science

One true evil

Posted on by TheWanderer

Hello, TimeEmperor here! Now recently I got a little bit, well not a little bit, angry at people, specifically the people who do not study sciences. I was watching this show and it is a talk show so you already know that it will be stupid but what made me really angry was the situation. That show was about a woman who went missing unexpectedly , just like all missing people, and psychics were called to help the sister who didn’t go missing “find” her lost sister. Now you understand that I love science, every bit of it, but psychics, pseudosciences I hate, because they just trick people into false sense of hope, so that these charlatans would get more money. But that didn’t make me angry, what made me angry was the fact that there was a psychologist who said that psychics were just a bunch of charlatans and people neglected him. They cared only for five minutes and then they went on about psychics. And I understand that this happens only because of scientific illiteracy.

Imagine there is a debate whether or not to ban a chemical. I will give you the description of the element and you will have to choose, to ban it or not. Now the chemical is dihydrogen monoxide. The chemicals gas can cause burns, it can kill you if accidentally inhaled, it is a main component in acid rain, it is in your food, it eventually dissolves  any material it comes intact with. So now think if you should ban the element. If you chose yes than you are probably the majority, if no, then you are the minority, makes sense, and as the saying goes, majority is stupid, because the majority decided to ban water. Congratulations on your decision.

Now what am I trying to say. I think it is pretty obvious, people are stupid, I am stupid, because I don’t know everything, but I know enough to know that I am stupid, which in turn doesn’t make me stupid. Wait, what? Yes, I am a living paradox, stupid but not stupid. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean stupid in a sense that people are mentally handicapped, I mean stupid as in not knowing something. I know something, as I like to say, I know more than a common sixty-year old person which is not that much but still pretty significant. It allows to understand when somebody is trying to take advantage of me, it allows me to understand what I shouldn’t do. Like for instance make myself the victim like feminism does or saying that every white man is racist just because of one white racist. I can think critically, statistically, like everyone should, but for some reason I fall into the minority section. And because I am the minority, the majority thinks that they are right, e.g. vegetarianism/veganism. Many people believe that being vegan or vegetarian is the way of life. Well it is not the case, because humans are not herbivores, if we were, we wouldn’t be able to digest meat, no, humans are omnivores and our body is adjusted to this way of eating in a way that if we didn’t eat meat we would need to take supplements, we would require to eat a lot more to make our bodies run at normal rate. Want more? Then take vaccines. A lot of people think that vaccines are bad and can cause really bad things, but vaccines are 99.9% likely not to cause complications, they are mainly harmless and can benefit us, although they can cause some complications, but those complications are not fatal. Yet people still say that they are bad. Why? Because they are scientifically illiterate.

So how to not be like that? Well, start reading books, starting thinking critically about everything, even this blog, do research, but mainly, trust science, never blindly believe anything, have some proof for your beliefs.

Universal truths

Posted on by TheWanderer

Hello, TimeEmperor here. So yesterday  I saw Batman v Superman (I don’t own the rights to this movie) and later at home I went on the internet to see what everyone said about it and it seemed like most people went to see the movie, but didn’t watch it, because they would see that the “plot holes” that they talk about are non-existent. But that’s is not what I’m gong to talk about, you see what fascinated me was the battle between two groups of people:people who agreed with the critics who said that the movie was bad and the people who opposed this idea saying the movie is great. Which of them are right? Both of these groups.

I know, it sounds stupid that they both are right, but they are, you just have to think about it a little bit. But to get there we need a brain exercise. Let’s say an apple is growing on a tree and a person takes the apple and bites into it. Now the question is what kind of colour the apple is? Is it red, green or yellow? If you chose one of these answers or any other answer you are correct, because you can’t know the colour of the apple just by knowing that it grows, and people with different preferences for apples will choose a different apple colour. Or what about the word colour. Is it supposed to be written like that? Well yes, if you are speaking english, it is color if you’re speaking american, but you can choose, it is your choice to choose what you like, what kind of language you like to speak,  it is not a universal language, because not all people speak english or american. But are you wrong for choosing english instead of american? Or are you right? Both. The answer is both. Why? Because of the thing I like to call opinion relativity.

Say for instance you like apple pie but the person next to doesn’t like it. You have your own opinions and they are different. If you base them with actual non-factual arguments, than the opinion is right. It is like relativity of motion. You stand on the ground and you see a plane moving and you say it’s moving, but a passenger on the plane will say that you are moving and you are both right, because observations of different inertial observers is will disagree with each other (inertial observer is an observer moving with constant, non-changing velocity). So will your opinion will disagree with other people’s unless they share your views like if an observer moved at the same speed as the person on the ground, which is v=0m/s relative to the ground. And as I said your opinion is right if you base it with true facts like for instance the apple pies tastes good to you, because you built tolerance to apple taste, but the other person didn’t develop that tolerance so to him the taste is disgusting.

If everyone is right, who is wrong?  Well others are wrong, who disagree with your opinion. But opinion is just that – an opinion, not a fact, but thankfully not like physics opinions can be universally true and false. It is easy to say which is which. For instance the opinion that the Sun is a  star is universally true, because the Sun false in the category of small stars, it supplies the solar system with energy by the same mechanism that other stars do – by thermonuclear fusion. So that opinion is universally true, you can’t deny it, you can try, but won’t succeed. But the opinion that the Sun is a planet is completely wrong, so the opinion is false,  it is a lie. And human opinions about movies, books, music, etc. is in the middle, because it can  be both at the same time.

But universal truths can become lies and lies can become universal truths. For instance, it was believed to be true that aether, the substance trough which light travels, exists. But as it turns out, it does not exist, it is a lie, while it was previously a universal truth. And as another example let us take the cosmological constant. At first it was thought to be a lie, non-existent. For those that don’t know, cosmological constant was put in Einstein’s equations by Einstein, because it would make the universe static, non-expanding, because it would bring a force which would oppose the pull of gravity. But as it turned out the universe wasn’t collapsing in on it itself, but expanding, so the cosmological constant didn’t need to exist and it was thought to be a lie. But later, in the 1990s it was understood that the universe was accelerating it’s expansion so the universal constant was brought on the table. It is not yet a universal truth but it might become one or not, who knows what the future holds, but the fact is that these truths and lies can become one another, but they don’t create new lies or truths, they just switch places, a truth becomes a lie and the lie becomes the truth. It is like the conservation of energy, but with truth.

When we began exploring the universe around us, we gathered the universal truths, and to this day we still do that, maybe we will do that until the death of the universe, but we have to understand that these truths existed all the time or might have been interpreted in a wrong way like for instance that the Earth is flat or everything orbits around it. But your opinions about thing are true to you, not to anyone else, so if you base them with facts, you won’t be wrong entirely. So the next time you think of checking the reviews for the movie you want to see, think for yourself and go see the movie, because your opinion might just differ from the others. TimeEmperor signing out!

Portal problem

Posted on by TheWanderer

Hello, TimeEmperor here! First things first, sorry, I haven’t posted anything in a long time, it’s just that I was busy with my school work and was having an existential crisis, not that you care or anything, I just want things to be clear. Now to the problem we face today, I may be late to this but a lot of people are still debating this problem. It is the portal problem: when there is a cube on a platform and an orange portal is moving towards it (the blue one is stationary relative to the cube and on another side of the facility). The problem asks what would happen when the orange portal reached the cube, would the cube just drop out of the blue portal with little to none velocity, or would it fly out the blue portal.

Now we must choose the reference frames carefully not to fool ourselves and Newtonian-ish rules apply because we’re dealing with small speeds but also with portals. So from the cube’s reference frame the orange portal is moving towards it in a constant speed and the blue portal is stationary with it. But what is the orange portal’s reference frame? Well the orange portal perceives the cube to be moving at a constant velocity towards the portal. So which scenario is true? Both of them. Because observer’s will disagree about their measurements but not about the speed of light. So one way or another something is moving. But this doesn’t answer our question.

So maybe we are asking a quite difficult question, and a lot of people need valid proof so let’s stop talking about the orange portal and let’s take a look through the blue portal. What do you see? Not so weirdly enough we see that the cube is moving closer and closer towards the exit (the blue portal). Why? Because you are seeing the orange portal’s reference frame, the portal’s allow to see through different reference frames. So it would seem that the answer is that the portal flies out. But some one gave this example, where a part of a building falls in such a way that the window hole passes through the person and the person doesn’t fly out. But here is the problem with this, the part of the is not an inertial reference frame because it has acceleration, so there for it is really moving. Secondly, the portals are a system of reference frames (one can be moving, another can be stationary according to the same observer) so if one sees a cube approach it, the cube will simply shoot it out. Seems unreal but think of it this way, while watching through the blue portal you see that the cube is moving, two reference frames observe it the same way, as moving, so the cube will continue to move even if to you it seems it has never moved.

An easier way to think about it is when you are in space. So imagine you’re in space. Now imagine that there is a door with a gopro moving towards you at a constant speed. Now you perceive it to be moving, but the gopro says otherwise, it sees you moving towards the door and shooting out, so who is correct? Both of you. Because observers will disagree. But when you are moving through the portal, you enter it’s reference frame, the portal is moving away from, just like everything else, because simply put, but maybe incorrectly, you enter a new reference frame, because one portal perceived you to be moving, so the other one will also do the same. So in a more simpler way, the orange portal is connected to the blue one, both perceive themselves to be stationary, because they are connected that means they are like that door in space, they perceive the cube to be moving towards one exit, and they will perceive the cube to shoot out out the other exit. It is tricky to think about this, because you perceive those portals differently, but you mustn’t think that because one is stationary that all of the momentum perceived by the portals the cube has will just instantly vanish. Think of it this way, when you shoot two portals right beside one another and you simply go through the other with the speed you had before entering the portal, both portals perceive themselves as stationary and you as moving, so because of that you jump out the other way, the same way the cube will shoot out through the blue portal. TimeEmperor signing out!

Steins;Gate is wrong

Posted on by TheWanderer

Hello, TimeEmperor here! There are not many shows or movies that contain time travel to the past. But one of these shows is an anime called Steins;Gate, which I love. For those who never watched the anime I’ll briefly tell  it’s plot. The main protagonist Okabe is a scientist and with his friend Daru he accidentally created a time machine of a microwave (that part is really weird). He then proceeds to mess with time and he gets his friend killed and he has to undo everything that he did to save her, but that would also kill his love. I tried as hard as I could not to spoil the series, because if you haven’t seen it, you should, it’s a great series. But the science of it is flawed.

The series bases itself on the real life event involving John Titor and the many worlds interpretation. Let’s start with the latter, because Titor used it to explain himself. Now in physics there are two main branches of physics, which explain different thing. The first one is classical mechanics, which you learn mostly in school; it’s about the big objects, like you, rats and planets. The second one is called quantum mechanics, and in school you barely talk about or not talk about it at all. Quantum mechanics explains how the smallest of things – electrons, protons, photons and so on – interact with each other. The MWI stems from this branch.

Quantum mechanics are different from classical mechanics not just because of the scales of measure, but also of how things interact. For instance, if you roll a ball, you can clearly measure where the ball is and how fast he is moving. But in quantum mechanics that is not the case. If you roll an electron you can accurately know either it’s position or it’s speed, but never both, which is counter intuitive. This principle is known as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which is not named after the famous king pin of meth, but rather after a mathematician. But don’t worry we are not going to talk about that principle in depth, we just need some concepts of quantum mechanics.

Before we talk about MWI we need to talk about a famous thought experiment in quantum mechanics – Shrodinger’s cat. But before that I must explain something rather weird. In quantum mechanics there is something called spin which is an intrinsic property of angular momentum carried by a particle, but more roughly speaking it’s how the particle spins around it’s own axis. Let’s say that a particle can spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise. Quantum mechanics tells us that if we look at it one way it will spin clockwise, if we look in another way, it will spin counter-clockwise, and if we are not looking it spins in both directions. This is called the quantum superposition. Roughly speaking it says that a non-observed particle is in all it’s states at the same time. Here is an analogy for better understanding: if you look at a girl one way, she puts on a red dress, if you look in another, she puts on a blue dress, if you’re not looking at her completely, she is wearing both dresses. Sounds ridiculous, I know, but who was never shocked by QM never really understood it. Now, let’s continue. If a particle is observed, it’s superposition collapses, it now has to “choose” between all of it’s choices.

Now, Erwin Schrodinger  didn’t think that an observer could do anything to the superposition collapse, so he created a though experiment. Let’s say we have a box, in it we have a glass bottle of poisonous gas, a hammer over the bottle, a Geiger meter which is connected to the hammer(it drops it to smash the bottle if any radioactive decay is measured) , and radioactive plutonium atoms, which have 50% chance of decaying in the next hour, and a cat. We now close the box for an hour. After that hour, before looking, we don’t know if the plutonium atoms decayed or not, so their decay is in a superposition, so they decayed and did not decay, so the Geiger meter reacted to the decay and didn’t react to it, the hammer was dropped on the bottle and wasn’t dropped, the poisonous gas was let out and wasn’t, the cat is dead and alive. But the cat cannot be at the same time dead and alive. So the cat must’ve died at some point or never died. But of course this problem is resolved that an “observer” can be anything, from an air molecule, to a photon. So the cat’s chances of survival are just 50%.

Now we can talk about MWI. Imagine that before we open the box we think about what are our odds of seeing the cat being alive? It’s simple, it’s 50% you yell out. Okay, great, but why does the function collapse towards either the cat being dead or being alive? What says that it should be that way and not the other? And to answer this question we use MWI. It says, that any collapse of a superposition is actually not collapsing, but instead creates two different time lines or world lines where both things happen. For instance of the cat experiment, the function does not collapse, instead two different world lines are created where in one the cat is alive, and in the other the cat is dead. And this goes for everything you do. For instance you can’t decide between eating cereal and an omelet. No worries, two different world lines are created and in one of them you are eating cereal and in the other – omelet.

Now we can talk about John Titor. John Titor, back in the early 2000s was a major celebrity, because he said that he was a time traveler from the future, and he talked about future events, like war of the Americas and other things, I’m not going to go in depth about his prophecies, you can find the all over the internet. What I am going to talk about is his one statement. When asked why are the things that he said were supposed to happen, but never happened, he said that it is because of the divergence of the time lines, but he said that those things are going to truly happen, but in later times. But he never specified when. Now here is the problem. Yes, he was right about the time lines in some sense. He stated the exact percentage of the divergence of the time lines, which is impossible to know, because according to MWI, you can never now on which time line you are or were, so determining that sort of thing to my knowledge is impossible. But he was right that the time lines diverge, but he was wrong about one thing. Events. You see, according to chaos theory, if you make a small change in a system, you can have drastic results. So John Titor supposedly changed the past, but it was a small change, but it had drastic changes which changed the course of history, meaning that his described events can’t have that accuracy of truly happening. So John Titor is wrong. In a sense.

So because the basis of John Titor is wrong, Steins;Gate is a somewhat wrong series, but it goes beyond John Titor. In the series, whenever Okabe changed the past, he would also transport to the other time line, while he changed the past without him being in the past from the future, he wasn’t physically in the past. So, when he sent a message in to the past, he changed the past by making two time lines in which one of the he never received the message, but he sent it, and the other one where he received the message without sending it. Because of that, he cannot transport himself or his memories to the other time lines, without physically traveling in to the past. And with this we can say, that the whole plot of Steins;Gate is wrong.

I know, this is complicated, and time travel is complicated stuff, but if you didn’t understand any of this, try reading this again, and maybe try reading up on the concepts I’m talking about on the internet. TimeEmperor signing out!

Our special place

Posted on by TheWanderer

Hello, it’s TimeEmperor! When Copernicus published his book, explaining that the Sun was actually the center of the universe, the church heavily criticized it, and the pope even banned it. But isn’t surprising to see that the church’s endeavor was to not educate people about the universe, when all it was doing was educating people how to live properly, what to do in a moment of crisis and so on. No, the church didn’t do it for the reason not to educate people, it was because of our place in this world and the church’s power.

You see, back in the middle ages, the  church had a lot of power. It made people pay taxes, it allowed for kings to be kings, it even influenced kings to do some things which were profitable for the church. But of course the church spread the word of god, so naturally it said that we, humans are special, that we are the center of our creator’s attention. So naturally, when Copernicus said that we are not the  center of the universe, the church was mad, because it made people not that special anymore, they weren’t the center of the universe, but some giant ball of light was. And when Giordano Brumo proposed that the universe was in fact infinite, that the distant stars are like the Sun which had their own exoplanets, and maybe had life on those exoplanets, due to these ideas, he was called a heretic and was burned. Why? Because this would mean for the church, that humans  would lose their special place as children of god, who focuses only on us.

But these ideas were necessary, because we had to stop thinking like that. Why? Because this thinking clouded our judgment, to judge ideas, to judge  facts and people. Because of these ideas the church lost it’s power to fully influence people, to do as the church says, to believe what it believes, to think that they are special, that they are the center of the universe. But as Copernicus, made us lose the special place of being the center of the universe, but it left some specialty, because we now where orbiting the center of the universe. But later, when it was discovered that the solar system actually orbits the Milky Way galaxy on it’s outskirts, that struck a huge blow into feeling special, we were no longer orbiting the center of the universe closely, but still kept an orbit around it, right? Again, no because it was also later discovered that most of the lights in the night sky we associate with stars, are actually other galaxies, and there is no center of the universe. So now we’re not orbiting the center of the universe, nor are we special, because we live in a galaxy, because there’s a lot of galaxies, which have their own star systems, probably with life on other far away worlds. And with the theory of evolution, we stopped being god’s designed children, because we evolved like every other animal, in fact we are animals, just that we have a consciousness, which is the only thing that is separating us from other animals.

We have lost our crown of being kings of space, because we were just some minuscule species, that evolved from a single organism like every other animal,  on non-special rock, orbiting a non-special star, which is orbiting a non-special galaxy in a universe of billions of galaxies in an infinite cosmos. But we still have our crown, because we’re god’s  children, we also have a consciousness, right? You already know what I’m going to say. The answer is no. Neuroscientists have shown that consciousness plays a small part in our brain activity, what dominates is the other side of the coin, unconscious processes. Our consciousness is nothing really that special, it’s, like David Eagleman said in his book “Incognito”, just creating a way, to accomplish a task, that is new to us, which after being the way was created, will be accomplished unconsciously. For example, you always lock your doors and unlock. But one day, you come home and see that your door is open, which is alerting, your consciousness kick in, to find a way to get through this, you then decide whether to enter or not, grab a self defence tool or not, it creates a way for you to deal with these new situations.

But what about the god’s children part? Well, think of it like this, where is the evidence for it? A book without an author and that’s it? Belief is not evidence, it’s not facts, because probably the whole bible contradicts all science facts. Even if you say that god wrote it or something like that, then I’ll answer with a question like this: if a book is written without an author is supposed to be taken seriously, as fact? You know, J.K. Rowling could’ve wrote the Harry Potter series and could’ve not put her name on the book, and then would it be fact? Or if I wrote a book, that is the continuation of the bible, but with robots and dragons and not put my name on the book, but simply say that god has written it, would it be then considered as fact? NO. It won’t because it is scientifically inaccurate. Neither is the bible.” But if you bring me proof that god truly exist, then I’ll agree, but only if you have proof, real proof. If you believe something, and it’s not based on facts, because facts don’t require a belief, if you believe that a fact is wrong, it doesn’t matter, because a fact will still be true, because it’s supported by evidence, unlike god.

So why am I saying that we’re not special? Well, yes, we are beings, that evolved from a single organism, without the help of a non-existent god, and we are on an ordinary planet, orbiting an ordinary star, which is orbiting an ordinary galaxy, which is in an ordinary cluster of ordinary galaxies, and the cluster forms an ordinary super-cluster, and our consciousness is rather really limited as to what it does, as far as I know, because I’m not a neuroscientist. But what actually makes us special is something that we have all the time, but we neglect it, all of our scientific theories wouldn’t have been made if it hadn’t existed. It is our curiosity. And no, I’m not talking about the Mars rover, but it does explain why it was named that way. Because we, humans, are naturally curious, we want to explore and understand everything in the whole universe. By the way, forgot to mention the fact that our place in the cosmos could become even more smaller, due to the fact that there’s a possibility of a multiverse existing. But even if the cosmos are so vast and barely comprehensible for the common man ( by this I mean, that he works in a non-scientific field), but we carry something so huge in our brains, that is as huge as the cosmos, our curiosity. Questions arise, and they get answers, but those answers propose even new question and so on, and we’re curious as to why the universe or multiverse is the way it is, and our curiosity is what keeps us going, that passion for science is driven by our curiosity, and even if we have started our journey to understand the cosmos with nothing, we will end up with the most powerful thing in the world, knowledge, knowledge of the cosmos. And that in my opinion is special! TimeEmperor signing out!

MatPat’s mistakes

Posted on by TheWanderer

Hello, it’s TimeEmperor! Now I have watched GameTheory for awhile now. If you don’t know GameTheory, it’s basically what it’s called, a guy named MatPat (or double MatPatt, I never actually knew) makes theories using real life science about video games and now movies and TV shows. But what I have noticed is that he makes huge mistakes and never really addresses those mistakes when fans point them out. And here I’m going to talk about mistakes, which he made in my field, physics.

Firstly, let’s start with his first channel “The Game Theorists”. It actually is pretty consistent with science, as far as I know, maybe he’s wrong on other things, but I simply just don’t know them yet,  but one thing struck me, when watching a video about Bullet Bill from Super Mario. (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq6qcvfZldE ) Here he talks about what kind of damage would Bullet Bill actually do. And that’s all fine and dandy, but he does wrong is when he tries to calculate with what force Bullet Bill is traveling. Since it is traveling with a constant speed from Mario’s perspective so that means that whatever force is making Bill move is equal to wind resistance (of course that’s incorrect, because it would have to travel for some time being accelerated to reach the speed which it is traveling at, so the force should be stronger than wind resistance, but we are talking about when it is moving at that speed, not when it is reaching it). So the equation should be looking like this: F(applied force)=F(wind resistance). But what he did wrong was that instead of taking the formula for wind resistance, he took the formula for friction, which equal to miu*N or if you are standing on a horizontal plane and N=mg, than it’s miu*m*g(miu is the frictional coefficient). This friction formula is only applied when two surfaces touch, not when you’re traveling through a substance like air. When you’re traveling through air you should be using this formula: F=(rho*v^2*Cd*A)/2 (rho is the density of a substance you’re traveling through;v is your velocity;Cd is what MatPat uses as a frictional coefficient, but it’s not that, it’s wind resistance coefficient, which is totally different; and A is the surface are of a part of the body onto which the force is being applied, so for a bullet it would be half of a surface area of a sphere). But instead he uses that friction formula. Why? Well, maybe he got too cocky and he though he knew what he was doing or ,maybe, he just simply didn’t know and he let this error slip by, but nevertheless with this one mistake, his theory is busted, not real. I’m surprised that he didn’t think about why Bullet Bill is staying up in the air and is not falling down. But I’m not going to dwell into this, I’ve got some more things to talk about.

His second mistake, which I noticed, was in his new channel “The Film Theorists”. And the video to judge is about Doctor Who. Now I don’t watch Doctor Who, because simply I know that the science behind is flawed. But MatPat watches is and he made a theory about this TV show, talking about how the timelord is traveling through time. (TimeEmperor is a name not related to the name from the TV show Doctor Who, or more specifically the species of Doctor Who, timelords; I made this name for myself without even knowing about timelords). (Link to video :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_ksiM7LTPU ) In this video he comes to a conclusion that the Doctor is traveling around a giant rod of infinite mass to travel through time, but here is what’s wrong with this explanation: first things first if the universe was spinning there would be point in spacetime where there would be time loops, but since we haven’t seen any time loops, we conclude that is not correct, but could be correct, we just have no way of testing this until we explored all of cosmos. Now you could use a Tipler cylinder to travel around an angle, but here’s what happens. Traveling around the Tipler cylinder you actually would be traveling in a time loop, basically saying that you would just end up in the same time you started. But since I’m not an expert on Tipler cylinder I could be wrong and you might think that there is no problem with MatPat’s theory, but it is still wrong, because you would need to build an infinitely long cylinder, which is kind of a hard thing to do, or if you want to, you could use negative energy, or exotic matter in to this mix, which, requires a lot of it, and if you still think that it is possible, imagine a huge cylinder going through the whole Earth, even if it was on Earth, it would have to be near, because the Doctor’s booth doesn’t seem to lift of into space, and that kind of rod, could destroy the Earth. Even if I’m wrong about the concept of Tipler cylineder’s time travel through closed timelike curve, the cylinder would still destroy the Earth and secondly, in the TV series you never see the cylinder appear. Even if the cylinder is transparent it would still be causing huge distortions because of the way it curves spacetime. Thirdly, the booth never actually starts to travel, it just disappears, if I remember correctly, because, yes, I’ve seen the show. And the fourth evidence is the way the booth travels, when you see that scene, you see that TARDIS travels not in a spiral, but in straight lines, through the cylinder, which is kind of not allowed. And why would there be electrical discharge happening. If it’s not the traveling on Earth to avoid it’s destruction, they must travel in outer space, by this there should be no clouds or electrical discharge or I’m missing something. And secondly, the cylinder does now allow the travel into the future, which is only achievable if you orbit a black hole or travel near the speed of light. But here I can understand why could the mistake happen. He’s a fan of the show, so he wants to find all of the evidence to support it and all of the evidence that doesn’t support his theory is not looked at. And secondly, he didn’t study general relativity, so he couldn’t have known some of concepts.

His third mistake was from the same channel, but now about the movie Ant-Man. (link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-MhE0J9Tx8 ) In this video he talks about Ant-Man’s shrinking power and how he, while shrinking to the subatomic level he would create a black hole. Now this is true. There is a radius, called the Schwarzschild radius, and when a sphere reaches that radius with the mass it had, it would become a black hole. So if an average human is roughly 70 kg of  mass, that means that the average radius of which this kind of human sphere should reach is an astounding 1.037555556*10^-25 meters! (link to how you can calculate the radius: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius ) That is really small. But here’s where things get tricky, In the movie, Ant-Man supposedly shrinks even beyond his Schwarzschild radius. By that point he should’ve become a black hole. And here is MatPat’s mistake: he states that Ant-Man, when he becomes a black hole, would have to destroy the Earth, by “eating it away”. But that’s not the case due to Hawking radiation. I won’t get in to details into how it is happening, since I don’t really now them myself, I’m just a student, but I know the explanation. Now the black hole, due to having energy it can create a field of virtual particles around it self. These virtual particles come in pairs of a particle and an antiparticle, which  then collide and turn into energy again. But in some cases one particle would be closer to the black holes event horizon and the other one would be further away. So the one that is closer, would fall into the black hole, while the other one would fly away from the black hole. Since these virtual particles are being generated by the black hole’s energy, and since E=mc^2, therefore the black hole is losing energy or mass and starts to shrink. For big black holes it’s not a big deal, since they absorb more energy from the cosmic background radiation, than they emit themselves. But smaller ones, like the ones that have mass, less than the moon, start to shrink, and the smaller the mass of black hole, the faster it shrinks. So Ant-man would become a black hole, but for a short time, he would evaporate and in the process – die. And again, I see were MatPat could’ve made his mistake. He didn’t know a lot of things about black holes, because he didn’t study them.

Now I could talk about the AI video, since AI is really hard  to develop and program and it can’t be done faster with what technologies we have, but that just answers it. I want to talk about these mistake. Firstly, he made these mistakes, because it wasn’t his field (and you may think that it’s not mine, because I am just a student, but in my free time I tend to study about physics and math all by myself). He simply just doesn’t know these things. Secondly and this is a hypothetical he is maybe too cocky, thinking that he knows a lot, but being modest is one the greatest things ever, because it allows you to think clearly about all other things. Thirdly, he has not enough time to think about all the problems of his theories, he could found out about Hawking radiation, he could’ve searched for a better wind resistance formula, he could’ve thought about the Tipler cylinder more, but he maybe just didn’t have enough time. But here is what is truly wrong. I get it that he made mistakes, everybody makes mistakes, but we learn from them and in science, we address our mistakes, to not mislead anyone, but MatPat, while calling himself a theorist, never addresses them. If I were to run that kind of channel, I would be like PBS SpaceTime, or PBS Idea Channel, where the host address all of the questions, the viewers had. Because I don’t know him, I don’t know why he made those mistakes, or maybe he made more mistakes, but I just simply don’t know about them, because they’re not from my field. But what he should’ve done, was connecting to the viewers, via the videos, responding to them, to their questions, acknowledging his own mistakes, without sitting silently and then just acknowledging his mistakes on FNAF theories. If MatPat you read this, then take my advice, acknowledge your mistake, and respond to your viewers, to their comments more often, because it allows you to connect to them more. TimeEmperor signing out!

Resistance

Posted on by TheWanderer

Hello, TimeEmperor here. Today’s topic is not going to be about science. Today I’m going to write my thoughts. But don’t worry, science will return.

So today I was reading a book called “In The Shadow of the Altars” and it’s about a man, decided to become a priest, but also has a poetic side and he constantly asks himself does he want be a priest or become a poet and enjoy the love of a woman. But what strikes me is the fact that no matter how hard he wants to be a poet he suppresses this kind of feeling because he thinks that it is not appropriate  for a priest. Deep down he knows he doesn’t want to be a priest, deep down he knows that he wants to be with a woman, deep down he knows that he wants to be a poet (in the novel he kind of is a poet, he is a published poet, but he tries to convince himself that being a poet is not for him), but he still doesn’t acknowledge that, he still quells those deep desires. He encounters his desire resistance. He knows he wants to be a poet, but he is resisting his desire, because he is a priest. And I think some if not most of us encounter such resistance, where the given circumstances do not allow us to have or be what we want. But the only thing that is creating said resistance in this kind of situation is the person. The main character could’ve just stopped being a priest and acknowledged that he wants to become a poet. But yet he couldn’t. Why? Well, it is probably because he isn’t willing, he is just lacking courage and confidence. And of course he believes that he wants to be a priest, he even gives himself ideals on how to be the perfect priest.

So why am I talking about this? Because I’m encountering such resistance now. Like the main character from the book, I want to be something that deep down I know I want to be, but because I have other things like video games, I don’t know why, but I can’t force myself to do anything else. Of course this kind of situation is not like from the book, but the fact is that it is similar. Yes, you would say that this is laziness and I agree, but it is also resistance, it is stopping me from becoming who I want to be, to truly improving myself, but here I am, doing nothing, wasting my life living a pointless dream of laziness and the only thing standing in my way is me. So for anybody else who is thinking that they experience such resistance, please, don’t hesitate, start living, don’t do my mistake and do, what you feel you want to do, overcome yourself, but today I’m cutting it short, so TimeEmperor signing out!

P.S. I haven’t written in a while because my computer was in a repair shop.

Can ultimate Shinra Tensei happen?

Posted on by TheWanderer

Hello once again, this is TimeEmperor. Now I’ve been watching the anime Naruto or more specifically it’s second part Naruto Shippuden. And in the anime there is what is known as Pain Arc. It’s  a subset of episodes which show the story of the character Pain, his fight against Konoha (for those who don’t know it is a village where Naruto lives also known as hidden leaf village)  and his fight against Naruto. During those episodes he is shown to use an ability called Shinra Tensei. Which basically is repelling or attraction, he can push away techniques  and objects  or attract them. And during the finale of his fight against Konoha he uses the ultimate Shinra Tensei, which starts repelling objects from the center of the village to the outskirts. For more to see how it looks here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OJ7YpY6LMg

So being the scientist and an observer that I am I asked myself the question if this could happen. And well, the answer is astounding.

Being like the fillers of Shippuden I’m going to talk about side stuff, then I will answer the question if ultimate Shinra Tensei can occur. (for those who don’t know, fillers are episodes of the anime Naruto which are not the main story and some of them may have some connection to the main story, they always occur during big events, and there is such a huge amount of them, that it is unbearable to watch the anime sometimes.) Firstly, let’s talk about repelling and attracting, we know that magnets and charges do these actions. If you have two magnets and each pole of each magnet is facing the opposite pole of each magnet (like S and N) then they will attract, but if you have each pole of each facing the same pole of each magnet (like S and S) they will repel. The same goes for charges opposite charges attract and same charges repel (when I’m talking about same or opposite I’m not talking about the strength of the fields but the charges). But you already knew that. But I just gave a reminder of how magnets and charges work.

So, why talk about this? Well there is an occurrence, concerning both charges and magnets. When a current flows through a wrapped wire it starts to produce a magnetic field. It is stated like this:a changing electric current produces a magnetic field. But the opposite can happen to, a changing magnetic field could produce a current. So imagine you produce a magnet, by using the changing electric current. But the magnet is huge. So the force of repel would be strong (considering on how big of a magnet you decide to build). So can that be the ultimate Shinra Tensei? Yes, and no. You see for the magnet to repel the whole city he would need to be enormous and he would need to repel something. Since humans are around 70% water and water is diamagnetic (it means in contact of a magnetic field it produces it’s own magnetic field of the opposite direction of the magnetic field (directions bluntly speaking poles so if water is facing a north pole of the magnet, it will create it’s own magnetic field with the north pole facing towards the magnets north pole)) humans would be flung away from the magnet (again, depending on how powerful your magnet is) but building wont because they don’t have a magnetic field and are not made of diamagnetic materials. So unless you build every building of diamagnetic materials or install a giant magnet, facing with the same pole towards the magnet you own, in every building, this plan won’t work.

But do you remember how Pain pushes everything away, with his hands. Well then, let’s consider the other possibility, it’s not the attracting or repelling of an object – it’s the manipulation of spacetime. I know it sounds silly, but hear me out. There is a thing called negative energy. It was derived from the general theory of relativity. It could be explained by the law of conservation of energy. Imagine you have a body falling. Before the fall he had potential energy Ep1 and no kinetic energy Ek1, but while falling he starts to lose the potential energy and gain kinetic energy, so before hitting the ground he has no potential energy Ep2 but has a lot of kinetic energy Ek2 which by amount would equal to Ep1(kinetic energy is the energy of movement defined by Ek=mv^2/2 (m is mass and v is velocity); potential energy is energy that has potential :D, but seriously it is the energy an object has due to it’s position in the force field. Ep=mgh (g is the free fall acceleration;h is the height measured from the zero point,) I imagine it as energy that could be transformed into kinetic energy). So Ep1=Ek2, but that’s not correct because there is also gravitational energy, which is weird as it sounds. Gravitational energy is defined as a representation of gravitational attraction between two objects. The closer they are the bigger it is. So when the object is falling, the gravitational energy increases but the law of conservation of energy states that the net energy of a closed system doesn’t change, so the only explanation that gravitational energy is negative( I know, it’s hard but bear with me) .

So what does the gravitational energy being negative have to do with the ultimate Shinra Tensei. Well, everything. You see this negative energy means that you can control spacetime. You can make it shrink or expand, get more dense or less dense. And there is a theory (Alcubierre drive) which states that if you had a spaceship, that could generate negative energy in such a way, that behind the ship the spacetime is more dense and infront of the ship it is less dense than normal then the spacetime would push the ship to propel forward at a speed you want, you can even go faster than light without breaking any laws of physics, because it’s not you that is moving, it’s spacetime.

So Pain manipulates spacetime the same way the Alcubierre drive does but only in a destructive matter. At the center of the village he would make the spacetime a lot more dense than usual and a small distance in a radius from the center he would make the spacetime less dense and in that way the spacetime would destroy the village.

But don’t be so scared or excited because the negative energy theory is just a theory, there is no known way to produce it and is given a name of exotic matter so it really doesn’t interest physicists. So the Pain’s ultimate Shinra Tensei can happen, but only in theory. Until next time, TimeEmperor signing out!

The God paradox

Posted on by TheWanderer

Hello everyone. this is TimeEmperor. I want to give you a challenge or a paradox. If God is truly almighty then he can be anywhere and he can shape-shift. So how can you tell he is not somewhere near you?

Okay, so now I want you to think about it proving or disproving this paradox, meaning what are your thoughts on it or do even think it’s a paradox or not, so for whoever is reading, I will wait for your response. And until next time, TimeEmperor signing out!

Is feminism good?

Posted on by TheWanderer

Hello again and welcome to my blog. Today’s topic is as hard as the last topic  I covered, so without waiting let’s get started. Is feminism any good or is it rotten to the core? Before we dive in to water, we must check the temperature. So what is feminism?

As you may already know, feminism is a civil rights movement, fighting for women equality, so that women could be equal to men in all aspects. And when it started in the late nineteenth century it was really important, because women had no right to vote, it was the first wave. The second wave dealt with more issues involving marital rape, where the husband would be dropped of all charges if he raped his wife, or male dominance in the family. For instance in France women were unable to work without the husband’s permission. It sounds horrifying compared to the lives women live right now, but those issues are only half a century old. It’s funny how people are quick to forget bad things. And then there is the third wave. Now this wave is difficult to describe, you could simply call it a mess. Why?  Well, there are still issues concerning female inequality, but those issues are minuscule, of course, not all of them, there still is female discrimination, but in a weaker form, like a husband discriminates his wife for being a woman, but these instances are really rare. But why the third wave is a mess is because while fighting those issues I just mentioned women are discriminating men. Don’t believe me? Well you are in for a ride then.

Imagine a situation. Peter and his new girlfriend Janice are going to dinner. During the dinner they have lots of fun, but when Peter and Janice are walking home and she mentions that she is a feminist, Peter asks why isn’t feminism called equalism instead if the movement is fighting for equal rights among females and males. And this was Peter’s mistake. Janice flips out, starts calling him a misogynist  with his male privilege and that he only thinks about sex. Peter seeing how Janice is reacting to his question, decides to leave her. The next day the police shows up at his apartment to arrest him, because he is accused of  rape. Peter spends two weeks in jail and gets raped there multiple times. When he goes to court he says that he didn’t rape Janice and she admits it. The charges Peter was facing are dropped and Janice walks away without any charges. When Peter returns, his boss tells him that Peter is fired because of false rape charges, and Peter struggles to find another job because he was accused of rape. Do you see what’s is wrong with this story? Firstly, Peter was raped and no feminist gives a damn about it, no equal rights for him. Secondly, Janice destroys Peter’s life with false rape charges and she isn’t charged with anything, even though she falsely accused somebody of raping her. And these situations are occurring worldwide and no feminist cares about them. All they care about is dominating men. Okay, not all feminists do that, but those who do are what’s known on the internet as  feminazis.

Feminazis are a part of this world’s evil. Why? Well they don’t want equal rights among females and males, they want to dominate men. They recognize the fact that they have power and they could do anything with it, because a politician or a policeman wants to keep a good public image so they don’t want to be seen as misogynists. Don’t believe me? Well there was an instance where a girl (I want to say England, but if you know what I’m talking about, you can correct in the comments :]) was talking to a guy, and out of nowhere smashed a glass in his face which didn’t injure him severely, but it could have if the shattered glass went even deeper into his face. When the girl faced the trial it was revealed that she had done similar things in the past to guys. But to everyone’s surprise she got a reduced sentence. Now imagine a guy did that to a girl, he would’ve gotten the worst sentence possible. So why did she get a reduced sentence? Because the judge wanted to keep a public image of him not being a misogynist, because giving her a normal sentence would receive feminazi hate. Not convinced? Well that’s a shame. But I’ll try to give the truth one more time. Do you remember that one video where the girl was walking in provocative clothes in the middle of the city for ten hours to show people the “male misogynist”? Well the video got a lot of attention, because people truly thought that there were “male misogynists”. But are there? Well let’s look in to some variables. The first variable is the videos length. It is said the she was walking for 10 hours and the videos length is only three minutes. So she was cat called only 0.5% of all her walk time. That is so low that you couldn’t even misogyny. The second variable is her. She was wearing provocative clothes and she, although I love my girlfriend and I don’t find anyone else attractive, biologically speaking she was attractive. So no wonder she got attention. The third variable is biology. Males are high-wired to be attracted to attractive women and due to our society’s set standards for males, males have to approach the females to set up a family. Due to the fact that she was biologically attractive and our society’s set standards for males she was going to get cat called, no, not cat called, she got attention of biologically capable to produce off-springs males. Or do you know the so called wage gap? People are saying that females earn only 0.77$ for every 1$ a man makes. Do you really think this is true? If you say yes, then why do employers employ not just females but also males? I mean, if you employed only women, you would have to pay less to your employees and you could save a lot of money. But employer don’t do that, because there is no wage gap. The wage gap appears to exist when you look at things too narrowly . BBC (if I’m correct) did a study about the so called wage gap and what they found out was that women prefer to work part-time jobs, while men prefer to work full-time jobs, thus earning more than females. Of course, yeah, in some countries this may occur, but only in those countries, which are underdeveloped. Feminazis, use the wage gap or misogynist men arguments to put men under their foot. They don’t fight for equal rights, they fight for female dominance. If true equality existed you wouldn’t hear a phrase like “You can’t hit a girl” (I haven’t said anything about hitting women, because it is already obvious that if you were to hit a woman, she would get you arrested, but if she hit you, people would tell to you to grow some balls. And this thing irritates me, but I’ll speak about it a bit later), instead you would hear a phrase “You can’t hit anyone”.

In our society you have really great double standards – everybody is into stopping female rape, but male rape is “non-existent according to feminazis, a lady can hit you in the face or kick you till you’re bleeding and you would be told to grow some balls, while if you even touched a female with a finger you are going to get arrested; you work full-time while a woman is working part-time and she says that there is a wage gap between you two and says it’s because the male privilege , but if you weer in her situation and she was in yours and you said almost the same thing the society will tell it’s because you’re not working the same hours. There is no male privilege but there is a female privilege.

Feminism was good movement, when it started, but women found a way to take advantage of their situation, and decided to put men under their feed. Give a person power and he will show you his true colours. Now it is just rotten to the core. So to all the feminists, who still believe in equality I urge you to form a movement equalism, and truly fight for equal rights. And until next time, TimeEmperor signing out!