Archive for January 10th, 2010

Subtitled:  Gravity Sucks

Steamboat McGoo passed on a link to this paper.  Here’s the abstract:

On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton

Erik Verlinde

Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton’s law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton’s law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.

Note the end of the abstract.  Where it says “The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.”

I have always hated the non-explanation of inertia.  To me it makes no sense to not explain why something tends to move the way it does.  Every other thing in the universe tends towards entropy, why is the movement of a mass not behaving similarly?

I’m only ten pages into the paper but I’m having a blast reading it.

The reality?  Awful lots of “if we assume” arguments get used to build up to “first principles” and so I find my self at 11 pages saying to myself that while it’s fun and all it’s probably mostly B.S.  But I’ll finish it out anyway.  If nothing else it’s fun to entertain different ideas.


How badly can they miss the point?

“If this is all about surviving politically, then we’re missing the whole purpose of what we’re supposed to be doing… – Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd

In this case “surviving politically” entails doing the will of your constituents.  It entails trusting that the constituents are big boys and girls and can be allowed self-determination.  But apparently the elite of the elected aristocracy (no one else wants the damn job) don’t feel that voters should be allowed to have a say in matters.  That’s the lesson we take home from Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, who are content to keep the legislation from being open and transparent.

Lying liars.


Coffee remarks now?

The Rev. Al Sharpton on Monday said he was disturbed by condescending remarks reportedly made by former President Bill Clinton about Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign.

Sharpton was referring to a passage in the new book, “Game Change,” which recounts the conversation Clinton had with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy when he was trying to convince the liberal lion of the Senate to endorse his wife for president.

“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,” Clinton told Kennedy, according to the book — a comment that angered Kennedy, who later endorsed Obama.

Sharpton, speaking on Fox News, defended Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid over a passage in the book in which he said Obama doesn’t have a “Negro dialect” unless he wants one. But the reverend would not give Clinton such a pass for his remark.

“I think that’s far more disturbing because this is someone seeking to stop Mr. Obama’s campaign and making a direct reference — I don’t know the context in which he said it — but that is far more disturbing to me than even the comments that were made by Mr. Reid,” Sharpton said.

But it’s ok for the first black president to say such things, right?  It’s only the first black president talking about the not-quite-but-soon second black president, right?

Sharpton admits he doesn’t know the context but opens his mouth anyway.  Will someone just shut the man up?


This guy needs to get a date.  Oh, that’s right, he couldn’t get one so he made one.

Cherry 3000.  Ok, Cherry 2462.  Ok, Kiwi 2300… no?  Kumquat 2100?  Uh…. Jackfruit 2020.  Running out of models we can drop down to here, folks.  Cherry 3000 she ain’t, is my point.

Read Full Post »

Art-free weekend.  Bad pain days today and yesterday.  Plus the water pump to my well died tonight.  Yah-frickin’-hoo.  So I need to break from it.

Update: Not so art-free… see below.

This is pretty funny.  Ha.  Ha.  Ha.  A supposed champion of the party that is the champion (again, supposedly) of black folks everywhere, well… let’s just say he’s kind of an assh*le.  But we knew that already, didn’t we?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Obama is the nation’s first African-American president.

Reid and his Clearly-I'm-Racist-But-I'm-Not-Racist talk caused this to come to me in a dream.

At least unlike 99% of the politicians out there, he knows how to make an apology that actually says “I apologize”.

“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments,” Reid said

Republican National Committee Chairman Steele didn’t much agree with Obama about it being a closed book.

Steele also accused Democrats of hypocrisy on the matter.

“There is this standard where Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it is racism,”


I watched Glenn Beck today.  Yes, the man has his faults but I still like him.  Today he had an audience and guests all across the spectrum of opinions and ideologies – black businessmen/women, polticians, ministers… even Mychal Massie (who totally rocks).

And they were having an honest discussion about race.  It was refreshing.  I find it funny to run across that kind of discussion not days after I lamented not seeing this sort of thing.

Some points made by the guests:

  1. Entitlement programs to poor minorities are racist.   Think about it.  If I convince a group of people that they need me, and I convince them that I am  providing for their need, then I have a great many hard-wired votes.
  2. Conservatives, not liberals, have been the champions of abolishing slavery and of forwarding civil rights.  It’s true. It’s in the history books.  Go read about it.
  3. Minority kids are singled out by their own peers when expressing an interest in learning and being successful.
  4. Democrats have been going on about how important minority education is yet they argue against vouchers for those same children to get out of the crap school systems they are stuck in.

Mychal Massie said that when he entered the studio building he didn’t come in as an African American, a black man, or anything other than himself, Mychal Massie.

A mayor stood up and said that he didn’t want to be known as a black mayor, he wanted to be known as a qualified person who was the mayor.

I bring it all up because they’ve been sore points with me for a while.  Kind of tired of the automatic assumption that the Democrats/liberals are the best thing ever for minorities and that the Republicans/conservatives automatically are oppressors.

Frankly, I find the Democrats’ willingness to tax me silly for the benefit of selected others is really not much more than veiled slavery.  Unless your tax money goes to everyone equally, or unless a law applies to everyone, or unless rights apply to everyone equally… then it is wrong, no matter what good intentions were at the heart of it.

Read Full Post »