Why time travel into the past is not possible

There is a simple reason for why time travel into the past isn’t possible. Everything revolves in a predictable motion from sub atomic particles all the way up to planets around their suns and galaxies. With these rotations charges are exchanged or kept at atomic and subatomic levels, and everything works in reaction causing what we see as life or existence. There is no historical record of space-time (space time is simply man’s observation), and changes and fluctuations based on subatomic inconsistencies and interactions exist; random chaos at atomic levels.

Without a record of spacetime going backward in time would mean that some reactions might reverse while others which are unpredictable would not (eg. nuclear chain reactions). If you could move at the speed of light around the sun (matter can't travel that fast) you would simply be traveling around the sun at the speed of light in whichever direction desired... sorry Star Trek fans... no whales today.

The closest thing, involving stasis… a physical recording.

If you record all of the particles in motion as an event happens in some system you might be able to recreate a representation of the scene of the event using the involved structures, but you can not recreate the event itself, you can only alter the replayed recreation or arrangement of molecules and atoms. All matter would have to be contained in a confined space, and all molecular motion would need to be stopped in that confined space, in order to accurately recreate an event and capture all involved components at a sub-atomic level; thermodynamic equilibrium would need to be achieved to insure a proper record. To record all of the particles without interfering with their structure would require disassembly for a proper mapping; a deconstruction.

The process of structural recording should never, ethically be done on a living sentient thing which would also prevent things such as teleportation or exact atomic cloning of living organisms. The reason for this is because stopping all atoms in their present state would cause their [natural] interactions to fail and their atomic structures would be disrupted. If the matter was not stopped prior to recording, the speed of the atomic breakdown could prove extremely painful and the instantaneous reactions between cells in the organism would make the recorded position of the future recorded cells in a state of reaction. Imagine burning every cell off of your body one cell at a time, the reassembled image of the original (yourself) would contain evidence of the trauma because you couldn’t record all of the cells in their paused molecular subatomic state at the same time. This is all of course based on the organism itself surviving the pause or deceleration to maximum entropy.

Furthermore upon reassembly if the recorded cells were to be rearranged there would be a chance of accidentally creating an excited nucleus causing a fission reaction.

I would like to state that I've not studied these things at any level at all and this is simply my uneducated hypothesis based on my observation.

The universe isn't a hologram, but it looks that way... here's why.

I read a headline on the Nature site stating “Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram.” I was surprised this was news or that they had taken a time to create a computer model to discern this bit of information. A hologram, according to Wikipedia, is a representation of an image in space (not outer space) made from an apparently random structure or representation of either varying intensity, density, or profile. According to the article:

“A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection.”

Maybe I’m the only one who sees the universe this way, but I was thinking, in a more modern parlance, “duh.” Then they go on to talk about Quantum Physics and a 10-Dimensional Theory of Gravity and how the universe will be hopefully more easily explained in the future in terms of Quantum Theory. Okay, so there we have a problem.

Everything we see from Earth and near space is indeed a projection on whatever surface we’re using to view it (technically)… either it’s the lenses in our eyes, a camera lens, or the output of a computer model based on data that we’re gleaned from observation. No two eyes are alike, no two people are alike, and while we may see things similarly we do not see the exact same things.

Heavenly bodies beyond our solar system as we see them in the sky are but a historical representation of something that once was in time. The distance of the stars, each multiple light years away means that the light we see varies in age (it takes a really long time to get here). It takes longer for light from a star much further away to reach us. Any calculation in the movement of these stars has to be based on fallible things such as time and the amount of light and waves being measured, because there is not enough historical data for us to accurately predict how far away an object outside our solar system really is. We as a people with our present intellects have not existed long enough to gather enough information about the movement of all of the stars using the latest technology. We still get excited about landing remote controlled vehicles successfully in our own solar system... billions of dollars have been spent on this very act.

Additionally because objects can vary in size and because we have no way of discerning the size accurately in three dimensions here on Earth from our vantage point, parallax is a major issue and prevents us from actually appropriately gauging distance. We would have to map every star and object in the sky at all times from more than one vantage point. Add in assumptions for constants such as the speed of light in a vacuum (unbent by gravity), and because we can not measure all of the factors acting on the minute amounts of light that make it to our instruments we can make no solid theories as to anything remotely substantial, only calculations of the subset of data required to properly model our perceptions which contain very small amounts of data in the grand scheme of things. We can theorize about what atoms exist on other planets in our solar system but we still don't know.

Furthermore, this is all unprovable (in terms of their scientific research) because we will not exist long enough to determine whether the experiments are true, therefore we should stop wasting efforts on any sort of scientific rational relating to Quantum Physics, Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Theory and focus on making life of today and tomorrow better for the people who exist now. There are so many more things that matter in life. What's next, interstellar space travel? Leave Sci-fi as a hobby. Don't make the rest of society pay for actual real science fiction through failed experimentation. We are not in The Matrix, we are not in a simulation, don't get your hopes up. Life will be just as cruel tomorrow.

Allstate Drivewise. A huge failure in potential.

I've been meaning to get this one up for some time. For a short time I had signed up for Allstate's Drivewise program. Driving very few miles as compared to most other drivers and the fact that I don't drive like an idiot, I figured it was safe (nothing to lose). The problem is the data set that they've created their perfect driver rating system around are likely based on their payouts for accidents by type of braking, time of day, mileage, and excessive speed (80+ mph). Okay sounds good so far. I kind of figured this going in.

Overwhelmingly statistics apparently aren't on my side when they're being applied by Allstate.

When you dig into the Drivewise data after receiving your first set of "grades" you'll see 4 nice looking graphics in the interface. One for mileage, one for braking, one for time of day, one for speed in excess of 80mph.

Mileage

They go on to tell you that the mileage is a calculated projection of how many miles they think you'll drive based on your daily driving. If you're sticking to what they expect this shouldn't be a problem. I don't have a problem with mileage from the device because it coincides with the mileage from my odometer (which they already had on file). Spoiler, if you tell them you only drive 7,000 miles a year, and you really drive 50,000 the program will not give you a discount and the agent will have access to your actual mileage and will likely raise your premiums accordingly.

Braking

The braking section of the graphics show two things. "Hard Braking" and "Extreme Braking" are the two categories. According to Drivewise, hard braking is when you decelerate by 8mph in less than 1 second. If you're following a bus that makes frequent stops and you can not change lanes, depending on the bus driver's performance and lack of indication you will have a hard braking event (or two or four), someone walks out in front of you, a dog in the road, you get the idea. Extreme braking is when you decelerate by 10mph in less than 1 second. So if you come up to a short traffic light that has a 3 second yellow (these do exist) from 50mph and begin decelerating, you will likely have an extreme braking event. When you have 4 hard braking events and 1 extreme braking event over the course of 3 weeks this erodes any discount you would expect to receive from the program. I do mean ANY and ALL discounts.

Time of day

The time of day expectations for the program are really optimistic for Allstate. They have 4 categories. They've said that the "Lowest Risk" for accidents is on weekends between 5am and 11pm. The same time that most teens are out driving to work or shopping, etc. The "Low Risk" time is from 4am-12pm on weekdays (When teens are driving to school.). "Moderate Risk" is from 12pm to 11pm on Weekdays (When teens are on their way home from school or on their way to work at night). If you're out past 11pm you are driving at the "High Risk" time which is from 11pm-4am on weekdays and from 11pm-5am on weekends (Drunk people dodging, but luckily most teens are at home curiously enough).

Speed >=80

This one is pretty straight forward however they give a whole range of grading here where you basically stay below 80 or you don't. I don't understand this one at all because if you go above 80 you should be in the very high-risk category for drivers. Go get a racing license and take it out on the track. Now if you're in a state like Florida or Montana where you may encounter a 75mph speed limit, then it's understandable that this may need to be changed, but they're not trying to hide anything from you here.

My Suggestions

If Allstate really wanted their Drivewise program to be highly successful for them and to actually reward people who are definitely driving safely they would look at a different set of parameters.

Speed

Since the device already knows how fast the driver is going, it should be able to tell whether they are one of those people who can't maintain a constant speed. If the driver accelerates extremely rapidly (0-60 in 10 seconds) then they should have a record of drag racing on file. This could be road rage (extremely risky) or someone not paying attention to their lane ending... this might also obviously be drag racing, but the risks are the same. If the driver is running 65 and catches someone doing 45 and does not overtake or switch lanes, then they are not paying attention. Also if they decelerate by this much and maintain the speed it means that they either entered a construction zone, or they slowed down to the flow of traffic. If the device sees people accelerating and decelerating regularly it should know that the person is in a stop and start traffic jam. It already knows the time of day, so if the person is in rush hour stop and start traffic then it should know and place them in a higher risk category (for a low impact collision).

Location vs Speed

The device already has the ability to track vehicle location because it's transmitting on a cellular signal. If Google and most GPS systems can tell how long it will take to get to a destination, the device should be able to do this as well. This means if the driver is speeding and the device knows it, then they are risky and should not receive the discount. Something like 65 in-town in a school zone and they should put the driver into the high-risk category as well (for a high impact collision).

Crazy Driving

Add a couple of accelerometers to the device and now you can actually find the people who are weaving at risky times (drunks) and the people who are weaving on their daily commute (food-eating, texting, doing their make-up, you know... people who are exhibiting risky behavior). Also you can find the people who are insanely driving and weaving in and out of traffic with fast bursts of acceleration. Like the yellow semi truck that didn't like my Chicago Black Hawks tag.

Time of day

The Allstate Drivewise program needs to get a realistic idea of when people drive and when people don't drive in order to be successful. If I'm driving safely at a time of day when there is nobody on the road but me, then I shouldn't be in the high-risk category. If I'm driving when there are fewer people who are on the road like an afternoon after rush hour, I shouldn't be in a moderate risk category. If I'm driving when EVERYONE is off of work at the same time as they are on a Weekend, then I should be in a very high risk category (more people on the road=greater chance of an accident). If I'm driving when people are trying to get to work on time or they're trying to rush home after a bad day at work those are risky times as well.

I think if Allstate had actually taken the time to utilize the system instead of cutting corners, they could actually reward the people who are indeed safe drivers and profit from the people who aren't.

Suggested Upgrades

Add a couple of wireless cameras to the device. Let's put one in the front and in the back. Let's actually get some documentation on why someone is stopping abruptly. Don't outsource the research to a country overseas. Now you can have people in the US work from home and analyze the footage. It would help keep people off of the streets and off of the roads and it would also help with those fender benders that don't get reported. Not to mention auto theft, erratic driving and whether someone's towing a trailer at high speed. Yeah I'm talking about the people in the fast lane running 80mph towing the trailer that's rated for 45mph max.

Make the device aware on its surroundings. Add a hygrometer. Let's see if people are driving in the rain or driving when it's dry. Let's take some barometric pressure readings on the Drivewise device. Zero visibility thunderstorm, do you slow down? They should know. Let's add a thermometer. Driving on ice? The device should know. If you drive excellent on ice, then you should be rewarded. If you're more like a skating star doing twirls, whirls, and 720 degree spins, you should be penalized.

Make it driver aware, add something to the keychain so when a certain driver is in a closer proximity it knows who is driving the car. Sure you could swap keys, but this would definitely help if you had teens driving the car. That way they could tell who was a safe driver and who wasn't. Want the discount back, don't let junior drive your car.

All-in-all I'm 100% positive about making the roads a safer place.

What is the Allstate Drivewise really about?

The Allstate Drivewise device is not out to make the roads safer. In actuality if we look at the device from a completely different approach, it's a now a gimmick that invades the privacy of the driver. Allstate isn't interested in whether someone is a safe driver. They're interested in finding ways to make you pay high premiums. The higher risk they can make you in their book, the better off they are (monetarily). My agent seemed disappointed that I was healthy when applying for Life Insurance... gee, I wonder why that is? The same logic applies to car insurance. If you're a truly bad driver, the system will punish you, but if you're a good driver, then it's up to the insurance company to make up for the loss.

Realistically if we look at the stats from the US National Transportation Safety Board, most people aren't at risk of getting into a major accident on the road statistically. Only the select few. If we can keep those people off of the street, then sign me up. Until then, I'm keeping the Allstate Drivewise out of my vehicle because it makes me think about something when I'm behind the wheel that isn't related to my driving performance at all, and that's whether or not I'm going to be financially penalized about something out of my control. And when they do penalize me for something which is not a risk at all, I appear to them to be an "unsafe" driver, which helps them to justify charging more.

Get Wise Allstate.


A note on the edits
Originally I had mentioned that it might have been up to the device programmers, but that's not really fair. Once a product like this passes enough scrutiny panels in the production phase, good intentions of the designers are left in a pile for the sake of a little bit of savings. As long as the device gives a plausible illusion of savings, then the company will proceed.

Displaying measurements and SEO

Quote marks and other symbols vs. Abbreviations

In short, use an abbreviation that is regularly used and makes sense. (Eg. 1inch or 2mm)

How I've come to this conclusion

I had an epiphany today while working on SEO (Search Engine Optimization) for a site for one of my clients. We deal with measurements in American Standard, Imperial, US, NPS (nominal pipe size), and DN (diametre nominel) all the time. The measurements are all over the place depending on the age of the documents, the sizes and classifications are everywhere between really tiny .125in and massive 120in because of the range of products. It’s not easy to appease all of the people all of the time when they’re trying to find the right information because they all use the language that they were taught. Some people look for one measurement, while others (possibly in a metric-only shop) might look for something altogether different. The field and communicating in the field is challenging to say the least.

The main problem is when we’re displaying the content we use [inherited] copy that works for our American locations, but doesn’t translate well overseas. I mention this because some countries use an entirely different set of marks for quotation.  An example might be a range for the measurements 1"-3". My word processor (as I’m writing this) changed the typewriter double quote marks (double ditto marks) used for inches to “smart” [curly] quotes (right [side] double quotes). Quote marks and apostrophes are used in context in body copy and in the HTML code as well. So when you place a quote mark on the page, the search engine has to determine whether the quotation mark is in context as a quote, as a prime, as ditto marks, or closing (or opening) coded statement, then if it is used in context they have to determine whether you’re using it as a quote mark or as an indicator for a measurement, in this case inches.

 The search engine has to decipher the meaning of all apostrophes, double quotes, primes, and ditto marks on the coded page to decipher meaning. When someone writes 1' 2.75" they’re really saying one foot, two and three quarter inches. Since it’s not as easy to spell that all out and have people glance at a table in context, we need to write 1ft 2.75in (for consistency) so the search engines can tell what we’re talking about. Likewise, the range I mentioned before should be written as 1in-3in. 

To gain a different perspective, this document contains a variety of abbreviations and symbols for US including measurements (and they don't show quote marks and primes). You can see how using abbreviations inconsistently can lead to chaos (or in my case minute loss of page rank).

Now if we could only teach the search engines how to calculate ranges and relate to content for said ranges, as well as do calculations on the fly in context that would be awesome.

Why is Apple showing Nelson Mandela on their home page?

I was thinking about looking at Apple products again. Money in hand I went to their website to look for ideas for things to get because I'm a sucker like the rest of society... then I saw this on their homepage. Yes that's Nelson Mandela.

Screenshot of the Apple homepage 12/13/2013

Now to say Nelson Mandela was a great leader of men is an understatement. A super strong figure in the world who stood up for people other than himself. He effected great change in millions while he was alive. He changed the way people think about other people, and he brought into the light a huge issue in his country... an issue he helped to fix. You can read more about his awesomeness in the link.

Apple on the other hand has been shown time and time again their short comings in terms of how they quite oppositely create great divides in people. Apple perpetuates classes, not only in the markets they sell to, but in the workforces that make Apple products. This next year Apple will have to prove that they aren't using slave labor.

So back to my original question, why is Apple showing Nelson Mandela on their home page?

Well for that, the answer is simple. He's an excellent graphic hook. That's pretty much it. Oh, and by showing him on their homepage it makes them appear to be not as bad. No links to anything talking about how great of a man he was that might distract from the almighty marketing machine that IS APPLE however.  Additionally, research shows that a smiling handsome man who reminds everyone of their elders and all that is good in the world makes people happy. It makes us warm inside. It makes people a little more likely to let lose of their tight grip on the money needed to buy a phone or some other device.

Well this holiday season while the people at the Apple store work for their low wages, and the people in China and other countries where they make the components that go into the Apple devices will not be with their loved ones, remember that marketing is everywhere. Marketing changes who we are. It changes what we do. It changes our perceptions of everything. Marketing is the art of fooling the masses. And just because a company like Apple shows Nelson Mandela on their homepage doesn't mean they've changed their ways. It just means they've found another way to fool people into not seeing them for what they are... a company focused on their bottom line.

I work in marketing and I think what they've done here is wrong. Apple has gone too far. Share this if you agree.