If you get something to move faster than a threshold, or could it be accelerating instead of just speed. Anyway, then, you'd reverse the expansion of the universe
------------------
Is the universe moving towards the inside? That that was moving faster than a threshhold was not being affected of moving towards the inside, therefore would still be "big". But if you could picture the inside dimension, the size was the same instead it was the shape that changed
This is another hypothesis:
I'm thinking having a property really helps in social life and in turn mental life. If patients were given ways to earn income and be able to choose how to spend it (give them a "job" and then have some shops where they could spend their proceeds), it should help build up their healthy side
Now I'm going to try this hypothesis:
Posture reflects our balance of elasticity. If we could make a uniform elasticity throughout then the posture would be improved.
But to get this through I need more consistency and pain tolerance
The impact of losses within a community could probably be observed.
If we pay attention to GDP per capita of some targetted communities for about 2 years after one of its prominent member suffered significant losses, we should see a pattern, a correlation or causation, relationship.
Find the "Word" or the constant or the formula for this relationship.
---------------
I'd say this "impact" measurement would need to identify also the level of "resilience" of the community. Which probably are the same thing or pointing to the same thing.
Matter and Antimatter cancel each other,
What if there's a thing which matter and antimatter doesn't cancel each other?
Maybe the more the antibody have dealt with different types of cancerous cells the more they'd be able to deal with even more types of cancerous cells. So increase in success for different types would open up the pathway to figure out more and more types.
So in terms of my way of approaching morality, my rule of thumb is in the prayer:
The Inclination to keep on Inclining forever be the ultimate winner of everything in all realities all variables of transformations forever Truthfully.
Things that are good would be propagated forever while things that are bad will be solved. Eventually we will get to True Justice, everybody gets whatever they wanted and needed whenever they wanted and needed them forever.
Therefore we can now what evil is, the misallocation of resources. Because evil prevents True Justice from taking place.
The tricky part is that evil sometimes plays out in various different forms in reality. What is sustainable and what is not sustainable sometimes is not easy to triangulate.
This is another way to relate to the whole thing:
It is evil if applied to itself it changed direction, it's good if applied to itself it propagates forward.
So:
- False Lies, changes direction / beats the purpose of lies
- Loving Love, propagates / enhances
- Violating violence, changes direction
- Bad badness (I don't know about this but it seems one could say that it means good)
- Kind kindness, propagates / enhances
etc...
Maybe I'm wrong about this, maybe there's something that's not so in reality... but if people found this to be accurate then it's assured
----------------------------
Ok if you apply it to conflict that means conflicting conflict (change of direction), I'm ready to accept that. I like conflict but maybe I'm wrong. But then Heating Heat (enhancement), Chilling Coldness = Heat up (change of direction) ---> This I'm likely wrong, how could coldness always be bad.
I do think that this thing is something though. So I wouldn't use it to separate good and evil, but it's a distinction of adjectives that might be good for something.
Another thing doubting doubt is an enhancement. Doubting doubt is good because it promotes skepticism and increases the demand for processing power to be allocated to assurance services in order to be able to afford increase in doubts. It seemed that doubt could ultimately be a good thing... however in reality there's such thing as too much doubt.
Maybe it's actually right, maybe doubt if we could afford it would ultimately be good, maybe ever increasing heat if we could afford it is the way to go, but also maybe not. Balancing balance
----------------------------
If I use the point of view of Inclinations I get a better grip on it.
For example if you darken the darkness then it'd amplify the darkness. Given the premise that positive words are synonymous with good, then darkness is good. But if you say darken the inclination to darken, then this darkness would branch out from the previous darkness because now it means lack of sensoric sensitivity. So if you darken the spirit of darkness then the spirit would had harder time to achieve it's goal which means things would become brighter. In this sense this darkness is negative.
So when things are not penetrable by light it's positive, but if it means that it would imperil the flow of information it's negative. It's good to be dark as long as it doesn't hinder the utility of senses.
Of course not forgetting to mention lighting the light would amplify it (positive), as well as enlightening the inclination to brightens (+).
----------------------------
Something wrong again about my perception previously. If you cool the inclination to cool it might not expand but it would intensify within / internally. If you see the reality of the universe within the field of gravity, the earth is heating up while the universe is expanding (cooling). Yes there's nothing to cool in space so it's hard to say that coldness expanded its territory, but such pattern is similar to what I said before, if the inclination to cool itself was cooling then the outside would be less cool but the inside would be cooler. Makes me think that if the inclination to heat up was invigorated, then the manifestation might be that it would spread heat while losing intensity per "pixel".
Such dynamism, the interplay between heat and coldness shows that they are "neutral". Which is an amazing phenomenon because it might speak of a constant. There the answer to what are the first things needed to be considered before making a reliable plan could be found.
------------------------
This is so weird, its still not usable yet
If you say justice is the state when everyone gets whatever they wanted and needed whenever they wanted and needed it forever (except for those who are against it)... then,
To treat the inclination to be unjust "unjustly" would amplify the injustice. Yes, because it doesn't mean that the spirit would not get what it wanted and needed, but it would just mean that it would be treated in a way that cause everyone to be harder (sorry...) in getting what they wanted and needed whenever they wanted and needed them, forever.
So Justice is positive, Injustice is also positive but both of them are the opposite of each other.
What is this?
It's true that the definition of justice itself is not logical, definitely the reason why this weirdness take place, but maybe there's logic behind this that would wrap this up sensibly.
- Side note : Even though the definition of justice is not logical but as human beings we could somehow relate to the meaning of it. I'm not saying that this is the best definition of justice, in this context I'm focusing on figuring out this conundrum.
------- Continued
So there's a better definition of Justice:
Justice is when The Inclination to keep on Inclining forever Truthfully gets whatever He wanted and needed whenever He wanted and needed them forever (and being the ultimate winner of everything in all realities and in all variabes of transformations forever Truthfully).
Now this definition is logical in my opinion, better than before but still Justice and Injustice both positive while the opposite of each other.
So maybe its just Justice, somehow Justice is special in a way
Edit 14 April 2022: Justice injustice is to me like an ultimate either or or, absolute binary. To just just is just Justice, to add into justice is just justice, injustice is the same. Crossing the two polars, to just injustice would mean Justice, to unjust the just means injustice, whichever is the doer / the operator is the one that would make the future... the one that would realize.
To not do injustice, self restraining, requires knowledge of justice or a sense of justice. In that sense, a just self restrain is operating Justice. This, is the most abusable for us as creatures of Justice.
Edit 15th of April 2022:
Now the question arise if once upon 3 seconds of your life you're neither adjusting for justice nor "unjusting" for injustice, would you be a part of the system that's productive or not productive? Let's say you were not being strategic about your idleness.
Since Justice is an inherent binary in existence the way the second law of thermodynamics apply to the concept or the inclination itself should be like "the only thing that doesn't change is change itself".
Ok now back to the first problem, we couldn't say that being idle would always be subjected to demeanings because we are talking about justice here. So my answer is if the level of availability of mutual solutions in the world increased the idle guy would be a part of the increase, if they decreased then the idle guy would be a part of the decrease.
To give you an example let's say a baby is being abandoned and she/he defecated on him/herself. Obviously the baby would suffer and that's injustice. However the baby himself/herself weren't in control, couldn't restrain herself couldn't bring herself to communicate with anybody. She's not a part of the negative, injustice. When her body keeps on trying to survive, she became a part of the positive.
Maybe a bad example that one, let's say you just sit idly without knowing what to do. You've done your work, your health routines, your hygienes, and you just sit there... adjusting nothing, changing nothing, just letting things go by, not sensing, not observing, not experiencing any evil desires and restraining them. Would you be deserving of UBIs for that particular moment? Would it be appropriate to say that you've also helped?
Really hard to say, referring to what Jesus said don't do to others what you don't want others do unto you, I couldn't really tell whether that's just about self restrain or also including being idle. But one thing that I believe is right, whether your world is improving or it is not, ultimately it is improving in the long run. Why? Because if it's not then this thought would not matter then.
+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.
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
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
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?
