Then the word of the Lord came to me: “You must not marry and have sons or daughters in this place.” For this is what the Lord says about the sons and daughters born in this land and about the women who are their mothers and the men who are their fathers: “They will die of deadly diseases. They will not be mourned or buried but will be like dung lying on the ground. They will perish by sword and famine, and their dead bodies will become food for the birds and the wild animals.”
- Jeremiah 16:1-4
I do not feel that we are there yet, but given the direction that we turn when times are tough…
Okay, to answer the question, “Quadratic” exists. It’s an adjective meaning “involving the second and no higher power of an unknown quantity or variable” (Oxford Dictionary). “Juicedratic” only exists in “Commercial Land.” It has been made up by “Madison Avenue.”
There is a television commercial for a fruit flavored candy. One person asks how the candy can be so juicy. Another person suggests that it is due to the juicedratic equation. This equation is secret, and the secret is kept inside a safe, inside a vault, inside a volcano.
Why did they have three nested containers for the juicedratic equation? Simple, if you are familiar with the real quadratic equation. You know, from high school Algebra class? In other words, as shown in the photo above, “a” times “x” squared plus “b” times “x” plus “c” is equal to zero. Three terms. And “a” cannot be zero.
You end up getting a parabola if you graph a quadratic equation. Not a juicy parabola, but… In Physics, we see a parabola in the path that a projectile takes (one launched, thrown, or fired, but not self-propelled), assuming no friction loss. (Think: Angry Birds without the boosters.) Another example is Einstein’s famous equation of “E” equal to “mc” squared, just with terms moved around. The quadratic equation is very useful, not just a silly equation that needs to be solved in Algebra class.
But, while thinking of the juicedratic equation, I started thinking about other things that are proposed but are non-existent or cannot be proven, or some portions cannot be proven. Yet, if people don’t look behind the curtain, they can be widely accepted. Heaven forbid that the next generation accepts the juicedratic equation.
We know why the juicedratic equation can never be proven. It’s locked inside a safe, inside a vault, inside a volcano. And who is going to the volcano to retrieve it? First, which volcano? Sorry, I don’t have enough free time to check all the volcanoes out, and what of those under the sea?
But can people just invent something out of thin air and have others believe that it exists? Not that anyone believes in the juicedratic equation. At least, not yet. People are too easily swayed. They accept anything as long as they don’t have to learn about the source documentation and its validity. In other words, as long as they don’t have to think about it. As the old saying goes, “When I works, I works hard. When I sits, I sits loose. And when I thinks, I falls asleep.”
And that same non-thinking disease can cause people to deny that an unseen virus can kill you, but I digress.
But getting a bit serious, at least as serious as I get, some forms of evolution can be proven, but they teach that evolution explains the origins of our species, on an earth that is billions of years old. There’s just one problem. There are holes in the theory that you could drive a truck through. Yet, we can teach evolution in schools and not the Creation narrative of the Bible. Both require faith.
I was watching a television show recently where a PhD Biology professor was explaining the state of the science of Biology in Darwin’s time. It was essentially observation based, with little to no concrete science and experimentation. There was no proof of Darwin’s theories. It seemed to make sense among some people. But then as the scientific field advanced, the holes in the theory started showing, but these holes were covered with plaster, so to speak.
What I mean by differentiating between observational science and real science is important. Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity when an apple fell on his head, or so the story goes. That’s observational. Kindergarten children can discover gravity by falling down during recess, but is that science? No. But in careful measurement of the apple in flight as it falls, the discovery that the apple accelerates at a predictable rate (gravitational acceleration), now we are getting into true science. In fact, that parabola regarding a projectile that was mentioned earlier comes from the calculations based on the Physics of gravity. If William Tell had not factored in the gravitational attraction on the arrow to the earth, he would have hit his son instead of the apple, allegedly.
Then on another television show, another scientist, a PhD Geologist and Engineer and a member of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project team, talked about how, between 1997 and 2005, the RATE Team proved that carbon dating could not be used for anything over 50,000 years old, regardless of the monstrous numbers some claim regarding carbon dating, and that the uranium to lead decay dating, proposed by Madame Curie and others, was inaccurate as the half-life of elements has changed. Through careful research rather than wild statements while waving one’s hands in the air, the RATE Team had proven the earth to be about 6,000 years old. For more information, look up helium diffusion in zircon or the RATE Team’s findings. When they made their reports, there was some pushback by some scientists, but the RATE team won those arguments with no difficulty, because they disproved the basic concept for a billion-year world. To silence them and maintain the status quo of teaching our children a lie, the scientific world ignored them. Why? My guess is that you’d have to follow the money. It seems Satan has deep pockets in this world. Remember, Satan is the master of lies.
Why would we spend a lot of money teaching something that has never been proven? Because evolution does not require God, but then some evolutionists throw a god in there to plug some of the holes, some of the plaster that I mentioned. They don’t propose God, just some external power that can kick things in the right direction at an absurdly convenient time.
And, I think that one source of the money could be our own government or other world governments, those people in those governments who want to remove God from all proceedings, maybe because God, or their concept of God, makes them uncomfortable.
Let me give a couple of examples when I became involved, to some tangential degree, in telling a political lie in order to make money.
Several years ago, I was occasionally asked to provide a voice out of left field, or maybe right field, in a think tank type situation. In one such meeting, they were discussing extracting something usable from something that was considered trash. The US government saw a gold mine in the idea although they were not extracting ‘gold’, so the government fed millions into the university that dreamed up this hair-brained idea, money to prove the idea. It probably got the professor tenure. It definitely kept the money flowing from DC to the university. The ‘think tank’ was called in to design and run a pilot plant based on the theory, turn the theory into observable action to get data. Scientists theorize. Engineers put that theory into action. But, the more experiments that were run, the worse the data that was received. In frustration on the meager yield, I made some calculations to show that there was a basic design flaw. The chemistry was off – where the heat was versus where the heat had to be. The process worked, but not well enough to justify further research. Yet, the project kept getting government money to investigate further. I asked the person in charge of the project why he was wasting his time. His reply was that if the government wants to pay us to waste our time, we are making free money. Thus, I’m not wasting time. I’m using Congress’ ATM and the company reaps the profits. But he was part of a lie that raised our National Debt. One of many such projects, I am sure.
This wasn’t the first time that I failed by making truthful calculations. Once, many years before, someone came up with an idea regarding radioactive particles, too few to measure, escaping a nuclear reactor area. Since it couldn’t be measured, it was a notion rather than a problem. Someone provided a solution for this non-existent problem, existent in theory since it could not be observed – definitely harmless, less radioactivity than walking past a building with marble exterior. My boss wanted me to show through one form of mass transfer (for the chemical engineers out there, remember unit operations) that the harmful gas could travel faster than what was being calculated by the person proposing the solution, thus killing the proposed project. The boss was a mechanical engineer. He could not do the necessary calculations, but I could. So, I used those calculations and proved that the harmful gas traveled slower than expected, not faster. The proposed solution was even better than what was thought, but the politics did not want the problem solved, if it really was a problem. A solution was the wrong answer, and politics was more important than truth. Soon afterward, I was offered an exit from environmental engineering, without being afforded other options. So much for truth. They could not afford to have someone in the group who had a conscience.
Now, we come to Climate Change. Their science is largely based on observation and no proven clear root cause, other than humans did it and continue to do so. I do not deny Climate Change, but when science reaches into the political bucket of endless money, truth is the first thing sacrificed, followed closely by integrity. (Or do they leave at the same time?) I am not saying that what has been suggested won’t improve the global climate. I am saying that the science is soft, and there may be something else that is the root cause. Something that we might be ignoring. After all, we eliminated aerosol cans. That didn’t fix it. We eliminated most efficient refrigerants. That didn’t fix it. Even now, they are changing the topic of their fears. With politicians involved, science parrots what they are paid to say, or science doesn’t get paid. I’d love to see the hard science, not the fear tactics of melting glaciers, and “We have to do something!” What if that something causes more trouble? It usually does.
It is funny that during the worldwide lockdown, the Climate Change scientists are screaming for attention. They have been removed from the spotlight, and they don’t like that. They’ve discovered that nitrogen oxides are disappearing from our skies, as seen from satellite observations – impressive photos. The nitrogen oxides used to be the buzz word for environmental science before Climate Change changed it to carbon dioxide. I worked half my career on trying to reduce nitrogen oxides. Now, the Climate Change people want to switch the dialogue back to nitrogen oxides to prove their point about carbon dioxide, even though they are not the same thing. It’s emotional. It’s political. It is scientific only in that something was measured and observed, not solved through hard science. (Back to an apple bonking someone on the head versus calculating the acceleration of the apple as it fell.) And all this switching of emphasis is a bit helter-skelter. If you have no hard science, you can make quick changes in direction, kind of like UFO flight patterns that defy all laws of Physics – thus impossible.
And that’s the rub. We are back to the unproven Evolution that can be taught in schools, where most of the scientific data either proves the Evolution Origin scenario wrong or even points toward the Creation story as being closer to the evidence, within the realm of possible error in calculation. Just another example of politics dictating what people should think, while silencing the evidence that makes their version of the story ‘uncomfortable?’ And the History buffs thought they were the only victims of that crime.
The key to all our present woes can be found in the book of Genesis, within the first eleven chapters for sake of this discussion. This may be the reason why people want to discredit the first eleven chapters of Genesis. God made a perfect world. Man screwed it up. Everything that man does to unscrew it, outside of repenting and turning back to God, screws up the world even more. Our problem is that since the industrial age started, we’ve learned how to screw it up faster.
Billy Graham said that he’d read the last page of the Bible and everything comes out alright, but in that statement, he doesn’t say that along the way it won’t get worse before the end. At some point, there will be a generation that should not ever be born, for they will see the destruction of our present world. Yeah, the Scripture above finally rears its unpleasant head.
But note Billy Graham’s positive spin to that ‘end.’ That ‘end’ is just the beginning of God creating a New World, a new perfect world. And the believers in Jesus will be made a new creation, and all will be wonderful, forever.
Soli Deo Gloria. Only to God be the Glory.