• Top Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Advertisements

Theory of Fools

*This is unrelated, but I recently found a number of lost photos for the Comstock era. Check them out here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/athies/sets/72157600044468927/*

Our group has concocked a number of theories over the years. Some have already been mentioned, like multi-colored sneakers. I feel concocked is a particularly appropriate word for our hypothesis process. I’m sure there are other theories I am forgetting, and herein lies the beauty of the comment system, but I submit for posterity two of the more well-known theories. I warn you these theories were concocked in early college, and as is commensurate with that period in our lives, offensive to many.

The Lipid Shield

When trolling the bars you often find women out in packs. This affords them protection by numbers, but there is another layer of protection included in this approach. The “shield” intercepts any approaching men, acting as a filter for the others. The lipid shield need not be fat, as the name implied, but a mere one standard deviation lower that the rest of the pack. This could mean the shield is attractive in her own right, but is “ugly” by relative comparison. I have never asked any women if they consciously invite a lipid shield along, so any female readers that care to comment the information will serve of great interest.


This is pretty simple. 95% of the people in the world are idiots. Of the other 5% – 4% are evil. This leaves 1% of smart/good people to defend the world. This has opten been proven itself. We also have the support of a well-known scholar…

“Some there are who are nothing else than a passage for food and augmentors of excrement and fillers of privies, because through them no other things in the world, nor any good effects are produced, since nothing but full privies results from them.”
Leonardo Da Vinci


26 Responses

  1. Although most people would say we ‘concocted’ theories, perhaps you are right when you say ‘concocked’ is a particularly appropriate word for your ideas.
    Also, I do not subscribe to the idea that a lipid shield member might be attractive in their own right; she must be no higher than a 5 ideally with an aggressive or nasty personality that deters unwanted males. Any cluster of attractive women, even where one outshines the others, is a magnet for guys; the point of a lipid shield is to deter all but the most self-confident players from approaching.

  2. You forgot my personal favorite, “The Folder Theory.” Which i will not relate here, as I’m sure Louis can explain it better, as it was his concoction.

  3. I don’t remember this theory at all. Louis, spill the beans!

  4. The short version of this is that if you are an atheist, you should consider yourself equivalent in value to a folder. After all, you are both just randomly generated patterns of electrons and protons, spinning through space, with no meaning beyond the time of your apparent material existence. That which you perceive as consciousness is simply a complex pattern (as yet not understood) of quantum interactions which give rise to your actions. Of course, whether you do or do not believe in the folder theory is simply irrelevant. Your assignment of more “value” or “importance” to your existence or actions than the existence of a folder is simply due to complex social conditioning patterns, which are themselves results of deterministic equations. Therefore, those who protest the folder theory are simply demonstrating predictable behavior and should be disregarded.

  5. A possibly related theory is that you have approximately a 63.2% chance (1 – 1/e) of turning into a sneaker, given infinite time.

  6. The lipid shield does not exist. If you see a bunch of women out with one exceptionally unattractive woman, it’s just random. It does not mean they used her to shield them from males on the prowl. It means they choose their friends the way GUYS do: based on personality, goodness, sense of humor, intelligence, wit, kindness, weirdness, “different”-ness, etc. etc. etc. Frankly, most women (other than the most shallow, insipid, obtuse, dumb-as-a-rock type — they’re usually found at fraternity parties) don’t care if their friends look like the back end of a donkey, if she’s got personality and true grit and a good heart. I do, however, subscribe to the 95% theory. Unfortunately, we’re all born with optimism. By the time we’re 10 years old, we’ve either joined the 95% (example: Rush Limbaugh), the 5% (Hitler anyone?) or 1% (Mother Theresa, where are you when we need you?). However, I’ve got a caveat. I still retain the foolish notion that 50% of the 95% can be reformed over time. But the 5% just need to be put away for life, no hope or prayer there. And the 1% should be doing more with the limited time they have on earth.

  7. But then, where do hideous folks like Donald Trump, Cathy Lee Gifford, Paris Hilton, and Dan Quayle fall?

  8. On the other hand, while I have been told that women choose their friends “normally”, I have also been told that once they DO acquire a fat friend they DO use them as a lipid shield. So, just because the women choose friends based on personality does not mean the lipid shield “does not exist” – it is more of an emergence of convenience than of planning. Not “I will hang around with this girl because she is fat and unattractive” but “That dude is staring at me / hitting on me / annoying me … I will hide behind this large round object over here”.

    This leads me to something my father always said. If someone (such as my mom) would accuse anyone of “using” their friends, his response was:

    “You can’t use your enemies!”

    PS As far as your examples. I assume that Donald Trump is evil and the remaining three are idiots.

  9. The 95% can be swayed to the side of whoever of the 5% last spoke to them. Just like the probe in Heavy Barrel.

  10. While I don’t subscribe to the lipid shield as it stands, I do believe that there are women who chose lipid protection in the form of men. Take for example Louis and myself, both of whom have wives who delibrately chose husky balding men for what I feel is the added security of knowing the chances of them being pilfered by female predators is drastically reduced. These women catagorically deny this, insisting they prefer us this way and that pretty boys are just plain ‘yucky’ but in truth lingering eyes can be spied filled with lust for Brad Pitt or some other beefcake bastard.

    Those who posit that the vast majority consist of fools are often blind to their own presence in the pool. 🙂

    As for Mother Theresea; I was a fan myself and remain one, yet was immensly intrigued and delighted when Penn and Teller chose to ‘debunk’ her on “Bullshit”. I was instantly reminded of Dan who I also feel may have had the audacity to attack such a revered saintly icon of humanity. Although I remained unconvinced by the conclusion of the impressive case they built, I was pleased that my philosophy that any truth unquestioned is valuless existed outside my own demented philosophy.

    Re: “……both of whom have wives who delibrately chose husky balding men for what I feel is the added security of knowing the chances of them being pilfered by female predators is drastically reduced.” hahahahaha oooh hoooo hahahahah i’m dying here….hahahaha…….tears down my face…..Really now, I beg to differ. Your wives chose you because a) they were physically attracted, b) they were mentally attracted, c) they were spiritually connected, and d) they felt you’d make good fathers if one day they wanted children. I never even MET them but I can guarantee that they are women of substance, intelligence, and beauty. And do you know how I know this?? Because you all sound so super cool, and you would therefore never propose marriage to any woman who was anything less than cool herself. And if you couldn’t find that woman, you’d all prefer singlehood. Am I right? Of COURSE I’m right. I’m a good judge of character, even online. As for Brad Pitt, like many women, and I mean MANY women, I think he looks like an illiterate farmer. He is a great actor, granted, but as far as looks go, compare him to ROBERT REDFORD or PAUL NEWMAN in their prime. And the Pitts has no conversational wit. he cannot banter. He’s really a dumb blonde surfer. He is like a little runty sniffeling piggy piggy boy compared to the aforementioned REAL men. But even worse than his scrawniness – he is self-promoting (oh yes I will adopt all of Biafra someday, I am so generous, look at me going to the park with the little third-world urchins I so generously adopted, aren’t I a hotty??), self-absorbed (but pretending not to be, i.e. “Oh see how I bought this house in New Orleans and I don’t shave anymore, aren’t I SO charitable and hot?”) and — here’s the KISS OF DEATH — chronically disloyal. One strike, okay. Two strikes? You’re OUT. As in, he dumped Gwyneth Paltrow after being engaged to her. Then he dumped Jennifer after being MARRIED to her. Rotten! I think the Jennifer Aniston thing really lowered many women’s opinion of him, particularly married women. (Believe you me, I know of what I speak —- I have a monthly ladies’ luncheon and we talk about this stuff.) Starting with the Jennifer dumping, he suffered a fall from grace. He appeared to be a little lost boy looking for someone to wear the pants in his life and tell him what to do and what to believe in.

    Enter little piggy wiggy’s savior, Angelina, who drank Billy Bob’s blood. Nice goin’, lady. Now I’m not putting down her charity work. It’s just a weird contrast to how she treats members of the same sex. While she’s out there saving the world, showing compassion for complete strangers, she’s simultaneously taking a massive dump on the women right next to her. It seems disjointed and contradictory, no?

    Brad smelly arm-Pitt chose escape rather than staying and working on the real problems and real issues and real challenges of marriage, and being man enough to stay with the woman who was, after all, his BEST FRIEND. As for those who do gaze lustily at him, I’m sure he’s just Eye Candy, like the Playboy centerfold for men. Women may fantasize about him sexually, but after the Gwyneth/Jennifer thing, they’d trust him about as far as they could throw. So he’d just be a boy toy to them. In this way, we are no different than men. Men can’t help but look/fantasize at the hot young thing (i.e. Britney Spears pre-downfall.) They’d use her in the bedroom, why not, it’s a free country. But would they marry her? Would they want her to be the mother of their children? Would they want to grow old with her? Think about it.

    What kind of men do women love? Intelligent men with a sense of humor who can laugh at themselves yet be strong when they need to be, tender when they have to be, and always always always, loyal to those in their family circle. Men who admit to being afraid sometimes, who admit to being weak, but will nevertheless act brave for the benefit of their children and their wives. REAL MEN. That’s what your wives married you for. Well, that and maybe you guys help with the laundry and cooking? heee heee heee. Speaking of cooking, I am off to enjoy a fantastic meatloaf at my ma-in-law’s. We will discuss the Obama/Clinton thing until all of us gets upset and out of breath. Then we will tell each other we love one another, and the next week, we will do the same darn thing over again. hahahaha. It’s a real treat that I met you all online. Talk to ya soon.

  12. Wow, did I pick the wrong example! Should have gone with a mensch like Topher Grace or Dustin Diamond. :-).

    You are a brave woman for discussing politics with your in-laws I must say. If, however, you are all Democrats then it’s relatively safe. I will come out as an Obama man myselt, although my wife favors Hillary. Of the Republicans, the best possible choice got the nomination so I’m not terribly worried either way.

    I was looking at the folder theory and object to the classification. A theory is something that must be explainable by natural law and have the quality of being able to be disproven through evidence. The folder idea, as even evidenced in the actual explanation, is simply a belief, which by nature is not provable or disprovable, and thus is ensconsed at worst in the ranks of belief in elves and at best as a watered down Zen koan. I think the sneaker theory is closer were there actual infinite time, but as the universe is not infinite, just really, really big, there can be no infinite time either, just a long one. Sorry, it’s a been a time since I pissed in anyone’s Wheaties and needed a good fix.

  13. Don’t make Louis tell you of how he proved anything is 63% likely!

  14. Fool! First of all, someone else classified the folder “theory” as a “theory”. I consider it more of an axiom or if you will a “belief”, but I reject your relative classifications of “beliefs” as “better” or “worse” than any other cognition; after all, these concepts must be emerging from random movements of electrons, eh? Now, as far as the sneaker theory; it is semantically true that there is no “infinite” time, but only in the sense that you can’t count to infinity. If you assume that time is bounded at 0 (the big bang) – or even if you don’t, let’s say it proceeds forward from there. Therefore, there isn’t currently any “infinite” time, nor will there be at any finite point in the future. However, if we do not live in a closed universe, time will continue onward towards infinity (although never reaching it).
    Be that as it may, the sneaker theory does not actually require infinite time, as it is possible to estimate the probability that you will turn into a sneaker over a given time period. Technically, you cannot turn into a sneaker … you turn into a sneaker plus a lethal gamma-ray burst. But let’s ignore the dire effects on any nearby sentients and focus on the sneaker polymorph. If there is a 1 in a googleplex chance of turning into a sneaker per second (the actual chance is probably smaller, but who knows), you will have roughly a 63% chance of turning into a sneaker once per googleplex seconds.
    What’s great about this is that it implies there must be a quantization of time. If in fact there was an infinite number of “points” in time within one second, then everything which could possibly occur at any point in time, would likely occur every second. So – apparently there are only a finite number of “instants” within a second. Chew on that.

  15. bluerazor: Um, to be perfectly blunt……are you making this crap up, or are you like, a freakin’ cum laude graduate of MIT? ‘Cuz seriously, I am LOST here. Impressed, but lost. And Mighty Wolf, what makes you say there is no such thing as elves??? Until disproven, I will believe in them. And another thing: I thought the universe WAS infinite? Didn’t Einstein or Stephen Hawkes or Galileo or some other genius prove that, somehow? I dunno…I’m more of a literary gal myself. Science is fascinating to me, but I got no brain for it. By the way, you guys should subscribe to “Mental Floss” magazine. it’s like, right up your alley. Comes out 4 times or 6 times a year, I forget which. Segue here but it’s driving me nuts: There’s something wrong with my blasted keyboard….it keeps putting spaces where they don’t belong….maybe it’s a mischievous elf.

  16. Who the heck is Dustin Diamond? Neil’s son?

  17. Dustin Diamond is the actor who played Screech from “Saved by the Bell”?

    Bluerazor is a brainiac who has a Ph.D. in Chemistry, just because.

  18. I am taking a page out of “Mighty Wolf”‘s playbook and leaving the line between reality and BS blurry. I am sure he will declare an Official Story shortly.

  19. I beg to differ regarding the ranking of ‘evidenced theory’ and ‘belief’ as being irrelevant! If I were giving out loans of money, the loan would invariably go to the person who displayed evidence of collateral over the person who simply wanted me to believe he had it. Classification of one being better than the other is therefore possible and inevitable if it can be agreed upon that logically that which can be tested and evidenced has greater intrinsic value that that which cannot, especially since the definition of anything that falls under the banner of ‘belief’ is so subjective as to be rendered meaningless. This holds true with the belief or lack thereof that this and other thoughts are simply random movements of electrons; an unknowable whimsy akin to wondering if one individual sees the same color blue as another. Such cannot be ever verified or have a probability assigned or even assumed. It is profoundly more likely to conclusively prove whether Schrodinger’s miserable cat is alive inside that box or not.

    It is also clear that you have forgotten your “Black Holes and Warped Space Time” as well as “The Dancing Wu-Li Masters”! Doc Breem is likely spinning on his couch; momentarily distracted from the memory of seeing someone nailed to a tree with shrapnel from 40 yards away. Time cannot actually approach infinity in either a closed or open universe. Either the universe will collapse upon itself at some fixed point in distant time or will continue to diffuse outward to a point where no single quark is within a light-year of another, at which point the concept of time, relative or space time, will cease; again, at some fixed point in the distant future. This being the case, all progressing is toward a fixed yet currently unknown, but not necessarily unknowable, point. As then that infinite as a reality does not exist in the natural universe, other than a semantic misnomer, there are also not infinite points on a line or infinite instants between seconds. What the smallest unit of measure is also has not yet been determined, but theoretically can be. I expect the final tally to be somewhat less than a googleplex given that there are less than a googleplex subatomic particles in the universe. The googleplex is therefore a false entity like Bigfoot or the cookie monster. In any case, I believe we are agreed on this point – the quantization of time is a given.

    That, however, is not the reason that I reject the sneaker theory. Your line of reasoning is along the lines of subjective probability with the necessary component that you believe a person can turn into a sneaker. Looking at this using logical or experimental probability understanding that 0 ≤ P ≤ 1, and having agreed that there are < ∞ points P between 0 and 1, and with logical and observed instances of P being 0, than it can be reasoned that there is a 100% chance of not turning into a sneaker at any point in time.

  20. Sounds like Wolf is showing off his Military Engineering skills.

    This is not related, but amoung the Breem stories I want to hear about the English Long Bow.

    Bluerazor also has to tell the story of the dry ice bomb I saw the video of.

  21. Well, I will recap my arguments one more time, then allow Wolf the last word – since he is showing an obvious desperate need for it.

    1) Athiests and folders. We are almost in agreement here. I contend that logically, if one rejects all extrinsic sources of value (anything metaphysical – a god, a soul, any other form of external force), one should logically evaluate a person and a folder in a similar fashion. They are both objects, each of which has a diverse set of attributes – for example, a person is capable of thought, while a folder is capable of holding 8.5×11 paper without wrinkling it. Over the long term, say 10,000 years, both will be recycled into other materials. Given that there is no extrinsic assignment of value outside of the physical realm, constructs such as “It is acceptable to throw a folder in the trash, but not a person” are subjective in nature and to a certain extent difficult to reconcile with logic. I’m not saying there aren’t reasons for that statement which are other than morality, but there you go. In any case, I am not claiming that a “belief” and a “fact” have the same “intrinsic” value (we’ll call that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism); I am arguing that my “belief” in this case is founded more or less on a logical argument and not a mythical Flying Spaghetti Monster. I do not “believe” that people and folders are the same; I “believe” that those who are arguing that there are no external providers of moral judgement nor any permanent relevance to a human existence, but simultaneously claim that human existence “has special meaning”, are self-contradicting. I have no issue with those who claim no special meaning for human existence, since they are now internally consistent.

    2) On the quantization of time: We agree on this.

    3) On the ability of time to approach infinity: Firstly, you betray yourself by referring to books published in 1979. While they were certainly informative at the time, many concepts, especially in the field of cosmology, have advanced significantly since we read those in 1989. You could always read about various new theories in Wikipedia. In any case, the concept that time will become irrelevant once the universe has reached an “end state” is highly debatable. There are several plausible, non-forbidden alternatives in which time continues. This includes:
    – A “cyclic” universe theory in which the universe collapses in upon itself, but does not achieve a total singularity before giving birth to a new Universe. Kind of like the birth of Galactus or something.
    – An “open” universe in which the configuration of spacetime is such that there is never a final end state; for example, one in which the geometry does not expand uniformly and particles do not reach fully parallel paths. By the way, you probably have mischaracterized the end state anyhow. There is no proof of spontaneous decay down to single quarks nor the fact that this end state would maximize entropy. In addition, the relevant distance between particles would likely be the distance at which their line-of-sight velocity relative to all other particles in the universe exceeded c.

    4) And most important of all, the sneaker. Let us start by conceding that there may be some OTHER physical law preventing you from being turned into a sneaker. However, your argument is completely fallacious, relying mostly on Occam’s Razor to carry weight. Essentially, I boil down your argument to “we have never observed anyone turning into a sneaker, therefore it is likely that the chance to turn into a sneaker is 0”. However, that is just weak, weak, weak.
    There are many things which happen for the first time, and many more which haven’t happened yet, which are not out of the realm of possibility. Put aside the human-sneaker transmutation for a moment and consider an event E of probability P over a time period t. The chance that E does not occur in any given t is 1-P. The chance that E does not occur after N trials of length t is (1-P)^N . Therefore, the chance of E occurring is now 1 – ((1-P)^N). It can be shown that for any P, after a number of trials where N = 1/P, the probability of at least one occurrence is > (1-1/e); the limit as P goes towards 0 (and N approaches ∞) is 1 – 1/e.
    Therefore… for any event of P > 0, it is about 63% likely to occur at least once over N trials where N ≥ 1/P. You now claim that because no one has turned into a sneaker, P must be 0. This is false, since:
    – It is possible that P is so small that the probability of occurrence is still miniscule. In fact, P could be so small that there is minimal chance of this occurring in the lifetime of the universe (assuming a bound timeframe and quantized time).
    – It is possible that it has happened, but you don’t know about it.
    – It is possible that we have already gotten to the point where the number of trials N is ≥ 1/P, but despite the 63% chance of occurrence it just has not happened yet.

    5) One more thing. A googleplex vastly exceeds the number of particles in the universe. However, the number of particles in the universe is not the limit of useful numbers. I submit counting of the following types of things:
    – The number of quantum states achievable by a system, or by the entire universe
    – The number of 2, 3, 4, and N-body interactions possible between all of the particles in a system, or the universe
    – Etc… in fact, if we went by your definition, any number smaller than 1/Number of Particles will also be a fairy tale. I submit that your classification of numbers is a “belief” with no intrinsic value.

    Finally, I declare the energy used in posting this crap wasted, as I could have been writing a post instead.

  22. Sorry for the absence; too many projects on the plate until now. Although I should just keep my trap shut and avoid having Louis use a response as yet another tired excuse not to write a post that is of interest to more than he and I, he is correct in that I simply cannot. I must note, however, that a week later and still no post. A few last points then:

    1) We are close to agreement on the atheists and folder although I reject the Cartesian dualistic approach that the definition of ‘meaningful existence’ must be externally imposed or automatically defaults to 0 in the absence of an external provider. While such definitions are indeed subjective and not verifiable with empirical evidence, logic does not dictate that they be binary in nature. Relevance of existence or “special meaning”, perceived or otherwise, does not necessitate belief in or the existence of an external provider. Why should it? The very notion is nothing but subjective anyway whether one holds to one of the vast multitude of supernatural belief systems or not. Furthermore, I contend that there is a stronger tendency for individuals with an above average level of faith in an external assigner of value to consider those without such faith to be equivalent or less to a folder.

    2) Excellent!

    3) I concede that there are alternate non-forbidden theories as to the final fate of the universe but hold that the concept of time as presently utilized in this argument, in terms of both relevant time and space time, will continue to be altered as entropy maximizes even in a non-open state universe that never reaches a final end state, as unlikely as this theory is; also backed by no more than theoretical evidence. While it is true that there is no supporting evidence that final decay down to the quark state, until there is a better understanding of the relationship between the strong nuclear force and gravity it’s as good a theory as any, save for the cyclic universe Galactus hypothesis. While some doubt the existence or daily effect of Galactus or Galactuses, he has been extensively written about and would then validate the special meaning of human existence if more tangible evidence of his impressive hunger manifests.

    4) All right fine, if there were no other physical law (which there is), preventing a person from spontaneously turning into a sneaker over an extremely long period of time, your simplistic statistics hold true. My objection was to the illusion created that the simple statistics are true, rather than misleading. I’m not a strong statistician so I won’t spell it our mathematically, but the converse of the 63% statement would be a look at the probability P that the necessary molecules X in a person would transform simultaneously to the molecules necessary to become a sneaker, which would likely require actual spontaneous atomic transformation from one element to another without catalyst, and the remainder Y dissolving into gamma radiation, AND have this occur in the limited lifespan of a person, or to be generous, the combined life spans of all people expected to ever have lived (providing one does not become the next Galactus). Since I don’t recall there ever being an observed non-catalytic atomic transformation of an atom of one element to another, I would put P somewhat on the order 1/ googolplex.

    5) I accept all possible interactions between all particles in the universe as an acceptable top number.

    Finally, as fun as this has been, I have noticed that the commencement of this discussion has had a dramatic negative impact on the daily visits of this blog and will stop, even if you do prove yourself a crafty mathamagician and systematically destroy my argument, as much as that will kill me.

  23. I think we’ve reached a maximum amount of consensus at this point, seeing as I am in basic overall agreement with your revised comments. I also agree that we’ve certainly killed the buzz here and somebody should post something about farts or vomiting in a washing machine, quickly. That should suffice to amuse the proles.

  24. bluerazor: listen buddy speak for yourself — I’m having too much fun cracking up at the twisted weird writing here — although I’m convinced you and Wolf are totally making this stuff up. I do have a request though. Since you are a PhD whiz master, can you explain in Kindergarten language, how gravity can possibly curve space and time as Einstein posited? Because that does NOT make any sense…..Like, if I gain 20 pounds, thereby resulting in my exerting more gravity, will time be slower for me than an anorexic model? What does that mean to CURVE TIME?? Huh? What? Huh? Come again? Isn’t time a modern man concept?? Time in and of itself doesn’t really exist — it’s just an arbitrary cerebral attempt to make sense of what was, what is, and what shall be. (Wow isn’t that a great Led Zepellin song, by the segue?) And therefore, in addition to gravity curving time, if I gained 20 pounds, increasing my gravity, would I curve space because I’d be curvier and the space around me would curve to accomodate my excess lipid shields? How can you CURVE SPACE?? Isn’t space empty? It’s not an object that can be curved!! This has driven me crazy for years now. I….just…..don’t…..get……it. The Theory of Relativity I sorta/kinda get. But gravity curving space and time – my mind can’t grasp it. Now don’t get me wrong here, I am no dummy — Catholic grade school spelling bee champ, junior high valedictorian, yearbook editor, Nat’l Honor Society yes yes and all that b.s…..But that gravity/curve/space/time thing…..please explain that to me.

  25. As I get my facts from ‘The Junior Color Encyclopedia of Space’, I’ll let Louis furnish an answer to your questions. 🙂

    “You don’t really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother” – Albert Einstein.

  26. Unfortunately I must admit that my tensor math has gotten rusty following years of disuse so there is very little I can do to illuminate curved space or curved time, other than to say that space is curved to begin with. When you say you get the theory of relativity you mean special relativity, of course. General relativity requires that one understand what a manifold is, and I don’t think that I do yet. I think that a better way to think of it is that “curved” space and “curved” time are attempts to make abstract mathematical models of physics intelligible to those who don’t think in math terms. However they are inherently flawed since both depend on the idea of observing some thing like an object or a graph, and in reality these “curves” affect light, so you can’t just “see” the curve. You can only see the effects of the “curve”, which behaves as if the light travelling through it went through a “curve” (into nowhere!). So, I suggest it isn’t your average, everyday kind of curve, right?
    Also – I believe that gravity does not itself curve space and time – I believe that if you look closely gravity is at least partially dependent upon or perhaps even caused by the curves in space and time. On a local scale however (local being on Earth) all of this is basically useless information.
    Of far more interest is the 95% theory, really. I suggest that anyone attempting to understand the election dynamics contemplate this theory carefully. The reader of course (regardless of political affiliation) will believe that they are one of the 1%. In most cases, the reader will also believe that most of the 4% are on the other side. That implies that either: A) your smart people are outnumbered roughly 4 to 1 and B) your political allies are the dumb, or C) you are actually on the side of evil. Choose your fate!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: