Free Republic

Clearly, for good [the good of the world], and ill [the ill of the American middle], Empire is the future.

Check out Toynbee [also Spengler, et al.]. Inevitably the bulk of the middle class in Empires end up becoming what Toynbee calls ‘internal proletariats’.

This is obviously in the interest of some, but not of others. Still, while the overall process seems to have a significant degree of historical inevitability, the manner in which this all ends up being played out will be up to each of us.

Also note the rise of religious and spiritual interest around the world. Toynbee points out that last time this happened in the west [Roman Empire], much of the Mediterranean was divided between what he called ‘zealots’ and their arch rivals, the ‘hellenists’. Obviouslly we have our Globalists and theo-cons today as well.

I myself take part in all this as an Evangelical Christian.

Ironic.

The mass of people believe what they are told to believe. Don't let them get you down.

Those of us who are intelligent and take personal responsibility for our lives are not comprehensible to those who rely upon institutions and the state to make our decisions for us.

Thank you for the ***practical*** insight.

I know what 'dark matter' is driving all this. And that same dark matter is driving most of the promotion on campus today.

An apology: In the above, while referring to the 'religious', I meant the 'religious per se'.

I myself am religious in a manner, but ***not*** in my science.

"...tell us what is mistaken about our understanding..."

'Our' copious use of the 'royal "we"' exactly illustrates what is essentially 'wrong' here:

1#) The intoxicating saftey of "herd thinking".

2#) Making a royal priesthood out of those holding the merely (and always temporarily) dominant view in ***any*** field, in order to satisfy that primal inner longing for certitude.

3#) Self certitude in itself. That is religion. It has no place in science.

But to address your corporate concern, here is just one example of the mind-numbing, er ah, make that mind-blowing illogic which we/they/them no longer find a barrier to 'progress':

'We' (unfortunately not the royal one) are told that space itself is rapidly expanding [what a wonderfully unmeasureable phenomena!] in such a manner as to cause the matter in it to actually move faster than the light which it emits.

Seriously, were do I start? Please do reflect on this though: The fact that c is no longer universally understood as constant should by itself tell us that the scientific view is, even in its most assumed or enshrined form, changing. And not always (though usually) for the better.

[e.g., A number of ancient Greek scientists were aware of a heli-centric astronomy, but the view adopted and held for over 1500 years was the ptolemaic.]

But to return to my rant, even if one believed the idea that space ***itself*** expands in this manner, one would have to question why the 'waves' which travel through the assumed [but unproven] etheric (another old idea alternatively worshiped and abandoned) medium would not correspondingly expand, 'expanding' the speed of light along with them. I could go on. Honestly though, why should I have all the fun? Why don't you see if ***you*** could find anything to question in all this.

A final note: Folks, the religious ***only*** respond to rhetoric [call it ranting if you must]. Once someone has ***decided*** not to reason ***for themselves***, no amount of pristene logic will prevail. No amount.

But passion will sometimes get through. No light without fire.

"...of course the view today is not ALWAYS right..."

Not always...?

I apologize for not being more clear; here is what I meant to say:

If something is not logical, it is not true.

Quanitative measurements can only be understood within the framework of the conceptual paradigm we currently understand. The conceptual paradigms we use are governed by logic or else they are governed by nothing at all. Einstein stressed this, are you saying that you aren't aware of his views on this?

Foolish me, I just realized:

We are nearly always right! We've achieved the near END OF SCIENCE! No longer do we really need to be troubled by the vaguely personal subjectivities of logic, doubt, or reasoned analysis!

Now its clear to me: Free and independent thought is not reliable enough to be trusted. What we really know is what someone else has told us! What joy to know that all I need to do is follow in the footsteps of the past and all will be "ok".

Isn't faith in science great?

"Astrophysics is mind-blowing stuff". And thought blowing. And reason blowing. And logic blowing. Until recently we used to call that "wrong". Clearly logic reason and meaning no longer have any value among the dominant majority of astrophysicists.

Just why isn't a case emerging neo-ptolemyic scholaticism? Is the dominant view TODAY always right? With the intellectual life at the universities being what it is, why do we fail to question the "latest findings" in this increasingly byzantine and contentious field (that's right, this article is ignoring all the consensus that ISN'T).

Sure these folks have numbers to back up what they say. So does everyone else. Only a reasoned analysis can reveal whose numbers most accurately reflect actual conditions.

But to return to science as discovery rather then science as metaphysically revealed religion we would have to turn from science a the knowledge of the TRUTH to science as the awareness of the problem.

Given the state of public and university education these days, I fear the heyday of true scientific QUESTIONING may be over for a while.

Still, while we've truly gained what we've gained, clearly scientific progress stalls during intellectual and cultural declines.

For those who would argue the above, dealing with the inarguable fact of our overall intellectual and cultural decline is their largest nemesis.

Wow. If you hadn't posted this here, I would never have seen it. Thank you.

Darn it! I meant my last post to be addressed to you.

I'm so human.

Oh, I see; you're all set.

Thank you God! I so love to see really hard-nosed analytical thinkers who also aren't afraid to love Life Himself.

I agree. Happiness without cause is foolishness at best.

The Bible's basic claim though, is that the Mind and Spirit which creates and rules over this universe is intimately concerned and devoted to each of us. So much, in fact, that to the degree to which it was possible for this being to do so, it gave up everything it possessed, and died to give us true existence.

Sure that would make one happy if true, even more, it might cause one to literally 'fall in love' with life itself, but can it be believed?

Well, the book only points the way. The power is in the Relationship. Is it possible to have a loving intimate relationship with Reality?

_Only_ experience can tell.

Jesus said:
Ask. And you _will_ recieve.
Seek. And you _will_ find.
Pound on the door! And it _will_ be opened for you.

I promise you this, in any relationship, you only get its benefit by spending time with someone. If we actually put a just fraction of the amount of time and energy that we put into our careers into seriously seeking to relate with the One Infinite Reality...

That is what Evangelicals call prayer(seeking love from God) and worship(loving God back). Hey, it works for people ranging from Bob Dylan and Mel Gibson to George W. Bush.

You could be merely a pile of complex chemicals to me. Or I could spend the time (and take the chance) actually relating to you as a living being and person.

It would be my choice.

Actually, before the region you are talking about became muslim, it was ***the*** most intellectually, artistically, economically and politically developed region in the known world. It seems that after 700AD it began to fall back, ever faster. Why?

On the other hand, in 500AD Europe as a whole was the least intellectually, artistically, economically or politically developed region in the known world. But ever since then the region has been rising mightily. Why do you think that is?

Man-rated!?! It worked for HG Wells! What about lead underwear? Gee forces? No problem, we'll just use Texans! And think of our inter-Galactic 2nd amendment rights! No God fearing slimy tenticled alien would even imagine imposing its insidious disarmament scheme while we were packing that baby.

I've read some pretty interesting stuff that suggested that interstellar space is not as empty as it seems. What if the missing 'dark matter' is to a significant extent gas giants too small to ignite. Inter stellar space may be much fuller and richer then we now think. Perhaps even able to support life or civilization.

But we would know for sure if we explored where we were going virtually, as you suggested, first. Ultimately, a space faring civilization would do most things ‘virtually’, I'd think.

An earth gun shooting a reverse meteor. A great idea because you get the power of nuclear reactions while leaving the dirty part underground!

But what about deceleration or guidance of the payload? It seems it might take as a very large amount of energy to "catch".

Why not a long ‘slow’ burn? [Would it have to be directed at the horizon?] The channel tunnel and some others might show the basic tech. Perhaps you could get pretty vertical using a mountain. What are the theoretical lower limits on the size of nuclear explosives? If they are concieved as able to drive pistons, perhaps eventually a series of these pistons tangent to, and feeding a long linear tunnel system could drive a payload at least as well as current rockets, nuclearly, while leaving the mess below.

If such a system could develop with enough tolerance in the system, then there may be no limit to how far it could be built horizontally. I think you could get a good head of steam after a couple hundered miles or so. Could a limit be the atmospheric friction?

Yes I agree, if the process can only be "jump-started" it will eventually grow exponentially of its own momentum. The problem is that darn HUGE startup. The first investrors in both the Panama canal and English colonies in North America lost everything, I think. But once there are accelerators like that in LEO or the moon or in-between...

What really attracted my attention on this thread is a lot of what boris and others were saying about the astronomically (ha ha) better efficiency of chemical over 'electromagnetic propulsion. That got me thinking about railguns as well. Darn problem is the limited acceleration time, even with a vast system.

Are railguns or guns of any significant use at all beyond about a lunar orbit?

To me all what this shows is that it is going to take _a lot_ of work and time and organization and inspiration to get where we need to go. I'd think we need some cultural and social changes before we could pull much of this off.

Or we no longer even go to campus.

A great post.

The visible differences in race are due to slight differences in various genes. The search may be underway to somehow develop something which is only activated in the presence of a large amount of a certain gene, say the 'blond' gene.

Such a gene does exist, and it _is_ chemically different from any other; and so it could be used to 'excite' a pathogen to extrmeme virulence, in the presence of a sufficent technology.

So what will save us? More war?

Or spreading faith?

I was thinking the exact same thing.

A linear accelerator of any sort would seem to me to be essential. A "gun" of some type would, in fact, work, if the propellant reaction could be tightly controlled, that is, slowed down enough.

I'm thinking of a reaction more like one gets when shaking a bottle of soda pop or a child's mixing of vinegar and sodium bicarbonate. If contained in a long enough vessel, or "gun", the chemical reaction could, I think, accelerate gradually enough.

I'd imagine a complex computer control of the entire chemical event-- alternatively dampening or boosting the strength of the reaction based upon realtime measurment ***and computer modeling*** of the reaction [and where it is heading]. The problem is designing an entirely new technology. Or has this been done already? boris, would know.