The Fundamental Theory of Smelativity
In your various branches of life most of you who read this have come across many a case where your nasal passage tingles with sensation for - perhaps more often associated with the bad than the good - the breathtaking enchantment of all the different chemicals interacting and producing various vaporous forms that reach the nostrils. Now, one would be most disheartened if I was to tell him that this experience was in fact no more than an atrophic savage instinct that once enabled chimpanzees to run away from the sulfur laden lava that fumed forth from voluptuous volcanoes. Perhaps your proud, distinctive ego now crawls to the floor. But then you may ask in utter fatalism and existentialism, "What then gives my life meaning? What is meaning? What is truth?" And with that, my friend, I shall proceed to tell you my point.
Our basis for a sense of smell arises out of a preordained tendency to retain experiences undergone in our body after a scent passes across our nose. Let me put it in another way. Mankind was created in such a way that they don't continue smelling vapors after they have ceased. On quite the contrary, one may only remember the experience of having a certain smell, and even then, only the circumstances, not the actual smell, are retained in memory. One may jump out of his seat against this proposition, saying, "Well then, how can I smell at all if life is just a memory?" Well then, my friend, we must look at life not only as a past but as the present and also the flab. And the flab sure is bright, isn't it? (I wish I could go eat a cheese curd right now, ahem) And having made this point I will proceed to the next.
Let us say that an old beggar, who has the particular disposition of spending the night on a train station bench, one day gathers up enough monetary means to purchase a bag of pork rinds from the nearby Sheetz convenience store. One can only guess what effect those highly indigestible pieces of flaky stink have on the stomach. As we are walking by, this old man lays out a distinctly gurgling flatulent. Immediately the memory of the stench accompanied with that sound comes to mind. In fact, the actual smell is immediately conjured up from memory. But I remind you: the articulation proceeds the dissociation. And this brings us to the first main point of the Fundamental Theory of Smelativity:
The experiential recollection of a flatulent is relative to one's perspective.
For example: to the old man the flatulent perhaps triggers an embarrassing recollection, but to the bystanders, this action serves as a warning of a soon imposing stench. Take particular notice to the words "soon imposing" in the previous sentence. This implies a time frame. And in most - and I will soon argue that in all - cases the speed at which an aroma travels is always constant from one's own perspective. Let us look at a popular example.
Let us say that one man is standing on a train. Another man is standing in the train station as the train passes by him. Now, we need to make some assumptions before proceeding any further. First, we must assume that the particular aroma is that of a flatulent (please do not assume that I thrive on humour based on bodily functions. I simply intend to use a well-known example). Second, we must assume that the man outside the train is close to the tracks (Do not ask me if this man is attempting suicide). And third, we must assume that the sky is orange. With these respective assumptions made, we may now proceed to the rest of the example. The man on the train lets out a flatulent right as the train reaches the far end of the train station. Now, the distance of the train from the second man is the perfect time required for the fragrance to reach the bystander's nostrils. Finally, the stench causes psychological reaction from within and outside of the train at exactly the same time. However, from the passengers' perspective, the flatulent is highly concentrated and devastating, not to mention a chain of reactions which causes involuntary volatile vomiting from the entire section. Notwithstanding the second man's perspective, the flatulent arrives in a highly diluted form. Did the flatulent travel through more air? No, based on our third assumption. Does air affect the statue of liberty? I did not think so, you sick, sick man. Now, with the accumulated information we have, a simply equation can be formulated:
D=MF^42,
Where D=Dinamite, M=Mass (of a flea on the person with the perspective), and F=Flatulent (also note that F is raised to the 42nd power, because in fact 42 is a universal truth, matter of factly).
This, my friends dances as a highly electrifying notion in my mind, but I must not give way to these fancies, because I recently discovered that giving way to these fancies turns me into a dignified freak, but let's not circumnavigate the tangent (to the vector goes the spoils...). I must convey this pure genious to you, my colleagues, which reminds me to proceed to my next point.
Before I assert my next point, I must create a bridge of thought to anchor this matter. Let us say that in our previous example the old beggar from the first example lies at the scene and decides to rid himself of the exhausting pains of internal pressure. The situation with the pork rinds remains the same. He gives out an aggresively oscillating note that calls to the second man from the previous example. Now, based on experience, where do you think this second man expects the source of propagation to be? Of course, the man on the station bench. However, as both flatulents reach him at the same time, he wonders at how such an innocent looking beggar could let out such a blood-thickening bellow. But the fact remains that the source is not the beggar; it is the man on the train passing by him. This isn't part of our reasoning, but I definitely think the second man should whip out a discriminatory razor blade and stick it in either the train passenger or the beggar's left kidney.
All I have said so far can be deduced from facts of life, marriage, and Chuck Colson. I have made no outstanding statement that it demands a rethinking (and eating) of every physical law of the universe, such as 42 actually being 24. Neverthelass, I do intend to get on with my life, so can we please proceed? Thank you very much. Now, I intend to point out that the speed of a flatulent dissociation (you may refer to this as diffusion, but only if you prefer infidel terms) is in fact relative to the universe. "Relative to what?" you may ask. (Why, oh why must I continue to endure such stupidity? Can they not see the obvious truth? I am going to rip out a chainsaw and fly away on a dirigible!) - Relative, good sir, to the spinning of the earth's core. That may come as a surprise, but then again, who would expect incompetent fools like yourselves to understand this?
Finally, we arrive at our last point in the Fundamental Theory of Smelativity. Before I make this point, I must give a few examples to compose the soft and affectionate gazelles that flock my pastures. First, suppose we take a flower and throw it away from us, or take a stinky dog having been recently marred by skunk-gunk and drop kick it in order to remove the stench. Does not the speed of the stench slow down and deintensify? No, you contriving wrench of an obsoletarian! Do you not know that the speed remains constant but it is simply the fact that the distance between you and the object is increasing? I would argue that the orange sky assumption also deals with this issue. Take a hint and drop it. The final point is: The speed at which dissociation of a flatulent occurs remains constant to a frame of reference but is relative to the Coriolis Effect, also the earth's core spins.
Thus ends the Fundamental Theory of Smelativity
My words drip melting into my hands and onto my keyboard, as the wax starts to form a stalacmite on my desk. Thus I very much know that sleep fails to suck. and it calls... donalbain... Donalbain...Donalbain... DONALBAIN!
randodmmanesss!
I shall now fade into the west....
The Don Out.
