Why Evolution Vs. Creationism Isn't a Big Deal

When I first came upon the idea that light travels at the same speed no matter how fast you are uniformly traveling, I thought it was complete nonsense.  Worse than I thought the study of cardinality was.  Only this time, there was hard scientific evidence that this constant observed speed of light was true.  It wasn't just a thought in someone's mind. 


As futile as the task seemed, I sought to disprove the evidence for light's constant speed for a good solid amount of time before gradually coming to accept the truth of the evidence through personal library book research.  But even though I accept it now, and special relativity was derived to explain how it can happen, it still shocks me to no end.  And since then even crazier scientific truths have been found that still haven't been explained from what I've been told. 


The double slit experiment with electrons comes to mind.  You want to talk about tough to explain natural phenomena?  That's it right there.  That is much, much crazier than BOTH evolution AND creationism being 100% true.  No matter how much those two ideas contradict each other, they still don't contradict each other as much as the one observation made in the double slit experiment with electrons contradicts itself.  And no one, including me, has any reason to question the validity of the experiment.  It's true, true, true as something can be.  But it makes less sense than any fantasy the human mind can create. 


So if reality is capable of contradicting itself that much, evolutionism and creationism being able to coexist in the realm of truth is nothing in comparison. 

Wave-Particle Duality and Smearing

The other day, I thought that matter may perhaps not be confined to particles with a hard edge.  Maybe electrons are more in the form of a 3-D smear instead of a 3-D sphere.  I think that would explain why they have to be located statistically rather than through plain old extrapolation of the classical rules of physics.  And the faster they move, the more they smear.  In some ways a smear may resemble a wave.  Maybe not in all ways, but some.  I like the idea of  a smear more than a string anyway.  I think it makes more intuitive sense.  Also it brings back the old debate about whether matter is continuous and infinitely divisible or not.  Too bad this is just speculation and not a true mathematical model or real life experiment.

Characterism

If I recall correctly, I believe Martin Luther King Jr. stated his wish for a place where a man could be judged by the content of his character.  I guess somebody somewhere would say he had a bigoted viewpoint because he condoned a form of judging.  Rather than being a racist, he was a characterist.  He advocated favorable treatment of those who had good character.  I wish everybody was a characterist.  But sadly, characterism seems to be frowned upon.  I think many people may actually equate it with racism.  What a sad mindset that is.

Easiest Way To Prove Primes Are Infinite

This may be more of an implication than a proof, but I think it's worth sharing because it's so easy to do and may provide a potentially useful algorithm.  Certainly much easier than understanding the traditional proof of the infinitude of the primes in my opinion.

I call it counting by primes.  Was I the first to invent it?  Who knows.

Start with 2 and 3.  Call 2 by the name P1 and 3 by the name P2.

Multiply P1 and P2 in all possible combinations including repetition up to powers of 2.  So you have everything from P1^0 times P2^0 all the way up to P1^2 times P2^2.

So in this case you'd have a combination of numbers like 1 x 2 = 2, 2 x 2 = 4, 3 x 2 = 6, etc.

Look at all the primes you have and all the composites you've generated with those primes.  Generate an entire list, eliminating duplicates.  When you've generated a list, you may see several gaps in between the numbers.  Find the gap in between the lowest values.  In this case, it should be the gap between 4 and 6.  What's the value of the lowest missing number in this gap?  It's 5.  Call 5 by the name P3.

Multiply P1, P2, and P3 in all possible combinations including repetition up to powers of 3.

Look at all the primes you have and all the composites you've generated with those primes (not just in this most recent step, but in all steps of the algorithm thus far).  Generate an entire list, eliminating duplicates.  When you've generated a list, you may see several gaps in between the numbers.  Find the gap in between the lowest values.  In this case, it should be the gap between 6 and 8.  What's the value of the lowest missing number in this gap?  It's 7.  Call 7 by the name P4.

Multiply P1, P2, P3 and P4 in all possible combinations including repetition up to powers of 4.

Wash, rinse, repeat, as I've heard the gamer Aqualung say.  You'll find out that there's nothing to keep you from doing this forever, since even if there was no gap in the list, you could just pick the lowest number you haven't used yet as PN.

If there are typos here, or I messed something up, feel free to criticize.  But I think you can get the general idea and that's what is important.  Perhaps there's a flaw in the idea, but I don't see it.  I'm definitely not the best mathematician.  I remind myself of Winnie-the-Pooh.  A bear of very little brain, but darnit, he likes to try and think.  By the way, did you know Winnie-the-Pooh was created by a guy with a degree in mathematics?

Walt Disney Variation

Walt Disney is quoted as saying, "If we can dream it, we can do it."  I agree.  But I'd also like to add, "Dreaming it is more fun than doing it."  A lot of things you dream about doing are a real pain in the behind to accomplish.  So much so that at times you may be tempted to just live in your imagination and not actually fulfill your dream.  This isn't always a bad thing.

How Should One Work?

Whether somebody is born rich or poor, probably the best option for the person to earn respect would be to work and spend like he was born poor.  Then it doesn't really matter how much money the person has, and the poor can't really be envious of the rich.  If you pull your own weight, someone can't accuse you of inequality.  You're simply doing the best you have with what you were given.

A Kinetic Future

Most people wouldn't think it, but I believe our future may consist of a lot more energy stemming from physical activity.  For centuries we've tried to find a way to make things physically easier, so that just pushing a button can accomplish most activities.  Now we actually have people who make themselves do work, not for the sake of work, but to burn off all the fat they have stored from not working in the first place.  Why not put that energy to good use and make TVs, computers, and other electrical appliances derive their energy from kinetic sources?  It keeps people thin and conserves non-renewable resources as well.  I mean, if you can operate your computer with a hand crank, then who needs electricity?