made me motion sick.
which isnt that common for me.
kind of pissed me off.
what does rational mean?
it would be easier just to be someone else.
the energy transfer that resulted from our paths crossing, or more colliding, was incredible. no it wasnt. but its a neat phrasing.
im sorry, but i cant hold on. it works much better if i let it, drag me around.
im sorry if ive been losing ground. it works much better if i let it, drag me around.
i find the phrase 'cotton socks' oddly pleasing.
underneath the Salix babylonica
"if im just a collection of learned behaviors, bits and pieces... maybe my new friend is right, maybe i am a fraud."
from the point of view of light, is the universe static? nothing is moving? but that implies some sort of simultaneity it seems. i must be missing something. it does seem like... whoa, wait. a high speed observer sees everyone else's clocks tick slow? or fast... slow. but then when they return, theyd be much younger? less ticking?
okay, another thought was... shit. gone forever now.
oh wait, i remember. i thought this the other day first. relativity makes sense because it removes the possibility of a preferential reference frame, which is implied by newtonian physics and invariance of light. so i was wondering if my intuition of the following is true. intuitively (unfortunately intuition can be a damaging influence to scientific pursuits), it seems that (Einsteinian) relativity is required to remove some preferential aspects of the universe that remained in Galiean relativity. and that a universe constructed as Newton conceived it would suffer from better and worse positions (the mediocrity principle, or Copernican principles fit my intuition; i take it too far with the belief the universe ought to be infinite in time and space). though maybe, there is just some sort of complexity difference that results in switching from Newton to Einstein, and so as a result the old ideas would generate a new privilege which modern relativity refutes.
"humans are not privileged observers of the universe"
god was in the details.
"what are you supposed to say to the guy whos effing your wife while youre in jail?"
i know i can learn to kill this. if thats what i want to do. will i still be human afterwards, or is that the only thing left?
i wouldnt say i enjoy isolation. but i cant say i dont either.
weeds made me want to become a suburban mom drug dealer.
now dexter makes me wish my nonexistent sister would introduce me to a very psychologically broken women with kids. a trauma victim.
"i so want to maul you right now."
i wish we could open our eyes to see in all directions at the same time.
okay, so i was thinking about how feynman said to remember that nature does not view its parts as independent, but rather as one. this view fits so well.... first as phenomena, then as pieces and parts, of a thing. then things like entanglement start to take on different meanings, and suspicions of some super-condensensed expression, a theory of everything.
is it conceivable that we can understand a problem but not be able to solve it, even though it is solvable? by 'we' i mean 'humans as a species given our time and space resources'.
"score one for the little wooden boy."
the problem in science is that you should always work as if you dont know, and you may never know, what is happening. this principle annihilates credibility when applied to an authority. so we have to present our ideas as if they were fact, when in reality they are just our current tentative understanding. but as oppenheimer said, whats true today must be true tomorrow. and so for the most part, our theories are very rarely toppled, and more often just refined by their predecessors.
"my life has always been a sequence of carefully planned moments. but sometimes you just have to take a risk."
do you interpret that as, "couldnt resist risking it" or "was forced to take a risk"?
does it make sense to speak about time and space from a photon's perspective? because it seems like a photon would see no time at all, nor space really. but in that case, it should leave its origin and arrive at its destination at the same exact time, in the same exact space. but if that were the case, how could two photons interfere with one another? also, if it is correct to view the photon as traversing its path without aging, then it should also look like the entire universe is a flat plane, perpendicular to the direction the photon travels in, and the entire path of the photon through spacetime is just a single point on the plane.
it seems like this view would have implications for entanglement. as well as insights into things like the double slit experiment. but i cant really decide if its even valid to think this.
"i can kill a man, dismember his body, and be home in time for letterman. but knowing what to say when my girlfriend's feeling insecure, im totally lost."
the angels in your palm, sing gentle worried songs. and the sweetness of our dreams, like mountains made of steam.
oh yeah, notes to self:
'sticks and stones' and 'actions speak louder than words' are equivalent. but both are merely sayings!
lifestyle culprits = vindication! "the mind-body link appears to work both ways" DUH! thats pretty fucking obvious if you think about it... my mind obviously controls my body, and my body obviously supports and maintains my mind (physically). but regardless of their stupidity, the medical world is finally moving in a sensical direction. this all has to do with clinical depression. US News - depression, Dec 24 '07. cognative behavioral therapy sounds interesting too. think i can train my mind to limit my thinking of a particular sore subject for no more than 15 minutes a day? its a very huge challenge.
we ought to sell insurance insurance. in case your insurance company tries to short change you.
are people constantly discovering that the church is a fraud, but not having anything to take its place? cause the world is an exciting place to me, and i think that makes the church seem useless in the first place.
im not sitting still anymore.
use GP on Navier-Stokes. DO IT NOW!
dont worry, were improving our chances of a good story more than a bad day.
"The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning."
please believe in gentle dreams. the sweetness, of people, whistling in their sleep.
wink more often.
i wanted to want something.
more 'before i die' items for the list: slap multiple people with one swing, and have a bottle broken over my head.
i am the result of a very internalized lifestyle. though this blog would suggest otherwise.
i tend to dance all night with her hand on my ass instead of making a move.
newsweek 1·28·08, pg 49: " 'eventually our reasoning centers will devlop more control over our emotional ones,' says Lahn. 'that would make for more rational, tolerant beings.' "
cool. though i tend to think i am too rational and tolerant. but apparently that means im evolved! seriously though, its not working for me. maybe im a prototype.
i dont like the phrase 'my body'. it implies ownership. it is me. not 'mine'.
"He continues, ‘the preliminary answer which this little book will endeavor to expound and establish can be summarized as follows: the obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they can be accounted for by those scientists.’ "
troubled hearts map deserts, and they rarely do come back.
it all seemed so easy. the way that things should be.
yesterday my dad told me not to be too honest. i wish he had said that to me 20 years ago.