Monday, December 8, 2014

Stephen Hawking's Orion.

Could the greatest mind since Albert
Einstein be wrong?
 Stephen Hawking is one of the world most "famous scientists" ( and one of the great minds of genius) that sits high among the "science gods" like Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan .  I am not trying to be critical of this guy here , you know that a movie has been made about his life called " The Theory of Everything " . Its a great film by standards . I have also  read his book called the " The Brief   History of Time"  an attempt to bring cosmology to the average man like what Sagan did for *** COSMOS. Honestly this scientist has made some outrageous statements treading on ground that Sagan tried to avoid such as religion and black holes . ( I'll explain that later)  The film about Hawking's life had run into problems I read that film's script was based on Jane's ( Hawking's wife ) memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen, and she had specific ideas about what the film should and shouldn't be. The movie does allude to the couple's sex life -- they have children together, after all -- but Marsh said he decided to follow Jane's guidelines despite his interest in depicting what sex would look like for someone with ALS, the disease behind Stephen Hawking's physical disability. There are a lot more disabled people, who are not a "Hawking", who are considered, to be without the ability to have a physical relationship.  Hawking's is a lucky man indeed ,both still alive and one of them quite famous - I think it was best to leave out any depictions of sex. You have a point about showing that disabled people are also sexual, but I think any on screen depiction would be best in relation to fictional characters.Millions of people and science fans who have read Dr. Hawking’s books, flocked to his lectures and watched him on “The Simpsons,” “Star Trek” and “The Big Bang Theory” have never known him except as a wheel-chaired figure speaking in a robotic voice; for all they know he was always that way and floated down to Earth on a comet, like Venus drifting in on a half-shell. Otherwise Hawking can say things as in theory that obviously would put him at odds with the religious community For a time, it was thought that astrophysicist Stephen Hawking had also left a tiny gap in his credo window for a magical deity. However, he has now come out and declared that there is no God.Yep, he'd said something that he himself has no proof as well , I mean how does he know for a matter of fact ? . After all we don't either? , but there could many gods and things that we don't understand fully in this universe .  Yet I never accepted that as my view when I was studying physics , never have I accepted most scientists like  (3)>  Stephen J Gould, and Richard Dawkins's who are hard core evolutionists statements as bona fide  gospel . Oddly enough Hawking's has a narrow view of life on other planets as well . I think with all the statistical calculus Hawking's patched up his numbers may not add up as well as  Einstein 's theory of relativity. Hawking's been tending toward such an absolute pronouncement for a while. (1)>  In a speech last year, he offered an explanation of how the world came to being without God. He mused: "What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions?"Scientists can only trace the Universe back about 13 billion years. They have no idea what happened before that. Most of the Universe is made of dark matter and dark energy. Calling it dark is just a way of saying we have no clue what it is. With most of everything unknown, it seems kind of arrogant to claim positively that there is no God. A lot hinges on how God is defined. If God is defined as the creator or whatever there was in the beginning then God is real by definition. Whatever that was is God. If it turns out to be just a ball of energy or compressed matter or whatever then that's God. Perhaps God is a spirit like school spirit or March Madness. That spirit certainly exists and if that's how one defines God then God is quite real. Hawking simply seems to have chosen to define God in a way that makes him not real. That's pretty arbitrary. Hawking's also made another statement that threw the scientific community in a tail spin he said that (2)> Black holes do not exist—at least, not as we know them. Black holes are just numerical "theories" , no one has yet seen a black hole even with the best scientific instruments . Again this statement from Hawking's is arbitrary as well . Since God and Black holes are both invisible .  

America's return to space this week with the triumphant launch of ORION made a  splash down was amazing . Yes Orion has better computers and such, but primitive though they were the Apollo computers were adequate; we didn't not go to the moon because of computers. The overall capabilities of the Orion capsule and its launch system are more or less the same as Apollo, almost 50 years ago. Yet this is a heavy launch vehicle that replaces somewhat the space shuttle , but in my view not exactly as Saturn Rocket of the 1960's The Saturn V (spoken as "Saturn five") was an American human-rated expendable rocket used by NASA between 1966 and 1973. That old rocket was the largest ever made. Then it was the largest small step ever made to put man on the moon . ORION is built according to scientists to send a human crew to Mars. Why are they relying on a 50 year old design? Wouldn't it be more efficient to leave the re-entry portion attached to the ISS, go drive around the moon in the "space" portion, come back to the ISS, dock, and reenter? Doesn't seem very advanced to me....It's not a Star Trek design either. The purpose of ORION is to send human's to mars by 2030 AD. It's a long shot , and it's going to take two more decades before any attempt for Mars is going to happen. I speculate that it might be much longer , as far as my own observation of ORION its just a moon shuttle , it has almost the same design of the Apollo system , it has a similar capsule . NASA has big plans for ORION ; the space agency says the capsule will one day get astronauts to an asteroid, Mars and perhaps other destinations in deep space. But the first of those manned missions is at least seven years away, and an unmanned Orion won't take flight again until
2017 at the earliest.The unpiloted test flight of Orion on the Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1) mission carried the capsule farther away from Earth than any spacecraft designed for astronauts has traveled in more than four decades.Humans have not ventured beyond low Earth orbit since the launch of Apollo 17 on NASA’s final moon landing mission on Dec. 7, 1972. Will it really go to Mars – or is that a job for the next generation model? The Apollo command module had around a decade of useful life. Are we really going to get to Mars in Orion by 2025 ?  – and in a craft with no serious consideration of radiation shielding or room for exercise to stave of bone and muscle wasting? Going to Mars is vary much dangerous . Imagine 3 or more people stuck in a large room where each of them have to do 2 hours of exercise per day in gym shorts, not to mention… you know. They would all go bat-s crazy within 3 months (if the radiation doesn’t kill them first). Mars is 7 months, one way.  <> A scientific report published this year stated that humans would only survive on Mars for 68 days , According to researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there is one problem: if they did make the trip, they would all die off within a couple months.Drawing on data from the Mars One group, the team used computer modeling to determine the required amounts of oxygen, food and technology needed for the project. Otherwise ORION is just another small step "backwards" . Mars is a difficult goal that would have to require 22nd Century technology , not 21st Century .

*** Just where is the movie about Dr. Carl Sagan ? (1)> To have anything - a universe, a multiverse, the law of gravity, "finely-tuned" physical laws, anything - you have to first have Creation.  And they've shown pretty effectively that "spontaneous" creation is impossible, since it requires physical laws like the law of gravity. So we've established that there was Creation, and that the universe/multiverse didn't (and couldn't) create itself.On this view, it seems the only two possibilities are "God" or "circular irrational nonsense."  Hawking and Mlodinow may be brilliant physicists, they present themselves as poor philosophers and logicians. Their futile efforts to outline an atheistic creation story lend more credence to theism than atheism.(2)> BLACK HOLES occupy a thin line in scientific theology , their just as hard to explain as much as the existence of a god . The ONLY known true black hole that has been proven to exist is in Cygnus X-1 (abbreviated Cyg X-1)[12] is a well-known galactic X-ray source and black hole candidate[13] in the constellation Cygnus. It was discovered in 1964 during a rocket flight and is one of the strongest X-ray sources seen from Earth, producing a peak X-ray flux density of 2.3×10−23 W m−2 Hz−1(2.3×103 Jansky).[14][15] Cygnus X-1 was the first X-ray source widely accepted to be a black hole candidate and it remains among the most studied astronomical objects in its class. It is now estimated to have a mass about 14.8 times the mass of the Sun[7] and has been shown to be too compact to be any known kind of normal star or other likely object besides a black hole. If so, the radius of its event horizon is about 44 km.[16] <> Those hoping to send humans to Mars in just over a decade might have to wait. According to a new study, humans living on the Red Planet would begin dying off within 68 days of landing on the fourth rock from the sun.The Mars One plan to send humans to Mars by 2025 has certainly captured a lot of imaginations. After the application deadline came and passed earlier this month, more than 200,000 people from 140 countries had applied to make mankind’s maiden voyage to the Red Planet. The Report here  35-page report, the problem, ironically, is not too little oxygen, but rather, too much of it. So far, Mars One plans to grow its crops in the same space where people live. According to the data, the first wheat crop would reach maturity at around 68 days, causing a spike in oxygen.(3)> Stephen J Gould, & Richard Dawkins's have a memorable fancy of being hard core evolutionists . Gould was mostly opposed to an adaptationist view of evolution. One of the main reasons he favored a multi-level view of selection is that he didn't believe that all traits are adaptations, but rather that some are byproducts of others, or exaptations, or results of physical and chemical constraints. Dawkins, on the other hand, embraced adaptationism, in a way that many people would consider extreme today.Dawkins takes a gene-centric view, arguing that organisms can be seen as vehicles for the genes they contain. In this view, genes are the subjects of selective pressure, whether natural selection or sexual. Dawkins is also an adaptationist (unlike Gould), seeing more elements of physiology or behaviour as being the result of selection pressure in some way. 

No comments:

Post a Comment