Skip to main content

Mythbusters

Dean and I were watching Mythbusters on Monday night. He had just come home from a business trip, so we talked, ate, and chilled on the couch and had the TV on while we were doing so. It was an entire episode dedicated to seeing if there was any merit to the theory that the landing on the moon had been faked. Pictures and videos of the landing were analysed and the common so-called discrepancies were tested.

Two of the tests they featured caught my attention. One was the claim that the American flag that was planted on the moon is seen to be waving in the breeze in a video and the reasoning is that in the vacuum of the moon, this should not be possible. The other one was that in a picture taken of an astronaut climbing down from the lunar module, he is in the shadow of the space vehicle and yet he is quite brightly lit, leading some to claim that this was a staged photo with a second light source.

They tested the first theory by swiveling a flag (as if planting it in the ground) in an earthly environment, and then doing the same test in a vacuum simulating the moon's atmosphere. In our atmosphere, the flag waved as the stick was being moved, then quickly became still once the motion stopped. So far, so good. One could understand why the waving flag looked odd in the moon landing video. Then the flag and stick were placed in a vacuum and the same motion was made. The flag continued to wave long after the movement of the stick had stopped. Why? The resistance of the air in the Earth's atmosphere caused the movement to subside quickly, whereas in a vacuum where there is no air resistance, the flag continued its fluttering motion even after the stick had stopped moving. What seemed to be a breeze on earth was in fact the natural law of a vacuum.

The second discrepancy concerned a photo of an astronaut in the shadow of the lunar module. He is not cast in a dark shadow as one would expect. Once again, the people of Mythbusters tried to simulate the scenario. This meant building a mini version of the moon landing scene and obtaining something that resembled moon dust. The surface of the moon is known to have a much higher retro-reflectivity than earth, so they sprinkled a substance with the same albedo (reflectance of planetary surface) under the model of the scene. A picture was taken and voila! The reflective quality of the surface did in fact light up the white-clad astronaut much more than a picture taken on earth would have. The term sometimes used to describe this glow is Heiligenschein (German for "holy light"). [1]

A reading I was doing yesterday from C. S. Lewis talks about how we make the error of taking ourselves as the starting point and how this skews so much of our thinking. [2] Certain earth-bound people who looked at these photos and pictures of another world made the mistake of assuming that things would happen in the same way there as they do here, in the world they were familiar with. There was no recognition of greater freedom of movement because they were used to the restriction of their own atmosphere. There was no allowance for a greater light, a "glory" to be seen, because they were used to shadow and dark places. These things just could not be real because they did not match up with what they had observed around them thus far.

I have the feeling that my starting points are being challenged. I assume certain things about who I am, and how I relate to others, and how things will go in my life, and what church is all about, and what happens when I talk to God, and how he deals with humankind, and who God is. The problem is that all too often, I start with me and what I have perceived thus far. I leave little room for unfettered freedom and glows of glory because I am not used to experiencing them. I explain them away. I ignore them. I keep living like the atmosphere around God is the same as the atmosphere that I know, and like God planting a big sloppy wet kiss on earth does not change any of this earthly substance. [3]

But it did and it does. If I am ever to tread in new and uncharted places, I must give up my small and inadequate starting points. Let it begin with the biggest starting place I know, and that is God.

1. see Retro-reflection phenomena on http://www.wikipedia.com/
2. from Mere Christianity
3. a line from the song, "How He Loves," by John Mark McMillan

This is the Ferris wheel at Niagara Falls on a cloudy, not too reflective, day.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

what does the cross mean?

Words which we use a lot can sometimes become divested of their depth of meaning. In the Christian tradition, we talk about the cross a lot. We see visual representations of the cross in prominent places in our gathering spaces, we wear crosses around our necks, some get crosses tattooed on their bodies. The cross is a ubiquitous symbol in Christianity, so lately I have been asking myself, what exactly does the cross mean? For the most part, the cross as portrayed in contemporary Christianity is a beautiful thing, festooned with flowers and sunsets and radiant beams of light (just google cross or cross coloring page). But in the first century, the cross was a symbol of disgrace. To the Roman empire, this ignoble instrument of death was for those who were traitors and enemies of the state. We are many centuries removed from this view of the cross as the locus of torture and death and shame. The fact that Christianity has made the cross a symbol of hope and beauty is a good thing, but p…

stained and broken

Recently, I was asked to speak at another church, and the passage of Scripture which was assigned to me was John 1:6-8. "There came a man commissioned and sent from God, whose name was John. This man came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe [in Christ, the Light] through him. John was not the Light, but came to testify about the Light." (John 1:6-8, Amplified Bible)

The first question I usually ask when reading something in the Bible is this: What does this tell me about God? Two things are immediately obvious - God is a sending God and God wants to communicate - but there is a third which merits a bit more attention. Though God could communicate directly with humanity, sending truth and love to every individual via some divine mind-and-heart-meld, God chooses to send messengers. Not only that, instead of introducing Jesus directly to the world as the main event, an opening, warm-up act appears as a precursor. What is the point of incorporati…

the songs we sing

NOTE: I am going to make some pretty strong statements below, but understand that it is my way of taking an honest, hard look at my own worship experience and practice. My desire is not to be overly critical, but to open up dialogue by questioning things I have assumed were totally fine and appropriate. In other words, I am preaching to myself. Feel free to listen in.

---------------------

When I am in a church meeting during the singing time, I sometimes find myself silent, unable to get the words past my lips. At times I just need a moment of stillness, time to listen, but other times, the words make me pause because I don't know that I can sing them honestly or with integrity. This is a good thing. We should never mindlessly or heartlessly sing songs just because everyone else is. We should care deeply about what we say in our sung, communal worship.

At their best, songs sung by the gathered body of Christ call to life what is already in us: the hope, the truth, the longing, t…