lunarsilkscreen

[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.)

[lunarsilkscreen]

Light Amplitudes

One of the properties of a light beam is that it has a tendency to combine with other beams. Creating a stronger intensity.

This is Evident in the double-slit experiment where we see exactly this in the interference pattern where the light is most concentrated.

One of the leading theories is that the "troughs" cancel each other out, to create the "black spaces" and prevent light from reflecting back in those spaces.

I would suggest that, instead; this view is colored by the way light is measured. By intensity. Looking at the numbers, instead of what is actually happening. Because we're trying to figure out why this happens.

With the single-slit experiment, we can actually demonstrate this when we block one of the light sources, the other two shine through the single slit still.

While behind the filter, the rest of the light combines in intensity.

Why this happens I couldn't say. Maybe Light is sticky.

Maybe the particles between the reflection/refraction surface simply make the rays combine at the receiving point.

This strangeness with the orthogonality of light, and the combination of light and different sources seems to not have any experimental data to peruse.

With the exception of the data we record from light waves. Which is 2-Dimensional in nature, despite us living in 3.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Long-Term Strategy for Game Series Support

We're entering an era of Long-Term support for Video Games Series. (THAT'S A LIE, WEVE BEEN THERE FOR A MINUTE NOW.)

As Developers and Publishers start shutting down online services for older games (and in some cases disabling the game entirely)

Which is necessary, considering that servers take money to continue running. And older game players simply aren't bringing in revenue to keep the lights on. (Because they're not bringing in any money)

The question that AAA developers should be asking; "How do we integrate our games backend into a shared eco-system in order to reduce costs for each individual game, and increase adoption of newer services/games for our players?"

This is a question that must be asked because Developers and Publishers already know how difficult it is to retain profits while competing with the Resale and Third-Party markets like GameStop.

Many developers have started creating "Always On" services which require the game to be connected to the internet in order to play offline portions. (To verify authenticity that the game was purchased from an official source and not pirated.)

After-all it's hard to continue paying for online services if pirates are using them.

Still, services like Hearthstone provide a free service, free product, and still manage to turn profit. Part of this is because of the competitive environment and sponsored tournaments.

By offering a prize, plenty of players can be convinced to play, just in case they feel like going pro next year.

But they probably won't. Despite that; the game is incredibly fun to play. Except when several players in a row have the exact combo that enables them to keep tempo, and so you gotta grin and bear it till it becomes fun again.

Or buy more cards.

Still, how do you create an environment for the casual players of casual games. Like Animal Crossing, or Pokemon. Since most Pokemon players aren't competitive.

After a half-a-decade, the business model dictates that you sell a new game to replace the old one.

Part of the problem here is that each new game has a lot of the same content as the old game, and thus; in order to switch you need throw away your old save file and start from scratch.

Many players that would do that just because they can would have done so already. And so older players may end up giving up both the old and new, simply because it's easier to do so.

Despite the newest games having a lot of the same content, a lot of old content is lost. Like the Story. What would traditionally be called the "Movie" or "Novel" portion. Depending on if it was a cutscenes or several hundred lines of text.

And so in order to re-experience the old content; many players may instead choose to simply to pirate the old content, or read about it from online sources.

Part of the solution is to simply offer the old content to new players. And to try to convince older players into the new areas by allowing them to bring their old content and achievements with them.

This can be accomplished a few different ways. Crypto is one way to create a ledger tied to a players account so that they can share their content between platforms and games.

Nearly every platform, PlayStation, XBOX, and while Nintendo doesn't offer a platform specific variant, game often still include achievements.

And this system can be used to store certain content on a player basis to brought into newer or different games.

This would also enable cross-game items/content/achievements that players could bring with them from series to series.

Which would be a boom for cross-promotional purposes. And by creating an environment and a system that enables to store this in the same place(cloud). You could also control for DataBase specifications in order to reduce size and increase speeds for each individual game.

Now, I am pretty well Versed in Learning Content Distribution. SCORM(This is an acronym you don't need to know, and would only raise more questions if I explain it, so I'll stick to the surface here.) SCORM, TinCan, and xAPI (not to be confused with Twitter) are specifications created for the Learning Management Environment (Education, College, Government, and corporate training models) in order to do exactly what I'm talking about with as little or as much data bandwidth requirements, is relatively secure and includes cross-service achievement-like systems.

As well as content-distribution systems.

I would assume there's a way to integrate it with Crypto. It would replace the monkey WEBMs with something more substantial.

And this service or system would allow not only players to bring their accounts and achievements and items with them from game to game (or from game to social media) but games to communicate with each other.

Again, I'm thinking "Eco-system" here. Publishers would be able to do large-scale cross-promotional events with many games simultaneously. And enable platform-hoping between games with content from each individual event.

What this means is that you would also be able to provide a place for those old games to exist, even if they don't participate it the Events anymore. AND encourage players to try new and other games because they don't lose their original save files doing so.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Light and Gravity

There are two things we don't really understand about the universe. There's more, but for now. The two big things we understand we don't know are; How does light travel? And; How does gravity work?

Now, we've been given clues on how these things works. Lodestones for gravity. (Lodestones are naturally formed magnets) and Fire for light.

But we still don't have a clue as to the exact things that allow light to travel, or gravity to pull you towards the earth.

Our observations on gravity state that people always fall towards earth, and in space; objects with big mass have an unseen force that pulls other objects towards themselves.

And in light; we know that it is produced by some process that creates excitation in a molecule of some sort and one of the products of that process is light.

But how does it travel? It isn't a particle. It's a beam that reflects off particles and can causes waves through certain mediums. That react to the energy produced.

And we can absorb that energy with Solar Panels and turn it into electricity.

And gravity is how the universe holds itself together. How the planet holds itself together.

And yet; we don't know how to produce it, or how it works at all.

We just kind of assume that given enough Mass; the total number of entangled electrons produce some sort of alternating energy that keeps everything together.

And light only travels as far as it's uninterrupted. With higher frequencies able to fit through tighter and smaller spaces without bouncing.

Maybe.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Dark Matter and Black Holes

Replicated here on earth; the Blackest-Black or VantaBlack absorbs all light and reflects none of it back. But what happens if it's an entire stellar mass? (Think Planet, or proto-Star)

We know objects of a certain mass have their own gravitational pull, but what makes Black Holes so special; is that they don't look like an object. They look like their namesake--A giant space-whirlpool.

They seemingly gobble up everything *even light*.

What if that's just our perspective? Before we discovered orbits, we thought that planets and stars went back and forth in the sky, because our understanding of the stars was flattened into a 2D projection that we see from the ground.

<aside>When astrologists talk about "Mercury in Retrograde" that's what they mean. Instead of going right, it's going left.</aside>

And so what we see with a black hole; isn't a black hole at all; it is a Dark Object with it's own gravitational pull.

I would wager that the absorption of light isn't absorbing light at all. It's instead absorbing matter that produces light.

I would even go as far to say that "Absorbing" is a bit of a misnomer. It's gravity pulling on combustible particulate matter.

Like a gas cloud that our Sun here produces. That super heated combustible material.

I would then wager that the black hole reflects no light back. Similar to the VantaBlack paint. And we see the light from the combustible material, forming a ring like Saturn's rings. Out of what is left of this space debris.

But why doesn't the Object reflect any light? There could be any number of reasons. Perhaps Anish Kapoor painted it as a publicity stunt.

It could simply be a giant lens that doesn't reflect any light because there is no surface. Or a hyper dense asteroid formation that traps light.

Or, it could be that it does reflect light, but the gas rings around it are so much brighter that it makes the object look darker than it really is.

[lunarsilkscreen]

An FF7 Theory

There's definite reason you wouldn't want to continue reading this. So I'm putting a disclaimer here saying just that. Also; I haven't played Rebirth yet. No spoilers pls.

The character FF7, I mean Cloud, famously can't differentiate his own memories from ones he was given from the Sephiroth program. This has caused many to think that he was always just a clone experiment.

One theory suggests that Zack was always the original Cloud, and therefore both Tifa and Arieys don't remember Cloud despite fully seeing the resemblance between the two.

With the main difference being that Cloud is much shorter.

I think that the backstory explains this well enough; they were battle buddies who shared a lot in common, immediately hit it off and planned on staying buddies long after they were able to escape the claws of the {[Shinra Deep State]} and HoJo.

Cloud faced the extremely traumatic event of watching his entire village burn at the hands of Sephiroth.

That's not quite the case is it?

The village was home to many experiments performed by HoJo and ShinRa. And I think that the meltdown that Sephiroth had was entirely shared by Cloud.

The entire village was experimented on after Cloud left. When Sephiroth, Cloud, and Zack came to Nibelheim; they were taken back by their own individual Trauma.

Sephiroth is a clone. Clouds saw the atrocities that befell his hometown. And Zack; Well he nearly died after he got thrown off that bridge.

This is evident in the similarities in appearance shared between Jenova and Claudette.

{(As Cloud stares into one of the pods containing his former friends and family. He utters only one word: 'Mother...')}

These traumatic memories that three shared were inextricably linked. Sephiroth went on a murderous rampage. Tifa never saw the Horrors, despite being the squad's Sherpa.

She knew people had been going to the Reactor to do work, and hadn't seen them come back in a while. But she didn't know why they didn't come back.

Cloud had kept his standard Shinra Armor on, not because he was ashamed. (maybe a little.) But because the task at hand was too heavy.

Zack had been Cloud's stand in. The one who investigated the town and quote; "Inspected Tifa's underwear drawer on Cloud's behalf "

What a bro.

This is where people keep making the mistake; Sephiroth, despite being an S-Rank warhero, is still human. And Cloud, despite being lower ranking had reached his level as a fighter.

Despite his observations in combat that made him feel inferior because his lack of experience. That's why he is able to defeat Sephiroth with relative ease whenever they encounter each other.

It's because of this; even the audience doesn't think Sephiroth could be affected in the same way cloud is. His memories are also scrambled. And he confuses many of Cloud's memories for his own during the events of FF7.

The same way Cloud does.

Since Sephiroth is the villain. Calm, Collected, Psychotic. It's easy to believe he is in complete control. And because we see Cloud's weaknesses and admission of Trauma, and the hardships he tries to keep to himself.

It's hard to see him from the outside. The same way everyone else sees Sephiroth. They see Cloud the same exact way, just without the psychosis.

Probably.

Cloud and Sephiroth are dealing with this trauma that their former employer experimented on them, their family, and then even had the balls to ask them to cover it up after framing it as a defensive mission.

And Sephiroth decided it should all burn.

Cloud. He decided to make it rain. And at least put out the raging flames. Maybe. Clouds also create thunder and lightning.

---

You notice that with the newest FF16 release, it's possible that Cloud is actually named after a deceased war hero himself?

A fellow name Claud.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Gaming Sucks These Days

I know, I know, what a cliche thing to say.

I want to enjoy mobile gaming, and there's some hidden gems I can't bring myself to play because they feel like every other rogue-lite, freemium, gacha-enabled, starter pack pushing, resource management simulator out there.

Which, I get; devs gotta make their money somehow. But seriously? This is the best gaming has to offer at the indie level these days?

The are clones of the same 5 games on every different store and streaming service. Not wordle-scapes with friends, freemium sonic infini-runner nonsense.

"I like infinite runners though" you may be saying.

You don't know any better. The good parts of the game are drowned out by the excessive use of the worst elements.

Actually, on second thought. I think you know exactly what I mean.

Mobile gaming serves as the entry point for gamers these days, And the only thing I'm seeing are old indie titles from a decade ago. And Genshi Honkai Railpact. (And Raid Shadow whatever's.)

Terrabound valley. Issac. Hearthstone. Diablo.

And I enjoy them I do.

But what the 🦆 ppl?

I couldn't even enjoy The mobile Nier. A gacha game with the same elements as every other SQEX gacha game. Non-transferable too, despite being hosted in the same ecosystem.

What a missed opportunity for cross-promotion.

Which, the reason I couldn't enjoy it, is *because* it was a gacha game targeted at younger gamers. It's one of my absolute pet-peeves.

The game itself was a simple story-book style RPG. And it was absolutely well made. A way to teach youngsters about the harsh realities of life in a digestible way.

AND STILL. The game exemplifies that reality with it's gacha system.

Again; I know that's just how mobile devs operate and make money. AND YET. it's really bad guys. Like so bad.

My expectation is that the AAA publishers actually lead the way in encouraging a better way to engage audiences and make money. To raise the bar.

{is my expectation to high?}

Don't get me wrong; many games offer ways to get plenty of what you can purchase in game for free. Provided you're skilled enough.

Or happen upon a free-holiday, or promotional week.

Most games however advertise their in game purchases every few steps. In order to entice gamers to spend money immediately.

Others include grind-walls, and play limits. Not to limit young player play time. Since a lot of these games are AFK games, that is; they play themselves while you multitask. Similar to how boomers listen to TV in the background while doing chores.

And many of the rewards aren't more story, or fun gameplay, but anime fight scene fish tank.

There has to be a better way, there just had to. :/

[lunarsilkscreen]

What does it mean to behave as a wave and a particle (and why don't measurements distinguish the two?)

There is a lot of misinformation when it comes to "Quantum Mechanics" despite the ease of which most people understand electricity.

When we say a thing behaves like a wave and a particle, we actually mean A LOT of different things simultaneously. And it really really clouds out understanding of quantum physics.

For example; Our measurements of the particles being fired and lasers seem to be recorded the same in different micro-experiments, like the double-slit when it's done with electrons.

And when we talk about "Waves" we could be talking about how a particle or beam moves. We could be talking about an electro-magnetic force. We could be talking about how we're measuring the rotation of a particle. We could be talking about the phase of voltage.

A lot of this stems from discussion as old as Albert Einstein (who died in 1955, less than a hundred years ago) And our common understanding of quantum mechanics is about a hundred years, despite all the advancements we've made in the technological sector.

And most importantly; our understanding of physics, mechanics, electronics, and electricity being way more advanced than Einstein's understanding.

And Electricity being the direct parallel to quantum physics that is understandable to laymen.

That's right, if you're an electrician; you might understand Quantum Physics a lot more than you think you do.

It's so weird.

Because there's A LOT of misunderstanding of the nature of Quantum Mechanics; As if it's something we don't interact with on a regular basis.

Because we *DO* interact with it on a regular basis. It's just that the descriptions of it are from when Einstein was in his prime.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Prime Squares

There's a special characteristics for certain numbers who aren't prime, but whose only other divisor is a prime.

These numbers aren't prime or semi-prime (ok, they're kinda semi-prime), they're something not really noted or with their own identity. And I think they should, despite not having any good reason as to why EXCEPT that they only have 3 divisors, and are perfect Squares.

Some examples are 4, 9, 25, 49, 121. For 4 and 9 respectively their divisors are {1,2,4} and {1,3,9}.

Unlike semi-prime, they only have the one divisor that isn't 1 or itself, and is a perfect square.

They're the square of a prime, and can only be divided by that single prime. And this unique property, I think is really important despite being unable to articulate why.

Unlike other semi-primes they have this particularly unique property of having only three integer divisors.

They have another property; they are the only other divisor included in a cube of the prime used to create them.

In fact, every prime to any exponent has this property where the only *real* divisor is the prime used to create it.

It keeps me up at night sometimes...

[lunarsilkscreen]

The Infinite Solar Hill

The one perpetual motion machine we do know of is the Sun, and the galaxy. One theory is because the lack of friction in space makes it easy to conserve almost all expended energy in perpetuum.

The Sun is a giant generator and because of thermosdynamics; we assume that it may just run out of energy*eventually* but not for a long long time, and so it's not *really* perpetual motion; it just looks like to the human lifespan which is much much less.

And so I'm going to describe a phenomenon on how gravity actually comes from the Sun, and why the earth rotates.

So if we look at the pressure emitted from the Sun as a kind of repelling force that has a radius using the Sun as its center point, and that gravity is holding the Earth affixed to that orbit; then it looks like earth is a ball on top of a hill. Perpetually rolling down one side.

This, along with thermal-pressure creates the rotation of the earth.

I'm also going to make another observation; that gravity from the Sun might cause gravity here on earth. If we assume that the night side of the earth has most of the effects of gravity, and the day side of the earth has most of the effects of pressure AND centrifugal force.

<aside>The night time side seems to be key in ensuring that the planet doesn't get too warm. And thus creating habitable conditions.

If only we could apply that to quantum mechanics.</aside>

This change how gravity fundamentally works in a 24-hour cycle would explain why gravity seems to bend and warp.

Because it *IS* bending and warping.

*but what about mathematics?*

Math is a way to explain and model things, but it often faces *Occam's Razor* which simply means that humans will choose the laziest path to explain something as long as it is seemingly accurate.