The universe is ruled by probability. Which makes it quite probable that it is also ruled, or should I say is at the same time ruled - no, it isamele time ruled by improbability. Improbability, being the anti-form of probability, is wound up inseparably with regular old probability, and as such rules our universe in as many ways, if not more so, then predictability.
Improbability is not something to laugh at, no matter what some books have encouraged us to believe. Indeed, it is a ongoing research topic for scientists, and as such, I myself have devoted some little thought to the matter.
Since the universe is ruled by probability, it is therefore ruled by improbability from the anti-energies that each probability factor implies - that is, for every probability of an out come, one can therefore assume that everything else is more or less improbable from the probable outcome, and as a result of having a probable result, we can therefore conclude that it is probable (or improbable) that there are more improbable results that probable ones. As a direct result, with more improbability that probability, it is therefore more probable that improbability will abound then probability. This obviously loops back on itself, and it would seem this whole problem is more or less impossible, or, to be more precise, very very improbable, and therefore, since improbability = negative probability, -very -very probable, which makes absolutely no sense, and who thought all this up anyways.
Since no one in their right mind can possibly understand any of this shit, we can only come to three conclusions.
One: The universe, since no one in their right mind could understand this, and the universe clearly does in order to function, must be out of its own mind. Which would explain quite a bit.
Two: One should always prepare for that which one is not prepared for, so that preparing for what is not prepared for makes what he is prepared for and now not prepared for probable of occurring in the first place.
And, as a direct conclusion to the conclusions of the conclusion, we have a final, fundamental fact of the universe:
The universe is fucking retarded.
Have a nice day.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Brain Food III
Also known in some cultures as Food for Thought!
Although, I find it highly improbable that thought actually needs food. The brain is what produces thought, and it certainly needs food of a sort, or at least energy. But do thoughts actually need food? Ahh, the endless ponderings brought on by pondering the said ponderings...
Although, I find it highly improbable that thought actually needs food. The brain is what produces thought, and it certainly needs food of a sort, or at least energy. But do thoughts actually need food? Ahh, the endless ponderings brought on by pondering the said ponderings...
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Other, notable work: Time-Traveling birds out to get us.
The following is from Yahoo news. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091111/wl_time/08599193737000
"Sometime on Nov. 3, the supercooled magnets in sector 81 of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), outside Geneva, began to dangerously overheat. Scientists rushed to diagnose the problem, since the particle accelerator has to maintain a temperature colder than deep space in order to work. The culprit? "A bit of baguette," says Mike Lamont of the control center of CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which built and maintains the LHC. Apparently, a passing bird may have dropped the chunk of bread on an electrical substation above the accelerator, causing a power cut. The baguette was removed, power to the cryogenic system was restored and within a few days the magnets returned to their supercool temperatures.
While most scientists would write off the event as a freak accident, two esteemed physicists have formulated a theory that suggests an alternative explanation: perhaps a time-traveling bird was sent from the future to sabotage the experiment. Bech Nielsen of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, have published several papers over the past year arguing that the CERN experiment may be the latest in a series of physics research projects whose purposes are so unacceptable to the universe that they are doomed to fail, subverted by the future.
The LHC, a 17-mile underground ring designed to smash atoms together at high energies, was created in part to find proof of a hypothetical subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. According to current theory, the Higgs is responsible for imparting mass to all things in the universe. But ever since the British physicist Peter Higgs first postulated the existence of the particle in 1964, attempts to capture the particle have failed, and often for unexpected, seemingly inexplicable reasons.
In 1993, the multibillion-dollar United States Superconducting Supercollider, which was designed to search for the Higgs, was abruptly canceled by Congress. In 2000, scientists at a previous CERN accelerator, LEP, said they were on the verge of discovering the particle when, again, funding dried up. And now there's the LHC. Originally scheduled to start operating in 2006, it has been hit with a series of delays and setbacks, including a sudden explosion between two magnets nine days after the accelerator was first turned on, the arrest of one of its contributing physicists on suspicion of terrorist activity and, most recently, the aerial bread bombardment from a bird. (A CERN spokesman said power cuts such as the one caused by the errant baguette are common for a device that requires as much electricity as the nearby city of Geneva, and that physicists are confident they will begin circulating atoms by the end of the year).
In a series of audacious papers, Nielsen and Ninomiya have suggested that setbacks to the LHC occur because of "reverse chronological causation," which is to say, sabotage from the future. The papers suggest that the Higgs boson may be "abhorrent to nature" and the LHC's creation of the Higgs sometime in the future sends ripples backward through time to scupper its own creation. Each time scientists are on the verge of capturing the Higgs, the theory holds, the future intercedes. The theory as to why the universe rejects the creation of Higgs bosons is based on complex mathematics, but, Nielsen tells TIME, "you could explain it [simply] by saying that God, in inverted commas, or nature, hates the Higgs and tries to avoid them."
Many physicists say that Nielsen and Ninomiya's theory, while intellectually interesting, cannot be accurate because the event that the LHC is trying to recreate already happens in nature. Particle collisions of an energy equivalent to those planned in the LHC occur when high-energy cosmic rays collide with the earth's atmosphere. What's more, some scientists believe that the Tevatron accelerator at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (or Fermilab) near Chicago has already created Higgs bosons without incident; the Fermilab scientists are now refining data from their collisions to prove the Higgs' existence.
Nielsen counters that nature might allow a small number of Higgs to be produced by the Tevatron, but would prevent the production of the large number of particles the LHC is anticipated to produce. He also acknowledges that Higgs particles are probably produced in cosmic collisions, but says it's impossible to know whether nature has stopped a great deal of these collisions from happening. "It's possible that God avoids Higgs [particles] only when there are very many of them, but if there are a few, maybe He let's them go," he says.
Nielsen and Ninomiya's theory represents one side of an intellectual divide between particle physicists today. Contemporary physicists tend to fall into one of two camps: the theorists, who posit ideas about the origins and workings of the universe; and experimentalists, who design telescopes and particle accelerators to test these theories, or provide new data from which novel theories can emerge. Most experimentalists believe that the theorists, due to a lack of new data in recent years, have reached a roadblock - the Standard Model, which is the closest thing the theorists have to an evidence-backed "theory of everything," provides only an incomplete explanation of the universe. Until theorists get further data and evidence to move forward, the experimentalists believe, they end up simply making wild guesses - like those concerning time-traveling saboteurs - about how the universe works. "Nielsen and Ninomiya's theories are clearly crazy theories," says Dmitri Denisov, a physicist and Higgs-hunter at the DZero experiment at Fermilab. "In recent years theorists have been starving for experimental input and as a result, theories of second type are propagating widely. The majority of them have nothing to do with world we live in."
Nielsen concedes, "We have very little data, so theorists are going their own ways and making a lot of theories that may not be very plausible. We need guidance from experimentalists to make the theories more healthy."
"But," he adds, "in terms of our theory, we are submitting to a form of experiment. We are saying the LHC won't be allowed to produce a large number of Higgs. If it does, it would be very damaging to our theory."
Particle physics has a long history of zany theories that turned out to be true. Niels Bohr, the doyen of modern physicists, often told a story about a horseshoe he kept over his country home in Tisvilde, Denmark. When asked whether he really thought it would bring good luck, he replied, "Of course not, but I'm told it works even if you don't believe in it." In other words: if preposterous theories are mathematically sound and can be confirmed by observation, they are true, even if seemingly impossible to believe. To scientists in the early 20th century, for example, quantum mechanics may have seemed outrageous. "The concept that you could have a wave-particle duality - that an object could take on either wave-like properties or point-like properties, depending on how you observe it - takes a huge leap of imagination," says Roberto Roser, a scientist at Fermilab. "Sometimes outlandish papers turn out to be the laws of physics."
So what would Peter Higgs himself make of the intellectual controversy surrounding his eponymous particle? Speaking on behalf of his friend, Professor Richard Kenway, who holds Higgs' former position at the University of Edinburgh, says that the 78-year-old emeritus professor remains quietly confident that the LHC will discover the Higgs boson when it is eventually running at full strength. For his part, Kenway says the LHC's delays are to be expected given the size and intricacy of the $9 billion experiment. And he says if he ever needs further proof that the Higgs boson is not abhorrent to nature, he need only spend time with his friend and mentor. "If nature truly did not want us to discover the Higgs, a cosmic ray would have zapped the embryo that became Peter, preventing its development into a physicist," he says."
"Sometime on Nov. 3, the supercooled magnets in sector 81 of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), outside Geneva, began to dangerously overheat. Scientists rushed to diagnose the problem, since the particle accelerator has to maintain a temperature colder than deep space in order to work. The culprit? "A bit of baguette," says Mike Lamont of the control center of CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which built and maintains the LHC. Apparently, a passing bird may have dropped the chunk of bread on an electrical substation above the accelerator, causing a power cut. The baguette was removed, power to the cryogenic system was restored and within a few days the magnets returned to their supercool temperatures.
While most scientists would write off the event as a freak accident, two esteemed physicists have formulated a theory that suggests an alternative explanation: perhaps a time-traveling bird was sent from the future to sabotage the experiment. Bech Nielsen of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, have published several papers over the past year arguing that the CERN experiment may be the latest in a series of physics research projects whose purposes are so unacceptable to the universe that they are doomed to fail, subverted by the future.
The LHC, a 17-mile underground ring designed to smash atoms together at high energies, was created in part to find proof of a hypothetical subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. According to current theory, the Higgs is responsible for imparting mass to all things in the universe. But ever since the British physicist Peter Higgs first postulated the existence of the particle in 1964, attempts to capture the particle have failed, and often for unexpected, seemingly inexplicable reasons.
In 1993, the multibillion-dollar United States Superconducting Supercollider, which was designed to search for the Higgs, was abruptly canceled by Congress. In 2000, scientists at a previous CERN accelerator, LEP, said they were on the verge of discovering the particle when, again, funding dried up. And now there's the LHC. Originally scheduled to start operating in 2006, it has been hit with a series of delays and setbacks, including a sudden explosion between two magnets nine days after the accelerator was first turned on, the arrest of one of its contributing physicists on suspicion of terrorist activity and, most recently, the aerial bread bombardment from a bird. (A CERN spokesman said power cuts such as the one caused by the errant baguette are common for a device that requires as much electricity as the nearby city of Geneva, and that physicists are confident they will begin circulating atoms by the end of the year).
In a series of audacious papers, Nielsen and Ninomiya have suggested that setbacks to the LHC occur because of "reverse chronological causation," which is to say, sabotage from the future. The papers suggest that the Higgs boson may be "abhorrent to nature" and the LHC's creation of the Higgs sometime in the future sends ripples backward through time to scupper its own creation. Each time scientists are on the verge of capturing the Higgs, the theory holds, the future intercedes. The theory as to why the universe rejects the creation of Higgs bosons is based on complex mathematics, but, Nielsen tells TIME, "you could explain it [simply] by saying that God, in inverted commas, or nature, hates the Higgs and tries to avoid them."
Many physicists say that Nielsen and Ninomiya's theory, while intellectually interesting, cannot be accurate because the event that the LHC is trying to recreate already happens in nature. Particle collisions of an energy equivalent to those planned in the LHC occur when high-energy cosmic rays collide with the earth's atmosphere. What's more, some scientists believe that the Tevatron accelerator at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (or Fermilab) near Chicago has already created Higgs bosons without incident; the Fermilab scientists are now refining data from their collisions to prove the Higgs' existence.
Nielsen counters that nature might allow a small number of Higgs to be produced by the Tevatron, but would prevent the production of the large number of particles the LHC is anticipated to produce. He also acknowledges that Higgs particles are probably produced in cosmic collisions, but says it's impossible to know whether nature has stopped a great deal of these collisions from happening. "It's possible that God avoids Higgs [particles] only when there are very many of them, but if there are a few, maybe He let's them go," he says.
Nielsen and Ninomiya's theory represents one side of an intellectual divide between particle physicists today. Contemporary physicists tend to fall into one of two camps: the theorists, who posit ideas about the origins and workings of the universe; and experimentalists, who design telescopes and particle accelerators to test these theories, or provide new data from which novel theories can emerge. Most experimentalists believe that the theorists, due to a lack of new data in recent years, have reached a roadblock - the Standard Model, which is the closest thing the theorists have to an evidence-backed "theory of everything," provides only an incomplete explanation of the universe. Until theorists get further data and evidence to move forward, the experimentalists believe, they end up simply making wild guesses - like those concerning time-traveling saboteurs - about how the universe works. "Nielsen and Ninomiya's theories are clearly crazy theories," says Dmitri Denisov, a physicist and Higgs-hunter at the DZero experiment at Fermilab. "In recent years theorists have been starving for experimental input and as a result, theories of second type are propagating widely. The majority of them have nothing to do with world we live in."
Nielsen concedes, "We have very little data, so theorists are going their own ways and making a lot of theories that may not be very plausible. We need guidance from experimentalists to make the theories more healthy."
"But," he adds, "in terms of our theory, we are submitting to a form of experiment. We are saying the LHC won't be allowed to produce a large number of Higgs. If it does, it would be very damaging to our theory."
Particle physics has a long history of zany theories that turned out to be true. Niels Bohr, the doyen of modern physicists, often told a story about a horseshoe he kept over his country home in Tisvilde, Denmark. When asked whether he really thought it would bring good luck, he replied, "Of course not, but I'm told it works even if you don't believe in it." In other words: if preposterous theories are mathematically sound and can be confirmed by observation, they are true, even if seemingly impossible to believe. To scientists in the early 20th century, for example, quantum mechanics may have seemed outrageous. "The concept that you could have a wave-particle duality - that an object could take on either wave-like properties or point-like properties, depending on how you observe it - takes a huge leap of imagination," says Roberto Roser, a scientist at Fermilab. "Sometimes outlandish papers turn out to be the laws of physics."
So what would Peter Higgs himself make of the intellectual controversy surrounding his eponymous particle? Speaking on behalf of his friend, Professor Richard Kenway, who holds Higgs' former position at the University of Edinburgh, says that the 78-year-old emeritus professor remains quietly confident that the LHC will discover the Higgs boson when it is eventually running at full strength. For his part, Kenway says the LHC's delays are to be expected given the size and intricacy of the $9 billion experiment. And he says if he ever needs further proof that the Higgs boson is not abhorrent to nature, he need only spend time with his friend and mentor. "If nature truly did not want us to discover the Higgs, a cosmic ray would have zapped the embryo that became Peter, preventing its development into a physicist," he says."
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Cake vs. Pie
Cake =/= pie. We all know one is greater then the other, but for years, it has been debated which. The time has come to end this war.
First up, we have to define and simplify each of the competitors. Lets start with cake.
The basic base of a cake, the part that is the generalized "cake" of cake, is made of sugar, butter and eggs. Simple. The rest of the recipe is all optional, and changes from cake to cake. So, here we go. To simplify cake to a workable form:
(Cake) = (Egg) + (Sugar) + (Butter)
Egg = Unfertilized chicken, surrounded by a hard shell.
This can be simplified as "Bastard Chicken that never was"
Sugar = Edible crystaline structures, usually in the form of a fine powder.
This can be simplified as "Yummy rocks"
Butter = Liquid found in a Bovine species, created to sustain a youngster, that is agitated greatly until it becomes this semi-solid.
This can be simplified as "Jiggled cow baby-food"
So, here is what we know so far:
Cake = (Bastard Chicken child that never was) + (Yummy rocks) + (Jiggled Cow baby-food)
When all of these ingredients are added together, you get:
A slightly sticky goo, that, when tossed into a medium of oxidized materials that are limiting light, energy and gases in the right amount, will magically grow bigger and become a fully fledged solid.
This can be simplified as "Goo that gets bigger".
So, (Goo that gets bigger) = Cake.
Therefore,
Goo that gets bigger =/= Pie.
WONDERFUL. Onward to the definition of Pie.
Pie and pi sound the same, therefore they must be equal.
Pi, as we all know, is equal to 3.141592. This is symbolized as a little outhouse or something.
Therefore, Pie = a little outhouse. As such, it follows
A goo that gets bigger =/= a little outhouse.
Now it's time for a little algebraical stuff. Everyone who has flipped through a algebra book knows it's all about counting letters and shit. So lets count up the little letters.
2a, 4g, 2o, 3t, h, 2e, s, b, i, r =/= a, 2l, 2i, 3t, 2e, 2o, 2u, h, s.
Now then, as we can see, we can immediately rule out a few numbers for having to do with the inequality. There are two e's on both sides, so we rule them out. 2 o's, one h and one s as well. Finally, 3 t's from both sides. So, we are left with
2a, 4g, b, i, r =/= a, 2l, 2i, 2u.
Now we just have to determine how much each each letter is worth, add up both sides, and we will have the final answer. How much is a letter worth? That's easy!
It's so obvious, I don't know why mathematicians are always so confused over it. Obviously, each letter is equal to how many letters it is from the beginning! A = 1, B = 2, etc! It's so obvious! How has no one thought of this?!
As such, we come up with the following:
1 + 1 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 2 + 9 + 18 =/= 1 + 12 + 12 + 9 + 9 + 21 + 21
This equals 59 =/= 85
This is quickly and easily simplified into 59 < 85
And so, after long amounts of research and flawless, highly skilled math, none of which could possibly be wrong, I give you our conclusion.
A goo that gets bigger = 59.
A little outhouse = 85
Therefore
Cake = 59
Pie = 85
And finally, therefore, the ultimate conclusion:
Cake < Pie
First up, we have to define and simplify each of the competitors. Lets start with cake.
The basic base of a cake, the part that is the generalized "cake" of cake, is made of sugar, butter and eggs. Simple. The rest of the recipe is all optional, and changes from cake to cake. So, here we go. To simplify cake to a workable form:
(Cake) = (Egg) + (Sugar) + (Butter)
Egg = Unfertilized chicken, surrounded by a hard shell.
This can be simplified as "Bastard Chicken that never was"
Sugar = Edible crystaline structures, usually in the form of a fine powder.
This can be simplified as "Yummy rocks"
Butter = Liquid found in a Bovine species, created to sustain a youngster, that is agitated greatly until it becomes this semi-solid.
This can be simplified as "Jiggled cow baby-food"
So, here is what we know so far:
Cake = (Bastard Chicken child that never was) + (Yummy rocks) + (Jiggled Cow baby-food)
When all of these ingredients are added together, you get:
A slightly sticky goo, that, when tossed into a medium of oxidized materials that are limiting light, energy and gases in the right amount, will magically grow bigger and become a fully fledged solid.
This can be simplified as "Goo that gets bigger".
So, (Goo that gets bigger) = Cake.
Therefore,
Goo that gets bigger =/= Pie.
WONDERFUL. Onward to the definition of Pie.
Pie and pi sound the same, therefore they must be equal.
Pi, as we all know, is equal to 3.141592. This is symbolized as a little outhouse or something.
Therefore, Pie = a little outhouse. As such, it follows
A goo that gets bigger =/= a little outhouse.
Now it's time for a little algebraical stuff. Everyone who has flipped through a algebra book knows it's all about counting letters and shit. So lets count up the little letters.
2a, 4g, 2o, 3t, h, 2e, s, b, i, r =/= a, 2l, 2i, 3t, 2e, 2o, 2u, h, s.
Now then, as we can see, we can immediately rule out a few numbers for having to do with the inequality. There are two e's on both sides, so we rule them out. 2 o's, one h and one s as well. Finally, 3 t's from both sides. So, we are left with
2a, 4g, b, i, r =/= a, 2l, 2i, 2u.
Now we just have to determine how much each each letter is worth, add up both sides, and we will have the final answer. How much is a letter worth? That's easy!
It's so obvious, I don't know why mathematicians are always so confused over it. Obviously, each letter is equal to how many letters it is from the beginning! A = 1, B = 2, etc! It's so obvious! How has no one thought of this?!
As such, we come up with the following:
1 + 1 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 2 + 9 + 18 =/= 1 + 12 + 12 + 9 + 9 + 21 + 21
This equals 59 =/= 85
This is quickly and easily simplified into 59 < 85
And so, after long amounts of research and flawless, highly skilled math, none of which could possibly be wrong, I give you our conclusion.
A goo that gets bigger = 59.
A little outhouse = 85
Therefore
Cake = 59
Pie = 85
And finally, therefore, the ultimate conclusion:
Cake < Pie
Monday, September 21, 2009
"Why not?" II
Simple answers to tricky questions! Again.
Q: What IS a electron? A particle, a wave, or some sort of shell?
A: Your simple mind could never comprehend my answer.
Q: What is life?
A: One big bloody mistake.
Q: How long is a meter, precisely?
A: As long as it feels like being.
Q: Is there such thing as magic?
A: Sure is. We call it mathematics
Q: How can I become a super hero?
A: Lots and lots of coffee.
Q: What is it like in the fourth material demension?
A: A heck of a lot more simple.
Q: But really, what is it LIKE?
A: Well, look at it this way: Tangled love lives won't be tangled any more. Just annoying.
Q: Hey, how do you even know all this stuff? Are you just making it all up?
A: S = 3/C
Q: What IS a electron? A particle, a wave, or some sort of shell?
A: Your simple mind could never comprehend my answer.
Q: What is life?
A: One big bloody mistake.
Q: How long is a meter, precisely?
A: As long as it feels like being.
Q: Is there such thing as magic?
A: Sure is. We call it mathematics
Q: How can I become a super hero?
A: Lots and lots of coffee.
Q: What is it like in the fourth material demension?
A: A heck of a lot more simple.
Q: But really, what is it LIKE?
A: Well, look at it this way: Tangled love lives won't be tangled any more. Just annoying.
Q: Hey, how do you even know all this stuff? Are you just making it all up?
A: S = 3/C
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Page TWO?! And a theory
Well, golly jee wiz.
If you scroll down to the very bottom of the page, you might notice the new link called "Older posts." That's right, five months and 8 posts later (A blistering pace, to be sure) we have succeeded in reaching two whole pages of strange science.
Now, in all seriousness, you may have noticed that the blog has gone from "Wacky Science" to just plain "Wacky." Things just happen, I guess. "The Science of Random", which once referred to the science itself being random, now might be considered the science of randomness itself...
Oh, and I couldn't let a post go by without a new scientific breakthrough to share with you... SO...
---
Consistency. The universe is ruled by it, and scientists are forever hunting proof for it. For instance, the speed of light in a vacuum, is constant. No matter what you do, light, in a perfect vacuum, will always go the same speed. There are many others, but they are all too complex for this simple blog, so we'll move along.
Now, I, whom you know as "The Sock", and the rest of the world also knows as "The Sock", bring to light and new constant.
Behold the majesty of
Sock's Constant.
S = 3/C
No matter what you do, you can never break away from
S = 3/C
No matter your religion, race or sex, democratic or republican
S = 3/C
You never know when it is going to strike. It is always there, "consistently," one might say. It is ready to spring out at you. You might just be walking along, when suddenly
S = 3/C
Face it. Your screwed.
S = 3/C
If you scroll down to the very bottom of the page, you might notice the new link called "Older posts." That's right, five months and 8 posts later (A blistering pace, to be sure) we have succeeded in reaching two whole pages of strange science.
Now, in all seriousness, you may have noticed that the blog has gone from "Wacky Science" to just plain "Wacky." Things just happen, I guess. "The Science of Random", which once referred to the science itself being random, now might be considered the science of randomness itself...
Oh, and I couldn't let a post go by without a new scientific breakthrough to share with you... SO...
---
Consistency. The universe is ruled by it, and scientists are forever hunting proof for it. For instance, the speed of light in a vacuum, is constant. No matter what you do, light, in a perfect vacuum, will always go the same speed. There are many others, but they are all too complex for this simple blog, so we'll move along.
Now, I, whom you know as "The Sock", and the rest of the world also knows as "The Sock", bring to light and new constant.
Behold the majesty of
Sock's Constant.
S = 3/C
No matter what you do, you can never break away from
S = 3/C
No matter your religion, race or sex, democratic or republican
S = 3/C
You never know when it is going to strike. It is always there, "consistently," one might say. It is ready to spring out at you. You might just be walking along, when suddenly
S = 3/C
Face it. Your screwed.
S = 3/C
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Brain Food II
Also known in some cultures as Food for Thought!... Two!
How many chucks could a wood chuck chuck, if a wood chuck could chuck wood?
73
No, really.
A far more challenging riddle (still to do with the same animal, they sure have a freaking ton of names) would be:
How many whistles would a Whistle Pig whistle, if a whistle pig would just whistle?
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Don't believe a word of it!
My recent studies have proved a point I hinted at during my recent post, "Why Not?".
I have found definitive proof, that Prairie Dogs are not all that they seem. They are not, as we long believed, cute furry rodents from North America.
They are, in fact, a type of Super Intelligent Doomsday Bring-About-er. (or a SIDBAR)
Do you think it is coincidence that we call their burrows "towns"? Or the fact that they are well known to "kiss"?
I can tell you now, that in fact, these SIDBAR's are actually just as intelligent as these names imply. Those towns, are, in fact, towns. All those little signals scientists are assuming to be territorial, and all the other numerous noises are actually a language. They may seem innocent and cute, but just watch them. They live in a complex society, but, unlike our overly and uselessly complex social lives, it all works. They don't have failed economies. They don't have to have marriage counseling. They have no Wal-Mart. It is a PERFECT SOCIETY. They are even smart enough not to bother to contact humans, for the simple fact that we DO have everything listed above.
It was too perfect. Even after I discovered all of the above, I was unconvinced I had uncovered all of the strange, fuzzy secrets these SIDBAR's contained.
You will note that the above paragraphs hold no reference as to why the "D" from "Doomsday" is added to the word SIDBAR. Those fuzzy little guys, as intelligent as they are, couldn't bring about the end of the world...
Could they?
We shall see. But for now, all I will say, is that the North American plains didn't get to be so plain by themselves...
...You have been warned...
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Brain Food
Also known in some cultures as "Food for Thought"!
Socks. We just keep losing them in the washer. Where do they go? That's simple: Wormholes, created by the fast spinning of the machine.
So how do you get them back?
Socks. We just keep losing them in the washer. Where do they go? That's simple: Wormholes, created by the fast spinning of the machine.
So how do you get them back?
Sunday, August 2, 2009
"Why not?"
Simple answers to tricky questions.
Q: Is there life on other planets?
A: I don't damn well see why not?
Q: Will there be an end to the universe as we know it? If so, when, and why?
A: There will, eventually, and Prairie Dogs...
Q: Is there a God, or gods?
A: Well someone's out to get me.
Q: What is imagination?
A: It's something you abuse to make money.
Q: What is love?
A: When your sanity goes out the door.
Q: How did life as we know it begin?
A: With a cloud of confetti.
Q: What lies at the end of the rainbow?
A: All your lost, odd socks.
Q: Why aren't you answering any of my questions honestly?!
A: What fun would that be?
Q: Is there life on other planets?
A: I don't damn well see why not?
Q: Will there be an end to the universe as we know it? If so, when, and why?
A: There will, eventually, and Prairie Dogs...
Q: Is there a God, or gods?
A: Well someone's out to get me.
Q: What is imagination?
A: It's something you abuse to make money.
Q: What is love?
A: When your sanity goes out the door.
Q: How did life as we know it begin?
A: With a cloud of confetti.
Q: What lies at the end of the rainbow?
A: All your lost, odd socks.
Q: Why aren't you answering any of my questions honestly?!
A: What fun would that be?
Shedding Light on Dark Matter
A thought recently entered my head, for absolutely no reason, and I felt compelled to share it here with you.
While watching a TV show on recent astrophysical breakthroughs, the problem of Dark Matter was brought to my attention.
As you should know, everything with mass has gravity, and since a gravitational pull never disappears, no matter how far away from the object that originally created it, everything in the universe is being pulled around from every direction.
Scientists (those clever bastards!) armed with overly complex instruments, can measure the overall gravitational pull on an object, and as such can measure all the gravity in the universe. EG, they can measure all the mass in the universe.
Some clever person made the calculations, and realized, to some annoyance we might imagine, that the amount of mass the universe was way over the amount of stuff there is. Dark Matter is all that stuff that is evident in equations, but cannot be found or even conceived of what it truly is.
So here's my thought: If the Dark Matter cannot be found within our own 3 physical dimensions, why not look towards a higher dimension? It is sometimes theorized that there are more then the dimensions we can comprehend out there, (11 or 12 are the usual numbers thrown about) but that for some reason they are sort of disconnected from our 3. Perhaps they are simply beyond our level of mentality, or maybe they are shriveled up in a teeny little spot in space and time. Whatever the explanation, these other dimensions are beyond human thought or sight.
So, if we cannot comprehend these dimensions, why can't there be matter within these dimensions, that we therefor cannot comprehend either? All the matter we can see or know of is within our 3 dimensions, so it's not unreasonable to suggest that there is likewise matter contained in the higher dimensions, which cannot be seen, but can be felt.
Who knows what strange stuff might be just beyond our comprehension?
While watching a TV show on recent astrophysical breakthroughs, the problem of Dark Matter was brought to my attention.
As you should know, everything with mass has gravity, and since a gravitational pull never disappears, no matter how far away from the object that originally created it, everything in the universe is being pulled around from every direction.
Scientists (those clever bastards!) armed with overly complex instruments, can measure the overall gravitational pull on an object, and as such can measure all the gravity in the universe. EG, they can measure all the mass in the universe.
Some clever person made the calculations, and realized, to some annoyance we might imagine, that the amount of mass the universe was way over the amount of stuff there is. Dark Matter is all that stuff that is evident in equations, but cannot be found or even conceived of what it truly is.
So here's my thought: If the Dark Matter cannot be found within our own 3 physical dimensions, why not look towards a higher dimension? It is sometimes theorized that there are more then the dimensions we can comprehend out there, (11 or 12 are the usual numbers thrown about) but that for some reason they are sort of disconnected from our 3. Perhaps they are simply beyond our level of mentality, or maybe they are shriveled up in a teeny little spot in space and time. Whatever the explanation, these other dimensions are beyond human thought or sight.
So, if we cannot comprehend these dimensions, why can't there be matter within these dimensions, that we therefor cannot comprehend either? All the matter we can see or know of is within our 3 dimensions, so it's not unreasonable to suggest that there is likewise matter contained in the higher dimensions, which cannot be seen, but can be felt.
Who knows what strange stuff might be just beyond our comprehension?
Monday, June 1, 2009
We're working on it
Scientific breakthroughs are tricky business. A week after the start of Science of Random journal, we have nothing new to show for it. Nothing yet, anyways.
I am currently in the process of creating a whole new branch of physics in order to explain the unexplainable. Please, be patient, and stick around. The Theory of General Relativity wasn't formed in a day!
-Professor Sock
I am currently in the process of creating a whole new branch of physics in order to explain the unexplainable. Please, be patient, and stick around. The Theory of General Relativity wasn't formed in a day!
-Professor Sock
Monday, May 25, 2009
The Quality/Function Equality Formula
Source of idea from GeoSpore, on the website Total Spore
For years, quality of many manufactured objects has been on a steady dissent. The main idea of most people is "quantity, not quality." The function of manufactured objects have also become less and less obvious as well, over the years. This is completely unrelated... Or is it?
Recent studies have shown that quality and function of objects are completely related after all, as seen in the simple formula, Q = F. The full formula is displayed below.
It's all down to the definition of Quality and Function. They are closely related, which can best be seen in the analysis of Q and F. Simply put, Q and F are made of three "parts". "Q is made of three parts: DU, durability. SU, specified use. SY, style."
F is also made of two main parts, and one random part. SU, specified use. SP, for speed of use. And EX, for Extra parts. EX alone is unusual in the fact that it effects the Q and F in much small, nearly impossible to see ways.
Each of these smaller parts are also divided into smaller bits, which vary much more. However, as Sock notes, you will likely notice that SU, specified use, is found in both Q and F. "SU is the connecting branch that binds the two together. If the object is durable, stylish and cannot preform the specified use, the function, then whats the point? Likewise, if the function is quick and has extra uses, but falls apart when used, then you dump it. The specified use is the binding key."
DU .......SP
\......... /
SU x SU--EX(v)
/
SY(v)
The above table shows how the FQ connection works. The SU and SU bind together, doubling each other. The other sections are indirectly connected by this bond. By the way, If you're wondering about the (v), that means that that part is variable.
So there you have it. The specified use of the object, be it playing a game, turning on a light or moving a cog is connected to both quality and function. They are one and the same. For complete explanation, see below.
Q + Q = 2F
Q + Q = 2 x F
2 x Q = 2 x F
2Q = 2F
Q = F
For years, quality of many manufactured objects has been on a steady dissent. The main idea of most people is "quantity, not quality." The function of manufactured objects have also become less and less obvious as well, over the years. This is completely unrelated... Or is it?
Recent studies have shown that quality and function of objects are completely related after all, as seen in the simple formula, Q = F. The full formula is displayed below.
It's all down to the definition of Quality and Function. They are closely related, which can best be seen in the analysis of Q and F. Simply put, Q and F are made of three "parts". "Q is made of three parts: DU, durability. SU, specified use. SY, style."
F is also made of two main parts, and one random part. SU, specified use. SP, for speed of use. And EX, for Extra parts. EX alone is unusual in the fact that it effects the Q and F in much small, nearly impossible to see ways.
Each of these smaller parts are also divided into smaller bits, which vary much more. However, as Sock notes, you will likely notice that SU, specified use, is found in both Q and F. "SU is the connecting branch that binds the two together. If the object is durable, stylish and cannot preform the specified use, the function, then whats the point? Likewise, if the function is quick and has extra uses, but falls apart when used, then you dump it. The specified use is the binding key."
DU .......SP
\......... /
SU x SU--EX(v)
/
SY(v)
The above table shows how the FQ connection works. The SU and SU bind together, doubling each other. The other sections are indirectly connected by this bond. By the way, If you're wondering about the (v), that means that that part is variable.
So there you have it. The specified use of the object, be it playing a game, turning on a light or moving a cog is connected to both quality and function. They are one and the same. For complete explanation, see below.
Q + Q = 2F
Q + Q = 2 x F
2 x Q = 2 x F
2Q = 2F
Q = F
About Random Science
Hello there. If you have randomly found this website, then you have just made a mistake. There is almost certainly nothing here that you will care about. At all.
This blog was created as a private mockery of scientific journals. I have created many strange scientific ideas that can't possibly work or have any effect in the world, and I needed a place to "publish" them. I have also started threads in several of my favorite forums about random scientific thesis's, and I will publish their ideas as well.
As crazy of these theories seem, they were created with real scientific knowledge in mind. There will be no magic here. We will conform with regular laws of physics, while adding our own new "discoveries" to make the theories work. Like real science, the normal laws of physics are going to be continually added to and edited. If they weren't, then no breakthroughs, either real or fictional could ever be made. Call it "artistic license"
If you are still here, and if this does sound mildly interesting, go ahead and wander through these ramblings. You never know what gem might turn up. Like a lump of coal or something.
NOTE: If you are, for some CRAZY reason going to stick around, please please PLEASE, be polite to any other crazies here. Be polite, and act as though your hero was watching you. No cussing (NONE), immature, racist, or otherwise at all possibly insulting talk at all. *angry eyes.*
This blog was created as a private mockery of scientific journals. I have created many strange scientific ideas that can't possibly work or have any effect in the world, and I needed a place to "publish" them. I have also started threads in several of my favorite forums about random scientific thesis's, and I will publish their ideas as well.
As crazy of these theories seem, they were created with real scientific knowledge in mind. There will be no magic here. We will conform with regular laws of physics, while adding our own new "discoveries" to make the theories work. Like real science, the normal laws of physics are going to be continually added to and edited. If they weren't, then no breakthroughs, either real or fictional could ever be made. Call it "artistic license"
If you are still here, and if this does sound mildly interesting, go ahead and wander through these ramblings. You never know what gem might turn up. Like a lump of coal or something.
NOTE: If you are, for some CRAZY reason going to stick around, please please PLEASE, be polite to any other crazies here. Be polite, and act as though your hero was watching you. No cussing (NONE), immature, racist, or otherwise at all possibly insulting talk at all. *angry eyes.*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)