Fake Fish: Breathing Edition

Pardon the pun such as it is, but Erica Tennenhouse of Science breathlessly “reports” that—hold your breath (pardon the pun)—a fish “holding its breath under water” has been spotted “for the first time.” Scientific illegiteracy has spread so wide that people will fall even for this. Sorry Felicia 🤷‍♀️, but all fish (except for whales, dolphins, and frogs) can breathe under water.

Examples are the bread of butter’s science.

I want you to literally thing about it, wherever in your brain makes you the most comfortable. How, pray you, might fish live in water if they can’t hold their breath there? Have you ever tried to live in water? Take it from me, it ain’t easy!

Living in Water has been poorly received by critics

The day that we can hold our breath in water is the day we devolve back into the fish from whence we came forth.

“Monkey’s uncle” doesn’t even begin to describe what I’ll be.

The Global Tyranny of the Metric System

Scientist James S. Panero has been fighting the good fight against Fake Science (FaSci) for a while now, and his fight came to a zenith on Tucker Carlson’s documentary news program. See here:

Rupert Myers has bowtiephobia much???

Notice that Rupert Myers, who has never produced a scientific paper in his life (as far as I am inclined to know it), cannot accept what is right in front of his face and on the aptly named “rulers” that he would like to impose upon humself.

Now, I will not tell a lie that it’s a bit of a peeve in my pet that I do not get credit for Dr. Panero’s work—I’ve been at this since his mama was in diapers—but I am willing to let the good triumph over the best. Enjoy!

Jordan Bernt Peterson is QAnon––or is he?

Get Bernt. That’s right. Heard of it? QAnon is the latest reason why the mainstream computers are hiding the government’s secrets.

Ever since Alexa Jones got the booted from YouTube and Google for her many shanigans, it got me thinking: why not me? Will the Journal of WordPress forever tolerate my challenging of science and maths?

It is not coincidence that only right now is QAnon above the surface. Just here here for an example:

Moreover, you can read mainstream news websites about QAnon, like here, with my very own Anderson Cooper.

Think of it: A shadowy source that is telling the truth to the young men? Sounds familiar. Try on this for size:

It is now my belief that Jordan Peterson is one of the anonymous Qs. You heard it here, first and last (they won’t say it).

You may think this is silly, but play with me for but a moment’s notice. Peterson specializes in archetypes, archetypes of the Jungian variety. An archetype, you ask, is any person, place, thing, or idea, that appears in the Bible. Next, we notice that “QAnon” is a clever alternate spelling of “qanun,” the exotic saxophone of Turkey:

Now, remember with me Jordan Peterson’s identity politics: he is a citizen of Canada. Welp (and it’s a big welp this time folks), take a gander at the Literary Review of Canada, in an article called “Revisiting a Powerful Myth,” by someone allegedly named “Ray Conlogue.” Behold Exhibit A:

The crusade of the children is certainly what Carl Jung would have called an archetype, a potent meme embodying one of the existential dilemmas of human consciousness. In this case, it would be the absurd but inextinguishable hope that our children will become the perfected humans that we have failed to be. Only through them can we reach heaven, or Jerusalem: that place where evil is conquered by youthful faith and not by the polluted hands of adults, which seem always to lead to the trenches of the First World War or the cells of Abu Ghraib.

Do you see Carl Jung? Now, behold Exhibit B:

The peregrinatio puerorum (crusade of the children) has inspired two new major works. Gary Dickson, an American medievalist who has taught in Edinburgh since 1974, wrote The Children’s Crusade: Medieval History, Modern Mythistory as a scholarly rebalancing of what we know and do not know about the tale and its power over us. It is a welcome in-depth study of an underserved topic. The other, composer R. Murray Schafer’s Children’s Crusade, is a music drama that attempts nothing less than to evoke the transcendental experience of the children. To this end it employs choirs of Latin-singing angels, medieval bells (called crotales), lutes, recorders and an Arabic instrument called the qanun, which conjures the children’s hoped-for destination.

Do you see the qanun, AKA QAnon? And what is it, pray tell, that Jordan Peterson––Canadian–– specializes in? Is it not evoking the transcendental experience of the children?

Every good scientist knows you can’t have a theory without a framework, and you can’t have a framework without parameters and statements. So what are my parameters and statements?

  1. Jordan B. Peterson is QAnon
  2. QAnon is a Deep State transcendental device to create experiences in young men
  3. Young men are (these days) children. (Peterson says this himself, in rare admissions!)
  4. Jordan B. Peterson is a Deep State transcendental device to create experiences in children.
0.999…=1 redux. Or, the winsome witchcraft of Dr. James Tanton

0.999…=1 redux. Or, the winsome witchcraft of Dr. James Tanton

I recently published an academic essay (called a “thread”) on the Twitter of many scholars, in order to subsidize my arguments. You can see it beginning here:

Little did I know, one of the scholars I @ed was from Australia. His name is James Tanton. He got his philoctorate of maths at Princeton University in the past, and went on to do maths for his life. Well, to make a longer story, he was gentle enough to retweet to me:

I will remind you that Australia is big, so that you can see what has happened.

As you can see, he has no mean feat who chooses me among all of Australia for response! I have now watched Dr. James Tanton’s two videos that he recommended and I am besmitten against my wishes. Here is his Lesson 10.1.

He is talking about human beings and their eyes: which will never see 0.999… in its totality (more on this soon). But do not be fooled! Dr. James Tanton has tricked us. He says we multiply 0.999… times 10, to get 9.999… . Well, you don’t say we subtract 0.999… from that, do you? You do? Don’t do it! Tanton’s spell will give you a solid 9!! This gives away the game, as it now begs us to question: what, pray tell, times 9 gives us 9? It’s 1, dummy!

Where does Dr. James Tanton’s proof for 0.999…=1 go wrong? Herein lies my problems: I do not know! They say that every witch and wizard keeps his tricks secret. For example, here is a vide of Dr. James Tanton with his students:

But I have to say this for Dr. James Tanton. He is a very good witch! Just see what he says in his Lesson 10.2:

Now, I do not know what the exploding dots are about. Why are we allowed to put dots wherever we like, and why do they explode? I did not learn this in maths. Can I do it at home? But suffice to say it isn’t the point.

One of the evervescent strategies that is tested time and time against time, is call Mirror Equation, which even has some important applications in science. According to this equation, any formula or proof constructed backwards will get the same result. Welllllllllll…… awkward, because Dr. James Tanton shows us that the 0.999…=1 backward is 0. …999=–1! Can you see that ok? It says in English: point repeating nine nine nine equals negative one! You have to watch the video for your eyes to believe it (remember students, the eyes are part of the brain, and it’s not just humans).

Here is where Dr. James Tanton really blows the minds of his collagues, I am guessing. He says, and I quote you not,

IF you choose to believe there’s an answer, here’s what the answer must be. Now it’s up to you to decide whether or not there should be an answer.

Can anyone be surprised if I choose to believe that there is NOT an answer? Dr. James Tanton is correct that we must “warp” out minds to understand this, to re-think the number line. Well, here at SMD I have done just that. Behold:

As I say in my study of Infinity, the end of the number line is the Penultimate.

Now, this still begs to question me: What about Dr. James Tanton’s mystical proofs, that, yes, “warp” the mind into hallucinating that 0.999…=1? He gives more than one in the videos, not just the one I summarized. Although I cannot see the wizard’s trickery right now, I am convinced that his heart is in the right place and that is why I say he is a good witch. I do not mean that his heart is in Australia, but I mean teaching people to make their own choices in maths.

Will even I come to believe the impossible, that 0.999…=1? Yes, even I? For now I remain strong in my believe that 0.999…≠1; yea, that 0.999…⪈1, now and forevermore. But I will be the first to say on my blog that Dr. James Tanton has shaken the logics of my beliefs, and I have much to think on in the coming semesters.

Elon Musk: technocrat, technochrist, or anti–techno?

It has come upon me that there is a man called “Elon Musk,” who is a practitioner of the ultimate billy-babble: technology. He is most well-known for computing through his artificial intelligence car devices that a Thai rescue diver (who saved kids, i.e. children) is a “pedo.” You don’t believe me that this happened but you look here (CNN much?) and then you see that it did.

Musk is a real person based on the fictional D.C. character Maxwell Lord, made most famous by The CW’s Supergirl.

According to his unauthorized biography, Musk has accomplished the following things:

  1. Zip2
    This company mapped cities.
  2. X.com and PayPal
    Musk helped make PayPal. Heard of it?
  3. SpaceX
    SpaceX is how Musk will get us into space. When will this happen? Very soon! In 2011, Musk said he would put “a man” on Mars in 10 years. I have made NASA talk about Gilmore Girls and so you will get many yawns from me on this. But will Musk be putting “a man” on Mars by 2021? And what is a “man” anyway? Musk did not define his terms! Expect a Muskian redefinition of “man” in the near future!
  4. Tesla
    Tesla is a car of the future that will take energy from the sun (careful!!!).
  5. SolarCity
    See #4, but power for cities.
  6. Hyperloop
    Very, VERY fast! Also, this is on the bio linked above:
  7. OpenAI
    OpenAI is pipe dreams from the sky! Please see my analysis of artificial intelligence here. It is timely. It is relevant. It is now.
  8. Neuralink
    This technology is NOT about nano, stop saying that it is!!! Musk likes Nano zero amount:

  9. The Boring Company
    Well, this is awkward when the technocrat crats himself! Basically this company digs holes in the ground, hence its claim to be boring. 
  10. Thud
    This company of Musk would revolutionize comedy by having more $$$$$$ than The Onion.
  11. pravduh.com
    Musk used his monies to buy a website. He tweeted about it one time:

    He tweeted about it two time:

    This was like Verrit, which everyone is using now, but it will have Musk on it.

  12. Tham Luang cave rescue
    And here we arrive again at our foe pah du jour.

So we are left with the question: who and what and why is an Elon Musk? Is it because we have to be? Or is it because for no other reason than not? I ask also when it will stop happening, when it will get better. Are we?

REVIEW: Jordan B. Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos

In my email and (not to mention) my snail mail I get requests all the time that I must engage the latest hufflebunny to come out of the sinking holes of professional science. But one name rises above all others in its virility, and that is Jordan Bernt Peterson.Peterson is an expert Canadian who specializes in clinical psychology and delivers not one but many reflections on Carl Jung and the Bible. Don’t believe me? Then click yourself onto this link. In my opinion Peterson’s first book was Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. This book is about the human brain and was written in 1999. Sadly, this means that Peterson was unable to take advantage of the revolution in Brain Studies that began in this journal in circa ten years after that. To my chagrin Peterson has ignored not only the original work aforelinked, but also the many followups: try these two (1 here, and 2 here) on for size. Maps of Meaning is at least 560 pages, so I can imagine that Peterson is none too happy about being out of date so long ago.

This post is not about Maps of Meaning, but I need to get just one edgewise word about it before moving on. Peterson says:

Something we cannot see protects us from something we do not understand. The thing we cannot see is culture, in its intrapsychic or internal manifestation. The thing we do not understand is the chaos that gave rise to culture. If the structure of culture is disrupted, unwittingly, chaos returns. We will do anything––anything––to defend ourselves against that return.

First number one, it is obvious is it not that we can see culture with our eyes, especially in its “intrapsychic or internal manifestation.” Peterson’s book was written before Keeping Up with the Kardashians, which lays bare the culture in exactly this way. Second, chaos does not give rise to culture: chaos is culture! I evidence for you this video:

Plus, Peterson acts like chaos could take over once culture gets going. But this is impossible, as technology, the paragon of order, is irreducibly complex. No matter how much smaller technology gets, it cannot be destroyed or reversed. Hence: never chaos. This is my “Chaos Theory.”

But to the main course we go! Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life consists of 12 rules that will help the young man keep the chaos at bay while the mum is away. We will explore the rules here with ample time for commentaries by me (and you in your brain).

Rule #1: Stand up straight with your shoulders back

While this is extremely terrible and dangerous boding for humans and others with spinal “cord” injuries, Peterson doesn’t mean in his recently beefy heart that everyone should do this. Rather, only some of everyone should do this. But everyone should “conduct his or her life in a manner that requires the rejection of immediate gratification, of natural and perverse desires alike.” This is very doubtful advice, in all of my opinions, since my desires are neither natural nor perverse––and I know that I am not alone, even as you read this. So, what would Peterson tell humans like you and me, and we know who you and me are? Should we, instead, sit down crooked with our elbows forward?

Rule #2: Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping

This advice is very offensive to me personally because it suggests that I am responsible for helping someone other than myself in the first place. I am but who is Peterson to say so?

Rule #3: Make friends with people who want the best for you

Here Peterson directly contradicts Rule #1. The people who want the best for me are the people who will support my unnatural and unperverse desires. Since Peterson doesn’t like those desires one itsy bitsy, would he consider these people my friends?

Rule #4: Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today

This is the first of Peterson’s rules that I can get behind in a really way. When I compare myself to who people like Brian Greene and Steven Pinker are today, I grow unattractively arrogant. After and once in for all, I decimated the theories of Brian Greene not once, but twice. How I pime for the days of my prine!

Rule #5: Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them

Well…I admire Peterson’s warm intentions, but this rule is a little too late. Alois and Klara died over 100 years ago!!! So what’s the point of this rule? Those who come after history are doomed to inherit it.

Rule #6: Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world

As someone without a house who criticizes the world all day every day (and I’m not sorry), I resent very much this rule of Mr. Peterson’s. Maybe he would like to give me a house in Canada that I can perfect, before he criticizes my world? Works both ways much?

Rule #7: Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)

Here Peterson shows his ignorance of basic maths, which maybe is a consequence of universal education in Canada. When Syphilis was pushing the rock up the hill for eternity, his action was anything but expedient yet also everything but meaningful. Do the math, Pete! What is expedient is often the most meaningful, because you can actually get it done.

Rule #8: Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie

If Peterson is such a big fan of the truth, then why does he advance such retrograde theories of the human brain? As I already explained for the umpteenth time in this journal, the brain ain’t in the head.

Rule #9: Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t

This is a very strange rule. If someone knows something that I don’t, then why am I listening to them? This seems backwards and I honestly do not get it. Hopefully some of you can explain in the comments!

Rule #10: Be precise in your speech

Lord knows honest to Betsy that I try to be precise here at Oxford’s Science & Math Defeated. Some of my greatest hits are hits precisely because they literally assassinate ambiguous language. For example, think of my work on infinity. Or on the old linguistic canard that 0.9999….=1. (By the way, curious about what happens when a gaggling bevy of raunchy Redditrolls try to refutate me? Try here for size.)

Rule #11: Do not bother children when they are skateboarding

First, maybe tell that to dentists who tell these very same children to floss. Skaters get teeth problems all the time like they fall out. But more important than that even, Peterson here ironically makes the skaterphobic assumption that his readers are not themselves skaters. It’s skaters who have every reason to bother other skaters, the bad ones. Don’t know what I’m talking about? Then you’re not a skater. Every skater knows that you must beware the infamous Skate Nazi. This is the skater who, according to the journal Urban Dictionary, “blows off work, school and girlfriends to skate. [The term] [“]Skate Nazi[“] is also commonly used to [refer to] an aggressive territorial skateboarder” (emphases mine own).

Rule #12: Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

Let be said by me here that Peterson is correct that there are many myths that people believe that are negative about stray cats. Many of them are covered here. And these myths always contain a subtle whiffing of antisemitism since there are many stray cats in Jerusalem. So good job to Peterson for denying a theory likely to be beloved on the alt-Right! However, and this is as BIG a caveat as they come––remember that YouTube video above where Peterson talks about developing your “inner psychopath”? Let’s just say that this isn’t Peterson’s first rodeo with YouTube videos about psychopaths. See here. Hmm. How can I put this delicately? Maybe I’ll just give you a headline from a source no less prestigious than Discover Magazine (yes, as in, “Discover scientific facts”):

So, basically, a Canadian man with a proclivity for thinking about human psychopaths is telling you that you should go out of your way to caress non-human psychopaths. Not much I have to say about that!

This concludes my review of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, by Canadian and clinical psychologist Jordan Bernt Peterson. Please leave feedback in comments below!

The Science and Math of Mayweather vs. MacGregor

By now you have all seen the greatest MMA fight of all time, Floid Mayweather vs. Conor MacGregor. Mayweather is the pound-for-pound ninjutsu specialist in the western hemisphere, but is competent in all arts. Hence the interest in him fighting the Irish/Scottish street fighter MacGregor – a matchup so crazy, it just might have worked!

Sports scientist Jack Slack (no, not that one!) asked “four questions” leading into this fight. In this study I will demonstrate answers to Jack’s (if I may… see what I did there?) questions.

But first, a preliminary round of answer. Jack Slack is, as you may know (yep), a pseudoname. See here for details. But he has major league tipped his hands in his “four questions,” showing that he is likely Jewish. Matzoh, anyone? This narrows things down to probably Wolf Blitzer. Anyway, onward to Slack’s four questions.

(1) What are “MMA angles” and “MMA distance”?

Jack’s first question is about some technical terminology. Everyone who is anyone knows that soccer is different from football is different from foosball, and fighting is no different. You might think of an “angle” as being the direction in which a fighter punches his (OR HER) strikes, but this is only in European fighting, which is more historical. In Modern Martial Arts (MMA), which is primarily American-influenced, the angles can be the directions of literally anything – kicks, pile drivers, headlocks, or fork lifts. Here is a perfect example of what I’m talking about:

Notice that McGregor uses the angle of the air to fork lift his opponent, rather than his hand per se. In European-style this is actually not permitted (for obvious reasons).

Now, MMA distance is a whole another ball game (pardon the metaphor). In the older arts, which Mayweather practitions as noted above, fighters mainly wrestle each other on the ground. Here is perhaps the greatest predecessor to Mayweather (Roy Grazie) showing traditional, European distance:

This is called a leggy jolt. Notice how Gracie jolts in and breaks his opponents knees with his hands, then executes a standard horizontal gyration up to the head.

But MMA rules disallows this kind of maneuver, because there have been too many injuries (see the recent studies of brain injuries in soccer, for appetizers). For more on the science of acceleration, distance, and gravity, see my work here.

(2) How much gas will there be in McGregor’s [sic] tank?

Now, this question is a bit trickier to answer scientifically, because we do not know what MacGregor was eating before the fight or even during the breaks between rounds – since the camera often panned away.

But basically, what we know is that when a fighter doesn’t have any food, they tend not to have much in the way of gas. Gas is produced by food. When a fighter does have food, they are capable of gas. But of what quality? It looks like MacGregor, out of arrogance, did not eat very well during the fight. As many commentators have speculated, he came out aggressively in the beginning of the fight, which means that he had a lot of food to keep his initial gaseous state. But by the second trimester of the fight, you can see him getting very tired. For example,

I wasn’t the only one thinking he looked a wee bit wobbly at this point in the pàrléz-vous. Even Maverick Mac said of himself, “…wobbly…”.

For more on food and how to build your life around it, see my work here.

(3) How will the clinch be contested and, more importantly, refereed?

If I may be Franky Alvarez, the clinch wasn’t refereed. The referee for this match allowed Mayweather and MacGregor to clinch tens, possibly hundred of times (I lost count even in the first trimester). The clinch has been a serious problem in traditional fighting and MMA. It is basically fighting’s version of soccer players falling down and crying.

They clinch when they are too scared to fight anymore. Here is probably the most famous clinch of the 21st century:

Notice how all of a sudden these two otherwise excellent boxers are able to absorb a gaggle of gut punches. Coincidence? No Sir, Bob. Remember that “distance” we were chatting about earlier? The clinch is known to reduce, that is to say, diminish, it. And what happens when you reduce distance? You reduce force. Boxing may as well be like

The sad thing is, fighters think they are protecting their brains when they clinch. For why this is pure hufflebunny, see my work here and here. (To make a short story: your brain is everywhere, folks.)

(4) Who will actually buy this fight?

One of the biggest markets seems to have been the racism-abuse-nbd crowd (explained). Or as Kelefa Sanneh explains, the same. This is unfortunate because, as studies have shown ages after age, it is bad to be racist.

Coincidentally, it is also bad to be a misogyny!

For some of my work on sexism, see here. This concludes the applications of my theories to the fight of the centuries as questioned by Jack Slack.

0.999…≠1, confirmed

Probably (but caveat) the most well-known and widely read of my victories is my research proving that the very central theorem of Calculus, 0.999…=1, is false. After all, that study provoked 119 responses in the literature.

Enter Matt “0.999…≠1” Parker and Jordan “0.999…≠1” Ellenberg of the very popular channel, “YouTube.” They show beyond 1 – 0.999… silvers of doubt (see what I did there?) that I am correct. Notice how deafly they explain that it is pure subjective imagination that we DECIDE what the meaning of 0.999… is. We don’t DISCOVER that it is 1. Well obviously, because it isn’t 1. So why not subjectively decide that 0.999… is what it really is? Perhaps it is now time for Calculus to be bedded.

A Cavity in the Heart of Science’s Tooth

Confirming everything that I have ever said about science on this blog since 2007, according to this study by the New York Times, dentists and the government that runs them have been lying to children about the value of flossing since 1979. You will recall with fervor that 1979 was the year that Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ruhollah Mūsavi Khomeini returned from exile to rule Iran.
Not only that, but it was the last time there was a total sun darkening over America, interpreted here:

The next time there will be a total eclipse in America? Sufficing to be said, basically right now.

“Nothing in my life is a coincidence.”
Kami Garcia, Beautiful Creatures

Very sorry I cannot find much on this topic right now except for this.

P-Values: P is for Pseudoscience!

Someone called “The American Statistician” has performed an experiment that proves that the scientific community [sic] and graduate students [sic] have been taught [sic] the wrong thing virtually for eternity. As reported by sorceress Christie Aschwanden on Vox, “Deborah Mayo is a professor [and] … teaches at Virginia Tech, not the University of Pennsylvania.” This is just one of many corrections of errors caused by the P-Value dogma blinding the sciences to my views. Is it possible that without the P-Value dogmatics, my well-established Trans-Brain Theory (studies listed) would have been excepted by now? Only time travel will tell.

Recall that my own use of a P-Value is in the context of refuting another dogmatics – the dogmatics of infinity that wanders us into the darkness of life.

How might the debunking of mainstream P-Values vindicate the theory of the brain that I have established? Well, remember my argument that the brain is distributed throughout the body, as evidenced by the location of pain sensations. It is likely that scientists reject my theory because pain sensations are not experienced in 0.05, or half, of a tenth of the human body. This is how much brain-of-body would be required by P-Value dogmatics:


This is as you can see not plausible – not even by remote. My theory establishes that a number much larger than half of a ten percent of the brain be the body. I will now close with the correct model, which should now be accepted with the elimination of P-Values.



Philosophy psychos steal my identity to covet my pageviews

Those who have read me for decade(s) will have read that once upon a time, a boring site of pseudosmartsbots called “RationalWiki” (nope) tried to steal my pageviews. Well, sorry to say that it is happening again with the stalkers. My blog is getting links from a “philosophy” blog that I comment on weeks ago for once or twice or so – the “Philosophy Meta Meta Meta Blog.” I have also had one or two more engagements recently with self-proclaimed philosophers: everybody remember my refutation of David Wallace on probability. And my intervention into the growing controversies in sciences (and philosophies) with Jean-Yves Beziau and others. I almost have never corrected philosophies. Yet these people are too hot for the fire, and they can’t melt it. Instead, they steal it. And they are mudding up old things of me – like my refutations of maths blogs or my positive spin on Lyndon Larouche. Stalkers are as stalkers do!

Everybody who is everybody is knowing that I comment in the blogs as “notedscholar”: my tongue and cheek attack on the evil obsession of prestige in sciences and maths. But somebody is making all kinds of horse hay with my identity and similar identities on posts like this and this.

I am not understand the places I just linkified. People seem crazy, like they are on many drugs heard of and unheard of. But I ask that identities remain everyone’s own. Mine is not yours. Yours is not theirs. Most important of all: theirs is not me.


Who – foretell? – is stealing me? My guesses include this “David Wallace” character, since he is the only philosopher to beef with me. But it is shooting inside the dark, and I do not know how to prove this like I prove so many other things on this blog. Please contact me on my contact page if you are in possession of any notions about this incident (gone wild). I will now go leave a “comment” on the Philosophy Meta Meta Meta Blog to correct the many, many disturbances of record.


Why is whoever stealing me? Like with RationalWiki, I think it is to get my pageviews. You can see on my blog that I have a lot. Other blogs and people do not have these numbers. If there were an infinity – as you know by now that is a false if – I would have it, and they would not.

Homo sapiens: the only people with brains?

Apparently NOT. In a study published from the Mandarin in Science News, Northwestern corporeality [<—the body] expert Helen Thompson shows that even people with “itty-bitty legs” have brains coursing throughout their “520-million-year-old creepy-crawly” bodies. Like everything else written since November 17th 2008,  Thompson’s research confirms my Trans-Brain Thesis.

Thompson’s other studies on corporeality include “Ingenuous Subjection Compliance and Power in the Eighteenth-Century Domestic Novel” (Kind of how I’m treated by the science community 2b honest!!!)

Gravity: the bad news, the good news, the NOT news

Although some anti-scientists still deny the existence of gravity, The New York Times has done a study that shows what we all already knew: gravity exists and is here to stay. (QUICK ASIDE: The bumbo who narrates the video begins by saying what we know of the universe has always come from what we could see. This is OBVIOUSLY false – not true – since we also can HEAR and TASTE the universe, not to mention FEEL it, mainly with our hands.)

Now some people have pegged me as a scientist who denies the existence of gravity. This is because I devastatingly destroyed the main explanation of gravity given in the primary schools: the “bowling ball illustration.” (Destruction here.) I have also challenged, quite successfully, MISUNDERSTANDINGS of gravity that lead people to patented absurds like what I’ve called “The Myth of 0mph.”

But please let us have not this chatter about how I have been refuted: instead the studies do what I always wanted: they show a REAL proof of gravity instead of what I have hated: dumb proofs that fail like the bowling ball illustration.