THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
05/10/13 -- Vol. 31, No. 45, Whole Number 1753
Albert: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Victoria: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
The latest issue is at http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm.
An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at
http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm.
Topics:
A Tale of Two Spocks (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Dilemma (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Safety in (Prime) Numbers (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
THE PARTICLE AT THE END OF THE UNIVERSE by Sean Carroll
(book review by Greg Frederick)
IRON MAN 3 (film review by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
Large Bill in a Small Town (letter of comment by Fred Lerner)
COLD CITY (letter of comment by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
This Week's Reading (THE PENGUIN GUIDE TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: A Tale of Two Spocks (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
This is an amusing car ad starring Leonard Nimoy and Zach Quinto:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkByAkAdZs
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Dilemma (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I felt an urgent need to go to the bathroom, but halfway there I
realized I did not need a bath. I decided to go instead to go to
the washroom, but stopped myself because I realized I was not going
primarily to wash. What I really needed to find is the powder
room. But I was not putting on any powder and certainly did not
want to blow anything up. I am not a little boy so the little
boy's room was out. I never liked that name anyway. I determined
to go to the restroom, but realized I really did not need a rest.
What I wanted was the lavatory. But then this is just a two-dollar
name for the washroom. I would have gone to the water closet, but
had no water to store. Going potty was out of the question since
it suggested I had problems with my state of mind. I might have
gone to the gentleman's convenience, but it was no longer an issue
of mere convenience. So finally I went outside and did what I had
to in the bushes. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Safety in (Prime) Numbers (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
This is the year 2013. Subtract 7 from it and you get 2006. If
you divide 2006 by 17, it goes in 118 times with a remainder of
zero. That means trouble. That means this is a year of crazed
sexuality. Not human sexuality. (No such luck!) But of another
animal's sexuality. In specific, this is the year of the cicada.
I just recently wrote about an insect invasion of Argentinean ants.
Their invasion has been going on for more than a century. We have
a new invasion on our hands. Well, I guess it depends on your point
of view since the so-called invaders have been here already, they
have just been under ground of late. (Say, this is starting to
sound like the Stephen Spielberg version of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS.)
No, the invaders I have in mind were last seen in 1996. In the
meantime they have been down under the soil. They are cicadas and
they are due any time now. They are just waiting for their cue.
What's that? Well, it has to be 64 degrees Fahrenheit eight inches
down in the ground. And it has to be a year that when divided by
17 will give a remainder of 7. That is just a fancy way of saying
that it happens every 17-years. It happened in 1996 and it will
happen again in 2030.
Along the Eastern seaboard from Connecticut down to North Carolina
masses of cicadas will dig their way from inside the ground to the
surface and fly around trying to mate. They call their mates with
a loud buzzing sound.
Don't worry. They are not like the locusts that strip agricultural
fields. They have no mouths to eat with any more. Each has
already had his or her last meal. Underground they had sucked
juices from tree roots. Above ground they have one-track minds
they are only trying to mate and the females lay eggs. The females
will shed their outer skin and leave it around looking like empty
insects. They will wait on a tree until their new outer skin
hardens. When it does they are ready to make loud irritating
noises to attract mates.
Then they mate, lay eggs, and die. After this orgy of Liebestod
they will decompose and there will be little left of them but
hollow shells they had shed. The 17-year cicada is a really big
invasion. There are also 13-year-cicadas. They come up every 13
years for much the same reason and cycle.
But what people are starting to notice is that cicadas seem to have
these cycles that last a prime number of years. The number 17 is
divisible by 1 and by 17 and by no other number. The number 13 is
divisible by 1 and by 13 and by no other number. Why would cicadas
choose a prime number for their cycle length?
Stephen Jay Gould had a suggestion. Predators on cicadas would
have to adapt to a 17-year cycle. That is a long time to go
without nutrition or to prey on other sources. Few insects could
adapt to a 17-year cycle and probably none to a double-length 34-
year cycle. On the other hand, if you had an 18-year cicada, a
predator that adapted to a 3-year cycle could get them every time
the 18-year cicada emerged.
The 18-year cicada, if there ever was one, could be killed off by a
predator with a 2-year cycle, a 3-year cycle, a 6-year cycle, and
so forth. If there were a 3-year cycle predator, every sixth
appearance there would be cicadas to gorge on. That could be a
sizable advantage for a predator even if only every sixth
generation had the advantage. Having a good feast one out of
every six appearances could very much help a predator's survival.
So it is quite possible that without ever knowing what a prime
number is cicadas may have found a way to use then to help them
survive.
Sources:
http://io9.com/5895840/why-do-cicadas-know-prime-numbers
http://tinyurl.com/void-cicadas
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: IRON MAN 3 (film review by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
I just got back from seeing IRON MAN 3, and it deserves the
favorable reviews it has been getting (78% on the Tomatometer).
The general theme of the movie is that Tony Stark is suffering from
PTSD following the events of the first Avengers movie and his very
near brush with death as he saves the world by pushing an A-bomb
through a wormhole. A new terrorist, The Mandarin, (played
extremely well by Ben Kingsley) has embarked on a series of Bin
Laden like attacks on the USA. Stark is angered, and dares the
Mandarin to come at him in his home. It should not come as a
surprise that the Mandarin takes him up on his offer.
In the comics The Mandarin is a Chinese villain with ten super-
science rings on his fingers that he uses to fight Iron Man. This
Mandarin is a quite a bit different, but I'll leave that to the
film. Suffice it to say that Ben Kingsley will be remembered a lot
more favorably for his portrayal of the Mandarin than for his re-
creation of The Hood in THUNDERBIRDS.
This is a movie with a rather complex plot that actually more or
less makes sense. I've decided to avoid saying much more about it
as it would spoil a lot of the fun. There is a good bit of Pepper
Potts (played by Gwyneth Paltrow) on display, and you might say
that she has a very active role in the film's finale. There is a
strong focus on Tony Stark as a hero without his suit, and he
spends at least half the movie outside of the suit. The scripting
is witty, with just the right tone of periodic levity to keep
things from getting too grim.
In a touching interlude mid-film, a young boy named Harley (played
by Ty Simpkins) helps Stark to repair the Iron Man suit. Jon
Favreau is a lot of fun as Happy Hogan, Stark's bodyguard. This
is a movie with lots of "big explosions" and probably the largest
CGI team ever, but if you liked the first two Iron Man movies,
you'll like IM3. IM3 also lacks some of the odd touches (aliens on
flying surfboards) that sometimes made THE AVENGERS seem unserious.
The movie concludes with all plot threads tied up, Tony and Pepper
in a happy place, and a new start for Tony. This could be the last
of the Iron Man movies, or it could easily be followed with a new
trilogy.
Rated +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. Recommended for tweens and up; too
intense for younger children. There is an enormous amount of
fighting, some of it pretty realistic, zero sex but a certain
amount of bikini T&A, and a few scenes of peril/pain.
************************ spoiler warning **************************
There is one aspect of the film that seemed inconsistently handled.
Exactly what it takes to kill an Extremis infected super-soldier
seems to vary, and in particular, Aldrich Killian, the leader of
Advanced Idea Mechanics (well played by Guy Pearce), is the
Energizer Bunny of the bad guys. IM3 would be a better movie if
this point was more carefully thought out.
It should also be noted that the movie is more or less based on a
six-issue story arc published in the Iron Man comic during 2005-6.
I'm not a reader of the comic, but from the Wikipedia article there
does seem to be a lot of plot parallels with the movie.
One observation is that IM3 pits mechanically enhanced men (Tony
Stark, Col. Rhodes) against biologically enhanced AIM super-
soldiers. However, the movie ends with both Pepper Potts and Tony
Stark infected with some version of the Extremis "virus." The
message seems to be that in the end, even heroes (and heroines)
will become "enhanced" once top-level scientists like Stark have
perfected the technology.
Finally, the end glosses over what could be a major change in the
Iron Man character. It is implied that both Tony Stark and Pepper
Potts remain infected with the Extremis "virus," which, even if
controlled or moderated from how AIM used it, would make them both
superhuman. This at least has the advantage of explaining how Tony
can survive getting bashed around in the Iron Man suit all the
time. Of course it is always possible Stark invented inertial
dampers or used vibranium in building the suit.
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE PARTICLE AT THE END OF THE UNIVERSE (HOW THE HUNT FOR
THE HIGGS BOSON LEADS US TO THE EDGE OF A NEW WORLD) by Sean
Carroll (book review by Greg Frederick)
This is a review of a new book detailing the recent events in the
search for the Higgs Boson at the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) and
thru history. The title is intended to be dramatic to get
potential readers interested but the Higgs Boson is not at the end
of the Universe. To begin with some definitions are needed; a
boson is a force carrying particle and fermions are the particles
that make up all of known matter in the Universe. That is to say,
fermions make up all atomic matter particles this matter which we
understand. Fermions are basically two types of particles which
are quarks and leptons. No one knows what dark matter is made of
at this point in time so that material is mostly excluded from this
discussion. Quarks are the fundamental particles which make protons
and neutrons. Electrons and neutrinos, for example are
leptons. Finally to understand the name of the LHC you need to
know that protons and neutrons are called hadrons. Protons are
being collided at high velocities which are near the speed of
light. At the LHC they fire two beams of particles along two
pathways, one going clockwise and the other going counterclockwise.
Then both beams are directed toward each other and scientists watch
what happens during the collisions. The reason for building bigger
and more energetic accelerators is to discover or generate bigger
or heaver particles like the Higgs Boson for example.
The author goes on to explain that the Higgs Boson is the last
particle missing from the Standard Model which describes all
particle physics today. It completes a theory which has been in
development for decades. Peter Higgs and other scientists in the
1960's proposed the existence of this boson and it has taken this
long to build a machine (the LHC) which can detect it (actually
create it). The Higgs is important to understanding why different
particles have differing mass. Why some are more massive than
others. It's really the Higgs field which imparts greater mass to
the more massive particles and lesser mass to the less massive
particles. The Higgs Boson is really a vibration of the Higgs
field. The most recent findings from the LHC indicates that they
have actually found the Higgs Boson (therefore the field too) but
data is still being collected to confirm this. An analogy the
author uses to explain the Higgs field at work is the following;
you and Angelina Jolie are at a party separately walking across a
room filled with many people. You will be slowed down a bit to
avoid running into people who are standing around talking. But
Angelina would have many people coming up to her for an autograph
or to take a picture with her. She would move thru the room much
slower than you. The people at this party are like the Higgs
field. And Angelina is like a more massive quark particle compared
to you.
The cost of doing this type of particle physics experimentation is
very expensive. The approximate cost of the LHC is around nine
billion dollars and it took many countries from around the World to
contribute to the funding to make this happen. Now that the Higgs
boson has probably been found what is next? The Higgs boson could
be a way to discovering more about exactly what Dark Matter is.
Higgs Bosons may interact with Dark Matter. Since Dark Matter
makes up about 23% of all material in the Universe (Dark Energy
makes up about 72%) and all atoms (the stuff we understand) makes
up 5%; the Higgs Boson maybe a way to learn more about what much of
the Universe is really made of. This Higgs discovery could be a
portal to even more discoveries.
The author makes clear and understandable explanations of particle
physics today and its' history. Sean Carroll does a good job as
Carl Sagan did in the past to relate the complicated science of
today to the lay person. Carroll does provide three appendixes in
the back to go into more detail if the reader wishes also. [-gf]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Large Bill in a Small Town (letter of comment by Fred
Lerner)
In response to Evelyn's comments about an ill-remembered story in
the 05/03/13 issue of the MT VOID, Fred Lerner writes:
"[A] large bill that made the rounds in a small town"--I have a
vague feeling that this is from a Mark Twain story. [-fl]
Evelyn responds:
It probably is Twain's "The Million-Pound Banknote" that I am
thinking of. It has been made into two television shows, a
television mini-series, and a movie. [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: COLD CITY (letter of comment by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
In response to some off-line comments on Dale's review of COLD CITY
in the 02/22/13 issue of the MT VOID, Dale Skran writes:
[A friend had] two comments. Firstly he does not fully agree with
my characterization of Jack as "Batman made flesh," finding Jack
much more fully realized than Batman. I agree with this comment,
although it's not surprising given the large number of Repairman
Jack novels that F. Paul Wilson has written. In fact, it is
precisely this point that I am getting at--Repairman Jack is the
Batman fully realized, as if Batman were a real person. If Jack
differs from the Batman, it is mainly to make him more real, and
more human.
Secondly, he feels I have confused The Lady with Gaia/Gaea. It was
not my intention to suggest that The Lady in the Repairman Jack
series is in fact Gaea, the wife of Uranus [and Zeus, and Pontus,
and Poseidon!], mother of Cronus, the Titans, Typhon, and
Aphrodite, among others. However, Gaia/Gaea is often described as
"the personification of the Earth" and that is exactly what The
Lady is. Also, I was making an analogy to the Gaia Hypothesis
originated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s, which
suggests that organisms interact with their non-living surroundings
to from a single, self-regulating system that maintains conditions
that allow life to exist on Earth. Although I agree with him that
The Lady is *not* Gaia/Gaea, there are significant similarities
between the two, and there seems little doubt the F. Paul Wilson
took his inspiration both from the mythical Gaia/Gaea, and from the
Gaia Hypothesis. [-dls]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THE PENGUIN GUIDE TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (ISBN 978-0-14-
311810-7) is annotated by Richard Beeman, described on the back
cover as "one of the most respected constitutional scholars in the
nation." Yet he makes several mistakes, not just by expressing his
opinion as fact (Article IV, Section 1), but by making actual
misstatements of fact (Article V), and in failing to note both the
implications of parts of the Constitution, and the contradictions
inherent in them.
Article IV, Section 1, is the "full faith and credit clause". Of
it, Beeman says, "For example, if the state of Massachusetts
recognizes the marriage of a gay couple as legally valid, then
other states, even if they do not have laws permitting the marriage
of a gay couple, must recognize that marriage as valid." I would
also interpret it this way, but this interpretation is not as
universally accepted as Beeman implies.
Article IV, Section 2, in what Beeman describes as what "may well
be the most reprehensible provision in the original U.S.
Constitution." It required that all citizens and states assist in
the return of runaway slaves, even from those states and
territories where slavery was prohibited. But really, it is just
the logical continuation of Section 1 of that article. If a non-
slave state has to give "full faith and credit" to the acts of a
slave state, then it must, for example, recognize a contract that
makes a slave the property of another person. One may argue, of
course, that it seems to be only slavery that requires the active
assistance of citizens in other states; nothing in the Constitution
requires a state to assist in apprehending someone who has
committed murder in another state. However, ultimately what is
reprehensible is the Constitution's implicit acceptance of slavery
(which it never even names)--all the veiled references to it are
merely accessories after the fact.
This is also what leads to a contradiction. If all states must
give "full faith and credit ... to the Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every other State" then we have the situation where
a non-slave state must recognize the acts of a slave state in
creating and maintaining slaves, but the slave state must also
recognize the acts of a non-slave state in declaring all people
within their borders free. Clearly, both cannot be the case.
Article IV, Section 3, sets down the rules for creating new states,
and in particular, "no new State shall be formed or erected in the
Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any state formed by the
Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the
Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned." There is
some question as to whether the last clause even applies to
dividing a state, given that the two cases (division and union) are
separated by a semi-colon, while the last clause is set off with
only a comma. If it does not apply, there is no way to divide a
state. If it does apply, the legislature of that state has to
agree. Somehow, I don't think that the Virginia legislature agreed
to have West Virginia split off.
Article V lists three sections of the Constitution that cannot be
amended. But it does not list itself, meaning that theoretically
an amendment could be passed deleting the limitations of Article V,
and then another amendment could be passed changed those other
sections.
For Article VI, Beeman observes it was modified by the Twenty-Sixth
Amendment, which said that for all citizens eighteen years of age
or older, the right to vote shall not be denied on the basis of
age. Beeman, however, expresses this as "guaranteeing all American
citizens eighteen years or older the right to vote." Given that a
twenty-year-old America citizen living in Puerto Rico cannot vote
for President, Beeman's statement is misleading at best and just
plain wrong at worst.
It would seem that the Fourteenth Amendment would grant all persons
born (or naturalized) in the United Sates the same privileges. In
particular, it would seem as though it would grant the vote to
women and Native Americans. Then again, carried to its limit, it
would also seem to remove all age restrictions from voting.
Apparently, it was not so interpreted. (For that matter, it would
seem as though it made the Fifteenth Amendment unnecessary.)
The idea of amending the "un-amendable" parts of the Constitution
by first amending the part that makes them "un-amendable" reminds
me of Kurt Godel's citizenship hearing. Godel claimed to have
discovered a loophole in the United States Constitution that would
allow a dictatorship here, and although he apparently never
specified what it was, the consensus seems to be that it involved
amending away the parts of the Constitution that prevented it.
[-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
I suspect that one of the reasons we create
fiction is to make sex exciting.
--Gore Vidal