Cool, and only about 90 years after Royal Raymond Rife.
31 karma · joined July 20, 2020
-- quote --
In 2001, Canadian astronomer Ken Tapping showed that the influenza pandemics over the previous three centuries correlated with peaks in solar magnetic activity, on an 11- year cycle. It has also been found that some outbreaks of influenza spread over enormous areas in just a few days – a fact that is difficult to explain by contagion from one person to another. Also, numerous experiments seeking to prove direct contagion through close contact, droplets of mucus or other processes have proved fruitless.
From 1933 to the present day, virologists have been unable to present any experimental study proving that influenza spreads through normal contact between people. All attempts to do so have met with failure.
-- end quote --
source: https://www.5gexposed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/English...
Hopefully you can see the problem with that...
The QR code could mis-match the printed ballot on say 5% of the ballots and nobody would notice a thing.
Need a recount? Ok, just run em through again, and they'll read the same (wrong) votes again, no problem.
Only a hand count of the paper ballots would catch the mis-match.
Did that actually happen? I don't know. But if the machines are truly reading a QR code, that seems a glaring flaw regardless.
Because according to what I saw presented in hearings, the reading machines actually read the QR code made by ballot-marking-device, not the human readable portion of the ballot.
If true, that seems an obvious design flaw (to be nice) right there.
Assuming this is true, it would be simple to modify the printing software such that the QR code vote is different from the human readable vote.
A recount, by running the paper ballots through the machine again, would come up with the same result as the first time.
The only way to catch it would be to hand-count the paper ballots and compare the results to the machine counted votes.
Really though, the QR code should be eliminated, so that the voter is able to personally verify what the machine will actually read.
"A quantum computer, however, can sidestep the brute-force calculation by simulating the quantum process directly — allowing bosons to interfere and sampling the resulting distribution."
Uhhmmmm... it sounds to me like they are performing an experiment and measuring the results.
It's not a simulation if you actually perform the physical experiment.
This seems a bit like saying "A hurricane will simulate a hurricane better and much faster than a supercomputer".
Umm, true enough, I guess. But can you make a hurricane do anything useful besides just being a hurricane?
A bit different than what I've always thought about as my personal infinite universe theory, but good food for thought and he makes the math work. Definitely worth the read!
In other words, there is no smallest or largest.
There was never any beginning nor will there ever be an end. (If there was a beginning, what caused it?)
There is no outer boundary, limit, or end to the universe. If there were, beyond it would have to be "nothing". How can "nothing" exist, and what would be the border between "something" and "nothing"?
There is no "time", only matter in motion.
Matter is always divisible into something smaller, and composeable into something larger.
Matter in motion at scale n is perceived as a "force" at scales > n.
anyway, fun to think about!
Tesla challenged the notion of "curved spacetime" as illogical. People should have listened to him.
Edwin Hubble, who discovered redshift disparity, in his later life questioned expansion as the cause. People should have listened to him.
Many "alternative" physicists over the years and still today deny expansion, dark, matter, dark energy, black holes, and other imaginary phenomena that were invented to patch mis-matches between observations and mathematical predictions.
But its like spitting in the wind against the force of inertia as everyone gets taught these fantasies in school as though they are fact.
Do yourself a favor and look into some alternative cosmology theories. I've posted a list elsewhere in this thread.
Electric Universe (Thornhill, Birkeland, Scott, et al)
Plasma Cosmology (Alfven, Lerner, et al)
Infinite Universe Theory (Borchardt)
Recycling Universe Cosmology (Mitchell)
Subquantum Kinetics (La Violette)
Modern Mechanics (Bryant)
Push Gravity: (various, book: Pushing Gravity)
The Static Universe (Ratcliffe)
Steady State Universe (Hoyle, older)
That's a good start at least. ;-)
All of the above have one or more books written about them.
research "tired light". There are many competing theories.
Maybe read "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp, or anything by Tom Van Flandern. Or the book "Pushing Gravity". Or the electric universe guys, or subquantum kinetics, or modern mechanics, or plasma cosmology, or weber dynamics, or infinite universe, pretty much anything but the standard model actually.
be careful though, you might find yourself exposed to ideas that establishment status quo "science" tries hard to ignore.
Guess what, other models do not require expansion.
Perhaps Rees should read the book if he wishes to make good on the bet.
One can make a reasonable argument that YouTube is making the decision voluntarily. And the letter is just giving them some cover for what they wanted to do, based on their own biases, anyway.
But private censorship is still censorship. And when a platform is so large that it has effectively become "the public square", well I do not go so far as to say that they cannot legally engage in censorship, but I do believe they are morally obliged not to, and should be publically called out when they do.
I hope people will begin moving to other platforms in droves so that some real competition emerges.
Where the similar recipe/technique has been applied is in the construction of some large dams, where they call it roller compacted concrete.
see romanconcrete.com
let everyone rate content on multiple relevant criteria. Eg, quality, grammar, agreement, sexuality, violence, hate, etc.
Make some default filters that choose societally acceptable settings for each filter, and hides new content that is unrated.
Enable individuals to tweak the filters to any setting they wish, for a totally custom view, including viewing unrated content.
Enable individuals to share their filters with others.
Voila! A system that allows any content to be posted, but shows only "safe" content by default and allows individuals to bypass the filters if they wish.
there are a lot of people that need rides.
There was a company that facilitated these two meeting and took a cut of payments.
It does not need to be a company. It can be an autonomous entity, eg a smart contract. Think ethereum + ipfs. just by way of example.
in other words, cut out the middle-man. Remove the target for governments to pressure and tax.
At that point, the free market decides.
In other words, music to my ears.