August 01, 2022
I May Get My Flying Car After All
Ric Werme
NH has a law that regulates, but permits, "roadable aircraft." I haven't heard much about the industry since the law was signed in 2020.
https://insidesources.com/new-hampshire-law-gives-flying-cars-a-lift/
NH has a law that regulates, but permits, "roadable aircraft." I haven't heard much about the industry since the law was signed in 2020.
https://insidesources.com/new-hampshire-law-gives-flying-cars-a-lift/
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:59 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.
The Problem with Panels
Warner Todd Huston
What they don't tell you when you cover your roof in solar panels is that all those panels go bad in about 10 or 15 years and you'll have to replace them all with new ones at up to $20,000 or more to do it. So, basically, all the savings on power you had for 15 years goes up in smoke when you have to buy new panels.
What they don't tell you when you cover your roof in solar panels is that all those panels go bad in about 10 or 15 years and you'll have to replace them all with new ones at up to $20,000 or more to do it. So, basically, all the savings on power you had for 15 years goes up in smoke when you have to buy new panels.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:50 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
The Problem of Life
Roy W. Spencer
From what little I know about the subject, having an Earth-like planet is not sufficient for Earth-like life. Life is not a product of matter, but it instead rides upon matter. Any time you have heard "life has been created" by scientists, it is inevitably just taking pieces of pre-existing life components and re-assembling them. The information content of DNA and RNA is so vast that only a philosophical aversion to a creator would keep one from believing life was not created by a superior being, rather than a chance assemblage of matter. The more that this issue is studied, the more impossible it seems that life arose by chance from unthinking matter. For example, check out some of the writings of Stephen Meyer. https://www.discovery.org/p/meyer/
John Lees adds:
I don't believe in God (likely to my detriment, I admit). And yet, I also would agree that the self-creation of life is on the verge of impossible, based upon what we know.
It's not simply matter of dumping some chemicals on a warm ball of rock and giving it all a shake!!
There's a long uphill haul against entropy before you arrive at the emergence of even the most basic self-replicatin
Real science doesn't know the answer. Only glib pop-science pretends that we have any conclusive insights into how these early pre-life molecular construction projects were completed, and by what?
Tim adds:
I couldn't agree more Dr. Spencer! I made that point once in an argument with a group of materialists who sneered "what about retroviruses?" as though that was creating life! We have never created life, just rearranged it some. I would argue until we find some truly alien life based on a radically different chemistry than is our own (and not things like ocean thermal vent bacteria which are just pumped up versions of other life forms on Earth) we cannot claim there is any other life and cannot make the case. I remember a few years ago when a bacteria was discovered that could metabolize some arsenic. The media was full of talk of "alien life found" and "arsenic based life" beither of which were even remotely true. These were arsenic tolerating life forms which could use arsenic like phospherous to a degree (which is why arsenic is so poisonous; it is next to phosphorous on the periodic table and the body is tricked into trying to use it as such.) This was just a variant of a life form already here, one based on carbon and suited to life on Earth. It just evolved a niche where it could live in a rather exotic environment.
Hoyle calculated the possibility of life forming spontaneously as 1x10 exp 40,000, which made abiogensis impossible in the time frame of the Universe. It's why Hoyle developed the Steady State theory and also why he believed in directed panspermia. He was desperate to get around the obvious. Granted, those odds drop (and the time required) if you assume evolution of each function of a cell simultaneously,
I agree completely John Lees. We don't really have a theory of
evolution, contrary to pop science which claims we have it all figured
out. You can't quantify anything and you can't follow any sort of chain
of logic beyond "well, it's there because it's there". Abiogenesis is a
huge hole in Darwinian theory as you can't possibly explain the
evolution of cells much less DNA.
John Lees adds:
Claims that the "Drake Equation" tells us anything about how common life may be, are completely bogus. Since it is based on multiplying a series of guesses the error also multiplies into the result.
And we do not have the foggiest idea how likely it would be for life to emerge on a planet, even given ideal conditions. We simply have no idea whatsoever.
One unknown in a multiplicative equation renders the result - also unknown.
From what little I know about the subject, having an Earth-like planet is not sufficient for Earth-like life. Life is not a product of matter, but it instead rides upon matter. Any time you have heard "life has been created" by scientists, it is inevitably just taking pieces of pre-existing life components and re-assembling them. The information content of DNA and RNA is so vast that only a philosophical aversion to a creator would keep one from believing life was not created by a superior being, rather than a chance assemblage of matter. The more that this issue is studied, the more impossible it seems that life arose by chance from unthinking matter. For example, check out some of the writings of Stephen Meyer. https://www.discovery.org/p/meyer/
John Lees adds:
I don't believe in God (likely to my detriment, I admit). And yet, I also would agree that the self-creation of life is on the verge of impossible, based upon what we know.
It's not simply matter of dumping some chemicals on a warm ball of rock and giving it all a shake!!
There's a long uphill haul against entropy before you arrive at the emergence of even the most basic self-replicatin
Real science doesn't know the answer. Only glib pop-science pretends that we have any conclusive insights into how these early pre-life molecular construction projects were completed, and by what?
Tim adds:
I couldn't agree more Dr. Spencer! I made that point once in an argument with a group of materialists who sneered "what about retroviruses?" as though that was creating life! We have never created life, just rearranged it some. I would argue until we find some truly alien life based on a radically different chemistry than is our own (and not things like ocean thermal vent bacteria which are just pumped up versions of other life forms on Earth) we cannot claim there is any other life and cannot make the case. I remember a few years ago when a bacteria was discovered that could metabolize some arsenic. The media was full of talk of "alien life found" and "arsenic based life" beither of which were even remotely true. These were arsenic tolerating life forms which could use arsenic like phospherous to a degree (which is why arsenic is so poisonous; it is next to phosphorous on the periodic table and the body is tricked into trying to use it as such.) This was just a variant of a life form already here, one based on carbon and suited to life on Earth. It just evolved a niche where it could live in a rather exotic environment.
Hoyle calculated the possibility of life forming spontaneously as 1x10 exp 40,000, which made abiogensis impossible in the time frame of the Universe. It's why Hoyle developed the Steady State theory and also why he believed in directed panspermia. He was desperate to get around the obvious. Granted, those odds drop (and the time required) if you assume evolution of each function of a cell simultaneously,
John Lees adds:
Claims that the "Drake Equation" tells us anything about how common life may be, are completely bogus. Since it is based on multiplying a series of guesses the error also multiplies into the result.
And we do not have the foggiest idea how likely it would be for life to emerge on a planet, even given ideal conditions. We simply have no idea whatsoever.
One unknown in a multiplicative equation renders the result - also unknown.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:37 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 686 words, total size 4 kb.
The Health Costs of Vaxxing
Dana Mathewson
Here's an article from WND about "new conditions" appearing in people who were vaxxed. I wonder if my pulmonary embolism was caused by Pfizer?
Here's an article from WND about "new conditions" appearing in people who were vaxxed. I wonder if my pulmonary embolism was caused by Pfizer?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:25 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
The Very Definition of Insanity
Jason Foster
After spending $2.1 trillion and 20 years in Afghanistan, at a cost of 200,000+ lives, US/NATO successfully replaced the Taliban regime with the Taliban regime.
Now US/NATO thinks it's going to regime change Russia and China at the same time, using 82-year-old Nancy Pelosi to foment a war with China.
The record levels of psychopathy in Washington DC is going to end us all.
After spending $2.1 trillion and 20 years in Afghanistan, at a cost of 200,000+ lives, US/NATO successfully replaced the Taliban regime with the Taliban regime.
Now US/NATO thinks it's going to regime change Russia and China at the same time, using 82-year-old Nancy Pelosi to foment a war with China.
The record levels of psychopathy in Washington DC is going to end us all.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:03 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.
Rand: Russia Will Use Tactical Nukes
Maurizio Morabito
From Telegram
"A RAND Corporation report assesses risks of possible direct war between NATO and Russia in case of clash between coalition forces and Russian forces in Ukraine"
"The biggest risk from Russia deciding to attack NATO allies will be when Moscow realizes the inevitability of large-scale NATO direct attacks on Russian armed forces."
Both the participation of NATO forces in operations in Ukraine and the concentration of alliance troops in offensive configurations near the borders of the Russian Federation will lead Moscow to the decision to strike first the chi forces he has allies. To do so, tactical nuclear weapons will be immediately involved, the report says. "
https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA1971-1.html
From Telegram
"A RAND Corporation report assesses risks of possible direct war between NATO and Russia in case of clash between coalition forces and Russian forces in Ukraine"
"The biggest risk from Russia deciding to attack NATO allies will be when Moscow realizes the inevitability of large-scale NATO direct attacks on Russian armed forces."
Both the participation of NATO forces in operations in Ukraine and the concentration of alliance troops in offensive configurations near the borders of the Russian Federation will lead Moscow to the decision to strike first the chi forces he has allies. To do so, tactical nuclear weapons will be immediately involved, the report says. "
https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA1971-1.html
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:00 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
Yes There Was Vote Fraud
Timothy Birdnow
An argument over vote fraud and Jan. 6 with an aptly named fellow.
Murray Stewart says:
Why did Pelosi not allow any Trump supporters on the Committee Mr. Whitehad? She allowed just two Republicans, both of whom were on record as utterly despising Trump. So the deck was stacked from the beginning. Jim Jordan was not allowed on this. IF there was any intention of honest inquiry they would have allowed Trump supporters on there as well so they could cross-examine. This is a show trial, one that had already been done with the second impeachment and Trump was found innocent. Your argument is purely emotion driven.
The aptly named Jim Whtehead bloviates:
More verbal diarrhea from Billo the Clown. Have been watching the Jan 6th committee and strongly disagree with the above biased analysis. Trump has been conclusively shown to be unfit to be a candidate for the presidency.
Murray responds:
more...
An argument over vote fraud and Jan. 6 with an aptly named fellow.
Murray Stewart says:
Why did Pelosi not allow any Trump supporters on the Committee Mr. Whitehad? She allowed just two Republicans, both of whom were on record as utterly despising Trump. So the deck was stacked from the beginning. Jim Jordan was not allowed on this. IF there was any intention of honest inquiry they would have allowed Trump supporters on there as well so they could cross-examine. This is a show trial, one that had already been done with the second impeachment and Trump was found innocent. Your argument is purely emotion driven.
The aptly named Jim Whtehead bloviates:
More verbal diarrhea from Billo the Clown. Have been watching the Jan 6th committee and strongly disagree with the above biased analysis. Trump has been conclusively shown to be unfit to be a candidate for the presidency.
Murray responds:
more...
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:58 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1241 words, total size 8 kb.
The Unique Earth
Timothy Birdnow
I've always thought so. The primary assumption of science since Galileo is that we are nothing unusual. We have downplayed our roll in Creatiion. So it was assumed we were probably just one habitable, indeed, inhabited world among many. There was the Drake equations which calculated the number of inhabitable planets and argued from statistics that we must not be alone. But I always found those self-serving and doubted the assumptions. We now know most solar systems are quite different from our own. Most have "hot Jupiters" for instance, gas giants near the stars. This would radically change the structure of such a solar system. It would also lead to more solar flares. We know many solar systems have "super Earths" planets twice the size of Earth. It is strange Earth is so small. Most stars are flare suns too, and ours is quite stable - something unique. It just may be ours is REALLY, REALLY unique and we are alone, or if life started somewhere else it is simple. Everything seemed to happen right for Earth. We are the right temperature for liquid water, have plenty of it, are safe via our magnetic field from radiation, are safe from asteroid strikes (by and large), etc. And then there is the Fermi Paradox, which asks "where are they". Fermi realized we should see evidence of advanced alien civilizations if they were around. But we do not. No radio waves, for instance. The Fermi paradox pretty much guarantees we aren't withing a hundred light years of any civilization on a par with our own (as we would be detecting their radio transmissions) and likely far longer as older civilizations would have put such transmissions out in the past. So where are they? They may not be there at all.
Rare Earth hypothesis: Why we might really be alone in the universe
astronomy.com
I've always thought so. The primary assumption of science since Galileo is that we are nothing unusual. We have downplayed our roll in Creatiion. So it was assumed we were probably just one habitable, indeed, inhabited world among many. There was the Drake equations which calculated the number of inhabitable planets and argued from statistics that we must not be alone. But I always found those self-serving and doubted the assumptions. We now know most solar systems are quite different from our own. Most have "hot Jupiters" for instance, gas giants near the stars. This would radically change the structure of such a solar system. It would also lead to more solar flares. We know many solar systems have "super Earths" planets twice the size of Earth. It is strange Earth is so small. Most stars are flare suns too, and ours is quite stable - something unique. It just may be ours is REALLY, REALLY unique and we are alone, or if life started somewhere else it is simple. Everything seemed to happen right for Earth. We are the right temperature for liquid water, have plenty of it, are safe via our magnetic field from radiation, are safe from asteroid strikes (by and large), etc. And then there is the Fermi Paradox, which asks "where are they". Fermi realized we should see evidence of advanced alien civilizations if they were around. But we do not. No radio waves, for instance. The Fermi paradox pretty much guarantees we aren't withing a hundred light years of any civilization on a par with our own (as we would be detecting their radio transmissions) and likely far longer as older civilizations would have put such transmissions out in the past. So where are they? They may not be there at all.
Rare Earth hypothesis: Why we might really be alone in the universe
astronomy.com
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:57 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.
47kb generated in CPU 0.0301, elapsed 0.2325 seconds.
41 queries taking 0.2183 seconds, 214 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
41 queries taking 0.2183 seconds, 214 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
