...Also Known As Xaos Bob

Hmph.

Well, life conspired again. Ah, who am I kidding? I haven't blogged in a while because I frankly haven't felt a huge need to. I've been distracted by real life, by my games (and there are a number), by school and by summer. And by ironing out the whole house-husband gig (heh).

Not much else to say this moment except that I'll be back doing this again. School fires up the ol' creative juices and gets me feeling the need to talk about stuff. So yes, I am alive, and no, I still don't have that five bucks I owe you. Want a piece of homemade bread?

:P

Until next time, true believers. :D

Warning: Through no fault of my own, nor that of any other right-thinking human being, today's links require either Internet Explorer* or the IE Tab addon for Firefox in order to view them. Dammit.

And in 2018, apparently, instead of 2012. Now, I know not everyone "gets" the Terminator universe, nor my fascination with it. In some ways, I didn't get my fascination with it for a long time, either, because the story seems fairly simple (and, to some, repetitive). However, further thought on the matter has provoked some deep probing into the (among other things) time travel aspects of the mythology, and I think the solidity of that core principle may have been what fascinated me from the start. It's clean, it's consistent, and it actually falls in line with what I think about the subject. Only real pondering got me to realize it, though.

And don't worry, I'll detail it later. Just too late for that right now. And it's been a long week.

However, I would be remiss not to encourage you right now to go right now watch the three trailers right now up at the official Terminator: Salvation website. Right freaking now.

Holy shit. Just, holy shit. I can't wait for this movie.




*And no, I'm not linking IE. Fuck them, that's why.

Just found this article in my normal surfing rounds.

God, I love this stuff.

And the above manip was inspired by my wife when she glanced over and saw the shepherd who started it all. I do not believe the shepherd was ever on the road with MC Hammer, but I'd like to imagine he was.

Okay, so I had fallen victim to Wikipedia syndrome, and I happened to link to a page that contains links to a number of Quicktime videos. Most of these preview-thumbnails display the surface of some planet or other in our solar system. Intrigued, I scroll down to see the words “The case against pangea.” Always up for an interesting hypothesis, I take a glance around.

This is the website of Neal Adams, whose name sounded vaguely familiar as I casually browsed before clicking one of the videos. Turns out, he is an artist. A comic book artist, to put a finer point on it, who apparently has done some work for DC (and, it looks like maybe Marvel, too).

Okay, this is information I tumbled onto only after my cry of, “Who IS this guy?” seemed to go unanswered, and so it seems I have gotten entirely ahead of myself.

Long story short, his assertion is that the theory of plate tectonics is flat-out wrong. He instead posits that the earth, and every other planet, is actually growing. Continental “drift” is instead the result of spreading young oceanic plates, and the continents therefore cracking and getting pulled apart. Mountains, he adds, are the result of crustal deformation as the increasing volume of the planet forces continental crusts to adjust or settle along the lines of the new arc of the ever-growing sphere—the crust buckles and up pop the mountains.

Now, I am all for thinking outside the box, and I am not saying he’s wrong. I have plenty of screwy hypotheses, far more than I’ve ever detailed here. The way he presents his idea is not only off-putting (too many /bold tags and the suggestion that every other scientist, teacher and natural historian in the world is a moron), it’s unscientific. As an example:

“…this solution satisfies all questions of tectonics, science, geology, paleontology, theoretical and practical physics, cosmology, and subatomic physics. Pretty simple actually.” (about a quarter of the way down the page—you have to scroll or PageDown. Emphasis his.)

That’s a hell of a claim, particularly the offhand remark at the end. Of course, I took that line with a grain of salt. I know how it is to be excited and passionate about something. But certainly, he had some solid science to back it up, so I read. And read. And watched a couple videos.

His irrefutable evidence, the sum total of his scientific research, consisted of demonstrating a skill set on par with a preschooler with a piece of construction paper and scissors. Okay, perhaps that isn’t quite fair. A fourth grader with his mom’s copy of Photoshop. He uses simple animations that (despite his assurance that he is not tricking us, no funny business here, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, move along) combine the animation technique of South Park with the morphing technology of Late Night with Conan O’Brien.

Oh yes. I went there.

It is easy to display evidence that you created to prove the point you’re trying to make. His proof is like me saying the original White House was actually an Egyptian palace built in 1300 BC, then “proving” it by showing you my CG rendering of an Egyptian building on an old map of the Potomac. It’s interesting to look at, but is not any sort of “proof.”

Now, it is important to keep in mind that science is not like a lasagna noodle. You don’t have your hypothesis and slap a layer of science over the top. Science isn’t even a way of looking at the world. “Science” is the term we use to describe a sequence of events, a methodology of asking questions. It is a process of applying logic in an effort to answer a question.

The first step is to observe something. Then you have an idea of how or why that something is the way it is—why firing clay in a kiln turns it into stonelike ceramic, why an object falls down when you let go of it, how clouds stay in the sky, why the continents move in relation to one another. Step three is two sides of the same coin—you research the work of others who have asked the same question, and you come up with your own ways to test if your idea is viable, if it works. Step four is observing (and recording) the results of these experiments. Do they support your idea? Congratulations, you have the foundation of a theory (but you don’t have a theory yet—read on). No? Well, then perhaps you need to do more experiments, do more research.

Now, you must look at the evidence you have gathered, and ask of it, “What supports my idea, and what does not?” If the majority supports you, again, you are on the way to building a theory. If it doesn’t, however, you may need to rethink your idea. At the very least, you need to continue with step three until you come to a place where your idea works, or doesn’t.

And here is where Mr. Adams sorely lacks. He did step one and step two, but he substituted notions conceived in step two for any semblance of step three or beyond. Again, I am not saying his hypothesis is wrong, but his methodology certainly is.

Perhaps there are some nuggets of knowledge or insight on his site. Perhaps not. However, his style of argument fired me right up, and I had to say something. At any rate, I hope his site continues to entertain me, even if only in that “I’m so mad I could spit” sort of way.

Until next time, true believers.

/random

link

/end random

...because I can.

Sorry for the short posts, but short is better than none, amirite?

You must, you must, you MUST see the trailer for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Use the full-screen option when you get there.

That is all.

I just got done with my first class of the term, Prehistoric Cultures, and now there is a 3-hour down time before my next class. Prehistoric Cultures' syllabus looks suspiciously like Physical Anthropology, but I am encouraged that my prof is energetic, enthusiastic, and has a soft spot (like me) for state-level civilizations (city-builders). And this class is about 200 people strong (so far).

Wow.