Profile

Cover photo
Albert Ripple
Worked at Self
Attended The Bronx High School of Science
Lives in Brooklyn
625 followers|1,970,434 views
AboutPostsCollectionsPhotos

Stream

Albert Ripple

Shared publicly  - 
 
This election is currently between Richard Nixon and Andrew Jackson. Who would you choose?
1
Kekbab “Smugcorn”'s profile photoAlbert Ripple's profile photo
26 comments
 
+Kekbab i don't know a lot about jackson. true, of course, regarding slavery-therefore-racism: it is [highly] unlikely that he wasn't racist against blacks. as to comparability: the [magnitude] is not comparable, that's obvious. but they are on the same scale, of removing people from where they were born. this obviously in no way equates the ends of the scale, you don't need to tell me that there's a difference between, removing a people who have lived in the same place for hundreds of years, and removing a person who has lived in the same place of the course of their short life. but they are on the same scale, and that does matter.
Add a comment...

Albert Ripple

Shared publicly  - 
 
No, this is bullshit. Any organization that seeks to literally undermine democracy should not be rewarded, especially when they are shamefully named in contradiction to such actions. They threw us a lot of red meat last night, and that suckered me in. But I have refreshed my memory o[n] the scale of the obstruction perpetrated by the DNC, and I will not be placated again by the convention, I refuse to. Thou shalt not distract me (anymore) into forgetfulness[,] when thou hast done the unforgettably terrible. As History vs. Richard Nixon concluded (https://youtu.be/MX_HYL6-0Co?t=5m7s), "Many politicians have compromised some principles to achieve results, but {favoritism} and {collusion} threaten the very fabric the nation is built on. Those who do so, may find their entire legacy tainted, when history is put on trial.".
 
It is provably the case, that the DNC is corrupt and corporate, and that Hillary Clinton is a liar and a warmonger, but I'll take her any day over Trump, a bigoted demagogue, and the RNC, a backwards anti-evidence organization.
4 comments on original post
6
Christine Quiles (ChristineBeanTeen)'s profile photoAutumn Weaver's profile photoLord Satan's true form.'s profile photo
5 comments
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Add a comment...

Albert Ripple
owner

Debate Center!!  - 
 
You know, (probably soon) after I learned about spacetime, it became a mystery to me as to why we think of the universe as dynamical. You see, the present is considered to be any slice of spacetime that intersects at our here-and-now, but for a different place than here, the time of that place can vary depending on the angle of the slice: at that other place, one slice can be in the future of another slice, even if both slices intersect at our here-and-now. So, it would seem to me that the future (and the past) would be set/unchangeable, since both the future and the past of another place can be in the present of our location, depending on our velocity (that's what determines the angle of the slice). By the way, it's because velocity is relative (velocity is your direction and speed of motion in relation (relative) to another object) that any of these slices can be considered the present (if you change which object is your reference object, then your velocity is different (your velocity doesn't change, it just has a different relation to a different object, and therefore has different values when you change which object you choose to relate to), and therefore what's considered to be in your present changes, since the present is dependent on your velocity). So, as I was saying, it is an established fact that the present is variable, which means, that what's considered the present, past, or future at a place other than here, can change, so if the future can effectively become the past in some place beyond here, due merely to our actions and considerations here, then to me it would seem that the future would need to be set, based on the assumption that the past must be set. It could of course be the case that nothing other than the here-and-now is set, or that nothing outside of our past "light-cone" is set (the light cone is a double cone comprised of all the things that can affect you (your past) and all the things that you can affect (your future), so-called because it's borders are the speed of light (light can travel in all directions from you at a certain speed, and you are unable to travel faster than that speed, so your actions are confined to the volume that that light can occupy. the light forms a 4-dimensional cone: a sphere that expands as time is further from now (a 3-dimensional cone is a circle that grows in diameter as you move farther from the apex))). Another btw: that lightcone is affected and warped by the curvature of spacetime: the reason why you can't leave a black hole is because the light cone can't grow larger than the inside of a black hole, which is to say, you can't escape because light can't escape because a black hole squeezes an infinite amount of space into what, from the outside, is a finite space. Anyway, back on topic: so it could be the case that nothing exists except your past, and therefore, that your past could become something else's future due to your future actions, is irrelevant. But this troubles me, because although your lightcone is independent of your present slice (spacetime stretches and squeezes so that your light cone is the same regardless of your slice: the time axis is always perpendicular to your present slice, but not necessarily perpendicular to the slice that isn't currently yours), you are not the only object in the universe: with two objects, they could be in each other's past or future depending only on each other's relative velocities, velocities which could change. So it would seem to me, that the past and future have to be set even outside of your past lightcone, and in that case, the universe would be deterministic, i.e. there is only one future, that can't change. If the future can't be changed, and you can slice up spacetime any way you like, then it would seem to be that the universe is a solid 4-dimension object that is static, and that the reason we view time as a non-spacial direction is because entropy and (therefore) ourselves vary along its axis, and because the actions of any object with mass (such as ourselves) are forced to be closer to the time axis than to any other spacial axis (light and other massless particles are equidistant between the time axis and present slice (the present slice contains all 3 of the spacial axes)). Btw: special relativity (the velocity-dependent trade-off between space and time in a united spacetime, and the various consequences such as mass/energy equivalence) concerns the changing angle of the present slice and time axis, and the resultant squeezing and stretching of time and space (the angle-changing/squeezing&stretching being relative to other slices and axes), while general relativity (the curvature of spacetime in response to energy, causing accelerations we call gravity) concerns the shape of the time axis and present slice themselves, and consequently the shape of the light cone (leading to scenarios such as the future cone not being able to extend beyond the interior of a back hole if the here is within the event horizon). Again back to the matter at hand (there is a lot of diversions, but they are necessary to understanding the subject matter): so, while technically only your past cone is set in stone, there exist more objects than you, so my thought process concludes, that since where another object lies on your time axis is variable, and that object can be taken as a focus just as much as you can be, then therefore all activities along any time axes must be preset. And therefore, with the universe being deterministic, the time axis can be treated like a spacial axis with extra properties, and thus we can consider the universe as a static 4-dimensional object, rather than as a dynamic 3-dimensional object. So what's the difference, if these two objects are physically the same (they are both our universe)? There's a conceptual difference: when we talk of spacetime curvature, we usually talk about it curving in response to energy: we talk about time being affected, when time is the medium of affects: it's nonsensical. Sure, the Higgs field interacts with itself (higgs interacts with higgs), but time is the medium of interaction itself (interaction interacting): the analogy would instead be that mass itself gains or loses mass, not that all areas or objects gain mass, but that mass(noun) masses(verb). It's hard to describe because it's that ridiculous. And so it is with time, causation itself, being subject to causes. When the Higgs field interacts with itself, it is interacting in a medium external to itself, that medium being spacetime. Now, you could propose dimensions external to the universe, but that wouldn't address what the curvature of spacetime actually is: it's not some amount of energy at a particular point within spacetime acting on that spacetime to form a contraction or expansion of spacetime at that point in spacetime, it's an amount of energy at a particular point within spacetime with a corresponding smallness or largeness of spacetime at that point in spacetime: the energy does not produce the curvature (in its future), the curvature is where the energy is (in its present). There is no delay to curvature: the curvature is not a millisecond up the time axis from the energy, it's at the energy; the curvature isn't caused by the energy, it is with the energy, having the same location as the energy; it corresponds. Where there is energy, there is curvature, not there will be curvature. So, in my view, the universe is a 4-dimensional static object, with bumps where there is energy, and which, for some reason, one of the dimensions imposes constraints: the world-line of a particle (the trajectory of the particle through spacetime) can not be farther from this axis than the other axes, and the universe is larger in the other axes as you move in one direction along the special axis, and smaller as you move in the opposite direction. So, framing it this way, why is it that universe is constrained around one of its 4 axes? Why does it have directionality instead of simply being a blob? This is what we do not know, but I think we would be more likely to find out if we used this framing. As to why spacetime has a correspondence between its shape and its energy, I would argue, that its shape is the energy: to speak of one is to speak of the other. What do you think of all of this?
1
Albert Ripple's profile photo
 
btw, i made the picture myself: it's a depiction of variant present slices and time axes, using one of the two as the reference frame. as you can see, the light cone is still equidistant between the present slice and time axis, regardless of which slice/axis you choose
Add a comment...

Albert Ripple

Shared publicly  - 
 
And that's why the microbe community needs Germie Sandersitis: we all have a right to a free lack of health care, yet the superbugs are making deals with the humans. And so, it's time we start a new, widespread, antibiotical revosistance, the likes of which we've never seen before.
3
Autumn Weaver's profile photo503 God's profile photo
2 comments
503 God
+
1
2
1
 
Its already happening lol
Add a comment...

Albert Ripple

Shared publicly  - 
 
My friend Uni found a great video about censorship and social media, and had some great questions about it, and this was my response:

"i almost completely agree with the guy in the video: i believe that there should be no ambiguous, intrusive restrictions on free speech: if any speech is to be restricted, the restriction must be defined crystal clear, and be severely limited. if i were to institute a hate speech/censorship policy, it would ban specific actions: explicitly encouraging in a non-satirical way that people kill, injure, maim, infect, or, damage the property of, a particular person or group (incitement to violence); intentionally spreading a false rumor for the purpose of damaging a person's reputation, satire excepted (libel); or; intentionally spreading a false rumor that directly causes people to harm each other or themselves ("fire" in the theatre). outside of these specific cases, no offensive, critical, or political material should ever be restricted, because if you can't offend, critique, or have differing politics, then you can't be a free person. to me, it is not restrictions on free speech that are the threat, but rather, it is nebulous, boundless restrictions that are threatening. poorly defined, largely applicable limits to free speech are what can be construed or abused to further a political or other agenda. if a restriction is not stretchable, then it cannot be used where it shouldn't apply, and therefore can't be abused. i find it horrific that companies like facebook and youtube are making it easily possible to shrink the political spectrum and control the minds of the people, and this is occurring because, not only are the limitations enforced by the masses (which on its own is not a problem: it would be impossible for the employees to search through all the material every day by themselves), but also, the companies are making the restrictions such that they are easily abusable by those masses. one more thing i would add if i were designing a fair restriction system: i would make it incredibly easy to appeal. how, i don't yet exactly know, but it would be essential that people be able to properly contest the enforcement of a limitation, especially in the event that even my limited limitations get abused. now uni/+Kekbab, you wondered about the clash between the protection of people's free speech and the protection of companies' rights to control what content they have. well, we've been through this fight before: it's net neutrality again, except instead of isps (internet service providers), it's social mediums, and the same idea should apply: the conveyors of communication should be considered common carriers, just like phone companies, mail deliverers, etc., and that means, their job is to send and keep and protect your information/item, regardless of what it is. why? since the service they provide is transmission and preservation, not the content itself, they do not have a right to decide on the content, unless they find something endangering (bomb sent by mail, death threat on the internet, etc.), typically stuff that is already illegal outside of the realm of the service. and since they can't decide on the content except in extreme situations that they discover, they are protected from any lawsuits pertaining to damage caused to the plaintiff by another person using the service. isps tried to both have this immunity, and claim to be content providers/creators, but they failed, and as a result, they are forced to do what they are supposed to be in exchange for that immunity: content transmitters/preservers. and social media is gonna have to do that too, even youtube: the creators use youtube, not are youtube. it's like a tv set claiming to be the tv stations, when the latter could chose to broadcast on frequencies the tv set can't pick up, i.e. the creators move to a different site. so, in the end, social media should be a common carrier, because its job is to show content, not to make content, and therefore it cannot exercise control over what content it shows, in exchange for protection against lawsuits pertaining to the actions of its users, and therefore it cannot have broad, fuzzy restrictions on content, even if they are enforced by the masses instead of by the companies, because the masses will enforce the restrictions to their fullest extent, which would limit non-dangerous content, when only dangerous content should be restricted, because dangerous activity is already illegal. and that's it. well, you may have a bone to pick regarding the illegality of various forms of speech, but i think you can agree on the 3 well-defined limits i suggested, which are already laws that apply everywhere, on or offline."
 
+Octavian ² +Albert Ripple +Domesticated Rambo 
What do you guys think? I mean I agree wholeheartedly with the guy's sentiment, I loved this video and I think it sucks that social media platforms are starting to censor like this, but I also think it's a company's right to do whatever they want with their website and I don't think this censorship is actually infringing on anyone's free speech rights, at least as of now.
9 comments on original post
2
Tedward LeCouteur's profile photoAlbert Ripple's profile photo
10 comments
 
+Tedward LeCouteur you want to talk about blm? again, i have a post for that.
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
625 people
Kristine Moses's profile photo
Babaseyi Osinowo's profile photo
Anayet Khan's profile photo
jithin sasi's profile photo
Irfan Yaqoob's profile photo
Dasha West's profile photo
Bhaskar Tailigeri's profile photo
Shibil Vadakkan's profile photo
Per Seo's profile photo

Albert Ripple

Shared publicly  - 
 
It is provably the case, that the DNC is corrupt and corporate, and that Hillary Clinton is a liar and a warmonger, but I'll take her any day over Trump, a bigoted demagogue, and the RNC, a backwards anti-evidence organization.
1
1
Albert Ripple's profile photo
4 comments
 
....
shit, i don't know if staying within the party is the best thing. i know that the tea party is very successful, and that the working families party -- a liberal actual party that was one of the inspirations of the conservative tea pseudo-party -- is not too successful. i'm just damn tired of this election. and i know that, being in new york, where only democrats are able to win, my vote won't count unless it's for a democrat: my non-primary votes are irrelevant.
Add a comment...

Albert Ripple

Shared publicly  - 
 
Btw, an example of the difference history makes: right now, for Nevada there are two polls, one with Clinton ahead by four, one with Trump ahead by 5, giving an average of Trump ahead by 0.5%, so, basically even. Arizona has almost the same scenario: two polls, 1w/C^5&1w/T^4, giving Clinton a lead, but by only .5, so basically even. When you force RCP to give you a "no toss up" map, it bases its outcomes on the current average lead, so it gives NV to Trump and AZ to Clinton. However, at least since 1968, AZ has only ever gone to a Democrat in 1996 (Bill Clinton's second run), and NV has always gone to the winner of the electoral college (although this trend would have been broken had BushVGore, a legally contested election, gone the other way, i.e. Bush got Nevada, and eventually got the electoral college, but only got the electoral college when Florida was decided in his favor instead of Gore's). So, since the history was highly indicative and the polling was extremely close, I gave AZ to Donald and made Nevada a toss-up to highly probably be won by the winner (likely Hillary). This was the easiest of the historyVSpolling decisions.
 
So, I went on RealClearPolitics and analyzed, all the state polls from over the past year involving Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and all the historical electoral college outcomes they had available (they go back to Nixon vs McGovern), and I ended up making the map below.

Obviously, the blue states are the states that I believe the Democrats are certain to take, and the red states are the states that I believe the Republicans are certain to take. Some of the states that I've made red or blue, have polling where the candidates are really close, but for these close states, both the historical data shows which way they will go, and Trump doesn't have the ability to buck the trend there.

The 3 grey states are states with really close polling which are always (NV/OH) or nearly always (FL) won by the winner of the electoral college. The 2 purple states (MI/PA) are close in the polls, though not necessarily as close as some of other-colored states. The current historical trends have the purple states going to Democrats, but Trump's anti-free-trade economic populism could buck the trend in these Rust Belt states.

The electoral college currently has 538 total electors, meaning you need to win 270 electors to have a majority. The blue states are represented by 243 electors, and the red states are represented by 206 electors. The remaining (grey/purple) states are Florida with 29 electors, Pennsylvania with 20 electors, Ohio with 18 electors, Michigan with 16 electors, and Nevada with 6 electors.

If Trump won all the grey and purple states in addition to the red states, he would win 295 electors, 25 more than he needs. Since Florida has 29 electors, he can't afford to lose it, but he can lose any of the 4 other single states. If he loses Nevada (295-6=289=270+19), then he can lose a second state, but it can't be Pennsylvania(20); i.e., if he loses a state that isn't Pennsylvania, then he can lose Nevada. He cannot afford to lose any further states.

So, in conclusion, if Trump were to win the election, he would have to win Florida, and either win Pennsylvania with Michigan or Ohio, or win Michigan and Ohio and Nevada. It is highly likely that Clinton will win the election, since she could get only blue+FL(272) and still win the electoral college.

Lastly, it's possible for the candidates to split the electoral college, if Trump wins red+FL+OH+MI and Clinton wins blue+PA+NV.
12 comments on original post
1
Christine Quiles (ChristineBeanTeen)'s profile photoHungryVegetable Weeb (Jo)'s profile photo
2 comments
 
I shouldn't be allowed to comment on things. 
Add a comment...

Albert Ripple

Shared publicly  - 
 
So, I went on RealClearPolitics and analyzed, all the state polls from over the past year involving Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and all the historical electoral college outcomes they had available (they go back to Nixon vs McGovern), and I ended up making the map below.

Obviously, the blue states are the states that I believe the Democrats are certain to take, and the red states are the states that I believe the Republicans are certain to take. Some of the states that I've made red or blue, have polling where the candidates are really close, but for these close states, both the historical data shows which way they will go, and Trump doesn't have the ability to buck the trend there.

The 3 grey states are states with really close polling which are always (NV/OH) or nearly always (FL) won by the winner of the electoral college. The 2 purple states (MI/PA) are close in the polls, though not necessarily as close as some of other-colored states. The current historical trends have the purple states going to Democrats, but Trump's anti-free-trade economic populism could buck the trend in these Rust Belt states.

The electoral college currently has 538 total electors, meaning you need to win 270 electors to have a majority. The blue states are represented by 243 electors, and the red states are represented by 206 electors. The remaining (grey/purple) states are Florida with 29 electors, Pennsylvania with 20 electors, Ohio with 18 electors, Michigan with 16 electors, and Nevada with 6 electors.

If Trump won all the grey and purple states in addition to the red states, he would win 295 electors, 25 more than he needs. Since Florida has 29 electors, he can't afford to lose it, but he can lose any of the 4 other single states. If he loses Nevada (295-6=289=270+19), then he can lose a second state, but it can't be Pennsylvania(20); i.e., if he loses a state that isn't Pennsylvania, then he can lose Nevada. He cannot afford to lose any further states.

So, in conclusion, if Trump were to win the election, he would have to win Florida, and either win Pennsylvania with Michigan or Ohio, or win Michigan and Ohio and Nevada. It is highly likely that Clinton will win the election, since she could get only blue+FL(272) and still win the electoral college.

Lastly, it's possible for the candidates to split the electoral college, if Trump wins red+FL+OH+MI and Clinton wins blue+PA+NV.
2
1
HungryVegetable Weeb (Jo)'s profile photoChristine Quiles (ChristineBeanTeen)'s profile photo
12 comments
 
+HungryVegetable Weeb So Diamonds shapeshift into smaller versions? Kinky
Add a comment...

Albert Ripple

Shared publicly  - 
 
"Fly my pretties, FLY!!"
 
The truth behind Pokémon Go.
2 comments on original post
4
2
CPU Meme Heart (変態王様)'s profile photo
 
Killing myself
Add a comment...

Albert Ripple

Shared publicly  - 
 
This should be good.
 
Speaking of, here's that video from yesterday's livestream, for those of you that wanted to watch.
Be warned, this was my nice playthrough.
I'm going to make another one soon while being nothing but a bitch to everyone else.
View original post
1
Add a comment...

Albert Ripple

Shared publicly  - 
 
We need much more sonder in life. When this emotion has become common enough, that the word has been used enough to get in the OED, I think the world will be much better, because what sonder really is is an extreme empathy for strangers, and understanding those whom we don't know is necessary to making those sorts of informed decisions that affect large numbers of people.

(Via +Autumn Weaver)
4
Add a comment...
Albert's Collections
People
Have him in circles
625 people
Kristine Moses's profile photo
Babaseyi Osinowo's profile photo
Anayet Khan's profile photo
jithin sasi's profile photo
Irfan Yaqoob's profile photo
Dasha West's profile photo
Bhaskar Tailigeri's profile photo
Shibil Vadakkan's profile photo
Per Seo's profile photo
Work
Occupation
Occasional Philosopher
Skills
is generally intelligent; has and can give a conceptual understanding of abstract physics
Employment
  • Self
    Physical Theory Nonprofessional, 2011 - 2014
    thought about physics, constructed physical theories, discussed theories
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Brooklyn
Story
Tagline
Floatin' thru Time
Introduction
      I joined G+ to discuss with physicists my theories from viewing DVD courses, and now I've all sorts of wonderful friends here.
      High school was onerous, so I've chilled for a year before college.
      Often, I'm concerned with what I needn't be, and heedless about likewise.
Bragging rights
Once upon a time, I made Dark Entropy Theory, and the Approximation Interpretation of Quantum Physics.
Collections Albert is following
Education
  • The Bronx High School of Science
    2011 - 2015
    Multivariable Calculus & Partial Differential Equations -- AP(Advanced Placement) Calculus BC -- AP Computer Science A (Java Code) -- AP Physics C
  • J.H.S. 51 William Alexander School
    Drama, 2008 - 2011
    Drama Talent: Theatre/Acting class (stages Plays)
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Birthday
April 10, 1997
Relationship
Single
Other names
full name: Albert Izik Ripple,;, legal/old name: Steven Gregory Heary-Puleo
Apps with Google+ Sign-in
  • CircleCount.com