Why does Elon Musk like to blow things up? A psychoanalytic approach.

Elon Musk has been unusually open, even for a billionaire celebrity, in terms of his motivations, needs and interests, in the public forum. And, on one point he has always been very consistent. Elon likes to blow things up. Indeed, I think it would be fair to say, Elon truly loves to blow things up. He shows this taste particularly when it comes to rockets, and, in particular, as we've seen over and over again, with regard to his beloved "Starship", in particular. Indeed, the only thing his Starship seems capable of doing -- and, to be sure, it does this very well indeed -- is blowing itself up. Yet, Elon seems delighted, even one could say, highly addicted, to blowing his Starship up, over and over again, at his own very great expense. Now, why exactly, should this be the case, because, you have to admit, it is a rather bizarre behavior. So, let's try to consider this behavior in terms of Elon himself, and the Starship in particular. It is notable, that the Starship is considered critical to NASA's Artemis program, intended to put the first woman on the Moon, in just two years. It seems clear, that if the Starship is indeed used for the purpose of the lunar lander then, as intended, this woman will certainly die. It is also notable, that Elon Musk is an inveterate womanizer. He has had movie stars, CEO's of corporations, housewives etc. etc. etc. Any woman he wanted, she was his. And, of course, as we all know, intensive womanizing can indeed lead to unusual tastes. There is a novelty effect in human sexuality. This is perhaps most clearly stated in the "Coolidge Effect": U.S. President Calvin Coolidge and his wife visited an experimental chicken farm. Coolidge's wife went one day with the experimental farmer, who informed her that the roosters would copulate with hens six to eight times a day. Mrs. Coolidge said "Tell that, to Mr. Coolidge!" The next day, President Coolidge went with the farmer, who informed him that the roosters would copulate with the hens six to eight times a day. President Coolidge asked the farmer "Same hen?" "No Mr. President," the farmer replied, "six to eight different hens." "Tell that, to Mrs. Coolidge!" replied the President. The Coolidge Effect may have a critical influence on Elon Musk's behavior here. Elon is seeking an unusual experience with a woman. One he's never had before. And, has Elon, has any man, ever blown up a woman landing on the Moon before? No, of course not! And, the plot thickens, my friends. Elon Musk's relationship with NASA is largely based on his promise to dramatically cut costs -- cut costs by 80%, 90%, perhaps 99%, Elon will promise them anything. He has indeed cut costs by about a third, using his partially salvageable rockets -- they're not really "reusable", in the normal sense of the term. That seems to be about the best he can do, however, and that's not really good enough to get man back on the Moon. However, NASA is so desperate to cut costs, in order to stay in business, that they'll give Elon anything he asks for, anything at all, if only he'll promise them what they need, however impossible that might be. So, NASA exists in kind of a financially dependent marriage relationship will Elon Musk, and like a dependent wife, NASA is even willing to sacrifice her children -- her female astronauts -- to Elon's insatiable lusts. Effectively, Elon Musk and NASA are producing Snuff films at enormous taxpayer expense for Elon's delectation, at taxpayer expense. The entire Artemis Program is actually a Snuff Film. What a terrific thrill for Elon! It's like Albert Einstein says. When you ask simple questions, and the answers are also simple, you know you hear God thinking.

Is Einstein's Theory of Relativity a caricature of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, and of Judeo-Christianity in general?

It may be significant that in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, in the Judeo-Christian Bible, God must create light, before time itself can be defined, and before the structure of the Universe can be defined, and before life can be created. Because, effectively, Einstein's Theory of Relativity also makes light the basis for the passage of time, and for the existence of time itself, and for the occurrence of all events and structure in the Universe. That said, once light is created by God in Genesis I, light ceases to play any part in the regulation of time, rather, light becomes simply a highly regular manifestation of the passage of time. And the structure of the Universe is determined by God, not in any way by light. In Einstein's model, in contrast, light defines the limits of time and space, and light is, effectively, the primary basis and determinant of both. It's rather as if God said "Let there be light. And light controls everything, from now on!" This distinction is actually rather significant in terms man's role in the Universe. As we know, Genesis I makes Man in the image of God, thus implying that Man, like God, can create and control the Universe at his will, ultimately, anyway. And this aspect of Judeo-Christianity is one of its most unique features -- Man is limitless, and all-powerful, as God himself is. In contrast, in Einstein's model, man is very much circumscribed by the speed of light, which limits where he can go, and what he can do. Arguably, what makes monotheism distinct from idolatry, is the notion that there is a single all-powerful God, and communion with said God can allow humanity to accomplish anything at all, without limits. Hence, Einstein's theory of Relativity could be seen as a step backwards towards idolatry, in terms of making Light itself an idol, which man cannot transcend, or move. Now, from a Priest's point of view, there are indeed advantages to being the servant of an idol, rather than an all-powerful God. After all, an idol is just an idol, nobody ever said an idol was all powerful. So, I would say, in general, much less might be expected from the Priests of Idols, than might be expected from Christian Priests, Jewish Rabbis, or Muslim Mullahs. All the Priest of an idol has to argue, is that he made things a bit better than they might have been otherwise. What more can be expected from a mere idol? The bar is much lower than for a monotheistic priest, who is supposed to have access to an all powerful God, who can accomplish absolutely anything at all. Now, prior to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, we had Isaac Newton's model of the Universe, in which space and time were absolute. Very much along the lines of Judeo-Christianity, and the Bible. Isaac Newton was, of course, a deeply religious man. In such a Universe, man in general, and scientists in particular, could be expected to accomplish absolutely anything, if they really set their minds to it. This put quite a bit of pressure on scientists, of course. Is it at all possible that Albert Einstein was trying to relieve this pressure a bit? And, is it at all possible, that making science much more limited in what it could possibly accomplish, returning science to idolatry, and away from monotheism, was rather appealing to quite a lot of University scientists, who preferred steady, undemanding employment, to having to accomplish great things on a regular basis? Certainly, physicists and chemists seem very attached indeed to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, although I'm not sure even other hard scientists like biologists and mathematicians have much faith in it. Indeed, physicists can become quite hysterical when anyone questions this theory. Almost as if Albert Einstein was the Prophet of a Great Religion in which they have absolute faith, that must never be questioned. The evidence most cited as "proof" of Einstein's theory these days is the fact that GPS requires very small corrections on the order of microseconds on the hour when calculations are based on satellites outside of the Earth's gravitational field. Einstein's General theory of Relativity predicts effects something like this, although the actual correlations to the data are rather crude. However, all this really proves, is that gravity has some rather small, not particularly well understood effects on the mechanism of atomic clocks. Doesn't imply any effect on time, at all, really. We have some extremely clear disproofs of Relativity in modern physics and science itself. The Big Bang that commenced the Universe is supposed to have occurred from an initial Black Hole singularity. However, Einstein tells us that nothing can happen in a Black Hole, because gravity is too strong to release light, so time itself stops. How do physicists explain this? They don't. They say that, perhaps, Relativity didn't apply back then. So much for the "laws" of Physics! Currently, the Parker Solar Probe is accelerating to hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, and should be experiencing time dilations of several seconds a year, according to Relativity. They aren't there. You could do a Freedom of Information Request from NASA, to confirm this. The physicists will claim their clocks aren't accurate enough, but this is false. So, is it possible that theologians could have a role here? Could theologians point out to physicists that they are actually turning into idolators, out of sheer laziness, and that they should become monotheists, once more, as Isaac Newton himself was?

Doesn't Einstein's theory of Relativity make impossible the Big Bang from an initial Black Hole Singularity?

The Big Bang is supposed to have occurred from an initial singularity containing all matter in the Universe in an extremely compressed space. Hence the curvature of space-time would be infinite at the time of the Big Bang, in the area in which all the matter of the Universe was compressed. So, how could the Big Bang possibly have occurred? By definition, in a Singularity, time ceases to pass, and no events can occur. And, the Big Bang was supposed to have been one Hell of an event, wasn't it? So, on the surface at least, it would seem that we can have Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or, we can have the Big Bang, but not both, because they are mutually contradictory. What is the explanation for this? I assume there must be one, of course.

What if, prior to the nineteenth century, female celibacy had been a crime?

It's no coincidence that feminism as we know it began in the nineteenth century in Europe and America. Because, it wasn't until this time that child mortality started dropping from its spectacularly high levels of around 80%, throughout human history up until this time. While it's actually rather hard to believe, prior to the nineteenth century, only one in four or five children actually managed to survive to the age of twenty-one. By the late nineteenth century, more hygienic child-birthing procedures -- doctors using antiseptic on their hands -- were starting to cut child mortality substantially. In addition, steamships and steam trains were making healthier food available more regularly to the population as a whole, in Europe and America, further cutting child mortality, and increasing overall life expectancy. Finally, by the mid-twentieth century, antibiotics and vaccines were largely eliminating the dangers from childhood diseases. So, by this time, actual child mortality had rapidly dropped from 80%, to near zero. So, effectively, prior to the nineteenth century, the very survival of the human species was constantly on a knife-edge, from one generation to the next, absolutely dependent on virtually all women producing and nurturing as many children as they possibly could. This largely explains the "subordination" of women in traditional societies. It also explains the horror of male homosexuality in traditional societies, because if men didn't devote all their time and efforts to impregnating as many women as they possibly could, the human species might be in danger of extinction. It also explains the taboo against "unclean" women, in process of menstruating, and hence, incapable temporarily of conceiving children -- men shouldn't waste their time and effort having sex with them, at times of menstruation. These facts had rather wide ranging implications for society. So, theologian St. Thomas Aquinas made homosexuality the most severe of carnal sins, while rape was a relatively minor one, in the thirteenth century. So, homosexuality and abortion were capital criminal offences in most societies. Nevertheless, I'm not aware of any single society in human history which has made the simple fact of a woman choosing not to have children, through celibacy, a crime. This, despite the fact, that such a choice by a mere third of females, prior to the nineteenth century, would have meant the utter extinction of the human species within a few generations. Effectively, women choosing not to have children, choosing to be celibate was, by far, the most serious threat to the survival of humanity up to a couple of centuries ago, yet, one can find no real evidence of any serious social controls of an explicit type, regarding this behavior. This seems rather odd, don't you think? Now, don't misunderstand me, here. I'm sure there was considerable social pressure for women to have children. And, indeed, there were quasi-legal procedures such as the burning of young sorceresses at the stake for "bewitching" men, while failing to have children with them, and the ritual human sacrifice of virgin girls who had the foolishness to remain virgins a little too long. And, of course, we have the instinctive biological male sanction against women choosing celibacy -- rape. And, most traditional societies have had rather lax penalties against rape for unmarried girls and women -- the girls were "asking for it", "why were they out alone?", "why didn't they just settle down, and have a family?", that kind of thing. But, wouldn't it have been simpler, and more civilized, simply to say, in a courtroom and/or civil chamber, by law, in writing, "Hey, girls, girls, girls, if you don't have your eight, ten or twelve kids, why, our whole community is finished! We're done! We ain't here any more, forever! Why if only a third of you decide to not have kids, why, the whole society ceases to exist. So, why don't you all pick yourself out a nice guy when you're eighteen, or so? And, if you don't, why we're going to have to put you in the stocks once a week, until you do. Nothing personal, this is just a social necessity." I believe, the reason this was never done, was along the lines that information is power. That, if women were regularly informed of their absolute power over society, they might well have used it. And, even women were afraid of that! Thoughts?

Could I make a DOJ Freedom of Information Request for the clock data of NASA's Parker Solar Probe?

The Parker Solar Probe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe will, by 2025, be achieving speeds as high as 430,000 mph, far faster than anything ever achieved by a large, man-made object. As such, it provides a unique opportunity to unambiguously and precisely test the predictions of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Indeed, by the end of 2025, I believe the discrepancy between the passage of time on earth, and the passage of time on the Parker Solar Probe, should have reached nearly a full minute, according to the predictions of Special Relativity, anyway. So, I was wondering if I could obtain data from NASA, through the DOJ Freedom of Information Act, detailing precisely how this temporal discrepancy has developed, over the years. Or, if NASA is actually compensating for this discrepancy, could I obtain information from them detailing at what temporal intervals they are reprogramming the Solar Probe's clock with the correct time, and by exactly how much they are adjusting it.

Elon Musk products are like NATO weapons systems -- overpriced and overhyped

I can't help but noticing, as I follow developments in the Russo-Ukrainian war, just how much the descriptions of NATO weapons sound like descriptions of Elon Musk products like Neuralink and Starship -- "revolutionary", "a game-changer", "unprecedented", "unbeatable". And, I also can't help noticing, that Russia still keeps gaining territory, despite these "magnificent" NATO weapons systems that the Ukrainians are employing. Indeed, both the Russians and the Ukrainians seem to do just as well with Soviet era weapons, or even WWII era weapons. Even Elon Musk's "magnificent" Starlink system doesn't seem to be giving the Ukrainians much of an edge in this particular war. This makes me wonder if Elon Musk is actually a symptom of a much broader problem in Western science, engineering and business, in general. To what extent is the entire construct of Western science and engineering a giant Ponzi scheme, in which Elon Musk is merely one of the largest of a great number of Capitalist Spiders at the center of an enormous web of corruption and incompetence? It is notable that the life expectancy of the average American has dropped from 80 to 76 in the last twenty years, while Russian life expectancy has risen from 64 to 73. So, why are we saying that Vladimir Putin is an incompetent, corrupt dictator, while American Presidents are noble, virtuous and brilliant in all things? Indeed, given that currently we are trying to put our last President in prison, why are we saying this, at all? Certainly, American engineers, doctors and scientists claim immense progress in all things. And, indeed, there have been certain developments and changes over the last few decades -- we all have cell phones, and we have more computer technology in automobiles. We have the GPS. Does the GPS represent an improvement over ordinary maps? Possibly. The GPS is often cited by physicists and engineers as an overwhelming proof of that greatest of all scientific theories, Einstein's theory of Relativity. This is because satellites tens of thousands of miles from earth, in zero or near zero gravity, show effects on the order of microseconds on the hour in the operation of atomic clocks. In other words, because gravity has very small effects on the operation of atomic clocks, this is proof positive that time itself has been distorted. Surely, there are potential confounds here? Many Nobel Prizes have been awarded to physicists for providing further "proof" of Relativity. Alfred Nobel was a great Swedish Capitalist who invented dynamite, and used the proceeds to fund the Nobel Prizes at his death. Why did he do this, exactly? Do we really have great scientific developments every year, regularly? Or, was Alfred Nobel simply trying to give the Swedish government the opportunity to control and influence precisely what technologies were most likely to be developed? In 1952, the first H-bomb was exploded. Limitless, inexpensive energy, for the taking. What happened? Massive regulation, test ban treaties, FBI enforcement so no one can possess more than a few pounds of Uranium. What do we have instead? Controlled Nuclear Fusion research. Endless research, forever, at huge expense, to create "harmless" nuclear energy. Isn't this a logical contradiction in terms? Are we on the wrong track, just possibly?

Why isn't gunpowder used as an energy and power source?

Gunpowder is incredibly inexpensive -- anyone can buy gunpowder for 35 cents a pound, and probably produce it on their own, for rather less. It's also an incredibly efficient source of energy -- a kilogram of gunpowder produces 3 million Joules of energy. That's almost 5000 horsepower. So, why isn't gunpowder ever used as a practical source of energy or power, other than for purely destructive purposes? Why isn't it used to heat homes, to power transportation systems, to send rockets into space?

What if Tamerlane the Great had never lived?

Tamerlane the Great, Timur the Lame, had precisely the kind of life and career that Adolf Hitler really wanted for himself. Tamerlane was the perfect killer -- he was "The Terminator". Tamerlane killed for fun, he killed for profit and he killed out of principle. Tamerlane could single-handedly wipe out several platoons of elite soldiers entirely on his own, he was invincible in single combat, enemy leaders would flee with their entire armies at the mere offer of single combat with Timur. He and his armies could, and did, exterminate hundreds of thousands of people in days. Tamerlane was vastly more efficient and systematic as a killer than the Mongols or the Huns ever were. You see, Timur was a brilliant scholar of Muslim Shariah Law, and he could see clearly that few if any Muslims actually were able to live up the high standards set by the Koran. So, he realized that it was his sacred duty as a pious Muslim to exterminate them all. Needless to say, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or, whatever, had to die as well. Timur's Empire encompassed Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, but, his campaigns stretched throughout Eurasia. He exterminated Russians, Poles, Mongols, Chinese, Indians, Egyptians, Syrians, Ottomans etc. And, it is in regard to this latter group that the main legacy of Timur -- other than significantly reducing the total size of the world's gene pool, of course -- is often thought to lie. True, all he really ever did was kill and steal, so his Empire collapsed instantly on his death, but, he also did something rather significant with regard to the Ottoman Empire, specifically. Timur crushed the Ottoman Turks so totally, that it actually took them half a century to recover. And, this may be quite significant from an historical point of view, because this probably delayed the conquest of Constantinople by half a century or so, and this delay may have been critical to the survival of Christian Western Europe. After all, Columbus discovered America just a few decades after the final Ottoman conquest of the Byzantine Empire, allowing the Ottomans to turn their energies West to the conquest of all of Europe. Without the wealth of the New World at their disposal, would the Christians of Europe have been able to resist the Ottomans? Wouldn't another half a century have been sufficient for the Ottoman Turks to have conquered all, or almost all of Western Europe? Quite possibly, it would have. On the other hand, we are assuming here a kind of "great man" model of world history. We are assuming that no "Columbus" could have occurred prior to the time that Columbus actually did discover America, OTL. In reality, Columbus was really following up the discoveries of Henry the Navigator of Portugal, who developed advanced shipping technologies for ocean travel in the Atlantic, in an effort to circumvent increasing Ottoman control of traditional European trade routes to India and China. If these pressures occur earlier, then we might well get an earlier Henry the Navigator, and an earlier Columbus. Hence, Timur's only impact in crushing the Ottoman Empire may have been delaying the discovery of America by fifty years, and its subsequent exploitation by Western Europeans. Thoughts?