This…

Reminds me of that…

Now, I realize that some of you might think that I am reaching here…  But I have spent countless hours with images of RPatz burning into my brain, and I am convinced that he is the direct descendent of Sir Isaac Newton.

Lets take this frame-by-frame:

Exhibit A:

Cleft chin

Slightly sloped nose

Pouty Lips

After this analysis I have come to the conclusion that I spend entirely too much time thinking about Robert Pattinson.  I also realized that Sir Isaac Newton was really hot.  I only wish we would have talked about him more in math class, I might have paid more attention in AlGeo.

Is it too far-fetched for my over-active imagination to think that the genius Sir Isaac Newton came up with a way to time travel, and when he came back decided to become a teen idol?  If it were plausible for anyone to succeed in time travel it would have to be a genius like Newton.  I’m onto you Newton, I know what’s going on.  You’re not fooling anyone.

This I want to read. His words on gravity.

via BBC News – Newton’s apple story goes online.

By Calvin Palmer

An account of how an apple falling from a tree led Sir Isaac Newton to develop his theory of gravity was made available to the general public for the first time today.

The handwritten manuscript by William Stukeley was recorded in 1752 as part of a biography of the great scientist and has been kept in the archives of Britain’s Royal Society.

The manuscript is one of several to be published online to mark the society’s 350th anniversary. The Royal Society was founded on July 15, 1662, as a learned society for science and its modern-day role is as a national academy for science.

Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, said: “Stukeley’s biography is a precious artefact for historians of science and I am delighted that it is being made available today, along with other treasures from the archives, in a format that allows anybody to view them as if they were holding the manuscript in front of them.”

The extract, from Stukeley’s Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton’s Life, reads: “After dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden and drank thea (sic), under the shade of some apple trees … he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly, the notion of gravitation came into his mind.

“It was occasion’d by the fall of an apple, as he sat in contemplative mood. Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground, thought he to himself, occasion’d by the fall of an apple, as he sat in a contemplative mood.

“Why should it not go sideways or upwards, but constantly to the earth’s centre? Assuredly, the reason is that the earth draws it.”

Keith Moore, the Royal Society’s head of library and archives, said the Royal Society has also released other documents, including the design for Thomas Paine’s revolutionary iron bridge, the philosopher John Locke’s contribution to an early version of the American constitution, drawings of English wildflowers by Richard Waller, anatomical drawings based on early dissections of the human body and sketches of fossil trilobites made by Sir Henry James around 1843.

The release of these documents is part of the Royal Society’s Turning the Pages initiative, which can be accessed at www.royalsociety.org/turning-the-pages.

“Fellows of the Royal Society in the early days weren’t just scientists as we define them now, they were interested in all kinds of things” said Moore. “John Locke, who is well known these days as a philosopher, was a fellow and was involved in drafting a constitutional document for one of the American colonies, the Carolinas. We thought that we would reproduce that so that people in the U.S. could see it.”

The Royal Society holds more than 250,000 manuscripts and pieces of paper in its archives, and today’s publication is the start of an attempt to make all of that available one day.

 ”This is just a baby step towards bringing our archives to a wider public,” said Moore.

[Based on reports by The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and AFP.]

 Students will say that the lines across the map of the globe called latitudes, and those cutting these lines vertically called longitudes, help in locating a place in the globe.

 It took a long time and a lot of work in drawing these lines.

 First, the latitude lines were marked, by observing the position of the sun in the sky. On March 21st, the sun is over our head, at the middle of the earth called the equator. The next day it shifts slightly, to the north.  The next day again, wait for the sun to come over the head at noon and this point is furthe north, by the same distance.

Latitudes are mentioned in degrees. Each degree is divided into 60 seconds. The shift in the position of the sun each day is 15 seconds. We have to travel north, so that the sun will come at the top of the sky. On the 21st of June, if we continuously move north, the sun can be seen at the top.

 If the sun throws no shadow at all, on a stick planted vertically, we can say it is on top. The next day the sun starts moving in the reverse direction, southwards. So we can verify the correctness of our measurements, once more. If a number of schools and colleges tie up, we can say whether the lines shown in the maps are correct or not.

As the sun does not go beyond the lat. 23.5, the latitudes beyond this point can be calculated by measuring the angle of digression with referenc to the vertical line.

By measuring the angle of deflection, we can calculate the latitude of a place. The measuring instrument is called the sextant. I do not know how to manipulate it. I am sure school students these days, may not have heard the name.

 The determination of the longitude was a real problem. For this we require clocks synchronized with one another. I am talking about those days, when even pendulum clocks were a rarety. There was a big ship wreck, because the captain did not have an idea how far away they were from London. A Royal Commission was appointed to find out a way to determine the longitude of a point. The Chairman of the Commission was Sir Isaac Newton. He failed.

One clock maker in Italy found the way out. He invented the gymbals. When suspended in this cage, the pendulum will always hang down, even when the ship is rocked in a storm. So they carried two clocks, one according to Greenwich mean time, and another according to local time. The difference in minutes, when divided by four minutes (time taken by the sun to travel from one longitude to the next), gives the number of the longitude.

 Of course, we should know whether it is west or east of zero line.

Dziś swoje urodziny obchodziny Sir Isaac Newton, dziś uważany za jednego z najważniejszych naukowców w historii.

Ps. Niestety nie udało mi się znaleźć jakiegoś fajnego video w języku polskim opisującego prawa Newtona.

Ale obejrzyjcie 2 i 3 część Życia Buddy

Posted on softsailor.com

I am aware that today’s Google Doodle might seem a little confusing, but it has nothing to do with Apple, the company where Steve Jobs is in charge. Google may be developing a cool smartphone OS called Android, a cool phone called the Nexus One, while the browser Chrome has overtaken Apple’s browser Safari but there’s nothing like that.

In fact, Google is celebrating the birthday of Sir Isaac Newton with a special logo picturing a falling apple, and I’m sure you know the story behind it. Sir Isaac Newton was born on January 4th, 1643 and he had enormous implications in physics, mathematics, astronomy, natural philosophy, alchemy, and theology.

Keep Reading Here

WORD

dogmatic [dawg-mat-ik, dog-] 1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas; doctrinal 2. asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated

BIRTHDAY

Sir Isaac Newton (1643), Jacob Grimm (1785), Don Shula (1930), Dyan Cannon (1937), Bernard Sumner (1956), Patty Loveless (1957), Matt Frewer (1958), Michael Stipe (1960), Dave Foley (1963), Julia Ormond (1965), David Berman (1967)

STANDPOINT

So, not only is it the the end of a year, it’s the end of a decade. Which, in my estimation, has more than quadrupled the annual year-in-review nonsense. What is the use of exploring what’s transpired in the last 365 days? Or the last 3,652.42199? (That’s exactly how many days are in a decade which kind of weirds me out.)

In any case, I’m only a human being. And so I’ve read some of these lists. Apparently, 2009 is one most people would like to see flushed down the toilet with extreme prejudice. (I’m one of them, but not due to anything outside of my own personal experience.) This past year was, according to most accounts, one filled with tantamount portions of both doom and gloom. And, while I guess everyone is right and everything is sort of shitty, I think it’s wholly irrefutable things could be worse.

And, the reason is this:  In the course of perusing and pondering all the recent trials and tribulations of our downtrodden society, I came upon Yahoo!’s Year In Review – Top 10 Searches. I concluded shit can’t be all that bad after reading what people seem to actually care about.

Despite the times, we’ve clearly got an advantage over any other generation that came before us because, in the internet, we’ve got a vast archive of information that can help better pretty much any situation. I was fully expecting terms like, “financial help,” and “employment opportunities,” to appear somewhere on a list of top searches by a group of individuals who spend most of its time worrying about the future. But, as happens more than not, people leave me disappointed.

Instead of searching for help, everyone’s searching for crap. The top search term of the year was Michael Jackson. Before his untimely death, only the most ardent fans truly seemed to care about whatever odd capers Jacko was involved in. Once he died, everyone took an active interest and felt the need to seek out information on someone they pretty much knew everything about in the first place.

The rest of the top search list was, in order, The Twilight Saga, WWE, Megan Fox, Britney Spears, Naruto (whatever the fuck that is), American Idol, Kim Kardashian, NASCAR and Rune Scape (again, huh?).

Once finding this data, I decided that, hey, everything’s going to be just fine. Because, if life was as seriously dismal as most would have us believe, we’d probably spend less time question for knowledge on tweener flicks, supposed sports, irrelevant celebrities, reality television and, again, whatever those other two are.

Let’s just relax people and collectively ease back from the ledge. If, as as culture, we’re concerning ourselves with such inconsequential nonsense on the internet, how ominous could it really be? Right?

QUOTATION

You know, Hitler wanted to be an artist. At eighteen, he took his inheritance, seven hundred kronen, and moved to Vienna to live and study. He applied to the Academy of Fine Arts and later to the School of Architecture. Ever see one of his paintings? Neither have I. Resistance beat him. Call it overstatement but I’ll say it anyway: it was easier for Hitler to start World War II than it was for him to face a blank square of canvas. → Steven Pressfield

TUNE

I’m fully aware of the fact that, in terms of music, I’ve a tendency to circulate around certain artists. Sorry. Some of these folks are just too damn good.  I found “New Amsterdam” on vodpod (a site I feel you should most likely be checking out) over the weekend and decided to share one of my favorite Elvis Costello offerings.

GALLIMAUFRY

→ I’m disgusted to report that even I’m not immune to the controversial MTV “reality” show Jersey Shore. The creators should be rounded up, along with anyone remotely involved including the cast, stuffed into a bag and hammertossed into the ocean. That said, I’m still watching it. Shit, I’m watching it right now. Christ.

→ It seems the Philadelphia Eagles‘ run of stepping ass-backward into big piles of sunshine has come to a close. Yesterday’s shutout loss the Dallas Cowboys was pretty embarrassing. Luckily, instead of enjoying the bye week they’d have earned from a victory, the whole team gets to go back to Dallas next week and do it all over again.

→ Jeff Bridges might finally get his due with an Oscar nod this year for his role in Crazy Heart. About effing time.

Today on Google’s front page an apple falls from a tree branch to celebrate Sir Isaac Newton’s birthday.

According to Wikipedia “Sir Isaac Newton FRS (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727]) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian who is perceived and considered by a substantial number of scholars and the general public as one of the most influential scientists in history. His 1687 publication of the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (usually called the Principia) is considered to be among the most influential books in the history of science, laying the groundwork for most of classical mechanics. In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries. Newton showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler’s laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation, thus removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the scientific revolution.

Newton also built the first practical reflecting telescope and developed a theory of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into the many colours that form the visible spectrum. He also formulated an empirical law of cooling and studied the speed of sound.

In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of the differential and integral calculus. He also demonstrated the generalised binomial theorem, developed the so-called “Newton’s method” for approximating the zeroes of a function, and contributed to the study of power series.

Newton remains influential to scientists, as demonstrated by a 2005 survey of members of Britain’s Royal Society (formerly headed by Newton) asking who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Albert Einstein. Royal Society scientists deemed Newton to have made the greater overall contribution. In 1999, leading physicists from all over the world voted Einstein “greatest physicist ever;” Newton was the runner-up.

Newton was also highly religious, though an unorthodox Christian, writing more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than the natural science for which he is remembered for today.”

Today is Sir Isaac Newton’s birthday.

He was born in England on 4 January 1643 (1643-01-04).

Sir Isaac Newton is the person who discovered gravity.

He discovered gravity when he was sitting under an apple tree.

After that an apple felt on his head.

Then he started to think what made the apple falls on his head.

I think Sir Isaac Newton is very, very, very clever.

Sir Issac Newton

On January 4:

1490  Anna of Brittany announced that all those who would ally with the king of France will be considered guilty of the crime of lese-majesty.

1493 Christopher Columbus left the New World, ending his first journey.

1642 King Charles I of England sent soldiers to arrest members of Parliament, commencing England’s slide into civil war.

1643  Sir Isaac Newton, English mathematician and natural philosopher, was born.

1698  Most of the Palace of Whitehall in London, the main residence of the English monarchs, was destroyed by fire.

1785 Jacob Grimm, German philologist and folklorist(one of the Brothers Grim), was born.

1813 Isaac Pitman, English inventor, was born.

1847 Samuel Colt sells his first revolver pistol to the United States government.

1854 The McDonald Islands were discovered by Captain William McDonald aboard the Samarang.

1865 The New York Stock Exchange opened its first permanent headquarters at 10-12 Broad near Wall Street in New York City.

1869 Te Kooti was defeated at Nga Tapa.

1878 Sofia was emancipated from Ottoman rule.

1878 Augustus John, Welsh painter, was born.

1884 The Fabian Society is founded in London.

1885  The first successful appendectomy was performed by William W. Grant on Mary Gartside.

1903 – Topsy, an elephant, was electrocuted by Thomas Edison during the War of Currents campaign.

1912 – The Scout Association was incorporated throughout the British Commonwealth by Royal Charter.

1947 – Rick Stein, English chef and television presenter, was born.

1948 – Burma regained its independence from the United Kingdom.

1958 Sir Edmund Hillary led a New Zealand party to the South Pole.

1958  Sputnik 1 fell to Earth from its orbit.

1959  Luna 1 became the first spacecraft to reach the vicinity of the Moon.

1962 New York City introduced a train that operates without a crew on-board.

1965 Cait O’Riordan, British musician (The Pogues), was born.

1972  Rose Heilbron became the first female judge to sit at the Old Bailey in London.

1975  Elizabeth Ann Seton became the first American-born saint.  

2004 Spirit, a NASA Mars Rover, landed successfully on Mars.

2007 The 110th United States Congress elected Nancy Pelosi as the first female Speaker of the House in U.S. history.

Sourced from NZ History Online and Wikipedia.

Run for office?  No.  I’ve slept with too many women.  I’ve done too many drugs, and I’ve been to too many parties. 

This could easily be the mantra for any stereotypical, unmarried man and rightfully so.  Especially when one finds out, it came from today’s most notorious, eligible bachelor, George Clooney.  Clooney – like all eternal bachelors – has one distinctive trait that separates him from a world of commonality.  He’s never found a girl who moved him enough to answer the Beyoncé call to “put a ring on it,” and oddly enough, it is the same trait that can ring commonality to a list filled with of philosophers, artists, political leaders, media personalities and scientists.  Whether they didn’t see the point, were too focused on other goals or simply weren’t the marrying kind, one thing is for certain; the noteworthy men on this list are just as famous for what they did as for what they didn’t… get hitched, of course!

While Mr. Clooney may be the most recognizable solo act today, he is by no means a pioneer of wedding day.  Dating all the way back to the 15^th Century, Michelangelo, a true Renaissance man, made it distinguishingly obvious that his work, which includes some of the most renowned masterpieces in history, was all the fulfillment he needed.  Instead of marrying a wife who would bear him a great brood, Michelangelo painted, sculpted, engineered and crafted his offspring all on his own, as he considered each piece one of his children.

This poetic attachment to art could also be the reasons behind why men like Sir Joshua Reynolds, an influential painter who was among the founders of the Royal Academy or Henri de Toulouse-Latrec, a provocative French post-impressionist never married.  One might even consider it to be a theme in the art world, as Vincent von Gogh, famed for his vibrantly colored, emotion inducing works, also chose to never get on one knee for lady.  (This may or may not have also been affected by the bouts of anxiety, mental illness and ear chopping… just a thought.)

Famed artists, Vincent van Gogh and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec never married. (Photos Courtesy of Google Images)

Regardless of the reason, however, it seems many influential bachelors are often times more defined by their love of work, rather than their love of family.  Take for instance, the great brains of Sir Isaac Newton, considered by many to be one of the most influential men in history, Ludwig van Beethoven, a brilliant German composer and pianist and Blaise Pascal, both a physicist and philosopher who were all infamous for throwing themselves into their work.  Marriage must seem insignificant when compared to discovering gravity or composing, conducting and performing some of the world’s most powerful music… while deaf.

President James Buchanan is the only US president who never took the plunge. (Photo Courtesy of Google Images)

No matter what, there seems to be a definite correlation between a man’s ability to plunge head first into work and not down the aisle.  Even in the political world, generally depicted with a picturesque, nuclear family, there are a number of men vetoing marriage.  President James Buchanan not only remains the only U.S President to come out of Pennsylvania, but he is also the only one to never get married.  He is not, however, the only politician.  Among some of the other elected officials to populate Single Town are Ralph Nadar, a political activist who’s made a name for himself running for president and Ed Koch, U.S. congressman and former Mayor of New York City. 

It just doesn't seem right for the "Sexiest Man Alive" not to get married and make babies! Share the wealth, George! (Photo Courtesy of Google Images)

It seems every walk of life has a laundry list of bachelors filling it, but none more notably, than the one good ‘ole George Clooney represents – the entertainment world.  Fellow actor and multiple Academy Award winner, Al Pacino ranks among the top of the list of men who have never married and is accompanied by the likes of comedian and television host, Bill Maher, as well as 80’s pop icon, Billy Idol.  Apparently, for him, it was NOT “a nice day for a white wedding.”

Good Day Readers and livers! Today I am reassessing my goals for this year and trying to hone in my focus.

However, before I go there I want to discuss an understanding that came to me this morning. I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel about black holes. For those of you who don’t understand the dynamic of a black hole I will break it down very simply. A Black hole occurs when a large star dies and implodes on itself. So basically you have something incredibly massive with tons of matter and mass suddenly condensed to a fraction of a fraction of its size. In the process all this mass and matter creates an enormous amount of gravity and it begins to attract everything around it and begins to suck it all in. It begins to have so much attractive force that it begins to inhale other planets, stars, solar systems, everything. It is inhaling things at such a high rate and with so much power that not even light can escape, hence the term black hole.
On the show I was watching it was explaining that a black hole the size of a marble would be able to completely inhale our planet. That is not something that we need to worry about but I found it incredibly interesting. You see if you can understand the functions of nature, you can understand the rules of the game of life and win. What do I mean? Sir Isaac Newton began to understand what all this gravity(in our case attraction) was all about. The most basic thing to understand is that where mass is, other mass is attracted, the more mass, the stronger the attraction.

To be ultra clear, the rule is if you want to attract the life you want you have to find the ways that you can embody that life from where you are now and increase in that embodiment. Increase Increase Increase. Don’t be anything other than what you want to attract. Think, live, talk, train, learn, teach, eat, do everything that you possibly can to take on the role of the person who you believe exists in that life that you want. The more you are that person, the more you are that persona, the more you will attract that relates to that lifestyle and the less of the old life you will see. Soon the old life will disappear and you will realize that it was only a misperception of who you are that actually doesn’t exist. In other words by concentrating your energy, focus, and life mass you increase your attractive power for the things and experiences and opportunities you want in your life. It sounds so simple and obvious and it actually is simple and obvious but making those habitual changes, life style changes, life changes, relationship changes and shifts can be very challenging. Which is why you need to take the steps in your life that will begin to create chain reactions and get you to that critical mass point where all change is absolutely eminent. Like Anthony Robbins would say, you need to create leverage on yourself. With a long enough stick and the right lever you can change the course of the world, the course of anything for that matter.

When we know how to apply this simple rule to our lives, we can access the secrets of the universe and more importantly, the secrets of our lives.

Why am I talking about this? Because I am creating more and more mass, something necessary to increase my gravitational pull. Just by writing, and focusing my energy on my goal the amount of mass that will pull other people, opportunities, and the things I need into my life increases. Eckhart Tolle said in order to be enlightened, you must be enlightened. Then he laughed because it is almost a ridiculous statement. He went on to explain, enlightenment is always something we are trying to achieve like success for example. It is always a goal, something out there that isn’t in here, or experienced by you yet. The problem is that enlightenment, just like success, or even joy is a state of being. It is something that you are naturally. However, you know that you are that intensely and at the same time effortlessly. Most of you are probably reading this and saying okay Paul, you obviously don’t know what the hell you are talking about because you seem to be talking in circles. I am not. The point is if you want to be successful first you need to define what that means to you and then you can begin to be successful simply by embodying that definition. Be careful and understand that as you grow in knowledge and understanding your definition of success will most likely change and don’t be afraid to evolve into your new understanding and embodiment of that new definition.

The point of this blog/documentary of my journey to $3 million in 365 days and living on a catamaran sailing the world, becoming the dad I wanted to be, building a family with a woman that I love, getting in the best shape of my life, working 4-10 hours a week, teaching people, writing, becoming a speaker, comedian, and impacting the world in the most positive way I possibly can is not to just achieve that for myself but also to leave a detailed road map so that everyone else will be able to see all the minute details and do it themselves. Every book I have ever read about success was after the fact. Or you always have to buy another book, or one on one training or coaching to get you there. I’m not doing that. This is an exercise in the game of life and I aim to win. The fact is I often feel like $3 million is too small of a goal. Every book I have read says that it is easier to raise $30 million than it is $3 million. This is another reason I want to talk about my goals again today. Today I am going to up the anny. Not to be cocky, only to be more focused on what is truly important for me to embody and pass on to others.

It is now 4:18 pm on day 21 out of 365 days to $3 million. I have earned a total of around $600.00. I have a long way to go. But I am not worried because I have a plan and I am this path. I’m not just on this path, I am this path. While I walk to the bus, while I am riding, while I am on the phone at work(I made 170 calls while writing this today), when I am talking to people, every second all my being is this. It has solidly become who I am and now steadily the world is getting to understand it as well. I now have around 40 hits a day. Not bad for an unadvertised website that hasn’t been optimized and only been up for 21 days. At the end of 60 days that will be more than 500 a day. There is a momentum that is building. Neil Armstrong said “Its one small step for man…”, it only took one step for him to be the first man on the moon, but it took years, thousands of hours of man power, billions of dollars, all the accumulated knowledge of our modern history, and the smartest people in the country and allied nations for him to make that one decisive simple step. I don’t have to worry if I don’t make all the money until the very last day. I can make the step a grand one on tv if that is the case. That is not my goal. That is not the way I am going to do it but I am only trying to make a point.
I digress…

So what are my goals? Timothy Ferris where are you? I need to find the guy. The writer of Four Hour Work Week. Excellent book. Loved it. Read it, listened to it three times. Now it is time to put it to action. I want his help directly as a part of this. The plan, I will continue working these 60 hour weeks for the remainder of the first 3 months to build up a little money. Each Quarter I have to Cut the hours. I have to make it a rule. Here’s the rule. In Q2 I can only work 40 hours a week. In Q3 I can only work I can only work 25 hours a week. In Q4 I can only work 15 hours a week and they need to be completed remotely, from the house, or another country. I just can’t be bound to an office.

That means that in my spare time I have to commit it to myself, my son, my body, the things I always wanted to learn, the things I always wanted to do, and being the guy I always wanted to be. Loving deeply, living richly, and helping other people to do the same thing by showing them that it is possible.

How do I do it? I keep writing. You keep reading. I keep calling more people to interview, close more real estate deals, make more relationships with companies and networking opportunities to be in front of more people all the time. I will go into more detail on the how to, step by step for the future tomorrow because this has been a really long post and I need to begin to wrap it up.

This morning I went and showed apartments for a new rental client of mine in Brickell and downtown Miami. On Thursday I am showing him units in Miami Beach and Sunny Isles and then I will be done. The big deal is that he is a sports agent, has 40 athletes under his belt and I am going to make the best possible relationship with him I can so I can sell his whole squad properties and get them on my radio show to talk about how they became successful.

I have more to tell but I am going to keep the rest a mystery.

Have a good day, keep trying and be persistent.

Paul Kohler

okay, I wanna talk about bipolar disorder this time..

first, here’s some people that have bipolar disorder..

1. Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727)

Tau, kan? yang terkenal dengan teori gravitasinya ituu..Dengan begitu banyaknya kontribusi di bidang fisika dan mekanika, Sir Isaac Newton terkenal sebagai pemikir ulung. Memang, dari berbagai jajak pendapat mengenai kedua (dan Einstein),  ditunjukkan bahwa publik sepakat kalau Newton bahkan melebihi Einstein dalam hal pengaruh [sumber: The Royal Society]

Menurut ensiklopedia Britannica Newton mengalami psychotic tendencies dan mood swings. Selain itu, berbagai surat yang dibuatnya menyimpulkan bahwa secara teoritis ia menderita skizofrenia [sumber: Glover]. Ayah Newton meninggal sebelum ia lahir, dan ia dipisahkan dari ibunya antara usia dua dan 11.Gangguan mental yang dialaminya mungkin akibat dari trauma yang berkepanjangan akibat masa kecilnya [sumber: Encyclopedia Britannica].

2. Ludwig van Beethoven (1770 – 1827)

Kontribusi Beethoven di dunia musik sangat monumental. Kegairahannya dan musikalitasnya yang begitu intensif dan cemerlang membawa musik instrumental ke jenjang yang baru. Namun, sang komposer memiliki kehidupan yang sukar. Ayahnya seorang pemabuk berat dan besar dalam keluarga yang tidak harmonis sampai umur 18 tahun. Satu masalah tragis yang dihadapinya adalah bahwa ia harus mulai kehilangan pendengarannya sejak berumur sekitar 30 sampai 49 tahun, yang sepertinya dampak dari pemukulan yang dilakukan ayahnya. Hebatnya, ia justru sanggup menggubah karya2 masterpeace-nya saat ia benar-benar tuli.

Beethoven beberapa kali menuliskan sejumlah surat kepada saudaranya, banyak dari tulisan itu menceritakan keinginannya untuk bunuh diri.

Francois Martin Mai berpendapat bahwa sang maestro terindikasi mengidap bipolar depression, hal itu dituliskannya dalam buku “Diagnosing Genious”. Mai juga menduga kuat bahwa Beethoven banyak menghabiskan masa hidupnya mengidap bipolar disorder.

3. Vincent van Gogh (1853 – 1890)

Lukisan-lukisan Vincent van Gogh , seperti “Starry Night” dengan cepat dikenali dari keunikan dan ekspresi sapuan kuas. Namun, itu tidak membuat van Gogh mendapatkan popularitas sampai pada kematiannya. Tetapi sekarang ia dianggap salah satu yang terbesar dalam sejarah pelukis.

Kehidupan Van Gogh sangatlah tersiksa. Hampir semua orang mengenalnya sebagai seorang pelukis yang memotong sebagian telinganya sendiri. Dia diduga kuat pernah “mabuk” terpentin dan pernah mencoba makan cat [sumber: Mancoff]. Tragisnya, ia bunuh diri pada tahun 1890. Penulis D. Jablow Hershman dan Dr Julian Lieb mengatakan dalam buku mereka “Manic Depresi dan Kreativitas” bahwa van Gogh telah mengalami bipolar disorder. Dalam bukunya “Touched with Fire” Dr Kay Redfield Jamison menemukan kesimpulan yang sama. Dia juga membahas seni van Gogh dalam hubungan dengan penyakit mental. Misalnya, ia mencatat bahwa pola musiman yang khas dari suasana hati dan psikosis sejajar dengan produktivitas van Gogh, yang juga bervariasi oleh musim. Sedangkan yang lain mengira ia menderita skizofrenia [sumber: Delisi].

Benernya msih ada lagi, John Nash, Edgar Allan Poe, Florence Nightingale, smpe Russel Brand (yang nge-host VMA’09 kmren),dll..tpi krna cuma bt contoh, jdi cm msukin 3 aja…

data & piccu mad-genius-ppl credit to kaskus

Oke, bt yang ga tau apa itu Skizofrenia, silahkan cari ke mbah google atau wikipedia, soalnya yang mau aku omongin di sini adalah bipolar disorder nya..

Bipolar disorder itu gangguan alam perasaan yang ditandai dengan perubahan mood secara ekstrem dan mendadak yang mana bila berjalan kronis akan berkembang menjadi psikosis. Sesuai namanya maka bipolar berarti berkutub dua yang saling berlawanan, artinya antara “Manik” (Maniak, gembira berlebih, meluap-luap~euphoria), dan “Depresi” (sedih mendalam dan berlarut-larut). Semua ini berkembang dan berubah begitu cepatnya dapat dalam sekejap saja.

Penyakit ini dibagi menjadi dua tipe, yaitu tipe I (terdapat episode Manik dan Depresi) atau tipe II (Depresi saja, tidak pernah ada episode Manik).

Tanda manik dapat berupa hiperaktifitas motorik berupa kerja yang tak kenal lelah melebihi batas wajar dan cenderung non-produktif, euphoria hingga logorrhea (banyak berbicara, dari yang isi bicara wajar hingga menceracau dengan ‘word salad’), dan biasanya disertai dengan waham kebesaran (keyakinan diri yang hebat kadang tak masuk akal, seperti menjadi orang terkaya sedunia, raja, presiden, dll), waham kebesaran ini bisa sistematik dalam artian berperilaku sesuai wahamnya, atau tidak sistematik, berperilaku tidak sesuai dengan wahamnya.

Waham adalah keyakinan patologis yang tidak bisa dikoreksi, terlepas dari nilai agama, adat istiadat, dan sosiobudaya.

Sedangkan pada episode Depresi ya didapatkan rasa sedih yang mendalam dan berlarut, dapat disertai waham nihilistik dan negativisme yang berlebih.

Kedua episode sama berbahayanya, episode Manik akan menganggu orang sekitarnya, sedangkan episode Deprei dapat mengarah pada tindakan bunuh diri.

 

Nah, pada intinya gangguan Jiwa dapat diredakan tetapi dapat berulang kembali.

Kalo sedang dalam keadaan depresi berat dimana dia dapat membahayakan dirinya sendiri, ato kalo lagi manik hingga meganggu aktivitas orang lain..

Nah, menurut Dr. Kay Redfield Jamison (dia jga seorang bipolar disorder), orang yang memiliki kreatifitas tinggi dan jenius cenderung mengidap penyakit bipolar disorder, jadi kekreatifitasan mereka dan ide-ide cemerlang mereka yang orang awam tak bisa memikirkan sampai sana cenderung didasarkan pada ‘kegilaan’ mereka dan imajinasi-imajinasi mereka yang terkadang tidak masuk akal.

Or you can say, orang yang yang mengidap bipolar disorder umumnya orang jenius dan berkratifitas tinggi….

Jadi, bagi yang merasa dirinya jenius, jangan2 kmu kena bipolar disorder..XD

..*~Me~*..

Hhhmm..aku termasuk orang yang moodny kyak roller coaster, jadi sebentar senang bkan main, lalu tiba-tiba karena suatu hal *yang t’kadang nggk jelas apaan* bsa jd down bget..

Klo msalah smpe mw bunuh diri sih nggk pernah, tp pernah dlu krena sedih bnget pingin rasanya ‘mati’..Heuhh,, mulai melankolis ni..wkwkkwk..XD..

Intinya, kalo lg sneeng, aku ya seneng bget, bsa d blang euphoria jga, bsa senyum trz spanjang hari dan ngomongin hal yang mbuat aku seneng itu truzz, tp kalo lg sedih ato sebel, ya sebel dan sedih banget beneran, pernah sampe nangis semalaman gra2 apaaaa gitu,,lupa..hhe..Bner2 moody bget lah,,,

Stelah bca topic ttg Bipolar Disorder ini di forum, aku jadi mikir, jngan-jangan aku ini kena bipolar disorder… *=.=”*, hhe..tpi wajar dong aku mikir gtuu, soalny aku memang gk jelas bget moodnya, dan dlam satu hr2 bsa gnti2 truz.. *tanyalah pd org yg tinggal srumah dganq..XD*,,misalnya, lg ngomong2, tiba2 rasanya bisa marah bget *sweat*, trz tba2 sedih sndri..gak cetho bget too..ckckck..it’s weird, i know..

Brarti kalo aku t bipolar disorder, aku t orang jenius plus kreatif ya..kan pada umumnya orang bipolar disorder t orang jenius dan kreatiff..XD..OOT here..*kidding* *mulai gak nyambung*

Ah, ya sudahlah..intinya bgituu…

Jgn tanya kenapa aku ngepost kyk bginian, aku jg ga tau soalnya…tiba2 rasanya pingin ngepost aja, soalnya bipolar disorder t kyknya menarikk..hhe.. q d dpan laptop seharian nge-search ttg ini lhoo..wkwkwk..selera saia memang anehh..XD XD

Note: not all things in this post are accurate.some of ‘em are just my opinion and my thought.. I’m sorry my blog doesn’t have accuracy count..XD XD..Intinya, belom tentu smua yang ad d atas bnar adanya.. beberpa cm pemikiran *welehh..=.=”* dan hasil imajinasiku sndiri yang gk cetho..wkwkwk..

When I was writing my recent  (typically verbose) post about chaos  on a rainy saturday afternoon, I cut out a bit about astronomy because I thought it was too long even by my standards of prolixity. However, walking home this evening I realised I could actually use it in a new post inspired by a nice email I got after my Herschel lecture in Bath. More of that in a minute, but first the couple of paras I edited from the chaos item…

Astronomy provides a nice example that illustrates how easy it is to make things too complicated to solve. Suppose we have two massive bodies orbiting in otherwise empty space. They could be the Earth and Moon, for example, or a binary star system. Each of the bodies exerts a gravitational force on the other that causes it to move. Newton himself showed that the orbit followed by each of the bodies is an ellipse, and that both bodies orbit around their common centre of mass. The Earth is much more massive than the Moon, so the centre of mass of the Earth-Moon system is rather close to the centre of the Earth. Although the Moon appears to do all the moving, the Earth orbits too. If the two bodies have equal masses, they each orbit the mid-point of the line connecting them, like two dancers doing a waltz.

Now let us add one more body to the dance. It doesn’t seem like too drastic a complication to do this, but the result is a mathematical disaster. In fact there is no known mathematical solution for the gravitational three-body problem, apart from a few special cases where some simplifying symmetry helps us out. The same applies to the N-body problem for any N bigger than 2. We cannot solve the equations for systems of gravitating particles except by using numerical techniques and very big computers. We can do this very well these days, however, because computer power is cheap.

Computational cosmologists can “solve” the N-body problem for billions of particles, by starting with an input list of positions and velocities of all the particles. From this list the forces on each of them due to all the other particles can be calculated. Each particle is then moved a little according to Newton’s laws, thus advancing the system by one time-step. Then the forces are all calculated again and the system inches forward in time. At the end of the calculation, the solution obtained is simply a list of the positions and velocities of each of the particles. If you would like to know what would have happened with a slightly different set of initial conditions you need to run the entire calculation again. There is no elegant formula that can be applied for any input: each laborious calculation is specific to its initial conditions.

Now back to the Herschel lecture I gave, called The Cosmic Web, the name given to the frothy texture of the large-scale structure of the Universe revealed by galaxy surveys such as the 2dFGRS:

One of the points I tried to get across in the lecture was that we can explain the pattern – quite accurately – in the framework of the Big Bang cosmology by a process known as gravitational instability. Small initial irregularities in the density of the Universe tend to get amplified as time goes on. Regions just a bit denser than average tend to pull in material from their surroundings faster, getting denser and denser until they collapse in on themselves, thus forming bound objects.

This  Jeans instability  is the dominant mechanism behind star formation in molecular clouds, and it leads to the rapid collapse of blobby extended structures  to tightly bound clumps. On larger scales relevant to cosmological structure formation we have to take account of the fact that the universe is expanding. This means that gravity has to fight against the expansion in order to form structures, which slows it down. In the case of a static gas cloud the instability grows exponentially with time, whereas in an expanding background it is a slow power-law.

This actually helps us in cosmology because the process of structure formation is not so fast that it destroys all memory of the initial conditions, which is what happens when stars form. When we look at the large-scale structure of the galaxy distribution we are therefore seeing something which contains a memory of where it came from. I’ve blogged before about what started the whole thing off here.

Here’s a (very low-budget) animation of the formation of structure in the expanding universe as computed by an N-body code. The only subtlety in this is that it is in comoving coordinates, which expand with the universe: the box should really be getting bigger but is continually rescaled with the expansion to keep it the same size on the screen.

You can see that filaments form in profusion but these merge and disrupt in such a way that the characteristic size of the pattern evolves with time. This is called hierarchical clustering.

One of the questions I got by email after the talk was basically that if the same gravitational instability produced stars and large-scale structure, why wasn’t the whole universe just made of enormous star-like structures rather than all these strange filaments and things?

Part of the explanation is that the filaments are relatively transient things. The dominant picture is one in which the filaments and clusters
become incorporated in larger-scale structures but really dense concentrations, such as the spiral galaxies, which do
indeed look a bit like big solar systems, are relatively slow to form.

When a non-expanding cloud of gas collapses to form a star there is also some transient filamentary structure  but the processes involved go so rapidly that it is all swept away quickly. Out there in the expanding universe we can still see the cobwebs.

The era of modern physics could be said to have begun in 1687 with the publication by Sir Isaac Newton of his great Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, (Principia for short). In this magnificent volume, Newton presented a mathematical theory of all known forms of motion and, for the first time, gave clear definitions of the concepts of force and momentum. Within this general framework he derived a new theory of Universal Gravitation and used it to explain the properties of planetary orbits previously discovered but unexplained by Johannes Kepler. The classical laws of motion and his famous “inverse square law” of gravity have been superseded by more complete theories when dealing with very high speeds or very strong gravity, but they nevertheless continue supply a very accurate description of our everyday physical world.

Newton’s laws have a rigidly deterministic structure. What I mean by this is that, given precise information about the state of a system at some time then one can use Newtonian mechanics to calculate the precise state of the system at any later time. The orbits of the planets, the positions of stars in the sky, and the occurrence of eclipses can all be predicted to very high accuracy using this theory.

At this point it is useful to mention that most physicists do not use Newton’s laws in the form presented in the Principia, but in a more elegant language named after Sir William Rowan Hamilton. The point about Newton’s laws of motion is that they are expressed mathematically as differential equations: they are expressed in terms of rates of changes of things. For instance, the force on a body gives the rate of change of the momentum of the body. Generally speaking, differential equations are very nasty things to solve which is a shame because most a great deal of theoretical physics involves them. Hamilton realised that it was possible to express Newton’s laws in a way that did not involve clumsy mathematics of this type. His formalism was equivalent, in the sense that one could obtain the basic differential equations from it, but easier to use in general situations. The key concept he introduced – now called the Hamiltonian – is a single mathematical function that depends on both the positions q and momenta p of the particles in a system, say H(q,p). This function is constructed from the different forms of energy (kinetic and potential) in the system, and how they depend on the p’s and q’s, but the details of how this works out don’t matter. Suffice to say that knowing the Hamiltonian for a system is tantamount to a full classical description of its behaviour.

Hamilton was a very interesting character. He was born in Dublin in 1805 and showed an astonishing early flair for languages, speaking 13 of them by the time he was 13. He graduated from Trinity College aged 22, at which point he was clearly a whiz-kid at mathematics as well as languages. He was immediately made professor of astronomy at Dublin and Astronomer Royal for Ireland. However, he turned out to be hopeless at the practicalities of observational work. Despite employing three of his sisters to help him in the observatory he never produced much of astronomical interest. Mathematics and alcohol seem to have been the two real loves of his life.

It is a fascinating historical fact that the development of probability theory during the late 17^th and early 18^th century coincided almost exactly with the rise of Newtonian Mechanics. It may seem strange in retrospect that there was no great philosophical conflict between these two great intellectual achievements since they have mutually incompatible views of prediction. Probability applies in unpredictable situations; Newtonian Mechanics says that everything is predictable. The resolution of this conundrum may owe a great deal to Laplace, who contributed greatly to both fields. Laplace, more than any other individual, was responsible to elevated the deterministic world-view of Newton to a scientific principle in its own right. To quote:

We ought then to regard the present state of the Universe as the effect of its preceding state and as the cause of its succeeding state.

According to Laplace’s view, knowledge of the initial conditions pertaining at the instant of creation would be sufficient in order to predict everything that subsequently happened. For him, a probabilistic treatment of phenomena did not conflict with classical theory, but was simply a convenient approach to be taken when the equations of motion were too difficult to be solved exactly. The required probabilities could be derived from the underlying theory, perhaps using some kind of symmetry argument.

The s-called “randomizing” devices used in all traditional gambling games – roulette wheels, dice, coins, bingo machines, and so on – are in fact well described by Newtonian mechanics. We call them “random” because the motions involved are just too complicated to make accurate prediction possible. Nevertheless it is clear that they are just straightforward mechanical devices which are essentially deterministic. On the other hand, we like to think the weather is predictable, at least in principle, but with much less evidence that it is so!

But it is not only systems with large numbers of interacting particles (like the Earth’s atmosphere) that pose problems for predictability. Some deceptively simple systems display extremely erratic behaviour. The theory of these systems is less than fifty years old or so, and it goes under the general title of nonlinear dynamics. One of the most important landmarks in this field was a study by two astronomers, Michel Hénon and Carl Heiles in 1964. They were interested in what would happens if you take a system with a known analytical solutions and modify it.

In the language of Hamiltonians, let us assume that H₀ describes a system whose evolution we know exactly and H₁ is some perturbation to it. The Hamiltonian of the modified system is thus

What Hénon and Heiles did was to study a system whose unmodified form is very familiar to physicists: the simple harmonic oscillator. This is a system which, when displaced from its equilibrium, experiences a restoring force proportional to the displacement. The Hamiltonian description for a single simple harmonic oscillator system involves a function that is quadratic in both p and q:

The solution of this system is well known: the general form is a sinusoidal motion and it is used in the description of all kinds of wave phenomena, swinging pendulums and so on.

The case Henon and Heiles looked at had two degrees of freedom, so that the Hamiltonian depends on q₁, q₂, p₁ and p_2:

 However, in this example, the two degrees of freedom are independent, meaning that there is uncoupled motion in the two directions. The amplitude of the oscillations is governed by the total energy of the system, which is a constant of the motion. Other than this, the type of behaviour displayed by this system is very rich, as exemplified by the various Lissajous figures shown in the diagram below. Note that all these figures are produced by the same type of dynamical system of equations: the different shapes are consequences of different initial conditions and different coefficients (which I set to unity in the form above).

 If the oscillations in each direction have the same frequency then one can get an orbit which is a line or an ellipse. If the frequencies differ then the orbits can be much more complicated, but still pretty. Note that in all these cases the orbit is just a line, i.e. a one-dimensional part of the two-dimensional space drawn on the paper.

More generally, one can think of this system as a point moving in a four-dimensional phase space defined by the coordinates q₁, q₂, p₁ and p₂; taking slices through this space reveals qualitatively similar types of orbit for, say, p₂ and q₂ as for p₁ and p₂. The motion of the system is confined to a lower-dimensional part of the phase space rather than filling up all the available phase space. In this particular case, because each degree of freedom moves in only one of its two available dimensions, the system as a whole moves in a two-dimensional part of the four-dimensional space.

This all applies to the original, unperturbed system. Hénon and Heiles took this simple model and modified by adding a term to the Hamiltonian that was cubic rather than quadratic and which coupled the two degrees of freedom together. For those of you interested in the details their Hamiltonian was of the form

The first set of terms in the brackets is the unmodified form, describing a simple harmonic oscillator; the other two terms are new. The result of this simple alteration is really quite surprising. They found that, for low energies, the system continued to behave like two uncoupled oscillators; the orbits were smooth and well-behaved. This is not surprising because the cubic modifications are smaller than the original quadratic terms if the amplitude is small.  For higher energies the motion becomes a bit more complicated, but the phase space behaviour is still characterized by continuous lines, as shown in the left hand part of the following figure.

However, at higher values of the energy (right), the cubic terms become more important, and something very striking happens. A two-dimensional slice through the phase space no longer shows the continuous curves that typify the original system, but a seemingly disorganized scattering of dots. It is not possible to discern any pattern in the phase space structure of this system: it appear to be random.

Nowadays we describe the transition from these two types of behaviour as being accompanied by the onset of chaos. It is important to note that this system is entirely deterministic, but it generates a phase space pattern that is quite different from what one would naively expect from the behaviour usually associated with classical Hamiltonian systems. To understand how this comes about it is perhaps helpful to think about predictability in classical systems. It is true that precise knowledge of the state of a system allows one to predict its state at some future time.  For a single particle this means that precise knowledge of its position and momentum, and knowledge of the relevant H, will allow one to calculate the position and momentum at all future times.

But think a moment about what this means. What do we mean by precise knowledge of the particle’s position? How precise? How many decimal places? If one has to give the position exactly then that could require an infinite amount of information. Clearly we never have that much information. Everything we know about the physical world has to be coarse-grained to some extent, even if it is only limited by measurement error. Strict determinism in the form advocated by Laplace is clearly a fantasy. Determinism is not the same as predictability.

In “simple” Hamiltonian systems what happens is that two neighbouring phase-space paths separate from each other in a very controlled way as the system evolves. In fact the separation between paths usually grows proportionally to time. The coarse-graining with which the input conditions are specified thus leads to a similar level of coarse-graining in the output state. Effectively the system is predictable, since the uncertainty in the output is not much larger than in the input.

In the chaotic system things are very different. What happens here is that the non-linear interactions represented in the Hamiltonian play havoc with the initial coarse-graining. Phase-space orbits that start out close to each other separate extremely violently (typically exponentially) and in a way that varies from one part of the phase space to another.  What happens then is that particle paths become hopelessly scrambled and the mapping between initial and final states becomes too complex to handle. What comes out  the end is practically impossible to predict.

Se avete visto uno spettacolo del “Cirque Du Soleil” potete farvi una certa idea di cosa state per vedere: uno dei tentativi meglio riusciti di sovvertire le leggi della fisica dei gravi di Newton.

A friend of mine (who will go unnamed here) encouraged me to continue to write about my dreams, which I have not done for a long while, so let’s talk about the wet ones. Yes the wet ones! I don’t want to talk about fantasies of Fergie, Angelina Jolie, or the Octomom. Hell no! I want to talk about S.D’s Wet Dreams.

Don't deny it. If you're a man, you've fucked one of these down pillows before.

Wet dreams are not as satisfying as you may think. In fact, when I was younger (that’s right, I haven’t had one since I’ve been married, cause that would be cheating!) I would wake up in pain with cum on my belly button. I suppose, though, a penis ejaculating with the stroke-motion — well, Sir Isaac Newton can figure that one out, something to do with gravitational pull I think…

Damn, he's cute! Got to be that sexy weave! I need a wet dream about Fig Newtons.

My first wet dream was simple. Fucked someone in the backseat of a car in a junkyard. I say someone cause I don’t know the gender. But I got off on it. And it hurt! Felt like my mushroom head had been fried! On that note, here’s S.D.’s theory. Most people who have wet dreams are virgins. I haven’t had one since I’ve been sexually active. But then that poses the question: Are you a virgin if you’ve had a wet dream or masturbate until you’re blind?

Shit, I've killed SCORES of emo kids.

Actually, as of late, the sexual dreams I’ve had I never get to finish, thus betraying the proverbial wet dream. Yet the beauty of this is I don’t spill my seed and stay hard for an eternity. I’m the Mystical Prostitute from Dreamland! And for the record, I’m usually fucking women in my dreams. Mmmm….

I wouldn't dream of this shit if I was on Nyquil.

And now for the moral of the story. Wet dreams do not equal pleasure. They hurt. It’s like a 2-foot syringe being injected in your urethra. And to think, you almost get your navel pregnant. What would a hermaphrodite do if it had a wet dream and jizzed in its vagina?

We’ll save that question for the next blog.

Inertia…     …isang nakakatakot na termino kung baguhan ka sa mundo ng physics. Panahon pa lang ni Aristotle ay napag-uusapan na ito. Ayon sa kanya kapag ang isang bagay ay ibinato, patuloy ito na maglalakbay kapag ito’y nasa isang kalawakang walang laman o vacuum dahil sa pwersang tumutulak dito. Ang prinsipyong ito at ipinaliwanag ng mas malinaw ni Galileo Galilei at Sir Isaac Newton. Ayon naman sa kanila kahit wala na ang pwersang nagtulak dito ay magpapatuloy ang paglalakbay ng bagay na ibinato. Dagdag pa niya na ang mga bagay ay may nakapaloob na resistensiya sa pagbabago ng paggalaw, bilis o direksyon at iyon ay tinatawag na inertia.

Ayon sa ibang siyentipiko, hawig lamang ang inertia sa momentum ngunit magkaiba. Hawig lang talaga at di magkamukha. Ang inertia daw ay nakasalalay sa mass at acceleration ng bagay habang ang momentum ay sa mass at bilis bagaman kapag tumaas ang momentum ay tumataas din ang inertia. May nagsabi naman na pormula ng momentum ay P=mv…     …P para sa momentum; m para sa mass at v para sa volocity habang ang pormula naman ng inertia ay F=ma…    …F para sa inertia; m para sa mass at a para sa acceleration. Paano naman kung hindi na dumadagdag ang bilis? Ibig sabihin ba’y wala nang inertia? Ang gulo ng mga siyentipiko. Baka malaman na lang natin sa huli na iisa lang pala sila.

Balik tayo dun sa pormula ng inertia. Kung maging zero ito, syempre magiging zero rin ang inertia. Ibig bang sabihin, kapag naglalakbay sa bilis na di nagbabago ay wala nang inertia? Ibig bang sabihin, wala na itong resistensiya sa pagbabago ng direksyon? Maniniwala pa ako kung ganito ang pormula…    …F=ma+ma`. Ang a ay ang huling acceleration na nagbigay ng inertia at ang a` ay ang kasalukuyang acceleration na nagbibigay ng karagdagang inertia. Ibig sabihin manatili ang inertia [hindi nga lang nararagdagan] kahit na ang bilis ay di nagbabago. Siyempre hindi kayang maging zero nito dahil pinaghiwalay na sila ng + sign. Kung magkaroon ng salungat na acceleration siyempre babawas ang inertia dahil magiging negative ang ma`. At dapat pareho ang a` sa a upang tuluyan mawala ng inertia at marating ang complete rest.

Pagdating sa direksyon ang mas malakas na pwersang direkyon ang mananaig ngunit maiipluwensyahan pa rin ng direksiyon ng mahinang pwersa at mabubuo ang pinasanib sa direksiyon. Tawagin na lang natin itong absolute inertial direction. Hindi ko na kayang i-express ang pormula nito dahil nakalimutan ko na ang aking calculus [patulong naman sa mga math majors dyan]. Pero mukhang wala tayong mabubuong matinong pormula dito dahil nga absolute. Nakabatay kase ang siyensiya at matematika sa relativity. Iguguhit ko na lang at ia-upload later kung ma-piktyuran ko na ang aking mathematical model.

Sa pagsalpukan nila ay mabubuo naman absolute inertia. Ipagpalagay na lang natin na ia ang simbolo niya. Ipagpalagay natin na ganito ang pormula ia=f(a₁₊)+f(a₂)+f(a₂)+f(a₃)..   ..f(a_n). Ang f(a₁) ay ang kasalukuyang inertia ng naglalakbay na bagay, ang f(a₂) naman ay ang pwersa ng sumalpok na bagay sa kanya at ang f(a₃) ang pwersa naman ng isa pang sumalpok na bagay at aabot ito ng f(a_n) at mapasawalang hanggan habang may isa pang sumasalpok na pwersa. Kawawa naman ang bagay, lamog sa mga sumasalpok sa kanya.

Ang bawat bagay sa uniberso ay may absolute inertia na siyang kabuuan ng lahat ng pwersang nagpabilis, nagpalihis o nagpabagal sa kanya. Sa aktwal ay walang bagay na nasa zero inertia. At walang sapat na salungat na pwersa na maaring magpahinto dito at ilagay ito sa absolute state of rest. Bagaman hindi pwede sa aktwal, mathematically possible pa rin to. Ito yata ang isa sa mga bagay na nakaligtaan ng mga particle physicist na gumawa ng Large Hadron Collider. Dahil tama sa kanilang kalkulasyong matematikal, inakala na nilang kaya nilang makalikha ng Boson particle. Hindi sapat ang kanilang makina upang tapatan ang pwersang nagtulak sa lahat ng bagay sa uniberso palayo sa sentro nito.

Gusto ko pa sanang isulat ang pagkurba ng direksyon ng inertia. Marami pa sana akong tatalakayin tungkol sa inertia ngunit sumasakit na ang tiyan ko. Siyet! Nasira momentum ko! Sa sunod na artikulo na lang natin pag-usapan ang direksyon ng inertia at ang mga bagay na nakakaimpluwensiya dito tulad ng friction, gravity at tsismis. Bakit tsismis? Sa susunod ko na lang ipapaliwanag kung paano nito naaapektuhan ang inertia. Para naman medyo curious kayo kunwari.

If I have seen further, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants. ~ Sir Isaac Newton

Above: an exuberant Graysen exploring at the Bisti Badlands, in northern New Mexico. As the outing drew to a close, one of our scientist friends remarked that Gray is proof that there is such a thing as perpetual motion…..

The following was written by my grandfather to help his students remember Newton’s three laws of motion.
Decades later, it is still helpful to budding scientists.
Yesterday afternoon, as I was exploring the Bisti with only one kid in tow (the older three were at their dad’s), Soren called my cell to ask me to send this to him so he could use it in a book he was creating for his 9th grade science class. I was out of cell range so didn’t talk with him until this morning. Then, a short scramble and call to my mom later, we had the poem in hand and were ready to help edify the newest generation of scientists.
If this is in any way helpful to you as a parent or teacher, please feel free to use it! Grandpa would be so delighted-he’d grin ear to ear and say “That’s marvelous!”
We miss you, Grandpa. Thanks for helping your great grandkids understand science so many years later…

I. Unless some force applies a nudge,
A body simply will not budge,
But rests if it’s at rest already,
Or else keeps going straight and steady.

Ramsay L. Harris


For another story about Grandpa, click here for my essay More Grandpa