Asperger's and Fries

I have never been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. However, I have been told by counselors when attempting to treat my O.C.D. that they see that as a possibility. I don't really think it matters either way, since I manage to function quite well in most social situations. However, when I see something that disgusts me, I can be quite caustic, and can also come across as extremely condescending and arrogant.


My father was the same way, and while those who knew my father well (and who know me well) would tell you that isn't a reflection of who either my father was or I am, those attitudes do sometimes display themselves when conditions are ripe for it.


For me, the arrogance of others when making assumptions and attempting to perpetuate falsehoods is a condition that qualifies for my inner bitch to come out and kick ass. Sometimes, in the process, I let my disgust get the better of me, and my communication skills take a dive.


I have (at least temporarily) removed my last couple of posts discussing some scientific issues for that reason. However, I want to make it clear what did, and did not, motivate me to do so.


First, I have several friends who are physicists. They, and a friend of a friend who is also a science writer, have let me know that some of the words I chose to express the flaws in the way people think about "time" are actually flawed themselves in the way I have applied them, so I am removing the posts in the interest of preventing anyone from believing something that isn't true based on my own miscommunication.


I suppose it would be appropriate and sound good for me to say that I also was motivated to do so by the fact that my wording was arrogant, condescending, and even hostile. However, though this attitude itself may seem arrogant, I'm afraid that had nothing to do with my decision.


My blog is most definitely not a professional publication, but more of a sounding board. As such, I will occasionally write things that are more a reflection of my own opinions rather than facts, but I will always attempt to make it clear that I am doing so when that is the case.


As someone who has spent much time working in the research field as well as having the privilege of working with many people much more intelligent than myself, I have learned many things and gained many perspectives on a variety of topics. I do not, however, claim to be an expert on those topics.


Having said that, when I do know something to be in error, and am subjected to hearing it repeatedly from people who have begun to accept it and repeat it as though it were their religion, I do NOT tolerate it well.


Some do not understand the necessity to argue semantics, because they do not value accurate communication. That doesn't change my determination to pursue accuracy.


For the record, my beef with Einstein's theory of relativity is not necessarily with the theory itself, which I say is most likely valid and all but proven in many aspects, but the assumptions that are so often made about the ramifications of the theory of relativity.


Like any statement, what I call "spin-off" ideas or statements often get made, and if the logic isn't kept in check, all kinds of ridiculous and inaccurate conclusions can be withdrawn from a handful of accurate facts.


The ones that annoy me the most are those that claim things that we already know to be false. An example is the idea that (and I'm hoping I'm not expressing this inaccurately) because it is said that "time" slows down when you are moving, and continues to slow down the faster you move, that somehow this means you will age more slowly if you move more.


I know many people (myself included) who spend at least a third of their waking hours in vehicles traveling at around 60 miles per hour. And, while I am often told that I appear youthful for my age, I also know people who drive as much as I do and appear much older than they actually are.


What annoys me about that statement is that there is a huge (and inaccurate) assumption about what causes aging inherent in such a claim. Sure, if movement slows down for your body, it follows that anything occurring in your body will have a delayed movement, and theoretically, you can say that aging will occur at a slower rate.


However, aging has less to do with the speed of movement and more to do with the hormones, chemicals, and D.N.A. contained in the body. It is also important to remember that frequent travel (by car or air) often takes a toll on the body in the form of fatigue and stress, which can release toxins in the body and prevent the cells from performing their daily cleanup during R.E.M. sleep effectively.


Such claims of movement slowing the aging process are the types of things that often give birth to junk science, which gives birth to products that do not do what they claim to do, but that mislead millions of hard-working people to fork over their money for something that will do nothing but prevent them from using that money for something more worthwhile.


Someone recently tried to tell me that on an airplane or a higher elevation (such as a mountain) "time" slows down, and the proof would be that my heart rate would also slow. While that is often the case, one of the things about the heart is that it is not regulated by your elevation or the "speed" of time, as much as it is regulated by the brain. In low-oxygen conditions, the heart must work harder to maintain its pace, but that does not always translate to a slower heart rate. It is also true that it is the low oxygen level that causes the heart to beat more slowly at higher elevations, and it does so at a level perceivable to the person experiencing it, which is far more significant than an imperceivable effect the "slowing down of time" may have.


I lived at an 8,500 foot elevation about ten years ago, and my heart condition made itself known much more frequently at that elevation than it does at sea level, but my heart rate often increased with palpitations more often than slowing down.


Regardless of what anyone says about "time" slowing down on an airplane, or in a hot air balloon, or any other number of claims regarding the nature of time due to the ever-changeable way the word time is used, the rest of the world continues to move at its own pace.


My main point in my previous posts was that, in order to experience any point in the past again, (1969, for example), every sub-atomic particle in the entire universe would have to rearrange itself to its precise location at the point in "time" that the "time traveler" wishes to return, and, even if that were likely and/or possible (which I ever-so-arrogantly and condescendingly declare that it is not) it is highly unlikely to do so simply because one gets into a spaceship and travels at the speed of light, or because someone gets into a "time machine" and pushes some buttons.


Another example of assumption that annoys the hell out of me is that somehow shaving causes hair to grow back thicker. The television show "Mythbusters" has successfully addressed the fact that it doesn't work that way, but there are those who are so attached to their "anecdotal evidence" that it does that they actually attempt to ridicule anyone who tries to tell them otherwise.


I once had a woman tell me there was NO WAY that it wasn't true, because when she was pregnant and shaved the hair that had begun to grow on her belly, it got thicker and thicker. She never stopped to think about the fact that the hair had already gotten thicker before she shaved it, which was what prompted her to shave it to begin with. She didn't consider the fact that the hormones secreted by her pituitary gland (which are what prompted the hair to grow thicker in the first place) continue to secrete ever-higher levels of hormone throughout pregnancy, which means that her hair was going to continue to get thicker whether she shaved it or not.


The fact that hair is stubbly when it "grows back" (makes its way above the skin's surface as it continues to grow after having its end shaved off) has to do with the fact that sometimes the hair splits when shaven and that it is not able to lie flat until it grows long enough to do so, causing it to stick up and appear more rigid, even though it has the same thickness as before.


Why do these things bother me so much? Why do I care whether or not someone believes that shaving affects the thickness of their hair? It isn't the specific example itself that bothers me, it is the symptom indicative of a greater problem that disturbs me so.


We live in a world full of people who allow their freedom to be taken away, beg for it to be taken even, because they don't want the responsibility of having to meet their own needs. They do not see, nor do they seem to care, that this will ultimately strengthen all of the things they do not like about the world we live in, and their refusal to think beyond what they are spoon-fed by the media (or even their own elitist clubs where they feel safe in turning off their truth filter) is what makes them into instruments for the destruction of not only their own freedom, but the freedom of you and I as well.


They're making laws about whether a restaurant owner is allowed to put salt in the food they serve to the public or not. It is NOT a far jump before they begin making laws about what you can and can not put in your OWN food at HOME. Oh, wait, they already have... you can't bake marijuana into brownies legally, that's for sure. The fact that I want nothing to do with marijuana doesn't cause me to think it is my right (or responsibility) to deny someone else the right to do so.


This disgusts me. It pisses me off. It pisses me the FUCK off. This blog is the one place where I can express my disgust, and yes, when I get pissed off, I use profanity.


Many people are shocked when they hear me use profanity in person, because they say they have never heard me do so before. I tell them that is because I use it as an exclamation point rather than a comma. However, there IS a place for profanity, and while a professional science journal is not the place for it, I have chosen that my blog will be.


When I'm writing in my blog, I'm not a professional. I am a human expressing myself in all of my imperfection. If that bothers you, you'll want to brace yourself when you read what I have to say, and if you choose not to read what I have to say because you can't bear to read my off-putting honest expression, then that's fine with me.


I do appreciate and respect well-meaning comments and suggestions, but I won't always agree with them, nor will I always abide by them.


I don't ask anyone to take me too seriously in any of my blog posts, especially when I'm baring my "soul". However, I have certainly learned that trying to discuss my disgust for inaccurate conclusions withdrawn from otherwise-accurate theories tends to ruffle a lot of feathers.


Sometimes we need to be offensive in order to bring attention to important issues. We get so comfortable with what we think we know that we can lull ourselves into a stupor of mental laziness so powerful that all the memorizing and reciting of data in the world will not allow us to escape.


I'll try not to discuss scientific concepts here in the future, since those are best saved for more appropriate venues, but please, don't tell me that sitting in a hot air balloon all day will make me age more slowly, because even if it had the ability to do so on a perceptible level, before you know it, some jackass will introduce a law requiring us all to do so "for our own good".


Fuck.


A.