Sunday, October 23, 2016

Quasi-Epistemology Of Spherical Chickens In The Standard Model Semi-Constant ...or Entropy: It Ain't What It Used To Be

Psychologists tell us the logical mind has a strong bias towards thinking in terms of cause and effect.  Neuroscientists suggest reality itself is merely a construct of one's own brain. Physicists can't seem to focus on a solution because they have too many ions in the fire. So where do we turn for a definitive semi-constant?
The National Buffoon of course.
Humans seem to have a need to search for a cause for the first effect, the formation of the Universe.
We tend to frame this in terms of a spherical chicken-or-egg conundrum, a flawed a priori hypothesis.  Since no success has been achieved using reason, the time has come for illogical acausal explanations.

    Logical thinkers have a bias to associate “logical” with “true”, and “illogical” with “false”.
Yet clearly Gödel’s incompleteness theorem tells us that there are true propositions which can not be proven within any given logically consistent system.  These propositions are logically discontinuous, or not to put too fine a point on it, 
illogical but true.
Consider the universe forming into a flat, featureless, dimensionless, and timeless void.  This is the so-called Big Bang which pops Mass, Energy, Space and Time (MEST) into existence.  In the absence of MEST there is a corresponding absence of physical law.   In the absence of physical law there is nothing to preclude something from happening for no reason. Once a MEST is made, it's difficult to clean up...and it imposes the physical laws which govern what can happen next.
          According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the product of the conjugate attributes of a particle’s momentum and position, and, more interestingly, a virtual particle’s energy and the time duration of its existence, can be no greater than Planck’s constant, h bar (the bar is short for the big bang..BARROOM! or Bar Room as we will refer to it in this article).  The accountancy of energy conservation allows for inaccurate balances.  Nature (as well as Wall Street Banking concerns) take these liberties right up to the theoretical limit.
  So it seems that if a particle with the mass-energy content of the Universe pops into being and hangs around for as long as it has suggests that the value of h would have to be many, many, many times larger than its current value to be proportional to the initial void it had to expand into.  This particle with infinite energy popping into existence and expanding at an infinite rate for an infinitesimal amount of time yields a value of h which is in sore need of renormalization. 
Infinities are pesky. These particular annoying infinities need to be managed mathematically.

          As the threads of space spread out into the void of nothingness, nature’s freedom to create was confined to the interstices.  Creative freedom is only indirectly a function of the fabric of space.  It is more directly related to the space between the threads, the bubbles in the froth of the residue of the Big Bar-Room.  Thus as the voids shrank to the current Planck scale, so did the value of h.  This mechanism prevents one universe from mounting the next.  It is something akin to what the Urban Dictionary might call a cosmic Johnson Jamming Signal,  Beefstick Barricade, Occlusion Occluder or Heavy Hindrance of  Hiding Holographic Salami.
There are numerous terms for the universe's creative freedom : 
  • Quintessence
  • Vacuum potential
  • Hoover Maneuvers
  • Primordial Pressure Parameters
  • Void Family Values,
  • Einsteinian Isomorphic Archaeo-Inanity Expectation
  • Dork Energy
All terms for the Cosmological Quasiconstant, .
It is an imaginary, transcendental function of volume:
= :-) (4/3)πtc     
Where t = time, c = speed of light, and :-) ,
the probability of stuff filling in the space between the space which is considerably less than unity.

So you have this single virtual wave-particle.
It is unimaginably energetic, incredibly hot. So hot, it would make the particle want to turn around and go back where it came from. This is called virtual spin or "The Ding Dang Big Bang Birth Pang".
(If all of this sounds preposterously illogical to you, then you have just earned your diploma from  Ben's School  O' Quantum Mechanics On Line. Congratulations.


    Meanwhile Back in our local universe,
space itself was in the process of being defined,
all possible spaces existed simultaneously in superposition. 
Dimensions, curvatures, orbifolds and spherical chickens all being tried on for size.
Initially, energy dominates.  This all-bosonic wave function is coherent and represents pure information.  Intercommunication across its entire horizon is instantaneous following Bell’s nonlocality theorem for quantum entangled states. Virtual spin was responsible for the first symmetry-breaking phase transition.  The single original field split into photons and gravitons.  Photons decided to be spin one. Gravitons are thinking about being spin two, but since no valid scientific observation has actually been made, the decision is still in superposition.
Don’t look at me; I didn’t make this part up !  

The second phase transition occurred when the fermions split off and decided to be spin one-half.  The Pauli exclusion pressure between these fermions caused an instantaneous quantum leap as they separated.  In economic language we could say, too few gravitons chasing too many fermions causes inflation. At this point, space acquired a fractal nature.  Compactified dimensions count as less than one each.  The three main dimensions and all of the other compactified dimensions add up to, oh, say 3.1416… or thereabouts. Now, the fermions form a second sphere, expanding outward at less than the speed of light, obeying the speed limit set by Einstein with special relativity.  All of the photons and gravitons in the first sphere but outside the second sphere continue on outward, never to be reabsorbed.  This breaks time symmetry.
The Beauty is Truth in Physical Law Act of 1939 states that CPT — charge, parity, and time taken all together — should be a perfect symmetry.  If time symmetry is broken, then CP symmetry is also broken.  The second phase transition brought with it the second law of thermodynamics, and our old nemesis, entropy.  Entropy is the bane of information.  Entropy eats information for lunch.  When information goes to the other side of the ledger book, wave functions start collapsing all over the place.  Galactic eggs are formed. Spherical Chickens are hatched.
          The speed of new bosons still emitted on a regular basis far outstrips the speed of the fermions which emit them, and a portion of them escapes from the second sphere to the first, never to be reabsorbed.  The escaping gravitons constitute leakage and there is no cosmic Pampers.
Just as Newton’s laws of motion had to be modified by special relativity, so his third law must be modified:  For every action there is an almost equal and opposite reaction. 
This is a slight asymmetry of dualities.  The expansive force of quintessence causes the retractive force of gravity, but not with perfect symmetry. 
Quintessence is conserved but gravity leaks out, so it is not conserved. 
This explains the increase in the rate of expansion of the universe of late.
It is still unclear whether this leakage occurs because the bosons are not conserved, or that they are not conserved because they are leaking. Sort of what came first? The Spherical Chicken or the Egg...or maybe a Polygonal Lobster for that matter...hey anything is possible...but not everything is probable.
The other quasiconstants, G, h, and c, change with the changes of the threads of the corduroy of the cosmos.  They change rapidly at phase changes and much more slowly otherwise.  Look for a yearly rate of change on the order of one part in 13.7 billion.  The fabric of spacetime is woven from  wave-entangled timelines of the point-like or, time-sheets of string-like particles. 

As noted earlier, nature takes its freedom not from the fabric of spacetime but from the voids in between.  It is within these voids where the laws of cause and effect are not enforced.  As new particles add new threads to the warp and weave, the voids diminish in size, and G, h, and c diminish proportionally.  This does have an effect, but not so much that you would notice. 
Don’t mess about with the fine structure constant.  It works fine just the way it is.
As our universe expands out and dies its heat death, the size of the gaps in the fabric increases.  The value of h again becomes very large.  In fact, the remnants of one Universe might mediate and fine-tune the initial values of each succeeding Universe.  One might have to wait a million billion trillion years for it to happen, but the cauldron of creation boils eventually when there is no one there to watch it.

         To sum it up, we now have the standard model of cosmology.
If the sciences were funded adequately, we might have had the deluxe model.
And Plasma of matter.  :P

Friday, October 21, 2016

Confirmation that lexical order induces thermodynamic order...or... Is That bigotry in your pocket or is language being destroyed?

Turning harmless words into weapons of mass distraction.
The entire reason for Orwell’s destruction of language was to literally narrow the person’s ability to think certain thoughts. It’s beyond thought crime, and it’s happening right here, right now.
Doesn’t matter what year your calendar says, it’s 1984.
Orwellian Thought Crime
"You must be a bigot if you point out bigotry"
Orwell’s destruction of language was to literally narrow the person’s ability to think certain thoughts.
ecently in comments regarding an article suggesting that the Dunning-Kruger effect likely plays a big role in the Trump campaign and among it's supporters someone suggested it was bigotry to make this  suggestion. Now I would like to believe that I am a reasonable guy, that any views I hold or entertain are always under personal criticism and scrutiny...that when presented with new information I would have the ability to alter even a long held view if new info disproved it.
I'd like to believe that any constructive criticism someone may offer is fairly evaluated and considered.
Is it bigotry to generalize about a group in a scientific study?
Is it bigotry to make observations of one group and compare them to another?
Is the very act of suggesting there IS a group bigotry? defines bigotry as : the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot.
 It further discusses the word -
"If a person is intolerant of other ideas, races, or religions, we call that person a bigot. The intolerance expressed by that bigot is called bigotry. Bigotry is ugly.
There are different types of bigotry — like religious bigotry or racist bigotry. Although bigotry can mean any form of intolerance or prejudice, when the word is used alone, it is most often understood to mean racial bigotry. The bigotry behind Jim Crow laws that separated races in the 1950s seems unbelievable to most modern teenagers."
So on a personal level I ask myself if I exhibit an intolerance for others beliefs?
I imagine to a degree yes...I have a low tolerance for intolerance..I am quite guilty of often lumping right wing opinions into the propaganda rubbish pile.
( In my defense, this seems to come from experience. After all, ever since it's inception, conservatism has been an argument for one group to dominate others in society something that has no place in the modern world in my view. And I have clearly observed that conservatives have historically never been right. They have always been on the wrong side of every issue. Women's Sufferage, Human Bondage, Civil Rights, Social Security, consumer protection, labor laws, human rights, etc...all opposed by the conservatives of the day).

  Yet if we imagine ourselves a tolerant people,  intolerant ideas certainly must be permitted to be freely expressed. Free speech, after all;  is easy until you have to let speech that offends YOU be expressed.
Yet tolerating ideas we find offensive is one thing,  while restrictions on criticizing them may be something else entirely.
That's something of a rabbit hole to go down.
Does it mean in order not to be bigoted, one must accept bigotry?
Or not point it out if it appears to be related to a group of people?
Does it mean we can never make any observations about any group for fear of generalization?
Does it negate the mere possibility of generalizations?
If so, what does that mean about the mathematics of Statistics?
Social Science?  Psychology?
Or further, does it mean even suggesting there are such things as groups, is in itself bigoted.
How far down this paradoxical rabbit hole thought experiment do we wish to go?
Some generalizations it seems are useful.
Some are not.
Some are harmful.

In our capacity as human beings we do make generalizations about our experiences.
We should of course keep an open mind and critique our judgements in this regard.
Are such generalizations bigotry?
Are they always bigotry?
I confess I personally have no definitive conclusion.

I  posit that there is more to this than meets the eye though.
Frankly there has been something of an assault on language for ideological purposes.
Evidence of this can be clearly seen when in the course of public discourse when attempts are made to break down reason and replace it with some desired mental association.
For example, there is an infamous memo from Newt Gingrich called
"Language: A Key Mechanism of Control".

It advised Republican candidates to associate themselves with words like "building", "dream", "freedom", "learn", "light", "preserve", "success", and "truth" while associating opponents with words like "bizarre", "decay", "ideological", "lie", "machine", "pathetic", and "traitors". The issue here is not whether these words are used at all; of course there do exist individuals that could be described using any of these words. The issue, rather, is cognitive surgery: systematically creating and destroying mental associations with a purposeful disregard for truth.
Notice that in fact, "truth" is indeed one of the words that Gingrich advised appropriating in this fashion.
Someone who thinks this way cannot ever begin to conceptualize truth.

So the desire of anti-democracy ideologues is to remove the ability of those who would criticize their anti-democratic activities and to curtail the flow of democratic ideas. There is abundant evidence that  one of the ways they do this is by intentionally destroying language.
Language is the medium through which ideas flow.

Language is systematically mapped and words historically used to describe potentates and the traditional authorities in their service , these potentates have purposefully twisted those words into terms used against those who oppose such plutocracy. This tactic both attacks the opponents of democracy and more importantly deprives  them of the words that can be used to attack aristocracy.

A simple example is the term "race-baiting". In the Nexis database, uses of "race-baiting" undergo a sudden switch in the early 1990's.
Before then, "race-baiting" referred to racists.
Afterward, it referred in  a twisted way to people who oppose racism.
What happened?
It's simple: conservative rhetoricians were tired of the political advantage that their opponents had from their use of that word, and took it away from them.

A more complicated example is the word "racist".
Language revisionist rhetoricians have tried to take this word away as well by constantly coming up with new ways to stick the word onto liberals and their policies.
For example they referred to affirmative action as "racist".
Obviously this is false; it is an example of this attempt to destroy language.
Racism is the notion that one race is intrinsically better than another.
 Affirmative action is arguably discriminatory, as a means of partially offsetting discrimination in other places and times, but it is not racist.
Pro-aristocracy spokesmen have even stuck the word "racist" on people for opposing racism.
The notion seems to be that these people addressed themselves to the topic of race, and the word "racist" is sort of an adjective relating somehow to race.
In any event this is an attack on language.
Which is the medium of ideas.
And ideas form the basis of civilization.
Ultimately the attack on language is an attack on civilization itself.

In summary, is it bigotry to point out bigotry in a group?
To speak of it as generally a characteristic of that group?
Or is suggesting this yet another example of destruction of language?
Which is a blow against democracy and civilization itself.
If so, how can such an attack on civilization be thwarted?

Teach logic.
Teach critical thinking.

(This is the article that started the hoopla.)

Monday, October 10, 2016

Agonizing Awful Fashions You Should Wear (At The Same Time!)

The dumbest of all fashion statements ever...EVER.
There is a consensus that the trend began in prisons.
It signifies you are someone's "bitch", and the pants are positioned for easy access.
How it became a popular trend is hard to fathom.
But none of that matters really, it's awful and stupid aesthetically.

Ok, we know it’s supposed to be ART.
We know it’s a CONCEPT, but at the end of the day it is often hilarious.
Let's have some nyuks and giggles here as we examine some of the artistic ideas that have inexplicably been embraced by shills, lemmings, and buffoons everywhere over time.

The Wallet Chain Gang.

Wallet chains provide little to no function in both the practical and aesthetic sense,
but at least people wearing them will drown faster!

The Choker

No, it's not a Gotham City denizen.
So, want to bring to mind an act of extreme, life-threatening aggression?
No? . . . . .Right answer.
Unless you are active in the Sado-masochism club down the road, pass on this one.

The Leisure Suit

♫ 'Nothing could be stanker than leisure suits on wankers in the mornin' 


Tramp Stamps....

There is a clue as to why people should avoid these things is in the name.
It's tacky as a doorknob in a sorority house.

The Deep V

All the more offensive for how prevalent it remains, the Deep V is a staple of both douchebag summer and DOUCHEBAG winter.

Cats Eye Glasses
"Everyone likes cat eyes, right?"
Cold, judgmental, yellow. Nothing better. "Let's make people look like that."
Said some sadist...and they were listened to.

The Powdered Wig

So funny that you can't help but laugh at whoever's wearing one.
There's a reason for contempt of court. The first wigs were made from the hair of horses and goats and were filth laden due to the limited technologies of the day. They smelled of dung and tended to attract lice. In an effort to ward off the bugs as well as mitigate the stench, they were sprayed with  powder...usually lavender or orange scented.
Zubaz Pants...

Other than hiding an extremely overflowed diaper...there is no reason for this.
Originally appeared in the 80s, but because arsonists were lazy, warehouses remain that are overflowing with these loathsome items. They keep trying to bring them back and unload the old stock.
Give up all hope.

The Shiny Shell Suit

Pretty much the aesthetic equivalent of a puddle of vomit.
One of the many reasons the 80s sucked.

Those Shakespeare Collar Things
A quick google search reveals their actual name is "ruff collars", which is silly, but still not nearly silly enough to illustrate just how outrageously silly the things actually are.

Hairy Boots

Just say no to hairy boots.
Avoid wearers like the plague.

The Male Camel Toe.
Nothing says "I make bad decisions!" quite like the Male Camel Toe. It Must Go!

The 80s Big Shoulder

You'd make the stankface too if you were ever seen in these things.
The larger the shoulder the smaller the of them.

Completely and objectively hideous, right? They're so, so, egregiously terrible that the people wearing them are in on some kind of hilarious long-form performance art that reveals that the universe is made entirely of shit.
Parachute Pants

Aptly named since you will be thrown out of the plane if you wear them.

Gauged Ears
Synonymous with the phrase "Permanently Unemployed".
If you're a rational, marginally normal person,
possessing an IQ that qualifies you to ride the bus unsupervised,
there's literally no excuse.


Without a doubt, this is the most horrid and vile fashion ever imagined.
Because of the existence of JNCOs, we can't help but hope for some kind of disastrous, apocalyptic event to  occur and wipe out all known human history. Partly because any species that developed these monstrosities doesn't deserve to be at the top of the food chain, and partly because we can just imagine future archaeologists, millions of years from now, finding a fossilized pair of these ridiculous things and wondering what the hell could have possibly happened for these things to be a good idea. They'll never know, and neither will we.