Join 3,432 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Time is the universal frequency of synchronization, mathematically expressed as a ratio constant, 13:20
September 10, 2009 1:24 PM   Subscribe

Welcome to the official website of the Galactic Research Institute of the Foundation for the Law of Time (via i09)
posted by fearfulsymmetry (42 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
Everytime I read noosphere on that site a little voice in my head goes NOOOOsphere
posted by scrutiny at 1:28 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


The site should be viewed while listening to the music of Yahowa 13.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:33 PM on September 10, 2009


Ditto. I came here to say noo.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 1:33 PM on September 10, 2009


Time is a benchmark, not a dimension or "universal frequency". Where do I send my protest letters?
posted by LordSludge at 1:37 PM on September 10, 2009


The principle formulation of the Law of Time -T(E) = Art, Energy factored by Time equals Art - accounts for the intrinsic elegance of all natural phenomena.

So, something quantifiable multiplied by something quantifiable equals something totally unquantifiable.

In its essence, time is a frequency expressed as a mathematical ratio constant, 13:20.

I guess you wont shut up until you get a donation, right?
posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:40 PM on September 10, 2009


There is this theory of the Moebius...
posted by basicchannel at 1:40 PM on September 10, 2009


A calendar is a macroprogramming device, it holds in place all of the established beliefs and customs of a society or culture.

Well, that explains why none of the Western world's established beliefs or customs have changed since the Gregorian Calendar was invented in the 1500s.
posted by burnmp3s at 1:44 PM on September 10, 2009


Please add a Circumpolar Rainbow Bridge tag. Cause that is 2012 levels of crazy.
posted by cashman at 1:47 PM on September 10, 2009


I need to recalibrate my timecube.
posted by The White Hat at 1:48 PM on September 10, 2009 [3 favorites]


I came here to say noo.

I
came here to say "ni."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:50 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


But seriously:

Can someone who has stronger computer kung-fu ascertain whether this may be yet another 2012 movie tie-in?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:51 PM on September 10, 2009


Jacob Rhythmic Dragon is the Admin, according to a whois lookup.
posted by wuwei at 2:00 PM on September 10, 2009


This didn't make sense until I tried this helpful audiovisual aid.
posted by phrontist at 2:04 PM on September 10, 2009


...qu ɘno ƨiʜƚ ʞɔuʇ ƚ'nob yɘʜƚ ɘqoʜ I

OH NO!!!
posted by not_on_display at 2:08 PM on September 10, 2009



The principle formulation of the Law of Time -T(E) = Art, Energy factored by Time equals Art - accounts for the intrinsic elegance of all natural phenomena.


Funny, that's what the pledge drive host on PBS said last night.
posted by spamguy at 2:10 PM on September 10, 2009 [2 favorites]


The principle formulation of the Law of Time -T(E) = Art, Energy factored by Time equals Art - accounts for the intrinsic elegance of all natural phenomena.

Funny, that's what the pledge drive host on PBS said last night.

James Lipton is hosting pledge week now?
posted by PlusDistance at 2:26 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


Me am educated stupid.
posted by Artw at 2:31 PM on September 10, 2009


How absurd! It would be nice if they opened with their definition of the "Law of Time." I think most contemporary quantum physicists could come up with one.
posted by sundance1001 at 2:50 PM on September 10, 2009


13:20? I think the only constant in this persons life is 4:20.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 3:07 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


Pop quiz: what kind of fastener is this?
~~~::::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,....,...........,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:::::~~~===
~~:::::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,......,.................,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::::::~~~=
::::::,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,..,.....,,...,........,.......,.....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,::::~~~
::::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,.............................,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:::::~
:::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,........................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::::~
::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,...................................,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:::::
:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.......................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::::
,,:,,,,,,O8OZOZOZ$Z8.......................................,,,,,OO$ZZ,,,,,,:,:::
:,,,,,,ZZZDDDDDO= ?OOO...................................,.,+ZO8Z=,:7OD8:,::,:::
:,,,,,8N8OOO8Z7ZZ88D8DD8..................................OO8.$ZDDDDDDDDDO,:::::
,,,,,D8ZZZZ$$$Z$$ZZZ8D88$...............................+ODZD8DZ88D8D88D8DD:,:::
,,,,8Z$Z777I$7I77$$$ZOD8?+.............................=?8DD88OO77OOO7ZZ$O88,:::
,,,,7$Z7777777Z7$77II7$OZ+,...........................,=O8OZZZZZOZ$II$7ZOZ7ZI,,,
,,,,I?I77IIIIII?77I7III$$I+...........................=IZZZO7$$7ZZ$$$I77$7$77,,:
,,,,,III?I7?I??IIII7IIII$I+=.........................~+Z7777$7I777$I77I77I7I?,,,
,,,,,~????IIII?III?III?II7Z?..........,,:...........,+7777I7IIIII7IIIIII77I7,,::
,,,,,,:?I??????III????+++?77?....,$I7,  .I+..7=.....+7II77IIIIIIIIIIII?IIII,,:,:
,,,,,,,,+?????????I???I?+?IZOI7$7O78DO= ,8N8+~Z$$..+OI????II?I?II?IIIIIIII,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,+++??+???I?++?+++I88ZZ88DDDO~.:ODD~ZO87$OOZ?????II????????????+,,,,,,:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,+++++??++++++??88I78DDN8Z7I$O8DO$8O+7ZO7??????????II??I?I,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,=+++++++++++?IO=7Z8DDOO8888O?Z$O:,. ZI?++??I?I??????,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,:::::~:::=+=+=++++??+??OIZ$ZZ88ZD8Z:$~I ZO?+???+?I???++??,,,...,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,:::~=~=~~~~~~~=++++??+++?+?Z,+$$7.:,,.:?O8?II??++++??+??:::,,..,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,:::~~~~====~===?+++?????+=++7DD8O$7O8Z??+?I?+???++++====~~:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,:,::::~==+???7?+???I+++??++I77I?I?++?????+?++II??+++=~~::,,,,,,,,,,,:
,,,,,,,,,........,,:~+?I7Z$????+++??+++??+????+?+?????Z7II?++++====~~~~:~:~~::::
,,,,,,,.........,,,:::::,,:~7??+++++?+????????++++?+I===~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~===~~
,,,,,,...........,,,,,,,,,,,,?++++++?+?+I++??+++=?=,.,:,,,,,,,,,:::::~~~~~~~~~~~
,,,,,..,...........,,,,,,,,,..:7+?++++++++++++++I~:,  ,,....,,,,,,,,::::::::~:~~
,,,,,,,,,,...........,.,,,,,...,,7++==+++++++?$~::,,. ....,....,,,,,,:::,:::::::
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,.,.,,,,......   ,~II?+~::,,,,.,.......,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,::::
,,,::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..........  . .. ...........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,::,,,:,,,:::
:::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.........,...................,,,,,,,,,,:::::::::::,:::::::
:::,,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...............,.,.......,,.,,,,,,,,::,::::::::::::::::::~
:::::::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..............,,.........,.,,,,,,,,:::::::::::~::::::::::~~
~:::::,,:,,,:,,,,,,,,.................,......,.,,,,,,:,:::::::::~~~~:~~::::~~~~=
~~~:::::::,,,,,,,,,,,.,.,..,.....,....,.....,,,,,,,::,,:::::::~:~~~~~~~:~~~~~~==
~~~~~::::,,:,:,,,,,,,,,.,,,..,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,::::::~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~====
posted by killdevil at 3:09 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


That poor website seems to be imprisoned in the cold iron of Web Design 2001.
posted by rokusan at 3:09 PM on September 10, 2009


Answer: Mickey Mouse Nut?
posted by digsrus at 3:16 PM on September 10, 2009


It's actually tied in with Teilhard De Chardin's ideas more than any movie that i know of. Unfortunately it also tosses alot of heavy predictions for 2012 on top of the [to my mind, rational] stuff that is worth thinking about.

Fun fact, Chardin and the Noosphere were both recently mentioned in a U.N. speech [PDF], so i dunno, maybe that idea at least is -1 timecube and +1 relevance, depending on your bias of course.

Some of the tie ins with 2012 on this site, and i don't understand the need for a different type of calendar specifically.

Read that U.N. speech though.
posted by phylum sinter at 3:18 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


Tea time doubly so.
posted by grobstein at 3:19 PM on September 10, 2009 [3 favorites]


Some of the tie ins with 2012 ...MAKE NO SENSE TO ME... on this site.

sorry about that.
posted by phylum sinter at 3:19 PM on September 10, 2009


Good technical writing starts with simple principles and then uses step by step arguments to build up to complicated ideas. Bad technical writing (of which there is a tremendous amount out there) just throws in the jargon and complication without any regard for the reader's understanding.

With bad technical writing you often just have to accept the conclusions as they are presented because it's really difficult to work out all the complicated arguments that went into it. Bullshit like this takes on the guise of bad technical writing because there are no arguments behind it at all, but they don't want you to know that. And it often works, because people are used to reading things that they don't understand, and accepting conclusions made by others simply because the other person makes it sound so technical and complicated.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:35 PM on September 10, 2009


T(E) = Art

And all this time I thought it was AT(V), where A = action, T equals time, V is for vision and the four minds crack.
posted by mwhybark at 3:50 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


It's actually tied in with Teilhard De Chardin's ideas more than any movie that i know of. Unfortunately it also tosses alot of heavy predictions for 2012 on top of the [to my mind, rational] stuff that is worth thinking about.

Heh. This review of Chardin's work is one of the snarkiest and most head-shakingly accurate things ever written about him.
posted by nasreddin at 4:37 PM on September 10, 2009


killdevil: Pop quiz: what kind of fastener is this?

One that tickles the psychological scars I carry from 80s ASCII porn?
posted by vanar sena at 4:58 PM on September 10, 2009


nasreddin - I've read that review and agree with about 2%... the reviewer has no real sense of the true source of Chardin's motives or where he got many of his ideas (which are covered pretty thoroughly in modern editions). What rings deafeningly clear of this review is that it was written as a deliberate, ego borne move to shake people up that actually liked the book or its ideas. A simple "IF YOU LIKE THIS BOOK YOU'RE STUPID" would have been just as effective, if you ask me. To be fair - at the time of its publication there was a whole lot of hype surrounding it, so maybe it needed/deserved some opposing opinions but this isn't a very good example of them.

But hey, i simply suggest you read the book yourself before you take on the thoughts of someone you never met (either the idiot i call myself or the idiot called Sir Peter Medawar) as your own. It is at least as worth your time as reading that review was.
posted by phylum sinter at 5:14 PM on September 10, 2009


nasreddin - I've read that review and agree with about 2%... the reviewer has no real sense of the true source of Chardin's motives or where he got many of his ideas (which are covered pretty thoroughly in modern editions). What rings deafeningly clear of this review is that it was written as a deliberate, ego borne move to shake people up that actually liked the book or its ideas. A simple "IF YOU LIKE THIS BOOK YOU'RE STUPID" would have been just as effective, if you ask me. To be fair - at the time of its publication there was a whole lot of hype surrounding it, so maybe it needed/deserved some opposing opinions but this isn't a very good example of them.

I've read Chardin, and was briefly impressed with the whole Catholicism-plus-science thing. Then I read Medawar's review and realized that aside from the superficial appeal of the religious side (which flatters the sensibilities of people who like to think of themselves as both modern and "spiritually open-minded"), his whole body of work is pervaded by a flatulent, sentimental speculative mysticism of no intellectual interest or explanatory value whatsoever. I mean, if it floats your boat, you're welcome to it (at least his work takes up fewer cubic feet than that of many much more useless writers), but I'd be interested to hear what you like so much about him.
posted by nasreddin at 5:47 PM on September 10, 2009


the idiot called Sir Peter Medawar

Hahaha! If winning the Nobel Prize and saving thousands of lives doesn't qualify you to be called an idiot by random internet people, what does?
posted by nasreddin at 5:49 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


Chardin's ideas were interesting ... but reading them is such a bore.

For a much more interesting read, pick up something non-fictional by Colin Wilson. It's like enough, and not buried in rhetoric. And for a fictional (but real enough) scare, try "The Mind Parasites"... that'll get your para-juices pumping.
posted by Twang at 5:53 PM on September 10, 2009



Hahaha! If winning the Nobel Prize and saving thousands of lives doesn't qualify you to be called an idiot by random internet people, what does?


Alright. I'm going to be awesome and instead of actually taking in ideas from books from now on, i'll just believe what nobel-prize winners say about everything no matter if it involves their specialization or not.

Being an award-winning genius when it comes to zoology or tissue grafts does not guarantee you're equally qualified when it comes analyzing and reviewing books on evolution, semiotics, futurism, or metaphysics does it?

The two percent of the review i really agree with is that it is mislabeled as a scientific investigation, Chardin would have done much better simply calling it Philosophy or even Eschatology to a certain extent.

To be clear: the main parts of Chardin's work i find fascinating are the parts that deal with whether evolution might have a purposeful, noticeable direction that might be steered by consciousness after a certain level of self-mastery (species-wide) is gained. I'd certainly like a vote if somehow, either through engineering (think drugs that conquer aging, biological+technoligical hybrids and intelligence enhancement procedures) or (less likely though more awesome) direct intention we got to choose how life went on post-homo sapien. I don't quite know if there will be any kind of 'Omega Point' to our species, but the possibility certainly lends to a combined relaxed sense of species and personal responsibility and pointed, god-free apocalyptic urgency to my life.

Twang - I loved The Mind Parasites, the book reminded me alot of the videogame/book Parasite Eve.
posted by phylum sinter at 6:12 PM on September 10, 2009


I've read Chardin, and was briefly impressed with the whole Catholicism-plus-science thing. Then I read Medawar's review and realized that aside from the superficial appeal of the religious side (which flatters the sensibilities of people who like to think of themselves as both modern and "spiritually open-minded"), his whole body of work is pervaded by a flatulent, sentimental speculative mysticism of no intellectual interest or explanatory value whatsoever.

Very glad to hear it... you should have mentioned this up front before i went on presuming that you were hunting for other opinions befrore a read on your own!

I agree that the explanatory value and hard-science aesthetic fall flat pretty easily, but that's not what got to me about his ideas. His ideas that we're all coming together in mind (again, pretty imaginatively) and the way that the internet sort of imitates his definition of the noosphere originally drew me to his writing. The idea that he was catholic was more a turn-off to me but still noteworthy given the content of this book (a catholic mentioning evolution... in the 1950's?!). In the version i read he seemed to be apologetic to his lack of description for some things, but i was alright with this because he was describing things that, to my knowledge, weren't very well sigilized at that moment in time.
posted by phylum sinter at 6:22 PM on September 10, 2009


Being an award-winning genius when it comes to zoology or tissue grafts does not guarantee you're equally qualified when it comes analyzing and reviewing books on evolution, semiotics, futurism, or metaphysics does it?

Come on. You just don't like him 'cause he's pooping your woo-woo transhumanist party. As far as him being an "idiot" is concerned, I'd hardly say that voicing a critical opinion on a topic of both general and scientific interest, even if you happen to dislike it, is enough to make him one.
posted by nasreddin at 6:22 PM on September 10, 2009


Holy "Law of Time Has 4 Corners" Batman.
posted by GuyZero at 6:52 PM on September 10, 2009


I'd hardly say that voicing a critical opinion on a topic of both general and scientific interest, even if you happen to dislike it, is enough to make him one.

No that's not why i think it's a bad review, i think it's a bad review because the reviewer lacks the background to judge the material and instead nitpicks the things he does have a decent understanding of, which are all-out peripheral to the actual subject matter. What he does to my woo-woo ANYTHING is altogether a different matter ;)

I don't mean to sound heated in this, it's just recent material so i've got a solid sense of both what i thought of it and how the material was digested. All that said, i rarely agree with book reviewers regardless of their take.
posted by phylum sinter at 6:56 PM on September 10, 2009


Re-rail - the diagram posted on the i09 page is strangely reminiscent of Paul Laffoley's work, which can seem just as crank-borne or information-filled too, depending on what you're into (that's always the case with this stuff isn't it?)
posted by phylum sinter at 7:01 PM on September 10, 2009


No that's not why i think it's a bad review, i think it's a bad review because the reviewer lacks the background to judge the material and instead nitpicks the things he does have a decent understanding of, which are all-out peripheral to the actual subject matter. What he does to my woo-woo ANYTHING is altogether a different matter ;)

Just because Medawar focuses on what you and Chardin think is "important" or "actual subject matter" in his book doesn't mean that the points he raises are peripheral. Like it or not, Chardin's reception in intellectual circles had a lot to do with his pseudo-scientific presentation of his arguments, and focusing on this aspect of his work is a productive way to engage with it. As for "lacking the background," Mind was, and to some extent still is, the most important philosophical journal in the world. They didn't publish dilettantes.
posted by nasreddin at 7:34 PM on September 10, 2009


Now with an opposing viewpoint: here's the Galactus Research Institute of the Foundation for the Law of Time (motto: We're All Fucked).
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:46 PM on September 10, 2009


Nah, man. His motto would be "It was delicious."
posted by Kevin Street at 1:39 AM on September 11, 2009


« Older Know Thy Congressman...  |  Calculate the value of your id... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments