# THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THE NEW TYPE OF NON- CONSCIOUS INTELLIGENCE DRIVEN BY NON-CONSCIOUS ALGORITHMS IS GOING TO DESTROY WHAT IS LEFT OF DECENCY IN THE WORLD. (Guest post an unknown source.)

## Featured

The idea that humans will always have a unique ability beyond the reach of non-conscious algorithms is just wishful thinking.

The fact is, as time goes by it will be easier and easier to replace humans with computer algorithms, not because they are getting smarter and smarter but because humans are professionalising.

One would have to say are we all such naive bonkers that we are going to allow algorithms dictate our lives.

The answer so far appears to be yes. We are going to become militarily and economically useless.

Technical difficulties or political objections might slow down the algorithmic invasion of the job market but while the systems might need humans, it will not need individuals.

These systems will make most of the important decisions depriving individuals of their authority and freedom.

They are already assembling humans into dividuals ie. humans are becoming an assemblage of many different algorithms lacking a single inner voice or a single self.

Its time we realized that if we continue down this path allowing large corporations platforms to introduce algorithms willy nilly with no overall vetting as to whether they comply with our values we will be replacing the voter, the consumer, and the beholder.

The Al algorithm will know best, will always be right, and beauty will be in the calculation of the algorithm. Individualism will collapse and authority will shift from individual humans to autonomous networks.

People will not see themselves as individuals but as collections of biochemical mechanisms that are constantly monitored and guided by a network of electronic algorithms.

We are already crossing the line. Most of us use Apps without any thought whatsoever.

You might say that every age has its organizing principles.

The nineteenth century had the novel, and the twentieth had TV; in our more modern times, they come and go more quickly than ever—on Web 1.0 it was the website, for example, and a few years later, for 2.0, it was the app.

And now, another shift is underway:

Today’s organizing principle is the algorithm. (Though you could productively argue that our new lingua franca will either be artificial intelligence or virtual reality.)

Algorithms rule the modern world, silent workhorses aligning data sets and systematizing the world. They’re everywhere, in everything, and you wouldn’t know unless you looked. For some of the most powerful companies in the world—Google, Facebook, etc.—they’re also closely held secrets, the most valuable intellectual property a company owns.

Perhaps it is naïve to believe algorithms should be neutral? but it’s also deceptive to advance the illusion that Facebook and the algorithms that power it are bias-free.

They are not neutral.

Facebook is intended to be the home of what the world is talking about. Their business model depends on it, even if that’s an impossible goal. As such, with now well over a billion users, and still growing, it’s worth asking:

What role should Facebook play in shaping public discourse? And just how transparent should it be?

After all, Facebook is mind-boggling massive.

It accounts for a huge portion of traffic directed to news sites; small tweaks in its own feed algorithm can have serious consequences for media companies’ bottom lines.

What can be done? ( See previous posts)

Evolution will continue and will need to do so if we humans are to exist.

We therefore should welcome all technology that enhances our chances of this existence in as far that it equates to human values.

All Algorithms that violate these values for the sake of profit or power should be destroyed.

After all if humans have no soul and if thoughts, emotions, and sensations are just biochemical algorithms why can’t biology account for all the vagaries of human societies.?

If Donald Trump is the best that twitter Algorithms can produce it appears to me that there is a long way to go and it’s not too late to change course.

All human comments appreciated. All like algorithms clicks chucked in the bin.

# CAPITALISM CONTINUES TO PRIVATIZE THE PLANET.

## Featured

This is the first post to this blog .

The purpose of this blog is to start a world mobile phone movement to effect change by Uniting the combined Communication Powers of us all into one world voice that will have to be listened to by World Organizations  and World Corporations.

These days we are  served up doom and gloom daily with the last decade leading us down the path to disillusionment.

DEMOCRACY ERODED, LIVELIHOODS DESTROYED.  WITH GOVERNMENTS EVERYWHERE BETRAYING THE MANDATES THAT BROUGHT THEM INTO POWER.

September 11 tragedy now turned into a convenient Excuse for any anti-people legislation denying civil liberties worldwide. The Arab Spring is a quagmire>The Euro a nightmare >The Afghan War a needless lost of life>The Israel Palestine Question a dark cul-de-sac>NATO a war machine>The United Nations a gum shield between the west and the rest>China a supermarket>Climate change a trading commodity>Football a religion>Austerity a goal>Economic Growth an aspiration that no one seems to know how to achieve.

IF WE ARE ALL HONEST WITH OURSELVES THE WORLD IS GOING WRONG:

By the year 2030 there will be 50% more of us-6 million a month.

Humanity will have to put aside the deep divisions it has maintained for thousands of years.

Find a new spirit of human co- operation. Stop spending trillions on arms. One-fifth of the world’s present days population live in the “rich world” consuming 86% of the world’s goods. While over half the people on Earth live on 2$a day with the absolute poor on a !$ making up billions. Where is the justice that the gross domestic product of the poorest 48 Nations is less than the wealth of the World’s three riches people.

You don’t have to look far to see why we have Terrorism. Poverty and lack of Education spawns it.

While we turn back the evolutionary clock pumping 8 billion tons of Carbon into the Atmosphere each year wiping out 50,000 species a year in collective denial.

There can be no trade-off between economic development and the protection of the Environment Even if it is possible looking back from the Moon and see no trace of human activities that show up.

Our Democracies seem unable to achieve any progress such as mitigating climate change, better managing ecosystems, creating a fair global trading system. However we have the knowledge, the data and the technologies to do all of these things.

The question is not so much ” How could we have learned so little in all these years after two World Wars? But ” How could we have learned so much and done so little?

So it’s time to stop supporting large World Corporations and the like that don’t show a corporate social responsibility and use the power of getting Smart with our smart phones.

Any comments, suggestions, are welcome.  My next blog posting will out line a plan to create a World Aid Tax to be applied on all World stock Exchanges.

# THE BEADY EYE SAYS: AS USUAL THE BRITISH GOVERMENT PUT PROFIT BEFORE ITS PEOPLE

HERE WE GO AGAIN.

CAN THERE BE ANY TRUST IN THE BRITISH (WHO HOSTED THE 26 CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE IN GLASGOW LAST YEAR.) advocating the phaseout of coal around the world while planning its expansion at home.

To watch a Conservative MP defended its decision by saying that it is good for the environment to stop importing and start exporting is beyond farcical and worthy of  historic accolades for stupidity beyond the call of duty.

Some one should tell him that no transport emissions will make up for emissions produced by mining the coal.

Woodhouse Colliery won’t be carbon neutral with its plans to extract 2.43 million tons of coking coal per year. That will produce 9 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, a measure of greenhouse emissions based on their global warming potential, per year.“

A few hundred precarious jobs in a dying industry would be worth it.

Indeed, framing the need for continued investment in fossil fuels as important for jobs and arguing that moving away from fossil fuels will hurt jobs and the economy is a classic talking point the fossil fuel industry has used for decades to thwart climate action.

To move ahead with plans to develop the country’s first deep coal mine in 30 years, despite warnings that doing so could destroy any chance of achieving the country’s climate change target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The Cumbria County Council, which approved the project, said it did so because it will create jobs in an area of high unemployment, will dig up coking coal, also known as metallurgic coal, from beneath the Irish Sea in order to make coke, a “form of almost pure carbon” that is used to make steel.

Opening a coalmine in the UK now is a serious mistake: economic, social, environmental, financial and political.

Economically, it is investing in the technologies of the last century, not this, and that is the wrong path to growth.

Socially, it is pursuing jobs in industries that are on the way out, creating future job insecurity.

Environmentally, it is adding to world supply and thus consumption of coal and releasing greenhouse gases, when there is an urgent need to reduce them.

It could even put at risk global progress on cutting greenhouse gas emissions because laggard countries will be able to point to the UK’s hypocrisy as an excuse for their own inaction.

And politically, it is undermining the UK’s authority on the most important global issue of our time.

Turning Britain into a “hypocritical” developed country interested only in the rhetoric  of I am all right Jack is sad.

The coalmine would increase emissions by about 400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, or the equivalent of 200,000 cars on the road.

God save the Planet.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

# THE BEADY EYE SAYS. WE ARE ALL BEING HOODWINKED WHEN IT COMES TO CONTROLLING CLIMATE CHANGE EMMISSIONS.

I recently came across this app that sums up where we are with – CLIMATE CHANGE.

Let’s calculate your Carbon Footprint. Climate Hero.  Pay x to offset your climate foot print.

God knows how many meeting we now have had of world leaders when it comes to Climate Change. From the UN to the Gs’ and Climate Summits, and it still remains beyond their comprehension that to reduce Carbon Emissions we must put a halt to producing energy with fossil and gas resources.

We have are unenforceable Promises,  Declarations,  Proposals Agreement,  Accords, Groups and Organisations under ever letter of the alphabet turning a blind eye to the raw fact that carbon has being turned into a product to be traded.

This is a trading system through which countries / corporations can buy or sell units of greenhouse-gas emissions in an effort to  either meet their national limits on emissions or off set their emission’s  while they continue will – nilly to pump carbon into the atmosphere.

. The Kyoto Protocol assigned a unit of emissions payment to equal to 1 metric tonne of CO2 equivalent.

This TRADING comes with labels like Carbon Free, Net Zero, Offset, Mitigation

All ways of  (COP) out of  doing any think.

Like REDD:  Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation with Cop 27introduced Sovereign Carbon Credits paving the way for private trading and financing of nature.

You dont have to be a genius to understand that temperature rise is only the beginning of the story.

The consequences of climate change now include, among others, intense droughts, water scarcity, severe fires, rising sea levels, flooding, melting polar ice, catastrophic storms and declining biodiversity, mass migration by both animals and humans  that will eventually led to more wars.  Because the Earth is a system, where everything is connected, changes in one area can influence changes in all others.

There is no doubt that  Climate action requires significant financial investments by governments and businesses. But climate inaction is vastly more expensive.

So instead of worthless invisible funds why not give non repayable grants to every house hold to install solar panels.

To get to net zero emissions by 2050 it is not by giving Earth Shot millions to projects that deserve recognition in their innovative  to tackle Climate Change but to arm the peoples of the world to do something positive by converting to Green energy,  starting now.

Why not because the capitalist system is still between two stool profit for profit sake or profit for sustainability.

Progress is a metaphor

For benefitting man;

We know exactly what it’s for

But wonder if it can.

The next best thing to knowing a fact is said to be where to find it;

But more than that, its how to act, once you have truly defined it.

SO WE ALL KNOW THAT it is critical that all mitigation and adaptation policy are underpinned by not burning fossil fuels that are generating greenhouse gas emissions and methane even it there are offset by paying a few dollars more for your Flight or breathing.

Of course one would be naïve to think that Government’s who’s revenue comes from the use of energy are going to cut themselves off from this revenue by converting the production of energy to free for all. The primary source of revenue is taxation.

THIS IS WHERE THE  PANDORA  BOX.OPENS.

The problem is that these renewable sources aren’t super reliable and at present there is no way of storing the energy other than directing it into the Grid or private batteries that need to be attached to the grid.

There is no problem (in principle) with building enough solar panel arrays, wind farms, tidal, wave and geothermal energy plants to power our planet. There is nothing here that we don’t already know how to do. The only problem is with funding it and getting people to accept it.

We at the moment except.

Nuclear power plants: Highly stable and reliable. They are “dirty” because of the nuclear waste hype. There is also problem with uranium mining and processing as well.

Coal power plants: Operable and reliable. Their huge footsteps are mining processes, CO2 emissions, NOx, SOx, dust pollution, heavy metal pollution…

Gas/oil powerplants: Operable, reliable. Their drawbacks are mining process, CO2 emissions and political compromises.

Biomass powerplants: Low scale source. Extremely low power density (MW output per km2 needed for supply).

Water powerplants: very fast, reliable. Their drawbacks are huge or humongous dams for high-power ones or low power output; disruption of the stream.

Wind turbines: Power-grid disruptor #1, unpredictable source. Unrecyclable blades. High risk in bad weather (too windy)

Solar heat powerplants: Huge area consumption for mirror fields plus tower in the sky. Suitable only for scarcely populated areas.

Photovoltaics: Power-grid disruptor #2 (only because it does not disrupt after sunset). Unpredictable power source. Extremely low power density (MW per km2 of ground consumed). Extremely toxic production. Unrecyclable.

HOWEVER ITS NAIVE TO THINK THAT WE CAN HAVE GREEN ENGERY TOTAL FREE OF EMMISIONS.

Where are we?

World Climate Summits have become a key platform for connecting investment markets not policies to avert disaster.

With the last one in Egyptian promising trillions to countries that can claim Punch’s Pilot absolution that its not their fault.

Energy is there and all we can do about it is change the forms. It is a direct follow of the conservation of energy.

There is no thermal engine that produces more (mechanical) energy than it consumes. Even solar and wind need raw materials.

Solar panel takes a little less than a decade to produce as much energy as was used to make it.

Anytime one is using energy, they are using it on the environment’s behalf.

IN A IDEAL WORLD WE COULD CONVERT tracts of unusable desert that has no significant ecological value and which gets uninterrupted sunshine for 300+ days of the year that could be covered in solar panels.

I have advocated that to tackle Climate change Governments must impower their people to do so.

Non Repayable grants to insulate their homes and install solar power would be a good start.

You have to start on time as nothing in the universe will produce more energy.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

# THE BEADY EYE ASKS. FROM A HUNDERED YEARS AGO TO NOW WHAT ARE THE BIGGEST CHANGES IN THE WORLD?

From the rise and fall of political ideologues the list is long as to how the world transformed in the last 100 years in terms of demography, environment, geography, geopolitics, resources, art of war and global affairs needs to be analysed in some detail.

Why?

Because the world has never witnessed changes as enormous as it experienced in the last 100 years. Never in human history has such a transformation, both in qualitative and quantitative terms, taken place in such a short span of time.

Over the last 100 years, the world has changed tremendously, however one can identify eight major changes that occurred during the last 100 years, which not only transformed the world from a European-centric to post-colonial globalised world, but also changed the map of the world with the emergence of new states in Africa and Asia.

So what are these changes?

First, from 1.8 billion people in 1919, world population has swelled to 8 billion.

Second, while there were only 50 sovereign states in 1919, today there are 193 members of the UN.

Third, the widening of the technological and economic gap between the global North and South increased the level of unemployment.

Fourth, radical changes in the art of war as a result of the modernisation of weapons.

Fifth, because of modernisation and industrialisation, the state of infrastructure, financial institutions, factories and industries in 2022 is far superior to that in 1919.

Sixth, one can see a link between globalisation, information technology, geo-economics and ‘soft power’, as new types of power and catalysts of change.

Seventh, the greatest disaster to befall mankind and the most important event in the history of the western world had absolutely nothing to do with technology. 16 million people were killed during World War I, in World War II, 50 million people perished, out of which 20 million were killed in the then Soviet Union.

Eighth,  Scientists are starting to understand the world. And we are making strides in AI, robotics, sensors, networks, synthetic biology, materials science, space exploration and more every day.

The reality is that our lives have completely changed.

But is it for the better, or worse?

With the 20th century nearing an end, which shift’s have really shaped the modern world?

Is it the Microchip, the Smartphone, the Internet, Climate Change, or the recent Covid Pandemic that not only killed people, it changed the ways people lived, as well as their expectations of death.

Or

Was it?   Wars,  Transportation  Communications, Telephones, Television, Immigration, Education, Government tax collections,  Countries budget deficit,  Literacy, Super Market, Billionaires, Inequality, Slavery, and the Stock market all took off that had the biggest influences.

I venture that it is none of these. It is the technological changes that is changing the world in the form of ALGORITHMS.

If you think about it, society is in a very bad place. People rely on their phones, laptops and tablets for everything. Technology is a great thing, but most people have abused it. Are you letting technology take control of your life?

With limited resources on a limited planet, this is not a shift that is likely ever to change. In a thousand years or so, if society continues that long, the 20th century may well be viewed as the threshold when the modern world began – when humanity started to consider the future as well as the present and the past.

Technology hugely changed the ways in which we lived and died in the 20th century, however, it also masks changes that are arguably even more profound –  they are Machine Learning Algorithms that give computers the ability to learn without being explicitly programmed. The process of learning is simply, learning automatically with no human intervention from experience or observations and to adjust their perform actions accordingly. Machine learning algorithms are now involved in more and more aspects of everyday life from what one can read and watch, to how one can shop, to who one can meet and how one can travel.

There is a fascinating trend happening where ready to use machine learning algorithms for speech recognition, language translation, text classifications, and many other tasks are now being offered as web-based services on cloud computing platforms, significantly increasing the audience of developers that can use them and making it easier than ever to put together solutions that apply machine learning at a high level.

In general, machine learning algorithms are categorized into two main types. The first type is known as supervised learning, in which our goal is to predict some output variable that’s associated with each input item. Supervised learning needs to have a training set with labelled objects to make its predictions.

The second major class of machine learning algorithms is called unsupervised learning, in which input data don’t have any labels to go with the data. Unsupervised learning allows us to approach problems with little or no idea about the final result.

These algorithms rapidly process huge datasets and give helpful insights into knowledge that permits awesome healthcare services.

Some deep learning applications are in natural language processing, video processing, recommendation systems, disease prediction, drug discovery, speech recognition, web content filtering, etc.

As the scope for learning algorithms evolves, the applications for deep learning grows drastically.

Try to remember what life was like before you were attached to technology by the hip to Big Data that supports the nature of deep learning algorithms.  Impossible.

Machine learning algorithms employ probability theory and that is you’re probably reading this on your phone right now.

The average person will check their phone every six and a half minutes.

Out of technology there is one other development that is changing the world.

CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology, will enables us to reprogram life as we know it.

News and online newsfeeds are increasingly full of stories of what will happen, not what has happened.

While climate change will enhance the most important relationship in human history between mankind and the land, basically, the more land you have, the more natural resources you have but the day is fast approaching when humanity will be eventually be programmed out of us along with our connection the earth.

As is well known, money has existed for thousands of years. However, that doesn’t mean it has always served the same function as it does today.  Money to day is data.

To what extent the culture of NGOs can helped deal with critical issues faced by the world today is debatable.

Our world organisation all need to be revamped to reflect responsibility all over the world – and hope for the best.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

# THE BEADY EYE ASKS. IN LIGHT OF ASTRONOMY DISCOVERIES AND TECHNOGICAL ADVANCEMENT SHOULD WE STILL BE DESCRIBING OURSELVES AS HUMANS, OR USING SOME OTHER DESCRIBTION TO DEFINE OURSELVES?

ROBOTS V  HUMAN CANNOT BE VERBALIZED.

The concept of species is, of course, a human idea imposed upon the natural world, and up to recently we have been pretending that we are somehow separate from the rest of the planet.  (An upright-walking, big-brained species that eventually evolved into people: Homo sapiens, a species  that can breed with each other.)

Since the beginning of our existence, humans have explored and expanded globally, covering every inch of our planet and utilizing it somehow. Looking at this, we can see that human beings are a species of explorers whose acts of exploration are fuelled by their curiosity.

We often refer ourselves as humans as a way to establish social connections between each other and to ignore the various forms of physiological differences between us but we are alive to evolve as directed by the Human DNA Swarm Intelligence which designed, built, programmed, and maintains Humans… at least until we perfect genetic engineering to take over control of this, which is actually doing exactly what we have been programmed to evolve towards doing.

When you think of what the definition we’ve assigned the word Humanity, it entails many different aspects. Most of which we do not live up to, but under the drive of our Human RNA/DNA Swarm Intelligence, we are developing the knowledge to create intelligence better than individual Human Minds, through what we call Artificial Intelligence.

Man (without an article) itself refers to the species or to humanity (mankind) as a whole.

As yet Robots are not a species so humanity is probably just going to have to be kept as a convenience.

In a recent meditation, the Franciscan priest and author Richard Rohr wrote:

Which word came first human or man?

Human was first recorded in the mid 13th century, and owes its existence to the Middle French humain “of or belonging to man.”

The word “human” is from the Latin humanus, the adjectival form of homo.

Latin terms such as homo (e.g. Homo Sapiens), come from an extinct, 6000-year-old language called Proto-Indo-European or P.I.E.

We know that we cannot be descended from only two humans, because we are simply far to diverse for every human characteristic to derive from only two ancestors.  Humans are also not pre-programmed at birth.

The theory of evolution, definitely isn’t part of the Adam and Eve story. (God’s Word (the Bible) has a very different perspective on where we came from. You see, God tells us in the Bible that he created humans (Adam and Eve).

Dinosaurs: appeared 225 million years ago, extinct 65 million years ago.
Humans that look like us: appeared 250,000 years ago.
Humans that act like us: appeared 50,000 years ago.

Human origin is extra-terrestrial.

We might have a sprinkling of star dust but it’s a rubbish hypothesis because human beings share 99% of their DNA with primates.

Although thoughts about migration into space are as old as science fiction there will never be a complete human capable of living on another planet in our universe.

Why?

Because technologies both in medicine and machines are programming humanity out of us.

The urgency to establish humanity as a multi-planet species has been re-validated by the emergence of a worldwide pandemic, one of several reasons including both natural and man-made catastrophes long espoused in the pro-colonization rhetoric.

For example we now have the first vaccination due to Covid that instructs our immune systems

Technologies such as controlled ecological life support systems are still not developed in a meaningful manner.

We have absolutely no data about the long-term effects of space environment on either our bodies or minds.

The ethical controversies that make this concept perhaps unsuitable for implementation at all.

Though humans in some form are capable of space colonization, does it give us the right to conquer other planets just like we conquered Earth? As more and more people will begin to settle on the planet, however, there will be a diversity of opinions in these colonies, thus calling for laws and regulations that can be inclusive to everybody while also maintaining peace. Laws that answer questions about who is in charge, what is or is not forbidden, making public decisions, etc., are crucial questions that should be answered.

Say we do come to the conclusion that colonizing Mars is beneficial to the human race, how is it going to be orchestrated in a social platform? How will it be decided who gets to be part of this colony? We could rank applications by suitability, prioritize diversity, leave it as a lottery draw, or simply allow the highest bidders to be the only participants. Each of these options raises its own issues, but they all are related to who is being left behind, who has to carry the cost of the expedition and who has to deal with the consequences. Whose ethics are we going to use?

THEY WONT BE RELIGIOUS.

But rest assured even with just one God humans will still find ways to fight and disagree with each other.

There is a strong argument to be made for traversing space as a species as opposed to as nations, but this will require us to have a universally accepted ethical code. We may need to create an obvious incentive for us all to accept the accomplishment so as not to allow us to separate and disperse as a species.

Should we only recognize those people who have advanced reasoning capabilities as fully human, which would exclude mentally disabled or mentally ill human beings from moral consideration?

If we end up colonizing Mars as singular entities it is hard not to imagine a future not fraught with conflict.

——————————————-

Each language has its own name for our planet but they all have one thing in common each is derived from a word meaning ‘ground’ or ‘soil.’

Earth’s original name is long lost to history.

The modern popular terms for “Earth” come from Latin. Terra means land.

The modern English word ‘Earth’ derives from the Germanic ‘erde’, meaning ‘ground’.

Ertha is an approximate spelling for “the ground” (meaning, the ground upon which we stand) in Anglo-Saxon.

Erthamundus, was meant to describe the whole of the universe.

In science fiction, Earthling (also “Terran”, “Earther”, and “Gaian”) is frequently used, as it were naming humanity by its planet of origin.

None of these terms seem to describe the current state of humanity –  we definitely need to redefine it in order to get us as humans to realize how related and interconnected we all are to the planet and the ground we walk on.

Giving a new name to a species is always controversial.

With the technology, knowledge, and past mistakes that we have now, what are we going to do with it before the Earth fall’s apart.

THERE MUST BE CLEAR DISTINCION IS WE AND ROBOTICS ARE TO EXIST TOGETHER.

Here are a few suggestions.

Wanderers – Luxers  – “ Earthling a unifying word  so why not change from Humans to Eairthens”  this would combine us with our  future robot friends.

All human comments and suggestions appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

# THE BEADY EYE ASKS: DOES GRAVITY CREATE ENGERY OR IS IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND – ENGERY PRODUCED GRAVITY. EITHER WAY – ONE OR BOTH TOGETHER PRODUCES THE BIG BANG.

Tags

What goes up must come down.  Simple.

Far from it, as energy comes in all kinds of different forms and can be converted from one form to another.

Energy is the capacity for something to do work on something else.

Kinetic energy. The energy of something that’s moving.

Gravitational potential energy. Something that’s way up high has much more gravitational potential energy than something that’s lower.

Chemical potential energy. This is the energy that’s stored in some molecules which can be transformed into other forms of energy when chemical reactions happen.

Thermal energy. Heat something up, and it will have more energy than if it is cold. All living things have some thermal energy, and many of them deliberately make thermal energy by causing chemical reactions to take place

Electrical energy. This is transmitted along power lines.

Magnetic energy. Magnetic fields have energy in them.

Mechanical potential energy. Compress a spring and it stores energy which can be released later.

Energy carried by sound. Sound waves consist of regions of air which move back and forth together, carrying both kinetic energy and mechanical potential energy

Energy is carried by light.

Nuclear energy — the sun works by fusing very light atoms together to make heavier ones, releasing energy in the process.

The energy of just being matter.(  E=mc^2, relating the amount of energy an object has (when it’s at rest) to its mass.)

We cannot create or destroy energy they all coexist, except for non-living things that have been existing by themselves since the start of the universe.

Living things all need energy to live , to move and they get it by eating, which gravity does, eating  Mass.

Where gravity gets its energy? gravity has to be getting its energy from somewhere, gravity is nonlinear: it acts upon itself to create energy, that is, a gravitational field itself is a source of more gravity.

Gravity is a “force” that causes all objects with mass to attract each other. However it does not  push or a pull, rather it curves space to bring them together.

There are three dimensions of space we live in: up-down, left-right, forward-back but there is another that we forget about and that is time a dimension.

Mass causes gravity by warping space, and space and time are part of the same thing, spacetime… so mass can also curve and warp time.

We have no way of observing it and nothing in our daily existence leads us to believe time can be altered.  It is, arguably, one of the most provocative and important ideas humans have ever conceived.

So the gravity that is responsible for deflecting starlight as it grazes the Sun also deflects gravitational waves. The curvature of space-time is gravity. A ray of light… it bends in the presence of gravity and  because the range of gravity is infinite: No matter how far you are from the source, its gravitational field, though weak, is still present.

So time passes’ faster for a clock in the weaker gravitational field.

As astronauts have experience gravity does impact cell metabolism in organisms. A lack of gravity means your bones and muscles need to work less, and thus your body will shed this “waste.” So while gravity may not directly affect a single cell’s metabolic activity on a biochemical level, gravitational forces exerted on an entire organism affect organ/tissue/(ultimately cellular) function.

Surprisingly, gravity itself is the reason why flames rises upwards! called convection.

It’s worth noting that we really don’t have a good understanding of gravity still. Although we know a lot about it’s behaviour.

Gravity is not, technically, describable either as having energy or as being energy, although a description of it as “negative energy” is often used in pop. sci., as an aid to people as lacking in mathematical acuity as myself.

Here is my understanding.

Everything in the beginning was in form for energy, i.e. photons. At certain point of time energy got converted to matter and gravity came into existence. When gravity came to existence the gravitational energy or potential came into existence, since then it is converting to other forms and vice versa.

The problem here is that on think that gravity between two masses is a force originating from the masses themselves.

This is where it becomes complex.  What were these two Masses?

Mass, in physics, is a quantitative proportion of idleness/inertia, an essential property of all matter. It is, as a result, the obstruction that a body of matter offers to an adjustment of its speed or position upon the action of force. Matter is just ‘stuff’. Specifically, stuff with mass, meaning it gets attracted by gravity and exerts a gravitational pull on other stuff.

The fact that all of them respond to gravity (because they have mass).

So what we are looking at is Dark v Light.

More dramatically, these are invisible, because it turns out that light is an oscillating electromagnetic wave.

Finally, observations of the actual universe tell us that there’s a lot more stuff out there than we can actually see, and simulations show that to form galaxies at all we need significant amounts of invisible stuff to hold them together. What I want to convince you of is that there’s nothing strange about dark matter; it’s just a different type of stuff that outnumbers ‘everyday’ stuff by a factor of four, but can’t clump together to form atoms or planets.

If you mean dark as in lack of light – no, it does not.

As I understand it, I am made up of atomic particles of fluctuating light, which is the fundamental foundation of all that exists, so yes, darkness absorbs mass and the light that forms it.

If you mean dark MATTER – then this hypothetical form of matter indeed has mass. Space does have a mass as it isn’t a perfect vacuum and there are a few factors that contribute to the overall mass of empty space. The universe is expanding. Every single point is moving away from every other point over time. (However in the real universe, gravity ought to be slowing down the expansion but space has some strange property (A mysterious Something’ is not a good name for the effect, so you decide to call it ‘Dark Energy’ )after noting that the acceleration requires some additional energy source that you can’t detect. that you’ve never seen before. the faster its rate of inflation got (this is pretty much where we’re up to with Dark Energy. The universe is expanding, and the expansion is getting quicker. We don’t know for sure why that’s happening.)

Light does not have mass then it should have zero energy however light is composed of particles (energy packets) since it was able to knockout electrons from their orbits – relativistic mass the mass that is assigned to a body in motion.

We think the weight is the same everywhere … because we all live on the surface of the planet Earth!

Weight depends on the effect of gravity, so it can change depending on where it’s measured.

Weight is a force: it is the force acting on a given mass in a gravitational field, which is characterized by the gravitational acceleration.

All things are made up of matterMass is a measure of the amount of matter that an object has, or how much “stuff” it is made up of. Weight is a measure of how much gravity pulls on a mass or object. Mass is an intrinsic property of matter. It doesn’t change depending on where you measure it.

When scales show “kg” it is just an estimate of the mass above them.

But in orbit mass would not push on the scales at all. An object’s mass doesn’t change (unless you remove some!), but its weight can change.

It is calculated that the mass of the universe is 2.55 × 1049 tons.

energy cannot be created or destroyed” is a very naïve way of expressing energy. Dark energy is weird because it has negative pressure. Which means that when gravity does work on it, it makes it expand, not contract.

In other words, dark energy behaves as though gravity was repulsive. So dark energy expands, as gravity is pumped into it.

Where does this energy ultimately come from?

As dark energy expands, it borrows energy from gravity, and the gravitational potential energy goes down…

The universe is now bigger as a result of expansion, so there is “more gravity” overall. So there is more negative gravitational potential energy, balancing out the increased (positive) total energy content of dark energy.

Energy cannot be produced, only generated and transformed.  Most of the energy which we used is the product or result of the Sun.

There are 4 mechanisms by which energy is transferred as heat (conduction, convection, evaporation, and radiation). These 4 mechanisms transfer energy by random particle motion in the presence of a temperature gradient.

The momentum of the photon will cause it have a “weight” in a gravitational field, but given that it has no mass, there will be no gravitational attraction between individual photons. So far, there has been no evidence that photons interact with each other gravitationally.

“Inertia” and “Energy”, which, nonetheless, are absolutely fundamentally always simultaneously co-exist in every material object.

If you accelerate a mass, i.e. increase it’s energy, the mass goes up by the same amount because they are one and the same.

Who knows what is mass or time?  Mass is a category, time is still independent parameter.

As far as I can see the only relation that exists directly between time and mass is in relativity both have to be deflected to create the big bang.

The nature of dark energy ultimately determines the fate of the universe.

When you combine Inertia with Energy and Mass with Light /Time in a Magnetic field of momentum all under the umbrella of Gravity  the collapse of the pre-solar nebular (cloud of gas and dust/ the big bang ) was caused due to gravitational forces.

Where did that gravity come from?

Who was lifting balls and dropping them above the gas giant then?

Lets say we have two objects with equal mass close to each other. So gravity does its job and it pulls each other closer, this gets turned into kinetic energy. Kinetic energy comes from the gravitational pull so where does the gravitational pull gets its energy. If that energy isn’t being recycled from some where else..

Now let us reverse this process.

Suppose the two objects are next to each other, then take them apart. You have to spend energy to do that against gravity.  Now with your logic, you can say that energy that you spent in moving the object, is lost.  It is not.

Overall energy of the universe is constant. Gravitational pull has finite energy capacity even across infinite distances. But Energy can be converted form one type to another and that energy comes from the energy that brought the matter into existence in the first place.  It is a “default” energy from nowhere which mass already has as every particle of matter in the Universe has a surplus of of energy or potential energy.

Like Earth the whole Universe sucks.

Our star the sun has being supplying energy for billion of years,( with 10,000 times the world’s total energy use)

which has been converted by plants to grow die and make coal

For us to use solar power and wind power, we need to be able to store a lot of energy.

Coal is king, but not everywhere.

When we turn our clocks forward each spring, we move an hour of daylight toward the end of the day. In doing so  we saved 0.5% of electricity. Even though that sounds small, it’s actually 1.3 billion kilowatt-hours. That’s how much electricity 100,000 houses use in a whole year.

The current answer is that the energy was provided at the beginning of time in the Big Bang model of the universe.

I think it is the energy of momentum THAT PRODUCED THE BIG BANG.

If the universe was static there would be no gravity.

Energy varies according to reference points, i.e. its not absolute. This however cannot be technically accurate as “gravity” is a type of interaction or force that exist between any two bodies having mass.

Where did that spent energy go?  This is given to gravity!

The motion of the Earth around the sun creating our gravitational field that “adds” energy

Leave the objects on their own and they will come closer again, and will gain KE and they will gain exactly same amount of KE as the amount you spent in separating them. What it tells is that in either case, the energy is not lost, or created, it is converted from one form to another.

When you take them apart, you return this potential energy to system and all energy is constant in the universe, but may change forms.

If the force originate from the matter in the masses, then it might be possible to block some of that force and the ‘attraction’ will be smaller.

We know that the universe is composed of over 90% dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy comprises about 70% of this. So far, dark matter and energy remain undetectable and until there are the mechanism that produces gravity, will probably remain a puzzle.

Space is realm eternal and infinite. There is no vacuum in space.  Everything in the universe seems affected by gravity – even light (see black holes)

If you stood looking down on space it is therefore not completely empty. It is filled with photons, gravitational and electromagnetic fields, protons, neutrinos, atoms of hydrogen, helium, etc. These particles  have mass. Space cannot be empty.

So the universe would not exist with those values. The answer to why matter exists in the universe is because all massive particles are just the fabric of space excited into little packets.  A vacuum actually has energy in some form or another. Black holes aren’t really objects, but rather regions in spacetime. In fact, this is so true that black holes are what we call vacuum solutions. They are hypothesized by gravity to be collapsed (neutron) stars, so the collapsed remnant must be there somewhere (or maybe it transforms into the energy of the gravitational field). The mass is still there, inside the event horizon. Black holes are made of gravity alone, gravity being sourced by gravity itself. to the point of completely evaporates. Gravity propagates through vacuum twisting space and time around so that time (the future) points inwards towards the singularity. Eventually they squeeze to the point that their energy emerge into some other domain. The big bang.

All matter can only move and interact with other gravitational fields. In the end, all energy is still equivalently conserved.
Therefore, all energies are inherently cohesive with matter.

The result is that the 2 masses are pushed toward one another. If only one mass is used, the moving mass will always be pushed toward the light beam the Big Bang  Then one does not have to find where the energy of gravity comes from because the force is coming from all direction of space and is probably caused by all what is moving through space at the speed of light.

For the purposes of understanding the ‘source’ of the black hole’s gravity, because the singularity is in the future of every particle that has yet to hit it, and causality requires that the future has no effect on the present. One must stop thinking of gravity as a force at this point, and remember that gravity is an artefact of time- space. so as time stops, “gravity-space” becomes infinite, and where space stops, “gravity- time” becomes an infinite energy and a  force coming from every direction.

The universe exists beyond your ability to see it with light. (The furthest light we can see is the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which is the light left over from the Big Bang, forming at just 380,000 years after our cosmic birth.)

Therefor I propose that a black hole in another adjacent universe to ours rubbed up against our universe resulting in the Big Bang.

In a new study, Stanford physicists Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin have calculated the number of all possible universes, coming up with an answer of 10^10^16.

Indeed, a previous measurement by the Hubble Space Telescope suggested there were 2 trillion galaxies spread across the universe. But the latest discovery counts only hundreds of billions of galaxies instead.100 billion but this number is likely to increase to about 200 billion as telescope technology in space improves – The Webb Telescope.

there were two trillion (2×1012) or more galaxies in the observable universe, overall, and as many as an estimated 1×1024 stars (more stars than all

There are an estimated 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy alone making up about 100 billion suns. The Earths sun 4,603 billion years.

Remember that when contemplating the universe light has limits. Close your eyes, and see the universe in your mind, without the light that enters your eyes. The limits of light are the deceptions of the nature of the universe. You must “see” past them.

The observable Universe is 92 billion light-years in diameter.

## Will our Sun become a black hole?

No, it’s too small for that! The Sun would need to be about 20 times more massive to end its life as a black hole.

Finally.  How skewed our perception of reality is.

Our world is shaped by our senses our knowledge and our societies.

We apparently according to Quantum Physics when we measure something it collapses into two state of reality, that are both unmeasurable when observed.  So that when observed by two people their disparate records are incompatible, making it impossible for them to be regarded as objects.  Two worlds exist simultaneously at the Quantum level.

Which one did the Big Bang happen in.?

All human comments appreciated .All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

# THE BEADY EYE ASKS. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT THE MEDIA IS FULL OF MORE AND MORE VIOLANCE?

We all know that it is impossible to remove violence from the world, as we as a species along with all other species kill.

However too much of our impression of the world comes from a misleading formula of journalistic narration. Reporters give lavish coverage to gun bursts, explosions, and viral videos, oblivious to how representative they are and apparently innocent of the fact that many were contrived as journalist bait.

Beneath all this violence one of the biggest problems about disproportionate coverage of wanton violence is that many homicidal maniacs crave publicity. Doing something really awful remains a guaranteed method of achieving instant fame, or infamy (a distinction that often seems paper thin).

Violent headlines fill the news. If it bleeds, it leads is a truism of news coverage.

You hear of  a murder every day, your hear of mass shootings every day, you hear of war atrocities every day.

Whereas the world is a lot less violent today than at any other time of history, or prehistory, that fact escapes us thanks to our daily diet of journalistic carnage it is widely believed that modern society, in spite of all its technological and scientific progress, is morally deficient.

The question is why are audiences attracted to bloodshed, gore and violence?  Why do we keep coming back for more?

Because, violence is a huge entertainment venue not only today, but in the old days with gladiators.  We now have motion pictures and video games, whether played on computers etc or seen on television or in theatres, depict some of the most heinous fake violence ever.

The days of leaving the imagination to construct the result of violence act have long gone, and it seems without it many people have misconceptions as to how real violence works.

The amount of violence in movies has increased over the past few decades. About 90 percent of the top-grossing movies over a 25-year period contained at least one violent main character.

If you’re one of those people who squirm, twitch and squeal with fear but still enjoy scaring themselves with torturous flicks, then you don’t have to lurk around the deep web to look for these. Netflix has a fair share of anxiety-induced disturbing movies.

Net flicks is full of killing.  A disproportionate role of violence in its top offerings. – Record of Ragnarok.

So why do we accept so much graphic violence as entertainment?

Perhaps depictions of violence that are perceived as meaningful, moving and thought-provoking can foster empathy with victims, admiration for acts of courage and moral beauty in the face of violence, or self-reflection with regard to violent impulses.

Such hedonistic pleasures are only part of the story about why we willingly expose ourselves to scenes of bloodshed and aggression?

As we watch a movie, we are constantly aware of the context in which we are watching it. We are in our homes, a movie theatre or in the arms of a loved one, allowing us to experience the excitement and emotions of violent situations in movies without concern of being harmed. We protect ourselves from the violence by emotionally distancing ourselves from it.

However, desensitization is not the only explanation for the continuing attraction and tolerance of violent movies.

Some types of violent portrayals seem to attract audiences because they promise to satisfy truth-seeking motivations by offering meaningful insights into some aspect of the human. Research has shown that increased exposure to media violence increases one’s tolerance of violence condition.

The biggest culprit  is the Gaming World.

Within a dramatic or protective frame, violent imagery becomes exciting rather than anxiety provoking.

People seem to glamorize, or maybe romanticize death… its good joke material. Right up until they get close enough to smell it on someone they care about.

Don’t train you’re brain that violence is ok. All Sociopaths, psychopaths, and narcissists suffer from a complete lack of empathy and conscience.

Todays society has made people “numb”

Some of the bloodiest wars ever fought are almost unknown by the wider global public. The An Lushan rebellion (8th century) killed around 22 million. The war of Three Kingdoms (3rd century) killed about 40 million. The Taiping Rebellion (mid 1800s) some estimates put as high as 70 million. The Qing Conquest (of the Ming – early 17th century) killed around 25 million. These are figures that elsewhere only get matched by global conflicts like World Wars.

One of the most needed, least known skills in our world today is conflict resolution.

We don’t learn it in school, at home, in the media, or on the streets.

We don’t learn it at all, most of us, reducing our complex lives to only two options, either-or: win or lose, right or wrong, all or nothing, us or them. So we act on impulse, lapsing into fight or flight, perpetuating cycles of misunderstanding and violent interactions on levels from the interpersonal to the international. For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savour, ultimately.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com.

# THE BEADY EYE ANALYSIS THE OUTCOME OF COP27.

ONCE MORE ITS A JOKE.

Carbon budgets and climate catastrophe will not wait for the 2050 ‘net-zero’ goals of governments around the world because climate does not warm in a gradual and linear fashion, but with tripping feedback loops that will lead to rapidly escalating effects. There can be no more hiding, and no more denying.

Cop 27 concluded with a historic decision to establish and operationalize a loss and damage fund.

Now comes the difficult part – the fund must be set up, and filled with cash. There is no agreement yet on how the finance should be provided and where it should come from.

In fact, the agreement that emerged from Sharm el-Sheikh barely improved on the Glasgow Climate Pact.

More than 100 Heads of State and Governments, over 35,000 participants took twelve  days to produce a ten paged Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan document full of – Encourages, Recognizes, Invites, Notes, Highlights,  Calls on, Urges ,Expresses serious concern,  Affirms , Welcomes the establishment, with no actually plan to solve the problem of global warming, rather than just paying for the destruction caused by it.

The demands for climate reparations from wealthy countries are so absurd, so unscientific, and so offensive to natural justice that it is difficult to know where the criticism should begin.

First, the claims are rooted in indignation rather than science.

Developing countries have been seeking financial assistance for loss and damage – money needed to rescue and rebuild the physical and social infrastructure of countries devastated by extreme weather – for nearly three decades.

Secondly of the $100bn a year rich countries promised they would receive from 2020 – a promise still not fulfilled – only about$20bn goes to adaptation.

Finally achieving agreement on a fund is a major milestone. Now comes the difficult part – the fund must be set up, and filled with cash. There is no agreement yet on how the finance should be provided and where it should come from.

Reform of the kind widely discussed at Cop27 could involve a recapitalisation of the development banks to allow them to provide far more assistance to the developing world.

Nicholas Stern, a climate economist and peer, has calculated the developing world will need \$2.4tn (£2tn) a year from 2030. But this is only about 5% more than the investment they would require anyway, much of which would go into high-carbon infrastructure. The World Bank could provide about half of those funds, he estimates.

On the mean time the effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible for people alive today, and will worsen as long as humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming sooner.

Increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts.

With such a huge crisis facing the entire planet, the international response should be swift and decisive. Yet progress by world governments has been achingly slow. Many commitments to reduce carbon emissions have been set, but few are binding and targets are often missed.

We all know what is needed – instead of leprechauns  pots of gold at the end of the rainbow  Keep fossil fuels in the ground. Invest in renewable energy. Switch to sustainable transport. Improve farming. Restore nature. Protect forests. Protect the oceans. Reduce how much people consume. Reduce plastic.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact : bobdillon33@gamil.com

# THE BEADY EYE’S: OPEN LETTER TO THE LABOUR PARTY IN THE UK.

Dear Labour Party.

The next general election is due, in January 2025 is Labour’s to lose.

Nowadays both Labour and Conservative claim to represent people from the whole of society but essentially the base difference between either party is philosophical, which is in view of the state of the country, not to mention the world,  pure unadulterated – trickle down, trickle up foodbanks, delusional bullocks.

With problems from health to education, economic growth, its time to change the name of the Party to the SP Party – Self-help.

Long before the Pandemic exposed what is wrong with the country, now exacerbated by the war in the Ukraine with resulting inflation (due to the supply chain and cost of energy) the Tory party had more power than for a quarter of a century – power to hurt the families, communities and public services which they achieved with the trauma of Brexit that has without doubt contributed to a blindness to the misfortunes of others and the Labour Party.

Britain is now in a recession and set to lose more working days to strikes in 2023 than in any year since the 1980s.

If Labour MPs now put their troubled past behind them, run a non Presidential campaign, by building  a campaign on what’s right for the country.

With the right set of policies to create a clear alternative and inspire the British public that they could governed differently you would win the forthcoming election.

How could this be achieved?

The state should be benevolent and caring for the neediest, but what if instead of relying on giving benefits you armed the population to look after its self.

Instead of a living wage Labour introduced (over a period of ten years) a living income.

That would achieve leavening up, drive growth and remove central state governance, enabling collective action and responsibility with individual liberty and responsibility.

Equality of outcome’s.

Young voters are brought up to use multiple sources of digital news and social media, the Google generation is able to use to internet to think critically, check facts and make up their own mind.

There is one thing that is in front of there minds and  all countries Climate Change. The need to turn to generating green energy.

Unlike many land locked countries England is an Island surrounded by ebbing and incoming tides.

The labour party needs to fully embrace green energy as a alternative to radioactive waste,,

Tide technology at half the cost of nuclear power already exist.  Millions of  jobs await your creation to achieve zero emissions.

Wake up Labour before its to late.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

# THE BEADY EYE ASKS. IS IT TRUE THAT INFLATION CAN BE BLAMED ON THE PANDEMIC/ THE WAR IN THE UKRAINE / THE COST OF ENGERY OR ANYTHING ELSE.

Tags

.

To know truly is to know by causes. — Francis Bacon

How to stop inflation?  Remove the cause!

Interestingly, all schemes or nostrums which ignore the cause, if and when adopted, sink us ever deeper into the mire.

As if inflation weren’t bad enough, most proffered “cures” would worsen the situation!

The number of UK businesses which went to the wall this year rose from 299,000 to nearly 330,000, according to official figures released just minutes before Jeremy Hunt’s emergency budget.

Inflation occurs when the money in circulation exceeds the production of commodities and services. Consequently, in an inflationary environment, the purchasing power of money falls and the prices of commodities and services rise. It is nothing more nor less than the printing of what the government has declared to be legal tender, that is, printing ever-increasing quantities of fiat money into the brutal economic reality.

The biggest misunderstanding is that people do not realize that monetary policy is a major cause of the increase in inflation.

Chancellors tweak their parameters to suit their aims and ideology of their political parties.

All of the above contribute to Inflation, but the real reason is that’s Economies are put in front of the needs of people.

WHEN IT COMES TO ENGLAND IT  IS A SELF INFLICTED WOUND.

Inflation hit 11.1% in the year to October, the highest for 41 years. It took over 12 years, not just a year, for inflation to rise by large amounts.

QUATIVE EASING TO SAVE THE BANKS. LEAVING THE EU – DUMPING THE SINGLE MARKET IN FAVOR OF FANTISTY TRADE DEALS.   PLOUGING TAX PAYERS MONEY INTO WHITE ELEPHENT – WORTHLESS/ OUT OF DATE PROJECTS – HIGHT SPEED RAIL (HS2)  – (The cost to taxpayers could rise from £17.1 billion to a massive £45.5 billion) – Out of date nuclear power stations.  £700 million  investment into Sizewell C, operated by France’s EDF in the east of England when tide generated power technology can do the job at half the cost.

Financial statements are prepared on historical costs on the assumption that the unit of account (e.g., the pound) has a static value.

In reality, however, the value of money changes over time.

Fiscal rules seem to change almost annually these days, as new Sunak says he is on track to hit the new rules, which appears to be hardly surprising given that he has just devised them for himself.

Fixed assets are stated at historical costs in the balance sheet; they do not show the true current worth and are often unrealistically low.

In the context of rising prices, there is a significant overstatement of profits since the cost of goods sold is calculated on a historical cost basis and no allowance is made for the reduction in the purchasing power of money.

Also it is worth adding that an overstatement of profits results in heavy financial strain for a company in terms of heavy dividends, heavy taxation, and so on.

As inflation rates vary from year to year, an element of uncertainty characterizes the activities of the business. In order to incorporate realism into financial statements they should be adjusting so as to reflect, in a true and fair manner, the financial performance and the position of any enterprise over a particular period.

The inflation rate, as measured by the percentage change in the consumer price index.

Yes, there are international factors, such as the global supply chain and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Pandemic etc.

However, inflation started rising before these international factors appeared, because interest rate were too low and the QUATIVE Easing increases money growth too rapidly.

When the costs of government rise beyond the point where it is no longer politically expedient to defray the costs by direct tax levies, governments all over the world resort to an expansion of paper money — inflation — as a means of making up the difference.

Out of the inflation of prices grew a speculating class; and, in the complete uncertainty as to the future, all business became a game of chance, and all businessmen, gamblers. The quick growth of stockjobbers and speculators. Instead of satisfaction with legitimate profits, came a passion for inordinate gains.

Inflation is not questioned, farmers want to be paid for not farming, other to receive benefits for not working, to have their medical care and children’s education subsidized,  to be protected against competition. The list is endless creating millions upon millions identifying self-interest with legal plunder!

The more political largess they can get — regardless of the force used as values became more and more uncertain, there was no longer any motive for care or economy, but every motive for immediate expenditure and present enjoyment. —the better.

We can’t compel all business ventures to adopt a “profit-sharing” procedure — employees as well as entrepreneurs sharing in the gains, because they would have to share in the losses also.

The cures are strictly a matter of inspired and intelligent leadership.

• In 2021, the expenditure of the United Kingdom government is expected to be over one trillion British pounds, with the highest spending function being the 302 billion pounds expected to be spent on social protection, which includes pensions and other welfare benefits.

The UK government is hiking a windfall tax on oil and gas companies and extending the levy to electricity generators, as it scrambles to balance its budget amid an economic downturn. It is also investing in nuclear power for the first time in decades. Beginning January 1, the Energy Profits Levy on oil and gas companies will increase from 25% to 35% and remain in place until the end of March 2028. That takes the total tax on the sector to 75%, according to the Treasury.. together, these measures will raise £14 billion next year and more than £55 billion between 2022 and 2028.

SO HERE IS THE SOLUTION TO INFLATION:

So lets say that over this period they were to destructing the benefit state and replacing it with look after yourselves state, funded by these the saving on benefits and a tax on  profit for profit sake and replace the Basic Living ( The Basic living wage does not alleviate  poverty (it only increases the gap between the poor and the rich) while with a Basic Income, equipping  people to look after themselves -level up would not be just good for the economy but it would get rid of foodbanks, strikes. etc. – restoring price stability to the market place.

In doing so, it might just stave off a future where unemployment surges, wages stagnate, retirement funds bleed value, and vast numbers of people are made even more economically insecure in order to satisfy economic orthodoxies that are indifferent to people lives.

The thesis today is that inflation must be brought down is the culmination of almost a century of central bank orthodoxies. But that leaves one rather crucial question: is it true?

Past mistakes can’t be undone, but future ones can be avoided.

The sense that inflation destroys wealth and creates the conditions for political instability has deep roots but all production creates its own purchasing power!

All in all, this UK budget ducked the opportunity to make serious reforms to the way wealth is taxed.

All human comments apricated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdilon33@gmail,com

# THE BEADY EYE: LOOKS AT THE NORTHERN IRELAND PROTOCOL.

What is the Northern Ireland protocol?

The protocol was part of the UK’s 2019 Brexit divorce deal with the European Union.

To avoid imposing a trade-and-customs border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland it put one in the Irish Sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which in effect remained part of the EU trading bloc.

Unionists say this undermines Northern Ireland’s position in the UK and could lead to an economic united Ireland.

The British government would like to unilaterally change or even dump the protocol – this would please Brexiters and Unionists.

But this would more than likely trigger a trade war with the EU. Which is the last thing Britain needs at the moment.

The Stormont executive as a result of the last election and the refusal of the Unionist to accept the Protocol has become a zombified administration in which civil servants and ministers from the outgoing executive continue basic functions but cannot take big decisions or launch new initiatives.

Of course if the protocol is weakened or changed, the Unionist will demand a new election in hope that the DUP would overtake Sinn Féin as the biggest party, giving it the right to nominate a first minister.

For the Protocol to work, it must be implemented in a way that respects the needs of all Northern Ireland’s people,
respects Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory, and avoids disruption to lives and livelihoods in Northern Ireland.

Another words it must work for the whole community in Northern Ireland not just the Unionist  And no matter what happens, whether it is maintained in the future will always be for the people of Northern Ireland to decide.

THE PROTOCOL IS LITTERED WITH NEW PROCEDURES AND OF COURSE IS UNABLE TO ADDRESS WHAT IT MIGHT CREATE IN THE FUTURE.

WHILE WE ALL BUSSY WITH THE COST OF LIVING ETC,  WHAT REALLY IS HAPPING?

The British government has published new legislation which would override key elements of the Northern Ireland Protocol, an international treaty they negotiated and signed to deal with the fallout of Brexit. The British government says the legislation is necessary and lawful and consistent with obligations in international law, however, this is likely to be challenged in court.

Where will this leave us?

If the British government continues to take this legislation through Parliament and successfully turns it into law, the EU will be forced to act to protect a member state, effectively, Ireland from the consequences of a breach of an international treaty, which has significant consequences for Ireland in terms of our own place in the EU single market.

The British are mixing up the principle of consent and the cross-community majority cited in the agreement as a way to justify their actions in placating the DUP.

As we shuffle from global crises to global crises, Britain under the Conservatives does what it wants, regardless of international law, or humiliation on a global scale.

Breaking international law was “not a big deal.” Just pass a bill and foreign affairs becomes a matter for devolved non sitting ministers.

It is easy to forget history when it didn’t kick down your front door or imprison your father without trial, or worse.

Until some people in the North and in Westminster come to realise that you cannot eat a flag, more of us will die. There is no point to a parliament.  Bring back King Henry the eight, who gave the fingers to both parliament and the bloke called the Pope.

Watch this space. For another reason that the UK cannot be trusted.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse cucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com