A strange conclusion for scribe or poet
Trapped within this tragic tribal situation
Looked at from the inside or the outside
When both are on the right side and one word can suffer such manipulation
You are right
to write
about the fight
little left without that right
Yes truth is stranger than the fiction
one is one
and nothing right when nothing left
without that interfacing friction.
Rants
Political Reform
We the electorate, which includes all of us, must have the power, once again, to instruct parliament what they have to do for the next session.
We decide at the general election who we best trust to do it.
Bill of Electorate’s Rights
We the electorate, which includes all of us, must have the power to instruct government as to what they have to do for the next session in keeping with all local feeling.
Then those who pretend to power put forward schemes to meet our desire with good intent as their manifesto. This to be protected by statute and parliamentary procedure during the obligatory term of intended service.
Then we decide ,who we best trust to follow the manifesto’s actions and priorities in government, by general election.
WOKE
Woke bespoke will be no joke
If with no fascist it is spoke
(Smith insists I must be bold
Is this influence Young or old?)
The bungee jumpers fall from no10
(Smiths 28 page novel)
Career of 28 years flashed before his eyes,
Just 28 nanosecs, before his realization; that this time; it had been stretched too far.
,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,
,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,
,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,
,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,
A promising start with an intriguing end
{Thought I might interject this time” what party and where”
Our Reality
(I have only now picked up the Jan 2023 copy of the New Scientist and found the discussion between Neil Turok and Thomas Lewton.
My own imaginings, intended to weld art and science rather than present any serious theory, owe nothing to this serious science based discussion. Previously this month having finished my own tongue in cheek theory on reality I had sent the letter below.
Having firmly removed tongue from cheek it is obvious that intellects more experienced/more appropriate than mine have already made some comment.)
To various editors etc.
“
The theory itself was born from a doubt in the reality of a big bang or the discrete number of particles, (very small, large and indifferent) thought to be generated.
In sending this exposition to you I reveal my, not so hidden, agenda of welding the disciplines of art and science.
Publication would be a boost in confidence but the date may set a tone to implied critique. April whimsical but December bordering on irrelevant in the modern age for example.
Is reality real?
Imagination flows free when considering the existence before the big bang event. Those struggling with reality itself and its existence beforehand may find needless complexity rather like that mathematicians suffered before zero was allowed to be a number.
If we let reality be real and equal to a number of defined substances of reality then this number can be zero. It follows that there never was, never is, and never would be, any reality.
This conclusion seemed counter-productive; I had stubbed my toe only the day before, until I realised that if reality equalled the number zero then my reality has substance if mirrored by a negatively congruent version of my own,
i.e. REALITY (ours) + REALITY (-ours) = 0
REALITY (ours (= to mine of course)) would start from zero rise in value at some point and then fall in value. Catastrophically for my own but only reach zero for ours after an infinitely long time. Since REALITY (ours) is of substance and we do not accept it can be invented then it follows that our reality will be described by a wave form roughly sinusoidal in form: a half cycle lasting for an infinitely length of time followed by a half cycle negatively valued to ours at present. The wave form will be unsymmetrical due to time and value being distorted. My own happy 59 year and something marriage lasted for a far too short a time whereas data collected from another authority suggests, on occasion, a slightly different value for an interminable length of time.
This wave forms’ rete of change through zero makes a collision production, of whatever particles, unlikely unless of course we existed for a very short time or no time at all.
All is vanity of course, what I considered was my own theory of reality, illustrated by the equation and waveform, was a result of a well-worn path trod by others more eminent than myself.
My own dog like persistence in sticking to my own, none art, electrical/electronic teaching (Pavlov refers) means I therefore merely offer this theory as discovered, rather than invented, by myself.
A more feline example of the reflection considered part is well received and accepted (ref Schrödinger)
In fact the idea of your own single reality punctuated by a change of state at regular intervals had been discovered and developed for the past 2000 and odd years. (Ref. Siddhartha the 5th century B.C.E)
Even consider one more case where there were a number of realities multiverse), this has been investigated over a number of years (ref Gene Roddenberry). One of many published papers over the years considered our own consisting of 3 realities (ref multiverse) in depth. Seeking symmetry; he separated their phases by 120 degrees and, employing a consultant (ref LeGeyt Fortescue , Fourier (1768-1830)), found that one of the resultant parts ignoring our own, moving forward in time, and another, reversing, had nine particles only and no relevance to the passing of time.
I still maintain my own prejudice is valid from the above however.
There is no reality, no big bang and no collision induced particles. This conception produced only by a cause and effect derived from data. A highly respected work refers (Matthew 7:7)
In finishing, not wishing to offend Ismites, I am wording my request for help carefully.
If any reader with an intellect more agile or appropriate to the task than mine can reinforce or disprove the theory or indeed comment on any fresh approach to matter, antimatter, softer big bangs, finite numbers of particles etc. then the writer would be grateful.
“
.
“US”
- I was “inspired” to envisage this after I had just seen a commemorative program on Ken Dodd. It described a wonderful person well liked by any he met, providing enjoyment to many. It occurred to me that if his life were to be reported on by a journalist today some failure would be sought to provide interest, rather than simply reporting on this as a fine example of goodness in humanity. It is for this reason that “Us” is pronounced with a Liverpudlian accent without trace of sarcastic hoot.
- The Us philosophy allows no “them” or “they” living on this world just Us. If they have landed then please refer to Roddenberry
- For persons of my age race was used in words such as racism but the main thrust of it related to the human race. Thus I have the world of Us populated by tribes large and small, multitribal and so on. Therefore to me such words as racism etc belie the purpose for which they were formed. They are devisive whereas “the evil side of tribalism” is more inclusive and useful for Us.
- Younger of Us would have the world populated by a species Human comprising many races, This still allows the “Us” since any philosophy incapable of improvement lies dead on the ground into which it was supposed to be planted. The common “words” of Us are the feelings in all of the individuals of Us and the aspirations to do good for the tribe, race, specie etc The printed word can have whatever some of Us like to ascribe as to the meaning but Us can always sense a feeling that is common to all
- Us is then a theory which has to be useful at the time for its purpose quite capable of, and essentially requiring, change to increase its usefulness. Since it deals with Us it will never become the axiom.
- When referring to Us always treat it in the singular indicative. I have not made a grammatical mistake when one appears to have happened. Rather it appears in my text to cause an itch that calls for the scratch of the posterior rather than the tearing of lumps. The anatomical reference takes in the different time zones of the Us, and repiaces that which is usual. It might also result in the irregular irregular becoming a positive food for thought. This treatment of the old adage emphasises the need to consider the languages used by the Us concerned and perhaps look for a common language when addressing Us. The usual is perfectly acceptable in the U,S and yet was considered course or rude in the U K.
- Looking for Smith to give sensible illustration it might be worthwhile to consider the following jotting and thought
- ONE FOR THE TEAM
- Smith recent is strolling along with grandson on his shoulder It is a home match and he is an avid West Ham supporter hoping that the lad he is carrying will follow in his footsteps. As they approach the road a west ham supporter throws the half empty can at the Tottenham team coach “Its people like that who make us ashamed of ourselves he remarks”
- Now moving somewhat forward to the away gane a similar situation developes. once again the home side supporter baptises the away team’s coach, But who is riding on the shoulder as a grandad inflicts yet anther pearl of wisdom, “Its people like that who make Us ashamed of ourselves he remarks”.
- Optimistic, tortoise like, the grandson of the original carried is favoured by Smith.
- A SAD GREY
- Having been away from home on a 3 month stint I discovered that all colours except Black and White had disappeared. All shades were gone. This appeared to my eye to provide a dingy outlook while this pallete was used. The implied cry to” come in the waters fine” was to my mind not helpful. The particular waters at the time being distinctly undesirable. It caused me to question.
- “If colour be only skin deep then why to near the bone to mention”
- “Might be in deep water here thinks Smith”
- One final observation.
- Since closing time approaches (for me at any rate). In repeated intelligence tests I have been informed that I closely approach the upper quartile. I was quite pleased at first as I considered these results proffered by kindly examiners. Later of course I was led to consider that,, due to the plausibly indolent life style led by the 25% of world population above me, it was likely that not only the opinions would carry considerable weight. I would therefore be better out from under from these discussions striving to help Us as Us tribes,, races etc get increasingly sqeezed by climate change and increasing populations. I have therefore made my decision.
- Since Us, rather than a bill of rights, has the more stringent list of obligations, I will seek to find the right questions of the much maligned intellectual elite. They only require these to give them the best chance of solving Us problems if only like others I have the wit to ask them.
- Thus the wrinkly’s rant completes.
sensiblesmith 