Updates from January, 2009 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • hardie karges 5:37 am on January 31, 2009 Permalink | Reply  

    Astro-physicists think that maybe the universe is in the shape of a torus, i.e. a doughnut. 

    This is known as the Krispy Kreme theory of the universe. This would satisfy the need to have time travel perpendicularly to space, and allow space to still be curved, all of which apparently is necessary to allow for a flat universe without folds and ripples. Albert the prophet taught us better, but we didn’t listen, still treating time and space like plumbing and wiring, sharing the same continuum but diametrically opposed, constantly at odds, still treating gravity like a Newtonian force, commanding the troops and craving attention. With all due respect to the many Cambodians in the business of frying ring-shaped doughy fritters in order to feed their families, I remain skeptical. I tend to view Nature as a unit, as in microcosm so in macrocosm. I see many more spheres in Nature than rings, and even fewer aspiring to such. I think the universe is round like a ball, albeit a lumpy one. The only question is, are we on the edge looking out to the future or looking back to the past?

    Advertisements
     
  • hardie karges 10:59 am on January 30, 2009 Permalink | Reply  

    Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity 

    has been called one of the most brilliant artifacts of human imagination ever devised. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean it’s right. The universe is riddled with black holes; the hard part is solving them. If our brains worked faster, maybe we could see the gaps in our false solidity. Anything faster than fifteen frames per second, we see as continuous motion. Anything much slower, we see as discontinuous. We need telescopes and microscopes to show us the world as it really is, almost infinitely large and almost infinitely small. We need theories and technology to give us a clue to the things that surround us. Fizzicists talk about gravity as a force now more than ever, despite Einstein, so score one for uncommon sense. Biologists still talk about Nature selecting a trait ‘because’, when all you really know is that the possessors of that accidental trait produced more offspring than the others. Astronomers still scour the skies for intelligent life even though the odds for it down home are diminishingly small.

     
  • hardie karges 5:28 am on January 29, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , solar system, Sun, three-body   

    The three-body problem is more difficult in physics than it is in nature. 

    Fortunately, it’s never been all that much of a problem in my life, because nothing is harder to predict. One woman at a time is usually enough for me, maybe too much. Scientists had described the tiniest components of an atom long before even something as basic as continental drift was accepted, but has never been able to predict the effect of three celestial bodies on the movements of each other, or turbulence of any kind, for that matter, including weather. It’ll take some more powerful computers, I guess. The problem, of course, is that there are nine planets, most with multiple moons, not to mention many other transient bodies, so the equation gets more complicated. For better or worse, most stars are not like our good ol’ Sun. Over a hundred so-called ‘earth-like’ planets have been discovered by now, but nothing like our solar system, splayed out like a prism of light and color, solid and liquid and gas, gravity and inertia, all held in delicate balance and suspension, a heavenly symphony about which we know very little. Find another Sun-like solar system and you just might find another truly earth-like planet.

     
  • hardie karges 7:46 am on January 28, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Big Bang   

    The Big Crunch is not a candy bar. 

    The Big Crunch is the opposite of the Big Bang. Unless somebody can find an awful lot of dark matter with enough gravity to hold all this universe together, then neither eternal expansion nor a steady state is probably sustainable. In other words, “catch you on the rebound” might take on new meaning. Corpses will be removed from their graves and taken to funeral parlors to be prepared for birth. The light from distant stars will become blue-shifted. Babies will die and be buried in their mothers’ wombs in one section of the hospital as old people are brought to life in another. Of course some corpses will go straight from the funeral home to be born at home, while others will be taken from the hospital to unique locations where guns will suck the bullets out of them to effect their birth. The sun and the moon will both rise in the west and set in the east of course, and people will walk backwards. The interesting thing is that this will probably all seem perfectly natural, with logic simply unconsciously retro-fitted to match the new circumstances. Still some interesting questions remain. Whether you fly, walk, or drive, will you have no idea where you’ve been, but know exactly where you’re going and what will happen when you get there? Will sex still be enjoyable knowing that you’re going to be stressed afterwards? Will death be more enjoyable as a child? Logic is capable of explaining anything. Truth is another matter.

     
    • Moe Tamani 12:38 pm on January 29, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Well people can make such ponders as they really don’t know the theory behind it and more over we don’t have fool people with big bang……..

  • hardie karges 7:39 am on January 27, 2009 Permalink | Reply  

    Motion is the natural state of the universe, 

    everything in continual orbit, gravitating between free fall to an unknown center and the outward expansion of the Big Bang. Maybe the dead don’t really die; they’ll just stop moving as the universe expands beyond them. Should the universe ever contract, they’ll stand up and go right back from where they came. And before anyone starts appealing to common sense, remember that we wouldn’t have reached the moon with common sense. Common sense only goes so far. It certainly isn’t common sense that the Earth revolves on an axis instead of a Sun God making daily rounds. Even common 3-D reality is largely an illusion, a matter of convention. In a flat land of cubic structures, it describes much. In a universe of irregular spheres in irregular orbits, it describes almost nothing. Accordingly, modern mechanics uses the dimensions of mass, length, and electrical charge, in addition to time. There may not be a light barrier, as Einstein implied, but you might have a hard time measuring anything faster, in this dimension at least. This is the dimension of light/electricity/magnetism. Gravity itself may be little more than something like static electricity doing spooky things at a distance. If only we could find the transfer particles. Common sense only applies in the narrow wavelengths and frequencies in which humans operate.

     
  • hardie karges 6:27 pm on January 26, 2009 Permalink | Reply  

    The butterfly effect celebrates the effect at the expense of the butterfly. 

    The effect is undeniable, the probability of specific occurrences to random turbulent events following some predictable patterns, no single one of which is predictable at all, predictable chaos, if you will, perhaps similar to the path of a planet around the sun, always the same, always different. If you record the picture with time-lapse photography, then the result is a predictable, but not precise, swirl of more-or-less uniform motion. Enter the butterfly, like some unknown comet coming in from out of nowhere. The theory says that this guy’s random actions can start off a chain of events that can ripple throughout the universe, affecting those previously predictable motions and possibly tipping the probabilities in another direction. But of course that butterfly has a history of its own, also, subject to the same perturbations that affect our planet. Presumably the butterfly has a free will and the earth does not, but is that truly so? The butterfly is born, metamorphoses, lives, and dies with very few parameters allocated to its existence. Conversely, a planet or even an atom is subject to internal forces, just like the butterfly, which can scarcely be predicted without putting many meteorologists out of business. Humans are another story, truly the genie now out of the bottle. Perhaps physical chaos should consider itself most affected by the ‘human’ effect, not butterflies.

     
  • hardie karges 2:27 pm on January 12, 2009 Permalink | Reply  

    With respect to the shape of the universe, 

    the only question for me is whether we’re on the edge of a spheroid looking in or on the edge of a spheroid looking out. If looking in, then everywhere we look in the night sky leads to the center, if we could see far enough. If looking out, then everywhere we look would lead back to us, if we could see far enough. On first glance, the Hubble photos of multiple galaxies in a single photo would tend toward the first viewpoint, but this may not be necessarily so. Visuals can be deceptive. The second view better fits the measurements of an ever-increasing red shift, which means an ever-increasing acceleration in the spread of celestial bodies away from each other. Two points on the surface of an expanding sphere would certainly spread apart faster than any given point in relation to the center, especially if measured on the geodesic curvature, not on a straight line making a short cut across the curve. If the measurements according to red-shift agreed with measurements of the geodesic, then that would indicate that, not only is space curved, but we have no access to what lies inside the curve, presumably the past, possibly dark matter, perfectly balancing out the expansion of the universe. The outer edge of the universe, the event horizon that we see in every direction, is the cosmological constant, expanding from a point in the center at a constant rate, presumably slowing over time what with old age and all.

     
  • hardie karges 6:36 am on January 8, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Time gets a raw deal, only one dimension instead of three, 

    and it had to lobby long and hard for that. Space gets to rest its big fat butt in three dimensions, length width and depth like a big reclining chair that can also be a sofa and can also be a bed like three dimensions of fucking off all day at the furniture barn. Space just licks its greasy-fried-chicken fingers and laughs at skinny little uni-dimensional time like an arrow always at odds with space, begging for crumbs on the floor. If anybody deserves three dimensions, it’s time, pregnant with past present and future. Try to get all that on a little line with an arrowhead on one end and a feather on the other. Space is just a simple container, a milk carton, a beer bottle, an oil tanker, a city, a continent, a planet, a solar system. Fill it with your favorite ingredients and shake well before using. Wha’d’ya’ got? Volume, stuff. Sounds like one dimension to me. More than one container? It’s still just stuff loosely connected to more stuff, Beaver in the breakfast nook, battles with battles, star wars, people gazing at planets, journeys between cities, points on planes, shaken not stirred. Space is mostly empty. Time is never empty. Space is just a point in time. Whether big or small, time just bends around it. Time covers all, everything that’s ever happened and everything that ever didn’t. Time is pure mathematics, the geometry of the past and the algebra of the future. Space can’t compete; still we maintain our sentimental attachment to it. It may not be the perfect dimension, but it’s our dimension.

     
    • its about time... 10:32 am on January 26, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Have you read the author Peter Carols theory(s) on ‘shadow time’, in relation to the science of (chaos)magick(s)? You might get a kick out of it. We have used these principles to perform retroactive magicks successfully.
      He introduced these ideas and equations in his ‘Liber Kaos’, Weiser ’92.(and expanded in later works)If your interested.

  • hardie karges 2:20 pm on January 7, 2009 Permalink | Reply  

    The number of species that have come and gone 

    throughout history is more or less equal to the number of stars out there is more or less equal to the number of years that the universe has been in existence. The actual numbers may vary by a factor of ten or even a hundred, even by current estimates, because no one really knows. The point is that in all that time in all that space, in all those species there’s only one that we know for sure has ever transmitted a radio signal for the purpose of communication. Show me one more and the odds will change drastically, similar to the odds of getting published the first time compared to the second time. For all practical purposes, we’re it, folks. One shot. Do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing. Now go back to work.

     
  • hardie karges 6:57 am on January 3, 2009 Permalink | Reply  

    But wait. Those people (or whatever they are) 

    out there may not have had technology a mere few decades like us, but many hundreds or thousands of years, which means that we’re way behind. Strike one. They may have long made peace with themselves, but hate outsiders. Strike two. But before we strike out in our brave new world, let’s reconsider the formula. For better or worse, they beg a few questions along the way, foremost of which is the assumption that our experience is typical. Given the literally billions of species that have come and gone on our own earth within as many years, it’s nothing short of a miracle that we’re here at all. Let’s not consider that typical, given the low number of species that make a comeback after going extinct, which is exactly none. This is even more precious given the amount that our DNA differs from that of chimps, which is almost none, compared with the degree of technological advancement of their civilization, which is to say NOT. The Green Bank scientists are guilty of the worst kind of anthropocentrism, i.e. silly-eyed optimism. What they may have intended as a moral sign-post to ‘do the right thing’, since the universe might be watching and nevertheless, the equation depends on it, has been taken as an assumption that they are millions more of us out there, so fuck it, party on! Once more this begs the question of how we’d ever know even if they were out there or what we’d do if we did know.

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel