# The power of broadcasting is determined by listeners.

## Can the fear of knowledge be resulted into love for money?

Well, if we leave the prostitutes out it becomes a daring concept because some prostitutes are afraid of knowledge but love money to death.

In that regard a very daring concept to accept because we’re all brought up thinking that what we worth depends on what we know + who we know * our commitment. This is not necessarily the truth. To understand this concept we can ask ourselves this question?

If we speak the truth on what we know, there is a possibility that we might gain more of it in return because communication is question's bearer. It is the tree that yield the fruits of the knowledge. But at the same time when speaking on the truth will we get compensated for it? Now, If the answer is no than we can see where the fear or knowledge may be discourage by our means to prosper.

It is an indisputable fact that no one can gain knowledge if the concept that pertains to the knowledge being discuss has not been spoken on. In that case any knowledge that has not been spoken on has not yet learned.

Wait a minute, what makes you think you can say that? OK, no problem, I’ll prove it.

We learn from prior knowledge which has been proven factual. The conversation is a two ways street because the assessment is constructed from the previous knowledge. In this instant the prior knowledge tells us what has existed before, that’s communication one and we respond back to prior knowledge by letting it know our current findings and how they can be related to what has existed before. The latter is communication two.

We also learn from experiments because the result that we looking for is proven true by the experiment. And the evidence is the communicators which communicate to us what we've just learn. That is also a two way street communication.

And we learn from good reasoning that correspond to a preexisting logic. The logic has already existed in that case it’s a two way communication because we base our reasoning on the prior knowledge.

For example: the earth is a sphere, that’s a proven logic which is based on fact. Since the earth is a sphere anything that goes up must come down. This also has to do with the gravitational force of the sphere. In that case this is a reason base on a preexisting logic which makes it into a two way communication.

Now let’s continue on with the premise of the discussion. We all loves money, we haven’t met anyone who didn’t like their cash right?

But at the same time if we allow money to be the guidance by which knowledge is control than whoever has the most money dictates which direction knowledge takes.

And subsequently, whichever the person who has gained the knowledge, whether it is self thought or through an institution will be less likely to share it especially if it might be in his or her disadvantage.

From that point on those who have gained the knowledge become conscious as to what information they choose to share, meanwhile leaving the rest of the population less inform as a mean to secure their economic interest.

This is one of the reasons why this statement as become valid: The sign of a highly intelligent person is to recognize the limit where intelligence becomes dangerous.

The above logic is the same as this equation 2*(x) ^2 = 100. If that equation is true than X must be = 5. Where 5 is what we get when the knowledge is not control by a distributor. The information is coming from X which is an unknown person. And we get 100% when we allow a distributor to be the multiplier of the knowledge. And whoever is the multiplier decides the power by which the knowledge is broadcasted.

In this case the multiplier can be a fix value represented by CBS or WABC And if the numerical value 2 for example is the only multiplier than it pays to ask what would happen when 1 (WBAI) or 3 ( CNN) wants to be the multiplier of the knowledge. Whichever network that has a bigger variable to go with their power will then be the most influence broadcaster?

The power of the network can be determine by the number of viewers. For every 100,000 viewers can be equal to the power of 1 - 200,000 would be the power of 2, and 300,000 viewers would be the power of 3 and so on.

The multiplier can be a fix value, and how would we determine that multiplier is something we don’t seen to be able to think about. However, the variable X could be determined by the number of network that is assigned for CNN to broadcast on. For example let say hypothetically CNN is broadcast in 30 states plus the internet that would equal to a multiplier of 31.

In that case the equation would look something to that effect 2 (31) ^5 where 2 is a fix number for all the networks, the variable X (31) as the number of network assigned for CNN to broadcast on and lastly the power 5 signifying the number of viewers.

According to the equation we would get a numerical value of 57258302. Ok, but what does that number signify? Well, we can value this number as the influential value of CNN broadcast over their viewers. In another word, it is the equivalent of the total power the network has over the airwaves.

## Comments

No comments yet.