Tuesday, January 17, 2017
What do I mean by a conservation of life? Since the key to quantum physics (subatomic realm) is 1. Symmetry and 2. Twelve Laws of Conservation, then why can’t we make the same hypothesis with Life in our reality? Like an electron pair, each human or living organism has an equal but opposite living organism located someone in our world or universe (or maybe even an equal but opposite group of organisms). There are hundreds of variables that make up the human persona. For instance, I like to classify humans in terms of “usefulness”. What makes up “usefulness”? Goodness (Saint, Evil), Accountability (unaccountable), Reliable (unreliable), Honest (dishonest) Intellect (High IQ, Low IQ, Anti-High IQ, Anti-Low IQ), Wealth (Rich, Poor, Anti-Rich, Anti-Poor), and so forth. A useful person is one that is good, reliable, accountable, and honest. A useful person can be smart or have a low IQ (anti-low IQ). A useful person can be rich or poor (anti-poor). For instance, a smart person can use their intellect (anti-high IQ) and their wealth for evil (anti-rich). On the contrary, a poorer person with a lesser IQ may not have money and intelligence, but they can still be good, honest, reliable, accountable and useful (anti-low IQ and anti-poor). Since people with high intellect and wealth have the most opportunity to be useful through creating jobs, donating to charities, and formulating companies / charities, then if someone with wealth and intellect does not follow this trend I call them anti-rich and anti-high IQ. Conversely, useful people without the means of intellect and wealth are called anti-poor and anti-low IQ. All elements of life (usefulness) are conserved. My view of conservation is not like it is in science such as the conservation of mass-energy (one of the same). Conservation of mass-energy says the amount of mass-energy in the universe is conserved or always remains the same. I see life and all of its usefulness variables fitting on a probability density curve (the symmetrical bell curve). For instance, when a teacher grades on bell curve he or she may hand out a few A’s and F’s, a few more B’s and D’s and even more C’s. Likewise, a bell-curve for intellect (IQ) would have an equal number of populations above and below the global or universal median average. Most of the population would be located between +/- 1 standard deviation of the median average (68% of the population exists in this region - these are the C’s in the teacher example). The population will go down steadily between +/- 2 standard deviations (28% - B’s and D’s in the teacher example) and only about 4% of the population will have an intellect that is +/- 3 standard deviations (A’s and F’s in the teacher example). Outside of +/- 3 standard deviations approximately 0.2% of all people exist. For example, the average median IQ is about 100 and each standard deviation is about +/- 15. Hence, the first standard deviation lies from 85 to 115, the second deviation lies from 70 to 85 and 115 to 130, and the third standard deviation lies from 55 to 70 and 130 to 145. The bell curve is also useful to measure personal wealth and it can also be used to plot the global population for goodness, accountability, reliability, and honesty. For instance, most people may be good but a smaller group of people may be evil or saints (the 3rd standard deviation). The population will vary incrementally from Evil to Saint in terms of Goodness. Conservation of wealth, intellect, and usefulness is to maintain a certain median average. Once the average changes or the bell curve skews to the right or left, chaos is created in our life system and events occur to correct it so life is conserved. It is possible to say for instance that the average median income can rise faster (adjusted for inflation) over time, but that may be offset by the fact that more wealth was earned through illegal means or is being used for bad intentions (evil). These events are reactions to every choice we make (free will). The events can be small or big, they can be organized or chaotic. People can react to your blog or conversation both negatively and positively. An event can be life or death. Global chaos events can be demonstrated by terrorism or war and even by natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis. Free will decisions cause universal events which continue non-stop throughout the universe to conserve life. Our decisions (free will) may discriminate, but I do not believe that universal events reacting to these decisions discriminate by ethnicity, gender, or even form of live (human, animal, or plant). I always lived by the rule that it was the job of every human being to improve themselves over the course of their lives. Suppose that I am achieving that goal and I am becoming a better person. I am more useful in the universe because I am helping others. For example, suppose I help pull someone out of poverty so they can be more useful to their family. However, that means somewhere in the universe some living thing is doing worse and becoming less useful. Life and usefulness is conserved.
Saturday, January 14, 2017
To understand the inner workings of the universe we must first understand some basic concepts in quantum mechanics. Light has been proven to act like both a particle (photon) and a wave. This was proven in Young’s double slit experiment. When light goes through a slit (the width of the slit is smaller than the wavelength of light) the results are measured on photonic plates behind the slit. Light diffraction causes a circular shape to form on the photonic plates (when photons displace an electron it leaves a mark on photonic plates). When a second slit is added parallel to the first slit, light not only diffracts but it interferes with each other leaving an impression on the photonic plates of lines with nothing in between. This is analogous to dropping two rocks into a calm water and watching the waves interfere with each other. This proved that light acts like a wave. The interesting thing that was discovered is if only one photon at a time is released by the light source. When the photon goes through one slit the result is as expected, it diffracts and lands anywhere in the circular pattern. When the second slit is added and the photon goes through the same slit, but it only lands in areas (line pattern) that are allowed by the two slit experiment. How does light know the second slit was opened up (no light photons went through the second slit)? Apparently light can process information like a living organism. This is remarkable and maybe light holds the key to understanding our universe and how it behaves. Electrons travel as pairs with opposite spin and direction. What happens if we release an electron pair with one going right and the other one travelling left goes through a magnetic field which it changes it spin and alters it direction of travel? Instantaneously the electron traveling right will change its spin and direction of travel to correspond to its counterpart’s opposite. In fact, electron pairs travelling at vastly different locations in the universe will instantaneously alter its direction and spin to the opposite of its pair. Even if information between the electrons could be transmitted at the speed of light (186,000 miles/second – we just proved that light can process information), it could take hours for a signal to reach the other electron pair in a different location in the universe (nothing in the universe travels faster than light). So how do electrons instantaneously change to maintain a conservation of spin and direction? We do not know the answers to these riddles, but we can surmise that everything in the universe is interconnected somehow. Every action has a corresponding response somewhere else and that response elicits another response and so on. It is like the “butterfly effect”, where a butterfly flapping its wings causes a tsunami on the other side of the world through a series of events. Some physicists have come up with some pretty bizarre theories to account for our universe riddles such as the “multiple worlds” theory. The “multiple worlds” theory states there are an infinite number of universes to cover every possible situation of our lives. In one world I am writing this blog, in another world I am sleeping, in another world I am eating, and so forth and so on. This certainly makes sense if we have no control over our decisions – no free will. But what if we have control of our decisions (free will) and the universe reacts to our decisions? Is there any way to explain our reality? Right now nothing makes much sense. I have my own theory, but physicists would probably debunk it: What if there is a conservation of life in our reality?
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Having a chronic neurological disorder (Cramp Fasciculation Syndrome - CFS) is not easy to contend with, even if it is benign and will not kill me. Every day I remind myself how lucky I am not to have something more sinister like ALS, MS, or Parkinson’s disease. Unfortunately, when I am confined to laying down over 14 hours a day; when a good day is one with diarrhea and not being constipated (IBS seems to one of symptoms); and the fact I cannot do activities I enjoy, it is hard not to get depressed from time to time. Since I can no longer rock climb, hike, mountaineer, or wrestle anymore due to limitations and safety concerns over my hands and feet, I have turned to cycling. To my surprise I am very fast on a bike and do well at time trialing but struggle a bit at other types of cycling races (mass starts) like road races and criteriums. I fail to have the confidence in my bike handling abilities due to paresthesia in my hands when riding in close proximity to other riders. However, time trials are ideal for me since I am not riding in big crowds; races are shorter (less concern over cramping and spasms); bike handling skills are generally not as difficult; and riding on aero bars puts much less pressure on my hands and does not make my paresthesia symptoms worse. I work out hard just about every day (I have some rest days) even though I do not feel like working out at all. Once I start exercising or competing, I can push myself to high levels of pain I have not felt before. In a few races my vision became blurred and my depth perception was compromised. What was happening is that my legs were so oxygen deprived that my body, as a defense mechanism, transferred blood from my brain to my legs. That is crazy. I can generate well over 300 watts while elevating my heart rate at over 95% of its maximum rate for an hour (Not too bad for anyone that is 52 years old). This type of intensity is an amazing amount of stress on the body (on top of the CFS). Needless to say this has led to more pain and the need for more rest after workouts. I figure if I need more rest because I am in a great deal of pain already from a neurological disorder then I may as well give my body a reason for being in pain. There is definitely a difference between good pain and bad pain. Despite a great deal of success on the bike that would make almost anyone giddy, it is hard to enjoy it when you are in constant pain. I should be happy, but I find myself more depressed than happy (but less depressed if I were not biking). Part of the problem is that I am never satisfied with my effort, I always feel I can do better. Hence, that leads to more difficult training and more pain – why do I create such a vicious cycle of events? There is no easy answer to this question. First, like I said earlier, if I am going to be pain then I may as well work as hard as I can to try to mask the bad pain with good pain. Second, there is always a fear of having something more sinister – my workouts prove that I am free of deadly disorders. Third, you only live once so you got to make the most with the cards you have been dealt. Fourth, I live under the philosophy that people should work hard throughout their lives to improve themselves to not only be a better person, but to excel at what you choose to do. In five years from now I do not want to regret not finding out how good I can cycle. Fifth, I would be more depressed if I did not exercise. I am not sure how I am accomplishing what I have to date. I am amazed and will like to see how good I can get as long as my conditions allows me to do it. If anyone is interested, here are a few of my unique training tips for increased good pain and less depression and a fast time trial (TT): Shorter more intense workouts. Less endurance and more power (less likely to have cramps and spasms). Long hill repeats over shorter interval workouts. Less speed and more power. Hypoglycemic workouts (short, but hard morning workouts on just water before eating). I believe this helps improve endurance and speed and gives me a better understanding of my body and its propensity to get spasms and cramps. Lots of rest throughout the day after workouts (even though it is depressing). Lots of stretching and flexibility exercises. Ride by yourself (for TT focus). This makes your workout complete without having to draft off another rider. Ride in a big gear going uphill with a slower cadence. This resistance builds strength and power. Lots of strength training (including the upper body – I think this is overlooked by cyclists). I am not necessarily looking at trying to add muscle mass (more weight to cyclist is not a good thing), but maintaining both a strong lower and upper body. Morning workouts over afternoon or evening workouts when the body is fresher (I feel more pain later in the day than in the beginning regardless if I have worked out or not). The goal is to get the body accustomed to feeling lots of pain. Painful workouts leads to pushing through pain when racing. Depression from a neurological disorder is difficult to deal with. And hard exercise may make pain increase and the amount of time spent laying down go up. But without a goal or something to drive you physically, I am sure I would be much more depressed without cycling. When and if cycling becomes too difficult to do due to CFS symptoms, maybe I will try my hand at swimming.
Friday, January 6, 2017
Consider the media and liberal hypocrisy when it comes to Russia. The media was elated about Clinton’s “Reset” with Russian relations. The media did not scrutinize Obama when he was caught on a hot microphone saying “he will have more leeway after the election” when discussing nuclear disarmament with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. This type of diplomacy was given high marks in every liberal outlet. Face it, Democrats have been soft on Russia for decades and now all the sudden they are hardliners only because Russia’s “evil actions” affected them directly (that is hypocrisy). And let’s not forget there is not anywhere near 100% consensus that Russia was part of the Wikileaks hack and or what their intention was. Now these same liberal outlets are critical of Trump and his selection of Secretary of State (Rex Tillerson) for wanting to create a diplomatic relationship with Russia. And according to liberals the Tillerson selection is of course further proof that Trump worked with Putin to hack Democratic email accounts. At the same time, these same liberal newspapers continue to give Obama high marks for his diplomacy with Cuba and Iran. What did America receive from these deals with Cuba and Iran? Nothing! We have given credence to two of the most rogue regimes in the world who sponsor terrorism and civil rights violations for nothing. Why is this diplomacy acceptable but diplomacy with Russia is not? If Trump legitimizes Russia that will not be good, but let us see how the diplomacy plays out and what type of deal is made before criticizing it. Tillerson had to have good relationships with governments he dealt with as a business executive. That was his job as CEO of Exxon. How else are you going to win business? Tillerson’s cozy relationships with adversaries will be balanced by hardliner John Bolton as his deputy. It will be interesting to see how that works: An outsider and an insider. The fifth complaint about the Trump cabinet is that it is too oil friendly. Rex Tillerson, Scott Pruitt, and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry will promote oil and coal as viable energy sources, but they will not discriminate against renewable energies as liberals suggest. They will promote an energy policy that will be inclusive of all viable sources. The sixth complaint about the Trump cabinet is that it is full of racists. This has to be some of the biggest “Fake News” being published. Attorney General nominee, Jeff Sessions, is not a racist. A few Senators during the confirmation process will bring up a statement from 30 years ago which was a bad joke and it cost Session’s the attorney general job in Alabama. Sessions’ record fighting for civil liberties in Alabama is a strong one. Steve Bannon who will be one of Trump’s top advisors is a not a white supremacist. His former media business “Breitbart” published some controversial articles. Bannon did not write the articles as many would lead you to believe (free speech). Why wasn’t the media concerned about Obama’s ties to hateful persons such as Jeramiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan or criminals such as Tony Rezco or Bill Ayers? Not only did these Obama associations say hateful things, they acted on them. Democrats have a history of protecting KKK members in their Party such as Hugo Black and Robert Byrd. Now they want to act all high and mighty. If the media treated Obama and Democrats with the same scrutiny as Sessions and Bannon, Obama would have never become President. What’s worse, liberals and the media are painting any Trump supporter as being deplorable racists, sexists, and bigots. Well, conservatives can easily make the same polarizing conclusions about Obama and Clinton supporters based on their associations and hateful words. Very few media outlets questioned Obama’s agenda in the White House when he riled up race relations in this country by constantly pointing out White on Black or Blue on Black crimes (and most were not crimes since the accused were exonerated). Obama never mentions Black on Black crime or Hispanic crimes. Now race relations and crime is at 50 year extremes in our country. How is this any worse than what Sessions or Bannon did? They did not kill anyone but Obama policies are indirectly leading to the deaths of hundreds of citizens. Just because the KKK and Alt-Right endorse a candidate it does not make the candidate and his followers racists. Just as Black Lives Matter endorsement of Clinton does not make her anti-police or anti-white.
Monday, January 2, 2017
The first complaint about the Trump cabinet is it is too militarized with three generals. General James Mattis will lead the Secretary of Defense; General John Kelly will head Homeland Security; and General Michael Flynn will be Trump’s national security adviser. That is novel concept: placing successful generals in positions to oversee our national defense. Trump has no experience in national security, so generals are needed and it makes sense. The liberal idea that generals are war mongers is wrong. Twelve US Presidents were Generals: George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pearce, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, and Dwight Eisenhower. And for the most part they led America in times of peace. All but fourteen presidents had military experience. Generals have seen the horrors of war and they want to avoid it at all costs. George Washington did not go to war against the Barbary Nations or England for their crimes against American merchant ships. However, non-military minded Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did fight both the Barbary Nations and England (War of 1812). William McKinley did not want to go to war against Spain even after the sinking of the USS Maine in Cuba. He wanted proof that it was not an accident. Meanwhile, future president and assistant secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt, called McKinley weak with no spine. McKinley fought all four years of the Civil War. McKinley enlisted as a private and retired as a major. He fought at several of the bloodiest battles in the Civil War (Second Bull Run and Antietam). McKinley did not want war because he witnessed firsthand the horrors of war. Roosevelt, on the other hand, had not witnessed war and was a war monger. John Kelly lost his son in war. Kelly, Mattis, and Flynn have each seen the horrors of war and would be more prudent and practical than those who have not served in the military. The second complaint about the Trump cabinet is that he is appointing people to lead agencies they loath and have hostility towards. Scott Pruitt who will lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will scale back job killing regulations. Betsy DeVoss will lead the Department of Education and push for “school choice” and “vouchers” in an effort to equalize educational opportunities for all children regardless of socioeconomic status. Tom Price will lead the Department of Health and Human Services by repealing and replacing ObamaCare. Andrew Puzder will head the Labor Department but he does not believe in a 15 dollar minimum wage. Ben Carson will the Department of Housing and Urban Development and he has no practical experience (other than growing up poor in an inner city). Liberals think since Trump cabinet selections do not believe in big government expansion and increased power of their agency then they must be hostile towards the agency. In other words, having a different approach to governance must mean they hate the agencies that they lead. This is a very narrow and limited point of view of the Left. The third complaint about the Trump cabinet is he is appointing too many Washington insiders (Trump supporters do not like this) or too many outsiders (Liberals do like this). Trump cannot win no matter what he does. That being said, Trump has been wise to mix insiders and outsiders. Insiders are needed because they know the ins and outs of governance which is needed for success. Still, avid Trump supporters Giuliani, Christie, and Gingrich did not get jobs in the Cabinet proving Trump is against cronyism and is more about putting the right person in the job. The fourth complaint about the Trump cabinet is his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is too cozy with Russia and Putin. According to liberals, Russian “hacking” is the reason why Clinton lost the election. It certainly could not be because Clinton was a highly flawed candidate and the leaked emails confirmed that. Now, liberals can understand how conservatives feel about how the biased media covers candidates and elections. In 2008, the media made up the story that McCain had an affair. In 2012, they made up the story that Romney did not pay taxes. In 2016, liberal media sources hired over 1000 investigators to find dirt on Trump. The media falsely reported Melania Trump was an illegal immigrant and worked as an escort. It is not fair, the media is supposed to be impartial bystanders but that is far from the truth. I am not in favor of outside influence in our elections, but this is karma. Liberals are receiving a tough lesson (but it will not change how the media does its job). However, there is a big difference between the supposed Russian hacking and the liberal media when it comes to elections: Russian hacking exposed the truth and the liberal media lies and fabricates stories. Why didn’t Russian hacking intervene against Trump? They did not have to, the media was already attacking him unfairly (compared to Clinton). And maybe Russian interference was not about helping Trump win, but to make Clinton a weaker president. This makes the most sense since polling had Clinton ahead comfortably.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Fourthly, Clinton only won 20 states and the District of Columbia. That means Trump won 30 states! Clinton received nearly 40% of her vote from a mere seven states: California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have huge urban areas and compose about 30% of the nation’s population. Clinton defeated Trump by nearly 10 million votes in these states (4.3 million in California alone)! Compare this to Trump’s seven largest margin of victories in states: Texas, Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Missouri. Trump won these states by 4.2 million votes but they make up less than 18% of the nation’s population and accounted for about 21% of Trump’s total vote. These states may have some urban areas, but they also have big rural populations. The bottom line is conservatives will never win highly populous states by the same margin as liberals because liberals dominate urban areas. So, should seven urban states speak for the entire country? Should our country be led by pro urban policies at the expense of rural people? The Electoral College makes smaller states and rural areas matter. If the Electoral College was eliminated, it would initially help to expand voter turnout. Especially in states where turnout is low because they lean so far Left or Right. For instance, Republicans in California and New York or Democrats in Utah and Wyoming would more likely turn out to vote since their vote may matter more. For instance, this year Democrats had great turnouts in Texas (Turnout increased 2.6%), Utah (2.3%), Arizona (3.6%), and Georgia (1%) because pollsters and the media said these states were in play (and they were wrong). This helped boost Clinton’s popular vote by nearly 500,000 votes. On the other hand, pollsters and the media can suppress votes. Trump may have gotten a small boost in Michigan (1.9%) and Pennsylvania (2.3%) since most pundits said these states were safe for Clinton. However, no one said Wisconsin (-3.5%), Minnesota (-1.3%), or Maine (3.7%, went up since Trump campaigned there because it is not a winner take all state – much higher turnout in district 2) was in play but they were much closer than Texas, Utah, Arizona, and Georgia. If the media and pundits can control the turnout in states, they can certainly more easily control turnout across the country with national polls. The bottom line, in the long run, urban areas would win out and more than likely disenfranchise rural voters similar to how the Supreme Court ruling “One person, one vote” has disenfranchised rural voters within the individual states. Over 80% of the United States land mass is rural and hence lean Republican. In a strictly popular vote election this makes it much more difficult for Republicans to get their voters to polling places because they have so much more land area to cover. A switch to prioritize the seven most urban and liberal states to decide elections would be a mistake. No one would campaign for small battleground states such as New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, or Nevada anymore.
Friday, December 23, 2016
The election is over and Liberals are not happy because Clinton received the most votes and lost. Now, they want to eliminate the Electoral College (Clinton won by 2.6 million votes, about 2%, but Trump won the Electoral College 306 to 232). Is this something that should be considered? No, and here are some reasons why: First, Clinton did not win 50% of the popular vote. She won 48.1% to Trump’s 46.1%. Clinton was really about 2.5 million votes away from earning a plurality of the popular vote. Third Party candidates earned about 5.8% of the vote (the most since Ross Perot ran in 1992 and 1996). If a candidate cannot win at least 50% of the popular vote then they do not have a claim to the popular vote title since most people voted against them. What’s worse, there was a huge “under vote” (people who vote but opt not to vote for the Presidential race) nationally of about 2.5%. Generally, Presidential elections have an under vote of less than 0.5%. But since both Trump and Clinton were so unpopular, the under vote was much higher. Therefore, Clinton’s percentage of the electorate was under well 47% if the under vote was considered. The Clinton campaign was so inept, they spent millions in Chicago, New Orleans, and large California cities with the goal to run up the popular vote. The Clinton campaign was convinced they were going to win the electoral college so they spent more money trying to garner extra votes in states where the outcome was going to be a landslide. The Clinton camp made a huge error by spending no money in Wisconsin and very little in Michigan. Hence, the objective of the Clinton camp was to win the popular vote. Meanwhile, winning the popular vote was not the objective of the Trump camp, they spent their money wisely in battleground states with the objective of winning the electoral college. The bottom line, if winning the popular vote was the goal, then Trump would have implemented a much different campaign strategy. Secondly, the 2016 election scenario has played out several times in U.S. history. In Presidential elections with a popular vote (the first nine presidential elections did not have a popular vote), the candidate with the most votes lost the election 5 times (14% of the time). In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular vote and electoral vote. However, there were four candidates and no one received a plurality of the electoral vote. Hence, the election went to the House of Representatives and they choose John Quincy Adams over Jackson. In 1876, Rutherford Hayes won the Electoral College by 1 vote and lost the election by about 250,000 votes to Samuel Tilden. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison won the Electoral College by a convincing 65 votes, but lost the popular vote by 90,000 votes to Grover Cleveland. In 2000, George Bush won the Electoral College by 5 votes but lost the election by 550,000 votes. In 1800, there was not a popular vote, but both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were tied in the Electoral College. Jefferson won the election after it was decided in the House of Representatives. Our democracy has survived nearly 250 years following the procedure put forth in the Constitution without any serious issues. Thirdly, the lamest argument by liberals is that Third Party Candidates cost Clinton a plurality in the Electoral College. They claim Clinton would have won in Wisconsin (0.8%), Michigan (0.2%), and Pennsylvania (0.7%) if there were not any third party candidates. In an analysis of Third Party candidates (I did this) – it is estimated that Trump would have received about 4 million votes (52%) to Clinton’s 3.7 million votes (48%) if voters were forced to choose between Trump or Clinton. Maybe Clinton could have won Michigan (probably not) but that would not have been enough for her win the Electoral College. It is unlikely the results would have changed in any state even if Third Party candidates were not in the election. Why? Because the under vote for President was significantly high in 2016 – over 3% in some states. In Nevada, 2.5% of the people voted “None of the Above” in a state Clinton won by 2.4% (less than 0.5% voted “None of the Above” in 2012). Nearly 4% of Californians did not vote for President. Hence, it is quite conceivable that the under vote would have been significantly higher if there were no Third Party options (both candidates were highly unpopular). Besides, Republicans could have made the same claim for Minnesota (that a Third Party candidate cost them the state) where Evan McMullin received 1.8% of the vote (Clinton won Minnesota by 1.4%). McMullin was only on the ballots in 11 states but still finished 5th overall. McMullin voters were highly conservative just as most Jill Stein voters were highly liberal.