Imagine a 100,000 km elevator ride with the gentle beats of muzak slowly infiltrating your mind, while simultaneously your nostrils are attacked by the pungent scent of cheap perfume and the body odor of your fellow passengers. Some people might consider this to be torture, but chances are the assaults on the other four senses will be blocked out by the visual delight of the Earth slowly shrinking into a magnificent blue sphere; a view which is currently only experienced by astronauts and the very wealthy.

The idea of an elevator into space is not new. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was the first to publish the idea in his 1895 paper: “Day-Dreams of Heaven and Earth”. It has also appeared in several Science fiction novels by authors such as Arthur C. Clarke. In a relatively short period of time, this idea has gone from an impossible dream to something that the Lift Port Group believes could happen within 23 years.

To reduce climate issues the elevator will be located somewhere along the equator, where it will climb a 100,000 km ribbon to a space station which will act as a counterweight. This ribbon is the main technological hurdle which needs to be surpassed in order achieve this dream. Carbon nanotubes appear to be the answer and experts say that the technology to build strong enough fibers may be reached in the next couple years.

An elevator to space would have many benefits. An estimated cost of delivering cargo to orbit is only $100/lb compared to current costs of up to $60,000/lb. The savings in cost would improve exploration as more money could be spent on instruments. An elevator to space would ultimately open the doors to space tourism, mining and any number of other entrepreneurial adventures.

Besides technological requirements, will financial, and legal issues prevent the timely construction of one of mankind’s greatest dreams? Or will my generation be riding an elevator to our low-gravity retirement homes?

“Schopenhauer was right.” Right about what? The statement seemed simple and declarative, but to what end? As I pored over the newly acquired books from the Wilson library, the first thing to occur to me was the futility of my attempt to see for myself the rightness or wrongness of Schopenhauer. Having never explored philosophy prior to this occasion, I found myself hopelessly mired in its heavy, slushy esotericism. Noumenon? A priori? Thing – In – Itself? Even the term “phenomenon” didn’t seem to correspond with the Webster definition of which I was familiar. I couldn’t imagine what this Schopenhauer could possibly be right about, and worse yet, now I was acutely aware of the inadequacy of my secondary education as a preparatory step toward higher learning. My vocabulary was poor; my thoughts rudimentary; my spirits low. No sooner had I checked out the World As Will And Representation than it joined the clumping of books on the floor of my bedroom; books I had similarly fancied briefly and now disregarded and all certainly well overdue.

A month after my cursory dalliance with Schopenhauer, I was invited to a “lecture” given by a pentecostal speaker named Charles D___. Being a college freshman and exceedingly impressionable – and out there seeking many, many impressions – I attended without hesitation. This was a trippy experience! Mr. D___ was a man of Indian descent, short and wide as his stature. He had bulbous, brown eyes and large, bovine nostrils that flared wildly as he fomented a holy furor in the room that evening. People all around me convulsed spasmodically with each and every rhetorical cue delivered by Mr. D___. Occasionally, he’d reach back for that little extra and come out rushing the crowd hurling scriptural heat and spuming spittle. It was riotous (no, I didn’t misspell righteous)! What I remember most from that evening was a moment he looked in my direction. He marked me because I didn’t shake violently nor twaddle as some exorcised cantonese seraph. And as he stared me down, he buffaloed his body toward me, and exclaimed “Philosophy was wrong!” Initially, I was startled, and then bewildered. I knew nothing about philosophy, yet somehow he saw in me that damnable curiosity which had prompted the visit to the library in the prior month. Well roared, lion!

So Schopenhauer was right, but philosophy was wrong? Yes, you guessed it. It was time for me to grab that book off my bedroom floor and dig into it earnestly….with a dictionary, and a copy of the spring semester class schedule. Hmmm….Modern Philosophy 101 sounded intriguing.

Author Terence Witt using internet to communicate extensions of his scientific theories.

The method of circulating scientific ideas is changing. With the increasing rate at which scientific discoveries are made in the 21st century, more and more scientists are publishing their scientific work online, allowing virtually instantaneous access to new discoveries by a worldwide audience. Author Terence Witt is also using the power of the internet to publish a series of predictions related to the cosmology of his newly released theory, Null Physics.

Most recently, Witt posted on his website, www.ourundiscovereduniverse.com , a white paper entitled “Vortical Motion of M31 .” This paper uses Null Cosmology to calculate the speed of the core-ward inflow of M31, the Andromeda galaxy, as 3.5 ± 0.7 km/s.

“This recent white paper is a prediction tied to Null Cosmology,” said Witt. “As Null Cosmology posits a galactic vortex at the center of all spiral and elliptical galaxies, predicting vortical motion creates a basis by which the theory can be validated or falsified.”

In addition to posting white papers online, Witt is submitting papers to peer-reviewed physics journals and is blogging once a week about diverse topics – everything from infinity and quantum reality to flying his plane through violent storm conditions.

For more on Null Cosmology, go to www.OurUndiscoveredUniverse.com .

About Terence Witt
Terence Witt is the founder and former CEO of Witt Biomedical Corporation. He holds a BSEE from Oregon State University and lives in Florida. Our Undiscovered Universe: Introducing Null Physics is his first book. To read more about Terence Witt and his latest breakthroughs go to OurUndiscoveredUniverse.com .

Victoria Lansdon
Public Relations Director
Aridian Publishing
(321) 773-3426
vlansdon@aridian.org

There is a lot of excitement lately about the wet history of Mars, but what about Venus? Did Venus once have a climate which could support liquid water, if so where is the evidence? There are mountains, volcanoes, rift valleys, impact craters, and two small areas of slightly higher elevation which resemble continents. Any physical evidence of past water on Venus would have been wiped out by geological processes which keep the majority of the Venusian surface relatively young.

The atmosphere on Venus is composed of 96% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, and the remainder (less than 1%) is made up of water vapor, sulfur dioxide, argon, and carbon monoxide. The small amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere plus the high levels of CO2 and thick clouds of sulfuric acid may well have been generated by volcanic activity.

It’s difficult to hypothesize water in substantial quantities when there is less than 1% detected in the Venusian atmosphere. Recently, Venus Express observed H+, O+, and He+ ions escaping the Venusian atmosphere. This finding could suggest that the water vapor has been stripped apart by ionizing forces such as solar radiation or electro magnetic activity over billions of years. Hydroxyl was also recently discovered (for the first time on another planet) by Venus Express. Hydroxyl is closely linked to ozone, which could potentially protect a planet from solar radiation and slow the breakup of water vapor.

So what did happen to Venus? Was it at one time more Earth-like with oceans, rivers, and lakes whose evidence was all erased by volcanic activity, or by some external catastrophic event which also put the planet into a retrograde rotation? Was all of this alleged water evaporated into space and then subsequently broken into constituent ions which then escaped into space leaving massive quantities of CO2? Or rather is the premise that there was once a large amount of water inherently wrong? Perhaps there never was water on the surface of Venus and perhaps the dense atmosphere was formed primarily by volcanic activity. One thing is certain; to conclude that Venus was previously water bearing will require further exploration into the planet’s past.