Frontier Research Enterprise Ecclesia, a research project to investigate the theory of creating a perfect government

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
41

Monopolies are against the law. Farmers don’t all work and sale together. If some wanted to withold, others would sale. I think your confused.

I wrote my own first patent application! It is only $600. I made $35,000 and seven years of free room and board just from the first patent application!

US9157323B2 - Oscillatory rotary engine - Google Patents

Then the one interested in my invention even paid for patent attorney’es and for the whole patent costs; US20110132309A1 - Oscillatory rotary engine - Google Patents

2 Likes
42

Where did you find these 600 dollar patents? I was told they were 20k.

It all started going downhill with Reagan. Capitalism became unregulated and now they don’t enforce antitrust anymore.

For example I want to click on your patent but it is part of the Google spyware network monopoly so I can’t click it.

43

@MySiddhi

Nobody has found a suitable replacement for oil or gasoline concerning modern societal infrastructure other than nuclear power and even with that there comes problems with nuclear waste along with radioactive containment breaches. To say there is any sophisticated plan already in place is entirely misleading, there really isn’t. People just make shit up as they go along hoping for the best until the next big crisis threatens everything.

The kinds of technological weapons and other kinds of sophisticated technology being imagined up I don’t believe will ultimately liberate humanity, I know the kinds of individuals in power currently to how they think also, I can assure you they don’t give a damn about human beings at all where these forms of technology will be misused to enslave others massively.

I am really good with economic theory, there’s always a price or cost to everything surely as there are consequences to everything as well.

It always comes to the same questions, from where will the money derive from to fund these projects? Where does the money come from for universal basic income?

[Which will never happen because the current power structure will go out of their way to slaughter or starve people out first before they ever depart with any free money to others. They’re not exactly a people that go out of their way for charity or the general welfare of other people. ]

You really need to understand the kinds of evil sons of bitches that control this entire world to understand where I am coming from here.

:clown_face:

44

@MySiddhi

You suspect I am a crony? Not sure how you do.

I absolutely believe in merit or qualifications, where we would probably disagree on is the ownership of business. For me there are only custodians of business enterprises, they can have the credit of thinking it up or whatever which is fine, but ultimately it is the workers who produce after it is created where it is the workers I believe who should hold more sway. It is the workers who do all of the laboring.

Business needs to be seen as a service to society, community, neighborhood, and nation state once again, not as an organization that makes individuals super rich so they can abuse the people of the society they reside in.

I am radically pro working class and I always will be.

:clown_face:

45

are you fucking kidding me

@MySiddhi look at this, this is what im talking about.

i have told him about methane energy at least 5 times already.

1 Like
46

The energy density of methane is 50-55.5 MJ/kg

The energy density of gasoline is approximately 45 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg)

1 Like
47

@futureone

There’s problems transporting methane in terms of mobility along with its pollution effects on the natural environment which is why its energy potential is limited.

:clown_face:

48

OSCILLATORY ROTARY ENGINE

1 Like
49

I am radically pro creation of the means of production, and always will be.

I believe giving the right of ownership to the creator(s) is the most pro creation of the means of production

Can you prove that giving ownership to the worker is MORE pro creation of the means of production than what I suggest?

I also believe that giving ownership to the Creators is more pro working class over time than giving the working class the ownership; can you prove otherwise?

To create a synthesis between the two; maybe the working class can be in a union, where the dues of the union go to paying for the means of production….. instead of simply STEALING it.

1 Like
50

You do not understand methane energy.

The whole point of using methane energy is to nullify and reduce its emissions to prevent it entering the atmosphere.

It should actually be illegal to not use methane energy.

Mandatory methane energy, everywhere.

Methane is a natural byproduct of lifeforms and if you do not use it, it will pollute.

51

You’ve never proven that theft of the rich is immoral though. There is a whole cultural icon called Robin Hood which suggests that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is moral.

52

Website not loading, 429 error.

53

Robin Hood proves that taxation is immoral.

1 Like
54

try searching the patents/applications of Mars Sterling Turner without using google, such as on the patent office search of patents for inventors

55

I found it on patents.justia but it doesn’t show any pictures, perhaps a limitation of the website. https://patents.justia.com/patent/20150377024

I see that you were banned on atheistforums, I don’t like how they censored one of your posts there. It just says “Moderator Notice Removed large wall of Copy+Pasted text.”

56

We live in the worst of both worlds where they tax the poor but not billionaires.

57

Feel free to post my proofs there yourself… that would encourage them to further discuss it.

58

|-(∃!{}), assuming nothing, it follows that there is an assuming. This particular assuming, having no content, amounts to the existence of one empty set or the concept nothing.

({}≡{}), nothing is nothing; Law of Identity

({}={}), nothing equals nothing

({}→{}), nothing implies nothing; Reflexivity of Implication

({}:{}→{}), nothing has the property of nothing; Identity Morphism

(∃{}→∃{}), nothing exists as nothing

({}>>{}), nothing causes nothing

({}⊃{}), nothing is made of nothing

nothing is nondescript

nothing is nonexistence

nowhere and at no time has nothing existed

A sleight of hand occurs at “nothing exists as nothing” where you swap the two definitions of nothing.

The whole thing should be CTRL+F’d into an empty set.

|-(∃!{}), assuming empty set, it follows that there is an assuming. This particular assuming, having no content, amounts to the existence of one empty set.

({}≡{}), emptiness is emptiness; Law of Identity

({}={}), emptiness equals emptiness

({}→{}), emptiness implies emptiness; Reflexivity of Implication

({}:{}→{}), emptiness has the property of emptiness; Identity Morphism

(∃{}→∃{}), emptiness exists as emptiness

({}>>{}), emptiness causes emptiness

({}⊃{}), emptiness is made of emptiness

emptiness is nondescript

emptiness is nonexistence

59

I don’t assume the empty set, I prove it. The empty set is NOT nothing.

60

an empty set = nothing.

Anyway the reality is the physics of it. Physics is anything that exists. What is existence? An atom exists because it effects something. Therefore it is effects that cause existence. If there are no effects then there is no existence.

Example A: There is a ball colliding with another ball. The two balls exist, because they can be measured. Balls bounce on other balls. Photons bounce off the ball into measuring instruments.

Example B: There is a ball, but the ball just tunnels through another ball and does not effect it. Photons tunnel through the ball. The ball doesn’t even interact with any exotic particles in any measurable way. The ball doesn’t even emit gravity. Therefore, the ball does not exist.

The way I look at it is, like this.

big bang > matter forms > planets form > life forms > brain forms > photons enter retina > retina gives signals to brain > brain sends data (perhaps unintentionally?) to consciousness

therefore, consciousness is the final node of existence’s effect chain. If there is no consciousness, there is no existence. Things that “exist”, such as faraway planets, are data, information, knowledge. For example, you write in a book the XYZ coordinates of a planet, or take a picture of the planet.

So when someone says “the tree exists even if noone is around the forest!” they are not wrong. The tree exists like a data, or information. For example. If you step on a train tracks and get ran over by a train, the train causes both you and the train to no longer exist. However, you will soon reincarnate into a new body, then you will exist, and then the data of the train will exist, because the data remains consistent. So the data of the universe remains pretty much consistent and such. So in a data sort of way, it “exists” but is hidden when consciousness is hidden. And also relies on assumptions. For example, when we reincarnate, we assume we will reincarnate into the same universe, but are not totally sure.

Anyway, the point is, it may even be theoretically possible to destroy all of existence. Existence is effects. If you could harmonize or order everything, such that no collisions take place, then there are no effects. Basically, if there is some way to stabilize the chaos, and some how make no more interactions take place. But the tech is very futuristic and Idk if possible.