The Dark Ages Myth

The idea of the Dark Ages is a myth.

After the fall of Rome Europe turned into a group of non co-operative feudal monarchies that spent most of their time arguing with each other.  This is actually a pretty typical result when an empire falls.  It doesn't matter if you call them warlord or monarchs or sheiks or maharajah, when a strong, large empire falls every leader worth a crap starts up his own empire.  If one of them is outstanding then that one kicks butt on the others and a new empire is created.  Until a strong leader shows up and brings everyone in line, the way Genghis Khan did, the leadership in charge fight among themselves.

Rome falls, taking quite a long time to disintegrate.

After Rome falls a bunch of monarchies pop up all over Europe and all these leaders decide that the Pope is in charge because they are used to having someone in Rome be in charge so they never argue with the Church in Rome and let the Pope walk all over them for around 900 years until the superior European mind breaks through the limitations imposed by the Church and takes a sudden technological jump into the renaissance.

(deliberate run on sentence because it is so stupid a statement it does not deserve correct grammar)

So not happening.  What crap!

The Chinese are just as smart as the Europeans, how come a big technological jump didn't occur there?  They didn't have a really evil church imposing limitations.

The Indians (from India) are just as smart as the Europeans, how come a big technological jump didn't occur there?  They didn't have a really evil church imposing limitations.

The (insert favorite non-European ethnic group here) are just as smart as the Europeans, how come a big technological jump didn't occur there?  They didn't have a really evil church imposing limitations.

Okay so Europeans are not any smarter than anyone else, how could the technological advance that is called the renaissance occur in Europe?

My opinion is that any time an organization evolves with the ability to work with many different disparate political groups and collects some of the smartest people within a small geographic area that organization will eventually come up with some really great ideas no matter how evil or good they are.

One of the differences between the Catholic Church and other religious organizations, like Islam and Judaism, is that the Catholic Church  was collecting all the smart people into one area.  Collected into Italy where the renaissance just happened to start.

So by now some closed minded person is tying a hangman's knot while reading and is preparing to run out and drum up a figurative lynching party if not a literal lynching party.

I ain't a shock jock, or a troll, and IF people think I am than I am happy to be a shock jock or troll because Galileo and Martin Luther were also shock jock trolls stirring up trouble for no particular reason, well, the search for the truth but who cares about that reason.

Certainly not the people thinking of censoring or lynching people who challenge the ideas of others, like the idiots  tying lynch knots as they read.

Now maybe I am wrong, maybe when you collect a bunch of really smart people into a particular area for a long time it won't inspire technological or academic advancement.  No, that is a ridiculous statement.  I'm right, tough shit.

The people who challenged Galileo were supporters of the Aristotelian view of the Universe.  Not a Christian view because Aristotle was not a Christian.

Aristotle had defined the academically correct view of the universe at the time.  Back then, just as in current times, when you challenge your academic advisers your academic advisers begin sharpening up their knives for the death of one thousand cuts.  The same figurative death Galileo was subjected to.  This might sound weird, but, before it was considered wrong to hit students teachers hit students all the time. 

In fact it has only been recently that some locations have ceased corporal punishment for challenging a teacher.  When I was a kid teachers often had paddles and that was the 1960's.  Imagine what people who challenged teachers were subjected to in the 1500's.  Thumb screws, the rack, all in a good day educating students not to tell their teachers they were full of shit!

In my experience there are teachers who would love to go back to torturing students who challenge stupid, bigoted ideas like the "Dark Ages".   Ooooh, the evil church kept the superior European intellect from blossoming.  Of course Asia had a civilization far advanced of anything in Europe a thousand years before Rome. If I was going to bet on any ethnic group having a technological revolution like the renaissance it would be China, not Europe.

Now what was going on in Europe that wasn't happening in China?  Spaghetti maybe?  Nope, Chinese invention.

Hmmmm, what could have impacted the culture in Europe such that Europe advanced faster than China?  What major cultural influence occurred?

How about a central political and intellectual organization interacting with all of the governments in Europe and attracting the intellectuals and academically oriented MEN from all of those governments?  Yeah, guys can do some smart stuff if you get enough smart guys together and give them enough time.  Hundreds of years in this case.  Maybe if women had been allowed an education Europe could have jumped from mud huts to space travel.

You know what is  really hilarious?  The Catholic Church of the middle ages is actually indicative of the result when academic intellectuals are allowed to govern anything.

Of course for academics to admit this would take a miracle roughly the size of half the multiverse.  Yes, half of the infinite is still infinite.  The infinite sub set of the infinite set.

As a result of the lack of this miracle; intellectual academic egoists actually refuse to admit that the Church was the primary intellectual academic institution in Europe for the 900 years that it was supposedly preventing technological and academic advancement.

See, for these egoists, not elitists they are egoists, to admit that the Church actually primed the renaissance would be tantamount to admitting that they were egoists and not the elite.

So here we are, 500 years of denial.  My suggestion, GET OVER IT!  The church primed the renaissance.  The church was the group of academic, intellectual egoism until the intellectuals advanced beyond it.

It is kind of kewl that intellectuals advanced beyond requiring a political authority and eventually rejected it.  It is also kind of stupid that the Church receives the blame for Europeans advancing so much faster in technological innovation than the rest of the world.

After all, the superior Europeans would have jumped right from mud huts to space travel if it hadn't been for the church.  Now that is really stupid.

How about, Europeans would have progressed faster than any other culture in the world if it hadn't been for those evil time traveling priests who kept the Europeans in mud huts while the Egyptians and Chinese were developing much more technologically advanced civilizations.  Nope, that is really stupid too.

I ain't buying into no "Dark Ages" bullshit.

Empires in Rome, Egypt, China and even Greece kept education for the rich in their societies.  They all behaved about the same, except for the church.  The church went beyond political lines to collect and educate the smartest of the poor as well as the rich.

Yeah, like any political entity it killed, tortured, murdered, waged war, blamed others for their own mistakes and, in my opinion, still does not seem to embody the attitude of Christ.  Regardless of the authenticity of the religious convictions of the church or the extent of the evil which the church committed I still believe it is a no brainer that the technological advancement in Europe over other cultures is primarily due to the church.

Not that the church meant to, the act of bringing a bunch of really smart people together for a really long time probably also built the foundation for the political fall of the church.

Now that is my conclusion.  So sharpen the knives all you inquisitors, ready the hang nots (sic) and prepare the lynching parties because I just proved the "Dark Ages" is a stupid, bigoted myth propagated by academic egoists and a serious case of  denial whether anyone will admit it or not.

Some new cortisol stuff

I have been doing some more research on cortisol and ovcr the counter supplements to manage cortisol levels.  The National Institute of Health website has some interesting research on cortisol and two other supplements.


Some years ago some doctors figured out Nitric Oxide was a good thing for people who wanted to increase blood flow.  The group of people who wanted to increase blood flow includes body builders and guys with erectile dysfunction.

Nitric oxide production in the body is influenced by the level of a hormone called L-arginine.  When L-arginine and L-Citrulline are mixed they can actually reduce the hardening of the arteries.  Since I don't have any blockages I didn't worry about that.  Recently I have come across research on NIH.gov that L-arginine and L-lysine can influence cortisol levels.

You can run some searches using google:
cortisol L-arginine site:nih.gov
l-arginine l-citrulline site:nih.gov
l-arginine l-lysine site:nih.gov

I am currently taking a few grams of each every day to see how it will influence my weight and health.

The different studies go back a few years and are pretty interesting.  No dramatic personal results yet.

Shooting

I like shooting. I like throwing darts and other accuracy games also, but, there is something about shooting that just makes life better.

My favorite kind of shooting is called Bench resting. A person takes an accurate rifle, typically a bolt action, to a bench and then shoots targets at up to 1,000 yards. Morons will compare this to “sniping”, which it is not. Real snipers typically shoot from the prone position (laying down) and are typically camouflaged. I have hit targets at 700 yards and let me tell you, that is a pain in the ass. Theoretically if you can hit a target within 1” at 100 yards you can hit a 10” target at 1,000 yards. Yeah, right.

I ran into some Marine who was telling me he could shoot a guy in the head at 1,000 yards. Yeah, I will buy that for a dollar. Not. Lets talk shooting.

A 7.62 NATO round, or .308 Winchester if you prefer, travels about 3,600 feet per second. That means it takes a bullet about 0.83 seconds to reach a target at 1,000 yards, IF, it were to do something really amazing like ignore friction.

Let me explain this a little. A bullet is a projectile which takes advantage of the energy created by the rapid expansion of gases caused by a chemical reaction. This means that gun powder does not explode, it burns and as it burns it creates gas. The gas pushes the bullet through a tube into which a bunch of twisted grooves have been cut. The bullet is about the same size as the grooves so as the gas pushes the bullet through the barrel the bullet forms itself to the grooves and begins spinning. If the bullet were smaller than the grooves the gas would escape past the side of the bullet.

How long does the chemical reaction take to push the bullet out of the barrel? This is a good question. If the barrel is too short the bullet leaves the barrel while the gas is still expanding. If the bullet is too long the bullet is inside the barrel when the gas finishes expanding and the friction between the bullet and the barrel reduces the speed of the bullet. It would be great if the bullet left the barrel at exactly the point at which the gas quit expanding, but, slightly before is better than slightly after.

For a .308 Winchester this means a barrel of about 18 to 20 inches.

What happens once the bullet leaves the barrel? Several things. First, the bullet begins to drop at a rate of acceleration of thirty two feet per second (per second if you want to be finickey). That means in one second the bullet will drop 32 feet.

If you look at a ballistics chart the bullet looks like it will go up when it leaves the barrel. No chance of that ever happening, if it ever does call the Pope cause you just witnessed a miracle. When a bullet leaves the barrel it drops, almost as fast as a rock. Not quite as fast. Why not as fast? This guy named Bernoulli figured out that spinning objects create lift. In the case of a bullet the lift will not be enough to prevent the bullet from dropping, but, it will drop slightly slower than a rock.

In addition the shape of the bullet and the spinning creates friction between the air and the bullet so the bullet also begins losing speed as soon as it leaves the barrel. This means that while it might be going 3,600 feet per second at 20 yards it will not be going that fast at 500 yards or 1000 yards. How much does the bullet drop at 1000 yards? About 40 feet. It depends a lot on the bullet shape and the chemical reaction, but, 40 feet is a good estimate. The bullet drops about 7 feet at 500 yards. Targets between 100 yards and 500 yards are so much easier to hit than targets between 500 yards and 1000 yards.

On top of all that drop the longer a bullet is in the air the more effect the motion of the air has on it. This is called windage. Windage is the effect the wind has on the motion of the bullet. The slower the bullet is moving and the longer it is being affected by the wind the farther it moves.

When we fire machine guns we use what is called a “cone of fire”. Essentially this means that every bullet leaving the barrel of the machine gun is going to go somewhere within a very curved cone whose apex is at the end of the barrel. The base of the cone is on the ground somewhere and how big the base is depends on how far from the end of the barrel the base is measured.

Add the effect of the wind onto the cone of fire and things can get wild. See, the wind is not a consistent force. The wind may be blowing 5 mph near the shooter, 10mph 500 yards away and 3mph at 1000 yards. How is that for a wacky problem?

Okay, lets say you can put five bullets within a one inch circle in the center of a bulls eye at 100 yards. Can you hit a head sized target at 1000 yards? Maybe, probably not. Under perfect conditions those bullets might hit within 10” at 1000 yards. If you want to hit at 1,000 yards all the bullets at 100 yards better be in the same hole and that hole better be smaller than .5” diameter. Add wind and variables with the amount of energy generated by the chemical reaction and absorbed by the bullet and we have.....

Problems.

See, not every case is exactly the same size, inside or outside. A case that is a little smaller on the outside with thicker material so it is way smaller on the inside will create a very different pressure profile than a larger case with thinner material and a larger interior space.

The first problem is the energy absorbed by the expansion of the case. The case expands to fill the chamber of the rifle. If the cartridge were the same size as the chamber the cartridge would not fit into the chamber. The cartridge has to be slightly smaller than the chamber so it expands when fired and it has to be extracted. In Vietnam the VC used cleaning rods to extract 7.62 NATO rounds from their Russian Mossin Nagant bolt action rifles. I won't get into why and don't try this at home kiddies.

So the variations in case size change the energy. What else? Diameter of the bullet.

A variation in diameter of 0.0001” can change the pressure distribution significantly. As pressure changes drop and windage change.

So hitting a target far away is really hard and that is why I like it. It is me challenging myself to become better. To understand the variables and achieve. This is pretty much why I do anything, but, that is me.

Lets look back at our Marine.

The government buys special super accurate ammunition that goes through more quality checks than your average automotive part, but, they cannot eliminate variability.

If you go to Sniper School they are going to tell you to keep your shots under 500 yards. Why? Because it is way easier to hit targets under 500 yards.

How to achieve the impossible, like moon missions and military operations?

Make the process idiot proof and then put incredibly talented people in the process. If you depend on the talent of the people the mission has failed. Depend on the idiot proof planning and execution of the mission. If you put excellent people in the process they can handle the unforeseen problems and achieve the goals. BUT! If those people have to use their exceptional skills the plan has failed and heads will roll.

If you have not been through Special Operation training you will not understand this idiot proof mission practice. If you have had some training and been through some execution then you know why it is important to put the best people into the most idiot proof plans.

I am not trying to take the wind out of special ops guys, put them down or whatever. They all know that what I am saying is true. People pretending to have been special ops trained think that the best people are chosen to improvise. Not true. The best people are chosen NOT to improvise unless it is necessary and to have the capability to know when the plan has failed and improvisation is key.

So some guy spouting about hitting targets at 1,000 yards and talking about how the plan always goes to shit and how he always has to improvise is just a wanna be, or someone who is hiding what they know with BS. Two ways to keep a secret, talk too much or don't talk at all. The former is easier for me. If people think its BS they won't be looking for a secret.

How about our Marine? Does the guy know how far a 7.62 NATO round drops at 1,000 yards? Has the person ever heard of Bernoulli? How do they handle variable wind conditions? “Variia what”?

I like shooting and I do it for fun. Yes, I can put 5 bullets in a circle about .5” at 100 yards with the right rifle. (and yes, the rifle is a big deal) Can I hit a target at 1,000 yards? Never have and don't think I can. Too much drop, too many variables. Could I be sure of hitting a person consistently at 500 yards? No.

There are lots of guys who are better shots than I am. Lots who are worse. I don't shoot to compete, I shoot to have fun and enjoy myself. If my experience shooting makes it possible to identify a guy bsing about how great a shot they are thats okay. If I choose to let the guy bs that is okay too.

How to make a torch

Get an aluminum drink can and a stick.  Cut off the top of the aluminum can.  use a good sized wood screw with a washer which has a hole smaller than the top of the wood screw.  Screw through the bottom of the can into one end of the stick.

You have an empty can attached to a stick.

Good so far?

Now roll up some card board and put in inside of the can.  Melt some candle wax and pour it into the can with the cardboard.  Wait until it cools and hardens.

This is the tricky part.  Carefully score the side of the can with a razor or exacto knife leaving about 1.5" of the bottom of the can.

What you have built is essentially a big candle on a stick that uses the cardboard as the wick.  You can light it with a match or a blow torch or some tinder and flint and steel.

If you want to make it really kewl find some heat resistant clear plastic tube about 6" in diameter 12" long.  You can attach this tube so that it acts as a wind break for your.  This is optional so you can figure out how to do that for yourself.

Now, the next time you are chasing the Frankenstein Monster around you will have a reliable torch that you can use against the poor guy.

This torch is also really great for witch hunts, exploring caves, hunting werewolves and all kinds of kewl things.

Basic Logic, education and disagreeing

There are Facts, which anyone with a brain cannot argue although many people do.  There are opinions which we can argue.  There is also the interpretation of facts which is actually an opinion.

Once our pastor preached that Peter denied Christ because of fear.  I asked them to provide me with a Bible passage that told us Peter was afraid when he denied Christ.  At first he told me "sure".  Later he told me it was "implied".  I asked how?  He explained that fear was the reason.  I gave him an alternate possible reason, arrogance.  I told him that Peter could have been waiting in the front yard of the High Priest's house to rescue Christ.

This is not a new idea.  The idea of Peter thinking he could take on multiple opponents and succeed is well defined in the Garden of Gethsemane.  For over two thousand years theologians have discussed the various reasons Peter denied Christ.

This pastor told me he disagreed with me in front of a Bible study class.

Disagreed with what?

I did not say that Peter DID deny Christ because Peter wanted to rescue Christ.  I said that it was a possibility and it is one I chose to believe as being more likely.

Did he disagree that Peter could have denied Christ for reasons other than fear?

Did he disagree that I believed it?

Did he disagree that the Bible did not define the reasons why Peter denied Christ?

Of course not.  He just disagreed with ME.

Anyone who has read of Peter attacking the High Priest's guards in the Garden of Gethsemane and who believes fear is one of Peter's main motivators is not being very genuine.  I asked the pastor to explain why, if Peter was afraid, he was hanging out in the court yard of the High Priest's house.  People who are afraid typically don't walk into the walled court yard of their enemy.  The pastor said that was no big deal, to hang out in the yard of an enemy.

Is that a can of worms or what?

Once I was in a bar when three gun shots rang out from the bathroom.  Of the couple hundred people in the bar three of us fought against the crowd rushing out to get into the room where the gun was fired.  Maybe my pastor would have been one of the three of us.  Maybe, but.....

I have placed myself in many situations where my life is in danger and I am well aware that people talk a better game than they actually play.  When the guns start shooting, when people start kicking ass, most people run.  One of the disciples ran when the guards showed up.

Peter not only did not run he attacked those who came to take Christ and then walked right into the den of the "lion".

Yeah, somehow I don't see fear being a big motivator in Peter's life or his denial of Christ.

So the only thing to disagree with is my believing Peter was more likely arrogant enough to think he could rescue Christ and did not want his plans interrupted because he was recognized than he was afraid.

I read a discourse on this issue once, it had been copied from a document written around 1200 AD.  The basic idea in the document that Peter was waiting to help Christ somehow and he denied Christ because he was "afraid" he would be stopped from helping Christ.  The author also discussed other potential motivators.

One of the problems with guys like me, guys who stand flipping the bird at people who are shooting at them, people who walk into the gunfire instead of run away from it, is that while fear is present it is rarely a motivator for action.

People who have been in firefights are always amazed at the number of misses, especially in low light conditions.  Even at the range I have seen cops (and other people) miss targets 8 feet in front of them.  So standing and letting a guy shoot at me is actually just taking an educated chance.  Sure, I could be hit.  Not likely at 75 ft in low light conditions.

Most people would think standing and letting a guy shoot at me was stupid, or crazy.  To me it was just taking a chance at a time when I knew the odds were in my favor.  Untrained kid with a 22 from between 75 and 100 feet at night.  Yeah, find a range with targets 100 feet away, turn down the lights and start shooting at a silhouette with a 22.  If you hit in a vital area I will buy you a beer.

Sure, tough guys, cops, fire fighters, military, special ops, are afraid.  The difference between them and the rest of the world is that fear is not a primary motivator of their actions.  This is not my opinion, this is a fact proved by behavioral studies over and over again.  The exact motivations are different, some are narcissistic, some are selfless, very occasionally they are grand ideas like freedom and democracy (not often though).

People have primary motivators.  Fear, or avoidance if you like the politically correct ideas.  Courage, or desire if you blah blah blah.  My primary motivator is desire or courage or crazy, however you want to put it so I decide what I want, I factor in the variables and make a decision to do something like stand and let someone shoot at me.

If I have enough information to make a good decision, if I want something, I do it.  Otherwise I pretty much ignore it.  For example, I may choose not to fight with someone because I want peace more than I want a fight.

Do me, and yourself, a favor. If you have not had special training don't just go stand in front of a guy shooting at you.  Yeah, even cops miss short range targets in good lighting conditions, but, you could end up facing someone trained in point shooting who is holding the gun sideways and will hit you 6 times out of 10.  Make a choice for peace and run.

So when I, or other people to whom fear or avoidance is not a primary motivator, hear about someone we know has reacted without fear before doing something we don't think of fear as being a motivator for them.  We wonder why they did what they did.

Of course if fear, or avoidance, is a persons primary motivator then it would be natural to assume that fear is everyone's primary motivator and seek out facts that support the idea of fear as the motivator.

Of course, my pastor disagrees with highly regarded theologians over thousands of years and all the behavioral studies.  Probably because fear is a primary motivator.

Why bother with logic or educating oneself when it is so much easier to disagree.