Darel Rex Finley in 888

Einstein’s Error — The Confusion of Laws With Their Effects

2009.01.01   prev     next

QUESTION: What would happen if some causal agent outside the universe planted a brand new electron in the air six inches in front of your face? This event would be, of course, in complete contradiction to the law of conservation of matter-energy. Would the universe come to an abrupt end? Would a logical contradiction be created that means no such electron creation can, even hypothetically, occur? Or would the universe be thrown into a state of imbalance and careen out of control, wrecking all matter and energy as we know them?

I have another idea: Nothing special would happen. There would just be one more electron in the universe than there was before. So what? You and I wouldn’t even notice. And if, before this electron insertion, the universe had a total electromagnetic charge of zero, then it would now have the negative charge of a single electron. Again, so what?

Conservation of Energy

The “Law of Conservation of Energy” is not actually a law of physics. It’s an observable, average effect of the laws of physics that do govern this universe. In other words, the actual laws that govern the behavior of particles in this universe are such that their interactions do not create a total energy greater than or less than they had before the interaction.

A good analogy is a poker game. There is no explicit rule of poker that requires the total amount of money in the game to stay the same throughout the playing of a hand. But the rules of the game are such that any time one player loses some money, another player, at the end of the hand, will acquire that same amount of money. The rules do not provide for the printing of new money right there at the table, nor do they provide for the burning of money either. The money just moves around. As long as there is no outside interference with the players at the table, the total amount of money will remain constant.

What would happen if the poker game included a money-printing machine that could create endless amounts of money? Then the money would be worthless and there would be no point in playing the game at all. What would happen if the game included the regular destruction of money? Then the players would be doomed to run out of money and not be able to continue the game.

Similarly, whatever entities made the rules of our universe in all likelihood purposely designed its laws so that a “law” of conservation of matter-energy (actually an effect of the laws) would exist. If the laws allowed for an increase in energy as particles interacted, then the universe would quickly accumulate so much energy and/or matter that the meaningful, predictable environments and chemical processes on which life depends would be impossible. And if the laws allowed energy to be destroyed by particle interactions, then the universe would quickly run out of matter/energy and contain virtually nothing, or have no activity.

The interpretation of conservation-of-energy as a single law, rather than an effect of multiple, designed laws, typifies, I think, the desire among the past several decades of scientists to avoid design conclusions. This desire springs from:

  • worries over what will happen to the project of science if religion is taken seriously by influential and powerful people,

  • the belief that science is inexorably destroying all even vaguely religious concepts, and

  • the possibility that if this universe is all there is, then human scientists eventually will be able to explain everything.

The first of these, at least, is perhaps a reasonable fear — but, as I’ve noted before, has nothing to do with figuring out what’s true and what isn’t.

Osmosis

Osmosis is popularly described as driven by water’s “tendency” or “want” to cross a concentration gradient, from areas of high water concentration to areas of low water concentration. But in reality there is no such tendency or desire built into water or the laws of physics that control it. Any truly scientific explanation of osmosis, such as I have attempted here, must be based entirely on the essentially Newtonian collision of water (and other) molecules with each other, and with the membrane across which the osmosis occurs.

Air Pressure

One of the effects of Newtonian collisions between gas molecules is that when a body of air and a vacuum (empty space) are brought into open contact, the air rushes into the vacuum, filling and thus eliminating it. This effect was canonized into law as “Nature abhors a vacuum.” But, as Galileo(?) wryly commented, nature abhors a vacuum only up to 30 feet — in other words, in its attempt to fill a vacuum above a column of water, nature will push the water up a tube 30 feet, but no higher. And of course, if nature really abhorred vacuums, then all our technologies based on vacuum tubes (early amplifiers, all CRT displays) would have been impossible.

I once saw this effect-law confusion nicely illustrated in a snippet of a classic comic book, in which a villain trapped Superman in a special bubble that resisted all his attempts to break it. Superman’s solution was to suck all the air out of the inside of the bubble with his super lungs, and since “nature abhors a vacuum,” the bubble then ruptured. Alas, a bubble that can withstand superhero blows far in excess of 15 pounds per square inch wouldn’t have much trouble resisting outside air pressure. Apparently the bubble wasn’t even as strong as a common TV tube.

Wave Refraction

Another example of interpreting an effect of laws as a law is the treatment of the discovery that light refracts in the exact direction required to get it to any target in the shortest possible time. This is commonly treated as if it is (or at least is suggested to be) a law that light mysteriously follows. Actually, it is a simple effect of the way waves propagate across mediums of different propagation speed, and is not actually a property of light in particular, but rather of all waves. (See detail here.)

Euclidean Geometry

Yet another example — if my strong suspicions about the nature of this universe are correct — is to be found in the whole farce of “non-Euclidean geometry.” The belief that there is such a thing as a truly non-Euclidean geometry springs from the confusion of effects (e.g. the pythagorean theorem; parallel lines) with laws (e.g. each particle has multiple, discrete-state values behind it). (See my prior article on this subject.)

What ancient mathematicians thought of as the “axioms” (i.e. laws) of geometry, may actually be effects of the real laws that govern a geometric system. Try to create a computer simulation of a geometric world in which waves can propagate and particles can interact, and see if you can give it a “non-Euclidean” nature, in which the “axioms” of a classical non-Euclidean geometry will be observed. I suggest that you will have a very difficult time indeed creating such a simulation, and even if you succeed, you will find that the bizarre hoops you had to jump through to create it serve no useful purpose other than to satisfy the arbitrary requirement of matching the axioms of a classic non-Euclidean geometry.

And Euclidean or not — will your axioms be explicitly coded into your simulation as laws of the system? Answer: No. They are effects of the laws, not laws themselves.

Newtonian Mechanics

And, the strong differences between the way subatomic particles move around (quantum theory), and the way large objects like billiard balls move around (Newtonian mechanics) can be similarly reconciled. What Newton thought of as laws were actually average effects of a very different set of laws that govern particle behavior. (More about that in just a minute!)

Relativity of Motion

Which brings us to Einstein’s relativity. Einstein declared that there is no such thing as absolute motion through space; rather, objects move only relative to each other. How did Einstein reach this conclusion? We can’t read his mind (even if he were still alive), but we can reasonably surmise that it went something like this:

1. The Michelson-Morley experiment, which attempted to determine the Earth’s absolute velocity through space, gave results that indicate the Earth is not moving at all.

2. Since it is highly unlikely that our planet is absolutely still — not least because we have strong evidence that is is orbiting our sun — something must be sabotaging the Michelson-Morley experiment. That sabotage is caused by Lorentz contraction and time dilation.

3. Why would our universe have Lorentz contraction and time dilation, and have them to the exact degree required to perfectly spoil the Michelson-Morley experiment? Because it has to, since there is actually no such thing as absolute motion. The relativity of motion is one of the laws of our universe.

4. Step 3 seems to be contradicted by the observable centrifugal effect caused by spinning an object. To resolve this, we will propose that the existence of all those zillions of stars out there somehow causes these forces, and that the centrifugal effect would not exist if we spun an object in an otherwise empty universe.

5. Since all motion is relative, light must not actually travel through space (i.e. a wave-propagation medium), but must instead have the spooky, virtually incomprehensible property of being able to get from emitter to receiver without actually propagating in the interim. (The plausibility of this idea was subsequently boosted by quantum theory and the spooky results of some of its experiments — although quantum theory and Einstein’s relativity have actually never worked together particularly well.)

The mistake is Step 3. What if Lorentz contraction and time dilation are not required to exist in order that all motion be relative, but rather exist for some other reason having to do with the way motion in our universe works, and they happen, purely as a side effect, to ruin attempts to determine our absolute velocity through space? (At least by the means Michelson and Morley used, anyway.)

We certainly have precedent for this: Notice, in my above-referenced refraction discussion, that refraction, necessarily caused by the way waves propagate through mediums, just happened to produce the side effect of waves reaching any target in the shortest possible time, when traversing boundaries between mediums of different propagation speed. It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that there is some legal requirement that light reach any target in the smallest possible time, and then from that idea to extrapolate that light “knows” what it is doing; that it is somehow testing infinitely many paths and selecting the fastest one. But stop for a second, go back and notice that the refraction of light is exactly the same as the refraction of all other waves (e.g. sound waves) — then you suddenly realize that there is no law requiring light to use the fastest path, nor a need for light to know what it is doing, etc. It takes the fastest path simply because it’s a wave, and all waves do that, as a consequence of the way they propagate.

So — what if Lorentz contraction and time dilation are necessary consequences of the way objects move through space?

In the classic experiment, an astronaut bounces a light pulse between two posts and measures the time it takes the pulse to make a round trip. If his ship is translating through space then the round trip should take longer, and just how much longer should reveal just how fast the ship is translating. But the astronaut observes the light to take the exact amount of time it should if his ship was not moving at all. And he observes this even if the ship really is moving, because the Lorentz contraction of the entire ship (including the light-bouncing equipment), and the time dilation of the clocks with which the astronaut measures the pulse’s trip duration, all conspire to perfectly neutralize his ability to notice the increase in that duration.

Why would the astronaut, and his ship, and his clocks, and his light-pulse-bouncing posts, be contracted and time-dilated by translational motion through space? Simple. They are composed of particles which maintain their solid-object orientation with respect to each other by a process of constantly interacting via forces that travel at the speed of light. So the exact same distortion of the pulse-bouncing process that the astronaut wants to observe, is also distorting the shape of the astronaut and all objects in his ship, and is distorting the rate at which chemical reactions and other ship-local motions can occur. The coincidence that Lorentz contraction and time dilation exactly ruin the Michelson-Morley experiment is really no coincidence at all — the effect Michelson and Morley were hoping to observe did occur, but it occurred also in the bodies of Michelson and Morley, and in all their equipment, and thus cancelled itself out in their experiment’s results.

Or put another way: Trying to measure with a clock the effect of your ship’s motion on light pulses’ trip times, is in the same category as trying to measure with a ruler the Lorentz contraction of your ship. The ruler is also contracted, and thus the contraction won’t be revealed by such measurements. And it’s not a startling coincidence that demands some explanation (e.g. Step 3 above). When the same contraction effect is applied to ship and ruler, it’s no coincidence at all that the effects will perfectly ruin attempts to use the ruler to measure the contraction of the ship.

Here’s possibly an even better way to explain it: Suppose you mix chlorine and sodium in a container. The result is salt (sodium chloride). Now, if you did that experiment again, but this time the whole experiment was Lorentz-contracted in some direction to some degree, and the rate at which the reaction could occur was slowed (i.e. time-dilated), would you expect a different compound to be produced? Of course not. You would still get salt, only more slowly, and of a distorted (contracted) shape.

Likewise, suppose an astronaut does an experiment in a spaceship, and at the end of the experiment says, “Hmmm — these are the results I would get if my ship wasn’t moving at all.” Would we expect the astronaut to say something different if the whole sequence of events was Lorentz-contracted and time-dilated? No, we would expect him to say the same words, only more slowly, and with his body in a Lorentz-distorted shape. And this logic applies regardless of the degree of spatial contraction (or even spatial expansion!), and regardless of the degree of time-dilation (or time-compression!).1

The Error

When scientists try to observe something, and can’t figure out a way to do so, they experience a strong temptation to declare authoritatively that that something doesn’t exist. The logic is that if we can’t observe it, what harm can come of saying it doesn’t exist? And besides, any idea that it does exist is antithetical to science, since science is about things that we can observe. It is upon this logic that Einstein’s relatively of motion is built.

The flaws in that logic are:

A. Just because we can’t figure out a way to observe X today doesn’t mean we won’t figure out a way to observe it tomorrow. People are always thinking of new ways to observe; and the technology by which they can attempt observation is steadily advancing.

B. In the absence of a way to observe X, the correct scientific declaration is not that X doesn’t exist, but rather that we don’t know whether X exists or not.

Declaring X to be nonexistent is not harmless — it impedes discovery of new ways to look for X, and can lead to potentially false extrapolations based on the supposed nonexistence of X. For example, deciding that all motion must be relative led Einstein to conclude that we must live in a “wraparound” universe, in which space itself is expanding to accommodate the Big-Bang-initiated expansion.

If motion is not actually relative, then there is no need to believe in a universe like that, nor to employ obtuse, ad hoc rationalizations of observed centrifugal effects (Step 4 above) or light’s obvious wave behaviors (Step 5 above). Instead, Occam’s razor easily points us to a Euclidean universe in which matter is simply spreading out by the momentum of the Big Bang. Such a universe does, however, as far as our astronomical observations can tell us, result in the conclusion that our planet is very close to the exact center of the universe. Such a conclusion, combined with the existence of complex life on this planet, the low degree of time-dilation in the central area of the universe, and the maximal efficiency of human expansion throughout the universe if we start near its center, is all highly suggestive of intentional setup. The desire to avoid such intentionality, officially mandated as the “Cosmological Principle,” was strongly shared by Einstein. (More about that here.)

Lorentz-Motion Theory

One of the direct implications of what I’m suggesting above is that translational motion through space (i.e. Newtonian momentum) is caused by the Lorentz contraction of the object. In other words, a billiard ball translating through space is able to translate by being Lorentz contracted. If the ball was not Lorentz contracted in any direction, the particles that make up the ball would, by their ongoing interactions, simply maintain the shape of the ball, and the ball would be unmoving in absolute space. By being Lorentz-contracted, the particles of the ball are able to (indeed must), by their interactions, progressively advance in the direction of contraction. And the more contracted the ball is, the faster it will translate in such manner.

But which direction? If a billiard ball is contracted to about 70% of its normal width, in a left-right direction, then it will translate through space at about half the speed of light in a left-right direction. But will it translate to the left or to the right? If you took a billiard ball and (via god-like manipulation from outside the universe) instantly repositioned all its particles 70% closer together in a left-right direction, would the ball then start translating to the left, or to the right?

As an analogy, ask yourself what would happen if you, god-wise, arranged the water in a wave pool to have a sine-wave shaped curvature of its surface, along a left-right axis. When you then set the water in motion (i.e. allowed it to continue normal processing of its physical laws), would the sine-wave propagate to the left or to the right? Neither — it would collapse and chaotically disperse. To achieve a translating wave, you would have to pick a direction (say, left), then arrange not just the location of the water molecules, but also their Newtonian velocities (some to the left, and others to the right, in different parts of the sine-wave), to mimic the instantaneous state of a water wave translating leftward.

Likewise, I suggest that if you paused physics, repositioned the particles comprising a billiard ball 70% closer together along a particular axis, then set physics in motion again, the ball would probably explode, or otherwise cease to be a recognizable billiard ball. To set up the ball to translate nicely in a particular direction would require the highly coordinated arrangement of both particles and light-like forces in a manner intentionally designed to achieve smooth translation in that direction.

Further suggested here is the idea that fundamental particles do not have velocities at all, but rather are repositioning themselves semi-randomly, under the influence of nearby propagation waves (e.g. light waves). In the case of light propagating through space, the light is in fact a wave, propagating through a Euclidean wave-propagation medium we call “space,” and photon particles semi-randomly track a peak of that wave, riding it until they are captured by some object. (See description in Mechanism, Chapter 5 starting with the “double-slit” discussion.)

 

1 This is not meant to suggest that humans’ experiments will never be able to measure velocity through space — merely that a light-bouncing experiment will not, since it does not include any critical events that cannot be Lorentz-contracted and time-dilated without affecting the experiment’s outcome. See paragraph A.

 

Update 2009.01.02 — Added two paragraphs: “Here’s possibly ... (or time-contraction!).”

Update 2009.01.04 — Removed “with each other” from before “via forces” and “progressively”

Update 2009.01.05 — “time-contraction” changed to “time-compression”. Step 5, endnote 1 added. “or light’s obvious wave behaviors (Step 5 above)” added.

 

Update 2009.01.16 — Here’s an article that suggests there may yet be a way to do what Michelson and Morley were trying to do.

 

Update 2009.11.12 — Although of course I wouldn’t expect the creators of this page to agree with what I’ve written above, it’s still awfully interesting that the best tests are indicating a cartesian (i.e. “flat”) universe.

 

Update 2016.04.07 — Another article on the “flatness” of our universe.

 

See also:
Waves With Particle-Like Properties
&
Theory As Simulation

 

prev     next

 

 

Hear, hear

prev     next

Best Recent Articles

Method of Implementing A Secure Backdoor In Mobile Devices

When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose

How I Clip My Cat’s Nails

Seasons By Temperature, Not Solstice

It’s Not A Criticism, It’s A Fact

Features (Regularly Updated)

A Memory of Gateway — news chronology of Apple’s ascendancy to the top of the technology mountain.

iPhone Party-Poopers Redux and Silly iPad Spoilsports — amusing litanies of industry pundits desperately hoping the iPhone and iPad will go away and die.

Embittered Anti-Apple Belligerents — general anger at Apple’s gi-normous success.

RSS FEED

My books

Now available on the iBookstore!

   

Links

Daring Fireball

The Loop

RoughlyDrafted

Macalope

Red Meat

Despair, Inc.

Real Solution #9 (Mambo Mania Mix) over stock nuke tests. (OK, somebody made them rip out the music — try this instead.)

Ernie & Bert In Casino

Great Explanation of Star Wars

Best commercials (IMO) from Superbowl 41, 43, 45, 46, and 47

Kirk & Spock get Closer

American football explained.

Sonos and Opalum — awesome sound stuff I saw at CEDIA.

TV: Better Call Saul; Homeland; Survivor; The Jinx; Breaking Bad; House of Cards; Inside Amy Schumer

God’s kitchen

Celebrity Death Beeper — news you can use.

Making things for the web.

My vote for best commercial ever. (But this one’s a close second, and I love this one too.)

Recent commercials I admire: KFC, Audi

Best reggae song I’ve discovered in quite a while: Virgin Islands Nice

Pinball Arcade: Unbelievably accurate simulation of classic pinball machines from the late ’70s through the ’90s, with new ones added periodically. Like MAME for pinball — maybe better.

d120 dice: You too (like me) can be the ultimate dice nerd.

WiFi problems? I didn’t know just how bad my WiFi was until I got eero.

Favorite local pad thai: Pho Asian Noodle on Lane Ave. Yes, that place; blame Taco Bell for the amenities. Use the lime, chopsticks, and sriracha. Yummm.

Um, could there something wrong with me if I like this? Or this?

This entire site as a zip file — last updated 2017.09.08

Previous articles

The Ultimate, Simple, Fair Tax

Compassion and Vision

When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose

The Caveat

Superb Owl

NavStar

Basic Reproduction Number

iBook Price-Fixing Lawsuit Redux — Apple Won

Delusion Made By Google

Religion Is A Wall

It’s Not A Criticism, It’s A Fact

Michigan Wolverines 2014 Football Season In Review

Why There’s No MagSafe On the New Mac­Book

Sundar Pichai Says Devices Will Fade Away

The Question Every Ap­ple Naysayer Must An­swer

Apple’s Move To TSMC Is Fine For Apple, Bad For Samsung

Method of Implementing A Secure Backdoor In Mobile Devices

How I Clip My Cat’s Nails

Die Trying

Merger Hindsight

Human Life Decades

Fire and the Wheel — Not Good Examples of A Broken Patent System

Nobody Wants Public Transportation

Seasons By Temperature, Not Solstice

Ode To Coffee

Starting Over

FaceBook Messenger — Why I Don’t Use It

Happy Birthday, Anton Leeuwenhoek

Standard Deviation De­fined

Not Hypocrisy

Simple Guide To Pro­gress Bar Correctness

A Secure Backdoor Is Feasible

Don’t Blink

Predictive Value

Answering the Toughest Question About Disruption Theory

SSD TRIM Command In A Nutshell

The Enderle Grope

Aha! A New Way To Screw Apple

Champagne, By Any Other Maker

iOS Jailbreaking — A Perhaps-Biased Assessment

Embittered Anti-Apple Belligerents

Before 2001, After 2001

What A Difference Six Years Doesn’t Make

Stupefying New Year’s Stupidity

The Innovator’s Victory

The Cult of Free

Fitness — The Ultimate Transparency

Millions of Strange Dev­o­tees and Fanatics

Remember the iPod Killers?

Theory As Simulation

Four Analysts

What Was Christensen Thinking?

The Grass Is Always Greener — Viewing An­gle

Is Using Your Own Pat­ent Still Allowed?

The Upside-Down Tech Future

Motive of the Anti-Ap­ple Pundit

Cheating Like A Human

Disremembering Mi­cro­soft

Security-Through-Obscurity Redux — The Best of Both Worlds

iPhone 2013 Score Card

Dominant and Recessive Traits, Demystified

Yes, You Do Have To Be the Best

The United States of Texas

Vertical Disintegration

He’s No Jobs — Fire Him

A Players

McEnroe, Not Borg, Had Class

Conflict Fades Away

Four-Color Theorem A­nal­y­sis — Rules To Limit the Problem

The Unusual Mo­nop­o­list

Reasonable Projection

Five Times What They Paid For It

Bypassable Security Certificates Are Useless

I’d Give My Right Arm To Go To Mars

Free Advice About Apple’s iOS App Store Guidelines

Inciting Violence

One Platform

Understanding IDC’s Tablet Market Share Graph

I Vote Socialist Be­cause...

That Person

Product Naming — Google Is the Other Microsoft

Antecessor Hypotheticum

Apple Paves the Way For Apple

Why — A Poem

App Anger — the Supersized-Mastodon-In-the-Room That Marco Arment Doesn’t See

Apple’s Graphic Failure

Why Microsoft Copies Apple (and Google)

Coders Code, Bosses Boss

Droidfood For Thought

Investment Is Not A Sure Thing

Exercise is Two Thirds of Everything

Dan “Real Enderle” Ly­ons

Fairness

Ignoring the iPod touch

Manual Intervention Should Never Make A Computer Faster

Predictions ’13

Paperless

Zeroth — Why the Century Number Is One More Than the Year Number

Longer Than It Seems

Partners: Believe In Ap­ple

Gun Control: Best Ar­gu­ments

John C. Dvorak — Translation To English

Destructive Youth

Wiens’s Whine

Free Will — The Grand Equivocation

What Windows-vs.-Mac Actually Proved

A Tale of Two Logos

Microsoft’s Three Paths

Amazon Won’t Be A Big Winner In the DOJ’s Price-Fixing Suit

Infinite Sets, Infinite Authority

Strategy Analytics and Long Term Ac­count­a­bil­i­ty

The Third Stage of Computing

Why 1 Isn’t Prime, 2 Is Prime, and 2 Is the Only Even Prime

Readability BS

Lie Detection and Psy­chos

Liking

Steps

Microsoft’s Dim Pros­pects

Humanity — Just Barely

Hanke-Henry Calendar Won’t Be Adopted

Collatz Conjecture A­nal­y­sis (But No Proof; Sorry)

Rock-Solid iOS App Stability

Microsoft’s Uncreative Character

Microsoft’s Alternate Reality Bubble

Microsoft’s Three Ruts

Society’s Fascination With Mass Murder

PlaysForSure and Wikipedia — Revisionism At Its Finest

Procrastination

Patent Reform?

How Many Licks

Microsoft’s Incredible Run

Voting Socialist

Darwin Saves

The Size of Things In the Universe

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy That Wasn’t

Fun

Nobody Was In Love With Windows

Apples To Apples — How Anti-Apple Pundits Shoot Themselves In the Foot

No Holds Barred

Betting Against Hu­man­i­ty

Apple’s Premium Features Are Free

Why So Many Computer Guys Hate Apple

3D TV With No Glasses and No Parallax/Focus Issues

Waves With Particle-Like Properties

Gridlock Is Just Fine

Sex Is A Fantasy

Major Player

Why the iPad Wannabes Will Definitely Flop

Predators and Parasites

Prison Is For Lotto Losers

The False Dichotomy

Wait and See — Windows-vs-Mac Will Repeat Itself

Dishonesty For the Greater Good

Barr Part 2

Enough Information

Zune Is For Apple Haters

Good Open, Bad Open

Beach Bodies — Who’s Really Shallow?

Upgrade? Maybe Not

Eliminating the Im­pos­si­ble

Selfish Desires

Farewell, Pirate Cachet

The Two Risk-Takers

Number of Companies — the Idiocy That Never Dies

Holding On To the Solution

Apple Religion

Long-Term Planning

What You Have To Give Up

The End of Elitism

Good and Evil

Life

How Religion Distorts Science

Laziness and Creativity

Sideloading and the Supersized-Mastodon-In-the-Room That Snell Doesn’t See

Long-Term Self-De­lu­sion

App Store Success Won’t Translate To Books, Movies, and Shows

Silly iPad Spoilsports

I Disagree

Five Rational Coun­ter­ar­gu­ments

Majority Report

Simply Unjust

Zooman Science

Reaganomics — Like A Diet — Works

Free R&D?

Apple’s On the Right Track

Mountains of Evidence

What We Do

Hope Conquers All

Humans Are Special — Just Not That Special

Life = Survival of the Fittest

Excuse Me, We’re Going To Build On Your Property

No Trademark iWorries

Knowing

Twisted Excuses

The Fall of Google

Real Painters

The Meaning of Kicking Ass

How To Really Stop Casual Movie Disc Ripping

The Solitary Path of the High-Talent Pro­gram­mer

Fixing, Not Preaching

Why Blackmail Is Still Illegal

Designers Cannot Do Anything Imaginable

Wise Dr. Drew

Rats In A Too-Small Cage

Coming To Reason

Everything Isn’t Moving To the Web

Pragmatics, Not Rights

Grey Zone

Methodologically Dogmatic

The Purpose of Lan­guage

The Punishment Defines the Crime

Two Many Cooks

Pragmatism

One Last Splurge

Making Money

What Heaven and Hell Are Really About

America — The Last Suburb

Hoarding

What the Cloud Isn’t For

Diminishing Returns

What You’re Seeing

What My Life Needs To Be

Taking An Early Re­tire­ment

Office Buildings

A, B, C, D, Pointless Relativity

Stephen Meyer and Michael Medved — Where Is ID Going?

If You Didn’t Vote — Complain Away

iPhone Party-Poopers Redux

What Free Will Is Really About

Spectacularly Well

Pointless Wrappers

PTED — The P Is Silent

Out of Sync

Stupid Stickers

Security Through Nor­mal­cy

The Case For Corporate Bonuses

Movie Copyrights Are Forever

Permitted By Whom?

Quantum Cognition and Other Hogwash

The Problem With Message Theory

Bell’s Boring Inequality and the Insanity of the Gaps

Paying the Rent At the 6 Park Avenue A­part­ments

Primary + Reviewer — An Alternative IT Plan For Corporations

Yes Yes Yes

Feelings

Hey Hey Whine Whine

Microsoft About Microsoft Visual Microsoft Studio Microsoft

Hidden Purple Tiger

Forest Fair Mall and the Second Lamborghini

Intelligent Design — The Straight Dope

Maxwell’s Demon — Three Real-World Ex­am­ples

Zealots

Entitlement BS

Agenderle

Mutations

Einstein’s Error — The Confusion of Laws With Their Effects

The Museum Is the Art

Polly Sooth the Air Rage

The Truth

The Darkness

Morality = STDs?

Fulfilling the Moral Du­ty To Disdain

MustWinForSure

Choice

Real Design

The Two Rules of Great Programming

Cynicism

The End of the Nerds

Poverty — Humanity’s Damage Control

Berners-Lee’s Rating System = Google

The Secret Anti-MP3 Trick In “Independent Women” and “You Sang To Me”

ID and the Large Had­ron Collider Scare

Not A Bluff

The Fall of Microsoft

Life Sucks When You’re Not Winning

Aware

The Old-Fashioned Way

The Old People Who Pop Into Existence

Theodicy — A Big Stack of Papers

The Designed, Cause-and-Effect Brain

Mosaics

IC Counterarguments

The Capitalist’s Imaginary Line

Education Isn’t Eve­ry­thing

I Don’t Know

Funny iPhone Party-Poopers

Avoiding Conflict At All Costs

Behavior and Free Will, Unconfused

“Reduced To” Ab­sur­dum

Suzie and Bubba Redneck — the Carriers of Intelligence

Everything You Need To Know About Haldane’s Dilemma

Darwin + Hitler = Ba­lo­ney

Meta-ware

Designed For Combat

Speed Racer R Us

Bold — Uh-huh

Conscious of Con­scious­ness

Future Perfect

Where Real and Yahoo Went Wrong

The Purpose of Surface

Eradicating Religion Won’t Eradicate War

Documentation Overkill

A Tale of Two Movies

The Changing Face of Sam Adams

Dinesh D’Souza On ID

Why Quintic (and Higher) Polynomials Have No Algebraic Solution

Translation of Paul Graham’s Footnote To Plain English

What Happened To Moore’s Law?

Goldston On ID

The End of Martial Law

The Two Faces of Ev­o­lu­tion

A Fine Rec­om­men­da­tion

Free Will and Population Statistics

Dennett/D’Souza Debate — D’Souza

Dennett/D’Souza Debate — Dennett

The Non-Euclidean Ge­om­e­try That Wasn’t There

Defective Attitude Towards Suburbia

The Twin Deficit Phan­toms

Sleep Sync and Vertical Hold

More FUD In Your Eye

The Myth of Rub­ber­neck­ing

Keeping Intelligent Design Honest

Failure of the Amiga — Not Just Mis­man­age­ment

Maxwell’s Silver Hammer = Be My Honey Do?

End Unsecured Debt

The Digits of Pi Cannot Be Sequentially Generated By A Computer Program

Faster Is Better

Goals Can’t Be Avoided

Propped-Up Products

Ignoring ID Won’t Work

The Crabs and the Bucket

Communism As A Side Effect of the Transition To Capitalism

Google and Wikipedia, Revisited

National Geographic’s Obesity BS

Cavemen

Theodicy Is For Losers

Seattle Redux

Quitting

Living Well

A Memory of Gateway

Is Apple’s Font Rendering Really Non-Pixel-Aware?

Humans Are Complexity, Not Choice

A Subtle Shift

Moralism — The Emperor’s New Success

Code Is Our Friend

The Edge of Religion

The Dark Side of Pixel-Aware Font Rendering

The Futility of DVD En­cryp­tion

ID Isn’t About Size or Speed

Blood-Curdling Screams

ID Venn Diagram

Rich and Good-Looking? Why Libertarianism Goes Nowhere

FUV — Fear, Uncertainty, and Vista

Malware Isn’t About Total Control

Howard = Second Com­ing?

Doomsday? Or Just Another Sunday

The Real Function of Wikipedia In A Google World

Objective-C Philosophy

Clarity From Cisco

2007 Macworld Keynote Prediction

FUZ — Fear, Uncertainty, and Zune

No Fear — The Most Important Thing About Intelligent Design

How About A Rational Theodicy

Napster and the Subscription Model

Intelligent Design — Introduction

The One Feature I Want To See In Apple’s Safari.