NASA Confirms Water on the Moon

They have discovered 24 gallons of water in a crater in the form of ice on the moon, that apparently never sees the light of day. This confirms speculation last September that there was in fact water on the moon. They are saying this may have positive ramifications when it comes to permanent space colonies on the moon. However with just 24 gallons of it, this would allow a team of eight just a pint a day for 24 days, or conversely it would allow a team of 24 just eight days of living on the moon with this water. We should pray they find more water. I imagine oil prospectors have become good as estimating, for example, how much oil a region will produce by the output of just one well. Obama still has no funding for moon traveling now and they are sticking to that rather backward 2020 schedule of the next landing on the moon. By the year 2020 hopefully, and probably, our technology in all areas will have advanced considerably.

Google is now in trouble for not blurring faces and license plates in Switzerland and other areas in Europe. They have technology to seek out faces and blur just them, just as they have technology in Picassa to find any photo of yours with a face in it. Obviously there are privacy concerns. But nobody was concerned about the Bush government "word mining" microwave telephone transmissions searching for words like "bomb" or "revolution" or "target" that could be used to narrow the search down to a few specific phone conversations. At time I am amazed just how "public" the Internet is allowed to be and I have often wondered how long this state of affairs will be allowed to continue before the government comes in and controls and sensors the whole thing, perhaps more severely than they do in China right now. With all this computer stimulation of young children and also the "knowledge base" being more accessable to all when it would take journeys to countless libraries and halls of records to get the same results, it will be surprising if we don't have some super generation coming up in the next few decades. The idea of both privacy and "secret knowledge" may become a thing of the past.

You know, we have a problem with the House Health Bill, as we do with the senate bill in that neither bill gets to the real root of the problem. All both bills do is basically shift the costs of health care from one segment of the population to another, and as a by-product increase general government meddeling in the whole health care process. Even the House bill will only allow to six or eight million the choice of a "Public Option". To me this is not a significant enough figure to pass the measure and open the green light on all that other government involvement. As conservatives point out repeatedly, "Once the government gets involved in a certain segment of the economy or legal precedent, it's there forever; it never withdraws". As such government is seen as Mc Bernie saw communism thirty and forty years ago. It's a process where "retreat" is not in their vocabulary. Six million Americans exercising a public option is not enough to significantly impact the insurance market. As you know, the goals of reformers is to provide competetion to get prices way down, like thirty five or forty percent, more along the lines of what they are in other countries. This bill will still "preserve" the most inefficient health care system in the civilized world. We need to pass a bunch of other laws along a long economic front, to get to the root of our basic economic problems. Congress doesn't have the stomach for that. So what President Obama needs to do is launch a Crusade against a "Do Nothing Congress". President Harry Truman did this in 1948 and was successful, I might add. Also sometimes the problem of liberal causes not being successful enough is to be More radical, as strange as that sounds. In a documentary about Brown verses the Board of Education, a decision was made in the advocacy process to "go for broke" and to espouse a far more radical and sweeping reform of the system than anyone had ever dreamed of. And once again it worked. The favorable ruling by the Supreme Court in May of 1954 became law- - eventually, after a lot of police riots.

I would like to respond to an Objection some readers may have to the blog of two postings back where I stated that you can go 2.71 times faster at given intervals and "Do it till the cows come home" and never achieve the speed of light. Some may say "You can't even do that Once". First I'd like to remind you of Einsteinian addition of volocities, and that formula "where you never get there". But now I'd like to talk about "The Infinity Problem and the Problem of the Moving Zero" alias "The God Problem". The thing with Infinity is no matter how resolutely you approach and strive for it, in the end you are absolutely No Closer to attaining your goal than when you began. The other aspect of "The God Problem" is that everybody looks up at the stars, they are minded of God, and then decide that They are the Center of the Universe. And everyone they meet has had the same revelation, that they are the center of the universe. How do we apply these thoughts to Einsteinian physics, you ask. I'd like to introduce some new concepts to you. First, there is the problem of "The moving zero". Everybody thinks they are starting at ground zero. So the guy who adds 2/3 and 2/3 and gets 12/13 as Einstein tells them, well, guess what? He's still at Zero. He's a nothing. When you drive in your car and the spedometer climes to 110 mph, he has a clear reference how fast he is traveling, because zero is his reference point. He knows the limitations of his car and how hard he's pressing on the gas peddle. But as far as Einstein is concerned he's still at zero. Everybody is at zero. Therefore in light of this, going 2.71 times faster than you did before is "no problem" given your reference point. Do you see what I meant now? But the other major problem with Einstein is it's an apparent violation of the proposition "If A is greater than B, then B is less than A". Eionstein said on the other hand "If your A, A is greater than B, if youre B, B is greater than A. One point that can't be overstated is the fact that the special theory of relativity was Invented to Conform to the "Ether Theory". Reminding yourself of this makes the whole thing make a lot more sense. Of course in addition to the moving zero we have "the moving circle". Because everyone who approaches the speed of light is seen by an Observer on their Home Planet as now at the edge of the Universe where matter is contracting, but you still think you're in the Center and those observing you are now on the Edge. So in this soap bubble view of the Universe that wasn't new with me- - - you have some screwy geometry. The question is how much Acid to you need to drop before the theory of relativity makes sense? We "normal people" say, "If so and so is in the Center of the Circle than I am NOT at the Center of the circle". Or use "Edge" if you want. Where that Jeff guy that calls Thom Hartman occasionally comes in- - - is the tripped out view of "If you look at things from another place they not only SEEM different but they actually ARE different, that is, for You. So Wickepedia says "Some observers see things happen at the SAME time where others see one event happen BEFORE the other. But it doesn't just SEEM that way, it really IS that way, for that observer. So A isn't greater than B after all but smaller. Or to use a direction metaphore if you travel north after a while others see you at the North end of the Universe. But you still see yourself at the Center. It's "the moving zero". So "How do I find the Edge of the Universe?" The answer, simply is, "You Don't". You are always traveling Zero mph no matter where you are. An old religious saying is "Draw near unto God and He will draw near unto You". But of course since the first part is mathematically impossible to achieve, the second part will never happen". (Selah)

A and B - Separate But Equal- - - or Not

Somebody out there in cyber-land is asking themself the key question, "But what about the space traveler that leaves his home planet and goes to another planet to visit for a season and then returns to find that he is twenty years younger to people on his home planet?" Has Plecy verses Ferguson invaded Science here? I mean - equal is equal - right? Well of course in the radio transmission BOTH are going to observe each other's radio transmissions slowing down when the ship is headed away from the home planet, and BOTH will observe each other's transmissions speeding up on the journey home. But for instance, if you're stoned in some black sensory deprivation chamber and all you see is two eggs lit by some light and not the hand that moves them- and you're so dizzy you don't know which way is up, and you see the eggs separate and stay apart a while and them come back together, you may have trouble determining which egg actually moved, because you're in this sensory deprivation chamber. So who's to say that the guy who visited the distant planet was the one that moved, and the other guy didn't. I mean just because the guy in the rocket was Black and the people on the home planet are White - - you can't discriminate, can you? Well actually yes, there is a difference. You've seen that conception scene in "Rosemary's Baby" where Rosemary blurts out "This isn't a dream; this is really happening!" The Black guy in the ship has has an Experiance the white guys on the planet haven't had, and not just because he's listening to Hendrix, either. There is a little thing called acceleration and gravity. Now to slow down time and all that fifty percent, Time Life tells us that the ship has to achieve the speed of 90% of light. And it takes a year of one G acceleration to reach light speed. Remember? I figured that out on a calculator. (in 1974) And we all know what gravity in large amounts means. It's the whole time-space thing. ANY subjecting to large quantities of gravity means that time-space is altered. And the thing is - if you spread out the acceleration - - it's just like spreading out anything like a quantity of paint. One person may use five coats on the same surface, and another guy uses a single coat on five times the area but both are using identical quantities of paint. OK, is this clear as mud for you now? Atomic particles in a cyclotron are observed by stationary people to slow down in an environment where the Doppler effect doesn't really come into play, but it slows down none the less. Capish?