Like bookends, we have official witnesses speaking of the Savior's goodness, one speaking just before the crucifixion and the other just after. Each had an official role to play, in what became of Jesus, so their statements, echoing down through the years, are the pronouncements from those who were official participants in His death. It seems significant, noteworthy, to me, that these two placed in position to participate in his death, pronounced that they found Him to be, judged him to be, a good man. They left their witness to humanity.
We have Pilate, who condemned him to death, saying, "I find no fault in this man." And, we have the centurion, the Roman army officer who witnessed the death, saying, "Certainly, this was a righteous man."
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Saturday, June 4, 2016
Could We Achieve Sci-Fi Travel Today?
Again, I think on shooting a person or car through a vacuum tunnel, powered by magnets. I wish I had a tidy few million bucks to experiment with this. It seems it should work. It seems we could be transporting ourselves this way, now, speeding across the nation at warp speeds, now. Don't wait for the future. Tear this away from sci-fi and do it.
Now.
Okay, here's what well do: We'll build transit tunnels from one end of the state to the other. When you arrive at St. George, you have the option of staying on the old, boring interstate, or entering the intergalactic (so to speak) magnet tunnel. We wrap your car in a cocoon, slip it into the vacuum tunnel, and send you on your way. Now, vacuum tunnels have little resistance, you know, and maybe none. The only resistance I can think of will be that from countering gravity, and some from the magnets we will use.
Yes, we will center the person or the car in the vacuum tube with magnets on the tunnel walls. That might create too much friction if we to it that way, but it is one possibility. Perhaps the trajectory of the centering magnets can be at such an angle that they sweep along the sides of the tunnel, but do not go to the center where the person or car is in transport. So, only when the person or car drifts from the center of the tunnel do these magnet waves touch the person or car. Thus, only then would there be friction from magnet waves.
Now, without friction, you can go as fast as light -- and faster, it would seem to me. I am not a scientist, but this theory of unlimited speed seems sound, to me. If there is no friction, you will go as fast as the propelling source dictates. No, the thrust of a rocket engine will not provide such speed. When we shoot spacecrafts into space, they can maintain the same speed the rocket thrust them to, but they do not exceed that speed.
So, we need a power source other than rocket power. Is there one capable of infinite speed? I believe there is: magnets. It seems to me that the pull of a magnet demands that the two objects reach each other as soon as possible -- even immediately, if possible. How fast that actually plays out to if we build a magnet tunnel, I do not know. But, if unlimited speed seems possible in theory, at least extraordinary speed should be attained in actual practice.
And, like I say, we should be able to make this work today, not far in the future. And, as I said, this isn't science fiction I'm talking, I'm telling you how to do it and spelling it out. I believe you should be able to see that it will work.
The last time I wrote, I suggested a magnet at the destination. Would the pull of a magnet over at one end of the state, say, in Green River, be able to reach all the way to St. George? If not, then here is another idea: Push the car with magnets. Magnets have a positive and a negative. As the car starts through the tunnel, send a magnet after it to push it, and, if necessary, another magnet after that one, to push it. You could send as many magnets after the car as necessary, to attain the speed or keep the push close to the car. If you did send chaser magnets, though, you might not be able to have centering magnets on the walls, rather you would have to use a monorail or some such to keep the car centered, otherwise, the magnets on the side of the tunnel might attract the chaser magnets.
Actually, on second thought, as long as you engineer it so the magnets on the walls do not attract the chaser magnets, it might work.
Then, magnet waves at the end of the tunnel would bring the car to a stop.
Now, as I am thinking this all through as I type, I do see a problem. How do you shut off the chaser magnets? If you have a magnet at whichever end of the tunnel, it is anchored and you can turn it away stopping the pull or push and letting the stopper magnet at the other end stop the vehicle. I suppose, then, you could have a magnet at the end of the tunnel attract the chaser magnets, but the collision of those magnets would be . . . obviously catastrophic. Perhaps, then, the chaser magnets could be neutralized by magnets on the opposite sides of the tunnel, each having equal force, each pushing perpendicular to those tunnel walls. In the absence of resistance, the push of these magnets would immediately take over and stop the car.
Okay, I said this is all possible today, now. Upon further review, it might take a lot of testing. If no chaser magnets are needed, it might be something we can do, today, but chaser magnets might make a lot more experimentation necessary.
Now.
Okay, here's what well do: We'll build transit tunnels from one end of the state to the other. When you arrive at St. George, you have the option of staying on the old, boring interstate, or entering the intergalactic (so to speak) magnet tunnel. We wrap your car in a cocoon, slip it into the vacuum tunnel, and send you on your way. Now, vacuum tunnels have little resistance, you know, and maybe none. The only resistance I can think of will be that from countering gravity, and some from the magnets we will use.
Yes, we will center the person or the car in the vacuum tube with magnets on the tunnel walls. That might create too much friction if we to it that way, but it is one possibility. Perhaps the trajectory of the centering magnets can be at such an angle that they sweep along the sides of the tunnel, but do not go to the center where the person or car is in transport. So, only when the person or car drifts from the center of the tunnel do these magnet waves touch the person or car. Thus, only then would there be friction from magnet waves.
Now, without friction, you can go as fast as light -- and faster, it would seem to me. I am not a scientist, but this theory of unlimited speed seems sound, to me. If there is no friction, you will go as fast as the propelling source dictates. No, the thrust of a rocket engine will not provide such speed. When we shoot spacecrafts into space, they can maintain the same speed the rocket thrust them to, but they do not exceed that speed.
So, we need a power source other than rocket power. Is there one capable of infinite speed? I believe there is: magnets. It seems to me that the pull of a magnet demands that the two objects reach each other as soon as possible -- even immediately, if possible. How fast that actually plays out to if we build a magnet tunnel, I do not know. But, if unlimited speed seems possible in theory, at least extraordinary speed should be attained in actual practice.
And, like I say, we should be able to make this work today, not far in the future. And, as I said, this isn't science fiction I'm talking, I'm telling you how to do it and spelling it out. I believe you should be able to see that it will work.
The last time I wrote, I suggested a magnet at the destination. Would the pull of a magnet over at one end of the state, say, in Green River, be able to reach all the way to St. George? If not, then here is another idea: Push the car with magnets. Magnets have a positive and a negative. As the car starts through the tunnel, send a magnet after it to push it, and, if necessary, another magnet after that one, to push it. You could send as many magnets after the car as necessary, to attain the speed or keep the push close to the car. If you did send chaser magnets, though, you might not be able to have centering magnets on the walls, rather you would have to use a monorail or some such to keep the car centered, otherwise, the magnets on the side of the tunnel might attract the chaser magnets.
Actually, on second thought, as long as you engineer it so the magnets on the walls do not attract the chaser magnets, it might work.
Then, magnet waves at the end of the tunnel would bring the car to a stop.
Now, as I am thinking this all through as I type, I do see a problem. How do you shut off the chaser magnets? If you have a magnet at whichever end of the tunnel, it is anchored and you can turn it away stopping the pull or push and letting the stopper magnet at the other end stop the vehicle. I suppose, then, you could have a magnet at the end of the tunnel attract the chaser magnets, but the collision of those magnets would be . . . obviously catastrophic. Perhaps, then, the chaser magnets could be neutralized by magnets on the opposite sides of the tunnel, each having equal force, each pushing perpendicular to those tunnel walls. In the absence of resistance, the push of these magnets would immediately take over and stop the car.
Okay, I said this is all possible today, now. Upon further review, it might take a lot of testing. If no chaser magnets are needed, it might be something we can do, today, but chaser magnets might make a lot more experimentation necessary.
Friday, June 3, 2016
Let's Segregate our Homeless
"I hope we don't get the same crowd hanging around this facility we already have hanging around the adult facility (drug dealers, predators, pimps, etc)." -- 2 bits, commenting online on a Deseret News story about a facility for homeless youth.
It occurs to me, then, that we should aim for some segregation in housing the homeless. We want to care for them all, but it is not good to place those who can be free of drugs and such in an environment of drugs and such. If we are to shelter them, we need to shelter them in this manner, as well.
My mind thinks back on someone I knew sent to a homeless shelter maybe 10 months ago. She didn't want to stay there, in part due to the drugs and negative influences. Society's answer for getting them off the street, shouldn't include forcing them into a bad environment. So, let all those who will commit to clean living live in a separate facility, and let them stay there as long as they keep their commitment.
It occurs to me, then, that we should aim for some segregation in housing the homeless. We want to care for them all, but it is not good to place those who can be free of drugs and such in an environment of drugs and such. If we are to shelter them, we need to shelter them in this manner, as well.
My mind thinks back on someone I knew sent to a homeless shelter maybe 10 months ago. She didn't want to stay there, in part due to the drugs and negative influences. Society's answer for getting them off the street, shouldn't include forcing them into a bad environment. So, let all those who will commit to clean living live in a separate facility, and let them stay there as long as they keep their commitment.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Abortion is Death by Design; Abortion is Death by Denial
Abortion is death by design. These are not deaths that come by accident. They are not deaths that cannot be avoided. They are deaths we choose to inflict. Perhaps more shocking, is who we inflict these deaths upon: our own family members. We choose to die those who are of our own offspring, and we inflict this death at that moment they are most dependent upon us.
Abortion is death by denial. These are deaths we deny to be even deaths. These are people we deny to be even people. Again, what is most shocking, is who it is we are denying to be people: our own family members. Would we do this? Would we take a member of our own family, take his or her life, and deny there had even been a human life to be lost? Would we suggest our own flesh and blood were no more than organisms?
Abortion is death by design. Abortion is death by denial.
Abortion is death by denial. These are deaths we deny to be even deaths. These are people we deny to be even people. Again, what is most shocking, is who it is we are denying to be people: our own family members. Would we do this? Would we take a member of our own family, take his or her life, and deny there had even been a human life to be lost? Would we suggest our own flesh and blood were no more than organisms?
Abortion is death by design. Abortion is death by denial.
Donald Trump and the Art of Calling the Other Person the Liar
If you yell loud enough, people will believe you. If you yell loud enough, so to speak, you can sometimes drown out the truth. This art of forceful speaking has a master in Donald Trump, who attacks those who attack him. In this case, he attacks by calling someone someone else a liar. You read what happened, and determine if he isn't in the act of lying even as he is calling someone else a liar.
In March, in a town hall with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Trump suggested it was time to reconsider the United States' policy of not letting Japan arm itself with nuclear weapons.
And then, in April, Trump discussed nuclear weapons with Chris Wallace on Fox, "It's not like, gee whiz, nobody has them. So, North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea." When he was asked if he meant with nukes, he replied, "Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes."
But now, Trump is saying it is a lie that he said he wants Japan to get nuclear weapons. At a rally this week in Sacramento, Trump referred to a Hillary Clinton speech, saying, "And it was such lies about my foreign policy, that they said I want Japan to get nuclear weapons. Give me a break."
Trump went on to say that they don't say it, but he wants Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and many of the NATO allies to pay up for us taking care of them. Perhaps he is suggesting that the reason he said what he did in March and April, is that it is time for the U.S. to quit footing the bill for defending so many nations. Let them arm themselves, instead.
But, that doesn't diminish that he did, indeed, suggest it was time to reconsider Japan not arming itself with nuclear weapons.
In March, in a town hall with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Trump suggested it was time to reconsider the United States' policy of not letting Japan arm itself with nuclear weapons.
And then, in April, Trump discussed nuclear weapons with Chris Wallace on Fox, "It's not like, gee whiz, nobody has them. So, North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea." When he was asked if he meant with nukes, he replied, "Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes."
But now, Trump is saying it is a lie that he said he wants Japan to get nuclear weapons. At a rally this week in Sacramento, Trump referred to a Hillary Clinton speech, saying, "And it was such lies about my foreign policy, that they said I want Japan to get nuclear weapons. Give me a break."
Trump went on to say that they don't say it, but he wants Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and many of the NATO allies to pay up for us taking care of them. Perhaps he is suggesting that the reason he said what he did in March and April, is that it is time for the U.S. to quit footing the bill for defending so many nations. Let them arm themselves, instead.
But, that doesn't diminish that he did, indeed, suggest it was time to reconsider Japan not arming itself with nuclear weapons.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Do We Classify Too Much?
Wish some of the discussion of Hillary Clinton's emails would be about what should be classified.
I wonder if we don't classify too much, too easily. I wonder if we infringe on our own First Amendment rights by scurrying without good cause to hide things from being said in the name of national security.
Throw up the warning sign of national security, and we jump. No one wants the national security to be compromised. But, I do fear that we jump too quickly, and too often.
I wonder if we don't classify too much, too easily. I wonder if we infringe on our own First Amendment rights by scurrying without good cause to hide things from being said in the name of national security.
Throw up the warning sign of national security, and we jump. No one wants the national security to be compromised. But, I do fear that we jump too quickly, and too often.
I Like it that David French is being Drafted to Run for President
This, perhaps, is the way the founding fathers wanted it done. Bill Kristol is pressing to have David French run for president. Mitt Romney also supports French, calling him an honorable, intelligent and patriotic person.
I like the idea of us going out and looking for someone who we would like to see as president, and selecting them before they have even thought of running. I think of the Electoral College, and how we were to elect folks who would consider who would best serve as president. I think there is good reason for selecting a president this way.
Let us select the candidate, instead of the candidate selecting him- or herself,
I like the idea of us going out and looking for someone who we would like to see as president, and selecting them before they have even thought of running. I think of the Electoral College, and how we were to elect folks who would consider who would best serve as president. I think there is good reason for selecting a president this way.
Let us select the candidate, instead of the candidate selecting him- or herself,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)