This strange and beautiful place

Pondering on space.

Like so many people, I am fascinated by the universe. Just our own universe is staggering. Here are some items published on the NASA website.

Solar System Facts

Our solar system includes the Sun, eight planets, five officially named dwarf planets, hundreds of moons, and thousands of asteroids and comets.

Our solar system is located in the Milky Way, a barred spiral galaxy with two major arms, and two minor arms. Our Sun is in a small, partial arm of the Milky Way called the Orion Arm, or Orion Spur, between the Sagittarius and Perseus arms. Our solar system orbits the center of the galaxy at about 515,000 mph (828,000 kph). It takes about 230 million years to complete one orbit around the galactic center.

Now to the centre of our universe. And it give me pleasure to republish this account.

ooOOoo

Where is the center of the universe?

In space, there are four dimensions: length, width, height and time. scaliger/iStock/NASA via Getty Images Plus

Rob Coyne, University of Rhode Island

About a century ago, scientists were struggling to reconcile what seemed a contradiction in Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Published in 1915, and already widely accepted worldwide by physicists and mathematicians, the theory assumed the universe was static – unchanging, unmoving and immutable. In short, Einstein believed the size and shape of the universe today was, more or less, the same size and shape it had always been.

But when astronomers looked into the night sky at faraway galaxies with powerful telescopes, they saw hints the universe was anything but that. These new observations suggested the opposite – that it was, instead, expanding.

Scientists soon realized Einstein’s theory didn’t actually say the universe had to be static; the theory could support an expanding universe as well. Indeed, by using the same mathematical tools provided by Einstein’s theory, scientists created new models that showed the universe was, in fact, dynamic and evolving.

I’ve spent decades trying to understand general relativity, including in my current job as a physics professor teaching courses on the subject. I know wrapping your head around the idea of an ever-expanding universe can feel daunting – and part of the challenge is overriding your natural intuition about how things work. For instance, it’s hard to imagine something as big as the universe not having a center at all, but physics says that’s the reality.

The universe gets bigger every day.

The space between galaxies

First, let’s define what’s meant by “expansion.” On Earth, “expanding” means something is getting bigger. And in regard to the universe, that’s true, sort of. Expansion might also mean “everything is getting farther from us,” which is also true with regard to the universe. Point a telescope at distant galaxies and they all do appear to be moving away from us.

What’s more, the farther away they are, the faster they appear to be moving. Those galaxies also seem to be moving away from each other. So it’s more accurate to say that everything in the universe is getting farther away from everything else, all at once.

This idea is subtle but critical. It’s easy to think about the creation of the universe like exploding fireworks: Start with a big bang, and then all the galaxies in the universe fly out in all directions from some central point.

But that analogy isn’t correct. Not only does it falsely imply that the expansion of the universe started from a single spot, which it didn’t, but it also suggests that the galaxies are the things that are moving, which isn’t entirely accurate.

It’s not so much the galaxies that are moving away from each other – it’s the space between galaxies, the fabric of the universe itself, that’s ever-expanding as time goes on. In other words, it’s not really the galaxies themselves that are moving through the universe; it’s more that the universe itself is carrying them farther away as it expands.

A common analogy is to imagine sticking some dots on the surface of a balloon. As you blow air into the balloon, it expands. Because the dots are stuck on the surface of the balloon, they get farther apart. Though they may appear to move, the dots actually stay exactly where you put them, and the distance between them gets bigger simply by virtue of the balloon’s expansion.

split screen of a green balloon with red dots and a squiggle on the surface, lightly inflated and then much more blown up
It’s the space between the dots that’s growing. NASA/JPL-Caltech, CC BY

Now think of the dots as galaxies and the balloon as the fabric of the universe, and you begin to get the picture.

Unfortunately, while this analogy is a good start, it doesn’t get the details quite right either.

The 4th dimension

Important to any analogy is an understanding of its limitations. Some flaws are obvious: A balloon is small enough to fit in your hand – not so the universe. Another flaw is more subtle. The balloon has two parts: its latex surface and its air-filled interior.

These two parts of the balloon are described differently in the language of mathematics. The balloon’s surface is two-dimensional. If you were walking around on it, you could move forward, backward, left, or right, but you couldn’t move up or down without leaving the surface.

Now it might sound like we’re naming four directions here – forward, backward, left and right – but those are just movements along two basic paths: side to side and front to back. That’s what makes the surface two-dimensional – length and width.

The inside of the balloon, on the other hand, is three-dimensional, so you’d be able to move freely in any direction, including up or down – length, width and height.

This is where the confusion lies. The thing we think of as the “center” of the balloon is a point somewhere in its interior, in the air-filled space beneath the surface.

But in this analogy, the universe is more like the latex surface of the balloon. The balloon’s air-filled interior has no counterpart in our universe, so we can’t use that part of the analogy – only the surface matters.

A blown-up purple balloon on a blue background.
Trying to figure out how the universe works? Start by contemplating a balloon. Kristopher_K/iStock via Getty Images Plus

So asking, “Where’s the center of the universe?” is somewhat like asking, “Where’s the center of the balloon’s surface?” There simply isn’t one. You could travel along the surface of the balloon in any direction, for as long as you like, and you’d never once reach a place you could call its center because you’d never actually leave the surface.

In the same way, you could travel in any direction in the universe and would never find its center because, much like the surface of the balloon, it simply doesn’t have one.

Part of the reason this can be so challenging to comprehend is because of the way the universe is described in the language of mathematics. The surface of the balloon has two dimensions, and the balloon’s interior has three, but the universe exists in four dimensions. Because it’s not just about how things move in space, but how they move in time.

Our brains are wired to think about space and time separately. But in the universe, they’re interwoven into a single fabric, called “space-time.” That unification changes the way the universe works relative to what our intuition expects.

And this explanation doesn’t even begin to answer the question of how something can be expanding indefinitely – scientists are still trying to puzzle out what powers this expansion.

So in asking about the center of the universe, we’re confronting the limits of our intuition. The answer we find – everything, expanding everywhere, all at once – is a glimpse of just how strange and beautiful our universe is.

Rob Coyne, Teaching Professor of Physics, University of Rhode Island

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

That last paragraph says it all: ‘So in asking about the center of the universe, we’re confronting the limits of our intuition.’

Just wonderful!

Picture Parade Four Hundred and Seventy-Eight

Working dogs courtesy of Unsplash.

Photo by Birgitta Roos on Unsplash

oooo

Photo by Alexandru Rotariu on Pexels.com

oooo

Herding dog moves, and guards, the flock of sheep

Westerheide, Hilversum, Netherlands

oooo

Photo by Bella on Unsplash

oooo

Photo by Ankon Roy on Unsplash

oooo

Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash

That’s all for today!

Alex – The Ghost of the Forest

The second video from Alex and Lisa.

The video was produced on the 14th June, 2025.

Join us on an incredible Wildlife photography adventure through the wilds of Oregon, as we search for and capture stunning images of three iconic raptors: the Great Grey Owl, the Bald Eagle, and the Osprey. What was amazing is that we did not see another photographer whilst photographing these magnificent raptors! From dense forests to riverbanks and high mountain meadows, Oregon is a paradise for birdwatchers and wildlife photographers alike. In this video, we take you behind the scenes of our journey—tracking elusive owls, watching bald eagles, and photographing ospreys.

It makes us extremely proud to be living in this part of America!

The first video shoot by Alex is here.

Keeping one’s garden wild

A great TED Talk.

We live on 13 acres. Even the land near to the house is difficult to keep tidy so when Jean and I saw this TED Talk given by Rebecca McMacin we were overjoyed. For having a tidy garden does much greater harm to wildlife than keeping it wild.

Before I get to the TED video, I just want to show you some photos I took last Saturday.

oooo

oooo

Now to the TED Talk

Here is the description of the talk.

Many gardeners work hard to maintain clean, tidy environments … which is the exact opposite of what wildlife wants, says ecological horticulturist Rebecca McMackin. She shows the beauty of letting your garden run wild, surveying the success she’s had increasing biodiversity even in the middle of New York City — and offers tips for cultivating a garden that can be home to birds, bees, butterflies and more.

Here is Rebecca’s background.

Rebecca McMackin is an ecologically obsessed horticulturist who helps people create and care for beautiful gardens that provide habitat for birds, butterflies and soil microorganisms.

Why you should listen

Rebecca McMackin spent a decade as director of horticulture at Brooklyn Bridge Park, where she employed organic principles to manage 85 acres of diverse parkland. During her time overseeing the park’s ecology, stick bugs, rare mantids, threatened bees and lady bugs all returned to the park. The park’s urban biodiversity and successful use of ethical management strategies influenced thousands of people and other urban parks to adopt similar approaches.

In addition to her work designing public gardens, McMackin writes, lectures and teaches on ecological landscape management and pollination ecology. She recently installed an 8,000-square-foot native wildflower garden for the entrance to the Brooklyn Museum. She was a Loeb Fellow at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, while her work has been published by and featured in The New York Times, the Landscape Institute and on NPR and PBS.

oooo

The video is just 12 minutes long and I encourage you to view it.

The BBC

A fascinating programme on Radio 4.

As many of you know I was born exactly six months before VE Day on May 8th, 1945.

We soon moved from Acton to 16 Toley Avenue, in Preston Road, Wembley. A short distance down Toley Ave was Ledway Drive that led up to Barn Hill Pond.

A review of Barn Hill Pond by a dog walker, Tara Furlong, in 2020.

It’s a pond on top of a hill, which gets smaller depending on how hot and dry the summer is. It has been known to have sightings of its own grey heron, mallards on occasion, etc. Fish may lurk in its depths, and frogspawn in the spring. There are views of Wembley, and across to central London from the trig point nearby, and aspirations to open up the view to Harrow-on-the-Hill. Take a little wander and you may spy St Paul’s Cathedral. A small number of benches are available, and the bins overflow in fine weather. There’s nothing but green space and houses nearby. It’s accessible via a fairly short, steep uphill walk on uneven ground from the unserviced car park, which can get very busy; or from Wembley Park. Photos on a typical British day – i.e. a bit cloudy and soggy.

Click this link in Google to view the scene.

As a young boy I well remember looking out from Barn Hill and seeing the devastation of the property from the Nazi bombers.

There are twenty programmes on Radio 4 that are about this postwar period in Britain. I have listened to the first three and have found them deeply interesting. Anyone interested in British history is recommended to listen to them. That is the link.

The blue waters

It was World Oceans Day yesterday.

To my mind, nothing beats the sights of the World’s oceans.

In the past, I spent four years living on a yacht, a Tradewind 33, out in Cyprus. During that time I cruised to Turkey, to Greece, to Algiers, and loved it.

Here’s an extract from World Oceans day website.

Why Earth’s oceans are so important

Earth’s oceans are critical to human survival. Indeed, more than half the oxygen in our atmosphere is generated via photosynthesis by phytoplankton and seaweed in oceans. In addition, millions of people depend on fish and other marine animals for food. Research on some marine organisms has led to the development of new medications. Moreover, ocean currents, known as global conveyor belts, help regulate Earth’s climate. 

Sir David Attenborough has produced a film Ocean and the trailer follows:

There is so much more to view on the World Oceans Day website. Please go to it.

Picture Parade Four Hundred and Seventy-Six

Back to Unsplash.

Photo by Oscar Sutton on Unsplash

oooo

Photo by Joe Caione on Unsplash

oooo

Photo by charlesdeluvio on Unsplash

oooo

Photo by Kieran White on Unsplash

Folks, that’s all for today!

Breaches of trust.

A riveting article from George Monbiot.

George Monbiot published an article in The Guardian recently that was as hard-hitting as I have ever read from him.

I found it very powerful even though I have not been living in England since 2008. Mr Monbiot has previously given me permission to republish his articles and here it is.

ooOOoo

Four-Year Plan

Posted on 3rd June 2025

Keir Starmer has accidentally given us four years in which to build a new political system. We should seize the chance.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 27th May 2025

This feels terminal. The breaches of trust have been so frequent, so vast and so decisive that the voters Labour has already lost are unlikely to return. In one forum after another, I hear the same sentiments: “I voted for change, not the same or worse.” “I’ve voted Labour all my life, but that’s it for me.” “I feel I’ve been had.”

It’s not dissatisfaction. It’s not disillusionment. It’s revulsion: visceral fury, anger on a level I’ve seldom seen before, even towards Tory cruelties. Why? Because these are Tory cruelties, delivered by a party that claimed to be the only alternative, in our first-past-the-post electoral system.

Everyone can name at least some of the betrayals:

 cutting disability benefits; supplying weapons and, allegedly, intelligence to the Israeli government as it pursues genocide in Gaza; channelling Reform UK and Enoch Powell in maligning immigrants; slashing international aid; trashing wildlife and habitats while insulting and abusing people who want to protect them; announcing yet another draconian anti-protest law; leaving trans people in legal limbo; rigidly adhering to outdated and socially destructive fiscal rules; imposing further austerity on government departments and public services. Once the great hope of the oppressed, Labour has become the oppressor.

Like many people, I was wary of Keir Starmer. I had limited expectations, but I willed Labour to succeed. So I’ve watched aghast as he and his inner circle have squandered one of the greatest opportunities the party has ever been granted. They seem to despise people who voted for them, while courting and flattering those who didn’t and won’t.

The results? Last week, the polling company Thinks Insight & Strategy found that 52% of those who voted Labour in the 2024 general election are considering switching to the Liberal Democrats or the Greens. That’s more than twice as many as might migrate to Reform UK. The research group Persuasion UK estimates that Labour could lose 250 seatsas a result of this flight to more progressive parties (again, more than twice as many as it could lose through voters shifting to Reform). Figures compiled by the progressive thinktank Compass show that Labour would lose its majority on just a 6% swing. Already, while it won a massive majority on a measly 34% vote at the election, it now polls at just 22%.

Labour’s strategy is incomprehensible. Experience from the rest of Europe shows that when centrist parties adopt far-right rhetoric and policies, they empower the far right while shedding their own supporters.

What explains this idiocy? Labour has succumbed, quickly and hard, to the defining sickness of our undemocratic political system: the sofa cabinet system of close advisers. Opaque and unaccountable government favours opaque and unaccountable power. Ever receptive to the demands of rentiers, oligarchs, non-doms and corporations, Labour’s oh-so-clever strategists are moronically giftwrapping the country for Nigel Farage.

Governments don’t start conservative and turn radical. The cruelty will set like concrete. The likely result is annihilation in 2029. On this trajectory, it might not be surprising if Labour were left with seats in only double figures.

Perhaps it’s a blessing that Starmer has shown his hand so soon, as we now have four years in which to prepare. I’m not a party person: for me, it’s a question of what works. And now we can clearly see the shape of it.

The Compass analysis, published in December, reveals extreme electoral volatility. This is caused by a combination of public fury towards austerity, exclusion, rip-off rents and startlingly low rates of wellbeing, and the “democratic mayhem” resulting from a first-past-the-post system in which five parties are now polling at 10% or more. Small vote shifts in this situation can cause wild fluctuations in the allocation of seats.

The report points out that the UK is an overwhelmingly progressive nation: in all but one election since 1979 most voters have supported left or centre-left parties. Of 15 nations surveyed, the UK has the extraordinary distinction of being both the furthest to the left and the most consistent elector of rightwing governments. Why? Because of our first-past-the-post system, which is grossly unfair not by accident but by design. Labour refuses to change it, as it wants to rule alone. The result is that most of the time it doesn’t rule at all.

The thinktank was hoping to mobilise the progressive majority around a revitalised Labour party, but that moment has passed. What the figures show, however, is massive potential for more radical change. A YouGov survey reveals that almost twice as many people want proportional representation in this country as those who wish to preserve the current system. So let’s build a government of parties that will introduce it.

Here’s the strategy. Join the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP or Plaid Cymru. As their numbers rise, other voters will see the tide turning. Encourage troubled Labour MPs to defect. Most importantly, begin the process in each constituency of bringing alienated voters together around a single candidate. This is what we did before the last election in South Devon, where polls had shown the anti-Tory vote evenly split between Labour and the Lib Dems. Through the People’s Primary designed by locals, the constituency decided to back the Lib Dems. The proof of the method can be seen less in the spectacular routing of the Conservatives (as similar upsets occurred elsewhere) than in the collapse in Labour’s numbers, which fell from 17% in 2019, and 26% in a poll before the primary began, to 6% in the 2024 election. The voters took back control, with startling results.

Whether you fully support any of these parties is beside the point. This coalition would break for ever the lesser-of-two-evils choice that Starmer has so cruelly abused, and which has for so long poisoned politics in this country. Game the system once and we’ll never have to game it again.

No longer will we be held hostage, no longer represented by people who hate us. It will be a tragedy if, as seems likely, Keir Starmer has destroyed the Labour party as a major political force. But it will be a blessing if he has also destroyed the two-party system.

http://www.monbiot.com

ooOOoo

Proportional representation is explained in detail here. There is also an explanation on WikiPedia here. From which I quote a small section:

Proportional representation (PR) refers to any electoral system under which subgroups of an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. The concept applies mainly to political divisions (political parties) among voters. The aim of such systems is that all votes cast contribute to the result so that each representative in an assembly is mandated by a roughly equal number of voters, and therefore all votes have equal weight. Under other election systems, a bare plurality or a scant majority in a district are all that are used to elect a member or group of members. PR systems provide balanced representation to different factions, usually defined by parties, reflecting how votes were cast. Where only a choice of parties is allowed, the seats are allocated to parties in proportion to the vote tally or vote share each party receives.

That is a timely and powerful article from George Monbiot.

Yellowstone

A YouTube video.

When my son, Alex, and Lisa, were with us in the second half of last month, they spoke of the tremendous joy they experienced in visiting Yellowstone before they came to us.

What a fabulous memory!