http://observer.com/2016/02/michio-kaku-explains-gravitational-waves-as-baby-pictures-of-the-big-bang/
I could spend a week looking at the issue of time dilation in more detail.
Movement along one algorithm compared to the movement along several algorithms sounds like a simple concept, but the fact remains that the movement along different algorithms has to have some intersection for them to change in a relative fashion which incorporates exponential compression and relative dilation of change.
I suspect that to god we are like a work of art, you know what it looks like but you can always admire it. This is different from saying that what we think of god would matter at all to him. NLC requires that we are little more than dry dots of paint. If the dots of paint got up and bowed to the artist, of course, the artist would show shock. But we are a series of stop animation dabs of pain and not moving dots of paint and when we bow, we bow because we were painted as a series of 10^-49th second series in the act of bowing.
And this doesn't mean there is a god, at least not one in the sense that we would be made to bow to one (or more).
I have fought with the scale issue, clear to me based on information theory which must, of necessity apply to compression, but why does it work so well with a relatively random base 10?
I have worked with the two natures of information change, forward and backwards. I have fought with the idea of perspective.
Scale is a reflection of nothing more complicated than 2^n. Any factor of 10, must be a random method of counting this simple equation.
Change exists, but only between fixed quantum moments. And change has some strange aspects. It appears that we only see change at one state from a higher state and it appears that force (photonic, wave, gravity) comes only from change in a lower state. This perspective issue, however, makes no change in the quantum nature of moments. Hence, standard clock time which we observe on our watches even though it affects us specifically in CT4 states is only observable because of CT5 states (exemplified by the compression/coordination of change seen in black holes). At the same time, the force characteristics appear to arise from lower states and can only be observed from higher states. Energy is only visible, only capable of 'control' from higher states. While it is interesting to wonder what form of energy is visible from ct5 arising from ct4, the truth is that energy, force, what have you, is nothing more than the relative change of lower clock time states to others.
Likewise, there appears to be constant change and change in only one direction, the dimensional changes we think we control (well, I don't think we control them exactly) is only relative change.
All these must be correct, but what does that mean?
And NLC must be right, at least from the standpoint of the painting. There are details that are poorly understood, even by me, even after all this study, they taunt me. But as everyone else gets closer, perhaps eventually the holes will be plugged.
I was in Death Valley, not long ago, a normally dry place, but this year the barren nature was marred by heavy rains and heavier snows in the mountains, flowers blooming to drown out the harsh beauty of its hostility. If our universe mimics anything, why does it contain such dramatic shows of beauty, what is it copying in the singularity.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
nlc balancing pleasure and pain
The spirals we see, which being with gravitational acceleration and end in galaxies with fossils and sunflowers in between, so why shouldn't balance also be reflected.
Should we not expect that happiness and sadness will be balanced or at least seek a balance and that if we experience extremes of pleasure, they must be followed by similar amounts of pain, either all at once or a lesser pain over a longer time?
Should we not expect that happiness and sadness will be balanced or at least seek a balance and that if we experience extremes of pleasure, they must be followed by similar amounts of pain, either all at once or a lesser pain over a longer time?
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Why I don't give a good gosh darn what my readers think of my physics
First, let me say that I have been hamstrung my whole scientific life with a view of the universe which was "accepted" because some scientific elite decided it was right. Every science textbook should start with a disclaimer. Something along the lines of "This works, but if you have a scintilla of creative thought you're bound to be able to do better. The people who we claim are geniuses certainly came up with some nifty rules and theorems, but they're just monkeys like you, the reader."
Yes, that would just about do it.
Likewise, I was unaware that 2500 years ago someone had already figured this out (I refer to zeno and Lucretius-I better check in my book to see if I got the names right) and had somehow been absorbed or even hidden by the back slappers in the so called modern science community. Fortunately there was someone smarter than me, apparently much smarter than me, to point that out.
While certainly the amber Intersecting spiral algorithm model is a very primitive approach to what is a very complex, albeit fixed, system, preordained because it already happened at once, and while it is inherent conceptually (not the specific model but the general fixed universe model) by hologram theory and Einstein's musings (not his general theory of relativity which is a relatively primitive "end justifies the means" view in light of his musings which were much closer to the truth than the rules which define what we observe) the basic underlying features are carved in stone as it were. While not the final word, pending a discussion (coming soon to a blog near you) of g-space and a better understanding of that space if one is possible, intersecting spiral algorithm theory is "the thing." It is what all physics will be built around in say 3 to 5 years. Not because of me, perhaps, but because someone with credentials that allow a sufficient self perpetuating cynical self promoting within the science community will eventually steal my work and call it his own. You won't care because you think I insult you unless you figure it out.
But the reason I don't give a hoot is that according to my theory, it doesn't matter because it's all preordained, all happened already. What frigging difference does it make? And, of course, if it's wrong it won't matter in 50 years anyway.
Yes, that would just about do it.
Likewise, I was unaware that 2500 years ago someone had already figured this out (I refer to zeno and Lucretius-I better check in my book to see if I got the names right) and had somehow been absorbed or even hidden by the back slappers in the so called modern science community. Fortunately there was someone smarter than me, apparently much smarter than me, to point that out.
While certainly the amber Intersecting spiral algorithm model is a very primitive approach to what is a very complex, albeit fixed, system, preordained because it already happened at once, and while it is inherent conceptually (not the specific model but the general fixed universe model) by hologram theory and Einstein's musings (not his general theory of relativity which is a relatively primitive "end justifies the means" view in light of his musings which were much closer to the truth than the rules which define what we observe) the basic underlying features are carved in stone as it were. While not the final word, pending a discussion (coming soon to a blog near you) of g-space and a better understanding of that space if one is possible, intersecting spiral algorithm theory is "the thing." It is what all physics will be built around in say 3 to 5 years. Not because of me, perhaps, but because someone with credentials that allow a sufficient self perpetuating cynical self promoting within the science community will eventually steal my work and call it his own. You won't care because you think I insult you unless you figure it out.
But the reason I don't give a hoot is that according to my theory, it doesn't matter because it's all preordained, all happened already. What frigging difference does it make? And, of course, if it's wrong it won't matter in 50 years anyway.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
trump and china
I have to sell a lot of books as long as Trump is screaming at china, lol.
Yes, I was there first too, available on Amazon.
Glad Donald decided to join me.
Yes, I was there first too, available on Amazon.
Glad Donald decided to join me.
NLC-why everything you knew about the universe is wrong
While the idea of a steady-state, quantum, stop animation universe is pretty huuuge (or yuuuge) to use the political vernacular, perhaps the biggest advance in understanding the universe from NLC comes from fixing an early problem with NLT. Under NLT ct0 went linear, then ct1, ct2, etc. It was trapped in the idea of an expanding universe thanks to those vapid pre-NLC theories that said that the universe started with a "big bang." I cannot emphasis enough how stupid that was. It was only recently, really shortly before the spiral in amber was published, that it suddenly became obvious that there were multiple big-bangs and that the big bang was quite different than what was envisioned.
In editing the very rough draft of NLC (a spiral in amber) it can be seen this crazy misconception remains in dark shadows on what is otherwise a pretty fair, but very rough draft.
No, that whole big bang foolishness really screws up the theory.
The crazy idea that inspired this wrong view of "the 'closest' big bang" that the universe expands along the line that our view of time follows in the fixed spiral universe because of successive clock times going linear is actually the "opposite" of what is clearly shown by the compression model which shows a fully expanded ct1 universe of all space compressing and therefore shrinking from a completely unorganized state to a completely compressed and synchronized state, the opposite of what we'd see in a pre NLC explosion.
You're all wrong, big bang scientists, one day you'll figure it out. Empty space, the biggest state, shown as CT1 is the most outward of the spirals, the more the spirals pile up and overlap, the more you get to where we are, the 5th or 6th big bang in from the fully expanded state.
You're all wrong, only I, only me, am right. Or so I believe I have shown. So look at the model, look at the most outer, largerst spiral and follow it in, seeing each spiral come in as a step closer to full compression, but also note that the theory see at least 170 compression steps (see the book and the series shown in earlier posts) and we are only 6 spirals in, much further out than this model shows, and each spiral inward has its collision of the two intersecting spirals and each is a big bang.
Take that and stuff it in your nobel prizes.
In editing the very rough draft of NLC (a spiral in amber) it can be seen this crazy misconception remains in dark shadows on what is otherwise a pretty fair, but very rough draft.
No, that whole big bang foolishness really screws up the theory.
The crazy idea that inspired this wrong view of "the 'closest' big bang" that the universe expands along the line that our view of time follows in the fixed spiral universe because of successive clock times going linear is actually the "opposite" of what is clearly shown by the compression model which shows a fully expanded ct1 universe of all space compressing and therefore shrinking from a completely unorganized state to a completely compressed and synchronized state, the opposite of what we'd see in a pre NLC explosion.
You're all wrong, big bang scientists, one day you'll figure it out. Empty space, the biggest state, shown as CT1 is the most outward of the spirals, the more the spirals pile up and overlap, the more you get to where we are, the 5th or 6th big bang in from the fully expanded state.
You're all wrong, only I, only me, am right. Or so I believe I have shown. So look at the model, look at the most outer, largerst spiral and follow it in, seeing each spiral come in as a step closer to full compression, but also note that the theory see at least 170 compression steps (see the book and the series shown in earlier posts) and we are only 6 spirals in, much further out than this model shows, and each spiral inward has its collision of the two intersecting spirals and each is a big bang.
Take that and stuff it in your nobel prizes.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
nlc-gravity waves IV
Insight comes in waves
it is fed to me
whether i'm looking for it or not
it comes to me
I see time, not time but the inevitable
it comes at me like a train in a tunnel
there is no way I can escape it
the words appear on the page
without the slightest effort on my part
I have experienced the right path
but I am not free to chose it
I look in the mirror
I see my past
I see my father
sometimes myself
I see my future
and it looks like nothing I can describe
and so I am nothing
and I have a theory which proves me
I have given some of the details from the astronomers who weighed the black holes involved in what they are calling a gravity wave. We can call it whatever we want. NLC requires it be something different, an algorithm that perpetuates itself along several spirals making a slight different along the way in the way that the other spirals interact. No information is created, but information is changed.
For a brief moment, before getting into the mathematical details, for we know how large black holes are in terms of scale differences, at least the quantum elements of black holes.
We have to make some assumptions. One is that the collision is causing a change from CT4 states in orbit around two black holes to form CT5 states, more black hole material. This is not a necessary conclusion, but it makes the analysis more interesting.
Let's look at this one change that caused a ripple in space time.
First we can assume from this that we are at the ct4 to ct5 interface and that means we are at a collision between two spirals (noting the sum spiral concept means that these two spirals may have several spirals which make them up.
NLC says that if this is the case, if we are in a collision, than at some point in time, we will exit the state of two intersecting spirals and will have a time of relative peace in our universe, but given the number of spirals which are envisioned, the universe may be in a state of constant collision as to one spiral or another. This is likely because of the theory of accumulation, that each even and each odd F-series is connected respectively to each of the primary spirals moving in one direction or the other mathematically.
If we are at a major intersection where the next time state will occur, then what we experience today will eventually look like a big bang from the perspective of ct5-ct6 states, just as the collision that resulted in our current universe (ct4-ct5 at least, if not ct5-ct6) looks like the single big bang, the single act of creation, which we now know it is probably not. This should be capable of calculation relatively easily from the amount of information (gravity) in the universe and the amount of force inherent in the big bang plus the compression states involved, but alas, I am working for free and don't have time to do every calculation that I'd like.
Second we will assume or accept that there are accumulation flattened spheres or discs of ct4,3,2 and 1 states around the two black holes in inescapable orbits. These are turned into another black hole as the amount of ct4 available reaches the critical mass for stability, 10^16 scale in terms of scale.
The excess matter is either ejected or converted to some other form, e.g. a high enough energy (xray, etc) to escape the gravitational pull or perhaps into something smaller (like space) or larger (like matter) which causes the ripple.
It is likely in this model that this ripple might travel along the ct5 spiral much as electricity apparently travels along the ct4 spiral. The ct5 spiral, like the ct4 spiral is not linear, but has quantum steps reflected in the gravity fields that hold the universe together. But this spiral of gravity also has features of ct1, being space and being also made up of the fundamental algorithm of linearity which gives rise to gravity and which is present in all spirals, fundamental (ct1) or secondary (in this case ct5) It bears further study.
it is fed to me
whether i'm looking for it or not
it comes to me
I see time, not time but the inevitable
it comes at me like a train in a tunnel
there is no way I can escape it
the words appear on the page
without the slightest effort on my part
I have experienced the right path
but I am not free to chose it
I look in the mirror
I see my past
I see my father
sometimes myself
I see my future
and it looks like nothing I can describe
and so I am nothing
and I have a theory which proves me
I have given some of the details from the astronomers who weighed the black holes involved in what they are calling a gravity wave. We can call it whatever we want. NLC requires it be something different, an algorithm that perpetuates itself along several spirals making a slight different along the way in the way that the other spirals interact. No information is created, but information is changed.
For a brief moment, before getting into the mathematical details, for we know how large black holes are in terms of scale differences, at least the quantum elements of black holes.
We have to make some assumptions. One is that the collision is causing a change from CT4 states in orbit around two black holes to form CT5 states, more black hole material. This is not a necessary conclusion, but it makes the analysis more interesting.
Let's look at this one change that caused a ripple in space time.
First we can assume from this that we are at the ct4 to ct5 interface and that means we are at a collision between two spirals (noting the sum spiral concept means that these two spirals may have several spirals which make them up.
NLC says that if this is the case, if we are in a collision, than at some point in time, we will exit the state of two intersecting spirals and will have a time of relative peace in our universe, but given the number of spirals which are envisioned, the universe may be in a state of constant collision as to one spiral or another. This is likely because of the theory of accumulation, that each even and each odd F-series is connected respectively to each of the primary spirals moving in one direction or the other mathematically.
If we are at a major intersection where the next time state will occur, then what we experience today will eventually look like a big bang from the perspective of ct5-ct6 states, just as the collision that resulted in our current universe (ct4-ct5 at least, if not ct5-ct6) looks like the single big bang, the single act of creation, which we now know it is probably not. This should be capable of calculation relatively easily from the amount of information (gravity) in the universe and the amount of force inherent in the big bang plus the compression states involved, but alas, I am working for free and don't have time to do every calculation that I'd like.
Second we will assume or accept that there are accumulation flattened spheres or discs of ct4,3,2 and 1 states around the two black holes in inescapable orbits. These are turned into another black hole as the amount of ct4 available reaches the critical mass for stability, 10^16 scale in terms of scale.
The excess matter is either ejected or converted to some other form, e.g. a high enough energy (xray, etc) to escape the gravitational pull or perhaps into something smaller (like space) or larger (like matter) which causes the ripple.
It is likely in this model that this ripple might travel along the ct5 spiral much as electricity apparently travels along the ct4 spiral. The ct5 spiral, like the ct4 spiral is not linear, but has quantum steps reflected in the gravity fields that hold the universe together. But this spiral of gravity also has features of ct1, being space and being also made up of the fundamental algorithm of linearity which gives rise to gravity and which is present in all spirals, fundamental (ct1) or secondary (in this case ct5) It bears further study.
NLC-Gravity waves three-the other problem with LIGO
Gravity waves are actually pretty important to NLC, to the underlying concept of successive compressed states. You'll have to read the book to get it all, but in this fairly long post (you can skip to the end if you've read the book) I'll give the short version.
This is a long post that will need to be edited slightly. To really get it you probably want to look at pages 54-64 in the book (an amber in spiral).
Here's a pretty good summary of gravity.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/02/09/what-will-it-mean-if-ligo-detects-gravitational-waves/#1a7aa1a54726
If it's pretty good, what's the problem.
The problem is that these analysis counsels adapting NLC to mainstream physics when just the opposite should be the case. NLC rejected early the idea of the boson. For example, the discovery of gravity waves would require that streams of bosons would be shooting through space causing ripples like bullets through the air. It's an attractive model, but only from a vast distance.
To understand this, you have to look at what force really is and this requires that you look at what NLC says about force.
Force is not a movable feast. It is a function of static quantum moments. This applies equally to gravity as to strong and weak forces.
Forces change based on algorithms and these algorithms are likely caused by a stacking process which has been discussed previously, but basically involves solutions where common points of reference exist, the point of the overlap of spirals in the simplified model used.
In such an environment relative change and therefore relative force has to be created by the effect of one algorithm on another when matched. Energy which we use in ct4, comes from a ct3 state. No separate force occurs, but the effect of freeing up spirals allows for relative change to increase or slow given the effects of force.
So gravity and photonic energy both reflect non-linearity (gravity) but for the second spiral changes, their change relative to the first allows for the force characteristics that we associate with photonic energy. To put it another way, the non-linearity is gravity, the overlap of two non-linear points creates photonic energy. Likewise the overlap of the third spiral to the second creates wave forces and the fourth overlap in conjunction with the others follows an accumulation of spiral algorithms that gives rise to the atomic forces which we say "hold the ct4 states together" but in NLC they are held together by the math that changes the information and the atomic forces are merely results that we observe from the application of these algorithms.
While I use the concept of spiral algorithms as being the source, this is mainly because they fit the gravitational model and all higher states are merely combined algorithms so that a change in the algorithm is not suggested more than a set of mathematical results that brings them together in the fashion shown and, primarily, at the points where the spirals collide. I don't claim that a single algorithm in a vacuum explains the universe, but the stacking of these algorithms is an attractive model and the analysis has been extended to the spontaneous generation model for the universe.
If we take the F-series building of the universe as a model, it suggests that overlap occurs from lower to higher since the alternative would leave more of higher states than of lower states in the model.
One alternative approach is to increase the number of intersections by having each higher F-series universe travel in a direction opposing the prior, whether 180 degrees off or less might be factored in so that each intersecting algorithm would be the combination of odd intersections and the other a combination of even intersections. Using the series 0-1-1-2-3-5-8 you'd have 0+1+3+8 in one direction and 1+2+5+13 in the other. Since each number (0,1,1,2,3,5,8) represents a single quanta of data the numbers in the universe as we perceive it on either side would be enormous but not equal. Offsetting them at other angles would further complicate the concept, e.g. each pair filling the middle ground between other pairs.
However the system is built up, the resulting system has interconnected adjacent representations of data. How do waves move through this system? An examination of a bulge in data would give rise to the changes we experience by reflecting an algorithm that moves successive spirals to a more or less compressed state along the highest spirals that connect the universe or that do the same along the spirals that represent the most fundamental or some group in between the highest and lowest clock times. In this way, ct2 (photonic force) can be seen as the effect of ct2 against ct1 (a secondary spiral against a primary spiral). On aspect of the model indicates that certain effects (like standard clock time) can only be observed from the next higher information state. In this example, standard clock time doesn't exist in ct4 even though only ct4 entities "have time".
So what does NLC suggest that gravity waves are? It's so delicious really. One option (rejected, for now at least) is that gravity waves are waves carried by the first spiral. But the suggestion of spirals is that waves reflect an algorithm that affect secondary spirals along a length of a primary spiral or tertiary spirals along a secondary spiral, etc. For the primary spiral, the effect would go to non-linearity which while intriguing is outside of our mathematics. Further, a wave along the primary spiral doesn't really have a point of reference to change. It would, because of the other spirals relying on it, likely have some enormous effect vs the relatively small effect observed. Now this is not entirely true because shifting space a proton width is probably a huge enough effect to suggest movement along the primary spiral so its too early to completely rule out changes in the primary spiral.
Is there an option that works well with the algorithm pushing overlap along the spiral dimensionally and timewise at the same time but not affecting the primary spiral? Yes there is. Remember that to black holes (in this case the generators of gravity waves) matter would look energetic having coordinate changes which are relatively (and exponentially) faster and less compressed along the spiral point of reference than ct5 changes. You'd need a higher point of reference to see them relative to the other spirals. If "currents" carrying these are algorithms functioning to change spiral interactions along a line, then Gravity waves could be the currents carried by matter (vrs those carried by wave or photos or space). And there you have it. Happy Valentine's day.
This is a long post that will need to be edited slightly. To really get it you probably want to look at pages 54-64 in the book (an amber in spiral).
Here's a pretty good summary of gravity.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/02/09/what-will-it-mean-if-ligo-detects-gravitational-waves/#1a7aa1a54726
If it's pretty good, what's the problem.
The problem is that these analysis counsels adapting NLC to mainstream physics when just the opposite should be the case. NLC rejected early the idea of the boson. For example, the discovery of gravity waves would require that streams of bosons would be shooting through space causing ripples like bullets through the air. It's an attractive model, but only from a vast distance.
To understand this, you have to look at what force really is and this requires that you look at what NLC says about force.
Force is not a movable feast. It is a function of static quantum moments. This applies equally to gravity as to strong and weak forces.
Forces change based on algorithms and these algorithms are likely caused by a stacking process which has been discussed previously, but basically involves solutions where common points of reference exist, the point of the overlap of spirals in the simplified model used.
In such an environment relative change and therefore relative force has to be created by the effect of one algorithm on another when matched. Energy which we use in ct4, comes from a ct3 state. No separate force occurs, but the effect of freeing up spirals allows for relative change to increase or slow given the effects of force.
So gravity and photonic energy both reflect non-linearity (gravity) but for the second spiral changes, their change relative to the first allows for the force characteristics that we associate with photonic energy. To put it another way, the non-linearity is gravity, the overlap of two non-linear points creates photonic energy. Likewise the overlap of the third spiral to the second creates wave forces and the fourth overlap in conjunction with the others follows an accumulation of spiral algorithms that gives rise to the atomic forces which we say "hold the ct4 states together" but in NLC they are held together by the math that changes the information and the atomic forces are merely results that we observe from the application of these algorithms.
While I use the concept of spiral algorithms as being the source, this is mainly because they fit the gravitational model and all higher states are merely combined algorithms so that a change in the algorithm is not suggested more than a set of mathematical results that brings them together in the fashion shown and, primarily, at the points where the spirals collide. I don't claim that a single algorithm in a vacuum explains the universe, but the stacking of these algorithms is an attractive model and the analysis has been extended to the spontaneous generation model for the universe.
If we take the F-series building of the universe as a model, it suggests that overlap occurs from lower to higher since the alternative would leave more of higher states than of lower states in the model.
One alternative approach is to increase the number of intersections by having each higher F-series universe travel in a direction opposing the prior, whether 180 degrees off or less might be factored in so that each intersecting algorithm would be the combination of odd intersections and the other a combination of even intersections. Using the series 0-1-1-2-3-5-8 you'd have 0+1+3+8 in one direction and 1+2+5+13 in the other. Since each number (0,1,1,2,3,5,8) represents a single quanta of data the numbers in the universe as we perceive it on either side would be enormous but not equal. Offsetting them at other angles would further complicate the concept, e.g. each pair filling the middle ground between other pairs.
However the system is built up, the resulting system has interconnected adjacent representations of data. How do waves move through this system? An examination of a bulge in data would give rise to the changes we experience by reflecting an algorithm that moves successive spirals to a more or less compressed state along the highest spirals that connect the universe or that do the same along the spirals that represent the most fundamental or some group in between the highest and lowest clock times. In this way, ct2 (photonic force) can be seen as the effect of ct2 against ct1 (a secondary spiral against a primary spiral). On aspect of the model indicates that certain effects (like standard clock time) can only be observed from the next higher information state. In this example, standard clock time doesn't exist in ct4 even though only ct4 entities "have time".
So what does NLC suggest that gravity waves are? It's so delicious really. One option (rejected, for now at least) is that gravity waves are waves carried by the first spiral. But the suggestion of spirals is that waves reflect an algorithm that affect secondary spirals along a length of a primary spiral or tertiary spirals along a secondary spiral, etc. For the primary spiral, the effect would go to non-linearity which while intriguing is outside of our mathematics. Further, a wave along the primary spiral doesn't really have a point of reference to change. It would, because of the other spirals relying on it, likely have some enormous effect vs the relatively small effect observed. Now this is not entirely true because shifting space a proton width is probably a huge enough effect to suggest movement along the primary spiral so its too early to completely rule out changes in the primary spiral.
Is there an option that works well with the algorithm pushing overlap along the spiral dimensionally and timewise at the same time but not affecting the primary spiral? Yes there is. Remember that to black holes (in this case the generators of gravity waves) matter would look energetic having coordinate changes which are relatively (and exponentially) faster and less compressed along the spiral point of reference than ct5 changes. You'd need a higher point of reference to see them relative to the other spirals. If "currents" carrying these are algorithms functioning to change spiral interactions along a line, then Gravity waves could be the currents carried by matter (vrs those carried by wave or photos or space). And there you have it. Happy Valentine's day.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
NLC-The end of scientific inquiry in a universe governed by logic
Is it possible to prove NLC? If it could be answered in the affirmative, then NLC would be the end of scientific inquiry. This is not at all because NLC would provide any specific answer to the many questions that might be asked. There are too many inquiries based on the imperfections inherent in any system which has as much data as ours does. Likewise, the scientific method does not allow for fixed answers. This is the illusion of advanced science. People think they hear the answer to something. The scientific method only has room for theories which must be continually tested.
The lesson of relativity is that reality is not what we thought it was. NLC takes this to a new level, albeit one that hologram theory and even traditional physics suggested.
The problem with other theories is that they stopped one step short of committing to a one directional universe. They refused to abandon dimension, time and, well, spacetime.
NLC being pure philosophy had no problem abandoning spacetime. It would be science fiction, but for the fact that it arises from observed phenomena and is bent towards observations. If you follow the evolution of NLC (EHT-NLT-NLC) you can easily see the evolution of the theory. There are "quantum leaps" within the theory that take you from one place to the other.
While the idea of a fixed, and therefore largely futile, universe is not new, coming up with a model that limits our abilities as far as NLC in a framework which logically fits within observed phenomena and which provides a foundation for quantum phenomena and relativity is an important step.
NLC is not really "provable" in its current state. There are some huge gaps in the theory, not the least of which is how to get from the simple formula that would provide a smooth universe to a more complicated formula that would explain how a near infinite number of points interact to not only form spirals but to form spirals off of spirals with sufficient aberrations to provide a universe of the complexity of that observed. I note that "near infinite" is inaccurate since even at this early stage it is fairly easy to define the number of fixed quantum data points in the universe simply using the quantum gravity for each point and the total gravity in the universe. This is done in the book and while a very large number is theorized, it does provide something far short of infinity. The fact that it can be easily written using standard scientific notation is one indicator, but there is another, more practical indicator. Despite the fact that the universe looks really big and really old, if we accept that we're working with a discreet number of data points and that age merely reflects quantum changes in these data points along fixed lines based on simple algorithms, we can see that even the history of our single solar system has as much data as a much larger system. This concept takes us far down in the theory to a singularity where everything happens at once which is to say a single point or single quantum which when expressed as an algorithm expresses the entire universe, past, present and future. How is this possible? The same way that it is easy to have the amount of data in the universe reflected in a much smaller system over a long period of time.
Let me give a very simple example. If we say that our solar system at a fixed moment has a set amount of quantum data, then over just 100 years (assuming minimum length to be 10-49th seconds) you would have 100X10^49 solar systems at any quantum moment worth of data just in our solar system. This same idea can be taken back further by saying the life of the sun over 100 years is equal to 100x10^49 suns (of similar size). Then you can say a single quantum data point over 100 years is equal to 100*10^49 quantum moments.
Since the singularity is free of time, it contains all of the time in the universe. Hence you can replace the 100 (in the equations above) with a number equal to all the quantum moments in the universe and 49 with zero. This means that the singularity is given features by the alorithms acting on it that fix its effective display within a set amount of data or, alternatively, that the stuff of g-space allows for infinite generation of data in o-space.
NLC assumes a fixed amount of data and using dual spirals a fixed life span/length of spirals defined fairly simply as the number of quantum moments (lengths) along the spiral to allow half the data to intersect with the other half. However, the algorthms (see the drawings in the book) suggest that any "terminus" any maximum outward expansion is only limited by the amount of data and that if the amount of data can change then the universe may grow forever, possibly having a separate complete universe for each additional quantum of information added by the singularity. Despite having all these slightly larger, slightly different universes, however, our particular universe with our particular amount of data would be fixed, unchangeable.
Getting back to the original thrust in this post, the negative sought under the scientific method would be our ability to change any (ANY) quantum data inconsistent with the algorithms. I read an article recently about the possible acceleration past light speed and (under NLC) the implied altering of algorithms. This would radically change NLC and, hence, I'm assuming that it's an error or an observational fluke of some sort. Remember that in a time independent universe like NLC light speed is nothing more than the amount of information necessary to move backwards a quantum moment. Its the same type of speed limit, but it is a directional speed limit and not a time based speed limit. It very much shares the same conceptual space as the old stories where someone accelerates past light speed and moves into the past or future. It cannot happen in a fixed NLC universe, but it may be possible to jump universes.
So let's go back to our model and look at these universes one at a time.
The first one would be 1-1, the second 1,-1,2,-2, the third 1,-1,2-2,3-3, etc. In these models the 1 reflects the movement along the primary spiral and the -1 reflects movement along the secondary spiral. 2 reflects the second F-series (1+1=2) -2 reflects the opposite spiral along the second F-series (-1-1=-2). The 3 is 1+2=3, -3 is -1-2=-3 etc. The total amount of data in each of these mini universes changing fairly rapidly from a beginning to an end (see the book for more on intersecting spirals beginning and ending). Once you get to a universe like ours where the total amount of quantum data is along the lines of 10^100 quantum data points you have a pretty significant universe even at one point. These points have begun to stack so that the algorithms expressing the data look (over time) like spirals off of spirals off of spirals.
This presents two alternatives. The less likely is that each of these separate spiral universes is on data point greater than the other which would make them essentially identical. The suggested result is much different. The next universe is almost twice as large as ours (the math is actually set out in the book, but its essentially just a reflection of what the next number in each F-series is 0,1,1, 2, 3,5,8, etc.).
If one of these universes at even one spiral can connect to the next, or if at every common point (in the case of the 5-8 spiral 5 of the 8 points would overlap, in the 3-5 3 of the points would overlap, etc) overlapped in some fashion, this would provide a mechanism for each successive universe being a part of the prior one and would provide a good foundation for the richness in dimension that we observe in our universe at the ct5-ct6 state that we happen to be in. It also implies that each universe is both shrinking back to singularity and almost doubling in size at the same time (or looking in the other direction expanding out to the maximum amount of dispersion and shrinking by half at the same time).
The beauty of the model of spontaneous generation is that while mind-numbingly complex, it is also pretty simple, a self generating system.
To prove the model, you'd have to find where the jumps between our universe the prior f-series universe and next f-series universe occur.
Even so, however, the model is fixed. The method of generation allows for specific properties of physics (albeit properties that would change at the various turns of linear spirals if those hold) driven by underlying algorithms.
If the model were "proved" further scientific inquiry would be irrelevant. It's not that it would not provide utility, entertainment, etc, it would merely not be relevant in the grand scheme of things. A race sufficiently advanced to prove to complete satisfaction the existence of NLC would have no ability to change its universe and would lose the incentive to advance further. Moreover, the members of such a race would lean towards lives that were as full as possible without reference to the future, because all that would matter was to have the fixed points as pleasant as possible, pleasantness into eternity as opposed to the alternatives.
Fortunately, for us, our very scientific method mirrors (as do all other things, necessarily in a fixed intersecting linear spiral universe) the uncertainty of infinite series (which we now know can be solved for any one universe in this model) in that theories are only good until disproved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXjzOpz4Cyw
The lesson of relativity is that reality is not what we thought it was. NLC takes this to a new level, albeit one that hologram theory and even traditional physics suggested.
The problem with other theories is that they stopped one step short of committing to a one directional universe. They refused to abandon dimension, time and, well, spacetime.
NLC being pure philosophy had no problem abandoning spacetime. It would be science fiction, but for the fact that it arises from observed phenomena and is bent towards observations. If you follow the evolution of NLC (EHT-NLT-NLC) you can easily see the evolution of the theory. There are "quantum leaps" within the theory that take you from one place to the other.
While the idea of a fixed, and therefore largely futile, universe is not new, coming up with a model that limits our abilities as far as NLC in a framework which logically fits within observed phenomena and which provides a foundation for quantum phenomena and relativity is an important step.
NLC is not really "provable" in its current state. There are some huge gaps in the theory, not the least of which is how to get from the simple formula that would provide a smooth universe to a more complicated formula that would explain how a near infinite number of points interact to not only form spirals but to form spirals off of spirals with sufficient aberrations to provide a universe of the complexity of that observed. I note that "near infinite" is inaccurate since even at this early stage it is fairly easy to define the number of fixed quantum data points in the universe simply using the quantum gravity for each point and the total gravity in the universe. This is done in the book and while a very large number is theorized, it does provide something far short of infinity. The fact that it can be easily written using standard scientific notation is one indicator, but there is another, more practical indicator. Despite the fact that the universe looks really big and really old, if we accept that we're working with a discreet number of data points and that age merely reflects quantum changes in these data points along fixed lines based on simple algorithms, we can see that even the history of our single solar system has as much data as a much larger system. This concept takes us far down in the theory to a singularity where everything happens at once which is to say a single point or single quantum which when expressed as an algorithm expresses the entire universe, past, present and future. How is this possible? The same way that it is easy to have the amount of data in the universe reflected in a much smaller system over a long period of time.
Let me give a very simple example. If we say that our solar system at a fixed moment has a set amount of quantum data, then over just 100 years (assuming minimum length to be 10-49th seconds) you would have 100X10^49 solar systems at any quantum moment worth of data just in our solar system. This same idea can be taken back further by saying the life of the sun over 100 years is equal to 100x10^49 suns (of similar size). Then you can say a single quantum data point over 100 years is equal to 100*10^49 quantum moments.
Since the singularity is free of time, it contains all of the time in the universe. Hence you can replace the 100 (in the equations above) with a number equal to all the quantum moments in the universe and 49 with zero. This means that the singularity is given features by the alorithms acting on it that fix its effective display within a set amount of data or, alternatively, that the stuff of g-space allows for infinite generation of data in o-space.
NLC assumes a fixed amount of data and using dual spirals a fixed life span/length of spirals defined fairly simply as the number of quantum moments (lengths) along the spiral to allow half the data to intersect with the other half. However, the algorthms (see the drawings in the book) suggest that any "terminus" any maximum outward expansion is only limited by the amount of data and that if the amount of data can change then the universe may grow forever, possibly having a separate complete universe for each additional quantum of information added by the singularity. Despite having all these slightly larger, slightly different universes, however, our particular universe with our particular amount of data would be fixed, unchangeable.
Getting back to the original thrust in this post, the negative sought under the scientific method would be our ability to change any (ANY) quantum data inconsistent with the algorithms. I read an article recently about the possible acceleration past light speed and (under NLC) the implied altering of algorithms. This would radically change NLC and, hence, I'm assuming that it's an error or an observational fluke of some sort. Remember that in a time independent universe like NLC light speed is nothing more than the amount of information necessary to move backwards a quantum moment. Its the same type of speed limit, but it is a directional speed limit and not a time based speed limit. It very much shares the same conceptual space as the old stories where someone accelerates past light speed and moves into the past or future. It cannot happen in a fixed NLC universe, but it may be possible to jump universes.
So let's go back to our model and look at these universes one at a time.
The first one would be 1-1, the second 1,-1,2,-2, the third 1,-1,2-2,3-3, etc. In these models the 1 reflects the movement along the primary spiral and the -1 reflects movement along the secondary spiral. 2 reflects the second F-series (1+1=2) -2 reflects the opposite spiral along the second F-series (-1-1=-2). The 3 is 1+2=3, -3 is -1-2=-3 etc. The total amount of data in each of these mini universes changing fairly rapidly from a beginning to an end (see the book for more on intersecting spirals beginning and ending). Once you get to a universe like ours where the total amount of quantum data is along the lines of 10^100 quantum data points you have a pretty significant universe even at one point. These points have begun to stack so that the algorithms expressing the data look (over time) like spirals off of spirals off of spirals.
This presents two alternatives. The less likely is that each of these separate spiral universes is on data point greater than the other which would make them essentially identical. The suggested result is much different. The next universe is almost twice as large as ours (the math is actually set out in the book, but its essentially just a reflection of what the next number in each F-series is 0,1,1, 2, 3,5,8, etc.).
If one of these universes at even one spiral can connect to the next, or if at every common point (in the case of the 5-8 spiral 5 of the 8 points would overlap, in the 3-5 3 of the points would overlap, etc) overlapped in some fashion, this would provide a mechanism for each successive universe being a part of the prior one and would provide a good foundation for the richness in dimension that we observe in our universe at the ct5-ct6 state that we happen to be in. It also implies that each universe is both shrinking back to singularity and almost doubling in size at the same time (or looking in the other direction expanding out to the maximum amount of dispersion and shrinking by half at the same time).
The beauty of the model of spontaneous generation is that while mind-numbingly complex, it is also pretty simple, a self generating system.
To prove the model, you'd have to find where the jumps between our universe the prior f-series universe and next f-series universe occur.
Even so, however, the model is fixed. The method of generation allows for specific properties of physics (albeit properties that would change at the various turns of linear spirals if those hold) driven by underlying algorithms.
If the model were "proved" further scientific inquiry would be irrelevant. It's not that it would not provide utility, entertainment, etc, it would merely not be relevant in the grand scheme of things. A race sufficiently advanced to prove to complete satisfaction the existence of NLC would have no ability to change its universe and would lose the incentive to advance further. Moreover, the members of such a race would lean towards lives that were as full as possible without reference to the future, because all that would matter was to have the fixed points as pleasant as possible, pleasantness into eternity as opposed to the alternatives.
Fortunately, for us, our very scientific method mirrors (as do all other things, necessarily in a fixed intersecting linear spiral universe) the uncertainty of infinite series (which we now know can be solved for any one universe in this model) in that theories are only good until disproved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXjzOpz4Cyw
Friday, February 12, 2016
nlc and gravity waves II
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0209/Scientists-may-have-discovered-gravitational-waves.-Should-you-care
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/smart-news/five-things-know-about-gravitational-waves-180958077/
The reason that gravity waves (or not) don't affect NLC is that NLC allows for, but doesn't require gravity waves. This compares with BOSONS which NLC firmly rejects. Why you ask?
The reason is quite simple, gravity exists. If gravity exists its features should be consistent with what traditional physics shows just as relativity doesn't reject newton, it merely explains Newton.
More to the point, the purpose of NLC is not to replace relativity or, more particularly, space time, but merely to explain why what we call space time exists at all.
To understand this, one has to look at the reason for the existence of NLC as a theory. The universe is far too complex to exist. Einstein and others working in traditional physics took the universe existence for granted and attempted to fathom the rules. This is like accepting a god and trying to derive rules for worshiping god without understanding what god is and what god would be looking for. People make up rules and hope that their set works. They are surprisingly similar going back 5000 years, but somehow boil down to loving your neighbor, but killing him if he's on the wrong side of your god. But I digress.
So NLC rejects the idea of a spontaneous universe and also rejects the idea of a god based universe unless g-space is better defined. In fact, I have two posts on g-space which this whole rigmarole about gravity waves has put on the back burner. I want to address gravity waves in some depth, but only to show that they serve little purpose other than to confirm that physics exists, something we already knew. The question NLC addresses is "why does physics exist?" It's not necessarily a more practical question, but its a more fundamental question.
Hence gravity waves or not are only important to the extent that they can be supported by NLC and the answer is that NLC must be able to support any observed phenomena, or it doesn't exist. Like Einstein in his famous quote, I know that NLC exists because it works. But NLC allows, perhaps even requires, that physics be allowed to change. This change is reflected not only in successive big-bangs giving rise to higher time states but also by the proposed linear spiral nature of the underlying algorithms (see the book for more on this).
So let's look at spacetime for just a second in terms of NLC. NLC says that spacetime is an illusion with features defined by algorithms expressing data. The existence of the data and algorithms together requires that there be "features" to the universe so expressed. Space time is a feature that primarily results from the lowest spiral algorithms which express themselves in what we observe as space. Gravity is also an illusion, but it is the illusion that is observed by moving from one quantum state to the next quantum state moving with traditional clock time. There is an anti-gravity which is merely following the quantum states in the opposite direction.
Since the data is resilient (it doesn't change) so too is space time resilient (the events of a moment ago continue notwithstanding the fact that our consciousness moves on). However, space time is also a function of higher clock times. In fact, standard clock time (compared to movement along the spiral) exists in all likelihood only because of clock times that exist past the matter-state clock time of ct4. That is, in the absence of black holes (ct5 clock time states) ct4 (matter) would not experience clock time for lack of a reference point. It is like looking down on a map. If you were on the map, you could not see the entire map or use it to find where to go. Given the higher reference point of the third dimension (looking down on a plane) you suddenly experience a greater understanding. In the case of CT5, we don't exist in CT5, but only experience its effect and this is one of the more "avaunt guard" concepts of NLC and not one of its foundations. I digress again.
The point is, that spacetime being an illusion, the effects of spacetime are pre-defined and all that really matters is determining what pre-defines it. That should lead to a set of answers that define the character of space time better, just as space-time defines fundamental newtonian physics better. To ask about the effect of spacetime on NLC is to ask what the effect is on a cd when the movie on the cd is played out. There is no effect, one is merely the reflection of the other.
Under the theory of NLC the universe forces me to type this, forces you to read it (or not). Understanding the forces that require this require that we understand how a universe as complex as ours can arise from g-space where there are no yes/no data points, but where everything is just potential (the starting point of the posts I mentioned about g-space and yet another digression).
Spontaneous generation of the universe is one reason why Fibonacci Series are used to define two intersecting spirals. F-series are self generating. The reasons for two intersecting spirals is to allow for exponential compression such as that which is observed and to provide a mechanism for successive big bangs leading to higher clock times and because it better explains spontaneous origins since spontaneity in one direction suggests an anti-spontaneity in the other with the result in the case of spirals that the two end up cancelling each other out and allowing for non-linearity.
However, time and data remain two sides of the same coin and the coil in NLC is resilient so keep your moments safe as they will continue into what we'd view as eternity.
The big point to be derived from all of this, then, is the study of the two ct5 states (black holes) that combined in order to create the gravity waves. The pre-combination and post-combination should track closely the "fundamental particle" ratio for black holes (10^16 as opposed to 10^8 for energy to matter).
This is discussed in detail in the book, but this feature has to be addressed in the description of the combination and released energy from two black holes "spiraling" together to form a larger black hole. This spiraling, of course, is a function of the direction of gravity which is the final leg supporting the use of F-Series spirals as a mechanism for expressing the resilient data.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/smart-news/five-things-know-about-gravitational-waves-180958077/
The reason that gravity waves (or not) don't affect NLC is that NLC allows for, but doesn't require gravity waves. This compares with BOSONS which NLC firmly rejects. Why you ask?
The reason is quite simple, gravity exists. If gravity exists its features should be consistent with what traditional physics shows just as relativity doesn't reject newton, it merely explains Newton.
More to the point, the purpose of NLC is not to replace relativity or, more particularly, space time, but merely to explain why what we call space time exists at all.
To understand this, one has to look at the reason for the existence of NLC as a theory. The universe is far too complex to exist. Einstein and others working in traditional physics took the universe existence for granted and attempted to fathom the rules. This is like accepting a god and trying to derive rules for worshiping god without understanding what god is and what god would be looking for. People make up rules and hope that their set works. They are surprisingly similar going back 5000 years, but somehow boil down to loving your neighbor, but killing him if he's on the wrong side of your god. But I digress.
So NLC rejects the idea of a spontaneous universe and also rejects the idea of a god based universe unless g-space is better defined. In fact, I have two posts on g-space which this whole rigmarole about gravity waves has put on the back burner. I want to address gravity waves in some depth, but only to show that they serve little purpose other than to confirm that physics exists, something we already knew. The question NLC addresses is "why does physics exist?" It's not necessarily a more practical question, but its a more fundamental question.
Hence gravity waves or not are only important to the extent that they can be supported by NLC and the answer is that NLC must be able to support any observed phenomena, or it doesn't exist. Like Einstein in his famous quote, I know that NLC exists because it works. But NLC allows, perhaps even requires, that physics be allowed to change. This change is reflected not only in successive big-bangs giving rise to higher time states but also by the proposed linear spiral nature of the underlying algorithms (see the book for more on this).
So let's look at spacetime for just a second in terms of NLC. NLC says that spacetime is an illusion with features defined by algorithms expressing data. The existence of the data and algorithms together requires that there be "features" to the universe so expressed. Space time is a feature that primarily results from the lowest spiral algorithms which express themselves in what we observe as space. Gravity is also an illusion, but it is the illusion that is observed by moving from one quantum state to the next quantum state moving with traditional clock time. There is an anti-gravity which is merely following the quantum states in the opposite direction.
Since the data is resilient (it doesn't change) so too is space time resilient (the events of a moment ago continue notwithstanding the fact that our consciousness moves on). However, space time is also a function of higher clock times. In fact, standard clock time (compared to movement along the spiral) exists in all likelihood only because of clock times that exist past the matter-state clock time of ct4. That is, in the absence of black holes (ct5 clock time states) ct4 (matter) would not experience clock time for lack of a reference point. It is like looking down on a map. If you were on the map, you could not see the entire map or use it to find where to go. Given the higher reference point of the third dimension (looking down on a plane) you suddenly experience a greater understanding. In the case of CT5, we don't exist in CT5, but only experience its effect and this is one of the more "avaunt guard" concepts of NLC and not one of its foundations. I digress again.
The point is, that spacetime being an illusion, the effects of spacetime are pre-defined and all that really matters is determining what pre-defines it. That should lead to a set of answers that define the character of space time better, just as space-time defines fundamental newtonian physics better. To ask about the effect of spacetime on NLC is to ask what the effect is on a cd when the movie on the cd is played out. There is no effect, one is merely the reflection of the other.
Under the theory of NLC the universe forces me to type this, forces you to read it (or not). Understanding the forces that require this require that we understand how a universe as complex as ours can arise from g-space where there are no yes/no data points, but where everything is just potential (the starting point of the posts I mentioned about g-space and yet another digression).
Spontaneous generation of the universe is one reason why Fibonacci Series are used to define two intersecting spirals. F-series are self generating. The reasons for two intersecting spirals is to allow for exponential compression such as that which is observed and to provide a mechanism for successive big bangs leading to higher clock times and because it better explains spontaneous origins since spontaneity in one direction suggests an anti-spontaneity in the other with the result in the case of spirals that the two end up cancelling each other out and allowing for non-linearity.
However, time and data remain two sides of the same coin and the coil in NLC is resilient so keep your moments safe as they will continue into what we'd view as eternity.
The big point to be derived from all of this, then, is the study of the two ct5 states (black holes) that combined in order to create the gravity waves. The pre-combination and post-combination should track closely the "fundamental particle" ratio for black holes (10^16 as opposed to 10^8 for energy to matter).
This is discussed in detail in the book, but this feature has to be addressed in the description of the combination and released energy from two black holes "spiraling" together to form a larger black hole. This spiraling, of course, is a function of the direction of gravity which is the final leg supporting the use of F-Series spirals as a mechanism for expressing the resilient data.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
nlc-time is resilient-1
If there is one fundamental concept to NLC, it is that time is resilient. While this doesn't sound like much, it is the result of Einstein's Foundational statement.
That being said, true time doesn't exist so the resilience is in quantum moments. A quantum moment is a moment where everything exists at one point in time. This requires that the universe have the same clock. In other words, at a quantum moment, you cannot have other molecules half in and half out of that state. There cannot be a connecting fiber between the states. If there were, then there could be a linear time and coordinate theory, quantum theory, would not hold true.
This is such an important step forward (3-5 years ahead of everyone else) that I will leave you to ponder it until I put up the second part of this post.
That being said, true time doesn't exist so the resilience is in quantum moments. A quantum moment is a moment where everything exists at one point in time. This requires that the universe have the same clock. In other words, at a quantum moment, you cannot have other molecules half in and half out of that state. There cannot be a connecting fiber between the states. If there were, then there could be a linear time and coordinate theory, quantum theory, would not hold true.
This is such an important step forward (3-5 years ahead of everyone else) that I will leave you to ponder it until I put up the second part of this post.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
nlc the cern
On of the late advances of NLC were the determinations: 1) That there were several big-bangs and 2) that standard clock time (time to those of you out there that don't really get it yet) is the result of higher and not lower compression states, higher and not lower clock times to the initiated, higher and not lower coordinate changes. This is not so much because the math dictates this result, but is instead a function of the gravity web holding the universe together and a failure to find a point of reference in a lower clock time.
While multiple big bangs representing the advance to higher and higher clock time states (if you're following gravity in that direction, otherwise looking in the opposite direction-the direction we call history-to lower and lower clock time states) seems more likely than not, tracking the origin of the illusion we call time is more complex and perhaps requires a bit more study.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/02/cern-lhc-recreates-the-billionths-of-a-second-after-the-big-bang.html
Of course, I don't have access to the cern and those who do are looking at the wrong things and coming up with the wrong answers.
The creation of something after the (latest) big bang (ct4-ct5 or, possible likely, ct5-ct6) isn't impossible however. What they would accomplish in such a case to to create a bubble in which the highest ct state doesn't have linearity. This is a difficult concept to get my hands around but the idea that a larger algorithm would effectively be nullified for a period of time while all of the other algorithms are scattered is not inconsistent with the model nor does it vary the idea that self determination is illusory, it only means that the algorithms defining our existence allows us to do this type of process.
I would assume that the CT4 bubble in a CT5 universe is unlikely, it would not require speeds sufficient to reverse the curve in a small pocket of the universe. This is because the lower spirals (ct1-ct4) would not be eliminated. This means a pre-big bang bubble is possible, but to see if it was accomplished you'd have to look for an absence of effect of the ct5 state binding the universe together, something I consider highly unlikely.
However, it is entirely likely that they would be able to change spiral speeds sufficiently within the narrow range of change allowed (under the speed of light) in such a way that most, if not all, of the spirals holding matter together would be unwound so that fundamental particles of matter would exist unconnected with other fundamental particles of matter and this almost certainly happens in fission reactions when matter spontaneously converts to energy.
While creating a interesting place to study NLC concepts, without using the NLC model to study the results, it's just going to cause more confusion.
My invitation to review the results (along with a plane ticket to Switzerland and First class accommodations) must be lost in the mail. I wonder if the CERN covers ski rentals?
While multiple big bangs representing the advance to higher and higher clock time states (if you're following gravity in that direction, otherwise looking in the opposite direction-the direction we call history-to lower and lower clock time states) seems more likely than not, tracking the origin of the illusion we call time is more complex and perhaps requires a bit more study.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/02/cern-lhc-recreates-the-billionths-of-a-second-after-the-big-bang.html
Of course, I don't have access to the cern and those who do are looking at the wrong things and coming up with the wrong answers.
The creation of something after the (latest) big bang (ct4-ct5 or, possible likely, ct5-ct6) isn't impossible however. What they would accomplish in such a case to to create a bubble in which the highest ct state doesn't have linearity. This is a difficult concept to get my hands around but the idea that a larger algorithm would effectively be nullified for a period of time while all of the other algorithms are scattered is not inconsistent with the model nor does it vary the idea that self determination is illusory, it only means that the algorithms defining our existence allows us to do this type of process.
I would assume that the CT4 bubble in a CT5 universe is unlikely, it would not require speeds sufficient to reverse the curve in a small pocket of the universe. This is because the lower spirals (ct1-ct4) would not be eliminated. This means a pre-big bang bubble is possible, but to see if it was accomplished you'd have to look for an absence of effect of the ct5 state binding the universe together, something I consider highly unlikely.
However, it is entirely likely that they would be able to change spiral speeds sufficiently within the narrow range of change allowed (under the speed of light) in such a way that most, if not all, of the spirals holding matter together would be unwound so that fundamental particles of matter would exist unconnected with other fundamental particles of matter and this almost certainly happens in fission reactions when matter spontaneously converts to energy.
While creating a interesting place to study NLC concepts, without using the NLC model to study the results, it's just going to cause more confusion.
My invitation to review the results (along with a plane ticket to Switzerland and First class accommodations) must be lost in the mail. I wonder if the CERN covers ski rentals?
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
nlc-mainstream science getting closer, one old idea at a time-gravity waves
What are gravity waves that they should be "found". This is the same as "finding" Higgs Bosons (not). As you can see from past posts, when the mainstream science community said that they had finally justified the finding of the HB, thereby justifying the nobel prize for that discovery, I was quick to point out that in time the finding would be in error. Surprise, I was right. As was stated by the far seeing "Firesign Theater", "There are no Bozon's on this bus." (or something like that).
Now the big question, is how do I interpret the idea of gravity waves. In this case, I can be a little kinder.
https://www.washingtonpost.
Now this isn't because the findings of the mainstream community are not largely accurate, but is instead because their accuracy is limited by the assumptions that are, well incorrect is the term I'm looking for.
In the case of gravity waves, however, they have a special place in Non-linear coordinate theory. This is because the spiraling nature of gravity is the source of much of the modeling that allowed NLC to be developed. Waves are the open appearance of gravitational spirals viewed as moving entities. The movement of the universe and the structures developed reflect spirals.
More on this follows.
Now the big question, is how do I interpret the idea of gravity waves. In this case, I can be a little kinder.
https://www.washingtonpost.
Now this isn't because the findings of the mainstream community are not largely accurate, but is instead because their accuracy is limited by the assumptions that are, well incorrect is the term I'm looking for.
In the case of gravity waves, however, they have a special place in Non-linear coordinate theory. This is because the spiraling nature of gravity is the source of much of the modeling that allowed NLC to be developed. Waves are the open appearance of gravitational spirals viewed as moving entities. The movement of the universe and the structures developed reflect spirals.
More on this follows.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
NLC-the need for a (better) summary
I didn't have a very good summary for the book and realize the need to have one to make any sense out of the book.
It's not just that there is tons of material which is largely hidden in the almost 500 page treatise (I actually highlight paragraphs in the rough draft to make sure they stood out better), but there are so many diversionary steps, especially in the rough draft where various old theories have left bits and pieces in their wake like the floatsom of so many quantum ship wrecks.
The problem is that every old introduction is obsolete almost before its finished because of the necessary refinement. For example, in the rough draft there were 13 items explained by NLC in the section on intellectual merit (page 13 by coincidence). Now, even without looking very closely, I'm pretty sure there are 14 and if I was to redo the list it would probably rise to something like 20 (e.g. showing all change is in one direction, proving the absence of true time, explaining black holes, the origin of quantum phenomena, etc.
The truth is that most of this stuff would come to anyone who realized we're a point quantum moment universe, but I still say I'm 3-5 years ahead of the next guy who will only be stealing my work and claiming it for themselves.
Then there is the NLC list (21 items because of proper numbering which on page 8-9 only came to 20 because of what I have to call grammatical errors.
And then there is the 'so close' chapter on page 11, "NLC in a chapter" which is painfully close to what I need to do.
And despite all the evidence to the contrary, time never seemed so unreal to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHq0-RPSUxA
It's not just that there is tons of material which is largely hidden in the almost 500 page treatise (I actually highlight paragraphs in the rough draft to make sure they stood out better), but there are so many diversionary steps, especially in the rough draft where various old theories have left bits and pieces in their wake like the floatsom of so many quantum ship wrecks.
The problem is that every old introduction is obsolete almost before its finished because of the necessary refinement. For example, in the rough draft there were 13 items explained by NLC in the section on intellectual merit (page 13 by coincidence). Now, even without looking very closely, I'm pretty sure there are 14 and if I was to redo the list it would probably rise to something like 20 (e.g. showing all change is in one direction, proving the absence of true time, explaining black holes, the origin of quantum phenomena, etc.
The truth is that most of this stuff would come to anyone who realized we're a point quantum moment universe, but I still say I'm 3-5 years ahead of the next guy who will only be stealing my work and claiming it for themselves.
Then there is the NLC list (21 items because of proper numbering which on page 8-9 only came to 20 because of what I have to call grammatical errors.
And then there is the 'so close' chapter on page 11, "NLC in a chapter" which is painfully close to what I need to do.
And despite all the evidence to the contrary, time never seemed so unreal to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHq0-RPSUxA
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
The modesty of fixed spirals
The theory is brilliant. It is so intuitive. As I edit the book, A spiral in Amber, I realize how much it is intuitive and how it came to be, not by my act, but because of the inevitability.
The algorithm of spirals off of spirals provide the forces that bind the universe in sequence, one more off of each spiral
Figure 7 in the book shows it better, but in solving the equations, one can see the first spiral yields the force of gravity. The second yields the force that binds space and changes it to photonic energy. The third binds waves, The fourth binds energy to matter. So why do mulitple forces occur. If you look at the drawing on page 107 of the book it is obvious. Each spiral on each collision picks up additional spirals. This is reflected in the length of the various overlaps in this figure so that the number of each line of each length increases exponentially with each collision where each original spiral picks up another spiral. So there are not only spirals off of spirals but there are spirals off of secondary spirals that correspond with new spirals off of the original spiral as the compression equation takes place. The exponential number reflected in the drawing by the length of each and the comparison with the earlier Figures, Figure 2 showing them together.
The spirals do not yield forces, instead the forces we perceive are the result of the directional, intersectional and compressive elements of the algorithms that define space as data points. The forces are not forces because of physics, but are instead the expressions of predetermined changes in data from one quantum moment to the next, all tied together by a common point of origin, capable of creating an entire universe and allowing each separate change because it is not constrained by time as we only experience it at higher compression states.
It is elegant, simple, intuitive, by pre-NLC standards brilliant.
So how come no one figured NLC out before me? It is so obvious, so intuitive. The quotes and theories fall all around it.
Yes and no have been around, perhaps the first human speech. But it had to wait for computers to understand the fundamental nature of the informational building block. Perhaps that is the key, the element that was missing.
The obvious answer is that in a fixed continuum (not space time continuum of course) universe, if I'm the first, I have to be. It's just that way.
You don't have to like that reasoning, there is neither pride nor modesty in the Fixed Spiral Model.
And yet, as I edit it, I realize that there is a lot missing in the definition. While we can define the forces fairly easy at the intersections of the F4 series because they are the forces that hold matter, the later forces of F5 and the earlier forces of F3 and F2, those forces defined by those prior spirals off of spirals, remain elusive.
All this comes to me, but it is just the illusion of self determination. I have done nothing in fact, it is just there, it was before and it will be after. There is nothing but modesty in fixed spirals. Even so, there is much missing.
It is almost as if I was still seeing the theory in black and while as if there were a lack of color.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vYNyBmn6LE
The algorithm of spirals off of spirals provide the forces that bind the universe in sequence, one more off of each spiral
Figure 7 in the book shows it better, but in solving the equations, one can see the first spiral yields the force of gravity. The second yields the force that binds space and changes it to photonic energy. The third binds waves, The fourth binds energy to matter. So why do mulitple forces occur. If you look at the drawing on page 107 of the book it is obvious. Each spiral on each collision picks up additional spirals. This is reflected in the length of the various overlaps in this figure so that the number of each line of each length increases exponentially with each collision where each original spiral picks up another spiral. So there are not only spirals off of spirals but there are spirals off of secondary spirals that correspond with new spirals off of the original spiral as the compression equation takes place. The exponential number reflected in the drawing by the length of each and the comparison with the earlier Figures, Figure 2 showing them together.
The spirals do not yield forces, instead the forces we perceive are the result of the directional, intersectional and compressive elements of the algorithms that define space as data points. The forces are not forces because of physics, but are instead the expressions of predetermined changes in data from one quantum moment to the next, all tied together by a common point of origin, capable of creating an entire universe and allowing each separate change because it is not constrained by time as we only experience it at higher compression states.
It is elegant, simple, intuitive, by pre-NLC standards brilliant.
So how come no one figured NLC out before me? It is so obvious, so intuitive. The quotes and theories fall all around it.
Yes and no have been around, perhaps the first human speech. But it had to wait for computers to understand the fundamental nature of the informational building block. Perhaps that is the key, the element that was missing.
The obvious answer is that in a fixed continuum (not space time continuum of course) universe, if I'm the first, I have to be. It's just that way.
You don't have to like that reasoning, there is neither pride nor modesty in the Fixed Spiral Model.
And yet, as I edit it, I realize that there is a lot missing in the definition. While we can define the forces fairly easy at the intersections of the F4 series because they are the forces that hold matter, the later forces of F5 and the earlier forces of F3 and F2, those forces defined by those prior spirals off of spirals, remain elusive.
All this comes to me, but it is just the illusion of self determination. I have done nothing in fact, it is just there, it was before and it will be after. There is nothing but modesty in fixed spirals. Even so, there is much missing.
It is almost as if I was still seeing the theory in black and while as if there were a lack of color.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vYNyBmn6LE
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
NLC and a spiral in groundhog day
Ground hog day gets closest to being right, the movie, not the weather prediction.
The infinite universe model portrayed, however, has its core flaw. The flaw lies in the character's ability to change physics. When the character played by Bill Murray says "I am a god" or some such line, he is correctly defining his role in the fantasy. Only in g-space is anyone able to alter events.
That being said, they are fixed. We cannot, unless we obtain the power of god(s), change any moment in the past and our ability to correct the failings of the future is limited on a quantum scale by rules which are the background algorithms of NLC and which are 'reflected' by the rules of physics.
I am fairly satisfied with the theory, albeit uncomfortable with the complexity of the aftermath. While many of you would question the ability of such a simple model (correctly I must say) to yield such a complex result (the universe) one must understand that the rules of physics which we all accept as yielding the universe are more or less simple rules. 2gm/d is escape velocity, what we need to get out of this mess we're in. It's not that complicated of a rule. The same rule ties the entire universe together in terms of gravity.
But is it a simple rule? It is in NLC, but not in any other theory. If you abandon NLC, you have to figure out what M1, M2 and the gravitational constant is (note that gm is only valid for the earth but m1*m2/d^2 work everywhere else to the same effect. You also need to figure out what d is, no easy task according to Parminides and Zeno. Once you get to that point, you have to figure out why.
If anything, NLC focusing on the necessity of information generated and interacting according to a single fixed algorithm (or a few separate algorithms if that proves to be the case) is a nearly infinitely easier model to accept both in terms of origin and explanation. Here let me point out that the linear F-series intersecting spiral model is only used because it is one of the easiest self generating algorithm you can come up and is largely observed conceptually if not exactly in the universe and fundamental forces examined. I say that I deserve the nobel prize and some significant stipend to explore further just with the concept anyway, irregardless if I get it or not since there is precious little you can do about it; because whatever you've done you've done already and will do into eternity.
But groundhog day and the creation of heaven and hell are the topics I want to discuss while I finish my coffee. In NLC, the importance of the illusion of self determination is that we create our fixed lives. Whether your life so far, now or in the future is a heaven or hell is yours to create. My hell is that I created it not only for myself but for everyone around me, everyone who touch me, directly or not, is dragged to some extent or another into my heaven and without my intention, into my hell.
And so it appears Greg Lake, not Bill Murphy, got it right in Christmas and not Ground Hog Day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqwqknq7nuI
The infinite universe model portrayed, however, has its core flaw. The flaw lies in the character's ability to change physics. When the character played by Bill Murray says "I am a god" or some such line, he is correctly defining his role in the fantasy. Only in g-space is anyone able to alter events.
That being said, they are fixed. We cannot, unless we obtain the power of god(s), change any moment in the past and our ability to correct the failings of the future is limited on a quantum scale by rules which are the background algorithms of NLC and which are 'reflected' by the rules of physics.
I am fairly satisfied with the theory, albeit uncomfortable with the complexity of the aftermath. While many of you would question the ability of such a simple model (correctly I must say) to yield such a complex result (the universe) one must understand that the rules of physics which we all accept as yielding the universe are more or less simple rules. 2gm/d is escape velocity, what we need to get out of this mess we're in. It's not that complicated of a rule. The same rule ties the entire universe together in terms of gravity.
But is it a simple rule? It is in NLC, but not in any other theory. If you abandon NLC, you have to figure out what M1, M2 and the gravitational constant is (note that gm is only valid for the earth but m1*m2/d^2 work everywhere else to the same effect. You also need to figure out what d is, no easy task according to Parminides and Zeno. Once you get to that point, you have to figure out why.
If anything, NLC focusing on the necessity of information generated and interacting according to a single fixed algorithm (or a few separate algorithms if that proves to be the case) is a nearly infinitely easier model to accept both in terms of origin and explanation. Here let me point out that the linear F-series intersecting spiral model is only used because it is one of the easiest self generating algorithm you can come up and is largely observed conceptually if not exactly in the universe and fundamental forces examined. I say that I deserve the nobel prize and some significant stipend to explore further just with the concept anyway, irregardless if I get it or not since there is precious little you can do about it; because whatever you've done you've done already and will do into eternity.
But groundhog day and the creation of heaven and hell are the topics I want to discuss while I finish my coffee. In NLC, the importance of the illusion of self determination is that we create our fixed lives. Whether your life so far, now or in the future is a heaven or hell is yours to create. My hell is that I created it not only for myself but for everyone around me, everyone who touch me, directly or not, is dragged to some extent or another into my heaven and without my intention, into my hell.
And so it appears Greg Lake, not Bill Murphy, got it right in Christmas and not Ground Hog Day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqwqknq7nuI
Monday, February 1, 2016
The origin of standard clock time in a spiral in NLC
Gravity is defined a linearity. There is little opportunity for overlap in linear spirals, none if they travel in the same direction. Hence, space shows little interaction.
Once you reach secondary, tertiary and quartenary spirals (ct2, 3 and 4 and those higher states we observe) you begin to see more opportunity for overlap as you have spirals at angles to other spirals. It is to be recounted here that the spiral algorithm (given in the book, but readily available anywhere where algorithms are sold) is only the best model so far. Worse still, the interaction between curved and linear spirals has not been selected with any permanence but that is a different chapter.
We're talking about the strange origin of time here. By time I'm referring to standard clock time, what you see on your watch and what Einstein mistakenly said we each had our own. It is something which we all know (see the book) before NLC was convertible to length (hence space-time) but whose origin (time's origin) as a reference point was unknown until NLC. But where's the reference point.
Why start with the interaction of secondary spirals? Herein lies the most elegant of explanations of time imaginable. Up till now, it has been said, somewhat incorrectly, that standard clock time (SCT) only starts when you have ct4. This is not misleading, because we as ct4 creatures have sct.
The number of overlaps decrease as we accelerate reducing the number of overlaps as various spirals "straighten out". But where is the reference point and what does this have to do with gravity?
One answer is that the reference point is ct5. Yes, this would mean that in the 4th collision of the primary spirals sct would not exist even though matter would be everywhere because there would be no point of reference. The gravitational web that holds the universe together in this scenario becomes the holder of the clock, but only with ct5 type spirals which have the point of reference. And as we accelerate from ct4 to ct3 states (as we reduce the number of simultaneous coordinate changes from 4 to 3) the reference point is lost and there is no time even though the length of the spirals which sct represents continues.
'nuf said'?
Once you reach secondary, tertiary and quartenary spirals (ct2, 3 and 4 and those higher states we observe) you begin to see more opportunity for overlap as you have spirals at angles to other spirals. It is to be recounted here that the spiral algorithm (given in the book, but readily available anywhere where algorithms are sold) is only the best model so far. Worse still, the interaction between curved and linear spirals has not been selected with any permanence but that is a different chapter.
We're talking about the strange origin of time here. By time I'm referring to standard clock time, what you see on your watch and what Einstein mistakenly said we each had our own. It is something which we all know (see the book) before NLC was convertible to length (hence space-time) but whose origin (time's origin) as a reference point was unknown until NLC. But where's the reference point.
Why start with the interaction of secondary spirals? Herein lies the most elegant of explanations of time imaginable. Up till now, it has been said, somewhat incorrectly, that standard clock time (SCT) only starts when you have ct4. This is not misleading, because we as ct4 creatures have sct.
The number of overlaps decrease as we accelerate reducing the number of overlaps as various spirals "straighten out". But where is the reference point and what does this have to do with gravity?
One answer is that the reference point is ct5. Yes, this would mean that in the 4th collision of the primary spirals sct would not exist even though matter would be everywhere because there would be no point of reference. The gravitational web that holds the universe together in this scenario becomes the holder of the clock, but only with ct5 type spirals which have the point of reference. And as we accelerate from ct4 to ct3 states (as we reduce the number of simultaneous coordinate changes from 4 to 3) the reference point is lost and there is no time even though the length of the spirals which sct represents continues.
'nuf said'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)