Imagine how stupid you will feel when someone asks you one day if you passed the opportunity to have me speak before your learned group and you explain that you were just too conceited to take someone who was clearly so much more clever seriously. And at such a low cost (a modest stipend, a pool pass, a warmish place to lay my head and a modest repast). Yes indeed, you will have much to answer for, I fear.
One of the great things about being 3-5 years ahead of everyone else is that I get to share certain things for the first time. The question of how does gravity come into the equation. This is actually fairly easy.
Remember that the beauty of AUT, the beauty of my theory which replaces even something as fundamental as relativity and explains almost all of the pre NLC unexplainables in QM (and yes, I'm more irritated than serious), is that it allows us to go back before the big bang. It is the only true quantum mechanical model that works that is out there. Most QM models, including string theory and the like, are nonsense because they stop too far after g-space to be of any real consequence.
So how is gravity an obvious result from the transition from linearity to non-linearity.
So here is the short version.
G-space is a potentiality space without dimension. It is critical to understand that in our universe this changes to a linear environment as a two state mathematical solution. This solution is, for lack of a better reference, a "yes/no" or 1/-1 solution. Note that in the past I have referred to as a 0/1 solution is not exactly workable because the end result originally is nothing, linearity, but it changes, it evolves, to a 1/-1 model, the intersecting spiral model being one of the closest models to what is observed so far. The result as it is developed is more of a paired model. yes/no vrs no/yes. This is true because both lines should be made of complete data points. Stacking would allow for more complexity, e.g. (ct2):
y/n:n/y, y/n:y/n, n/y,n/y, n/y:n/y and the same level of complexity (exponential complexity) at each subsequent time state.
In this model between yes and no or between 1 and -1 there is gravity. The separation from maybe to yes/no yields a solution, a spatial solution if you must, that is filled by gravity.
Looking at the drawing below what you observe is a solution where the "length" or "time" between two points on separated spirals increases which corresponds to the reduction of gravity between these points based on the solution point between the yes and no spirals
The simultaneous creation of two offset spirals in the form of algorithms in g-space also provides a mechanism for matter and anti-matter (see, e.g. p 128-don't worry the second edition volume 1 is well underway so yo don't need to look at the original). The problem is that m-am doesn't explain stacking spirals and, truthfully, is much to much of a pre-NLC concept to be explained using dimensional features.
The most simple explanation of pairs and matter/AM pairs is to look at the data as being yes/no for one and no/yes for the AM other. The matter/antimatter designation may be designated by the initial designation of status (y/n) called spin for reasons of designation. The spin of the applicable spiral would be in a direction to provide either a yes no or a no yes response. The problem is that the answers are not based on our sense of what is yes and what is no, but is instead based on the idea embodied in the algorithm so that yes and no are variables that can change as the spiral equation is changed.
When we look at the idea of destruction of information in a universe which is static, the idea becomes less significant. Further, given that at any two quantum points (adjacent) the amount of information is constant, the idea of destruction becomes even more questionable. It remains possible that this feature (compression instead of destruction or creation of space) eliminates space in favor of compression and this seems to be the suggested result.
No comments:
Post a Comment