Low-Carb Diet Booklet - Free Download
This Is Absolutely Not A Vegetarian Diet
I wrote a low-carb diet booklet a while ago, and I decided to share it for free. Follow the links.
Open link => File => Download
English: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_PRRjZ_YuI2MV9kT2cwMkpsc28/edit?usp=sharing
French: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_PRRjZ_YuI2WDVHdjR1X3RHcWM/edit?usp=sharing
PERMISSIONS for documents above
UNRESTRICTED with exception below
Commercial use: You must ask my express permission directly by email.
So basically, you can do whatever you want with the document. Modify, copy, distribute, print, publish, translate, etc, unless you intend to profit from it, then you must ask my express permission to do so.
Martin Levac
01:25 2013-04-09 Copyright 2013 Martin Levac
Monday, April 8, 2013
Friday, February 8, 2013
Observation = Thermodynamics
Observation = Thermodynamics
While it may be obvious that the observation that when we put our hand in the fire, we get burned, it's not so obvious that the visual (or other sensory) observation of this event is also based on the principle of thermodynamics. Heat is transferred to our hand, photons are transferred to our eyes. The act of observation is inherently an act of transferring energy from one object to another.
This gives us two principles: Observation is the act of detecting the manifestation(s) of a thing, not the act of detecting the thing itself; and, the manifestation of a thing is not the thing itself. As an example, when a boat travels over water, it produces waves, which we can detect. Without directly observing the boat, we can still determine its existence based on those waves. But, the boat that produces the waves, and those waves, are not the same thing. One is a thing, the other is a manifestation of this thing.
We can also detect the manifestation of a manifestation. With the boat example, we can detect the waves directly, or use a wall on which waves end up, then measure the splash on this wall, and from this we can determine the existence of waves, without direct observation of the waves themselves. This gives us another principle: A manifestation can be of a thing, or of another manifestation.
The double-slit experiment, and the duality principle.
At this point, it becomes clear that we probably made a simple mistake with regards to the properties of a photon. We detect the particle property of a photon directly, but we don't detect its wave property directly. We merely infer its existence. Just as we infer the existence of the boat by detecting the waves it produces, just as we infer the existence of those waves by looking at the wall where they hit. Basically, we have no direct evidence of the duality principle. Yet here we are accepting it as fact. Think of it as accepting that a boat exists both as a solid object, and as waves over water.
And here's where it gets a little fuzzy. A photon obviously manifests itself as a wave when it travels, and as a particle when the photon hits something. Our boat also manifests itself the same way. As a wave when we're looking at the water in which it travels, and as a solid object when the boat hits a reef. But unlike the photon, we can observe the waves it produces directly. To observe a photon directly, we can only do so after it hits our detector, not as it travels.
Let's imagine that the wall where the waves hit is so sensitive that the waves that hit it gives us an exact blueprint of the boat that produced those waves. This gives us more principles: A thing is defined by its manifestations; The manifestation of a thing can be an exact replica of the thing's properties; and, this depends on the sensitivity of the detector. Think of the difficulties in detecting planets around distant stars. Our detector for those planets is the star itself. But since the star's wobble is so tiny, we could say it's not a very sensitive planet detector. Conversely, when detecting a black hole, those same stars now become a very sensitive black hole detector, orbiting the black hole at very high velocities, and producing a very obvious wobble.
It gets even more fuzzy. Since some energy is lost in transfer or conversion, a photon must lose some energy when it produces a wave, or when it's converted into a wave. Then the photon must recover most or all of its energy when it hits the detector. This brings up an interesting question. Does the detected photon contain the same amount of energy as when it was shot from the gun? If yes, then either a photon breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the photon must borrow some energy out of nothing.
This brings up a host of questions. But no matter how we look at it, we can say with absolute certainty that a photon travels inside or through something, not inside or through nothing. So what is this medium through which the photon travels? I'm going to call it quantum flux. But you can call it the luminiferous aether if you want. Doesn't matter, the point is there's something there, but we just can't detect it directly. Yet.
And this brings me back to Observation = Thermodynamics, and observation depends on the sensitivity of our detector. With a detector sensitive enough, we should detect the wave property of a photon directly. I mean, it's obviously there. Failing that, we could simply disable this property somehow, and infer its existence through the absence of its manifestation which is otherwise expected in a double-slit experiment. Obviously, the easiest way to disable the wave property of a photon is to just block the double-slits, and no photon could pass through. But this defeats the double-slit experiment. So we must find a way to disable this property, yet still be able to use the double-slit experiment to see if it is in fact disabled. If it is disabled, then the pattern on the detector will change, or the detector will simply not detect any photon. Another way of detecting-through-absence is with a prism, whereby if we disable a specific wavelength, the pattern will change.
It gets interesting. The photon carries the electromagnetic force. And the photon is also sensitive to gravity. So, we have two potential ways to disable the wave property of the photon. More than that, we also know that the medium through which the photon travels must also be sensitive to those forces. We know this because when the photon is converted to a wave (or produces a wave through this medium), it must carry with it the electromagnetic force through this medium, and retain its sensitivity to gravity as it travels through this medium. Here's an interesting possibility. It's the medium - not the photon - which is sensitive to gravity, being warped this way and that, thereby directing the photon-wave this way and that. The potential for this is that if we succeed in disabling the wave property of a photon, then we may have in fact succeeded in disabling gravity itself.
Anyway, that's for detecting-through-absence. For detecting-through-direct-observation, it's a whole 'nother ball game. Our detector must be sensitive enough. Since observation is a transfer of energy from one thing to another, then direct observation of the wave produced by the photon requires a very sensitive detector indeed. But I believe we already have such a detector: The Bose-Einstein condensate experiment. Don't see it yet? It's real simple. To make a Bose-Einstein condensate, we just have to cool down a gas to very low temperature. In doing so, we reach a point where if there is more energy in the medium within which this condensate exists than the condensate itself, the condensate receives the energy contained in this medium, and behaves accordingly. Thus, we have our wave-property detector, whereby if we're successful in disabling this property, then the condensate will behave differently: The condensate should be inert, or at least less active. Or, if we disabled gravity itself, act in strange and unexpected ways.
To summarize.
- Observation is the act of transferring energy from one object to another
- Observation is the act of detecting the manifestation of a thing
- Observation depends on the sensitivity of the detector
- A manifestation is not the thing itself
- A manifestation can be of a thing, or of another manifestation
- A thing is defined by its manifestations
- The manifestation of a thing can be an exact replica of this thing's properties
- Based on the above, I conclude that the duality principle is merely a misunderstanding of the above
While some of it may sound like philosophy, the above is in fact a pragmatic description of observation, which allows a pragmatic interpretation of how things work, which allows a practical application of this interpretation. To wit, the duality principle, derived from the double-slit experiment. With the above, there's an obvious problem with this principle. If the photon does exist in both particle and wave form simultaneously, then the double-slit would show this, as some photons would certainly hit the obstruction part of the double-slit because of the particle property, and in doing so lose their wave property, since the principle says both properties exist simultaneously. Instead, the double-slit experiment tells us those photons that should have hit the obstruction, did not hit it, and passed through the slits anyway, finally ending up on the detector on the other side of the slits, behind the obstruction. Furthermore, a slit narrow enough prevents a photon from passing through, further showing that the wave property of a photon exists independently of its particle property.
But you say, that's not what the duality principle says. Yes, that's what it says, but not in so many words. It says that matter _exhibits_ both particle and wave properties, but only one of those properties can be _observed_ at any one time. And here's the problem. The wave property of a photon has never been observed directly as far as I'm aware. It has only ever been inferred from direct observation of the particle property. But you say, no that's not true, experiments have observed the wave property of a photon directly. And I ask, what exactly have all your detectors really detected? That's right, the particle property only, when the photon hit the detector. This is a critical aspect of observation. With our boat, it would be as if we could only directly observe the boat, or the pattern on the wall where the waves hit, but not the waves themselves. And until the wave property of matter is observed directly, the duality principle is up in the air. If it was up to me, I'd rewrite it to say instead "Matter exhibits both particle and wave property, but not both properties simultaneously, and that's why we can only observe one of those properties at any one time."
Think about it for a moment. If you could detect both particle and wave properties of a particle simultaneously, then wouldn't this mean the particle really contained twice the energy detected from either property?
Martin Levac
16:28 2013-02-08 Copyright 2013 Martin Levac
While it may be obvious that the observation that when we put our hand in the fire, we get burned, it's not so obvious that the visual (or other sensory) observation of this event is also based on the principle of thermodynamics. Heat is transferred to our hand, photons are transferred to our eyes. The act of observation is inherently an act of transferring energy from one object to another.
This gives us two principles: Observation is the act of detecting the manifestation(s) of a thing, not the act of detecting the thing itself; and, the manifestation of a thing is not the thing itself. As an example, when a boat travels over water, it produces waves, which we can detect. Without directly observing the boat, we can still determine its existence based on those waves. But, the boat that produces the waves, and those waves, are not the same thing. One is a thing, the other is a manifestation of this thing.
We can also detect the manifestation of a manifestation. With the boat example, we can detect the waves directly, or use a wall on which waves end up, then measure the splash on this wall, and from this we can determine the existence of waves, without direct observation of the waves themselves. This gives us another principle: A manifestation can be of a thing, or of another manifestation.
The double-slit experiment, and the duality principle.
At this point, it becomes clear that we probably made a simple mistake with regards to the properties of a photon. We detect the particle property of a photon directly, but we don't detect its wave property directly. We merely infer its existence. Just as we infer the existence of the boat by detecting the waves it produces, just as we infer the existence of those waves by looking at the wall where they hit. Basically, we have no direct evidence of the duality principle. Yet here we are accepting it as fact. Think of it as accepting that a boat exists both as a solid object, and as waves over water.
And here's where it gets a little fuzzy. A photon obviously manifests itself as a wave when it travels, and as a particle when the photon hits something. Our boat also manifests itself the same way. As a wave when we're looking at the water in which it travels, and as a solid object when the boat hits a reef. But unlike the photon, we can observe the waves it produces directly. To observe a photon directly, we can only do so after it hits our detector, not as it travels.
Let's imagine that the wall where the waves hit is so sensitive that the waves that hit it gives us an exact blueprint of the boat that produced those waves. This gives us more principles: A thing is defined by its manifestations; The manifestation of a thing can be an exact replica of the thing's properties; and, this depends on the sensitivity of the detector. Think of the difficulties in detecting planets around distant stars. Our detector for those planets is the star itself. But since the star's wobble is so tiny, we could say it's not a very sensitive planet detector. Conversely, when detecting a black hole, those same stars now become a very sensitive black hole detector, orbiting the black hole at very high velocities, and producing a very obvious wobble.
It gets even more fuzzy. Since some energy is lost in transfer or conversion, a photon must lose some energy when it produces a wave, or when it's converted into a wave. Then the photon must recover most or all of its energy when it hits the detector. This brings up an interesting question. Does the detected photon contain the same amount of energy as when it was shot from the gun? If yes, then either a photon breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the photon must borrow some energy out of nothing.
This brings up a host of questions. But no matter how we look at it, we can say with absolute certainty that a photon travels inside or through something, not inside or through nothing. So what is this medium through which the photon travels? I'm going to call it quantum flux. But you can call it the luminiferous aether if you want. Doesn't matter, the point is there's something there, but we just can't detect it directly. Yet.
And this brings me back to Observation = Thermodynamics, and observation depends on the sensitivity of our detector. With a detector sensitive enough, we should detect the wave property of a photon directly. I mean, it's obviously there. Failing that, we could simply disable this property somehow, and infer its existence through the absence of its manifestation which is otherwise expected in a double-slit experiment. Obviously, the easiest way to disable the wave property of a photon is to just block the double-slits, and no photon could pass through. But this defeats the double-slit experiment. So we must find a way to disable this property, yet still be able to use the double-slit experiment to see if it is in fact disabled. If it is disabled, then the pattern on the detector will change, or the detector will simply not detect any photon. Another way of detecting-through-absence is with a prism, whereby if we disable a specific wavelength, the pattern will change.
It gets interesting. The photon carries the electromagnetic force. And the photon is also sensitive to gravity. So, we have two potential ways to disable the wave property of the photon. More than that, we also know that the medium through which the photon travels must also be sensitive to those forces. We know this because when the photon is converted to a wave (or produces a wave through this medium), it must carry with it the electromagnetic force through this medium, and retain its sensitivity to gravity as it travels through this medium. Here's an interesting possibility. It's the medium - not the photon - which is sensitive to gravity, being warped this way and that, thereby directing the photon-wave this way and that. The potential for this is that if we succeed in disabling the wave property of a photon, then we may have in fact succeeded in disabling gravity itself.
Anyway, that's for detecting-through-absence. For detecting-through-direct-observation, it's a whole 'nother ball game. Our detector must be sensitive enough. Since observation is a transfer of energy from one thing to another, then direct observation of the wave produced by the photon requires a very sensitive detector indeed. But I believe we already have such a detector: The Bose-Einstein condensate experiment. Don't see it yet? It's real simple. To make a Bose-Einstein condensate, we just have to cool down a gas to very low temperature. In doing so, we reach a point where if there is more energy in the medium within which this condensate exists than the condensate itself, the condensate receives the energy contained in this medium, and behaves accordingly. Thus, we have our wave-property detector, whereby if we're successful in disabling this property, then the condensate will behave differently: The condensate should be inert, or at least less active. Or, if we disabled gravity itself, act in strange and unexpected ways.
To summarize.
- Observation is the act of transferring energy from one object to another
- Observation is the act of detecting the manifestation of a thing
- Observation depends on the sensitivity of the detector
- A manifestation is not the thing itself
- A manifestation can be of a thing, or of another manifestation
- A thing is defined by its manifestations
- The manifestation of a thing can be an exact replica of this thing's properties
- Based on the above, I conclude that the duality principle is merely a misunderstanding of the above
While some of it may sound like philosophy, the above is in fact a pragmatic description of observation, which allows a pragmatic interpretation of how things work, which allows a practical application of this interpretation. To wit, the duality principle, derived from the double-slit experiment. With the above, there's an obvious problem with this principle. If the photon does exist in both particle and wave form simultaneously, then the double-slit would show this, as some photons would certainly hit the obstruction part of the double-slit because of the particle property, and in doing so lose their wave property, since the principle says both properties exist simultaneously. Instead, the double-slit experiment tells us those photons that should have hit the obstruction, did not hit it, and passed through the slits anyway, finally ending up on the detector on the other side of the slits, behind the obstruction. Furthermore, a slit narrow enough prevents a photon from passing through, further showing that the wave property of a photon exists independently of its particle property.
But you say, that's not what the duality principle says. Yes, that's what it says, but not in so many words. It says that matter _exhibits_ both particle and wave properties, but only one of those properties can be _observed_ at any one time. And here's the problem. The wave property of a photon has never been observed directly as far as I'm aware. It has only ever been inferred from direct observation of the particle property. But you say, no that's not true, experiments have observed the wave property of a photon directly. And I ask, what exactly have all your detectors really detected? That's right, the particle property only, when the photon hit the detector. This is a critical aspect of observation. With our boat, it would be as if we could only directly observe the boat, or the pattern on the wall where the waves hit, but not the waves themselves. And until the wave property of matter is observed directly, the duality principle is up in the air. If it was up to me, I'd rewrite it to say instead "Matter exhibits both particle and wave property, but not both properties simultaneously, and that's why we can only observe one of those properties at any one time."
Think about it for a moment. If you could detect both particle and wave properties of a particle simultaneously, then wouldn't this mean the particle really contained twice the energy detected from either property?
Martin Levac
16:28 2013-02-08 Copyright 2013 Martin Levac
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Montreal Metro Gestapo
Montreal Metro Gestapo
Today, I had a strange experience. I was coming off the train in the Sherbrooke Metro station, and as I was nearing the exit booth at the top of the stairs, two Metro employees were systematically verifying passengers' passes and tickets. What's so strange about that? The employees were dressed in all black, with just a tiny (about 2 inches wide) blue Montreal Metro emblem on their shirt. And they were big. I mean bouncer big. They weren't the regular guys to whom you pay and present your ticket when you come in. Those were obviously security employees. They were obviously wearing a bullet-proof vest under their shirt. They had the usual security guard tool belt with all the bells and whistles, except a gun. We're talking really dumb grunts untrained in either armed and unarmed combat, so we give them a stick. Cuz you know, any dumb shit can use a stick.
Anyway, you get the picture. The scene tells us there's a very specific intended effect. Intimidation. It works. It works real good too. One passenger, presumably a working stiff who is deemed to have paid his passage so he can go to work this morning, tried to go around those two dudes (I guess he's got better things to do - like earning his pay or something - than waste his time on this shit), and was promptly prevented from doing so as one of the Metro employees moved to intercept the passenger and extended his arm as if intending to stop him physically, if the passenger did not stop on his own. The scene was setup at the top of the stairs when passengers come off the train, so nobody could easily escape the trap. Because that's what it was, a passenger trap. That's how I would do it anyway. That's how cops do it to check for drunk drivers. Bridge entry or exit. I mean, it's efficient.
Oh sure, it's just a few seconds of my time, of that passenger's time. But time is not the real problem. It's when an entire group of people is systematically and physically checked for the purpose of finding the few rotten apples. That's not acceptable behavior from a modern enterprise in this society. It's like suspecting everybody, when the facts don't point to everybody being a suspect. It's like passengers are all guilty until summarily proven innocent, by way of this exit check. And don't doubt that if you didn't have your pass or ticket on hand, you'd get accused and be found guilty by default. That's how the Montreal Metro rules are written. The notices posted everywhere say exactly that too. It's like real cops asking everybody on the street for their papers.
Your papers, please!
Fuck no.
Not in this town.
Not in this country.
Not after we've seen what History does soon after this shit starts.
Look, these two Montreal Metro employees are just like everybody else. Working stiffs trying to earn a living to pay for shit they want. But I bet a million bucks they never dreamed they'd end up doing that kind of shit. Maybe the guy I gave my ticket to wants to be a chef or something. It's a shit job, but somebody's gotta do it, right? No. Nobody's _gotta_ do that shit. This "solution" is for those who can't get their shit together. Think about it for a second. If just one passenger is found without a ticket, this means either the passenger lost his ticket, or the Montreal Metro employee who's job it is to make sure passengers pay before they are allowed entry, didn't do his fucking job. That's two perfectly valid and legal (for the passenger) possible explanations against one illegal explanation. And one of those explanations implicates a Montreal Metro employee. Even the odds don't justify making everybody a suspect. And when I say "illegal", I'm giving it way more respect than it deserves. When a cop asks you for your papers in the street without a reason, that's fucking illegal. Why should it be OK when a Montreal Metro employee does it? Oh sure, the station is the Metro's property so they can do whatever they want. Yeah, like that's how they do it in any other commercial enterprise where services are exchanged for money, and there's a bill to describe the whole transaction.
Imagine, you go shopping, buy shit, then when you're about to exit the store, some big dude all dressed in black asks you for your bill for the shit in your bag. How soon you think you'll go back to that store, huh? Thanks to competition, there's tons of other stores that sell the same shit so you can give your money to whomever you want. But there's only one public transportation enterprise in Montreal. Well, there's taxis. I can walk. Ride my bike. Catch a ride with a friend. Yeah, I think that's what I'll do. I rarely travel by Metro or bus anyway.
Please, Montreal Metro directors, stop dressing your security employees like the fucking gestapo. They don't deserve that kind of image. And don't fucking use security employees to check passengers' tickets. Use regular booth employees instead. It's more civilized. It's more correct. That's what they've been doing in trains for a hundred years. And if you still want to have security employees on the scene just in case, well you can have them stand over in that corner over there, just in case. And instruct them to say "Good day!" to all passengers as they exit the station, just to make things easier on everybody. All I got was "That's good!". Yeah, like I need to hear that from the guy who just fucked me up the ass.
Martin Levac
23:00 2012-12-11 Copyright 2012 Martin Levac
Today, I had a strange experience. I was coming off the train in the Sherbrooke Metro station, and as I was nearing the exit booth at the top of the stairs, two Metro employees were systematically verifying passengers' passes and tickets. What's so strange about that? The employees were dressed in all black, with just a tiny (about 2 inches wide) blue Montreal Metro emblem on their shirt. And they were big. I mean bouncer big. They weren't the regular guys to whom you pay and present your ticket when you come in. Those were obviously security employees. They were obviously wearing a bullet-proof vest under their shirt. They had the usual security guard tool belt with all the bells and whistles, except a gun. We're talking really dumb grunts untrained in either armed and unarmed combat, so we give them a stick. Cuz you know, any dumb shit can use a stick.
Anyway, you get the picture. The scene tells us there's a very specific intended effect. Intimidation. It works. It works real good too. One passenger, presumably a working stiff who is deemed to have paid his passage so he can go to work this morning, tried to go around those two dudes (I guess he's got better things to do - like earning his pay or something - than waste his time on this shit), and was promptly prevented from doing so as one of the Metro employees moved to intercept the passenger and extended his arm as if intending to stop him physically, if the passenger did not stop on his own. The scene was setup at the top of the stairs when passengers come off the train, so nobody could easily escape the trap. Because that's what it was, a passenger trap. That's how I would do it anyway. That's how cops do it to check for drunk drivers. Bridge entry or exit. I mean, it's efficient.
Oh sure, it's just a few seconds of my time, of that passenger's time. But time is not the real problem. It's when an entire group of people is systematically and physically checked for the purpose of finding the few rotten apples. That's not acceptable behavior from a modern enterprise in this society. It's like suspecting everybody, when the facts don't point to everybody being a suspect. It's like passengers are all guilty until summarily proven innocent, by way of this exit check. And don't doubt that if you didn't have your pass or ticket on hand, you'd get accused and be found guilty by default. That's how the Montreal Metro rules are written. The notices posted everywhere say exactly that too. It's like real cops asking everybody on the street for their papers.
Your papers, please!
Fuck no.
Not in this town.
Not in this country.
Not after we've seen what History does soon after this shit starts.
Look, these two Montreal Metro employees are just like everybody else. Working stiffs trying to earn a living to pay for shit they want. But I bet a million bucks they never dreamed they'd end up doing that kind of shit. Maybe the guy I gave my ticket to wants to be a chef or something. It's a shit job, but somebody's gotta do it, right? No. Nobody's _gotta_ do that shit. This "solution" is for those who can't get their shit together. Think about it for a second. If just one passenger is found without a ticket, this means either the passenger lost his ticket, or the Montreal Metro employee who's job it is to make sure passengers pay before they are allowed entry, didn't do his fucking job. That's two perfectly valid and legal (for the passenger) possible explanations against one illegal explanation. And one of those explanations implicates a Montreal Metro employee. Even the odds don't justify making everybody a suspect. And when I say "illegal", I'm giving it way more respect than it deserves. When a cop asks you for your papers in the street without a reason, that's fucking illegal. Why should it be OK when a Montreal Metro employee does it? Oh sure, the station is the Metro's property so they can do whatever they want. Yeah, like that's how they do it in any other commercial enterprise where services are exchanged for money, and there's a bill to describe the whole transaction.
Imagine, you go shopping, buy shit, then when you're about to exit the store, some big dude all dressed in black asks you for your bill for the shit in your bag. How soon you think you'll go back to that store, huh? Thanks to competition, there's tons of other stores that sell the same shit so you can give your money to whomever you want. But there's only one public transportation enterprise in Montreal. Well, there's taxis. I can walk. Ride my bike. Catch a ride with a friend. Yeah, I think that's what I'll do. I rarely travel by Metro or bus anyway.
Please, Montreal Metro directors, stop dressing your security employees like the fucking gestapo. They don't deserve that kind of image. And don't fucking use security employees to check passengers' tickets. Use regular booth employees instead. It's more civilized. It's more correct. That's what they've been doing in trains for a hundred years. And if you still want to have security employees on the scene just in case, well you can have them stand over in that corner over there, just in case. And instruct them to say "Good day!" to all passengers as they exit the station, just to make things easier on everybody. All I got was "That's good!". Yeah, like I need to hear that from the guy who just fucked me up the ass.
Martin Levac
23:00 2012-12-11 Copyright 2012 Martin Levac
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Math Naming System Simplified
Math Naming System Simplified
Here we go. Pronounce the names as written.
Digits
1 = Poh
2 = Toh
3 = Rih
4 = Foh
5 = Fih
6 = Sih
7 = Seh
8 = Tih
9 = Nih
10 = Teh
0 = Noh
= = Kih
+ = Dah
- = Suh
/ = Dih
* = Muh
Construct words and sentences from those names to express numbers and equations.
1987 = Poh Nih Tih Seh = poh nitiseh or ponih tiseh = one thousand nine hundred eighty seven or nineteen eighty seven
2012 = Toh Noh Poh Toh = toh nopotoh or tomih potoh = two thousand twelve, or toteh potoh for twenty twelve
2012 - 1987 = 25
tonopotoh suh ponitiseh kih tofih = 5 words / 12 syllables / 29 letters
two thousand twelve minus nineteen eighty seven equals twenty five = 9 words / 19 syllables / 57 letters
In this simplified math naming system, all numbers and the five basic functions are named with a single syllable from combinations of one consonant and one vowel, ending with an H to emphasize the vowel pronunciation. It uses the 26 letters alphabet. The words can be pronounced in any language as long as the convention is followed with regard to pronunciation. In effect, this makes written and spoken math a universal language. It's simplified by virtue of having as few words and syllables for any given number and equation. To eliminate the need for conjugation when explaining certain math expressions in spoken language (i.e. the multiplier of, divided by, etc), all math expressions become statements one merely recites from one end to the other. In essence, it simplifies even the conceptualization of math.
Exponents
10 = Teh
100 = Tah
1,000 = Mih
1,000,000 = Mah
1,000,000,000 = Bih
Two thousand becomes tomih. Five hundred becomes fitah. The convention for non-exponent numbers requires full naming of all digits so that 2,731 becomes toh seripoh or toseh ripoh. 507 becomes finoseh or fitaseh. It keeps conventional 3-digit comma-separation so that long numbers become sentences of 3-syllable words. Like so: 2,765,394 = Two million seven hundred sixty five thousand three hundred ninety four, becomes toh sesifih rinifoh.
Examples of every day usage.
When a teacher asks "what's twenty multiplied by twenty five", he asks instead "what's tonoh (or toteh) muh tofih". And the student answers "fitah" instead of "five hundred".
When a customer asks "how much", he still asks "how much", but now the shop keeper answers "ponih nifih" instead of "nineteen ninety five".
Contractions are used for exponents. One hundred thousand becomes tamih. Seven hundred thousand becomes setamih. Twelve million becomes potomah. Fifty nine million six hundred thirteen becomes finimah siporih. These are silent contractions of the Muh and Dah functions proper when writing out at-length all the numbers and functions. Tamih for tah muh mih. Setamih for seh muh tah muh mih. Finimah siporih for finih muh mah dah siporih. The Suh and Dih functions must be explicit to distinguish them from the Muh and Dah contractions. Negative exponents can be written as the contraction MuSuXX where XX is the number to be multiplied, followed by the exponent. Ten to-the minus nine (10 exp -9) becomes musuteh nih. Or the number to be multiplied, followed by the negative exponent function musuh, the the exponent. Teh musuh nih. Positive exponents are expressed muXX where XX is the number to be multiplied, followed by the exponent. Mutoh teh (2 exp 10), murih rih (3 exp 3). Or like the negative exponent expression, the number to be multiplied, followed by the positive exponent function mudah, followed by the exponent. Toh mudah teh. The "square root" is expressed "dimuh" preceded by the number (XX dimuh) so that the full solution becomes (ex. 9 sr = 3) "nih dimuh kih rih" instead of "the square root of nine is three".
This number and digit naming system borrows from the Chinese naming system where digits have single-syllable names. But here it's even more simplified by eliminating inflections like ing, ai, ian, iu, for the basic digits and functions. It also eliminates the tone requirement so that it can be adapted to all languages and all moods without losing its precision. All names have only one consonant and one vowel. It uses the 26 letters alphabet so that there's ample reserve for more complex functions and symbols to simplify advanced math and physics as well. And if that's not enough, we can then begin to use inflections and combinations of vowels and consonants to get things like chi, phi, kra, tiu, puy, zian, further expanding the number of possible names while keeping everything as simple as possible.
I thought of this after I read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. He explained that the Chinese are typically better at math not because they understand math better, but because their naming system makes math easier to learn and use. In other words, the tools the Chinese use for math is more ergonomic - it fits our brain better - than say the English or French systems for example. For students who find it hard to learn math, this could help them by making it easier and simpler to learn, remember, and finally use math. By shortening the words used when written at length, it would lighten the weight and length of math works, both in digit and word forms. Writing checks has never been simpler. Essentially, it compresses the spoken and thought math language to its simplest form possible down to the lowest inherent limits of our spoken language, yet keeping each name unique.
It borrows from the Roman numerals system too. Standard exponents have their own names. They are multiplied by preceding digits in contractions.
The numerical and symbolic expressions can still use the current system. However, the naming of those digits, numbers and symbols is simplified so that when spoken and thought, everything becomes shorter, simpler and easier to express verbally and in thought. For example, "square root of" is now "dimuh", "equals, equals to" is now "kih", "multiplied by, times" is now "muh", "exponent (minus) XX" or "to-the-(minus)-XX" is now "muXX" or "musuXX", etc.
I'm not saying that the words I used here should be the final version of this simplified naming system. This is just a rough outline of the basic idea. It needs to be refined, I'm sure. For example, in its final form, it could shed the H at the end since I only use it here to emphasize the pronunciation of the vowels. Advanced functions should get their own names or we'll get into trouble when trying a simple multiplication teh muh suteh (10 * -10), but get an exponent instead teh musuh teh (10 exp -10). In the end, this will make the naming of digits and numbers only slightly longer than writing out the digits and numbers themselves. So instead of using long and complicated names like "thousand" to describe "1,000", we now use "mi".
To put things in perspective, write a hypothetical check for your rent with the words we use now, then write it again but use this simplified naming system and compare.
Finally, phone numbers become 2 words / 7 syllables / 14 letters. Area code for Montreal becomes 1 word instead of 3, fipofo instead of five one four.
What say you?
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/
Martin Levac
20:13 2012-11-08 Copyright 2012 (tomi poto) Martin Levac
Here we go. Pronounce the names as written.
Digits
1 = Poh
2 = Toh
3 = Rih
4 = Foh
5 = Fih
6 = Sih
7 = Seh
8 = Tih
9 = Nih
10 = Teh
0 = Noh
= = Kih
+ = Dah
- = Suh
/ = Dih
* = Muh
Construct words and sentences from those names to express numbers and equations.
1987 = Poh Nih Tih Seh = poh nitiseh or ponih tiseh = one thousand nine hundred eighty seven or nineteen eighty seven
2012 = Toh Noh Poh Toh = toh nopotoh or tomih potoh = two thousand twelve, or toteh potoh for twenty twelve
2012 - 1987 = 25
tonopotoh suh ponitiseh kih tofih = 5 words / 12 syllables / 29 letters
two thousand twelve minus nineteen eighty seven equals twenty five = 9 words / 19 syllables / 57 letters
In this simplified math naming system, all numbers and the five basic functions are named with a single syllable from combinations of one consonant and one vowel, ending with an H to emphasize the vowel pronunciation. It uses the 26 letters alphabet. The words can be pronounced in any language as long as the convention is followed with regard to pronunciation. In effect, this makes written and spoken math a universal language. It's simplified by virtue of having as few words and syllables for any given number and equation. To eliminate the need for conjugation when explaining certain math expressions in spoken language (i.e. the multiplier of, divided by, etc), all math expressions become statements one merely recites from one end to the other. In essence, it simplifies even the conceptualization of math.
Exponents
10 = Teh
100 = Tah
1,000 = Mih
1,000,000 = Mah
1,000,000,000 = Bih
Two thousand becomes tomih. Five hundred becomes fitah. The convention for non-exponent numbers requires full naming of all digits so that 2,731 becomes toh seripoh or toseh ripoh. 507 becomes finoseh or fitaseh. It keeps conventional 3-digit comma-separation so that long numbers become sentences of 3-syllable words. Like so: 2,765,394 = Two million seven hundred sixty five thousand three hundred ninety four, becomes toh sesifih rinifoh.
Examples of every day usage.
When a teacher asks "what's twenty multiplied by twenty five", he asks instead "what's tonoh (or toteh) muh tofih". And the student answers "fitah" instead of "five hundred".
When a customer asks "how much", he still asks "how much", but now the shop keeper answers "ponih nifih" instead of "nineteen ninety five".
Contractions are used for exponents. One hundred thousand becomes tamih. Seven hundred thousand becomes setamih. Twelve million becomes potomah. Fifty nine million six hundred thirteen becomes finimah siporih. These are silent contractions of the Muh and Dah functions proper when writing out at-length all the numbers and functions. Tamih for tah muh mih. Setamih for seh muh tah muh mih. Finimah siporih for finih muh mah dah siporih. The Suh and Dih functions must be explicit to distinguish them from the Muh and Dah contractions. Negative exponents can be written as the contraction MuSuXX where XX is the number to be multiplied, followed by the exponent. Ten to-the minus nine (10 exp -9) becomes musuteh nih. Or the number to be multiplied, followed by the negative exponent function musuh, the the exponent. Teh musuh nih. Positive exponents are expressed muXX where XX is the number to be multiplied, followed by the exponent. Mutoh teh (2 exp 10), murih rih (3 exp 3). Or like the negative exponent expression, the number to be multiplied, followed by the positive exponent function mudah, followed by the exponent. Toh mudah teh. The "square root" is expressed "dimuh" preceded by the number (XX dimuh) so that the full solution becomes (ex. 9 sr = 3) "nih dimuh kih rih" instead of "the square root of nine is three".
This number and digit naming system borrows from the Chinese naming system where digits have single-syllable names. But here it's even more simplified by eliminating inflections like ing, ai, ian, iu, for the basic digits and functions. It also eliminates the tone requirement so that it can be adapted to all languages and all moods without losing its precision. All names have only one consonant and one vowel. It uses the 26 letters alphabet so that there's ample reserve for more complex functions and symbols to simplify advanced math and physics as well. And if that's not enough, we can then begin to use inflections and combinations of vowels and consonants to get things like chi, phi, kra, tiu, puy, zian, further expanding the number of possible names while keeping everything as simple as possible.
I thought of this after I read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. He explained that the Chinese are typically better at math not because they understand math better, but because their naming system makes math easier to learn and use. In other words, the tools the Chinese use for math is more ergonomic - it fits our brain better - than say the English or French systems for example. For students who find it hard to learn math, this could help them by making it easier and simpler to learn, remember, and finally use math. By shortening the words used when written at length, it would lighten the weight and length of math works, both in digit and word forms. Writing checks has never been simpler. Essentially, it compresses the spoken and thought math language to its simplest form possible down to the lowest inherent limits of our spoken language, yet keeping each name unique.
It borrows from the Roman numerals system too. Standard exponents have their own names. They are multiplied by preceding digits in contractions.
The numerical and symbolic expressions can still use the current system. However, the naming of those digits, numbers and symbols is simplified so that when spoken and thought, everything becomes shorter, simpler and easier to express verbally and in thought. For example, "square root of" is now "dimuh", "equals, equals to" is now "kih", "multiplied by, times" is now "muh", "exponent (minus) XX" or "to-the-(minus)-XX" is now "muXX" or "musuXX", etc.
I'm not saying that the words I used here should be the final version of this simplified naming system. This is just a rough outline of the basic idea. It needs to be refined, I'm sure. For example, in its final form, it could shed the H at the end since I only use it here to emphasize the pronunciation of the vowels. Advanced functions should get their own names or we'll get into trouble when trying a simple multiplication teh muh suteh (10 * -10), but get an exponent instead teh musuh teh (10 exp -10). In the end, this will make the naming of digits and numbers only slightly longer than writing out the digits and numbers themselves. So instead of using long and complicated names like "thousand" to describe "1,000", we now use "mi".
To put things in perspective, write a hypothetical check for your rent with the words we use now, then write it again but use this simplified naming system and compare.
Finally, phone numbers become 2 words / 7 syllables / 14 letters. Area code for Montreal becomes 1 word instead of 3, fipofo instead of five one four.
What say you?
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/
Martin Levac
20:13 2012-11-08 Copyright 2012 (tomi poto) Martin Levac
Monday, November 5, 2012
Gravity-Spacetime-ZPE-Photon Duality
Gravity-Spacetime-ZPE-Photon Duality
When gravity is a function of pressure differential between spacetime-ZPE and mass, we can explain the photon particle-wave duality by an interaction between real photons and virtual photons as real photons move through spacetime-ZPE, thereby creating a wave through the virtual-photon "soup". Without a double-slit obstacle, the real photon remains real and hits a target where it is aimed at. With a double-slit obstacle, the photon hitting the target comes from this virtual-photon soup as one of the virtual photons becomes real through its interaction with the real photon, and also through its interaction with other virtual photons.
The proportion of photons hitting the target at various bands after passing through the double-slit obstacle can be predicted due to the varying-force interaction with distance-to-path of real photons. This proportion gives us a way to calculate this force of interaction between a real photon and virtual photons in the soup.
This interaction between a real photon and virtual photons explains the particle-wave duality as both the real photon remains real, yet also exhibits wave-like property as it interacts with virtual photons, but most importantly that virtual photons interact with each other, especially when they "collide" in the wave interference on the other side of a double-slit obstacle.
This way of looking at the particle-wave duality gives us two experiments to determine if the photon hitting the target on the target side of the double-slit obstacle is indeed the same one as the one that was shot from the photon gun on the gun side.
1 - A photometer target that can detect both wavelength of the photon hitting the target, and light pressure of photons hitting the target. If it's the same photon, then it will retain all its behaviors after passing through the double-slit obstacle. If it's a different photon, then the behaviors will be different with and without a double-slit obstacle. It will retain its wavelength if it's the same photon, but will have a different wavelength if it's a different photon as its wavelength widens with distance-to-slit. Light pressure will be affected accordingly.
2 - A double-slit experiment where the target is at a non-perpendicular angle relative to path-of-light. If the photon that hits the target is the same, then the pattern will be the same as with a perpendicular target. If the photon that hits the target is a different photon, then the pattern will be different.
If the results are positive, then this gives us another idea about the speed-of-light speed limit through spacetime.
- Spacetime becomes the rate-limiter for everything that moves through it and within it.
Martin Levac
08:12 2012-11-05 Copyright 2012 Martin Levac
When gravity is a function of pressure differential between spacetime-ZPE and mass, we can explain the photon particle-wave duality by an interaction between real photons and virtual photons as real photons move through spacetime-ZPE, thereby creating a wave through the virtual-photon "soup". Without a double-slit obstacle, the real photon remains real and hits a target where it is aimed at. With a double-slit obstacle, the photon hitting the target comes from this virtual-photon soup as one of the virtual photons becomes real through its interaction with the real photon, and also through its interaction with other virtual photons.
The proportion of photons hitting the target at various bands after passing through the double-slit obstacle can be predicted due to the varying-force interaction with distance-to-path of real photons. This proportion gives us a way to calculate this force of interaction between a real photon and virtual photons in the soup.
This interaction between a real photon and virtual photons explains the particle-wave duality as both the real photon remains real, yet also exhibits wave-like property as it interacts with virtual photons, but most importantly that virtual photons interact with each other, especially when they "collide" in the wave interference on the other side of a double-slit obstacle.
This way of looking at the particle-wave duality gives us two experiments to determine if the photon hitting the target on the target side of the double-slit obstacle is indeed the same one as the one that was shot from the photon gun on the gun side.
1 - A photometer target that can detect both wavelength of the photon hitting the target, and light pressure of photons hitting the target. If it's the same photon, then it will retain all its behaviors after passing through the double-slit obstacle. If it's a different photon, then the behaviors will be different with and without a double-slit obstacle. It will retain its wavelength if it's the same photon, but will have a different wavelength if it's a different photon as its wavelength widens with distance-to-slit. Light pressure will be affected accordingly.
2 - A double-slit experiment where the target is at a non-perpendicular angle relative to path-of-light. If the photon that hits the target is the same, then the pattern will be the same as with a perpendicular target. If the photon that hits the target is a different photon, then the pattern will be different.
If the results are positive, then this gives us another idea about the speed-of-light speed limit through spacetime.
- Spacetime becomes the rate-limiter for everything that moves through it and within it.
Martin Levac
08:12 2012-11-05 Copyright 2012 Martin Levac
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Gravity-Spacetime-Casimir Effect
Gravity-Spacetime-Casimir Effect
Gravity as a product of the pressure differential between spacetime-ZPE and mass.
Think of spacetime as zero-point energy, and out of ZPE comes the graviton and the anti-graviton. However, here the graviton pushes, the anti-graviton pulls. Now think of mass as having the property of anti-gravitons, but not of gravitons. Thus, a point of mass creates a low-pressure point where spacetime-ZPE around this point tends to fill the low-pressure point by bunching up tighter the closer it is to this low-pressure point.
Spacetime-ZPE = push-pull
Mass = pull
Now put another point of mass some distance from the first, to create a low-pressure region of spacetime-ZPE between the two points of mass, relative to the region of spacetime-ZPE outside the two points of mass. Spacetime-ZPE tends to fill that region, thereby pushing both points of mass toward each other.
This gives us two possible experiments.
1 - Two Casimir effect apparatuses. One on Earth, the other in orbit around Earth. If ZPE varies with distance-to-mass, there will be a difference between the two apparatuses.
2 - Two Casimir effect apparatuses. One on Earth directly under the closest point to the Moon, the other on the opposite side of the Earth. If ZPE varies between the region inside the two points of mass and the region outside the two points, there will be a difference between the two apparatuses as the Earth rotates, as the Moon passes over one of the apparatuses.
If the results are positive, it does not automatically confirm that gravity is born out of spacetime or ZPE. But it does suggest that there is a relationship between spacetime, the Casimir effect, and gravity. The simplest explanation of course is that spacetime, the Casimir effect, and gravity are all functions of the same thing.
For gravity to work this way, the force of spacetime-ZPE doesn't need infinite range. It only needs as much range to reach the next adjacent point of spacetime-ZPE as to form a continuous chain across spacetime-ZPE. The low-pressure region of spacetime-ZPE between two points of mass is directly adjacent to both points of mass thus effectively giving the force of gravity an instantaneous speed thereby explaining the problem of positional retardation that the classical gravity-emitted-from-mass theory creates.
The evidence for space-drag supports the idea that mass has at least the pull property of spacetime-ZPE. Uncovering evidence of ZPE variation with distance-to-mass would support the idea that mass does not have the hypothetical push property of spacetime-ZPE.
Martin Levac
01:23 2012-11-05 Copyright 2012 Martin Levac
Gravity as a product of the pressure differential between spacetime-ZPE and mass.
Think of spacetime as zero-point energy, and out of ZPE comes the graviton and the anti-graviton. However, here the graviton pushes, the anti-graviton pulls. Now think of mass as having the property of anti-gravitons, but not of gravitons. Thus, a point of mass creates a low-pressure point where spacetime-ZPE around this point tends to fill the low-pressure point by bunching up tighter the closer it is to this low-pressure point.
Spacetime-ZPE = push-pull
Mass = pull
Now put another point of mass some distance from the first, to create a low-pressure region of spacetime-ZPE between the two points of mass, relative to the region of spacetime-ZPE outside the two points of mass. Spacetime-ZPE tends to fill that region, thereby pushing both points of mass toward each other.
This gives us two possible experiments.
1 - Two Casimir effect apparatuses. One on Earth, the other in orbit around Earth. If ZPE varies with distance-to-mass, there will be a difference between the two apparatuses.
2 - Two Casimir effect apparatuses. One on Earth directly under the closest point to the Moon, the other on the opposite side of the Earth. If ZPE varies between the region inside the two points of mass and the region outside the two points, there will be a difference between the two apparatuses as the Earth rotates, as the Moon passes over one of the apparatuses.
If the results are positive, it does not automatically confirm that gravity is born out of spacetime or ZPE. But it does suggest that there is a relationship between spacetime, the Casimir effect, and gravity. The simplest explanation of course is that spacetime, the Casimir effect, and gravity are all functions of the same thing.
For gravity to work this way, the force of spacetime-ZPE doesn't need infinite range. It only needs as much range to reach the next adjacent point of spacetime-ZPE as to form a continuous chain across spacetime-ZPE. The low-pressure region of spacetime-ZPE between two points of mass is directly adjacent to both points of mass thus effectively giving the force of gravity an instantaneous speed thereby explaining the problem of positional retardation that the classical gravity-emitted-from-mass theory creates.
The evidence for space-drag supports the idea that mass has at least the pull property of spacetime-ZPE. Uncovering evidence of ZPE variation with distance-to-mass would support the idea that mass does not have the hypothetical push property of spacetime-ZPE.
Martin Levac
01:23 2012-11-05 Copyright 2012 Martin Levac
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
What Did Cooking Do For Us?
What Did Cooking Do For Us?
It thawed food for quick consumption in winter. That's it.
Think about it for a moment. When you're early-homo-stupidus and you find a piece of frozen meat in winter, it's hard to eat it like that. It takes time which you most likely don't have. But if you know how to make fire, you can just throw that piece of frozen in meat in there and eat it much sooner and quicker.
Did cooking do anything for our smarts? Maybe, but not much. Cooking is a complex task that requires a big brain already so that big brain came from somewhere else. Like the hypothesis goes, to have a big brain, you need a small gut. Well, you need lots of calories really and the only way to get them is to shrink the gut. If we start with a big gut, we can't just eat more of the foods we are adapted to eat because those foods need a big gut so if we did that, we'd need an even bigger gut. No chance for a big brain that way. So we need to shrink the gut.
Shrink the gut, more calories for the brain. So how do we do that? Change our diet. Change it to something that needs less processing, and maybe gives us more calories too while we're at it. Fat does both. Easy to digest, provides lots of calories. So now that we have our small gut and our big brain due to the now-appropriate diet for those, what more can cooking do? We already have a big brain, so we're obviously smart enough to figure out cooking. And if we're smart enough for cooking, we're probably smart enough for all kinds of other equally complex tasks like filing our taxes or something.
Nah, cooking was just a way for us to eat sooner and quicker, cuz we were already pretty smart to figure that one out.
So do you need cooking today? Not if you eat the diet which allows you to figure out how to cook, or file your taxes. So what diet is that exactly? Well, stop cooking everything you eat and if you can't file your taxes anymore, or you start forgetting simple things like putting your pants on before answering the door or something, it ain't it. Come to think of it, if you cook your food now and shit like that happens to you anyway, well, maybe you gotta rethink your idea of food.
Yep.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/22/cooking-supports-increased-human-brain-power
Martin Levac
02:08 2012-10-24 Copyright 2012 Martin Levac
It thawed food for quick consumption in winter. That's it.
Think about it for a moment. When you're early-homo-stupidus and you find a piece of frozen meat in winter, it's hard to eat it like that. It takes time which you most likely don't have. But if you know how to make fire, you can just throw that piece of frozen in meat in there and eat it much sooner and quicker.
Did cooking do anything for our smarts? Maybe, but not much. Cooking is a complex task that requires a big brain already so that big brain came from somewhere else. Like the hypothesis goes, to have a big brain, you need a small gut. Well, you need lots of calories really and the only way to get them is to shrink the gut. If we start with a big gut, we can't just eat more of the foods we are adapted to eat because those foods need a big gut so if we did that, we'd need an even bigger gut. No chance for a big brain that way. So we need to shrink the gut.
Shrink the gut, more calories for the brain. So how do we do that? Change our diet. Change it to something that needs less processing, and maybe gives us more calories too while we're at it. Fat does both. Easy to digest, provides lots of calories. So now that we have our small gut and our big brain due to the now-appropriate diet for those, what more can cooking do? We already have a big brain, so we're obviously smart enough to figure out cooking. And if we're smart enough for cooking, we're probably smart enough for all kinds of other equally complex tasks like filing our taxes or something.
Nah, cooking was just a way for us to eat sooner and quicker, cuz we were already pretty smart to figure that one out.
So do you need cooking today? Not if you eat the diet which allows you to figure out how to cook, or file your taxes. So what diet is that exactly? Well, stop cooking everything you eat and if you can't file your taxes anymore, or you start forgetting simple things like putting your pants on before answering the door or something, it ain't it. Come to think of it, if you cook your food now and shit like that happens to you anyway, well, maybe you gotta rethink your idea of food.
Yep.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/22/cooking-supports-increased-human-brain-power
Martin Levac
02:08 2012-10-24 Copyright 2012 Martin Levac
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)