I got 20 minutes in and had to stop. This guy shouldn't be livestreaming, he should make stand alone videos so he can edit out all the "ums", the testing, the forgetfulness, the random code testing, etc. From what I gather he's attempting to use some kind of AI modeling in order to generate mathematical proofs from existing mathematical proofs. Sort of like mathematical proof mapping and then letting the AI look for patterns in the proofs to generate more and then to use the more to develop, I'm guessing, some kind of unified field theory. It won't work. He'll run into the curse of dimensionality. It's like he's creating mathematical Bible codes. With any sufficiently large data set you can derive effectively infinite inferences from it. Mathematics is sort of like perspective, you can shift your perspective in mathematics as easily as you can with anything else. Like this: I feel really tired. I want to stay up. Both of those statements can be true at the same time. Math works in a similar way in that each form of mathematics is just an arbitrary rule set. Rational numbers, integers, whole numbers, natural numbers, these are just random rule sets for numbers. Numbers can be used in any modeling system you like. You could make a base 10 system or a base 50 system or even a base 0 system. No system of mathematics is true beyond the scope of its own rule set. We try to derive rule sets from nature that we quantify as physics, but like I've discussed before you can have artificial physics, differential physics, even extraversal physics. Physics itself is not static. For example all earth ice is freshwater. But the ice on Europa is salty... also likely electrically charged in a way that wouldn't even work on our planet! Every planet has its own physics. Every layer of reality has its own physics. Molecular physics is not the same as orbital physics. They can share some similar properties, but they're not identical. Changes in physics normally happen when material goes against the grain. Those things we call anti-particles for example, they're exactly the same as any normal particle, they're just not moving in the same rotational flow as the majority of matter. Like planets in orbit versus rogue planets. Both are planets, but rogue planets are like anti-planets. If an anti-planet collides with a orbital planet... they'll destroy each other. No. That's not possible. Nothing can be destroyed. If energy can't be destroyed, then neither can physical matter, so where is it? Space. It's not empty. Space is a hyperfluid, meaning it's comprised of matter that's been effectively dusted below the sub-atomic! The matter is still there! All space is matter! It's just made up of particles that have an effective mass potentially millions, or even billions, or even infinitely smaller than the mass of an electron! The particles are so tiny they just flow right through normal matter like it's not there! The particles are so tiny that only the mass of an electron can actually impact them. That thing you call electromagnetism, that's just wave patterns in the hyperfluid generated from the movement of energy mass. The particles are so tiny that only energy has any effect on them. To our physical state, that matter is effectively non-existent. It can't functionally impact us and we can't functionally impact it. In the same way that you cannot build a microprocessor with your bare hands. You have to build machines that manipulate matter smaller than you can see or interact with directly. You can't create electromagnetic fields without energy because energy is the only thing that can impact that layer of physical reality. It may not be uniform. There could be different states of hyperfluid. Space may not all be space like we think of it. The space beyond our galaxy for example is likely NOT the same as the space in our galaxy. There's likely variation. Infinite possibilities, infinite potential states, infinite perspectives... they're looking for "one" inside of infinity. Granted you can give infinity curvature and trap it within itself, you can even rotate it bi-axially to create a hyperstate particle, creating an effective "one" from infinity. But then you just have binary. What can you create with a binary system? Infinity. Even when you manage to simplify infinity into a single state you just wind up with a new form of infinity that can be derived from it. This is the basis of Paradox Mathematics. Which I stole. From the future. Which is now. There's a monoverse behind us, an omniverse in the present and a multiverse ahead of us. Just ignore the other earth in tandem rotation, you can't see it because it's always behind the sun orbiting at exactly the same speed. Did you know the year ~isn't~ 2023? Also you can replicate an entire planet from any point in the time stream. Or not. Or both. Depends on your temporal perspective. I can shift mine.
Woke up to this as well. It manifested in my sleep as a really long dream where I was back in a classroom and my highschool English teacher was explaining to us that information itself actually exists in its own space-time, or something very much like it, and that every time we associate one piece of information with another we're actually just curving the space-time analogue that information exists in. Absolutely wild.
Wolframs’ framework is indeed discrete, finite, and digital. He has matter, energy, space, time, emerging from underlying digital graphs. I read his “A new kind of Science” many years ago as I was using his Mathematica at the time. It wasn’t strange for me because it fitted in with my own thoughts as the Universe being a fabric of sorts, and of course, THOHAE. What I do find extraordinary, is that he’s now been able to derive relativity and quantum mechanics from this framework. Incredible! I mean, that’s a real WOW! Then, many years later, along comes our Patron Saint JBP and his “Field of Potential”. It’s all so beautifully the same. I maintain that’s why he resonated so much. Strange actually, he wrote MOM around the same time as SW wrote ANKOS, (and worked on it for just as long) but I’d never heard of him. My New Years wish would be for them to talk.
Very nice presentation Professor Wolfram, thank's for the great content. I'm following the series on NKS and took a turn on chapter three to watch this video and that was really worthy. Kudos
i agree in the sense that our mathematics works and is a good tool for exploring the nature of things because it is created by the same physical processes as everything else -- as to what that process is and how directly it can be related to the observable, i'm still undecided
Basically, I would call the abstraction of such a network a filter design. After a while trough the network you will find a path of lowest resistance between given by input and output. Maybe like a potential difference, say like in a circuit where the path is the least resistance in a conductor, or a flash in an ionized field in a thunderstorm, or the simplification of a complicated mathematical expression (which would be an ideal path compared to the physical phenomena which alway produce some jitter). I would also compare it to a slightly more complex form or different representation of a neural network, where multiple neurons form a functional group (like a cellular automaton). But I don't see any benefit in computational problems that still need to be serialized, even if we were talking about a complete filter frame (out of a series of frames = motion). Even if we hope that a single frame is available immediately, it will not be computationally feasible. Perhaps quantum computers would come into play here, but that again raises new problems such as statistical accuracy. If we knew all possible initializations in the filter structure (which would be needed to filter anything), we would need a consistent memory and feed it in somehow, which also takes time. (This would be comparable to storing the weights in a neural network) How are we supposed to describe the individual components nodes, connections, memory, clock (which would be frame and sub-frame cycles, which would actually work as binary counters, but...) only with binary patterns, if we use these cellular automata as a basis? This description, too, has to be stored in a memory that would then describe itself with itself. Isn't that a paradox?
This is creepy but i'm not surprised somehow but : I woke up on this too! I do managed to recognise digital logic algorithms to reduce the number of gates and a whiff of matrix transformations with shift and rotation sequences. For the categorisation I felt like checking the even and uneven bit parity(A keeps and B flips). No epiphanies so far although.
I just keep on stumbling into these holy traces to further confirm we have had the answers all along and that mathematically informed physics and physics-informed mathematics present an opportunity for grounding of a geometric variety! why? to find symmetries and equivariances of course! perhaps singularity is nothing more than a change in the Markov boundary (reversable) to better explain higher order phenomena already here
that is weird. I 'Ve been waking up to those videos the last 10 times I watched something else.. Autoplay plays these everytime in my sleep till I wake up:)
Truly amazing that I went to bed listening to redpill/ MGTOW content about modern women and youtube led me to a complex physics video and my mind is being blown wide open.
@Wolfram It seems like you're trying to create branch groups. See the work of Grigorchuk, he's a Russian mathematician who is at Texas A&M University now. He has developed the theory of "branch groups" over the past 20 years. They model torsion on manifolds! Also, these graphs are equivalent to the 3x+1 problem, when you do 3x+1/2 instead. That's the lemma when you collapse the branches.
I think computational irreducibility can be proven with the decimals of Pi = 3.14159265... because even with a formula d(n) that can directly compute decimal n of Pi, for sufficiently large n the value of d(n) is unknown. And the only way to find out the actual value is to compute d(n).
@Spurdo Spärde First the definition from Wolfram MathWorld: "The principle of computational irreducibility says that the only way to determine the answer to a computationally irreducible question is to perform, or simulate, the computation." The next step is to prove that Pi is an irrational number, meaning no largest predictable decimal, and this has already been proved in mathematics.
@Spurdo Spärde It's the same with the d(n) formula for Pi that I mentioned. It directly computes the n:th decimal of Pi. Notice that it's not the speed of the calculation that's the determining factor here. The fact that for sufficiently large n the formula has to be calculated is what makes it computationally irreducible. Compare that to for example 1/3 = 0.33333... where for all n the decimal is known. That's not computational irredicibility.
@Spurdo Spärde My point is that as I see it, computationally irreducibility means that the actual value of a formula has to actually be calculated for it to become known. So even if you have an algorithm of O(1), unless you already know the answer, the algorithm has to be computed for the actual value to become known.
@Spurdo Spärde But that definition becomes problematic considering parallel computation. A sufficiently parallel algoritm will compute any algorithm in one step. Even the factorial calculation you mentioned is computationally irreducible. Because what is for example the value of 43245552311! ? It has to be calculated to be know in the general case. The same with even 2^n for large enough values of n. Trivial, yes, but that is my idea of computational irreducibility.
@Spurdo Spärde But isn't computational irreducibility about computation? In math it's valid to say for example that x = Pi and it's perfectly defined. In computation, the values have to be actually calculated. But okay, I'm unsure about my parallel computation claim. Maybe I should call my idea computational necessity instead of computational irreducibility.
But really where is the seperation.. how is it that we only get to sample.. rather we are only a focal of a surface of the multileg graph. We must experience all things but only see a result of the whole rather than all individual parts of the whole.
What I do find extraordinary, is that he’s now been able to derive relativity and quantum mechanics from this framework. Incredible! I mean, that’s a real WOW!
@@crowlsyong It's a no periodic planar tiling (a tesselation that never repeats, over infinite distance) composed of a single shape - a 10-sided polygon. It does use mirror images. But someone found out Joe to do this without mirror images using an 11-sided shape. And in this context, Einstein means "one stone" in German - not the German physicist who loved to get stoned on the spacetime of the Universe.
It's totally unrehearsed and incoherent. Just some random sentences."It would be helpful to.....yeah exactly." "So lets just say.... Oh this is completely crazy...The problem here is that the multi-way system can't tag.....it seems ...what is edgeless." Honestly totally impossible to follow.
I don't belong here. I've listened for 40 minutes without understanding a SINGLE thought or concept. Moral of the story? You can't come n to this stuff cold turkey.
i invented something as close to perpetual as man will ever get a tase of yet oddly but expectedly i cannot get the time of day because what i made is claimed not to exist? really/ is that why my prototype held a fairly decent RPM, because it does not exist? i kinda fubar'd the diluted idea of physics. i m grade 3 educated, i can read pyramids fluently, i've deciphered a few hieroglyphics, i can read mountain sides, have a fairly broad prospective and decent take on what i see when i present what i saw it is usually noted but not appreciated. i kinda feel left out
![Wolfram Physics Project: Working Session Tuesday, July 28, 2020 [Metamathematics | Part 3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EszjCn8HJe8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Wolfram Physics Project: Working Session Tuesday, July 28, 2020 [Metamathematics | Part 3]](/img/tr.png)
Find the notebook for this session here: www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/WorkingMaterial/2020/Metamathematics-10.nb
I got 20 minutes in and had to stop. This guy shouldn't be livestreaming, he should make stand alone videos so he can edit out all the "ums", the testing, the forgetfulness, the random code testing, etc.
From what I gather he's attempting to use some kind of AI modeling in order to generate mathematical proofs from existing mathematical proofs.
Sort of like mathematical proof mapping and then letting the AI look for patterns in the proofs to generate more and then to use the more to develop, I'm guessing, some kind of unified field theory.
It won't work.
He'll run into the curse of dimensionality. It's like he's creating mathematical Bible codes. With any sufficiently large data set you can derive effectively infinite inferences from it.
Mathematics is sort of like perspective, you can shift your perspective in mathematics as easily as you can with anything else.
Like this:
I feel really tired.
I want to stay up.
Both of those statements can be true at the same time. Math works in a similar way in that each form of mathematics is just an arbitrary rule set.
Rational numbers, integers, whole numbers, natural numbers, these are just random rule sets for numbers.
Numbers can be used in any modeling system you like. You could make a base 10 system or a base 50 system or even a base 0 system. No system of mathematics is true beyond the scope of its own rule set.
We try to derive rule sets from nature that we quantify as physics, but like I've discussed before you can have artificial physics, differential physics, even extraversal physics.
Physics itself is not static.
For example all earth ice is freshwater.
But the ice on Europa is salty... also likely electrically charged in a way that wouldn't even work on our planet!
Every planet has its own physics. Every layer of reality has its own physics. Molecular physics is not the same as orbital physics. They can share some similar properties, but they're not identical.
Changes in physics normally happen when material goes against the grain. Those things we call anti-particles for example, they're exactly the same as any normal particle, they're just not moving in the same rotational flow as the majority of matter.
Like planets in orbit versus rogue planets. Both are planets, but rogue planets are like anti-planets. If an anti-planet collides with a orbital planet... they'll destroy each other.
No.
That's not possible.
Nothing can be destroyed. If energy can't be destroyed, then neither can physical matter, so where is it?
Space.
It's not empty. Space is a hyperfluid, meaning it's comprised of matter that's been effectively dusted below the sub-atomic!
The matter is still there! All space is matter! It's just made up of particles that have an effective mass potentially millions, or even billions, or even infinitely smaller than the mass of an electron!
The particles are so tiny they just flow right through normal matter like it's not there! The particles are so tiny that only the mass of an electron can actually impact them.
That thing you call electromagnetism, that's just wave patterns in the hyperfluid generated from the movement of energy mass.
The particles are so tiny that only energy has any effect on them. To our physical state, that matter is effectively non-existent. It can't functionally impact us and we can't functionally impact it.
In the same way that you cannot build a microprocessor with your bare hands. You have to build machines that manipulate matter smaller than you can see or interact with directly.
You can't create electromagnetic fields without energy because energy is the only thing that can impact that layer of physical reality.
It may not be uniform.
There could be different states of hyperfluid.
Space may not all be space like we think of it.
The space beyond our galaxy for example is likely NOT the same as the space in our galaxy. There's likely variation.
Infinite possibilities, infinite potential states, infinite perspectives... they're looking for "one" inside of infinity.
Granted you can give infinity curvature and trap it within itself, you can even rotate it bi-axially to create a hyperstate particle, creating an effective "one" from infinity.
But then you just have binary.
What can you create with a binary system?
Infinity.
Even when you manage to simplify infinity into a single state you just wind up with a new form of infinity that can be derived from it.
This is the basis of Paradox Mathematics.
Which I stole.
From the future.
Which is now.
There's a monoverse behind us, an omniverse in the present and a multiverse ahead of us.
Just ignore the other earth in tandem rotation, you can't see it because it's always behind the sun orbiting at exactly the same speed. Did you know the year ~isn't~ 2023? Also you can replicate an entire planet from any point in the time stream.
Or not. Or both. Depends on your temporal perspective. I can shift mine.
😊
😊
what the frig woke up and this was here too
Reality is Perspective Dude. Chill out. Everyone knows all thought is utter nonsense. Just flow with it.
I woke up to this but I’m sure I learned something after this.
Same here, woke up and this played.
@@DoctorBeees wtf, i literally just woke up to this too! fell asleep while working at my computer.
To be honest I think it was all the "ummm"'s and "uhhhh"s that woke me
they say you learn while sleeping due to the theta frequency your brain is in
When I was half-dreaming, the shit they're talking about made sense. Now that I'm awake, I have no idea what is about.
I woke up to this playing. I hope my subconscious mind learned something 🙂
Fell asleep watching UA-cam and this was playing when I woke up😅
why did autoplay bring me to a physics class
i had fallen asleep while working at my computer and just woke up to this
Woke up to this as well. It manifested in my sleep as a really long dream where I was back in a classroom and my highschool English teacher was explaining to us that information itself actually exists in its own space-time, or something very much like it, and that every time we associate one piece of information with another we're actually just curving the space-time analogue that information exists in. Absolutely wild.
Why am I living a Groundhog Day, but inside of waking up to "I Got You Babe" every morning, it's a physics video?
I fell asleep to a Christmas tree coding video and woke up to algebra
Why are these videos always playing when I wake up after falling asleep watching youtube?
Wolframs’ framework is indeed discrete, finite, and digital. He has matter, energy, space, time, emerging from underlying digital graphs. I read his “A new kind of Science” many years ago as I was using his Mathematica at the time. It wasn’t strange for me because it fitted in with my own thoughts as the Universe being a fabric of sorts, and of course, THOHAE. What I do find extraordinary, is that he’s now been able to derive relativity and quantum mechanics from this framework. Incredible! I mean, that’s a real WOW!
Then, many years later, along comes our Patron Saint JBP and his “Field of Potential”. It’s all so beautifully the same. I maintain that’s why he resonated so much. Strange actually, he wrote MOM around the same time as SW wrote ANKOS, (and worked on it for just as long) but I’d never heard of him. My New Years wish would be for them to talk.
indubitably.
Feels like I’m no the only one waking to this
Im pretty sure a lot of random people woke up with this still playing..
yes 😂
Very nice presentation Professor Wolfram, thank's for the great content. I'm following the series on NKS and took a turn on chapter three to watch this video and that was really worthy. Kudos
i agree in the sense that our mathematics works and is a good tool for exploring the nature of things because it is created by the same physical processes as everything else -- as to what that process is and how directly it can be related to the observable, i'm still undecided
i dont understand a single thing discussed here
Basically, I would call the abstraction of such a network a filter design. After a while trough the network you will find a path of lowest resistance between given by input and output.
Maybe like a potential difference, say like in a circuit where the path is the least resistance in a conductor, or a flash in an ionized field in a thunderstorm, or the simplification of a complicated mathematical expression (which would be an ideal path compared to the physical phenomena which alway produce some jitter). I would also compare it to a slightly more complex form or different representation of a neural network, where multiple neurons form a functional group (like a cellular automaton). But I don't see any benefit in computational problems that still need to be serialized, even if we were talking about a complete filter frame (out of a series of frames = motion). Even if we hope that a single frame is available immediately, it will not be computationally feasible. Perhaps quantum computers would come into play here, but that again raises new problems such as statistical accuracy.
If we knew all possible initializations in the filter structure (which would be needed to filter anything), we would need a consistent memory and feed it in somehow, which also takes time. (This would be comparable to storing the weights in a neural network) How are we supposed to describe the individual components nodes, connections, memory, clock (which would be frame and sub-frame cycles, which would actually work as binary counters, but...) only with binary patterns, if we use these cellular automata as a basis? This description, too, has to be stored in a memory that would then describe itself with itself. Isn't that a paradox?
This is creepy but i'm not surprised somehow but : I woke up on this too! I do managed to recognise digital logic algorithms to reduce the number of gates and a whiff of matrix transformations with shift and rotation sequences. For the categorisation I felt like checking the even and uneven bit parity(A keeps and B flips). No epiphanies so far although.
I was watching family guy and then I fell asleep. when I woke up I saw this??
it seems to me, if there are two paths, that means it's missing some fundamental axioms, and we should be looking for them to reduce the path to one
Thank you for posting.
I just keep on stumbling into these holy traces to further confirm we have had the answers all along and that mathematically informed physics and physics-informed mathematics present an opportunity for grounding of a geometric variety! why? to find symmetries and equivariances of course!
perhaps singularity is nothing more than a change in the Markov boundary (reversable) to better explain higher order phenomena already here
This is great to fall asleep to.
yes 😂
that is weird. I 'Ve been waking up to those videos the last 10 times I watched something else.. Autoplay plays these everytime in my sleep till I wake up:)
bruh i was listenting to the universe documentaries and i landed here after i woke up. HOW
3:04 Looks like the orthogonality property can be utilized here in a formal way.
Long live King. Thank you Wolfram
Starts at 3:56
20:50 - Perhaps in the right context Professor. ^.^
woke up to this not complaining
..physics in the morning is nice..-although algebra itself has always been the PITA in math for me.. have a great day everyone.. :)
Very cool math problem!
Truly amazing that I went to bed listening to redpill/ MGTOW content about modern women and youtube led me to a complex physics video and my mind is being blown wide open.
Dimensional maths, very fascinating the language used doesn't explain in simple terms.
I went to sleep watching a video about garlic bread being sent to space. Not sure how I ended up here.
Where does the first level string originate? What causes it to be snipped? How do the strings start to vibrate?
We all woke up to this but i woke up, got some munchies and time is 14:20.
i woke up to this, not sure how i got here
you 2 should try doing something your good at, and give this math thing up!
great video
Some of these look like the flower of life
@Wolfram It seems like you're trying to create branch groups. See the work of Grigorchuk, he's a Russian mathematician who is at Texas A&M University now. He has developed the theory of "branch groups" over the past 20 years. They model torsion on manifolds! Also, these graphs are equivalent to the 3x+1 problem, when you do 3x+1/2 instead. That's the lemma when you collapse the branches.
I just woke up 20 mins in to this
why does this always come up while im sleeping
why did i wake up to this??
I think computational irreducibility can be proven with the decimals of Pi = 3.14159265... because even with a formula d(n) that can directly compute decimal n of Pi, for sufficiently large n the value of d(n) is unknown. And the only way to find out the actual value is to compute d(n).
@Spurdo Spärde First the definition from Wolfram MathWorld: "The principle of computational irreducibility says that the only way to determine the answer to a computationally irreducible question is to perform, or simulate, the computation."
The next step is to prove that Pi is an irrational number, meaning no largest predictable decimal, and this has already been proved in mathematics.
@Spurdo Spärde It's the same with the d(n) formula for Pi that I mentioned. It directly computes the n:th decimal of Pi. Notice that it's not the speed of the calculation that's the determining factor here. The fact that for sufficiently large n the formula has to be calculated is what makes it computationally irreducible.
Compare that to for example 1/3 = 0.33333... where for all n the decimal is known. That's not computational irredicibility.
@Spurdo Spärde My point is that as I see it, computationally irreducibility means that the actual value of a formula has to actually be calculated for it to become known. So even if you have an algorithm of O(1), unless you already know the answer, the algorithm has to be computed for the actual value to become known.
@Spurdo Spärde But that definition becomes problematic considering parallel computation. A sufficiently parallel algoritm will compute any algorithm in one step.
Even the factorial calculation you mentioned is computationally irreducible. Because what is for example the value of 43245552311! ? It has to be calculated to be know in the general case. The same with even 2^n for large enough values of n. Trivial, yes, but that is my idea of computational irreducibility.
@Spurdo Spärde But isn't computational irreducibility about computation? In math it's valid to say for example that x = Pi and it's perfectly defined. In computation, the values have to be actually calculated. But okay, I'm unsure about my parallel computation claim. Maybe I should call my idea computational necessity instead of computational irreducibility.
But really where is the seperation.. how is it that we only get to sample.. rather we are only a focal of a surface of the multileg graph. We must experience all things but only see a result of the whole rather than all individual parts of the whole.
What I do find extraordinary, is that he’s now been able to derive relativity and quantum mechanics from this framework. Incredible! I mean, that’s a real WOW!
How the fuck did I wake up to this
+1 for labeled edges in at least one graph, the simple straight down case?
🤔 how do I know if I have a Rubix® Cube? Not an equals you'd find in a Lisp.
...of a cube with a black box of rules.
...given a cube's move by move sequence, is it a valid sequence?
Human propensity for random hypothesi.
"banana" -> "🍌", "aaa"->"an" 🤷♂️ I should play.
i woke up to this shi 3 times this year still dunno what it is about xD
goodmorning world
Update: the Einstein tiling was found in 2023!
Explain, this sounds awesome
@@crowlsyong It's a no periodic planar tiling (a tesselation that never repeats, over infinite distance) composed of a single shape - a 10-sided polygon. It does use mirror images. But someone found out Joe to do this without mirror images using an 11-sided shape.
And in this context, Einstein means "one stone" in German - not the German physicist who loved to get stoned on the spacetime of the Universe.
Yeah, I think I learned that in high school @@asmithgames5926
Can somebody define rulial spaces please?
writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/06/exploring-rulial-space-the-case-of-turing-machines/
The set of all possible rules that define how a system progresses.
It's totally unrehearsed and incoherent. Just some random sentences."It would be helpful to.....yeah exactly." "So lets just say.... Oh this is completely crazy...The problem here is that the multi-way system can't tag.....it seems ...what is edgeless." Honestly totally impossible to follow.
again this dude.
…what did I just wake up to??
They lost me after adding the first Lemur .
I don't belong here. I've listened for 40 minutes without understanding a SINGLE thought or concept. Moral of the story? You can't come n to this stuff cold turkey.
2:20:00, looks like a Euclidian grid that has been transformed by some matrix.
Um, um, ahh. Um, um, ahh.
JESUS IS SAVIOR;
i kidnapped your dog😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
hay
ughhh...uummmm...ugh...ummm
um um um um
i invented something as close to perpetual as man will ever get a tase of yet oddly but expectedly i cannot get the time of day because what i made is claimed not to exist? really/ is that why my prototype held a fairly decent RPM, because it does not exist? i kinda fubar'd the diluted idea of physics. i m grade 3 educated, i can read pyramids fluently, i've deciphered a few hieroglyphics, i can read mountain sides, have a fairly broad prospective and decent take on what i see when i present what i saw it is usually noted but not appreciated. i kinda feel left out