Building an algorithm 14: ct1-speed and gravity and a non-steady state universe

I'm jumping around quite a bit this weekend.  It's not all clean sailing although I'm at page 91 of 151 of the edits.  I hope this morning to get started on the last 1/3 of the edits.  Part of the complexity is that I'm writing this in reverse, for example chapter 14 which follows is being edited before 13.  This is because the theory came together more at the end than at the beginning.

I'm not happy for the short time to be over, but work is building like a pressure cooker and I may have to publish the second edition unfinished to some extent because I may be torn away from this for some time.  I think everything critical has been done now although the final formulas, the e=mc^2 moment remains to be finished even though it appears in large parts scattered through this work.

I have a February grant deadline and a compacted version of this needs to be put together and Id like to have a hard copy to work from and there are the ditches I have to dig to eat in the interim.

Building an algorithm 14: ct1-speed and gravity and a non-steady state universe

Newton and Einstein math models predict that a static universe would not work.  In this way they are partially correct in the belief that the universe must be either expanding or contracting and not static.  The change in x means it must be moving, but at quantum instances it is not moving at all and dimension, the movement, that they work with doesn’t exist except as a relative change between non-dimensional elements.

AuT correctly points out that the universe is not static at all, that change is an absolute requirement in the solution to the single variable universe although any particular solution defies both Newton and Einstein by remaining quantum and therefor static.

AuT suggest that the "universe" is not expanding nor contracting but that it merely defines an average which reaches inflection  points according to an algorithm and that at the inflection points the effect being localized as either expanding or contracting and overall being net expansion or contraction.

However, at any point the universe is unbalanced because the change in information is based on converging series and diverging series which are defined by infinite series by definition.

It is suggested by the model that the amount of ct1 contacted over time by a "higher compression state (e.g. ct4)  increases speed.  That is between F(x) and F(x-n) if a ct4 has a common solution within a series of adjacent solutions with more ct1 states as opposed to the same ct1 states then it moves faster (compare if it contacts more -ct1 (the opposite spiral solution).  As a corollary if the shared ct1 states repeat between two different ct4 states then things are vibrational in nature.  If the number of ct1 states contacted shifts between a common set of ct4 states in vibration you get the same result which explains gravity giving rise to the same phenomena of time dilation, since it reflects a concentration of shared ct1 states with the same velocity.

The incomprehensibly long carriers of ct3 that give rise to ct4 have foreseeable but unusual effects:

1)     Matter exists in stable forms over very long periods of time.  With (and possibly without) stable substitution of ct1 states (matter not decomposing to energy because shared ct1 states keep it from dissipating), a given ct4 state may exceed the 40 billion year cycle of the current universe, i.e. even at one change per 1.07x10-37^th of second, some of these carriers may (individually or through substitution of common ct1 states between matter) be so long that there are 40billion years worth of seconds before the next “net” turn in the ct3 carriers forming the4;

2)     Matter forms large compressive cycles sharing large successive ct1 states so that it appears to move through space through a sharing of ct1 states

3)     Ct1 state substitution (sharing) is so immediate that (a) states are shared to give rise to vibration between the same ct4 states to give the appearance of solidity and (b) common movement through space. 

4)     This is in contrast to waves (and more so with photons) where sharing is in two and one dimension respectively giving rise to the appearance of movement in one direction at the maximum substitution rate of 1:256 for waves and all direction for photons except that both waves and photons, in the presences of ct4 experience such compressed sharing of ct1 states that the bending of apparent space exists changing the sharing rate to stop absorbed ct3 and 2 states in a manner where “absorption” equals a longer term sharing of common states to cause a common movement through space while not requiring a change in substitution rate; a phenomena that probably occurs (absorption) when matter, waves or light are in the presence of black holes

5)     All forms of clock time experience an end where they break into lower ct states and this is experienced with stars when they explode and other examples of state transformation on a smaller level.  Presumably unstable black holes would exist for the same reason unless a cycle of compression comes to exist where they continually recycle shared ct1 states to prevent a net localized change.

Each of these phenomena should be discussed separately to get a better understanding of the universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKR-7iIpvmc

https://www.inverse.com/article/25714-gravitational-waves-ligo-einstein

Building an algorithm-the battle for Time:

I found this historical footnote which lays low all of pre AuT physics while tracing the history of AuT so I thought I would post it before finishing calculus.
The jackasses that have not yet published or funded my work, if I can be so blunt, probably never read it to any significant extent.  It matters little with a theory that eliminates the relevance of 10,000 years of mathematics.  Not everyone can do that.  I, however, did.

Building an algorithm-the battle for Time: chart of evolution (coe)

Einstein defined space-time, but failed to realize that it had been proven 2600 years before to be an illogical system.  Einstein said that the reason for time was so that everything didn't happen at once.  That led me down the wrong path in assuming that the universe arose from a finite amount of information allowing a consistent definition of pi and that any point in the universe was merely the expression of the information for a value of time.  That analysis fell apart because it required the universe collapse and that would have required that there be a fixed point of reference, a beginning for this information which is contraindicated except by the fantasy of the big bang.  In fact, the big bang, like all other superstitions became the last bastion of man made religion.  I do not deny god, AuT theory falls apart dimensionless in G-space just as other theories fall apart at the big bang or some other place, I merely accept predestination which eliminates any issues of faith except as a pre-ordained outcome.

It was then determined, not precisely accurately, that the universe must be an informational based system because the observed results of NLC (the predecessor) indicated a universe with exponential construction.  While information played a result in that determination, it was later discovered that the system was not only information, which would have allowed for Einstein to be correct, but was based on an algorithm upon which the information was built.

Early on, the spirals of gravity (which lead to the orbits we observe) forced the theory to focus on equations that resulted in curved spirals and these can be seen in the early work.  Einstein again bumbled in the way as the fixed information ideas began to conflict with visions of infinite series brought on by positive and negative curves.  Where did these originate?  The idea of intersecting spirals came very early because they allowed for the “false-finite” information theory to cycle through positive and negative spirals.

But a quantum universe begged for a different result and before long the Fibonacci series of Leonardo Pisano (the Pisa, Italy native whose father Guglielmo Bonaccio somehow led to the name Fibonacci) began to attract my attention.  It did not present curves, but it did present two things, self-generation and a spiralish, quantum result.  The curved universe and the quantum universe waged a quiet war in my mind.

Since pi had always required a quantum solution if the theory had a quantum underpinning, curvature could be created by averaging the F-series quantum results.  With fixed information of Einstein, pi had a fixed result which did not work well.  Something was happening in the universe and the F-series suggested the result.  This diverging series defined fixed limits with intersecting spirals but picking which fixed limits applied was problematic.  I even calculated how much information would be in each spiral to arrive at our current universe resulting in a very strange spreadsheet which remains in one of the old posts in part and continued to bother me.  Something was wrong with a fixed information system although the idea of converging positive and negative time states set out intriguing results which worked well with the idea of successive big bangs.

X, the single variable of AuT and Time co-existed for a while then, less than a year.  The problem with time was that it changed differently than x.  The two refused to peacefully co-exist.  Problems were particularly troubling with time dilation which I knew held the secret.  I stumbled across a corollary of the F-series (Fibonacci series) then which provided a mechanism for “compression” which was that consecutive F-series continued to function as F series as long as the “base” number system (base 10 for most of us) was eliminated.  Time’s days were numbered, x was rising preeminent in the battle.

It only required to come up with a system whereby time was defined by x with all of time’s sloppy features.  The curved model seemed to indicate that we were only 5 F-series out, but the spreadsheet indicated that there was not enough information present.

To reconcile these Time had to be caged and eliminated.  To reconcile Einstein’s error with actual observations, to reconcile quantum states with the appearance of history, dimension and velocity at quantum moments some new way of looking at space time was required.

The F-series supplied an answer; because the F-series defines both points of change and intervening states which are called respectively carriers and quantum points for lack of better nomenclature.  That will come with time.  It still worked poorly, but the relativistic features were all there.  It had already been established based on the information based building of time states.  The first book determined that exponential information states had something to do with the universe although it was only much later that the F-series type stacking was seen to yield the more accurate results which were clouded by the coincidence of base 10 number and the 2,3,5 ct4 F-series.  Reconciling the observed compression of black holes with the mathematical results cleared this up with finality F-series for 5 (3,5,8) yielded 16^2^5 or 16^16 which is the observed minimum size for a black hole.

Space, time and velocity had finally found their place.  They were merely the relativistic effects of stacking one ct state on top of another.  At nearly the same time it had been determined that movement had to be the substitution of one ct1 state for another within the ct2 matrix (dx/dt dictates that movement is a change in space) so all the features were already there and it was easy to find real world models of beaded strings yielding 3 dimensional weaves.  In fact, I used to deal in 3 dimensional bead weaves, an odd coincidence.  Of course, illusory coincidence is built into this pure system.

  And there it was, everything that every physicist had clung to fell apart.  Space time disappeared.  The universe has no dimension.  Perceived dimension is nothing but relativistic change of ct2 to ct1 and the succeeding relativistic changes that result from F-series stacking.  Likewise space curvature is only the averaging of results which explains why at high gravity areas it appears to curve more.

The theory is finished except for minor details, it appears that all things to some extent are finished.

AuT-D-Building an algorithm 7 Calculus 6 of 6 The non-mystery of gravity-part 1

I decided to break this one in half, the first part being the most important.  But it's a more complex issue to insert drawings so I'm slowing down a little and posting this one in halves.
There is so much I'd like to share, but I don't see that happening here.
How incredible that my actions are so inconsistent with what I want that I have to create an entire physics to somehow escape responsibility, but I don't.  In fact there is plenty of fault to go around.  How do I make you understand?  What it's like to not know where I fit in?  To not know whether you understand what this is for me?  How do I convince you that I screamed louder in the darkness than you did, that I screamed longer, that I still scream.   How do I make you care?
What is there here for me now that all the grey has been stripped away leaving me nothing but black and white, me and you, and everything else is grey.
How do I convince you that what is left is worth not having regret for the past?  How do I get you to see in this not my physics, but my poetry?

AuT-D-Building an algorithm 7 Calculus 6 of 6 The non-mystery of gravity

The average rate of change must be differentiated from the instantaneous rate of change dy/dx which is what AuT focuses on.  AuT has an instant relatively and absolute change depending on whether it is x or ct1 relative change that is being considered.

The wise man sees, (1) If the minimum size for ct4 (one lasting for 1x10-37^th of a second) is a ct3 carrier with a length of 10^2^4 and if this reflects a change relative to ct1 of 10^2^4*6^2^3*4^2^2 and (2) if there is a substitution for velocity between states based on changing ct1 for another length at the maximum rate of 1:256 (ct1 to ct2) then one can see: a) Stability is offset by speed and b) speed (substitution of ct1 at a maximum rate of 1:256) is directly proportional to the comparative rate of change between ct4 and ct3 (i.e. as the carrier gets longer, the substitution rate goes down slowing the velocity AND changing the ration of ct3 to ct4 thereby changing the amount of time dilation which is merely the ratio of ct3 change to ct4 change in this instance because of the stacking formula.

The underlying algorithms have no dimension or time (sct).    The transition to the visible dimension and time (sct) occurs as we move from ct1-ct2 and then only as a relative illusion starting at 1, then 2, then the 3 that we see.  The reason for this has nothing to do with true dimension.  While ct5 would see the world as 4 dimensional, there is no extra dimension.  

The compression/expansion solutions and F-series stacking interaction leading to gravity and anti-gravity effects is not very troublesome mathematically. 

The relativity allowed by comparing the non-dimensional ct1 to other states made by the expedient of stacking (1,11,111) information leaves room for the other forces to be developed along the same methodology, creating relativity, while not increasing the underlying equations.

The reason is that each "dimension" is nothing more than an information group changing relative to the next lower information group along the individual solutions (1,1,2,3,5-changing, for example 3 million beats represents 1 beat for the lower state).

  For this reason, any model that discusses dimensional characteristics related to the universe is, to any important extent flawed in the first analysis.

For purposes of creating the transition, drawings are used for ct1 to show how much dimensional characteristics related to non-dimensional underpinnings.  Quantum solutions mean that there is no "film" but there is a picture which contains in layers which are hidden in the solution in ways that appear irrelevant in state, but which represent history including changed position for each quantum moment which all exist for any quantum point and all of these points can be solved and while there is connectivity through singularity, predictability through solutions to shared ct1 proximity is also present.

CT1 does not need to have intersecting spiral arms in the definition, but the net effect is the same.  While there are alternatives, this one allows solutions have to change from state to state.  For purposes of simplicity, two spirals solved together are assumed and the pictures of this state showing a zero point with two, one length yes or no arms coming off of it makes a good model.  The "higher" ct-1 states occur when this solution allows the two yes/no arms to come together so that instead of maybe yes, maybe no, you get maybe, yes, no (or maybe no yes either is the same).  Hence algorithms where you never get past this maybe yes, maybe no does not create a  higher universe with compression states.  

You correctly surmise that there is no dimensional element just as there is no "true" yes/no.  It can be alternatively envisioned as 1/-1 but both analogies fail because there is no truth in this type of universe and no dimension for a negative and zero doesn’t exist as nothing.  These nomenclatures are just ways of solving the algorithm.  Stacking and the geo function offsetting results allow that you can get the otherwise impossible transition from a no to a yes or a negative 1 to a positive 1 without passing through maybe or zero.  “Maybe” becomes zero and is circumvented by manipulation of the algorithm and this simple manipulation creates the ability to have stacking of states, f-series growth, relative change and the universe as we experience it.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahWmkV0mtvk&list=RDo1gLGjPFkRA&index=9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS9o1FAszdk&list=RDo1gLGjPFkRA&index=29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VMFdpdDYYA&list=RDo1gLGjPFkRA&index=24

Reprinting the ghost story

I have some posts that didn't make the cut in the book.  This is one.

This one came from page 69 in the new chapters, about the halfway point.  I have been brutal when I could with deleting out of date information, although when I'm tired i get rid of less, when I am awake more.

I was pretty tired when I arrived at this post, but it had to go.  Rather than delete it forever, even though I posted it in October in a more personal format; I decided to edit it and post it again tonight, after all, there are christmas ghosts.

Spirals in Amber-A Halloween Ghost story

Then it hits me, that there have been many messages from the past that were passed to the future.  Long ago, a pre-human we now call Lucy (of Al 288-1) rose up and sent a message down over three million years of time.  Al 288 told us her story despite the clouds of time.  She sent a message, even though she was a primitive australopithecus pre-person with no known knowledge of stacked universes and quantum moments.  She communicated like a ghost, finding the appropriate source to extract her information like a white coated seer or ghost reader and the message from Lucy was, "I am your distant ancestor, I feel from a tree and broke a limb and from this I died.  It was probably raining when I died and I covered myself in mud to hide from wide animals because I could not climb back up in the tree, but I could not survive and I died.  Remember me."

And those bones you point to and say, "no ghost," even relativity, that antiquated way of looking at information theory, are nothing but a compressed form of energy, the vibrations sent through time in a form that you call hard, but which a black hole material being would see as nothing more than a sprite and which AuT would call information which in  any form is just that.

Another ghost with a more recent past and perhaps a little more information is Otzi, the ice man found in the alps.  He died a mere 5,000 years ago.  He tells the ghost whisperers "I ran from my enemies up into the mountains, but they injured me.  Perhaps I was a raider who attacked them and who could not keep up with my companions.  Perhaps a neighboring tribe attacked me, but it is of no great moment, because I ran into the mountains and died, but I died with all of my tools and weapons so you would know more about me and my people, but I am dead nonetheless.

Great men and great women tell their stories even though they died without writing anything while other ghosts like you and me have a great love story that will never be fully written and is known fully only to us.  Some ghosts try to give a purpose to life, suggesting perhaps that the purpsoe of life is to generate these moments, some good, some terrible in their agony and grief.  AuT suggests that the world is nothing but a formula, but perhaps the purpose of that formula is to play itself out, to leave this trail of stories preserved like ghosts from the past to the future.

And who knows what ghosts we will find when we know what to look for, ghosts with longer stories to tell than even that of Al 288-1.  Perhaps we will find that we are, perhaps that everything that we call the universe, is nothing more than a message from one lover to another if we just find where to look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsgExTttJ2Y

When I look around, I have to admit that is requires a certain credulousness to see a telephone post bent at just such an angle and the standing straight up.  That result must be repeatable.  That is, there must be no randomness to get to this result.  That appears so unlikely, but AuT seems to require that result.  Randomness, however, being an illusion anyway, is built into the system.  Does this mean that our universe represents a result with randomness even though randomness is an illusion.  AuT requires a yest answer to this question that seems to defy yes.
I'm not sure that I can accept this answer although logic demands it.  Does that mean that I cannot accept my own theory?
I"m almost half way through the edits of the new portions of AuT.  These posts form the first 15% perhaps, but the most important parts have been posted already.
So much of this is philosophical because I don't have time to finalize this (or anything else it seems some times).
Next year is getting easier for me although more complicated.  Things have never been better for the world and yet we are facing twin disasters with opposite effects; man made global warming and volcanic caused global cooling.
We both know where we should be and yet we do nothing to get there.
Under such circumstances is credulousness so valuable?

AuT-Building an algorithm 6 Calculus 5 of 6

Trying to force AuT into Calculus abandons true, non-linear math to get to the relative math of our view of the universe which allows us to solve for all the prior points because we are going to ignore history.

If we are using Newtonian concepts we are ignoring the movement through space and what is happening on either side of the solution.  This works fine for us.  It is predictable within limits.  We are adding the movement through space but we are not including the past.  We “fake” our way into a solution by using relativistic changes only relative to other points in existence within our time frame.

AuT merely adds the solution over time which is not really time at all, well it is but it also includes the mechanism for the creation of time, the variable x and the relative changes of different ct states to prior states carrier algorithms which all exist at once and not be solved together.

Tangent line-y-y0=m(x-xo) where m (the slope of the curve) is l.  In a two-dimensional framework of the kind found in ct3; y0=f(x0).  Of course, there is no y in a one dimensional framework.  Dx takes the place of time and is altogether appropriate where x is an underlying variable but the change for dimensional purposes is the change of alignment of ct1 states in ct1 and the changes are along ct1 states for higher states.

This may be viewed as 1,ct2; 1,ct2;2,ct2,3,ct2;5,ct2;8,ct2 which can further be looked at as 01,11,12,21,31,52,81 for example which shows the existence of a carrier in conjunction with a fixed ct2 state.

Later, this might look like something quite different 011,112,123,231,351 and so on although other variations are possible.

  No matter how many different ct1 states are involved, x changes sequentially and sct time, dx in calculus, only cares how many carrier points along the various ct1 carrier lines are traversed.

A point becomes (x0,f(x0)) which is pure logic for x0,y0 where y is a function of x and HERE y is F-series for ct2 relative to ct1.

The slope of tangent line to y=f(x)=m=f'(x0) the derivative of x.

tangent=limit of secant lines p-q as q tends to p (p fixed, q varies)

df/dx=slope of secant (not tangent).

Now you have to apply limit

limit as dx approaches zero of df/dx is slope of tangent.

From point P to point Q you get:

P=x0, F(x0); P=x0+Dx,F(x0+Dx)  Something happens HERE between x0 and x0+dX which is that the underlying geometry changes and in some cases the F-series changes although the may be according to a formula for stacking that can be applied across the board.

Derivative for a fixed point in the universe:

m=f'(x0)=limit as Dxgoesto0 of [f(x0+dx)-f(x0)]/dx

F(x)=Sum(geo(Fseries(x')^2^x)) where geo is solved for pi at the fundamental level to separate all points and for each carrier state and x' is the value for each x (for ct1 it is either 0,1 or 1) for each sum.  The summation includes both the original state and the carrier state that is made of all the underlying states and rather than rotate between 0,1,1 the carrier goes 0,1,1,2,3,etc so you have two numbers [1] one of which operates within the same range but [1a] changes the range for different states where each state represents a carrier formed by the lower state according to the 1,11,111 F-series exponential function and [2] the other steadily increases based on an F-series rate as the carrier of the underlying base rate based on the F-series function (1,1,2,3 etc).  While a set sum is derived, the individual parts of the sum define where things are in the universe and how fast they are moving.

In this case the sum of the parts is greater than the whole…solution.

The difference quotient df/dx=Sum(geo(Fseries(x'+dx)^2^(x+dx)-Sum(geo(Fseries(x'^2)^2^(x/dx) where x' and geo change in part according to [1] and [2] internally for each point in the solution.

At small values of x the geo function changes at a higher level since it is a function of pi (or more correctly it is a function that yields pi for any value of x or x' where x is the total value of x and x' is the effective value of x' for any point based on the amount of compression and both apply to different points in sum just as different [1] and [2] states apply as both states are made of fundamental points defined by [1] and carrier states defined by [2].

There is symmetry at any value of x, but the symmetry is destroyed as x changes because the solutions are offset by a converging series

A simple equation y=1/x gives a slope of -1/x^2 of the type we see here, a converging series.

There is one last variable which is the negative -df/dx determined in the same fashion and for the same value of x which determines whether there is a diverging or a converging symmetry (between the positive and negative spirals so defined) which determines if the system is governed by gravity or anti-gravity.

Merry Christmas.  No Christmas card, don't look for it.  You don't respond, why send a card?
I should be giving you something of a gift, but things have reached the point where it's just slogging through the process.
But wait, it's Christmas and Christmas is a time to give gifts to those who you care about and who do I care about more than you?  So here is a picture of a gift (gleamed from a future post, but also from http://www.firemountaingems.com/resources/tutorials/7736).  What wouldn't I give to you were it in my power to give you anything?
The purpose of this picture in a future post (Tubular Peyote Stitch) which forms (Happy Hanukah) a star of David; and which spirals outward after a fashion is for the purpose of showing how carrier strands can interlock with points to form two dimensional features which can then be stacked to form 3 dimensional features (this is 'tubular' after all).  This doesn't explain the AuT process so much as demonstrate how it could work visually.

And you still haven't done much to comment on this, so ask yourself what you've given to me on this day of giving, and why what you've given should be considered adequate.  Or don't.
Well, that is enough insight and little enough at the same time; let's get back to where we were.

AuT-Building an algorithm 5 Calculus 4 of 6

The tangent line at some point (x0,y0) solves a line intersecting a curve.  There are only average curves in AuT and the universe is quantum points in quantum moments.

The importance of dimension in a non-dimensional environment can be established by differential equations.

We’re going to follow this analysis assuming that you can get estimates; but it is always going to be a faulty analysis.  Calculus is a dimensional undertaking and we’re in a non-dimensional framework. 

For calculus, you can “solve for something.”  Not only does that something “change” in AuT as x changes; but when you get to the AuT solution, you destroy the “work in the middle” which is what we call the universe. 

A simple example lies in the F-series for F(3)=0+1+1 or 3+2+1 depending on how the function is being used.  Yet another F-series solution would be f(4)=1+1+2.  Getting the right nomenclature for any use is an undertaking given the different ways that the F-series presents itself.  But for the universe the idea is that the sum(0-3)F(x)dx give a vastly different solution as individual elements co-existing than it does for the “total” even though you can total them.  Knowing the total amount of information in the universe is linear, knowing what makes up the total amount of information in the universe is quite different.

The example below doesn’t have “standard clock time” included which adds relativity, dimension and separation to the resulting answer, by you can still give a very rich linear function underlying that result.

Let’s use f(3)=3+2+1 AND 0+1+1 for this example:

The sum(0-3)F(x)dx becomes:

0=0 over 0,-1,1

1=1*(1-0) +1*(0-1).  The positive and negative 1 come from 1,1,0 and -1,-1,0

2=1*(2) +1*(-2).  0,1,1 and 0,-1,-1

3=0*(3)+0*(-3)

And you could continue this so that the next number would be

4=1*(5)+1*-5

The other forms of existence (photons, waves, us, etc) are easier to deal with but we’re looking for “problems” with calculus not why calculus works for us.

So if we were to add these ups we’d get zero.  If we were to “offset” these with secondary spirals it would work a little better so let’s do that even though it isn’t necessary to our discussion (at least it will give us non-zero answers) but first let’s pay attention to this, even the 0*3,0*-3 occupies a place and is a part of the “carrier” for this F-series.  The fact that it is zero tells us a lot about space, but it also “exists”. If we use dimensional calculus to solve for f(3) you get a different answer even if you ignore the negative spiral answers than if you don’t eliminate each solution in the series which you do not need to do in a timeless, dimensionless environment.

Anyway, adding the offset using 1/x for pi where x starts at -1+2

1=1*(1-0) + 1*(0-1) [for purposes of this example we are not offsetting the positive and negative spirals which seems unlikely.

2=1*(1-0)+1*(0-1)+pi[1*2] and 1*-1)+pi[1*-2]

3=1*(1)+1*(-1)+pi[1*2] and 1*-1+pi[1*-2] plus pi’(1*(1)+1*(-1)+pi’[1*2] and 1*-1+pi’[1*-2]+p’(0*3)+(0*-3))

Several ways of pursuing this concept are going to be presented over the next two sections.

You cannot do the sum since the negative spiral result and the positive spiral result work together to determine if there is a compressive answer (gravity) or a non-compressive result (anti-gravity).  Now if you are asking, does this mean that anti-gravity is possible, the answer is simple.  Anti-gravity drives the expansion of the universe at certain inflection points, but it is always there.  Like gravity it is less a thing and more a solution that reflects a thing under conditions of ct1 to ct(higher state) relativity.

This very complex solution not only provides for an offset universe but the existence of the stacked solutions (assuming I didn’t make a mistake) also defines a carrier for the positive and negative spirals of  1,1,2,3; 1,1,2; and 0,1,1 in length and we have not even achieved a single compressive state which would, at a minimum require sufficient solutions as set forth above not to make 256 points necessary to go from ct1 to ct2 but enough so that you have common sizes for those solution’s carriers.  This is not calculus, it is time independent, dimension independent math where each solution remains in place (relativity allows for apparent staggering and hence point solutions but at the quantum level there is no relativity so all the solutions exist together), that is all of the solutions set forth continue to exist for each separate element as a string of unsettled solutions.

Now many of you are saying that this solution is overly complicated with an evolving pi (and we’re not even looking at our version of pi yet) the creation of carriers and different ways of using the F-series but the universe is messy. If it wasn’t then you would need a high degree of design to get to a world which has the texture of ours.  AuT suggests that no matter how many times you start the universe off, you get to same result with all of the texture of this moment where you are reading this and everything else is happening around you, the wind blowing, the leaves falling, the birds flying in just the same way.

The mind rebels against this.  However, we blindly accept that matter can be directly converted to energy, something equally bizarre in many respects and we (well you) blindly accept physical forces which generate repeatable results.  The only real difference in credibility is that AuT provides an underlying structure that eliminates entropy and randomness.

AuT-Calculus 3 of 6: Pre-compression-decompression inflection points

For those of you who read this regularly you will find in the deep recesses the use of the capacitance equation as a model for the universe.  For those of you who do not, you will see in this post why that model works generally.  In light of those posts, this is largely repetitive. Also, I noted that 6 of 6 is one sentence.  I wonder if I should fix that or have a chapter that is one sentence long.
I have almost given up on getting back the edits to the third section, which I foolishly paid for in advance, worse still it was an act of kindness that led me to do that.  How ironic and totally appropriate that an act of kindness will lead to a worse discussion of the fundamental foundation of the universe since the universe seems to tend in that direction, the more we try to do well, the more harm we do to ourselves and sometimes to others.  Does the sad outcome of my act of kindness not some how lessen the recipient?  Perhaps, perhaps not.
The cesspool of human endeavor leads us to advances in the creation of beauty and knowledge while it creates an ever larger pool of human, plant and animal detritus.

AuT-Calculus 3 of 6

Cyclical states of fundamental particles are hidden underneath vast arrays of information and offset, histories and historical modifications, the vagarities of information being cycled constantly from one state to another even within a ct1 state, but the cycle nevertheless rise out like shadows or reflections, cyclical weather, planetary rotation and circumlocutions, even in plant patterns and in gravity itself.

The basic sin wave function, slightly modified for the irregular development of converging series, but the approached average for AuT using the capacitance function is y=sin(1/x) + offset for the converging series features of the universe.  There is no left or right limit; but in AuT even the definition of sin changes with pi as the equation converges based on balancing at full compression which is a function of the convergence of pi and the divergence of the F-series equation.

In fact, the equation y=xsin’(xpi’)or xsin’(pi’(1/x) would generate similar results. 

Why use this function as a model?  Well for one thing, it reflects what we see.  If we look at a sin function from the side, it’s not a whole lot to look out. But if we look at one from the front with a rising amplitude then you actually see the universe after a fashion; it looks like the present, but hidden behind it is a record of the motion and events of the past; what is equally significant is the formula giving rising to the current amplitude requires that those prior amplitudes be generated because the current amplitude is built off of them.  You don’t see the prior solutions but they are built into the history of the solution.

If something is differentiable it should be continuous.  The equations that are differentiable in the universe may not be under AuT.  This requires some discussion:

If f is d at x0, the f is continuous at x0 or the limf(x) ans x-x0-f(x0)=0; but we know that doesn’t work as well where you cannot reach zero.

Lim(x-x0)[fx-fx0/x-x0]*(x-x0)

=F’(x0)-0=0 and limx-0 for x-x0=0; but this is not the case in quantum systems.

which is not true of the F-series algorithms because the definition that limx-x0 of f(x)=f(x0) requires continuity (it’s the definition of continuity) which is not present in AuT (or any other quantum system) which by definition is non-continuous) and other features which would define a fixed function (f) are constantly changing as a function of pi changes due to the number of places out we go; but it has a specific definition at any value of x.

Eve

The day portends your coming
I wait for you in lighted silence
colored lights on cold trees
bushes aglow with artificial fire

The sky is full of fat clouds
carried by wind tasting of the artic
far away land of white life
thick clear ice over dark water

the holiday lights reflect
the distant borealis glow
everything is ancient
everything is beautiful

I sense the joy around me
children seem unnaturally gay
Old people step lively again
The orange fires kindles my love

I wait for you in the dim glow
dark night punctuated by color
The day portends your coming
but i wait for you in vain

Like the idiot I am I thought of something important as I was falling asleep last night and now I cannot remember what it was.  Most likely it had something to do with gravity which is a topic this week, although it easily could have been some breakthrough in calculus.
I thought about waiting to post anything else in a silent protest against my lethargy and stupidity, but yesterday was a tough day in many respects and it would be wrong to stop on the eve of christmas eve in posting.
Perhaps it will come to me and I can write it down, perhaps it will just irritate me for several days.  I doubt it will have the effect of irritating me forever, something I reserve for you.

AuT Building an algorithm Calculus 2 of 5

The move using x, not sct, from linearity from non-linearity as a source of gravity in AuT allows for gravity to be separate from the other forces.

0,1,1,0 allows for gravity and anti-gravity but the solutions suggest that gravity is the movement to linearity 0,1 and that anti-gravity is the movement 0,-1.  There remains an alternative to this which has been suggested which is that gravity is a secondary dimensional result.  The measurement of gravity (m1*m2)/d^2 suggests two things.  1) Distance (and therefore relative change to ct1) is important and 2) the scale of mass and distance is the same so that they two represent different states of the same thing at the same carrier level.

In fact, this provides the best evidence that ct1 states cycle relative to the change in x during higher carrier states relative movement (better than the otherwise explainable visible evidence of invisibility which we see). We would not see gravity if there were not cycling of ct1 between compressive and decompressive states as spirals in the carrier and going from positive to negative within the individual solutions that make those spirals.

Since gravity requires separation it stands to reason that gravity would only arise at the ct1-ct2 barrier.  That in turn suggests that gravity is a force of comparison which raises the question of where photonic light fits it.

The suggestion of these observations is that gravity is the effect of cycling ct1 states in response to changes in x in the algorithm which continue as the ct1 states compress which compression is the alignment of ct1 states to form ct2 states (1,1,2 to 11,11,22 F-series quantum linear (not curved) intersecting spirals) and this alignment gives rise to photonic light as a relativistic consequence to the compression of multiple spirals.

The events are: 1) ct1 states cycling (o,1,1) and 2) ct1 states aligning to form carrier spirals and 3) 256 unit ct1 states being aligned along these carrier spirals.  There is, within this, room for gravity at steps 1, 2 or both.

If dimension is not a “force” in itself, which it may well be, then it is possible this shows “trailing forces”.  I.E. 1 is gravity, 2 is photonic light, 3 is wave energy even though each only becomes apparent when the next order or organization (1,11,111) come into place.  This is suggested by electromagnetic forces which are associated with wave energy but mostly present in association with ct4 (1111) states.

I am not convinced you have to look for outward signs.  Mathematically there is no mechanism speculated yet to stop the cycling.  It is possible that gravity and photonic light have the origin in the place originally designated; but that they only become apparent at the next relative state.  This allows for the differentiation of gravity from the dimensional forces while still allow for gravity to be observable only at the dimensional level.

The definition of gravity based on proximity and velocity is based on shared ct1 states (later) so it stands to reason that gravity, the force related to compression or the stacking of algorithms can only manifest itself at the ct1-ct2 boundary because, yes you guessed it, it requires dimensional characteristics to be observed.

Here is how this changes:

lim (as x goes to x0)  [f(x0+dx)-fx]/(x-x0) and you cannot plug in zero for x0 because in a quantum universe you don't have zeros.  You get the same effect by converging series, in this case x-x0 converges on zero in the same basic fashion and for the same reason, a variable x, increases but in the “real” universe the increase is quantum or incrementally.  It the calculus universe it is linear.

The zeros do exist at the ct1-ct0 boundary, but these are not "actual zero" but merely the potential for a yes or no answer; the potential for a plus or minus answer.  

It seems possible in AuT that you can divide a maybe by a maybe and get one.

We have actual limits in our analysis of AuT but the limits change with each change in x and these limits affect both curvature and the change in information quantity.  The arrangement of information also evolves since the curvature solution changes as x increases.

Derivative limits for AuT approach not zero but a varying matched compression which would balance the offset forces and return the system to linearity but they never reach that point.

There are complicated questions that arise from the formulation of this algorithm is the question of what happens when you add two prior states to get the next state with an offset.  We can and will draw this out.  As these are stacked to get to higher ct states (past ct1) the relativity of ct2 to ct1 allows for higher factors Ox^2, Ox^3, etc (using calculus nomenclature) to drift into what we call history which is the only place it can go there is no "new" state.

Here we are again, reposted a little more clearly.  To do this I split this in half and I've gone from 3-5.  Another sleepless night, so you get this at 5:45 instead of some decent hour of the day.  It's the time of year and the stresses that keep me from where I'm supposed to be.
Today promises to be long and complicated, unlike this post.

AuT-Building an algorithm Calculus 1 of 5

When we look at dimensional elements we are automatically looking in the wrong direction.   Nevertheless, in predicting the “shape” of non-curved elements from a curved algorithm we also run into problems, but we do have averages where this works, otherwise we wouldn’t have a curved looking universe.

One difference from observed phenomena is that we actually have limits which changes the equation from a theoretical basis.

Dual limits:

xapproaches zero from right x-x0+; right hand limit or from leftx-x0-

In the case of NLC the answers were the same.  But this isn't the case in AuT and in fact there is a question as to whether it can be approached from the future event because there is nothing built and having built from the past, the changes that occurred to keep the future sold might be impossible to track backwards.  This is not so much a jump discontinuity where the limit from either side exists, it may be where the limit only exists from one side which would help explain why history only goes in one direction.

Another place where this issue comes up has to do with the inflection points.

limit as x-0 for 1/x is infinity; but x is finite at any point so that infinity isn't reached in the universe.  The limit as x approaches infinity from the negative position is negative infinity and this is a balanced equation that may have relevance with positive and negative spirals which do grow out in both directions towards infinity but achieve a quite different result because of their intersection.

WHY DOES AUT ARRIVE AT DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS THAN CALCULUS?

Perhaps one of the most significant features of this convergent/divergent, stacked, quantum universe is that when the relative change occurs, no two F-series carriers will be exactly the same length, no relative change will be the same and no SCT will be exactly the same as another.  

That being said, the leading contender feature of the math leading to compression is via the process of having like sized spirals that are generated at different times having sufficient alignment to move to the next compressed state by sharing at least one ct state carrier along sequential lengths of the carrier (since presumably no two points would occupy the same quantum length of the carrier.  Sequential in this case refers to sequential values of x, not standard clock time, since at any quantum value of x the universe is fixed but relative sct to ct1 allows for the perception of sufficient separation and perceived time from the non-dimensional origin.

To attempt this solution for ct1 to ct2 is so complicated that it is beyond what I want to tackle without some significant funding.  But the process is the same for changes in ct1 and so we're going to apply "dimensional" calculus to the non-dimensional calculus in order to show where the results come from and why the two give different results.

The spirals are generated as set forth herein, then the results are stacked in order to generate carrier spirals.  This process continues on so many different levels that it is possible that the compression states are generated when 256 ct1 spirals align at the same time to generate a single photon.

Alignment of space is an uncertain process but since it can occur based on any common feature, I'm going to start  and the same process occurs at the enormous values of x required to get similar concentrations of ct2 to get to ct3 and so on as x increases towards infinity.

Notations:

y=fx: dy=df

f' (newton for derivative) =df/dx=dy/dx=d/dx(f)=d/dy(y)

omits x(0)

fx=x^n; n=1,2,3 [in our case we're slightly modifying this by making it x^2^n

d/dx(x^n)=?; df/dx=[(x+dx)^n-x^n]/dx  could put in x0 at first x+dx

x is fixed, dx moves

binomial theorem: (x+dx)^n=(x+dx)*(x+dx) n times=x^n+n(x^n-1)dx+junk terms

Junk terms refers to O(big oh) O(dx)^2 where this is dx^2,dx^3 and higher are important because they don't go away in AuT because there is a specific limit (information) where you have quantum changes.  That is x can approach zero but never reach zero.

This is the same end point that allows pi to have a specific definition in AuT, the same that allows for there to be a quantum state beyond which there is no separation because it breaks down to pure information.

df/dx=1/dx((x+dx)^n-x^n)

=1/dx(x^n+nx^(n-1)dx+O(dx)^2-x^n)

=1/dx(nx^(n-1)dx+O(dx)^2)

=nx^n-1 + Odx

tends as dx goes to 0 to nx^n-1

=d/dx(x^n)=nx^(n-2)

So for our equation (f(x) is d/dx(x^2^n)=2^n(x^((2^n)-2) + O(dx)^2

Another difference is that we do not want to get a total or sum for the various answers or ignore O(dx).  Summing information gets rid of quantum relative changes to x (sct and dimension) and Odx is where the history of the equation resides, that is, obviously, the present is the derivative of the past in AuT since the F-series equation defines the present in that fashion (NOW=past 1 plus past 2).

We have a non-linear answer with discreet quantum units which assure that at a certain number of places we get an answer. 

AuT vs Verlinde's hypothesis of gravity-addressed in matrix portion

So I took the rare step of taking down a post today because it just wasn't right and I decided it needed to go back to the shop.  It's one of a three part series on calculus and AuT which defines gravity.
While it's up on the lift getting a little bit of a tune up, I'm going to make it up to you by explaining how gravity can both be a movement to linearity at the ct1 level and be observed at the ct1-ct2 level and beyond.
And yes, the gravitational constant and the compression features will be discussed in more detail in the sections that follow, this is just a bit of pandering to my audience.
I have a lot to do over the holidays, for now all I can do is offer a publication date at the beginning of the year.
In the meantime, please enjoy this interlude.


http://www.sciencealert.com/a-controversial-new-gravity-hypothesis-has-passed-its-first-test

This is an interesting theory (admittedly it predates mine) and it is almost right although it missed the fundamental background that AuT defines.  The promoters of this theory can be forgiven for not being as far ahead as I am.  The fact that they eliminate dark matter shows they are headed in the right direction.  Eventually they will come across the same factors as AuT and then they'll claim they invented my ideas first.

The move from linearity from non-linearity has always been the source of gravity in AuT.
0,1,1,0 allows for gravity and anti-gravity but the solutions suggest that gravity is the movement to linearity 0,1 and that anti-gravity is the movement 0,-1.  There remains an alternative to this which has been suggested which is that gravity is a secondary dimensional result.  The measurement of gravity (m1*m2)/d^2 suggests two things.  1) Distance (and therefore relative change to ct1) is important and 2) the scale of mass and distance is the same so that they two represent different states of the same thing at the same carrier level.

Since gravity requires separation it stands to reason that gravity would only arise at the ct1-ct2 barrier.  That in turn suggests that gravity is a force of comparison which raises the question of where photonic light fits it.

I am not convinced.  It is possible that gravity and photonic light have the origin in the place originally designated; but that they only become apparent at the next relative state.  This allows for the differentiation of gravity from the dimensional forces while still allow for gravity to be observable only at the dimensional level.

I define gravity based on proximity and velocity based on shared ct1 states (later) so it stands to reason that gravity, the force related to compression or the stacking of algorithms nevertheless can only manifest itself at the ct1-ct2 boundary because, yes you guessed it, it requires dimensional characteristics to be observed.

The research (on Verlinde's hypothesis) has been accepted for publication in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society and you can read the full paper now on arXiv.org.
I'm going to submit my work there, perhaps you can forward a copy of this post to them and suggest they pre-order a copy of my book and subscribe to my blog.

AuT-ppp Pre Calculus

Every once in a while I get a good question.  The one that I have received recently is this, "How is order determined, and why does it force light, waves, matter and black holes to travel sequentially.'
The short answer is that with ct1 you have to trace it back through the chain, but with higher ct states you have overlapping chains that vary the order of solution although they still have to sequentially move as they come together or separate.  You can see that in this old pic, but we'll get some additional detail.

We will get to that in more detail, but before we do, it is important to know what the answer means, otherwise it looks too simple.
One good thing about AuT is that it allows us to look at g-space were true mathematics lives free of the confines of space-time and the haunting illusions of entropy and self-determination and that most misleading of all illusions, faith.

The evolution of a state from non-linear to linear is generally represented, using zero prime as:

0’=0’1/1+0’1/(4-1)  Since 0’ oscillates between 1 and negative 1 in quantum instances, this is very similar to 1-1/3 but it is not.

Zero, in g-space can be replaced with (-1)^(x+1)

This also, of course, means that, part, [0’1/1+0’1/(4-1)]=(-1)^(2)+(-1)^3=0. What this tells us is that for any finite value of x, 0’=0 when summed.  This is misleading, however, in the same way that limit mathematics (as x approaches zero you get a mathematically specific result) is fraught with errors.

This tautology (0=0') while seemingly innocent is actually quite important and indicates that an offset is required in order to prevent the universe from collapsing in on itself and that the offset is inherent in the value of 0’ and is the converging series that powers AuT..

But o-space begins long before this issue is raised.
The first question has to be, what is plus.  We assume the most important parts of this equation are a given, but in truth they are as important to resolve as those which we understand. 
Another problem with o-space mathematics is that it fails to recognize super symmetry which eliminates randomness and entropy in their entirety.  
It is stuck in a space time analysis with self determination and its evil twin faith.
Let's look at some o-space parts of these equations that we take for granted but which are fraught with hidden meaning.

Plus is a relative position of states. 1 plus 1 does not create anything.  If you look at a simplified version of the drawing above you see the sum of the two states generates a third, but the prior two have not vanished although their importance as the top solutions are greatly reduced.  In the drawing below, you have to go from the right side all the way down to where e begins before you can begin to move up the chain to where c appears and hence the two solutions to the left and right side of A are far apart, whereas the solutions between D and C are close but it is based on the order of the solutions and their relationship to history going back to the lower solution of E where things began for this group.

Likewise, Equals identifies a quantum solution, but that solution is only significant in a given location by its solution relative to all points.

Since all points are ultimately sequential solutions to 0’; 0' must incorporate the algorithm and is the only solution that exists.  The plus gives relative positions in terms of a quantum solution based on the perspective.

Spiral value is governed by the equation

[(n=(n-1)+(n-2)]

pi=n(sum(1 to x)[(-1)^(x+1)]/(2x-1)

0’=(-1)^(x+1)

Pi=sum(1 to n)n(sum 1 to x)[0’/(2x-1)

This is one of the more rough post sets although its the most important in many ways.  It will largely reconcile non-linear quantum calculus with what we're used to working with in a linear (non-quantum) universe; but it's confusing even to me in places so bear with me and don't judge till you get to the end.

Dual limits:
xapproaches zero from right x-x0+; right hand limit or from leftx-x0-
In the case of NLC the answers were the same.  But this isn't the case in AuT and in fact there is a question as to whether the past can be approached from the future event because there is nothing built and having built from the past, the changes that occurred to keep the future sold might be impossible to track backwards.  This is not so much a jump discontinuity where the limit from either side exists, it may be where the limit only exists from one side which would help explain why history only goes in one direction.

Another place where this issue comes up has to do with the inflection points.
limit as x-0 for 1/x is infinity; but x is finite at any point so that infinity isn't reached in the universe.  The limit as x approaches infinity from the negative position is negative infinity and this is a balanced equation that may have relevance with positive and negative spirals which do grow out in both directions towards infinity but achieve a quite different result because of their intersection.

This is the first application of calculus to the overall problem and it's pretty messy at this stage of development.  

These features are reasons WHY AUT ARRIVEs AT DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS THAN CALCULUS.

We will get to that in the next posts, perhaps or perhaps this will be the last post.  Who really know?
I have no more faith in this than you do.