introductionthis is now a new blog series
so i have not been as active as i'd like to so i decided that i will now have my own review series talking about my favorite subject
but i figured the world is not ready for that, so i've decided to give ** you ** all the power to recommend something and i will review it (correct opinions only)
it can be anything.
as long as i don't hate it.
start recommending now!
all of that was just filler for 5 sentences but whew
1. why did staci and sadie NOT compete in rr (requested by trr)
because total drama is a trash show with trash characters (aside from a few) and until total drama: obese women comes out this show is cancelled.
2. opinions on the chinese lady (requested by trr)
QUEEN she has me snatched. i remember her slapping sierra back and forth girl had no chill i was living. honestly where is her second chance?
3. is owen a fan of beyonce? (requested by trr)
if he isn't hes garbage but hes obviously gay so..... hopefully.
4. why is mo so great (requested by mo)
i don't know... tell me the tea.
5. can sadie possibly get any better (requested by mo)
the answer is YES and NO because she gets better everytime she speaks but then again she's already the best BUT then again sadie always surpasses everyone's expectations.
6. pleasure me (requested by mo)
this is the total drama wiki, go to a different site for pleasure (can't link).
7. do i ever feel (requested by sky)
i wish i didn't because feelings suck really bad honestly.
8. like a paper bag (requested by sky)
9. why is sky a dragon breathing blue stuff from their mouth (requested by sky)
drugs aren't good henny.
10. sadie not being in all-stars (requested by rbw)
it's honestly a modern day tragedy and it's just really gross like i cannot believe they did not include any of the real all-stars of total drama and it honestly just makes me want to vomit.
11. blaineley's rank as a tea spiller (requested by rbw)
she's probably moderate because she doesn't really spill tea on everyone just on people she hates but still. scalded.
12. how would rbw, mo, and cody do on total drama (requested by rbw)
rbw would probably be either a antagonist or a victim of an antagonist so either 3 or mid merge boot.
mo would totally be the bridgette / sweetheart of the season so anywhere from 1st to 11th depending on the # of players.
cody would win because they always like a underdog story.
13. who is the most attractive guy on the wiki (requested by cody)
14. what year will sadie establish global dominance (requested by cody)
she already has.... you just don't know it yet.
15. how does cody get out of the friend zone (requested by cody)
i can pay for a taxi but i need to know where the friend zone is located first.
16. if sadie were to compete again, what would you like to see? how far do you think she would last? (requested by n3)
i would like to see her be a master antagonist who ends everyone's faves, wins every challenge, is enemies but also friends with everyone, is in 384887390 gay relationships, and also she wins.
17. is blaineley really as blainerific as she thinks she is? (requested by n3)
yes the only one who is more blainerific is sadie.
18. do you see topher and samey as a potential couple? if not, who would they be better off with? (requested by n3)
sampher could be good if it was like... written a certain way. but like imo it'd have to be like... a serious plot which like, i don't think the current td writers would be able to pull off.
samey would be better off with a girl, like someone who is a good foil to make her more interesting. topher works as alone or in a shallow relationship that eventually breaks up.
19. who is the gayest character? (requested by epic)
every character! but if i had to pick one, i'd say duncan. obv closeted.
20. what was the best drag anyone made in total drama? (requested by epic)
sadie dragging the killer bass by calling them marshmallow eating freaks.
21. who deserves to be in rr more out of the neglected gen 1? (requested by epic)
katie, sadie, and eva triple team. iconic!
22. who has the best lines? (requested by bowen)
23. why does space have 3 dimensions? (requested by dip)
The Big Bang theory of how the universe was born has been bolsted by some pretty compelling observational evidence, including the measurement of the cosmic microwave background and the relative abundance of elements.
But while cosmologists can gaze back in time to within a few seconds of the Big Bang, at the actual moment it came into existence, when the whole universe was just a tiny point — well, at that point, the physics we know and love breaks down. We need a new kind of theory, one that combines relativity with quantum mechanics, to make sense of that moment.
Over the course of the 20th century, physicists painstakingly cobbled together a reasonably efficient “standard model” of physics. The model they came up with almost works, without resorting to extra dimensions. It merges electromagnetism with the strong and weak nuclear forces (at almost impossibly high temperatures), despite the differences in their respective strengths, and provides a neat theoretical framework for the big, noisy “family” of subatomic particles.
But there is a gaping hole. The standard model doesn’t include the gravitational force. That’s why Jove, the physicist in Jeanette Winterson’s novel, Gut Symmetries, calls the Standard Model the “Flying Tarpaulin” — it’s “big, ugly, useful, covers what you want and ignores gravity.” Superstring theory aims to plug that hole.
Pulling Strings According to string theorists, there are the three full-sized spatial dimensions we experience every day, one dimension of time, and six extra dimensions crumpled up at the Planck scale like itty-bitty wads of paper. As tiny as these dimensions are, strings — the most fundamental unit in nature, vibrating down at the Planck scale — are even smaller.
ANALYSIS: Hawking: Surprise! There’s No Heaven The geometric shape of those extra dimensions helps determine the resonant patterns of string vibration. Those vibrating patterns in turn determine the kind of elementary particles that are formed, and generate the physical forces we observe around us, in much the same way that vibrating fields of electricity and magnetism give rise to the entire spectrum of light, or vibrating strings can produce different musical notes on a violin.
All matter (and all forces) are composed of these vibrations — including gravity. And one of the ways in which strings can vibrate corresponds to a particle that mediates gravity.
Voila! General relativity has now been quantized. And that means string theory could be used to explore the infinitely tiny point of our universe’s birth (or, for that matter, the singularity that lies at the center of a black hole).
Shattered Symmetry There’s one more wrinkle, and that’s this whole business of extra dimensions, when our world as we currently experience it has only three. Physicists have hammered out a pretty convincing hypothetical scenario for how this might have come about.
Before the Big Bang, the cosmos was a perfectly symmetrical nine-dimensional universe (or ten, if you add in the dimension of time) with all four fundamental forces unified at unimaginably high temperatures. But this universe was highly unstable and cracked in two, sending an immense shock wave reverberating through the embryonic cosmos.
The result was two separate space-times: the unfurled three-dimensional one that we inhabit, and a six-dimensional one that contracted as violently as ours expanded, shrinking into a tiny Planckian ball. As our universe expanded and cooled, the four forces split off one by one, beginning with gravity. Everything we see around us today is a mere shard of the original shattered nine-dimensional universe.
NEWS: Mysterious ‘Dark Flow’ May Be Tug of Other Universe Physicists who espouse this view aren’t sure why it happened, but they suspect it might be due to the incredible tension and high energy required to maintain a supersymmetric state, which could render it inherently unstable.
Imagine that you are trying to making the bed on laundry day, but the bed sheet has shrunk slightly in the wash. You manage to get it to fit around all four corners of the bed, but the sheet is stretched so tightly that it just won’t stay in place.
There is too much strain on the fabric, so one corner inevitably pops loose, causing the bed sheet to curl up in that spot. Sure, you can force that corner back into place, but again, the strain will prove to be too much and another corner will pop.
Like the bed sheet, the original ten-dimensional fabric of space-time was stretched tight in a supersymmetric state. But the tension became too great, and space-time cracked in two. One part curled up into a tight little ball, while the aftershock from the cataclysmic cosmic cracking caused the other part to expand outward rapidly, a period known as inflation. This became our visible universe.
That’s what the Japanese simulation shows: the universe had nine spatial dimensions at its birth, but only three of them experienced expansion. It’s the first practical demonstration of how a three-dimensional universe emerges from nine-dimensional space, providing strong support in favor of the theory’s validity.
What is the mechanism by which this happened? For a ten-dimensional universe, there are millions of ways for supersymmetry to break. So is there something special about three spatial dimensions that causes that configuration to be favored in our own universe? The new simulations may help shed some light on why this symmetry breaking might have unfolded the way it did.
ANALYSIS: Black Holes on a String in the Fifth Dimension Jun Nishimura (KEK), Asato Tsuchiya (Shizuoka University), and Sang-Woo Kim (Osaka University) tackled the problem using a formulation of string theory known as the IKKT matrix model (named after the scientists who developed it in 1996, Ishibashi, Kawai, Kitazawa, and Tsuchiya). It’s designed to model the complex interactions of strings.
For very complicated technical reasons, the connection between the original IKKT matrix model and the real world was, well, a bit vague, mostly because (a) it assumes weak interactions, when in fact the interactions between strings are quite strong; and (b) the variable of time in the calculations wasn’t treated as “real” in a mathematical sense. These new simulations assume strong interactions, and treat time as a real variable.
So the takeaway message is that string theorists now have a useful tool for analyzing superstring theory’s predictions with computer simulations, shedding light on such knotty problems as inflation, dark matter, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. And it also explains why our universe looks the way it does.
24. why is ice slippery? (requested by dip)
If you’ve ever shakily stepped onto the ice at your local skating rink, you are intimately familiar with the fear of falling on slippery ice. But what makes ice so slippery in the first place? Interestingly enough, scientists are still trying to figure that one out.
Physicists used to believe that ice became slippery when it was exposed to applied pressure. This pressure, they theorized, lowered the melting temperature of the top layer of ice. They believed that when a person went ice skating, the pressure from the blade caused the topmost layer of ice to melt. The thin layer of water allowed the ice skate to glide easily over the surface. After the blade passed, the top layer of water refroze.
However, most scientists today claim that this theory is wrong. “Ice is a very mysterious solid,” Robert M. Rosenberg, a chemistry professor at Lawrence University, said in an interview with The New York Times.
Scientists found that while pressure does lower the melting point of ice, it only does so by a fraction of a degree. Instead, they proposed that the friction from an ice skate causes the ice to melt beneath it.
Others believe that ice naturally possesses a fluid layer comprised of unstable water molecules. While these molecules search for stability, they move chaotically over the ice’s surface and create a slippery layer.
25: why is dip asking dumb questions? (requested by dip)
I'm not sure what you consider to be a stupid question, but I often write long answers to questions some other people think are stupid. Why do I do it? Because I don't think they're stupid.
So-called stupid questions are often naive questions, which means they're questions for which grownups are supposed to have a ready answer. This often means many people (myself included) haven't thought things through. They're just coming out with knee-jerk conventional responses.
Most questions deepen when you examine each word and phrase in them and ponder their underlying assumptions. This tends to reveal hidden ambiguity, and what formerly seemed obvious is now clearly complex and nuanced.
I often learn more by answering such questions than more seemingly "smart" questions. The "stupid" ones force me to really dig into my prejudices and assumptions. I love doing that ... I love that sort of learning ... which is the main reason I lavish so much time on these questions. It's also why I don't care much about the intent of the asker. So what if he's trolling? Another person might genuinely wonder about whatever it is he's asking.
Aside from naive questions, the other common type of "stupid" questions are ones that don't makes sense. But often even these contain possible meanings that can be teased out and explored.