Sophisticated:
I may be trained to be what I and all might have me be.
Beautiful; Well suited to your company. Dining throughout the night. Your conversations are informed and bright.
But each said with such conceited smile.
Civilised:
Lead by long life’s university.
I may be what you see .
Rested contentedly.
Comfortable in what I be.
I wait still being.
Hoping for a longer while.
Each of us using allotted space
90 cms square
Privacy being extra rare
We jump off the raft: take our turn:
That the rest will space earn
Yet others will the pedals turn
Providing power to protect the swimmers there
With sonar for the sharks to scare
no land or rescue: no form of respite can-we earn.
Such is our plight
Yet more swimmers in our sight!!!
What to do with them is the problem
What can “US” do now?
Both question and solution.
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.
Risking assault by those from the hall I admit my first name is Brian. Might be lion in China but has slightly different connotations elsewhere.
My wife was under anaesthetic undergoing a serious operation when she suffered from the hallucination that a giant Lego Man monster was approaching.
“What would Brian do“ she reported as she came to
Out went Lego Man in came Macho man.
I too came back to reality later on of course but a moment to remember for any husband.
“could be still under“ mutters sensible in my right ear
(dont forget US is humanity not country )
Silicon Sid nearly dropped his hammer drill as he ate the toast when headline TV scrolled US had survived through the climate change of 23rd century and was now established in Mars. Never the less he moved on to the chalk flakes when he observed US had moved to another galaxy.
(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”
(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.
“
.
My wife having finished the bedtime story ; and wearing a particularly fetching shade of wode, leaves our child’s bedroom.
“ For Gods’ sake stop mucking about with the new club and spear and get the remains of the dinosaur out of the cave.”
“Smith, rather bitterly, refers to my age”
sensiblesmith 