9 September 2020
Already in ancient times and the long history of civilization on Earth, for example in the writings: the Upanishads, the Rig Veda, and other old, wise books, not only Hindu, one can encounter various descriptions of the structure of the universe, its various eras and history, thanks to which we can now draw certain conclusions about the structure of the cosmos and its further development. There is no shortage of such descriptions also in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, in the Book of Genesis (the account of creation) and other writings of early cultures on Earth, which we refer to as revealed, written by prophets, but also in apocryphal writings, which sometimes describe in different ways certain topics of space travel, its technology and the cosmos, certain higher beings, and which were excluded, for example, from books recognized by subsequent councils (e.g. the Book of Enoch) or other people who interpreted them, among others in other denominational trends and religions. These descriptions, however, are often based on symbolism, so they can, in a given interpretation, either refer to a more general truth or apply only to a specific situation. It is difficult to unequivocally assess their substantive value for practical purposes in current cosmology and astrophysics. Currently, with the dynamic development of observational astronomy and the ongoing rapid growth of data from space, such as astrophysical data on extrasolar planets and larger clusters, enclaves of potential intelligent life in the universe, many facts have become clear that were previously not even discussed in a substantive manner. For example, it was tacitly believed that planets outside the solar system did not exist at all. Many people, however, dismissed all relevant observations in this way. From the time of Giordano Bruno until very recently, they engaged in a fierce debate based on passive resistance, exploiting the lack of research methods to confirm specific conclusions that nevertheless emerged through logical reasoning. Another manifestation of this type of passive resistance and inertia of conservative thinking is the current too clinging to the theory of relativity and its use in almost all fields of astronomy and on the current multifaceted scientific plane, while the real technical possibilities based on it currently do not present any revolutionary and therefore more beneficial practical value - still, human foot has not set foot further than the only natural satellite of the Earth, the Moon, man is still unable to leave his own star system, and we are still struggling with economic and technological problems that the theory of relativity cannot solve. Someone still wants to create the technological potential available to civilization on Earth using the current scientific canons and build classical technology on them, convincing people in general that there is no other way than the one that is commonly promoted, just as the previously mentioned enthusiasts of the claim that there are no other planets in the universe apart from those in the.
solar system did. What do we know now? With the discovery of the first planets outside the solar system by A. Wolszczan, it suddenly became clear and widely discussed that extrasolar planets are many times more numerous in the universe than stars. This, something that had been a problem for years, ceased to be a surprise. When transit observations, along with Doppler spectroscopy, began to provide data as the technology matured, a reassessment occurred, and the system cracked open, with the old stragglers fleeing. In astronomy, there are currently no longer those willing to debate the possibility of organic life beyond Earth, as it seems only a matter of time before it is confirmed. Thus, another stronghold will fall, and the axiom that organic life exists beyond Earth will be shattered. Similarly, another bastion will fall concerning technology itself, which, in my opinion, should not draw inspiration so literally from data derived from the analysis of scientific facts, as every law based on them has weaknesses that lead to the circumvention of its fundamental determinants, which currently seem to limit the range of possibilities and technical solutions used today. Although certain properties of the universe, such as physical constants like the constant c (the speed of light) and others like the permittivity of the vacuum, which influence the propagation of electromagnetic waves in space, are experimentally determined and mathematically validated and cannot be changed using conventional scientific and technical methods, interlock in terms of calculations and lead to consistent conclusions, considering the multilayered nature of the universe and likely the space itself, which they partially describe, one can speculate that their stability, and especially their interpretation in a broader context, may be questioned. This type of stratification is supported by premises that are only just emerging in the firmament of the current systematics of scientific assessment. Therefore, the multidimensionality of the universe may mean that we must acknowledge and consider that what is currently obvious to us, such as three-dimensional space and time, is not the same at various other levels of the universe. Consequently, our understanding of the true structure of the universe is imperfect. This, in turn, proves that science and the technology built upon it are based on incorrect assumptions, which currently causes technological barriers that are supposedly insurmountable. Another manifestation of the pressure for collapse and the gathering of storms on the backs of civilization is the creation by certain "hostages" of scientific dogma, i.e., destructive technology such as work on nuclear physics, manifested in stubborn and dirty technology, instead of recognizing better, "elegant" methods of energy production. Unfortunately, however, work on energy sources also yields results that could fuel the potential of new propulsion systems. Current research, however, essentially serves to close off such possibilities, leading to a dead end where an unsealed tunnel, leading like a string, represents nothing more than economic gain and the world's economic system. One could pessimistically state that civilization's development is not proceeding on the right track, but pessimism doesn't necessarily lead to any concrete results, in this case perhaps excepting the single conclusion that we base our knowledge of our surroundings on experience, and as humans, we will experience any mistakes firsthand. Our universe remains practically unexplored; current knowledge doesn't even constitute a fraction of the practical knowledge that would enable its description. Until technology reaches the level of leaps made with exoplanets, our knowledge will be based solely on remote observation data, without the ability to directly experience the diversity and richness of space and its infinite expanse, which holds the answers and questions we all eagerly await. Today, space is accessible only to properly trained individuals?someone with strong nerves, one might say?because space travel technology remains unreliable and highly dangerous. We all remember tragedies like the space shuttle accidents, where we twice witnessed the deaths of astronauts due to flight control oversights and unreliable technology. Braun's idea and his concept of space flight are still being developed, proposed even earlier by some, as it turns out, somewhat obsessed researchers who were later considered technological geniuses. Their work now reveals its weaknesses in terms of both the commitment of necessary economic and technological resources, exposing the countries using it to expenses that could be allocated to more utilitarian purposes if the current technology for launching satellites into space were not so expensive. On the other hand, it's laughable that the space industry has led to the implementation of many beneficial improvements in human life, such as Teflon frying pans and many other new materials, yet, as we can see, it has not been able to radically change its character to this day. Everywhere, including in the space industry, the search for military applications for technology has continued. To this day, we occasionally return to a new mini-cold war, as each new country perfects long-range missiles capable of delivering ABC weapons. And here again, we are dealing with a technology of destruction, upon which attempts are being made to build systems and economic order ? a nonsense that no proponent of a different technology can explain to the average person, because no one is sawing off the branch they're sitting on, and they won't bite the hand of the provider. However, this kind of arrangement worsens the technological situation, and technological progress is once again postponed to an indefinite future, which can be irritating. The tendency to attack the foundations of human life's ecosystem remains significant (who is to blame?). As one might deduce, raw materials have become the drug that most likely intoxicated the modern world. This type of addiction, in this case, clearly suppresses civilization's instinct for self-preservation to a significant degree, something each of us feels, or will inevitably feel in time, even if we sleep on a mountain of gold acquired at the expense of others. Anyone with the financial means can do anything; a system built on the same principles will not hold them accountable; it will even justify them, even if the blatant harm of their behavior is blatantly in the face of others capable of properly assessing the situation. Therefore, the hype surrounding the actions of certain capitalist entities operating in the arena of the space industry and the global economy that influences it will never truly serve civilization; rather, it will serve to concentrate even more capital around itself and the power of human potential. The conclusion is that currently, humans serve technology, not technology serves humans. It's a sick system that we ourselves allow to thrive. Those who haven't experienced financial hardship and have long since left economic hardship behind won't understand the problem. I hope there are many such people, but if there are too many, the "blanket" may prove too short. The amount of goods in the world is limited, the planetary system is an exclusion zone, so the mutual sniping will continue unabated until humans reach the next stage of their development?at least a permanent, lasting exit from the planet's ecosystem. This truth cannot be ignored if a relatively peaceful situation is to be maintained in the world and the killings are to end. Humanity will continue to grow, but no one will increase the amount of available matter on Earth, including the scarce substances, until the situation is resolved by developing an appropriate method of interplanetary and interstellar transport. There's no solution to this situation in currently known and used technology. Finding one requires a more intelligent combination of certain facts about propulsion and a step further in technology. This leap must be made collectively as a society. To realize this, society must accept certain emerging possibilities and overcome its own fear of them and the technologies based on them. Given these realities, current transportation methods are unlikely to lead to a radical breakthrough in interplanetary communication within the lifetime of this generation. It's difficult to accept this fact if someone dreams of space travel, because for some, although they probably won't admit it, such a dream is the essence of life. So they try to start with modeling, then continue in aviation, until sometimes, quite rarely, they manage to advance to the ranks of space travel engineers. astronaut, but not in Poland. Our country lacks a space industry capable of sending orbital rockets or probes into space, for example, to the outer planets of the solar system, and there's no way this situation will improve quickly. Too many problems persist in society to even consider such challenges. However, this problem isn't just about costs and the lack of appropriate industry in Poland; it's about the approach to technology itself. Unfortunately, no one can explain that, without the advanced industry required for rocket technology?gas liquefaction, the entire chemistry, and metallurgy of rocket engines?it's possible to create something that would negate this type of large-scale endeavor, which under normal circumstances is considered a technological and civilizational success, just like in the case of rockets. There are technologies that don't require rocket propulsion and are just as efficient in utilizing physical forces suitable for space. With the right approach, simple technological solutions for space propulsion can be developed by small teams, and developing them doesn't have to involve launching a tax-crushing economic machine, as is the case in the United States or other countries with high living standards and per capita GDP. However, to launch any space industry in Poland?I'm not talking about the work of students and other enthusiasts?amateurs creating satellites and rockets?it would be necessary to begin with a broad-based educational campaign, instilling in children a love of space and independent forms and methods of thinking from the ground up. Currently, children are almost entirely uninterested in astronomy itself, let alone astronautics or space travel, and it's rare for a child to show an interest in anything more than computer games or television. Social indifference has already reached a significant level in this area. This isn't simply a matter of economics; there are ways for everyone to contribute, even the smallest, to the foundations of an industry that would enable something more interesting than meeting the needs of their own bodies and families. We're dealing here with a stagnation where assertiveness can be simply associated with a waste of time. For example, I'm currently in a fortunate situation in which my economic problems don't temporarily overshadow my interest in space, and my material needs remain satisfied, allowing me to view the future from a different perspective than some less fortunate people around me might. Another issue is that the issues I've discussed in other posts, such as inertial propulsion, a technology I'm a proponent of and passionate about, and likely already known to a fairly wide audience, remain beyond the substantive understanding of most interested parties, as it's still a new topic, and not everyone knows what opportunities success in this field could open up for the average person, and that's an important topic.
