Fake_William_Shatner t1_je2f6ax wrote

I predict a lot of bad decisions that try and prevent drastic changes to the status quo without trying to actually look at the logic of copyright and IP and the future.

Of course, what else can they do? Admit that market capitalism and intellectual property are perhaps obsolete? While sure, there are limits on raw resources, a good chunk of the "scarcity" in products is labor and know-how -- in learning the skills to improve or adapt. That's essentially going to be zero in cost in the near future.

So much of this hype around "jurisprudence" and there is little theology in play; it's merely going with keeping track of who owns what and preserving whatever the status quo is -- then reverse engineering that onto whatever some law said. Over many iterations of interpretation -- some of these concepts bare little resemblance to their Constitutional underpinnings.

And, it's not like we could pass any Amendments today to save our lives -- we can't even save our lives over Global Warming.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jdx9291 wrote

This is part of the "we need to get serious" situation. If we treated this as an existential emergency (and, it is part of the package) -- then, we might put up some heat reflectors over large swaths of ice to lower the temperature. It wouldn't take too much to artificially trap more water ice (relative to building an aircraft carrier or large dam) and thus, prevent a huge dumping of ice and freshwater melt into the sea.

Once it leaves Iceland, it's going to be a lot harder to trap all that water there again in any short period of time.

And the thing about the climate models, is most of them refer to the heat energy and time it takes to melt all this ice -- not, how much it could quickly raise sea levels if it fell off of Antarctica and into the ocean. Of course, it can take about 50 years to distribute this sea level rise -- but, it's also a point of no return.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jdvi2hv wrote

It's not "simping" to recognize that the banks (assume that's what you were saying instead of "back") in general cannot shell out 40 billion plus dollars in a week.

The big banks are part of another problem, but, not everyone is part of a cabal or is even aware they are helping one.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jdvd4d9 wrote

Shit! I was going to say that Eggs were the one exception to prove the rule, because I didn't want to sound absolutist. So .... damn, there isn't ANYTHING that wasn't just jacked up because the cartels like money?

Even those gas prices -- we never saw when Oil costed more per barrel years ago, and they didn't get that gas tax taken off -- so, it was mostly a money grab.

The fact that it is also happening around the world just means these multinationals are coordinating. They just raise prices, the media points to a bunch of things, and the fact that the people who raised the prices own most of the media doesn't get on the evening news. The masses go "baaa baaa" and blame the fact that they had the temerity to ask for a raise after over a decade.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jdrvbp4 wrote

The Fed works for the bankers and Wall Street. All of their moves at all times are for the benefit of the .1%. That’s it. Same with the FBI.

The only time you get Justice is when someone following the rules doesn’t know any better and thought the lies they were told about justice were real.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jdrutla wrote

The Fed— the outfit that is always run by the most successful crooks at Goldman Sachs. Oh darn, they can’t raise taxes but they can increase interest rates— that did not stop the buying of property because those big investors don’t need to take out loans.

They are either clueless or part of the problem.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jdruhm3 wrote

Maybe not the eggs. But, it was everything that got manipulated. Even something simple like soda nearly doubled. Even if the price of energy doubles and maybe the price of their ingredients (it didn’t)— so it goes from 15 cents to 30 cents — where did the other dollar go on the hike of the price of two liters of soda go? Into profits.

There are just a few companies who control most of the goods we consume and they might have a bunch of labels — but they aren’t really in competition. And the grocery stores are merely outlets grabbing pennies.

Buying a meal at a drive through now costs the same as a meal at a restaurant— how do they manage not to coordinate a higher fee of McDonalds and Burger King are struggling?

And the idiots who think wages going up 3 percent caused a 20% rise in cost of goods sold — well, they are the perfect consumers, the product of extensive training in economics by the US corporate media.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jdrt48x wrote

>“ The other way to lower inflation is to raise taxes on the rich.”

It’s funny how you and I know a simple slam dunk solution but it’s these people spouting complex spells of finance who get to talk to the press or make the decisions.

I can see the meeting now; “Sure, raising taxes would reduce spending by the wealthy, and raises for the poor would definitely increase spending if we go into a recession— but is their any OTHER way to deal with this that doesn’t hurt the rich or help the poor— think Dammit—THINK!”


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jdk7pt7 wrote

It's annoying that the real problem with banking isn't being addressed, and everyone is going about and using this latest "crisis" as an excuse to push their agendas.

The Fed, raising interests rates -- how does that help? The people buying up all the homes don't need a damn loan, they are busy using up huge piles of cash to create local monopolies. So -- that bunch of bull managed to stick and now they've got to have some new crisis for opportunists with lots of money.

So now we've got this new bank crisis. When the REAL problem that caused the "crisis" at SVB is that a few people can pull over $40 billion out of an account all of a sudden. And it's really crazy that the bankers have no control over that. They weren't insolvent. They weren't broke. They just couldn't cough up that much cash because some billionaires were spooked by some other billionaire yelling "recession!" And how do you get a recession? People don't want to spend money. Their efforts to stop inflation are ignoring that there isn't any inflation -- it's also a bunch of people with too much money and power, in a "marketplace" that isn't really competitive, and they can just raise their prices. Because they like money.

It makes me want to scream how much everyone is expertly ignoring the actual problems these days. And how many people buy it.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jbezdca wrote

4th time is the charm?

When I say the "4th dimension" I'm referring to time. X, Y and Z let you know where something is -- but, since everything is moving at all times relative to something else, you can't really know a location without factoring for Time.

Anyway, as simple as I can put it; the "time gradient" results in gravity because things closest to a mass are slowed more than the parts of them (and space) that are further away from mass. If it overcomes their movement (inertia), they will get closer together.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jbewd8s wrote

> I feel ai is the next big thing, kinda like smartphones led light the internet etc. And each day its seeming to be going in that direction, I feel it has great potential and those who can get in early may benefit greatly from it. But since I'm not a coder, I'm unable to get into It too much, nor do I have the money to hire people and try and execute some ideas.

You don't need to code. There are solutions out there that you can just copy and tweak prompts to take advantage of.

He's a good start; https://www.futuretools.io/

And you can just click the "Free" option if you are on a budget. ;-)


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jb9y5rc wrote

Well, there are probably a bunch of theories for "what is time" but I now think I have a few for how time can exist WITHOUT time. In fact, I think it makes better sense of relativity.

Think of time as a gear. Your experience of "speed of light" is the small gear being turned by the large gear of the Universe you exist in. No matter what speed your gear turns at -- the other gear moves relatively faster. We have no idea of how long it takes for the big gear to turn -- but when it does, the clockworks SEEM to be moving always at the same speed RELATIVE to us.

My explanation for TIME however, is that it's ALL the forces. Only, there is more than 4 dimensions. There are 4 dimensions of 4 dimensions and they seem to be the same point in space. They SEEM to have the same rate of time. This is the "local observer" part of relativity.

This is not anyone else's theory. This is my own. The fact that what I think and what current physics might be agreeing with is just that THEY started saying what I've been saying. I don't think there is a new Universe being spawned at every quantum potential. And that has to do with existence itself.

I see time and all laws of physics as the "balancing of the equation." It is NOT forced. It is not the only result. In fact, in my model, all results that can ever possibly be, in every combination were in existence as soon as the Cosmos -- but the Cosmos has no beginning or ending. That doesn't mean anything is predetermined. It's "every state in every location, infinitely."

And so, for a while, It thought of time as an infinite path created by one particle. And where it crosses itself, the closer to one part of the string is to a prior part of a string is the next moment in time. There is no dimension in this realm, but there is length.

However, I think I've improved this model. My latest theory isn't very old on how this works. It came about when learning of how current methods for AI to create works. I was at the same time thinking about how human consciousness works to predict the future and how to throw a spear to meet a moving animal without being any good at math relative to computers that simulate creativity by doing a LOT of math.

And I don't expect this idea to make it easier to understand. But, time is a "connect the dots" game as if done by the most amazing computer ever -- but, nothing needs to be computed - because only one result exists. Every particle and field in our Universe has to be equal and opposite to something else -- the current moment is the zero point resolution. All other potentials, do exist -- but, are not reality. So from the state of the current "closest to zero point" there is another state that is closer, or most close relative to all others at each location for each particle and field. Everything isn't re-created -- it never existed, and for the briefest moment, it is a quantum imbalance passed on to the next location and field.

The thing that makes this a bit harder to think about is that these states only have a location because they are matched up from 16 dimensions and the resultant "agreement" is 3 dimensions and one Time. Any point in space is the null of something that has no position. The wave function of these quantum fields I'm talking about only moves "relative" to the momentary state of position created in our Universe.

It's as if you looked at an infinite TV full of static, and imagined pictures forming from the dust. And then at the same time, think that those random bits had no position except until you imagined the formation of the pictures.

So, each "frame" in the infinite random that solves for zero, moves to the next frame state. Every frame seems like the same time, the same relativity, and following the same rules. The next frame and the next moment are found because nothing else exists. We are NOT computed. We are the internally coherent resolution of infinite wrong values. All other states are cancelled out -- or, just not "reality."

At the same time, there are infinite other groupings going on, having zero interference with each other. But I figure it's 16 dimensional as well (unless their is a greater affinity or a complementary null state based on the prior conditions of the other groupings -- I'm sure these little tiny nothings happen at the small scale all the time). Anyway, Time is the next best structure to create null values with internal coherence at each point in space -- and it creates a point in space. From another point of view -- the Universe is independent pocket universes just passing along imbalances at their edges. It's possible our large Universe does this, but we wouldn't notice it, because the imbalance would be relatively the same throughout the substructure. Think of an ant sitting in a car going up and down a mountain. No worries. Every tiny bit of the Universe acts as if it is the only piece, but collectively, we pass through it, because each piece is passing on the imbalance.

The weird properties of "spooky at a distance", the "uncertainty principle" and quantum tunneling are just peaks through the cracks of this Universe not just 4 dimensions. And the quantum tunneling aspect just started making sense when I was trying to figure out how to travel to a new location be manipulating spacetime. HOW do you know the coordinates? Then I realized -- it's just relativity again. Every position you are in is ZERO. So every other position you could be in is relatively offset from that. So, particles "tunnel" at the small scale, when their current imbalance finds a more close to zero condition nearby than their locality. They just "now exist" where they are closer to the zero point condition no matter where it is. It's a wonder anything stays put and objects don't pass through each other all the time because there is NOTHING there -- because it's all about distortions in spacetime caused by time imbalances. ALL OF IT. All the forces. We have space because we have time. But, there is no time and there is no space in what creates it. But -- that's just a model. The infinite could evolve over time as well. Since it's infinite. Is it changing or has it always been this way and we just participate in a new aspect of it? All answers are equally valid on that question.

Or I could be delusional. There are a lot of other ways I might model this --- but currently, this one seems more right and at least allows for what we experience without relying on any other force.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jb6fawp wrote

I'm sure it wasn't all relaxing and fun. Gotta be a nervous moment when you get out the dart gun for the "Tag and Release" to track the migration patterns.

"Yes, that is a $20, but could you please press firmly until you hear a click and the GPS is engaged?"


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jb166x8 wrote

Okay; simply put we have gravity because acceleration or mass causes time to slow down.

Think of it like an eddy in a current. The fast water pushes at the same rate but the slow water resists forward motion, that causes a floating object to start veering towards the eddy.

I think that should be the easy part to understand. It's the same as the "gravity well" and how planets and stars with mass bend the fabric of space.

So, be happy if you get that far. The rest of this is me babbling because I feel like have to spit it out, even if nobody hears or understands it now.

The implication of that gets complicated. We have distance because it takes time to get to places. So relativity and the expansion of the Universe can be seen as a function of time. If it takes more time for light to get from points A and B, then they are now further apart because everything else moves at a ratio of that speed.

When we think about that "bending" of the spacetime curve however, it's not anything we can see -- and I think that's the big clue as to the fact that we might experience 4 dimensions, but it is made of more than that. If it's not obvious, the fourth dimension is time, a ball is 3D and to describe it, you have to not only know where it is, but when it was there. If you lived in a 2 dimensional world, you wouldn't notice if the plane were bent and wiggled. It might have some sort of impact, but none you could see or feel directly.

Well, have to leave it at that. Don't feel bad, very few people understand relativity. And fewer still understand me.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jatfjv7 wrote

>I'm assuming u understand gravity, could u eli5 that for me,

Gravity, as per the most popular "official" theories in physics describes it. Is not in itself a force, but is the result of what they call a "Time Gradient." Before this, relativity and gravity wells distorting light had been described as similar to how a long shoreline causes waves to reach a beach in parallel. It's a similar concept. The leading edge of a photon or any object is slowed down by time itself -- as objects with mass have an effect on the rate of time. Enough of this "gravity well" and eventually objects or light falls into it. A video might do a better job of explaining this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OkwGDKoY0o

But the "curve" they talk about in space (or the gravity well), is the relative difference in rate of time. If you put a clock on Earth, and one in empty space without relative acceleration, the clock in space will move faster.

It doesn't stop there. If you REALLY want to understand the difference between a magnetic field and an electric current, it's all about relativity. If an electron is spinning about a metal pole -- it becomes a magnetic field. Here is a good explanation; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0&t=3s


Since I grabbed a book on relativity when I was a kid until about a year ago, it's been bothering me how relativity doesn't really work in a complex model with one space-time curve. So I always thought it was incomplete. Relativity itself is relative depending on which thing you are measuring. Which I doubt would trouble the better versed physicists. It's like having a gear spinning another gear. No matter how fast the driving gear goes, the other gear turns at the same rate relative to it. However -- that doesn't work when you have all the gears at every angle connected in the Universe. Relativity cannot allow for anything to move with one value for the spacetime curve. There is no one value of time, nor is there any way to determine if you are coming or going from an object. Einstein discovered his theory of relativity trying to figure out how particles created by cosmic rays striking the atmosphere that decayed so rapidly they didn't have time to reach the earth, regularly could make the trip. So he realized that the decay rate of the particle to itself was not changing, but it was extended in our time frame due to its relative acceleration. Their theory posits Earth's time is slowed a tiny bit in the same process so you can't say which is accelerating towards the other -- it's all from the Observers point of view. However, the smaller particle is getting a greater slowdown in its observed time than the Earth is (relative mass). But -- the Earth is also just a bunch of particles. If all physics is local (a principle and fundamental theory other than ideas of entanglement and spooky at a distance might suggest), how is there cumulative effects? Meanwhile, the particle that lasts longer than it should, is moving away at high velocity from something else. So from a certain point of view, space is expanding between objects hurtling at high speed towards each other, and contracting as they retreat. And, that goes both ways when we talk about stars. However, the effect of relativity between high velocity particles at different vectors has to be huge. There is an aggregate value of spacetime curvature that is the baseline, and then another relative curve between each moving particle. So space-time is very bumpy and is not experienced the same way by each observer. Just on average.

A magnetic field exerts a force only on moving particles. Thus cosmic rays are diverted as they move towards the earth by our magnetic field, in sort of a reverse of how gravity attracts larger, slower particles. The force is proportional to the velocity. And, isn't velocity about relative time?

Simply put; things taking time to get from point A to B is why we have space. If we could move at infinite speed -- there would be no distance or "space."

So when I think about relativity, it requires more than one TIME and that everything on a different vector has a different relative time in relationship to everything else -- so then the "slope" of the gravity well is a average value -- it's not the same slope for all things.

I'm going a bit further and saying that a lot of our confusion is seeing the Universe from a 4 dimensional perspective (X Y and Z dimensions plus Time). Relativity then is the appearance that time is the same rate from your local point of view. But, at a distance, we can see things violate relativity. This is explained by space being able to violate the "law of relativity" by moving. But what is space?

So I think I've got some ideas around that which I haven't heard from others. It's where quantum physics meets general relativity.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jasw9x5 wrote

It didn't REACH the "real world" I just wrote up a lot of designs and ideas that became real world by someone else.

A method for amplifying signals by using lasers passed through a ferro-fluid lens shaped by magnetism (which diverts the laser when the signal is passed through it, and then the detector can work with the MORE dimensional aspects of the signal -- but, probably obsolete, however, the lensing system is still useful). 3 kinds of 3d printers. Using maser effects to burn tumors without an operation. Ultrasonic destruction of kidney stones. Noise cancellation. Light pipes to funnel light from a collector around a building. Targeted ultrasonics. Motion dampeners used in skyscrapers. When I was working with a start-up for international trade that bypassed most of the need to export currency, they wanted a clearing house and I thought it would be good to create a system for auctioning (what we might call Ebay today, but with a better guarantee of the quality of a product buyers and sellers). Fiber optics used inside bodies and expanding arteries (I used a parasol instead of the inflated bag, because I figured you'd also want to scrape and vacuum the lining). Holographic interference to increase CDs to an Ectabyte (or, well just a lot more) -- nope, sorry, that one isn't REAL yet, but I use some of the same techniques in a holographic storage sphere). Hydraulic tires.

That's just a bit I off the top of my head from 30 years ago. Mostly a lot of predicted physics like that the Hubble constant wouldn't be constant but accelerating when I was ten. That gravity is a byproduct of space-time. Most of that "gadget level" stuff was before I was 14.

Since then it was stochastic printing techniques. Robotic printers which -- wow, are inkjet printers we know and love because they stuck them in a box with a ribbon cable. My idea was using a hex grid and special wheels and the inkjet printer traveled, over a billboard or a house -- I didn't just want to reinvent a printer. Boring!

Virtual currency -- I thought it would be crazy to do something without some tangible asset it was chained to. And the process allows people to pay a discounted rate and use tricks like multinationals do to get around realizing profits or trade barriers. Still want to do my version of it. Anyway, it uses tricks with financial instruments to I think be legal, and immune to some of the crackdowns that surprisingly never happened with virtual currencies we have today -- which is probably because they WANT to enable organized crime, money laundering and tax shelters.

Pretty sure a lot more will be proven true like that there is more than one quantum field and that gluons are just extra dimensional products of quarks and the three other primary forces are also space-time but in different dimensions than gravity. The "missing mass" in galaxies doesn't require dark matter to explain, but that spinning black holes have much of their gravity in orbit around their mass and that makes the galaxy seem more massive as a whole than it otherwise appears internally. The coldest possible object would actually be vibrating in sympathy to the Universal carrier frequency -- which, we can't directly detect because it's "spacetime itself giggling" -- best to describe this as a drawing on piece of paper doesn't seem different to the sheet of paper if it's blowing in a breeze. We will only know this VERY HIGH frequency when we get it right.

This last one I think is easy to prove. When I learned a few months ago that light can orbit a black hole AND that gravity and light travel at exactly the same speed -- I realized that "duh" gravity has to be orbiting black holes, otherwise observations showing it's within nanoseconds over millions of light years would not be possible because the light would be subject to the influence of gravity wells and arrive much later -- so, gravity is ALSO subject to gravity wells. So, if I had someone good at math apply the Lorentz functions to the time dilation of a galaxy and factor in the "missing mass" of it's apparent gravity, that should give us a starting point for predicting the spin rate and mass of the black holes within the system. Observation of a few galaxies might find the factors involved; but it's relativity.

I'd really like to implement an idea for mass production of single atom sheets of matter. And, thinking about this, has led my to an idea of how to influence the quantum carrier wave aspects of space-time. And, this lead me to predict yet another state of matter; coherent matter. Pretty much exactly like coherent light. But, I it can now be put into a "phase" and potentially phase through other matter.

The difficulty of putting sheets of lasers very close together (since the photon field is larger than the atoms), and that led me to think we might be able to use a constructed "inverse hologram" that allows for the selective release of laser energy (used in projecting a hologram), by removing the interference embedded in the hologram. Of course, this might require a zero gravity situation to pull off if we wanted to print in 3D all at once particulate matter with different types of atoms selected by frequency.

I don't want to get into the more advanced ideas and predictions. It's not being wrong that bothers me, it's all the things I've been right about and not having an outlet for it. I'm not quite Nickolas Tesla, but I can relate to him. If I didn't try and slow my brain down and NOT invent I wouldn't be able to keep a job. I'm barely able to force myself to do the boring work I do now. I think learning game development and AI and great videos on astrophysics on YouTube have kept me sane.

Anyway, this isn't to brag. Because I doubt one person in a thousand believes any of it. These weren't done at the material science level -- so, there's a hell of a lot of work before an idea (correct or not) can become a reality. It's just, that, having the foresight to know what should work -- I think that's kind of cool and means I might know something of value.

TL;DR >> Great ideas aren't even a small factor in success. Is Mark Zuckerberg like the tenth guy to allow multiple users to put pictures and comments on a website? Very few billionaires had original ideas - they just implemented them. How? With tenacity, money and luck. With ruthlessness, they don't even need to be above average.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jas418g wrote

I have found many solutions and have had massively great ideas my entire life. Portions of these good ideas have become major companies in technology and services. It hasn't made me a dime.

It really takes having a mentor or something that teaches you how to make a concept a reality AND THEN lot's of luck and access to money.

I'm not blaming it ALL on luck, but, not saying that people who are successful are lucky, is creating a sense of entitlement and hubris in rich assholes who are surrounded by people making apologies for their greed.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jaoc533 wrote

Wow -- thanks for the origin of "jib". So many terms come from sailing, but, did not know the "jib" started with noses and THEN the leading sail on a boat. But, I get that it does look like a nose on a schooner.


Fake_William_Shatner t1_jao5exg wrote

"You only need three things to be a success!"

And what are those?

"Hard work and sticking to a worthy goal."

That's two. Most people do that for at least three rounds of not being promoted.

"Right, the third is a special something."

Would that be tremendous luck and/or lots of people with money who like the cut of your jib?

"Well, don't tell everyone the secret -- it's so EASY."