Tagged: space

On “The Lesser Light to Rule the Night” (Artemis II Splashdown around 8pm EST/6pm MST)

In only a few hours, around 8pm EST (6pm MST) the Artemis II astronauts will return to Earth. To be clear, they journeyed around the moon.

Christians in America and the other countries to whom American missionaries have fervently spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ have long associated the moon with Genesis 1:16’s “lesser light to rule the night”. This appears reasonable in the immediate context of, “So God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and also the stars.” But when we expand out to the entire creation account, say, Genesis 1:1–2:3, the moon that Artemis II just traveled to cannot be the “lesser light to rule the night”.

This is not because there is some other “lesser light” which the Genesis writer had in mind or had in view back then. Nor is it because the Genesis writer invented the concept that his god placed two lights in the sky.

The reason we know that the moon that Artemis II traveled to is not the “lesser light” is because the Genesis author demonstrably had no awareness of the moon’s physical reality.

To start, and this is softball or elementary level knowledge, the moon isn’t a light anymore than a mirror is a light. The moon and mirror are reflections of the light emanating from a proper light source.

Secondly, the moon (even from what Moses and peers could see) was present in what we call phases, to include “new moon” (or no visible moon at night) and full moons during the day.

Any child can be shown these two facts on any day and demonstrate that they understand, no different than they can name and meaningfully distinguish trees from driveways. (To be sure, a child can understand the moon is a mirror—has a dark side—and that the moon is visible when it is not night and not visible when it is night.)

Assuming that you, faithful reader, understand these two facts about the moon, the one that Artemis II just traveled to, then you now have a sure foundation from which to understand, as early generations of Jews/Israelites did, the creation account recorded in Genesis and referenced elsewhere in the library that we call the Bible.

This is not about creationists vs evolutionists or any iteration of that debate. It isn’t about 6-day creation or intelligent design.

I am sharing a simple, incontrovertible set of facts from which any Artemis II watching American can undergird their interpretation of scripture.

Moses didn’t understand what we call physics. It is untenable, baseless, and rigid stubbornness to suggest Yahweh inspired him to write words which would so easily prove laughably inaccurate. Instead, the divinely inspired words of Moses recorded in Genesis (and elsewhere) infallibly inform us who (the real) god is and what he is like.

The answer to any question your mind develops is “read more”, not “become inflexible”.


‭‭

The Astronaut is just as Wrong as the Politician

Deuteronomy 6:5 says “You shall love Yahweh (the LORD) your god…”

In Mark 12:30 after Jesus is asked a question, he says, “You shall love the lord your god…”

Talerico and Glover, to the undulating praise of their respective bases, both drop the specificity of the commands. Why? Do they not know their bible?

Obviously Talerico is out for destruction and will misuse and abuse any words from any writer as he goes about accomplishing his quest. Despite his claims to the contrary, the Bible books and their authors are not sacred or special to Talerico.

Glover is a different story.

For my part, I imagine that he feels some sense of “people are actually listening to me!” and for some reason, this translates to “…so I better not push them away!” (as it does to so many pastors who have 15-min of fame).

But (according to the library that we call “the Bible”) the blood of Jesus matters, which means the time he spent on earth matters, which means the other people alive with him mattered, which means the previous people who lived matter, which means that Moses’ words matter in their totality.

Moses was preaching Yahweh, not god. It would have been confusing (it still is confusing) if Moses told a bunch of prone-to-idolatry people, “Love god”. The response to this exhortation, back then and today, should always be, “Which god?”

For his part, Jesus was talking to a scribe, which we can reasonably presume means literate man, and Jesus includes the full phrase from Moses, “the lord your god.”

It is not Biblical Christianity to read scripture and assume that because of the new and singular demonstration of Yahweh’s all-powerful status in the resurrection of his son Jesus the competition for “who is god” is over in the lives of us mortals.

Does Grover not know this? I don’t know. What I do know is it is obviously distasteful to push people away. And yet, the core and empowering belief and living hope of Christianity is the resurrected Christ Jesus (son of Yahweh). However, the fact that there is a specific and easily namable hope and belief of a religion does not prevent their from being many, many anti-Christ’s who disagree and don’t care about the belief.

The question for you is, “If you don’t quote scripture accurately, what are you even quoting?

Quote it accurately, I say. Because, in a world of confusion and sin, using accurate quotations indirectly (indirect because you’re honoring the precise words of another instead of thinking their words don’t matter—as if all we care about is some ethereal, abstract concept) it indirectly conveys to the audience that you matter. And if you matter, they matter.

Life isn’t a simulation. Life isn’t a game. And more life is the goal. And as Paul wrote, “…if you confess with your mouth Jesus as lord (Yahweh/trinity talk) and believe in your heart that god (Yahweh) raised him from the dead you will be saved (Romans 10:9),” is the only way to get eternal life.

Launch Window Opens at 4:24pm Mountain Time. (5:24 Central, 6:24 New York, 3:24 West Coast)

Every headline about the launch should read similarly. Why they don’t is beyond me.

https://www.youtube.com/live/Tf_UjBMIzNo?si=AXWTenlbe36P1fpe

That’s the official NASA link.

Here’s some fun broadcasters I found.

https://www.youtube.com/live/Jm8wRjD3xVA?si=ARNLEuSsio3GoBKE

On Measuring the “Speed” of “Not-Space”

If you think that anyone whose profession is anything actually to do with astrophysics is eye-balling “not-space” out there in outer space, you’re foolish and not to be trusted.

I haven’t kept up with the the improvements in monitoring “not-space” (by which I mean to capture everything that is literally not empty space, like rocks and “processes” such as stars), but here is a short history, followed by a picture from a popular science book from the early 1900s on the topic.

Can you picture holding a small prism in such a way to cast a rainbow on the wall or floor? Good. Now please do the same with a second prism. Thank you. Now measure the difference between the two rainbows, as intricately and completely as possible. That is how “scientists” actually determine what the “not-space” is, how fast it is moving, and how far it is from us etc.

Here’s the example from a real astrophysicist.

This is from Sir James Jeans’ The Universe Around Us.

To be sure, no one is watching bright spots with their naked eye, videos of bright spots with their naked eye, looking through telescopes for a long time, or anything like that when determining anything about “not-space” in outer space.

Re-Learning Biblical Hebrew While Keeping an Eye on Starship Flight 10

Seriously, could my life be more interesting?

Why learn Biblical Hebrew? Well, as the scholars put it 100 years ago, to avoid being a “helpless plaything” in the hands of biblical critics. The Bible is always under attack. If you don’t know how to work with the original languages, you are not on solid ground.

Why watch Starship Flight 10? Well, because it’s incomparably awesome and beautiful to watch and incomparably compelling and poignant to contemplate.

The Good Fallout From The Space Bimbos’ Expensive Selfie

Before they had their fun, would you have been aware that there is a formal program called, “Commercial Space Astronaut Wings Program”? I hadn’t given it much thought, as on this topic I am generally awestruck immobile by yet another instance of uncanny synchronization of unrelated technology jumps. Can someone please explain how virtually every human being is able to view, in stunning HD, videos of the now weekly commercial rocket launches? Using Resurrection Sunday as a backdrop, we might say that it seems like physicists care more about letting others watch their work than religious zealots ever did.

I digress.

Regarding “astronaut” more broadly, it was always obvious to me what this meant, because as a former USAF pilot, I went to training with a guy that had a career goal to become an astronaut. Given my then (and still) adoration of AF pilots, his goal didn’t seem out of reach—indeed he seemed to be completing the exact right steps at the exact right time. If anything, I learned that I would never be an astronaut because I hadn’t even believed I was in the running until, after meeting him, I considered that if I was in the same training as him, surely I was at least had better chances than everyone else not in USAF pilot training.

So the definition for Commercial Space Astronaut Wings Program is: “Crewmembers who travel into space must have ‘demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety or contributed to human space flight safety.’”

And that is still pretty weak as definitions go, imho. (And the bimbos would, under the most generous definition of “human space flight safety”, need to say, “I earned my Commercial Space Astronaut Wings!” Under no circumstance does the English language allow for them to be called Astronauts.)

But now we know. And that is a good thing.

And So It Begins, Again

Just when you thought the legacy media might finally be getting a clue, SpaceX loses a Starship and there is blood in the water for the Left’s propaganda machine.

The obvious curiosity is, “Is Musk up to the challenge of being hated?” Second to that one, “Will imprecatory chants towards SpaceX have effect?” And, if so, “Does the Left own their alignment with the devil?”

Up until DOGE, he was generally beloved.

Here’s what I know from all my reading—specifically from Machiavelli’s The Prince: Leaders must avoid being hated.

We shall see.

Shaking My Head/Nerd Alert!, A Review of A Brief History of Time, By Stephen Hawking

The Spiderman of physicists, Stephen Hawking, introduces the second edition of his book with, “The success of A Brief History indicates that there is widespread interest in the big questions like: Where do we come from? And why is the universe the way it is?”

Just past halfway through the book, in his chapter titled, “The Origin and Fate of the Universe”, he suggests, “The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.”

In the final chapter (before the Conclusion), he writes, “We would then be able to have some understanding of the laws that govern the universe and are responsible for our existence.”

In the final paragraph of the book (excluding three brief and meaningless portraits of Einstein, Galileo, and Newton) he suggests, “However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we should all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.”

Firstly, for context, the second bestselling book in that chart is—self-help/dating/pop-psychology. Third is a cookbook. In other words, while I love that Metallica’s Black album is the bestselling album since certain record-keeping data began, while I think they deserve all possible head-banging praise from us mortals, the number two is Shania Twain. Put another way, Mr. Hawking got his 15 min of fame, surely. But his staying power is yet to be seen—and I wouldn’t bet on it. Additionally, “pity” is a very real motivator. My money says give mobility of limb back, and the Brit’s wouldn’t have paid to see the five foot man-eating-chicken carnival act.

Next, close as you look, you will find no written record of a belief that life unfolds arbitrarily. Instead, you will find people have always believed in order—but they got the order wrong. Pointedly, then, Hawking and contemporary physicists are in nowise special. They’re just doing their best like everyone before them.

Thirdly, “govern” and “responsible for” are not synonyms. You want to tell me that the sensation when an elevator starts up and the sensation of being stuck to the ground are indistinguishable? Great. But the idea that the aforementioned sensation(s) are responsible for my being is laughable. Get outta here!

Lastly, no, thank you. This idea that I have to wait upon “my betters” (or anyone) to finish their navel-gazing before I can opine as regards the nature of existence is just silly. Telescopes and microscopes are cool. But truth is not some distant or small object.

Previous authors, like Einstein, Jeans, and Eddington, among many, many others, wrote in order to explain what they were doing. Hawking, conversely, writes to announce his conclusions. The effect of their books could not be more striking.

It reminds me of the time I met an unmarried Major while I, too, was single (though a lowly First Lieutenant) in the Air Force. He was such a loser. He did precisely what he wanted all the time—and loved every minute of his life. Nobody liked him. He had no friends. To add one dollop of paint to the portrait, I’ll share this. When we drove around the base in Iraq in the big van, he would lie down on a bench seat for fear of the enemy targeting him because he was a Major. The point is not his earnestness, the point is the unhinged-ness. Anyhow, I recall thinking, immediately after meeting him, “I must get married.”

Likewise, had I read Hawking before Einstein, Eddington, and Jeans, and their predecessors, I would have never picked up another popular physics book. As it stands, my foundation is unshaken (thankfully) and the topic still interests me. But Hawking does not.

Should you read this best-seller? Nope. Life is too short. Start with Einstein’s The Evolution of Physics.

“First Robot”, or “Explore Space to Deal With Death”, A Review of First Man, by Damien Chazelle

Movie-wise, I’ve still been on a TGM kick, especially at work, and so it was only natural that my boss (also a pilot) was shocked that I hadn’t seen First Man.

“When I heard they didn’t show him planting the flag, I just lost interest,” I explained.

Well, he told me it was just great and must-see viewing for a pilot. “I can’t believe a pilot wouldn’t want to watch that movie.”

So I watched it.

And like all “inspired by real events” movies, they couldn’t just leave well enough alone.

To be clear, there is no record—at any level, to include hearsay—that Neil Armstrong throws his dead daughter’s bracelet into a moon crater.

In the film, we watch, not a man, but a machine train and train and train and then launch for the moon. Maybe the director saw the problem here.

“How can we have a movie called ‘First Man’ and then show that it was a cold, calculating psychopath that NASA launched to the moon?” we can almost hear him asking.

But the answer to this problem is to fix the portrait (or title), not insert a definitively make-believe event.

In short: Tell the Truth!!

From my perspective, I wanted to know—and I thought the movie was wanting to tell me—why Neil Armstrong was the first man to land and walk on the moon. Specifically, why Neil Armstrong was chosen and why Neil Armstrong had what it takes to know that he should be first.

I know I’m better than most of mankind at achieving goals and completing tasks correctly etc. But I also have been around other dudes that I couldn’t hold a candle to. Neil Armstrong seems to have never experienced the latter. He only knew that he was the man. Absolute confidence. Unbridled certainty.

It’s remarkable.

It’s worth a million dollar film being commissioned.

But it’s also worth getting right.

Our culture seems to struggle with the idea that adults still want things. That adults still can have desires. A movie like this bears this out. It doesn’t know what story to tell. The story is not about “look how he couldn’t be both a good dad and a good man.”

Neil Armstrong wasn’t a good dad! Oh em gee! Damn him to hell!

Does anyone else still believe that a good adult can be precisely what a child (and a nation) needs?

Broadening, does anyone else still believe that an achieving adult is precisely what a family and a nation needs?

We’ve become bedazzled by the idea of sacrificing individual achievement in order to help some version of the helpless masses.

Sorry, but my achievements do help them. We don’t need to scrap NASA in order to feed people.

Your desire to stop my achievement is called “envy” and is sin straight from the pit of hell. JS Mill showed me this. You should learn to see it too.

In any case, between First Man and Ad Astra, I’m not persuaded. Men don’t need the death of fathers and daughters to propel them to greatness. They just need…

And that’s it. The heart of the matter. What do men need to propel them to greatness? Do you know?

That is Patently Untrue–A Review of Matt Damon’s Opening Claim in The Martian Trailer

“Every human being has a basic instinct to help each other out…this instinct is found in every culture without exception.”

From his dissection of the card player’s hands in Rounders, to his dissertation on clubbing baby seals in Good Will Hunting, to his explanation that he knows which vehicle in the parking lot is most likely to have a gun in it in Bourne Identity and more, in just about all of his films Mr. Damon has proven he can memorize and deliver long, dry, and yet convincing speeches that seem like they might trip up other acting professionals. And that’s fine and dandy. I like those movies and I like his characters in those movies. But I don’t know if anyone likes to hear what he has to say after he clocks out, and it seems like the two are beginning to merge. Recently, he’s starred in films that sacrifice entertainment value in favor of agendas, films like the one about fracking. Soooo dramatic. And they’re probably filled with science. Again, whatever.

A year or so ago a couple handed me the book The Martian because they knew I had applied to be an emigrant to Mars. I read it and reviewed it here. This book is now a major motion picture. And all of this is very interesting to me and probably every other independent author, as its author published the book by his own self years before it got picked up by a major publisher and now Hollywood. It looks like Mr. Weir self-published it in 2011, three years before the big boys picked it up in 2014. So it seems that five years after self-publishing a quality book any one of us could watch A-listers act out our story on the big screen. That’s neat. Anyhow, back to the point. The book has nothing to do with making a statement about “every culture” of humans. Anyone that disagrees with this is flat out wrong and I would argue hasn’t read the book. And yet somehow (I picture a lot of whining and temper tantrums and threats to walk out of the room) Matt Damon opens the preview to what looks like a fantastic new space movie with this bogus notion that every culture has a basic instinct to help each other out. I can buy every human does on an individual level. There’s books about that. But the simple fact is there are plenty of cultures who don’t rescue people who find themselves stranded on Mars or mountain tops or the side of the highway. What’s worse is there are plenty of cultures who actively believe in kidnapping people for money or political statements. These cultures are generally those not labeled The West.

I buy and promote the truth that if we’re talking about the level of the soul, then we’re all just people making our way through this world and will more times than not help each other when able. But it is not true that in groups (cultures) we’re all the same and without quantifiable, measurable differences that can be labeled “better” or “worse”–no matter how hard we wish for it.