Pyramids+Math=Speed of Light?

If you take a circle with a diameter of the diagonal of the base of the great pyramid of Giza and subtract it by a circle with the diameter of a side of the base of the pyramid you get: Fasten your seat belt, I calculated it myself to make sure (and it's true):

C (The Speed Of Light)

The pyramid of Giza is completely packed with astonishingly accurate mathematics. From Pi to Phi and the speed of light. Now I don't believe in alien theories and all that, but when I saw C pop up on my calculator, I must admit the hair on my arms rose.

I believe that the speed of light is a side effect of dimensional geometry. My relativistic model of inconstant C near black holes predicts that, for the very least. Is the pyramid a support to that theory?

Must investigate further.

What You Can Do To Change The World

If you're reading this, the odds are you're either in Europe, the Americas or Australia.

Why? Well if you have time to spare to read random articles of intellectual topics, you probably have a certain amount of money at hand, and thus certain level of education. Now you have money because you got educated and therefore you have time to read smart things. When do the poor have time to read smart things? Never, they're constantly fighting and struggling to merely survive, every second of their lives. They do not catch breaks like you are doing right now, or me as I write this.

Poor people are not less intelligent than you, they just don't have the opportunity to exploit any of their potential.

When you see a campaign that invites you to donate money to provide water, or mosquito nets for airborne diseases or vaccines, it's all really great. In the short term. Water doesn't last, it becomes waste (urine on the most part). Vaccines must be given to each new human to eradicate a virus. Nothing of your donations are going towards something sustainable. It's like healing a broken leg, but you never tell the patient to not jump off high trees anymore.

So what can *you* do to save the world? Invest into foreign education. Education, especially to young african girls, is the key to a third-world that could become a sustainable developing world, healthier, smarter, independent.

Here are a few UN research statistics and conclusions (Please read all points):

-12% less people below the poverty line by simply providing basic reading skills. Over the past four decades, the global increase in women’s education has prevented more than four million child deaths.

-12 percent of all people could be lifted out of poverty if all students in poor countries had basic reading skills. (over 170 million people)

-Education empowers women to make healthy decisions about their lives. For example, women in Mali with a secondary level education or higher have an average of 3 children, while those with no education have an average of 7.(Overpopulation problems reduced with higher education.)

-53% of the world’s out-of-school children are girls and 2/3 of the illiterate people in the world are women.

-Women with a primary school education are 13% more likely to know that condoms can reduce their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. An education can help decrease the spreading of this virus by promoting safer sexual practices.

-Children who are born to educated mothers are less likely to be stunted or malnourished. Each additional year of maternal education also reduces the child mortality rate by 2%.

-In developing, low-income countries, every additional year of education can increase a person’s future income by an average of 10%.

OK, I think you get the point. Education is not only awesome, but fundamental to a functioning capitalist country. With these statistics, we can easily break down facts and predict side effects. More education equals more income, therefore more spending into local industries, thus creating more jobs which in turn encourages the growth of the local education to get qualified staff, which results in a healthier, circulating economy of earning and spending. They will be able to build their own hospitals, pay their own doctors, build their own aqueducts, power generators, electricity lines and so much more.

My point is, if you invest in education for african children instead of investing in giving them water or other short-term, immediate solutions, you probably will never have to donate again. They won't need your money.

SOURCES:

http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/children/pdf/educationfirst-facts.pdf

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-education-around-world

Economic Unification Theory

Small businesses are the key, nothing new there. Imposing a very high income tax on national revenue of national and large corporations would encourage large corporations to expand to foreign countries to sell there, where the income tax would be purposely lowered for foreign sales. And to compensate for the lack of governmental cash return from these companies, the money would be proportionally found in the reduced amount of national advertising of these corporations.

Impose huge advertising taxes for large corporations, discouraging them from advertising. Larger companies would advertise less and pay more, which creates a new revenue for the government, compensating for the international sales income tax reduction, and gives more space for small corporation advertising. This money would be used to reduce and support advertising costs of small and medium businesses, which would attract more clients. Small companies would now generate more revenue due to the increased clientele and could expand, creating jobs and simultaneously promoting a healthy flow of money. Because more jobs equals more money in the pockets of citizens, more small corporation advertising equals more citizens spending on small corporations, which allows small companies to expand, and we therefore come back to the first element, creating more jobs. This system would result in salary raising and better job security, which would reduce employee strikes and maintain more stable levels of productivity. One of the biggest killers of an economy is the purchase of monstrously large corporation products in our current fiscal and corporate policies.

This system is fully dependent of large companies on rarified advertising with increased financial investments into said advertising. Which, in turn, is dependent of the international expansion of large corporations. When you buy a small business product, you basically invest directly in job growth and economic stimulation.

To avoid harm to large corporations, the transition between having low advertising tax and higher ones would be slow and gradual, and extended over a large period of time. And as they gradually reach the level of almost unbearable local advertising taxes, they would be given proportionally rising grants to invest into international expansion. If international expansion fails, they come back down to normal advertising prices determined by the publisher of the ad, but still with very high income tax to prevent a corporate unification. (preventing companies to get too big on the national level so they won't have the money to buy out other companies, for a stable variety of corporate advertising.)

When a corporation would make income declarations, investigations would be held each time by independent groups where the employees live out of the money system, to act as a corruption-proof employee. The lives of these people would be financed by the surplus of the international expansion of large corporations. I will not develop further on how they would get their food and such things, this is not relevant to my point and goes into extremely precise details.

Solid grants could be available for start up corporations to get them on their feet and going. But to prevent them to start and have no customers, market evaluations would be done to determine if the company has potential within it's market. If it has potential, a kickstarting free advertising campaign would be funded by large corporation income taxes to get clients early on and ensure stable growth of the starting corporation.

On the long term, this system would generate so much revenue by picking money out of foreign countries, that some countries would end up having referedums to economically unite with the core country running this system to have and share the wealth of this system. Eventually, this would lead up to a massive economic united entity. A first step towards the standardization of all things.

How To Reduce Taxes And Create Jobs

As I have expressed in the past, the left on a socioeconomic scale is highly imperfect since such easily accessible governmental services would be subject of much abuse, and this would make everything fall apart.

A way to reduce tax is to close off international business agreements (such as massive corporations selling and marketing in your country) and to impose immense taxes on the advertising of big national companies, while offering a reduced advertising tax for small and medium businesses.

Larger national companies would therefore be encouraged to market in foreign countries, which would stimulate jobs of those countries, however stealing their money, which is something that conflicts a bit with my morals and visions. But accepting foreign companies into foreign countries are foreign decisions.

This would stimulate growth because the small companies would expand and therefore create jobs, and jobs equals more money in the pockets of citizens, and this leads to being more vulnerable to advertising and more spending. This spending would be on national, local corporations which would have a government controlled salary distribution.

With this system, you have more jobs and a smoother distribution of money.

This is basically making every corporation a public governmental service, but they would live off of the extra money people would spend on products due to the open window of ultra cheap advertising.

I believe that small business advertising is the future of a healthy capitalist state. I would cut all foreign advertising and impose ridiculous tax on larger corporation advertising.

About the abused open system mentioned in the beginning of this, health care should "cost" something. We should have more than emergency rooms, we should have emergency diagnosis rooms to filter out those who don't need medical attention, and everyone who makes it to the diagnosis room would have an inversely-proportional-to-need (more need of medical care would be less "cost") community service. So someone who ends up in a diagnosis room because he passed out from alcohol, would have a huge amount of community service work to be done to " repay" society the time he stole from those who really needed medical care, while someone who had a heart attack would have zero community service.

If a young woman wants her second abortion, community service might teach her a lesson.

All this is the foundation I think society should lie upon.

Reading Is Dangerous

I was reading a book about philosophical mathematics about the multiverse, infinity and other "abstract" concepts. The book is called "The Infinite Book". The author (Dr. John D. Barrow) seemed to have no understanding of the basic laws of cause to effect despite being a professor of mathematics and theoretical physics at Cambridge.

He says: "If you were to meet your copy from a parallel universe, and that both of your pasts were completely identical, nothing says you should act as mirrors in front of the other. Both could have identical pasts but react differently to the encounter."

Well mister John D. Barrow. If both pasts are completely identical, every form of energy is mirrored within the other universe, meaning that the electrons in both brains are being mirrored because the causes to effect of both subjects are identical, and if one were to respond differently to the other, then their causes to effect are different, making your premise incorrect.

Now how the hell can someone with such a prestigious intellectual role make such an obvious philosophical mistake? Well, he's academic. Academia is not equal to intellect. Don't believe everything you read, even from such recognized people. You very well might end up being smarter than them on many aspects. Watch out and always question!

The Psychology of Adaptation

There is an ability human intelligence grants us. The understanding of nature. One problem with humans is that we often tend to subjectively throw our understanding in favour of our survival. This mentality is extremely reckless.

Creationist arguments are based upon this thinking. "The earth is perfect, the moon perfectly creates the tides, we're a perfect distance from the sun, the sun is in an ideal place within the milky way, etc." Of course they do, for you to even be saying this, these were prerequisites to your existence. The environment is not adapted to us, we are adapted to the environment. Now for most evolutionists, this is extremely obvious, so don't worry, my point doesn't stop here.

This mentality is a major setback for several other areas of society. Such as justice, the environment, democracy, capitalism and more. Most people even if rich won't purchase an electric vehicle because they will wait for people to buy more electric cars so that the plug-in systems will be more developed and accessible. They are waiting for their environment (people and systems) to adapt before they get involved in the said evolution. But because most people think this way, very few people purchase electric vehicles and the switch to all electric is therefore astonishingly slow. Capitalism: Certain people try to avoid as much taxes as possible, or to pay as less insurance as possible seeking for personal benefit because everyone else participates, one person less won't change anything. But with this mentality, systems fail due to lack of involvement created by the subjective favouritism of understanding.

A problem with the "intelligent" mentality of understanding (that you must adapt to a situation and not vice-versa) is that certain systems become too left-winged, protecting people from almost anything due to the great power of certain communal services, which can lead to over confidence and therefore reckless behaviour. Such as women taking advantage of an ideal health care system to have sex without protection and getting abortion pills, which costs great money to the communal service. A perfect system will be subject to abuse and therefore eventual failure, thus making an "ideal" social system's existence impossible because it really isn't ideal at all.

My last suggestion implies that people cannot be trusted in the sense that people have a tendency to abuse. Which is normal, it's basic survival instincts. I can change the world, but not human nature.
What I'm trying to say is that creationists are not necessarily more stupid than anyone else. They simply apply a common mentality to a different aspect of society.

Facebook

Usually I don't care about social networks. But the recent purchase of Whatsapp from Facebook is something I can't grasp. I was explained by Marisol (who uses whatsapp against her will, because everyone she knows uses it) that users in latin america enjoy Whatsapp because it costs less than a text message assuming you are on the 4G network, due to Carlos Slim's horrible capitalist empire. OK, so for some, Whatsapp might be useful. This app has 450 000 000 monthly users. The first year is free, after that, it's 1US$ per year. So what users do is they deactivate their account and create a new one. Some 20 000 000 users actually pay the subscription fee.

So great, Facebook simply swallowed a super successful competitor. For 16 000 000 000$. Now OK, maybe Facebook decided the risk was too high to let them go, Whatsapp was the competitor with the highest chances of eventually being more popular than Facebook. But... Who cares if they only make 20 000 000$/year?

If I were Facebook, I would have tackled the problem this way: Create a new app (like messenger), with services at least as practical as Whatsapp. Why buy a simple name and software for 16 000 000 000$ when your company has the potential to crush them in an instant by just making something better. And it's not like it would be less popular than Whatsapp, we're talking about Facebook releasing a whole new product. And for the hell of it, make it free, just to make Whatsapp die and beg for being purchased before bankruptcy. Maybe buy it for 50 000 000.

To dominate a market, you must crush, not swallow. One word: Apple.

Facebook is ruled by young, hyped billionaires with nothing to loose. Maybe except 16 000 000 000$.

Stephen Hawking The Overrated Joke

Stephen Hawking recently released a "paper" "revolutionizing" black holes. Right, I read it. It's barely 2 pages long and contains not a single mathematical character.

Physicists (including me) don't take him or his "paper" seriously, which is normal as it's obviously a way for him to get attention, so people will talk about him, so he will make more money by raising sales of his books.

Same marketing technique as the Miley Cyrus "twerking" story. She didn't care about what she was doing, she just wanted people to talk about her to make money, and the people who called her names were just too dumb to not fall into her obvious trap. Same with Hawking here. But then you might think: Hey Yan, you're talking about him, you're doing the opposite of what you're suggesting! Hold your horses reader, I didn't give my opinion about that yet. Here it is.

I don't care if Hawking makes money, I care for what people think. Now do your research, and please understand that Hawking is nothing close to being a genius. He once said in a Discovery Channel documental: "[...]This leads me to a profound realization. The simplest explanation is there is no God and no afterlife either.", "When people ask me if a God created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense, before the universe, there was no time for God to make the universe in." Oh right, and having the opposing opinion should make more sense?

The concept of God is that he is even beyond time, God doesn't need time, so that argument makes creationists laugh, and with reason, it's of school yard intellectual strength. And if time really is necessary to create the universe, how did the universe come into existence, God or no God, if there "was" no time? Good uhh.. Strong logic there Stephen.

If you read my blog before you know that my take on this is that the universe exists for no reason because the odds of it coming into existence for no reason were not of 0%. I hold nothing personal against Stephen Hawking, but he's a puppet portrayed by the media as being the greatest scientist of our times even if he has absolutely nothing to show for that. He writes books. Big deal. Read Newton's Principia Mathematica, now that, is 600 pages which define the very idea of genius.

Apologies

Hello dear readers,

Some of you reading this are fans of my blog. I send you my best regards. I have received much positive and also negative comments about this website. Usually, the negative has nothing to do with the ideas posted, rather with my style of writing and how impolite I can be.

I remind you that my only intent with this blog is to make people think. Whether the idea is good or not, my writing polite or not, if you leave my page thinking, it is mission accomplished for me.

Stay happy,

Best,

Yan Leduc-Chun

Mass

The phenomena of increasing relativistic mass is of unknown origin. Again, if you read my blog frequently, you know that I have a powerful model of dimensional geometry. I recently applied relativistic mass to either bust my model or reinforce it, and my model provides the perfect solution to this phenomena. The relativistic speed increases according to The Marisol Factor (mathematically equivalent to The Gamma Factor (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))). This is projected as an increase of mass due to the limitations of relative observation. The momentum of a travelling object mathematically corresponds to a mass increase as speed increase is not visible.

In simpler terms, the speed is higher than we can observe, but the mass is constant. Which is why the momentum increases perfectly with The Marisol Factor.

The Definition of God

There is no universal definition for "God". "God" is your relative conception of the highest detainer of power in the universe. Which makes religious followers detainers of false concepts of God as they follow preconceived ideas of God.

Since God cannot be defined, and if you want to believe in God, do it independently. If you are religious, no matter what, you are not believing in the correct version of God as it is not your independent conception. If you are interested, my own definition of God is the following: The absolute minimum requirement for an entity to be defined as "God" is its ability to perceive every piece of information in the universe simultaneously. Universal interaction, intelligence and awareness are completely arbitrary and unnecessary abilities for an entity to match the concept of God, simply absolute perception.

When I use the term God, it is merely to save time in my philosophical thinking as it is a short word to describe absolute perception.

The Grandfather Paradox And Universal Inflation

Assume time travel is possible. You go back in time and kill your grandfather before he meets your grandmother. For those who don't know about this paradox, the idea is that if you kill your grandfather, how do you even come into existence to do the act?

An idea I have is that nothing happens because you're simply in another position in time, just like 2 spatial positions. So killing your grandfather simply sends his finite time zone into another reality which is never in contact with yours. His reality branches out to become a new one, a new reality is formed apart from yours where you are never born, but there was nothing to destroy the reality in which you were originally, therefore your existence can perfectly continue. Every instant in time exists in the same space, but not in the same time.

So! This implies that the big bang is constantly happening. The impact is only noticed by the effects on space-time since the matter within it is trapped within its specific finite time position. So the acceleration of the expansion of the universe could possibly be due to this. A way to test this would be to verify if the acceleration of the acceleration of the expansion increases. If not, this is a busted idea.

Now, of course, with my model of the geometry of the dimensions (You know about this if you've been on my blog before)I simply cannot accept the idea of time travel. My goal with this post and my entire blog in general is to make people think.

That's it that's all! Keep thinking people! Cheers!

Life

Life Has No Value Until It Is Enjoyed.

Consciousness

Free will is an action which cannot be unpredicted. That was a double negative sentence, but don't make it positive.

You cannot predict anything properly, no matter how advanced an analytical system may be due to the validity of the uncertainty principle. But then again nothing controllable governs the uncertainty principle, the uncertainty principle is not predictable, but the future never changes. Since it isn't theoretically possible to predict everything because of the validity of the uncertainty principle, I will not state that consciousness doesn't exist because everything can be predicted, without the uncertainty principle, this would be correct.

Consciousness is a greatly misunderstood, over estimated and invalid concept. An unconscious entity (all entities) cannot correctly imagine consciousness. Conscious and unconscious are philosophical synonyms.

Oh hold on, did I just make a mistake? I said: An unconscious entity (all entities) cannot correctly imagine consciousness. One could argue that because of that, I can't even start saying that people don't understand it properly, or to start developing on it because it's not a concept I could possibly imagine.

True, I'm only making a statement that people don't think properly about it. They think spiritually and that's where all things go wrong because logically, there is no such thing as being conscious. You didn't actually choose to read this even if your brain is screaming that it chose. You never choose. A very long history, a chain of events has brought you to be reading these words right now. And you have controlled nothing, the electrons in your brain at this moment were supposed to be exactly the way they are since the dawn of time.

Black Hole New Findings

If you read my last post, like most of those who have been on my blog, you know that I have been working on some equations to determine the point in curvature of space-time after which Einstein's equations break down. Well, I am going to give you the answer, and when I saw this number appear in my work, a large smile of comprehension settled onto my face. Beyond 45 degrees. So! Cos45=0.70710678118. Which means that when you are in a gravitational field that has an acceleration beyond 70.71% of the speed of light, you must use my equations. 70.71% of C is 211 985 280 m/s. Therefore if you accelerate towards a body by gravitational pull with an acceleration of 211 985 280 m/s^2 or more, to calculate your distances, length contraction and time dilation, you cannot use Einstein's equations.

Unfortunately for you, I won't be sharing all of my work with you, since anyone could rip me off. You have the result, which is pretty exciting, but how I got there will have to wait.

I'll have my work published and I certainly will tell you when it comes out! Also, happy new year, you sexy curious people!