Creating Habitable Alien Worlds From Dots

I'm no astronomer, but 21 years in meteorology does give me some insight into how the scientific community in general operates. While I'm willing to be up front with my admission that I may not be right on every point here, I think you will find that the point I make here is one that the scientific community is leaving out.

Over the past several months I've seen many articles in various scientific and space journals which celebrate the discovery of worlds outside our solar system which (may be) habitable. Here is a link to one such article: http://www.space.com/20733-alien-life-search-next-phase.html

Here’s a quote from that article: “On Thursday (April 18), scientists announced the discovery of three more potentially habitable exoplanets — Kepler-62e, Kepler-62f and Kepler-69c — further suggesting that the cosmos is jam-packed with worlds capable of supporting life as we know it.”

Yes, you read that right. “The cosmos is jam-packed with worlds capable of supporting life as we know it.” According to scientists and astronomers, there are approximately 4.5 billion alien earths.  Their criteria is simple. They say that these planets orbit their sun at just the right distance to support liquid water and therefore life.

We have the Kepler Space Telescope to thank for these discoveries, as well as the cleverly thought out names of these alien worlds. But what does the Kepler telescope actually see? Kepler watches distant stars closely, waiting for the opportune time when a planet passes between the star and the telescope, creating a tiny little dot in the image of the larger dot that is the star. Then it measures the size of the planet against the size of the star. Seems pretty straightforward. The problem though is that this is two dimensional. How do they know how close the planet is to the star? And without a very VERY good answer to that question, how do they know the size of the planet? For that matter, how can they really be that precise in measuring the size of the star itself? How good are the measurements of the distance of that star from the telescope? The answers to all these questions are answered by computer models which rely on theory to work. Theory isn't fact.

This picture is an artist rendering. Kepler cannot see this clearly.

Nobody is actually able to MEASURE the distance of an object several light years away. Even if we had lasers that were powerful enough to project a beam that far with a reflection that could make the return trip, the time it would take to complete such a measurement would be double the number of years that it takes the light to travel that distance in the first place. Additionally, if they cannot measure the distance, then they cannot measure the size. Everything in this "science" is based on estimation.

Billions of dollars are spent annually on various projects searching for life on other worlds. This is a very expensive industry which depends on public and private investment. In order to keep these scientists and astronomers working, they need to produce results. Well here you see the results of their work.

So while it's fun to write stories and make films about aliens on other worlds, until we actually go there and see for ourselves, there's simply no way to know what, if anything, is out there.

Lost Technology

There is a pattern in human society that I have been contemplating for some time now concerning our ability to retain technology. Here I will try to put my observations into words.

In 1968, the United States sent three men to the moon, landed two of them on the lunar surface, retrieved them and brought all three safely home. It was an amazing feat and I watched it on TV as a youngster. (Okay I was about 3 when it happened, so it's likely that my memories are actually one of the later flights.) We kept landing men on the moon until 1974. There are conspiracy theories that the whole thing happened in a Hollywood studio but the only problem with those theories is that mankind did not possess the technology in film that we have today, and in fact could not fake it. Americans were there. But not today.

Today we send robots to Mars and this is truly amazing. In fact, there is observable evidence of intelligence on the red planet. Technology made in the USA.

There are more robots being designed to return to the moon and lots of talk about a lunar base. Lots of talk. Not much action. Nobody is on the moon and I postulate that we're not there because we can't get there.

The entirety of computational assets available during the Apollo moon program was very insignificant by today's standards. My Android smart phone contains more computational ability then the entire lunar program. Our advancements in computers, fabrics for space suits, composite materials, etc is astounding, so why are we not mining lunar minerals? We cannot. In our drive to improve technology, we have lost the technology.

I read a recent article that told how NASA was removing Saturn V F-1 rocket engines from museums to attempt to figure out why they worked. Seriously? We're attempting to reverse-engineer 1960's tech so that we can build 2010's tech? Truthfully yes. Here's a similar article:

NASA Engineers Resurrect And Test Mighty F-1 Engine Gas Generator

I think much of the problem is that we feel that we must be able to engage in space travel with the most up-to-date equipment possible. It's in our nature. We have a box full of tools that work, but we're so obsessed with thinking outside the box that we've ignored them to the point that when we look inside the box today, we no longer know how the tools work.

This is an age-old problem. For example, the Great Pyramids of Giza. There's much speculation that they were tombs for kings. If that's the case, were are the dead kings? Engineers and scientists have come up with numerous theories speculating that they could have been ancient power plants, beacons for extra-terrestrials, astronomical observatories, etc. Much thought has been given to how they might have moved those huge stones into place, how they survived geological movements and other problems that ancient man should not have been able to solve. Likewise the placing of those giant obelisks in Egypt and their uses. Archaeologists and engineers have teamed up trying to move huge stones like this into place, but have only been successful on a small scale because we don't have the tech to move huge stones.

An interesting fact is that later pyramids did not fare so well. Compare the great pyramids in the above photo to the later ones in the foreground. Not only were they significantly less grand, they're crumbling. The Egyptians lost the technology to build on the larger scale.

Now take Stonehenge in England. Lets put aside the possible theoretical uses for this structure and just look at the structure itself.

These blocks are massive. They're also heavy. They were not cut locally but moved from distant quarries. How were they moved? How were they set in position? How did those blocks on top get there? How did these people accomplish this without possessing the technology of the wheel? I would postulate that they hadn't discovered the wheel yet because they didn't need a wheel. They had more efficient tech that has since been forgotten.

Another example of lost tech is Solomon's temple. History and the Bible record that the stones were quarried at a distance, they were cut precisely at the quarry and transported to the Temple Mount. They fit together perfectly without mortar and no tools were heard at the building site.

With today's laser technology and advanced cutting tools, mankind is unable to cut stone to this level of precision. The transportation and lifting of these stones without damage is also outside the limits of modern tech.

Here's a theory I've been working on lately. It's built upon the Biblical account of creation. If Adam was created perfect by God, then he was probably created with intelligence and knowledge far beyond what we can possibly imagine today. (Intelligence but not wisdom. If he had wisdom, he probably wouldn't have eaten the forbidden fruit.) The Bible says he lived for 930 years. That's a long time to put that intelligence and knowledge to use. His descendants also lived incredibly long lives, probably due to the idea that their genetics were only beginning to break down after the Fall of Man. Imagine a world where highly intelligent humans lived incredibly long lifetimes. What knowledge did Adam pass down to his progeny? And what knowledge them? How was that intelligence and knowledge applied to everyday situations? Ancient man could have possessed technology that would be unthinkable in the modern age. It's even possible that pre-flood man could have reached into space. That would certainly explain some odd cave drawings and carvings that resemble men in space suits. The kind of things that UFO enthusiasts claim to be proof that we were visited by beings from other worlds. Or maybe these drawings of ancient "spacesuits" were only part of failed attempts to reach the stars. We just don't know. Historical literature records that ancient man was terrified of Mars. Why? If ancient man was so primitive as we're taught to believe, than what's so threatening about a little pink dot in the sky? Whatever tech the ancients possessed, over time it was lost or forgotten.

It could also be that the knowledge was taken. I consider the account of the Tower of Babel. Lots of speculation on what this tower was but it was intended to reach the heavens. Was this a ziggurat as some claim, or perhaps a rail launcher? Whatever it was, God didn't like it one bit did He? He shut it down and confused mankind's language to prevent them from doing it again.

We are so proud of our technological advancements that we're blind to the idea that ancient man could have been more advanced, even in vastly different ways. Yet we can see how the 'primitive' analogue tech of fifty years ago accomplished feats that our 'modern' digital tech cannot repeat. Will we ever land men on the moon again? Will we truly explore the stars? Time will tell along with God's patience. Did we do it before, yes. (The moon at least) Can we do it today? Nope.

What is Concept Theory?

If you know a teacher who works with students who have difficulty learning through traditional instructive techniques, you may point them to this post. I expect there are many conceptual theoreticians out there. If I had teachers in my childhood who understood me, my life would have been much different. Just being aware of the process goes a long way to dealing with it.

Google or Bing “Concept Theory” and you will get diverse, loosely related definitions. Odds are you won’t get a firm definition of the specific phrase itself. Though I came up with it on my own, it would be narcissistic of me to think that I actually coined this term. Surely someone else thought of it first. Whether their definition is the same as mine is yet to be determined. Here is my definition.

Concept Theory is a verb describing a thought process. It’s how I view the world. Indeed it’s the framework for my very perception of reality. It’s not something I learned or taught myself, but rather my attempt to define the process by which I arrive at conclusions. Growing up, I wasn't able to learn like the other kids in school. This brought me difficulty with both my peers and teachers alike. It wasn't until I applied Concept Theory to my own thought process that I was able to determine how it is that I think. Concept Theory is the act of theorizing concepts.

A Conceptional Theoretician thinks in 5D. Now we’re all used to the three spatial dimensions, height, width and depth. So thinking in 3D is like contemplating a cube. We’re also all familiar with the linear dimension of time. Therefore, 4D thinking is like contemplating that cube as it exists in past, present and future. The fifth dimension (spatial) is best described as inwardness and outwardness, and is a little more complicated.

I have a tool box. It is a 3D object. It’s also dirty and scratched. How it got that way is a function of time. It exists in past, present and future, making it a 4D object. Impacts, collisions and other forces from outside the box through the course of time have had an effect upon it. That’s outwardness. Moving still outward are the forces that caused these forces to interact with the box, and the forces that acted upon them, and outward to infinity. Outwardness is infinite. Open the lid and the box is cluttered with various tools, nuts, bolts, nails, pins, staples, etc. That’s inwardness. All my tools are dirty and scratched. Everything inside the box has been affected by outside forces over time. Various objects within the box are designed to interact with others. The wrench is designed to interact with the nut for example. The tools can be used to influence the world outside the box - outwardness. Moving still inward are the various components of each tool; how these components interact with each other to cause the tool to function. Inwardness is finite down to the sub-atomic level of each atom comprising the molecules of each component. Each component of every tool can be explored 5 dimensionally to complete the 5D perception of the box.

5D thinking then, is to examine a concept from every possible perspective, what it contains, how it interacts with other concepts over time. Patterns emerge. These patterns interact with other patterns to produce more complex patterns. This process may take seconds, minutes, hours, days or years. A concept is “chewed” on until it has been thoroughly digested, exploring inwardness and outwardness only as far as necessary.  At any given moment in time, I have several concepts being simultaneously processed in my head. This occasionally keeps me awake at night or causes me to be distracted during conversations.

Another way of exploring inwardness is asking the question “Why?” Then repeating the “Why?” to each answer until there are no “Whys” left. When your four-year-old keeps asking “Why?” as you try to explain something, instead of saying “Because I said so.” try eliminating the whys one at a time. You might discover something you’ve never considered before.

Concept theory then is the process of applying thought to raw observation to arrive at a theoretical conclusion. “Raw observation” is data that has not been cluttered with other applied thought processes.

When I apply concept theory to my personal Biblical studies, I contemplate a particular idea, looking inward, dissecting it, looking at it from various perspectives, relating it to surrounding Biblical ideas, expanding outward to how it relates to the entire Bible, outward still to current events, society, culture, history and various perceived future possibilities. Once I have the raw observation digested, then I look at how my conclusions relate to the conclusions of others. Sometimes I find things that cause me to reevaluate, and the process is repeated. Sometimes another completely different idea emerges and the original concept is shelved for later contemplation. I also include prayer in this process. God has already provided all the needed data and using Him as a resource for compiling it is one of the best tools that I have ever encountered.

Concerning geopolitical concepts the idea is similar. I observe something, I evaluate it 5 dimensionally and produce theories. I disregard clutter (pundits for example) unless I think further data is needed to complete my hypothesis.

This is how I think, and why people sometimes find it hard to understand me. I’m not always right, and even when I am, my conclusions are often difficult to quantify, which is why I call this Concept THEORY.

The Case For the Trillion Dollar Coin

First off, I’m not a pundit and I don’t watch, listen to, or read pundits as a rule, though I do occasionally take note of what they say from time to time. My view is that pundits are nothing more than opinion merchants for those people who are unable to form a decision on their own. I came to this conclusion many years ago when I found myself repeating some of the things they said as though they were my own opinion and the thought was uncomfortable to me. Now when I give my opinion on a matter, it’s my opinion, untainted by the rhetoric of either the left or the right. It’s all mine and I own it and I take responsibility for it. I consider myself a conservative, though most conservatives would disagree on much of what I say.

There should be no question that the US Government has a serious spending problem and it must be reeled in. I would think that having the rudimentary skills to balance a checkbook ought to be a prerequisite for elected office, but the American people seem to disagree with that viewpoint, choosing instead to elect representatives who seem to lack this core ability.

Let’s make an assumption here. Let’s assume that somehow the American people come to their senses and elect a government committed to balancing the budget. (I don’t think this could be a Republican or Democrat government since neither have demonstrated the ability to balance a checkbook. For the sake of the illustration, let’s assume it’s called the Balanced Checkbook Party.)

So now the budget is balanced and we’re not spending more than we earn. What do we do with the trillions and trillions of dollars of debt? We could raise taxes, or we could decrease spending even more. Either option would create further hardship on the population. That’s where the trillion dollar coin could come into play. (Please hold your rotten tomatoes until you hear me through.)

I am over-simplifying the numerical values here to make my point, so please give me a little grace in that area. If our debt is 20 trillion dollars, then I would propose minting one of these $1T coins and depositing it directly into the Federal Reserve Bank. Now the bank has the funds to make it’s debt payments for a year. Inflation rises due to the influx of money but I have taken that into account. Every year for 20 years, another $1T coin in deposited into the Fed while no further debts are accrued. Inflation rises appropriately, as does minimum wage, and I would expect that by the end of the 20 years, one dollar bills would be laughable, people would be paying for things with much higher denomination bills. With me so far? Here’s the catch.

Twenty years have passed and the dollar has taken a severe blow. Prices are sky high but wages are rising with the increase of monetary flow. The dollar still has value but the bills in people’s wallets look different. $100 and $1,000 bills are changing hands casually. Now is the time to re-monetize the dollar. Here’s how I see this playing out. New money. New faces on the bills. A New Dollar is born. $1,000 old dollars are now worth $1 New Dollar. The two currencies would overlap for a few years with both old dollars and New Dollars changing hands as the old dollars are phased out. Wages are switched over to the new currency. In the space of a few years, the New Dollar would be worth more than what the current dollar is worth today. National debt is paid in full and we are a sovereign nation once again. Once the old dollars are relegated to history, the New Dollar is re-named and it’s simply “The Dollar” once again.

Yeah, I know there are flaws in this idea. Investors won’t want to invest in the dollar for one thing, which is why we need to stop accruing debt first. People and nations already heavily invested in the dollar will take a loss. That’s the price of investing in a doomed currency. Inflation will also take it’s toll on the livelihood of Americans but I predict less so than other methods of dealing with this problem.

“This is just a pipe dream.” you say. Well of course it is. We need a balanced budget in order for this to be feasible and Americans don’t want a balanced budget. They prove this point in the polls every election as they vote for politicians based upon how much Federal money they can pull into their districts in the form of “pork.” But we’ll leave that thought for another blog post.

Agree with me or don’t. It doesn’t matter. All that matters to me is that I get you thinking. (At this point, you are free to hurl your rotten tomatoes in my general direction.)

P.S. Those twenty $1T coins sitting in the vault at the Federal Reserve? Guess what? Since they are based upon the old dollar and since the old dollar is phased out and replaced, they are now worthless except for their value to high end coin collectors. In fact, collectors competing for one of only twenty minted platinum coins would possibly end up paying more for these historical trinkets then they would be worth monetarily. A small net gain on a long-term investment.