lunarsilkscreen

[lunarsilkscreen]

Absolute Zero

Particles seem to have their own internal energy sources. They're always moving, and they never stop. As long as they are here on earth we can never reach Absolute Zero.

We cannot create a *true vacuum* without going to space and using the one out there. This, I believe, is one of the SafeGuards of the theory of the conservation of energy.

It's part of the system itself that governs mass and energy.

And so, we cannot truly ever syphon all the energy from a particle or stop it. And when we try; the particles of a specific substance become both like ice, and like air.

Both without friction, AND moving as if it were a solid object. Is this the opposite of plasma?

Seems pretty straight Forward to me.

The question *I'd* like answered; is how does that work in outer space exactly? Can we make a whip? Or a wire?

Because of the lack of pressure; would the particles sustain their own system or become brittle?

This creates a kind of paradox. Perpetual motion devices cannot function without entropy. And yet; particles have a seemingly infinite amount of energy to keep vibing.

Or stimming. Pick your favorite verbage.

Where does the energy come from?

Yet; when we get to radiation and entropy; we find that radioactive particles release energy until they've reached enough half-lifes to become inert.

Suggesting radioactive material *actually* has *too much* energy. Which isn't paradoxical. This is on par for what one would expect.

Oh yeah. I was gonna write an article on Lightning and ionization...

[lunarsilkscreen]

A Multi-Class prestige-style template

Requirements; Multi-Class, at least level 10.

Abilities;

- If you could make an AoO; You may cast a cantrip instead, You may load a munition you could do as part of a ranged attack, Or you may perform a ranged attack if your weapon is loaded.

- If you have higher level spell slots you cannot fill; you may prepare a lower spell to fill the slot in a variety of ways:

X cantrips combined to cast simultaneously, where X is the spell slot level.

A lower level spell may cast twice in a spell slot at least twice its level. The level requirement is reduced by 1 level (to at least 1 level higher than the spell) for every cast level you have that doesn't allow you to prepare a normal spell to fill that slot.

No other requirements may be bypassed.

- If you could cast spells unprepared, you may cast any normally prepared spell unprepared. But not in any of the ways above.

- you may cast level 2 (or below) spells as if they were cantrips. This increases up to 5th level with every 2 spellcaster levels.

- if you have a familiar, and wild shape; you may magically combine with your familiar to improve your stats with the stats of the familiar. You may use any feats or abilities of your familiar as if they were your own.

- If you have the ability to have a familiar and a spirit weapon or spirit tool or spirit armor, you may have a familiar that transforms into a spirit weapon or tool. Provided the familiar doesn't disagree with being used in such a manner. The weapon/tool/armor counts a +1 magic item with single perpetual cantrip (that either you or your familiar could cast) or a feat your familiar has, as a buff (as a magic item special ability)

- If you have at least two ways to gain a single familiar that does not allow you to have multiple familiars; you may have an extra familiar.

- if you have wild shape and additional spellcaster classes that do not grant you that wild shape; you may imbue your wild shape with a single cantrip.

- If you could make multiple attacks; You may cast a cantrip instead of one of the attacks.

- If you could fire multiple *munitions* simultaneously, you may swap out one munition for a cantrip that casts upon impact of one munition.

For every 2 munitions you could fire; you can choose fire one munition with an imbued cantrip.

If a weapon has a minimum munition requirement, this is reduced by the minimum. (So if it fires two at a time without the character ability to do so, you cannot fire the second set of two if you replace it with a cantrip.)

- With at least 2 martial levels (or martial weapon feats), You gain the ability to use any melee weapon proficiently. With 5, you gain proficiency to use any object as a melee weapon with proficiency.

- With at least 2 range levels (or range weapon feats,) you gain the ability to use any range weapon proficiently. With 5, you gain the proficiency to use or throw any object improvised as a thrown weapon, or improvised munition with proficiency.

- Any ability that requires verbal components and nothing else may be performed as a free action, provided you are performing no other action requiring a verbal component.

- Any separate class specific point pools may be combined together, and used for any other class action requiring them.

- You may spend a point from your combined point pool to add 2 to any skill check.

- You may spend a point from your point pool to recover 2 HP as an immediate action, provided you have a level in a class that could cast spells that cause you to recover life.

- You may spend x points to prepare a spell as a full-round action, where X is that spell's spell level.

- You may perform a skill check for any check that requires multiple different skill checks by adding the different values together and dividing by the number of separate skill checks. The DC is decided the same way.

This is limited to checks that are a full-round in duration during combat, or 5-minute action out of combat.

You cannot merge crafting checks with non-crafting checks in this way. For crafting checks, this is increased to a continuous action up to a full day, but not for multiple checks performed separately.

- You may perform any skill you're proficient in as a performance instead of a skill with +5 bonus. (This is applied after modifying the DC and Skillcheck bonus in the previous ability)

- Knowledge checks can be performed adjacently.

- If you have at least 50 total skill points allocated in 10 different skills, you are considered proficient in any skill. (I don't know how I would adapt this to 5e)

- You may add your spell-caster level to skill-checks

- You may use an improvised tool with proficiency. Provided the object meets the requirements of being used in such a fashion.

- You may imbue a vial of liquid with a cantrip as a crafting check, and then use that liquid as a potion. That liquid can be used by other creatures, provided it is imbibed with a 10-minute window.

- You may perform a crafting check to imbue an item with a single cantrip effect that lasts up to an hour; as if you were making a magical item. It is a DC 10+crafting skill bonus to notice whether or not this is a "real" magic item.

- You may perform any charisma based skill check as if it were any other charisma based skill check. Although; it will still contain the essence of the check you use. (Intimidate will feel intimidating to the NPC, Bluff will feel deceitful, and Persuasion will feel persuasive, and Animal Husbandry will feel like being talked to as if you were an animal.) Even though the skill succeeds; it will still give those feeling to an NPC. But the NPC will assume you *mean* well.

- You may cast a cantrip as part of a performance.

- You may use any charisma skill you're proficient in to make a "disguise spell" check. Which will make any spell you cast look like any other spell you could cast. (Or any spell you can't cast as long as you know what it looks like and a similar cantrip)

- You may use Faith based spell empowerments for non-faith based spells and vice-versa.

- at 5 caster levels You may "Improvise" a spell effect provided you can cast spells unprepared. this is limited to the power level of what you could cast as a cantrip. At the DMs discretion. (MINIMUM; You can cast any cantrip if you have at least one level in appropriate class. And you may combine effects and have them, or any other effects that seems appropriate for the DC check or situation.)

[lunarsilkscreen]

Vaccum

If Vaccums suck, then outer space must pull apart whatever is inside of it.

Wrong.

A vaccum can be created on earth with negative pressure, but the Vaccum created should have no pressure at all.

It's this lack of pressure that causes the surrounding pressure to want to rush towards. In thermal dynamics; we say High Pressure likes to flow to Low Pressure.

To help remember this, I've created a helpful mnemonic: Vaccums create Vaccums, but are not themselves; Vaccums. Or VCVBANT for short.

Therefore; outer space is not full of negative pressure. But a lack of pressure entirely. But why doesn't the pressure here on earth escape to the low pressure of space?

There must be a few reasons. Solar pressure may be a part of it. For a couple of reasons. The first is that the positive pressure here on earth must be created. The second is that the high pressure *must* be going towards the low pressure. And the third must be because the lack of temperature in outer space itself causes a freezing point that the thinness of the upper atmosphere cannot escape.

Or at the very least; to escape in miniscule amounts.

The thickness of the atmosphere, while not as thick as the ground level (and certainly not as thick as the ocean) must be thicker than space itself as well. Creating a form of surface tension between us and space.

Or as I said before; the Earth is a bubble floating through space. Unlike soap bubbles, which tend to have an equal pressure inside and out though. The Earth has greater outward pressure than space.

The limiting factor must be that *something* is keeping that pressure inside the bubble. Unlike a balloon; where the elasticity causes inward pressure, and thus deflation should it be punctured.

It's the force, or rather; lack of force. This absolute zero of space that is actually the reason our biome stays intact.

If you're into super tasks; the edge of the planet's atmosphere is the smallest point of infinity.

[lunarsilkscreen]

E=mc² is incomplete

How do you measure the Kinetic Energy represented by E? How do you measure Mass? What does the constant c(squared) even stand for?

The problem lies in the size of our measurements. E is mass times c² because it could be *any* arbitrary constant. Any one at all.

But because of the way we measure Energy;

E=½mv²

That turns out to be an extraordinarily big number in comparison to our measurements of mass--Velocity being measured in meters per second and all.

So with E=mc²=½mv², does v²=2c²?

No.

Ergo; c² is an arbitrary constant *only* used because we needed a way to get from one calculation to another.

And our calculation of E is a stupidly big measurement in comparison to our calculation of m.

What this suggests is that we can reduce the size of our measurement of Energy by c². And when we do that; we end up with the incredibly simple, and beautiful equation:

E=m

Which makes absolutely no sense at all because E=½mv² ‼️

And v² does not equal 2.

[lunarsilkscreen]

3D Printed Basketballs

There's this guy on tik tok who, I lost his channel, prints Basketballs in an array of different materials trying to find that one filament that works.

Every single one breaks under the pressure of bouncing. What he doesn't seem to notice is that the balls *always* or *almost always* break around the seams.

In a normal basketball, the lines.

I'm pretty sure this is because the seams he printed are completely different in structure from the rest of the ball. They create a place for the ball to break.

This is less evident with the harder plastics that break on the holey parts after a couple of bounces. But the balls that bounce well? They break at the seams.

If the ball was completely hexagonal, it may work better as a bouncing ball than the forced "basketball look" that is only there so that it looks like a basket ball.

...maybe.

It could instead break more evenly on the hexagons. (But it'll probably take less material as well.)

[lunarsilkscreen]

Name Changes

If you're online, you're used to friends changing their screen names regularly. It's only in a "professional setting" where it "matters." And offline folk are pompous and pretentious for assuming that we need to give them a 30 day notice in unprofessional settings.

It's not like you're paying me anything. It's not like I'm inconveniencing you. If you were more *normal* you'd be like "Oh, she changed her name."

And just like that; already know what it is.

The difference comes from online people, and military people wearing name tags all the time.

Ye. Part of *my* normal is accommodating name changes in a professional setting as well.

Y'all acting like nobody ever gets married or divorced.

"But Melin" you might be saying; "There's no reason for men to change their name because women take their last names when they get married."

That's a literal misogynistic assumption isn't it? I thought you said misogyny was a made up term by feminists and liberal arts students?

Even if you don't believe in the concept of misogyny as a modern day occurrence; you step right up to the plate for it, huh?

"But that's the *offline* normal" except for on-screen personalities, pseudonyms, ghost writers, or anyone who'd rather remain anonymous in their private life.

Certainly; I know professionalism better than you do. Despite my current appearance and aloofness. To quote Trump; "I could act Presidential if I wanted to." Unlike him; I do act professional when the situation requires it of me.

[lunarsilkscreen]

On Elden Ring (and soulsbourne)

I was told that when I streamed my "let's play" streams, I changed the way casual streamers and other players tackled their streaming and game playing.

To which I promptly replied; Bullshit. I had like 8 viewers total. But they make a habit of watching game streamers, and know the landscape better than I do. So *shrug*.

One of those things was not only the Malenia fight, but how to access the Malenia fight. I had found the elevator that was intended to be the return elevator *after* the fight, and figured you could hit the button to send it up by falling to your death on top of it.

<aside>There was also an observation that levels might actually work to make enemies stronger as well.</aside>

Now, I'm not going to criticize Elden Ring and Dark Souls in general; because it's just not my jam. I don't have fun playing it, I played it because everyone else did. And there's too many players and fans for me to definitely say "This game sucks." When not only is that the intent of the game, but the fans enjoy it very much.

But it seems to me; if it was true that my observations changed the streamer landscape; then a lot of players don't understand the point of Dark Souls.

<spoilers>The entire point is that the main character is already dead. That's kind of their super power.</spoilers>

And it was likely the developers intent to encourage players to *find* a way to use that to their advantage.

Dying to work the labyrinth backwards and bypass difficulty sections as the main example.

In fact; the Director Hidetaka Miyazaki had said the designs around the difficulty of the game was "This seems like fun way to die." Or "I implemented ways that I would enjoy dying."

This is the one thing that Dark Souls does that no other developer really does. Making "Death" part of the core game loop AND a tool the player can use like any other ability they have.

Despite the penalty being high if you're carrying a lot of soul-currency-exp stuff.

This is similar to the "Blade of the Immortal" Manga (which may have taken its own inspiration from older lore.) The protagonist is a cursed Samurai who wished for immortality in order to enjoy fighting forever.

And so, in order to regain his mortality; he needs to kill 1000 evil people.

He more or less drops any defensive posturing necessary if you're not immortal and becomes Jason Vorhees.

Which, really takes the fun out fighting, and instead of ignoring what he needed to do in order to regain his mortality, he pursued it.

That's not why I particularly dislike the genre. I of course play other games with similar difficulty.

I blame it on the tank controls.

[lunarsilkscreen]

The universe isn't expanding

To quote Einstein; His biggest blunder was the constant that suggested it to be so. And yet; everybody thinks his biggerest blunder was claiming it was his blunder.

If that were the case; we would also be expanding. The space in-between molecules would be expanding. And then the obesity epidemic across the developed world would actually make sense.

But we're as dense as ever.

So this coefficient that Einstein created; might have a use that Einstein didn't think about. He claimed it was for "Stability".

And that might be exactly what it is. For cosmic pressure, as with my previous claim about solar pressure.

The proof given about the expansion of the universe is the distance between objects in space. Certain celestial bodies appear to be retreating from us. Increasing distance.

But if two trains leave Albuquerque going 1cm an hour. Would the space between them be expanding? Or would they just be moving very very slowly. So slowly it appears as if they weren't moving until you compared measurements every so often.

And because our assumption is that the two trains *are not* moving. The answer; well it must be space then: is a joke.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Stop reading my blog. Ya weirdos.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Acting is Experience

Acting isn't just "Faking" on stage. It's becoming. You can emulate all you want on stage; but emulation isn't authentic without experience.

When casting directors are looking for people; they're looking for people who embody the character they're casting for. This means you have to know what it feels like to be *that* character.

Not *only* that character, but a multitude of characters. Every character in a production even. Because if you know how each character feels you can then assist in giving constructive feedback in order to help the entire cast and production create the best product you can.

This means experience in being that *person*. They call what I'm talking about "Method Acting". You aren't acting; because you've lived that life.

For example; if you're going to portray a barista, or a scientist, or a gamer: it's not just "Eureka!" And "Complex Nonsense", or "F* you make the coffee yourself if you're gonna behave like that."

As fun as it is to act over the top like that.

"Gamers" on screen mash their buttons in nonsensical order ALL the time. So this isn't acting. (Though one could argue; it makes the seen more understandable from a certain audience's perspective.)

Scientists on CSI sit two to a single keyboard. And while "Paired Programming" is a thing... A keyboard is I pretty much a single person endeavor.

You can act your heart out, but if you don't know what it feels like, or what it means to be the character you're portraying;

Well, it's appropriation, insulting, and downright: Bad Acting.

The same goes for comedy. It's why older comics, despite making the same jokes as younger counterparts; seem to have more weight to their words. Because they typically have a wider range of experiences.

Not just experience as a Comedian, but experience in living life, or practicing a trade, or having a hobby.

The key example I can give is the show "Forged in Fire". Watch the first season where they end up with the most wannabe blacksmiths in the world.

No offense.

You can tell they're kinda hobbyists with very little experience. Even if you don't know much about blacksmithing. Because they make mistakes like somebody who kinda knows what they're doing, but hasn't invested that "10,000" hour minimum that every body talks about when you need to acquire a skill.

And so one of the responses to FiF by the audience is: "Wow: why they got apprentices and not any real blacksmiths?"

Like if this was Gordon Ramsey's American cut of Top Chef; he'd be screaming in their ear to "apologize to the metal for running it's future".

The same argument is heard all across the internet these days; "Casting directors aren't looking for good actors, they're looking for Beauty".

Tell that to Pete Davidson and Amy Shumer. (No offense to them; it's not like I can say I'm any better looking.)

They're looking for if you know what you're doing; not just as an actor. But in the job your character claims to be doing on screen.

If you're portraying a data-entry person who's done the job for a decade; you should be talking about data-entry like it's second nature. Like it's easy and everybody knows or understands what you mean.

Instead of pretending to be the character; you have to be the character.

And it's this; that I think actors tend to get wrong.

The casting directors are hiring a "programmer" as if they're hiring to fill an *actual* position in programming. A barista, as if it were a minimum wage job that was short staffed, and a knowledgeable barista showed up on their doorstep.

And a scientist; looking for somebody who seems like they've sat through a million pointless lectures and are nearly bored with the subject matter they claim to have mastery over.

[lunarsilkscreen]

An Experiment on Diffraction

Get a water bottle. One of those cheap 4-dozen water bottles with water in it. Doesn't matter the brand, it just needs ridges in the water bottle.

Set it in front of a digital LED clock.

You can see the light from the clock; but you can't make out the numbers.

And by moving around the bottle; the light looks as if it is warping and moving around the ridges.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Is the Universe Euclidean?

Short answer; Yes. Long answer; Yeeeeessssss....?

There's a lot of talk about "fabric of space" and argumentation about what Euclidean actually means. And the honest answer is; the Universe is not a perfect mathematical construct.

The Earth is Frisbee shaped. (Or like a football, or one of those 60s styled UFOs)

Because the earth is a spheroid; on the large scale we say that the Earth is "Non-Euclidean" despite Euclidean geometry working at the small scale.

The only reason it doesn't work at the large scale; is because we're talking about a big rock, instead of a flat surface. A basketball.

And a spheroid is Euclidean. It's only non-Euclidean when we try to map the giant sphere to a rectangular representation.

The earth is not a cube.

The same is true for space as a whole. Except; for the effects of gravity. Gravity warps how you can travel through space.

Not space itself; the travel vectors.

A rock will keep flying straight through space until it's affects by a larger objects gravity.

<aside>Do asteroids have gravity? My thoughts say; no. Because an asteroid or meteor is missing something that a Planet or a Star has.</aside>

It's this *warping* that people confuse for warping of space-time. Along with the understanding of the speed of light. The speed of light takes 8 and half minutes to reach earth, and that speed is something we have not reached yet.

We had previously thought the sound-barrier was just as an impossibility beforehand. And now we have jet liners.

So it's fully possible that we will eventually find a way to travel faster than light, without wormholes, without warping space, and without weird time-travel shenanigans.

What fails to be properly understood, however; is the approximate speed of gravity. Or these solar winds. (Pressure exerted from the heat of the Sun and other forces.)

We fall slower than we can see light; but it's always present, not blockable, as far as we know. And just perpetually pulling on us.

It's theorized that after we break the lightspeed barrier; the next one would be the gravity barrier.

We have broken free of the Earth's gravity, but that's not the same as the speed of gravity. In comparison to light; Gravity is instantaneous. And Light is slow.

We will likely develop faster than light speed travel *before* FTL communication; because we would need to setup a galactic internet for it to work.

I think it'll even be easier than many assume it will be. Once we're actively maneuvering in space; the understanding of how to move better would come intuitively.

So the first step is to get to space and setup material mining operations in order to replace the materials we'll spend getting there.

In the meantime; I gonna study up on photonics.

[lunarsilkscreen]

√(-4)=±2 (trying to quantify i)

A typical positive square root results in an answer of (+ or -) a number. Therefore; a square root of a negative must be both (+ and -).

The issue is: "how do we quantify a number that is both positive and negative?" It's hard to conceptualize because we've never had to use something like that, and don't really have a frame of reference to proof it.

In an early post I attempted to by suggesting that i must be adding AND subtracting a number in part. And that "i" is closer to a sign than a number.

And giving {i^x*a=[a^(1-x)-a^x]}. If x is 1; then the total is 0. But that's just a theory, and an unsupported one at that.

If we were to look at this with negative instead of i. It would be;

([-1^1]*a)=-a

([-1^0]*a)=a

Then

([-1^0.5]*a)=±a=ia

So we can infer that an exponent (or root) of a negative symbol acts as a sort of numeric potentiometer between positive and negative.

Using Euler's formula gives this;

[e^ix]=cos x + i sin x

The inference here is that "i" doesn't get *more* complex. It just is.

<aside>I'm insinuating that the "i,j,k" used in quaternion math is a completely different thing than the complex number "i" derived from sqrt.</aside>

It is used in 2D graphing to suggest a number represented in 2D, instead of the 1D line that math is known for.

I think that a single number or math formula represents a singular "total" it is limited to 1D.

For example; if we find the area of a square a*a=a^2

It reduces both dimensions into a single lump sum.

And this is true for every geometric equation, 3D geometry, trig, calculus, and beyond.

Therefore, every variable can be assumed to be its own dimension with this thinking. And therefore; "i" isn't needed to represent multiple dimensions.

But again, what does it represent? A number that is neither positive or negative, but can be used to create positive or negative sums.

As in [e^(iπ)=-1]

Why does the exponent iPI cause a number to be negative when it's i^2 that creates a negative?

The exponent i must do what a negative exponent cannot.

Axiom; Any exponent that isn't prefaced with the symbol "i" must always be greater than 0, unless the number is zero itself.

And therefore any exponent "i" must be less than zero unless the number is Zero itself.

This isn't to distance [i] from trigonometry. This suggests that it is an essential part of trigonometry.

I feel like; if I were a better mathematician I'd be better able to explain how though.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Israel (And Expansion)

Israel forgets that racism exists when they use the "Holocaust" as a defense. They then extend that; because of this: Palestinians are anti-Semitic.

To the rest of the world; Jews, Israelis, Palestinians, Even Iran, Iraq, Muslims, Hindu, Shiek, etc ... They are all the same. They are treated the same by appearance, and were all treated the same during the Holocaust. This is how there were millions of *Jews* affected. Despite many not practicing the Jewish Faith.

The white Jews (white people, westerners who adopted the faith, or of "Jewish" descent with lighter skin) are more accepted than the brown ones...

Israel then decided to aggressively expand her territory into Palestine. Subsequently claiming that the Palestinians are the same as the anti-Semitic countries during WWII.

Despite you know; the entire world seeing them as the same people; and then raising the truly anti-Semitic propaganda of the self-hating Jew.

This mixture between religious heritage, genetic heritage, and appearance has caused some interesting propaganda.

Including the one that says that Hamas is in fact Isis and Al-Qaeda. The middle-eastern insurgency groups, that the U.S. had supported and than stopped supporting when they became a danger to the surrounding countries.

The U.S. own Fox News Group has even forgotten who Al-Qaeda was and blamed 9/11 on Hamas and Palestine.

For comparison; Palestine is the size of two Rhode Islands, or 5 new york cities.

It's not big. And yes, Rhode Island is closer to a city than a state. In comparison, it'd be like if New York decided to kick out the inhabitants of Rhode Island, because the population of Trump Tower needed somewhere to go because He needed to sell it.

Israel, Palestine, and many Middle Eastern territories are all state sized or smaller. Rhode Island sized, and in some cases. City sized.

When compared with what we think about those things. And so when the U.S. is afraid of what'll happen to itself, or allies with a small portion of the Middle East; it causes big problems.

If, for example; you're one of those people who think they should "Figure it out themselves" then you'd be for them building a type of Federal government so that they start cooperating. If you're thinking the U.S. should intervene and help out; You're for them becoming U.S. territory until they figure out how to work it out.

But supporting a small state to create a situation where people are disenfranchised and have to leave their homes; is inviting them here. For Asylum. Because you supported them being removed from their homes.

Israel will ask "What about our homes from 100 years ago?" Does that give you the right to inflict the same pain on somebody else?

But what about the increasing conflict and war like aggressions? But ignore "both sides". If you're *just* defending yourselves, why are they not allowed to. And vice-versa?

When the U.S. puts it's weight on the scale, it'll tip where ever we tip it too. And we should be wary of how we give help.

And so we support "both sides" through aid that is supposed to be for resources famine, and medical expenses caused by conflict. So how did that aid end up going towards increasing aggression between both sides instead of de-escalation?

And why are people claiming ownership over a land that was worked on and built up by the Palestinians? And what ancient texts would have to say about this exact premise?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012&version=NIV

Jesus talks about increasing aggression in this way. Land that was given to someone else to put the work in, belongs to them... But those even more wealthy than they will come and kill them with that wealth. And then repeat the process.

This parable asks the question; which is more evil?

"The Pharisee didn't like it because they knew that he was talking about them." Not the farmers.

What is the solution do you think? More violence?

If the United States was able to become so greater by putting our differences aside (Her wicked history non-withstanding) why hasn't the middle-eastern been able to do the same?

The potential is there. Is it because bigger countries keep getting involved and causing destabilization? If so, we should cut off all involvement all together. All trade, travel, everything. Until everything stabilizes.

If bigger countries like the U.S. are truly helping; it's not because we're helping one territory take over another. That causes immigration. That thing that Fox News just can't stand happening.

So what is the solution here? If I keep talking about "Solutions" and "Israel" in the same sentence I'm going to be compared to Hitler.

And this, I think is why we should stay out of it. But at the same time. I think we should help people stay and build where they are at so they don't *need* to move here.

We're backed up at the border, correct?

[lunarsilkscreen]

Exponent0

a^0 is always 1, even when a is zero.

The misunderstanding comes from when a^x and x is a negative. Resulting in a fraction of the exponent.

The Axiom; a^[-x] results in 1/[a^x].

This results from the assumption that if positive exponents are multiplication. Then negative exponents must be division by the present number.

<aside>the present number

In addition/subtraction, this number is zero. Adding or subtracting zero can happen infinitely to any number. And so we can assume that it is happening to any number should the data need to represent this.

In multiplication/subtraction, this number is one. multiplying or dividing any number by an infinite numbers of 1 results in itself. And so we can assume that it is happening to any number should we need to.</aside>

But what about when x is 0?

There is no multiplication or division happening at all. Let me demonstrate.

a^4={a*a*a*a}

a^3={a*a*a}

a^2={a*a}

a^1={a}

a^0={}

It's a multiplication against the present number. Or 1.

Now we can divide from a higher exponent to get to a lower exponent, a/a which equals 1.

But at exponent 0 we're not dividing anything. We've removed the base number [a] entirely.

I think the leading theory is; is it 1 or is x=0 resulting in a division of a by itself. Which would mean x=-1 is {a/(a^2)}.

Hmm... Now I've raised more questions than I've answered.

[lunarsilkscreen]

MTG-SS, the Hearthstone clone (Or why it's a misguided product)

The problem facing Wizards; Hearthstone's share of the market, and Wizards not having solid footing in the digital space.

Don't get me wrong; before Hasbro, Wizards was a big corp with a large footprint in the game world already. But they seem to feel the need to create a lot of redundancy in their products to try increase their customer base.

SpellSlingers is a game between MTGA and Hearthstone, and seems draw inspiration from ShadowVerse and RuneTerra.

They seem to understand how their product differs from Hearthstone, but not a way to bring a product to market that takes advantage of their current IP and card-mechanics in the digital space.

So they created this clone, that borrows the exaggerated cartoon aesthetics from the Blizzard-Verde, and more or less boiled out what makes players enjoy MTG for what they assume players want from Blizzard.

I think I understand why Hasbro's acquisition happened.

There is room in the market between MTG-TableTop and SpellSlingers, without the need for cutscenes or the coliseum stylized lore.

And the MTG creators haven't found it yet. I don't think the other online variants have either.

I pretty much ignore Yu-Gi-Oh, because online/offline it's the same game. And I'm not a fan of the current card game. Even though I'm a fan of the show. KONAMI has found their niche; and they do it well.

But when it comes to a Digital CCG Card Battler; there is room for a game that is as mechanically complex as MTG, yet simple to understand as Hearthstone.

When you try to make a game that pushes too hard in one direction, either to keep the core Tabletop experience, or to mimic a competitor; the product feels muddles and bad.

Why would I wanna play the Digital variant when it's the same price to play the offline version and have physical cards.

And Why would I want to play a Hearthstone clone instead of Hearthstone? Tracer cosplaying as Chandra doesn't do it for me.

Still, there *is* a product here that can be made. And the creators seem to understand that, but fail at understanding exactly what they're able to create that fans and future players would like to see.

*I can see it*. It's only a matter of time before somebody else pools enough resources to make one.

And yet. Wizards hasn't been able to create something that *feels* like MTG without the rails.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Radiation v Light

Despite Red being the most intense light that the human eye can register, we cannot see anything on the electro-magnetic spectrum before that.

Despite Violet being the highest vibration our eyes can register, we can't see anything after that.

Why? What makes visible light different from invisible light? Infrared is what we would call "Heat". For all intents and purposes, it's the source of global warming.

We can even see it if we use special infrared goggles. Ultraviolet and beyond, however, is what we would call "Radiation" and not the good kind either.

It can cook whatever it comes in contact with. Despite this; the human body uses UVA/UVB to create Melanin in the skin. And that's how we get a nice tan.

<aside>Unless you're a Vampire, or a White supremacist. The the Sun just burns you.

Ireland need not @ me. It's not my fault your time spent living in a bog genetically altered your DNA for the Reich purpose.</aside>

UVA-C and beyond, however, is incredibly dangerous because it can go through most any substance. Unless that substance is dense enough.

Like Lead, which we typically use for anti-radiation shielding, despite how poisonous it is to humans.

And so, when we talk about "Quantum Tunneling" this is part of that conversation. Light's ability to move through a barrier of some kind. Heat also moves through, but usually because it warms whatever it comes in contact with. UV and beyond penetrates.

Now, despite this; we've identified substances that light up under black light. "Black Light" because despite the fun Violet we typically include with UV-lights, you can't actually see the light emitted except if it comes in contact with Phosphor, or another similar substance.

Phosphor illuminates after UV (or another form of radiation) comes in contact with it. Creating visible light from the reaction of the invisible light.

This isn't the UV-light reflecting mind you. It's a different light source entirely created from the reaction that Phosphor has.

This is one of the theories on how the sun emits light. It's full of a hot Phosphorescent kind of material, the Sun emits UV-Light(which also makes it to earth) and the UV-LIGHT, while traveling through that material, creates visible light.

The heat we receive must be the heat from the Sun as well, the reaction creating a Phosphorescent effect from the heat and UV-Emission.

And then we get to the Black hole, or Dark Matter objects.

When a star gets too close to this object, Ribbonification (or spaghetti-fication) happens. Some say the black hole eats the Star. I think something else; I think that the black hole simply pulls some of the Phosphor from the passing star into it's own orbit. It could even be possible the object is emitting UV-Light. As a Star would, it just doesn't have the Phosphorescent material on its surface like a typical star does.

And so we get this term; Dark Star, instead of black hole. Because it's a more apt description.

The Dark Star/Hole has a gravitational pull like a star does, an event horizon, and even emits a form of radiation. But what it does *not* emit; is visible light.

Which is emitted from Phosphorescent material specifically.

Electro-magnetic waves are strange things, they can reflect off, be absorbed by, and refract off the same object simultaneously.

And it's at higher frequencies we see less of this behavior.

Thus a second theory in the same post from a completely different field; the visible spectrum of light does all those things; reflect, refract, and absorb.

Infrared and below is more likely to be absorbed, and therefore; less visible. Ultraviolet and beyond, stops reflecting and refracting, and eventually, stops being absorbed. Instead travelling through most any substance.

And that's why we can see part of the spectrum, but not others.

And yet; this still doesn't entirely explain "White light" an imaginary combination of multiple frequencies of light that we perceived as white.

The same way Magenta is "seen" I guess. Since Magenta is the combination of Red and Violet. And not technically a color that exists.

Unless the emf-spectrum has some measurable data that we don't have recorded anywhere. And I highly suspect it does (and said so in the previous post.)