Thursday, September 10, 2026

The Brutal Reality of Traveling to Another Star


Science fiction presents us with a false image of space travel, making it seem as though it will eventually become as routine as airline travel. Consider the scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey where a spaceship has a stewardess who serves meals. Likewise, science fiction is full of planets that are not too different from Earth and are compatible with human life, giving the impression that the human race can expand out to the stars without too much difficulty.

There are five things that make interstellar space travel nearly impossible.

  1. Earth-like planets are very rare. We are unlikely to encounter worlds that would be worth traveling to.
  2. Space is full of deadly radiation that is difficult to shield against. This becomes exponentially worse at high fractions of the speed of light. At those speeds, even simple interstellar dust particles become explosive missiles that could destroy a spacecraft.
  3. The distances are so vast that interstellar travel becomes extremely difficult.
  4. The energy requirements are enormous. We simply don't have the resources to accelerate a spaceship to anything approaching relativistic speeds.
  5. The cost is enormous. It could take the resources of an entire planet to create an interstellar ship.

If we wanted to send a probe to a nearby star, we would have to send a computer AI with heavy shielding at a modest speed and be willing to wait 50,000 years for the ship to arrive. However, if we did this in the near future, it could be self-defeating because future generations will likely be able to create faster ships that could arrive in a fraction of the time. Being able to create a ship twice as fast a thousand years from now would make the first ship we send pointless.

I feel the same way about sending humans to Mars. It is such a perilous and expensive journey, just to go to a big, dead rock with about a third of Earth's gravity. We will never have a viable colony on Mars because the planet is simply too hostile. It is far too cold, has significant radiation hazards, and its chemical makeup is not conducive to human life.

It seems possible, if not likely, that life could have existed on Mars billions of years ago. Finding that out might be interesting, but we don't have to send people to Mars to study the planet. We can send unmanned probes much more cost-effectively.

The future of humanity does not involve expanding out to the stars, at least not in the next few thousand years. Although we could create orbital habitats, these will never be cost-effective. The real future of humanity involves making the best use of the resources on planet Earth. We need to manage the planet well while slowing population growth, which creates more competition and conflict over natural resources. The vast fortunes that we spend on space exploration could be better spent managing our existence on Earth.

We live on Spaceship Earth, which is traveling around the galaxy at 140 miles per second. Not all the stars in the Milky Way travel at the same speed, so in 1.29 million years, another star will come within 0.14 light-years of our star. That is close enough to send a space probe. We just have to be patient. 😀

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Magnetism #Science #Magnets




@alexpoiry3988
5 days ago
If anyone is interested, I think this is a ferrocell. Basically there is a small amount of very dilute ferrofluid trapped between 2 transparent plates. The edge lighting scatters the light so you can see the effect of the magnetic waves.

The Life Expectancy Lies That Won't Die

Tuesday, September 1, 2026

Joe Rogan Is Blown Away by What Homo Erectus Could Do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1uQRGo8sMc

Homo Erectus emerged around 1.9 to 2 million years ago in Africa.  They went extinct roughly 110,000 years ago.  They also evolved into other human species.

I suspect that they didn't seem much different to our ancestors.

There is some evidence of different human species interbreeding.  This includes humans and Neanderthals, but also Homo Erectus with Denisovans.

Modern Europeans have about 1% to 2% Neanderthal DNA in their individual genomes, with essentially 100% of people with European ancestry carrying these traces.

The one thing ‘Breaking Bad’ couldn’t show you!

Can technology solve all our problems?

Friday, August 28, 2026

The Wedge-Tailed Eagle is a MENACE

The Math Problem That Breaks Evolutions' Timeline

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: The Math Problem That Breaks Evolution’s Timeline
To: Grant


Grant, 

I have been hearing similar arguments for at least 40 years, going back to my biology student days in the early 1980s. During my education, my position went from being unsure about evolution to being convinced that it is correct.

I think that people misunderstand both entropy, which applies to a closed system and not to the Earth as a whole, and evolution.

According to Google, every human child typically receives about 50 to 90 new mutations that were not present in either parent's DNA. I view every biological organism as a new genetic experiment. The changes in one generation might not be significant, but these changes accumulate over time and combine with changes from other individuals.

It is unlikely for organisms to remain exactly the same over long periods of time. There are a few exceptions where organisms have been so successful that they have remained essentially the same for tens of millions of years. However, I think it is unlikely that humans will be the same tens of thousands of years from now, given that humans have changed somewhat over the last few tens of thousands of years.

I prefer a more traditional view of God, in which He is the creator of the laws of physics and not constrained by them.

The simpler explanation for the origin of species is not that they came from other worlds or that some form of magic created them. The simpler explanation is that they arose naturally through the laws of nature as evidenced by the clear observations we have made.

--
Best wishes,

John Coffey

http://www.entertainmentjourney.com



On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 2:27 AM Grant wrote:
John,
When I was young I would have agreed with you completely.  In Jr High, my math teacher, Dr Edwin Hershey, believed Darwinism but also believed in scripture and God as the creator.  Personally I had spiritual experiences testifying of a loving Father, but I accepted science without significant questioning.  More recently, a geological engineer friend lent me a book by the head of the geology department at the U of U who likewise believed in God but accepted Darwinism as one of His tools and didn't see a conflict.  They held that God directs nature but didn't create the laws, a little like my wife creating and maintaining our garden but not making the plants from nothing.  I.E. from youth I was taught that God did not create the laws of nature but rather mastered them including laws we do not yet know or comprehend.  He also has somehow mastered time or else how could the prophets correctly foretell the future, such as Isaiah, Daniel, David and Book of Mormon prophets detailing events of Christ's birth, ministry, crucifiction and resurrection, plus foretelling events of our day, including the return of the Jews to Jerusalem, the Civil War starting in South Carolina (JS) and world wars and earthquakes coupled with signs in the heavens such as our numerous solar and lunar eclipses including the moon turning to blood which many will shortly witness.  Natural disasters aren't new, but the apparent increased frequency and severity are consistent with prophecy. As I studied more science (e.g. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and engineering this whole creation process would require even more time than timelines suggest, which is what this author is saying about whales and implying in more general terms.  
In the scriptural and scientific observation, simpler organisms came before more complex ones, and plants had to prepare the way for the animal kingdom.  My personal conclusion (not doctrine) is that perhaps evolution, according to updated Darwinism, could have resulted in all the life forms we have but they were generally developed elsewhere over much more time on other worlds.  God then followed the creative sequence from Genesis which per my interpretation matches the order from textbooks where plants largely preceded animals (in order to have oxygen for the animal kingdom) and protected sea life came before birds (dinosaurs) and mammals and finally man.  Under this scenario, God placed on earth a variety of life in the sea and then placed seeds upon the earth for grasses, trees etc. and then later placed various species of mammals, culminating in anthropoids and hominids.  There were destructive periods as well and he finally placed Adam and Eve in a garden in Eden. Were they the culmination of evolution or created from scratch?  I don't think it matters, but they were grand beings who were expelled from Eden for sin and entered the already "lone and dreary world" where creatures had been dying for millions of years as evidenced by fossils, coal and limestone formed in the depths of the oceans.  Personal belief: We are principally descendents from Adam and Eve, corresponding to written histories, and most of the hominids died out with the mammoths, saber tooth tigers and giant land sloths at the last ice age and from subsequent wars; however, Adam's posterity gave us written records and greater civilization, but there were a few men already in the world, so Cane, for instance, had no problem finding a wife after he killed Abel and was forced to leave.  

Summary:  My scientific/mathematical concern is that more time is required to create all the coordinated extremely complex diversity than is allocated by geologists and anthropologists.  My engineering training says "don't reinvent the wheel", meaning if there is a god or gods (including alien theories), planting seeds and placing animals on earth is much easier and less time consuming than waiting for them to evolve and stay on the right productive path, which is statistically virtually impossible per the principle of entropy, without a divine overseer.  



Tuesday, August 25, 2026

Scientists Discover Alzheimer’s Immunity - YouTube

The Math Problem That Breaks Evolution’s Timeline

@john2001plus
0 seconds ago

What a waste of time.

The main problem with these arguments is that they don't take into account the massive parallelism taking place across the entire species, with genes coming from multiple ancestors and genetic errors accumulating over many generations. The genetic pool is effectively a soup of randomness. Nature weeds out the worst combinations, with up to half of all pregnancies terminating spontaneously before the mother even knows that she is pregnant.

The other problem is that we know evolution happened from the evidence in the fossil record and from genetics. Two facts are strongly supported by evidence:

1. The Earth is very old.
2. Simpler organisms came before more complex ones.

Where did the more complex organisms come from? You could say that they were created by God, but we don't have good evidence for that. The scientific explanation is that complex organisms arose from simpler ones.

Monday, August 24, 2026

Is this trans thought experiment just wrong?


@john2001plus
16 hours ago (edited)
A person's feelings about their body do not make a man a woman or a woman a man, nor is it possible to make the switch.  A trans person will never be able to produce children. The changes are cosmetic only and don't change the fundamental reality of a person's biology.  It seems to me that people are sold a lie about gender affirming care.

From what I read, some people do benefit psychologically from surgery.  However, this is a serious operation that does irreversible damage to the body, with potential complications.  Maybe psychological care would be more appropriate?

Some of us didn't exactly win the genetics lottery. We have to deal with the reality of our bodies instead of some fantasy.  Surgery only becomes needed when it is medically necessary.

Saturday, August 22, 2026

Vacuum Tubes

778958076_122134234605237995_5106751104199451575_n.jpg

I saw one of these tube testers in the 1970s, maybe at a TV repair shop. I think that my dad simply bought a replacement vacuum tube for one that had gone bad in a TV. He was good at fixing things.

Vacuum tubes work like transistors in that they allow a small current to control a much larger one. This is necessary for the amplification of radio signals that are very weak. In the case of the vacuum tube, electrons on a grid block the flow of the larger current.

Given how primitive this seems, I am impressed that something as complex as a cathode ray television could be made with these tubes. The response time to controlling the current flow would have to be in nanoseconds to deal with VHF signals. Furthermore, they have to control the path of the electron beam on the cathode ray tube.