Born to Do Math 187 – Equation Flying Over Boulder

In-Sight Publishing

Born to Do Math 187 – Equation Flying Over Boulder

October 1, 2020

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, you had an equation mentioned in an interview with Errol Morris and in one of the really, really short ebooks. What is it?

Rick Rosner: In the equation, I said Planck’s Constant, which is basically a measure o the blurriness of matter or the lack of blurriness is dependent on the amount of matter within a region of space. It says that in areas with a local high concentration of matter. The scale is space is going to be smaller. You’ll have more space where there’s more matter. Let’s say you live in California where rent is too high, I think the average rent in Westwood has the highest average rent in the state, $4,900 or so per month for the average apartment if you want to live next to UCLA.

What you could do is if you had a device, you could rent a closet or a mailbox and live in that, if you have a device that can shrink you. There’s a Matt Damon movie from five years ago that permits people to do that. It can shrink you down and permit you to live like a millionaire on almost no money because it costs so much less to make a dollhouse than it is to make a mansion. If you’ve got a bunch of matter that’s gravitationally collapsing into itself, then the scale of space is smaller.

So, this is a limiting thing. As matter collapses into itself and pulls away from the rest of the universe gravitationally, then it will reach asymptotically an equilibrium where the closer the matter in a ball of matter gets to itself, the smaller the ball gets, the smaller space gets, so, at the asymptote, it looks like it stabilizes with the thing not being able to collapse at all because the more it collapses; the more space gets smaller, so it always looks the same size.

In general, looking at the entire universe, the principle is that how precisely the particles in a universe are defined is decided by the density of information-sharing particles flying around. In other words, if you had two people in a gun fight in a dark room, and let’s say the guns aren’t lethal, every time they get hit. They make a noise. Two people trying to figure out where the other person is in a dark room by shooting at each other and listening for the yelps would have a rough idea of where the other person is.

But if you had a hundred people in the room shooting at each other, the positions with the two people in the room would be blurry. Let’s say there’s a device tracking the yelps, which knows which yelp corresponds to which person, we call this the Universal Detector. If you had 100 people being registered on the detector – having a Universal Detector fucks things up a little bit, but let’s go with it, the locations each person would be much more narrowed down because each person would be getting hitting with 100x more bullets than in the room or 99x more bullets than in the room with only 2 people.

So, their positions would be much more defined. According to the rules of quantum mechanics, I say or claim – some might disagree – the exchanging of particles is what determines where particles are in terms of how they affect the rest of the universe, which is the only measure of where they are. There is not some secret measure of where they are and do not have access to the more perfect information.

If you had 1,000,000 people in the room, and say they’re small enough to not getting in each other’s way, everyone would be hit 1,000,000 times more bullets than the room with 2 people. You’d know where they are with 1,000,000 times more accuracy. That’s the whole deal. The more matter you have interacting with all of the other matter; the more precisely that matter is located in space, which equals the scale of space. Let’s say we’re talking about protons, a room with a million protons – let’s ignore it would blow apart because of the Coulomb Repulsion of all the protons, the protons would be so much more tightly located.

It means the protons would be so much more tiny in a room with a million of them than with just 2 of them. The tininess equals the scale of space, it would fill space. The scale of space would be smaller. In a room with two protons, the two protons would be blurry as shit and would occupy roughly half of the room. They would be fluffy enough that there wasn’t much of the room that wasn’t occupied by a significant proton cloud, probability cloud, for a possible location of the proton. It would be two blobby things semi-overlapping each other.

In a room with a million protons, the probability clouds would barely overlap each other. They would be more like blurry little pinpoints in space. The scale of space, the volume of space that you need to contain 90% of the protons’ probability cloud. That is, a space thrown up around where you think a proton is most likely compactly; there’s a 90% of the proton in this chunk of space. In the 2-proton world, the 90% spheres around the proton would affect most of the room. In a 1,000,000-proton world, those spheres would be tiny and leaving most of space not within one of those spheres.

In significant ways, you can define the scale of space by the size of those spheres. To make sure you’re not cheating by having some overall definition of space, you’re not measuring the extent of space itself against some other thing. Space is space. You have no way of measuring in size besides the stuff inside of it. It is comparing the size of the spheres containing 90% of the proton to the overall diameter of your space.

That’s the deal. The more matter you have in space interacting with all the other matter, the more tightly defined space is going to be. It applies to all matter in space as a whole and to tight clumps of matter, where you’re adding the extra interaction of the tight clump of matter with itself to the overall amount of interactions in the universe. To put it in gunfight terms, if you had a room with a billion protons all firing each other, then the protons would be pretty tightly defined. If you took a billion of those protons and packed them more tightly together, so all of the protons in the tight ball of protons are hit with twice as many bullets per second with half of the bullets coming from within the ball or tight of protons, then the protons in the clump would be twice as tightly defined as the protons not in the clump because the protons in the clump are getting hit with twice as many bullets.

That would have to be a super tight clump for just a million protons, for 1/1,000th protons in the room to be providing half of the bullets hitting the protons in the clump. So, that’s the whole deal. It’s what the equation says.

One addendum, protons and electrons, charged particles, are exchanging photons, which help define space or the scale of space and the distribution of matter within space via gravitation. But protons are much tinier, much more massive, and neutrons, than electrons. I postulate that not only are protons and neutrons being defined by its electromagnetic interactions. It is also being defined by all its interactions, especially the long-distance interactions mediated by photons and neutrinos. I would suspect that the neutrino interactions make particles involved in neutrino interactions much tinier, much more tightly defined, within space because there is a huge amount of collapsed matter outside of the center of the universe, which helps define – via neutrinos – the matter (all matter as well as), the active matter in the center is a beneficiary of all this collapsed matter acting as tent poles holding open a tighter universe/a universe in which the scale of space is tighter for neutrino mediated particles.

Now, I’m realizing what I’ve said is a little garbage-y. When a neutrino is absorbed by a neutron, it doesn’t just emit a proton. It also emits an electron. You have to say electrons are, somehow, participants. Proton-electron pairs are kind of linked particles. In that, the universe probably has the same number of electrons as it does protons.

[End of recorded material]


Rick Rosner

American Television Writer


(Updated July 25, 2019)

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.*

According to some semi-reputable sources gathered in a listing hereRick G. Rosner may have among America’s, North America’s, and the world’s highest measured IQs at or above 190 (S.D. 15)/196 (S.D. 16) based on several high range test performances created by Christopher HardingJason BettsPaul Cooijmans, and Ronald Hoeflin. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Awards and Emmy nominations, and was titled 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Directory with the main “Genius” listing here.

He has written for Remote ControlCrank YankersThe Man ShowThe EmmysThe Grammys, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He worked as a bouncer, a nude art model, a roller-skating waiter, and a stripper. In a television commercialDomino’s Pizza named him the “World’s Smartest Man.” The commercial was taken off the air after Subway sandwiches issued a cease-and-desist. He was named “Best Bouncer” in the Denver Area, Colorado, by Westwood Magazine.

Rosner spent much of the late Disco Era as an undercover high school student. In addition, he spent 25 years as a bar bouncer and American fake ID-catcher, and 25+ years as a stripper, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. Errol Morris featured Rosner in the interview series entitled First Person, where some of this history was covered by Morris. He came in second, or lost, on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? over a flawed question and lost the lawsuit. He won one game and lost one game on Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? (He was drunk). Finally, he spent 37+ years working on a time-invariant variation of the Big Bang Theory.

Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los AngelesCalifornia with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Founder, In-Sight Publishing


In-Sight Publishing


[1] Four format points for the session article:

  1. Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner.
  2. Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott.
  3. Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview.
  4. This session article has been edited for clarity and readability.

For further information on the formatting guidelines incorporated into this document, please see the following documents:

  1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from
  2. Humble, A. (n.d.). Guide to Transcribing. Retrieved from

License and Copyright


In-Sight Publishing  by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at and


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s