Read the URL

Addendum: If L was imaginary, that means motion of the light clock, and consequently its observer, in an imaginary direction. What could that mean? Perhaps a fourth spatial dimension? Of course, you'd have to go forth and back between the fourth dimension and our third otherwise I suppose you'd be trapped forever in some higher dimensional plane and that doesn't sound pleasant. How would that work? It's quite convoluted. I'll try to draw it, beginning with a four-dimensional space-time graph (or at least my best attempt at it). The real issue with people when they try to make things 4-dimensionally is that they concern over continuity. At integer-time intervals like what I'm making, it becomes simple, I guess. The spacetime diagram gives the relevant details for 3-dimensional space plus a time dimension. For simplicity, assume that each progressing XYZ-axis to the right signifies an advance in the time dimension by one tick (or whatever they...

Logically, time cannot pause completely. But how about, we slow it down? Friendly note, don't take this seriously. I'm not qualified for hoc stercore . Similar to how Einstein worked out time dilation with light clocks and the postulate that light always travels at a consistent speed c , perhaps we can use light to create a scenario in which time seemingly has that the clock of the observer apparently speed up with respect to observers. Say there are clocks A and B and there are observers there, observers A and B. The goal of the scenario is to have A appear faster than B to B. I'm making this up as I go along. Let's set up some limitations. In B's perspective, A must never appear to be faster than light. Violates relativity (especially in the sense that would require infinite energy plus some more and we can't get infinite energy since infinity itself isn't a value per se, but rather a door you can't ever get to). Another one, energy canno...

Taedeor, enim sum ignavus. Ridiculum estne? Tamen, De Natura Spirituum  finiet. Ubi, nescio.

The scientific method usually follows this: 1) Ask a question 2) Do your research 3) Construct a hypothesis 4) Experimental Setup/Test it 5) If the outcome does not uphold the hypothesis, modify the hypothesis. 6) Send out data and maybe get a beer (I do not condone underage drinking or drinking while driving, just to clear it up).  Asking a question is simple, it's like asking, "Is my house haunted?" Done. Doing your research. People might just think that they'd have to sift through town records of mass killings and suicides, but no you may have to look at other things. Like, that door just closed. Is it because of air pressure or because of a ghost? You'd have to like, set up really sensitive detectors around your house. Like ones that can predict air pressure, temperature inside and outside (especially if the "cold room" has an open window), maybe you'd have to acquire a sample of the wooden frame your house is made of (figure out...

Some probably FAQs, how should I know? I'm not popular or famous. Q: Are you a professional? A: No. Just no. I'm a junior in high school. Q: Why should we take your word? A: I dunno. I mean, this is a hobby but maybe I really want to take ghost hunting out of its "pseudoscience" category. Q: Have you any idea what you're doing? A: Not really, but that's just in general. If you mean what I'm doing with this blog, it's very very vague. Q: Is your name actually Montgomery Vernon Oliver-Gage? A: HA HA HA, no. It's close to it though, but not in the way you may think. Q: Why are you talking to yourself? A: I have no friends that's why. Q: Why don't you have friends? A: Wait are we getting this deep into this? You're ME! Don't milk it. Q: Any ideas for future posts? A: I've got one draft in the making, I just need to make proper research. Or just research to the best of my ability. Q: Shouldn't you be readin...

I guess this is a bit controversial, maybe it's just a new hobby now. Yeah ghosts are considered part of pseudoscience, something unprofessional and something that actual scientists don't associate with. I guess maybe there is a way, scientifically (with like, control groups (perhaps a house that definitely isn't haunted, and a house that is haunted? I'll think more later), graphs (temperature over the day, of course I will have to compare between normal temperature outside over the day as well), sleep patterns of the victims (self explanatory), comparisons between "ghost orbs" and dust/moisture orbs (this one ghost picture my mom took at a friend's house looks an awful like a moving dust orb now I saw a dust orb)).  I mean I don't know any haunted places near me, but maybe here I can make scientific methods of trying to find ghosts? Don't trust my word on it, I'm about to return to high school in two weeks, but maybe this will be fun.