to us through them. I believe that the great poets of our recent history were also writing the words of God, for He was speaking to us through them. How else could the scripture of the Bible, written 1800 years earlier, contain such similar meaning? Blake said, "The Jewish & Christian Testaments are An original derivation from the Poetic Genius," in his essay All Religions Are One. Even a great poet, such as Blake, admits that his words are not his own, they are the Lords of God, who gifted him the talent. All poetry should be read, not just for it's beauty and entertainment, but for it's special meaning delivered from God. The Human Brain The human body is divided into many different parts called organs. All of the parts are controlled by an organ called the brain, which is located in the head. The brain weighs about 2.75 pounds, and has a whitish-pink appearance. The brain is made up of many cells, and is the control centre of the body. The brain flashes messages out to all the other parts of the body. The messages travel in very fine threads called nerves. The nerves and the brain make up a system somewhat like telephone poles carrying wires across the city. This is called the nervous system. The nerves in the body don't just send messages from the brain to the organs, but also send messages from the eyes, ears, skin and other organs back to your brain. Some nerves are linked directly to the brain. Others have to reach the brain through a sort of power line down the back, called the spinal cord. The brain and spinal cord make up the central nervous system. The brain doesn't just control your organs, but also can think and remember. That part of the brain is called the mind. PROTECTING THE BRAIN Twenty-eight bones make up the skull. Eight of these bones are interlocking plates. These plates form the cranium. The cranium provides maximum protection with minimum weight, the ideal combination. The other twenty bones make up the face, jaw and other parts of the skull. Another way the brain keeps it self safe is by keeping itself in liquid. Nearly one fifth of the blood pumped by the heart is sent to the brain. The brain then sends the blood through an intricate network of blood vessels to where the blood is needed. Specialized blood vessels called choroid plexuses produce a protective cerebrospinal fluid. This fluid is what the brain literally floats in. A third protective measure taken by the brain is called the blood brain barrier. This barrier consists of a network of unique capillaries. These capillaries are filters for harmful chemicals carried by the blood, but do allow oxygen, water and glucose to enter the brain. THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE BRAIN The brain is divided into three main sections. The area at the front of the brain is the largest. Most of it is known as the cerebrum. It controls all of the movements that you have to think about, thought and memory. The cerebrum is split in two different sections, the right half and the left half. The outer layer of the cerebrum is called the cortex. It is mainly made up of cell bodies of neurons called grey matter. Most of the work the brain does is done in the cortex. It is very wrinkled and has many folds. The wrinkles and folds give the cortex a large surface area, even though it is squeezed up to fit in the skull. The extra surface area gives the cerebrum more area to work. Inside the cortex, the cerebrum is largely made up of white matter. White matter is tissue made only of nerve fibres. The middle region is deep inside the brain. It's chief purpose is to connect the front and the back of the brain together. It acts as a "switchboard", keeping the parts of your brain in touch with each other. The back area of the brain is divided into three different parts. The pons is a band of nerve fibres which link the back of the brain to the middle. The cerebellum sees to it that all the parts of your body work as a team. It also makes sure you keep your balance. The medulla is low down at the back of your head. It links the brain to the top of the spinal cord. The medulla controls the way your heart pumps blood through your body. It also looks after your breathing and helps you digest food. THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BRAIN THE BRAINSTEM: The brainstem is one of the oldest parts of the brain. It controls such functions as breathing, blood pressure, swallowing and heart rate. THE HYPOTHALMUS: This part of the brain is located directly above the brain stem. The hypothalmus controls basic drives like hunger and sex and as well as our response to threat and danger. The hypothalmus also controls the pituitary. THE PITUITARY: The pituitary produces hormones such as testosterone that circulate through out the body. THE THALAMUS: The thalamus is like a relay area; it receives messages from lower brain areas such as the brainstem and hypothalmus and sends them to the two brain hemispheres. The thalamus is located in between above the lower brain and under the two hemispheres. THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE BRAIN: Most of the above mentioned parts of the brain were produced early in evolution but the higher mammals especially humans went on to produce a sort of "thinking cap" on top of these parts. This "thinking cap" was divided into two different parts, the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere. If the left side of your brain is more developed like most people's are, you are right handed. On the other hand if the right side of your brain is more developed, then you will be left handed. The right side of your brain is more artistic and emotional while the left side of your brain is your "common sense" and practical side, such as figuring out math and logic problems. THE CEREBELLUM: One of the most important part of the Human brain is the cerebellum. The cerebellum is involved with the more complex functions of the brain and sometimes is even referred to as "the brain within the brain". The cerebellum acts as a control and coordination centre for movement. The cerebellum carries small "programs" that have been previously learned. For example, how to write, move, run and jump are all previously learned activities that the brain recorded and can playback when needed. Every time you practice, the brain rewrites the program and makes it better. You may have heard the saying "practice makes perfect". Well this saying is not entirely true; another way of "practising" is just to imagine what you wish to do. Since the cerebellum can't actually feel, it will think that you are doing what your imagining and respond by rewriting it's previous program and carrying out any other actions needed for that function. This is one why to explain wet dreams. THE CEREBRAL CORTEX: The cerebral cortex makes up the top of the two hemispheres of the brain. The cortex is a sheet of greyish matter which produces our thoughts, language and plans. It also controls our sensations and voluntary movements, stores our memories and gives us the ability to imagine, in short it's what makes humans, humans. IN THE FUTURE Today many experiments are being conducted that may be break through's for the future. For instance "brain grafting" is one procedure that may be used in the future. Brain grafting is to transplant a very thin layer of brain skin from one person to another. This would result in control of parkinson's disease and other seizure related diseases. Another radical idea that has already been successfully been tried on rhesus monkey's is, brain transplants. The ethics and legal problems for such a transplant would probably never let this operation be performed on humans. This is because the person would not be the same, would not have the same memories or the same abilities that the host body had had. The last idea of the future that we will list is called "artificial hearing and seeing". Artificial seeing is achieved by planting sixty-four small electrodes in front of the visual cortex of the brain. The electrodes are connected to a small camera that is some where on the person's ear. A computer is attached to the camera. The computer sends the images from the camera directly to the implanted electrodes. They flash as the picture from the camera, thus enabling the person to somewhat see. Artificial hearing is much more complicated then artificial seeing. First a electrodes must be planted in the brain. Then through a microphone a computer produces electrical pulses that are then sent to the electrodes in the brain. But as of yet these procedures are not practical first because of the size of the computer, it cannot be taken out of the laboratory second the cost of the package and third the risks involved. CONCLUSION After all of the work and research that we have done it is very evident to us that the brain is one of the most wondrous organs that humans could have. It guides us through almost every second of our life. Even after exploring vast and distant sky's to the microorganisms that exist today, the brain has never ceased to amaze us and probably never will. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. The Brain and Nervous System by Lambert, Mark copyright Macmillan Education, 1988 2. The Brain and Nervous System by Parker, Steve copyright Franklin Watts, 1990 3. Encyclopedia Britannica by Britannica, Encyclopedia Inc. copyright Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1986 4. The Incredible Machine by Geographic, National Society copyright Geographic, National Society, 1992 GLOSSARY artificial hearing: When a person is able to hear but not naturally. artificial seeing: When a person is able to see but not naturally. blood brain barrier: A set of special capillaries that are only found in brain. There purpose is to filter the blood so only oxygen, glucose and water are able to enter the brain. Unfortuantly they don't prevent narcotics from entering the brain. brain: An organ that is pinkish-white in appearance and is located in the skull. This organ controls almost everything that the body does. brain grafting: Brain grafting is the process of taking a thin layer of brain skin from the donor and moving to new host. brainstem: This is what the brain had used to be early evolution, but now it only controls our basic functions such as breathing and heart rate. capillaries: Tiny blood vessels. cells: What all living thing are built from. central nervous system: This the brain and spinal cord put together. Also see: brain, spinal cord. cerebellum: This part of the brain makes sure that all of your body works together. It also keeps your balance. cerebral cortex: This is one of the most important parts of the brain. It also is produces our thoughts, stores our memories, and plans. cerebrospinal fluid: This what the brain floats in. cerebrum: The cerebrum is split in to two different sides. Left and right. It is located at the front of the head. choroid plexuses: These special blood vessels are what produce the cerebrospinal fluid. cortex: This is the outer layer of the cerebrum. cranium: This is the part of the skull that holds the brain. diseases: Illnesses that can be terminal. electrodes: They are made out metal and emit electricity, usually very little. glucose: This is a combination of sugar and water. grey matter: Mainly made from the cell bodies of neurons. hemisphere: These are the two different part of the cerebrum. Almost all of the brain's work is done there. hormones: Chemicals that can change the chemical make up of your physical body. hypothalmus: This part of the brain is located above the brainstem. It controls basic drives such as hunger and sex. medulla: The medulla is almost right behind the brainstem. It helps you to digest your food. mind: Not just the brain but the actual consciousness that we have. nerves: Pathways that the brain uses to send messages to and from different parts of the body. nervous system: The whole system of nerves that attach to the spinal cord. organs: Important part of the body. The brain, heart and lungs are examples of organs. Parkinson's Disease: This disease causes the victim to have seizures. pituitary: The pituitary produces hormones. pons: A band of nerve fibre that connect the back the brain to the middle. skull: The skull is made up of twenty-eight bones. It is located above the spinal cord. It also contains the brain. spinal cord: This cord goes down your back. Almost all nerves in the body are connected to the spinal cord. thalamus: The thalamus a sort of relay room. It gets messages from the lower brain area and sends them to the higher brain. transplant: To transplant is to take something from one person and put it into another person. white matter: White matter is tissue made from nerve fibres. Anti-Matter Introduction Ordinary matter has negatively charged electrons circling a positively charged nuclei. Anti-matter has positively charged electrons - positrons - orbiting a nuclei with a negative charge - anti- protons. Only anti-protons and positrons are able to be produced at this time, but scientists in Switzerland have begun a series of experiments which they believe will lead to the creation of the first anti-matter element -- Anti-Hydrogen. The Research Early scientists often made two mistakes about anti-matter. Some thought it had a negative mass, and would thus feel gravity as a push rather than a pull. If this were so, the antiproton's negative mass/energy would cancel the proton's when they met and nothing would remain; in reality, two extremely high-energy gamma photons are produced. Today's theories of the universe say that there is no such thing as a negative mass. The second and more subtle mistake is the idea that anti-water would only annihilate with ordinary water, and could safety be kept in (say) an iron container. This is not so: it is the subatomic particles that react so destructively, and their arrangement makes no difference. Scientists at CERN in Geneva are working on a device called the LEAR (low energy anti-proton ring) in an attempt to slow the velocity of the anti-protons to a billionth of their normal speeds. The slowing of the anti-protons and positrons, which normally travel at a velocity of that near the speed of light, is neccesary so that they have a chance of meeting and combining into anti-hydrogen.1 The problems with research in the field of anti-matter is that when the anti-matter elements touch matter elements they annihilate each other. The total combined mass of both elements are released in a spectacular blast of energy. Electrons and positrons come together and vanish into high-energy gamma rays (plus a certain number of harmless neutrinos, which pass through whole planets without effect). Hitting ordinary matter, 1 kg of anti-matter explodes with the force of up to 43 million tons of TNT - as though several thousand Hiroshima bombs were detonated at once. So how can anti-matter be stored? Space seems the only place, both for storage and for large-scale production. On Earth, gravity will sooner or later pull any anti-matter into disastrous contact with matter. Anti-matter has the opposite effect of gravity on it, the anti-matter is 'pushed away' by the gravitational force due to its opposite nature to that of matter. A way around the gravity problem appears at CERN, where fast moving anti-protons can be held in a 'storage ring' around which they constantly move - and kept away from the walls of the vacuum chamber - by magnetic fields. However, this only works for charged particles, it does not work for anti-neutrons, for example. The Unanswerable Question Though anti-matter can be manufactured, slowly, natural anti-matter has never been found. In theory, we should expect equal amounts of matter and anti-matter to be formed at the beginning of the universe - perhaps some far off galaxies are the made of anti-matter that somehow became separated from matter long ago. A problem with the theory is that cosmic rays that reach Earth from far-off parts are often made up of protons or even nuclei, never of anti-protons or antinuclei. There may be no natural anti-matter anywhere. In that case, what happened to it? The most obvious answer is that, as predicted by theory, all the matter and anti-matter underwent mutual annihilation in the first seconds of creation; but why there do we still have matter? It seems unlikely that more matter than anti-matter should be formed. In this scenario, the matter would have to exceed the anti-matter by one part in 1000 million. An alternative theory is produced by the physicist M. Goldhaber in 1956, is that the universe divided into two parts after its formation - the universe that we live in, and an alternate universe of anti-matter that cannot be observed by us. The Chemistry Though they have no charge, anti-neutrons differ from neutrons in having opposite 'spin' and 'baryon number'. All heavy particles, like protons or neutrons, are called baryons. A firm rule is that the total baryon number cannot change, though this apparently fails inside black holes. A neutron (baryon number +1) can become a proton (baryon number +1) and an electron (baryon number 0 since an electron is not a baryon but a light particle). The total electric charge stays at zero and the total baryon number at +1. But a proton cannot simply be annihilated. A proton and anti-proton (baryon number -1) can join together in an annihilation of both. The two heavy particles meet in a flare of energy and vanish, their mass converted to high-energy radiation wile their opposite charges and baryon numbers cancel out. We can make antiprotons in the laboratory by turning this process round, using a particle accelerator to smash protons together at such enormous energies that the energy of collision is more than twice the mass/energy of a proton. The resulting reaction is written: p + p p + p + p + p Two protons (p) become three protons plus an antiproton(p); the total baryon number before is: 1 + 1 = 2 And after the collision it is: 1 + 1 + 1 - 1 = 2 Still two. Anti-matter elements have the same properties as matter properties. For example, two atoms of anti-hydrogen and one atom of anti-oxygen would become anti-water. The Article The article chosen reflects on recent advancements in anti-matter research. Scientists in Switzerland have begun experimenting with a LEAR device (low energy anti-proton ring) which would slow the particle velocity by a billionth of its original velocity. This is all done in an effort to slow the velocity to such a speed where it can combine chemically with positrons to form anti-hydrogen. The author of the article, whose name was not included on the article, failed to investigate other anti-matter research laboratories and their advancements. The author focused on the CERN research laboratory in Geneva. 'The intriguing thing about our work is that it flies in the face of all other current developments in particle physics' .2 The article also focused on the intrigue into the discovering the anti-matter secret, but did not mention much on the destruction and mayhem anti-matter would cause if not treated with the utmost care and safety. Discovering anti-matter could mean the end of the Earth as we know it, one mistake could mean the end of the world and a release of high-energy gamma rays that could wipe out the life on earth in mere minutes. It was a quite interesting article, with a lot of information that could affect the entire world. The article, however, did not focus on the benefits or disadvantages of anti-matter nor did it mention the practical uses of anti-matter. They are too expensive to use for powering rocket ships, and are not safe for household or industrial use, so have no meaning to the general public. It is merely a race to see who can make the first anti-matter element. Conclusion As research continues into the field of anti-matter there might be some very interesting and practical uses of anti-matter in the society of the future. Until there is a practical use, this is merely an attempt to prove which research lab will be the first to manufacture the anti-matter elements. _______________________________ Swiss boldly poised to produce anti-matter - John Eades, researcher at CERN Swiss boldly poised to produce anti-matter - John Eades, researcher at CERN History of the World Article printed from World Book INFORMATION FINDER. WORLD, HISTORY OF THE (Introduction) WORLD, HISTORY OF THE. People have probably lived on the earth about 2 million years. But the story of world history begins only about 5,500 years ago with the invention of writing. The period before people began to write is usually called prehistory. Archaeologists have pieced together the story of prehistory by studying what the people left behind, including artwork, tools, ruins of buildings, fossils, and even their own skeletons. Such objects provide the main evidence of what prehistoric people were like and how they lived. For a description of life in prehistoric times, see the Information Finder article PREHISTORIC PEOPLE. The first traces of writing date from about 3500 B.C. From then on, people could record their own history. By writing down their experiences, they could tell future generations what they were like and how they lived. From these documents, we can learn firsthand about the rise and fall of civilizations and the course of other important events. The history of the world--from the first civilizations to the present--is based largely on what has been written down by peoples through the ages. The development of agriculture about 9,000 B.C. brought about a great revolution in human life. Prehistoric people who learned to farm no longer had to roam in search of food. Instead, they could settle in one place. Some of their settlements grew to become the world's first cities. People in the cities learned new skills and developed specialized occupations. Some became builders and craftworkers. Others became merchants and priests. Eventually, systems of writing were invented. These developments gave rise to the first civilizations. For hundreds of years, the earliest civilizations had little contact with one another and so developed independently. The progress each civilization made depended on the natural resources available to it and on the inventiveness of its people. As time passed, civilizations advanced and spread, and the world's population rose steadily. The peoples of various civilizations began to exchange ideas and skills. Within each civilization, groups of people with distinctive customs and languages emerged. In time, some peoples, such as the Romans, gained power over others and built huge empires. Some of these empires flourished for centuries before collapsing. Great religions and later science and scholarship developed as people wondered about the meaning of human life and the mysteries of nature. About 500 years ago, one civilization--that of western Europe--started to exert a powerful influence throughout the world. The Europeans began to make great advances in learning and the arts, and they came to surpass the rest of the world in scientific and technological achievements. The nations of Europe sent explorers and military forces to distant lands. They set up overseas colonies, first in the Americas and then on other continents, and conquered other regions. As a result, Western customs, skills, political ideas, and religious beliefs spread across much of the world. Today, the many peoples of the world continue to be separated by different cultural traditions. But they also have more in common than ever before. Worldwide systems of communications and transportation have broken down barriers of time and distance and rapidly increased the exchange of ideas and information between peoples. However far apart people may live from one another, they are affected more and more by the same political and economic changes. In some way, almost everyone can now be affected by a war or a political crisis in a faraway land or by a rise in petroleum prices in distant oil-producing countries. The separate cultures of the world seem to be blending into a common world culture. Much of world history is the story of the way different civilizations have come closer together. For hundreds of thousands of years, prehistoric people lived by hunting, fishing, and gathering wild plants. Even small groups of people had to roam over large areas of land to find enough food. A group usually stayed in one place only a few days. The discovery of agriculture gradually ended the nomadic way of life for many people. After prehistoric men and women learned to raise crops and domesticate animals, they no longer had to wander about in search of food. They could thus begin to settle in villages. Agriculture was developed at different times in different regions of the world. People in the Middle East began to grow cereal grasses and other plants about 9000 B.C. They also domesticated goats and sheep at about that time, and they later tamed cattle. In southeastern Asia, people had begun raising crops by about 7000 B.C. People who lived in what is now Mexico probably learned to grow crops about 7000 B.C. The invention of farming paved the way for the development of civilization. As prehistoric people became better farmers, they began to produce enough food to support larger villages. In time, some farming villages developed into the first cities. The plentiful food supplies enabled more and more people to give up farming for other jobs. These people began to develop the arts, crafts, trades, and other activities of civilized life. Agriculture also stimulated technological and social changes. Farmers invented the hoe, sickle, and other tools to make their work easier. The hair of domestic animals and fibres from such plants as cotton and flax were used to make the first textiles. People built ovens to bake the bread they made from cultivated grain and learned to use hotter ovens to harden pottery. The practice of agriculture required many people to work together to prepare the fields for planting and to harvest the crops. New systems of government were developed to direct such group activities. The changes brought about by agriculture took thousands of years to spread widely across the earth. By about 3500 B.C., civilization began. It started first in Southwest Asia. Three other early civilizations developed in Africa and in south and east Asia. All these early civilizations arose in river valleys, where fertile soil and a readily available water supply made agriculture easier than elsewhere. The valleys were (1) the Tigris- Euphrates Valley in the Middle East, (2) the Nile Valley in Egypt, (3) the Indus Valley in what is now Pakistan, and (4) the Huang He Valley in northern China. While civilization was developing in the four valleys, people in most other parts of the world were still following their old ways of life. Little cultural progress was being made in such regions as northern and central Europe, central and southern Africa, northern and southeastern Asia, and most of North America. In parts of Central and South America, the people were developing some new ways of life. But advanced civilizations did not appear there until hundreds of years later. The Tigris-Euphrates Valley. One of the most fertile regions of the ancient world lay between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in southern Mesopotamia (now Iraq). Silt deposited by the rivers formed a rich topsoil ideal for growing crops. By the 5000's B.C., many people had settled in villages in the lower part of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, an area later called Sumer. The Sumerians lived by farming, fishing, and hunting the wild fowl of the river marshes. They built dikes to control the flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and irrigation canals to carry water to their fields. By about 3500 B.C., some Sumerian farm villages had grown into small cities, which marked the beginning of the world's first civilization. A number of these cities developed into powerful city-states by about 3200 B.C. The Sumerians produced one of the greatest achievements in world history. By about 3500 B.C., they had invented the first form of writing. It consisted of picture like symbols scratched into clay. The symbols were later simplified to produce cuneiform, a system of writing that used wedge- shaped characters (see CUNEIFORM). Archaeologists have found thousands of clay tablets with Sumerian writings. These tablets show the high level of development of the Sumerian culture. They include historical and legal documents; letters; economic records; literary and religious texts; and studies in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. The Sumerians used baked bricks to build great palaces and towering temples called ziggurats in their cities. They believed that their gods lived on the tops of the ziggurats. Sumerian craftworkers produced board games, beautifully designed jewellery, metalware, musical instruments, decorative pottery, and stone seals engraved with pictures and inscriptions. The Sumerians invented the potter's wheel and were among the first people to brew beer and make glass. Their system of counting in units of 60 is the basis of the 360-degree circle and the 60-minute hour. For more information on the Sumerian civilization, see SUMER. The Sumerian city-states had no central government or unified army and continually struggled among themselves for power. As time passed, they were increasingly threatened by neighbouring Semitic peoples, who were attracted by the growing wealth of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. During the 2300's B.C., a Semitic king, Sargon of Akkad, conquered Sumer. Sargon united all Mesopotamia under his rule, creating the world's first empire. The Akkadians combined Sumerian civilization with their own culture. Their rule lasted more than 60 years. Then invaders from the northeast overran the empire. These invaders soon left Mesopotamia, and Sumer was once again divided into separate city-states. One city-state, Ur, briefly controlled all the others. See SARGON OF AKKAD. By about 2000 B.C., the Sumerians had completely lost all political power to invading Semites. Mesopotamia then broke up into a number of small kingdoms under various Semitic rulers. The city of Babylon became the center of one kingdom. The Babylonian rulers gradually extended their authority over all Mesopotamian peoples. The greatest Babylonian king was Hammurabi, who ruled from about 1792 to 1750 B.C. Hammurabi developed one of the first law codes in history. The famous Code of Hammurabi contained nearly 300 legal provisions, including many Sumerian and Akkadian laws. It covered such matters as divorce, false accusation, land and business regulations, and military service. See BABYLONIA; HAMMURABI. The Nile Valley. The civilization of ancient Egypt began to develop in the valley of the Nile River about 3100 B.C. Agriculture flourished in the valley, where the floodwaters of the Nile deposited rich soil year after year. Beyond the Nile Valley lay an uninhabited region of desert and rock. Egyptian culture thus developed with little threat of invasions by neighbouring peoples. During the 3000's B.C., Egypt consisted of two large kingdoms. Lower Egypt covered the Nile Delta. Upper Egypt lay south of the delta on the two banks of the river. About 3100 B.C., according to legend, King Menes of Upper Egypt conquered Lower Egypt and united the two kingdoms. Menes also founded the first Egyptian dynasty (series of rulers in the same family). The rulers of ancient Egypt were believed to be divine. The ancient Egyptians borrowed little from other cultures. They invented their own form of writing--an elaborate system of symbols known as hieroglyphics (see HIEROGLYPHICS). They also invented papyrus, a paper like material made from the stems of reeds. The Egyptians developed one of the first religions to emphasize life after death. They tried to make sure their dead enjoyed a good life in the next world. The Egyptians built great tombs and mummified (embalmed and dried) corpses to preserve them. They filled the tombs with clothing, food, furnishings, and jewellery for use in the next world. The most famous Egyptian tombs are gigantic pyramids in which the kings were buried. The pyramids display the outstanding engineering and surveying skills of the Egyptians. The government organized thousands of workers to construct the pyramids, as well as temples and palaces, in the Egyptian cities. The cities served chiefly as religious and governmental centers for the surrounding countryside. Most of the people lived in villages near the cities. Over the years, huge armies of conquering Egyptians expanded the kingdom's boundaries far beyond the Nile Valley. At its height in the 1400's B.C., Egypt ruled Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and part of the Sudan. As a powerful state at the junction of Asia and Africa, Egypt played an important role in the growth of long-distance trade. Egyptian caravans carried goods throughout the vast desert regions surrounding the kingdom. Egyptian ships sailed to all the major ports of the ancient world. The Beginning of Time In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end. When I gave a lecture in Japan, I was asked not to mention the possible re-collapse of the universe, because it might affect the stock market. However, I can re-assure anyone who is nervous about their investments that it is a bit early to sell: even if the universe does come to an end, it won't be for at least twenty billion years. By that time, maybe the GATT trade agreement will have come into effect. The time scale of the universe is very long compared to that for human life. It was therefore not surprising that until recently, the universe was thought to be essentially static, and unchanging in time. On the other hand, it must have been obvious, that society is evolving in culture and technology. This indicates that the present phase of human history can not have been going for more than a few thousand years. Otherwise, we would be more advanced than we are. It was therefore natural to believe that the human race, and maybe the whole universe, had a beginning in the fairly recent past. However, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever. Their explanation for human progress was that there had been periodic floods, or other natural disasters, which repeatedly set back the human race to a primitive state. This argument about whether or not the universe had a beginning, persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries. It was conducted mainly on the basis of theology and philosophy, with little consideration of observational evidence. This may have been reasonable, given the notoriously unreliable character of cosmological observations, until fairly recently. The cosmologist, Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time. In a universe that was essentially static, there would not have been any dynamical reason, why the stars should have suddenly turned on, at some time. Any such "lighting up time" would have to be imposed by an intervention from outside the universe. The situation was different, however, when it was realised that the universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation, would have been less than twenty billion years ago. At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside. Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past. One suggestion was to modify the law of gravity, so that it became repulsive. This could lead to the graph of the separation between two galaxies, being a curve that approached zero, but didn't actually pass through it, at any finite time in the past. Instead, the idea was that, as the galaxies moved apart, new galaxies were formed in between, from matter that was supposed to be continually created. This was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle. The Steady State theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified. The first trouble came with the Cambridge observations, of the number of radio sources of different strengths. On average, one would expect that the fainter sources would also be the more distant. One would therefore expect them to be more numerous than bright sources, which would tend to be near to us. However, the graph of the number of radio sources, against there strength, went up much more sharply at low source strengths, than the Steady State theory predicted. There were attempts to explain away this number count graph, by claiming that some of the faint radio sources, were within our own galaxy, and so did not tell us anything about cosmology. This argument didn't really stand up to further observations. But the final nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory came with the discovery of the microwave background radiation, in 1965. This radiation is the same in all directions. It has the spectrum of radiation in thermal equilibrium at a temperature of 2 point 7 degrees above the Absolute Zero of temperature. There doesn't seem any way to explain this radiation in the Steady State theory. Another attempt to avoid a beginning to time, was the suggestion, that maybe all the galaxies didn't meet up at a single point in the past. Although on average, the galaxies are moving apart from each other at a steady rate, they also have small additional velocities, relative to the uniform expansion. These so-called "peculiar velocities" of the galaxies, may be directed sideways to the main expansion. It was argued, that as you plotted the position of the galaxies back in time, the sideways peculiar velocities, would have meant that the galaxies wouldn't have all met up. Instead, there could have been a previous contracting phase of the universe, in which galaxies were moving towards each other. The sideways velocities could have meant that the galaxies didn't collide, but rushed past each other, and then started to move apart. There wouldn't have been any singularity of infinite density, or any breakdown of the laws of physics. Thus there would be no necessity for the universe, and time itself, to have a beginning. Indeed, one might suppose that the universe had oscillated, though that still wouldn't solve the problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: one would expect that the universe would become more disordered each oscillation. It is therefore difficult to see how the universe could have been oscillating for an infinite time. This possibility, that the galaxies would have missed each other, was supported by a paper by two Russians. They claimed that there would be no singularities in a solution of the field equations of general relativity, which was fully general, in the sense that it didn't have any exact symmetry. However, their claim was proved wrong, by a number of theorems by Roger Penrose and myself. These showed that general relativity predicted singularities, whenever more than a certain amount of mass was present in a region. The first theorems were designed to show that time came to an end, inside a black hole, formed by the collapse of a star. However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star. I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity. In order to discuss observations in cosmology, it is helpful to draw a diagram of events in space and time, with time going upward, and the space directions horizontal. To show this diagram properly, I would really need a four dimensional screen. However, because of government cuts, we could manage to provide only a two dimensional screen. I shall therefore be able to show only one of the space directions. As we look out at the universe, we are looking back in time, because light had to leave distant objects a long time ago, to reach us at the present time. This means that the events we observe lie on what is called our past light cone. The point of the cone is at our position, at the present time. As one goes back in time on the diagram, the light cone spreads out to greater distances, and its area increases. However, if there is sufficient matter on our past light cone, it will bend the rays of light towards each other. This will mean that, as one goes back into the past, the area of our past light cone will reach a maximum, and then start to decrease. It is this focussing of our past light cone, by the gravitational effect of the matter in the universe, that is the signal that the universe is within its horizon, like the time reverse of a black hole. If one can determine that there is enough matter in the universe, to focus our past light cone, one can then apply the singularity theorems, to show that time must have a beginning. How can we tell from the observations, whether there is enough matter on our past light cone, to focus it? We observe a number of galaxies, but we can not measure directly how much matter they contain. Nor can we be sure that every line of sight from us will pass through a galaxy. So I will give a different argument, to show that the universe contains enough matter, to focus our past light cone. The argument is based on the spectrum of the microwave background radiation. This is characteristic of radiation that has been in thermal equilibrium, with matter at the same temperature. To achieve such an equilibrium, it is necessary for the radiation to be scattered by matter, many times. For example, the light that we receive from the Sun has a characteristically thermal spectrum. This is not because the nuclear reactions, which go on in the centre of the Sun, produce radiation with a thermal spectrum. Rather, it is because the radiation has been scattered, by the matter in the Sun, many times on its way from the centre. In the case of the universe, the fact that the microwave background has such an exactly thermal spectrum indicates that it must have been scattered many times. The universe must therefore contain enough matter, to make it opaque in every direction we look, because the microwave background is the same, in every direction we look. Moreover, this opacity must occur a long way away from us, because we can see galaxies and quasars, at great distances. Thus there must be a lot of matter at a great distance from us. The greatest opacity over a broad wave band, for a given density, comes from ionised hydrogen. It then follows that if there is enough matter to make the universe opaque, there is also enough matter to focus our past light cone. One can then apply the theorem of Penrose and myself, to show that time must have a beginning. The focussing of our past light cone implied that time must have a beginning, if the General Theory of relativity is correct. But one might raise the question, of whether General Relativity really is correct. It certainly agrees with all the observational tests that have been carried out. However these test General Relativity, only over fairly large distances. We know that General Relativity can not be quite correct on very small distances, because it is a classical theory. This means, it doesn't take into account, the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics, which says that an object can not have both a well defined position, and a well defined speed: the more accurately one measures the position, the less accurately one can measure the speed, and vice versa. Therefore, to understand the very high-density stage, when the universe was very small, one needs a quantum theory of gravity, which will combine General Relativity with the Uncertainty Principle. Many people hoped that quantum effects, would somehow smooth out the singularity of infinite density, and allow the universe to bounce, and continue back to a previous contracting phase. This would be rather like the earlier idea of galaxies missing each other, but the bounce would occur at a much higher density. However, I think that this is not what happens: quantum effects do not remove the singularity, and allow time to be continued back indefinitely. But it seems that quantum effects can remove the most objectionable feature, of singularities in classical General Relativity. This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there. This would mean that science could not predict how the universe would have begun. Instead, one would have to appeal to an agency outside the universe. This may be why many religious leaders, were ready to accept the Big Bang, and the singularity theorems. It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time. The three directions in space, and the one direction of imaginary time, make up what is called a Euclidean space-time. I don't think anyone can picture a four dimensional curve space. But it is not too difficult to visualise a two dimensional surface, like a saddle, or the surface of a football. In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off. If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. The no boundary condition, is the statement that the laws of physics hold everywhere. Clearly, this is something that one would like to believe, but it is a hypothesis. One has to test it, by comparing the state of the universe that it would predict, with observations of what the universe is actually like. If the observations disagreed with the predictions of the no boundary hypothesis, we would have to conclude the hypothesis was false. There would have to be something outside the universe, to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going. Of course, even if the observations do agree with the predictions, that does not prove that the no boundary proposal is correct. But one's confidence in it would be increased, particularly because there doesn't seem to be any other natural proposal, for the quantum state of the universe. The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth, or so I'm told. I have not been there myself. According to the no boundary proposal, the universe would have expanded in a smooth way from a single point. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field, to create matter. As any economist could have predicted, the result of all that borrowing, was inflation. The universe expanded and borrowed at an ever-increasing rate. Fortunately, the debt of gravitational energy will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe. Eventually, the period of inflation would have ended, and the universe would have settled down to a stage of more moderate growth or expansion. However, inflation would have left its mark on the universe. The universe would have been almost completely smooth, but with very slight irregularities. These irregularities are so little, only one part in a hundred thousand, that for years people looked for them in vain. But in 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, COBE, found these irregularities in the microwave background radiation. It was an historic moment. We saw back to the origin of the universe. The form of the fluctuations in the microwave background agree closely with the predictions of the no boundary proposal. These very slight irregularities in the universe would have caused some regions to have expanded less fast than others. Eventually, they would have stopped expanding, and would have collapsed in on themselves, to form stars and galaxies. Thus the no boundary proposal can explain all the rich and varied structure, of the world we live in. What does the no boundary proposal predict for the future of the universe? Because it requires that the universe is finite in space, as well as in imaginary time, it implies that the universe will re-collapse eventually. However, it will not re-collapse for a very long time, much longer than the 15 billion years it has already been expanding. So, you will have time to sell your government bonds, before the end of the universe is nigh. Quite what you invest in then, I don't know. Originally, I thought that the collapse, would be the time reverse of the expansion. This would have meant that the arrow of time would have pointed the other way in the contracting phase. People would have gotten younger, as the universe got smaller. Eventually, they would have disappeared back into the womb. However, I now realise I was wrong, as these solutions show. The collapse is not the time reverse of the expansion. The expansion will start with an inflationary phase, but the collapse will not in general end with an anti inflationary phase. Moreover, the small departures from uniform density will continue to grow in the contracting phase. The universe will get more and more lumpy and irregular, as it gets smaller, and disorder will increase. This means that the arrow of time will not reverse. People will continue to get older, even after the universe has begun to contract. So it is no good waiting until the universe re-collapses, to return to your youth. You would be a bit past it, anyway, by then. The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.