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!

Black Holes and Dimensions

Einstein's equations, when it comes to black holes and other very dense objects, are incorrect. That's because his dimensional geometry is incorrect. The Lorentz factor and gravitational equations must be corrected according to the model I am currently developing. My math is working with the experiments, I just have to finalize my equation describing gravity. The equation only comes into play after a certain angle of space-time folding. Which is why Einstein's equations work with light objects. Because his equations work, but only up to a very precise point of curvature. This could take a few hours, to a few months.

You probably heard of length contraction. It's effects when the cause is gravity, are in respect to 3D mathematics. Now I introduce width contraction in a spherically curved space-time. The math for that are in 2D.

What Is The Wheel?

Gravity And Philosophy

Most physicists simply assume that space-time is curved around an object without putting that into question. Einstein is almost never put into doubt. Something is missing in the mind of a physicist. Knowledge from other fields. Those who are experts in relativity know practically nothing about quantum mechanics and vice versa.

What if the true underlying of gravity rested in the reconciliation of both fields? What if gravity is the child of particle probability wave interference?

Relativity by itself has yet to figure out why matter appears to curve space and time. Maybe it's time to look elsewhere for an answer.

Not All Movement Requires Energy

Something You Will Not Understand

If you list ALL the possible numbers between 0 and 1, you can still create numbers that will not be on that list. Which makes counting to infinity not only impossible in the sense that it would take for ever, but that a computer would miss an infinite amount of numbers even if it counted all the numbers.

Democracy

Even if handled properly, democracy will never be the solution to any civilization and/or species because of biological evolution.

People tend to blame capitalism for the global problems. I say democracy. And the fact that people blame capitalism is to me all the necessary evidence to support my blaming of democracy. People blame capitalism because they are stupid. This stupidity is projected by the power of the people through democracy making for poor economic management because idiots detain power.

Basically, I'm saying that democracy is a proven failure by the fact that people are stupid enough to blame capitalism. Capitalism is a failure because of democracy, which exists because people are stupid enough to believe their voices and opinions are legitimate enough for every individual to detain power, yet most people disagree in political debates. Rare are the cases where two people will end in agreement. So you disagree with almost everyone else, you are closer to being right than most people. Yet democracy is ok? How can you disagree with most and still believe democracy is the right way? You blame capitalism because you don't see the problem with democracy because you are insufficiently intelligent and/or wise to see the problem with democracy. Capitalism is a brilliant concept. Instead of exchanging objects which have subjective value relative to one's needs, someone came up with the idea to create something with universal value. Genius, seriously.

Democracy, on the other hand, is what has created one of the worse case scenarios possible for the otherwise idealistic capitalist system. Because idiots, the most populous category of humans, detain power.

If you consider everything I just said as a big mathematical equation, the result is the following: Capitalism is responsible for global problems because people believe capitalism is responsible for global problems.

So stop blaming capitalism. Because the problem behind capitalism is us, the people and our worthless opinions.

The Two Dimensional Universe

Our universe is composed of 2 spatial dimensions, and one temporal, that projects itself as a spatial dimension. Information in the universe is contained within 2 spatial dimension, meaning that our mathematics apply to 2 dimensions and not 3. The third dimension is the direction in which you are moving relative to space-time, and your speed determines your temporal angle. For an object to move along a 2D plane, such as the universe, it must travel through time. Also, Momentum (P=rmv) is philosophically wrong. It should be P=mvr. (Where r is Gamma) since the mass does not increase, contrarily to what seems to confuse physicists, it's the velocity that is multiplied by Gamma. The velocity that must be used in P=mvr is the velocity of the traveler, and not a still observer. This occurs due to time dilation.

Our universe is in 2 dimensions, we can travel faster than light, and mass is unchanged, simply that the relative Kinetic energy of a traveling object is high for no apparent reason to an observer, and not that the mass increases.

The Uncertainty Principle

∆x∆p≥h/2 (Uncertainty Principle) is not about uncertainty, it's about approaching the instantly unobservable probability wave state of particles.

Believing in God makes him unlikely to exist.

As odd as it might seem, and for reasons I will spare for the public because of the extremely dangerous background reflection that lead to the following conclusion, believing in God reduces the odds for him to exist. Therefore religious people and observers reduce the odds for them to be right. I won't say why, mankind is not ready. I might be wrong, but this opinion is a public menace. Just reflect on the implications of believing in a God for a bit.

Why Did The Universe Come Into Existence? (And why the last post about this is incomplete)

How did the universe come into existence?

SEE PREVIOUS POST: WHY INFINITY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A VALUE.

Well, basically, it came into existence because the odds of that happening were not 0%. Since the existence of time in the verse ours was born is unknown, we can define the odds of the universe coming into existence by the following: ∞ (100-x) where "x" are the odds of the universe occurring. Therefore: x= ∞ (100-x) Send ∞ to the other side: x/∞= 100-x.

To solve this, you must consider that not all infinities are equal. Example: A circle with a diameter of ∞ has a circumference of ∞ as well, but the circumference still is π times longer since diameter x π = circumference. No matter the value of "x" you get 0.00[...]001 on the left side of the equation.

Now send the x on the other side. 0.00[...]001+x=100.

So the odds of the universe happening are of 99.9999999% These odds occur every infinith of an instant.

If 99.9% is the value of X, we must start all over again with that in mind.

99.9= ∞ (100-99.9)

99.9= ∞ ( 0.0[...]01 )

99.9=1=100 or, the multiple of 10 that is closest to 99.9, in this case, 100.

The odds for the universe to exist are not even 99.9%, rather 100%.

100% multiplied by ∞.

The existence of the universe is in no way impressive to me.

Give feedback!

Why infinity should be considered as a value.

Why infinity should be considered as a value and not just a concept.

Some mathematicians argue that infinity cannot be used in formulas and equations because it is not a set value. I disagree. Why? Because infinity can vary.

If I take between 1 and 2, there are an infinite amount of decimals. Now add to between 1 and 2 what is between 2 and 3. You have the infinite values of between 1 and 2 plus the infinite values of between 2 and 3. So your infinity after the addition is 2x larger than the initial infinity. Other example is if you have a circle with a diameter of ∞, the circumference is π times larger. If infinity can vary, it's value can vary.

So when I say: x= ∞(100-x), you must consider that the infinity here is a multiple of 10. Because the relative value of infinity must be in agreement with the rest. And if not, then yes ∞ has no place in a formula, but if it is implied that it is the appropriate relative value, then you can do correct algebra with ∞ used as a value. All that represents a quantity and can vary represents a value.

In my book: (1/∞)∞=1

Check out my Youtube channel! https://www.youtube.com/user/humanstupidty

Why did the universe come into existence?

How did the universe come into existence?

Well, basically, it came into existence because the odds of that happening were not 0%. Since the existence of time in the verse ours was born is unknown, we can define the odds of the universe coming into existence by the following: ∞ (100-x) where "x" are the odds of the universe occurring. Therefore: x= ∞ (100-x) Send ∞ to the other side: x/∞= 100-x.

To solve this, you must consider that not all infinities are equal. Example: A circle with a diameter of ∞ has a circumference of ∞ as well, but the circumference still is π times longer since diameter x π = circumference. No matter the value of "x" you get 0.00[...]001 on the left side of the equation. Now send the x on the other side. 0.00[...]001+x=100.

So the odds of the universe happening are of 99.9999999% These odds occur every infinith of an instant. If preferred, the odds for the universe to exist can be accurately seen as;

∞(∞-1)

The existence of the universe is in no way impressive to me.

Why The Arrow Paradox Is Complete Nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Aub69TAork&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Philanthropy

We all make a difference. It's up to us to choose what that difference will be.

Universal Philosophy

To all those who might be interested;

I have important theories that answer popular and unpopular questions. Some theories answer quantum mechanics observation problems that still to date, are not understood, to how perception impacts the observed and non observed universe relative to yourself, others and a possible ultimate perception.
I also talk about light, the speed of time, the expansion of the universe, and hyperdimensions.

Please post, ask questions, state your beliefs.