When “Impossible” Isn’t: A Forensic Audit of the Feynman Analysis Channel’s Interstellar Travel Video

“Hey — I built a short online course, and I’m letting friends and family try it free before I open it to the public. I want honest feedback on clarity, pacing, and whether it fairly represents the opposing view. Can you spend 45 minutes this week, complete Module 1, and fill out a 5-minute feedback form? If you think something is weak or confusing, tell me. That helps. “Beta Tester Checklist” After Module 1, please send me: Where did you get confused (lesson name or timestamp)? What felt strongest, and why? What felt weakest or overstated, and why? Did the course represent the opposing view fairly (yes/no + example)? What should be shortened, removed, or rewritten? Would you recommend it to a friend (yes/no + why)? charles-mason-s-school1… https://charles-mason-s-school1.teachable.com/courses/enrolled/2938049

Edits: Picture, subscription post, randomness wrote 3 years ago .. ♥️ I'm going to ease back in before throwing up books on ya...

I need to start by talking about St. Matthew’s Island. In the 1940s, reindeer were introduced to St. Matthew’s Island as an emergency food source for the people manning the observation station on the island. There was a lot of lichen on the island, the primary food source of reindeer. The humans didn’t stick around long after world war 2, but researchers did check on the reindeer population from time to time. Initially, they were thriving. Their population increased rapidly, and they were healthy. After some time, they had spread across the island in massive numbers. The lichen was getting thin on the ground. By the 1980s, there were no more reindeer on St. Matthew’s Island. They starved to death after eating everything that could sustain them.

I need to start by talking about St. Matthew’s Island. In the 1940s, reindeer were introduced to St. Matthew’s Island as an emergency food source for the people manning the observation station on the island. There was a lot of lichen on the island, the primary food source of reindeer. The humans didn’t stick around long after world war 2, but researchers did check on the reindeer population from time to time. Initially, they were thriving. Their population increased rapidly, and they were healthy. After some time, they had spread across the island in massive numbers. The lichen was getting thin on the ground. By the 1980s, there were no more reindeer on St. Matthew’s Island. They starved to death after eating everything that could sustain them.

So what is DB? Design Biology or DB is my shorthand for this idea: biology looks less like an accident and more like an engineered system. It treats living things the way an investigator treats a complex artifact, by asking what the parts do, how the information is stored, and what it would take for the system to work at all. Here’s the outline of what I mean. Design Biology starts with the universe and the body. I believe the universe is ordered, lawful, and finely tuned for life. I also see the human body as an integrated, goal-directed system. It has interlocking subsystems, error-checking, repair, feedback control, and layered information storage. When I look at things like DNA coding, cellular machines, embryonic development, and the way organs coordinate, I see the same patterns we see in designed systems: codes, constraints, interfaces, and control loops.

FEP + DAQ Quick Protocol This protocol evaluates a paper’s claims, evidence, reasoning, and text signals. It is a forensic screen. It does not declare truth by tone, and it does not infer motives. 1. Intake Record the artifact details. Title, venue, date, version, and what text you are using. Lock the scope. State whether you are doing a text-only review or a full methods review. Create a trace rule. Every major judgment must cite a quoted passage or a cited source.

A first definition rubric with a preregistered test plan So, those of you who have been following my writing have seen my effort to reveal the truth about what Real Science is and what is just the false faith of the global institutions. Well, now I have another tool. As some of you know, I have been looking for Real Science. To that end, I created the Design Biology Forensic Evaluation Protocol and then refined it into the Forensic Evaluation Protocol to move beyond biology. So, here we are. I am now combining FEP with a Discourse Analytical Tool. You see, peer review often succeeds or fails on language. Reviewers were tasked with reviewing the claims, tone, certainty words, and how an author handles pushback. They also read the data and the methods. This article turns that “language sense” into a repeatable tool. It adds a discourse layer to FEP, making weak reasoning easier to spot and fix.

To give you a little history. I was seeking to create a system that would evaluate scientific papers so that I and others could better understand what was actually being said. So, I created Design Biology, but that was too narrow, so I created FEP, which stands for Forensic Evaluation Protocol. Then, of course, I began searching for papers to evaluate. Lo and behold, a paper that appears to be attempting the same tasks I was doing described a tool they were building. That is when I ran a full FEP evaluation, both negative and positive on the paper titled “Initiating 'discourse analysis' as a tool to differentiate between science and pseudoscience: Another valuable tool to advance objectivity and rigor in science (IJISRT, June 2024).[1] While I disagreed with parts of its framing, I saw real promise in the tool itself.

Subject Panel discussion moderated by Amy Harmon at World Science Festival on synthesizing human genomes (HGP-write context) Primary voices in the record George Church, Drew Endy, S. Matthew Liao (with New York University), Gregory Kaebnick (with The Hastings Center) 1. Executive summary Your transcript shows a classic “capability outruns governance” pattern. The scientific case presented is not “we can build a whole human tomorrow.” It is “we are driving costs down and scaling genome writing so that a platform will exist.” Once that platform exists, the panel agrees that the ethical surface expands fast: germline use, enhancement, coercion, inequality, and biosecurity.

How bird and bat deaths can ripple into insects, crops, and daily life Wind turbines kill birds and bats. That part is already in the public debate. What gets ignored is my next question: What happens after we remove insect-eaters from a landscape?

Direct answer: Early on, many biologists treated sugars on proteins and lipids as “decorations” because they were hard to map, hard to sequence, and hard to connect to a clear function. The core problem was technical and conceptual: glycans are structurally diverse, branched, and not template-encoded as DNA and proteins are, so the field felt messy and slow-moving. (ACS Publications)

No, not all atheists accept the evidence for evolution but since the two are closely tied in public discourse, here are some arguments!

“If you study science deep enough and long enough it will force you to believe in God” Lord William Kelvin So, Lord Kelvin, clearly a great scientist, believed in God and thought that science confirmed his belief. That’s something that gets trotted out from time to time. It’s one of many arguments that are often used by creationists to promote the idea that science and god are compatible. It’s also not an argument.

Hello, everyone, Dr. Mason. I came across a video titled "10 Hidden Laws of Game Theory That Control Your Life," which had 187,202 views on January 14, 2026. The channel is titled Your Brain on Glitch: The Secrets of Human Psychology. It starts off by saying…

Why Evolution in an Atheist Publication Right off the bat, you don’t need to accept the evidence for evolution to be an atheist and there are many religions who do accept evolution, most famously the Catholic church which believes that evolution is the mechanism God uses to create diversity in life.

What exactly is Botox, and what does it really do? Botox has become a household name, but there’s still plenty of confusion around how it works and what patients should realistically expect.

Today, let us strip away the "textbook" idealism and focus on the raw facts of the matter regarding how science actually functions in the real world, which reveals a much more grounded and sometimes grittier reality. Here is the truth about the scientific establishment, written to focus on the human and systemic mechanics that drive it.

I spent 30 days identifying birds using only sound, without relying on sight. At first, bird calls blended together and highlighted how dependent they were on visual cues. Over time, patterns like rhythm, pitch, and repetition became clearer, improving listening skills and confidence (with plenty of mistakes along the way). By the end, birds felt more present in daily life, teaching that careful listening can deepen birding skills, appreciation for common species, and overall connection to nature. 🐦

What Does Science Really Want: Truth or Useful Models? Before we talk about what science has found, we should know what it is trying to do. The standard definition of science is the methodical study of the natural world via observation and experimentation. That definition seems solid and well-known. But as we look into a lot of fields nowadays, especially those that look at deep time, complex systems, or indirect evidence, the border between observation and interpretation is not as clear. So, as we move into studying cosmology, origins research, artificial intelligence, and certain areas of theoretical physics, primarily rely on models that structure data rather than on experiments that can be replicated in controlled environments. This leads to a more fundamental inquiry: is the principal aim of research to uncover the true nature of reality, or to build models that sufficiently predict and control our observations?