http://time.com/4083823/einstein-entanglement-quantum/
Actually, it is. It is impossible in Pre-NLC math, but we've actually been looking at the model for it all month.
Yup, there it is. The overlap of two out of sync spirals to bring them into sync to force them to act together, (overlap spiral 1 and 2). In the NLC information based theory, space and time don't affect points which are just information. While quantum entanglement (and the F-series spiral) is certainly not necessary in NLC, QE can be theorized to be nothing more than the same process described. This works particularly well with only ct1 type overlaps, those less affected by dimensional and locational characteristics. Once you have greater overlap (ct1 and ct2 states as shown above) you begin to add shared or "tied" dimensional proximity characteristics. Spooky science is the name given to faster than light theories and the like that might be seen to "spook" Einsteinian physicists, but as has often been pointed out, Einstein envisioned NLC, he only didn't have all the tools, or perhaps all the time, to put it together.
One can understand in this model the types of energies that would be involved breaking one or multiple bonds of this type in the higher organization states and why with an orbital state (like electrons) there would, necessarily shown by the rotational speed of the particles, be fewer of these overlaps allowing for more rapid movement and at least giving the impression of a greater separation. In point of fact, it appears that the degree of overlap as well as conversion forces (can't say energy because ct1-ct2 are pre-energy models) is exponentially proportional to the amount of proximity perceived which we witness in particles. Quantum entanglement has so few overlaps, that positional identity is limited or even, as indicated, absent.
I woke this morning at 5 after nearly 9 hours of sleep, recovering from a sort of exhaustion tied into moving from my outside pool to the indoor full sized pool, perhaps. After drinking two day old coffee from a small ceramic cup, I forced myself to ignore the sluggishness I felt and rode my bike to work, still cold. But the energy of movement made me feel better.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the future is equally visible to the past. I think we are overwhelmed with our prejudices which lead us to imagine that because our brains are geared towards seeing in the past, that the future is less visible. I can explain this, but I won't because that would get into the post that I'm not ready to publish yet.
Nevertheless, I am fairly certain that we confuse our record keeping of the past with our failure to do record keeping of the future. I think we let ourselves get overwhelmed by the flow of information coming to us because it's easier for us, not necessarily everyone or everything, to see in the future.
I dare say I can prove it on a quantum level and it is certainly a part of NLC that in a fixed universe, seeing the future and the past from the right vantage point would be trivial.
If I was given resources, could I build a Nostradamus prediction machine, a machine that would have the ability to follow at least my methodology for seeing in the future? The answer is that anyone could. It's that easy of a concept. Assuming a fixed, non-linear universe, it has to be pretty easy to see into the future if you can see into the past; but it is from a series of fixed, pre-determined points and therefore "changing the future" would have to be impossible, even under traditional physics. Unfortunately, spooky math concepts might allow these type of changes under traditional physics theories, but not under NLC. What you can do with QE, however, is have early warning system of a type otherwise not possible. While a lot of you are thinking, "yeah, if this, if that," but that's not because I'm smarter than everyone else, it is only because the universe saw fit to put this crap in my head and everyone arrives at the same point eventually if it's right.
This also relates to the illusion of changing time. Quantum time means un-moving points of time and the science of predictability in physics means that pre-destination exists and if old time points disappear, where does the information go? You can argue it's easier to explain it as "changing" to the next event state, but that is actually pretty asinine if you think about it. How complicated would it be if every point had to change with every other quantum point in just such a way? It is much easier to just have a series of fixed states instead of constantly changing states. When we play a movie, we don't reorganize the whole movie every time, we merely take each scene in its turn, ignoring the scenes before.
And who is this director, if not ourselves? I can overcome myself, sometimes, and yet I cannot stop myself from falling apart inside and I don't deal with the things that ruin my entanglements. I thought I was close yesterday and perhaps I was; but today, I feel like distance exists and that I'm a million years away.
No comments:
Post a Comment