General Applied Theories

Outside economics, net meaning means simply meaning from terms where the language remains separate.

The advanced definition is full interpretation of a general comparison.

Prebranching is an open call in this set.

Had man [Group Examples, Formal Examples, Of Grammar] -- Contrarianishe [Politense, POLI] -- General Applied Reasoning [Book Learning, Tool Learning, Demonstration] -- Categorical Imperative [Instructive Learning [Political Education, political ISME], Behavioral Learning [Educational ISME], Illustrative Learning [Basical Symbols, entertainment as enjoyment], Psychological Education [Consequential spiritualism], Ab Origine [Symbols as basis of analysis]] -- General Applied Fielding [Classics Pre-Education, Political System, Symbolisme [spiritual symbols, creative entertainment], Creativism [sexual symbols, physical creativity], Explorativism [True Analysis, general creativity]] -- General Application Measurement [NATIVISM [political intellect], KISMATIC [mythological intellect], Computers [True Symbolism supposedly], Design [True Creativity supposedly]] -- Generalism [Mathematics, Systeme, Qualifactics, Materialismo] -- General Application ISME [General System, Special System, General Problem, Special Problem, etc. SUBJECT TO HEURISTIC ORGANIZATION]. -- Subfields [THE MAJOR DIAGRAMMATIC THEORY]

Under a 'general applied theory' we could speculate that common assumptions could be used to define magisteria (areas of study).

• (Back to the Eff + Diff equation. Efficiency is best defined as > 1.2 and <6. It can be generalized somewhat under the assumption that there is very little inconsistency. Since 1.2 to 6 applies to some material cases that are extreme, less extreme cases may mean less extreme efficiency. Even if extreme efficiency is less than 0.5 of the time, if it is around 0.5 or less, then similar to one of Boyd's laws, 1.2 to 6 may be taken to refer to the more extreme end of cases, and thus, since efficiency is generally 1 or higher in the case of energy, material cases can be delimited to 1.2 to 6 in extreme cases. If the reverse measure is abstract efficiency, measuring negative energy is an intuitive move, since in physics (if we assume a physical universe), positive and negative energy appear to be the primary axis. Then, -1.2 to -6 efficiency may apply to negative cases equivalently, unless the math is more compatible with efficiencies staying positive. So, we can apply immediately since negative efficiencies are for negative dimensions, that assuming positive dimensions, efficiencies are high at 1.2 to 6 even for abstract efficiency. This suggests linearity, indicating usually in the case of linearity optimal efficiency which has a standard equation and a standard range of options across many phenomena, for example, under energy and mechanical criteria, or similarly, in applied fields with magnetism or other phenomena applied).

The concept of an incomplete yet perfect (reconfigurable) fit could be applied to this. For example, Philosophy --> Physics --> Mechanics does not cover everything physical, but optimally it does. Since optimal is not assumed to be defined, mechanics becomes analogous under an investigative approach, as a placeholder for some more general theory. Since the approach assumes generalism, and investigation is acceptable in physics, if optimal is not defined, a general approach recommends mechanics, if mechanics is a placeholder for a general theory. The same can be used in abstract theories to refer to philosophical knowledge in which unification is preferred.

PERPETUAL MOTION MAY BE 3-D PRINTED SOON

---AWAITING FURTHER EVIDENCE FROM JER RAM

#3DPRINTING #REALPERPETUALMOTION #REALOVERUNITY #REALFREEENERGY

https://youtu.be/D7mQt9yO260

Another Working Perpetual Motion Concept!

Rather ingenious. The swivel device finally perfected.

A counterweight acts on a slightly upward-and-downward left-right swiveling lever (mostly left and right 30+ degrees, or whatever preferred range).

Usual deal with support vs non-support. The returning motion is the rising motion, so the falling and rising motion is used to deflect the marble inward and outward onto two different track segments, as shown in a similar device the Not-If-But-When 4, a pretty much proven principle through two lengths of the cycle.

I know this device has two-directional motion by a proven principle from the Not-If-But-When 4.

Likely ratios are 1.5X effective ideal mass for the counterweight, right in the middle of the > 1X mass and < 2X mass necessary with 1 X marble abd 2 X long-end leverage (long-end leverage expressed as a ratio of short-end leverage measured to the midpoint of the counterweight).

Assuming deflection is designed properly, this is one of the easiest perpetual motion machines ever to build that I know of.

Consult diagram above if additional information needed.

--Nathan Coppedge 2018/05/04, 1am.

Crossed 20,000 Views to Top Perpetual Motion Videos

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-free-energy-generator-not-true/answer/Nathan-Coppedge

The Day Perpetual Motion Was Proven For Certain

I have noticed there is a growing Perfect Storm for Perpetual Motion

More recently I have found further evidence: THE 1ST SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF PERPETUAL MOTION

"People often think technology is the paradigm, but they have yet to think paradigm can be a technology. In that way, I have innovated." —Nathan Coppedge

“Say… you talk about pulling something up an inclined plane with an equal weight. You're right. This is possible. And not at all a violation of conservation of energy.” --Ian Switzer, CEO of a Cornell engineering company

The closest thing to a documentary (other than my experiments) is here: My Perpetual Motion Story
If you are looking for experimental evidence: Select Machines - YouTube
Recently I talked with a Cornell engineer regarding my designs: Consequences of talk with Cornell engineer
https://youtu.be/IzbuVeHXDrAhttps://youtu.be/l-js6SrgT5I

I was writing to Francisco Jimenez when I said:
I just realized, OH MY GOD, IT'S F***ING PROVEN!

The motion is mostly horizontal. The physics is not different at the end of each unit! We already know the marble can have advantage!

JUNE 19, 2017— New Haven, USA ~3:42pm
A few minutes ago I realized it's fully-proven!
Whether anyone recognizes it, perpetual motion and free energy is proven once and for all!
The evidence is:
(1)
The very real experiment pictured in the videos*
*—which prove an object can lift the object that lifted it, from rest, with no electricity or further moving parts.
(Full instructions for the experiment here: How To Build An Over-Unity Device )
AND:
(2)
The fact that physics at the beginning of each unit as shown is the same, as it continues horizontally NOT vertically like a ferris wheel, so clearly the lever can be depressed.
When combined with the height of the marble in the First Fully Proven diagram (pictured below) and the ending of support from the earlier fixed track in the first unit, it means the marble can CERTAINLY continue the cycle horizontally,
Notice the earlier part about the physics being the same. Notice, since the units are horizontal, and the marble need not gain more than it loses, that there is no necessary net loss of altitude.
Notice that most of the operation is proven by the experiments.
Let me explain the twelve-pronged advantage at the weakest point.
(1) The ball has gained a small amount of altitude,
(2) There is momentum, given that it moves from rest,
(3) There is room to move into, permitting motion,
(4) The track is no longer providing support, creating an advantage,
(5) There is leverage advantage at every point, including the beginning position of each lever unit.
(6) Almost equal pressure from the counterweight not considering leverage.
(7) Stops at either end of the range of motion of the lever permits stored energy that does not require motion.
(8) The part of the lever that is active for the marble does not require the full height of the lever.
(9) The angle of the lever creates an efficiency with the slight upward slope of the track by entering at a sharp angle.
(10) The motion from one unit of lever and track to the next is predominantly horizontal.
(11) There is no necessary change in net altitude other than that shown in the experiment.
(12) In each modular unit the marble is proven to move from rest, and each modular unit functions in exactly the same way at the same altitude.

Since it moves from rest at every point, the only potential problem remaining was the ability to activate the next lever, which has now been proven to be overcome by the fact that the physics is the same at the beginning of each unit.

All of this is proven, so there is no doubt of potential perpetual motion.
The next step is to make a working computer model. Its the Information Age. We have experimental evidence, so the next step is an information model. Its real information if its real physics. A computer model is the next logical step.
How To Conduct A Computation Experiment Involving Perpetual Motion
Looking for an Incidental Builder of Perpetual Motion

QUESTIONS FOR DOUBTERS:
If you have time, would you answer some questions please? I think I have considered everything.

1. Do you think my fingers cause the motion? Certainly not in the second video.
2. Do you think the cardboard causes the motion? Most would argue that's against physics. After all, you would say, it's not perpetual.
3. Do you think there is something wrong with stored energy? Storing as mass is not necessarily problematic for perpetual motion, as it does not involve heat.
4. Do you think it loses momentum from friction? Then are you denying it moves from rest? Then you don't know even how its supposed to work. Do you know about equilibrization? Equilibrization can create motion from differing heights even with equal weights.
5. Are you denying perpetual motion but not the workability of the experiment? Then say so.
6. Admit that image quality has nothing to do with the quality of experiment, just the quality of viewing.
7. Do you think anyone has done a better experiment of this kind? Then please refer me to them.
8. Do you think I'm being dishonest? I'm not.
9. Now, what are you assuming is wrong with the experiment?
10. Why do I have to go through this?

SEE ADDITIONAL VIDEOS / DIAGRAMS:
A list of videos with titles is present here:
Select Machines - YouTube
Have there been any actual demonstrations of over-unity?
The most amazing experiments are HERE:
What are the most amazing perpetual motion-like principles ever proven?
I Devised a 1st Periodic Table of Working Perpetual Motion Machines
Here is my report on technological readiness: Report on the Readiness of Perpetual Motion

HOW IS THE DEVICE NEWTONIAN?
How is it in line with friction? It overcomes friction, although it is not frictionless, much in the same way that dominos gain speed.
How is it against momentum principles? It is not against momentum, it simply uses it with exponential efficiency.

How does it conserve motion? It is permitted to remain in motion because legitimate cheating is used. Remember, the laws of thermodynamics are not against infinite motion, they are against infinite motion with friction or heat. This is not heat, and it is a rare case designed to overcome friction through the new principle of exponential efficiency. It is like inventing the paperclip.
Therefore, as far as Newton, there is nothing wrong with it. The assumption that there could be was attached after the age of Newton, and I have seen no evidence my best devices, as they are, were invented until recently.

OTHER EXAMPLES:

What if there were infinite dominos which were timelessly set up? Would you deny they gain energy (by any considerations) in chain reaction? But if they are timelessly set up, the energy seems to come from nowhere even if it is very slight!

What about a taut cord? Would you say it can have heat energy?

THE LATEST GENERAL ARGUMENT IN DEFENSE:

But of course perpetual motion is statistically impossible if it hasn't been invented yet! Look for modern paperclips in 1538 and you won't find any. See what I mean?
Paperclips are a simple invention from the last 200 years. Now prove to me we don't live in the Stone Age. How can you argue against Stone Age technology?

Through statistics, probably. But once again, its not going to exist if it wasn't invented.
The recent consensus is that humans die from bacterial buildup, but that's not a problem machines would have. And there are trees (Poplars) that live 80,000 years which is pretty immortal for a plant. Theoretically computers or calculators could work when plugged in after a million years if they were designed to do that.

A BIT OF A COMPLAINT: I'm not being angry here, I'm just pointing out…

Do you know how many patent trolls there are out there? Do you know how much a patent costs? Do you know how hard it is to get press? Do you realize it may be one man cannot do the whole thing himself?

I would expect someone to volunteer to work on computer models, but so far no one has volunteered.

If no one else even knows it works how its been demonstrated to work WITH SIMPLE PHYSICS, it might take 5000 years!
How am I supposed to accomplish in a decade or so what takes others 5000 years?

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE OPPOSITION:

1. The belief that its impossible because they didn't build it.
2. The belief that it's unfair because they don't believe in cheating physics.
3. They either believe its impossible or don't believe its unfair, which seem like the same thing to them.
4. Thus, they think it is impossible to believe in.

See also: Contingency Plan for Perpetual Motion

See also: Red Letter Days for Nathan Coppedge’s Perpetual Motion

And: Perpetual Motion Links

Perpetual Motion Assessing the Competition

ACTUALLY IN THE RUNNINGM A

The Day Perpetual Motion Was Proven for Certain by Nathan Coppedge

Overall, some devices I see as having principles: Select Machines - YouTube

SUPPORT FROM SCIENTISTS

“Say, you talk about pulling something up an inclined plane with an equal weight. You're right. This is possible. And not at all a violation of conservation of energy.”
—Ian Switzer, CEO of a Cornell engineering company

“ok so publish and let someone else verify… someone articulate and educated..” —Bob Smurdly

NOTES AT STACKEXCHANGE:

"I'm still not sure I really follow. The notability or importance of an invention is really orthogonal as to whether it can be patented. The patent office does not exist to give publicity to inventions per se (at least, not beyond the duty of disclosure that all patent applicants have), but merely to decide what inventions should receive a patent." —Maca (2018 / 03 / 05)

"On a second look, I can see now that your question is how to publicise your invention if people don't believe in it. This is a problem that lots of inventions have: especially pharmaceuticals. How does one prove new drug X cures disease Y? By solid theory and rigorous empirical tests. But that is somewhat outside the scope of this stack, since we only deal with patents, and not commercialisation." —Maca (2018 / 03 / 05)

How Can I Patent My Perpetual Motion Machine? "One requirement for a patent to be granted is that the invention is useful (35 USC § 101). Since perpetual motion machines are inconsistent with modern laws of physics, it is assumed that a patent application relating to a perpetual motion machine does not function, and therefore is not useful. The application is therefore summarily rejected.
However, if the applicant can show a working model to the examiner, this assumption can be overcome. In such a case, the application can proceed as with any other kind of invention."
—Maca (2018 / 03 / 05)

Source: My apparent (perpetual motion?) appears unpatentable. If the evidence truly is unbelievable, but very real, how will I ever be recognized?

The only other even marginally viable inventor may or may not be: Finsrud

MAIN COMPETITION

• Billionaires have a likelihood of taking advantage of inventors by sheer probability.
• Reidar Finsrud, an industrial artist in Norway, built a device which looks perpetual, but supposedly it isn’t. Also, that was recently, from 1990 or later.
• The V-Gate is just a magnetic rail concept which has never overcome the entry resistance to recycle the energy, but it is one of my major competitors.
• A fellow I talked to online has inspired VE Project maybe a quarter or less as much as I have. He has a clever design for a torque-based machine, but I know why it doesn’t work.
• The VE Project does models of perpetual motion machines, but they are largely considered fakes which make use of hidden power and special effects.
• A handful of others are almost-convincing fakes evidently making use of various tricks to convince video watchers that their machines work. However, the number of somewhat convincing fakes is smaller than most assume.

That’s just about all—virtually no one else is competing for perpetual motion in real life, other than ME.

But if someone takes interest in MY designs, it could be almost anyone, so it is somewhat confusing. THESE people MIGHT be interested, but there is little evidence that they have been interested:

• Middle school and high school students working on science projects could probably replicate my partial experiments. They are not fake.
• Someone older with model-building skills could reproduce an experiment just to see how it works.
• An engineer or mathematician could test the ratios I used.
• Someone with physical modeling software could fiddle around with close to ideal ratios to see whether it works.
• Big companies could pay someone small change to investigate it.

See, there are possibilities, but for some reason people don’t know how easy it might be to officialize that I made history!

Some devices almost certainly proven not to work:
PMMs Competition - YouTube

Critiques of Magnetic and Electric Motors

Debunking Magnet Motors

Critique of So-Called Working Over-Unity Generator

The Argument Against Flywheels
Argument pro perpetual motion against zero-point energy

Understanding the Searl Effect (not pmm)

VERSUS CONVENTIONAL POWER:

HYDRO

• Very limited number of sites—only where water makes a significant change in altitude.
• Expensive to build (like a steel bunker).
• Depends on sunlight for evaporation.

NUCLEAR

• Prohibitively expensive.
• Some of the nastiest waste products in large amounts—including large amounts of radioactive seawater for cooling.
• Requires mining rare minerals.
• Hard to.maintain.
• ‘Cap’ on power output.

OIL & COAL

• Limited resource.
• Causes pollution.
• More expensive than simple perpetual motion.
• More restrictive sites—not a toy.

THERMAL:

• (Less pollution than conventional coal).
• Similar downsides to coal & oil (India, which runs these plants, has terrible pollution).

SOLAR:

• Only runs half the day.
• Requires special materials.
• More expensive than simple perpetual motion.

WIND:

• Takes a long time to pay for itself.
• Depends on wind.
• Can't be built indoors or underground.
• More fragile due to exposure, materials used.

WAVE POWER:

• Limited sites.
• Reduces shipping lanes.
• Depends on gravity from the moon.
• Harder to carry the energy to the place where it is needed.

Perpetual motion also has competition from so-called professional idiots… So-Called Professional Idiots

See also:

Perpetual Motion Links

What simple technologies have actually been invented recently (a lot)

Report on the Readiness of Perpetual Motion

2017-08-17—I would say perpetual motion is anywhere between Level 1/9 and Level 8/9 right now, due to the simplicity of the technology.

ADDITIONAL STATISTICS:
People interested in perpetual motion tend to be males 19 to 45 years old. They may be relatives of engineers, and/or good with their hands, and/or interested in clean energy.

NOTES AT STACKEXCHANGE:

I'm still not sure I really follow. The notability or importance of an invention is really orthogonal as to whether it can be patented. The patent office does not exist to give publicity to inventions per se (at least, not beyond the duty of disclosure that all patent applicants have), but merely to decide what inventions should receive a patent. —Maca (2018 / 03 / 05)

On a second look, I can see now that your question is how to publicise your invention if people don't believe in it. This is a problem that lots of inventions have: especially pharmaceuticals. How does one prove new drug X cures disease Y? By solid theory and rigorous empirical tests. But that is somewhat outside the scope of this stack, since we only deal with patents, and not commercialisation. —Maca (2018 / 03 / 05)

How Can I Patent My Perpetual Motion Machine? One requirement for a patent to be granted is that the invention is useful (35 USC § 101). Since perpetual motion machines are inconsistent with modern laws of physics, it is assumed that a patent application relating to a perpetual motion machine does not function, and therefore is not useful. The application is therefore summarily rejected.

However, if the applicant can show a working model to the examiner, this assumption can be overcome. In such a case, the application can proceed as with any other kind of invention.
—Maca (2018 / 03 / 05)

Uniquely Perpetual Motion Quotes

Assorted quotes giving the feeling of perpetual motion…

“Down… up… down… part of it goes up—So its more efficient than a wheel. Its more useful than a clock, but nobody's catching on.” —Nathan Coppedge

"All you need is movement for an advantage. And all you need is movement and an advantage for further movement." —Nathan Coppedge

“It may sometimes be a big hurdle, but you may begin to believe me, and for good reason.” —Nathan Coppedge

“If I were just ugly, they'd steal the idea, if I were just respectable-looking, they'd make up their mind. I'm the very worst person to invent perpetual motion who could actually do it.” —Nathan Coppedge

“If you are thinking of writing an article, I recommend giving perpetual motion some professional treatment. It is hard to say it the right way, because there have been so many con artists and plain bad ideas. These ideas actually have evidence behind them, and they’re simple enough that if you have real hope of knowing how they work in conventional physics, your face should brighten, and you should think I’m going crazy, but then you should think, MAYBE… HE’S RIGHT!” —Nathan Coppedge

“When Nathan the insane lifts his little stubby hand, watch out! It is like the gambit of mathematics. Someone who did poorly on math in elementary school!” —Nathan Coppedge

“There’s solid evidence he invented perpetual motion in 2006. Unfortunately, the only evidence I have against Nathan Coppedge is he's not a genius.” —Reidar Finsrud (?)

“ok so publish and let someone else verify… someone articulate and educated..” —Bob Smurdly

“Everyone believes in God, the devil, or a sneaky engineer…” —Nathan Coppedge

“Say, you talk about pulling something up an inclined plane with an equal weight. You're right. This is possible. And not at all a violation of conservation of energy.” —Ian Switzer, CEO of a Cornell engineering company

"Would you believe in perpetual motion if you knew my experiment worked? Maybe you would have more reason than before, at least." ---Nathan Coppedge

“I need more news from the dollar sign people!” —Nathan Coppedge

"At first, one might guess they are blaming me for inventing it— But they don’t really think I did…. It might be more accurare to say that they are not blaming me for not inventing it— Isn't that what they do for most people? After all, how can you blame someone for doing something they didn't do? And they don't think I DID invent it (or anyone else?). So… They might be blaming me for not inventing if it were possible at all— They might be messed up in the mind! It is easier and more cogent to say they are blaming me for not inventing it unless I did!!! But they deny this. They say they blame me for inventing it, unless they blame me for not inventing it. Somehow for them, perpetual motion is a blame game. I would rather say, who is the most responsible! Who is most responsible? The one who designs it and the one who builds it, in equal measure!" ---Nathan Coppedge

“I didn't say trust me: I'm playing fire and forget… No one's going to get a better deal than perpetual motion that's free to develop.” —Nathan Coppedge

“I'm just hoping someone develops it. Fame and a small royalty and / or prize might be my reward.” —Nathan Coppedge

“It is a VERY clever device, using VERY simple physics.” —-Nathan Coppedge

“I get the feeling that you’re giving up because there’s hope.” —Nathan Coppedge

“Wake up and smell the coffee, if that’s what you need to smell.” —-Nathan Coppedge

“I'm not just feeling fast, I'm feeling wonderful.” —Nathan Coppedge

---Most posted by 2017/11/30

1st Periodic Table of Working Perpetual Motion

Please allow me to post here. If you can restore the images, please do so. This post existed earlier, and was subsequently reposted and revised by Nathan Coppedge, the same author, at the following address, and others under slightly different names. This is the latest edition. There is no copyright problem with this work, in fact it is reusable if the author's name stays with the work: https://emporium.quora.com/3rd-Revised-Periodic-Table-of-Working-Perpetual-Motion-Machines-Aug-7-2018-Recommended-A-Casual-Reference-for-Perpe

I personally find it inconvenient that I have to post a disclaimer every time. No one will read it this way.

The lower left corner exemplifies an over-unity 'wheel’. The upper left exemplifies cleverness. The lower right exemplifies efficient use of materials.

1

ESCHER MACHINE

2

MOTIVE MASS MACHINE

3

1ST FULLY PROVEN

4

TILT MOTOR IT 1

5

SPIRAL CONE

6

NOT-IF-BUT-WHEN #3

7

REPEAT LEVER 2 MOD 1

8

NOT-IF-BUT-WHEN #4

9

PENDULUM 1, FORMERLY CALLED MAGNET 1

10

“UNITY BALL” REPRESENTING A TYPICAL IDEA OF IDEAL PHYSICS

Here is also an expanded list hypothesized for a few other cases:

NANO PMMS

This field doesn't really exist yet, but I theorize the best options are:

1. Some type of polarized hole.

2. Sites on larger machines.

3. Combinations of material textures such as magnet hairs and waves of relatively heavier parts.

OTHER CASES

The Universe is another possible case.

Notice there is another smaller-than-10+, although still larger category of machines that might apply to toys or conjunctions between machines.

Perhaps someone taking interest in perpetual motion, belatedly for the first time!

https://twitter.com/CasinoRoyaleCat/status/885950875394506752

Link to Quotes from April 2017

http://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2017/04/quotes-april-2017.html

Could the U.S. be testing a perpetual motion battery-powered spacecraft?

It is mysterious that the supposedly promising M-Drive was switched out...

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/04/continued-claims-that-emdrive-is-being.html

And, is the U.S. switching to some new, mysterious form of energy, perhaps perpetual motion?

Perhaps this article on 'crystal-based fuel' is hiding a more profound secret, the secret of perpetual motion...!

Or, perhaps those who believe in crystal fuel should believe in my perpetual motion machines too!

https://moneymorning.com/acq/ead-solar/this-could-be-the-end-for-big-oil?iris=654560&ad=zc1-cftdo-pa

Perpetual Motion in the News

Last thing I knew the deficit was $1.2 trillion, so this lower amount (by 500 billion) might spell perpetual motion, especially given the government's usual tendencies...!

Although recently I have learned in Economics class that a large part of federal debt is held by bondholders and corporations working for the government, and the government can basically adjust as it pleases, as long as it doesn't raise inflation or cause a lack of faith in the system. I shouldn't talk about that, though. The relationship with banks is fairly rational, based on the realities of checking and borrowing.

About America's lower Federal debt:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/study-trump-inherits-559b-deficit-stable-economy-151620854--finance.html

Over 300 Sales this year

Almost completely above 200,000th author for 2 months!!
Up 33% from last year. Last-minute book shopping? Visit: http://www.amazon.com/author/nathancoppedge

Rendition of a sponge-based perpetual motion machine

https://youtu.be/y6BQN3zEJeA

Perpetual Motion Stock Market Prediction #21

19,170.42^

The market has not only reached 18,000 again, but has actually reached 19,000. This is a sign of shrewd A.I. and renewed emphasis on investment banking.

Once again the presence of the number 17 indicates that there is a dependence on Nathan Coppedge either for perpetual motion (e.g. Nathan Coppedge's value for stocks) or philosophy (17 may be the only way to meet the citation requirement for philosophy systems if these are used for the bulk of investments. And this may be unconscious).

The number 42 in the details is also auspicious, suggesting a turn in A.I. towards significance-oriented projects (e.g. 'life, the universe, and everything'), which could mean sentient A.I. from the standpoint of a computer.

The 42 also suggests an ongoing obsession with the perpetual motion discovery, although it is still evidently under wraps, maybe for political reasons.

The number 19 represents the sun and the Age of Reason, which could mean that this is the Space Age, and could also mean a return to Renaissance or Enlightenment ideals.

The signs are strong that the number will increase to 20,000 although continued optimism may depend on public disclosure. Unfortunately, at this point income stratification may be a strategic advantage, but this will be less true in the future, even while stratification is likely to increase.

A major opportunity will be the improvement of the public welfare.

Currently

In the Top 0.3% for Free Energy on Academia, and Top 1% for Black Holes... (ironically, but seriously).

View hundreds of my articles On Academia: http://www.southernct.academia.edu/NathanCoppedge

Foundations of Asceticureanism (part 2?)

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-ethical-theories-1/answer/Nathan-Coppedge/comment/23761701

10 Days above 100,000th Author in the past 2 Months!

View my Amazon profile: http://www.amazon.com/author/nathancoppedge 

Errata of the Mechanists #9

According to academic science, the number of "nobodies" is growing.