Index 
Morality Science (Chemistry) Though Process
Olympics are on. A big issue is “doping” as “unfair. American swimming team “clean” girls ignored silver Russian “dirty” silver medalist on the award stand, almost unheard of in the Olympics. We have become so very moralistic, so disapproving of anyone who disapproves of our “superior” morals. Morals shared by all people in the “world community” according to our president. Obviously Russia, China, and Iran among others are not part of the “world community”. So what are those all American, nay “all world” values so proudly displayed by the Olympics?
So what are those values we so love as “bringing us all together” that the Olympics stands for? Well, simply the “best” in humanity, proving the lie that we are all equal. And what do we admire as the “best”? Basically youthful endeavors: how fast we can run, how high we can jump, how teams can “beat” other teams, how fast little girls and bulked boys can twirl and spin. Another hidden issue is the “sex abuse” by coached of these little girls, completely under the coaches’ control with parental encouragement. Well, DUH! That is why girls’ gymnastics is always the favorite Summer Olympic event; the pedophiles get to drool, the parents gloat. Something for everyone. Two years later we get to worship scantily clad young girls in the ice skating competition, the favorite Winter Olympic event. So the Olympics really stand for:
| Wikipedia “Lithium”: After reading the Google abstract which mainly dealt with nuclear stability issues associated with is rarity and the light elements, I displayed the site to investigate the abundance of lithium. Tesla motors and others rely on lithium to store excess wind and solar power. The intro also notes that lithium can be cheaply extracted from brines, so I had to read further to answer my question about its “economic” abundance. After reading some more, I thought to myself, DAMN I’m smart, because I already knew most of the text. Thought Process: I stopped reading and thought about the last thought, then wrote this entry. I wondered how many other scientists would instantly link these words to the periodic table and its “properties” like reactivity of the columns low to high for the alkali metals and high to low for the halogens based on distance from the nucleus for the outer shell of electrons (1/r2). More on the rapidity of that thought later, but now it seems more of interest the two levels of meaning as well as the rapidity of the scan of the known for comparison and classification. The whole classification came with the image of the periodic table almost instantly. The “Damn I’m smart” came from recognition of not only the author’s correctness, but also from my having “known” that before. Then I wondered if most scientist thought this way: anticipating consequences thermodynamically? I don’t know the answer, but I suspect, “not many”. Most scientists it seems, as most other people, trust in other “authorities”. For “scientists” and most others that often includes “personal” interactions (politics) and “feelings”. I think even some “non” scientists think scientifically, i.e. reasoning from fact by induction to general categories, then associating categories by thermodynamic principles. Some I suspect, but not many. Many scientists claim to, but cite authorities rather than laws to bolster their arguments. I still have not answered my original question, so back to the Lithium site. |