Sep 192019
 

space station

As the popularized phrase goes, sometimes we tend to be ‘blinded by science’ and draw conclusions that do not concur with scientific principles, or that at least, do not consider the very real risks and consequences of already known scientific principles.

This may be the case with regard to optimistic projections concerning proposed space ventures predicted to be underway by the mid-2020s. Two proposals immediately come to mind: the earth-orbiting Von Braun Space Station and planned manned voyages to the planet Mars.

Upon closer examination, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that perhaps we have not considered the gravity of these proposals as they may actually affect those who would consider such opportunities to venture into space. Indeed, the nature of gravity itself could become one of mankind’s major obstacles with respect to fulfilling any dreams of venturing into space.

Gravity is a phenomenon little understood, even though it is a ‘force’ perpetually experienced by all living creatures who inhabit planet Earth. From the direct effects on the human body when not subjected to earth’s full gravitational field, to the very nature of gravity’s role within the structure of the universe, a closer look the gravity of our situation certainly appears to be in order.

Sadly, the ‘gravity of our situation’ may be better applied to the current discipline of science itself.

For example, take a closer look at what has been called the “big bang theory” – a theory popularly shared by most scientists and the public alike to explain the ‘origins of the universe.’

Having done so ourselves, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is yet another theory that demonstrates how so much of what we think we know “just ain’t so.”

On the other hand, the once accepted view of a “steady state universe” (which makes no attempt to explain the ‘origins’ of the universe) demonstrates how so much of what has been rejected by modern theorists actually “is so.”

Before mankind ventures into space, we had best be assured that the knowledge at our disposal is Just Right, or else the gravity of our situation may overwhelm us in ways that extend far beyond the field of gravity itself.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

  2 Responses to “623 – The gravity of our situation – from the state of science to the state of our universe”

  1. Awesome show Bob. Well thought out.and explained. Cheers R obby we

  2. Well presented, Bob. Thanks to social media, the “mainstream” media, and fake science indoctrinating students in our publicly funded school system our society at large is becoming incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality.

    Last evening I received an e-mail from another friend who sent me a link to an article in a perceptually credible publication promoting the idea that Venus can become just like Earth:

    https://www.universetoday.com/143478/venus-could-have-supported-life-for-billions-of-years/

    I responded as follows:

    While it is interesting, the punch line gives it all away:

    “Venus could someday be made into a balmy world that’s mostly covered with oceans with few large continents and extensive archipelagos.”

    So tell me this: whence will come the Hydrogen necessary to make all the water to fill those oceans? Because if its proximity to the sun and lack of magnetosphere, most of Venus’ hydrogen was long ago blown off into space. Will we figure out some way to import the necessary Hydrogen from Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and/or Neptune? The little Hydrogen still left on Venus is bound up with Sulfur and Oxygen in the form of H2SO4, more commonly known as Sulfuric Acid – not particularly hospitable to life as we know it.

    And a day on Venus is 243 Earth days in length. How will we get it spinning again? There would actually be some merit in figuring that out. Earth spins ever more slowly as it ages. Eventually, the sun will incinerate all the inner planets but we’ll be long gone before that happens because the Earth’s rotation will slow to such a degree that the magnetic field will collapse a long time before the sun incinerates us. When the magnetic field goes, so will we, sterilized by solar radiation – death by extreme sunburn. So, if we could devise some method of increasing or even maintaining a planet’s rate of spin and apply it to Earth we’d be able to inhabit this planet for a good deal longer.

    Getting back to the challenge of repopulating Venus, we’ll still need a magnetosphere to shield the surface from the sterilizing effects of solar radiation. That means we’ll have to re-mobilize an inner and outer core, getting them to rotate in opposite directions to create the dynamo effect that results in a magnetic field. Even if we were able to do that, the magnetic field would have to be considerably stronger than Earth’s to provide the same level of protection. The Inverse Square Law tells us that Venus receives 1.91 times the intensity of solar radiation that Earth does, but it’s not as simple as creating a magnetosphere nearly twice as powerful as Earth’s. Magnetic force is not an inverse square function; it is an inverse cube function. So instead of decreasing at a rate of 1/4, 1/9, 1/16, etc. as distance doubles, triples and quadruples, magnetic force decreases at a rate of 1/8, 1/27, 1/64, etc.

    And then there’s the issue of an Ozone layer – a product of photosynthetic life that took millions of years to develop on Earth. How are we going to replace the thick shroud of sulfuric acid clouds with an Ozone layer?

    And, of course, we’ll need a healthy, functioning carbon cycle – achieved on Earth principally through plate tectonics. Venus has not had plate tectonics for billions of years. I suppose we could also install that feature while we’re going about re-establishing counter-rotating cores, eh?

    Further is the issue identified in the article re: solar output. The sun burns hotter as it ages. It is presently about 20% hotter than it was as a newborn star. So, all these conditions will be a good deal more difficult to re-create than they were three or four billion years ago.

    This whole thing is a joke perpetrated by scientifically destitute bozos who know how to do one thing well – write computer programs that will produce the results their fantasies desire. Still fun to read but I know better than to take any of it seriously.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.