9/7/26:
Not too long ago, maybe a week or two ago, I pulled out my gee tar, and tried playing again. Of course, I can't play anything. Never did learn a whole lot. But this would've really helped back then.
Why not do it now? Well, one thing is to keep those nails trimmed, and to build up those calluses on the finger tips. This takes awhile and some stick-to-itiveness. There's a lot of songs like this on the youtube, so you could build up a repetoire of songs to play (if you wanted to).
5/21/18: The original post is below:
It has been more than once that I said that I would surely have loved having YouTube when I was a kid, and trying to learn to play gee tar.
Well, I didn't, and I don't play, so doggone it.
Anyway, this is a neat tune to learn for you rock and roll gee tar heroes out there. Enjoy!
Now for the real thing.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Showing posts with label Administrative --- History of the blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Administrative --- History of the blog. Show all posts
Monday, September 7, 2026
Sunday, August 30, 2026
A space station manufacturer's dream
8/30/26:
3/19/25:
A recent post on Aldrin Cyclers would provide an opportunity for a bit of comparison between the concepts. There's a pdf file associated with the concept, which Marcus House mentioned on his video about the cyclers. A point of concern cropped up. That's the high delta-v required for the Mars side. If it takes so much delta-v to get back from Mars, then it calls into question the usefulness of the concept.
The system will require re-fueling stations on each side of the journey back and forth between the cyclers and the travelers' locations. If you are going to need re-fueling stations anyway, then why use a cycler at all?
Instead you can use the concept that I've been fleshing out with these posts. It only takes a small delta-v to get back and forth between a Deimos station and a Earth-Moon LaGrange point. Re-fueling and cargo exchanges could occur at these locations on their journeys back and forth between Earth and Mars.
Therefore, I'm souring a bit on the Aldrin Cycler concept. It doesn't offer enough of a benefit to justify the cost. You'll need the re-fueling stations in any event, and you could build space stations at the re-fueling stations that would enable a crew to recover from their long journey. Spin it up to an Earth Gravity and harden it with shielding. You can do most of the same things as with the cycler, and it would probably be no more challenging to get the facilities built out than with the cyclers.
11/14/24:
An idea here is to utilize Jeff Greason's strategy of "island hopping" as a colonization strategy. (Mentioned on an earlier update of 4/17/24, which is also highlighted in red text--scroll down to it, please.)
The idea is to shuttle back and forth between High Earth orbit and the Lunar orbit planned for use in the Artemis program. You could launch from the surface of the moon more massive cargoes than from the Earth. Then you could transfer the cargo to High Earth Orbit in order to refuel Starships which are going outbound.
The high orbits would be analogous to the "islands" mentioned by Greason in his talk on youtube. It would mean much less fuel would be needed in order to transfer the cargo from space "islands", as opposed to launching them from Earth. You could use these islands as fueling stations. Refueling means deeper space missions, and of course, ultimately a colonizaton effort could be staged from these "islands".
6/5/24:
One way to deal with the challenges of long term spaceflight is to hibernate ( if that's possible).
The idea is to reduce the amount of resources, but it could also be useful for psychological purposes. "Cabin fever" can result from being cooped up inside of a rocket ship for several months or even years. Going into hibernation could not only reduce consumption of resources, but it could also deal with a lot of time.
I was also thinking that a person could enter a highly protected area that would necessitate not moving around much. It would be like a lead "coffin". A highly dense material could be used to block gamma rays, and help prevent radiation exposure. The key would be to not move around. The most efficient use of highly dense materials would involve keeping a person immobile, as mobility would require much more material for protection.
As can be seen in some of the updates, I continue to research this space station concept. The current iteration involves a 68 meter in diameter torus along the lines of the VERA stations that I began with. At this size, the amount of artificial gravity is minimized to the least amount that would be needed for adjustment.
As for making it a "coffin", one might use different materials. One cannot consume lead. However lead is very effective at stopping gamma rays. You'd need a lot more of everything else.
Perhaps you can make the station out of gingerbread, but I am kidding around. The tweet below discusses human hibernation for space travel.
end update of 6/2/24 post
6/2/24:
It's all rather boring, but better than reading this gawdawful news. Something to divert my time for a moment so I can forget stuff that I'd rather not think about right now. Anyway, a Delta-V map that shows how little delta v is needed for Mars transfer and Mars capture orbit once you get far enough away from Earth ( but not quite far enough away to escape). Delta-V in kilometers per sec (kms).
If you were to park some stations there, and fly back and forth between Earth without committing to Mars, you can stage your trip out there. Perhaps at EML-4 or EML-5 would be more handy. Get far enough out there, and it doesn't take much to send you onward to Mars. However, once you're committed, it's going to be a long trip.
A fully re-fueled Statship may be capable of a delta-v of 7.75 kms. That's with a full load. Tugging a big space station may slow that down a bit.
In your space station, you'd need to rotate it a certain speed in order to obtain some artificial gravity. Above are some possible sizes by radius, and how many rpm needed for the approximation to one Earth gravity. Rounded to two decimal points. Sizes in meters.
You may want to guestimate about which size and speed you'd figure is best. Speeds above 2 RPM are probably not desirable. Indeed, the slower the better, but that means a much bigger station. The bigger it is, the less feasible it would be to build it out. Note: chart show half rpm, it should be two. 6/3/24: Note: Now corrected. 6/4/24: A few more adjustments.
end update of 5/29/24 post
5/29/24:
Ooops! Looks like somebody "busted" the idea that began this little brainstorm of mine. This idea of mine began with this space station as the center of a Mars colonization effort and other such things. No effort was made on this blog to critically analyze it or anything like that. I was somewhat skeptical, but eventually I accepted it ( as a manner of argument ) all as legit. Maybe it isn't.
Seems like many years ago, I came across something similar. I merely assumed that it was a legit thing then too. The tech needed to make it a reality didn't exist.
SpaceX may be changing all that. With Starship's ability to lift large amounts of cargo per launch, and do it at reasonable prices, it would seem to open up the possibiity of something like a space manufacturer to build out such space stations. If it turns out that this guy is not such a person, but an imposter, then it is an embarrassing error. But it doesn't negate the possibility of such stations being possible to be made. Perhaps not by this guy, but somebody could.
end update of 5/28/24 post:
5/28/24:
An idea came to me recently, so I guess I'll write it up. Why not?
If one were to park a space station in high Earth orbit, it wouldn't take much delta-v to get into a Hohlman transfer to Mars. And not much more F delta-v from there gets you into high Mars orbit. So here's the idea: Make a couple hundred of these Vera stations that can hold a thousand passengers apiece, and park them into high Earth orbit. Another hundred could get placed into high Mars orbit. Every time a launch window opens, a hundred stations are sent back to high Earth orbit, and a hundred stations are sent to high Mars orbit.
A few starships could go out to the high orbital locations and bring the passengers enroute to Mars, or back from Mars. The new nuclear pulse type rocket engine could provide the transport of the Vera stations. The Starships could be positioned near each planet in order to serve the stations. In other words, you don't need the extra mass, so why bring it along? Plus the Starships need a lot of fuel. The 5000 ISP nuclear rockets won't need much fuel at all.
If you want to, you could attach the 100 Vera stations into one mega station with 100k passengers. Their mass could protect against cosmic radiation. Spin them up for artificial gravity. The passengers should be fairly safe in such an arrangement.
I worked out the mass requirements for the delta-v, assuming 1000 tons of mass for the station, including supplies. A modest delta-v didn't require all that much fuel---25 tons. This gave a mass fraction of 97.5%. It's usually 97.5% for the fuel alone if the nuclear option is not used. So that should show the advantage of such an approach.
What used to seem pretty fanciful, now seems to be within the realm of possibilities. Not that it would happen anyway, but it is fun to think about it.
end update of 5/19/24 post
5/19/24:
It may well be wise to be modest in one's own speculations. There could be many, many complications in the way of such a project.
But speculation doesn't hurt anything. On the other hand, a little knowledge could be a dangerous thing. So, do you like danger?
I've been checking into something here with regard to calculating delta-v for trips to asteroids. There are a few things to think about. A delta-v may not be a show stopper. Another show stopper could be with the launch windows. Or it could be that and some other thing. After all, it is rocket science.
At the moment, a trip to a near-Earth type asteroid may involve no more difficulty than landing on the moon. Maybe it could be less. However, setting up a station on any asteroid may involve some complications. It is, after all, rocket science.
If the complication is launch window availability, then it may pay to have a lot of asteroids on a visit list. Then you can fly off to the one that is closest at hand. Sounds simple, but there could be more complications. There always seems to be. That is all.
end update of 5/17/24 post:
5/17/24:
Instead of making an O'Neill cylinder out of 433 Eros, make hundreds, or thousands of space stations out of it.
It can take the materials in situ: mine them, fabricate them, and assemble them in place. Then launch them to other asteroids, to do the same.
Each potentially hazardous asteroid can become a resource. It can also pay for itself if it finds enough gold, silver, and platinum while mining for base metals.
Each new station can be tasked with finding new opportunities. Multiple objectives could be attained with minimal effort. It could be done with robots, like these.
Somebody could become quite rich.
end update of 4/17/24 post:
4/17/24:
Perhaps this could be built as a cycler. Launch once and it will stay there forever. Instead of flying to a planet, you'd fly to and from this cycler.
These could be Jeff Greason's "islands" for the island hopping strategy for Mars colonization. You'd be making your own islands.
end update of the 6/22/23 post
Update of post made on -- 6-22-23
There are several ideas for a new space station. Of all of the ones that have been seen here, the Space Gateway is the one in which holds the most capability. It is also the biggest. There would be enormous amount of space that could house a lot of people. It would also take the most money, because of the extraordinary amount of material that would have to be launched up to orbit.
But the same could be said for Elon Musk's plans. A smaller number of Starships, plus a new spaceship could be better than the current plan. It wouldn't take much to make the Gateway station into a space ship. The only things needed would be some engines. If the Starship provided the engines, then it could be towed to its destinations.
One of the Gateway stations mentioned appears to able to house 1000 people. Ten of these, towed by Starships, could transport 10,000 people per flight window to Mars. A hundred trips could transport a million. A million is what Musk plans to send to Mars. But each window is two years, so that would take over two centuries. Therefore, more stations would be needed. Ten times as many should get the job done.
In situ resourcing could cut the launch costs for each station. It would be better to launch from the Moon or Mars than from the Earth. Consequently, the ability to make the materials necessary in order to construct such stations, needs to go off-world. But the Gateway presentation said as much already.
The stations could be like Islands in the sky. Each Island could be a waystation, or hub, for transporting people and materials back and forth to destinations.
There are many possible destinations between Earth and Mars. The LaGrange points come to mind.
Who and how it would be funded is the key. Space mining, manufacturing, and tourism are possibilities. Whole new industries could be born.
here's the original post...
Not to be too negative, but this guy is getting way, way out front of the game. Big thinking means big bucks. Where's the money going to come from in order to get these space stations off the ground? True, I didn't watch the whole thing (not as of this writing), but gee whiz. This guy thinks BIG.
On the positive side, I think this is the right way to think about going to far away places, like Mars. Put an engine cluster on the space stations he's talking about, and bingo... You could transport many people this way to an off world location like Mars.
An alternative? (video taken down)
Perhaps a post already exists on the idea, so at the risk of repeating myself ( and reinventing the wheel, I'll post again.)
The Moon's resources could be mined in place, and then fashioned into spaceship in its own right. It wouldn't have to be aerodyamic, as the Moon has no atmosphere. Then it could be launched using a novel system that wouldn't work on Earth.
John Hunter of Qucklaunch once proposed a gas-gun to put resources into Earth orbit. Let's speculate a bit. Could such a gun concept be employed somehow on the Moon? I did ask him once upon a time, and he said that the temperature needed for Lunar escape velocity would be room temperature!
Hunter's gas gun had small payload. But could this be scaled up?
If you were to put together such a launch system, you wouldn't need propellant for escaping the lunar gravitation. Perhaps you could aim it at Mars, and let her rip!
That would leave the problem of what to do when you got there.
The G-forces would be an issue for manned flights. Maybe too much of one.
The possibilities are endless once the Starship can deliver enormous mass to space. Anything may be possible.
3/19/25:
A recent post on Aldrin Cyclers would provide an opportunity for a bit of comparison between the concepts. There's a pdf file associated with the concept, which Marcus House mentioned on his video about the cyclers. A point of concern cropped up. That's the high delta-v required for the Mars side. If it takes so much delta-v to get back from Mars, then it calls into question the usefulness of the concept.
The system will require re-fueling stations on each side of the journey back and forth between the cyclers and the travelers' locations. If you are going to need re-fueling stations anyway, then why use a cycler at all?
Instead you can use the concept that I've been fleshing out with these posts. It only takes a small delta-v to get back and forth between a Deimos station and a Earth-Moon LaGrange point. Re-fueling and cargo exchanges could occur at these locations on their journeys back and forth between Earth and Mars.
Therefore, I'm souring a bit on the Aldrin Cycler concept. It doesn't offer enough of a benefit to justify the cost. You'll need the re-fueling stations in any event, and you could build space stations at the re-fueling stations that would enable a crew to recover from their long journey. Spin it up to an Earth Gravity and harden it with shielding. You can do most of the same things as with the cycler, and it would probably be no more challenging to get the facilities built out than with the cyclers.
11/14/24:
An idea here is to utilize Jeff Greason's strategy of "island hopping" as a colonization strategy. (Mentioned on an earlier update of 4/17/24, which is also highlighted in red text--scroll down to it, please.)
The idea is to shuttle back and forth between High Earth orbit and the Lunar orbit planned for use in the Artemis program. You could launch from the surface of the moon more massive cargoes than from the Earth. Then you could transfer the cargo to High Earth Orbit in order to refuel Starships which are going outbound.
The high orbits would be analogous to the "islands" mentioned by Greason in his talk on youtube. It would mean much less fuel would be needed in order to transfer the cargo from space "islands", as opposed to launching them from Earth. You could use these islands as fueling stations. Refueling means deeper space missions, and of course, ultimately a colonizaton effort could be staged from these "islands".
6/5/24:
One way to deal with the challenges of long term spaceflight is to hibernate ( if that's possible).
The idea is to reduce the amount of resources, but it could also be useful for psychological purposes. "Cabin fever" can result from being cooped up inside of a rocket ship for several months or even years. Going into hibernation could not only reduce consumption of resources, but it could also deal with a lot of time.
I was also thinking that a person could enter a highly protected area that would necessitate not moving around much. It would be like a lead "coffin". A highly dense material could be used to block gamma rays, and help prevent radiation exposure. The key would be to not move around. The most efficient use of highly dense materials would involve keeping a person immobile, as mobility would require much more material for protection.
As can be seen in some of the updates, I continue to research this space station concept. The current iteration involves a 68 meter in diameter torus along the lines of the VERA stations that I began with. At this size, the amount of artificial gravity is minimized to the least amount that would be needed for adjustment.
As for making it a "coffin", one might use different materials. One cannot consume lead. However lead is very effective at stopping gamma rays. You'd need a lot more of everything else.
Perhaps you can make the station out of gingerbread, but I am kidding around. The tweet below discusses human hibernation for space travel.
Hibernating astronauts-science or fiction? https://t.co/U0xremAIM5
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) June 5, 2024
end update of 6/2/24 post
6/2/24:
It's all rather boring, but better than reading this gawdawful news. Something to divert my time for a moment so I can forget stuff that I'd rather not think about right now. Anyway, a Delta-V map that shows how little delta v is needed for Mars transfer and Mars capture orbit once you get far enough away from Earth ( but not quite far enough away to escape). Delta-V in kilometers per sec (kms).
If you were to park some stations there, and fly back and forth between Earth without committing to Mars, you can stage your trip out there. Perhaps at EML-4 or EML-5 would be more handy. Get far enough out there, and it doesn't take much to send you onward to Mars. However, once you're committed, it's going to be a long trip.
A fully re-fueled Statship may be capable of a delta-v of 7.75 kms. That's with a full load. Tugging a big space station may slow that down a bit.
 |
| Delta-V map: Earth capture orbit to Mars capture orbit |
 |
| Artificial gravity calculations |
In your space station, you'd need to rotate it a certain speed in order to obtain some artificial gravity. Above are some possible sizes by radius, and how many rpm needed for the approximation to one Earth gravity. Rounded to two decimal points. Sizes in meters.
You may want to guestimate about which size and speed you'd figure is best. Speeds above 2 RPM are probably not desirable. Indeed, the slower the better, but that means a much bigger station. The bigger it is, the less feasible it would be to build it out. Note: chart show half rpm, it should be two. 6/3/24: Note: Now corrected. 6/4/24: A few more adjustments.
end update of 5/29/24 post
5/29/24:
Ooops! Looks like somebody "busted" the idea that began this little brainstorm of mine. This idea of mine began with this space station as the center of a Mars colonization effort and other such things. No effort was made on this blog to critically analyze it or anything like that. I was somewhat skeptical, but eventually I accepted it ( as a manner of argument ) all as legit. Maybe it isn't.
Seems like many years ago, I came across something similar. I merely assumed that it was a legit thing then too. The tech needed to make it a reality didn't exist.
SpaceX may be changing all that. With Starship's ability to lift large amounts of cargo per launch, and do it at reasonable prices, it would seem to open up the possibiity of something like a space manufacturer to build out such space stations. If it turns out that this guy is not such a person, but an imposter, then it is an embarrassing error. But it doesn't negate the possibility of such stations being possible to be made. Perhaps not by this guy, but somebody could.
end update of 5/28/24 post:
5/28/24:
An idea came to me recently, so I guess I'll write it up. Why not?
If one were to park a space station in high Earth orbit, it wouldn't take much delta-v to get into a Hohlman transfer to Mars. And not much more F delta-v from there gets you into high Mars orbit. So here's the idea: Make a couple hundred of these Vera stations that can hold a thousand passengers apiece, and park them into high Earth orbit. Another hundred could get placed into high Mars orbit. Every time a launch window opens, a hundred stations are sent back to high Earth orbit, and a hundred stations are sent to high Mars orbit.
A few starships could go out to the high orbital locations and bring the passengers enroute to Mars, or back from Mars. The new nuclear pulse type rocket engine could provide the transport of the Vera stations. The Starships could be positioned near each planet in order to serve the stations. In other words, you don't need the extra mass, so why bring it along? Plus the Starships need a lot of fuel. The 5000 ISP nuclear rockets won't need much fuel at all.
If you want to, you could attach the 100 Vera stations into one mega station with 100k passengers. Their mass could protect against cosmic radiation. Spin them up for artificial gravity. The passengers should be fairly safe in such an arrangement.
I worked out the mass requirements for the delta-v, assuming 1000 tons of mass for the station, including supplies. A modest delta-v didn't require all that much fuel---25 tons. This gave a mass fraction of 97.5%. It's usually 97.5% for the fuel alone if the nuclear option is not used. So that should show the advantage of such an approach.
What used to seem pretty fanciful, now seems to be within the realm of possibilities. Not that it would happen anyway, but it is fun to think about it.
end update of 5/19/24 post
5/19/24:
It may well be wise to be modest in one's own speculations. There could be many, many complications in the way of such a project.
But speculation doesn't hurt anything. On the other hand, a little knowledge could be a dangerous thing. So, do you like danger?
I've been checking into something here with regard to calculating delta-v for trips to asteroids. There are a few things to think about. A delta-v may not be a show stopper. Another show stopper could be with the launch windows. Or it could be that and some other thing. After all, it is rocket science.
At the moment, a trip to a near-Earth type asteroid may involve no more difficulty than landing on the moon. Maybe it could be less. However, setting up a station on any asteroid may involve some complications. It is, after all, rocket science.
If the complication is launch window availability, then it may pay to have a lot of asteroids on a visit list. Then you can fly off to the one that is closest at hand. Sounds simple, but there could be more complications. There always seems to be. That is all.
end update of 5/17/24 post:
5/17/24:
Instead of making an O'Neill cylinder out of 433 Eros, make hundreds, or thousands of space stations out of it.
It can take the materials in situ: mine them, fabricate them, and assemble them in place. Then launch them to other asteroids, to do the same.
Each potentially hazardous asteroid can become a resource. It can also pay for itself if it finds enough gold, silver, and platinum while mining for base metals.
Each new station can be tasked with finding new opportunities. Multiple objectives could be attained with minimal effort. It could be done with robots, like these.
Somebody could become quite rich.
end update of 4/17/24 post:
4/17/24:
Perhaps this could be built as a cycler. Launch once and it will stay there forever. Instead of flying to a planet, you'd fly to and from this cycler.
These could be Jeff Greason's "islands" for the island hopping strategy for Mars colonization. You'd be making your own islands.
end update of the 6/22/23 post
Update of post made on -- 6-22-23
There are several ideas for a new space station. Of all of the ones that have been seen here, the Space Gateway is the one in which holds the most capability. It is also the biggest. There would be enormous amount of space that could house a lot of people. It would also take the most money, because of the extraordinary amount of material that would have to be launched up to orbit.
But the same could be said for Elon Musk's plans. A smaller number of Starships, plus a new spaceship could be better than the current plan. It wouldn't take much to make the Gateway station into a space ship. The only things needed would be some engines. If the Starship provided the engines, then it could be towed to its destinations.
One of the Gateway stations mentioned appears to able to house 1000 people. Ten of these, towed by Starships, could transport 10,000 people per flight window to Mars. A hundred trips could transport a million. A million is what Musk plans to send to Mars. But each window is two years, so that would take over two centuries. Therefore, more stations would be needed. Ten times as many should get the job done.
In situ resourcing could cut the launch costs for each station. It would be better to launch from the Moon or Mars than from the Earth. Consequently, the ability to make the materials necessary in order to construct such stations, needs to go off-world. But the Gateway presentation said as much already.
The stations could be like Islands in the sky. Each Island could be a waystation, or hub, for transporting people and materials back and forth to destinations.
There are many possible destinations between Earth and Mars. The LaGrange points come to mind.
Who and how it would be funded is the key. Space mining, manufacturing, and tourism are possibilities. Whole new industries could be born.
here's the original post...
Not to be too negative, but this guy is getting way, way out front of the game. Big thinking means big bucks. Where's the money going to come from in order to get these space stations off the ground? True, I didn't watch the whole thing (not as of this writing), but gee whiz. This guy thinks BIG.
On the positive side, I think this is the right way to think about going to far away places, like Mars. Put an engine cluster on the space stations he's talking about, and bingo... You could transport many people this way to an off world location like Mars.
An alternative? (video taken down)
Sunday, August 9, 2026
The Morning Summary, April 25, 2011
8/7/26:
The statistics:
Time approx 4:30 am
Sitemeter; Mon. am. 4618; v. Sun. am 4599; 19 up 1 from Sun
Blogger: Sun. 83, up 24 from Sat. (59); overnight is 12 so far, compared with 21 this time yesterday.
Nothing to report on bids, nor sales, still zero on revenues, no clicks on Amazon. Nobody appears to be clicking on the Products page nor on the Marketing pages.
New record for this blog on Blogger pageviews.
YouTube page: 848 v 847 channel views previously, 493 v. 492 upload views previously. Channel views improve by 1, upload views improve by 1.
It is gratifying to hit new records. On the other hand, the lack of marketing success is frustrating.
Update:
I think I am going to be lite with the blogging today. That's my agenda today. Just to think.
Update:
One thing I thought about was the Space Show yesterday. If you were to get large quantities of turpentine and nitric acid in orbit at a reasonable cost, that could be a plus. On the other hand, these hypergolics may be hard to find and to synthesize in space. It would be necessary to get this up there somehow. Once up there, they can be more useful than trying to store cryogenics. The big dumb rocket could send up buttloads of the stuff. Also, the Space Cannon concept may be able to send it up at a reasonable price.
Also, after I finished the above post, I started reading up on fusion. I may need to spend some time in these forums.
Update:
It is interesting to go back and look at previous posts like this. It is all an education, just like yesterday. I didn't know about Interorbital until I listened to the Space Show. It is still a matter of getting educated on what's out there.
If I may interject a thought into these discussions. Everybody is going at this in their own way. But what if no single way exists? That's a question that should be considered. Take fusion, for example. The fact that fusion can take place now is not in dispute. The problem is getting it to do what we want. But if we want to do something like generating electricity, it may not be possible by a direct approach. Let's say if you wanted to use fusion for propulsion and then use that propulsion to emplace solar stations that would send energy back to the Earth. But I don't think anyone is thinking that way. Instead, they want to get it to produce net electrical power. Maybe that isn't even necessary. That's my point.
This post originated here. It was cross-posted on the other blogger platformed blog, and retained here. That means they are separate posts now on different blogs.
I noted firstly on the other blog this morning that folks may be interested in stats.
They're not reliable, and they've ceased to be of interest to me. But if anybody's interested, here's a stat for ya. Total views all time for this blog: 5,107,466
Make of that what you will.
Update to the reaction update, 8/9/26:
Here's one of the more clicked upon posts, which actually serves as an introduction to the blog:
Brief review of concepts discussed on this blog.
The statistics:
Time approx 4:30 am
Sitemeter; Mon. am. 4618; v. Sun. am 4599; 19 up 1 from Sun
Blogger: Sun. 83, up 24 from Sat. (59); overnight is 12 so far, compared with 21 this time yesterday.
Nothing to report on bids, nor sales, still zero on revenues, no clicks on Amazon. Nobody appears to be clicking on the Products page nor on the Marketing pages.
New record for this blog on Blogger pageviews.
YouTube page: 848 v 847 channel views previously, 493 v. 492 upload views previously. Channel views improve by 1, upload views improve by 1.
It is gratifying to hit new records. On the other hand, the lack of marketing success is frustrating.
Update:
I think I am going to be lite with the blogging today. That's my agenda today. Just to think.
Update:
One thing I thought about was the Space Show yesterday. If you were to get large quantities of turpentine and nitric acid in orbit at a reasonable cost, that could be a plus. On the other hand, these hypergolics may be hard to find and to synthesize in space. It would be necessary to get this up there somehow. Once up there, they can be more useful than trying to store cryogenics. The big dumb rocket could send up buttloads of the stuff. Also, the Space Cannon concept may be able to send it up at a reasonable price.
Also, after I finished the above post, I started reading up on fusion. I may need to spend some time in these forums.
Update:
It is interesting to go back and look at previous posts like this. It is all an education, just like yesterday. I didn't know about Interorbital until I listened to the Space Show. It is still a matter of getting educated on what's out there.
If I may interject a thought into these discussions. Everybody is going at this in their own way. But what if no single way exists? That's a question that should be considered. Take fusion, for example. The fact that fusion can take place now is not in dispute. The problem is getting it to do what we want. But if we want to do something like generating electricity, it may not be possible by a direct approach. Let's say if you wanted to use fusion for propulsion and then use that propulsion to emplace solar stations that would send energy back to the Earth. But I don't think anyone is thinking that way. Instead, they want to get it to produce net electrical power. Maybe that isn't even necessary. That's my point.
Tuesday, June 2, 2026
Made a audio track with Gemini Ai
6/2/26:
Not happy with this subscription. Not only that, but Google seems to make a mystery out of cancelling the service. Nope, not happy at all. Mystery solved: service is cancelled. No video will be made with Gemini AI.
5/25/26:
They couldn't make a video using the video I supplied and adding an audio track to it. So it produced an audio track instead.
Here's a link they provided for to be shared. I can take what they provided, and try to add it to a video, but I'm not sure how to do that yet using ClipChamp.
Not happy with this subscription. Not only that, but Google seems to make a mystery out of cancelling the service. Nope, not happy at all. Mystery solved: service is cancelled. No video will be made with Gemini AI.
5/25/26:
Here's a link they provided for to be shared. I can take what they provided, and try to add it to a video, but I'm not sure how to do that yet using ClipChamp.
 |
| AI produced still from my video. But the rocket is on the wrong side of the river! |
Saturday, April 25, 2026
Bongino mentions Boreing
Bongino mentioned Jeremy Boreing, and the name seemed familiar. A lookup on the olde Wikipedia shows that Boreing was part of the Declaration Entertainment thing I was involved with awhile back.
The same guy was mentioned, and he had a very interesting discussion on this cock-eyed leftist idea ("social murder") going around. Indeed, that's what Bongino spent a lot of time on in his most recent show.
Bongino is a very interesting guy. I'd recommend his show highly. That's if you want to get your head out of your ass. Seems like there's way too many people out there like that these days.
Oops! I must be channeling my inner no more mr nice guy. Excuse the hell outta me!
Saturday, March 28, 2026
Epistemology
3/28/26:
Another update here may run a risk of getting too deep into the weeds. The point may be this: How do you know what you know? This is pretty tricky stuff.
You can say that you "know it in your bones". Yet, does that make it true?
It gets too deep in the weeds because you can fall into a trap of believing that there is no such thing as truth. Then you will be a postmodernist. As for me, I'm not going there.
In the end, you have to decide it for yourself. Maybe this will be the last word on that subject. But there's always of the possibility of changing one's mind. And so it goes...
5/24/25:
Ah, back again with more thoughts on this subject of knowledge. I was thinking about trusting what you hear from someone. If someone tells you something, and you trust that person to be reliable, then you believe that person. However, if that person lies to you, you will remember it the next time, and you will be on guard about what this person says. You will not so readily believe someone who has fooled you before.
A society can be built on trust, or it will not be built on trust. If it isn't built on trust, it cannot be much of a society. Think about that for a moment. Commerce depends upon trust. You have to trust so many things to go right when you do transactions with people. A used car salesman may have some trust issues. If you've been burned before by a bad deal on a car, especially when you dealt with a certain individual, would you go back to that individual again when you want to buy a car? Most likely not, unless you enjoy the contest. Some folks might like the contest, but generally you avoid people who cheat you do you not?
I was thinking about this with regard to the news media. Indeed, all of this society depends upon institutions that deal with us fairly, or unfairly. When trust breaks down, the perception is that we are not being dealt with fairly. In such a scenario, a society could find itself in a lot of trouble. Trust is necessary for a society to operate smoothly or in good order.
A criminal can take advantage of your trust. That's why crime needs to be punished. If crime isn't punished, overall trust in our system of justice will be harmed. So what am I getting at? Just that the truth is needed for trust, and that trust is needed for harmony in society. If you want that, then you need to hold the truth as important. Why then is that not obvious? Why does it need to be said?
Just because somebody in authority says something doesn't make it so. That happens too often for me to believe what I hear. That's why it needs to be said. It isn't just me saying it, you know.
Just saw another documentary on Tubi, and this post came to mind. On a search for it on my own blog, there's another one that has gotten a lot of pageviews. Even more than this one. It is here.
10/29/22: Epistemology
Epistemology: The study of knowledge
Or another way of saying it is "how you know what you know".
I come from a place where we can argue about anything, and often do. The arguments could get downright contentious, and so I have done my best to try to avoid them. But people really can argue about ANYTHING. Even the study of knowledge itself. If you cannot agree upon something, it is hard to get anywhere at all in an argument. The arguments can often get emotional because one's ego gets attached. That's a mistake. If one truly loves knowledge, then one does not fall in love with one's own pet theories. A theory is just a theory. Hopefully, that statement wouldn't start an argument somewhere, but where I came from, it COULD.
Even in a fight, there has to be rules. Even if the rules are the rules of the jungle. The jungle has it own rules. He who is biggest, strongest, and toughest will likely win. But, if there is to be a civilization, then the rules can be set up in advance, and everybody is expected to follow them. What happens when somebody doesn't follow the rules? That person is likely to be punished. The same can be true for epistemology. It is a rules-based system of determining what is knowledge, and what isn't. If you get into an argument, there has to be a rules-based system to determines who is right, and who is wrong.
However, if you cannot agree on the rules, then you've got a problem.
What happens when you cannot decide on issues, and not even the rules that determine who is right and who is wrong? You get anarchy. You get the law of the jungle. If you are right, and you are weak, then you might as well be wrong for all the good it will do you. Nobody has any rights in the jungle. There is no law and order in the jungle. It is a matter of who is the smartest, strongest, and maybe the meanest --- who will win any controversy.
There has to be a set of rules. There has to be laws. People have to be willing to follow these. If not, then there can be no order. Starting with this, you have to have some type of agreement on what the rules are, and the willingness to follow them.
The reason I wrote this is that this society cannot agree upon the most basic things. Like the meanings of words. The meaning of anything. Everything is in contention. If we cannot agree upon the most basic things, then how can we go forward? I used this word because it can be a start in trying to end arguments that lead nowhere because the rules cannot be agreed upon, and the very meaning of words themselves cannot be agreed upon. You can start with the theory of knowledge. How do you know what you know? If you cannot agree upon that much, then what's the point?
Wednesday, February 11, 2026
Dialectics
2/11/26:
This may not seem on-topic, but last nite I watched another version of the Gospel of John. It seemed a bit inferior to the one I usually like to watch, but it is still worth watching. One thing that I noticed, and have noticed in the past is this: Grace and truth comes from Jesus Christ. Without that, you have nothing.
It should be noted that commies are atheists. Please take very careful notes of that. These days are full of satanic levels of deceit, and I get the feeling it is being directed at my way lately.
I may well have gotten on to the radar of some very unsavory types. Know what I mean, Vern?
Whopsie! Dialectics was updated before, but it got messed up somehow... The date for this one was 7/20/21, and that one was, 1/24/24:
This business about left and right, as it applies to politics, has a name. It is called dialectics. Probably most educated folks are familiar with that term. For some reason, I had forgotten it. But it wasn't because I hadn't heard of it, or didn't know about it. I just plain forgot about it.
Actually, I wanted to write something about it today, so when I googled it, I didn't use this term. But the term popped up, and I thought--- "of course".
There are those who would scoff at this, but Reagan's "speech" that launched his political career referred to the dialectic, but not by name. Those who dabble in such things as Marxist theory would have recognized it right off, but I suppose it isn't something that they teach in high school. At least, not back when I was in high school. Reagan's speech was a little before that time, but not that by all that much.
Dialectics is just a means of argumentation, supposedly designed to get at "truth". To tell you the truth, most arguments don't arrive at truth. They may arrive at fisticuffs for those who cannot tolerate being contradicted. This may include a lot of people.
But the argumentation is supposed to be civilized and non-violent. It is an intellectual kind of thing. Supposedly.
Reagan's argument against it set up another form a dialectic. Instead of right v left, he set up the freedom v slavery argument. He didn't frame it quite that way, but the opposite of freedom is slavery. People who are not free cannot help but be slaves, right? There are some who might dispute that. Communists would certainly dispute that their people are enslaved.
But what do you call making people the property of the state? Communist countries do not allow free entry and exit of their peoples. That's what the Berlin Wall was all about. I suppose they still teach this history in our schools, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.
If the people of places such as Cuba and North Korea could migrate to a freer country, they would do so. But there are barriers to that. Cuba is an island surrounded by a large body of water. North Korea is bounded by China, and a large body of water. If North Koreans could, they would leave for the south. China was poor itself before it embraced capitalism. But they are closet commies anyway. The Chinese are not a free people.
But the boundary between the two Koreas is one of the most heavily militarized zones in the world. You probably wouldn't want to get shot.
Seems like a lot of young folk admire communists, but they don't know what they are admiring. They went to our schools, which don't do much to educate people anymore.
But this was about dialectics. The Communists loved to call their society scientific socialism. They loved to consider their ideology to be inevitable. The flow of history is supposedly on their side. The dialectic says so. Reality has said otherwise, at least so far.
But communism only leads to people being enslaved by the state. So Reagan was right. There is no right v left, only freedom v slavery. Reagan called it "tyranny". But since America is said to have the "original sin" of slavery, this word should be used when talking about communism. For that is what communism is. People should educate themselves about what it is, instead of being indoctrinated by communists in our "educational" system.
Not only has communism failed everywhere that it has been attempted, but its argumentation has not resulted in what they claim it results in. But they believe in it a whole lot anyway.
Some offer the excuse that it hasn't been tried by the right people. I suppose if they try every country on earth, they'll get the same results. Everybody will be enslaved, and the only people with any freedom at all will be the people at the top.
Anyway, I think the communists have always dreamed of turning America into a communist "paradise". Maybe they think there's something magical about America that will make communism really work this time in this place.
But as the late Rush Limbaugh once said, communism has already been tried here before. It was tried in the first colonies, where everything was communal. But it didn't work worth a darn, so they tried capitalism, and things got better.
If they taught that in schools, instead of the communistic CRT, these kids would be a lot better off. Instead, they will have to go through the living hell of communism if these clowns succeed.
Then you may learn what the truth is. That is, if you don't starve or get shot first.
This may not seem on-topic, but last nite I watched another version of the Gospel of John. It seemed a bit inferior to the one I usually like to watch, but it is still worth watching. One thing that I noticed, and have noticed in the past is this: Grace and truth comes from Jesus Christ. Without that, you have nothing.
It should be noted that commies are atheists. Please take very careful notes of that. These days are full of satanic levels of deceit, and I get the feeling it is being directed at my way lately.
I may well have gotten on to the radar of some very unsavory types. Know what I mean, Vern?
Whopsie! Dialectics was updated before, but it got messed up somehow... The date for this one was 7/20/21, and that one was, 1/24/24:
This business about left and right, as it applies to politics, has a name. It is called dialectics. Probably most educated folks are familiar with that term. For some reason, I had forgotten it. But it wasn't because I hadn't heard of it, or didn't know about it. I just plain forgot about it.
Actually, I wanted to write something about it today, so when I googled it, I didn't use this term. But the term popped up, and I thought--- "of course".
There are those who would scoff at this, but Reagan's "speech" that launched his political career referred to the dialectic, but not by name. Those who dabble in such things as Marxist theory would have recognized it right off, but I suppose it isn't something that they teach in high school. At least, not back when I was in high school. Reagan's speech was a little before that time, but not that by all that much.
Dialectics is just a means of argumentation, supposedly designed to get at "truth". To tell you the truth, most arguments don't arrive at truth. They may arrive at fisticuffs for those who cannot tolerate being contradicted. This may include a lot of people.
But the argumentation is supposed to be civilized and non-violent. It is an intellectual kind of thing. Supposedly.
Reagan's argument against it set up another form a dialectic. Instead of right v left, he set up the freedom v slavery argument. He didn't frame it quite that way, but the opposite of freedom is slavery. People who are not free cannot help but be slaves, right? There are some who might dispute that. Communists would certainly dispute that their people are enslaved.
But what do you call making people the property of the state? Communist countries do not allow free entry and exit of their peoples. That's what the Berlin Wall was all about. I suppose they still teach this history in our schools, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.
If the people of places such as Cuba and North Korea could migrate to a freer country, they would do so. But there are barriers to that. Cuba is an island surrounded by a large body of water. North Korea is bounded by China, and a large body of water. If North Koreans could, they would leave for the south. China was poor itself before it embraced capitalism. But they are closet commies anyway. The Chinese are not a free people.
But the boundary between the two Koreas is one of the most heavily militarized zones in the world. You probably wouldn't want to get shot.
Seems like a lot of young folk admire communists, but they don't know what they are admiring. They went to our schools, which don't do much to educate people anymore.
But this was about dialectics. The Communists loved to call their society scientific socialism. They loved to consider their ideology to be inevitable. The flow of history is supposedly on their side. The dialectic says so. Reality has said otherwise, at least so far.
But communism only leads to people being enslaved by the state. So Reagan was right. There is no right v left, only freedom v slavery. Reagan called it "tyranny". But since America is said to have the "original sin" of slavery, this word should be used when talking about communism. For that is what communism is. People should educate themselves about what it is, instead of being indoctrinated by communists in our "educational" system.
Not only has communism failed everywhere that it has been attempted, but its argumentation has not resulted in what they claim it results in. But they believe in it a whole lot anyway.
Some offer the excuse that it hasn't been tried by the right people. I suppose if they try every country on earth, they'll get the same results. Everybody will be enslaved, and the only people with any freedom at all will be the people at the top.
Anyway, I think the communists have always dreamed of turning America into a communist "paradise". Maybe they think there's something magical about America that will make communism really work this time in this place.
But as the late Rush Limbaugh once said, communism has already been tried here before. It was tried in the first colonies, where everything was communal. But it didn't work worth a darn, so they tried capitalism, and things got better.
If they taught that in schools, instead of the communistic CRT, these kids would be a lot better off. Instead, they will have to go through the living hell of communism if these clowns succeed.
Then you may learn what the truth is. That is, if you don't starve or get shot first.
Friday, January 30, 2026
New idea: Quick take on the news.
The rationale behind the idea.
There's so much going on, and there's so many "irons in the fire", so to speak. It's a time management thing. So, with that thought in mind, here goes:
QUICK TAKES ON THE NEWS:
Fake news on the rise again? Trump up among Latinos? Mixed messages on this one. There's folks saying the immigration issue may cost the midterms because of the Latino vote. Then, there's this poll that says Trump's polls among Latinos is way up. The Latino polls are all over the map. So what's the real story? In my opinion, long established Latinos will respond well to Trump. It may well be the case that Latinos are probably pretty well split based upon how long they've been here. It's probably more accurate to figure on self-interest. Since the newcomers have to compete with the established residents, that leaves you with the answer as to why they'd split on their votes.
Government Shutdown Avoided?
Looks like a deal has been struck to prevent a government shutdown.
What's with this inordinate fear of government shutdowns? This latest deal between Schumer and Trump looks like a cave-in. Why would you sacrifice anything to the Democrats over their shutdown antics? It just doesn't make sense. This isn't hurting Trump. Heck, it may well be helping him. Why give in to the Democrats over THIS???
Info-ops and controlled opposition
Note: No links for the following semi-rant:
I'm noticing quite a bit of negativism on some of the "right-wing" sites. I suspect ALL media. This looks like a subtle, very subtle info-op.
Examples: CFP has some anti-Trump links. What gives with that? I count more than one. One on trade deficits. Another on border policies and the mid-terms. Another one about the border wall.
What about all these "spokesmen" for MAGA, like Tucker Carlson, MTG, et al. --They don't speak for MAGA. They don't speak for anyone, except perhaps their followers. I don't particularly give a flip about Tucker Carlson and a few others of these people who seem to get their names in the news. Just because the talking heads in the news doesn't have to mean that you check your brain in at the door. If you're really MAGA, then you should think for yourselves.
Joy Reid Strikes Again
This link is about something to the effect that all MAGA people are racist. My point is that you don't have to be all-consumed with race to be MAGA. MAGA isn't about race, as I understand it. Therefore, the accusation is projection; either of the subconscious kind, or the conscious kind.
The subconscious kind is pathological. In other words, CRAZY. Just because you believe in merit, it doesn't make you a racist. Communists don't believe in merit. Unless of course, if their idea of "merit" is how loyal you are to the party. Commies can turn their positions on a dime. Which means that they really don't believe in what they're saying at the time they're saying it. In that case, it is the conscious kind of projection. The kind that uses slander as an offensive weapon in order to keep an opponent off-balance. Either way, it is bad. It means that either you are a liar, or a sicko.
Tuesday, December 30, 2025
The Ugly American Myth is a concoction of leftist propaganda
If so many folks are suspicious of the corporate legacy media, then why does this garbage seem to cling on so much?
Perhaps you could blame it on the amygdala. Shorthand: the lizard part of the human brain.
Maybe Capt. Kirk can figure it all out. Or Chuck Norris.
I know! The Easter Bunny!
Wednesday, September 10, 2025
Blogging standards
9/10/25:
Note: This was intended to be an aspiration type post to myself for a blog that did not have an audience at all in the beginning. Since then, it has grown a little, but the extent to that growth is indeterminate as far as I'm willing to research it. In other words, maybe all the audience I get now is bots. Nobody comments here.
I suspect that the post is out of date. I thought of removing it, but that would violate my standards of complete candor. Removing it would be denial, and that is what I try to avoid if at all possible.
Anyway, I don't review these standards very often at all. I notice it is getting attention as far as clicks go, therefore some commentary needs to be applied to this basic admission or mea culpa.
The tendency to be full of shit has affected everyone, even me, which bugs me a bit. It's a pandemic of bullshititis. Now, that's funny.
Update, 4/5/25:
This will be the new featured post. Overall, the blog is meant to be a personal resource. It is also open to anyone who'd like to research a topic that I've researched a bit. Not claiming to be an authority though. You could also use the chatbots, as I do, but this one is done by a human. For what that's worth.
Original post of 5/26/12 at the earliest:
Note on the above standards: I don't adhere to them rigorously, but the conventions below, I do:
Throw in a few conventions with respect to links here:
Note: This was intended to be an aspiration type post to myself for a blog that did not have an audience at all in the beginning. Since then, it has grown a little, but the extent to that growth is indeterminate as far as I'm willing to research it. In other words, maybe all the audience I get now is bots. Nobody comments here.
I suspect that the post is out of date. I thought of removing it, but that would violate my standards of complete candor. Removing it would be denial, and that is what I try to avoid if at all possible.
Anyway, I don't review these standards very often at all. I notice it is getting attention as far as clicks go, therefore some commentary needs to be applied to this basic admission or mea culpa.
The tendency to be full of shit has affected everyone, even me, which bugs me a bit. It's a pandemic of bullshititis. Now, that's funny.
Update, 4/5/25:
This will be the new featured post. Overall, the blog is meant to be a personal resource. It is also open to anyone who'd like to research a topic that I've researched a bit. Not claiming to be an authority though. You could also use the chatbots, as I do, but this one is done by a human. For what that's worth.
Original post of 5/26/12 at the earliest:
- Read this list before I make any more posts. Each new post, review this list first in order to see if the new post adheres to these standards.
- I won't talk out my ass. If I do, I'll put a speculation alert in the body of the post.
- Whatever I do, I won't include my personal feelings in any of this stuff, it is supposed to be about the future, and how that future may unfold, not how I feel about it
- With respect to politics, I won't electioneer. Sure, I'd like to see Dems lose, but if they don't, that is the way it is. This country has been moving in the wrong direction for a long time, nothing I can do about that now.
- Try to be professional. This is a weak point because I tend to be sloppy and careless. Try to be more careful and exact. Always.
- Don't let myself get caught up in the latest fad. Fads don't have staying power or they wouldn't be fads.
- Nobody reads blogs anyway. Outside their own church, that is. Write as if nobody is reading. In case anybody is, that may be considered a plus, but don't count on it. Don't write for popularity. Write for accuracy. Nobody's interested in accuracy. That's why this blog will never be popular.
- This world reminds me of the Simpsons. Yeah but, remember the sense of humor. That's cuz you're gonna need it.
Note on the above standards: I don't adhere to them rigorously, but the conventions below, I do:
Throw in a few conventions with respect to links here:
- Links to posts in this blog are in bold like this: Blogging standards
- new! Google are in italics , like this Amazon link: Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think (It's not a google link, but it is italicized for this example --- maybe both will be italicized) Look at it this way, if I mark a Google link with a different background color, the be aware that there will be more than one Google link.)
- Links to pdf files are in green, like this: The Microwave Thruster Concept
Thursday, April 24, 2025
Predictions
4/24/25:
I started this post, which turned into an update of an old post. Actually, I wanted to find the beginning of a new category. The categories were supposed to be set up so that old posts like this one could be found. I wanted the blog to be a resource. The idea is not to re-invent the wheel.
The category I looked for was "history of the blog". Actually, this is not as easy to find as it should be. Could it be that I don't even know what is on my own blog?
Anyway, lots of things happened during the Obama era. It would seem that the Trump Administration is trying to roll back some of it. But there's a huge fight to try to stop that.
The fact that we are even in this fight at all is on the one hand a small miracle, and on the other hand, a major tragedy. It should never have happened. But it did. Not only that, Trump's rollback may not succeed. There's no guarantees that it will.
7/12/13:
This is something that I've attempted numerous times. In the eighties, I wrote some software that I hoped would help predict the outcome of football games. In the nineties, I wrote some software that I hoped would help me predict how the stock market would behave. Neither of these worked to my satisfaction. There was some limited utility to these programs, but weren't marketable.
Nevertheless, the idea of predicting the future course of events has remained an attraction for me. This blog is supposed to be something like that, but there hasn't always been a focus on that.
There may have been predictions here, but they haven't been catalogued and thus be easily referenced to see if the predictions came true or not. If you can't measure it, you can't evaluate it.
There was one near the beginning of this year in which I predicted that we will find out if the GOP intends to be a me-too party or an opposition party. The results are now coming in with respect to the immigration bill being considered in Congress. They will be a me-too party, but they will try not to appear to be blatantly so. They have to keep up appearances.
The rest of those predictions linked above also seem to be accurate. At least for the moment.
Sometimes I forget what the focus of this blog should be. It should be about the future and predictions fit into that theme.
If there's anything that I would add to those predictions at the beginning of the year it would be this:
Things are not getting better. Things are getting worse. There's no reason to believe that things will get better.
How do you measure this prediction? After all, there could be some dispute over the economy. Some seem to think the economy is getting better. But that is a delusion.
Perhaps you could use some objective standard instead of a subjective one. An objective one would be the statistics, but there's some controversy about that too. Unemployment going down? Not really. No inflation? Not really. Budget deficit getting smaller? Not really.
Here's something that's pretty objective: quantitative easing. The Fed is doing it or they aren't. Interest rates--- they are going up or going down. Stock market too. Gold prices.
I will rephrase the "getting worse" prediction as follows: the Fed won't be able to stop quantitative easing. I think that is a bad thing.
Thus, the subjective things are getting worse. For other folks, they may appear to be getting better. Not very useful for predictions. The goal will be to be as objective as possible. Memo to self: remember that.
This will be a new category called predictions. It will also be filed in the history of the blog.
I started this post, which turned into an update of an old post. Actually, I wanted to find the beginning of a new category. The categories were supposed to be set up so that old posts like this one could be found. I wanted the blog to be a resource. The idea is not to re-invent the wheel.
The category I looked for was "history of the blog". Actually, this is not as easy to find as it should be. Could it be that I don't even know what is on my own blog?
Anyway, lots of things happened during the Obama era. It would seem that the Trump Administration is trying to roll back some of it. But there's a huge fight to try to stop that.
The fact that we are even in this fight at all is on the one hand a small miracle, and on the other hand, a major tragedy. It should never have happened. But it did. Not only that, Trump's rollback may not succeed. There's no guarantees that it will.
7/12/13:
This is something that I've attempted numerous times. In the eighties, I wrote some software that I hoped would help predict the outcome of football games. In the nineties, I wrote some software that I hoped would help me predict how the stock market would behave. Neither of these worked to my satisfaction. There was some limited utility to these programs, but weren't marketable.
Nevertheless, the idea of predicting the future course of events has remained an attraction for me. This blog is supposed to be something like that, but there hasn't always been a focus on that.
There may have been predictions here, but they haven't been catalogued and thus be easily referenced to see if the predictions came true or not. If you can't measure it, you can't evaluate it.
There was one near the beginning of this year in which I predicted that we will find out if the GOP intends to be a me-too party or an opposition party. The results are now coming in with respect to the immigration bill being considered in Congress. They will be a me-too party, but they will try not to appear to be blatantly so. They have to keep up appearances.
The rest of those predictions linked above also seem to be accurate. At least for the moment.
Sometimes I forget what the focus of this blog should be. It should be about the future and predictions fit into that theme.
If there's anything that I would add to those predictions at the beginning of the year it would be this:
Things are not getting better. Things are getting worse. There's no reason to believe that things will get better.
How do you measure this prediction? After all, there could be some dispute over the economy. Some seem to think the economy is getting better. But that is a delusion.
Perhaps you could use some objective standard instead of a subjective one. An objective one would be the statistics, but there's some controversy about that too. Unemployment going down? Not really. No inflation? Not really. Budget deficit getting smaller? Not really.
Here's something that's pretty objective: quantitative easing. The Fed is doing it or they aren't. Interest rates--- they are going up or going down. Stock market too. Gold prices.
I will rephrase the "getting worse" prediction as follows: the Fed won't be able to stop quantitative easing. I think that is a bad thing.
Thus, the subjective things are getting worse. For other folks, they may appear to be getting better. Not very useful for predictions. The goal will be to be as objective as possible. Memo to self: remember that.
This will be a new category called predictions. It will also be filed in the history of the blog.
Saturday, March 15, 2025
Aldrin Cyclers
Very well done. I'd say this is a keeper, and worth making a special bookmark to find it again at some future date. Even to study it a bit.
The video shows how Aldrin Cyclers can be employed to get to and from Mars. Cyclers can be set up for other parts of the Solar System as well.
Quick update: Marcus House discusses Aldrin Cyclers back in 2023.
Saturday, September 28, 2024
Posted on the Quicklaunch Facebook Page
9/28/24:
This is an old one, but goodie. If memory serves, I may have gotten a response from the head honcho at Quicklaunch about the idea for one on the Moon. The response, if memory serves, is that it would be relatively easy to get to lunar orbit with a gas gun. Quicklaunch would utilize a gas gun, which means that heated gas expands for the thrust needed to get a payload to orbit. The gas gun had been tested at that time, and had success getting them hypersonic, if memory serves.
This topic returns, as there's some news provided by the Marcus House channel on YouTube. He does Space Updates there, and there's a mention of a new company ( new to me, anyway) that proposes to use this concept. I've joined the video in progress at that point:
11/18/11:
As of now, there has been no response. It was a comment about the feasibility of putting one of these devices on the moon or Mars. The idea was to use the device to build a space elevator on the moon or Mars.
Here's another idea. Since tungsten has such a high melting point, he could called upon to use his Quicklaunch to put tungsten in LEO. Twelve million pounds of tungsten would be enough to serve as an anchor for a lunar space elevator, or moonstalk. The trick would be to transport the tungsten to EML-1. That might be accomplished by a fleet of VASIMRs.
In order to build the moonstalk, you'd need that much, or possibly more mass for the anchor in space, plus another anchor on the lunar surface, plus the cable which can be deployed from space so that it can connect to the surface. No new exotic materials need to be invented for cable, as the strength of currently available materials is sufficient.
Once emplaced, it could be used to get access to the surface without the use of propellants.
If it were extended toward the poles, and a second moonstalk was built on the far side with extensions to the poles, one could get to the gateway of interplanetary space from which missions could be launched. The advantage of this arrangement is that you could actually construct your spacecraft so that could do these types of missions right there from EML-2.
The interplanetary ship, could be a variation of the NERVA type rocket which was tested and found space-worthy during the Apollo Era. The nuclear fuel could be supplied from the lunar surface. It could use the Thorium fuel cycle to produce an isotope of Uranium. Since everything would take place on the far side of the moon, NIMBY opposition should be minimized. The Thorium fuel cycle precludes the development of explosive devices, so the project should not be in violation of any treaties. If nuclear is too objectionable, a solar powered VASIMR may be feasible, provided that the solar panels were constructed from lunar materials.
For reaction mass for the NERVA, you could use the abundant hydrogen found in permanently shaded craters near the poles. With the extensions to the poles, the lunar surface could be populated permanently and could even supply interplanetary missions, as opposed to relying upon the Earth. Thus, the moon could serve as a support base for interplanetary exploration and settlement.
The superior ISP of nuclear rockets could open up the space frontier for settlement. The spacecraft could be large enough to provide sufficient shielding and habitat for long duration missions. Most likely, it could also be set up to provide artificial gravity so as to limit the effects of long term exposure to weightlessness. Overall, it minimize the hazards of long duration missions and provide the best probability of success for human exploration and settlement.
This could take place no risk to the Earth from radiation or explosions. It is hard to imagine any political opposition, but the ingenuity of opponents can't be underestimated. Nevertheless, whatever opposition that could develop to this proposition should be manageable, provided that the will to do the project exists.
There are those who would say that it is too expensive, and that it would take too long. We've got all the time we need, provided that the will exists. Let's briefly examine the cost objection.
The ground anchor implies many missions. It would take a multi-decade commitment and most likely a large influx of funds to complete the project. As for costs, Hunter says he could put the fuel for a Mars mission up in LEO for 5 billion dollars, if I am not mistaken. This would probably cost twice that or more for the anchors, plus the other missions could easily double that figure.
A cost comparison to the lunar base Paul Spudis envisions would likely be comparable. There may be a case made that this may cost more than what Spudis' proposal, but that wouldn't take into consideration cost savings from the Quicklaunch method. Spudis' moonbase's cost was projected at about 90 billion dollars. I'm guessing that this proposition wouldn't cost any more than that. Even if it did cost more, it would still be worth it.
So much for the objections, what about the benefits?
The potential returns would be enormous. If platinum resources could be found on the moon, it could spark the hydrogen economy on the Earth. In addition, space solar industry could be enabled by manufacturing the panels in space or on the moon. Easy access to cis lunar space would make deployment cost effective. Overall, this could open up the vast resources of space, and if I may speculate boldly- it could be lead to an entirely new era of peace and prosperity for all mankind.
Update: 11/19/2001
This post gets a new label of Quicklaunch and Mass Driver Concepts plus it also gets the category label of Sidebar Entry. Sidebar Entry post labels are attached to all posts that introduces an important concept or topic that I want to keep track of on a historical basis. Putting that label tells me when I started to think about it in more in depth and allows an examination of my thinking as on a timeline.
This is an old one, but goodie. If memory serves, I may have gotten a response from the head honcho at Quicklaunch about the idea for one on the Moon. The response, if memory serves, is that it would be relatively easy to get to lunar orbit with a gas gun. Quicklaunch would utilize a gas gun, which means that heated gas expands for the thrust needed to get a payload to orbit. The gas gun had been tested at that time, and had success getting them hypersonic, if memory serves.
This topic returns, as there's some news provided by the Marcus House channel on YouTube. He does Space Updates there, and there's a mention of a new company ( new to me, anyway) that proposes to use this concept. I've joined the video in progress at that point:
11/18/11:
As of now, there has been no response. It was a comment about the feasibility of putting one of these devices on the moon or Mars. The idea was to use the device to build a space elevator on the moon or Mars.
Here's another idea. Since tungsten has such a high melting point, he could called upon to use his Quicklaunch to put tungsten in LEO. Twelve million pounds of tungsten would be enough to serve as an anchor for a lunar space elevator, or moonstalk. The trick would be to transport the tungsten to EML-1. That might be accomplished by a fleet of VASIMRs.
In order to build the moonstalk, you'd need that much, or possibly more mass for the anchor in space, plus another anchor on the lunar surface, plus the cable which can be deployed from space so that it can connect to the surface. No new exotic materials need to be invented for cable, as the strength of currently available materials is sufficient.
Once emplaced, it could be used to get access to the surface without the use of propellants.
If it were extended toward the poles, and a second moonstalk was built on the far side with extensions to the poles, one could get to the gateway of interplanetary space from which missions could be launched. The advantage of this arrangement is that you could actually construct your spacecraft so that could do these types of missions right there from EML-2.
The interplanetary ship, could be a variation of the NERVA type rocket which was tested and found space-worthy during the Apollo Era. The nuclear fuel could be supplied from the lunar surface. It could use the Thorium fuel cycle to produce an isotope of Uranium. Since everything would take place on the far side of the moon, NIMBY opposition should be minimized. The Thorium fuel cycle precludes the development of explosive devices, so the project should not be in violation of any treaties. If nuclear is too objectionable, a solar powered VASIMR may be feasible, provided that the solar panels were constructed from lunar materials.
For reaction mass for the NERVA, you could use the abundant hydrogen found in permanently shaded craters near the poles. With the extensions to the poles, the lunar surface could be populated permanently and could even supply interplanetary missions, as opposed to relying upon the Earth. Thus, the moon could serve as a support base for interplanetary exploration and settlement.
The superior ISP of nuclear rockets could open up the space frontier for settlement. The spacecraft could be large enough to provide sufficient shielding and habitat for long duration missions. Most likely, it could also be set up to provide artificial gravity so as to limit the effects of long term exposure to weightlessness. Overall, it minimize the hazards of long duration missions and provide the best probability of success for human exploration and settlement.
This could take place no risk to the Earth from radiation or explosions. It is hard to imagine any political opposition, but the ingenuity of opponents can't be underestimated. Nevertheless, whatever opposition that could develop to this proposition should be manageable, provided that the will to do the project exists.
There are those who would say that it is too expensive, and that it would take too long. We've got all the time we need, provided that the will exists. Let's briefly examine the cost objection.
The ground anchor implies many missions. It would take a multi-decade commitment and most likely a large influx of funds to complete the project. As for costs, Hunter says he could put the fuel for a Mars mission up in LEO for 5 billion dollars, if I am not mistaken. This would probably cost twice that or more for the anchors, plus the other missions could easily double that figure.
A cost comparison to the lunar base Paul Spudis envisions would likely be comparable. There may be a case made that this may cost more than what Spudis' proposal, but that wouldn't take into consideration cost savings from the Quicklaunch method. Spudis' moonbase's cost was projected at about 90 billion dollars. I'm guessing that this proposition wouldn't cost any more than that. Even if it did cost more, it would still be worth it.
So much for the objections, what about the benefits?
The potential returns would be enormous. If platinum resources could be found on the moon, it could spark the hydrogen economy on the Earth. In addition, space solar industry could be enabled by manufacturing the panels in space or on the moon. Easy access to cis lunar space would make deployment cost effective. Overall, this could open up the vast resources of space, and if I may speculate boldly- it could be lead to an entirely new era of peace and prosperity for all mankind.
Update: 11/19/2001
This post gets a new label of Quicklaunch and Mass Driver Concepts plus it also gets the category label of Sidebar Entry. Sidebar Entry post labels are attached to all posts that introduces an important concept or topic that I want to keep track of on a historical basis. Putting that label tells me when I started to think about it in more in depth and allows an examination of my thinking as on a timeline.
Monday, July 22, 2024
Notice: New blog
7/22/24:
This post was completely forgotten. I should've just deleted the darned thing. Not sure if it still exists. But no posts have been made there. What's the diff? I DID revive another blog. Sorta revived it. Hopefully I won't forget about it again. Update: 7/23: The private blog has been deleted. Or shall we say, moved to the Brax.Me site. Brax.Me is all about privacy.
8/10/19: Actually, it is an old blog. It is repurposed to go into another direction.
The old address was the "Cheat You Fair" blog. All posts were deleted, and the blog is now a private blog.
It is called "Private blogger". Only those who I allow to read it can read it. Right now, there is nothing there. If there's any interest in reading what's there in the future, if anybody, can leave a comment here on this blog.
I will consider each person on their own merits. I reserve the right to refuse anybody or to allow anybody on the Private blogger if I so choose.
If nobody is interested, then there's no harm done. Nothing is there anymore, anyway.
This post was completely forgotten. I should've just deleted the darned thing. Not sure if it still exists. But no posts have been made there. What's the diff? I DID revive another blog. Sorta revived it. Hopefully I won't forget about it again. Update: 7/23: The private blog has been deleted. Or shall we say, moved to the Brax.Me site. Brax.Me is all about privacy.
8/10/19: Actually, it is an old blog. It is repurposed to go into another direction.
The old address was the "Cheat You Fair" blog. All posts were deleted, and the blog is now a private blog.
It is called "Private blogger". Only those who I allow to read it can read it. Right now, there is nothing there. If there's any interest in reading what's there in the future, if anybody, can leave a comment here on this blog.
I will consider each person on their own merits. I reserve the right to refuse anybody or to allow anybody on the Private blogger if I so choose.
If nobody is interested, then there's no harm done. Nothing is there anymore, anyway.
Thursday, January 25, 2024
How to thwart the nefarious propaganda technique of projection
1/25/24: Daily Update: A deeper dive
- It's not a misunderstanding. These people are lying because they know the truth.
- Recent moral developments in the culture have enabled this to become even more powerful.
- It's hard to tell WHO is projecting.
The article gives you a clear definition of what projection is. Why it is so powerful, and examples in history. The changes in our culture with respect to moral relativism has supercharged the technique. A powerful anti-dote must be applied. For example, the use of slander is being adopted because people have drifted away from Judeo-Christian moral ethics provided in the Ten Commandments. Therefore, speaking falsely against others is now considered okay. The moral rot of Postmodernism has taken root amongst the population. This change has been drastic and fairly recent.
Key quote:
The bottom line is that significant portions of the U.S. and world populations have no firm moral barricades against projection.
What to do about all this? The article discusses the anti-dotes at length. It would be wise to learn and practice these techniques continually. That's the reason for this deeper dive!
Some things to look out for:
- Confirmation bias
- Mind reading
- Lack of self-awareness
Finally, you have to do your own research. Therefore, improve your own research skills.
I hope this is a good enough summary. I hope to refer to this in future posts.
end daily update, the original post follows directly below:
Just Facts Daily
Comment:
Everybody in the MAGA movement needs to read this, and learn it by heart. MAGA has got their work cut out.
Yes, I think that this is a way towards more truth in government, and therefore, it is a good thing. You sure cannot count on the other side to do it. Indeed, they are the reasons why MAGA had better do it. The other side just MIGHT do it, but in cynical ways. Read this article carefully if you need to know why.
Monday, October 30, 2023
More links to chew on
Dick Morris: The Changing Ideology Of The Democrat Party In my opinion, Biden has been captured by the hard left. You hear a lot about the "hard right". But it is the hard left that is calling the shots in the Biden Administration.
and
Dick Morris: Biden Kills Rare Earth Mine? If this Administration is killing oil and gas, and also killing rare earths, then how do we get energy to run our society? Fostering dependence upon sources from hostile countries does not seem to bode well for national security.
Matt Taibbi: Thanks to a politician who did his job. Is it too much to ask for them to actually serve the public? If not the public, then who do they serve?
Rob Braxman: Deeply Flawed Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) ... Q and A (video)
My question here is this: Are these people in charge stupid, or evil? You cannot ask for a worse set of public policies if you tried.
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Ideas for space that I like
4.18.23: Last updated on Jan 24, 2014
The Safe 400 reactor has been upgraded to the kilo power system.
Here is a list of ideas for space travel that I've written about on this blog and that I like. This list may change over time as I learn more. The list is in no particular order.
These are all I can remember for now. If I can think of any others, I will add them to the list.
Update: Last of a series done in reverse chronological order. The reason for doing it this way was that the reasoning for what I claim to be true isn't necessarily easily found on the blog. It so happens that it was chronological this time, but it won't necessarily be that way in the future. The blog format doesn't easily allow for this. This way, you can see how the reasoning is built up over a series of posts. To see even deeper, use the category-sub category listings at the bottom of each post.
The previous post in the series is here.
- Airship to Orbit ---- Why I like it. Even if it doesn't work, it can help reach orbit provided that it can be made to carry sufficient mass at sufficient velocity. What I like most is the attention to mass. The mass of this method should be the least amongst all methods of getting to space. Looks like it would definitely work on Mars ( that's a big deal ).
- Space sailing --- Why I like it: Once again, here is a method of space travel that requires little if any reaction mass.
- Focus Fusion ( as space drive ) Why I like it: Very high ISP. Could enable exploration and settlement of the entire solar system. Perhaps may even be useful for travel to nearest stars.
- Beamed power for propulsion Why I like it If Nuclear Thermal Engines cannot be used to get to orbit, perhaps this method will be acceptable.
- Nuclear Thermal Engines Why I like it Better ISP than chemical rockets. Radioactivity issue could be handled if a commitment were made to deal with that issue.
- Safe-400 ( space nuclear reactor ) Why I like it Good things can come in small packages. It only weighs about 1100 lbs. You're going to need power in space, and this little reactor can deliver it.
- A Moonstalk and a Mars Stalk Why I like it Will allow access to the surface with no mass penalty.
- Gas Guns Why I like it Will enable delivery of mass from the surface of the Moon or Mars with no mass penalty. From the Moon, it wouldn't even require heating of the gas.
- AX-5 Spacesuit Why I like it I like the concept of a hard cover on the suit. It does allow for 95% of normal movement, so it isn't too restrictive. It probably won't happen this way, but if it could be made livable for a long period of time, it would be a big help.
- Skylon Why I like it SSTO and reuse, what's not to like?
- Falcon 9 Why I like it It will be fully reusable and with a fast turnaround, unless something goes wrong.
These are all I can remember for now. If I can think of any others, I will add them to the list.
Update: Last of a series done in reverse chronological order. The reason for doing it this way was that the reasoning for what I claim to be true isn't necessarily easily found on the blog. It so happens that it was chronological this time, but it won't necessarily be that way in the future. The blog format doesn't easily allow for this. This way, you can see how the reasoning is built up over a series of posts. To see even deeper, use the category-sub category listings at the bottom of each post.
The previous post in the series is here.
Thursday, September 8, 2022
This country has gone insane
25 per cent of Democrats think men can have babies
A new category: BEAM ME UP SCOTTY
Yes, I read the news today, oh BROTHER. ( It used to be oh boy, like the Beatles song) The striking fact in this news is that 36% of COLLEGE EDUCATED FEMALES seem to think that men can have babies. Say WHAT?! How ya figure?
If you don't know the birds and the bees by the time you are grown up, you are in really bad shape. So here's a news flash for those of you ( not necessarily in Rio Linda): Only those who are female can bear young. That's where we all came from, don't you know. I know it is news in the college educated world, but those are the facts of life that even little kiddies used to know. Mommy and daddy used to tell the little ones these things. You don't need a college for that; just a sane home.
They should be teaching basic biology, which teaches that males have x and y chromosomes and females have two x chromosomes. Only those with two x chromosomes can bear young. Those "adults" are called "women". The rest with the x and y chromosomes are called "men". Novel concept for some of you out there. Little kids used to be able to understand this well enough. It seems to be a challenge today. Even for those said to be "educated".
If you are "college-educated", and if you are one these people who need remedial education, know this: What you are receiving ISN'T education, it is INDOCTRINATION. There are "higher" educational facilities that need to be downgraded to the status of mental institutions. Basic inability to distinguish reality is a mental disease. It is called called INSANITY.
It is rather scary that these people can vote. They need to be sent back to re-educational facilities for proper education, and if they are found to be competent once again, they can take part in society once again. NOT KIDDING.
The preceding has been brought to you as a public service by this here blog. Always ready to help. ( sigh)
Thursday, May 16, 2019
Candor v Truth
Updated,
5.16.19:
A brief review of this category, History of the blog, has uncovered this post. It is worthy of re-posting, so here it is.
I chose to post it again because today could be a "big picture" kind of day. A day for putting things into perspective.
Also, a review of the blog enables me to remember to "not re-invent the wheel". The intention for the category is to be able to recall things that I may otherwise forget.
It is a huge blog now with over 11k posts. It has to be organized somehow. Here is one way that I accomplished this, and it pleases me to see that it worked as intended.
1.7.18:
There's a policy on this blog. Or perhaps a theme, which is often referred to as "truth". Truth is put into scare quotes because not everyone agrees on what it is.
Hence, people actually believe a thing to be "true", even though that may be wrong. For example, most people at one time, believed that the Earth was flat. When that was discovered to be not the case, the recognized "truth" had to be revised. The actual truth never changed, just the perceptions of what is true versus what isn't.
Therefore, someone "candid" at that time, could express their belief that the Earth was flat. But according to what is the truth, once discovered as such, rendered that belief to be a false one. This does not make a person a liar to be wrong with the respect to truth. It was an honest mistake.
The same could be said to be true with respect to so-called AGW. My "candid" opinion is that it is false. It is more than that, it is an outright fraud. Yet, there are people who sincerely believe in it. These people are not liars, they are merely wrong. Now, if science hadn't been corrupted by politics, then science could answer the question that would satisfy most people. At this day and age, science is not reliable. In particular, government funded and government subsidized "science". In my "candid" opinion, the fraud is being perpetrated by politicians. The people are being seduced into believing in it. Therefore, the people are victims of lying politicians and corrupted "scientists".
Words mean things, said Rush Limbaugh. Yes, I agree. That is why I am a stickler on word meanings. Calling people liars is pretty serious stuff. Yet, my feeling is strong on the matter in many cases, because the truth is known, but is being suppressed. The suppression of truth is LYING, folks. It happens with great frequency on the media. These people are not about truth in any way, shape, or form. They are primarily engaged in the pursuit of money first and foremost. If truth gets in the way of money, guess which one gets ditched?
In my opinion, the people who spin the fables about AGW are about money, power, and control. It is definitely not about "saving the planet".
Therefore, I'd like to make the distinction between candor and truth. What is delivered here is candor, which may or may not be totally in agreement with truth. If it isn't truthful, it is not because of any dishonesty on my part. I am trying to say what I think. There is no attempt to deceive.
Hopefully, this little discussion makes sense. I often write that the truth is a slippery thing. That is because you may think you have it, but you don't really. For anybody can be wrong, even one who tries to be right about things. One thing you can count on here, there will never be an attempt to hide the truth, provided that I am full possession of it.
I hope that is clear.
5.16.19:
A brief review of this category, History of the blog, has uncovered this post. It is worthy of re-posting, so here it is.
I chose to post it again because today could be a "big picture" kind of day. A day for putting things into perspective.
Also, a review of the blog enables me to remember to "not re-invent the wheel". The intention for the category is to be able to recall things that I may otherwise forget.
It is a huge blog now with over 11k posts. It has to be organized somehow. Here is one way that I accomplished this, and it pleases me to see that it worked as intended.
1.7.18:
There's a policy on this blog. Or perhaps a theme, which is often referred to as "truth". Truth is put into scare quotes because not everyone agrees on what it is.
Hence, people actually believe a thing to be "true", even though that may be wrong. For example, most people at one time, believed that the Earth was flat. When that was discovered to be not the case, the recognized "truth" had to be revised. The actual truth never changed, just the perceptions of what is true versus what isn't.
Therefore, someone "candid" at that time, could express their belief that the Earth was flat. But according to what is the truth, once discovered as such, rendered that belief to be a false one. This does not make a person a liar to be wrong with the respect to truth. It was an honest mistake.
The same could be said to be true with respect to so-called AGW. My "candid" opinion is that it is false. It is more than that, it is an outright fraud. Yet, there are people who sincerely believe in it. These people are not liars, they are merely wrong. Now, if science hadn't been corrupted by politics, then science could answer the question that would satisfy most people. At this day and age, science is not reliable. In particular, government funded and government subsidized "science". In my "candid" opinion, the fraud is being perpetrated by politicians. The people are being seduced into believing in it. Therefore, the people are victims of lying politicians and corrupted "scientists".
Words mean things, said Rush Limbaugh. Yes, I agree. That is why I am a stickler on word meanings. Calling people liars is pretty serious stuff. Yet, my feeling is strong on the matter in many cases, because the truth is known, but is being suppressed. The suppression of truth is LYING, folks. It happens with great frequency on the media. These people are not about truth in any way, shape, or form. They are primarily engaged in the pursuit of money first and foremost. If truth gets in the way of money, guess which one gets ditched?
In my opinion, the people who spin the fables about AGW are about money, power, and control. It is definitely not about "saving the planet".
Therefore, I'd like to make the distinction between candor and truth. What is delivered here is candor, which may or may not be totally in agreement with truth. If it isn't truthful, it is not because of any dishonesty on my part. I am trying to say what I think. There is no attempt to deceive.
Hopefully, this little discussion makes sense. I often write that the truth is a slippery thing. That is because you may think you have it, but you don't really. For anybody can be wrong, even one who tries to be right about things. One thing you can count on here, there will never be an attempt to hide the truth, provided that I am full possession of it.
I hope that is clear.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Grammarly Shake Down Cruise
After installing the gadget to the Chrome Browser, I now begin testing how it proofreads my document.
The first sentence above was typed in, and then pasted into the gadget, and it gave a result. The result was one spelling mistake.
A similar procedure for the second sentence. That result was no errors.
Consequently, I will expand this to include more than one sentence. Now, I am testing three sentences at a time.
It would work better if I were to type an entire document at one time, but I tried that before trying this shakedown cruise experiment. The problem is the same problem I had with Blogger when I first began this blog. The blogger platform does a lot to the text that cannot be seen. Therefore, if you were to cut and paste a document into this blogger platform, it will display differently from what was written in the other text editor. This phenomenon means that Grammarly is not very useful in this context, unfortunately. The reason is that it is quite cumbersome to continue writing just one sentence at a time while checking for errors along the way.
There are other errors that Grammarly won't show unless you pay a fee. Oh? So, my writing is that bad, eh? I suspected as much.
Hey! It gives a score to my writing. This paragraph was not included in the evaluation, by the way. The final score says my writing is easy to read.
I wonder if AOC could read it.
The first sentence above was typed in, and then pasted into the gadget, and it gave a result. The result was one spelling mistake.
A similar procedure for the second sentence. That result was no errors.
Consequently, I will expand this to include more than one sentence. Now, I am testing three sentences at a time.
It would work better if I were to type an entire document at one time, but I tried that before trying this shakedown cruise experiment. The problem is the same problem I had with Blogger when I first began this blog. The blogger platform does a lot to the text that cannot be seen. Therefore, if you were to cut and paste a document into this blogger platform, it will display differently from what was written in the other text editor. This phenomenon means that Grammarly is not very useful in this context, unfortunately. The reason is that it is quite cumbersome to continue writing just one sentence at a time while checking for errors along the way.
There are other errors that Grammarly won't show unless you pay a fee. Oh? So, my writing is that bad, eh? I suspected as much.
Hey! It gives a score to my writing. This paragraph was not included in the evaluation, by the way. The final score says my writing is easy to read.
I wonder if AOC could read it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)