Sunday, March 29, 2009


A fake. Wht is a fake? The Oxford dictionary defines it as nethin tht is not genuine or counterfeit. It also interestingly lists its origin as unknown. Th reason this is interesting is because tht is also a definition of fake, albeit one tht is rather out thr. Tht whose origin is unknown only cud b considered fake whn its place of origin is claimed 2 b a specific place. N evn thn, it cud only b considered fake aftr it is known tht its place of origin cannot be verified n only in th sense of its origin. In ne othr aspect it cud not be considered fake as just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so also somethin is only as fake as its last unverifiable claim or perhaps more allowing fr Murphy's law. Which in itself is a pretty fair Murphy's law on fakeness as a whole.

Friday, February 20, 2009

The sky moves sideways

So according to Maxwell, it was possible to go around the second law of thermodynamics which 2 put it simply states tht th overall disorder of th universe increases constantly with time by havin a closed container filled with gas divided into 2 chambers, designated 'A' and 'B' n whnevr a fast particle in A approached th partition, a demon wud open it n let it flow into B n whnevr a slow particle wud approach th partition, it would again open th partition n let it flow into A with th idea being tht aftr a while of doin this, all th slow particles wud b in A n all th fast ones wud b in B n so th disorder in A wudve decreased n th disorder in B wudve decreased n so th disorder in th system hs gone down as initially both partitions were disordered n so this is an xample of th lessening of disorder as opposed 2 th law tht states tht disorder cn only increase, nt decrease but of course, this result ws immediately targeted by othr ppl as a false result as technically th demon which ws fondly christened Maxwell's demon shud also b considered part of th system n therefore its expending energy to drive th whole operation n so its disorder is increasing which in turn is more than compensating fr th decrease in th disorder of th container n so on n so forth but thn, who really cares neway

Sunday, January 11, 2009


According 2 biology, 2 survive one needs air, water, food etc etc etc. According 2 physics hwevr, th chief entity tht allows humanity 2 exist is friction. Funny considerin tht friction is blamed fr all th wearing away of things tht drive those maintainence bills up. U knw, wht wit worn brakes n tires n stuff tht actually evry once in a while, help take a life by makin a car roll down a hill coz th handbrake ws worn out n stuff. But thn a frictionless world wudnt xactly b heaven on earth or a bed of roses either. Imagine if u will, a frictionless world. It wud definitely save in transportation costs. Since thr is no friction, one cud simply stand up n ask ne1 nearby 2 kick them n thn just guide themselves wit whtevr method until they reach their desired destination n thn perhaps throw out an anchor 2 stop (no brakes, in case ur wonderin, u cnt hv em in a frictionless world). N thn do th same thing 2 get back. It wud lead 2 rathr painful lives, but thn at least, th price of petrol is saved n of course th planet is a cleaner, greener place as well. But wht else r th benefits of nt havin friction? Well, parts dnt wear down either but thts really bad. I mean, whos gonna care abt th guys who manufacture lubricants n service worn out parts n evrythin? Wht happens 2 them? Thrs just no 100% correct way out nw is thr?

Wednesday, December 31, 2008


In thinkin abt existence, th question tht always seems 2 arise is abt th "plane" of existence which is fr some reason nvr quite clearly defined but is talked abt neways as a concept tht evry1 understands but no1 actually does, nt completely @ ne rate n perhaps they dnt evn agree on th actual definition of wht it is altho perhaps as is th case with a lot of othr ideas, language is a barrier tht stands in th way of truly expressin wht one feels or imagines. But thn wht is th plane of existence as agreed on by th vast majority of ppl? Its sort of related to th idea of "here" and "elsewhere". Th usual idea is tht wht happens on "this" plane of existence (whr v exist) is somethin tht v cn witness either directly or indirectly as in see or hear it or abt it n nethin tht happens on anothr plane of existence is somethin tht cnt b witnessed directly or indirectly or perhaps more importantly, does nt affect us in ne way, gud or bad. N thn naturally one cn wonder abt all th "possible" planes of existence tht r in existence. This leads naturally 2 th query of wht all planes r "possible". To answer this properly, it wud b necessary 2 understand wht is meant by "possible". Wht is possible fr one may or may nt b possible fr anothr. As a simple example, a tall person may b able 2 touch a high object tht a shorter person cannot. So leavin tht aside, wht thn is a possible plane of existence n does such a concept evn hold water?

Friday, November 14, 2008


If one wer 2 consider th idea of infinity n more importantly, a representation of infinity, an xample cud b a road tht goes on forevr. Of course, if one tries 2 prove tht it is in fact infinite, its nt quite a possible thing 2 do because evn if one wer 2 walk down it till they drop dead, it still doesn't prove tht th road is infinite beyond ne reasonable doubt simply coz one cannot deny th possibility tht it may simply be very very long. N if tht cannot be ruled out, it is still a possibility, hwevr small. So hw cn it b proved tht th road is infinite? Tough call thr. Hw indeed? Thts fr u 2 figure out...

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Rosetta stoned

Inertia is an interestin thing. Th very natural need fr somethin in motion 2 keep movin or fr somethin static 2 remain static applies 2 motion in our day 2 day lives. Th idea here is 2 xamine inertia in places whr it wud nt fit in or perhaps wudnt evn apply as it ws th wrong concept 2 apply thr. Fr xample, in thinkin of time, one way 2 apply inertia is 2 apply th concept of inertia 2 th concept of time. No matter wht happens, time keeps movin on, thus in a sense makin us all time travellers movin into th future @ th rate of 60 seconds evry minute or 60 minutes evry hour n woe be 2 ne1 who thinks otherwise. But thn th concept of time itself is rathr hazy. By itself time hs no meaning unless thr is somethin 2 measure it by. If one were in a blank room with no openings of ne kind frm birth n nvr witnessed ne motion or indeed ne measurement of ne kind, hw wud they understand th concept of "time"? Well mayb they notice tht certain things happen before certain other things. But thn hw do they evn understand th concept of "before" n "after"? Thr r difficulties n mayb fallacies inherent in our sense of "time". Well thn, wht abt sunrise n sunset or evn morning n night? Again, its nt as clear cut as most ppl might presume. If v believe tht th day begins in th morning, tht sunrise comes b4 sunset n day comes b4 nite. If on th othr hand v surmise tht th day begins in th evening, thn sunset comes 1st n nite precedes day. N neways, this is a far cry frm our original hypothetical situation of a person in a totally blank room with no window n nt evn knowing th concepts of "b4" n "aftr". So 2 sum it up, does inertia apply 2 time? Well, it depends on wht ur concept of "time" is ...

Tuesday, September 30, 2008


It is said tht th past does nt "exist" newhr physically xcept in ppl's minds and in records maintained by ppl so tht if it wer possible 2 change public n private records n brainwash ppl into believing things tht didnt happen, it is possible 2 control th past. It cud b said tht this is a flawed perspective as one is nt actually controllin th past but is controllin ppl's perception or view or memory of wht happend. Or is it actually controllin th past? Most ppl wud disagree sayin wht hs happend once hs happend n thrs nothin tht cn b done 2 make it otherwise. But thn othr than our belief, wht is thr 2 state tht th past is nt changeable? Of course once v get in tht general direction, thr comes up th idea tht if th past is in doubt, wht abt th present or evn th future? Do things tht happen actually "happen"? Hw do v evn define a happening? V cud draw an analogy 2 wht scientists call an "event". According 2 science, an event occurs whnevr an observation is made. So evn an electron changin its course is an "event" according 2 science altho it may nt b 2 othrs. So also evn water flowing along is an event as it nvr flows th xact same way twice. Wind patterns change constantly, th universe itself is evr changin, thrs 2 many variables 2 evr manage. But othr than tht, wht is a happening? Somethin tht happend or wht...