Itot=0
sum(from -inf to inf)I=0
sum(from 0 to inf)I=inf
sum(from -inf to0)I=inf
sum(0to inf for n)I^n=sqr(inf) [?]
sum(0toinf for n)I(x)^n=inf
(sum(0toinf-y for n)Ix^n=inf -(y) where y is the difference between infinity and x
End part 1 STR
y may be rewritten as follows
sum(0 to inf for n)=Ix^n-y *Ix^y
This in turn my be extended for other elements as follows
Ix^n=Ix^n-y-z*Ix^y-z*Ix^z
sum(n from 0to inf)Ix^ndn
Those who are reading this, might wonder what is the purpose of the simplistic analysis being built up here and whether there is any reason to consider it. The answer is that this is absolutely one of the most important thing about non-linearity. The suggestions are much more significant than they appear from their simplicity.
First, it is accepted in this analysis that zero is not nothing, but is instead the sum total of all things in a non-linear environment. In a linear environment, it is suggested that zero may not exist at all, but the suggestion that linearity is only a force like any other force (gravity, electromagnetic, etc) raises the possibility that our universe is part of something that can be determined from an examination of what we previously thought was nothing but is the sum of all things in two or more directions.
Such infinite zeros make sense in an environment where all things are non-linear.
In a linear environment zero may appear to be a random location, as with a line on a graph where one mark is the "beginning of either positive or negative linearity. negative--------0-------positive. Non-linearity information theory suggests that everything comes from nothing and that nothing is the sum total of all information which makes zero, nothing something much different from what we are taught in grammer school.
The idea that zero, as magical a number as it is, could be something so much greater than what we perceive is not at all inconsistent with math, however. 1/0 is infinity, after all. This suggest the following equation:
sum(i) from 0 to infinity is 1/0. One might suggest the correction equation would be the sum (of information) from negative infinity to infinity=1/0; however, this equation, has the alternative of meaning that 0=1 which is not likely.. The former equation has an equally unlikely outcome since it suggests that 1=0*sum(i)from 0-inf.
This zero, of course, is the true zero. Many are confused because we "re-use" zero in our base 10 system to restart our count. 1-9 in a base 9 system should restart at 11, but instead in our base 10 system 11 is replaced with 10. The zero is re-used and hence from childhood those of us who use this numbering system are confused about the difference between zero and the place marker of the same shape and size but which is otherwise irrelevant to the discussion.
Even the zero used in graphical analysis is an arbitrary point where linearity already exists and has already limited its scope. The true zero in absolute mathematics is apparently non-linearity of necessity. The features of zero that allow it to function are the features of non-linearity.
There are, therefor, several "zeros" in math:
1) The least significant is the one used as a placemarker after other number to quantify base 10 numerics. 0, 10, 20.. 100, etc. This is not zero at all, it is just re-using a symbol for multiple purposes.
2) The next least significant zero is the one used as a starting point in linearity. 1+0=1, 1-0=1, 0-1=-1, etc. This allows graphs -----0-1-2-3-4 for example from a common point which can be placed anywhere since it is only important from a relativistic starting point. Non-linearity has an absolute point of zero-no time and no space. This is not the same as non-existence as discussed in more detail below.
3) The more significant zero is the one used in multiplication and it has some, but not all of the features of non-linearity. 0*1=0; 1/0=infinity. If you have zero of something (none of something) you have nothing. The concept of nothing that this represents, however, is wholly a creature of linearity. If you have everything in a singularity, there is not the possibility of none of anything that exists withing the singularity. There are philosophical nothings (zero non-singularity inhabitants, for example; or zero linear moments) but in terms of the "contents" of linear existence, everything is there. Even all of linearity is represented although not being linear it provides no clear point of reference, at least not yet. While one might easily assume this zero to be the same as the non-linear zero, it is not because it exists in a non-linear environment. It can be said to the the point of singularity applied to linearity. The examination of this point of reference in the coming sections will add significantly to the understanding of non-linearity in a most discomforting way.
4) The final zero is the zero where change is stagnant. dt=0 is one designation, but this assumes a fixed point. Instead it is better represented as the point where the sum of the change of all coordinates is nonexistent. Sum(d(all coordinate points))=0. You will note that not a single point is lost in this equation. There is no multiplication which results in the coordinates being lost, only their change is non existence. As any coordinate changes, zero loses its absolute quality and instead becomes the zero of item 3.
To test this, let's look at a couple of simple equations:
zero/zero=1: Normally any number divided by itself is one, but this would make no sense if zero was truly nothing (instead of the pre-linear state). For if 0/any number=zero, how could zero/0 not be equal to zero. However, if zero is all things, just without linearity then zero/zero could be one and zero/any number=non-linearity/any number which if not zero would be very difficult to rationalize in our way of thinking of the universe.
Let us look at this: zero is the sum of all linearity, that is all change either positively or negatively in the universe. it represents a non dimensional storage with all the information relative to a mathematical whole. It is so large that any number from within it effectively becomes zero based on the size, but that is not why the equation works. Zero is non-linear. 1 is a linear expression. +1 or -1. Linearity and non-linearity do not equate because one is the absence of change and the other is the expression of change.
We must continue if we are to understand the relationship, but now we have entered into the realm of what we've been discussing all along with non-linear time. Linearity and non-linearity, change and the absence of change. The number of coordinates changing at once can be seen as multiple axis extending from non-linearity with one exception. Two coordinates may change along one axis while none change along another and still get an expression of ct(2).
In this way, even with only one axis changing, it is possible to experience time as long as two coordinates change at once on that axis.
It is, conceivably, possible to arrest all change at once relative to dimensional axis in the universe through the application of sufficient force. This would not change every type of coordinate change necessarily, but would have some interesting results. To explain, we have never sat still. The world spins, it circles the sun, that orb circles the galaxy, the galaxy itself spins. It is entirely likely that this spin is a natural, perhaps essential function of linearity, being a function of gravity which is the "first" force of linearity (note that it has been shown in earlier writings that linearity itself is likely a force or effect of a coordinate change not otherwise perceived). The general "idea" behind gravitational spin is the "falling" towards the center of gravity which is perceived in this theory as falling towards non-linearity.
Rather than try to do this myself, I make reference to the rough calculations made by others: http://www.brainstuffshow.com/blog/good-question-how-fast-are-you-moving-through-the-universe-right-now/ yielding the result of 2,724,666mph or 4,383,610 kph
It is possible that on non-quantum levels the universe experiences moments of zero spin (exactly counteracting all the spins in the universe) due to energy being expelled; but given the nature of movement (rotational) it is also likely that outside of non-linearity (e.g. the concept of black holes as non-linearity in EHT, if not NLT) that such non-rotational movement does not exist.
That is, if you were to attempt to completely stop relative movement, you would speed up time (assuming no increase in gravity, etc). The equation is the relatively simple lorentz equation dt'=dt/sqr(1-v^2/c^2). Here, we have v=4.38x10^6kps and c=2.99792458x10^11k/sec (feel free to let me know if I misplaced a decimal point, it doesn't matter for purposes of the discussion so much). The important aspect is that dt/dt'=sqr(1-4.38x10^6kps/3x10^11kps)=.003821 which is not an insignificant time dilation although it would not rate on the "gee willikers" scale.
While we spend a lot of time on the issue of time dilation, the idea of achieving an "absolute" state of maximum time to the exclusion of all dimensional coordinate change would allow the observer to study the movement of other coordinate changes from the perspective of a zero baseline with only one "axis" changing. We would not achieve pure "non-linearity" but would instead be in an environment where all relative change existed within the single axis from which time is observed on the other "3" axis.
The existence of time dilation relative to movement is important because it is the strongest indicator that "perception" of coordinate change (time) is from a "separate" axis and not the result of the axis shifting from one point of perception to another. In this sense, it is not unlikely that a different type of perception is possible from each of the other 3 axis that we do not recognize as "time changes" but which are time changes nonetheless. This is reflected in the gravitational dilation of time which will be discussed later.
According to NLT both time and space are illusions from a non-linear environment where everything happens at once, unseparated by time or space which gives rise to the certainty of spatial conditions and the predictability of outcomes. Hence, the existence of "different axis" allowing for spatial and time placement appears largely arbitrary. To get to our digital film example, the same informational changes can give rise to colors, sounds, and other aspects of the film when they are displayed, but they each remain individual bits with a 2^n function of how much information can be displayed by n bits which is related mathematically, but not wholly identical to the 2^n change options expressed by NLT since coordinate changes are no different mathematically from bits and as you increase the number of possible coordinate changes you are essentially increasing the number of bits possible to express in the universe.
If there are not different "axis" (x,y,z and time between energy and black holes) then something else must effect the coordinate changes in order to give them different aspects which we perceive as "perspective-time" and movement in the three spatial dimensions. That inquiry will come next along with the discussion of gravitational dilation.
We will shortly tie the two equations together around non linearity, but first we need to outline the basics of gravitational time dilation. Gravity (objects with gravity, if you will) warp space. So one answer (which can only be partially correct in NLT where distances is illusory) is that as objects move through the warped space they move through a shorter distance just as a hypothetical worm hole (NLT more or less eliminates these in favor of ct5) would shorten the "time" necessary to move between two points far away from each other.
The equation, which will be important for this discussion, which comes closest to the speed equation for dealing with this is: t'=t*(1-2GM/(rc^2)^1/2 where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the object affecting time, r is the radial coordinate of the observer based on relativistic considerations (for which I can be forgiven for the moment) and is a distance from the center of gravity except for the fact that space is warped so its a messier than simple calculation) and c is the speed of light.
From a comparison of the two equations (the other being the effect of velocity on time) it is posible to find a connection between the "speed" of gravity and the speed of light since the two equations can be simplified t'/t=x dt'/dt=y so that x and y can be reconciled.
That simplification for any solution can be seen merely by comparing the equations defining time dilation from the two different sources:
dt'/dt yielding sqr(1-v^2/c^2) and t'/t yielding (1-2GM/(rc^2)^1/2 which equates 2GM/r to velocity. The total dilation of time, however, would be a combination of the two and no the solution of one for the other. However, what is important to NLT is the relationship of coordinate change (velocity) to the tendency to return to non-linearity (gravity) which is shown by this analysis.
One can assume that if M is great enough than t'/t would be negative which is prevented by the inability to concentrate that much mass without it dropping out of the universe. NLT has it chnage by virtue of beginning another coordinate change, but the increase in gravity continues.
There are artificial limits imposed by the universe. velocity cannot exceed the speed limit to give a negative result and (2GM/r)^1/2 cannot exceed the speed of light (ignore the constants for the moment) It is nothing more than an excuse, but relativistic physics takes care of the speed of light by putting a limit on velocity at the speed of light and it takes care of Mass/r by reshaping space so that r becomes very large. You can only get so close to a very large (black hole type) mass. That mass has to drop far out of space and eventually time has to stop, that is go non-linear, separating r from the mass by an infinite distance (in an EHT universe) but in a NLT universe it is dealt with by adding another axis or coordinate change which is independent of the ct(4) r and the ct(4) M for that matter and this is where we get somewhere very interesting.
Adding another dimension, another coordinate change allows for r to remain distant. Before you can understand this you have to accept that time and distance are interchangeable. We know time and space are interchangeable because time is merely change along another coordinate from which the changes of the other 3 can be observed. If we add a fifth, time doesn't cease to exist, but it merely looks along this 5th axis of the other 4 and the total amount of change is conserved. You also have to understand that Einstein is interpreted as being wrong about something. It is said that everyone has their own time, but that is not correct. There is only one time because in a non-linear environment where everything happens at once, there can only be one time. It can happen differently, but it is all the same which is why time is conserved.
Where t'/t approaches a negative number something has to change. Time itself cannot run backwards because it doesn't run forwards. distances can change but must do so relative to something else. CT5, the state of grace which is reached when M grows too large relative to t, is a new time and perhaps a new parameter of distance. The new time is merely an additional reference point. The new distance is the distance along the new coordinate. While it can be looked at as a dimensional change, this brings us back to the original question of whether different coordinate changes are along different axis or whether they are merely different. If there is no true distance, then there is no true axis and hence what we perceive as an axis is just another coordinate changing differently.
Equally importantly, with the new change in coordinates, 5 changing instead of 4, the speed of all the coordinate changes can decrease, the distance between things very close in 4 dimensions can increase dramatically because the fifth coordinate change allows that they all are conserved and since time and space are interchangeable the distance can be increased by a factor equal to the amount of informational distance possible, in this case going from 2^4 to 2^5, 10^18 to 10^36 allowing for an enormous increase in r all because otherwise time would have to go negative or because time could not otherwise be conserved and a unique clock time would exist, otherwise Einstein would have been right, we could move back and forth in time.
Now some of you, idiotically because you haven't been following me, are saying, but you can go back in time, because it isn't lost, everything continues to happen at once. But you are completely lost and beyond contempt for this. Because the mere fact that time is fixed because everything happens at once prevents you from going back because you'd have to have been back at that time. We are stuck in crystal. We are not on a train traveling down a track, we are frozen. We only think we are moving because we are too stupid, or have been before me, to realize that the fixed nature of things in the universe necessarily requires that everything has already happened and we are merely experiencing it in a linear fashion because linearity is a result just a gravity is a result of the perception of everything happening at once along a given set of conserved coordinate changes. Even were we to travel down a different set of coordinates, the interface of all things all over the universe, would always appear the same once we went linear because there is only one way to display the data at a fixed point because the data is all fixed relative to each other data point.
At each transition the equation should hold true, from space to photonic, photonic to wave, wave to matter, matter to ct5, ct5 to ct6, etc). (1-2GM/(rc^2)^1/2 and 1-v/c^2 can be replaced with 1-x/c^2 where there must be an equation for x for each transition. Someone out there is racing to put down the x's before me, the equations that would fit at each juncture where the fabric of display, actually there is no fabric, but its a turn of the phrase, becomes too compact and requires a shift and as he does so decides he is brilliant. He is not. This isn't just because I have pointed out that there is a silver dollar under some of the cups that are turned upside down in front of you, that would not alone prevent brilliance. The sad truth is that whoever is doing this has already done it. And what is brilliant about being forced to do that because its already done? Well, perhaps something is, so if you write it before I do, post it as comment if you like and maybe I'll give you a sticker.
So what we have added is the equation 1-x/c^2 where x changes according to some function of the increase in concentration of time along the equation 2^n at transitions where the amount of time information that is displayed relative to nearby changes in other time information becomes too high to express using the prior 2^n state.Equally importantly, with the new change in coordinates, 5 changing instead of 4, the speed of all the coordinate changes can decrease, the distance between things very close in 4 dimensions can increase dramatically because the fifth coordinate change allows that they all are conserved and since time and space are interchangeable the distance can be increased by a factor equal to the amount of informational distance possible, in this case going from 2^4 to 2^5, 10^18 to 10^36 allowing for an enormous increase in r all because otherwise time would have to go negative or because time could not otherwise be conserved and a unique clock time would exist, otherwise Einstein would have been right, we could move back and forth in time.
Now some of you, idiotically because you haven't been following me, are saying, but you can go back in time, because it isn't lost, everything continues to happen at once. But you are completely lost and beyond contempt for this. Because the mere fact that time is fixed because everything happens at once prevents you from going back because you'd have to have been back at that time. We are stuck in crystal. We are not on a train traveling down a track, we are frozen. We only think we are moving because we are too stupid, or have been before me, to realize that the fixed nature of things in the universe necessarily requires that everything has already happened and we are merely experiencing it in a linear fashion because linearity is a result just a gravity is a result of the perception of everything happening at once along a given set of conserved coordinate changes. Even were we to travel down a different set of coordinates, the interface of all things all over the universe, would always appear the same once we went linear because there is only one way to display the data at a fixed point because the data is all fixed relative to each other data point.
At each transition the equation should hold true, from space to photonic, photonic to wave, wave to matter, matter to ct5, ct5 to ct6, etc). (1-2GM/(rc^2)^1/2 and 1-v/c^2 can be replaced with 1-x/c^2 where there must be an equation for x for each transition. Someone out there is racing to put down the x's before me, the equations that would fit at each juncture where the fabric of display, actually there is no fabric, but its a turn of the phrase, becomes too compact and requires a shift and as he does so decides he is brilliant. He is not. This isn't just because I have pointed out that there is a silver dollar under some of the cups that are turned upside down in front of you, that would not alone prevent brilliance. The sad truth is that whoever is doing this has already done it. And what is brilliant about being forced to do that because its already done? Well, perhaps something is, so if you write it before I do, post it as comment if you like and maybe I'll give you a sticker.
One of the great things about reinventing physics, something that very few people have been able to do is that you get to match things up for the first time.
Of course first you have to figure out something about the universe that builds on and to some extent undermines everything else in the universe.
I have the dubious privilege of bringing together the past sections and the present, to match the two examples of 1-x/c^2 I with the 5 obvious ct states even though the first two are pretty easy, assuming I'm right. And, of course, since no one else is more capable than me, the privilege of coming up with formulations of x which would allow for the transformations between all the ct states.
The concentrations of different clock times must, according to the rules of information theory (2^n) and must change according to some formulation of the concentration equation, but what this shows is that the nature of the change does not rely on any one feature of clock time. The "information" has different features depending on the number of simultaneous coordinate changes on a quantum level. The conservation of coordinate change means that the feature changes and if it happens at all, it is only obvious at the energy-matter conversion because the theory finds this to be a transition between and third and fourth change state (the number of coordinates changing) and we recognize the change because it makes sense. The transition "state" is the concentration of energy to form matter. But clearly it changes, most probably at the ct4-ct5 state utilizing the gravity equation as set forth above and the transition, so otherwise elusive, should correspond to some informational state that can be measured according to the quantity change of 10^36 (i.e. 10^(2^5)). It is, of course, fundamental to the theory to identify that transition, but it is clear that the addition of another coordinate change allows for super-compression of material by changing the value of r in the gravity dilation equation. The transition material is matter to ct(5) material which we know to be the stuff of black holes, but is otherwise only partially developed.
So, you ask, what are the equations for x and transition materials (i.e. what is concentrated to make what is the resulting form) for each of the other states?
And if you do ask this question, instead of giving me the answer, then read on, as not everyone can redefine the universe.
So we posit that gravitational time dilation occurs for concentrations at the ct4-ct5 boundary. We can speculate that velocity time dilation, being a uniquely linear thing (movement along an axis is velocity after all) could be tied to the ct0-ct1 boundary. This is consistent with the "time orbit" concept and would allow for time orbit "shapes" to generally change at these two extremes with the intermediary combinations merely being "higher energies" within these two orbits if you go for those types of analogies, really more just tools since it is a terrible analogy other than the possible reflection of this concept in things like energy states and true atomic/molecular orbits. It is also not inconsistent with the concept of a continuum of states where linearity (ct0 to ct1) is merely one state in a circle of states (snake eating its own tail) where linearity is merely a force not unlike gravity, electromagnetism, or photonic states, albeit a strange force.
Of course, as to the circular orbit we do not have any evidence of ct6 states other than the model which is confused by the failure to have a common unit of measure (other than information which NLT has to assume takes different forms in different states of clock time-as space, energy in multiple forms, matter in multiple forms, presumably black hole material in multiple forms, etc-and perhaps we would "see" ct6 states at what we'd otherwise view as the edge of the universe, but it could equally be ct0 ( or even negative 1) even though the designation as 0 or negative is largely to distinguish it from linearity which could easily begin even before the change in known coordinates (note the theory could also hold that we are just that close to the beginning of an infinite loop).
This is a lot to absorb and only the beginning of the discussion.
Of course, as to the circular orbit we do not have any evidence of ct6 states other than the model which is confused by the failure to have a common unit of measure (other than information which NLT has to assume takes different forms in different states of clock time-as space, energy in multiple forms, matter in multiple forms, presumably black hole material in multiple forms, etc-and perhaps we would "see" ct6 states at what we'd otherwise view as the edge of the universe, but it could equally be ct0 ( or even negative 1) even though the designation as 0 or negative is largely to distinguish it from linearity which could easily begin even before the change in known coordinates (note the theory could also hold that we are just that close to the beginning of an infinite loop).
This is a lot to absorb and only the beginning of the discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment