"One Small Step for Man"?

(Terrestrial bound carbon based life and….

what possibly could angels be "made out of"?)

Here another theory has taken hold and is eating my brain; blame it on Facebook. Recently, I responded to a friend's post about the moon landing. The question being raised was, did we really land on the moon or was the TV footage actually an elaborate scheme set up to deceive the American people? Now I am rather new to the "conspiracy" about the moon landing; although I will say that I will seriously investigate such claims on account of the the major lesson I took away from 9/11;

question everything and do your research.

(I was actually first "red pilled" from Desert Storm, when it became glaringly obvious that what the news media was telling the world, wasn't really what was going on; but that's a story for a different fan "fic".)

Any way, the questions that started eating my brain had to do with the nature of carbon based life? Are we literally tethered to planet Earth and since we are carbon based living matter; when we compare carbon based life to non-carbon based entities, can we actually get some insight as to what could angels possibly be "made out of"?

Intriguing question, many facets of which I will explore in this chapter.

Tethered to Earth?

First, let me explain this question a bit. It all started with discussion of something called "the Van Allen Belts". The Van Allen Belts are radioactive "belts" that encircle the earth. Their purpose is to protect us from the ultraviolet radiation that is coming from the sun. The Van Allen Belts lay just outside of the outer portion of Earth's atmosphere They are the last "layer" a spacecraft would have to pass through before it is literally in "outer space".

The Van Allen Belts are important to the moon landing question on account of the fact that scientists are (now?) saying that we haven't figured out how to get manned spacecraft past them. (Wait a minute; then how'd we get to the moon?) The radiation in the Van Allen Belts is so intense that we don't have the technology to build a spacecraft light enough to provide life with sufficient shielding to get through these radioactive bands. And allegedly, this is why we haven't sent men to Mars, or gone back to the moon in so many decades. The latest story is that NASA "lost" the trajectory data, as well as the "original footage" of the moon landing and this is the reason we now "can't" go back; (as has now been reported by the mainstream media).

So did we go to the moon? There is an outside possibility that we did and all this data I've collected can be explained away, but I'm leaning more toward; No, we didn't send a manned spaceflight to the moon.

Question everything and do the research. Don't believe a word I say. Check it out. Look up on YouTube. "NASA Admits: Erased Moon Landing Tapes", or look up any similar combinations of words. There are many videos of such nature. There's also a good documentary "Did we go?" that was put together by a film maker who's original intent was to prove we did. That one is interesting! Also look up videos about the Orion spacecraft. This is a nuclear powered ship being designed with the intent of taking humans to Mars. The major challenge of Orion, as stated by a NASA engineer is designing sufficient shielding to get humans through the Van Allen Belts. "Orion Trial by Fire".

To my knowledge, the only carbon based life form that passed into the Van Allen Belts was the Soviet dog Laika who flew in Sputnik 2 in 1957. Recent documents released from Russian archives state Laika only survived about 7 hours of the trip and died a horrendous death. As she passed through Earth's atmosphere, she first nearly froze to death and when she reached the Van Allen Belts, the capsule heated to the point that the radiation actually cooked her alive. She and the capsule burned up upon reentry into Earth's atmosphere.

The Soviets originally weren't really sure what had happened, as the craft had gone off trajectory and they'd lost track of it. It's signal though had been picked up by receivers in Australia and this is eventually how they found out what happened to Laika. The data showed that her heart rate continued to elevate until they could not differentiate actual beats any more. (Her blood was vaporizing and she "exploded".) The Soviet scientists had anticipated that she probably was not going to survive the trip, although I don't think they were sure what exactly was going to happen; and to the credit of their humanity, the Soviets never tried to send any other man or animal through the Van Allen Belts. The scientists later made a statement that they were too hasty to test Sputnik 2 and should have done more to try and ensure the safety of Laika. They were sorry for their lack of planning, calling that specific mission "a mistake".

Yet the Apollo ships allegedly went through the Van Allen Belts; but NASA is now telling us they "lost" that data, along with the plans on how they designed sufficient shielding for these missions, as well as the original footage. (Ehh, guys, that would be hundreds of reels of information.) The story now is that they "accidentally taped over" ALL the original footage.

?…. What?

NASA! You mean to tell me with your billions of dollars of tax payer money, you "lost" the information about the most important feat of advanced technology humanity has ever accomplished? Not only did you "loose" the trajectory and flight data, you "accidentally taped over" ALL the original footage?

Ehhh, yeah - And a "conspiracy theory" is born!

The Sun, Radiation and what Exactly is in Space?

Now the sun gives off a spectrum of electromagnetic waves. These waves vary by length and speed they travel. Most of the electromagnetic energy the sun gives off falls in the visual light spectrum. Above visual light is what we call ultraviolet radiation. Below it is what we loosely call "radio waves". In the "radio wave" category we have "radar frequencies", "microwave frequencies", "radio frequencies", "voice frequencies" and "sub water frequencies".

In the "sub water frequency" we have phenomena like the sounds whales make. These are very low frequency, long sound wave electromagnetic energy. There are land animals that can make sound in this frequency too. If you go to the zoo and stand next to the elephant enclosure, you will feel a vibration in the ground. It almost feels like an earth quake. These are actually sound waves the elephants are making that you can't hear.

Above this frequency we have "voice frequencies". This is everything that falls in the category of what we can hear. Of course "voice frequencies" aren't just for human ears. Higher noise frequencies that we can't hear (like dog whistles) also fall in this category. Above the frequency a dog can hear, we have things such as bat "radar". Bats don't have "radar" as we understand "airplane radar". They make a noise that reflects back to them bouncing off of objects in the environment that helps the bat sense where these things are in space in relation to the bat. Radar waves that are used to track airplanes though are at a much higher frequency. I'll get to that in a minute.

Next step up from voice frequencies are "radio frequencies". Analog AM / FM are on the low end of the radio frequency signal. "Digital streaming" WiFi and cell phone signals are on the high end. Some of these frequencies are actually so high they cross into the microwave frequency. Thus the "hubbub" about WiFi causing cancer.

Next we have "microwave frequency". These are obviously used by ovens to cook food. They are also used for higher end communication signals that bounce between satellites (satellites to other satellites) and the receivers on the planet's surface.

Next after "microwave" comes "radar" frequencies. These are where we know the accumulation of radioactivity starts to negatively affect the body. On the low end we have "airplane radar" and "ground penetrating radar". From there we move up to ultra-sound, CT scanners and X-Ray. All these use varying amounts of Gamma radiation they "emit" during the testing. MRI's are a different story though because like ultra-sound; they run in the lower sound wave frequencies and do not emit radiation. On the high end we have radiation produced by depleted uranium, nuclear reactors, atomic bombs and the such like. These also consist of neutron particles which are highly radioactive.

After this, the electromagnetic energy waves begin to translate into visible light. Something about the nature of visible light changes its frequency so it is not harmful to life. How light spectrum electromagnetic waves are not harmful when other "lower" longer waves are, I don't think is well understood; but just like with sound waves, different creatures can see different frequencies of light. Cats for example can see in the dark much better than humans can. I don't know exactly how this is, but I know it has to do with the amount of light that can be regulated by their eyes and how that "translates" in their brains. This is a similar process for birds that have "stereoscopic vision". An eagle can pick out a mouse on the ground from 100 feet or more in the air and they can do this based on what their eyes do with the light and how those images register in their brains.

Now above the visual light spectrum is ultraviolet light. Some ultraviolet light we can "visualize" under certain circumstances (black light); but most ultraviolet light is beyond our capacity to see. The highest end of the ultraviolet light frequency is what we call ultraviolet radiation.

The sun:

Now most of the electromagnetic energy the sun gives off is in the visual range, this is why we "see" light. The particles that make up light are called photons and how they work I don't think is really well understood. The only thing we know is that they don't have "mass" as we understand mass. This is why light can "travel at the speed of light" and nothing else can. Now its not that objects with mass can't travel the speed of light; it's just that the energy required to make that happen increases exponentially with the amount of mass the object contains and so thus the amount of energy required to make matter with mass travel the speed of light makes that of a practicality; impossible, even though the mass of the object doesn't actually change.

The second biggest range of electromagnetic energy the sun gives off is in the form of ultraviolet radiation. We experience this as heat from the sun. The "sound waves" the sun gives off, primarily come to us on Earth in the "radar" range. The sun does give off lower radio frequencies, but most of that is either reflected off of, or absorbed by the elements in Earth's atmosphere. Some of these lower radar frequencies are picked up by radio and TV receptors as "static". This is why sun spot activity and solar flares affect cell phone reception and WiFi function.

Now since we know the Van Allen Belts protect us on Earth from the ultraviolet radiation given off by the sun, which is the second most plentiful electromagnetic energy released by the sun, and we experience ultraviolet radiation as heat; does this mean that the real environmental hazard in outer space is not cold but heat?

As we travel from the surface of the earth toward the Van Allen Belts, it gets colder. This is because the higher we go, the less moisture and fewer dense molecules are in the air. "Hot air rises" and "cold air sinks"; this is basically why it rains and snows on Earth today. Moisture traps heat so the further from Earth's surface, the colder it gets, until we hit the first set of Van Allen Belts. There are two sets of Van Allen Belts (and sometimes 3 depending on solar activity) that encircle the Earth like donuts. The Van Allen Belts are "thinner" at the poles, which probably has something to do with the way the electromagnetic energy "circulates".

Keep in mind electromagnetic energy fields on Earth can "move" like lightening. The planet itself has its own electromagnetic field. I talked about that in the "ghost hunting" portion of this study. In space, because of the pull of gravity the closer you get to the planetary body, electromagnetic fields probably move more like weather systems, both absorbing and deflecting radiation away from Earth back out into space. We know radiation from the planet does "dissipate". We see this with nuclear testing, bomb explosions, power plant accidents etc. that have happened on the surface of the Earth.

The Soviets inadvertently demonstrated this phenomena when they detonated an atomic bomb in the upper atmosphere back in the late 50's. It's radiation got "absorbed" by the lower Van Allen Belt and then "dissipated" away. I don't think scientists yet understand where it goes. Yet, we also know that lightning travels from the ground up, carrying ions and other particles into the upper atmosphere too. Is lightning one way of actually "cleaning" radiation off the Earth? I don't know.

So, I'm not sure if this is true or not; but it seems logical to conclude that if ultraviolet radiation translates to us as "heat", it would make sense that the environment of outer space would be "hot" instead of "cold".

Unmanned Spacecraft?

Now here is where my "tethered to earth" question really has me scratching my head. Have any unmanned spacecraft made it outside of the Van Allen Belts in any semblance of "in tact" actually able to transmit back to Earth?

If you were to ask me that question 6 months ago, I'd say without hesitation "Yes". Today though, I'm not so sure. If we don't have sufficient shielding to get life outside the Van Allen Belts, do we have sufficient shielding to get technology outside the Van Allen Belts? According to the "Orion: Trial by Fire" NASA video, the answer to that appears to be "no". I say this because besides this engineer's talking about shielding human occupants, he also mentions not knowing if the technology will work once it actually gets into "outer space". The problem he eludes to is not just getting the craft outside of the Van Allen Belts, but also getting it back in.

So here is where the question of the "lost trajectory data" of the Apollo missions comes in. If humanity has yet to figure out the "proper trajectory" of how to get an unmanned spacecraft outside of the Van Allen Belts, of course we are not going to know how to get it back. (Logic would say that simple reverse mathematical formula of how we got it out there, would give us how to get it back. This of course is making the assumption that other objects in space have predictable orbits, speeds etc. I'll explore that question in a later segment.)

Next question; have spacecraft made it through the Van Allen Belts, had their circuitry fried and thus do not transmit back to Earth, so we don't actually know where they are? I don't know, but I'm beginning to wonder?

We know electromagnetic energy effects technology. When ever there are solar storms and our cell phones drop our calls, or the WiFi doesn't work; the interference of radiation from space becomes obvious. And this is happening to electronic equipment well within Earth's protective atmosphere. What about transmitters sent into space, where there's a much higher "back ground" radiation even after getting on the other side of the Van Allen Belts? How well would you expect your computer hard drive to work after putting it in an MRI scanner? (You'd have to peel it off the side of the machine first!) Magnetic fields tend to erase data stored in computer circuits; and if the only radio frequency waves we seem to be able to pick up from space are in the radar range, how would the signals from spacecraft transmitting on Analog FM band ever make it back to Earth? (Remember, anything in lower than radar frequency either bounces off our atmosphere or gets absorbed.) The truth being told it seems; actually they wouldn't.

So this brings me to something many people probably don't realize about our space exploration to date. All the satellites, the International Space Station (ISS), the Hubble telescope and everything that's "up there" now, all run in the range of about 200 miles from the surface of the earth, which is technically still in Earth's atmosphere. (Airplanes fly much lower.) Now to get to the inner most Van Allen Belt, a ship has to travel another 150 to 200 miles "up"; and to get to the next Van Allen Belt after that, is probably about twice that distance. I'm not sure we actually know, because like the Earth, moon and every thing else "out there", the Van Allen Belts don't "stay in one place" either.

Now the first Van Allen Belt is about 350 to 400 miles from Earth's surface. The moon is 238,900. miles from Earth. Orion is capable of flying at 20,000. mph, which at that speed means it would take Orion roughly 12 hours to get to the moon. The V-5 rocket traveled a hair over 6000 mph. (This is just the rocket, not counting payload. Also, speed is not consistent through the duration of the flight, as factors like atmospheric pressure and payload weight impact speed. This is true for both V-5 rocket and Orion.)

The other thing that's got me scratching my head is the fact that the numbers don't exactly match either. Allegedly "escape velocity" to get outside of Earth's gravitational field is 20,000 mph. (That's from the surface. The numbers change the higher up the craft travels.) Yet at max flight speed, according to NASA's data, it's questionable if the V-5 actually had enough power to make escape velocity. Rockets barely work on earth as it is. So the larger the mass of the planet, naturally the bigger engine you need to match escape velocity. Eventually mass increases escape velocity exponentially so that at some point you'd actually need a rocket that equaled the mass of the planet to achieve escape velocity. Orion obviously has a more powerful engine than the V-5 had, and it's max speed leaving the surface of Earth just has enough power to achieve escape velocity. So how did the Apollo missions get out of the Earth's gravitational field, if the rockets alone barely had the power to make escape velocity?

Which this brings me to my last question. Much of the pictures of outer space we have today; (other planets, stars, solar systems etc.) are images cobbled together from Hubble using computer graphics. From my understanding, Hubble can't take full spectrum color pictures. I don't think it can "technically" take color pictures at all. It has to take one "color" at a time (which the raw data is actually a "black and white" image), later assigning a color based on certain factors of the spectrum photographed and overlaying those images on top of each other to get the full color spectrum. Color pictures from space are a bit of educated guessing and artistic rendering taken in segments and patched together.

To boldly go where no man has gone before?

So now looking at and considering all this information, does this really mean that by the very nature of what we are; are we literally tethered to the Earth? It certainly seems that so far as our current technology goes, that appears to be the case.

Now for someone like me, who absolutely loves sci-fi; the possibility that this revelation could actually be "the end", is rather disappointing. Who knows though, on the other side of eternity, maybe the nature of what we become in the new heavens and new earth, will make "space travel" possible, if even "required" (there actually being "space") at all?

So, what does any of this actually have to do with the question of what angels are "made out of"?

Well, it's obvious we live in a "multi-dimensional universe"; as things spoken of in the Bible (like heaven and hell) are not within our domain to experience in our current material state. We can't get in a ship and "fly to heaven" or "sail to hell". Although one is depicted as "above" the earth and the other "below"; if this is actually true "geographically" those realities exist in a dimension outside our material world.

Yet being creatures "tethered to earth"; what is actually the reality of the size and scope of the universe? We observe stars that appear to be light years away (and maybe this is true or maybe it isn't)? Making assumptions that the rest of the universe is set up like our solar system; if this is true, we can make mathematical calculations assumed to be reasonably accurate. If the universe isn't "set up" according to our assumptions though; all other "bets are off".

In a future chapter; we will explore questions about the assumptions of our solar system, maps of the ancient sea kings and theories about Noah's flood. First though, I have some chapters about Satan completed.