sciencey math stuff

Wow! I forgot I even started this blogspot. It's been 5 years since I wrote the things on here. I have changed so much in last 5 years I don't even feel like the same person that posted those things. I've matured in my marriage, we've had two kids (Henry (3) and Amelia (1)) and I've started going back to school for my true calling in life, mechanical engineering.

I've had these thoughts about science and creation rattling around in my brain for awhile and it's really hard to talk about these things to people face to face especially if they are biased or not open to ideas that challenge their assumptions of the world.  Today I remembered about this blogspot and thought "why not" Blobspot has become rather obsolete in the last five years and I have almost no followers so what harm could it do to throw this out into the vast web.  Putting these thoughts on here will be more therapy for me then any sort of enlightenment for passers-by. Sometimes putting ideas down in writing helps me to organize, prioritize and maybe change my mind about things so that what I'm doing here. This is not a finished work but a spilling out of thoughts.

I started my back to school campaign by studying vigorously to pass the math placement exam. After 3 months of review I took the test and placed into math 1080 pre-calc, not good enough. I spent a couple more weeks reviewing and re-took the exam and I did it, got into calculus! This was critical for me because math was the thing that was preventing me from going into engineering. The confused look on the testing center workers face when she got my results, like she had never seen a score that high, was a most satisfying experience (prideful but satisfying).

A little context: I've always know I wanted to be an engineer but I always made excuses for why I never really tried. In retrospect I can see that I was afraid I didn't have what I took to get through the rigorous course work to become an engineer and honestly I didn't back then. With maturing into my late 20's and becoming a father I began to understand an important thing and I make sure tell this to anyone who will listen: "It's not about HAVING what it takes, it's about DOING whatever it takes." If you have that attitude about your goal then you do "have" what it takes. Back then when I was making excuses for not going to school for engineering I didn't have that attitude but now I do.

So, on to Calculus.. Guess what it's not that hard. Calc 2 okay, that was hard (not the greatest teacher). Calc 3 I actually enjoyed this! Then Differential Equations. Diff eq's is amaz-ballz! and this is where we start getting into what I want to talk about. On the first day of diff eq's we talked about Malthus and his population models.  It starts out with the idea that the rate of population growth is proportional to the amount of people in the population, because if there are more people there are more babies being born. Mathematically dp/dt = kp where k is a constant of proportionality which is either calculated by applying initial condition or by other educated guessing. Once we do calculus magic to the equation we get P=e^kt+C where C is constant that results from the calculus magic and can simply be taken out of the exponent and put in as a new constant A so we have P=Ae^kt (btw t is time). This is the where the equation for simple interest comes from if A=1 and k=interest rate r (p=e^rt).

Okay still with me? Good! What we do now is apply initial condition or in other words put in real measured data we can solve for A and k.  If we let t=0 (assuming we know the population at t=0) k goes to zero and we have a value for A. Then we can use algebra to solve for k. What you end up with is a "population model" where P = Ae^kt.  The thing I need you to understand from this is that we assumed that the population growth was proportional to the population and by applying a very small set of data we came up with two constants that define what that ratio of growth to population is.

What does this have to do with science?  This exact method (and in many cases exact model) is used in every branch of science to come up with equations that we use to interpolate data. Many of the "constants" that we memorize and use in equations are derived from this method or a similar method. The thing about Malthus' population model is that it was WAY off. Laughably so. Obviously we need to figure in many more considerations to be able to model population growth like, environmental capacity, cultural shifts, plagues, wars, economic factors, technology shift ect.. A revised model was made called the logistical model and it used the same principle as the one I showed you except that the beginning assumption was slightly more sophisticated assuming that the population growth is proportional to the population but tapers off as the population reaches it's maximum capacity. After years of actually population date we know the logistical equation fails miserably as well.

As I eluded to many scientific equations use this kind of thinking.  Have you every heard of a half-life? A half-life is the amount of time it takes something to be reduced by half. In every case half-life uses the Malthusian model of assumed proportionality. In most cases that's fine and very useful like in biological half-life of drug/chemicals in the body. It works well in that case because we are only talking about a short amount of time and if the model is 25% off it doesn't matter.  If a medical scientist tells you how long a drug will be in your system it is not usually a precise number, they will tell you "5-7 days" not "5.002342 days." But in other cases like radiocarbon dating or any other dating based on decay use half-life. Exactly like the laughable Malthus population model all decay calculations assume that the rate at which the decay occurs is proportional to the amount that is present. More radio active isotopes more decay will occur (like more people have more babies but reverse).  What I always tell people to make my point about this (maybe not true but gets my point accros) "Do you think someone measured a radioactive rock and let it sit for 250 years and came back an measured it again?"

Here is the logic:
1. Assume decay is proportional and not affected by any other factors (I already don't agree)
2. Use diff eq's and a very limited set of data to define the proportionality and derive a function over time. (carbon dating was the first dating and it was invented in the 1940's so there is at MOST less then 80 years of possible data for any scientific calculation likely is much smaller for any one data set)
3. Take actual measurements and input that data into your function and out pops a time.

This last semester I just finished I took general chemistry, chemistry lab and physics 1(for scientist and engineers) and I learned A LOT of stuff. It was amazing to recognize some of the equations we were using (mostly in chemistry) as functions derived from the same kind of differential equations I just finished learning about. The course didn't provide proofs for these formulas which is fine but it bothered me knowing that these formulas are based on assumptions and the book or instructor not disclosing that and instead delivering the material as if it is the immutable truth. (I was overwhelmed by homework/exams/study so I didn't make a list of them but I will do that so people don't have to just take my word for it.)

Another separate math related issue with science: linear interpolation.
In the first assignment for chemistry lab we were given a data set taken my the teacher where she measured the diameter of a balloon with every pump of the air pump. We were asked to plot the data, create a linear approximation of the data set and use our linear approximation to interpolate what the diameter would have been at any arbitrary point, like after 3.56 pumps the diameter of the balloon was blah blah. I told the teacher that this was not accurate because the relation ship to the number of pumps to diameter is not linear. The relationship is actually logarithmic because it is always growing but the rate of growth is diminishing with time. Imagine how one pump would affect the diameter when you first started, there would be a big change. However if the balloon was enormous one pump would hardly affect the diameter at all.  But this is one of the cases where the error doesn't really matter because the balloon pops after relatively short amount of pumps and we (important!)interpolated date that was within the domain of our actual data. If the teacher asked be what the diameter would be after 65 billion pumps my linear approximation would fail laughably like Malthus's population model.

Now you are about ready to understand what has been bothering me lately.  There are so many people out there that think I'm an idiot for believing in God and the reason they think that is, in no small part, due the numbers thrown around by "science."

strategic family planning

I've been thinking about this for a few years now. This idea of strategic family planning came about when I was sulking about my parents not letting live with them while I was going to college full time. I could have been so far ahead in life if my parents could have made that small sacrifice.

The idea continued to evolve recently when I took a strategic planning course and further evolved while I learned about tax laws, loop-holes and strategic partnerships in business.

Before I explain my idea i'll give one of billions of possible examples.

W/out planning: A normal family with four kids.

KidsA & B move out of state to go to college. It takes 5yrs to graduate and another 1yr to get a good job and start moving in a positive direction.

Kid C moves out to live near a nearby university, drops out and gets a job and apartment. Being very responsible and diligent is able to get a good income and get married and buy a house after 7 yrs from leaving the nest.

Kid D moves into an apartment and goes to a tech school and gets a half decent career within 3yrs.

Analysis: kids a and b have at least 40k in school loans plus 5-6yrs worth of room and board (about 20k a year). kid c managed to stay mostly out of debt but has paid 7yrs worth of room and board. kid d only paid 3yrs worth of room and board.

Thats 22yrs worth of room and board that could have been spared. As parents you could have saved your children 440k.

If the parents of this family let there children live at home until they were married the family wouldn't have saved the entire 440k because it still costs to feed those kids at home and everyones choices would be different.

I think a reasonable alternative is this:

kids a and b chose a local university to pursue there education and kid c may not have dropped out of school and kid d may have done the same but saved the 3yrs worth of room and board.

This is just the beginning though; letting your kids live at home until they marry or decide they are in a good enough spot to move out responsibly. My idea goes far beyond this.

The change that im seeking is a foundational change in thought about what a family is and what is expected of kids when they graduate high school.

I haven't done the research but I think that on in the last 50yrs or so has the idea that as soon as kids turn 18 they should be making there own way in the world separate from there parents been possible.

As my friend Nola pointed out past societies worked as a family or community out of necessity. This strengthens my argument the reason that they operated as a family unit was because it was more efficient than everyone struggling individually.

I have a friend of a friend who is constantly shittalked behind the back because she was supported by her family through college and is moving back home even after she is married. Ive heard that because of that support (and compulsive cheapness) has netted this 25 yr old no student loan debt and a nest of 60k.

after all of these unorganized thoughts i'll simply say that if you plan with your family the same way you plan for your own future you can synergize and exponentially increase the success of everyone in the family. Imagine how that could impact the next generation.

As for me and my family. I am trying hard to make some success as an businessman and at very least I hope to knock out all my debt and have a large house (near a university) where my kids can live until they get married or choose to move out. Best case I hope to own several successful business' and my children can choose career paths in the family business' or I can help finance there own business' or what ever they choose it can help the family in some way. If a kid is a pilot = free flights for the family = much better vacations. If they are dentist = no need for dental insurance = saved money. lawyer = handle the legal stuff for business' and personal. engineer= work for my business = my money goes to my kid instead of to someone else's kid. they don't want to go to college = work for my business. and so on. My serious appologies to anyone who has read this entire post.

accreditation and me.

I feel so stupid because i chose to finish my degree online. It's as if every employeer and people who went to traditional colleges is laughing at me, or at least silently feeling bad for me. I think that I had a great potential to be successful in life but now because I am going to have an undergraduate degree form an online institution I don't have any chance to succeed.

When some one buys a new Kia or something and is so proud of it, I'm to nice to tell them that it's a crapy car. That is how I feel about my degree. I was so happy about finally finishing a bachelors degree I ignored reason and didn't research it. In my own defense I didn't have a choice. I had no job and was slowly maxing out my credit limit. One two separate occasions I had to drop out of classes at Weber State because my work schedule changed. I wasn't about to continue on with traditional classes when I knew it was very likely that I'd have to drop them as soon as I found a new job. I was just going to wait to finish school until my life had some consistency but them my brother found Ashford University (for-profit) and I talked to them and decided it was better to finish online then to not finish (or finish years from now).

Now that I have two months until I graduate I began looking at what to do next, continue to Masters, start a new career, get another bachelors in a specific field or a combination there of. I couldn't help but notice that there was a huge difference in requirements for MBA'a from ashford and weber. After doing some research I found that there is an accreditation for MBA's that is absolutely important. If your MBA program doesn't not have this accreditation then it is almost useless. At Asford and other MBA programs with out this accreditation you will get a masters level ACADEMIC education in business administration. At weber and other schools with this accreditation you will learn to actually administer to a business. The difference is that one is academic and the other is functional. I refuse to go into an interview and have the interviewer find out i don't have this accreditation and mealy finish the interview out of pity when he knows that he'll never hire me regardless of how good a fit I may be.

The issue now is how can I salvage my academic career. Should I get into the MBA program at weber it costs. about $4000 more (small price to pay for a much more valuable degree), the real issue with that is that i'll have to pull extra hours in the day out of a magical hat to go and sit in class and do homework. My marriage is already suffering because lack of time to spend together. I may have the option to work the weekend shift and that maybe the facilitating factor to make this MBA happen but is that really what I want?

I could join the Air Force or Navy (maybe even as an officer depending on what the need). I could probably finish an MBA or other degree by the time I finish my 4-6 years in. bye.

awesome photo

again sweet photo I made with Lindsay's favorite effect. Political thoughts to come.

Apature 3 is amazazing!

Check out this cool photo effect that Lindsay said Apature 3 couldn't do. Apature 3 is about taking a good photo and turning it into a professional photo. You have to decide if you want to be a photographer or a designer. Image manipulation is for designers and taking good pictures is for photographers.

Lindsay said she hated my computer because she couldn't upload photos to blogspot.com but she just didn't realize how easy it really is. I haven't been able to show her how to navigate a Mac yet. She'll come around when she see that it is super easy. I created this account 10 minutes ago and I've had time to write two posts and upload a picture so what can you gather from that, Lindsay?

political thoughts

I thought that a blog on blogspot.com would be a great way to get my thoughts about the issues out of my head (and out of heated conversations with friends and family). I'll occasionally write down some thoughts that are bouncing around in my head. I don't intend to make scholarly arguments or have my thoughts peer reviewed. If my conclusions are based on bad info I'm sorry it's hard to find honest media in this day and age.