are you talking about the gibberish leslee and I leave all over the site?

I'd love to see it if there's a link. I promise I didn't do any fly overs of California last night.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Definitely alien activity. But they did a nice job, you have to say. It was probably that hooligan who woke me up in his "wheel within a wheel" last November when I slept at the Salinas Elks lodge overnight. Still annoyed over that.

http://matrixbob.wordpress.com.....nia-video/

The aliens made some crop circles in the snow for us. Actually, I believe it was kids doing doughnuts. I walked the EVO! all the way into the center of Crop Circus Maximus and back out. She must get exasperated, like when I throw the keys in the field to see if she'll fetch. She will about three times, and then she's like, "If you're too stupid to keep throwing your keys, I'm not going to find them anymore."

Back to crop circles, did I ever say that book for Tom Valone's "Antigravitics Systems" was done under duress and every sentence was a left-handed compliment? I wrote a horrible review, to which the boss said, "We don't do negative reviews." Hence, the rewrite. It was like the time the Partridge Family dressed up like chickens to get out of doing a gig, and the agent replied, "I don't like it. I love it." I believe "Eleanor, Gee I Think You're Swell" rose to fame after a similar story.

So, for the record, I have no reason to believe aliens are among us, though I don't put it out of the realm of possibility. I definitely don't think a book of poorly-assembled photocopies is proof the aliens gave our military the recipe for the B-2 or whatever that was. (Everybody knows the B-2 is 50 short of the love shack.) Thirdly, I am in the last one percentile of people who one could convince antigravity exists. I've seen no proof, and my wee brain drills down axiomatically no further than protons and electrons.

But, then again, I'm the kway-kway because wormholes, time travel, and all that jazz are intuitively obvious to all the beard-scratchers who pretend to have read Minkowski. I think I read that collection of essays twice and didn't see how anything led up to GRT. But that was another life. I told some folks today I've spent as long forgetting physics as I'd spent trying to get good at it.

OK. I vented about everything - except the dude who asked in a very loud voice in front of Mr. Stalker, "Is that your new XXXX car?" I blew him off about five times and finally said yes, so now Mr. Stalker surely has the tag number and will surely find where I live and work before the post office can.

Wait. What's that big forehead outside the window? It's moving. It's looking right at ----- Oh, it's my reflection.

I was trained not to waste time in a land of fantasy. Of course, my dreams go wonderful places, but they're just dreams. My mind can change its attitude, but I don't believe I have any psychokinetic powers, and wouldn't want any 'cos that would be scary. I used to be really good at finishing peoples' sentences, and that was scary enough - for others, not me. So, I stopped it and now am as miserable at it as everybody else.

I don't believe in anti-gravity because I see the physical world (dead matter sans vis viva) axiomatically as objects protons and neutrons with properties Newton's Law and Coulomb's Law. End of story. Now, if you make one proton go rogue and repel protons - that's just not how I think this universe was designed. The disaster of such a thing used to be clearer in my mind. The trick would involve sub-particles, which I remain wont to admit, as I've never had the pleasure of introduction. I liked the physicist who said particles were the figments of one's imagination that appear from too long staring in a cloud chamber. Another dude said long ago the Nobel Prize should be awarded to the physicist who doesn't discover a new particle. Particles, like wormholes, are like patchwork. They are invented as fudge factors because there is a problem with one's equations. And then, when they are "proven" because the math works to show they exist with the false assumptions in the first place - Voila! Corroboration!

I'm such a luddite.

I've long maintained there are two ways of arriving at truth: religion and science. Religion is top-down, revelation from God. Science is bottom-up refinement of hypotheses by painstaking refutation. The latter is asymptotic, ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, but providing a working framework for technology to advance. Both are subject to corrupting influences. (See other thread, wherever it is.)

My religion doesn't disagree with science anywhere - except where science is wrong - I say as a pighead. But seriously. My science is about prediction the motion of dead matter; and religion is ever learning how to love others better. If we find the genes controlling early-onset arthritis, should I love my neighbor less?

I remain a staunch Newtonian mechanic, and yet believe in visions and miracles. I see no contradiction. I ascribe to the school of thought that teaches just because you can explain things in terms of physics, it doesn't mean your prayer for mercy didn't unlock an angel somewhere to set things in motion.

I still say we have both: science predicts the motion of dead matter; religion cultivates agency.

cool this post gift card generator