A 16 Year Old's Guide to (kinda) Physics

Dear, You. If you expect this article to reach a conclusion, you will be disappointed. if we do not know what it is that we do not know, there is no way we can know what we know. so all that we can know, is that we do not know; and by the same effect, we still cannot know that. As someone who must search for the meaning behind every apparent aspect of their life, I have always been astounded by the universally polar description of my interests. I find physics and other STEM fields to be fascinating, in the same sense that I have been a devoted painter for the majority of my life - and more recently, a ‘poet’. These fields, means of understanding, have always appeared to be direct opposites. The antithesis of each other... I disagree. Both science and art are human attempts to understand and describe the world around us. The subjects and methods have different traditions, and the intended audiences are different, but the motivations and goals are fundamentally the same. One of the most

Dear Fellow Entities, In the light of the current Covid-19 pandemic, everything seems to be falling apart. The apocalypse is practically upon us, leading the state of the world to appear increasingly surreal.... or not real. And my personal favorite means of coping? Deny all validity to the world, and proclaim that nothing is real. Life is a hologram. Boom. Bam. That's it… and I'll prove it. I'm sure all of your worlds are shattering around you, facing these abnormal new ways of life we are all learning to live and experience, so why not make it a total fuck all and deny all of your current perceptions of reality? I'm going to assume you already know many things prior to reading this post. Among them, information, entropy, and the event horizon. Probably not a great means of teaching. For those incapable of googling: Information: the specific arrangement of particles... The difference between a diamond and coal is a result of information since both are only carbon. Our

To those who feel their appetites are insatiable, As someone who is both:                            A: Constantly filled with anxiety over the future, for example: college .   And B: An avid food fanatic, I was pleasantly surprised to see the University of Chicago’s essay prompt, questioning the legitimacy of unlimited food despite the limited amount of matter in the universe, denouncing the staple of all buffets, American food chains, etc: the “All-You-Can-Eat”. Hypothetically, if I could eat an infinite amount of breadsticks, how would Olive Garden supply the food to quench my starvation? In the wise words of Raina Hatcher: time to physics the shit out of this problem. Pictured above: me utilizing my force lightning to force Olive Garden to feed me more breadsticks. (jk, its Palpatine, could you tell?) To grasp the situation, we must first look at the actual construction of the universe. Is the universe finite, limited to the approximated (I put emphasis on appr

To those who want to beat the shit out of the glass box with a hammer, It’s pretty common to think that because you’re a shitty student, you’re automatically some dumbass. I blame that on humanity’s glass box.  We sometimes make the assumption that our brain is limited, often through the means of calling ourselves “idiots who can’t do simple algebra”, or denoting our ability to function as human beings. This measurement of one’s “mental capacity”, however, can be redefined as our own limiting factor: one that limits individuals and society as a whole. We base the measurement of how intelligent somebody is typically through their academic performance or knowledge on certain topics, such as politics, science, etc. Or rather, we measure their intelligence by simply administering an IQ test. But, who is to say that either of these options is an accurate reflection of someone’s “intellectual capacity”? Alternatively, who’s to say that our idea of intelligence is real whatsoever? 

Hello my love, Do you know where Peru is? N o really, where is it? A short while ago when Nicole and I began this blog, Nicole was sitting at her hand-built PC watching our views start to accumulate. We thought it was quite cool that the viewing was mapped, so we could determine how global the reach of our b ullshit was. Expecting most to originate from the United States - due to our blog being three hours old plus the (current perception of) time being 2 AM- we were quite excited to discover we had 3 views from Peru. In the present, Peru is neck and neck with ‘Unknown Region’ both reaching a whopping 5 visits. Midst our vaguely unfounded burst of glee we realized neither of us had any clue where the fuck Peru is. You think we would, we didn’t. Geography has always been my worst subject as I’m directionally challenged and have -professionally- diagnosed shit memory, but I have no explanation for Nicole. After confiding in google, the all-knowing internet god, I still was not s

Fellow Humans, I began to write this piece about sitting on my roof… something about moonbows and how the moon looked like a hologram in the mist… Before deciding you likely don’t care. Instead, I am going to simply begin rambling about perception and reality. Also fair warning, I have a bad habit of writing in an unnecessarily confusing manner - doing my best not to, but will probably fail. Stay with me. For attempt two I begin: Is anything real? What is the nature of reality? Do you have a ‘mind’, or are you just a physical body? Incase this piece becomes dreadfully long, I shall spoil the ending… we still have no fucking clue. Since the beginning of Epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge, the study of knowing) the philosophies of Reductive Physicalism and Substance Dualism have dueled. (this is a bad pun but I refuse to apologize) Physicalism vs. Dualism Let us jump right in; (Reductive) Physicalism is the philosophical position that everything which exists is nothing more th

Dear a gravitating and dope reader,  The American high school educational system seems to always find very miniscule ways of being oh-so-very incorrect. I can’t tell you if it’s a result of normalized vocabulary or plain human stupidity (or I could just be really critical and nitpicky, giving the illusion of incorrectness in my eyes), but we must get one fact straight before we move on: gravity is not a force. I repeat: gravity is not a force. This common misconception makes me scream internally.  Albert Einstein created the “Theory of Relativity” as a general descriptor for the unification of “special relativity” and “general relativity”. Contrary to Newtonian physics, which describes gravity as a force, Einstein instead theorizes that this supposed “force” of gravity is in fact a byproduct of the curvature of spacetime. An object with this much mass on a cold blanket would probably have the gravitational pull of a black hole. Or, conversely, me after eating 6 dominoes