Narcissism and Time

I've always been fascinated by the concept of time, or rather temporality, because time is too reductionist. I think that the theory of relativity was a natural outgrowth of the work that was done to develop a universal time system which required clocks to be synchronized. This requirement was borne out of the improvements in transportation and communication precipitated by the need for a proper train schedule. Back in the day, everywhere had their own way of keeping time, which, when dealing with train travel over long distances just wasn't tenable.

I find reading a train schedule surprisingly difficult, and I used to make mistakes all the time. I've gotten a bit better at it with experience, but when I was little I felt they were a bit mind-boggling. I think it was Poincare who first tried to synchronize the clocks in Paris, which shows that even before relativity, this task was no trivial matter. I find it fitting that GPS, which requires proper time keeping, wouldn't work without general relativity, because to me that's what relativity is all about, a way to synchronize clocks. It's also great that such a practical matter would lead to such a seemingly impractical and abstract theory.

The question of clock synchronization is interesting but is really just a manifestation of temporality, it isn't temporality itself. Temporality is about what we experience, and about a kind of structure in the world and in us, and time is just a number. I think it's important not to confuse the two. People do this all the time, they objectify their experience and then confuse the objects they've created with the experience, which is not an object per se. It's a deficiency in human understanding that we have to reduce things to what they're not in order to understand them. We can never really know what time is from the words and equations we pronounce because in describing and analyzing it it becomes something which it is not. Perhaps this is the most we can say in a way about time, or at least this is something we should say about it. We are fascinated by the image presented us in the mirror, but what is in that mirror is only an image. That of which we intend to speak is what is in some sense responsible for that image, but it is far more than it. I guess it's a kind of narcissism that human nature requires us to have. At least we should be aware of it, if we can do nothing else.

The Missing Lunar Fire

From the dawn of time, man has embarked on a journey to create the most advanced forms of fire. With the advent of oxidation techniques this pursuit has taken on great fervor, but fire can also exist en vacuo. As I consider fire to be a state between plasma and normal matter, where electrons are excited into various states and in falling down to lower energies emit light. I don't believe this is a controversial position.

And so, collisions in particle accelerators create such a condition. As does light emitted from synchrotron light sources. Both of these are very civilzed forms of fire, but the latter brings me to the source of my confusion. Since, as the moon revolves around the earth, why doesn't it emit synchrotron light? Or does it? If it does then why doesn't the moon slow down and it's orbit move closer to the earth? Is it because that motion is gravitational in nature and so by general relativity the moon is just following a curve in space time and is not actually accelerating when it orbits the earth? Sure, the synchrotron radiation would be minuscule for each charge, but there are a lot of charges.

Now, take the Aurora for example, that light is emitted because of acceleration due to the magnetic fields that the charged particles pass through. Does the gravitational acceleration the particles undergo contribute in a direct way, or is it just a red herring?

The Much Maligned and Ignored Kitchen Bouquet

I'm a big fan of Kitchen Bouquet. The learning process for this wonderful product has been slow, and I don't suppose it's over. I shall expound my current thoughts on the subject presently. Those of you not familiar, may be familiar with it's cousin, Gravymaster, which I cannot speak to at great length. I come from a Kitchen Bouquet family. My mother used to put it on london broil, or other beef, such as hamburgers, to promote browning. When say the meat was broiled, as in a London broil, or fried in a pan, but not put upon a grill. It contributes a most excellent flavour to it.

I believe that Kitchen Bouquet is basically the same thing as Vegemite but thinner. I also think that it is a by-product of brewing beer. My understanding is thus: When the beer has been fermented, it is filtered somehow, and much of the yeast and such is filtered out. Salt, or some such product is added to the yeast which kills it. The enzymes in the yeast commence to breakdown the yeast itself. This process of self-destruction is called autolysis. The resulting concoction has cell walls in it, and these are somehow taken out. What remains is called yeast extract, and it is basically what Kitchen Bouquet is.

Kitchen Bouquet has much of the highly touted umami flavour. It shares flavours and appearance with soy sauce, and I think this must not be a coincidence. What is nice about it is that it is not very salty like soy sauce. Soy sauce is also the result of a fermentation process, I do believe. Why this wonderful thing isn't more popular escapes me. Yeast is in the fungus family. It doesn't surprise that it's a fungus because it does have the earthy flavour of mushrooms in spades, and I think it would go very nicely with them.