intrinsically fascinating

have you ever been afraid to eat?
if you suddenly had four legs, how long do you think itd take you to get used to it?
it looks fun to be an elephant in the jungle.
precious structures.
your precious structures.
crystal oscillator.
it would be nice.
id go the whole wide world.

wow, theres a lot of cool looking perpetual motion machine videos on youtube. a little bit disturbing the energy that people have put into such nonsense, though it does look entertaining. we would probably be better off if the energy they put into their perpetual motion ideas was instead put into something useful.
a simple way to analyze these machines, and see in principle why they must all fail, is to imagine a vector field for whatever force (gravity, magnetic...), and visualize the equipotentials. since each force must be defined and continuous in space, and the components of any mechanism also have to travel continuously through space, it is pretty obvious that magnets and gravity have no potential to fulfill the desires these people convince themselves of. of course this might be another matter. really, though i dont condone armchair psychology, i think he might be schizophrenic or at least highly delusional or something.

unlike this man, who probably has the right idea about what many people consider to be ancient mysteries.
suddenly it seems like the phrase "everything from x1 to x2", when we are only concerned with upper bounds, should imply another dimension to the problem. for instance, in the video about wally wallington moving stonehendge sized blocks, they say he moved everything from 1 ton blocks to entire buildings. since the building is much larger than a 1 ton block, it seems a bit of a waste to mention the much smaller block. on the other hand, he also lifted 22000 lb blocks, which very well may have weighed more than the building he moved. in the statement with {x1 = 22000 lb blocks, x2 = entire buildings}, an additional dimension of size is implied; not only can he move heavy objects, he can move large objects too. is this a huge waste of time?

some people take the critical stance that you cannot justify having a moral system without religion, or that at least any moral system created without religion would be somehow inferior to any religious one. the appropriate response should be, why not? a moral system resulting from purely internal principles can be as high (or low) a standard as one wishes. this will likewise follow for the interpretation of externally (to oneself) generated moral systems, as is the case with religiously defined moral systems.

wow, so i guess being sick helps me dream, or remember dreaming, or whatever is going on (this is the second night in a row ive remembered my dreams, which seems it must have been many months since that last happened at all). i had a dream that stefan and i were in boston, trying to get gas. and we were waiting in a long line of traffic. i kept making weird little nit-picky comments and he seemed to be getting kind of annoyed.

ha ha, i just like the idea of plants calling people on the phone, (when they need help!). though it sounds oddly pathetic, i almost want to do it just to tell people about it, and to pretend to get excited when my plants call me.

i think i might finally be able to write those letters to my grandmother about gyroscopes. maybe i could start that today after grocery shopping, laundry and cleaning up my apartment some.

i watched stranger than fiction yesterday, and really enjoyed it a lot actually. though i shouldnt leave the word actually there, since i have expected myself to like the movie since i saw the preview apparently last year.

this way out

she is intrinsically fascinating to me,
she pulled a rabbit out of a hat,
(and magic happened)
and soft spoken secrets
take this apart

No comments: