1ºIt's good that we're still studying for Mars. If I remember correctly, the reason we aren't trying to build a moon base has something to do with the type of rocks they found. We've learned a lot about both planets with the help of our rovers. And the expiriments being done on the international space station continue to bring new information. Hopefully this study will too. Though the article does say that part of the reason for doing a second, similar, study is to see if the results of the two confirm their data. While I hope that we will never need such habitats to survive on earth, climate change and nuclear winters are two things which could make that necessary. And it is far easier to build such things here, than it would be to transport the materials and build on Mars. I can't remember who said it, but there's a quote about how 'if we can teriform another planet, we can reverse climate change on ours.' #IAmHereUS
2ºZef Devevo If we can’t keep our one and only earth alive, perhaps we shouldn’t be allowed to spread out into the universe like some virus.
I love science, and I think a mars voyage is absolutely essential—I think a mars vacation home is a terrible folly. Both because rationality persists, despite occasional soaring hopes, and because —ours is a finely tuned chord in a very Goldilocks position—Mars, at best, could only ever be a processed and extruded version under glass.
We simply do not have the technology to manufacture a breathable
Atmosphere, arable land, drinkable water. The impracticality alone. Suggests it should belong to science fiction, and fools, like Elon Musk.
Surely our best minds can do better than this?
3ºZef Devevo I think we are fast approaching death throes of capitalism because of the greed of a few—at the top (floatsam) —it may necessitate universal incomes. But since we can’t even, as a nation seem to be able to agree that an orange authoritarian “genius”, in the pocket of a Russian dictator is a bad idea for our country —seems unlikely we are gonna be able to reach worldwide
Concensus on climate collapse.
NASA’s research may indeed come in handy when we need to figure out how to move underground to avoid 120° days 20° and having to grow food underground… until snowball earth returns.
4ºNyarko Keziah The requester wants you to be among his/her friends list so as to show/prove to his/her victims he/she has close (white) friends in the USA or whichever country they see prospects
The requester wants to have access to you so as to chat you and get information about your locality and daily activities, coupled with your friends list in order to get more victims and gather pictures
The requester wants to initiate you into their scamming syndicate by being friends with you, then later entice you with a business deal where you’ll make lots of money by helping him/her catch or pickup a cheque or some money. So many have fallen for this trick because they were greedy and wants to make quick money, unfortunately this has been the major backbone of scammers all over the world. believe it or not, every alleged scam that emanated from Africa has insiders in the country it was carried out. This request is one of many ways they scout for partners.
5ºhttps://youtu.be/tHdGv6qhDb4?si=QdjGAlirT-6_1fsi
Russia put the international space station in space and only russia keeps it in space. No one else can or they would do it for themselves. But instead they're just a paid visitor of the russian space station.
Nasa cannot inhabit space without russia or china or they would. Axiom is trying as well as every nasa company. They are failing and they cannot. Visiting space is not inhabiting. Nasa cannot and have it space.
The whole purpose of Apollo was to create a space station. Skylab was decommissioned as a failure before they decommissioned apollo. The moon landing was faked because of the failures.
If my movie was wrong they could go to the moon. If my movie was wrong they would be on the moon. If my movie was wrong nasa could inhabit space without russia or china.
But they can't. Because my movie proved it.
6º(B.A. Bible/Biology)*
POSSIBLY MILLIONS OF TONS OF VOLCANIC EARTH SOIL REACHED MARS (Newsweek)
A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions the high possibility of Earth life on Mars because of millions of tons of Earth soil ejected into space from ancient volcanic explosions. "We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars", says USC scientist Kenneth Nealson. "You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth" [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12]. This may also explain why life forms may exist on Venus, again because they originated from Earth.
In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt and rocks containing microbes and life into outer space which not only could have eventually reached Mars but also ended up traveling in orbit through space that we now know as meteors, comets, and asteroids. This would mean life forms found in meteorites originated from Earth in the first place.
Secular scientists have a different explanation from creationist scientists on the volcanic eruptions of the Earth's past. Creation scientists believe, as Genesis teaches, that as the fountains of the deep were opened to release water for the world-wide flood the force of the eruptions could have indeed spewed great amounts of earth soil into space.
Life could not have evolved. A partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate under the effects of random forces of the environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years for chance to make it complete and living! In fact, it couldn't have even reached the partially evolved state.
Having the right conditions and raw material for life do not mean that life can originate or arise by chance. Stanley Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by chance. But, it's not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. If they're not in the right sequence the protein molecules won't work. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules.
The probability of just an average size protein molecule arising by chance is 10 to the 65th power. Mathematicians have said any event in the universe with odds of 10 to 50th power or greater is impossible! The late great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated that the odds of even the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power! How large is this? Consider that the total number of atoms in our universe is 10 to the 82nd power.
Also, what many don't realize is that Miller had a laboratory apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have quickly disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and forces involved in Miller's experiment.
Miller's experiment produced equally both left-handed and right-handed amino acids, but all living things strictly require only left-handed amino acids. If a right-handed amino acid gets into the chain the protein won't work.
RNA and DNA are made up of molecules (nucleic acids) that must also exist in the right sequence. Furthermore, none of these sequential molecules, proteins, DNA, RNA, can function outside of a complete and living cell and all are mutually dependent on one another. One cannot come into existence without the other.
There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules found in our genetic code.
Of course, once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION
Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
* I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East" for my writings on religion and science, and I have given successful lectures (with question and answer time afterwards) defending creation from science before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities.
7º#pain_Brain_designer
Your needs are a future debt. It puts the money you have in a permanent state of debt.
Money no matter how much. It is a debt you owe even if you own it. As long as you use it to fulfill your needs.
No matter how rich you are, all the money you have is a debt to your needs.
If you are an employee, according to this rule, you are considered below the poverty line.
When the costs of your fixed monthly needs are equal to the value of your monthly income, then the money you have is a debt with which to pay the costs of those needs. So, even if your salary suffices for your monthly needs, you are still stuck in a cycle of debt (loan) and the debtor is considered poor. If you are exposed to emergency situations during the month, you will become poorer than the poor.
But if your needs are greater than your income, then you are below the poverty line, even if you have a monthly salary.
So, although money is money in your hand, it is a debt for your needs if you get it from the job.
If you want to get out of the cycle of poverty, look for additional work and reduce your needs because the basis of not spending stems from reducing needs. It is not from reducing random spending.
(Pain Brain designer)