Drowning in skin.

So basically, dust is gross. Most people know that dust is composed partially of dead, exfoliated skin cells that are just kind of floating around in the atmosphere. And since the thought of your ancestors blowing the breeze isn't gross enough, I'm going to try to gross you out even more, with science.

The average adult human has enough skin to cover up 2 square meters (if you skinned him and laid his hide out like a pelt), and that weighs approximately 20 pounds. Fun fact: you will exfoliate approximately 8 pounds of dead skin cells every year. By bypassing some simple mathematical, scientific, and common sense laws we can know that 8 pounds of skin would cover up about .8 square meters.

So the question here today is: how long would it take for there to be so much dead skin that it would cover up the whole surface of the world? To start off this discussion, I'd like to bring up the fact that after all this time we haven't started having to use snow plows to keep the streets clean of our little tiny dead cells that have been piling up. There are three reasons for this, two of which are pretty gross.

The first reason is dust mites. These little tiny creatures feed off of your dead flesh. There's really not a lot else I'd like to say about them, but really all you need to know is that they're tiny and disgusting. Also they look like this.

The second reason may or may not make you gag. You're constantly breathing in hundreds of thousands of deceased epidermis particles which are being destroyed inside of your body. You're eating yourself, and lots of other people in the world. Cannibal. Sick cannibal freak.

The third reason is all but too simple: since the exfoliated cells are dead, they will eventually decay.

Because of these facts, we will be working in theoretical boundaries. If everyone in the world held their breath, all the dust mites simultaneously expired Avengers style, and the skin cells that are already dead ceased to decay, how long would it take before the entire earth was coated in "dust"?

Earth is pretty dang big, sitting pretty at 510 million (510,000,000) square kilometers. Since one kilometer is one thousand meters, 510 million kilometers is 510 billion (510,000,000,000) square meters.

There are approximately 7 billion (7,000,000,000) people on earth. In a year, all of those 7 billion people would exfoliate 5.6 billion square meters of dead skin. (7 billion multiplied by .8.)

510 billion divided by 5.6 is 91.07142857142857. This number, which I'll just call 91, because it is basically 91 for all intents and purposes, is the number of years of exfoliation it would take by 7 billion individuals to cover the earth in dead skin cells.

Okay, we covered the earth. Now what?

Well there's a problem. Assuming a large portion of those cells didn't get sucked into the sea and they just kind of floated on top, we've only created a layer of dead skin about an eighth of an inch thick. I want people to be drowning in skin. I want there to be people pushing themselves around in canoes trying to get from place to place. How long would it take for there to be a layer of skin 7 feet deep?

To make an inch, it would take 91 years x 8 (assuming the coating of "dust" was 1/8th of an inch thick). 728 years.
To make it to a foot, it would take 728 years x 12. 8,736 years.
To make it to seven feet, it would be 8736 x 7. 61,152 years.

By the time 61,152 years passed, all of that skin would weigh in at 489,216 pounds, which is only slightly smaller than Tony Stark's ego.

I kind of wish I could say there was a point to this, but there really isn't. I just hope you're grossed out now after thinking about dead skin for that long. To be completely honest, it kind of makes me feel uncomfortable and dirty.

Until next time, kids!

I'm back, bay-bay!

So I was laying around the other day, wasting my life eating junk food and playing video games, and having an awfully grand time doing so, when suddenly I said to myself "sick flying pickles, I've got a blog!" So I hurried the fricksticks right up my stairs to my laptop, which brings me to here. I have been feeling a severe lack of writing, and I think this'll cheer me up. (I don't know if "this'll" is a correct contraction, but I like making those up, so I amn't going to change it.)

You know, I can honestly say that I'm pretty awful at pretty much everything. I mean, I can play some instruments pretty well, but I can't read music, and I never got a grade on how fast I can play something I made up on piano. I couldn't do Biblical Exegesis because every time something had a deeper meaning I took it as literal, and vice versa. Math? Well, that's pretty much a lost cause for me. Chemistry? That's just a fancy way of saying "more math." I enjoy languages but the translations over and over and over and over bore me. Words. I love words. If there's anything I can do in this world, it's list off synonyms for pretty much any word you throw at me. And you know the sad part about all this? Last year, at school, I did awful. I was awful because they give me all these classes that I have no idea what I'm doing in, while at the same time I wrote a grand total of about four papers the whole year.

And for serious, that's probably the reason I started blogging. We all know that my good friend Matt Woods and I had a sort of blog-battle in the beginning, but I seriously just wanted to write. Writing makes me feel good. I didn't have any classes where I could let out all this compressed creativity, and frankly it was screwing with my brain. I'd start getting sarcastic on my homework answers. I remember specifically answering "beats me" and "I dunno" multiple times on my math work. There was one particular case where I flat out said "who cares about the falling velocity of this kids baseball?"

So anyways, it feels good to be writing again. Writing is my mistress, and frankly my dear, I'll never get tired of you.

I'm here to talk about your personality! (Follow-up for 3/2/11)

There are more than a few reasons that I'd like to take the time to write a follow-up to my somewhat controversial blog "I'm here to talk about body parts!" One is that I don't really have anything else I want to be doing, but another one is because I did receive a lot of negative feedback focused on the point that I only mentioned that men are interested in your personality and focused mainly on the anatomical aspect of it. Which is true. I was there to talk about body parts, you know...

But all that aside, and without further a-do, I bring you what I perceive to be the somewhat truth about the attraction between personalities.

It's no secret among the general population, especially among teenage girls who feel inclined to inform everyone in an extremely verbose manner how awesome their best friend is. Just a few adjectives I hear on a regular basis when listening to these lengthy descriptions are as follows: crazy, insane, hilarious, perverted, perfect, gorgeous, awesome, etc. Most of these words have something in common though. They describe a character trait, or better yet, they fit perfectly how many people would describe someone's personality.

Now, I understand that many people's besties are of the same gender as them, but even the people they simple enjoy "hangin' out with" (or whatever you kids do these days) share similar traits. For instance, I enjoy socializing with people I can have a good laugh with. People I share similar interests with. People who like the music I like, and the movies I like, and all that good jazz.

It's vital to listen to this point I'm about to make, lest you miss the point of this whole blog; your best friends and you significant others are practically the same thing. Imagine: you're a single teenager, and your snookie-wookums Alfredo, the Golden Retriever, has just passed away. Who do you run to? Your best friend. Imagine: you're a teenager in a happy relationship, and your cutsie-pootsie Henryetta, the Yorkshire Terrier, has recently moved on to a better place. Who do you go to? Your significant other. These are the people who make a difference in your life; your best friends and your "best friend" (if you catch my drift) are the people who you seek the comfort of in times of need. These people make you smile when you're down, hear you out when you're misunderstood, fix you up when you're broken, and correct you when you're wrong.

Now let us juxtapose this with my previous article, where I said that if a person is lacking in either physical attractiveness or an attractive personality (based on the man's point of view and preference), you're lacking a huge factor in compatibility. Saying otherwise be like eating straight chlorine and saying it was salt (the Angelina Jolie kind of salt I guess).

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that similar personalities will be more likely to make a deeper, stronger connection than those that differ. I personally am a big fan of Lewis Goldberg and what he calls the "Big Five."

• Openness to experience - This category is pretty self explanatory. This person is probably that fun loving hippie you hang out with. They're into discovering new things and being creative. Cool.
• Conscientiousness - This is probably one of the hardest words to spell ever. It's a good thing that these people lean more towards being careful and precise in their work and working off a schedule. This is probably little Miss Perfect in your class, who is hyperbolically disappointed in herself when she got a 98 out of 100 on an exam, or reminds the teacher of homework assignments.
• Extraversion - This dude (or dudette. I don't discriminate) is what your parents would probably call a "social bug." Don't try calling anybody that now-a-days. Sayin' that is liable to get you punched in the mouth. But there are greater sins...
• Agreeableness - The agreeable person can be spotted in their natural habitat sitting on a couch, surrounded by a group of their friends, listening to their problems and pumping out advice like Gandhi on speed, while bungee-jumping, just because that's how Gandhi would roll if he were still around (and on speed).
• Neuroticism - You know that chill guy who sits in class balancing his chair on it's back legs, hardly studies, and still gets all the answers right? That's this guy. He's super secure in who he is, and he's cool with it, and if you've got a problem with that, well, that's just fine with him. Not anything he can do about it, 'cause he's just being himself, and people love him for it.

You notice how under absolutely none of those little bullet points, anyone is ever described as "ridiculously attractive" or "sexy?" That's cause there isn't really a direct correlation between personality and looks. You could probably argue that more attractive people are more out-going, simply because those people are more accepted by society, but as far as there being any science behind that I'm not sure.

Anyways, like I was saying, similar personalities match up better. Social people like to be around social people; chill, relaxed people enjoy chilling in a relaxed manner with other chill, relaxed people. When we as humans, a social creature, look for potential partners, we begin by doing some actual, literal looking. Visual stimulation reaches the brain and tells you whether or not you're physically attracted to the person. Physical attraction releases hormones which create a desire to be near that person and get to know them. This is where personality enters the picture; if the person you're trying to get to know better has absolutely nothing in common with you, small talk is going to be a little bit more on the "sucky" side. You probably wont enjoy being around that person if they just so happen to be the biggest melancholy Mandy on Earth, unless you have a similar personality, and likewise if you're a little bit more on the mellow, deep, somewhat depressing side of the spectrum, hanging out with that one chick Daisy who basically emanates light and giggle ferociously every fifteen seconds is going to be absolute murder to you. Looks are just as important as personality. Simple as that.

I hope this has been enlightening to all of you who thought I was a little off my rocker after reading my other post, and I hope that some of that good 'ol controversy that we all love so much will find it's way to a more reasonable conclusion.