Continuing on from the previous post in this series, let me ask a simple question-
Why is Deuterium not Helium-4?
Let me give the readers some background.
Deuterium also called heavy hydrogen, is a stable isotope of hydrogen with a natural abundance in the oceans of Earth of approximately one atom in 6,400 of hydrogen (~156.25 ppm). Deuterium thus accounts for approximately 0.0156% (alternately, on a mass basis: 0.0312%) of all naturally occurring hydrogen in the oceans on Earth. The nucleus of deuterium, called a deuteron, contains one proton and one neutron, whereas the far more common hydrogen nucleus contains no neutron.
By most gross chemical and physical measures, Deuterium is indistinguishable from Hydrogen.
Helium-4 is a non-radioactive isotope of helium. It is by far the most abundant of the two naturally occurring isotopes of helium, making up about 99.99986% of the helium on earth. Its nucleus is the same as an alpha particle, consisting of two protons and two neutrons.
The helium we use in balloons, blimps, NMR machines etc is Helium-4.
Now ask yourself, why would something with one proton, one neutron, one electron differ so much in properties from something that had exactly twice of the same? Why is alpha decay a very common mechanism of losing instability in the atomic nucleus? Remember that an alpha particle is a helium-4 nucleus without electrons. Why does Helium-4 exhibit properties such as superfluidity? Sure, there are many theories to explain this behavior- but we keep on coming back to one issue.
What makes even the nucleus of helium-4 so different from deuterium? Is the specialness of Helium-4 a result of its structure or the universe we exist in?
Changes in properties that cannot be explained by arithmetic, imply transformation of the substance. But how does the rest of the universe know that something is an atom or nucleus of helium and not two close deuterons or molecular deuterium?
What is so odd about assuming that atoms and sub-atomic particles are the result of something similar to Object-oriented programming?
Simple, non-OOP programs may be one long list of commands. More complex programs will group lists of commands into functions or subroutines each of which might perform a particular task. With designs of this sort, it is common for the program’s data to be accessible from any part of the program. As programs grow in size, allowing any function to modify any piece of data means that bugs can have wide-reaching effects. By contrast, the object-oriented approach encourages the programmer to place data where it is not directly accessible by the rest of the program. Instead the data is accessed by calling specially written ‘functions’, commonly called methods, which are either bundled in with the data or inherited from “class objects” and act as the intermediaries for retrieving or modifying that data. The programming construct that combines data with a set of methods for accessing and managing that data is called an object.
An object-oriented program may thus be viewed as a collection of interacting objects, as opposed to the conventional model, in which a program is seen as a list of tasks (subroutines) to perform. In OOP, each object is capable of receiving messages, processing data, and sending messages to other objects. Each object can be viewed as an independent “machine” with a distinct role or responsibility. The actions (or “methods”) on these objects are closely associated with the object. For example, OOP data structures tend to ‘carry their own operators around with them’ (or at least “inherit” them from a similar object or class). In the conventional model, the data and operations on the data don’t have a tight, formal association.
Get it? and yes, I am aware about the work of Stephen Wolfram.
This series of posts will be about my ideas on the nature of the universe, as distinct from my questions about current theories on that subject. They are a mixture of independently well-known concepts combined in a somewhat peculiar manner. Subsequent posts in this series will have diagrams, as necessary.
Both matter and energy have two types of tags: ‘contents’ and ‘position’.
Let us handle ‘position’ first. Even if we ignore the uncertainty principle, the position of each particle or wave in the universe can be measured only to the resolution of its smallest known constituent. You cannot reliably measure anything smaller than the smallest thing that can be sensed by your detector.
Imagine that the grid these basic particles exist in (Cartesian coordinates and any number of additional dimensions) have a unit so small that it cannot be directly measured- only inferred from indirect experiments and calculations. Now imagine that only one basic particle can occupy one position in the grid at any given moment.
So what is a ‘basic particle’? Think about something along the lines of ‘quarks’. Essentially, you can make anything in any universe out of a basic set of these particles. It may not even be necessary to have more than one particle.
The sum of interacting particles often exposes properties that cannot be deduced by looking at them in isolation. Example- Could you really guess the properties of water (H20) by just studying the observable properties of elemental or even molecular hydrogen and oxygen? Same with salt (NaCl) or various types of DNA/RNA, proteins (CHONSP compounds).
So far, we have-
1. A universal grid where no two basic particle can have the same position at once.
2. Aggregates of basic particles with emergent properties.
Now imagine that each particle can sample every position. Since the number of particles is far smaller than the number of positions, we would get mostly empty universes. However, each set of starting positions for all basic particles in the grid is a unique system- aka universe.
We can assume that a few universes will blow up immediately, some may have short lives and others may be essentially eternal. But they are all in the same grid, and if we could follow each basic particle around, we would see that it was distributed uniformly as a probability (present/ not present ratio).
Since each universe might have a different set of subatomic particle types, it is reasonable to assume that the smallest measurable interval of time in one universe might vary from another. Therefore each aggregate particle could have two ‘clocks’- one for its constituents and one for the basic aggregates (subatomic particles). Each universe could then evolve on its own trajectory based on the extra interactions uncovered by the formation of its unique starting assembly of aggregates (properties and positions).
It would be feasible to compute the course of each open-ended simulation simultaneously, such that all feasible universes exist at once, without interacting with each other.
Will answer questions about the basic idea, if you ask them
Continuing on my previous related post, It seems that aging white ‘experts’ on the MSM and quite a few blogs are worried about the developments in Egypt. The concerns range from domino effects in that part of the world to the fate of Israel. They also express concern about how that country is going to provide jobs for its “poorly educated youth” and the resurgence of religious fundamentalism.
Here is my take on their “concerns”
Nobody cares and they don’t matter
Let us look at the situation in that part of the world through an objective lens. The problems are..
1. Those countries have high rates of youth unemployment AND a very high percentage of their population is young. The median age of most countries in that region is low (mid to late 20s). There is no real opportunity for social advancement, better jobs and they are aware that the status quo won’t change by itself.
2. Unlike what smug aging white cocksuckers believe, the youth there are neither stupid, uninformed or fatalistic. I think the current situation speaks for itself. People who write for newspapers, appear on talk-shows and write for mainstream blogs are not qualified to pass judgement on the abilities of those who are willingly putting their own lives at risk.
3. The west simply does not have the demography, technological edge or image to affect the ongoing events. This is probably very hard for most whites to accept, as they had that ability less than 2 generations ago. But that was then and this is now.
The west is INCAPABLE of doing to M.E and Asian countries, what it can still partially do in some African/ Caribbean countries.
4. The populations in those countries have a healthy skepticism of their government AND businessmen. They have not bought into Calvinistic/free-market bullshit or European deference to governmental authority. It appears that they can smell shit even if it is labelled as chocolate.
5. As I have said before, people there have lost their fear of the old regimes. Let us not forget that the internal security apparatus in those countries are famous for their brutality, unaccountability and methods of dealing with ‘troublemakers’.
The old status quo is simply not restorable.
These links are NSFW.
Waiting Amateurs: Jan 29, 2011 NekkidCuties
Waiting Amateurs: Jan 29, 2011 Nudie Cuties
Melissa from FemJoy: Ready for Bed NekkidCuties
Melissa from FemJoy: Ready for Bed Nudie Cuties
Laila from FemJoy: In My Bed NekkidCuties
Laila from FemJoy: In My Bed Nudie Cuties
However, as I have previously said on many occasions- the biggest moralizers are often the biggest hypocrites.
It turns out that the sociopath worshiping cunt availed of both social security and medicare.
“Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”
Journalist Patia Stephens wrote of Rand: She called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”
By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism. Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality.
Ideology cannot compete with reality.
LIEberterians and CONservatives always prefer OTHERS do what they say and want, but have a different set of laws and rules for THEMSELVES.
Did I mention that she collected government benefits under her real name?
In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O’Connor (her husband was Frank O’Connor).
Here is another hard to answer question for the readers.
Why are white men deferential towards badly aging, demanding, amoral, greedy and mean older white women?
In almost all other countries, women adjust their attitudes to their sexual market value. So why don’t aging white hags adjust their attitudes? and more importantly- why do white men accept that shit?
Have you noticed a trend concerning failing regimes and domestic security services? Whether it is Tunisia and Egypt in 2011, or Eastern Europe during the late 80s-early 90s, one pattern seems to recur.
The second day of a government-imposed curfew doesn’t deter thousands of demonstrators, who are essentially given free rein through the center of Cairo. For the most part, police are absent and protests in the downtown area are peaceful for much of Saturday.
Note: The police (domestic security) are always distinct from the army (mostly external security) in almost all large countries, throughout human history.
The pervasive domestic intelligence and security apparatus of failing regimes often abandons them once they sense imminent doom.
Now, there are some very practical reasons for doing so. Nobody wants to be killed or lynched for being a cop in the old failing regime. Many people talk about how the extensive security apparatus in western countries would prevent uprisings. However countries with very well-funded, repressive and large domestic intelligence/ law enforcement agencies cannot stop mass unrest, once it reaches a critical mass.
The law enforcement system in the USA and other western countries, prior to the 1980s, was generally seen as reasonable and not particularly venal. However ‘wars’ on drugs, terror and other fabricated scares have created systems every bit as repressive and unaccountable as those in failed totalitarian regimes. Of course, white hubris aka “it cannot happen to us” and “we are different” would deny it.
But denial does not affect reality, nor is it a river in Egypt (pun intended). You have seen a glimpse of the future. So don’t complain when things start going in that direction.
PS: In many ME countries, overall law enforcement and domestic intelligence are handled by one type of agency- Mukhabarat. While there may be many sub-divisions of civilian law enforcement, the overall mandate of such agencies is to perpetuate the regimes in power.
MSM stories about ongoing uprisings in the Middle-East keep harping about the ‘crucial role of social media’. While social media sites have contributed to these developments, MSM morons can’t seem to understand the real enabling technologies and factors.
1. Cell phones with the ability to send, receive and view MMS messages are cheap and widespread in the Middle-East. A 100$ mid-range Nokia cellphone is, by a very large margin, the most important enabling technology behind these uprisings.
2. It is internet access, not social media, which has formented dissent in that region. Wikipedia, Google, gmail, Yahoo, YouTube, bulletin boards, chat sites and other free online stuff have damaged the very foundations of elite credibility.
3. Inexpensive air travel have exposed people in these regions to the limitations and deficiencies of whites. They no longer believe that whites are better than them, consequently they cannot be manipulated by external praise or threats.
Other enabling factors:
4. Demography is a bitch.. ain’t it? Most countries in that region have a large number of literate, but unemployed, men in their teens to early 30s. Unlike the dickless losers in Japan, they protest and use violence to get their way.
5. Almost nobody in those countries believes in the ‘intrinsic goodness’ of government or corporations, unlike whites. It is far easier to revolt when your world-view is not colored by ideological bullshit.
6. Did I mention that most of them understand that they have nothing to lose by protesting and breaking tyrannical laws.
How can a dictator know that his time is over. Let me help..
1. Protesters trash your party headquarters.
There are reports that the headquarters of the ruling National Democratic Party have been set on fire in Cairo as protestors stay out on the streets despite a curfew. Witnesses have reported tanks on the streets of the capital as the military have been deployed to help the police deal with the protestors.
When people in a dictatorship have lost fear of their “glorious leader” and his security apparatus to a level where they find it fun to trash the ruling part HQ, it is essentially over for the regime.
2. People do not care about your posturing or words.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak refused on Saturday to bow demands that he resign, after ordering troops and tanks into cities in an attempt to quell an explosion of street protest against his 30-year rule.
Evidently Cairo, and other Egyptian cities, are under curfew. However protesters and mobs seem to have missed the notice.
3. Every major group hates you, more than they hate each other.
The Egyptian protesters are from many backgrounds but they all seek the same goal, the fall of a despotic regime
The widespread protests that began against the regime of President Hosni Mubarak have spread in the last few days to encompass almost an entire people. It now includes not only the stone-throwing youths who huddled in the fog of teargas below the underpasses near the centre of Cairo, or charged police on the Nile bridges, but Egyptians from all walks of life
It seem that a very large percentage of Egyptians- muslims and copts, young and middle-aged, employed and unemployed harbor deep resentment towards Mubarak’s regime. It is one thing to piss off a few groups at a time, but pissing off almost everyone is not a good idea.
4. The army does not openly stand behind you, but your goons do.
Even as armored military vehicles deployed around important Egyptian government institutions on Friday for the first time in decades, it remained difficult to predict what role the armed forces might play in either quelling the disturbances or easing President Hosni Mubarak from power.
A dictator is only as strong as the people who will enforce his edicts. Under ‘normal’ situations the armed forces are the most important source of coercive power available to a leader. If their support is nebulous or conditional, the guy is screwed.
5. Everything done by the leader to assert his power seems to backfire.
Dictators reach a point where everything they do has the contrary effect. It appears that everything Mubabrak is doing, from shutting off broadband internet to using goons to intimidate protesters seems to be having the opposite effect.
Now it is only a matter of time (hours to months) when he will:
-have to flee
-be imprisoned and tried
I was digging up some of my older material today and came across an idea that I heard somewhere. Compare the noose and a necktie..
Why are they so similar? and why do people put the tie around their neck voluntarily?
I believe that one particular action by the current Egyptian regime has effectively sealed its fate.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — About a half-hour past midnight Friday morning in Egypt, the Internet went dead. Almost simultaneously, the handful of companies that pipe the Internet into and out of Egypt went dark as protesters were gearing up for a fresh round of demonstrations calling for the end of President Hosni Mubarak’s nearly 30-year rule, experts said.
Many western morons are pondering about the ‘philosophical’ implications of this desperate act. Let me help..
You see no country that wants to function in the modern world, even China, dares to do anything another than block certain websites, spy on its citizens or censor some of their search results. Why don’t they go any further?
1. You cannot run any country of significance for more than a few days without communication, which is now internet based. Analog based networks are no longer viable for anything other than emergencies.
2. You do not want to piss the more well off and educated members of your population. In many developing countries, it is the kids of the elites and well off who are the heaviest users of IP-based services. Pissing in your own food is never a good idea.
3. If you have to do something this drastic, it better be a short-term emergency. Cutting communication during anything beyond a natural emergency or war signals that your regime is on its last legs.
4. Doing so also makes your own people believe that you are on your last legs. Many of the lesser elite in Egypt are probably making plans to become part of the newer regime as we speak.
The game is effectively over for the old regime. Hopefully the USA and other lesser anglo-saxon countries who supported the old regime have a plan B, because supporting the dying and unpopular regime is not in the best interests- though they may believe otherwise.
It is now only a matter of time.. days, weeks or months- take your pick.
Is there one common problem that affects countries as diverse as USA, China, India, Japan, Algeria, Tunisia, Italy, Spain, ALL European Countries, Almost All South American Countries?
So why use the word ‘underemployment’ instead of ‘unemployment’, when a significant minority of the group is not employed?
A young person without kids, who lives with or near family relatives has far more in common with an underemployed person than an unemployed person. Unemployment for people with families and kids is a very different experience, especially if they used to have a good living standard. For people who never had a decent or satisfying long-term job, not having a good job is “business as usual”. As long as they have a half-decent place to live, enough food to eat and some money to spend on themselves- things are OK, if not great.
The real problems in this scenario arise due to their social detachment and intense cynicism.
The last 40 years have thrown a few more kinks in the old scheme of things.
1. Effective contraception translates into far few kids, even without feminism. Who wants rugrats in a society so devoid of hope and purpose.
2. Feminism emasculates most men. Even those who are not emasculated become too cynical to want kids or LTRs.
3. Internet, social media and computer games are far more satisfying. I have made this point previously here and here. FB has recently made a similar assertion. It certainly helps that technology is becoming cheaper by the day.
4. “Trusted” institutions have failed, “experts” have been revealed as charlatans and people have lost faith in society delivering on implicit and explicit promises.
To make a long story short, a significant percentage of the young population has lost all hope in a brighter future. In a previous age, when almost every woman had over 4 kids- this would not be an issue. Nor would it be an issue if technology and productivity were still making unprecedented gains.
However, the future looks very different. To put it bluntly- we simply cannot extrapolate the future based on any previous data. Will say more in upcoming posts.
These links are NSFW.
DoggyStyle Amateurs: Jan 26, 2011 NekkidCuties
Amateurs on All Fours: Jan 25, 2011 NekkidCuties
Amateurs on All Fours: Jan 25, 2011 Nudie Cuties
Spread Self Shots: Jan 26, 2011 NekkidCuties
Spread Self Shots: Jan 26, 2011 Nudie Cuties
Check out my NSFW tumblr website: http://nekkidcuties.tumblr.com/archive/
Many whites seem to subscribe to the notion that blacks are intrinsically criminal. I have tackled this bullshit a few times before, but here is another angle.
Answer these rhetorical questions-
1. When is the last time you heard about a black guy with a decent “normal” job commit your typical crime? Seriously?
2. Who gets away with crime at any level? black or white? who is more likely to be imprisoned?
3. Does the job of your average white guy involve any critical thinking, creativity, innovativeness- basically anything beyond rote ability?
People who have something to gain by playing nice will do so. Those who have nothing to gain by playing nice will not.
Ever wonder how one of the most educated and advanced nation in Europe ended up with Hitler as a leader in 1933? Well, you have thank Austrian Economics for that- at least partially.
But here is the fun part.. after a few years of such hyperinflation they decided to cool down and “normalize” the economy- using the advice of people like Friedrich von Hayek and his “Austrian” School Of Economics. The guy who led this effort, Heinrich Brüning, whose austerity measures resulted in a massive increase in unemployment- from 15% to over 30% in less than two years.
By 1933 the average German had lost all faith in conventional political structures, parties, old school experts and gave an unconventional Austrian a chance at being Chancellor. We kinda know how that turned out, don’t we?
Let me pour some more gas on this: The Gold Standard and Zero Sum Behavior: 1