Melki's (first) equation v.03

 +Lies = +Hatred*

*Location not specific

Because the Truth is the protocol of existence, nature is trying to crackdown on lies, so the hatred invocation. Hatred is nature's answer to lies it wants to protect against it. 

-Lies = -Hatred

However, upon the elimination of lies the accumulated hatred that were spread became focused on a target / some targets. After the repercussions were absorbed or damage done, if there were no further lies invoked, the world should be a noticably less hateful place (even though unnoticably total hatred should have been reduced the moment the lies were brought to light). 

-------------------------------

It's not too much about semantic but be careful, for instance you jokingly said your face looks blue to a friend while actually it looked normal, then immidiately he/she knew that you're lying, that lie was unlied in a short time, I think it's ok. However if the case was your friend's kid ended up hear it and panicked, ran to get a medicine, fell down the stairs and sustained an injury, hatred would be invoked (towards you or towards somewhere else). In this case I'm going to explain another concept:

The lies within:

Let's say everyone acted normal whenever the sky was blue, but when the sky was dark some conspiracy followers overreacted and started shouting and pestering people "The end is near!, repent and sacrifice your money to our God!". The hatred invoked would circulate and make the environment less friendly for all of the people around. A scientist pointed out the fact that it's just a natural cycle and there was nothing to worry about, a lot of people believed and the problem went away. However amongst those who stopped believing in lies there were some who fell into depression. Apparently the conspiracy community was an escape to an even more lies inside their head that they were worthless alive, that all the time of their lives had been spent on nothing. 

Bad wisdom, 

Bad wisdom composed of configuration of lies, whereas revelation of the truth would manifests different lies that lie dormant within. 

Lies beget lies,

When the revelation of the Truth caused people to lie even more (maybe in order to protect themselves), the lies that were being faced was not just that particular lies, but bad wisdom.

In the end hatred and lies are a problem when they manifests problems in reality, what really matters are problems and solutions and justice. Lies and hatred are problems because most of the time they are sanctuaries for injustices or evil. The priority is justice, there might be little hatred in the air, but an extreme evil could still lie hiding behind the little lies. In contrast, there might be a lot of stupidity in a community but if the stupidity was powerless to cause damages then the hatred wouldn't translate into injustices as bad as the previous case no matter how much the hatred were.

Still we should keep on moving forward, who knows what potential or what heaven is waiting for us beyond the end of one or two hatred. 

Teleportation

So if you created 2 identical worlds in computers, it might be easier than our intuition to teleport an object to another computer, relatively speaking. 

As long as the relativity is the same, it doesn't matter which world. So the way it manifests should be...

An object is moving the x trajectory, with a little nudge the object suddenly appeared in the other computer, and then it went back, or not. 

The nudge should be about eliminating some relative differences that remained... in terms of the big picture (including the real world). 

Actually it's still incredibly hard... probably if those simulations were in the same computer though

Where language is used when dealing with equation v.05

Let's look at e = mc^2 , Albert Einstein's famous equation

The m actually is delta m, but delta m is m, m is mass. So, imagine an object, before it weighs 10kg, after being used to produce energy, it became 8kg, the 2 kg was mass too, the 2 kg now had became energy (conceptually speaking). 

The equation tells us that such mass is energy, but through language we could get to the difference between mass and energy, when a mass is not convertable or when a mass is very stable relative to what's available in the surroundings, mass is mass and it's distinct from energy. When a mass is volatile like fuels, or if someone knows how to quickly convert dirt to something else, then the dirt or the mass is energy. For example 10kg of gasoline is 10kg of energy, but 100 kg of pavements are rarely energy, relatively speaking it's just mass. 

So my argument is, you wouldn't conceptualize energy if there were no transformation of things. When we speak joule, we talk about conversion of things (e=mc^2 entails that the reference to "The power to convert things" is the very "Conversion of things" itself). Mass that doesn't convert might have the potential to convert, thereby energy, but... it's not really energy originally. By the virtue of language mass and energy are still distinct from each other, particularly, mass that are stable relative to the perceivable environment are not energy, yet. While mass that are convertible relative to what's available or what's going to happen in the near future, are then "energy".

But people perceive energy to be something other than that right? When we feel energy, we feel the key to unlock the conversion... those keys might not be the things that are being talked about in e = mc^2 

-------------------------

Edit: Ok so I think about this further, I noticed that my assumption was wrong. The e here is not all e ever, it's just mass is energy. So, not all energy manifests as mass, not all e that currently exists took the form of mass

--------------------------

Check out this video: The Science Asylum's: Why Doesn't Light Have Mass?

So e = mc^2 + pc^2, not just e = mc^2

Have I just discovered the recipe?

So somewhere in the world of something that's moving really fast, it appeared to them that the knight moved first then the bishop, while here on earth, the bishop moved first then the knight.

As the consequence of the knight moved first the king castle, the consequence of bishop moved first the queen check. So, if it turned out that the king castled, then we on earth should adhere to the reality that actually "knight moved first"... or should we?

Is this how multiverses were formed?