The Price of Progress

I never would have thought that my school work would be what I would stay up late thinking about, but alas, I was wrong. Below is a paper for one of my engineering classes that has been modified for this blog.

On May 6, 1937, a zeppelin called the Hindenburg blew up and crashed in Lakehurst, New Jersey. Thirty-six people perished. It was the most state-of-the-art, fastest, and most luxurious way to travel overseas at the time. It made 10 successful sea crossings the year before, but on this day, something went wrong. The hydrogen used to keep the craft afloat ignited and sent the ship down in a massive fireball. Fifty-six people managed to escape with their lives.

            Although helium had been known to be safer than hydrogen, the latter was chosen because it allowed the ship to maneuver easier. However, this choice ended up being the wrong one. The engineering community realized that hydrogen-filled airships were no longer the safest way to travel – even a small gas leak can lead to disaster. Thus, airship travel quickly dissipated.

            This failure has already shaped the present – there are currently no airships in service that are made for passenger transport. This is partly because airplanes are now more efficient. Also, society regards hydrogen with a lot more caution. Every time I think of the element, I think of the Hindenburg disaster. This is interesting because it shows a bit of human psychology. Why didn’t engineers just replace the hydrogen with helium and just sacrifice the mobility? People still ride on cruise liner ships on the ocean after the Titanic disaster. Why didn’t engineers think passengers wouldn’t ride on safer helium airships? Was it because the Titanic accident was clearly avoidable while the Hindenburg failure was unforeseen and unpredictable? The fear factor may have a big role in this case – fire is apparently scarier than water, falling is apparently scarier than drowning.

            It is worth noting at this point that airship advances were not completely abandoned. Regardless of what disaster happens, society goes back and fixes the problem and continues with the project. Humanity is a race of risk-takers. We all advance knowing that loss of life is possible. We all advance knowing that failure may happen. Even when it does happen, we recover, fix the problem, learn from the mistakes made, and continue on. This makes me wonder – what price do we actually put on a human life when we consider carrying out our projects for progress? This aspect of humanity leads us to think that we are willing to die to advance our technology and make life easier. It’s sort of an ironic existence.

Dimensions

There are 10 dimensions that we can imagine, if you don't count the zero dimension (a point) and the dimension of imagination. Here's a video explaining them if you are unfamiliar:
"Imagining the Tenth Dimension"
This is interesting all in itself, and it took me a while to digest it. But then I read a pretty inspiring short story that got me thinking about the dimensions (Thank you Kelli for showing me). To understand the rest of this blog, it'd be best to both watch the video and read the story. Here's the story:
"The Egg" by Andy Weir

First, I'd like to explain what I think of time. I think the dimension of time somewhat co-exists in each dimension. If you move a point (0D) to another point in space over a duration of time, the path it makes creates a line, making the first dimension. If you move the line (1D) to another location over a period of time, the path makes a 2 dimensional plane. Move the plane (2D), you get a 3D object. Move a 3D object, you get a 4D object, like the snake shown in the video. If a 4D object is moved over time, does the path make a 5D object? Now, a being in one dimension can only perceive the dimension above it in cross-sections. For example, the Flatlander (2D being) can only perceive a 3D object in 2D cross-sections over a period of of time. Just as we, being 3D beings can only perceive a 4D object in 3D cross-sections over time. Does this mean that "time"exists in every dimension rather being a dimension itself? Or is "time" perceived as the dimension above the being's current dimension?
In the story, God explains that time doesn't really exist where he's from. How did He and the deceased person have that conversation? According to this story, I inferred that God exists in the 4th dimension, and views the universe as a 4D object, an egg. This somewhat explains that time "doesn't exist" with him - at least not the person's version of time. God will have a conversation with all of the alternate endings of that one person. This suggests that God's version of time is the 5th dimension. He sees all of the alternate endings of that person as cross-sections over a period of "time." If this is true, that means that the 3rd dimensional person was made into a 4th dimensional being to talk to God.
Now. This this theory I'm going to explain may have many holes in it. It is based on my very basic knowledge of theoretical physics. It is based on the suggestion that beings exist in all dimensions, and they cannot see or communicate with a being in another dimension (yet). As far as we know, we are 3D beings who see the 4th dimension in cross-sections. Now, what if we were 4D beings like God in the story? We would see all of the alternate realities of ourselves (myself?) over time. But who says we aren't now? If, in fact, everyone is the same person, he (she?) is observing all of the possible endings of that life. But this still leaves the question of the universe's endings. Let's say for the sake of this theory that the universe is also "reincarnated" at the end of its life just like the human. That way, we (I?) can observe that too as if it is a cross section of the 5th dimension. Also, we could be observing the possible endings of the universe (and ourselves) right now. You may be thinking, "What? The universe couldn't have ended a second ago - nothing would have caused it." Remember that the ending possibilities of the universe are infinite. You can't say that couldn't have been one of them. The universe could end on a whim with no rhyme or reason (assuming the universe does end). But it doesn't really end, does it? It is reincarnated and starts again.
So what is the 3rd dimension? If we are 4D beings, that means everything we observe is a 4th dimensional object. To us, it would be like a 3D object (the snake in the video). As far as we know, atoms have been found to be made of subatomic particles (whose names escape me). But what are they made of? What if they were made of many tiny 4D objects? Say, the universe from the dimension below us. All of the infinite endings of the universe as 4D objects combined to make up our 4th dimensional universe.
Woah.
That means that those universes are made up of (again) their version of 4D objects from the dimension below them. All the way to infinity. The same can be said the other way. Our dimension is below an infinite number of dimensions above us. We are made of infinity, not determinate sizes of matter we call atoms. Could this be possible? Are there actually an infinite number of dimensions rather than 10? However, this theory all goes down the drain if a 4th dimensional object doesn't have the same properties to a 4th dimensional being as a 3rd dimensional object as observed by a 3rd dimensional being.

I hope you understood this. I have a headache. I'll let you decide where religion comes into this. I will keep my thoughts of that to myself.

Remember: Treat others the way you want to be treated... wait... Treat yourself the way you want to be treated. Yeah. That works.

Puzzle Pieces

I saw an article the other day about a girl who had a problem with her spine, and she could not walk. She worked with physical therapists her whole high school career so that she could walk across the stage on graduation day. When the day finally came, she did just that, and received a standing ovation. It was a very inspiring story. She was very excited as she explained that she had always wanted to "fit in" and be able to walk with her classmates. This got me thinking.

I disagree with the concept of fitting in. I understand that this girl did not want to be unique by being defined by her wheelchair, and I applaud her efforts and determination. However, I'm talking about other things like style, abilities, talents, interests, and so on. We've all seen this scenario before in movies and/or TV shows (For me, recently it was Doctor Who: Season 2 episodes 6 and 7). Although uniform, interchangeable parts in machines may be beneficial, humans should not work that way in society. It means we are easily replaced, predictable, boring. And no one wants to feel that way.

So now I introduce my metaphor of the puzzle piece. People should strive to be like the puzzle piece. Sorry if I sound like your 4th grade camp counselor, but this still applies. Every piece is different, and each piece has individual aesthetic appeal that is unlike any other piece. Now when people with a common goal come together, they can create something greater than any individual person could create. Each person brings their own unique abilities and talents to benefit the whole group. Just like puzzle pieces can come togther to make a whole image. (Got to throw in a teamwork metaphor while I'm in camp counselor mode.) Now there are many whole puzzles out there in the world. Whether or not those fit together, I'm not sure. I'll leave that to your imagination.

With that, I leave you with a paradox: Remember, you're unique, just like everyone else.

Balance

I have come to wonder of balance. We are quick to wish away bad experiences, bad people, hate, fear, and so on. What would happen if those things actually went away? Will all be well? If the good things in life were the only things that were, there would be nothing to define them for what they are. For example, we define cold as the absence of heat. We define darkness as the absence of light. Life would get very boring without such balance. We have to have bad days to fully appreciate the good ones. Then again, would that life be better because of the lack of corruption? Every day would be one-sided, but no harm is done. We would just live in ignorance of what could be.

Courage cannot exist without fear. Pleasure cannot exist without pain. Heroes would not exist without tragedy. Love cannot exist without hate. If only one of the opposites exists, it becomes something that is expressed or experienced everyday with no counter. It becomes repetetive. Insignificant. Predictable. It's like an army with no enemy - it does nothing, but it's still there. It might as well be nothing.

If we had no balance in life, we would fall.

The 5th Dimention: Part 2

Is modern civilization destroying us or building us?
Life has been made easier with advancements in the medical field, transportation, and so on. However, it is not all good.
Parts of the entertainment industry have severely limited the average teen's imagination and attention-span - in particular video games and movies. Video games have taught the younger generation that fast-paced action is the way to go. Movies and video games have defined our imagination for us. Yes, I do love video games and movies, but I feel that people rely on these forms of entertainment too much. Table games such as (most famously) Dungeons and Dragons have lost popularity (at least in my local area) possibly due to the degeneration of the attention span. Is it a result of the popularity of video games and movies? Maybe. Go ahead, call me a nerd. It seems to me that nerds enjoy using their imagination much more than those who spend hours watching a TV. "Nerds" create their own worlds, and heck, even their own rules when playing these table games. Sure, it may be slow, but there is no comparison to the entertainment that the imagination can produce. These people are the ones who make the famous movies and video games - they illustrate their imagination for others to enjoy. Ancient astronomers found patterns in the stars and created stories to go with the figures they saw. Today, it is difficult for me to find such people (I find it hard to find patterns myself). Has modern technology taken the place of our once expansive imagination? Have we become slaves to society?

Opposition

No one likes it when they are wrong. That is why we have so many arguments nowadays. Personal opinions can turn people into something nasty, though they can also unite people. It all comes down to what you say (or don't say). Sometimes, expressing your opinion to someone that opposes your opinion will just cause them to hold on to their own beliefs tighter partly because they don't want to be proven wrong. Personally, I don't mind it. I don't like to drag out unnecessary arguments. However, there are those topics where neither side can be right or wrong, at least for the time being.
For example, global warming. Some argue that humans have an impact on it and something should be done to prevent it. Some argue it's just part of nature. Even still, there are some that argue that it's not even happening. Research has implied it's just a natural process that happens regardless of what humans do. But let's say we didn't know that. These sides will argue on whether or not humans should do something. This is a tricky situation. It's impossible to know what is right until it's too late.
Here's another slightly different scenario - communism vs. democracy. This has caused wars. The United States believes that democracy is right. So, back during the Cold War era, it wants to spread it to other countries and prevent communist reign. But why? Why does everyone need to be democratic even if it's against that country's will? That just creates more enemies. Vietnam is one of them. The Soviet Union is another. Just because the U.S. believes democracy is right doesn't mean they need to force others to accept the same ideals. Let the people choose what to believe. Even though they have different beliefs, they can still be allies as long no one shoves foreign ideas down their throats.

Time and Terminators

The storyline (or should I say timeline?) of the movie, Terminator presents a few questions. A Terminator was sent back in time to kill the mother of a future resistance leader: Sarah Connor. The terminator is part of a system called Skynet. Skynet's AI became self-aware and turned against all who threatened its existence - the humans. Terminators were created to eliminate the threat. So, the terminator that was sent back in time to kill Sarah failed its mission. The remains of this terminator was then found by the future creator of Skynet and reverse-engineered.

This brings us to the question: Where did the terminator come from? Who invented it? Would this suggest the existence of parallel universes?

It appears that the terminator was invented by no one. It was just reverse-engineered and re-created. It boggles the mind.