Humans are trapped in the condition of being in two dimensions in time

magnora7 · 2020-12-29T16:54:21+00:00

No worries. For posterity, here's the full equation that ties mass to energy (and velocity). https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8b5f9843c419229d0e3ac5075c1463d4851cd5cd

You can see increases in mass causes energy to go up with a multiple of c^2, whereas increases in momentum (symbol p, which equals mass * velocity) only goes up by times c. I do believe this strongly implies two dimensions of time both traveling at the speed of light for rest masses.

dontbuyanylogos · 2020-12-28T22:40:49+00:00

interesting thoughts thanks

magnora7 · 2020-12-28T18:18:54+00:00

I agree with this idea, I've had the idea of multiple dimensions of time too. That would mean the universe could be a static 5D or 6D block, and we navigate through it by which direction of time we go down. And perhaps we change the direction of our time vector by making decisions.

And if you think about it, E = mc^2. This means that a mass at rest (aka only moving through time) has an energy equal to the mass times the speed of light squared. To me, this implies that rest masses are actually moving at the speed of light in two different dimensions simultaneously perhaps, hence the squared. This implies two dimensions of time rather than just one.

Definitely interesting to think about, but not sure how it could be proven experimentally...

shockaDee · 2020-12-27T23:40:24+00:00

Maybe just expose politicians data. I bet that'd be enough to get it all sealed up and fully privatized. No need to expose the general public. But I definitely do appreciate the thought, and agree!

Xihaon · 2020-12-15T23:17:43+00:00

Indeed, but there are people that actually like the product. They would pressure everyone to not cheat. Until they are driven out.
People tend to be good at doing what they love.
A system that lets good people rise to the top, can't exist. Unless you remove the money. And then, they can't eat.
We'd want a situation where survival is easy and everyone has time and resources to spend on their hobbies. Currently, such situation is possible, but only for a small group of people.

zyxzevn · 2020-12-15T22:55:38+00:00

I think that every person in the chain is bending the facts a bit.
In the laboratory they want to finish the research quickly,
the researcher only wants to look at the good parts of his "invention",
the tester makes the tests easier for quick and positive results,
the leading scientists wants to finish the research quickly to keep the funders happy,
the assistant only adds positive input to get a faster promotion,
the management wants to get the product out quickly,
the sales department wants to overrate the product so it sells better,
the journalist wants to write a story that makes people like the product,
the politician wants to please the public with false promises,
the health/safety agency person wants to promote to a better position with the help of his friends.

So they all lie, most of them a bit, but together it becomes a very big lie.
This causes Boeing to produce bad planes, or medicine industry to produce bad medicine.

Xihaon · 2020-12-15T22:29:58+00:00

Fetishes, stare rape.
Microaggression is hard to measure.
Literally anything that happens in the world changes our mind. Do you want to forbid them from noticing?
Distance restrictions?
Making new religions out of things is our specialty. Hard to not deceive.
Every action causes an avalanche of changes. Changes, inevitable, destroy everything.
Bribe us to get trapped in cages and keep forcefully disclosing information from the safe distance? Wow, that's within the rules.

Xihaon · 2020-12-15T22:14:35+00:00

You would need to make the whole science sector publicly funded, and allow people to vote on projects to avoid corruption. Otherwise, stagnation.

Xihaon · 2020-12-15T21:52:17+00:00

But some scientific institutions are only there for money, and there are scientists that only care about money, and these people can infiltrate important positions and guard each other against criticism.

In the past, to get money, scientific institutions had to give promises and results. Now, when the government just buys everything, hard science become an unnecessary liability, since it's expensive.

dontbuyanylogos · 2020-12-15T20:59:07+00:00

Yes there are actually some places to get high quality information like sci-hub. It would be really great however if the universities had the freedom and creativity of the developers in Silicon Valley and could design fast and open education / entertainment (because often the line is blurred with very good quality education but also very bad) content sharing social media platform. With a financial incentive and the creativity of having free reign over public intellectual property, the hundreds of people interested enough to create high quality content could make some wonderful things. Langfocus on Youtube is an example of someone who, through their own interest of academic matters, has created a first class education platform that is not only education but also fun.

zyxzevn · 2020-12-15T11:39:46+00:00

I agree that the science needs to be free to access. Additional some additional eduction to know what the science means, so people can understand it better.

You can access a lot now on sci-hub, which is on different places due to the constant pressure.

But there is a big problem:

Sadly the "academics" are often producing fake news themselves.
Didn't you read the news the last 4 years? Or Critical Race Theory?

A lot of academic science is based on circular reasoning and even in physics I can find some of that bad science.

I think that science should not only be free, but there also need to be open discussions.
Logical fallacies should be avoided in these discussions.
Without discussions, even on old topics, science does not evolve and gets stuck.

wildideas

MODERATORS