http://www.break.com/index/hilarious-experiment-on-monkeys-2321441
Treating anyone or any thing differently ... is funny?
I'm... not understanding something...
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Introversion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0
This really sticks with me.
Your well-being is in the hands of the person you are sitting across from.
This is how I came to be the way I am.
In situations like this, in school as a child, I remember thinking things like "the only way any of us can come out with anything is to pick the one that benefits us both". And I remember getting BURNED. And I remember hearing kids talk: if you choose the one that benefits both, you only end up with 25% at best, if you take it all you average 50%.
I remember writing in my journal at 8 years old that I was going to have to grow up to be self-reliant.
I remember sickly gut-feelings whenever I was assigned to have any interaction with kids where my well-being, no matter how big or small, would be placed in their hands.
Of course, I've refused, all this time, to accept that I should simply steal from others (in any way, shape, or form). So my only option - ever - has been to retreat inward.
Driving around town - people who drive in the left lane and try to sneak in front of a line of cars because they're too impatient to wait... they're delaying EVERYONE they cut in front of. They're putting themselves as more important than everyone else.
Interactions with people on a daily basis, no matter how big or small, situations can arise where there is accidental interaction - which - I do not want to burden other people. Unfortunately, other people are more than willing to burden me, because either they don't know how avoid burdening me or they just don't give a fuck.
When I played Baseball in HS, we had tryouts for the Freshman team, when I made the team, I was approached by 4 of the kids who also made the team. I was told, under no uncertain terms, that I should NOT have made the team, that I was shit, that their friend so-and-so should have made the team. I spent the entire season in complete agony. I also bat .386 and hit the only 2 home runs on the team (both against our cross-town rival - one of them on the Varsity baseball field). I started off batting 5th in the line-up, I eventually was moved to 1st, 2nd and 3rd in order.
Kids would hide my baseball gear before games. Harass me in the locker room. Harass me on the field...
Yeah, this treatment is going to make me want to interact with people on a regular basis.
I quit all sports after freshman year. I was set to be the starting Goalie on the varsity soccer team in my sophmore year. I didn't care.
I would go to Advanced Algebra classes and be harassed at EVERY opportunity by the psychopath that sat in front of me. I can't imagine, can't even make up the completely PSYCHOPATHIC bullshit he would spew. In fact, it got so bad that I went to my school counselor... I ended crying in her office for 15 minutes...
Fuck people.
This really sticks with me.
Your well-being is in the hands of the person you are sitting across from.
This is how I came to be the way I am.
In situations like this, in school as a child, I remember thinking things like "the only way any of us can come out with anything is to pick the one that benefits us both". And I remember getting BURNED. And I remember hearing kids talk: if you choose the one that benefits both, you only end up with 25% at best, if you take it all you average 50%.
I remember writing in my journal at 8 years old that I was going to have to grow up to be self-reliant.
I remember sickly gut-feelings whenever I was assigned to have any interaction with kids where my well-being, no matter how big or small, would be placed in their hands.
Of course, I've refused, all this time, to accept that I should simply steal from others (in any way, shape, or form). So my only option - ever - has been to retreat inward.
Driving around town - people who drive in the left lane and try to sneak in front of a line of cars because they're too impatient to wait... they're delaying EVERYONE they cut in front of. They're putting themselves as more important than everyone else.
Interactions with people on a daily basis, no matter how big or small, situations can arise where there is accidental interaction - which - I do not want to burden other people. Unfortunately, other people are more than willing to burden me, because either they don't know how avoid burdening me or they just don't give a fuck.
When I played Baseball in HS, we had tryouts for the Freshman team, when I made the team, I was approached by 4 of the kids who also made the team. I was told, under no uncertain terms, that I should NOT have made the team, that I was shit, that their friend so-and-so should have made the team. I spent the entire season in complete agony. I also bat .386 and hit the only 2 home runs on the team (both against our cross-town rival - one of them on the Varsity baseball field). I started off batting 5th in the line-up, I eventually was moved to 1st, 2nd and 3rd in order.
Kids would hide my baseball gear before games. Harass me in the locker room. Harass me on the field...
Yeah, this treatment is going to make me want to interact with people on a regular basis.
I quit all sports after freshman year. I was set to be the starting Goalie on the varsity soccer team in my sophmore year. I didn't care.
I would go to Advanced Algebra classes and be harassed at EVERY opportunity by the psychopath that sat in front of me. I can't imagine, can't even make up the completely PSYCHOPATHIC bullshit he would spew. In fact, it got so bad that I went to my school counselor... I ended crying in her office for 15 minutes...
Fuck people.
Too Much
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50zewk5WAUM
What do we know? What can we be absolutely certain of in physics? We need a starting point, and then we need to beat as much information as is possible from that starting point.
Einstein started with the special case - Special Relativity which we find the equations:
t=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
v=(v1+v2)/1+(v1v2)/c^2
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation, the use of FOUR dimensional geometry to describe motion. The essence of math - the cause and effect relationship. The result - TIME, MASS, LENGTH is derived from nothing more than VELOCITY and the SPEED OF LIGHT. WE NEED A NARRATIVE OF THIS EQUATION, WHAT IT MEANS, WHAT THE OPERATIONS MEAN.
I spent 18 months looking for this narrative. NOBODY provided me with it, I had to come about it on my own.
Let me give an example. I have a 15 ft. by 15 ft. square room, in this room I have a 12 ft. by 12 ft. rug. I want to calculate the area of the room that is NOT covered by the rug. The equation would simply be no more than:
a=1-12^2/15^2
The equations are SIMILAR, this is NOT mere coincidence.
'1' in both equations is representative of 100%, or the whole. Percentages base on decimals - like batting averages - where 1.0 is 100%. '1' is 100% of the available spacetime that can be occupied.
v^2 - this is the occupied spacetime.
c^2 - this is the maximum occupation of spacetime. Just as a two dimensional room cannot contain a rug larger than its length and width, spacetime cannot accommodate a velocity greater than the speed of light.
Square Root - the equation results in TIME. t= , in geometry, squares are used to add dimensions, square roots are therefore used to REMOVE them. The square root is used to remove the space dimension and the result is time.
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation is finding the UNOCCUPIED amount of spacetime (just as the rug example is finding the unoccupied amount of area), and the result is the relative decrease in the rate of time.
Given that the results also say that MASS increases and LENGTH CONTRACTS, the result is given in % rate of time, therefore IT SHOULD BE CONCLUDED THAT MASS AND LENGTH are derived from TIME.
Not only that....
Because LENGTH is dependent on TIME and TIME is dependent on the occupation of spacetime... We know that as an object (a spaceship) approaches the speed of light relative to an observer, the observer witnesses the length of the object contract. A person inside the spaceship will NOT NOTICE ANY CONTRACTION, because the person inside the spaceship is at rest relative to the spaceship.
ALL OF THE ABOVE ESTABLISHES A BASIC RULE-SET FOR OCCUPYING FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACETIME.
ERGO
It can be ASSUMED a black hole is an object that occupies 100% of the available spacetime. THUS, an outside observer will witness the black hole as having ZERO size. If it were at all possible to magically jump inside the black hole, you would see that the black hole actually does have size, its just that 100% of the spacetime is occupied, so TIME DOES NOT PASS - SO LENGTH (or any other measurement of space) IS ZERO.
The logical conclusion of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation is a sister equation:
t=sqrt(1-d^2/D^2)
where:
d = density
D = maximum density (similar to the speed of light)
YOU NEED DENSITY.
This equation says NOTHING about gravity. What it does say is that the universe is FOUR DIMENSIONAL and that the RULES IMPLIED IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY are applicable AS YOU EXTEND FROM calculations of A MERE TWO DIMENSIONS INTO ALL FOUR DIMENSIONS STAY THE SAME.
----------------------
Mass/four dimensions/spactime... it's all very complex.
Mass is a measure of, strictly, the occupation of time. It's a ONE DIMENSIONAL measurement, this is equivalent to DISTANCE - that is - velocity without TIME.
Think about it like this:
A beam of light can travel for distances that approach infinity. Just as MASS can approach infinity. It is not until we restrict DISTANCE by a measure of time that we get velocity, which we then use in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation. MASS unrestrained by distance is no more meaningful than distance unrestricted by time. Mass constrained by distance results in DENSITY, which gives it meaning to the universe.
This is why, when a person in a spaceship is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light, they will disagree on measurements of SPACE or measurements of TIME, but when they do calculations which account for four dimensional spacetime, they all agree.
...
I have, OH SO MUCH MORE to say. Until EVERYTHING above gains any kind of acceptance, the rest is completely irrelevant. PLEASE, SOMEONE point out where my logic is flawed so I can fix what is wrong.
What do we know? What can we be absolutely certain of in physics? We need a starting point, and then we need to beat as much information as is possible from that starting point.
Einstein started with the special case - Special Relativity which we find the equations:
t=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
v=(v1+v2)/1+(v1v2)/c^2
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation, the use of FOUR dimensional geometry to describe motion. The essence of math - the cause and effect relationship. The result - TIME, MASS, LENGTH is derived from nothing more than VELOCITY and the SPEED OF LIGHT. WE NEED A NARRATIVE OF THIS EQUATION, WHAT IT MEANS, WHAT THE OPERATIONS MEAN.
I spent 18 months looking for this narrative. NOBODY provided me with it, I had to come about it on my own.
Let me give an example. I have a 15 ft. by 15 ft. square room, in this room I have a 12 ft. by 12 ft. rug. I want to calculate the area of the room that is NOT covered by the rug. The equation would simply be no more than:
a=1-12^2/15^2
The equations are SIMILAR, this is NOT mere coincidence.
'1' in both equations is representative of 100%, or the whole. Percentages base on decimals - like batting averages - where 1.0 is 100%. '1' is 100% of the available spacetime that can be occupied.
v^2 - this is the occupied spacetime.
c^2 - this is the maximum occupation of spacetime. Just as a two dimensional room cannot contain a rug larger than its length and width, spacetime cannot accommodate a velocity greater than the speed of light.
Square Root - the equation results in TIME. t= , in geometry, squares are used to add dimensions, square roots are therefore used to REMOVE them. The square root is used to remove the space dimension and the result is time.
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation is finding the UNOCCUPIED amount of spacetime (just as the rug example is finding the unoccupied amount of area), and the result is the relative decrease in the rate of time.
Given that the results also say that MASS increases and LENGTH CONTRACTS, the result is given in % rate of time, therefore IT SHOULD BE CONCLUDED THAT MASS AND LENGTH are derived from TIME.
Not only that....
Because LENGTH is dependent on TIME and TIME is dependent on the occupation of spacetime... We know that as an object (a spaceship) approaches the speed of light relative to an observer, the observer witnesses the length of the object contract. A person inside the spaceship will NOT NOTICE ANY CONTRACTION, because the person inside the spaceship is at rest relative to the spaceship.
ALL OF THE ABOVE ESTABLISHES A BASIC RULE-SET FOR OCCUPYING FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACETIME.
ERGO
It can be ASSUMED a black hole is an object that occupies 100% of the available spacetime. THUS, an outside observer will witness the black hole as having ZERO size. If it were at all possible to magically jump inside the black hole, you would see that the black hole actually does have size, its just that 100% of the spacetime is occupied, so TIME DOES NOT PASS - SO LENGTH (or any other measurement of space) IS ZERO.
The logical conclusion of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation is a sister equation:
t=sqrt(1-d^2/D^2)
where:
d = density
D = maximum density (similar to the speed of light)
YOU NEED DENSITY.
This equation says NOTHING about gravity. What it does say is that the universe is FOUR DIMENSIONAL and that the RULES IMPLIED IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY are applicable AS YOU EXTEND FROM calculations of A MERE TWO DIMENSIONS INTO ALL FOUR DIMENSIONS STAY THE SAME.
----------------------
Mass/four dimensions/spactime... it's all very complex.
Mass is a measure of, strictly, the occupation of time. It's a ONE DIMENSIONAL measurement, this is equivalent to DISTANCE - that is - velocity without TIME.
Think about it like this:
A beam of light can travel for distances that approach infinity. Just as MASS can approach infinity. It is not until we restrict DISTANCE by a measure of time that we get velocity, which we then use in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation. MASS unrestrained by distance is no more meaningful than distance unrestricted by time. Mass constrained by distance results in DENSITY, which gives it meaning to the universe.
This is why, when a person in a spaceship is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light, they will disagree on measurements of SPACE or measurements of TIME, but when they do calculations which account for four dimensional spacetime, they all agree.
...
I have, OH SO MUCH MORE to say. Until EVERYTHING above gains any kind of acceptance, the rest is completely irrelevant. PLEASE, SOMEONE point out where my logic is flawed so I can fix what is wrong.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The actual % of stupid people.
In regards to this: http://www.searchlores.org/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm
The guy never gives any percent of stupid people.
After watching some of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQEvj_qbTxg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pPi7w7Hbcw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_rIsQxByNg
One really intelligent guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8OO4NpMsD0
You only have to recognize a few basic things:
1) NOBODY really "deserves" the lowest amount.
2) The ratios between the numbers always remain the same.
3) If anyone wants ANY money, someone has to take the lowest amount.
4) Nobody really "deserves" the highest amount.
The problem is, the most intelligent person has to take the lowest amount, because stupid people will ALWAYS over value themselves, their importance, and what they think they deserve. This one, in particular, is an amazing display of extreme stupidity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_rIsQxByNg
The top amount was a mere 5000 more than the starting bottom amount. And the moron who got B was "happy" with 3000 less than what the lowest amount started with in the beginning.
The document has it nailed, right on:
Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals... A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
I'm thinking... the percentage of stupid people on this planet is 90-99%. Otherwise these game shows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0 would be ending with everyone (or a vast majority) leaving with money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbS_1s985NA
(In this show, only ONE option allows ANYONE to leave with ANY amount of money, therefore it is more logical for everyone to always pick the split option - of course it's stupid people who fuck the whole system up by stealing and thus causing the whole population to go into stupid convulsions of deception, trickery, etc. Oh, no! Must choose steal so I don't get stolen from! And we claim to be a civilized people?)
I was a better person when I was a child. I remember a horrible feeling in my gut whenever we did any exercise in school where I was reliant on another person doing their job so that I could do mine - because I would always end up getting fucked. All the other kids logically concluded things along the lines of - everyone always takes steal so everyone always ends up the same, BUT if someone is "stupid" and takes share, then the steal takes all the money. This "logic" is the driving logic of today's society, and we wonder why the world is so utterly fucked up.
Part of me is surprised that Bernie Madoff is in jail at all, part of me is surprised the Judge didn't walk down from the bench, pat him on the head and say, "Good boy!".
The guy never gives any percent of stupid people.
After watching some of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQEvj_qbTxg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pPi7w7Hbcw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_rIsQxByNg
One really intelligent guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8OO4NpMsD0
You only have to recognize a few basic things:
1) NOBODY really "deserves" the lowest amount.
2) The ratios between the numbers always remain the same.
3) If anyone wants ANY money, someone has to take the lowest amount.
4) Nobody really "deserves" the highest amount.
The problem is, the most intelligent person has to take the lowest amount, because stupid people will ALWAYS over value themselves, their importance, and what they think they deserve. This one, in particular, is an amazing display of extreme stupidity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_rIsQxByNg
The top amount was a mere 5000 more than the starting bottom amount. And the moron who got B was "happy" with 3000 less than what the lowest amount started with in the beginning.
The document has it nailed, right on:
Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals... A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
I'm thinking... the percentage of stupid people on this planet is 90-99%. Otherwise these game shows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0 would be ending with everyone (or a vast majority) leaving with money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbS_1s985NA
(In this show, only ONE option allows ANYONE to leave with ANY amount of money, therefore it is more logical for everyone to always pick the split option - of course it's stupid people who fuck the whole system up by stealing and thus causing the whole population to go into stupid convulsions of deception, trickery, etc. Oh, no! Must choose steal so I don't get stolen from! And we claim to be a civilized people?)
I was a better person when I was a child. I remember a horrible feeling in my gut whenever we did any exercise in school where I was reliant on another person doing their job so that I could do mine - because I would always end up getting fucked. All the other kids logically concluded things along the lines of - everyone always takes steal so everyone always ends up the same, BUT if someone is "stupid" and takes share, then the steal takes all the money. This "logic" is the driving logic of today's society, and we wonder why the world is so utterly fucked up.
Part of me is surprised that Bernie Madoff is in jail at all, part of me is surprised the Judge didn't walk down from the bench, pat him on the head and say, "Good boy!".
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Bogeyman!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/boehner-accuses-obama-bogeyman-reelection-strategy-140436872.html
Next week:
"Obama claims that his dad can beat up Romney's dad!"
Next week:
"Obama claims that his dad can beat up Romney's dad!"
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
wtf?
http://i.imgur.com/6HFOn.jpg
Guy invests in Apple.
Guy decides to get out of Apple.
36 years later, $800 become $56 billion?
That's a horrible story.
Why would you post that with "If anyone is having a bad day..."
Some guy's day is shittier than mine, so I'm supposed to feel better?
What the fuck kind of psychopathic thinking is that?
Should I go look at natural disasters to make myself feel better, to revel in the pain, suffering, and misery of others?
Sunday, April 15, 2012
stupid
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html
Space is the result of time passing. (Of course, physicists don't realize this because they still think black holes can have the density of air)
Time is not an extension of space.
The main concepts of special relativity - that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and that there is no absolute reference frame - are traditionally formulated within the framework of Minkowski spacetime. In this framework, the three spatial dimensions are intuitively visualized, while the time dimension is mathematically represented by an imaginary coordinate, and cannot be visualized in a concrete way.
Time has various states:
Two objects at rest with one another measure each others time as moving at a rate of 100% - they are equal.
Two object in relative motion will measure the others clock slower than theirs. 99%-1%.
Two object moving the speed of light (theoretically) will measure each others clock as not moving. 0%
MPH:------- Time:
0 ------------- 100%
|
|
|
c -------------- 0%
Time causes velocity to work as a measure of four dimensional density.
Relative rest = Zero density.
Speed of light = 100% density.
This SHOULD equivocate directly into concepts of mass - but current theory does not allow for this (because it is wrong) whereas:
Open Space unaffected by any matter (0% density) = 100% rate of time
Black Hole (100% density) = 0% rate of time
In a black hole, time does not pass (maybe it does at a rate of 1/infinity) which is why outside observers calculate its size as being ZERO (I have more to say on this, but that's another discussion, next sentence is important:). This is exactly the same as watching a spaceship gradually approach the speed of light - you'd see its length approach ZERO. Velocity an (mass) Density are two words for the same thing - four dimensional density.
Please note: (mass) density does NOT contain enough information to provide the sole unit of measurement in an equation for gravity. Mass has its place, however, mass alone, without density, does not provide the universe with enough information about our units of measurement. The only reason the universe understands what our measurements of DISTANCE and TIME are, is the fact that its giving a measurement of SPACE as well as TIME with Miles(km) per Unit of Time. Mass is nothing more than account of the occupation of TIME and gives no account of the dimension(s) of space.
The equivalent error to this would be providing DISTANCE ONLY in place of Velocity. You could not form the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation or Einstein's equation for combining velocities without VELOCITY.
Remember the whole bit about any measurement of JUST space or JUST time will end up disagreeing, but when you account for space AND time, all measurements agree? The same needs to apply for the units we use for some equations.
If only someone would listen =(
Space is the result of time passing. (Of course, physicists don't realize this because they still think black holes can have the density of air)
Time is not an extension of space.
The main concepts of special relativity - that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and that there is no absolute reference frame - are traditionally formulated within the framework of Minkowski spacetime. In this framework, the three spatial dimensions are intuitively visualized, while the time dimension is mathematically represented by an imaginary coordinate, and cannot be visualized in a concrete way.
Time has various states:
Two objects at rest with one another measure each others time as moving at a rate of 100% - they are equal.
Two object in relative motion will measure the others clock slower than theirs. 99%-1%.
Two object moving the speed of light (theoretically) will measure each others clock as not moving. 0%
MPH:------- Time:
0 ------------- 100%
|
|
|
c -------------- 0%
Time causes velocity to work as a measure of four dimensional density.
Relative rest = Zero density.
Speed of light = 100% density.
This SHOULD equivocate directly into concepts of mass - but current theory does not allow for this (because it is wrong) whereas:
Open Space unaffected by any matter (0% density) = 100% rate of time
Black Hole (100% density) = 0% rate of time
In a black hole, time does not pass (maybe it does at a rate of 1/infinity) which is why outside observers calculate its size as being ZERO (I have more to say on this, but that's another discussion, next sentence is important:). This is exactly the same as watching a spaceship gradually approach the speed of light - you'd see its length approach ZERO. Velocity an (mass) Density are two words for the same thing - four dimensional density.
Please note: (mass) density does NOT contain enough information to provide the sole unit of measurement in an equation for gravity. Mass has its place, however, mass alone, without density, does not provide the universe with enough information about our units of measurement. The only reason the universe understands what our measurements of DISTANCE and TIME are, is the fact that its giving a measurement of SPACE as well as TIME with Miles(km) per Unit of Time. Mass is nothing more than account of the occupation of TIME and gives no account of the dimension(s) of space.
The equivalent error to this would be providing DISTANCE ONLY in place of Velocity. You could not form the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation or Einstein's equation for combining velocities without VELOCITY.
Remember the whole bit about any measurement of JUST space or JUST time will end up disagreeing, but when you account for space AND time, all measurements agree? The same needs to apply for the units we use for some equations.
If only someone would listen =(
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)