Errors in E=mc2

Posted: 14th August 2010 by Jonathan Plumb in Science
0

Recently I read about a highly advanced experiment to test Einstein’s formula of E=mc2. (http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4057451/Wise-guy-tests-confirm-Einstein-s-formula-correct). The scientists concluded that Einstein’s formula is correct as they calculated several tests within 0.0000004 of Einstein’s formula.

Although I agree that Einstein was genius, I believe he was only a stepping-stone to true knowledge. His ideas should only be used as a model for future models, not as THE model of truth. In all good faith, I cannot say that if 1+1=2, then 1+1=2(+/-)0.0000006. That is simply not true no matter how much you look at it. The laws of physics would not be based on close approximates, but on exacts.

Other parts of the theory of relativity, namely redshifts, also seem to punch holes in a lot of things. Redshifts would imply that light travels at different speeds, although scientists are adamant that light always travels at the same speed. They say that the reason light travels slower in a medium is because it travels at a constant speed from atom to atom, but each atom may process and re-emit that photon slower than other. However, there is no actual evidence that atoms absorb photons at all and is purely speculation created to fill in a big blank that was unsolvable. Of course, after science invented an answer, the solution seemed to make more sense, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the answer was correct. The problem also lies directly with redshifts. Since there is almost no atoms in space, it wouldn’t make sense that light would slow down anyways (redshifts), let alone speed up for some odd reason (blueshifts). I’ve read people try to explain the shifts as a change in wavelength as a whole, not a change in speed. Unfortunately, this doesn’t answer the problem, because if a wave is at the top or bottom of the EM range, then what happens to it when it shifts? The answer science is trying to give just makes more questions.

I once posted on a physics forum (of which I was banned as a ‘crackpot’ for suggesting that the Big Bang might not be the actual model for how our universe began) the question: 1 + X = 5. Solve for X. Of course everyone responded with ’4′ and called me a moron for not knowing, etc. But to me, 4 may not be the answer. Our brains like to fill in the blank, but what if there’s more to it? What if the actual problem was 1+2+5+3-8+2=5? Obviously the end-result is still 5, but there was a lot more involved in getting to 5 this time, and NOWHERE in that problem was the number ’4′ even mentioned once. If ’4′ was really the answer, then maybe if we melt Platinum and Mercury together in a pot, we’ll get Gold (pun!). In this case, ’4′ is not  the answer but still remains the most logical choice. Of course we can take all of the last-half of that and merge it into ’4′ and it becomes 1+4=5, but that’s through the process of simplification, which any scientist or mathematician knows you can actually literally lose data when simplifying. Another example of proving my point is problems in which 2 answers are possible, but only 1 is acceptable. 16=X^2. X = 4. This is correct, but X can also be -4. This means there’s more than one possibility. Obviously the formula E=mc2 implies that the speed of light can also be negative to get the same solution. Can light travel negatively? There’s just a whole lot more questions that seem to arise.

The whole point of this article is to prove that 0.0000004 does NOT equal 0. Therefore, if any, I repeat: ANY, discrepancy is found in E=mc2, then the formula is NOT correct and needs to be re-written. I think the true problem comes into play when nobody on Earth is as smart as Einstein was and so nobody could possibly come up with a different formula. Not only that, but if someone came up with something different, it would crash the world of physics.

Restrictive Legislation

Posted: 12th August 2010 by Jonathan Plumb in Politics
0

Yet another topic that came up in my American Government class had to do with the government bureaucracy and their role in legislation and passing laws and restrictions. The debate started with the question of whether or not we felt that the reorganization of the bureaucracy to create the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was a good or bad idea, and do we feel that DHS has live up to its name and done what it was created to do?

This is interesting and the class had mixed feelings. Some felt that the creation was not necessary because all of the roles that DHS was created to do were already existing roles of several agencies already in existence. Others disagreed with this notion either because they felt those roles weren’t already covered or they felt that those organizations had so many other roles that they could hardly live up to the expectations of those specific roles.

My opinion is that the organization of DHS was completely unnecessary. First of all, all of the roles of DHS are clearly already roles that other agencies perform. Even with the creation of DHS, those other agencies still have the power to act on most of what DHS does anyways. If the other agencies were not performing their duties as expected, then a reform in that agency seems to be a more appropriate action, especially because by leaving those agencies untouched, the same errors could be repeated by those agencies in the future. If those agencies are reporting inaccurate data, then the data given would be contrary to the data provided by DHS thus creation confusion among the ranks, etc.

Let’s say you own a mansion. You have hired Team A to manage the grounds, including granting or denying persons access to the grounds. You have also hired Team B which is responsible for the mansion itself, keeping it clean and safe, etc. Now let’s say that someone comes into the grounds claiming to be somebody that would normally have access to the grounds (say, an electrician), then that person enters your house and begins planting a bomb in your electrical systems and then detonates the bomb killing several people of Team B and himself. Would you:

A) Fire your teams and rehire
B) Hire additional support for your teams
C) Hire Team C that now has the ability to do the work of both Team A and Team B

Let’s start with C. If you choose C, then the people that are in Teams A and B might seem like they’ve been replaced and slack off on the job. Now you’re paying those people full pay for half the effort. If you went with choice B, you may have a similar result. More people for the same job means less work per person. The original people will feel like the work load has been reduced and will begin getting complacent.

The best choice should be A. With A, those responsible for the failure in security have been dealt with and new personnel will now have the ability to do a better job than those before them. There will be no complacency or half-work. Anyone who slacks off is terminated and a new person is hired. This is clearly the ideal solution.

Now why can’t the government do this? Why do they have to hire Team C to step on Teams A and B? I can understand the desire to create jobs, especially if the unemployment rate is high, but this is not the economical choice for doing that. I’m sure with all the rocket scientists behind those fancy chairs, someone has the brain to think of something better.

Anyways, the debate then went on to restrictions being placed on us due mainly to the results of 9/11, etc. In my opinion, the amount of restrictions being placed on us has gotten out of control. People like to defend all the massive legislation by saying “well what if….” Here’s what I have to say:

In my experience in the Infantry, we never train for “what-ifs” because if you did you’d spend an eternity on a single problem. Not only would you spend forever training for the different outcomes of a single scenario, but when you actually encounter the scenario if it doesn’t go in one of the ways that you trained for (which it NEVER does), then: A) nobody knows what to do and B) it sure was a waste of time trying to consider every “what-if.”

Instead what we do is tackle each scenario as if they would go smoothly. After we have mastered a tactical scenario (or battle drill, as we call them), then we also train for contingency plans, such as what to do if a soldier is wounded, what to do if you run out of ammo or jam, how to handle prisoners, etc, that way those smaller contingency plans can be applied to any of the tactical scenarios in the same manner.

The only thing that comes out of “what-ifs” is an endless debate of scenarios and an endless amount of legislation that restricts our every “free” action.

Let me ask you a question: why should 312 million people be restricted of their free actions because of the actions of a few people? As I have clearly experienced, and hopefully you have experienced at some point in your own personal life, things NEVER go according to plan. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have any laws or restrictions, but laws or restrictions placed on an entire population that are meant to restrict the actions of a few (at the most, few hundred) people seems to be a poor law or restriction. Instead, why not focus your efforts on finding ways to single out those few people so you can simply stop them from committing their evil deeds?

That, my friends, would be the true challenge.

Brain Power

Posted: 8th August 2010 by Jonathan Plumb in Religion
1

I lay awake just the other night wondering how our body, mainly our brain, works. I was thinking about how scientists attempt to discover what our brain is doing by attaching tons of sensors to our head that detect the energy moving in our skull. I began thinking of the efficiency of doing so and started comparing it to a computer. Computers are, of course, man-made, yet could we discover what a computer is doing simply by using sensors? Could we wrap a computer up into a skull-like case and attach tons of sensors on the outside and determine what exactly the computer does? I am not sure the exact level of our technology, but I’m not sure if we could even unravel the secrets to our own creations, let alone the secrets to God’s creations.

I started focusing on the hard drive of the computer. The hard drive stores data, much like our brain stores memories. But in pondering, I ran into a problem. A hard drive runs out of space, and fairly quickly in most cases. Even with the advances of technology, hard drives still serve as a huge limiting factor in the advance of our technology. I tried thinking of how efficient hard drives could be fifty years down the road and it seems to me that eventually we will get to a point where hard drives literally cannot hold any more data. Think about it, once we are able to store data at the atomic level, there really isn’t anything smaller (that we know of) and so once we reach that point, hard drives would reach capacity. At that point in time, in order to store more information we would have to make the hard drive larger in dimensions. If we apply this concept to our brains we make an interesting discovery:

Our brains only have limited space, yet our eternal learning and capacity is infinite, therefore our brains are not the hard drives of our body.

If our brains are not the hard drive of our body, what are our brains for? I imagine our brains are merely the manager of our body. It controls all of the bodily functions and also acts as a wireless transmitter to our hard drives.

So what or where are our hard drives? In a previous article “Spirit Planets” (http://www.jonathanplumb.com/2010/spirit-planets/), I briefly mention that every spirit ever created also has a planet that is created. The creation of the spirit may be a byproduct of the creation of a planet, or vice versa. It could very well be that these planets act as the hard drive for our mind, since the planet is a direct result of the creation of our spirit. Consider the size difference between a hard drive and a planet, and also consider storing data at the atomic level. A planet would have the ability to store nearly infinite data.

What happens if our planet fills up? In the concept of “infinite learning,” it would make sense that limiting our learning to the capacity of a single planet would defeat the purpose of “infinite.” To remedy this, we find the answer as to why God creates countless worlds. He creates these worlds to increase His own infinite knowledge and understanding.

Yet another crazy idea, but can maybe make our minds contemplate things outside-of-the-box, which ultimately could lead us to a fuller understanding of how God actually works.

Spirit Planets

Posted: 8th August 2010 by Jonathan Plumb in Religion
1

Have you ever read any ancient creation myths? Such myths could be Babylonian, Greek, or others. An interesting thing is that all of them share similar ideology. Many of them share similar aspects of the Christian Bible as well, yet the Christian creation story seems to start at the end of all other creation myths. One interesting small point that is mentioned in almost all of them is that the planets in our solar system generally represent some of the great gods. Some of the myths even go into naming planets that we have no knowledge of after some gods as well. The Egyptians worshipped gods that were representative of the sun, the moon, and stars. Why would these myths all share something so strange? As well, why would several of these people associated with the myths have stories of the gods that were planets also at some point in time residing as a man with them? I think the answer is simple: gods are planets.

Now I don’t mean that gods are literally planets, but I do mean that for every god that is born a planet is born. If we consider several mentions in the Christian Bible of man being gods, then it follows that for every spirit that has ever lived on this planet there also exists a planet in the universe that is representative of that spirit. The number of planets is limitless, as the number of people that have or will live on this planet is only a fraction of the number of spirits that God has created.

The idea is outrageous, but is just another thought that crossed my mind while performing various aspects of religious and historical research. This idea can make our minds reach into depths that have never-before been explored. Enjoy.

Protected: Drifters: Episode V

Posted: 30th July 2010 by Jonathan Plumb in Drifters
Enter your password to view comments.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


Protected: Drifters: Episode IV

Posted: 29th July 2010 by Jonathan Plumb in Drifters
Enter your password to view comments.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


Protected: Drifters: Episode III

Posted: 29th July 2010 by Jonathan Plumb in Drifters
Enter your password to view comments.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


Protected: Drifters: Episode II

Posted: 29th July 2010 by Jonathan Plumb in Drifters
Enter your password to view comments.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


Protected: Drifters: Episode I

Posted: 29th July 2010 by Jonathan Plumb in Drifters
Enter your password to view comments.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


Parties, The Bane of Our Nation

Posted: 29th July 2010 by Jonathan Plumb in Politics
0

In my American Government class we had a section recently on the two-party system in American Politics (Democrats and Republicans). This section discussed the history of the two-party system back to the first elections. In light of further understanding, I have concluded that the two-party system is a bane to our nation and the cause for such a division in our system of unity. George Washington spoke countless times against the two-party system (quotes can be found at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington). In-fact, many people today oppose the two-party system but are unwilling to change simply because the two-party system is like a tradition now. Unfortunately, the longer we continue this system the harder it will be to change down the road.

Almost every election since the the early 1920s has been nearly equally divided on Presidential elections (with the exceptional land-slide victory, generally a result of major economic or international affairs at the time of the election). It makes one question how the President can possibly lead such a country. Imagine for a moment that you are assigned to lead a group of 9 men (10 including yourself). Within those ten men are four that strongly disagree with almost everything you stand for, 3 that strongly support your every action, and 2 that could care less and just want to get the job done. Now let’s say you need to entrust a very important task to be carried out while you are away for business. Who are you going to choose to do this task? Obviously you would choose one of the 3 that support you! However, this causes another problem. Not only was there 4 that hated you (yet grudgingly followed you), but now those 4 are forced to follow a person that they don’t even consider worthy of such leadership. Small issues like this continue to arise until finally there is a vote to replace you. Since there are 4 that are like you and 4 that are not, the vote comes back a 50/50 split and is left to the 2 undecideds to determine who the new leader is. Unfortunately it really doesn’t matter who they choose, because the exact same problems are going to arise whether someone from your side or someone from their side is elected, and unfortunately for the 2 that don’t care, neither of them ever stand a chance at being a leader because they aren’t aligned with either of the majority groups.

This is a clear example of how our current system works. It pits citizens of our own country against each other. It is understandable that citizens will have different opinions on matters and that a matter that is as simple as “yes/no” could easily be a 50/50 split, however very few issues are as cut-and-dry as “yes/no” which should imply that countless parties should exist. Unfortunately the way our system works, a person has to choose which party he or she thinks bests represents them, even if that representation has a lot of views completely contrary to that person’s personal beliefs.

So what is the solution to such a corrupt system? In my opinion the solution is fairly similar to the current system, but with the elimination of the party affiliation. If a Presidential election is coming up, we should see hundreds of candidates on the first list that should reflect the ideals of several groups of people around the country (nominees would come from larger political or religious groups that have the ability to suggest which person of their belief-structure would best represent them). A nation-wide vote should narrow that list down to maybe 10. After that, groups that had previously devoted campaign funds to one of the 90 that were cut out have the opportunity to choose which of the 10 they most desire. After that another vote breaks down the candidates to the top 3. Again, groups choose which of the 3 they wish to support. A final election decides which one becomes the President.

In addition to the above, a candidate does not win by simply having the majority of the vote. A candidate must obtain 65% or more of the popular vote to become elected. If a candidate does not obtain this number, then the previous President remains elected until a new President is able to achieve 65% or higher (re-votes could be cast monthly, quarterly, or some other form of reasonable time for new campaign adjustments by candidates). This effectively eliminates having half a country that does not want to follow the leader (and if the current President is terrible, then the country better-as-heck unite and elect a new President).

My solution definitely has some kinks, but all could be worked out by groups of educated professionals that can find the flaws in such a system and perfect it. Although it is a great idea, I am probably just writing a ton of words for nothing. As mentioned before, this country is not a country of change, but a country of tradition.

Older Entries