A short video, that explains what modern physics of time travel. I know it’s a good topic to discuss, but what ARE the realities of time travel? I’m not talking about BS time travellers etc… But the real physics behind it as we know it today. Enjoy the video, after all it’s short and most of all FREE!!!
*We are aware that this is a controversial topic, with lots of information to look at. This is a tidbit, and we just wanted to express our belief that there are still many undiscovered truths to be uncovered when it comes to the *theory* of evolution. We are not suggesting that evolution did not or has not occurred in nature, because we have enough evidence to conclude that it did.
Darwin’s work was definitely well thought out, well documented, and scientifically sound, but the evolutionary process that he documented in nature may not apply to us. There is a growing body of evidence proving that Darwin’s theory does not account for the facts of human origin as they’re known today.
There has been a widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution, yet no mention of the evidence which counters its claim. Instead, we’ve watched a lengthy search for physical evidence to prove it, while failing to realize that the fossilized “missing links” which should exist to prove the theory correct do not exist at all, or remain to be discovered. These “missing links” in our human ancestry have not been discovered for more than 150 years now, and even Darwin himself acknowledged this fact in his book, On The Origin of Species:
“As on the theory of natural selection and interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed….why do we not see these linking forms all around us? Why is not every geological formation charged with such links? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory.” (1)
This has also been expressed by many scholars, one of them being Thomas H. Morgan, a 1933 Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine, who stated that applying the “most rigid tests used to distinguish wild species, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another.” (2)
Why have we found so much, searched so much, found so much, yet failed to discover these “missing links?”
Make no mistake, while Australopithecus afarensis and Neanderthals do tell a story and provide some interesting fossils, it’s possible they are not linked to us. They might be telling the story of someone’s history and evolution, yes, but it might not be ours.
Keeping in mind the fact that we have no physical evidence to prove the theory of evolution correct, let’s take a look at some research which has many scientists scratching their heads.
In 2000, researchers at the University of Glasgow Human Identification Centre compared DNA from a species believed to be our ancestor, a Neanderthal, and compared it to the DNA of modern humans. The DNA taken from the Neanderthal was very well preserved (a story in itself), as it was found frozen in a limestone cave in northern Caucasus. It was 30,000 years old, and it also marked the very first time that such tests could be performed on a body that had already been carbon-dated.
The study concluded that the possibility of a genetic link between Neanderthals and modern day human beings is unlikely, and the study went on to suggest that modern humans are not at all descendants of Neanderthals, as is so commonly believed.(3)(4)
“While in theory the science of genetic comparison should solve the mystery of our ancestry, the results are actually raising more questions regarding our evolutionary lineage and origins, and opening the door to ‘forbidden’ territory.” – Greg Braden (Deep Truth p. 9)
In 2003, a team of European scientists compared the DNA of Neanderthals and our earliest known ancestors, Early Modern Humans (EMHs). EMHs used to be called “Cro-Magnon.” The researchers studied the DNA of two EMHs, one was 23,000 years old and the other was 25,000 years old. DNA from four Neanderthals was also used, they were between 29,000 and 42,000 years old. The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and stated:
“Our results add to the evidence collected previously in different fields, making the hypothesis of a ‘Neanderthal heritage’ very unlikely.” (5)
This shows that that Neanderthals were probably not at all related to EHMs. The differences in physicality between them and modern humans are so small that some even believe there is no need for a separate grouping. The appearance of our supposed ancestors hasn’t changed much over time.
The list literally goes on and on, and these are only a couple studies out of many, but for the sake of reading length, I encourage you to look into it further if you are interested. The debate about our relationship with Neanderthals remains a quite heated issue. It’s not as cut and dry as we are commonly led to believe, but make no mistake about it, many experts think that they are not our ancestors. There is not enough valid evidence to support the theory of evolution to say with any kind of certainty that yes, “this is where we came from.” So ask yourself, why do so many people and institutions teach and believe that our ancestry has been traced and confirmed through the evolutionary process?
We have indeed found interesting fossils, and evolution has occurred throughout nature, but the truth of the matter is that those fossils (Australopithecus afarensis and Neanderthals and others) might have nothing at all to do with our species.
The Mystery of “Fused” DNA
In his book “Deep Truth” Greg Braden brings up some interesting points regarding “fused DNA.” He points out how apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes (48 total) and how humans have 23 (46). It looks like we are missing an entire set of chromosomes, but that’s not the case. Instead, when scientists looked at where those missing chromosomes would be, they found that human chromosome 2 is very similar to the chromosomes 12 and 13 of the chimpanzee, “as if they were somehow combined (fused) into a single larger piece of DNA.” The thing about this is, this fusion occurred only in the case of humans. (6)(7)
“In other words, the two chromosomes that seem to be missing from our DNA appear to have been found, merged into a single new chromosome that is unique to us. Additionally, there are other characteristics of human and chimp genes that look almost identical.”- Greg Braden (Deep Truth p. 11)
Scientists have no idea how this merging of DNA happened. Perhaps a helping hand from somewhere? Who knows.
“It’s the fact that these chromosomes are fused together, and the way they’re fused, that has led scientists to conclude that only a rare process could have given rise to to such a genetic phenomenon. These studies are telling us that the arrangement of the DNA that makes human chromosome 2 (and us) unique is not something that we would normally expect from Darwin’s evolution through natural selection.” – Greg Braden (Deep Truth p. 11)
We Don’t Know Where We Came From
The truth of the matter is, we don’t know where we came from. All we have are theories, with evidence, and evidence that counters evidence. We have studies concluding with strong certainty that we are not at all related to Neanderthals, and we have evidence that suggests we are. For example, in 2010, about 60 per cent of the entire genetic code of several Neanderthal fossils was revealed for the first time, leading to some surprising insights into the evolution of our own species. When the Neanderthal genome was compared with those of modern humans from different continents, it showed that modern populations from Europe, Asia, and New Guinea shared more genetic information with Neanderthals than present-day Africans do, with around 2.5 per cent Neanderthal DNA in their genetic make-up. (8)
What are we supposed to think of this? With so little physical evidence to confirm most of our conclusions, why do so many people subscribe to the theory of evolution with absolute certainty, and why is it taught that way? We have such strong evidence to support the fact that, truly, we have very little idea about what happened. How do we expect to find answers when geneticists can’t even tell us why human beings are so different from fruit flies? What about the fact that we only have 300 unique genes in the human that are not in the mouse? With only 300 genes separating us from a mouse, where are we to look for the answers as to what makes human beings so different? Maybe DNA is the wrong place to look? Maybe not. Who knows what hidden information lies within our DNA; we don’t understand much of it, we can’t even identify most of its biological function. Maybe it goes beyond physicality? Who knows, but one thing is for certain – we surely don’t.
What about new discoveries that also shake up the current theory? Just over a year ago, researchers discovered what looks to be an entirely new species of hominin unknown to modern-day science. The discovery was made in a Siberian cave. A DNA analysis of the subject’s genome detected traces of what is known as a “Denisovan,” the mysterious cousin of the Neanderthals. The alarming part is the fact that the genome also contains odd bits of DNA which seem to come from a completely unknown, unidentifiable group of “people.”
“What it begins to suggest is that we’re looking at a Lord of the Rings type world – that there were many hominid populations.” – (9) Mark Thomas, evolutionary geneticist at University College London.
You can read more about that here.
What about the archaeological evidence suggesting that advanced civilizations, with advanced technology, roamed the Earth thousands of years ago, in some cases coinciding with these evolutionary periods?
There are simply too many unknowns and too many unanswered questions, making it absurd (in my opinion) for anybody to think that our species is a result of an evolution that we have observed in nature throughout history. The biological link between humans and earlier human-like lifeforms in our apparent ancestral tree is not proven, it’s inferred. As Greg Braden points out in his book Deep Truth:
“The theory of living cells mutating randomly (evolving) over long periods of time does not explain the origin or complexities of human life.”
It’s clear that there are many DNA studies that prove we did not descend from Neanderthal families.
“It’s unlikely that the DNA that makes us human and gives us our uniqueness could have formed in the way it has from natural processes of evolution.” – Greg Braden (Deep Truth p. 14)
So, what are your thoughts? Feel free to share in the comment section below.
It’s not uncommon for our readers to believe that Collective-Evolution subscribes to the modern day theory of evolution, given our name. When we refer to the collective evolution of the human race, we are referring to the evolution of consciousnesses, we refer to how our perception regarding the nature of reality has changed over time, and how it will continue to change as new information continues to surface – changing the way we look at the world.
There are many examples of theories regarding the origin of our species that are believed to be proven and believed without question, and the theory of evolution is one of them. New discoveries within the sciences have shown us that many long-standing views about things like our world, our bodies, and life itself have to change, and history has shown us that they do change. New information and evidence (not always emphasized in the mainstream public domain) have provided us the opportunity to slow down and question these things, before we deem and accept them as absolute truth.
Another big problem is the fact that mainstream educational systems (a great point made Braden’s book, Deep Truth) refuse to touch upon new discoveries and explore new theories that challenge what we have believed to be true. This keeps us stuck with the same ideas over and over again.
Greg Braden: Deep Truth.
(1) Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species ( Seattle: Pacific Publishing Studio, 2010): p. 236
(2) Morgan, Thomas Hunt, 1866-1945, Evolution and Adaptation. p. 43
(6) Yuxin Fan, Tera Newman, Elena Linaropoulou, and Barbara J. Trask, “Gene Content and Function of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in Human Chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions,” Genome Research, vol 12 (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2002): pp. 1663-1672. website: http://genome.cship.org/content/12/11/1663.full.
(7) J.W. IJdo, A. Baldini, D.C. Ward, S.T. Reeders, and R.A. Wells, “Origin of Human Chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere Fusion,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 88, no. 20 October 15,1991):pp. 9051-9055.
First human frozen by cryogenics could be brought back to life ‘in just TEN years’, claims expert
Hundreds worldwide have had their corpses frozen in a cryogenic chamber.
They are preserved after death in the hope they can be revived in the future
An expert has claimed scientists could reanimate one of these corpses within the next ten years.
Human corpses frozen by cryogenics could be brought back to life in the next decade, an expert has claimed.
Around 350 people worldwide have had their corpse preserved at low temperatures immediately after death in the hope it can be revived in the future.
Dennis Kowalski, president of the Michigan-based Cryonics Institute – an organisation fronting the human freezing process – has now claimed scientists could reanimate one of these corpses within the next ten years.
Human corpses frozen by cryogenics could be brought back to life in the next decade, an expert has claimed. Around 350 people worldwide have had their corpse preserved at low temperatures immediately after death in the hope it can be revived in the future (file photo).
Speaking to the Daily Star, Mr Kowalski, 49, said: ‘If you take something like CPR, that would have seemed unbelievable 100 years ago. Now we take that technology for granted.
‘Cryonically bringing someone back to life should definitely be doable in 100 years, but it could be as soon as ten.’
Mr Kowalksi’s Cryonics Institute has almost 2,000 people signed up to be frozen after they die.
The firm already has 160 patients frozen in specialised tanks of liquid nitrogen at its headquarters.
Mr Kowalski said that when the first patients are reanimated depends on the rate at which modern medicine improves.
‘It depends on how much technology like stem-cells advances,’ he said.
Cryonics, also known as cryogenics and cryopreservation, is the art of freezing a dead body or body parts in order to preserve them.
Dennis Kowalski (pictured), president of the US-based Cryonics Institute – an organisation fronting the human freezing process – has now claimed scientists could reanimate one of these corpses within the next ten years
CRYONICS: THE FACTS
WHAT IS CRYONICS?
The deep freezing of a body to -196°C (-321°F).
Anti-freeze compounds are injected into the corpse to stop cells being damaged.
The hope is that medical science will advance enough to bring the patient back to life.
Two main US organisations carry out cryonics in the US: Alcor, in Arizona, and the Cryonics Institute, in Michigan.
Russian firm KrioRus is one of two facilities outside the US to offer the service, alongside Alcor’s European laboratory in Portugal.
HOW IS IT MEANT TO WORK?
The process can only take place once the body has been declared legally dead.
Ideally, it begins within two minutes of the heart stopping and no more than 15.
The body must be packed in ice and injected with chemicals to reduce blood clotting.
At the cryonics facility, it is cooled to just above 0°C and the blood is replaced with a solution to preserve organs.
Cryonpreservation is the deep freezing of a body to – 196°C (-321°F). Anti-freeze compounds are injected into the corpse to stop cells being damaged
The body is injected with another solution to stop ice crystals forming in organs and tissues, then cooled to -130°C.
The final step is to place the body into a container which is lowered into a tank of liquid nitrogen at -196°C.
WHAT’S THE CHANCE OF SUCCESS?
Many experts say there is none.
Organs such as the heart and kidneys have never been successfully frozen and thawed.
It is even less likely a whole body, and the brain, could be without irreversible damage.
HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
Charges at the Cryonics Institute start at around £28,000 ($35,000) to ‘members’ for whole-body cryopreservation.
Rival group Alcor charges £161,000 ($200,000) while KrioRus’ procedure will set you back £29,200 ($37,600).
HOW LONG BEFORE PEOPLE CAN BE BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE?
Cryonics organisations claim it could be decades or even centuries.
However, medical experts say once cells are damaged during freezing and turned to ‘mush’ they cannot be converted back to living tissue, any more than you can turn a scrambled egg back into a raw egg.
Advocates see it as a miracle procedure to cheat death, with the hope that they will be revived once medical science has progressed far enough to cure whatever killed them.
Currently, it is only legal to freeze someone when they have just been declared dead.
The freezing process must begin as soon as the patient dies in order to prevent brain damage, with facilities currently available in Russia, the US and Portugal.
In the procedure, the body is cooled in an ice bath to gradually reduce its temperature bit by bit.
Experts then drain the blood and replace it with an anti freeze fluid to stop harmful ice crystals forming in the body.
Does Life In 2018 Live Up To What We Predicted A Century Ago?
People in the early 20th century were hopeful about the future innovation might bring. The technology that came out of World War I, and the growing potential brought by electricity (half of all U.S. homes had electric power by 1925) had many looking ahead to the coming century. Futurists of the early 1900s predicted an incredible boom in technology that would transform human lives for the better.
In fact, many of those predictions for the future in which we live weren’t far off, from the proliferation of automobiles and airplanes to the widespread transmission of information. Of course, the specifics of how those devices would work sometimes fell broad of the mark. Yet these predictions show us just how much our technology has progressed in just a century — and just how much further more innovation could take us.
Calling the Future
On a cool February day in 1917, storied inventor Alexander Graham Bell gave the graduating class of McKinley Manual Training School a rousing speech that would later sound a bit like prophecy.
“Now, it is very interesting and instructive to look back over the various changes that have occurred and trace the evolution of the present from the past,” Bell said, after recalling the incredible transformation wrought by electricity and automobiles alone. “By projecting these lines of advance into the future, you can forecast the future, to a certain extent, and recognize some of the fields of usefulness that are opening up for you.”
In 1876, Bell himself had patented the device known as the telephone, which used wires to transmit the sound of human speech. As this device spread, its capabilities allowed voices to cross enormous distances. In 1915, one such “wireless telephony” system had allowed a Virginia man to speak to another in Paris while a man in Honolulu listened in — a distance of 4,900 miles (about 7,886 kilometers), setting the record for the longest distance communication at that time.
Bell marveled at this achievement and the change it had already created, predicting that “this achievement surely foreshadows the time when we may be able to talk with a man in any part of the world by telephone and without wires.” At the time of Bell’s speech, the U.S. had an estimated 11.7 million working telephones; by the year 2000, that number had risen to nearly 103 million.
Extrapolating forward, Bell predicted a future in which this technology allowed people to pretty much anything remotely: “We shall probably be able to perform at a distance by wireless almost any mechanical operation that can be done at hand,” he said. And he wasn’t wrong.
Transportation of the Future
People a century ago were obsessed with the travel of the future. By 1914, the Ford Motor Company had developed the first moving assembly line, allowing the company to produce 300,000 cars in a single year. With transit beginning to transform society, futurists began imagining a world in which every person from Miami to Moscow could own their very own automobile. In that regard, they weren’t too far off — 95 percent of American households own cars, according to a 2016 government report. But those imagined automobiles looked a bit different from the ones we know today.
On January 6, 1918, the headline of an article in The Washington Times announced that the “Automobile of Tomorrow Will Be Constructed Like a Moving Drawing Room.” The author was writing about a prediction in Scientific American that described the car of the future. It would be water-tight and weather-proof, with sides made entirely of glass, and seats that could be moved anywhere in the vehicle. It would be decked out with power steering, brakes, heating, and a small control board for navigation. A finger lever would replace the steering wheel. Other designs imagined that cars would roll around on just three wheels, or on air-filled spheres to remove the need for shocks.
Future-forecasters of the early 1900s were enthralled by the idea that our everyday travel would not be confined to land. Take, for example, the series of postcards produced between 1899 and 1910 by French artist Jean-Marc Côté and his collaborators, who seemed confident that by the year 2000, we would have already colonized both sky and sea — and recruited some of their residents for our transit purposes.
Air travel was foremost in people’s minds: The Wright brothers made their first successful flight of a powered airplane in 1903, spurring other inventors and engineers to test innumerable aircraft designs before World War I. As such, it’s not surprising that Côté’s minute works imagined that, by the year 2000, nearly every form of transportation would be via air. Aerial taxi services, floating dirigible battleships, a flying postman, and air-based public transportation all appear in the whimsical depictions of our predicted current day.
Some craft, like an aerial rescue service or planes outfitted for warfare, are now an everyday part of military forces (though we don’t yet have the “French invisible aeroplane” that Scientific American promised was forthcoming in 1915).
Indeed, personal flying machines are a prominent feature of the 21st century as envisioned from the 19th and 20th — particularly the concept that personal flying cars would become commonplace. Forward-looking Victorians, such as artist Albert Robida in 1882, assumed the skies would be thick with flying cars by 2018.
In the May 1923 issue of Science and Invention, science fiction writer Hugo Gernsback described his vision for these flying cars, which he dubbed the “helicar,” as a solution to the automobile traffic he already saw jamming the streets of New York City:
The only practical solution is to combine the automobile with an airplane and this no doubt will happen during the next few decades. The Helicopter Automobile or, for short, the helicar, will not take up very much more room than the present large 7-passenger automobile, nor will it weigh much more than our present-day car, but instead of rolling down the avenue, you will go straight up in the air, and follow the air traffic lines, then descend at any place you wish.
We might not yet have a flying machine parked in every garage, but organizations such as Uber and NASA, the Russian defense company Kalashnikov, Toyota for the 2020 Olympics, and numerous smaller companies are developing personal flying cars, so this too may not be far off.
Alexander Graham Bell addressed the possibility of transportation by air, noting that travel by boat was cheaper than travel by rail, because no tracks had to be laid. Bell suggested that a “possible solution of the problem over land may lie in the development of aerial locomotion.” He continued: “However much money we may invest in the construction of huge aerial machines carrying many passengers, we don’t have to build a road,” — a sentiment echoed by one of his fictional successors.
Technology Gets Personal
In 1900, Smithsonian curator and writer John Elfrith Watkins, Jr., penned an article titled “What May Happen in the Next Hundred Years” for The Ladies’ Home Journal. Looking forward at the fresh new century, Watkins imagined a world in which technology wasn’t left in the hands of industry or the military — instead, it would be redirected to entertain and convenience everyday people.
Though he didn’t foresee television in its current form, Watkins predicted that technology would one day bring distant concerts and operas to private homes, sounding “as harmonious as though enjoyed from a theatre box,” and that “persons and things of all kinds will be brought within focus of cameras connected electrically with screens at opposite ends of circuits, thousands of miles at a span.” He also predicted that color photographs would one day be quickly transmitted around the world, and that “if there be a battle in China a hundred years hence snapshots of its most striking events will be published in the newspapers an hour later.” One can only guess what he would have thought of the selfie.
Watkins imagined that technology would transform our homes and diets. Though the mechanically-cooled refrigerator wasn’t invented until 1925, and wouldn’t become widely used until the 1940s, Watkins correctly predicted that “refrigerators will keep great quantities of food fresh for long intervals,” and that “fast-flying refrigerators on land and sea” would deliver fruits and vegetables from around the world to provide produce out-of-season. He even called the development of fast-food delivery, anticipating “ready-cooked meals… served hot or cold to private houses.” He believed these meal deliveries would replace home-cooking entirely (for some city-dwellers with Seamless accounts, that’s not too far off), and might arrive by pneumatic tubes as well as by “automobile wagons.”
Some of Watkins’ predictions might have been close to reality, but he was pretty far off about other aspects of life in the 21st century. He thought that man would have exterminated pests like roaches, mice, and mosquitoes, as well as all wild animals, which would “exist only in menageries.” This prediction was surprisingly common in the early 1900s, and might have been a reaction to then-recent extinctions like that of the quagga (1883), the passenger pigeon (1914), and the thylacine (1934). Though we are now going through another global extinction caused by human activity, we can be grateful that we haven’t quite reached the level of extinction most Victorian futurists expected.
Watkins also thought that we would have eliminated the letters C, X or Q in the everyday alphabet, as they were “unnecessary;” that humans would essentially make ourselves a into super-species, with physical education starting in the nursery, until “a man or woman unable to walk ten miles at a stretch will be regarded as a weakling.” Unfortunately, our global obesity problem shows the reality was, in fact, quite the opposite.
Thematically, though, these predictions are sound: As the use of electricity spread, and technology like automobiles and telephones became more affordable to use, Watkins could envision an age in which technology was entirely integrated into our lives. To futurists of the early 1900s, it seemed obvious that robots and automation would be essential to 21st century people, serving as our chauffeurs, cleaning the house, scheduling the laundry, and even electrically transmitting handshakes.
Alexander Graham Bell also predicted this trend, and he thought it heralded something particularly promising for the McKinley graduates he addressed in 1918. Foreseeing the rise of an industry centered around technology and an exploding need for scientists and engineers, he told them: “It is safe to say that scientific men and technical experts are destined in the future to occupy distinguished and honorable positions in all the countries of the world. Your future is assured.”
A Future of Clean Energy
Perhaps the most surprising predictions from the past century regard fossil fuels and the environment. Yes, today some people still resist transitioning away from fossil fuels and ignore the scientific consensus on climate change. But bright minds of the early 20th century were already theorizing that we would one day have to quit our fossil fuel habit.
As early as 1896, scientist Svante Arrhenius calculated that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise Earth’s temperature between 8 and 9 degrees Celsius. Arrhenius was inspired by the startling discovery of his friend Arvid Högbom, who realized that human activities were releasing carbon dioxide at roughly the same rate as natural processes. Because of the rate at which industrial countries burned coal in 1896, Arrhenius believed human-caused warming wouldn’t reach problematic levels for thousands of years. But by the time he published his 1908 book Worlds in the Making, an attempt to explain the evolution of the universe to a popular audience, that rate had increased so much that Arrhenius was convinced that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could double within a few centuries.
Scientists as a whole wouldn’t come around to Arrhenius’ ideas, or recognize that burning carbon-based fuels had an adverse effect on our planet, for at least a century. Yet even before scientists understood the climate effects of fossil fuels, futurists were predicting that we would have to drop our use of coal and oil before long. “Coal and oil are going up [in usage] and are strictly limited in quantity,” Alexander Graham Bell said in his February 1917 speech. He continued:
We can take coal out of a mine, but we can never put it back. We can draw oil from subterranean reservoirs, but we can never refill them again. We are spendthrifts in the matter of fuel and are using our capital for our running expenses. In relation to coal and oil, the world’s annual consumption has become so enormous that we are now actually within measurable distance of the end of the supply. What shall we do when we have no more coal or oil!
He went on to note that hydropower was, at the time, limited, and implied that one day it might be possible to generate energy from the tides or waves, or “the employment of the sun’s rays directly as a source of power.”
Bell wasn’t the only one who was sure we would have to find a new source of energy in the next century. In 1917, when a severe coal shortage in the U.S. caused people to call for the resource’s conservation, one writer for the Chicago News asserted that stockpiling coal would ultimately be foolish. He insisted that worrying about the supply of coal would soon be like fretting over the supply of tallow candles: pointless.
“These gifted lunatics who are worrying about the coal supply are in the same class,” the Chicago News writer insisted. “It doesn’t occur to them that in a hundred years people will be saying, ‘Our grandfathers, the poor boobs, actually used coal for heating purposes!’”
We’re not laughing quite yet. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. still gets 17 percent of its energy from coal. Another 28 percent comes from petroleum products, and 33 percent from natural gas; we get only 12 percent of our electricity from the renewable sources that the Chicago News writer — who was sure we’d find a way “to put the sun’s energy in storage, and pump it into people’s houses thru pipes” — predicted by now. Globally, coal makes up about 27 percent of the world’s energy production, and renewable energy about 24 percent.
The good news is that this distribution is changing as renewable energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, edging us ever closer to the bright future that 20th century minds thought we’d be living in. Fingers crossed the whale-bus will be next.
Time Travel, how it really works, explained so a newbie can understand
As Gov’t Frames ET’s as Threat, Many Use Higher States of Consciousness to Contact Them
Antarctica Castle Discovery Rewrites History
Repeated Mothman sightings in Chicago
Mysterious gamma rays are alien messages claims MIT astronomer
Controversial Illustrations That Expose The Dark Side Of Society
Free Yourself From Depression Forever By Applying These 10 Basic Principles
Time Travel, how it really works, explained so a newbie can understand
2018 is going to be the year when, for the first time, we’ll observe a black hole
Oumuamua First alien object to visit our solar system is wrapped in strange organic coat
Scientific Bullshit — How ‘Science’ Is Used To Deceive The Public
CDC Prepares Public For Nuclear War
Time Travel, how it really works, explained so a newbie can understand
The Moon is Not What You Think it is – What Ancient Human Civilizations Said About The Moon
The Most Detailed Map Of The Universe Is Here
Mysterious Freemasons and NASA
- Spirituality4 years ago
Top 10 Spiritual Truths We Weren’t Taught in School
- Conspiracy Theories4 years ago
Top 10 Things You Shouldn’t Know About The Ubiquitous “Illuminati”
- Aliens & UFO's5 years ago
Alien Species: Advanced Humans, Greys and Reptilians
- Planet Earth5 years ago
Lost Tribe On Small Island In The Indian Ocean remain virtually untouched by modern civilization
- Aliens & UFO's5 years ago
200 Meter Cigar UFO Enters Volcano Near Mexico City
- Occult5 years ago
“America” The Land Of Lucifer; The Real Story Behind The Name
- Conspiracy Theories4 years ago
The Great Cancer Hoax: The Brilliant Cure the FDA Tried Their Best to Shut Down…
- Bizzare & Odd4 years ago
Sokushinbutsu – The Bizarre Practice of Self Mummification