Basic Principle of Travel/Stay Proportionality

Postulate

Let t be an amount of time spent traveling to a destination, be it a friend's house or a different city, by any means of transportation (e.g. walking, biking, driving, flying). For travel durations exceeding five minutes, the amount of time (S) spent at the ultimate destination shall be no less than three times the total time spent traveling one-way to said destination:

S ≥ 3t

Derivation

For a traveling/visiting/vacationing experience to be deemed pleasurable, we must ask ourselves if the total time spent moving from one location to another and back to the original location exceeds the total time spent at the new location, and whether this time investment has yielded satisfying returns. Considering the round-trip travel duration (r), logically assumed to be 2t, barring any route or itenerary changes for the return trip, a stay duration also equal to 2t would indicate that exactly as much time was spent seated motionless in a car, for example, as was spent enjoying the sights and sounds of the destination.

 r = 2t

For the traveler's satisfaction in the trip to be sufficiently high enough, half as much again must be spent at the destination, yielding 3/2. This number is known as the Farnhoff-Wickam-Gert Quotient, and it is commonly understood to be the threshold at which travel becomes pleasurable:

3/2r

We resubstitute 2t for r and reduce:

3/2(2t)
3t

It is also understood that any additional time spent at the destination is beneficial; therefore any number that matches or exceeds the Farnhoff-Wickam-Gert Quotient is deemed acceptable.

S ≥ 3t

Practical Applications

1. Walking to your neighbor's house to return a borrowed tool.

If it takes less than five minutes, there is no requirement for the duration of the visit. You may return the borrowed tool and depart at your leisure. But feel free to stay and chat about the weather or compliment your neighbor's lawn.

2. Driving across town to hang out with friends.

If you are driving 10-20 minutes across town, and everyone decides within five minutes of your arrival that the group will be moving to a different location, the trip has not been worth your time. A travel duration of 10 minutes requires at least half an hour of hanging out; 20 minutes of travel requires a minimum of one hour.

3. Driving across the country to visit family or vacation in a new city.

If you drive 12 hours in a car to your destination, you should not spend less than three days there. If you spend three days driving from one coast to the other, you should not spend less than nine days there.

Conclusion

The Basic Principle of Travel/Stay Proportionality is a powerful tool when planning a trip of any kind. Use it wisely, and you can begin to reap the benefits of a pleasurable lifestyle.

This is an April Fools' Day joke

This entire post is a joke; it is being written in observation of April Fools' Day. Do not believe anything contained within.

Today is April 1, the day of merry pranks and jokes. To that end, I am posting this in the hopes of catching some of you unawares. A portion of you will read this and know that it is all a prank; you will have likely also read pranks and jokes on other websites. But chances are high that a majority of you will read through this entire post and not realize the irony or humor contained within, and you may even tell a few friends about it before you realize the error of your ways. At that point, you may feel slightly embarrassed. Don't worry, it's all in the nature of the joke.

I can't take all the credit for catching you unawares. I had ample help preparing for this deception. Several of my closest friends were indispensable in the labyrinthine planning stages of this elaborate spoof. We spent hours going over the details, and now that you have been sufficiently taken for a ride, I can safely admit their involvement. If some of you feel cheated or deceived, please take your frustrations out on me and not them, as they were kept mostly in the dark about the eventual purpose of their machinations.

To those who may suppose that posting such a farcical tale of whimsy as this would perhaps discredit future writings of a more serious nature, you need not worry. I assure you that this preposterous and comedic anecdote is the only one of its kind.

Inertia

People of all walks of life, but mostly scientists, love to discuss inertia. Okay, probably no one actually loves to discuss it, but I imagine it comes up from time to time. It usually comes up in the context of a moving object, as it is the tendency of that object to resist any change to its motion.

Think of a bullet; as it's careening through atmosphere and ozone, it doesn't really want to slow down and most of nature is obliged to comply.¹ You are inclined to kindly step out of the path of the bullet and the bullet is inclined to tip its hat at you as it screams by faster than the speed of sound. The sound of the bullet, meanwhile, is struggling to catch up, trillions upon billions of bumbling air molecules bumping into each other as fast as they can. They give you a cursory glance as they stumble past and your ears pop.

Some people, like the moving bullet, might be said to have a high level of inertia. Figuratively. That is to say, they like to stay moving, and once they start, it's hard to stop them. These people seem to always be moving, doing, talking, walking, saying, playing, starting, finishing. They may tip their hats at you as they fly by faster than sound.

But the bullet wasn't just always tearing across the embankment or zipping down an alleyway. It was, at an earlier point, comfortably at rest inside the chamber of a gun. In fact, the bullet was so comfortable and so at rest there that, had it not been for an exorbitant explosion, it probably would be sitting there comfortably at rest forever. Rather than kindly stepping out of its path and rubbing your ears as the sound of it (trailing behind considerably) dawdles past, you would be sipping tea somewhere across town with no knowledge that there even is a bullet. This is another property of inertia, that of a stationary object that is inclined to remain stationary.

And just like moving persons, there are stationary persons. They are comfortably at rest inside their chambers. In fact, they are so comfortable there that, if not for an exciting explosion, they probably will be sitting comfortably at rest forever. You won't have to kindly step out of their paths, because they are on no path whatsoever.

Both types of bullets (the lethal, faster-than-sound kind and the harmless, comfortably-at-rest kind) are said to have inertia. Two contradictory states and one word to describe them both. It almost seems to invalidate use of the word entirely. What is the point in using a word to describe something if it can also be used to describe the very opposite?

And what about people? The always-moving-doing-talking-walking-saying-playing-starting-finishing person has inertia, just as the stationary, on-no-path-whatsoever person has inertia. You and I both have inertia. It all comes down to what that inertia means. It's the tendency of any object, moving or stationary, to resist any change to its motion or lack thereof. People waiting around comfortably for an extraordinary explosion to set them on their course may find themselves waiting an awfully long time.

¹ We're ignoring drag and friction.

A practical application of mutual incurred loss in a spatial, finite distribution

If two bodies are separated by a distance X, let X be divided into any number of finite segments such that X = A + B + C + ... + N, for which all values are positive, rational numbers. If X > 0, both parties suffer the mutual incurred loss of the 'Equal but Opposite Bodies' theorem, as outlined here by the author on 15 February 2005. Furthermore, let T = time of separation between bodies. The mutual incurred loss will be proportional to (X + T)².

'Equal But Opposite Bodies' Theorem

If two equal but opposite bodies do not engage in mutual activity, the sum of their incurred losses is equal. Furthermore, if one body attempts to engage in mutual activity with an equal and opposite body and is denied, the sum of loss for both bodies will be incurred by the first body exclusively.

See also 'Law of Rejection Conservation'.

Corollary #1

For years uncounted, scientists have pondered the many mysteries of the vast universe in which we live. From simple origins to complex geometry, no caveat has gone overlooked in the neverending quest for knowledge. In light of my previous post, in which I described to the reader the supra-intellectual state one may achieve upon thorough understanding and absorption of Drew's Universal Theory of Relativity, I now present a practical application of said theorem: a true to life vector imaging spectral analysis of the geometric makeup of the galaxy at large. In an attempt to communicate in the most basic terms what is essentially an incredibly complex subject, a simplified model has been employed.




Click for full size
It is not yet known how this newly accepted model will integrate with pre-existing theories regarding higher level string theory and interdimensional wormhole function.

Mathematics a la mode

Several years ago, I made a startling discovery. There it was, resting before my eyes, waiting like fruit, succulent and ripe, to be plucked from the boughs above: a simple, elegant mathematical equation. So elementary and yet so deceptively complex was its composition that to know it and understand it placed my mind in a state of awareness, which was to my previous state as the waking state is to the dreaming state. It is presented in its original form with no alterations.




Click for full size

Please update all textbooks accordingly.

Science is actually cool

And here is the proof.




http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/photos.htm

So quit stepping on them and eating them and building phallic statues out of them.