Speaker of the House II

 

Lies

Lies, lies, you're tellin' me that you'll be true
Lies, lies
That's all I ever get from you

Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

"I can't wait to see Democrats go out and support a Republican speaker," Greene said. "I also can't wait to see my Republican conference show their cards and show who we are because voters deserve it." - https://www.aol.com/house-back-turmoil-marjorie-taylor-131659598.html

Oh Marge, you make me laugh.  There is no Republican Speaker of the House.  The Speaker of the House serves ALL of the American People.  That is what our constitutional republic, is all about.  As such, Mike Johnson might be a Republican, but he serves everyone in the House, which last I looked also included Democrats.  You might be confusing him with Steve Scalise, the House Republican Majority Leader.  Just because Democrats acknowledge that Mike Johnson is the Speaker by working with him, doesn’t make it less true. But you do believe in alternate facts don’t you? I prefer to call alternate facts by their other name, lies.

Freedoms

 

Everybody Wants To Rule The World

I can't stand this indecision,
Married with a lack of vision.
Everybody wants to rule the world.
Say that you'll never, never, never, never, need it.
One headline, why believe it?
Everybody wants to rule the world.

But each individual CAN’T rule the world.

The Constitution of the United States tried to deal with the proposition that a system of individuals can rule those same individuals, but that the system might make mistakes and each individual must be protected for the good of that system. Thus there are checks and balances for the power exercised by the system and protections of the individual from the system. But many of these protections presume that there is a system in the first place.

Among those basic protections are freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to address grievances.  But this presumes that there are public spaces in which to speak and in which to assemble. When these places are private, and there are few, if any, public spaces, those protections can be pointless. Freedom of speech or assembly does not mean that there are no consequences from that speech or assembly, only that speaking and assembly are NOT those consequences. Thus while you can have freedom to speak, there are consequences for shouting fire in a crowded theater. The owners of those spaces may limit the ability to speak and to assemble on their property or else they themselves may be liable for the consequences of that speech or that assembly.

When the speech occurs in a public square, it is protected. When the speech occurs on social media platforms, and all of social media platforms are owned by private corporations, is it public? When assembly takes place by college students on land that is owned by the college, is that public?

Addressing only social media, the reason for banning TikTok is allegedly that TikTok may be  under the control of a foreign power, the Chinese Communist Party. But its competitors, e.g. Meta (operators of Facebook, Threads, Instagram, etc.), Alphabet ( operators of Google, YouTube, etc.) and X/Twitter are all United States corporations ( and are primarily owned by citizens of the United States, although it is decided murky in the case of South African- born Elon Musk and X/Twitter).  Can any of those social media platforms be subject to foreign influence? Absolutely, but the question of ownership/control is not the issue. Foreign interference in elections is a legitimate concern but that foreign influence has been exercised previously in US owned social media platforms, not TikTok.

Can any of these social media platform harm wards of the state ( e.g. children and teenagers)? Absolutely, but this harm is without regard to foreign ownership. Lack of experience, familiarity, and/or understanding of the social media platform does NOT mean that the social media platform is harmful. I don’t use social media, but the arguments against social media, by people as old as me, have long been expressed by the elderly, long before there was social media. Plato complained against ancient Greek teenagers that "What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders; they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets, inflamed with wild notions.” Just because you don’t understand something, does not automatically make it evil. It only means that you don’t understand it.

Can the social media platforms protect data privacy? Anyone can purchase confidential data from any of the social media platforms, including the United States owned platforms. Those platforms may try to protect this confidential information by anonymizing or otherwise protecting that data, But as someone who has handled confidential data, there is no lock secure enough to absolutely protect confidential information. If codes are used, codes can be broken, foreign or not. Codes do not even understand foreign or domestic ownership/control. If you want to protect data privacy, then data privacy issues should be addressed, whether that data is foreign or domestically owned/controlled.

As to the rights to assembly/speech by college students on college property, it is the consequences of that assembly/speech that can and should be addressed by the colleges, not the speech or assembly itself. The potential that consequences MIGHT occur is not justification for trampling on those rights. Two wrongs do not make a right. You can’t always get want you want.  You may want to rule the world, but not everyone can rule the world.

Gravity

 

Defying Gravity

It's time to try defying gravity
I think I'll try defying gravity
Kiss me goodbye, I'm defying gravity
And you won't bring me down

To defy gravity first you have to understand gravity.

Newton proposed that Gravity is a force representing the change in momentum between the masses of two particles such that the force between those particle is

F=G* (m₀₁ * m₀₂)/d₁₂² , G=6.67×10^-11

where d₁₂ is the distance between mass 1 and mass 2, and m_0x is the rest mass for mass x. This assumes that the rest mass does not change with respect to the speed of the mass.

Einstein proposed that the speed of light is a limiting factor and that the mass DOES depend on the speed and position of the particle. In a flat space, there is no reason for a system of two or more masses to seek a lower energy system and any change in momentum of these objects would still appear to be accompanied by a force (gravity).

F=G*( (m₀₁/√(1-(v₁/c)²)))* (m₀₂/√(1-(v₂/c)²))))/d₁₂² ,G=6.67×10^1-1

where d₁₂ is the distance between mass 1 and mass 2, and m_0x is the rest mass of mass x and v_x is the speed of particle x , and c is the speed of light.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that the energy of a system of objects will seek the state of lowest energy and any reduction in the energy of the system will be equal to an increase in the entropy of the system. In curved, hyperbolic, space, those two masses/particles will each seek to lower their energy and approach a common center along a geodesic. This change in energy will be accompanied by a change in momentum. But while true in curved, hyperbolic, space, this would be viewed in flat space as an apparent force, like centrifugal force, and NOT an intrinsic force. The apparent force of gravity is these masses seeking to lower their energy, maximize their entropy, and this is

G*(m₀₁/ln(2*cosh(√(1-(v₁/c)²))*m₀₂/ln(2*cosh(√(1-(v₂/c)²)))/exp(-k*d₁₂),G=6.67×10^-11

where d₁₂ is the distance between mass 1 and mass 2; m_0x is the rest mass of mass x; and v_x is the velocity of mass x. 

While this may be the true equation of “gravity”, “gravity” may only be an apparent force and not one of the three intrinsic fundamental forces.  If the velocity is less than the speed of light, then Einstein’s formula may also be used.  The only reason that this is true is that this is within the same domain, and Eistien's Formula is an approximation which  requires no change in domain.  If the speed is very small compared to the speed of light, then Newton’s formula may be used.  So before we defy “gravity”, we must first recognize that “gravity” may be an illusion.

Unions

 

Look For The Union Label

Look for the union label
When you are buying that coat, dress or blouse.
Remember somewhere our union's sewing,
Our wages going to feed the kids, and run the house.
We work hard, but who's complaining?
Thanks to the I.L.G. we're paying our way!
So always look for the union label,
it says we're able to make it in the U.S.A.!

U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

The lyric above is of course the old commercial jingle for the International Ladies Garment workers union. Union organizing is having a bit of surge and pushback at the present time. The workers at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee voted to unionize which prompted much hand wringing by anti-union governors in the South. Trader Joe's, Amazon, Starbucks, and many companies beloved by liberals are fighting union organizing efforts by their own employees, prompting a call to boycott their products by liberals.

I am addicted to Trader Joe's products. I am an Amazon Prime member. And while I am a New Englander and prefer Dunkin' Donuts coffee, I will admit to enjoying a hot caffeinated beverage from Starbucks, including their mother store in Seattle. I will not be joining any boycott, but I also do not support their efforts in opposing unions. It seems to be centered around the fact that they are treating their workers well so how dare those workers unionize! Silly corporations! It is not about your present management. It is about how management might act in the future. They are not making fun of you. They are making fun of her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkcdU4gxU38

Walt Disney famously fought against union organizing efforts at his studio in the 1930’s, for many of the same reasons. How dare his employees! We are a family! And besides aren’t unions full of communists and criminals! 

Any healthy system should be as large as possible.  If a corporation depends on workers to produce its products, then why shouldn't those workers act together as a system?  I believe the phrase is we all hang together, or we will all hang separately. There may be bad unions, but that does not mean that all unions are bad. Walt may have been wrong, but that does not mean I won’t be watching Disney movies or going to Disneyland.  And that will be my position unless the behavior is so egregious that by buying those products, the buyer becomes complicit in the actions of the seller. Until then, IMHO, unions are as American as Apple Pie.

Billionaire Tax?

 

Billionaire

Oh every time I close my eyes
I see my name in shining lights
A different city every night oh
I swear the world better prepare
For when I'm a billionaire
Oh ooh oh ooh for when I'm a billionaire
Oh ooh oh ooh for when I'm a billionaire

But should there even be billionaires?

When I was growing up, the aspiration was to be a millionaire. Inflation has contributed to a change, but Reaganomics also created more billionaires when those in the highest tax bracket unintentionally could retain more of their income. Just as not understanding the difference between a mean and a median can lead to economic disasters, https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2018/08/wonderful-world-dont-know-much-about.html, not understanding the difference between an effective tax and a marginal tax has led to those in the highest tax bracket retaining more of their income. This error over time has led to millionaires becoming billionaires.  An effective tax rate is a first derivative. A marginal tax rate is a second derivative. Confusing the two, is like confusing speed and acceleration. They are NOT the same. Acting as if they are the same is the basis for the Reagan’s income tax codes. The tax rate in any bracket is the marginal tax rate, not the effective tax rate. When the effective rate varies from 0 to 40%,  the  marginal tax rate should vary between 0 and 100%. This is not being punitive at high brackets. It is merely how math works. A 100% bracket does NOT mean that the tax rate is 100%. It merely means that in that tax bracket the full highest effective rate applies.

The income tax brackets are supposed to be merely a convenient means to compute the effective tax. Otherwise a formula would be required. The tax brackets allow that formula to be approximated by straight lines and the use of simple multiplication. Beause of the error, those in the highest brackets are retaining more of their income than was intended by the effective rates. If that income has been retained each year, and it has been over 40 years, and this retained income has been also been compounded, is it any wonder that millionaires have become billionaires.

Should Congress create a tax on billionaires? Congress created those billionaires in the first place by enacting those erroneous tax codes, so Congress should certainly tax them. But at the same time, Congress should fix the income tax code so that millionaires don’t unintentionally become billionaires in the first place.

Solutions

 

Ain’t Necessarily So

It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so

And the things that you read in Math textbooks ain't necessarily so.

The equation y²=x², seems like it has a simple single solution, y=x. but actually there are two solutions y=x AND y=-x. The second solution is due to the fact that i²=-1. This  suggests that an imaginary axis could be important in resolving this paradox.

Minkowski proposed a method to transform the three dimensions of space into a single dimension. In the two dimensional,  2‑D, version, the other dimension is typically time. This gives rise to inverted triangles fomed by light travelling on a surface in space‑time described by Minkowski space. This is often expressed that reality must be within two light triangles that intersect at the origin. If that space-time surface is rotated about another dimension, then it is suggested based on the conclusion of the first paragraph that this dimension might be the imaginary axis. Thus in 3‑D Minkowski space, there would be dimensions of space, time, AND imagination, while in conventional space, the dimension of space is transformed into length, width, and height, such that there are five dimensions.

Rotating a flat 2‑D flat, Euclidean, surface about an imaginary axis still produces only one solution, while paradoxically there are two solutions. This suggests that the rotation of a flat, Euclidean, surface may not be correct. To resolve the paradox, it  is proposed that the rotation of a hyperbolic surface is required. This still gives rise to a cylindrical 3‑D space, but then there are two solutions,  y=ln(0 ± 2*cosh(x)), if the surface must pass through  the origin.

The rotation of two triangles on a flat surface which intersect at the origin produces two inverted cones whose peaks intersect at the origin. The rotation of two triangles on a hyperbolic surface produces a two-sheet hyperboloid whose sheets also intersect at the origin. However one of the sheets will have the opposite sign of the other sheet and any solution in that sheet will also have a solution that is the opposite sign in the other sheet. It is noted that a change of sign is equivalent to a rotation on the imaginary axis of π. This because of Euler’s Formula and the fact that sin(0)=0 with a rotation of π, is equivalent to sin(π), but cos(0)=1 while cos(π)=-1.

Since cosh(x) is a odd function, that is cosh(x)=cosh(-x), and logarithms are undefined for x<0, then unless there is a rotaion of π when passing though the origin of 0 between the two sheets of the hrperboloid, it will apear to an observer on one sheet of the hyperboloid that there is only one solution, y=ln(cosh(x²)).  The derviative of this solution is tanh(x²).  This repeats with a period of πi.  If x<2/3*π, then the solution is virtually identical to y=x when x>0.  A Nash Equilbrium discontinuity occurs at 5/6*π. The approximation can be used until this discontinuity, at which point the uncertainty  becomes significant and the approximation is no longer valid. Since the absolute can also be stated as a multiple of π, this can be restated that the universe is flat locally, but is hyperbolic globally.

Reality

 

I Can See for Miles

Well, here's a poke at you
You're gonna choke on it too
You're gonna lose that smile
Because all the while

I can see for miles and miles
I can see for miles and miles
I can see for miles and miles
And miles and miles and miles

But is there a limit to what you can see?

A moving object in the reality of space-time can be described by its vector. A vector has a magnitude and a direction. That magnitude can be expressed as a scalar, but by definition that magnitude can NEVER be negative. Thus a vector can be opposed by the same magnitude in the opposite direction, but it can NOT be opposed by the opposite magnitude in the same direction.

This has a bearing on space as a dimension. A particle can be described as a vector. But its position in space can NEVER be negative. An exponential distribution, which also does not allow negative values, can  be viewed as a magnitude. The three dimensions of space: length, width, and height; should NOT be expressed as negative numbers. They can be expressed as relative, positional, negatives with respect to a fixed location, but this is merely a translation, not an allowance of absolute negative numbers. Time as a dimension by contrast can be expressed as negative numbers with now defined as zero, the past as a  negative number, and the future as a positive number. If the three dimensions of space are collapsed into a single dimension such as in Minkowski space, where time is retained as separate dimension, the limitation with space, x, no negative numbers,  but with time as both positive and negative values still applies. If this surface, constrained in space and unconstrained in time, is rotated about a third axis, say an axis of imaginary numbers,  that surface becomes a volume. Rotation is infinite but repeating, and rotation can be either positive or negative depending on the direction of rotation. Reality can be considered to be an imaginary number of zero. A clockwise rotation might be considered to be positive, a daydream,  while a negative, counterclockwise,  rotation might be considered to be a nightmare. The rotation of the surface of space-time about an imaginary axis defines a volume that is a cylinder. A vector in cylindrical coordinates can be expressed as re^iθ, where r is the real radius in space-time and θ is the angle with respect to the imaginary axis. This is a special case of Euler’s Formula,  e^ix=cos(x)+i*sin(x), where r =1 and x=θ, and thus re^iθ=r*cos(θ) + r*sin(θ)*i. It is true that θ=arctan( (r*sin(θ))/( r*cos(θ))) regardless of the surface being rotated. It is also true that r²=( r*cos(θ))²+(r*sin(θ))². But this has a different solution for r depending on the type of surface which is being rotated.

If the surface being rotated is flat, Euclidean, it has the conventional solution of

r=√(r*cos(θ))²+(r*sin(θ))²),

but this is only because on such a surface

cos(r)=cos(r*cos(θ))*cos(r*sin(θ))

and the elliptical/circular identity that 1=cos²+sin².  If the surface being rotated was spherical, then the solution would be

cos(r/R)=cos(r*cos(θ)/R))*cos(r*sin(θ/R))

where R is the radius of the spherical surface. As R approaches infinity this also becomes, r=√(r*cos(θ))²+r*sin(θ))²). However if the surface being rotated is hyperbolic, the solutions must satisfy,

cosh(r)=cosh(r*cos(θ))*cosh(r*sin(θ)).

If the surface being rotated must also pass through the origin, then this has two solutions,

  r=ln(0 ± 2*cosh(r*cos(θ))). 

This is because while sin(0) and sin(π) both pass though the origin, are zero, but  cos(0)=1 and cos(π)=-1; the hyperbolic identity that 1=cosh²-sinh²; and cosh(x)=cosh(-x), i.e. cosh is an odd function.

What is conventionally described as two intersecting inverted light cones in Minkowski space assumes that light travels on a flat, Euclidean, surface. If it instead light travels on a hyperbolic surface, the two inverted cones, become a two-sheeted hyperboloid where the sheets intersect at the origin. There is one solution in each sheet of the hyperboloid. However within each sheet of the hyperboloid, the solutions may appear, as 0 and ln(2*cosh(r*cos(θ))) because a particle in one sheet can not pass though the origin unless it is rotated by π, i.e. changes signs, and the other solution is in the other sheet. The average of 0 and ln(2*cosh(r*cos(θ))) is locally r=√(r*cos(θ))²+(r*sin(θ))²).  This approximation holds true until r is more than 5/6 of the absolute, is hyperbolic globally. Thus Pythagoras’ Theorem is true locally, but is not true globally, if the surface of the universe is hyperbolic. And you can see for miles, but if you are in one sheet of the hyperboloid, then you can not see past the origin into the other sheet and you might thus think the solution in that sheet is zero.