March 17th, 2007

Ann Vole

Theory of relative existance

Our speed was shown to be relative to the objects beside us so even though the Earth is moving very fast compared to the center of our galaxy and to our sun, to us we are not moving at all... relative to the stuff around us. I think I mentioned the concept of a line going into space... It does not go on forever but rather only as far as we can measure it... Beyond that it does not exist because, reletive to us, it cannot be proven to exist. Same goes with time... as long as we can measure the time, that time exists. Infinity cannot be measured so time or distance cannot exist there. Now, what if there exists a parallel universe... To the creatures in that universe, that universe exists but I would argue that to us who cannot measure or experience that universe, it does not exist. How about looking at it the other way... If we can prove the existance of another world then, for us, it exists. Now as far as supernatural beings like God, if you don't believe in God, then for you, God does not exist. Now if God exists, what if that being chooses to not believe in you... then to God, you would not exist. On the flip side, if you exist in God's experience, you will continue to exist as long as this God exists. Now what about crazy people... the voices in their heads are very real to them. The problem happens when this distortion of the experience most of us believe in clashes with other distortions of experience or undistorted experience. The discord between experiences causes mistrust in their experiences. For most animals, if you put them on a sheet of clear glass, they cannot move because they cannot see anything to step on. If you cannot trust the world around you to exist, you are trapped in your brain. Trapped animals either give up on living or fight to excape. Oops, I strayed off the topic a bit while trying to understand the crazy guy living above me.

Did the stars exist before we were told they exist and saw them? Now that so many people have seen the stars and measured their movement, does that experience add to the permanence of their existance? They say that to measure things like atoms, they change them by measuring them. This is the sort of thing I am taking about, by measuring things, we are creating a solidity in the existance of things. This relativity is not bound by time either so the changes that we will make in the future with our advanced measuring and defining will extend back in time so if we measure something and it does not match what we believe it should, under my theory, that simply means that someone or something anywhere in the future or past has thought things through better or measured more carefully. Note that the act of creation as mentioned in the Bible, was just words... "let there be light". The details are unneccessary because the flow of reality will define the details as people (or other beings) look at the interactions between the things that have been created already. I think that is why it is so hard to discover the "formula of God" that many physicists and cosmologists are trying to figure out... How do factors of light, mass, time, and energy interact and can all those interactions be defined with one formula? This formula, if it exists, is supposed to explain how the universe came into being. I think that if these elements were created and defined seperately, such a formula will never be found because, like a fractal image... the closer you look the more detail you find without end. Calculus can come up with a good approximation of these interactions but when accuracy is needed, exceptions will always be found to the general formulas. Einstien came up with some very good detailed formulas in this area but everyone has been shown to be almost right but not quite and the quest for the formula of God continues.
Ann Vole

New anarchistic environmental law in Canada

The conservative government party promised to fight against the the liberal party's plan to introduce a "carbon tax" but now that the conservatives are in power and the polls show that Canadians want tougher action toward lowering greenhouse gases so the consevatives have come up with a non-tax way of getting complience. They will require businesses to make the necessary reductions by a certain deadline and if they do not reach the targets, they pay a certain amount per tonne of carbon emmissions into an account. They can then get that money back to pay for further changes that will get them to the accepted levels (with approval of those plans by the same committee that approved the original plans so should have an idea of what works and what does not). The anarchistic aspect is that the government never has access to these funds and the aproval organization charges fees for the aproval of plans so no tax money is used to fund this effort. I aprove of this!
Ann Vole

characters who nobody understands but everybody knows what they are saying

I was watching a whole bunch of Russian cartoons (use "ru" as a search term on YouTube) and realized the funniest parts are where I knew exactly what the character was saying even though I did not understand a word of what was said. Muppet characters like the Swedish Chef and Beeker (the scientist's assistant) were among my favorite characters. Donald Duck, Chip and Dale, the squirrel character on the film Hoodwinked, the pig on Green Acers (live action everyone knew what Arnold was saying and you knew based on the human responces) are just some of the favorite characters for me. I will have to add such characters to my audio-based stuff (radio plays and video/film)