Question. Is this a zombie kit, a hurricane kit, or an election preparedness kit?

Question. Is this a zombie kit, a hurricane kit, or an election preparedness kit?

Answer : Yes :)

E=MC2 is wrong!!

What if Einstein's E=MC2 was wrong?

Yeah, you know what, it is. Not the equation, necessarily, but the theory behind it, and quantum physics will eventually prove me right.

E=Energy
M=Mass
C=Light, and 2 is to square that.

This formula is fantastically accurate at predicting the amount of energy produced by destroying a specific amount of mass. This stunningly accurate math has been taken as proof that mass has been converted into energy. But what if it hasn't? What if the math is proving something else entirely?

Heresy I know, but hear me out for a minute. History is littered with great math seemingly proving bad ideas. They thought electricity was a fluid, for one. That heat was an element, and because the math proved useful, they believed the theory was right for decades.

A useful formula is not proof of a correct theory, it is only proof of a useful formula, and E=MC2 is wonderfully useful. I just don't think it proves mass is actually being destroyed.

Let me take a backward step, for a second.

Water is a wonderful example. If you put lots of energy into water, you can break down the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. Those atoms 'seemingly' disappeared to a world that knew nothing of 'gasses'. Light a match, and you get most of that energy back (in a loud explosion) and most of that water returns.

Atoms are strange things to contemplate. I believe neutrons don't exist, as many of you know. Not that the idea of neutrons isn't useful, but it is also distracting, like calling Pluto a planet. Neutrons, if separated from the atom, quickly decompose into an electron and a proton after just a few minutes. This means that a neutron is, in actuality, a proton and an electron, not a separate and distinct particle of its own. And its 'neutral' charge doesn't exist either. It is equal parts positive (proton) and negative (electron) that are simply canceling each other out, giving it an illusion of neutrality. But why would I push to ban the use of neutrons? Because it keeps people thinking that there are three types of everything, one positive, one negative, and one neutral. But in reality all the neutral particles are is 'proof' that there's yet another smaller piece of this sub-atomic pie.

Back to E=MC2 and my hydrogen and oxygen example.

The energy released, the E, to me is like the neutron and Pluto argument all over again. The energy being released isn't in any doubt. It's the destruction of the Mass that I question. The energy could easily be released by a proton decomposing into its bundle of 'strings'. The 'strings', for lack of a better word, would not be detectable or measurable by anything we have today. So, to all measurements, the 'Mass' simply disappears, when in reality it doesn't.

Why does this matter?

It matters because, as we dig deeper into quantum physics, we're finding that matter is much harder to destroy than E=MC2 leads us to believe... but like neutrons, every time we dig deeper, dig smaller, we instinctively look for 'neutral' particles, when neutral simply means it can still be divided smaller. The destruction of matter isn't occurring, any more than water is destroyed when the gasses of oxygen and hydrogen are formed.

What does E=MC2 really mean?

It means that, if I'm right, forging protons and quarks and such from a mass of 'strings' requires far more energy than we previously believed. It would also mean that 'strings' don't bind as willingly as it seems, and could easily account for all this 'dark matter' that's left out of the universe. The energy is huge, C squared huge. That means that this extremely useful equation predicts the reluctance of 'strings' to form the kinds of structures that we call matter. This means that solo, free-floating 'strings' are much harder to detect than we would think, and are probably more abundant in the universe than even hydrogen is. A soup of unbound 'strings' could easily account for Dark Matter.

But this also brings up a deeper question.

Can 'strings' (assuming the ludicrous theory that strings are the smallest matter possible) be created out of energy? Or can they be destroyed? I still don't know. If E=MC2 is right, and I'm wrong, then strings can be destroyed. But I suspect they can't. I doubt they can be created either. But most importantly, I don't think E=MC2 has proven that matter can be destroyed... at least, not yet it hasn't.

Transreflective nightmares

Sad news to report:

5-23-2003 I bought my beloved NEC Versa Daylite. It was an OverPriced laptop that, feature for feature, was inferior to everything on the market with its $999 pricetag. At a grand, most laptops came with DVD, twice the HD, twice the Memory, twice the CPU, bigger screens, and still came in hundreds under its 999.

But the NEC was the only one in the market that had a transreflective screen, and at 10.4" it was also the biggest of its kind. Transreflective. That's a mighty fancy nerd word that still doesn't mean anything to anyone. It wouldn't be until the Kindle, six years later, that the world would have a similar parallel.

Its overpriced transreflective screen is a Daylite screen. This means it can be seen in full daylight, just like with the Kindle E-ink models. But unlike the Kindle's E-ink, a transreflective is Full Color. In other words, you get the full motion, full color and screen size of an iPad, With the readability and ease on the eyes of the E-Ink of the Kindle, Nook, and Sony. Transreflective is the difference between reading something printed on paper and a bright computer screen.

Without this overpriced laptop, I'd never have been able to put in the hours and hours and hours that it took to write the nine novels I have.

You see, I'm one of those that gets painful headaches if I do more than an hour of reading from a traditional screen. I wrote my first book wearing dark sunglasses and eating aspirin like candy, before finding this laptop.

It was a life changer. But, they don't make this screen anymore.

Nobody does.

Over the 9 years I've had it, the motherboard has smoked, literal smoke, 8 times. Yeah, it's had lots of problems, but I've kept repairing it because, like mentioned, the screen is irreplaceable. I've lost the Ctrl keys on the keyboard, yet I keep going. I put up with its slow processor and hampering limitations because of that beautiful, easy on the eyes, transreflective screen that has NO Backlight and give me No headaches or eye strain no matter how many hours I put in staring at it.

Today, I found out that, in a careless moment, some bug spray must have landed on it, and, over night, eaten into the thin layer of plastic on the screen. It now, and forever more, will look smudgy.

My irreplaceable. . . is now un-repairable.

This is a painful setback in my writing career.

CAFE standards for children

I don't understand what all the fuss is over Michelle Obama's new CAFE standards for children. By following her new calorie standards, America will soon be able to save millions of tons of food that could be better used for making biofuel for Eco-friendly flights in AirForce One to this month's new vacation site. Creating EU-compliant carbon-neutral biofuel for the weekly junkets is far more important than making sure hungry children have enough to eat, anyone with an Obama bumper sticker will tell you that.

CAFE standards for cars have proven that government need only mandate a one-size-fits-all standard and the market place will, like magic, make it happen. So what if the child runs track or plays sports; like the SUV, if government passes strict enough fuel standards, eventually a hybrid will emerge and some student will 'evolve' to run a 200k triathlon on a pack of crackers and a hardboiled egg.

With these new CAFE standards in place on children, all we have to do is wait and watch the magic happen!

We should be thanking Michelle Obama for helping speed evolution along! Without imposing a new CAFE standard, GM would never have invented the Volt, and the Prius would never have been. Get off your lazy ass, Creator, we need to switch to hybrid children today, so that all those crops we waste on food can fuel our clean, carbon-neutral utopia future!

Perhaps, if reelected, Obama will implement a cash-for-clunkers where he will give drug addicts, smokers, alcoholics, the fat, and the out of shape $3,000 to stay out of ObamaCare or move to another country. I look forward to the day where the FDA can jail someone for eating too many calories at one time, much like we do with speeders. The test pilot is already working. FDA representatives have already prevented children from eating packed lunches that 'don't comply' with the new CAFE standards for children. We can't have ObamaCare without imposing these new standards on everyone. Perhaps we can apply it to our new emigration standards too. Go over a certain BMI and lose your citizenship!

But the brilliance doesn't end there. Without all those excess calories, the children of the future will be much easier to control. It will soon be as rare to find a child misbehaving as it is to find a Yugo speeding. Soon, all that children will have the energy for is playing on video games and napping on the couch. Michelle is, by far, the most brilliant first lady we've ever had, and you all should be ashamed of yourselves for criticizing her for imposing CAFE standards on your children. What are you, a bunch of racists!

Hope and change! Hope and change!

. . . can I get my free. ObamaPhone now?

Greedy green scams.

See, I've been saying this for a while about all these green scams.

I'm a fan of alternatives, they feature in most of my books. But I'm realistic too, ain't none of them are workable...yet, and likely never will be.

Its nice Europe is picking up on the scam.

We are told that mittens is for the rich, but dems are the ones that rammed this gift to the rich through Congress, and similar punish the poor solar panels and windmills into law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205708/Electric-car-grants-worth-5-000-benefit-just-government-pot-used-scheme.html?ITO=1490

Word Macro for analyzing dialog ratios in chapters

Here's a fun WORD macro for the writers out there.

Most of us are curious about how much of a chapter is dialog. You don't want it too thick with descriptions, and dialog is, lets face it, the juicy stuff that readers like. It's very useful to see what kind of dialog to text ratio there is, and this little gem does it.

Now, a few warnings.

First, you need to know how it defines a chapter. It looks at where the cursor is, then scrolls up until it finds a manual page break. If you don't separate your chapters this way, it won't work for you. It then scrolls down until it finds another manual page break. So, if you run it on the first chapter and there isn't a page break above or below where the cursor is, it'll get confused. Easy fix, just add a few manual page breaks and you're fine.

It'll get confused if you don't have any quotes in it at all. And, it'll report estimates, not exact word counts. So, just use it as a rough guideline, not an exact word counting tool.

Lastly, it doesn't understand what dialog is exactly, so it just counts the words that fall between two quotes. This works fine for most styles, but when your quotes go beyond a paragraph, it can confuse the poor thing.

Example: (I'll underline the dialog AS it Counts them)
Jack said, "Bla bla bla." And was slapped. Then he said, "Bla!"

It'll get that just fine.

Jack said, "Bla bla bla.
Bla bla bla
Bla bla bla." Jack got slapped. "But I bla bla
Bla bla bla"

It'll get that just fine.

Jack said, "Bla bla bla.
"Bla bla bla
Bla bla bla." Jack got slapped. "But I bla bla
"Bla bla bla"

This last style just confused the hell out of it. If this last style is how you do your quotes, it'll be useless to you. It's a valid style, but a nightmare to code it to be able to tell the difference between the two, so I had to pick one style. And, obviously, I picked my style.

It writes the report where your page number is. You probably don't know but that's the line below the text that reads something like this:

Page 1 Sec 1 1/1 At 4.3" Ln 18 Col 38

It's usually just above the word [Start]

The very next thing you do in word will erase the results and it'll return to the Page # thingy.

Now, if you manually edit the code, it can do some neat things. It can underline or bold all the dialog for you. That's sometimes very useful too.

======================================================

'
Sub ChapterOnlyReport()
'
' ChapterOnlyReport Macro This macro finds dialog in a chapter
' Macro recorded 6/26/2008 by TR NoWry And counts it, then reports at the end
' Chapters are defined by manual page brakes
' This lets you know how much of a chapter
' is dialog
'
UlDialog = False 'Change to True to Underline all the Dialog
BoldDialog = False 'Change to True to Bold all the Dialog
' 'Useful for diagnostics and, well, just fun!
On Error GoTo Quiter:
OEMpos = Selection.Start
Selection.Find.ClearFormatting
With Selection.Find
.Text = "^m"
.Replacement.Text = ""
.Forward = False
.Wrap = wdFindAsk
.Format = False
.MatchCase = False
.MatchWholeWord = False
.MatchWildcards = False
.MatchSoundsLike = False
.MatchAllWordForms = False
End With
Selection.Find.Execute
Selection.Find.ClearFormatting
BeginChapter = Selection.Start
With Selection.Find
.Text = "^m"
.Replacement.Text = ""
.Forward = True
.Wrap = wdFindAsk
.Format = False
.MatchCase = False
.MatchWholeWord = False
.MatchWildcards = False
.MatchSoundsLike = False
.MatchAllWordForms = False
End With
Selection.Find.Execute
Selection.Find.ClearFormatting
EndChapter = Selection.Start
ActiveDocument.Range(BeginChapter, EndChapter).Select
w1 = Int(Selection.Words.Count * 0.808)
WordNumber = Str(w1)
If Len(WordNumber) > 4 Then WordNumber = Left(WordNumber, Len(WordNumber) - 3) + _
"," + Right(WordNumber, 3)
Selection.Start = BeginChapter

Loop1:
With Selection.Find
.Text = """"
.Forward = True
End With
Selection.Find.Execute
If Selection.Find.Found = False Then GoTo OutLoop
If Selection.Start > EndChapter Then GoTo OutLoop
S1 = Selection.Start
With Selection.Find
.Text = """"
.Forward = True
End With
Selection.Find.Execute
If Selection.Find.Found = False Then GoTo OutLoop
If Selection.Start > EndChapter Then GoTo OutLoop
S2 = Selection.Start
ActiveDocument.Range(S1 + 1, S2).Select
w = w + Selection.Words.Count

'For pause = 1 To 6000000
'Next

ssold = Selection.Text
BG = 2.5
For pt = 1 To Len(ssold)
If Mid(ssold, pt, 1) = "," Or _
Mid(ssold, pt, 1) = ";" Or _
Mid(ssold, pt, 1) = """" Or _
Mid(ssold, pt, 1) = ":" Then BG = BG + 1
If Mid(ssold, pt, 1) = "," And pt = Len(ssold) - 1 Then BG = BG - 1
Next
w = w - BG

If BoldDialog Then Selection.FormattedText.Bold = True
If UlDialog Then Selection.FormattedText.Underline = wdUnderlineSingle

Selection.MoveRight
Selection.MoveRight
Selection.MoveRight

GoTo Loop1

OutLoop:
Selection.Start = OEMpos
Selection.End = OEMpos
For d = 1 To 15
Selection.MoveUp
Next
Selection.Start = OEMpos
Selection.End = OEMpos
Selection.MoveLeft

gg = ActiveDocument.Words.Count * 0.807
g = Str(Int(gg))
If Len(g) > 4 Then g = Left(g, Len(g) - 3) + _
"," + Right(g, 3)
WW = Str(Int(w))
If Len(WW) > 4 Then WW = Left(WW, Len(WW) - 3) + _
"," + Right(WW, 3)
StatusBar = "This Chapter has <<<-- " + WordNumber + " Words, " + """" + WW + """" _
+ ", or " + Str(Int((w / w1) * 100)) + "% in quotes -->>> " + g + " Total book"
Quiter:
End Sub

Redneck bugZapper... er.

Redneck bugZapper... uh, drownerer. Uh, OK, it's just a bowl of soapy water under a nightlight, but it getsRdone :)