Mount Rogers, Virginia

Return to the Tops of the States

I really did mean to stay with this blog. Truly I did.  But here it is, fifteen months since the last entry! It is a good thing this was a running travelogue. After having revisited Mount Mitchell, Debbie and I headed northeast to a section of Virginia dear to her, but unknown to me. It was near North Carolina's northern border and the one-time home of my mentor, the late Earl Russel. He and his wife Mary had a Christmas Tree farm near Whitetop Mountain, Virginia's second highest peak. After revisiting the former favorite youth missions site of the youth of our church, we attempted to drive to the top of Whitetop. However, the road was too bad even in good weather. We settled for a great view south that included much of North Carolina toward the southern horizon.

And then it was off to visit the park dedicated to Mount Rogers, our fourth high point. After we were inside the park, though, we found that the peak was visible from only one road within the park. The picture above was taken by my wife with me in the foreground. I have cropped it so as to not offend anyone by that! Anyway, as one can see, the top is green and not very steep. We tried to hike to the top from a nice trail head near the Visitors' center only to stop a mere quarter mile up the gentle slope.

The trail crossed the Appalachian Trail, which goes from Maine to Georgia, and I had my picture taken ascending that trail towards the as yet unseen summit of Mt. Rogers. We found that the Mountain was home to some partial wild horses which we photographed. We joined other hikers and heard reports from the top by those on the way down. We also found out that there were equine tours to the top!

Perhaps someday we will return to ride a couple of horses to the top. I am sure the views on the way will be spectacular. If I remember correctly, the picture above was taken on the way out of the park. Our task was to get to Kentucky, a half a state away. The journey would prove an adventure in backwoods Appalachia.

Mount Mitchell, North Carolina

 So, one day back in 2013, I got the High Point Fever!!  I mean, I started to read the websites, mapping out the possible trips, and all that... well, except for getting in shape to actually hike to an ice-capped peak somewhere.

I made it a goal to at least visit the high points of as many of the states as I could while I am still able.  Of course, this included my wife Deborah. So, with Google Earth and Google maps at hand, I mapped out our first journey: a circle taking in the states north of us: NC, VA, KY and TN. 


It was late spring, before any known or unknown graduations that we might be obligated to attend, when we headed north on a familiar route to Mount Mitchell, the highest peak east of the the Mississippi. That would mean it was the "top of America" for about 75 years.

We could not have picked a better time.  The weather was fantastic and the Blue Ridge Parkway was open! With my digital camera, I had no worries. We took our time and a lot of pictures along the Parkway. We'd been there before, at peak autumn colors and frozen pipes in the park, but the viewing had never been better. We could see south to South Carolina and North to Virginia, though I don't think we could see the other high points from there.

It is a nice place to go for a day, especially when the weather co-operates. I won't mention the times I've been on the Parkway when that wasn't the case! Well, I ramble. But it is good to be back on the Blog. The next stop, Mount Rogers, Virginia.

Brasstown Bald, Georgia

Georgia

Among mountaineers there is one type of mountain that makes the climb worth it. It is the bald mountain. Just above the treeline, the view becomes breathtaking. It is that sort of mountain that graces the top of my longtime home state of Georgia. Far away from the pecans and peanuts of my old stomping grounds in the southwest, the state's highest point sits on the state line with Tennesee. Unlike state treasures like Mount Mitchell of North Carolina, those who use the parking lot here must pay during visiting hours. But that includes a shuttle bus to the top, and believe me, that is worth the cost of admission.

There is a large parking lot with picnic areas a few hundred feet from the top. A visitors center with a store is where you take the shuttle about once every 15 minutes or so. A healthy person can hike the trail in about that time.

At the top, there is a platform that at has a science center at ground level. There is even an elevator for us older folks to the viewing area and observation tower.

The road from town is a long and winding one that is closed due to weather sometimes. The view is best in the fall, but expect a crowd during peak season.

Last August I had debated going there to view the eclipse, but the rare opportunity to get in-laws together had my mother, brother, sister-in-law, brothers-in-law, etc. In our own yards. Perhaps someone can tell me what seeing the shadow rush across the mountain was like.

Anyway, my most memorable visit was probably when we drove up one afternoon from Greenville, getting there after hours. I hiked to the top in time to get some pictures of sunset, while Debbie waited in the parking lot.

I'll let the reader judge if it was worth it.

Looking Up, America's High Points.

South Carolina

I have had problems in my latest blogs, so instead of stretching "Part 2" of my life story to a breaking point, I am going to write about places I've been.

The first series will be my recollections of my visits in recent years to the high points in Amerca. This will be what I know from the "drivers seat", so to speak.

Historically, the first high point I visited was either Tennessee's Clingmans Dome, or my home state's Brasstown Bald. However, I will fast forward to my present quest, and start with South Carolina.

I live at about 1000 feet above see level, About a half mile lower and About 38 miles southwest of Sassafras Mountain. I have never seen any sassafras growing there, but I have long forgotten what that looks like. It takes a little over an hour to get there.

Anyway, my wife and I have been there many times. The peak shares a bench, monument and radio tower, and soon, a panoramic view of North and South Carolina. 

I had hoped the planned viewing platform would have been finished before last falls eclipse but that didn't happen. The preparations turned what was once a peaceful park in the woods to a wasteland. But one day soon...

On the waste slope, right off the gravel parking lot, is a modern overlook that looks over the local lakes toward Georgia. The horizon does not allow a view of Georgia's Brasstown Bald.

The monument, or placard, at the top gives the height at 3560 feet above see level. Since South Carolina has beaches, the math would give a mean elevation for the state to be 1780 feet. Keep that in mind when I cover other high points.

I miss the scenic wooded peak. Here is Debbie at the top back then. Below that is the scene now. I hope that soon there will be a modern platform or tower with at least grass and shrubbery at ground level.

About Me: Part 2.3

Our trip South from the northwoods yielded plenty of chances to see Lake Superior's northern shore. We had used up much of our day getting to the highpoint and our host for the night awaited somewhere in northern Wisconsin. But I had decided to see all the Great Lakes, so I took a lot of pictures.

 So you can see, we were pushing daylight to get past Duluth before nightfall. Through a comedy of errors and Google maps misdirection, we made it to Paul Peterson's house to feast on stuffed pheasant!

About Me: Part 2.2

As I continue to update my my recent life, I owe a note of explanation to my readers. The 2.x episodes are part of a quest to visit the highest places in the 50 US states and DC. Our change of plans took us to the Mississippi River once again.

After visiting Omaha on the River, it was time to head north towards Canada. After we stopped at Harkeye Point, IA, we took a break and visited Aunt Esther and the Minnesota clan. We also visited the headwaters of the Mississippi, which forced a weekend stay in lovely Iron Mountain, MN.

But finally we headed to the pointy end of the state to get as close as we could to the top of the state... Eagle Mountain. 

The trip went well, But when we found out the hike was over three miles on a wet trail, we decided to take some pictures and head south to Wisconson. 

Not claiming sour grapes, but the view from the top was probably obscured by lovely fall leaves. 🍁🍁🍁

Really, check out the view from the lake. 😀

About Me: Part 2.1

Plans change. And, like when driving a manual shift, you occasionally skip a gear. Such is the story of my life I 2017.

Not much change at the homefront, but the changes worked so as to relieve tention here. After much delay, we found it possible to get a friend back home to Nebraska. Not exactly Kansas, but close.

This meant that our planned trip to New England would become a trip west, all the way to the Grand Canyon!  The plans were on the drawing board, but nothing in stone past Omaha.

But packing a guy's life in a Uhaul trailer cut into the budget. I decided that the desert could wait. Less than two hours from Omaha, near the Minnesota line, waited the most unique highpoint of them all--in a soybean field!!

And so, instead of a six hour trip to a muddy cow pasture in southwestern Nebraska, a pleasant ride, with a side trip to Iowa's best overlook, we beat a thunderstorm to Hawkeye Point. The reason this was special was because there on the poles were arrows pointing to all the rest of the high points.

We got plenty of photos before the storm hit. Fortunately, this was very close to the main road. Later in the week, after visiting with most of the Peterson Clan, Minnesota's Eagle Mountain would not be as easy.

About Me - Part Two

In my last post, I recounted my memories of verifiable history, and thus most certainly are true.  That is what I consider knowledge.  It takes no faith to accept such things.  That is where faith and "science" diverge.  As I mentioned in the last paragraph of that post that my brother and I both went to Seminary. Though I can blame my circumstances and/or myself for my life track after getting a Theological education, the fact is that track is a matter of faith.  I found that I had let my mind (or "feelings") interpret what was not of faith.

During my days in grad school (aka seminary) I met my wife, a "graduate assistant" working toward a degree in medical missions.  Her being a registered nurse turned out to be the bedrock upon which our family was built.  My Masters of Divinity degree was not enough for me to "get a job" in the ministry.  In truth, that process is an act of faith.  After three years as a candidate, preaching at various churches but not ministering as an intern (the best way to get experience!), I "got the message" and sought regular "secular" employment.

While I was seeking a church in which to serve, I worked as a Nursing Assistant at the Nursing Home where my wife worked. She was the lead nurse on second shift and I was on third shift.  Shift change was accomplished by my bundling the three children together and putting them in the back seat of the station wagon and driving to the nursing home.  My wife would come out and I would go into work.  She would pick me up in the morning.  It was a wild three years in which I was granted permission to have Sundays off to go preaching at area churches.  Sometimes, though, I had to work AND preach after zero sleep!

By the time our fourth child was born, I was working temporary jobs looking for work. We finally decided that my best course of action was to get another degree.  This time, it would be in accounting -- based on the fact that I was an Ace math student in High School.  I made it my "full time job" for a full year, getting an Associate of Science degree in accounting at a local Technical College.  Even with the College's help, I was not able to turn that degree into a job.  It turned out that I could not afford to go ahead to a Bachelor's degree, so I sought other work.

I had worked as a security guard while in grad school, so I took another look at the field.  That led to my "career" in the field -- eleven years with one company and nine with another. The first job had started out with third shift and moved through second shift to some first shift work -- and back again.  As assignments moved to part time, I worked part-time as a pizza delivery driver. Drivers actually worked in the kitchen between deliveries, so I learned a bit about the restaurant business that way.  My second son has ended up in the service industry so I have a bond of sorts with him on that. My third son followed my interest in math and now works in a financial services company.  It was during this period that we bought a house.

Based on a painted brick at the crawl space space, the house was built in 1962, making it 55 years old.  It has a large oak tree in the back yard with what appear to be "daughter" trees growing in the fence to the lot next door.  The lot has two entrances, with the corner lot being taken up with another house.  We once had a mailbox to our "neighbors" across the back street.  Oddly, that mailbox was "fire bombed" one night.  I say that because I saw the wooden box burning one morning as I left the house!  Our neighborhood is "mixed" with a historical mansion restored to its 19th century dimensions diagonally across from us.  It had been a plantation home when the rest of the area was the plantation!  Meanwhile, down the street are trailer parks.

My wife's work moved from pediatrics while in school to hospice nursing at the preset time.  She has worked in two hospital systems, a doctors office and finally in hospice care -- in home care of up to fifteen patients.  She puts a lot of miles on her vehicle.  She has served in the church as a Sunday school teacher for most of the last 35 years (currently on hiatus, maybe "retired"?).  Whereas my service was a deacon is lackluster (currently not active), her service has been extraordinary.

We have traveled through much of the eastern United States, from the edge of Texas to Missouri to Massachusetts. We hope to see the rest of New England together this coming fall. She grew up there, though I don't think she has been to Maine.  Our recent journeys have been to the "high points" of the entire Southeast (Dixie) from Louisiana to Virginia, the "boarder states" of Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, and the northern states from Illinois to Pennsylvania.  We slid took a side trip into Texas just to say we've seen the state.

We can say we are "world travelers," since we have both been to Canada (Alaskan cruise for our 25th anniversary courtesy of my brother) and Peru (together once, I've been several times).  Additionally, my wife has been to England and Wales.  Both Peru and Wales were missions trips. Back before my passport expired, my brother and I took a road trip with our mother to Alaska.  On that trip we took the entire Can-Am Highway (gravel and dirt and in perpetual repair due to the extremes in weather!).  I can add Denali (formerly "Mount McKinley") to my "high points" visited, though not climbed!

On our anniversary trip (concurrently my parents' fiftieth) to Alaska, we visited Mount Saint Helens, and saw Mount Rainier from the highway going to and from Seattle.  I suppose, since we cannot, at our age, climb the snow capped mountains, we can probably add Washington to our list of high points that we have visited.  However, hopefully we can take a special trip in our retirement to visit the West coast, Alaska and Hawaii!  That is a dream trip, but one can hope.

After I lost my last job, I searched for a few years without any full time work found, so, when I turned 62, I took "early retirement." The social security check is a bit more than our house payment, so the account that held my employment (and unemployment) checks which paid "housing expenses" doesn't do much else.  I have learned that a self-published book does not sell very well.  Friends and acquaintances don't seem to want to spend even $5 on an eBook copy of a $10 paperback version.  And forget selling the hardcover at $20. By the way, those prices are "bargain basement" and may be my problem there.  Margin matters, and profit motive cannot make a beginning writer a living.

Well, there are a lot of other memories, but those of these two posts just are the high points of my life.  I can write about the specifics in later posts here and at my other blog (https://upstatethoughts.blogspot.com/).  Alternately, any readers can leave a message and I can provide more information.  I hope you have enjoyed this overview of 'What I know' about my own life.

About Me -- Part One

What I know, definitely, without looking anything up:

I am a male of the human race, having thinning white and dark brown hair and lightly tanned skin. I have sired four children of my wife of almost forty years.  The first of our children, now deceased, was born in 1978. He died in 2001.  I have visited his grave almost every month since then.  The other three children were subsequently born in 1980, 1982 and 1984. All three of them have jobs and two of them are married.

From our second born and his wife, my wife and I have two grand sons.  Both have been diagnosed to be on the autism spectrum.  The oldest one is "high functioning" while the younger does not talk, but now is quite curious of his surroundings and knows how to communicate what he wants.  My daughters-in-laws are quite opposite of each other, but I love them both.

I have a copy of my birth certificate, so I know I was born in California in 1953, making me 64 years old as I write this.  My earliest memories are of a short time in which my family lived in western Louisiana. I am not sure how old I was, but I remember my fifth birthday when we lived in north Florida.  I remember when my second brother was born, so that puts a memory in 1958, when I was 5 1/2 years old (also in northern Florida).  About this time, I remember climbing up a very big pile of sand in central Florida.  I drew a picture of it for school.  I remember a rare snowfall in north Florida about that time.

I remember changing schools when I was in the third grade.  That is when I changed my name from "Jimmy" to "Henry," my dad's name. That was in 1963, and so I clearly remember the announcement on November 22nd that the governor of Texas and the President of the United States had been shot.  I remember thinking it was tragic, but I didn't think the President "could" die. I was 10 and an optimist.  In 1964, the four of us boys were thrilled when mom brought home our baby sister.  We helped name her! A few years later, our family moved to southwest Georgia, still only a couple hours drive from our cousins in north Florida.

Strangely, as close as I followed the space race, I cannot directly remember Project Mercury.  I have some faint memories of things like the first space walk.  By the time of the Apollo flights I can remember them vividly. I was in "Middle School" by then, and thought I wanted to be an astronomer.  My dad had bought me a telescope!  I remember the Christmas of 1968, when I was wearing a full cast on my left leg after having been injured in a football game near the end of the season.  I missed getting a Letter jacket by just a few quarters.  I was 15, and soon to be 16. I stayed up that Christmas Eve to hear the Apollo 8 astronauts read Genesis 1 as they came back around from the first visit to the far side of the moon. The next summer, in 1969, I was confined to a tent after "lights out" on Sunday, July 20th, listening to a transistor radio as Neil Armstrong and Buz Aldrin said their first words from the surface of the moon.  We had watched the landing after checking in to Scout Camp.

My Junior Year of High School I had to settle being the team "Manager." I got to assist in wrapping ankles, carrying equipment and carrying water during games.  We almost made the state playoffs that year, and I got my Letter jacket.  Go Green Waves!!  The next year, we changed schools. We couldn't have a football team, yet, but our basketball team that year was awesome! I was in the first graduating class of that year (1970-71).

In our high school days in southwest Georgia, both my brother and I committed our lives to Jesus Christ after having been members of our church for a few years.  We both felt called to preach the gospel and both of us later went to Seminary.  My brother went on to a double-career as a High School History Teacher and long time preacher of a small church in a small town near where we graduated from High School.  He retired from school teaching but still preaches at the same church.  A life-time bachelor, he was married last year!

I will end this trip down memory lane for now, since this blog has gone on for a while.  I hope to post the "rest of the story" soon.

Why? Progressing towards Wisdom

As mentioned in my last post, the "why" of any particular thing is not as clear as the "how." But alas, the questioning of existence is what philosophy is built upon.  A "scientist" can find the "how" and get to know the facts, but a philosopher can search for a lifetime and die in his ignorance.

Sometimes, though, scientists can make logical assumptions and come up with the most probable reason for a phenomenon.  It has been assumed that people have taste receptors for "sweetness" for the collection of sugars to get the energy their body needs to operate.  Likewise, it is assumed we have "salty" taste buds to detect the sodium needed for a proper electrolyte balance in our blood.  "Bitter" and "sour" tastes can be assumed to tell our ancient ancestors whether food was ripened or rotten.  These are not things we can "know" with certainty, but they do make sense to most of us.

The old "survival of the fittest" dogma perpetuates the assumptions upon which much of modern science is based.  This can be applied to plants that are usually "bitter" to the taste.  They contain chemicals that are fatal to insects--and often to larger lifeforms.  Any attempt to eat the leaves or fruit is unpleasant to those foraging for food.  If the warning from the taste is ignored, the offender might even die, assuring that other of the species sought for food will not be so assaulted.

Cause and affect often works out in such a way that the reason becomes apparent retrospectively.  This is where "knowledge" leads to wisdom.  The more we know, the better we are able to discern the reason things happen.  Once we discern the correlations, we can avoid mistakes that may alter our lives so as to provide a better quality of life.  Among scientists, experimentation is based on making assumptions and then testing cause and effect to verify them.

We may never know the ultimate reason behind the way things are, but the more we try to find out, the more discerning we can become.  As we become smarter, it is hoped that we can become wiser.  However, there are no guarantees.

So What Do I Know?

I don't know as much as I wish I did.

Probability can only get you close to Reason.

I can never know enough; and I doubt anyone can.

To Start With ...

Everything has a cause.  This is not the same as saying everything has a reason, though, in the strictest sense, that is also true.  It is not often easy to determine the "why," but he "how" is pretty much clear if one digs deep enough.

That brings me into "controversy" for two blogs in a row!  Let's be honest: controversy gets more viewers.  But that does not deter me from stating unequivocally that there are some things that are true anyway, no matter if other people don't think so.

Professional scientists spend a lot of time researching "cause and effect" to determine ways to prevent certain things from happening by addressing the cause.  In medicine, this means testing to find the malady behind the symptoms.  Once the cause is found, the symptoms can be treated with confidence.  In many cases, the cause can be eliminated or repaired, thus curing the patient.

Other times, though, the search for a cause leads to unwanted conclusions.  That is the predicament of secular science when it comes to "origins." Not wanting to be persuaded by the argument that there must be a "First Cause," which philosophers of old called "God," they choose what seems to me to be illogical: chance.   That is, they believe that all that exists came by some sort of cosmic accident.

The old "constant state" theory had proven too unreasonable, giving rise to modern "creation myths" about everything coming about from a spontaneous eruption of what some even call "nothing" or "nothingness."  The later is a state of nonexistence.  What caused it to happen?  Happenstance is the only thing they can come up with. "It just happened."

Again, I don't have the intelligence--or imagination--of such cerebral giants as Stephen Hawkins, or even Richard Dawkins, so I have to depend upon ancient wisdom that cannot be measured in intellect.  To me, the truth is what we all know instinctively--someone, or something, caused things to come to pass.  To me, the first words of Genesis state it simply: B'reshi bara.  In the Hebrew, the action comes before the actor.  One then reads the next word to determine who was acting.

Literally, "At first, He created."  Who did this? The word describing the Actor in this case is Elohim. That word comes from the root for "Strength." He who we call "God" had to be powerful enough for the task.  In literal "words in stone" the Fourth Commandment confirms that the One who did this was the One Who Is.  The One powerful enough to create the universe was, and  is in a "constant state."  The Creator is that First Cause to which all things are the "effect."

So What Do I Know?

I know there was a "First" Cause.

That First Cause was powerful far beyond comprehension.

Where I came from

Trying to stay neutral on controversial subjects is hard when the "other side" insists on denying basic logic and reason.  It is not hard to see that every living thing comes from other living things.  And not just any living thing.  Each living thing comes from a genetic combination from its parents.  Period.  There can be no exception.

Microbes come from microbes of the very same kind of microbe. Every.Single.Time.  Occasionally, there will have been a unexpected change in the genetic material passed on from the parent organism or organisms, but the change never changes, let's say, a virus into a bacterium.  It is the same way all the way up the "food chain" to humans.  Most of the time, though, the changes are predictable if you know enough about the parents.

The key is in a hierarchy among the genes.  Some are dominant and some are waiting to join up with genes that are like them before they make their appearance in the next generation.  These genes are the "recessive" ones.  For example, I have blue eyes though my dad had brown eyes.  My mom has a mix of pigment that showed her dad's blue eyes (giving her "hazel" eyes). Three of the six of their children had blue eyes, demonstrating that our father had recessive genes for making blue eyes (from one of his parents).

I am an amateur genealogist, and I like to try to trace who came before me in the "chain of life."  No matter how far back in history I might go, I find humans.  There was never a time when a non-human mated with a human to make a human.  It is even more strange to consider how two non-human creatures could produce a human.

Starting with myself, I need only go back 20 generations of unique individuals to reach 2,048,576 ancestors.  Though I have some ancestors in parts of Europe, it is no consequence that the estimated population of the primary country of origin (England) in 1417 was somewhere around two million.  It is just the way it is.  It makes sense.  Everyone knows this kind of thing must be true.

But yet, those who hold PhD's in big universities teach that the chain goes back into the "deep" past to allow the rules to have changed along the way.  They say that all living things, including plants, had a common ancestor that very gradually made the rules up as generations piled up over the years.  They say some of the virus-type things produced fungi and bacteria which eventually produced parallel lines of algea and insect-like things.  From these family lines, they say, came every plant and animal that has ever been.

If they are honest, they use qualifiers like "evidently," "probably" and the like.  They step out on a limb and declare that these things "must have" happened.  Who am I to question them?  Perhaps I just have not seen enough evidence.  Surely there are billions of transitional fossils to prove that the rules have changed over the years.  Well, aren't there?

So What Do I Know?

Biological lifeforms all come from parents. There is no known exception.

Natural laws of propagation assure that the next generation will pass traits on to the next.

For What It's Worth

The Bible tells us that "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."  Money is just a medium of exchange -- physical or digital representations of our wealth.  When that becomes more important than worthwhile relationships, it becomes detrimental to our wellbeing.

But that wealth is also representative of our worth.  It is the measure of our physical and mental activity in the community around us.  Our money "pays forward" our work into the lives of our family and friends even as it provides a more comfortable life for ourselves.

Whenever we spend money, we normally "seek a bargain" to "get our money's worth."  In this, we are putting a value on those things that we want, drawing a line beyond which we don't want to cross. If we cross that line, and have to borrow money instead, then we have to rearrange our spending habits and pay extra in the long run.

The way to avoid the "credit" trap is to only spend money you already have.  For most of us, we buy large things -- like appliances, cars and houses -- against a promise that we will continue to make money in the future.  Assuming periodical improvements, this works well enough.  For smaller things, though, buying more than we can afford is a bad idea.

The best course of action for recurring expenses is to always "live within your means."  Money on food, utilities and travel should always from "money in the bank."  That is just "how money works."

This requires us to budget our resources with an eye on keeping money in the bank.  In this way, we might even have enough to let it "make money" for us.  Banks make money by charging more for other folk's money than they pay to keep our money.  The truth be told, the banks actually only have a fraction of the money they have control over; but as long as we aren't "rich," this does not matter much for us.

As soon as enough money is set aside for emergencies, the access acquired should be paid out to businesses that provide goods and services to allow them to stay in business.  This provides funds so that they can grow into larger businesses that are worth more.  When we do this, we become partners, sharing in the wealth that we hope will come.  It is best to buy into companies that pay back periodically, but good companies that increase in overall worth can prove a good investment when the time comes to sell your share to someone else.

If you are getting paid to remain a partner, these payments may be used to buy more of the company.  As you buy more "shares," the growing company becomes worth even more to you.  If at anytime the company begins to fail, selling off shares that still are worth more than they first cost provides funds to be used elsewhere.  Timing is important, so it is probably a good idea to let professional money managers make this decision.

So, What Do I Know?

• Money can get us into trouble.
• Money only represents value.
• "Credit" should only be used for big things.
• We should strive to use only our own money on recurring expenses.
• Excess money should be used to help others succeed.
• Wise investments can one day pay us well.

Redistribution of Wealth

Economics is a balancing act between selfishness and greed.  On the one end is the understandable drive for self preservation.  It is altogether natural to do what it takes to survive. Except for some enthusiasts, though, "survival" is not enough.  Most of us want to be "comfortable."  To the extent to which we extend this desire leads to the other end: Greed.

The poorest among us may be greedy most of the time.  When we get something, it is usually not enough to be comfortable. So, we seek more "stuff" so we can be more comfortable.  The problem for the richest among us is rarely selfishness, so even though they often are greedy for more stuff, they can soothe the guilty feelings by giving stuff away.

On a basic level, we humans depend upon others for our survival.  Self-sufficiency is very rare.  Starting with families, and then clans and tribes, we have learned to depend upon each other.  Most people have skill sets that can be used to supplement the comfort level of others.  And so, selfishness meets greed very nicely.

We marvel at the "stuff" that some people have -- stuff that just seems to flaunt their wealth.  Who "needs" a collection of antique cars, for example.  But they spend thousands of dollars acquiring, restoring and maintaining what is to most of us obsolete.  What is the point?  Could it be a way of redistribution of wealth?

Consider, for example, the original 1957 Chevy. The supply line to produce that car began a long time before the steel mills produced the frame.  A multitude of workers received compensation in several continents to provide the raw materials.  Then transportation workers got the materials to the factories.  Each of these were compensated as well.  The owners of plantations and mining companies sold those materials for a profit so they could buy stuff for their families.

By the time the car got to the showroom floor, hundreds of factory workers had been paid along the way.  The factory has spent money to send the car to a dealer responsible for selling it.  In some cases dealerships would buy stock, but often it was "on consignment."  Sometimes "Clearance Sales" had to be used to recoup the cost of having the car on the lot. Mostly, though, the car was sold with enough left over for a profit.  The salesman made his commission, and his family was able to live comfortably for another month.

Over time, the owner of the new car would spend thousands of dollars on maintenance for the car.  He would pay mechanics, or parts dealers and even car washes.  His hard earned wealth was being "redistributed' daily.  And then, he recouped some of that when he traded the car in for a new one.  The car would probably see another owner of a little lower class who would keep it for years.  He would spend what he could in keeping in up, further distributing funds to providers of services and products used.

Finally, after three decades, the old car is spotted and bought by a collector. Depending on its level of disrepair, hundreds to thousands of dollars are put into this classic vehicle to make it look like it was as it rolled off the lot.  The rich man who now owns the car spends hundreds of dollars in storage and display costs every month.  These funds go to those of a lower class, who in turn buy stuff to provide a comfortable living for their families.

So where is the greed and/or selfishness in owning that restored classic '57 Chevy?  Its survival for the last 60 years has provided the redistribution of hundreds of thousands of dollars through numerous years.  Its value, upwards from $50,000, may seem like a lot based on its original price, but it hardly represents a fraction of the money that has exchanged hands over the years.

Let us not envy our rich neighbors who have these fine and sometimes fancy things.  Consider instead how much the existence of these things has contributed to the well-being of those who have produced and maintained them.  Meanwhile, we can learn to be content with what we have.  In our having whatever we have, we ourselves redistribute the flow of wealth to countless others in all walks of life.

So, What do I know?

• Greed is a heart issue.
• Envy gets us nowhere.
• Economics is a study of the flow of wealth.
• Contentment is a beautiful thing.

What Electrons Do

It's What Electrons Do

Speaking of light (see last blog), that reminds me of a related, though unseen, thing that is still quite clearly the truth.  Electrons interact with other electrons in predictable ways.  I was never great in chemistry class, but lab was always my favorite part.

Simple experiments help to demonstrate that molecules and their accumulated atoms work together in dependably predictable ways. Having observed that caustic soda and powerful acids react in bubbly reaction to become harmless "salt water," I was able to safely neutralize a busted car battery that had spilled all over the driveway.  Though I used a whole box of baking soda mixed with water, I could have used a two liter Coke with similar results.

How is this related to light?  Well, those electrons, it turns out, are related to light.  While light is primarily "photons" that ride upon electromagnetic waves, electrons are bundles of that same energy that work by interacting with others in nearby atoms to create bonds that build chemicals of all sorts.  In the example above, bonds building Sodium bicarbonate together come apart "energetically" when introduced to Hydrochloric acid.  The resulting carbon dioxide (evident in the foaming liquid) produced the harmless salt water that I further diluted with with a garden hose leaving trace salt in the adjacent ground.

Electrons are probably best known as the power that "flows" through wires into billions of homes around the world.  These electrons are forced to line up and then are forced by magnetic pulses through the wires. Magnets have a mysterious relationship with the metals around them.  Their electrons flow in one direction until they escape briefly only to be pulled back.  This creates a "magnetic field" which is used to force electrons in the wires to line up and then to move a short distance, hoping from atom to atom.  The chain reaction perpetuates an electromagnetic field at near the speed of light towards a device that finally allows electrons to complete a circuit on the way to a positive ground.

I have learned that it is not a good idea to interfere with moving electrons -- whether in chemical reactions or electric circuits.  I've heard that chemical burns are worse than electrical burns.  But I'd just as soon not find out by experience.

So, what do I know?

• Electrons are tiny negatively charged particles.
• Chemical reactions happen when electrons meet.
• Electricity is when moving electrons create electromagnetic fields.

Light, Life and Information

Seeing Clearly

Millions of living things in the animal and plant kingdoms have a working relationship with light.  Any with sentience "know" what that relationship is.  Or, at least, they make decisions based on perceptions of the benefits of that light.

Light is a form of energy as is evident in the growth of plants.  Without light, green plants die.  Even with plenty of nourishment and hydration, the healthiest of plants need light.  This energy is used to combine water, carbon dioxide and various other nutrients to build stems, limbs, leaves and fruit.  This energy is then released when that material is consumed by other organisms or by combustion.

But the most remarkable thing about light is that it allows sentient beings to gather information from the environment remotely.  Direct contact is not necessary when we animals can see things around us.  Some of us need help as our eyes, wonderful light receptors that they are, become weaker.

I know that light moves so fast that, comparatively speaking, things close by and far away are equally accessible.  However, there are ways to slow light down just a little.  When this happens, light is scattered, absorbed or reflected.  In this way, over time, scientists have figured out that light travels through a vacuum at about 186,282 miles per second.  That is fast enough to travel around the earth at the equator about 7.5 times!

Since light moves so fast, information from all over the universe is accessible on a clear night.  Certain stars, along with the moon, allow navigation along the surface of the earth because the information is predictable.  Based on the apparent movement of the sun on the horizon at sunrise and sunset, we are able to discern the passage of time.

So, what do I know?

• Light is basically energy.
• Light travels very fast.
• Light enables access to information.

Falling is Normal

I move from basic math concepts which I "know" by instinct to other things that are harder to prove, but still just as much of my knowledge base.

Let's move to "gravity."  I won't get into the math behind it, for that is in the territory into which geniuses dare to tread!  But I will speak to the concept.

I know that things FALL.  How much more basic can you get?  If there is any space at all between my hand and the floor, when I let go of an object, it falls to the floor. I've heard, and I've seen video evidence to prove it, that all objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum.  That is convenient for making calculations if one knows the math.

Related to gravity is "weight."  This is the evidence of what in science is called "mass" and "density."  The fact that a feather takes longer to fall to the ground that a marble is because the air around us has both mass and density.  Because of this, we have weather as the air is heated to change its density.

Personally, I experience gravity's effect in whatever I am doing.  As I sit here typing this blog, I can feel my body pressing against the chair.  If I am not careful, my legs will grow numb based on pressure distributed upon my hips.  The keyboard rests securely upon the flat surface of the desk, making typing possible.  All thanks to gravity.

If I were to go outside to play a game of catch with my grandson, gravity would be there to challenge me.  I would take advantage of the fact that the ball is of such a mass and density as to be able to temporarily "defy" gravity due to the energy imparted to it by my releasing it in a forward motion.  That motion, though, would diminish with distance as gravity worked by the laws of motion. The ball would either end up on the ground or in the hands of my grandson.

In all likelihood, my grandson's return of the ball would take a curved line.  This line would put the ball further from the ground for a moment.  The arc it forms obeys the laws of gravity and I have to adjust to intercept the ball.

So, What do I know?

Things fall until they hit a surface.

Things have mass and density.

Things can "fly" when energy is exerted against them that is greater than the gravity that makes them fall.

Circular Reasoning

In some ways the circle is more basic to universal knowledge than the straight line.  More specifically, the curved line is most often incorporated in the art of toddlers given a crayon.  The youngster will rarely draw straight lines, but he will draw rough circles (ovals) as he doodles.

When he gets curious, he "looks around" and "goes in circles" to take as much of his world in as he can.  The space near him is "around" him and he is "surrounded" with things in every direction. To take it all in he goes in "circles."  The word "round" descends from the Latin word "rota," from which we get "rotate."  The word "circle" comes from the Latin "circulus," the diminutive of "circus" which it borrowed from the Greek "kirkos" which means "ring."

Even in ancient times, the Romans and Greeks built stadiums that were semi-circular or fully round (oval tracks).  They were built in such a way as to give a  view to as many people as possible.  And so, they built "circles."  The methodology naturally would have begun with the architect stretching a measuring line to the optimum distance and rotating the desired arch -- all the way to a circle.  On paper, the "circus" was a lot smaller, and thus a "circulus."

This line became known as the radius.  The resulting line forming the ring turned out to be about six and a quarter times radius (a bit over 6.28).  The radius, when doubled, became the diameter of the circle. The ratio between the widest part of the circle and the distance around it is an irrational number known as "pi" estimated as "3.14" or "22/7".  The area inside a circle is pi times the square of the radius.

The most ancient system of measuring the outside of a circle used what we call quadrants: the four directions measured by fixed points.  The common points were the sunrise and the sunset at the equinox.  The ancient Hebrews used East as forward, making that which was on the left "north" and tha which on the right "south."  Behind them was the unpassable sea, the "west" and sundown.  This way the circle has been divided into 16 common directions we know today.  However, this is not precise enough over long distances, so "degrees" of the arch use "base 60" with 60 times 60, or 360 degrees divided by "minutes" and "seconds."  For convenience, time also follows this scheme.

By the way, 360 is the result of multiplying 3,4,5 and 6 together. Seen as prime factors, this is 2*2*2*3*3*5.  This makes the factors of 360 a long list: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 54, 60, 90, 120 and 180.  All in all, the ancient math guys had it together.

So, What do I know?

The radius is a straight line used from a center point to inscribe a circle.

The diameter of a circle is twice the length of the radius.

The distance around the circle is about 3.1416 times the diameter and about 6.2832 times that of the radius. This is the ratio known as "pi".

The area inside the circle is pi (about three and a seventh) times the square of the radius.

A Square Deal

Geometry 4:

A Square Deal

When working with the right triangle, it is easy to build a "rectangle" by simply building a mirror image of the right triangle.  One might expect the term "right rectangle" to be used here, but that would be redundant.  This is because the prefix "rect" is a corruption of the original Germanic form of the Latin "rectus" which means "right."  The Old German was "reht" but the "h" was the hard "kh" sound that migrated up from the Greek "Chi" (looks like our "X").  The Old English form was riht, corrected (pun intended) by adding back in the hard sound.  This time, the hard "g" was used, rendering "ri-ght"  It did not take long before the hardness of the "chi" sound was abandoned.  From "rect" to "right" and back again!

Anyway, we have seen how a right angle can be constructed using the 3:4:5 ratio with the sides.  Using the largest side (the diagonal "5") a ratio of 5:4:3 becomes the mirror image forming a 3 by 4 rectangle.  The area of the rectangle is simple to determine in "square" units.  The area of a "right quadrangle" (four-sided with parallel sides) will be twice that of a right triangle.  Another way of seeing this is that the formula for triangle will be one half that of a rectangle.

The formulae for this are simple:

Area of a rectangle = base (width) x height (length).
Area of a triangle = 1/2 x base x height

The "square" is a special kind of rectangle.  Not only are all the angles inside a square equal, but so are the sides.  The ratio of the sides of the "half square" loses its whole number diagonal when "side a" and "side b" are forced to be the same size.  The diagonal becomes a multiple of the square root of 2! That works out to a little over 1.414.  I'd go out farther, but fourteen-fourteen works for me. But, when considering the area of the square, no irrational numbers need be involved.  I really prefer rational numbers.

When we move to other triangles and polygons, where the angles are not all right (no pun intended), then the "height" becomes a problem.  The height of a triangle is always figured in a right angle, which must be used to divide the shape in order to follow the rules of the square.  That is to say, everything must be reduced to right triangles and/or rectangles to be squared.  It's like playing with blocks!

I'll work out the bugs of those building blocks in another blog.  I know just enough geometry to be "dangerous."

So, what do I know?

Rectangle: Area = lw
Rt. Triangle:  Area = (1/2)lw = lw/2, where l and w form the right angle.

Square: area = l² (length squared) [length being equal to width)

All area within polygons are measured by the pythagorean theorem:  a² + b² = c²

The Triumphant Triangle

Geometry: Part 3

The Triumphant Triangle

As mentioned last time, in order to "square up" a patio, you have to make a triangle.  Of course, this shape is named by the number of angles it has.  After a straight line between two points, the next thing is getting to a third point.  The shortest path between the three points forms a three-sided enclosure with three angles: the "tri-angle."

The prefix "tri" bypasses the introduction of the "th" (theta) that replaced the original "t" (tau) in English.  The vowel sound changes depending on the context and language, but the original Indo-European "trei" is preserved in the Greek treis and its cognates in Western languages. From all I could find out, its meaning has always been "three" (2 + 1).

Though there seems to be a dualism in much of nature (good and bad, light and darkness, wet and dry, and so forth), there is also a triad of moderation that adds depth to reality.  These three dimensions define reality: past, present and future; liquid, solid and gas; width, length and height.  It is the latter of these that is of interest to us right now.

Without a third point, no shapes can be formed. This is true in plane geometry as well as solid geometry.  It is in two dimensions, at a time, that basic shapes are made on a flat surface.  On that surface, a triangle is the most stable of all shapes.  This is because once the three sides are connected, the angles are fixed in place.  To change an angle, one of the sides has to be compromised.  The changing of the length of a side changes the angles as the sides are reconnected.

Going back to the right triangle, the one with the set ratio of 3:4:5, let us say that side 'a' (3) is shortened to 2 units (let's use meters).  To maintain the right triangle, the side opposite the right angle now must be shortened as well.  The new length will be the square root of 20 (a little less than 4.5 meters). To save the 5 meter pole, all the angles change as well.  Rotating outward to about 108 degrees, the 5 foot side once again secures to an stable, though offset triangle. At a ratio of 2:4:5, the ratio is definitely not "right."

And now, let me show how the sum of the three angles will always be twice that of a right angle.  The reason I don't give this in degrees is because the presently defined circle of 360 degrees is based on assuming the "base 60" system of antiquity.  It makes dividing a circle into even numbers quite easy, but is not "known" in all cultures.  For the record, 360 is 12 times 30, or 3 x 4 x 5 x 6.

So, a right angle was formed halfway along an arch which will make a straight line.  If you take the original length of cord - that is 3 meters - you can make a semi-circle defined by a straight line.  This forms the base for two identical triangles, each with the ratio of 3:4:5.  Let's take the cord that forms the original triangle and move the second peg (point b) that was three meters out.  Moving it further from point c, the new position of the peg increases the angle of angle BCA while reducing the other angles.  All along, the length of the cord remains twelve (3 + 4 + 5) meters long.  The area inside the cord diminishes toward 0 until the two halves of the cord reach a length of 6 meters.

The cord is now twice the length of the perpendicular line that formed the right angle and the angle of that line is also twice that of the right angle.  At all times, the angles inside the changing triangles added up to twice the right angle.  If the peg had move toward point c, at some point the sides would have become equal, with each angle also being equal, or one third the angle of a straight line. In this case, 3 sides of 4 meters each.

So, What do I know?

A triangle is defined as a shape on a plane which has three lines intersecting at three angles.

The angles within any triangle will add to that of a straight line.  This total will be twice the angle formed by a perpendicular line bisecting that line.

In a triangle with three equal angles, the sides will be of equal length.  The angles will add up to that of a straight line.

In mathematical terms:

Right Angle BAC = 1/2 x (Angle ABC + Angle BCA)

Triangle ABC = Angle BAC + Angle ABC + Angle BCA

Given Right Angle BAC = 90 degrees, line segment BC will have 180 degrees.