CERN ( the way to a new fuel)

In this time of high gas prices the promoters of so called "Green Fuel" programs have a Conflict of interest because they are doing this only because they stand to make tons of money. Programs like corn ethanol, solar energy, and wind power. While these new fuels are clean they are NOT the fuel of the future. The real "fuel of the future" is anti-matter. Currently the most efficient fuel source is nuclear at approx. 2% efficient. Anti-matter however is 100% efficient that's right 100% efficient. Here's an comparison between anti-matter and nuclear. With nuclear power only 2 % of all the matter is converted to energy. the still leaves 98% of the total matter which is nuclear waste. However, anti-matter, when "mixed with an equal amount of matter", converts all the matter into energy in a massive explosion. To put this in perspective 1 teaspoon of anti-matter is enough to sent the space shuttle into orbit 60 times or, if I remember right, power all of New York City for a year. Right now the only problem with anti-matter is the cost to make it. Example: it would bankrupt the United States to make just one teaspoon of it. However with labs like CERN or the Fermilab building bigger and bigger supercoliders and findings ways to more efficiently make anti-matter the price is dramatically declining and will continue to do so until it becomes affordable to make. The bad news about this is that like all technologies there are groups who would like to weapon this and if a terrorist got enough anti-matter and matter that was the equivalent of an average person they could destroy an entire Continent like North America. This is the power and efficiency of anti-matter and why we should allow CERN and other labs to build their supercoliders. Beause while it can be used for evil the potential of good as a source of energy and fuel is enormous.

Final Countdown ( What if a modern class carrier took on the Japanese Fleet?)

While watching the movie Final Countdown, at the ending I started thinking: "What would happen if the movie ended with the USS Nimitz saving Pearl Harbour in 1941 instead of returning to 1980?" Imagine this alternate ending for a moment: December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbour is being bombed by the Japanese, the Army and Naval personnel are losing the battle, and ships are being sunk or damaged. When the soldiers and sailors, while fighting the Japanese, look up and see a flight of F-14 Tomcats show up and defend Pearl Harbour while A-7 Crusaders, and A-6 Intruders along with the USS Nimitz attack and defeat the Japanese fleet. Can you imagine their reaction at seeing supersonic fighters, air to air missiles, and a nuclear powered carrier defend Pearl Harbour. First, amazed and dumbfounded at what they are seeing they assist the futuristic fighters and turn back the attacking Japanese. Then after the US victory in Pearl the USS Nimitz then gathers her fighters and goes after the Japanese fleet. Seeing this the Japanese fleet realizing their technological inferiority then inform the Italians and Germans that "The Americans have technologies we don't have. We need to surrender". In the attack the Nimitz could have wiped out the entire Japanese Navy and ended World War II in one day. Then the Nimitz arrives in 1940's Pearl Harbour and is hailed a hero by people who have never seen this technology. If a modern carrier, like the Nimitz in the movie Final Countdown, had attacked the Japanese fleet, what world would we live in?

Nasa,Part 1, Why we must continue the manned space program

Ever since the 1970's people have question the need and relevance of NASA and the manned space program. Here are a few reasons why we need NASA and manned space exploration. 1.( assumption: NASA contributes nothing to our advancement). This assumption is wrong in many ways, first lets think of a few advances and technologies that have been made in the last 30 years. Advancement number 1 fire fighting SCBAs, without the NASA moon missions fire fighters would not have the ability to enter burning buildings like they do now. The breathing apparatus they wear were modeled from the air tanks astronauts like Neil Armstrong wore on the moon. Advancement 2) GPS: without NASA and without the manned space program we would not have this technology we take for granted and here is why. First it was NASA that sent America's first satellite into space. Second it take astronauts to maintain these GPS satellites or in otherwords without the manned space program there would be no GPS. Another reason to keep NASA and manned exploration is this. One day our sun will exhaust it fuel when that happens (in a few billion years) the only way to survive will to leave our solar system. Third it is our nature to set foot in new lands whether here on Earth or in space. This is what make us human, the need to to seek out and explore new areas of our planet and new reaches of our universe. Another statement against manned space exploration is that it is dangerous. This is true, but any exploration whether on Earth or in space is inherently dangerous. So, to end manned exploration because of the danger is like telling Christopher Columbus that he cannot go to the New World because it is dangerous. Had Spanish queen Isabella said this there would have been no United States and we would still be taught the Earth is flat. But because she allowed and financed the trip we now have knowledge and countries that did not exist before Columbus's trip. In closing I say that we must continue NASA and manned exploration because it is in our nature to explore and it is what makes us human.

Global Warming (what's wrong with climate change?)

In the past decade the people have been told we must lower carbon dioxide to prevent climate change. While I agree that we should clean up our messes we make and that we should not pollute, there is scientific evidence and fossil records that show global warming is actually a good thing and here's why. First the warmer the planet gets the longer the growing season which means more food. Second with global warming earth experiences fewer devastating storms than during global cooling. Third with global warming the number of diseases goes down and all animal life gets healthier. Now with that said what we are seeing is nothing compared to what the Earth has experienced in it's geological past. Ever since the formation of our planet the Earth would experience a 10 degree temperature swings, i.e. 5 degree yearly increases and 5 degree yearly decreases with carbon dioxide levels many times higher than today. Environmentalists have claimed that this 3 degree temperature rise is not natural. They are right and this is why. This static climate we've seen for the past 10,000 years is not natural. From all of geological record the temperature changes are supposed to be greater and we are supposed to have more climate change than we've seen. Fourth, this 3 degree temperature rise we're seeing was last seen from 900 to 1300 AD. The only difference between then and now (other than technology) is that we have a weakening magnetic field in the process of reversing which has not happened (according to geologists & vulcanologists) in over 700,000 years. The problem with this is that no one know exactly what the effects will be. Prevailing theory is that during the process not only will auroras be seen everywhere but we will also have 4 poles (north,south,east, and west) and cancer rates will rise other than this no one knows how bad it could get. So the question I'm asking is this, " With the increasing number of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and the "'strange weather"' could the weakening of Earth magnetic field and eventual reversal have anything to do with what we are seeing"? That people is the question we need to ask.

Science and Discoveries in the 21st century

There is a new movie by Ben Stein called Expelled that talks about the debate between Intelligent Design theorists and Big Bang theorists. It is my belief that they are too busy debating to realize that both sides maybe right and here's why. In 2015 NASA hopes to launch the L.I.S.A. spaceprobe. The L.I.S.A. (which stands for Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) consists of three spacecraft connected together by lasers in an isosceles triangle measuring three million miles wide and it will orbit at 2 million miles above th earth ( or 20 degrees behind earth's orbit of the sun). One of its missions will be to study the birth of the Universe to find out what caused the Big Bang. Scientists hope to see the Universe just before its creation they also hope to see a wormhole connecting our universe to it's parent universe. In Dr. Kaku's book "Hyperspace" he talks about how it is possible to artificially create the universe. In the book he say that to create a new universe a civilization would have to be at a minimum a type 3 ( or what you see on Star Wars) to create it after which the "creator" could then live in the wormhole connecting the two universes outside of spacetime and watch the new universe be created. It is my theory that with the launch of LISA there is a possibility that we could find out what caused the Big Bang, whether it was natural or artificial. Another example of this is CERN. CERN has just completed construction on a new supercolider. Physicists hope to study the Big Bang by creating mini big bangs in a lab. To a layman whose interested in science like myself these potential advances in science are very exciting. In the Star Trek Voyager String Theory series book 3 Q (john DeLancie) admits to Ensign Harry Kim and Lieutenant Paris that the big bang was artificial and it was an accident. Could this be the story in our universe? Who knows, but I know it will be interesting what the L.I.S.A. space probe finds out. Another example of "Both sides maybe right" is a story I read 2003 about an infant twin who had a limb transplant. In the Guinness World Record article the infant's twin did not survive birth and the infant herself had a deformed arm. Surgeons then removed her arm and gave her the twin's arm, after reading this I started to wonder why most people who get transplants have to take anti-rejections drugs and identical twins don't. I wondered this until I saw a news report about an artwork called "The Human Genome", as I saw it on TV I realized that it looked an awful like a computer program. It was then I began to wonder "could the answer to transplant rejection be as easy as gene resequencing thereby '"reprogramming"' the transplanted limb or organ to match the recipient". In this realization I have come to understand in all of our knowledge of the universe when it comes to knowledge yet to be gathered we still have an awful long way to go, in otherwords in the grand scheme of the universe we know nothing. Finally I leave you with this line from a Star Trek Voyager episode Death wish. In that episode Q1 (played by gerrit graham) asks Captain Janeway for asylum. during the hearing Q2 (played by John De Lancie) takes Cpatain Janeway and Lieutenant Tuvok to the Q Contintuum. Q2 then says that what the see as the Continuum was their ( Janeway's and Tuvok's) interpretation and that the human brain could not comprehend the true nature of the Continuum. Just thinking of the scientific possibilities in the next 25 to 50 has me very excited.