I have often tried to think about Einstein’s Theories, Quantum Mechanics and Dark Matter. Not sure if I understand it all. But hopefully thinking about it might speed up my understanding of it. E=Mc2 Energy equals matter multiplied by the speed of light squared. Energy and matter are interchangeable. Energy is created by matter and light combining. Equally Matter is created by Energy and Light combining. This is how the world was constructed. After the big bang that is. Except for Dark Matter. Maybe. A lot of this is conjecture. More than half the world is made up of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Neither of which is visible. Dark Matter does have gravity but does not appear to have mass. A central query of life is whether anything can travel faster than the speed of light. Is there anything in the world apart from electromagnetic energy? And can Dark Matter be attached to it? We all muse over Einstein’s theories and the big bang. The beginning of the world. Just what occurred at the big bang. I have long tried to understand quantum mechanics. Most of what makes up any object is space. There is space between each atom. Is anything in this space? Is it only electromagnetic forces that holds matter together? Question: When matter approaches the speed of light does the matter break down into its component parts? When mass approaches the speed of light does it resume the components of Energy and Light Question: Is it possible that dark matter can be energy that moves faster than the speed of light? If it is moving faster than the speed of light and we could somehow harness it could we travel faster than the speed of light. Dark Matter does exert a gravitational effect? It is said that without this gravitational effect the galaxies would pull apart. In the world of the infinitely small where gravity has no effect why doesn’t Dark Energy have an effect. Maybe it does have an effect and we don't yet understand it. Question: Does Dark Energy have an effect in Quantum Mechanics? Is this gravity influencing the behavior of small matter such as quarks etc.? Is it possible to quantify this? I will keep writing about this as thoughts come to mind.
0 Comments
Jenny and I recently attended a Van Gough exhibition at the NGV. We went in a trip organized by the Benalla Gallery and we traveled by bus leaving at 8AM and returning at 5PM. It was an enjoyable day. Because we already had tickets we did not have to queue for long when we got to the gallery. The bus journey from Benalla to Melbourne seemed to not take long either. Van Gough’s pictures are not his best but this is a small criticism. I would for once like seeing some of Vincent’s killer pictures but the exhibition does show how Vincent progressed. Most of the pictures are early but there is one of his very latest. As is normal with artists Vincent collected a lot of drawings etc from magazines, newspapers etc to give him inspiration and maybe they just caught his attention so he cut them out of newspapers etc and a good third of the exhibition was examples of what he had collected and maybe stacked in a corner for looking at later. But because he had collected them they were thought to be important so were kept by his estate. Some were interesting. Mostly not though. More importantly Vincent collected and was obviously influenced by Japanese wood prints and there was also a room of Japanese Prints. The Gallery owns the best Hokusai print of them all – The Great Wave and fishing boats in front of Mt Fuji - and this print was in the exhibition. The others came from all over the world and were in effect a world class exhibition of Japanese Prints. This exhibition was impressive on its own accord. These woodcuts – sometimes rolled off in great numbers for the masses are obviously of a high artistic standard and are well worth seeing. What can we discern from them? Do they give an indication of Japanese life at that time? I don’t know. Maybe. They do comply with the universal art standard – do you feel you understand the artist? The answer is definitely yes. This aspect of Japanese Art somehow made its way around the world and the world was intrigued. And still is. But this is surely because it is simply good art. You cannot help but being impressed. Vincent’s exhibition starts with his early drawings and progresses from there. No one can say Vincent suddenly appeared as a ready-made genius painter. He worked at it for a long time. He was extremely prolific. He did lots of drawings. He tried hard to get it right. Don’t let me mislead you – he did have talent – but he was hardworking as well. You cannot help but admire him. Some of his pencil drawings are exquisite and draw on your heartstrings. He did lots of drawings in pencil, pen, charcoal and ink and they are all good. Sometimes he is obviously copying to a certain extent other great artists or is giving his version of their paintings. Probably just to see if he could I assume. Or to work on his style. When he started using colour you can see how he was influenced by the Japanese woodcuts. In one or two he more or less recreates the previous Japanese woodcut or he transposes the subject of the Japanese print into a local scene. The exhibition does not have many of what I call Vincent’s killer paintings. Only one – maybe two. This does not lessen the value or enjoyment in any way however. Vincent experimented with many styles before he settled on his own distinctive way. He was of course well known in Art circles when he was alive. He was respected by other artists. He knew all the Impressionist painters and he tried to set up an Artists Colony in Arles. Unsuccessfully unfortunately. Some of his early works are extremely commercial. He tried to produce paintings that would be attractive. Some are obviously set up to be attractive to the viewer. eg The Shepherd and his sheep. As he progressed he was able to bring into his paintings the essence of the subject landscape without giving a complete reproduction of the image he was painting. His landscapes around Arles completely show the viewer just what the landscape looks like. Of course he could do portraits as well. And he would have abandoned or painted over any painting that did not come up to scratch. As we know he was extremely prolific. This exhibition emphasizes how Vincent liked the seasons. It also shows how he could experiment. Eg. The Green Vineyard. This is almost a recreation of a Japanese print done in impressionist style. In fact it is exactly this. He even has Japanese women parading through the vineyard with their parasols. The question is: why do we like Vincent’s paintings? Why do we think he is a genius? Why are his paintings so valued? The short answer is that they are valuable because they are so good. We recognize their goodness immediately. They are attractive. We understand them. We are drawn to them. Our heart goes out to his paintings. We agree immediately that this is the painting of a genius. I also think that good painters can organize paintings to fit on the page in a way that the eye finds attractive. This is their genius. It looks easy to the eye. It pleases our brains. There is a balance to the painting. Our eye travels round the painting in a measured way – slowly and happily – without stress. Vincent learned how to put paint daubs on a canvas that depicted images we understood and sympathized with. No matter what his emotional and mental problems were they did not interfere with his work. He kept on producing no matter what his circumstances. He was hard working and prolific. He had a fight with Gaugin and in a fit of jealousy and disappointment he cut off his ear. But what else did he do? - he went home and painted a self portrait. Nothing interfered with his work. He knew what he was doing. Good on him I say. When I went to France I went to Arles because even though I only had a limited knowledge of Vincent's life I knew he had lived in Arles. And I must say I was not disappointed. There are no paintings of Vincent's in the Arles Gallery. There are no blue plaques in the town. But when you move around the country you keep turning up in Vincent's paintings. Suddenly you look around and you are in the middle of a painting. You recognise it immediately and totally. Its both amazing and thrilling. We love what he did. Our appreciation of his pictures are our belated judgment of his work. How he would have handled our uber fandom is hard to say. OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMONWEALTH BANK
I have recently had a disturbing episode with the Benalla Branch of the Commonwealth Bank. I have had an account with the Commonwealth Bank for approximately 50 years. This is not a large account. Nor is it a very active account. Nevertheless I have felt some identification with the bank. I felt that as it was state owned it had a connection with all the people. Theoretically it was owned by the people. Does this give me the right to call myself a customer? The question that I am prompted to ask is - do customers still exist? And the underlying question – if customers still exist - what rights do customers still have? And an even bigger question - do Banks offer anything that used to be considered service? I want to ask if the Commonwealth Bank accepts that the concept of a customer exists in the sense that it existed in 1949. Following the Labour Government attempts to Nationalise the banks in 1949 a Federal Election occurred where one of the main policy issues was over whether people got better service from private banks as opposed to nationalised banks. The services that banks offered was considered an important and vote changing issue. Now all banks are private. And there is no such thing as service. Well any free service. All services have a charge. I presume the reason why all services have a charge is that providing any service to a customer’s costs money. I recently entered the Benalla Branch to ask if I could have a print out of the balance of my account. I knew my account number but I didn’t remember my password so I was unable to access my account to get a printout from my own computer. I was confronted by a young woman immediately I entered the bank. I admit my prejudiced in saying this woman looked modern. I took an instant dislike to this woman and she in turn did not like me. She had approached me within the branch concourse before I could approach a window. She was not behind any window but approached customers as they entered the door. I presume the reason why you send your staff out into the concourse to confront customers as they come in the door is because your policy is to appear to be modern. I was taken aback but I asked my question. She explained that she could do what I asked but it would cost me $2.50. When I asked why there was a charge she said she could arrange for me to change my password and this would not cost me anything. I objected to being charged for what I considered should be a simple service that should be offered by the Bank. I asked her to explain to me just what was the difference in time and expertise between charging for evidence of a bank balance and the time taken showing me how to get a new password. I would think that it would take longer to arrange a new password. But why should there be a charge for either service? She took great umbridge at my questions and said she did not like my attitude. As for her not liking my attitude I ask what do you expect? If you ask your staff to follow inconsistent and extremely harsh rules why should your staff complain if longstanding customers complain loudly and ask just why these rules exist? Rules that could not be considered by any normal person to be moral. Why is it considered unacceptable if customers complain loudly about rules that should not exist? Rules that would have been thought unbelievable 40 years ago. Some one individual within your bank has made the decision that you will charge a fee for any service requested from your customers. Who made this decision? I would like to know this person’s name. Decisions do not get made inside a vacuum. Some individual made this decision. Maybe a committee did but I don’t think so. But it was made and it is incorrect to claim that no one person made this decision. The Commonwealth Bank used to class itself as the peoples bank. When the Commonwealth Bank was owned by the Government it had to act morally. If it did anything that was considered immoral or was not in the interests of its customers eventually it would percolate up to the relevant government minister and he would give instructions to change the banks policy. Now that the Commonwealth Bank is privately owned it can act in anyway it wants. Immorally or not. I don’t have to refer you to recent Commonwealth Bank actions that have not been moral. The intent is the same in this instance. Why is this? Does that bank believe it has to act immorally in order to make a profit? The bank will make a profit anyway. Why then does it have to act immorally? You will claim that what happened 40 years ago is irrelevant. I am here to tell you that 40 years ago all Banks endeavored to act with honour. I am unable to understand why modern Banks feel obliged to give the firm impression that they have to act with dishonour. |
Categories
All
Topics
All
Archives
February 2024
|