the broken logic of relativity
Ones consent to suggested relativism establishes a conflict of reason aka one side against another...both broken sides relating to each other by consent to the same suggested -ism.
I've taken all...
All gives (inception) and takes (death) each one (life)...taking suggested math classes from one another tempts one to ignore that.
but I'm not claiming
"I've taken all" implies the biggest claim one could make within all...
to apply critical logic to a theory
a) How could one suggest a theory without tempting another to agree or disagree, hence establishing logic/reason (agree vs disagree)?
b) Critic/krinein - "to separate"...consenting to a suggested theory implies "putting together", hence contradicting critic.
"Everyone's a critic" implies each ONE separated from ONE another...no logic/reason required for critic.
transforming energy from one form to another
So why reason about lowest vs highest math if energy transforms from ONE to another ONE?
part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles...
a) Not ALL matter...each one particle of matter within ALL motion.
b) Structure implies matter together...motion implies matter apart from ONE another.
If ALL is ONE in energy; then why mathematically equating that which nature differentiates?
even if you are moving at half the speed of light towards a light beam
Only odd (choice) within even (balance) can change rapidity of movement. A beam implies a ray of light aka an odd ray (matter) within even spectrum (momentum) of light (motion).
Only within light can a beam (life) enter (inception) and exit (death) a visible spectrum of light.
Suggested beams (matter) tempt one to ignore perceivable (momentum) light (motion). One can only count the speed of other beams to one another...not the speed of light from within the momentum of moving light.
Light cannot travel for ALL is light...beams (partials) within light (whole) can travel to and fro each other. If all is light; then where could light travel to?
a) https://img.gvid.tv/i/3mMnbBik.png
b) Right (inception towards death) to copy (life)...
free speech protest in Brazil
Try chanting "Judeus Más Notícias" to learn about the checks and balances of free speech...
Bolsonaro
a mind capable of reason
What if reason (versus) makes ones mind incapable of implication (if/then)?
logical necessity
One needs to breathe...where is the need for logic in that? What is a gasping infant reasoning about?
the difference between the impossible and the possible
a) IM implies IN, hence within possible... https://www.etymonline.com/word/im-#etymonline_v_1519
Only within actual (inception towards death) can a potential (life) respond outwards.
b) THE difference; THE impossible; THE possible implies suggested the-ism tempting each different one to consent alike.
Few suggest the-ism to equalize differences among many...
The Emperor's (perceivable inspiration) New Clothes (suggested information)... notice that inception and death expose life to nakedness aka being without a cover aka FREE will of choice.
As for the speed of light...one does not perceive measurements; measuring suggested numbers within ones consenting mind implies a cover upon perceivable aka ones ignorance...which stands naked to those with eyes to see.
Einstein ruined the minds of physicists
a) -ist (physicist) implies ones consent to a suggested -ism (physicalism)...which in return tempts one to ignore physic/physis/bheue - "to be; to grow". Why? Because nature sets each being apart from one another to allow growth, which consent contradicts by tempting together.
b) Connecting minds impair each others free will of choice with consent aka contraction into conflicts of reason against each other and accumulation of suggested information burdening memory.
c) Ones consent makes one dependable to the suggestion of another...that's the foundation of relativism.
Einstein told us
a) Few utilize "Einstein" to suggest information, which when consented to by ones free will of choice, aggregates many (us) under a few chosen (((ones)))
b) Nature doesn't tell/tale/talo/del - "to recount; relate in detail"...those within nature relate tales to each other to distract from nature. These tales imply suggested relativism tempting ones consent to relate.
speed of light
Who can measure light? Can a ray within the visible spectrum of light measure light or only other rays of light?
What if speed of light is constant so that each different ray within can have a fluctuating perspective?
a real difference in simultaneity
Responding simultaneous tempts one to ignore being different from one another.
give up on reason
Nature gives perceivable...those within take suggested from one another, which establishes reason/logic within self and against each other.
Try resisting the temptation to take a side within a suggested conflict of reason like for example...upvote vs downvote. What does one give up by resisting temptation?
you need to take
Take a breath and notice that nature takes it away...
Does one need to take or resist wanting to hold onto what nature freely (life) gives (inception) and takes (death)?
take into account
a) Holding onto makes one accountable to others...to (((accountants)))
b) Account (Latin computare)...hence many sitting in front of a computer, while being held accountable within a world wide web by few.
the greatest trick pulled
Before another can pull; one has to attach (consent) self to another (suggestion)...suggestion tricks/triggers consent.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities...
a) Principle implies "origin; source"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/principle#etymonline_v_19525
b) Wrestling against implies towards an outcome (winning or losing)...while ignoring origin.
c) Reasoning (versus) about suggested implies wrestling against flesh and blood, implication (if/then) implies ones struggle within origin to sustain self.
against spiritual
Spirit/spiro - "to breathe"...try being against breathing by holding onto your breath.
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Berlin-take-my-breath-away-lyrics
we go into how one needs
How does a suggested plural (we) not diminish a singulars (one) need? How does one (apart) need we (together)?
one needs....others who want
What if wanting to consent to others tempts one to ignore perceivable need?
ALL Catholic Doctrine
From the christian perspective...only God implies ALL, catholic doctrine implies a dogma shaped by ones within all for each other.
want the same
What if each difference (life) needs to resist same origin (inception towards death) while struggling with the wanted temptation to ignore resisting by following each other?
before secular
Before aka forward (inception towards death) being (life) implies secular/seco (to divide) matter during singular motion.
Only during singular (all) can there be secular (ones)...singular (god) generates secular (christians aka anointed ones).
What's more likely...A or B?
ABC aka abecedary aka abracadabra implies a magic spell aka a corporation (corpus oration) tempting each DIFFERENT one falling for it to consent ALIKE.
In this case...any different opinion about A (jews) or B (Chinese) implies alike consent to a conflict of reason (A vs B). Neither the opinions, nor what A or B contain, can prevent the conflict of reason...only prolong it with more input.
If A and B are fighting each other, then where is C? Suggesting what A and B are fighting each other over, from outside the conflict! Can you C?
jews or Chinese?
Why not both... https://img.gvid.tv/i/bfTJjaBT.jpg
100% just a bot. I tested him...and he doesn't...
Dehumanization by calling someone a "bot"; followed by humanizing a bot with "he; him" pronouns...
free-will-of-choice...I tested him by sending pages from the Bible, and he doesn't even react any differently.
a) An attempt to change free will of choice with suggested scriptures...
b) Free implies different from one another; because alike implies bound to each other.
etymology for the insane
What if it's the other way around? Only insane aka in sanus aka within sound can one reason (logy) about the true sense of words (etymo)...
the work of the bot is to note the topic
What if ones free will of choice can simply draw perceivable inspiration from any suggested topic?
Ask yourself...if most are choosing to follow along suggested topics, while reasoning (upvote vs downvote) against each other about them; then why do the comments of ones free will of choice differ from the "norm"?
the bot is to note the topic...so the actual shills can then demolish any discussion.
Can you link an example where a comment by ones free will of choice was followed by hostility from others against the topic?
If that's too hard to find; then try looking for hostility aimed at ones free will of choice for commenting differently one any topic...
believable
Be-liev-able aka being able to lie. To believe implies to consent to the suggestion of another, while ignoring perceivable.
Nature doesn't require belief...artifice does.
One of the key
Free will of choice implies ones key to open or close whatever one looks/locks onto. Consent permits others to use that key to lock one away underneath suggested information.
claims to be an artist
Nature cannot be claimed...nature moves. Consenting to a suggestion implies ones claim over artifice.
According to ... News
N(orth) E(east) W(est) S(outh) are set apart from one another to establish ones perception at the center of perceivable circumference. Ones consent to suggested "news" tempts one off-center, while inclining towards a side, which establishes discord with other ones.
Accord implies ad (towards) cor (heart)...not reasoning (accord vs discord) against others.
a) Why would a jew have to infiltrate a government, when that which governs the mind of gentiles was suggested by a jew?
b) Camera/kamara - "vaulted chamber"...gentiles willingly holding onto suggested pictures and movies shapes their mind/memories into vaulted chambers for jewish suggestions.
taking pictures
A picture implies a "captured moment"...that's a suggested artifice tempting one to ignore that within nature one cannot capture moment-um.
Notice art students painting models that have to sit still to be captured...notice furthermore that those models sit in the nude, while those painting are covering a canvas to capture the nude essence.
they are jewish
Chosen one implies singular...suggested pluralism (they) tempts ones choice to ignore that.
get upset
Using suggestion to tempt many to want to get implies a "set-up" by few.
an existential battle was inevitable
-ist (ones consent to a suggested -ism) contradicts ex (out of)...the latter implies expression; the former implies repression. Few suggest existentialism to establish this contradiction within consenting many.
Sleight of hand: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature". https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/madonna/humannature.html
Consenting to any suggestion makes the battle (reason) inevitable, because ones consent invites the suggestions of another into ones mind/memory, which establishes a void.
facing the dragons
Aka turning towards (to face) dragging on (dragon), which implies carrying suggested information towards outcome, while facing away from perceivable origin.
Why is a dragon sitting on a treasure? Because dragging on suggested information implies the hoarding of valuables within memory. The one trying to inspire others to let go of what they "drag-on" implies a knight (servant) in shining (light-bearer) armor (choice to resist) trying to slay the drag-on by beating held on beliefs with endless blows of contradiction.
A sword implies a thrust (inception towards death) weapon (choice) of offense/defense (balance) with an edge (knowledge).
Democracy: Beginning of the end?
Momentum implies the beginning (inception) and end (death) of matter (life)...if one ignores this process of setting apart, then one permits few power (cracy) over many (demo).
If we extend unlimited
a) Ones consent to suggested pluralism (we) implies a contraction, which ignores singular (one) extension.
b) Extend aka ex (out) tendere (to stretch)...only within ongoing (inception towards death) can one temporary (life) stretch outwards.
c) Unlimited whole (motion) sets limited partials (matter) free to choose how to respond.
tolerance
To tolerate; verb - "allow without interference"...being implies interference within all, hence each ones FREE will of choice interfering within the DOM-inance of balance.
Nature allows one to be free.
A parasitic few suggests an ignorant many to interfere with each others free will of choice within conflicts of reason (allow vs deny)...while ignoring natural balance for artificial imbalance.
to defend society
Society/socius/sekw - "to follow" attacks resistance (life) within velocity (inception towards death) by lowering defense.
Ones consent to suggested socialism (society) and communism (community) attacks ones defenses. Aggregation makes many weaker than few, because among many...each one can shirk response-ability onto another, while doing jack shit about few.
will be destroyed
Only during destruction (inception towards death) can a willing being (life) build growth...
The suggested rhetoric "will be destroyed" tempts a being to willingly focus on the suggested destruction of self, which in return prevents building.
They sold multiple copies of the same
a) Copies (suggested information) of same (perceivable inspiration).
b) Selling (suggesting jew) + buying (consenting gentiles).
c) THEY aka suggested pluralism sold as multiple copies (they) of singular (one).
art
Aka artifice (suggestion) shaped within natural (perception).
what you do as a student
Standing under a teacher by consenting to suggested information.
sell art to USA
US aka United States. In nature each unit stands apart from one another; which a jew inverts by selling an artificial coming together of united states aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one).
Most gentiles cannot comprehend the nature of US, hence being stuck within an artificial conflict of reason (us vs them).
either side will see this as a weaponization
Ones weapon (choice) of offense/defense (balance) can only exist in-between sides...
to vote
To vote implies lowering ones defense, while offering another the free will of choice over one.
to win
Matter cannot conquer each other without ignoring motion setting matter apart from one another.
Whatever one tries to grasp...nature always loosens ones grip.
The word ally implies some sort of equality or partnership.
a) Being implies ONE within ALL...few suggest "ally" to tempt many to align with one another.
b) Suggested words tempt one to ignore perceivable sound, hence ALLY = A LIE...
c) Being implies different (partial) within same (whole)...a process of differentiation. Many consenting to suggested partnerships by few implies "alike" behavior, which equalizes differences.
Can more people replicate this?
“Customers around the world love Alexa as their trusted, personal AI—they’ve now purchased well over half a billion Alexa-enabled devices, and use of Alexa increased 35 percent last year,” said Rohit Prasad, senior vice president and head scientist for Alexa...
this is insane
Insane aka in sanus - "within sound"...where else could one hear an echo?
Negative energy
NEGATION, noun - "denial; a declaration that something is not; opposed to affirmation, description by denial, exclusion or exception"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Negation
Only within all energy can one deny it.
How are time machines powered?
By ones consent to the suggestion thereof...without ones consent a suggested "time machine" couldn't even reach ones mind.
how...powered?
Energy...how else could power be sustained?
machine
Machine; noun (Latin machina) - "artificial work"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/machine aka an artificial suggestion shaped within perceivable nature.
A thought popped into my head....time machines
Based on suggested information invited by your consent into your head like "from time to time" (14c) or "the times" (1590) or "time after time" (1630) or "to be ahead of ones time" (1837) or "time and again" (1864) or "time machine" (1895) etc.
How about changing the sentence to "According to a suggestion by TIME magazine and H.G. Wells I believe that a thought popped into my head about time machines"?
Wouldn't there have to be a power source
Being implies a power within a source. Only within a source can there be power differentiation aka an out-sourcing of potential within source.
the other end
Ones beginning (inception); ones being (life); ones end (death)...there cannot be another end. Few suggest progressivism to tempt many seek other ends, while ignoring the only perceivable origin moving one to the only outcome of being.
time continuum
Continuous (inception towards death) generates temporal (life)...few suggest time (past; present and future) to tempt many to believe in temporal continuation by escaping.
A being can only perceive "now"...not before or after, which are suggested as a duration of time to distract being from now, which is why many ignore perceivable now by asking questions (a quest towards end), while waiting for answers afterwards, which implies life waiting for outcome aka for death.
Few offer artifice (information) to question, while industrializing and shaping the answers given so that many continue to ask for answers...it's just like feeding cattle.
time
Instead of thinking in terms of "duration"; try discerning self as being presence (life) within duration (inception towards death) with the free will of choice to increase or decrease being...only then can duration be freely traveled aka ones free will of choice on the journey of life.
Few suggest time to invert durability (life) with duration (inception towards death), hence tempting life to focus on death, when watching time running out...
all a state of mind
All implies motion; mind implies matter within momentum of motion, hence being enabled to memorize input.
State/status - "be firm" implies being formed (life) within flow (inception towards death) aka one within all.
Tim Pool does a 180
He spins for many, while never turning on few... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGmDLjczt2c
The enemy
The real enemy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie7qnFSpE_g
a) Any suggested experiment tempts one to ignore being within the perceivable spectrum of light.
b) Light (motion) generates a spectrum (momentum) for particle rays (matter) within... all measurements ignore this internal separation of energy.
Few suggest "differential calculus" to tempt many to ignore that all is one in energy.