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.