Ask Emily: 12.11.02

Dear Adam,1. I don't think that there is any real (as in composition) difference between catsup and ketchup. As far as I know, they are merely alternate spellings for the same tomato-based product. According to some dumb site that I found, "Ke-tsiap or Kecap was a spicy pickled-fish condiment popular in 17th-century China and is said to be the origin of the name 'ketchup.'" Heinz started making tomato-based ketchup around 1875 and it got really popular really fast. I think that the rest was simply a matter of advertising preference, although the debate rages on to this day as to the "proper" spelling.2. That sort of sounds like one of those "OMG LOL I M DEEP" questions to me, so I will begin by saying, "OMG LOL NO UR NOT!" I will also say that I am by no means physics-competent, so I really don't know the answer to this, but I have a feeling that it isn't really a question that can be answered with today's understanding of physical laws and constants. Who the fuck knows? People are still dumb when it comes to these things, especially me. I referred this question to a friend of mine who has a degree in astrophysics (thanks, Kevin), and his answer was:Particles of light, called photons, move. Darkness is the absence of light and does not, will not, and can not move. Let's do a simple thought experiment: we could measure the speed of darkness by shining light through a closed box with a cat in it. The cat will, if it doesn't die because we opened the box to give him fresh water, measure the speed of dark as the speed at which the light leaves the box. However, even the cat will notice that the situation is completely stupid, because measuring darkness is just a function of measuring light, which moves at 186,000 miles a second. So the speed of darkness is dependent on light and the terrible imagination of goth poets.Another argument would be that darkness moves at the same speed as light. This implies that there are particles of darkness (tarons) everywhere, and a void in the fabric of tarons is what constitutes light. But is this right? Lord no, you must be retarded for considering it.So, another thought experiment. We put a Nobel Laureate in a freely-falling elevator which is full of light from neon beer signs, and send some tarons streaming through a hole in the floor. When we ask the cat where do get some tarons, he just looks at us and licks his ass. Nevertheless, say we get some damned tarons. Since the tarons have no energy, by Planck's equation E=hv, the frequency is zero, the wavelength is zero, and either the particles do not move, or they don't exist. You might be tempted to ask, "Well, why on earth would Planck's equation apply to tarons?" Well, if they exist in this universe, they'd likely be just like ALL OTHER FUCKING PARTICLES and have properties just like them. Of course, now that we've shown that the particles DO NOT EXIST or never move, it's up to you to find a massless, dark, zero-energy, and uncharged particle.In other words, you go out and find me a fucking taron, you shitpile.3. Go to the store and get it, you lazy ass.4. If you believe that there is a God and that he is all-powerful, then yes, I would assume by those parameters that he has the ability to make anything. Falling into the "anything" category is a really fucking huge santa hat. Although, I have no idea why he would make something like that in the first place unless someone dared him to. That crazy guy's always accepting dumb dares. Look at the disaster that happened with your existence.

Thank you for those insightful questions, Adam. Please get hit by a truck.