Gravity Part IV: The Afterthought (It's All Relative)

Gravity! What is it good for?!... Absolutely nothin'! -Say it again!

Gravity! -Oh wait... no. That's 'war' I was thinking of. Yeah. No, thinking about it, gravity's actually quite useful.

So I really didn't want to have to explain this any further, what with having explained gravity away on three different levels:

My Theory on Gravity: Part I

Part II: The Sequel

Part III: The End

And thus far you can take all the above as absolutely true, and non of it contradicts it's self. No.... Not at all. Not really. Each one is a deeper understanding of the basic principle. (Although on the face of it, Part one kind of looks like a load of bollocks, but that's not to say it definitely isn't true, and you can't prove otherwise!)

Well this section (that i imaginatively call 'Part Four' )will give the most basic underlying reason why the gravity effect happens. It is the most basic, and beautifully simplistic cause of the 'force' that we call gravity. And it only occurred to me last week:

Gravity is an effect that happens to objects because all objects in space are falling.

This may seem like a circular argument for you may think that you cannot use the effect of gravity to explain the effect of gravity. But when I say 'falling' I mean travelling in space in whatever way/direction it happens to be travelling. All objects do this. It's the law of inertia; An object will never change it's speed or direction unless it is acted upon by another object/force. So all objects are constantly falling through space... constantly.

You still with me?
Ok, so the reason these objects' trajectories are affected by other objects is all about the law of inertia. Without anything affecting it, a planet will always stay constant. ie. it will  not change direction, and (if it is moving) it will not accelerate or decelerate.

Although to say it won't accelerate or decelerate is wrong... as there is no such thing as absolute space or indeed absolute speed: If one planet goes past another there is no way to say which planet is moving or which planet is static. You can't say at what speed anything is ultimately travelling at.

At this moment, you may be sat still. ...but are you really? What if you where sat on a train, you maybe travelling at 100mph.    ...and the old lady walking up the train towards the buffet carriage might be moving faster (at 102mph?).
Even if you're not on a train, the earth is spinning which means you could be moving at about 1000mph. But this is just the speed you move on a daily basis, the earth spins (relative to the sun). What about the earth's orbit of the sun? You're actual travelling at a rough average of 66500mph. Except that's still only relative. You're often actually going faster than that, as the sun is travelling at immense speed around our galaxy. But then that is still only relative to the centre of our galaxy and the positions of the other galaxies. What about the speed at which all galaxies are travelling away from one another? That speed in itself is relative as we have no other point of reference. It is an assumption that galaxies are move at the same speed and this way we can backtrack and figure out the point in the universe where it all began. ...relative to our universe. I believe we're part of an omni-verse full of universes so far away that they're not nearly old enough for the light from their origin to even reach the outer edges of our universe. These other universes will no doubt be travelling at their own speed relative to our own in whatever direction, and again there's no way to determine how fast (if at all) each universe is travelling...

But I digress...
The idea behind my statement 'all objects in space are falling' is that the object don't deviate from their course. In fact relatively speaking, they don't necessarily have a course... or a speed. If you want to believe that you are the centre of the universe (as I do), then that's fine as there is no such thing as absolute space. Only relative space and relative motion exists. This ties in to the law of inertia. Objects keep their same relative position in space, and they keep their same relative speed that they're relatively moving at. ... relatively.

It's like water will always flow in the path of least resistance. Or to use an analogy that is unrelated to gravity: Light will travel in the path of least resistance, ie. the shortest route to it's destination. It's true that light goes in every direction, but if you were to obscure star a from direct view with a planet in the way, the light from the star can still bend around the planet to reach you. But obviously this only works to a certain point. If photons from a source can reach a destination, then they will have got there via the easiest route possible.
So... we're on a planet falling through the universe at an incredible relative speed to the rest of the universe. Luckily this speed is relatively diminished greatly by 1) being drawn to the large mass that is our sun, and thus making us seem relatively slower on a local level... and 2) our solar system is made relatively slower by moving approximately the same speed as lots of other solar systems that surround us in this spiralling whirlpool-like collection of solar-systems that we call the Milky Way.

This is what Gravity is. In actual fact, the universe isn't going at any great speed. There is just the relative differences from one thing to another. Mass affects and attracts other masses to a certain extent. But more so for masses that are travelling at a similar speed and/or in closer proximity. We don't float away when stood on the earth because of the size and proximity of the planet. It is our 'path of least resistance'. Even if we could float up in the air (and imagine if we were the size of an oxygen molecule for this) we wouldn't get beyond the stratosphere because we have a mass and still need to 'fall' in the path of least resistance. Such a path does not include leaving our atmosphere to go out into space that is relatively moving (it's not actually moving) a hell of a lot faster than we are. It'd be like joining a busy motorway via a T junction when everyone's going at 70mph in the slow lane, and you're driving a milk-float.

In short, a planet revolves around a sun because it does: It's either always been there, or has entered the sun's vicinity, and didn't have enough energy to continue it's original trajectory back into relatively-different-speed space. It would have altered it's course accordingly. Like if there was a fly in your car, and you're driving at 70mph. The fly isn't flying at 70mph. Then you open the window and if the fly leaves it doesn't continue at the same speed as the car. (though it probably goes a bit faster than it would normally fly in that direction for a short time).

To sum up...
You can call gravity a force if you want... but what is any force but an affect of some other phenomena? In this case it is caused by the relative difference between the speed you're travelling at, and the relative speed of your nearest local moon/planet/solar-system/galaxy/universe.*

*delete as appropriate.

Hooked to the Silver Screen ... (3D Trifle part 1)

There were always advantages of viewing a film at the cinema: You can see it in wide screen, in complete surround sound and in 3D (if available). Pretty much like in your living room then? Viewing the same film at home on a top-of-the-line home cinema set-up can rival a theatre experience; you can watch a film on blu-ray on an HD screen, in the correct aspect ratio, in 7.1 surround and also in 3D.

With every advance the cinema has taken, the home cinema has soon caught up. Although I will admit that regardless the size of your television, it still doesn't beat actually going to the cinema. A real cinema experience (particularly one utilising actual film projection) has always been preferential to spending a night in front of your TV.

This is why I'm slightly saddened to report that this will no long be the case. ...in the near future.

Yes, this soothsaying genius has predicted the collapse of film industry funding. Ever rising tickets prices and an increasingly better quality of home cinema will cause more and more cinema to close in the future. The film industry won't die though thanks to blu-ray and film download sales, and the video games market. (more on this later).

The clear advantage of a cinema experience over watching a film in your living room was you can see it in 3D. Well now you can do so at home, but there's still the problem that you have to wear 3D glasses to do so. This will always be the case in the cinema, but at home there are a couple of technologies for 3D television that have not yet been mass marketed to the masses. If I were cynical I would suggest that this is because the folks in the industry don't want the 3D home experience to be better than that of the cinema. Lenticular, glasses-free TVs have already been produced, some to greater success than others. I personally am holding off buying a 3DTV for the day when the 3D technology is perfected enough to warrant the extortionate price I'll inevitably have to pay. ...And that day's not far off. The 3DTV industry has to move as one though; we can't have a variety of different technologies out there... (technically we can, but why waste all that extra bandwidth and conversion technology).

There is one obvious aspect of looking at an object in real life that differs from that of a 3D object on a screen, and that is focal point. I talking about creating movies more interactive (and this is where the crossover into video games territory comes in).

In real life you look round a room and your eyes focus on something. Look at something in the foreground and then something in the background. You can bring both into focus, but you can't focus on both at once. Ever since Orson Welles popularised the effect of deep focus in Citizen Kane, films have looked amazing artistically, but less realistic compared to how we see things in real life. Wouldn't it be marvellous to view a 3D film in which your focal length changes depending on which depth you're looking at? Well I've designed just such a device to do that. It won't change the way we view films in general, but it will make the 3d home cinema experience a lot more immersive and therefore more realistic. The same technology could however completely revolutionise the games industry.

Orson Welles, showing off in sharp focus in the background. (Citizen Kane, 1941)

More details on this genius invention at a later date. For now I need to look into whether anyone else has had the same idea. Surely some other genius will have thought up the same thing independently. But that's only an assumption; therefore I wouldn't want to reveal any details too soon.

Sunflower Redux

Before

I've now tweaked the only painting I did that I wasn't completely happy with. I've changed the colour, design and texture of the pollen/seeds as well as the colour of the petals.


After

I haven't actually touched the blue/green background which just goes to show what a rubbish camera my phone has.

The newer picture was taken in better light though and more skilfully corrected to colour-match the actual painting.

Is it an improvement? ... Well there's no Ctrl Z when you're painting, so it's staying like that.

THIS IS THE NEWWWWWWS!!!

I've done a new painting. Based on a still from the Edgar Wright film Hot Fuzz.
You can find Honk Honk amongst the rest of the shit in the Arts Hole.
It's for sale by the way. If you'd like this one-off 12x12" painting, make me an offer.




COMING SOON...
...To a genius blog near you.  ...(This one.)

NEW INVENTION
My latest idea that will revolutionise home cinema and gaming.

GRAVITY PART IV
I unlock more of the mystery surrounding this non-force force, whilst contradicting much of what I've said in Gravity Part I.

and...
SUNFLOWER: REDUX
I'll be re-finishing my second painting and uploading the results. You can tell me which version you prefer.   ...Although not that it really matters (there is no 'undo' button when you're painting.)

ALSO
Also, I'll be solving London Soho's traffic congestion problems in possibly the most genius (and expensive) way possible.... and revealing an alternative (and probably unprovable) theory as to the origin of mass in the universe.


Y'all have a good Coca-Cola sponsored secular winter festival. I'll be back in the new year.

Jon.

Lasered Eyes

So last week I had my eyes lasered.

It's something I've been thinking about for some time. I won't bore you with details, suffice to say that my vision was pretty much my only sense that I wasn't happy with. (I actually have an incredible sense of smell and taste... I'm what people describe as a supertaster.)

Anyhoo, after shopping around I settled on a laser clinic that seemed professional enough and surgeon that I was happy with (as well as a price I was happy with).

Getting your eyes cut by a laser can be quite scary. The actual procedure is painless, but the build up can be a little nerve wrecking. I don't mind telling you, I was bricking it in the waiting room.

It occurred to me whilst staring at the lights in surgery with the eye clamp on, that it would be a good idea to know what you're in for before you actually get it done. It would be good to see the laser experience on video.... but to my knowledge, no-one has made such a video.

I'm not talking about some CGI version of what happens to your eye during surgery. Nor do I think it's a good idea to see footage of an actual eye operation before you get yours done. (Warning: If you plan to ever get you eyes lasered, DO NOT watch the linked video! It'll freak you right out. - not least cos it looks like they used blade technology to remove the flap).

What I'm talking about a POV video. If someone made a video documenting the eye surgery process from the perspective of the patient then no -one would have any worries. The audio on the video can be from an actual operation, and the footage created using the actual LASIK laser looking down on the camera with a perspex/polythene "eye" mounted above it. Everything else (eye clamp, laser movement, surgeon applying drops and removing/replacing the flap) should be repeated for this fake camera eye exactly as it is done in an actual operation. There's an array of white, red and a single green light/LED that you stare at. Once your drops are in, you view goes a bit blurry. Then when you flap is peeled back, everything is even more diffused. It looks kind of trippy... like an unused scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Watching such a video, looking at the pretty colours whilst listening to a calming surgeons voice will be reassuring. It's a genius idea and would definitely make laser eye surgery more appealing for nervous people. It'll be certainly better than viewing the video I link to above. ... Go on, watch it. I dare you. I double dare you.

After Surgery

Initially I lost an outer layer of cells from my right eye. Whereas my left was near perfect straight away.

Ten days later and my left eye now has 20/12 vision (that's nearly twice as good as 20/20). My right is still fairly blurry, but I'm told it'll be great within a few weeks. It'll be awesome! In the meantime, I'm like a really shit super hero with half a superpower. 

Other such ridiculous semi-superpowers include my aforementioned ability to taste subtle flavours better than most people, the ability to go translucent, and the ability to fly (but limited to a walking-pace and only few inches off the ground). I've yet to acquire the last two half-arsed special powers, but should I do so, I will devout my life to fighting crime... some of the time. Well... occasionally. You know, if it happens to be going on near me. ...I won't go out of my way or anything. In fact if someone was robbing a shop I happen to be in I might make an effort to put a stop to it. ...maybe. ....I mean I might not. But maybe I'll at least hinder their escape. Probably. If I thought it was safe to do so. Otherwise I'd get out of their way. I mean, I wouldn't help them escape or anything.... unless they forced me. And I certainly won't be committing any actual crimes myself. ...Not often anyway. (unofficial video/music downloads and copyright infringement don't really count, yeah?) 

...And from then on I will be known as...FAIRLY-GOOD-BLOKE!

 

Incidentally, if anyone out there also has any actual useless semi-crap superpower, you're welcome to join my team of lazy-bastard superheroes The Non-Credibles.

Additions, Updates & Anymore?

What's new? I added a couple new poems (Same Old, Same Old and Trapped in Taupo) to this site. I wrote these in moments of boredom on my first excursion to the beautiful country of New Zealand in 2005 and 2006.

I've also included a new painting on the Art page.

I picked up this latest acquisition on one of my recent time-travel excursions to 1950s Soviet Union, and is evidence that supports my firmly held belief that propaganda for household cleaning products was key to eventually bringing about the end of communism in this part of the world.* More paintings coming soon.

*This may not be true.


So, I've not been here for a while.
Why? Well I've been busy doing other things. When you're a genius (like I am), you hardly see the point of blogging you latest ideas for the good of mankind. I mean, who really listens anyway?

I have to conclude that the people who have the power to practically get things done in this world simply don't want to hear from a modestly self-confessed genius like myself. Or more likely they do want to hear my ideas but don't want to credit me for them. I guess I don't mind is this is the case. I really don't care that I can save man king and don't get any thanks. Just the knowledge that I can is reward enough for me. I'm kind of like Jesus that way; Doing good for mankind without wanting anything in return. Just so long as things get done.

A good example of this is when I solved the problem of the appalling air pollution in London. Having written this entry, I then contacted the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. I laid out my genius scheme to him succinctly and also left a link to my blog post. His website assures me that all messages to the Mayor get read by him or one of his assistance, and that I should receive a reply within 21 days. After 21 days I hadn't heard back from the Mayor. But he must have read it. In fact 5 months have been and gone between then and now, and I still haven't heard word back. The only logical conclusions to draw from this are that either a) The Mayor of London is an idiot who wouldn't recognise a good idea if it fell on him... or b) Boris saw my genius idea for what it is: A genius idea. Already he's put plans in place to make this tube cleaning idea a reality, but he's not returned my email as he doesn't want to acknowledge that it was my idea. He intends to take all the credit himself. This seems to be the most likely scenario. Boris is indeed smarter than he lets on, and only acts like a clumsy buffoon in public to mask his true persona as an evil genius. He and I are not so dissimilar after all.

Another example of ignorance in the face of genius came when I started this blog. I revolutionised the way to look at the universe with my trilogy of posts on gravity, focusing on space-time (part 1), matter (part 2) and the infinite omniverse (part 3). I contacted Professor Brian Cox about the first two of these, but didn't bother him about the third one. All I want to do is help accelerate Man's scientific knowledge, but if people aren't prepared to listen then I won't go out of my way to help too much. Having said that, I imagine Brian or one of his colleagues at CERN are currently writing lengthy papers on the very ideas and subjects that I have skimmed over in this blog. Again I don't mind. Just so long as the knowledge gets out there, I'm happy to help.


So what's next?
Well, the problem I have is that I have no problem.
Having solved the above, I've found time in my busy schedule to lay down the foundations that will inevitably lead to time travel. I've explored the consequences of such time travel, and predicted the future of robotics (along with the end of the human race). I've redesigned earth-to-orbit space travel and designed an exciting new purpose for the moon. I've revolutionised the criminal justice system and the future of space exploration in a single move. I've solved all of Mankind's energy problems, designed a hoverboard, written a box-office hit of a movie, and proposed a simple plan that will inevitably bring about world peace.

Now what?
Well, like I said, I'm all out of problems. Contentment's the enemy of invention. I'd need something to put my genius mind to. If you have a problem...if no one else can help...and if you can message me or leave a comment below, ... then maybe I'll get around to solving it in due course. Preferably something that might help mankind, or a universal mystery you'd like solving. Just don't ask me to take the lid of any pickle jars - I'm no good at that sort of thing.

Trolls!

 

Aaaagh! Trolls!?

Yeah, that's right kids. Trolls. Big beastly human-esque creatures, famous for hiding under bridges, eating children and billy-goats. They turn to stone in daylight, help orcs attack hobbits, are generally known for living on the end of pencils in the 1980's and have florescent pink hair.

Well now they're back.... in cinemas this week with the Norwegian release Troll Hunter.

"Whoa there Jon!" I hear you cry, "Are you now utilising your genius blog for film reviews?!"

Well no. I've not even seen the film yet. (Although I intend to catch it this week, I hear it's quite good). 

My trolls will be a cross between this
hideous ornament (but with a smaller nose)
and the more traditional troll image below.

I only bring it up as it reminds me of a film idea I had in 2006. It had a similar title ('Trolls') and was intended to be a supernatural suspense horror. After reading a Troll Hunter review I'm fairly convinced that my film is not at all similar. But it got me thinking that Hollywood will want to remake it. And then other troll ideas will come out of the woodwork. I'm sure other people have scripts involving trolls, but my point is that when I thought up my film 5 years ago, the troll phenomenon was a sub-genre that had yet to be tapped. (and no, I'm not counting the ridiculously terrible 80's flick Troll or it's hilarious, even worse, so-bad-it's-good, non-troll-related sequel Troll 2).

So I include here a brief synopsis of what my film is about, just so that when a similar movie does turn up on the big screen
(- and I'm sure it will, it's not just me out there with genius ideas you know), then you can believe me when I tell you I'd thought that idea up already.


A family (dad and two kids; Scott and Amy ages 6 and 9) move to a new neighbourhood. A country village. The mum died a year ago... of... well, of something. ...Let's just say she was tree surgeon, who one day had a fatal accident with a chainsaw. So a year later the family move (for his job) to a remote town... (always a remote town). I've not decided where yet. Initially I was thinking somewhere in deepest darkest Shropshire, Britain, or possibly somewhere in the US or Canada... but given our subject matter, it should really be set somewhere in Scandinavia. For the trolls in this tale will be the traditional folklore ones. They're 8 to 12 ft tall and as scary as shit.



The pre-titles sequence has a lone troll wandering a riverbank at night. There is a lone fisherman doing a bit of night fishing (like you do). There's a troll POV shot, some swearing, screaming and some unpleasantness involving arms being torn from their sockets.Then titles.

Like most title credit sequences, we need to set the scene by having a sequence of helicopter shots of the family driving to their new town on a lovely sunny day.*

Near the start of the film, the dad (or perhaps the child-minder) is reading the youngest a bedtime story of The Three Billy Goats Gruff. (There is also reference to the cheeky colourful haired trolls in the child's bedroom.)

*Although it might be a nice idea to have it overcast/raining at the start of the film for a change. And only have sun where the plot requires it (kids playing in the woods).

So the first troll encounter comes the next afternoon. The kids are playing in a small wood next to the house. They find what they assume are statues or gargoyles half buried with mud and leaves (it's autumn). They also meet another local kid (Ross) in the wood. Ross swears he'd been playing in the wood throughout the summer but never saw these statues before. Perhaps someone dumped them there recently? They agree to meet up the following day at the statues.

Next day they meet up the by the statues. They're in more or less the same place, but it looks like someone had moved the positions a little. Then the discover the shapes/poses were somewhat different. 

It's getting late and starting to get dark, so they agree to meet tomorrow after school and the siblings head back to the house for their dinner. Ross hangs around playing with near the 'statues' with a stick ...or something (you know what kids are like). Ross is sat on the ground digging in the dirt with his back to us. We see the stone troll in the foreground right (and out of focus) begin to move. The child is oblivious...

Cut to next day. Monday morning. The kids join their new classes. There's a spare seat in Amy's class.... where Ross usually sits. He's reportedly missing.

That afternoon the police are round the school to ask the kids and their dad (who conveniently works there) questions about when they last saw Ross. Later Amy shows her dad and the police where they were playing... but the statues had disappeared. She says she thinks it was here. Then finds 'Ross Rules' written in the mud.   ... Then evidence of blood. The police declare it a crime scene. and the dad says he doesn't want his kids to play outside any more. So ends the first act of the film.

So you can see where this is going.  It's kind of obvious. The film practically writes itself. Perhaps it's not such a genius idea after all, but I'm surprised no one has done it already.

The second act has more killings (children and adults) but usually individuals on their own. There's an incident with a dog walker and their dog (ref: Jonesy the Cat's finest moment in Alien). It'll also feature some survivor sightings where people have got away. Initially they will be children telling adults of what they've seen (and adults inevitably not quite believing them), but eventually the dad and the cool local cop team up and it becomes a buddy movie.

Final act. It being the countryside, lots of people have shotguns and a group get together to hunt down this troll and kill it. They set a trap. But the troll doesn't fall for it. A couple of deaths later and they've got it. Dead.

Then what might otherwise be a nice epilogue has another troll sighting the next evening. The kids remember seeing at least 6 stone trolls in the wood. but as they don't know their current hide-out, the cop and dad and other troll fodder find one and keeping their distance follow it back to it's new den. It's still nighttime. All the trolls are there and then the humans are surrounded. There is violence. death. blood. gore, and things of that nature... generally. Whether one or two (or any) of our heroes survive the battle, the trolls turn to stone by sun up. And the authorities arrive to either a) get a pneumatic drill on their collective asses, b) blow them up with explosives or c) load one of them into a giant metal crate for future study. 

Unless option c above happens then I'll also have evidence to the viewer that they've missed one... a little further away from the others: One troll's stone hand is barely visible having buried himself in the ground. Roll credits. Commission sequel.

I've told a couple of people of this idea since, but one in particular who I worked with was an amateur film maker (when I knew him in 2008) who one day out of the blue just said to me 'Jon, have you any ideas for a good horror film?'... So I told him. He started taking notes. Then I said 'You're gonna steal my idea aren't you?'. He didn't answer he just smiled. I then said that I probably wasn't going to make the film myself  and asked that if he did, to give me a creative credit on the film.... No promises were made. I wish I could remember his name.

So if you're a film director/producer & you'd like a stab at this cinematic gem of genius, then be my guest. But please let me know or at least credit me for the concept. Ok, so the basic story structure is ripped off of M Night Shyamalan's Signs, except with trolls instead of aliens, but that's hardly original. In case you were wondering, also borrowed are ideas from Arachnophobia, Invaders From Mars, and any number of Stephen King films.

Scary as fuck.