29 September 2013
Beep Beep
I almost find it ridiculous that in this day and age, a new car still only has one beep sound for it's horn. A sound that is supposed to convey numerous messages to fellow road users, from 'Cheers mate!' and 'look out, I'm approaching the corner' to 'Get the fuck out of my way! This is my road!' ...and everything in between. The only current difference between all of the above, is the length of the beeeep.
Cars should have more than one horn sound.
I'm not suggesting that you have a great myriad of polyphonic sounds, just three or four alternative beep sounds, which better articulate the sentiment you're going for.
For example, for a simple 'Thank you' noise, you're going to want a lighter meep-meep sound - not too dissimilar to the horn on Postman Pat's van. You know the one. Everybody knows his bright red van. So Pat's got that one sorted already, but what if he's in a pile up? What if Ted's truck's broken down, and Pat's got an urgent delivery for the vicar? He's gonna want the extra aggressive grunt in his beep. If only to help him let of a little steam. Unfortunately he's only got that little 'meep' horn; It doesn't really do the trick when what he really wants to say is 'Yo momma!' to Ted Glenn.
This could have also been a contributing factor for Post Office workers who have been known to 'go postal'. Despite the inadequacies of Pat's van, it has been recorded for the record that he feels he's a really happy man. Mind you, that was before news of the Royal Mail's impending privatisation.
The multi-horned car is an idea I came up with many years ago. In the interim I've heard one or two other people mention the same idea to me independently. I definitely thought if it first though. Oh, what's that? You came up with the idea too? ...When was that?... Oh really? Well I thought of it about five years before then.
13 September 2013
The Size of the Universe
Whilst we're taking about what scientists don't know, dark energy isn't the only bollocks phrase they've invented to explain things they don't know. The other one is dark matter (not to be idiotically confused with anti-matter). This was invented to explain away the reason why they can't account for the massive lack of mass in the universe.
Again the answer is obvious. All the mass in the viewable universe only accounts for about 4% of all the mass there should be. The remaining 96% lies in the areas of space we can't see, because they exist more than 13.7 billion lightyears away. Cosmologists think this is wrong because they've misjudged the current size of the universe, by assuming that they know it's current speed. Mystery solved.
It just goes to show, if you make an ill-informed, half thought out assumption in one instance, it'll have a logical knock on effect for all the rest of your reasoning. Obviously all of my scientific arguments are flawless and impeccable, so there's absolutely no reason to even doubt their credibility. All have been scientifically peer reviewed by the equally genius and sound mind of my assistant Ziggy, the invisible time-travelling hamster.
Again the answer is obvious. All the mass in the viewable universe only accounts for about 4% of all the mass there should be. The remaining 96% lies in the areas of space we can't see, because they exist more than 13.7 billion lightyears away. Cosmologists think this is wrong because they've misjudged the current size of the universe, by assuming that they know it's current speed. Mystery solved.
It just goes to show, if you make an ill-informed, half thought out assumption in one instance, it'll have a logical knock on effect for all the rest of your reasoning. Obviously all of my scientific arguments are flawless and impeccable, so there's absolutely no reason to even doubt their credibility. All have been scientifically peer reviewed by the equally genius and sound mind of my assistant Ziggy, the invisible time-travelling hamster.
11 September 2013
The State of the Universe (aka Gravity Part V)
There's a fairly large question about the universe that cosmologists have been unable to definitively answer, and that's 'Why does the universe look like it does?'. An amazingly simple question, I think you'll agree, and it doesn't take a genius to come up with an amazingly simple answer to this question... or perhaps it does.
In the likely event that you're in the dark as to what the universe looks like, let me enlighten you. This universe (for it is probable that there are many) is comprised of a few hundred billion galaxies. These galaxies are not scattered completely randomly, but are instead spread out in a three dimensional stringy web-like pattern. A good analogy that has been made for this is a load of washing-up bubbles, where the washing-up liquid that makes up the bubbles themselves represent the galaxies, and the air within the bubbles represents the vast gaps of nothing in the universe.
Theoretical physicists have the problem that they don't know how the universe got into this state. Well, it seems pretty obvious to me. I mean, I'm no astrophysicist, but it's hardly rocket science: The galaxies remain in a stretched out web pattern because matter naturally distorts space-time, which has an instantaneous effect on the propagation of any and all matter relative to both the distance and the combined mass of any and all of the masses within the system. The net effect of all of this intergalactic mass is a sort of mass intergalactic net effect, and the appearance of the universe as it has been observed fits in exactly as predicted by the above model.
You probably realised that this is a description of gravity, but I really wanted to explain what is happening without confusing matters... and people seem to get confused whenever someone mentions the G-word. They think it's a force or something! ...the idiots.
So what's the prob?
The cosmic boffins still have the issue of explaining why the universe is still expanding, when gravity should've started making it contract by now. They've attributed this to Dark Energy [cue mystical/scary music].
Dark energy is just a phrase they've invented, because they can't think of they're own explanation that doesn't involve magic, witchcraft, god or anything else made up.
It all seems quite self-evident to this genius: The universe is still expanding because the explosion that created this universe was bloody massive. You can't even begin to imagine how big it was. Sure, the effect of gravity has slowed the expansion substantially since the universe began, but that's small beans compared to how fast it was originally going at 13.7 billion years ago. Back then it was all relatively pretty close to the cosmic speed limit. So of course gravity hasn't put the breaks on fully. If/when that eventually happens, our universe will start to contract slowly. But then as time goes on, the speed of contraction will continue to accelerate... to the point that it will eventually reach a point (by which I mean a singularity) just at the point when the relative speed reaches the cosmic speed limit of the universe.
In the likely event that you're in the dark as to what the universe looks like, let me enlighten you. This universe (for it is probable that there are many) is comprised of a few hundred billion galaxies. These galaxies are not scattered completely randomly, but are instead spread out in a three dimensional stringy web-like pattern. A good analogy that has been made for this is a load of washing-up bubbles, where the washing-up liquid that makes up the bubbles themselves represent the galaxies, and the air within the bubbles represents the vast gaps of nothing in the universe.
Theoretical physicists have the problem that they don't know how the universe got into this state. Well, it seems pretty obvious to me. I mean, I'm no astrophysicist, but it's hardly rocket science: The galaxies remain in a stretched out web pattern because matter naturally distorts space-time, which has an instantaneous effect on the propagation of any and all matter relative to both the distance and the combined mass of any and all of the masses within the system. The net effect of all of this intergalactic mass is a sort of mass intergalactic net effect, and the appearance of the universe as it has been observed fits in exactly as predicted by the above model.
You probably realised that this is a description of gravity, but I really wanted to explain what is happening without confusing matters... and people seem to get confused whenever someone mentions the G-word. They think it's a force or something! ...the idiots.
So what's the prob?
The cosmic boffins still have the issue of explaining why the universe is still expanding, when gravity should've started making it contract by now. They've attributed this to Dark Energy [cue mystical/scary music].
Dark energy is just a phrase they've invented, because they can't think of they're own explanation that doesn't involve magic, witchcraft, god or anything else made up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)