Misconceptions About Relativity

There's a big misconception about the theory of relativity in physics.  It does NOT imply that absolutes don't exist.  It just implies that space isn't an absolute and time isn't an absolute.  Also, very importantly, it implies that the speed of light measured by an inertial observer in a vacuum IS an absolute.  There are other absolutes also, but I don't know them all that well and don't feel like going into them here.  Ask AI if you want to know them.  The point is NOT EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE even in this theory.  There's at least one thing that isn't.

But some people don't want to look into things that deeply.  Instead they hastily develop a class of thought based on the faulty premise that because certain things we previously believed to be absolute turned out otherwise, then nothing is absolute.  This is false.

Whether morality has no absolutes is technically still up for debate I guess, but moral relativists can't really use the scientific theory of relativity to back their claim, because that theory DOES claim absolutes, even if it sounds like it doesn't.

Quote From A Tree Grows In Brooklyn

"It would be considered beautiful except that there are too many of it."

I believe this quote is in an isolated spot on one of the pages before the actual start of the novel, if I recall correctly.  I love this quote because it sums up reality pretty well.  There are so many amazing things out there that our brains can't process it all or even detect it all.  A lot of beautiful stuff gets no attention as a result.  Kind of a shame, but there's not really anything we can do about it.

The Elephant in the Room - At Least With Modern-Day Christianity

Fornication.  Very prevalent.  Hardly ever mentioned.  How much is homosexuality mentioned in the Bible?  Maybe about five times?  Adultery and fornication are mentioned more.  Much, much more.  Probably a reason for that disparity in emphasis somewhere.  

Let's face it.  Fornication prior to marriage, or even as a substitute for marriage, is something most of us in this day and age have been guilty of at some point - even myself for a short time.  It has become extremely tolerated in the western world, and as a result I believe the church has softened its approach with it.  Especially because it's a fairly easy sin to keep hidden, despite how prevalent it is.  

Too bad other things are easier for churches to attack because they are much less prevalent and aren't quite so easy to hide.  I don't know of too many churches that openly say fornication is okay, but they sure don't go out of their way to condemn it either when other stuff is available to condemn.  Is it because too many church members would be offended that a sin they're much more likely to be committing is being called out?  Is it easier to simply pick on sins that they have no possibility of engaging in?  If that's the case, I can't imagine God being pleased with that.

I doubt that God is okay with rampant and uncommitted sleeping around, regardless of one's orientation.  As far as I know he has never been okay with it, and has always favored lifetime commitment in intimate relationships.  

Charles Steinmetz - A Guy You Probably Don't Know

I found out about a guy named Charles Steinmetz asking AI a question once.  I believe I asked who it was that first applied imaginary numbers to electrical engineering.  Very interesting.  It sounds like he's just one of the long list of many guys who profoundly influenced society in ways that most of us will never know.  It's a byproduct of specialization and industrialization I guess.  We can't all know the intimate details of every contribution in every field.

I've seen early group pictures of electrical engineers and Mr. Steinmetz stands out the most.  Even more than Albert Einstein in those pictures in terms of appearance.  It's because he had dwarfism.  It's nice to know that he was still able to receive recognition for his contributions even in those early days where prejudices against a perceived norm were a lot more rampant.  It seems he got in trouble more for his political beliefs than his physical stature.  From the miniscule bit I've read about him, I probably would have disagreed with him on some of those beliefs too.

Lawrence of Arabia, The Land of Oz, and the Insufficiency of Ideals

One of the really fun Rifftrax episodes is The Wonderful Land of Oz directed by Barry Mahon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EgY_Tzfn8g.  It's an awful film based on a book that was the first of many sequels written by the original Wizard of Oz author to the original Wizard of Oz book.  

A major plot point in the both the book and film is a young girl named General Jinjur leads a bunch of other young girls in overthrowing the Emerald City because they're tired of tedious chores like homework and babysitting.  But after their success, they run into problems they didn't expect.  None of the girls ever learned how to cook, so they have no food to eat.

Now we go from a very badly produced film to its exact opposite in Lawrence of Arabia, which is probably the longest movie I ever watched.  It was so long it took me two nights to watch it.  And I will probably never watch it again.  But I remember one thing from it quite vividly.  I remember the faction Lawrence fought so hard for struggling to build and maintain its infrastructure on its own, and British officials coming in and being outraged at how badly things like hospitals were being run.

So we see a commonality here.  You can be mad at how things are and fight against them and win, but what about the aftermath?  Can you do a better job overall than the group you're overthrowing?  If you can't, then what's the point?  Having decent ideals is good and all, but that alone isn't sufficient to run a government.  Just like being angry isn't enough to win a fight or pick up a heavy deadlift.  You have to have some sort of knowledge or experience and be willing to develop skills in more than just what you want to fight against.  It really is a tall order.  Not for the faint of heart.

Fraud Triangle Comparison to Sin Triangle

In one of my accounting classes, we learned about something called the fraud triangle, which I thought was a great theory.  It said for someone to execute fraud, they had to have all three of the following:

1) Incentive

2) Opportunity

3) Rationalization

So if someone wanted to steal, but never had the chance to, it wouldn't happen.  Or if they had a chance to, but couldn't make their conscience accept it as a viable option, it also wouldn't happen.  And of course, if they didn't want to, they wouldn't even pursue it to begin with.

Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to put this triangle idea in Bible classes as a constructive theory behind the concept of sin.  I've always felt that Biblical doctrine was a great way to provide the rationalization necessary to protect against the act of committing a sin, even when there was both the opportunity and a desire to engage in it.

A sin triangle also works because sin looks like a trigonometric function to begin with.

New National Anthem?

If we ever get a chance to select a new national anthem, I'd vote for Hulk Hogan's Real American entrance music when he was in the WWF that was performed by Rick Derringer.  I listened to it countless times over the years watching old wrestling tapes and YouTube videos, and to this day I still feel a sense of pride in the country when I hear it, and visualize the great land that America was always intended to be, where righteousness for all is consistently pursued.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lZDgGr1PO0&list=RD9lZDgGr1PO0&start_radio=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPO5lbFnulE&list=OLAK5uy_keN9V6A6Txc98L-QGKWnCohmOTHLHkycU&index=11