I often find when I have spikes in my creative awarenss and output, I find it helpful, if not entertaining, to visit the local watering hole to discuss my ideas with some interesting people. Last night was one such time, and I decided to visit my usual choice for such things, OV. I wasn't disappointed. I had recently organized in my brain where I wanted to go with the Story of Dalmar on my other blog, Bucholera, and after a long day of work I was ready to relax. As it seems to be characteristic of the last few weeks, my mind was also flipping back and forth between random things and Physics of the universe. On the drive into town, I was thinking how nice i would be if I was able to see Jackson, my partner in theoretical crime as it would be, sitting at OV when I got there. Well, as fate would have it, he indeed was there, not waiting for me, but right on time.
Without having to ask, I sat down and was handed a beer to start the evening of relaxation and fanciful conversation with a greeting. I made my greeting, and mentioned that it was great to see Jackson, if not for the sheer enjoyment of his company, but because something in my mind made me hope he was around while I was driving home from work. We had a laugh at strange coincidence that everything seemed to work out the way I had hoped. After all, how often does it work out so perfectly? Again, right on time, soon we were in our long conversations regarding the theories of relativity and the speed of light, and things of quantum particle physics. I really like these conversations because it's something we are both interested in discovering, and Jackson certainly has a more formal background on these things. He has a tendency to keep me from straying towards the ridiculous while allowing me to maintan an Ad Ignorantium approach. Of course, the alcohol has a way of making it even more interesting, too.
An hour or so went by, and the enthusiasm of the conversation subsided as each of us either got burnt out after a bit, or we backed ourselves into a wall with our theories and ideas. Perhaps, it was both. Who could tell? It was about that time that another mutual friend of our's, Kris, came in and said hello. This only served as medium for transition to other things. Little did I realize, that transition revealed itself to be the representatives of a relatively new product of liquor called Rhythm. Rhythm is a liquor that is made from distilled alcohol and the juices of fruits that are rejected from grocery stores. The skeptic in me is quick to say 'Oh, so it's the retarded fruit that nobody wants!" But I quickly ctach myself, and give them the benefit of the doubt that it's simply a measure of the quality standards set by the grocery stores. Rhythem is red, and it comes in a clear bottle. It's really a sort of 'froo-froo' drink. One of the representantives took over the bar in front of Jackson and me, and began concocting these prefabrications of shots and mixed drinks. His inventions weren't half bad, and they were indeed sweet like Kool-Aid and alcohol. But this is not measure of such a drink is best observed without dilution. So, naturally, Jackson and I had a straight shot of Rhythm.
Indeed, Rhythm was distilled alcohol. That was clearly evident when I took the straght shot. It reminded me of everclear and Kool-Aid, though at 70 proof (10 proof lower than standard US liquors such as whiskey and vodka), it did'nt bite or burn quite to that degree. Still, a bit of burn was detected. Our drink mixer from Rhythm made note that the liquor shouldn't give us a hangover, and that his experiences concurred with that theory. I have to admit, I did not have a hangover this morning, it's true. But I must take into account that I am an experiened drinker, too, and wouldn't allow myself to get to that point on a Tuesday anyways. Rhythm reminds me of something that, I think, wa concocted in the 80's if not pror to the 80's that I grew up knowng as 'Whoop Juice'. Traditonaly as I was growing up, it was simple either Everclear and Kool-Aid or Vodka and Kool-Aid. Pretty simple stuff. But in the years after, it transformed into things a bit more uncertain and complicated as the desire for adolescents to get drunk went through its metamorphosis. Nowadays, it could mean almost anything depending upon where you are and where you first tried it.
After about four(ish) shots of Rhythm in all its "glory ", it was time to work towards the door. I generally try to get out of those type of places around 8:00 p.m. if I find myself there during the week. That leves me enough time to have some fun, exhaust it, and get home with enough time to wind down and get to sleep. As fate would have it, once again, that is exactly what happened in the end. But I was still half a beer away from my exit when Kris came back and joined us for a drink. Kris is a pretty busy guy, and I don't get to say 'hi' to him often. After a few moments, I got up and left for home. Two pepperoni sandwiches and a couple of episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation streamed from Netflix later, I went to bed, thus concluding the night activities. Needless to say, I had no problems getting to sleep.
In summary, I had a pretty good night last night. I might even say I had a better night than I would have foreseen. I walked out of OV with a ten dollar tab and got four shots and four beers. I'd say that's a really economical way to drink. That's a significant reason why I drink there. The other significant reason is because I enjoy the company of the people who work there and hang out there, evidenced by the chance meeting and conversations with Jackson and Kris. I certainly wouldn't expect to spend as little elsewhere in town, and more to the point, I would expect to be able to talk particle physics with anyone for any amount of time at those places. But then again, who, in their right mind, would expect that anyways? That might be insane. But then again, just when we tend to think we know everything about the universe, it sidesteps as we go whizzing by it, missing its interaction by several kilometers.
Until, next time....
Enjoy.
Invino Veritas
7/27/11
EOF
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Random Crap For The Day
I suppose you might say that I have a few points to ake today. I was going to make a poit to mention boredom, but that seems superfluous like putting a point value on the king in chess. After all, that's largely why I'm here at all. It's a pretty slow day at work, and I'm just waiting for diagnostics to run their course. At 3:00, I head back to Dunderland (this is the name I use in place of the name of my home town for those of you who know me) because I have some business to take care.
The first point I wish to make is that the entire universe is in a state of either flux or stasis. Seems easy, right? No? Ok, I'll expound upon this. Every action in the universe is the expression of a transformation of energy. This is my theory. Even things that don't involve action of some sort involve energy exchanges of some sort; we usually refer to this as potential energy. To understand this, we must acknowledge there are a finite number of types of energy. These include gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagetic, kinetic, potential, electrical, chemical, chemo-electrical, and so forth. (There are a few others we can point out I'm sure, but that's really not te point of all of this.) Atoms have energy that keep their particles in one place. Molecules have bonds that serve the same purpose. When we split an atom, all that energy is released in the form of kinetic, heat, and electromagnetic energy. When we eat certain types of matter, we break them down by acting upon them with chemicals by either breaking them down which releases energy, or building them up in which case we add energy to them. (A catalyst is just something that facilitates energy from one place to another, or energy to or fom a medium.) Left to its own devices, the universe would constantly change to alternate forms of energy until it reaches a single state of energy or whatever you wish to call infinity.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I realize I will have made a poor explanation of this idea of a universal energy exchange as a constant by the time I finish this point and/or this post. Opposing energies that stalemate each other must be acted upon by an alternative source of energy tochange its state. Likewise, if any one of two energy acting upon each other is greater than the other, then the state that the one energy takes will overcomethe state of the second until we have one energy state or the energies balance out or are forced into change in some way. Make sense? Not yet? Ok, imagine you have a rock and a plate of jello. If I drop the rock ino the plate of jello, the energy of the rock breaking through the jello will result in jello everywhere because the kinetic energy of the rock will make a mess of the jello. Now, let's say our rock is an asteroid with many times more energy, hurling towards earth. As it strikes the earth, all the energy is transformed from kinetic energy and mass-releated energies directly into heat, electromagnetic (light), kinetic, etc. Basicaly, we'd end up with a molten ball of earth. In fact, you can really say that a state of matter is really a state of energy because it really describes the energy that the atoms have.
Make better sense now? No? Yes?
Ok, let's move on. I'm bored of this right now....
It seems as if every ten years or thereabout, a hugely influential and talented artist dies in some tragic way. These artists seem to imprint themselves upon the medium and define (or redefine) it in some way. These artists are innovators and help to create perspective and break down walls. Jimi Hendrix could be seen as one such artist. Some might argue the same for Curt Cobain. Perhaps Janis Joplin, John Lennon, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Randy Rhoades, Bob Marley - the list goes on and on. I guess it's not really true to say 'every ten years', but rather it's a matter of mainstream change that happens every ten years, and as a result, perhaps, those dedicated artists that are so fragile in some sort of way get affected by the uncomfortable prick of fame's spindle. What makes them so fragile? Well, quite plainly, reality is a hard pill to swallow much of the time. When reality comes knocking, there's no avoiding it, but each person has to address reality in their own way. Some people get a heavy dose, others get a lesser dose. If we are fortunate to be given a path of artistry that is appreciated, then we really don't have to live in reality. But unfortunately, at least for me, this is not the case. I spend an extraordinary amount of time doing things I don't like in order to have time to do the things I do like. In other words, avoidance of reality is, well, gratifying, and its what many of us (if not the majority of us) want to spend time doing. (Wow, I really got off point here. Ok, back to, umm, reality.) It's when these artist's realities become unavoidable that they break open like a rotten orange, once full of sweet nectar but now shriveled and devoid of life. An encumbering amount of fame came be an unavoidable form of reality . In other words, one having to deal with so many people so much of the time. Or perhaps an increased workload just to maintain expectations or increasing lifestyles could be seen as reality closing in. Maybe even the destructive nature of drug addiction conflicting with the reality of the reality is what might take them out n the end. Who knows?
Ok, I've burnt myself out on that one.
Next!
Actually. I'll just try to be short-winded and list my random thoughts here:
1. Lewis Carroll didn't look like I originally thought he might.
2. There seems to be a large amount of disagreement upon the features of Samuel Taylor Coleridge as no two
paintings of him seem to look similar to the other.
3. Man, I could really go for some of that spreadable cheddar cheese that comes in the wax ball that is made
with the red wine. That stuff is awesome and would totally match my palate's mood right now.
4. I think I'd rather be lounging on my couch pretending the world doesn't exist except to randomly create
entertaining things that drop out of the sky for my to spend my time upon.
5. I just erased part of the last random statement. Can you guess what it said?
6. The Spaceballs Animated Series isn't really very good.
7. Shin Chan, however, rocks balls.
8. "Did I leave the iron on?" [Random Airplane! Reference]
9. I bet it would be pretty neat, for about thirty minutes, to hang out with Dr. Fillipenko.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Filippenko)
10. I think I like it best when the meat of my hot wings slides off the bone like they did today at the
Mexican restaraunt.
11. Who would have thought decent hot wings would come from a Mexican Restaraunt's buffet?
12. If this blog were a robot, it would be one those trash robots from Spaceballs. (Or was it Ice Pirates?)
13. I have mentioned Spaceballs way too much in this blog.
14. Eighteen minutes until go time.
15. Twiddle.
16. Damn, the nerd itch is hitting me. I must have comic books and magic cards. Give me Dungeons and
Dragons!
17. Can you imagine if Wizards of the Coast made a Dungeons & Dragons candy bar? That would be
completely strange and funny. It would remind me of the Reggie Jackson candy bar, only far more
slly and nerdy. The mascot would be some goofy knight without about as much serious consideration
as the Justice Friends.
18. I want to make octopus. I bet they are expensive, though. They are probably at least five dollars. Maybe
six. Yeah, expensive. [Stare.]
19. 9 minutes.
20. What do you mean "in nine minutes I've produced 6 random statements"? I can't really tell you guys
everything. I'd probably get flagged for pornography or erotica.
21. By the way, we are available for weddings, bar mitsvahs, and brisses.
22. "HEY! You guys see that chicken?" [Random Young Guns Reference]
23. Yes, I did reference a Lou Diamond Phillips movie. What do you mean there's no such thing as a Lou
Diamond Phillips? Well, now that you mention it, he really IS kind of like the Ringo Starr of the 1980's
Young Male celebrities. The only difference is Ringo continues to be successful.
24. Too soon? Hell, it's been 20 years for pete's sake.
25. Twenty-Five!
26. Ok, I go post now.
27. Say goodbye, Gracie.
28. Goodbye, Gracie.
29. [Crowd Laughs]
30 [Fade to Black]
Invino Veritas
EOF
7/25/11
The first point I wish to make is that the entire universe is in a state of either flux or stasis. Seems easy, right? No? Ok, I'll expound upon this. Every action in the universe is the expression of a transformation of energy. This is my theory. Even things that don't involve action of some sort involve energy exchanges of some sort; we usually refer to this as potential energy. To understand this, we must acknowledge there are a finite number of types of energy. These include gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagetic, kinetic, potential, electrical, chemical, chemo-electrical, and so forth. (There are a few others we can point out I'm sure, but that's really not te point of all of this.) Atoms have energy that keep their particles in one place. Molecules have bonds that serve the same purpose. When we split an atom, all that energy is released in the form of kinetic, heat, and electromagnetic energy. When we eat certain types of matter, we break them down by acting upon them with chemicals by either breaking them down which releases energy, or building them up in which case we add energy to them. (A catalyst is just something that facilitates energy from one place to another, or energy to or fom a medium.) Left to its own devices, the universe would constantly change to alternate forms of energy until it reaches a single state of energy or whatever you wish to call infinity.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I realize I will have made a poor explanation of this idea of a universal energy exchange as a constant by the time I finish this point and/or this post. Opposing energies that stalemate each other must be acted upon by an alternative source of energy tochange its state. Likewise, if any one of two energy acting upon each other is greater than the other, then the state that the one energy takes will overcomethe state of the second until we have one energy state or the energies balance out or are forced into change in some way. Make sense? Not yet? Ok, imagine you have a rock and a plate of jello. If I drop the rock ino the plate of jello, the energy of the rock breaking through the jello will result in jello everywhere because the kinetic energy of the rock will make a mess of the jello. Now, let's say our rock is an asteroid with many times more energy, hurling towards earth. As it strikes the earth, all the energy is transformed from kinetic energy and mass-releated energies directly into heat, electromagnetic (light), kinetic, etc. Basicaly, we'd end up with a molten ball of earth. In fact, you can really say that a state of matter is really a state of energy because it really describes the energy that the atoms have.
Make better sense now? No? Yes?
Ok, let's move on. I'm bored of this right now....
It seems as if every ten years or thereabout, a hugely influential and talented artist dies in some tragic way. These artists seem to imprint themselves upon the medium and define (or redefine) it in some way. These artists are innovators and help to create perspective and break down walls. Jimi Hendrix could be seen as one such artist. Some might argue the same for Curt Cobain. Perhaps Janis Joplin, John Lennon, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Randy Rhoades, Bob Marley - the list goes on and on. I guess it's not really true to say 'every ten years', but rather it's a matter of mainstream change that happens every ten years, and as a result, perhaps, those dedicated artists that are so fragile in some sort of way get affected by the uncomfortable prick of fame's spindle. What makes them so fragile? Well, quite plainly, reality is a hard pill to swallow much of the time. When reality comes knocking, there's no avoiding it, but each person has to address reality in their own way. Some people get a heavy dose, others get a lesser dose. If we are fortunate to be given a path of artistry that is appreciated, then we really don't have to live in reality. But unfortunately, at least for me, this is not the case. I spend an extraordinary amount of time doing things I don't like in order to have time to do the things I do like. In other words, avoidance of reality is, well, gratifying, and its what many of us (if not the majority of us) want to spend time doing. (Wow, I really got off point here. Ok, back to, umm, reality.) It's when these artist's realities become unavoidable that they break open like a rotten orange, once full of sweet nectar but now shriveled and devoid of life. An encumbering amount of fame came be an unavoidable form of reality . In other words, one having to deal with so many people so much of the time. Or perhaps an increased workload just to maintain expectations or increasing lifestyles could be seen as reality closing in. Maybe even the destructive nature of drug addiction conflicting with the reality of the reality is what might take them out n the end. Who knows?
Ok, I've burnt myself out on that one.
Next!
Actually. I'll just try to be short-winded and list my random thoughts here:
1. Lewis Carroll didn't look like I originally thought he might.
2. There seems to be a large amount of disagreement upon the features of Samuel Taylor Coleridge as no two
paintings of him seem to look similar to the other.
3. Man, I could really go for some of that spreadable cheddar cheese that comes in the wax ball that is made
with the red wine. That stuff is awesome and would totally match my palate's mood right now.
4. I think I'd rather be lounging on my couch pretending the world doesn't exist except to randomly create
entertaining things that drop out of the sky for my to spend my time upon.
5. I just erased part of the last random statement. Can you guess what it said?
6. The Spaceballs Animated Series isn't really very good.
7. Shin Chan, however, rocks balls.
8. "Did I leave the iron on?" [Random Airplane! Reference]
9. I bet it would be pretty neat, for about thirty minutes, to hang out with Dr. Fillipenko.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Filippenko)
10. I think I like it best when the meat of my hot wings slides off the bone like they did today at the
Mexican restaraunt.
11. Who would have thought decent hot wings would come from a Mexican Restaraunt's buffet?
12. If this blog were a robot, it would be one those trash robots from Spaceballs. (Or was it Ice Pirates?)
13. I have mentioned Spaceballs way too much in this blog.
14. Eighteen minutes until go time.
15. Twiddle.
16. Damn, the nerd itch is hitting me. I must have comic books and magic cards. Give me Dungeons and
Dragons!
17. Can you imagine if Wizards of the Coast made a Dungeons & Dragons candy bar? That would be
completely strange and funny. It would remind me of the Reggie Jackson candy bar, only far more
slly and nerdy. The mascot would be some goofy knight without about as much serious consideration
as the Justice Friends.
18. I want to make octopus. I bet they are expensive, though. They are probably at least five dollars. Maybe
six. Yeah, expensive. [Stare.]
19. 9 minutes.
20. What do you mean "in nine minutes I've produced 6 random statements"? I can't really tell you guys
everything. I'd probably get flagged for pornography or erotica.
21. By the way, we are available for weddings, bar mitsvahs, and brisses.
22. "HEY! You guys see that chicken?" [Random Young Guns Reference]
23. Yes, I did reference a Lou Diamond Phillips movie. What do you mean there's no such thing as a Lou
Diamond Phillips? Well, now that you mention it, he really IS kind of like the Ringo Starr of the 1980's
Young Male celebrities. The only difference is Ringo continues to be successful.
24. Too soon? Hell, it's been 20 years for pete's sake.
25. Twenty-Five!
26. Ok, I go post now.
27. Say goodbye, Gracie.
28. Goodbye, Gracie.
29. [Crowd Laughs]
30 [Fade to Black]
Invino Veritas
EOF
7/25/11
Friday, July 15, 2011
Zen and The Art Of Printer Repair
This post brougt to you by Pink Floyd's Animals and Dark Side Of The Moon.
I've been thinking a lot of my own, ever-evolving theory of universal chaos. I even see it's strands of truth appearing in the most unlikliest of places and even the most likely of places, umm, alike. I'm going to skip as much of the usual sort of jargon that I tend to use, and try to speak plainly because it is more of a personal, perhaps intimate, perspective on life and the universe that I am presenting today. We'll leave the math and take a less conscientous aproach to logic. But that doesn't mean that what I discuss here cannot be, in some way, influenced by either of those things.
See, chaos, that is to say, the eventual and inevitable randomization of the elements and properties of nature as a whole, both earthly and universal, is an inevitability. Human beings and even parts of nature itself struggles against this all-encompassing law. The universe expands away from its own parts, people move away and leave teir roots, and gases expand to fill volumes. Even as gravity pulls us to the surface of the earth, we are actually trying to leae the grasp of gravity and separate from Earth. Electromagnetic bonds are responsibile for keeping our atoms secured to the other atoms that make up the very molecules that make up our body.
But I really didn't come here to talk about science today, for the most part. I really came to talk about something really very different, but still somewhat related to the chaos that creates each of these things. I came, more or less, to explain that chaos is a necessary component to most everything. Our attempts to create or restore order in our universeor reality is proof of its existence. After all, who wouldn't want something reliable and consistent in their lives? But the fact of the matter is that nature constantly creates and manifests variations on itself with no apparet rhyme or reason but merely on whim alone. So why struggle so hard agaisnt it? Relax. Remember the last battle scene in the original version of Walt Disney's Tron? Tron ad to wait for the opening to the Master Control Program's face to become visible before he could launch his data disc into t and destroy the MCP. This is how one might view it. Sure, it's important to defeat the MCP, but you got to wat for the moment to present itself.
Now, this doesn't mean that every little thing in the world should be approached this way, just most things. This is because some things are what they are because they do what they do. Bees make honey. Bees also buzz. But bees do not make french toast, and will probably never make french toast. It's simply not reasonable in the slightest to expect to be served some good french toast by an insect any time within our lives. Likewise, f you want to have some things happen in your life, you must be proactive and create those things or situations for yourself - bottom line.
But we actually do this to some degree anyways. We prioritize things according to how much chaos they actually create in our lives. Our leaders send troops to the middle east because it is creating immediate chaos in their lives, perceived or not, and redrect things away from other areas like education and solving the homeless problem. (This is not meant to ignore other reasons for these things.) Inasmuch as politics, a mother may choose to console her baby to keep it from crying instead of pick up the child's toys at that very moment.
Our lives are filled with so many things that can distract us from our major goals. Few things have ever been so apparent to me as this, partly because (I imagine) I've lived with an attention deficit for several years. One of the things that makes everything so difficult sometimes is learning to choose which components of the chaos to act upon and which components to let act upon you. Chemistry tells us that as a force or stress exerts itself upon a system, that system has a way of moving in a direction to relieve itself of that stress. Peoeple really aren't that much different. If you feel pressure from your neighbors to cut your lawn, chances are that you will eventually cut the lawn when they arrive at your door with a meat cleaver and a number of a good lawn care service. Everyone has certain things that are common that they canot live without. These things include things like food, clothing, shelter, health, water, oxygen, etc. Then there are those things that directly facilitate those things. These two kind of things are the necessary things in life. Everything else is just luxury. I need water, but I want beer. See the relationship? You can prioritize these things in the order that I have presented, and do just fine (i.e. create some order from the chaos).
Now, let's put everything together. This is the point of the discussion that I relate everything that I have talked about to printer repair. Many days, I get a broken printer, a printer in a state of chaos and dysfunction, to repair. Feeling the stress from my boss to perform, I begin work on my broken printer. The idea here is to return this printer to a state of function and representative of some sort of order that represents exactly what it is: a printer. But, wow, there's a lot of parts, and often I have to completely disassemble and reassemble these things. How does one do it? Well, we can't fix anything until we know how it is failing, so we check it out by running it through the tests to diagnose prblems with its basic functions. (Can this bee buzz? Can this bee make honey? Why is this bee making french toast? That's weird!) Once we determined what it's not doing properly, we then devise a plan to address those parts and functions. We can't very start in the center of the printer, we have to remove its outer compoents before we can reveal the problems on he inside. So, we start with the simple stuff on the outside and work our way into the thngs that are most important. This is like making the choice between those things that facilitate the things are important versus the things that are the mos timportant. (For the purpose of illustration, we note here that every printer part is treated as one of these types of things.) We find, as we go through our process, we need to make some changes to create some order (i.e. replace parts). After rreplacing these parts and reassembling our printer, we check it out again to make everything works right, and that we are indeed in a state or order once again. After a quick clean-up job, we send our bee back into the garden to collect some more pollen, and brave the elements. Congratulations, we've staved off another episode of chaos! You can look at the cleaning of the printer to remove the dirt as a matter of aesthetics, and thereofre like those things tha aren't really important because they do nothing to facilitate or keep the printer in order and functional.
So, in summary, I present these few, what I will call, truths or laws:
1. The universe moves in the direction of the least amount of order. This is The Law of
Chaos.
2. All things acted upon by the chaos in the universe can be organized into four categories:
The thing itself, the necessary components of the main thing, the properties of the
necessary components that cause the facilitation, and the things that are inconsequential.
This is The Law of Order.
3. It is the nature of the universe to create chaos, and it is the need of human beings to act
upon their realities to create order and make sense of things. This is The Law of
Opposition.This is akin to Le Chatelier's Principle in chemistry.
4. Things are what they are because they do what they do and vice versa; they have intrinsic
qualities and properties that define and distinguish them from everything else. This is The
Law of Uniques.
Invino Veritas
7/15/11
EOF
I've been thinking a lot of my own, ever-evolving theory of universal chaos. I even see it's strands of truth appearing in the most unlikliest of places and even the most likely of places, umm, alike. I'm going to skip as much of the usual sort of jargon that I tend to use, and try to speak plainly because it is more of a personal, perhaps intimate, perspective on life and the universe that I am presenting today. We'll leave the math and take a less conscientous aproach to logic. But that doesn't mean that what I discuss here cannot be, in some way, influenced by either of those things.
See, chaos, that is to say, the eventual and inevitable randomization of the elements and properties of nature as a whole, both earthly and universal, is an inevitability. Human beings and even parts of nature itself struggles against this all-encompassing law. The universe expands away from its own parts, people move away and leave teir roots, and gases expand to fill volumes. Even as gravity pulls us to the surface of the earth, we are actually trying to leae the grasp of gravity and separate from Earth. Electromagnetic bonds are responsibile for keeping our atoms secured to the other atoms that make up the very molecules that make up our body.
But I really didn't come here to talk about science today, for the most part. I really came to talk about something really very different, but still somewhat related to the chaos that creates each of these things. I came, more or less, to explain that chaos is a necessary component to most everything. Our attempts to create or restore order in our universeor reality is proof of its existence. After all, who wouldn't want something reliable and consistent in their lives? But the fact of the matter is that nature constantly creates and manifests variations on itself with no apparet rhyme or reason but merely on whim alone. So why struggle so hard agaisnt it? Relax. Remember the last battle scene in the original version of Walt Disney's Tron? Tron ad to wait for the opening to the Master Control Program's face to become visible before he could launch his data disc into t and destroy the MCP. This is how one might view it. Sure, it's important to defeat the MCP, but you got to wat for the moment to present itself.
Now, this doesn't mean that every little thing in the world should be approached this way, just most things. This is because some things are what they are because they do what they do. Bees make honey. Bees also buzz. But bees do not make french toast, and will probably never make french toast. It's simply not reasonable in the slightest to expect to be served some good french toast by an insect any time within our lives. Likewise, f you want to have some things happen in your life, you must be proactive and create those things or situations for yourself - bottom line.
But we actually do this to some degree anyways. We prioritize things according to how much chaos they actually create in our lives. Our leaders send troops to the middle east because it is creating immediate chaos in their lives, perceived or not, and redrect things away from other areas like education and solving the homeless problem. (This is not meant to ignore other reasons for these things.) Inasmuch as politics, a mother may choose to console her baby to keep it from crying instead of pick up the child's toys at that very moment.
Our lives are filled with so many things that can distract us from our major goals. Few things have ever been so apparent to me as this, partly because (I imagine) I've lived with an attention deficit for several years. One of the things that makes everything so difficult sometimes is learning to choose which components of the chaos to act upon and which components to let act upon you. Chemistry tells us that as a force or stress exerts itself upon a system, that system has a way of moving in a direction to relieve itself of that stress. Peoeple really aren't that much different. If you feel pressure from your neighbors to cut your lawn, chances are that you will eventually cut the lawn when they arrive at your door with a meat cleaver and a number of a good lawn care service. Everyone has certain things that are common that they canot live without. These things include things like food, clothing, shelter, health, water, oxygen, etc. Then there are those things that directly facilitate those things. These two kind of things are the necessary things in life. Everything else is just luxury. I need water, but I want beer. See the relationship? You can prioritize these things in the order that I have presented, and do just fine (i.e. create some order from the chaos).
Now, let's put everything together. This is the point of the discussion that I relate everything that I have talked about to printer repair. Many days, I get a broken printer, a printer in a state of chaos and dysfunction, to repair. Feeling the stress from my boss to perform, I begin work on my broken printer. The idea here is to return this printer to a state of function and representative of some sort of order that represents exactly what it is: a printer. But, wow, there's a lot of parts, and often I have to completely disassemble and reassemble these things. How does one do it? Well, we can't fix anything until we know how it is failing, so we check it out by running it through the tests to diagnose prblems with its basic functions. (Can this bee buzz? Can this bee make honey? Why is this bee making french toast? That's weird!) Once we determined what it's not doing properly, we then devise a plan to address those parts and functions. We can't very start in the center of the printer, we have to remove its outer compoents before we can reveal the problems on he inside. So, we start with the simple stuff on the outside and work our way into the thngs that are most important. This is like making the choice between those things that facilitate the things are important versus the things that are the mos timportant. (For the purpose of illustration, we note here that every printer part is treated as one of these types of things.) We find, as we go through our process, we need to make some changes to create some order (i.e. replace parts). After rreplacing these parts and reassembling our printer, we check it out again to make everything works right, and that we are indeed in a state or order once again. After a quick clean-up job, we send our bee back into the garden to collect some more pollen, and brave the elements. Congratulations, we've staved off another episode of chaos! You can look at the cleaning of the printer to remove the dirt as a matter of aesthetics, and thereofre like those things tha aren't really important because they do nothing to facilitate or keep the printer in order and functional.
So, in summary, I present these few, what I will call, truths or laws:
1. The universe moves in the direction of the least amount of order. This is The Law of
Chaos.
2. All things acted upon by the chaos in the universe can be organized into four categories:
The thing itself, the necessary components of the main thing, the properties of the
necessary components that cause the facilitation, and the things that are inconsequential.
This is The Law of Order.
3. It is the nature of the universe to create chaos, and it is the need of human beings to act
upon their realities to create order and make sense of things. This is The Law of
Opposition.This is akin to Le Chatelier's Principle in chemistry.
4. Things are what they are because they do what they do and vice versa; they have intrinsic
qualities and properties that define and distinguish them from everything else. This is The
Law of Uniques.
Invino Veritas
7/15/11
EOF
Monday, July 11, 2011
Fried Brains With a Side of Gamma Gamma Hey
It is the nature of the universe to move from a state of balance to a state of disorder, entropy, or otherwise chaos. The universe expands at a greater rate every moment no matter how relative space is to time and vice versa. If I drop a glass, it tbreaks. Nations are built, and then they are torn down. Energy is constantly transformed into one state or another; the big bang transforms energy into a star transforms its energy into light transforms its energy into food for plants transforms its energy minerals is transformed into kinetic energy is transformed into heat energy is transformed into light energy, etcetera et-f'n-cetera. Why should we be so different? People live together, grow together, and move off, expand from the center. Sure you can return, but you will just leave again or die.
So, let's take a moment and apply what we have learned above to the concept of consciousness. While living, the body releases energy in the form of brainwaves, heat, and chemo-electrical signals. This release of energy interacts with its environment to produce what we typically think of as thoughts and other effects. If the universe consistently transforms energy into one state or another, and we ar epart of the universe, then death is just another transformation of the consciousness into another energy state. Now, hold on, mister. Let's not get ahead of ourself and start fantasizing that this explains God. We can't jump the gun. When we abandon scientific reason and methodology, we cease to be scientists, and become scientologists - or something worse: politicians! (Shiver!) The other energy state could be anything. For example, if we die in a fire then we are converted to heat and light. Likewise, if we expire in our sleep, our body will continue to convert our body into heat and chemo-electrical energy until it runs out of resources, and then the external environment takes over.
Q1: But what happens then?
A1: Oh, hell, I don't know. This is as far as I've gotten in my thought process. Most likely, the energy wll be converted into another state as it comes into contact with another mechanism that serves that purpose. All throughout space is motion. Forget the fact that the space between moving objects is growing. Reaching absolute zero means that vibraional motion of atoms ceases, but that doesn't mean that the collective body of atoms (i.e. the rock) doesn't continue to move as an instance of relativity to another collective body (i.e. another rock). This would obviously differ with quantum mechanics as that deals primarily with things on the atomic and subatomic levels, whereas the other sciences deal with things larger than those scales.
Q2: Ok if Quantum Mechanics and normal Phyical Science are part of the same greater picture, where do they meet and find a common ground?
A2: That's a great question. I don't think anyone has answered that question yet ouside of mere theory. We can take Einstein's theory of relativity, and this will bring it all back to energy for the sake of discussion (cough, cough). E=MC^2. Einstein said that space and time are the same thing. Ok, fine. I can deal with that. That means that as you traverse space, you also traverse time. Easy, right? I would gather that as we scale slightly smaller and smaller, we lose our relativity between space and time; mass becomes negligible, and therefore the energy becomes, for the most part, equal to the square of the speed of light, or E=C^2. For instance, photons are the only thing that can actually travel at the speed of light because they are "massless". This probably also supports the widely followed theory that you can't travel faster than the speed of light. (Forget that you wouldn't be able to SEE if you got ahead of the light beam!) This is of course before we consider things like hopping through dimensions and wave-propulsion systems.
Q3: Can mass be negative?
A3: Only in theoretical terms. That is far more complicated than I care to get into at this point in time - partly because I don't really understand the theories as I should before I started talking about them.
On the other hand, sometimes it's fun to talk out of our ass in jest (as can probably be evidenced by this entire thing!). Ok, negative mass is mass that has the exact opposite electromagnetic properties of the mass we typically know. However, because mass is mass is mass, the funadmentals stay the same, that is, the laws that govern how mass intrinsically behaves as mass (as opposed to a type of mass), such as the conservation of momentum. The conservation of momentum is a property of the fact said mass is mass, not, say, iron or copper. Make sense? Too bad. I'm going on before I lose this train of thought.
Anyways, the point at which mass becomes equal to zero and the total energy is equal to the speed of light squared would be the apex of the normal curve. Yes, I realize that the mass would be equal to zero and, normally, you wouldn't remove zero from the equation thus yielding a sum of zero. But here's the schtick: it's not as if mass exists without properties but rather it does not exist at all at the speed of light. But the crusher is once you pass the speed of light, mass becomes negative. In one theory, perhaps that's how we can interact with dark matter: go faster than the speed of light. Maybe that's really what is dark energy. Who knows? If you take the case of electrons, you would notice that they have negligible mass expressed in an atomic weight, and they have an amount of energy, but they do not emit light. This is probably because they travel quite slow, never reaching the speed of light. It's only when we add energy that light is emitted from electrons (i.e. producing a spark when you throw a rock at the ground). In our own view of reality, we only exist on one side of the normal curve, in theory.
Q4: Wow. We really got a ways off from the original topic. Did you get lost?
A4: Remember we were trying to decribe some of the relationship(s) between relative sciences and quantum mehanics. Besides, I warned you that we would take a moment to talk out of our asses, didn't I? But I think I've burnt mysef out today, actually. My brain is kind of fried having to also work on these printers while I'm trying not to go permanently (in)sane with the bubbling of these random thoughts.
So, I'm off.
Enjoy.
EOF
Invino Veritas
7/11/11
So, let's take a moment and apply what we have learned above to the concept of consciousness. While living, the body releases energy in the form of brainwaves, heat, and chemo-electrical signals. This release of energy interacts with its environment to produce what we typically think of as thoughts and other effects. If the universe consistently transforms energy into one state or another, and we ar epart of the universe, then death is just another transformation of the consciousness into another energy state. Now, hold on, mister. Let's not get ahead of ourself and start fantasizing that this explains God. We can't jump the gun. When we abandon scientific reason and methodology, we cease to be scientists, and become scientologists - or something worse: politicians! (Shiver!) The other energy state could be anything. For example, if we die in a fire then we are converted to heat and light. Likewise, if we expire in our sleep, our body will continue to convert our body into heat and chemo-electrical energy until it runs out of resources, and then the external environment takes over.
Q1: But what happens then?
A1: Oh, hell, I don't know. This is as far as I've gotten in my thought process. Most likely, the energy wll be converted into another state as it comes into contact with another mechanism that serves that purpose. All throughout space is motion. Forget the fact that the space between moving objects is growing. Reaching absolute zero means that vibraional motion of atoms ceases, but that doesn't mean that the collective body of atoms (i.e. the rock) doesn't continue to move as an instance of relativity to another collective body (i.e. another rock). This would obviously differ with quantum mechanics as that deals primarily with things on the atomic and subatomic levels, whereas the other sciences deal with things larger than those scales.
Q2: Ok if Quantum Mechanics and normal Phyical Science are part of the same greater picture, where do they meet and find a common ground?
A2: That's a great question. I don't think anyone has answered that question yet ouside of mere theory. We can take Einstein's theory of relativity, and this will bring it all back to energy for the sake of discussion (cough, cough). E=MC^2. Einstein said that space and time are the same thing. Ok, fine. I can deal with that. That means that as you traverse space, you also traverse time. Easy, right? I would gather that as we scale slightly smaller and smaller, we lose our relativity between space and time; mass becomes negligible, and therefore the energy becomes, for the most part, equal to the square of the speed of light, or E=C^2. For instance, photons are the only thing that can actually travel at the speed of light because they are "massless". This probably also supports the widely followed theory that you can't travel faster than the speed of light. (Forget that you wouldn't be able to SEE if you got ahead of the light beam!) This is of course before we consider things like hopping through dimensions and wave-propulsion systems.
Q3: Can mass be negative?
A3: Only in theoretical terms. That is far more complicated than I care to get into at this point in time - partly because I don't really understand the theories as I should before I started talking about them.
On the other hand, sometimes it's fun to talk out of our ass in jest (as can probably be evidenced by this entire thing!). Ok, negative mass is mass that has the exact opposite electromagnetic properties of the mass we typically know. However, because mass is mass is mass, the funadmentals stay the same, that is, the laws that govern how mass intrinsically behaves as mass (as opposed to a type of mass), such as the conservation of momentum. The conservation of momentum is a property of the fact said mass is mass, not, say, iron or copper. Make sense? Too bad. I'm going on before I lose this train of thought.
Anyways, the point at which mass becomes equal to zero and the total energy is equal to the speed of light squared would be the apex of the normal curve. Yes, I realize that the mass would be equal to zero and, normally, you wouldn't remove zero from the equation thus yielding a sum of zero. But here's the schtick: it's not as if mass exists without properties but rather it does not exist at all at the speed of light. But the crusher is once you pass the speed of light, mass becomes negative. In one theory, perhaps that's how we can interact with dark matter: go faster than the speed of light. Maybe that's really what is dark energy. Who knows? If you take the case of electrons, you would notice that they have negligible mass expressed in an atomic weight, and they have an amount of energy, but they do not emit light. This is probably because they travel quite slow, never reaching the speed of light. It's only when we add energy that light is emitted from electrons (i.e. producing a spark when you throw a rock at the ground). In our own view of reality, we only exist on one side of the normal curve, in theory.
Q4: Wow. We really got a ways off from the original topic. Did you get lost?
A4: Remember we were trying to decribe some of the relationship(s) between relative sciences and quantum mehanics. Besides, I warned you that we would take a moment to talk out of our asses, didn't I? But I think I've burnt mysef out today, actually. My brain is kind of fried having to also work on these printers while I'm trying not to go permanently (in)sane with the bubbling of these random thoughts.
So, I'm off.
Enjoy.
EOF
Invino Veritas
7/11/11
Friday, July 1, 2011
Relativity, Energy Drinks, and Nat'l Geographic.
Recently, I've been watching a lot of science shows on Netflix. I have a certain proclivity to gravitate towards shows and documentaries about ancient history and cosmology. Most recently, I began wtaching National Geographic's The Universe, a 64 episode series, and I think it's begun to affect the body of things that I think about these days. that is, to say, I think about physics and the cosmos and interaction of those things with a distinct regularity. I've always been interested in those types of things, and have retained a fair amount of that knowledge from when I was studying chemistry and physics in high school and early college.
Last night, as I was trying to go to sleep, my mind was racing (attention deficit is a bitch, let me tell you). My mind began to apply logic and a rudimenary understanding of mathematics in one coalescing body of theory. The theory is a rather simple one, but takes a bit of conceptualization to grasp methinks. It begins as a the concept that one result, A, is the sum of its causes, B and C. In logic, the cause is almost always a result of the variable that are applied in some way to produce the result. For instance, when you add yellow paint to blue paint the result is green paint. Taking this model, we can see that the yellow paint, B, and Blue Paint, C, combine to form green paint, A. This can be described in a simple equation:
A=B+C
In describing the simple logic of combining values to yield a new value, we can infer a couple of things:
1. A is the sum of the properties of both B and C.
2. The properties of B are independent of the properties of C.
3. The properties of C are independent of the properties of B.
The forst statement is proved by the original eqation. The next two statements are proved by a simple mathematical reorganization where the original equation is rearranged thus:
A-B=C
and
A-C=B
Both B and C have an intrinsic, or inherent, values that are true regardless of whether or not those values are known. The mere existence of one paint doesn't determine the properties of another paint unless combined with that paint, therefore paints B and C are independent variables of A. At this point, we can apply the Law of Composition as derived by the logical premise that states while A is the result of both B and C, the properties of each of the three variables are, for the most part, separate from one another. In other words, while A may have properties similar to properties that exist in both B and C, the totality of said properties in each are not equal. As pointed out by Madeleine L'Engle in her famous book, A Wrinkle In Time, "Like and Equal are not the same thing."
Q1: Ok, so how can we use this in everyday life? After all, I'm not a painter.
A1: Let's pretend your boss comes to you and says "Finish your work. You're spending too much time fraternizing and playing on the internet." For now, we'll assume that there are only two apparent variables that yield a result. Your boss assumes that a lack of production, A, is due to fraternizing, B and Internet usage, C.
First we infer that your internet usage is intrinsically independent of your fraternizing, or B has a value that would exist whether or not C was present, and vice versa. If your boss observed a decline in your production, he or she could also infer that if you removed B or C from A, then the value of production, A, would increase. This is easily stated as A-B=C. But to this point, we've only proved that B and C are independent. Surely, if you cut out talking to your co-workers the time you spend unsing the internet will not equal the time that you spend working, right? Wrong.
Q2: But this contradicts what you just said. How can this be?
A2: When we start talking about things relative to a time frame, then we have to include another variable because time itself is only relative among the variable themselves. This is the dependent variable. Our equation has evolved at this point. Time was previously irrelevant to blue and yellow paint, but it is a key component, the crux of the argument by your boss, if you will. In order to instigate an change in A, it must be offset by a change in time, x. Let's take a look at our new equation:
Ax=(B+C)(-x)
As time is relevant to both cause and result, it exists on both sides of the equation. In order for A to increase with the reduction of the equation by B (or C, depending upon which value you use), then some varaible, x, (time in this case) has to become dependent upon one of the other variables. Here, we can say that when A is reduced by B, the value of x is decreased by a factor of C. But how can this be? Because the relationship between varaibles B and C to that of time, x, is inversely proportional.This also means that as x gets smaller on one side of the equation, it gets larger on the other side. Thus we get:
Ax=(B)(-x)+(C)(-x)
In conclusion, if we spend less time (-x) doing B and C, then we will spend more time (+x) doing A. This brings us to two equations:
The relationship of a sum to its elements:
1. A=B+C
The relationship of a sum to its elements when time is introduced:
2. Ax=[(B)(-x)] + [(C)(-x)]
See? This is what happens when I drink energy drinks and watch National Geographic. I told you this stuff was happening. I've got to get this sort of thing OUT OF MY HEAD. Math isn't my strong suit, and I freely admit that. In fact, if t wasn't for my buddy, TD, then I'd be stuck like a broken record at the very end of things. So, what I'm trying to say is don't beat me up if there's some mathematical problem there. I don't take too much responsibility for it i it exists.
Invino Veritas
7/1/11
EOF
Last night, as I was trying to go to sleep, my mind was racing (attention deficit is a bitch, let me tell you). My mind began to apply logic and a rudimenary understanding of mathematics in one coalescing body of theory. The theory is a rather simple one, but takes a bit of conceptualization to grasp methinks. It begins as a the concept that one result, A, is the sum of its causes, B and C. In logic, the cause is almost always a result of the variable that are applied in some way to produce the result. For instance, when you add yellow paint to blue paint the result is green paint. Taking this model, we can see that the yellow paint, B, and Blue Paint, C, combine to form green paint, A. This can be described in a simple equation:
A=B+C
In describing the simple logic of combining values to yield a new value, we can infer a couple of things:
1. A is the sum of the properties of both B and C.
2. The properties of B are independent of the properties of C.
3. The properties of C are independent of the properties of B.
The forst statement is proved by the original eqation. The next two statements are proved by a simple mathematical reorganization where the original equation is rearranged thus:
A-B=C
and
A-C=B
Both B and C have an intrinsic, or inherent, values that are true regardless of whether or not those values are known. The mere existence of one paint doesn't determine the properties of another paint unless combined with that paint, therefore paints B and C are independent variables of A. At this point, we can apply the Law of Composition as derived by the logical premise that states while A is the result of both B and C, the properties of each of the three variables are, for the most part, separate from one another. In other words, while A may have properties similar to properties that exist in both B and C, the totality of said properties in each are not equal. As pointed out by Madeleine L'Engle in her famous book, A Wrinkle In Time, "Like and Equal are not the same thing."
Q1: Ok, so how can we use this in everyday life? After all, I'm not a painter.
A1: Let's pretend your boss comes to you and says "Finish your work. You're spending too much time fraternizing and playing on the internet." For now, we'll assume that there are only two apparent variables that yield a result. Your boss assumes that a lack of production, A, is due to fraternizing, B and Internet usage, C.
First we infer that your internet usage is intrinsically independent of your fraternizing, or B has a value that would exist whether or not C was present, and vice versa. If your boss observed a decline in your production, he or she could also infer that if you removed B or C from A, then the value of production, A, would increase. This is easily stated as A-B=C. But to this point, we've only proved that B and C are independent. Surely, if you cut out talking to your co-workers the time you spend unsing the internet will not equal the time that you spend working, right? Wrong.
Q2: But this contradicts what you just said. How can this be?
A2: When we start talking about things relative to a time frame, then we have to include another variable because time itself is only relative among the variable themselves. This is the dependent variable. Our equation has evolved at this point. Time was previously irrelevant to blue and yellow paint, but it is a key component, the crux of the argument by your boss, if you will. In order to instigate an change in A, it must be offset by a change in time, x. Let's take a look at our new equation:
Ax=(B+C)(-x)
As time is relevant to both cause and result, it exists on both sides of the equation. In order for A to increase with the reduction of the equation by B (or C, depending upon which value you use), then some varaible, x, (time in this case) has to become dependent upon one of the other variables. Here, we can say that when A is reduced by B, the value of x is decreased by a factor of C. But how can this be? Because the relationship between varaibles B and C to that of time, x, is inversely proportional.This also means that as x gets smaller on one side of the equation, it gets larger on the other side. Thus we get:
Ax=(B)(-x)+(C)(-x)
In conclusion, if we spend less time (-x) doing B and C, then we will spend more time (+x) doing A. This brings us to two equations:
The relationship of a sum to its elements:
1. A=B+C
The relationship of a sum to its elements when time is introduced:
2. Ax=[(B)(-x)] + [(C)(-x)]
See? This is what happens when I drink energy drinks and watch National Geographic. I told you this stuff was happening. I've got to get this sort of thing OUT OF MY HEAD. Math isn't my strong suit, and I freely admit that. In fact, if t wasn't for my buddy, TD, then I'd be stuck like a broken record at the very end of things. So, what I'm trying to say is don't beat me up if there's some mathematical problem there. I don't take too much responsibility for it i it exists.
Invino Veritas
7/1/11
EOF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)