The changing face of AuT part dos-how big is space

Unlike you, there is little I will do this weekend other than write and work on my life.  It is a very noisy, unpleasant exercise, the life work, not the writing.  I have decided, however, I must take radical steps, just as AuT is radical, so let's take about radical changes in AuT
Another early theory that appears to have lost its place is the idea that there is an actual spiraling down to two infinitely dense states, one positive and one negative where the two have no separation of space.  What is unique about the correction is that the same result occurs.  The problem with the original one was that spiraling down meant the spirals had to stay in existence and what is observed is that the spirals are solved for each point but that there is no spiral that remains which is a "primary" or "carrying spiral" for all the other spirals to get to this result.  Worse still, that solution would require that the universe actually follow rules of dimension and dimension doesn't exist.
It turns out the way to deal with this is by having the same result, but that it be obtained with solutions to increasing numbers of spirals which end up giving the same result but not by any one spiral spiraling down independent of the others, but only because there is a solution point at compression as x gets larger where at each compression state you get closer to this fully compressed result, but, of course, you'd never get there because if you did there would be a final x.
This brings us to another stupid pre AuT question:
 What is beyond the universe?  This is another stupid pre AuT question.  It is completely wasted here, but it serves a purpose in continuing to support AuT over every other theory.
The idea that the universe ends is such a primitive idea the fact that it took AuT to completely invalidate the concept borders on the bizarre.
The answer, of course, is that distance doesn't exist so neither does space.
The amount of "space" in the universe is simply a measure of CT1 information state in the universe.  There is a set amount at any solution of x and that defines the perceived size of the universe.
One of the concepts that is hardest to understand it the infinite series towards a universe where there is only two totally dense states, one defined by one spiral equation, the other defined by the negative of the first.  It is important to remember that the "spiral" is only the closest model derived so far and intersecting spirals only the most simple version of that.  We are hopelessly far from the solution where we are even approaching this infinitely dense solution to be able to actually see it begin to form, but we can envision this solution from the fact that the spiral methodology itself suggests this end result and since there appears to be no other solution or final solution to the universe that is more logical than this one which returns the universe to non-linearity.

The Changing face of AuT: Part Uno

As this theory became more defined, it became more predictive.  When it accurately predicted the scale of black holes (the base number replaced with a fibrucci series (n-2,n-1,n) sum) I knew the theory had merit, when it solved the expansion/compression problem of the universe and explained the big bang with relative certainty, it was clear that it was an accurate enough theory to be able to reject any conflicting theories.  But that doesn't mean it was clean or perfect.  In a discussion of the theory I recently gave (a small speech-don't miss your chance, book early) I focused on wrong terms, things which were initially fundamental to the theory but which I was forced to rethink in light of observation or testing.  So here now is part 1 of:
"Abandoned ideas in the name of AuT"
So here are some of the main ideas that were abandoned and what has taken their place
1) There is a fixed amount of information in the universe.  This derived from the idea that everything happened at once in the singularity, a mistake adopted from Einsten.  Instead of everything happening at once in the singularity, there is merely an algorithm which may be solved for any quantum instant, instead of a fixed amount of information, it constantly changes, increasing with the value of a single variable (x)
2) Compressed information states change at exponentially slower rates or at different rates at least. Instead, each quanum point must change at the exact same rate and some other feature (examples appear in the book, but I haven't picked the exact relative view point) provides a relative point from which compressed matter changes at a rate relative to the amout of compression or the number of lower states involved in the solution at any point (i.e. based on the difference in the number of lower states experienced in any change which is also defined in the macro universe over a length of the spiral as speed).  This is time dilation's effect on AuT.
3) Closely related to part 1: Everything happened at once in the absence of time in a singularity, replaced with a changing solution to an algorithm.
4) There is a single spiral, instead there are averaged spirals which increase for each increase in the size of x each quantum moment being thereby defined having a distinct beginning and end built on top of the prior spirals and in particular the prior two states.
5) Closely related to 4: The spiral arms go from one which is fully uncompressed to one which is fully compressed.  Instead, the most outward state is the least organized and the ratio of outward to inward compression at the state of total compression approaches identity, but never reaches it as x approaches infinity.
As you can see from this, many of the fundamental feature is the first volumes (The Einstein Hologram Universe and Non Linear Time Theory) had to give way in a more developed theory.
One of the big areas where growth of the theory will come is in the discussion of time dilation and the definition of what speed is and the closely related question of what changes occur in compressed states over long periods of time and how compressed states interact to give the forces and reactions that we experience on the macro level of matter.

a background of terrorism

One of the largest and safest airports in the world is bombed, 28 people die before midnight.  The stock market barely notices it.  It is plastered on the news, but it has become like wallpaper.  It colors the wall but how often do you really look at it?  The news says all the same things.   From it's just terrorism to the terrorists are trying to enforce their will on the rest of us.  Islam, Radical Islam, Subdivisions of Islam, in this case Kurds or perhaps it is Russians or the CIA, who really knows anymore.
The USA is overseeing more killings every week than any other group at present, and while muslims are killed by day, at night the president says we are not at war with Islam.  It is confusing, it speaks to a chaos and randomness that suggests that for all of our information and insight, we have no real civilization.
That most of believe in one or more fairy tale religions (if yours isn't the fairy tale than everyone else's is) and that we fight and kill and allow others to fight and kill in the name of them are two sides of the same coin.  We are, on average, a stupid, superstitious people.  
I like the beauty of religion, I'm saddened by the beautiful country churches of France that are slowly destroyed by the gentle breezes that make them such comfortable places to sit and contemplate the world.  But a wiser civilization hasn't figured out a way to save the good from the bad.  The bad boils over and kills randomly or on purpose. Die infidel, die Moor, speed the inevitable death in the name of whatever god demands we kill.  And those who have no superstitions, at least for man-made religions, have to kill to protect or avenge themselves, to have freedom from the dominance of crazed fanatics.  And at night their leaders confirm we are not at war with Islam, but we'll kill them to protect our right to not be Muslims anyway, we'll just call it something else.
AuT's weak link, apparent not actual mind you, is our feelings of self determination, our concentration of understanding, our ability to see so far into the fundamental origin of the universe.  Certainly that means we are something other than the outcome of the application of a single variable into an algorithm.  It sounds like a strong argument, but one of those random bits of shrapnel from one of our bombs or one of our enemies bombs should have killed me at one time or another, and yet here I sit.   We are stupid, little things.  We are no crown of creation, we are crowns of destruction.  We are proof that at its very highest achievement the universe is self destructive.  We know what we need to do and yet like the most ignorant of savages, we kill each other and subjugate each other in the name of random religious doctrines which make absolutely no sense.  In almost every case, there are those who would stone (or bomb) disbelievers for questioning obedience to ignorance.
We cannot make the case that self determination invalidates mathematical certainty unless we can control our own emotions and compartmentalize our superstitions.
There is no reason not to kill one another over these stupid fantasies with which we indoctrinate those too uneducated to defend themselves.  We don't have sufficient value to justify saving ourselves.  Well, maybe you don't.   I feel pretty good about my values.

AuT leading the world

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/string-theory-co-founder-sub-atomic-particles-are-evidence-0#.V2XUN8BYmDw.facebook

This kind of nonsense is out there because the mainstream hasn't had access to AuT yet.  I'm working on it.  This isn't to say that "Nothing" in this universe, the one that we see, is a reflection of god, the whole universe is a reflection of sorts, more of a solution than a reflection, but being presentably as a solution means there is a matrix in the background on which a solution may be solved.
The article contains this quote:
“We need a theory that goes before the Big Bang, and that’s String Theory. String Theory says that perhaps two universes collided to create our universe, or maybe our universe is butted from another universe leaving an umbilical cord…."
No, that part is just silly.  I explained what the big bang was and addressed all the issues raised relative to the most recent big "inflection point" and why there is supersymetry (it's because its a simple equation with a recurring type of solution, recurring in the sense that it is a infinite converging series in response to the solution based on a single variable.
So some of what this author derives is almost AuT worthy, the "evidentiary nature" but since the author (not the scientist) is talking about "sub-atomic" particles is just misinterpretation of the "evidence" since the idea that the sub-atomic (smaller than atoms) particles are actually particulate in the fundamental structure or even "made" of something is just...It's frustrating.  Millions, nay Billions, are being spent on physics projects and research that are looking in the wrong direction.  I know some of you haven't read everything here and are thinking this is nonsense, and I feel the same way about this nonsense.
If a theory not only explains the big bang but goes trillions of years before it, shouldn't it have some of the support given to theories that are still guessing what the big bang was or that assume it has something to do with god?
If a theory not only explains quantum particles but explains why a minimum size is both possible and non-existent shouldn't it get some of the support that all these particle accelerators get?
There is more potential for understanding and at least illusory manipulation of the universe in AuT than...well perhaps it's the fact that it shatters the illusion that makes it so hard to accept.
But we all know that the illusion is important.
There is 90% humidity this morning, the sun which I greeted has not yet lighted the lower reaches of the yard and that is important.  All our humanly concerns are important, but go doesn't lie in anything other than the matrix, which is not space or time, in which the algorithm can be solved, all that we hold important lies in this place and our ability to seize, illusory or not, renders our inaction and mistakes intolerable.

I stand with britain on the brink

I should have decided to base my future on what happened with this.
I'm just kidding about this, the factors that inevitably point to leaving have very little to do with the events of Britain which is, in truth, voting for its survival, not realizing that it will probably not survive whichever way the vote goes.
I understand this too well myself.  I see my own future reflected in the future.  Prior decisions have destroyed us both, and what we're left with is merely a choice of which way to die.
And now I have to ask the same question, the question that the one of me that I killed already knew.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMaE6toi4mk

the AuT capacitor part IV

The book is published, but the research goes on.
As I prepare to leave this sad but pleasant place behind me, I am working tirelessly to find someone to work tirelessly to get me speaking engagements.  What is going to happen next is anyone's guess, but if I'm on my way that's a damn good start.
This is some old post stuff, but worth printing just to get it out of my waiting to post stack.
So we're going to go a little further into this capacitor theory of spiral intersection.  What we're doing here is adding to the algorithm that defines the intersection to include what happens at the intersection in certain circumstances.  We're also going to discuss why this happens the way it does to some extent and the models in three dimensional space that define 'inflection points' where the intersection yields to non-intersection which are not necessarily the equivalent of the very different places where the sin function changes the direction of the algorithm.

We have defined lengths of these overlaps and these defined lengths will give us a definition of "time" for the capacitor equations between t=0 and t=end of the overlap but we can solve for any quantum moment thereby allowing us to predict the future or the past at any point.

To understand this, we have the equivalent of time which is the length along the point of intersection.  This generates a stacking of spirals which we're going to compare to current over a capacitor. Don't mistake this for actual current because we're not going to have the same effect.  What differences?
Well for one thing, we're going to achieve stable higher states, not necessarily in every spiral intersection, but in the big bangs we're going to have the next higher time state as well as some significant discharge.

So let's take this analogy down the road a little ways and bear with me, because we're going to be do lots and lots of substitutions to get from the real world power source, to the algorithm power source of AuT.

Charging circuit-V/t is a time (here length) equation starts charging quickly that slows down gradually until it never quite reaches the charge of the power source.  This type of equation is a good hint that it's driven by the quantum type features that otherwise define the universe.

V(t)=E(1-e^-t/RC) where E is the maximum voltage.  This is how the intersection of two spirals look coming together.
When the intersection stops you get a discharge circuit which looks like:
I vs t; current starts out at the E/Re^-t/RC)
E is the power source.  t is replaced with length and since we're solving for points we can pick one anywhere along this equation and solve it for a quantum moment.
RC is the time constant and is approximately .63 for the charging and .37 for the discharging circuit.
when t=rc then e^-1 is 1/e.  e=(1+1/n)n as n approached infinity (in our case the maximum information in the universe.
Where R is the Resistence and C is the capacitance.  We're not worried about actual electricity, we're only interested in the "building" of this type capacity so while we use Voltage, we're actually collecting spirals and they will, at some point in time (when you get to the non-overlap point [where overlap ends and which is an inflection point in the equation where charging of spirals leads to the dicharge of spirals EXCEPT where they have become stable due to the equation for stability which is essenitally F(n-2,n-1,n-adding those)^2^n for those accumulations of spirals where stability is attained.
So you derive the charging as V(t)=E(1-e^-t/RC) and I(0)=E/R(e^-t/RC) and discharging is
V(t)=QRCe^-t/RC and I(t)=Q/RCe^-t/RC but you don't fully discharge on one end and you discharge more than you would on the other end. At the ct3-4 interface, this 'discharge' to the extent there is a discharge, is our friend e=mc^2 but, of course, we have the other constant previously derived for ct4-5 where the factor (of course being F(n-2,n-1,n) is M(matter)=BH(blackhole stuff)x(times)q13^2^5 where q is a constant that makes up for the difference between the constant for the speed of light and this new constant
Q=EC(1-e^-t/RC)
The capacitor begins to push back against the power source when it begins to b

We're going to need some information for e so let's talk about why it is important to our spiral universe.
e=sum(from n=0 to n=infinity (or the total information in the universe)1/n(factorial) or sum1/n!=1+1/1+1/1*2+1/1*2*3
1,1,1/2,1/6,1/24.
The importance here has to do with probability theory which in a fixed environment becomes certainty theory.  IF you have something happen 1 time out of n times then the probability of it happening is 1 time out of e (from 0 to n) or 1/e where e is summed calculated from 0 to n (and one can presume in AuT from 0 down to -n).  n changes as universes build so that probability decreases steadily which allows for the combination of universes.
for the first universe 1 positive and 1 negative spiral the answer is 1, for the second univese it is 2, for the third it is 2.2 and so on.  These changing probabilities, especially when n is the amount of bits of information in our universe (10^100 plus for any quantum) leads to a probability which is very close to the limits of e, but still not solved exactly allowing for minor variation.
Likewise it defines distribution (d(x)=1/sqr(2pi)*e^-1/2x^2) which again is solved for each universe starting with x=1 (technically the pre-universe has the solution 1/sqr(2pi)).  Why important to consider?  Because the solution for the distribution equation has inflection points (1, 2, 3, -1,-2,-3) where the direction changes (the undulating of a sin wave) which is the analogy of intersecting spirals (see the prior definition of the spiral using sin which can be replaced with a similar function to this one for distribution or, potentially, points of charge and discharge of our capacitors.
There are many ways to derive this.  One is the first derivative shows a sin wave (y=f(x)), the first derivative y=f'(x) yielding a u-shaped curve, the second derivative shows the inflection point where this solution goes from positive to negative (y=f"(x)).  These many ways to skin the cat don't change the outcome we are looking for which is a change in direction at a quantum point only solvable by having a finite amount of information (a finite e, a finite x)
Likewise we can solve for i (i^2=-1) in an information universe because you can have positive or negative information for the opposite spiral.  For positive information 1*1=1, for negative information 1*1=-1.  It doesn't work in our non-quantum view of  the universe but might work perfectly well along the opposite spiral.

We're not using capacitors, of course, but the equations are derived below and the derivation is the same but not the results because of stable compression

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVBNzJ-jRWw
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/differential-calculus/derivative-applications/concavity-inflection-points/v/calculus-graphing-using-derivatives
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVBNzJ-jRWw

AuT the building blocks of F-series Part 2...and pi

Nothing in life is to be feared.  It is only to be understood.

Now here is the bizarre part of the build out of the F-series.

11	112	123		112	1123	1235
112	123	235		1123	1235	2358
123	235	358		1235	2358	3593
235	358	593		2358	3593	5951
358	593	951		3593	5951	9544
593	951	1544		5951	9544	15495
11	22	33		111	222	333
22	33	55		222	333	555
33	55	88		333	555	888
55	88	143		555	888	1443
88	143	231		888	1443	2331
143	231	374		1443	2331	3774

What the chart above shows is that this pattern works no matter how far out you take it.  Now, this isn't really bizarre, it is just simple mathematics.  Note that I"m not solving this for the non base 10 number system, if you count using sticks it works, that all that matters to the universe.
If AuT has taught us anything, it's that the truth gets hidden behind our math prejudices.
One feature which is obvious from math is that the the first number in the series is independent of the others.
In order to understand how this builds out a universe we take the two ways and fill in a two dimensional matrix (later we'll have to go in as many dimensions as there are simultaneous coordinates which, thankfully, is believed to be no more than 5 where we are now.

0 as a center

1 as a center

1 surrounded by 2 ones initially.  Then each of these will pick up another at each change.Building only from zero, only from initial 1 only from any one or from each.

This is important because this build out is the creation of curvature in space.  While this only goes out a a very short distance and is restricted to only two dimensions it shows how complex the two systems can get and why an origin with zero might make more sense.
The build out from zero also provides a mechanism for gravity to be differentiated from other forces because you only have two numbers to get to gravity and three for other force systems:
Space/Gravity: 0,1,1 understanding that this is built over three different states for all points in the universe. 2^2^0
Photonic 1,1,2 same understanding 4^2^1 compression
Wave 1,2,3 same understanding 6^2^2 compression
Matter 2,3,5 same  understanding 10^2^4
BH 3,5,8 ---16^2^8
etc.
The transition for forces:
Gravity: (special case) 0,0,0,0,0,1;0,1,1
Photon forces 0,1,1; 0,1,1; 1,1,2 (three states required to define any quantum moment built on prior two)
Wave forces: 0,1,1; 1,1,2; 1,2,3
Matter forces 1,1,2; 1,2,3; 2,3,5 (beginning here a great deal more variety is possible due to the lack of a zero starting point.)
BH forces 1,2,3;2,3,5;3,5,8

Aut Pi Prime 2

Once you drop the numeric qualities and the dimensional qualities you see that each one, no matter where it appears, can be an initial 1.  Their place in the matrix doesn't "block" anything, because blocking requires dimension.  Their number doesn't differentiate them because our designation of numbers has no effect upon them.
How space curvature comes into being is a very complex question which requires perhaps as much study of the matrix qualities as anything else.
It seems unlikely that every point in the universe goes into the defnition of pi.  It could be that straight lines appear at 10^-39th of a second and slowly disappear so that for any given quantum point, there is no curvature is the display, but that given the massive amount of time involved before we can perceive it that it becomes curved.  This woudl provide a fairly certain solution to pi anywhere in the universe because it is length based (10^39th places in a second, perhaps linearit becomes apparent in as few as 15 or 20 decimal places for any quantum point.
Perhaps this is supplemented with the number of quantum points occupying a common location during that time.  Change is perceived as movement and since every point is chaning at the speed of light curvature woudl appear for a specific point in the universe because during any given second there would, under this Planck analysis be 10^39th different quantum points in that one location which provides the same  type of solution and again giving the same solution to pi to 39 places.
Obviously there are changes to this where points are chainging together from compresssion.
These solutions only provide for part of the solution but these may only be part of the solution but it appears to be an important part even though the solution it gives for pi is much closer than I would otherwise be comfortable with.  It is possible, for example, that this solution holds for space, but that compression provides a method of exponentially increasing the amount of curvature in the solution.  This concept is attractive because it provides for space curvature (the perceived bending of space) without actual bending found in gravity wells.
The understand this better looking at ct1-5
ct1 has 10^39th curvature affecting it.
ct2 has 2^10^30th curvature
ct3 has 4^10^39th curvature
ct4 (us) 8^10^39th curvature
ct5 (bh) 16^10^39th curvature
This follows the compressio model and also provides for the deep "bending" of space without the dimensional absurdity of pre AuT mathematics.   It isn't "curvature" it is merely a more concentrated and longer solution for occupying quantum change at a series of points.
To fully understand this it has to be coupled with the building of the universe onto the two prior states but the basic idea is limited to:
(1) curvature is the number of points solved at a given location over a given valuation of x causing an averaging of the spirals to give curvature due to the offset between teh spiral solutions and (2) curvature is increased as the number of points being solved for a given point goes up exponentially due to compression increasing the net curvature for higher time sttates exponentially.
How points are defined in the solution of the algorithm is imporatnt but not essential to this analysis on the quantum level for a single point and hence will be saved for later.
I'm looking for places to present the theory.  While I don't have mountains of time to be doing this, if there are groups out there that would like the new mathematics of space-time (rather the mathematics that will replace space time), it's getting to be about that time to reach out.
Or if you think I'm mad...but of course you know it's right, it's ok, sometimes it's just right, AuT doesn't give credit for a solution to an Algorithm.

AuT-time dilation, Hawking and company creep closer to what we've already seen in AuT

It is pretty clear from the series of posts and the steady agreement of the mainstream physics community.  Eventually...
Well, this is idiocy but it's getting close so it's worth mentioning.
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/42037/20160613/there-is-a-way-to-escape-the-black-hole-stephen-hawking.htm
And the similar question, when they realize what they're looking at, what AuT has already defined, they'll have this figured out.
http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-figured-out-how-to-see-inside-a-black-hole

This is Hawking and his peeps trying to get closer to where we're already at with Aut. But there is no special hell for physicists who steal something from someone, because there is no hell.  There is no algorithm for religion, heaven or hell; although I have found all of them here, and the result is this theory which, when the rest of the physicists get close enough will provide the answers you don't have yet.
The theory which precedes these articles by years goes towards the end of life of not only black holes (ct5), but matter (ct4).  What they call hairs we know to be decompression spirals.
One day these other physicists will arrive there moving backwards one step at a time and slap themselves on the back.
This is a physics version of pareidolia. That is, our tendency to see meaningful shapes and patterns in random objects.  You have to get to the origin and work outwards to find the right answer.
Where does relative change come from?  That's what I was thinking about earlier, the problem of time dilation which I will discuss in depth and which is something which is necessary, relative change is required in order to have life where everything is the result of perceived changes in the rate of change.  I have discussed this and I have seen this for what it is, but I have not fully defined how it gives rise to what we experience as life.  I seemed close as I swam, but I was continually interrupted love songs which made me remember the heaven and experience the hell.
Historically...
At first, I thought different states changed at different rates, but I proved (to myself anyway) this was not possible, part of the single algorithm solution.  Although perhaps still it is possible that the multistates break apart a single state change, it is possible, but if it's relative there are 3 choices; a higher time state (ct5) a lower state (space ct1) or the state of non-change, the singularity, i.e. relative to not changing  Lower states is suggested by the idea of time dilation, both gravity and movement mean intersecting with more space at a time, one through compression one through just the speed with which they interact with one or another.

And the way things interact...the way they go together...it is a fixed interaction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIdCo_QAz_E&index=17&list=PL00028477F00A729Ek

Aut Reconciling 3-living in a capacitor

In the last post I pointed out that we see the effects of a spiral type algorithm in all of the large scale objects in the universe which suggests that we have perceived, if delusional, self awareness in an aberration.
The two examples were space (a uniform, expanding example of decompression) and suns (a uniform compression state).
There is another example, however, which should give us pause.  That example is the supernova giving rise to a black hole.  This is the type of event suggested as something that happens during a compression event.
The growing size indicates that we are in an expansion event, but it is possible that the post overlap expansion grows exponentially before stopping cold at a transition point (which again would be gradually averaged to give the appearance over all points of a curved transition.  If transitions such as ct4-ct5 only occur during compression cycles (assuming that ct5 is the highest compression state in our universe, this suggests that we are still in a compression style overlap although past the maximum.  This suggests that our universe will go through an accelerated expansion, perhaps one extraordinarily dispersed before very gradually, over perhaps 10's of billions of years, moving back towards a compression cycle.

I'm looking for speaking opportunities in exotic locations.

AuT Reconciling 2 of many

the most challenging inconsistency (apparent, not real) is the elimination of randomness.
Now something akin to randomness happens at the big bangs, where so much order is stored up in the form of compressed spirals and alligned spiral states that for billions of years it unravels before the post expansion compression state begins again.
The intersection spiral model is woefully inadequate to fully explain this but it is a pretty solid model, so strong that some aspects of it will certainly survive scrutiny.
The problem with the model is that it suggests a high degree of uniformity.  Looking at a well done video or even a cloud speaks to some sort of control, self determination and randomness.  The cloud continues to embody this, but the video belies it.  It is belied because the video shows where someone, often with near complete control, locked something very unique, very complicated away forever.
The model on a very limited scale can be shown to have a great deal of variation and complexity and on the scale where we experience things, with variation over (with multiple big bangs) potentially trillons of years and on the scale of 10^39th for every second, the degree of both density and apparent diversity is logical if not required.  Indeed AuG suggests a gradually evolving algorithm (not in time but in complexity) to arrive at the result we experience.
An algorith which led to a non-diverse appearing result would shown "space" for example, but no higher compression states to create the illusion of randomness.  Instead the intersection F-series grown off of earlier F-series and in the number equal to the number of quantum points in the universe allows for such great randomness that perhaps it is the apparent solidity of the world around us that is the greater mystery, the universe should  be (and is seen to be by an examination of, for example space, suns and cosmic dust) a place of either instantaneous or explosive change or of boring repetitiveness.  And, as indicated, this is what we see.  What we call randomness and self determination occurs in a very small bubble compared to the bordom of space and the explosive change in a active star.
We occupy a place, very rare, where the rules of physics "appear" to be voidable by a hidden randomness, but, in fact, we are merely at a place between huge spiral compression (the fusion of stars for example) and huge spiral consistency (space).  We are in the world where fission is the driving force, where the rare spiral going rogue, going out of sync with its compressed neighbors, leads on the scale of 10^-39th to the appearnce of the illusion of randomness while the tie in with remaining spirals creates the illusion of coincidence, a cloud looking like a jet airplane, perhaps.
It this an excuse for me, for us?  It is not.  Laziness and stupidity and the misapplication of piorities is as real for us despite physics as it would be if actual self determinationo and randomness existed.  As long as I can chose or refuse to write these words to you, I am responsible for my unhappiness or yours in whatever degree would be the case in a world of actual randomness...or is it?  For what else would explain this level of stupidity?
And you wouldn't be here if you, like me, could see everything.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C6kLbDHu0yc

AuT-Reconciling 1 of many

It's too hot and muggy to write outside today.  A heatwave or the start of an oppressive summer.
Reconciling growing information (with x) and a steady compression cycle (from a maximum of total space to a fully compressed state) are not immediately reconcilable, at least from our mathematics.
One way to look at this is a change in the state of information, essentially what compression represents, but that doesn't make much sense and forms one of the converging series problems.
Another way is to say that each growth in x creates a brand new universe which compresses down while successive universe are grown which do not compress down.  Again, this creates a converging series but of a different type.
Both have their strengths and weaknesses, at least in dimensional terms.
Another problem with both is that they start completely uncompressed at the full range of decompression and move to a stead state of compression.  In an increasing x universe this means that space is continuously redefined by being an outer spiral.  This raises the question of whether our view of space and compressed states is backwards and that is certainly suggested.  That is we see everything backwards as if through a mirror.  While our logic repels this type of determination, the evidence is significant and given the pre-AuT state of things (imagining that randomness and physics co-exist, accepting self determination and mathematics) we have to question our perception of things.
This post is only to state the problem, not to address all of the ways it can be dealt with.  We all know about problems and how they are addressed, poorly in many cases, catastrophically in others, at least for me.  How to draw life from catastrophic decisions is the subject for some vastly different forum.
It is possible that the missing link can be found somewhere in the solution to the compression/expanding information dilemma and I will spend some time fleshing this out.
I"m not happy that I haven't any speaking engagements on this yet, but there is time enough for that and in truth, while I see the conclusion of things, there is another solid week of dealing with earthly problem.

AuT-pi prime 1

We start with the proposition that since the amount of information is fixed for any value of x,  pi can be solved for any value of x.   The amount of curvature in the universe is a function of x for this same reason for x defines how many solutions of intersecting algorithms are included in each 3 piece informational moment.  The curvature does not lie in the average as it is shown but in the change between the three moments (n,n-1,n-2) averaged out over the points defined by the solution of the algorithm for x.
You can draw out the solution over time or as x changes.  The positive side of the equation is one spiral, the negative the opposing spiral for the merging infinite series.
We're now going to revisit a prior post on this subject (prior post starts here):
Pi and Phi are to two common features of converging series within a logarithmic spiral according to the golden ration (3/5).
Pi converges utilizing a series of increasing numbers according to the formula 1, 3, 5, 7 utilizing the formula 4/1-4/3+4/5-4/7.
Phi converges utilizing division with F series of numbers (x,a,a+a,a+a+a,(a+a+a+a+a),(a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a),etc basically adding each of the two prior numbers to get to the next number: 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,etc  You'll note in the initial formulation zero is excluded in favor of x.
This can be revisited, but we're dealing with a quantum length and x represents g-space or a non-informational state in NLC.  the convergent series (phi-how clever, pi to phi=fi) in this case is one number divided by the prior number:
1/x, 1/1, 2/1,3/2,f/f-1 for the entire series.
In such a system, the "quantum" size is found at the initial point in the series (having a ratio of 1/2) with a radius of 1 (therefore a length of pi*1 where 1 is the quantum length.  This is a unique relationship since all other arcs are a function of r=fibrunicci(pi/2).
so  you initially have:
1,1,2,3,5,8,13 etc as the F series.  The first step in the series 1:1 is not seen any more than the first stop in determining pi (4/(-1)) for the simple reason that there is no length beyond 1, you cannot cut a quantum distance in half.  In terms of information theory, this is one bit.  Half a bit (yes/no) would be neither yes or no, instead it would be half yes and half no which I presume means it would be a "maybe".  For those of you looking for randomness in NLC theory, perhaps you've found it.
No perfect circle or perfect spiral can be drawn unless drawn to this minimum size because the two are represented by converging (but never arriving).
The quantum point in an F series converges with pi for several reasons.  At this minimum length the arc is a whole arc, as opposed to a half arc.  It is also half a sphere with radius 1.  The "area" of this arc/half circle is pi*r.
This unique relationship (a function of quantum math as much as anything) changes radically where the 3/5 ratio is established at the second step in the series from 1:2 to 2:3. which results from the shifting of the center of the arc which has a new center shifted 1 space, the next center being shifted...2 spaces, the next 3 and so on in a mirror of the series.  The difference being that in the unique 1:2 space the arc originates from the center and that never happens again.  Technically, this is because you have to start each line at a corner and the arc has to contact with the prior arc.  At least one of you is wondering about this initial arc, and you're well advised to do so.  The 1:1 and 1:2 arcs are two halves which are identical.  In the language above we are having information multiply.
At least one of you is asking about the 0-1 arc and if you want to see what it doesn't exist (in two dimensional space) try drawing it, it has nowhere to go.  In this case it is a quantum length so you can't divide it, so don't try.  You are thinking right now "but I can cut any space in half" but this is information and if you cut it in half you only have a maybe and we have to save maybe math for later.  In o-space information cannot be cut in half.  If you are uncomfortable with this, you need to come up with your own theory of the universe, this is mine.  Anyway, for the 1:1 part of the series it is the only place where the two arcs have the same point of origin and hence the 1:1 and 1:2 can be drawn without "lifting" the central pivot of the arc.  The remaining arcs shift with the F series (if you don't believe me, try it).
 The relationship of the two infinite series and phi is shown at this point according to this equation:
The length of the arc is equal to quantum length at this point and the gold ratio at this point is one so at the quantum length (unlike everywhere else in the universe) the length is pi*r/2, r=1, and phi is one.  At this quantum length, then pi*r/2=pi*phi/2 and r=phi.  Phi alters past the quantum length and approaches  1.61803399 but never ends until the far end of the spectrum where pi is solved based on the number of places out that pi goes and phi is solved by going out as many places both being a function of the total amount of information in space.
The two are related outside of quantum space by the equations: 2cos(pi/5)=phi or 2sin(pi/5)=(3-phi)^1/2 which is the mathematical relationship between the arcs described above and the movement of the center point according to the fibrunicci equation (The "pointer" of  a compass starts in the center and moves one quantum space around boxes drawn according to the 3/5 (golden) ratio.  0 spaces, 1 space (from the zero space), 2 spaces (from the prior center point of one space movement), 3 spaces from the second starting point, etc so that you can draw a F "expanding quantum line, taking a 90 degree turn after each F quantum points which encompasses the curve of the spiral which are sequentially defined by r=next number in the F series and a starting point at the end of the prior corresponding F series along the quantum line.
If you draw out this first quantum 1:1 and 1:2 location you are struck with the only curve within the pantheon of curves of the gold triangle that seems to vibrate from the common starting point, as if uncertain in which direction to travel.  It is almost like a fickle lover, in love one day, the next callous and cold, one day ready to love forever, the next full of scorn and disdain. (End old post)
The "matrix of information from the prior post (11,22=33 etc) now can be added to this.  The first question is what is the starting point.  It can be zero or it can be one.  You get different results each way.  For the moment, let's start with one in the middle of a grid.  The drawing is coming, but I have a great deal to do in order to eat, no one is helping with this, I have to eat and write, though I am eating less and less.
there is a 1 surrounded by other values of one. Each of these is the center of its own grid, again starting with 1.  These grids exist notwithstanding what is about to happen at the next level with is the original surrounding 1's now are surrounded by 2's.  The process continues outward.  The universe comprised of intersecting spirals has already become too complicated to draw on paper and we are only at 2.  Each of these 2's will serve as a center for 3's, the 3's for 5's.  But the other interlocking 1's also will give rise to 1's and 2's.  The idea that you would have spontaneous generation from 2's is less likely because only 1's reflect gravity and that part of the solution appears largely fixed, at least in one version.  But since every particle, no matter how far out in the spiral has a gravity and anti-gravity solution (at least using intersecting spiral solutions) it is possible that the feature growth occurs at each point.  The movement along the grid represents turns in the spiral, but not each number is a single change.  The 2 is not a single point on the grid, but two points, the 3, three.  If  an examination of the duplicity (11, 22, 33 or 111, 222, 333) of F-series has taught us anything it is that "base 10" numbers just confuse the examination and "places" are the real culprits in defining our universe just as f(n) shows that using base 10 leads to mistakes in the compression equation because a base number varies with compression.
End of part 1.

AuT-strikes again!

http://3tags.org/article/black-holes-are-neither-black-nor-holes-but-2d-holograms-new-calculations-show

No, they are not.
But interestingly if you look at my post ranting a few days back, you will see that I said you could land on a black hole and here is talk of a surface.
There is also a discussion of information which I also have preempted.  I originally saw a universe with a fixed amount of information, back when I was dealing with information theory and a universe where everything happened at once.  I was stuck with Einstein.
Having determined that the universe is driven by an algorithm, albeit one which is poorly understood because it exists in a dimensionless place and where the solution is something more than a number in the abstract sense...ahem. Having determined the universe is driven by an F-series algorithm I now know it is likely that as x changes in either direction the amount of information changes with every change in x.
I have not heard back from my Friday e-mails to columbia and NYU offering to present this next week, but other scientists are "spiraling" towards what I have already written and published and which you have read over the last few months with me.
One day there will be an article, equally incredulous to this one, that will adopt my theory more directly and it will probably have some other scientists name on it and he will, by virtue of an advanced physics degree, lay claim to all that I have written and I will fume over it and you will read it if you still read this and we will admire the irony of it.

AuT-The building block of F-series spirals part 1

One question we have to ask in examination of the constructed universe is "How many ways does the F-series reflect itself as the universe is developed, how often do we see it in the algorithm?"
We know that it comes at two extremes in the process of universe building.
The first is in building spirals, the second is in combining the spirals to make history and dimension.  One is direct application of the F function, the second is a more subtle use.  It makes sense that the build out would rely on repeating the same algorithm just as the F-series algorithm makes sense as self generating.
When we go to Italy, we'll have to look up Fibonacci, although apparently his real name is Leonardo Pisano and the name Fibonacci comes fro his father's name (Bonaccio and an interpretation mistake).
This amazing lad brought the decimal system to europe and designed the F-series to determine how eternal rabbits would breed and there is something in that.  The universe has no clock and builds on itself in the same fashion, the same eternal clock.
This same type of building occurs with information theory, but it is a little different because you have each leg building according the math by adding another leg.  2^n works this way which is different for the F-series which adds the prior two.  The difference in this relationship raises questions as to why the universe uses two different methodologies.
x(n)=2^n and x=x(n)+x(n-1)
There is yet another feature of the F-series that we take into account and another difference.
Pi=4/1-4/3+4/5 etc while the converging series (or limit) for Fibruchi is divinding each F series number by the preceding solution: 1/1,2/1,3/2,5/3...or phi.  Both of these converging series represent the same type of solution for creating curvature from quantum points.
As you'll see in the comments section in the article below there is a combination of three F-series numbers to create another F-series:
011+112=123
112+123=235 etc
This alone is noteworthy, but there is more.
This type of F-series building suggests that the higher order F(n) found in Universe building (i.e. history plus dimension) may come in to play naturally along with the original spiral building as a matter of course.  There is still more.
This led me to check the prior relationship which led to a very bizarre result (although expected mathematically I suppose)
00+11=11
11+11=22
22+11=33
33+22=55
33+55=88
88+55=130+13
80+8+130+13=210+21
The series above shows what happens if you add two instead of 3 F-series numbers together  In this case you get 2 F-series numbers together. 1(11),2 (22),3(33) etc.  What is so welcome about this result is that this introduces 2 (the base of information theory) into a possible solution the maintains the F-series as the basis for derivation.
As you see, however, the exact methodology for arriving at the right answer shifts.  While the assumption might be that there is some problem with the analysis, the only problem is that in a base 10 system it falls apart at a certain place.  The universe is not tied to the decimal system that Pisano/Fibonacci brought from Africa.
https://plus.maths.org/content/life-and-numbers-fibonacci
Hence you have spiral theory and information theory built into the F-series as well as converging series to give curves made up of quantum averaging built into the solution.
What's next?  Part 2 of course.

AuT-pi prime update 2

This is turning out to be one of the more challenging areas that I've tackled.
Some of the things that looking at the graphics has shown me are:
1) There may only be primary spirals and the opposite spirals may be represented by the overlap of sequential primary spirals.  This would not "eliminate" the intersecting spiral model, it would however change the basic structure of the intersecting spirals.  It would also introduce quantum spacing into the separation which might provide a mechanism for stacking spirals, the capacitance part of the model.
2) pi prime is a solvable derivative of pi for each value of x based on the number of places to which pi must be solved in the model.  The factors involved in this are immensely complicated: 1) do all the spirals, i.e. x spirals or x! spirals or e^x spirals go into the equation.  there may be several pis to solve for in different places in the universe.  2) This requires a better understanding of the F-series applied to spiral growth.  It appears at this point in time, based on historical perspectives (F(N) where n is n, n-1,n-2) that each subsequent spiral embodies all the spirals in the prior two spirals plus one more value of x.  This one value of x is a change in every data point, however, so it comes out to be an enormous change for each quantum change in x.  The change in every point in the universe, if it were the only change, would mean that the total amount of data remains fixed but this may not be the case.  If it is the case, it would require that the initial universe has all of the data of this one and that seems too unlikely in a self generating universe.  The growth factor has to be determined.
3) There are many ways to approach the graphic and one of them must accommodate the model 4/1-4/3+4/5...  This derivation works and is relatively simple, but there are other, more intriguing method of getting to the result quicker which may have value in the analysis:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannZetaFunction.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PiFormulas.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GammaFunction.html
The prior mathematics are intriguing and worth studying but just as the study of pi in AuT discloses the basic defect in space curvature, so also do we need to eliminate non-finite curvature (i.e. all curvature must be a function of pi prime and not pi which requires an infinite series) in the analysis.  Since the goal of the graphics generated are to provide models which explain observed phenomena, what we currently have are rough models of the universe, the equivalent of pre-relativistic newtonian mathematics.  The graphics only approximate the true results and rely on observations for the modifications.  That is, they are not pure mathematical plots as they need to be.  Instead, observations are used to come up with possible models that would reflect them.  The models then suggest other answers.  For example, the spiral is the direction of movement of gravitational acceleration, so it works well with the transition from linearity to non-linearity.  The overlapping spirals provides a model for compression and linear models provide for the type of continuous expansion and even accelerated expansion we see after the big bang and this model, in turn, especially when combined with the F(N) and F(series) functions for spontaneous growth of information teaches that the big bang is nothing more than one in a long series of compression/expansion cycles.  However instructive, this brings us back to the fundamental problem of fully defining the growth algorithm, the fundamental algorithm that defines the universe in response to a single variable which is not as illusive as it might seem since the underlying parameters are necessarily not complex.
4) The conclusion is that while the graphic analysis has been helpful, at this point in time, it has to take a second place to plotting out the various methodologies for coming to the observed and predicted results experienced to show: 1) building using the F-series, 2) compression and expansion, 3) averaging intersections to get curvature 4) F(n), and the like.

AuT-Working on Pi Prime

I managed to catch the "artist's light" this morning. Saying I managed to catch it is a pleasant way of saying I cannot sleep at night.  I do feel, however, that I slept well last night.  First, I'm alone which is nice, second I rode my bike and swam 2500 yards yesterday and third I'm still not drinking any coffee even though I'm two days past my target.   It's just not worth it for me.
The light has now filtered to the middle of the tallest trees, but the clouds behind them are still pink with short wavelengths of light that had to fight through the long air of morning.
The amazing connection between Pi and AuT came out early in my examination of this concept.
nlc part dix-pi, phi and other series converging on information theory  9/9/15
This post, which you can still find, was almost 9 months ago.  I know what you're thinking, not so long ago, but in a 3 year course of study (that's zero to now in 36 months) this post qualifies as pretty early.
The concept I'm exploring with Pi Prime is the idea that for any x pi can be solved even though it's an infinite converging series otherwise.  The other point is that both pi and averaged spirals have a positive and negative aspect (look at the prior post for a review of this).
So you have the possibility that the intersecting spirals are off slightly, by a factor that reflects the infinite series.
Pi converges utilizing a series of increasing numbers according to the formula 1, 3, 5, 7 utilizing the formula 4/1-4/3+4/5-4/7.
The model is that each going in one direction or the other is zeroing in on the 90 degree angle.
To get an incomplete idea say that you have a first "positive spiral" at 1 (call that 12'o'clock on a clock)
The next one is at -3 (that would be 9 o'clock). Then 5 (4 o'clock) then -7 (5 o'clock) then 9 (8 o'clock).  "Why," you ask me, "do you go through this exercise."
The reason is that I have to find the connection between a linear solution that can be solved for any specific number of spirals.  This number is presumably n with the total number of positive (or negative) spirals being n/2 in this series where the denominator is n+2.

This first drawing (top left) shows a "too perfect"overlap.

The second one (below the first) shows an offset of the spirals

Above is the third one that has the potential for an uglier overlap.  This one is "missing" the negative spirals, but you can "see them" just by "reversing every other spiral." I don't have this drawn yet (wait for it) but it will show the clock formulation for the spirals where each one is offset from the one going in the other direction.  In this way you'll get the intersection of a curved spiral, the offset of the middle drawing and the gradual averaging of the third.
The weird thing is that it appears on its own if you look at the inner spirals.  If you look at the "opposite" spirals (count down from the top 3 then 4) these are formed by the early arms of one aligning with the old arms of another.  You'll see a "gap" between where they almost overlap and where one actually passes over another.  It is possible that if this were drawn better there would be two points of overlap forming a triangle.  Triangles are formed between the central point and some of these lines.  I'll probably have to do this in color to look for what is happening.
Of course, the "solution point" where all of these are solved together is far below this "capacitance separation" triangle but we're talking about solving for the entire universe here and concentrating too much on a single point might miss something elegant in the model.
The idea is figure out how curvature and compression interact to better understand stable states and expansion and compression (capacitance and discharge) create the universe we live in.
Anyway, I'll get to it.  That post is taking a lot of time and I'm taking some time off from the technical stuff, but I want to get this done.
Since I'm planning on being in New York anyway, I decided to ask Columbia and NYU if I could give a lecture on my book.  I'm not expecting anything from that.  It's pretty short notice, after all.
Why do it?  Good question, glad you asked.
First, the theory is complete.  Yes, the math isn't worked out.  There are these models to examine in more detail.  But the theory lends itself to answer the questions being asked by these physicists and astrophysicists.  Who else but me knows what came before the big bang (none of those guys apparently).  Who knows why black holes are as big as they are besides me?  Who else knows what a black hole is a black hole and what makes it up besides me?
If I am mad, then the response to my suggestion should be either silence or a "thank you, but no thank you."  If, however, I am not mad, then the response should be something more interesting.
If I'm invited, however, the reason for the lecture may have nothing to do with physics.  There is another, more important lesson (which I stole from Buchminister Fuller who I saw lecture in 1978 or thereabouts).  You'll have to come to the lecture, however, to get it.

AuT explains why the universe is expanding at an increasing rate

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/02/astronomers-say-universe-expanding-faster-than-predicted/21388618/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D1068946604_htmlws-main-bb

This is fucking incredible.  I explain all of this in a book and no one fucking reads it.
Of course the universe isn't going by those rules, its in a decompression mode based on spirals going post inflection point.
I am about ready to give up.  Well not really.
The interesting part is that the universe under the theory only expands faster under the capacitance/discharge analysis at the beginning and then slowly decreases.  But there is a way for this to happen quicker after the discharge begins and its pretty simple. It only requires that the number of spirals discharging increase quicker than the drop in discharge increases.  It can happen that way and the rate of expansion can increase for a time, presumably, but I have to look at this more closely.  Can the average change from compression to expansion and then expansion increase?  I think the answer is obviously yes because a large part of the average may be in transitions where neither expansion nor contraction effect and it even appears obvious that the majority changes and then more and more change behind this majority until most of them are discharging.  It is, of course, just what you'd expect in AuT, but the only thing that these stupid articles talk about is Einstein.
He is so, like 1950's.

Thursday afternoon

I suppose if I start working at 5 it is ok to take off at 4.
I now can say that the book Spirals in Ammber is available in paperback from createspace and will be available on Amazon by Monday.  It is already available on the Kindle, of course.
I sent it out for review to two publications.  I feel it would be a nice thing if over the next few weeks I sent it to two publications every day or two.
Today I had to do the work of putting bread, cheese and wine on the table but still managed with the early start to set up the second volume for editing and the first volume to be organized and edited down.  I expect I'll make better progress on the second edition  now that I'll have a hard copy to work from.  I will, I hope, end up with a relatively complete layout in under 150 pages.  Who knows.  It's just a relef not to be wondering if I'll hit a deadline or not.
I also started work on pi-prime, the next technical blog post.  But I feel like I can take a breather.  I rode my bike this morning, had my hair cut, provided what limited assistance I could to the roof repair, something which may or may not be finished, worked a full 9 hour day and took care of some administrative tasks that had built up.  That is not a breather, but not posting anything techincal is.
There are many personal observations I wanted to make, but I have decided not to and instead just to put the pubication information out there.

AuT plus one

I was up before the sun by quite a bit this morning, but spent much of the time going through another proofing process.  A cardinal flew through the fence and hops on the deck fussing at me.  I am a physicist I tell the bird. Why are you fussing at me?
I hope this will be available in paper form soon, but the publication process is what it is.
I missed quite a bit of the sun lighting the tree tops looking at the screens from Amazon, but even so the light has yet to get to the middle of the trees.  I've had nothing but tea this morning.  I've changed the world, but I haven't had breakfast.

I am enjoying being alone.  I suppose I should include my tea.  I resolved two issues yesterday and the third seems taken care of to the extent that I care to do so today.  It is a start.
I am fixing a hole in the roof where the rain comes in, quite literally.  The dispute is resolved except for the paperwork, the exchange of money.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqlHLaFVwLc
The repair will be finished today.
I published my book, at least its available on kindle.
I finished the work that was given over the weekend.
It is interesting to wonder how important spirals in amber is.  So many answers and almost no recognition by the community at large.
Have I changed science?  Am I mad?
Either way, it's you that did it.
So what's next?  Move on or give up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB7ONnfIjaI

AuT-Publishing update and art work

Well, at least I can do some things on time.  I know, this is the easy stuff, how about the hard stuff?  Don't think for a second that I believe that solving the mysteries of the universe is the big thing.  You should know better.  But everything in its time.
I am hoping things quiet down for the weekend which starts a little early for me this week.  I'll be working, but it will be a quieter, peaceful work.
It is dusk here now.  I am alone for a while and thankful for the peace and quiet.  Of course the birds are making a tremendous racket but it is the soothing sound of the universe at peace for a moment.
I don't get what I want or what I need, but if I try sometimes I can find peace.


This is the hard copy:  In review, will be available tomorrow
Spirals in Amber: The single variable solution to the universe and te origin of quantum mechanics

By Gregory M. Friedlander

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GGPDN8S

THIS IS THE KINDLE VERSION, ALREADY AVAILABLE

Available on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GGPDN8S

AuT-Day Zero Plus 1: The big mistake

It is the predawn hours.  Summer is here in depth and it is neither hot or cold outside.
My vision is as bad as its been in a long time.  I"m afraid to even look at my eye.  I can still appreciate that the pre-light of day casts a pawl over everything as opposed to a light.  There is humidity in the air so that the trees are shrouded in a misty cloud that beads up on their leaves and dissipates as you move away from the magnetic presences they present.  The sky is cloudless other than this.
I'm still waiting on the artwork.  I was shown a draft yesterday, and I still expect that by this weekend I will be able to provide a link to the book.  It is almost 350 pages.  Eventually, perhaps, I will publish the 150 page version, perhaps someone else will do that for me.
It is well received in the small community of readers even though it is not well organized.  The first 60 pages have a ragged organization, but it deteriorates into a series of vignettes  after that, loosely tied to the basic concepts for the nutshell version that you have already read in these posts.  The nutshell is slightly improved in the final version as are many of the other features.  The disclaimer in A spiral in Amber will be removed in this book and replaced with one which follows the prior post which is also the jacket cover.  The name is shortened, the links to the prior publications are more tenuous just as history is, the book itself reflecting by accident and coincidence, the coincidence of AuT, actual history.  It will find its place in the pitiful sciences of mankind if it should have one.
Dawn is further upon me now, the sky now has a blue tint in the east, the west a dirty yellow.
I didn't exercise yesterday.  I am debating riding my bike to work today, but I'm also thinking that there may be too much to do for that.  Too much to do to ride a bike?  It is a silly thought, like the ones I put in my other posts.  I have a great melancholy.  Can I phrase it that way?  I would rather not ride my bike today, I don't have the joy of the morning, but perhaps it will come with the light.
The universe is not so complicated as we would want it to be.  The big mistake we make is to look with wonder on the universe.  We only do that because we lack the intellect to see through its magic.  We love, we cry, we are governed by our emotions and not logic.
Even pre-AuT science only identified 4 forces of nature.  The universe is not some random wonderful thing, it is governed by strict rules.  Those rules have been limited to one by AuT, one in all its permutations but governed by a single variable.  Even if Einstein was wrong and everything doesn't happen at once in the absence of time, it still occurs in response to only one variable changing on a scale of 10^-39th.   Yes, it is 10^-39th.  All those posts of 10^-49th were off by a exponent of 10, lol.  Don't worry, that is the one mistake corrected in the book.  Sorry about that, an instant is a little longer.  Even genius has its flaws and I am not genius.  I am clever, malant in French I think.  Something which has overtones of evil which visit themselves on me.  I blind myself and make the wrong decisions.  I outsmart myself.
The Universe is not some wonderful random place.  It is governed by harsh, unforgiving rules.  It appears to be a swirling milieu of randomness, but even a cursory, Newtonian examination peels away the levels of wonder and strips it bare as tree killed by winter, the last remnants of its beauty rotting away.
The big mistake was ever looking at it in wonder in the first place.
But ignore me and my book that is supposed to be published today, we are up before the sun and alone with the coming dawn, knowing that we are not where we want to be, but knowing where it is.