Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Amazing Brain Story


Imagine you're the guy working the MRI machine when this pops out:

This is a guy with a job as a civil servant. He's got a family, wife, kids, the whole deal.

He's in there because he's having "mild weakness" in his left leg.

So they take a look inside his brains and find something you'd expect on an episode of The Simpsons.

The pictures on the left are of him, and for comparison, a normal person's brain on the right. See all that stuff in side? That's what makes us go. But the guy on the left has a giant pocket of cerebrospinal fluid (brain juice) and a thin layer of brains all around.

"Even more amazingly, the man's IQ score is 75, which according to the DSM-IV TR (the manual used by mental health clinicians to diagnose disorders) is on the high end of mild mental retardation."

For reference, Forrest Gump's character in the eponymous film was supposed to have about the same IQ.

Think about it - this guy has almost no brain. But like, apparently it's fine. Imagine if I cut out like 90% of your laptop. Would it even turn on? No. No it wouldn't. But somehow, life, even when given almost nothing, somehow manages to create thought and life and love. Out of like almost no brains.

taken from here:

Oh oh oh, and what about the girl with the GPA of 94.7, all while running on half a brain!

taken from here:

Somehow, neuroplasticity just doesn't do it justice.

Brain shapes life, life shapes brain, and round and round we go.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

What to do when you're suffering.

I recently read a post on Facebook where someone I knew had written something like this:

"Please don't ask why, but I'm feeling really upset and would love some kind words. I know it will help. Thank you."

I just happened to see this at the right time, and banged out a reply. But after reading it, I decided to re-post on my blog here, in case it's in any way helpful or interesting to anyone. I just typed it off the top of my head, so I'm sorry if I could have written it better. I hope it's alright. :-)

----------

Okay, so, there are these kids that have a neurological disorder where they don't feel pain. Ever. You know what happens to them? They die; By the time they are 12 years old or so - they just don't make it. Why? Since they can't feel pain, it doesn't occur to them that they have injuries or have broken bones. As a result, they die from random complications, like in infection, because it never occurs to them that something is wrong.

Now, think about someone *you* care about. Someone you would die for if it could save them. Like you'd donate a heart to them. I feel this way for friends and family. Now, although I hate it when they are in pain, in some way, if they couldn't feel pain, if I took that away from them, then after about 10 years they would be dead.

So, in some way, if you love them, you wouldn't want to take away their ability to feel pain or they would die.

There's someone else that loves you this much. Your body. When your body creates the experience of pain, it's your body's way of telling you what's wrong. It's your body's way of telling you to pay attention. It your body's way of saying "hey you, don't die!". In fact, it's your body's way of saying I Love You.

So life, is wise. One outcome of life's wisdom is pain. It's a part of life. But it's life's, and your body's way of telling you it's loves you.

Now here's the trick. The brain can't do too many things at the same time. it's like a computer running too many programs. So, when you try to do too much of something with your mind, it runs out of it's "computer power". So, if you do something that engages your brain, your brain doesn't have any computing power to run the "pain" program. They let burn patients play virtual reality video games and found that they reported great reductions in pain - better than some drugs.

So what's the point? Well! There's another trick.

Life is hard and complicated. In fact, some Buddhists say "Life is suffering." But they don't mean that in a negative way. They are trying to say that life is complicated and if it were easy that would create its' own problems. And without pain, you'd die (remember above?)

So Life is suffering, but what is suffering? I believe suffering is a special combination of *pain* plus *fear*.

Now, suffering sucks. But pain can be managed. Thinking a lot or doing something that really involved your mind can steal away the energy required to create pain.

But fear, well here we have another secret weapon. It's impossible for the brain to be in a state of appreciate and fear at the same time.

So when we are appreciative of something, it's hard to be afraid. Our brains can't do both at the same time - one process really screws up the other.

Now we get to the ultimate trick. Life is wise. Life is suffering. When you are suffering you need a trick.

Remember, fear + pain = suffering. So, here's the trick.

Life is wise. Life is suffering. But suffering needs fear to turn pain into suffering. So, since you know your body creates pain to protect and love you, and you know pain is hard to do when your brain is busy doing other things, this is the trick.

Thank your body and your brain for your pain. Just say it to yourself. "Thank you for the pain, because I know that you are just trying to protect because you love me. Thank you for loving me"

When you do this, you're busy thinking something that's hard to think about when you're in pain, so you're starving your brain for computer power to create pain. Now you've turned down the pain.

Second, when the distraction is based on appreciating your body and brain, and thanking them for loving you, you're turning down the fear.

Finally, by turning down both the pain, and the fear, you've broken up the suffering. There is no suffering now, only less pain and lots of appreciation.

So, this can apply to anything that's happening in your life, because emotional pain and physical pain are both created in your brain. This works because it ignores the outside world, if only for a moment, and gets you to focus on things inside. Once you do that, and you're out of the state of suffering, you can begin to make changes in real life again.

Having said all that, There's probably been a moment in your life that you can remember something great. Like a time you did something nice for someone. Or a time you won something, or created something, or just rocked out so hard it knocked a brick out of the universe. So relax, you're awesome. You'll be just fine.

Nobody has never been loved by someone, somewhere in time. Even if it feels like in the moment nobody cares, and even if it's true, there may have been someone in the past that did. Or maybe even someone you've never met who thought you were amazing from afar. And *even* if that isn't true, there will be someone in the future that will. Whenever people go through something very hard, they almost always find people just like them afterward. And through that connection of survival, new love can grow out of the worst things. But remember, somewhere in time, the past, present, or future, someone loves you. Really, you'll be just fine.

In any case, just remember:
Emotions *always* feel like they are forever, and they *never* are.
All feelings are temporary.

And life is wise, so ask yourself why life has brought you to this moment and what are you supposed to learn from it.

That's it. That's all I got. I hope this helps. Cheers!

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Gravity Is Dead - How Gravity is Just a Side-Effect of the Expansion of the Universe

My Ideas on Gravity - by: Chiron Bramberger

Gravity is dead. There is no gravity. Since Newton we've been all wrong. Gravity is not a force. It doesn't exist. It's just an illusion; a fake; a side-effect; an emergent property of another process. We've been had.

The following is an informal discussion of my collection of ideas on gravity and how I think it works.

Before going into the ideas, it's important to outline certain observations about gravity and the universe.

Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawkings and others, have given us many pictures of gravity. Gravity describes that objects warp space-time such that they accelerate towards each other. More specifically, the following lists what we think and know about gravity:

- Objects accelerate towards each other

- Without an external frame of reference, a person in spaceship accelerating through space wouldn't know if they were in the presence of a gradational field, for example if the box were sitting on the surface of the Earth, or actually accelerating

- Time appears to go by at a different rate in a gravitational field than outside of it. For example, orbiting a black-hole in a spaceship would be like travelling into the future, thus time would appear to move more quickly if you were to observe something far away from the black-hole.

- Gravity works over great distances, seemly instantly or at least the speed of light, without being blocked by any confirmed known substance of method. For example, nobody has created a gravity shield that blocks the effects of gravity.

- Gravity has been hypothesized to work via waves or particles, yet neither gravity particles have been discovered, nor have gravity waves been directly measured, although they have been measured indirectly.

- Although there are various hypothesized methods for which gravity may work at the quantum level, there isn't definitive quantum model for gravity. In fact, gravity and quantum mechanics have a history of not getting along together.

- Light is bent by gravity.

- The universe is expanding.

- The speed limit of the universe is the speed of light.

- Time slows down when travelling at near the speed of light, similar to that in the presence of a gravitational field.

Going into detail on the above points is outside the scope of this discussion.

-----

The main idea in my vision of gravity is that gravity is simply an emergent side-effect of the expansion of the universe, and that there is no real gravity in this sense. I think that there may be something like waves in space-time caused by gravity, but that there is no real gravity that is made of waves or particles.

With the expansion of the universe, I think of the universe like a sheet of material, such as a piece of plastic wrap. As plastic wrap expands, it gets stretched. Like the skin on a drum.

I think that masses grip space-time such that prevent the expansion of the universe, or using the above analogy, the stretching of the universe is reduced when compared to the rest of the plastic. Like a piece of tape stuck to a piece of plastic wrap, the tape keeps the stretching from taking place evenly, and the unevenness creates areas where near the tape the tightness is reduced. However, unlike a piece of tape on plastic wrap, in space masses can move. I believe they move through the universe without releasing their grip on the space-time around them.

If there were a single object in an expanding universe like I describe, then there wouldn't be any gravity to readily observe. However, when there are two objects in an expanding universe, they each grip the space-time changing it's "tightness", such that there is a pocket of "looser" space-time between them. Since objects can move without releasing this grip on space-time, the objects experience a "tightness" or "pressure" of sorts all around them, effectively pushing them towards the pocket of "looser" space-time between them.

This idea of space-time having a density goes along with the Einstein view of gravity, but in this model the density or "tightness" is the result of the competing expansion of the universe verses the pockets of more slowly expanding universe between the masses.

Here are some pictures of plastic-wrap and circles of duct-tape to illustrate the effect describing a moment in a 3D universe, as projected onto the 2D universe of the plastic wrap. The silver grid acts as a reference to the "stretching" of the universe.





(pictures of before and after we expand our plastic wrap model of space-time and it's duct-tape masses)

This would explain how gravity works over large distances while being unaffected or blocked by anything. These pockets of "looser" space-time form between all objects, and their formation would instantly affect the "tightness" of both nearby space-time as well as the entire universe. Even distant object would create a sightly less "tight" pocket of space-time between them, and as the universe expand, the surrounding universe is "tighter", and the pocket is "looser", thus the objects are "pushed" by the differing "pressures" of space-time between them. The objects would have nowhere else to go but to be "pushed" by this "pressure" into the pocket. The pocket would then be smaller and the pocket would have more "looseness" than before since the space between the objects would be smaller, all while the universe expands more increasing the "pressure" and increasing the overall effect and hence the acceleration.

This would also explain why time seems to run differently in a gravitational field. An object near a massive object would be in a "loose" pocket and therefore as it travels it is moving through more dense space-time as compared to a tighter area of the universe where the expansion would be proceeding unabated. As you move through a "thicker" or "looser" area of space-time, you travel across a greater distance of space and time, therefore, compared to another observer, you seem to be moving through time as well as space, more than they are, and thus it appears they are travelling forward in time, compared to us.

If we look at the weird things that we observe with gravity, we can try to explain these observation with these ideas.

"- Objects accelerate towards each other"

As the universe expands, massive objects create pockets between them which act to shield the pocket from the expansion of the universe. But because the objects can move while keeping their grip on space-time, they are eventually "pushed" or "sucked" into the "looser" pocket of space-time by all the more "dense" or "bunched up" and "stretched" areas around it. This "bunched-up-space-time" "differential" creates these interactions that the object are both pushed and fall into each other.

"- Without an external frame of reference, a person in spaceship accelerating through space wouldn't know if they were in the presence of a gradational field, for example if the box were sitting on the surface of the Earth, or actually accelerating"

When we are standing in an elevator, we can't tell if it's acceleration through space, or sitting on the ground. Using these ideas, we can see that even sitting on the ground, we are accelerating. The universe is stretching, and pushing down and out from under our feet so-to-speak, the effect is the same as accelerating, only it's the energy of the acceleration of the universe and the differential in space-time "squeezing" down on us that creates the same conditions that looks and feel like acceleration.

"- Time appears to go by at a different rate in a gravitational field than outside of it. For example, orbiting a black-hole in a spaceship would be like travelling into the future, thus time would appear to move more quickly if you were to observe something far away from the black-hole."

As we travel though a region of space near a large body, like a sun or black-hole, we are traveling through more "dense" or "thick" or "bunched up" space-time and therefore appear to be moving through time more quickly.

"- Gravity works over great distances, seemly instantly or at least the speed of light, without being blocked by any confirmed known substance of method. For example, nobody has created a gravity shield that blocks the effects of gravity."

When objects move through space, they exert their influence of the "bunched-upness" of space-time, without releasing the "bunched-upness". The reason objects' gravity work quickly over large distances is because all the points between the two objects "stretch" or "release" their "tension" at the same time. The effect is not instant, which is why we can indirectly observe gravity wave-like effects, but the waves aren't actually carrying the force, like for example the way light waves are both waves and carry the force of the light energy within them.

"- Gravity has been hypothesized to work via waves or particles, yet neither gravity particles have been discovered, nor have gravity waves been directly measured, although they have been measured indirectly."

Gravity doesn't actually exist, therefore we'll never find gravity particles or waves like we do for light. Gravity, as we know it, is just a side-effect of the interaction of masses on warping space-time and the energy of the expansion of the universe.

" - Although there are various hypothesized methods for which gravity may work at the quantum level, there isn't definitive quantum model for gravity. In fact, gravity and quantum mechanics have a history of not getting along together. "

There isn't a quantum model of gravity that really feels right, because there is no gravity - it's just a side effect. The quantum model that would work would be a model that explains how masses effects space-time. I suspect that space-time, when compressed to be dense enough, actually becomes or converts into matter. Just like matter and energy are related and interchangeable, I think space-time and matter-energy are interchangeable. In this sense, masses moving through space-time are like icebergs moving through the ocean. They are both water, just in different forms. A quantum model of how matter, energy, space, and time actually convert between these forms would explain how the energy of the expansion of the universe, as imparted through the big bang, is converted into space-time, and how mass is converted into space-time, and how the conversion works, perhaps through the squeezing we think of as gravity. Once we understand that, we'll understand how this weird side-effect of gravity takes place.

"- Light is bent by gravity. "

As light travels through space-time, masses creates loose pockets, and as light travels through the pockets, it is bent because inside the pocket the same apparent distance is full of more space-time and therefore contains more time, so the light is moving through "denser" space-time and, just like light passing through glass into air or another liquid, the different "densities" cause part of the bean to slow down vs. the other part, and change the course of the beam of light. But also, light having it's own particles, creates and fall into the pockets of other masses, but like any other masses in the universe. Nothing really changes here other than how we think about gravity.

" - The universe is expanding. "

The big bang an explosion of energy. Whatever this stuff originally was, I think matter, space, energy, and time all comes from this base. As the universe expands, parts of the universe eventually turn into matter, and the matter start creating pockets and, as above, we have what looks like gravity. The engine of gravity drives everything else in the universe, through condensing into stars, which then create other elements, release other energies, etc. Therefore, gravity isn't the engine that creates everything in the universe, the expansion of the universe is the energy of the universe from the big bang, and that energy drives and is converted into matter and everything else. This looks like gravity, but it's just a process, not a force onto itself. The big bang creates everything, and gravity is just a description of a part of that process.

"- The speed limit of the universe is the speed of light. "

If the expanding universe drives what we think of as gravity, then the speed of light is probably related to the speed or the amount of energy needed to outrun the universe. But you can't outrun the universe, because you'd have to leave the universe and can't get outside of the universe. I think that speed of light is related to the speed of the expansion of the universe, such that nothing ever gets enough energy to outrun the universe itself, because that would require all the energy that exists inside the universe itself. So we can never leave the universe. It is the stuff, the power, and the container and the clock, all in one. The speed of light is the only way the universe can exist and be stable without any given process having the ability to use up all the energy in the expanding universe in trying to outrun the expansion.

-----

One implication of these ideas is that if the expansion of the universe were to stop, gravity would appear to change instantly throughout the universe. My gut feeling is that gravity would seem to disappear altogether, or more likely, gravity will change from being an acceleration to a simple velocity. The differences between masses would still create pockets, but without the expanding universe around it pouring energy into it, I think that objects would appear to fall at a constant rate instead of an exponential rate. This would probably complicate things for everyone, if all the stars in the universe don't all explode at the same time.

Finally, I believe that it will be possible to manipulate what we think of a gravity. I'm really not sure how it would work, but my guess and gut feeling is that space-time is probably like non-Newtonian fluids. If we can find a way to create a tiny pocket of expanding universe, even if only for a moment, inside a large loose pocket (inside what we think of today as a gravitational field) then I think if we switch on and off this tiny pocket of expanded universe, it will "appear" to other objects in the universe like a "tighter" area of the universe, without actually needing to constantly expand, and hopefully disrupt or even shield the effects of "gravity" nearby. The effect would probably not work over large distances and probably be a very local phenomenon. So my very big guess is that a very large and powerful oscillating electromagnetic field at the right energy levels and frequency should simulate a "tight" pocket of universe and create what we would think of as a gravity shield. These non-Newtonian fluid-looking standing wave patterns would "tighten up" an area in the pocket and appear to everything else like the rest of the "tight" expanding universe. This would have the effect of appearing to block the sliding of masses further into the "pocket" and look just like a "gravity shield" of some sort. I think that manipulating the universe to appear `just like the expansion of the universe is the key to manipulating gravity.

-----

It is important to note that I am not a professional physicist nor am I even remotely well practised in the mathematics required to engage in a certain level of discussion in this area. However, after my own research, it is clear that these ideas are new and possibly interesting enough to openly share. It is in the spirit of sharing that I write this.

If you are well versed formally in physics and mathematics, and are interested in working with me, I've love to hear from you. Maybe together we could actually try to put some real work into these ideas and create the foundations for a new working model of gravity… or at least have a lot of fun trying.

Get in touch. Leave comments below, visit my website www.chironbramberger.com or email me: chiron (at) bramberger (dot) com. Thanks!

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Hacking Presentation Templates - A Larger Security Issue?

In my last post, I talked about a tiny weird little vandalism in a Wikipedia template. Someone had added some text to a presentation template in Wikipedia that generates a multi-image format view of, well, two pictures.

After doing a Google search, it turns out to have affected at least 3 other pages. Wikipedia has several templates, so it looks like if there's a problem with a template, in this case an image presentation template, the vandalism gets repeated across pages. The benefit to the vandal would seem to be that it's easier to propagate a single graffiti across multiple pages, while making it harder for the average Wikipedian to quickly remove it, as the edit page wouldn't contain the text.

This makes me think of a bigger picture, which hadn't occurred to me before, that if you hack a single point in real life, or on the internet, then that point is all that is affected. You drive under a bridge, and you see "Jimmy loves Jane" or something sprayed in paint.

However, if you hack a piece of infrastructure, you have a much larger impact. In fact, not only do you impact the actual target, but conceal the hack within the layers of the infrastructure. An similar example would be if the mold that was used to build *all* bridges had the words "Jimmy loves Jane" carved into it, so that every bridge that is made had these words etched into the concrete.

Think about how every day we each interact with complex systems, which one made up of tiny little pieces. When you go to an ATM cash machine, there's communication with a central bank server, which figures out if the cash machine should give you any money or not. But when you actually *look* at the screen, it's most likely some template that drives the display that tells you your bank balance.

When you select the "Withdraw $20" button, you see a template that shows you what buttons do what. When you select "Account Balance" again, another template that takes data from the bank server and display's it to you.

So if someone hacked a cash machine, such that only the display templates were changes, then they could make the $40 withdraw button look like a $20. Then, you hack the machine spit out $20 less on each transaction. You also hack the template for the account balance. So as far as the person is concerned, they have their money, and their bank account is fine. And as far as the bank is concerned, everything is fine too, it's just $20 more than you think it is. So, if then you can hack a bank machine like this, you could go back at the end of the day and pick the $20 you skimmed off each transaction. When the bank refills the machine, they see exactly how much money they expected to see. This would go on until someone complained that they were missing $20.

This is a pretty bad example, because cash machine are very secure and I can't imagine anyone trying anything so dumb, but the point is simply that a change in a template, makes things *appear* differently than they are, and *hides* the change by burying it somewhere else in the code base. It would make it harder for programmers to find.

I guess, it's about security, infrastructure and perception. Presentation layers are everywhere now, because computers are fast and big enough to have many pieces. But in using and reusing code, in such a modular way, maybe there's a venerability that we haven't thought of yet.

In fact, that is exactly what happens when phishing attack happen over email. The actual website a bad one, made by the bad guys, but the facade is made to look real. This actually happened to me, I got an email, knew it was bad, but I checked it out of curiosity. The email sent me to a *real bank site* but, then opened up a tiny little real-looking popup to ask for my login and password. Of course I didn't fall for it, but on a bad day, if I wasn't paying attention, I could understand how easy it would be to fall for it.

Again, remember - always go directly to a website to login. Go to the address bar and type it in manually. It's easy to forget, especially when websites like eBay send you notices reminding you of auction endings soon. Don't even get me started on the eBay scammers out there. eBay is a great site - but follow safe practices. That's a whole other article. When it comes to sites that need a login, just type it into the address bar. Make it a habit. Don't even use bookmarks for online banking login pages. Type it into the address bar. Don't be lazy - be safe. I still have to remind myself sometimes.

Anyway, I hope this is someone helpful or useful in helping someone somewhere. Maybe just putting it out there will help developers think a few extra steps ahead when it comes to security, and think of so of the side effects or emergent properties of building safe infrastructure. The parts and the whole, right?

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Weird Wikipedia Error

UPDATE: This was fixed after I dropped an email to the great people at Wikipedia. It has to do with templates that affect multiple articles:


My next blog post will discuss this in the context of a bigger picture of security and modern technology life.



I just noticed this really weird Wikipedia error. There's this text in an article:

File:Malia Obama.jpg File:Sasha Obama.jpg

But the weird thing is, it's not Wikipedia graffiti. I looked at the WikiCode and compared it to the HTML of the page delivered... it's not in the WikiCode but it should be.

Weird.

More pics comparing the thing here:

Friday, October 16, 2009

I Justed Launched the open-source PetSynth.org and I've already got picked up by 3 websites!

In just these last few days I launched PetSynth.org, to share with the world the program I banged out, that turns your Commodore PET into a playable synth. It's open-source (GPL v2) and runs on a stock PET computer without any modifications.

The wonderful people at Retrothing.com picked it up, and said it's "surprisingly good considering the hardware limitations..." as well as "...I fear the potential audience for PetSynth is constrained by the number of functional Commodore PETs lurking in attics and basements. Of course, that just makes it cooler."

:)

Also, the terrific people at MatrixSynth picked it up.

As well, the great people at Synthopia also picked it up, saying "It’s starting to look like old 8-bit computers are the new Roland TB-303."

I'm excited at all the wonderful attention, and I look forward to hearing from anyone who tries it out, or decided to actually dive into my messy punk-rock source code.

Woot!

Thursday, October 15, 2009

The Original Tiny living room inside a PC





I took some pictures back in 2006 that have been getting a lot of internet attention lately!

You can find the originals here on Flickr:

They've been posted and re-posted to several sites, but apparently most of them don't know who originally took them.

Well, it was me, the original author and photographer, Chiron Bramberger! I took the living room inside a PC pictures that were posted to modding.ru, as well as the other PC case mod sites!

Maybe I should take some more :)




(translated)



The Gizmodo.com article has had 57,000 or so views!!!


Also, I'm not Russian! I'm Canadian! Oh those Russians!

Special thanks to Todor Delev who got the ball rolling at techpowerup.com and who's kept me updating on all the blogging and re-blogging! Thanks!