Logical Proof of God’s Existence

I will start with the assumption that logic itself is valid, because as a human being I cannot do otherwise. There is technically no reason whatsoever to make this assumption, because if logic is invalid, then logic could be both valid and invalid with no contradiction whatsoever, because any contradiction would be solely a logical contradiction, and logic is invalid. To argue that logic “makes sense,” or that we see it happening all around us, and that it agrees with the outside world are all simply begging the question. These arguments use logic to prove that logic is valid, but if logic itself is on trial, logic cannot be entered into evidence. However, if logic is invalid, both sides of this argument fall apart, and I have no clue whatsoever of how to proceed with an argument if logic is invalid, so it must be assumed, if for no other purpose than for the sanity of the human race.

Thus, starting from logic alone, we know that either the universe exists or it does not. There is no third alternative. We perceive that the universe exists. If the universe exists, then either it has always existed or it has not. If the universe has always existed, either nothing has ever happened or every conceivable possible occurrence has already occurred an infinite number of times, and the mere thought of a “present” is mere nonsense, because there is no way to point to a specific point along an infinite line as viewed, theoretically, in its entirety. Infinity is infinity, and any finitude associated with it is simply nonsense. An infinite yet changeable being is thus a nonsensical construction (sorry Hindus). Thus, the universe must have had a beginning.

Now, so far, I have only proven that which is already commonly accepted, or at least given lip service to. However, the evolutionary hypothesis is that a tiny speck (presumably a singularity) once contained all mass in the universe, and it exploded into the universe. This returns us to the argument of finitude or infinity: either this singularity has existed for eternity or it has not. If it has, then the Big Bang has happened an infinite number of times (we can say for certain that it didn’t not happen, because the world exists), and the thought of “this particular occurrence,” and thus a “present,” and therefore time in general, is completely meaningless. If it hasn’t, then the logical law of causality states that something else must have caused it. If this singularity represents the entirety of the universe at this point (which it both does by hypothesis and must, due to the previous argument of finitude and infinitude, which I will not repeat yet again), then this cause must be outside of the universe. In this case, there is really no point in developing the idea of the Big Bang, because there must still be a “super-natural” cause of the universe.

So the universe is finite, with a beginning and end, and as such requires that something have created it. Now, I could stop there, and just leave it as yet another modified version of the law of causality, but all this has actually just been setup for the “real” thing I have been trying to get to: this whole argument applies to any object to which time can be applied. If a thing is temporal, it is either eternal and unchangeable (in which case it also could not affect anything outside of itself, because that would require it change–it would have to be a completely passive object, completely disconnected from the outside world, and it is strongly questionable that such a concept even makes sense to coexist with any other entity, unless every other entity with which it coexists is precisely such as it), or it is finite, in which case it had a cause. Thus, the fact that the universe exists today means that it had a first cause, and that first cause must, by necessity, be outside of time, or it itself would need a cause. Thus, the mere existence of the universe, or even my own existence as a being (apart from any sensory data, just the raw fact that cogito ergo sum) requires the existence of a being that exists outside of time, that created this universe. And any being that creates a self-contained universe will, automatically, have complete and total control and knowledge of everything that occurs within that universe (think of an author writing a book: nothing happens in a book without the author’s knowledge, consent, and active causing, and if the author stops writing the book, the universe in the books simply ceases to exist at the point at which the author stopped writing).

Conclusion: the universe is finite, God exists and created the universe, He is outside of time and the universe, and He is omnipotent and omniscient with regard to the universe.

I could go on to derive other characteristics of God, but I will stop there, because that is all that comes to me spontaneously, without me specifically trying to intuit other characteristics of the Author Being.


Vision of the Future

I was reading a book recently, and it mentioned a “cellular phone.” While it is one of the newer books I have read, I suppose it would be considered an old book now (1992), and the mention made me stop and think about what exactly it meant by a “cellular phone.” When the concept of a mobile phone first came about, they looked more like field radios than what we think of as a cell phone today, but I didn’t know when the cell phone started appearing in recognizable form, so I started wondering whether it was talking about the large field radio type phone or the “traditional” flip phone.

The title picture shows a 1992 cell phone, confirming that the book would have been referring to the former, but it started a very interesting thought process in my mind. I was wondering when the “traditional” cell phone started coming out, but then I realized that what I think of as the traditional cell phone is hardly ever seen any more. This led to the realization that not only are flip phones and all other “dumb phones” disappearing, the entire concept of the cell phone is starting to go away. Everyone still knows what you mean when you say “cell phone,” but more and more, home phones are being replaced by smart phones, and people refer to them simply as “phones.” The home phone is going away, and as a result, so is the concept of a cell phone as opposed to a home phone. Increasingly, we don’t have home phones and cell phones, we just have phones, and the concept is automatically associated with a smart phone. All of this has really happened since the advent of the iPhone in 2007. In less than a decade, we have gone from a standard home phone and a clamshell cell phone to the “home phone” being essentially an office tool, the clamshell cell phone being nonexistent, and the entire idea of a home phone vs. a cell phone being replaced by the standardized idea of a phone being a smart phone.

So what does the future look like?

I would strongly urge you to at least read over Winston Churchill’s essay “50 Years Hence,” in which he predicts with astonishing foresight the technological advances of our time, as well as some advances currently in sight. Now, 86 years later, this post is my version, springboarding off of the future of communication, now that the majority of Churchill’s predictions are simply a part of everyday life.

First, I expect the idea of a home phone to be rendered completely obsolete, possibly even in the next five years. Smart phones will become smarter, “Google glasses,” or whatever they call them now, smart watches, and similar technology will become more and more common, and smart phones may even be on the decline in five years, in favor of wearable technology. I expect the traditional home phone will stick around for awhile as shared phones in offices and the like, but little else.

Eventually, as hologram technology becomes cheaper, more developed and more accessible (and we do have hologram technology already, and it is reasonably accessible as a holographic gun sight), the communications technology of the day will start to be replaced by some sort of holophone, likely wrist based, and offices will use an industrial grade version of that—some sort of console, or even a room devoted to holographic communications (Star Wars Jedi holoconferences are a distinct possibility).

As our understanding of the human brain and our ability to interface with it is further developed, we will start having phones connected to the brain—the new Bluetooth—and from there it would be a short leap to fully integrated phones inside our heads. Originally, I expect they would just be a biologically integrated form of the original “dumb phone”—you talk, the other person hears—no video, no web capabilities, just a simple oral communication device. Pretty soon, however, technology companies would begin to come up with ways to integrate the capabilities of external devices into the Biophone, with video likely coming first. They might access outside camera footage (including the “footage” from other people’s eyes via their Biophones) to construct a 3D image of the person you are talking to and display that in your head, they might provide you the ability to see what the other person is seeing, or they might just decide to do away with the visual aspect altogether. However, as our understanding of and ability to interface with the human brain becomes even more refined (see my Telepathy post), web browsing capabilities, cameras, auxiliary memory space for your brain, and even music would be introduced.

Finally, people will realize that communication no longer needs to be limited to language, and the Biophone will be modified so that direct thought processes can be transferred, instead of constraining the user to talk, or even form the words in the mind, and the word “telephone” will have a whole new meaning. This is the destination of my Telepathy idea.

But why stop there? Why not allow for group calls? Why not fully integrate the brain with the internet? Why not create, in essence, a universal consciousness? The technology is in reach. Holoconferences, as far-fetched and sci-fi as they are now, will become obsolete—the new fax.

It will be a short step from there to simply create an entire world in the internet, upload our collective consciousness to it, and live immortally in the internet. I see this happening in one of two ways: either we have enough confidence in our engineering capabilities that we build a self-sustaining system to keep the internet intact, or the rich and powerful get to be immortalized while the less fortunate have to stay and keep the internet going.

Now, I fully expect Jesus to come back before we actually get to this point. In light of the Tower of Babel, I don’t think God wants us to have a universal consciousness, plus, I doubt He would let the human race drive itself extinct like this, but it could happen. He may wait for another 200 years, or even 2,000. I have no way of knowing. However, this is what I see as the current track of technological development, barring any other factors, be they divine, political, cultural, governmental, etc. If the technology industries are left to their own devices, I could easily see all of this happening in the next 50 years, and definitely the next 100.

The Future of VR

I have more to say on Relativity, but I am going to take a break and talk about something a little less mentally taxing: Virtual Reality. A friend recently told me about a book called Ready Player One, in which a VR game has, for all practical purposes, replaced the real world. A film adaptation of the book is scheduled for release in 2018, and there is a lot of VR concept art surrounding the story. One picture in particular got me thinking about the future of VR.

The picture shows the person wearing VR gloves to get hand sensations and goggles for the visual aspect. This is the most obvious route for VR to take: create equipment to externally synthesize in-game sensations. However, I see two other options, one less likely, and one more likely.

I’ll start with the less likely one: using holograms. Basically, we build a large, empty room, and project holographic terrain and other objects into it. Then, we create shaped gravity shields inside the holograms, to make them solid. Fine tuning of the surface shape (microscopic grooves and other texturing), combined with an interactive computer program to simulate surface elasticity (so if you touch something it will squish a little bit) could be used to give things the proper texture. This would be the most realistic version of virtual reality, because you would actually be performing the actions in the game with your physical body. Plus, it would be good for the public health, because if you ever wanted to play, say, a shooter, you would have to actually go run around, jump, climb, slide, and be otherwise physically active. This is my personal favorite version of Virtual Reality, but because hologram technology does not appear to be progressing in leaps and bounds, I doubt we will ever see it.

The more likely route VR will take, and almost certainly its final state, pulls on my telepathy idea. We can already interface, to an extent, between computers and the human brain. So why not create a Virtual Reality system that you simply plug your brain into? When you plug in, it intercepts the signals your brain sends to your body, so instead of moving your physical body, you move your in-game body. It would also block external sensory input, and replace it with artificial sensory input from the game, fed directly to your brain. You simply sit down and plug in, and your body effectively falls asleep, while your brain enters the game. It would work somewhat like the Avatar control bed.

So what do you guys think? Am I on the right track here? I will try to do another post this month on the future of communication, which I already have mostly written out, but I will have to edit it because of the new ideas this has given me.

Some Thoughts on Relativity

As I mention in my “about” page, when I was in middle school I thought I disproved Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, but almost immediately forgot the thought process. That has created a nagging doubt in my head every time I have used his theory ever since, and I have always been annoyed at not knowing whether I was right or not. However, I just went back over his theory in my current Physics course, and something about the way this guy worded it reignited the thought process I had back in middle school, and I now know what I thought was wrong with the General Theory of Relativity.

The problem I have with the theory is actually found in its very foundation. Einstein said that Newton’s laws of motion could basically be restated by saying that “In the absence of external forces, objects travel the straightest possible path in spacetime.” To explain the “force” of gravity in a way consistent with this statement (because, due to the “principle of equivalence” and some weird reasoning that doesn’t quite make logical sense to me, Einstein thought that gravity wasn’t actually a force), Einstein said that “Mass and energy cause spacetime to curve.” Science teachers love to use the illustration of a mass in a pillow or bed sheet, with a marble rolled alongside. They point to the fact that the marble rolls and hits the mass making the depression, and say “See? Mass bends spacetime!” However, the only reason the marble ends up reaching the bottom of this depression is that there is external gravity! Thus, this illustration begs the question by using gravity to explain gravity. In order for this illustration to actually work properly, it must be in a gravity free environment.

So take this setup out to deep space. Replace the bed sheet and mass with, say, a piece of sheet metal that is warped in the middle in the same way that the mass warps the bed sheet, and replace the marble with, say, a magnetic ball, so that it stays attached to the sheet metal the entire time. Now run the experiment in your head, ignoring friction (because there would be no friction in the theory we are trying to illustrate, and you can successfully neutralize friction in a simulated experiment). First, imagine this with the ball moving very quickly: the ball rolls along, and encounters the simulated gravity well. What does it do? It enters the gravity well along its original path, and then leaves the gravity well, still traveling along the same path. Remember, there is no friction, and no external force pulling the object into the well. The only factors to consider are the ball’s velocity and the metal’s warping. There is absolutely nothing to provide a centripetal force to change the direction of the ball. Viewed from above, the ball curves towards the center of the well when it enters, but immediately begins curving back out, and ends up in the same path it was traveling on before. Now, imagine if the ball is stationary, but inside the simulated gravity well. What happens? Nothing! The ball just sits there.

Now compare this to the situation it is supposed to be illustrating. In a real gravity well, if something is moving very fast, its path will bend in response to the gravity well, but it will not be caught in it. This is consistent with the illustration: if the ball is rolling very quickly, it will curve inside the simulated gravity well, but it will leave the gravity well and continue. However, in a real gravity well, the object will have changed direction when it leaves the gravity well, and in the illustration, the final path of the object is exactly the same as the original path. Now think of an object just sitting in the air above the earth. It begins accelerating towards the earth. In the illustration, the ball just sits there, because there is no outside force acting on it.

Thus, no amount of spacetime warping can permanently change the direction of an object, so Einstein was WRONG!

That is as far as I got in middle school, but this time I was able to take it a little further and develop an amendment to his theory that would solve the theoretical problem without actually changing any of the math: instead of saying, “Mass and energy cause spacetime to curve,” I say that “Spacetime flows towards mass and energy.” Now, this statement still needs some work: for example, we now know that mass and energy are the same thing–a vibration in spacetime (see my Matter and Matter Follow-up posts), so we need to come up with a way to make this statement in a way that is consistent with those ideas, but I am fairly certain that this is how it works on the macroscopic scale.

Let’s go back to the original illustration. You have a bed sheet on the floor, and a device in the middle that sucks the threads towards it. When you roll your marble across the sheet, it will begin to curve towards the device. If it is moving quickly, it will escape the “gravity well,” and emerge traveling in a different direction. If it is moving slowly, it will begin orbiting the device, and if it is moving even more slowly, it will eventually hit the device and rest against it. Finally, if you lay the marble at rest a little away from the device, when you release the marble it will begin accelerating towards the device. This is exactly how we see gravity work in the real world!

Now, I also have idea about Special Relativity: not a correction, but a new way of thinking about things that could make Special Relativity  much easier to understand. However, it will involve a lot of math and other homework–by far the most labor and thought intensive idea I have had so far–so it may be a while before I can post it. Despite this, I am really excited about it, and wanted to give a little teaser now to piggyback on the General Relativity post: Basically, I am working on a new mathematical definition of motion that will take Special Relativity into account–essentially redefining motion as distance warped over time warped, instead of distance passed over time passed. Now, this is basically what Einstein was going for when he developed his General Theory of Relativity, so I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if he already did this and it just ended up using more complicated math than they want to teach non-physics majors, so I might come up dry or find I am simply reinventing the wheel, but I have stated my goal.

Now, I have had this idea for an amendment to Relativity for a while, but it was based on some other ramifications, such as the possible existence of antigravity (gravity that pushes instead of pulls), antimatter, white holes, etc., but this base has allowed me to flesh it out some more. I will try to write on the other ramifications of this amendment in my next post.

Finally, I have the image at the top linked to the page I found it on. I have not read it, but I want to read it as soon as I have the time. It appears to be a well thought out argument for another problem with Relativity, so I linked to it in case you guys were interested.

Any thoughts? I hope I explained this clearly enough, but knowing how abstract this whole concept is, I wouldn’t be surprised if I simply left your minds even more twisted than before. I know my mind went for quite a few loops while figuring this out. I would love to answer any questions you have in the comments. Also, I might be wrong about all this, and simply be misunderstanding Einstein’s theory, but I am fairly confident in my analysis, and I would love to be challenged so I can refine or recant my idea.

Some Cool Science Developments

I recently received a couple of emails from an astronomy organization about some promising scientific developments related to my theories, and I also ran across a Wikipedia article about a scientific theory along the lines of my Gravity Shield idea. The articles are relatively large, so I will post a quick summary with a link to the full text of each piece.

NASA Wants to Create the Coolest Spot in the Universe
NASA has created a piece of equipment that they call the Cold Atom Lab, or CAL, which will be used to study atoms at temperatures so cold (0.000000001K, or one billionth of a Kelvin) that they form an entirely new state of matter that doesn’t obey the “familiar rules of physics.” The article says that in this state, “Matter can be observed behaving less like particles and more like waves.” This is further confirmation of my Matter idea. NASA (who wrote the article) says this piece of equipment will likely provide us with much greater understanding of dark matter and dark energy (which make up 95% of the universe, according to “current models of cosmology”), and lead to vast technological improvements (e.g. quantum computers)

New Path Suggested for Nuclear Fusion
Is there anything lasers can’t do? This article suggests the use of lasers to “nudge” atoms close enough to fuse. The point of the article is that we might very well have found the key to cold fusion. What got me going, however, is the fact that they are using lasers to manipulate atomic particles! That was the first scientific advancement required for my Ultramatter idea to be feasible, and this article says we have made that advancement!

Alcubierre Drive (Space-Warping/Faster-Than-Light Theory)
This is a hypothesis that has been around since 1994, that basically suggests that if we could figure out how to manipulate the space-time continuum, we could squish the space in front of an object and contract the space behind it, allowing it to traverse distances as if they were actually smaller distances, allowing for apparent faster-than-light travel. I was intrigued by this for two reasons: it is another use for the motive ability behind my Gravity Shield idea, and it is an accepted scientific theory that makes the same “if only…” statement I do in my Gravity Shield idea (If we could manipulate the space-time continuum, then we could do xyz), which means I am not completely off my rocker in making that statement.

February Update and Science Video

This month, I finally got my first real content post since August posted! I also just went back through and edited it, cleaning it up a little, clarifying pieces, and adding a few bits, so that it now does a more effective job of communicating my ideas on the subject. You can find those revisions at the original post here.

In other news, I finally got the new logo finished and uploaded, so it should start showing up as a favicon soon, and my gravatar picture is now set to my new logo. It is designed in the form of a coat of arms, and reflects the fact that a Christian worldview is the key to unlock the mysteries of science. A big thank you to Timothy Schutz for helping me make the logo, and dealing with me as I reinvented the wheel of photoshop and literally had him create a padlock and skeleton key out of basic black and white shapes. My website improvement task for this month is to work the new logo into the rest of the pictures on the website.logo-no-background-with-shield-pngOnce again, I have two science videos: one is just a standard science video about how engines work, but shown in a new way that is really pretty for all you pyromaniacs out there, and the other is a little bit of publicity for a podcast this guy is doing. Enjoy!


Time Theory

My favorite genre of pretty much anything (books, movies, TV shows, etc.) is science fiction, which shouldn’t be a surprise, considering the subject of this blog. I particularly enjoy the ones in which time travel is a main theme.  However, every time I watch anything with time travel, I just try to accept its theory of time travel, because there are so many theories, and they all have problems.  So I was talking about this to a friend, and he encouraged me to make my own time theory, so that is what I am doing.  This is by no means set in stone for me, and I would love to talk about it in the forums.

The first order of business would be paradoxes. This is dangerous ground to tread, because they cannot exist, but time is not an entity than can prevent them.  So what do we do?  Well, let’s think about time as a set of dimensions. It is common to think of time as a fourth dimension, but what I am suggesting is, if only for argument’s sake, to think of it as a fourth and fifth dimension, so that basically, time has its own “timeline.” Every time a paradox is created, a change is made in time, and it moves time a little further along its timeline.

Another way to think of this is that every time a paradox is created, an alternate universe is created for that paradox to happen in. If this is the case, if a paradox creates a parallel universe, which universe does the creator of the paradox end up in? Well, the time traveler left his spot in time and moved to a different spot. If he then travels to the future, it will be his future that he travels to, which would be the future of whatever universe/dimension he leaves to go to the future. Thus, if he makes any changes to the future while he is in the past, his future will contain the effects of those changes. Therefore, if the time traveler creates a paradox, he is stuck in the version of the universe with that paradox. Following this line of reasoning, since the very existence of a time traveler in the his own past inherently makes some changes, however minute, to the world the time traveler left, it would be impossible to return to the exact universe you left. You might return to the same spot in your life, and you might not even notice any changes, but you would not be the same you your friends knew. As far as the world around you is concerned, a version of you left, and a version of you may or may not have come back, depending on the extent to which you changed the past, but the you that came back is slightly different from the one you left. Another facet of this is that there will be some versions of reality that have multiple copies of a certain time traveler (because the time traveler’s adventures in the past caused his future version to never time travel, thus leaving two copies of the same person in the universe) and other versions in which the time traveler left and never came back (because no version of the time traveler changed the past of this version of the time traveler to cause him to leave, thus the time traveler essentially dies to his family and friends when he leaves for the past.

There are a few fascinating things to note about this hypothesis:

  1. Each universe would be either
    1. full of perceived paradoxes, because the people who caused the paradoxes would be from a different version of the universe, so the paradox actually contradicts nothing, or
    2. completely devoid of paradoxes, but full of random people appearing out of nowhere. I am not sure which of these would happen
  2. Circular reasoning within time (going back in time and causing yourself to go back in time and cause yourself to go back in time, etc) is no longer a paradox, because every time you go back in time you enter a different universe. What would likely happen is that each iteration of time travel would produce a slightly different result, until the apparent circle reveals itself as a tight spiral within the overall timeline of time.
  3. Time travel would be very dangerous: not for you, but for those who know you. Depending on the history of your universe (whether there was a version of you that entered in the past who left his present under similar circumstances as you), you may or may not come back to those who care about you. Also, depending on how much you change (and/or how much the other version of you that entered your past changed) in the past, the friends that you come back to will be different than the ones you left (or the version of you that comes back to your friends will be different than the one that left)
  4. The existence of each new version of the timeline is dependent upon each previous iteration of the timeline, because if the “creator” timeline had been different, the created timeline would have been proportionally different. This reasoning is valid for each version of the timeline, either until the version of the timeline God originally created, or ad infinitum, depending on your worldview. Thus, because each version of time is connected to the previous in a continuous stream of timelines, it can be said that the timeline is actually experiencing change.

Now, change is relative. Any time something changes, it is changing relative to something. When a top is spinning, it is spinning relative to the things around it, but nothing on the top is changing relative to itself. All change, however, can be described relative to a fixed idea called a dimension.  A bead on a string can move along the string, but nowhere else, so it can move in one dimension.  A figure on a screen can move up and down or side to side on the screen, but it can’t reach out of the screen, because it can only operate in two dimensions. We can move up and down, side to side, and backwards and forwards, because we have three dimensions. But change as a concept makes no sense whatsoever aside from the context of time. This hypothesis postulates that the very context that makes sense of change is changing, but for that to make sense, it must change within a time-like dimension of its own. Thus, time actually experiences time! If we could travel between the versions of time and change them, the entire timeline of time would be changed, so we know that the time that time experiences also experiences time. How far does this go? Are there an infinite number of dimensions? Another way to put this is that the bead on the string can move on the string, but the entire string can move back and forth on a piece of paper.  The figure on the screen can only move on the screen, but the screen can move towards and away from you.  So you can move in space, and space moves in time.  So each successive dimension is like a time for the last dimension. So if space moves in time, what dimension does time move in?  That may be a little harder to grasp, but I feel like it gives a better understanding of what is going on.

This brings up an interesting theological question. If there are infinite dimensions, how many dimensions does God have?  Or does he have dimensions at all? Or maybe he has all the dimensions. I don’t have any answers for this, but I would love to talk about it in the comments.

Finally, the worldview concept I touched on briefly, about whether time’s time had a beginning actually can be used in a proof for the existence of God, which I will be posting soon, so consider this a teaser for that.

Anyway, I hope this made sense. I started it several months ago and heavily edited it, but seeing how much I found to edit, there are probably still lots of errors.

February Update and Science Video

As I am sure you noticed when you arrived at the site, I actually got some good work done on the website this month! Timothy Schutz, over at evergreenmediaproductions.com, created this cool header image (unfortunately I can’t figure out how to make it link to the home page anymore, due to certain things about how WordPress works, but I will be working on that), as well as a new logo that actually means something, and I have made some progress figuring out how to change the url. I am not done working on the website, but I have made a lot of progress, and I will try to get a real content post up this month. Until then, check out these two Smarter Every Day videos I found:

WARNING: The first video uses medical terminology to refer to Kangaroo reproductive organs



January Update and Science Video

Well, my prediction came true. I got no work done on this website this month, and barely kept up with family life. However, I was able to refresh myself (somewhat–I’m exhausted now), and I feel like I’m alive again. Also, this semester should, in theory, be easier on me than last semester. I will be working as much as possible, plus some school, but not much school, and the work will be in the evenings, so I can do school in the mornings, work in the evenings, and do website stuff in between. Because I will have less (and likely easier/more interesting) school, and will be working, I will likely feel more fulfilled and productive, which will make me more likely to get website stuff done instead of just taking naps, reading, playing games, and generally wasting my free time like I mostly did this semester.  All that is to say that I got nothing done this month, but I feel better, and should both get more done and continue to feel better next month.

Now, on to the fun stuff–this guy never disappoints. This video is from Thursday, and I got to watch it just a few minutes after he posted it. I think I put his original Prince Rupert’s Drop video in another update, but in case you don’t know what a Prince Rupert’s Drop is, or need a refresher, I put the original video below the new one (he also links to it in the new one before he goes into the main demonstration stuff). This thing is amazing. I should probably come up with some sort of science idea based on/inspired by it.

Anyway, happy new year, and God bless.

December Update and Science Video+Political Essay

School is drawing to a close, college applications are done, and family activities are in full swing (interfering with what school I have left and all the scholarships I need to apply for 🙂 ). I should start to have more time now. Should.

Due to the almost complete loss of compatibility with WordPress in the paid version, as well as other, independent rethinking of things, etc., I have given up on the idea of a forum for this website, and have come to terms with a simple “normal blog” style. I’m pretty sure you can only have one website at once in a free WordPress account, which causes a lot of problems with changing the url, so unless I can find a way to change just the base url, I will simply be changing the titles and stuff like that on this site to read “The Christian Theorist,” while leaving the actual domain as “6tscience.wordpress.com,” so nothing should change for you except the look of the website.

That is my task for December, and hopefully I will get a real post out in January (though it is more likely that I will fix up the site in January or February and get a real post out in February or March). Thanks for being patient with me through this floundering in the world of website development. If you want to see how far I got on the intended new website, go to thechristiantheorist.com

Meanwhile, here’s a fun tesla coil video from Smarter Every Day.


Also, I wrote a paper on abortion for school this week, and, at least within the boundaries of the assignment (I was given a specific paragraph map and I had to come up with a topic to fit it), I feel like I wrote a really good paper. If you feel like making suggestions, they would be much appreciated (I have to turn in the final draft on the 19th), but I’m just putting it here for your enjoyment. If you want, I can post some of my discussion board posts from the same class in my January update (more theological/political discourses off the top of my head, in roughly similar style to the science stuff I have on this site).



Infant Rights: The Forgotten Human Rights Movement

            Perhaps the most nobly intentioned movement of the modern era is the human rights movement. The Black Rights movement fought to ensure that the black man was treated as the equal of the white man, the Women’s Rights movement fought, and is still fighting, to ensure that women are treated as well as men, and the current Gay Rights movement is fighting to ensure equal treatment for LGBT people. All of these movements exist to ensure that the United States’ Declaration of Independence’s claim that “all men are created equal” is followed to its fullest extent. Far be it from us to treat anyone as less than ourselves. But in our fight for the rights of these minorities, we have forgotten one large group: the unborn. In 1857, a former prisoner from Salem named Paon made the famous statement that “your liberty ends where the liberty of others commences.” (Salem Register). This is the code on which all human rights movements are based, but it is one which has been violated in the case of the unborn.

The rallying cry of the abortion movement is that a woman should be able to choose what to do with her own body. I agree. But with Paon I say, “The woman’s liberty ends where the liberty of her baby begins.” No one would disagree with that. The trouble is that the baby is often not considered to be a human being. However, this position is inconsistent, for there are laws that explicitly state the personhood of the unborn. Take, for example, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which says, “Whoever…causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense [from any harm done to the mother].” (Congress.gov). Later, lest the definition of “child” be nitpicked into oblivion, the law specifically states that “the term ‘child in utero’…means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” Unfortunately, this law is inconsistent in that while it defines a fetus as a person as quoted above, it explicitly excepts abortion from punishment as harming the baby. I heartily agree with the law that an unborn baby is a human, but if that is so, then the baby’s right to life should not be ignored in favor of the mother’s right to choose what happens to her body. The mother’s right to this ends where the baby’s right to life begins. If a baby is a human, abortion should fall under the same laws as killing any other human. As such, the vast majority of abortions, even in the case of rape and incest, would be undeniably considered 1st degree murder, for any abortion is undeniably premeditated. If the life of the mother is in danger, an abortion would immediately fall under the laws for self defense, and would be considered justifiable homicide.

None of this is disputed; however, many today would disagree with my assumption of the baby’s humanity, so why should it be made? The moment a human egg and sperm merge, they create a distinct new entity. The DNA this new entity carries is a unique set of human DNA at the moment of conception, and it is at that moment that, if the development goes successfully, it will become a SPECIFIC human. We can kill human eggs, and we can kill human sperm, because those are just individual cells from a human, and any combination of them into a new human is merely theoretical, but the instant they combine, that theoretical combination becomes reality, and the combination is a specific human, just at a very early stage in development. If the lack of development means it isn’t a person, then we could “abort” people all the way up until their last growth spurt, or at least puberty, because they are not fully developed, and therefore not a person. If the connection and dependence on another human means it isn’t a person, then we could “abort” fully grown Siamese twins, because they are both connected to and dependent on the other, and therefore neither is a person. Neither of these cases makes the least bit of sense, and in my opinion, neither does the argument that an unborn baby is not a person.

So if the humanity of a fetus is such common sense, why is it so common to think of it as non-human? Basically, it comes down to the efforts of Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood to further her eugenicist efforts. Her views and those of her peers in this movement the eugenics movement contributed to the enactment of compulsory sterilization laws in 30 US states, which resulted in “more than 60,000 sterilizations of those people considered ‘feeble minded,’ ‘idiots’ and ‘morons’” (The Washington Times). While many, if not all, of today’s abortion advocates would recoil at the mere suggestion of eugenics, they are nevertheless continuing the eugenics movement, because they are operating off of the selective train of thought that has been fed to them from every area of their lives, including the ministry. The Washington Times cites Sanger as saying, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

            The rallying cry of the abortion movement is that humans should be allowed to make choices about their own bodies. I heartily agree. However, because they do not acknowledge the personhood of the fetus, they use this mantra to support abortion. I refuse to accept this, and say with Paon, “the right of the woman to make choices about her body ends where the right of the baby to make choices about its body begins.” There is no reason to treat infants as any less deserving of equality than Blacks, women, Hispanics, or Italians, and I invite you to join me in support of the new Human Rights movement: Infant Rights.