AuT-exercise for class-interview

So I'm doing the Leeds college online free course on technical article writing or some such thing.  Here's an exercise (in sarcasm) for the class:

What?  AuT is defined as the theory of supersymmetry but is that the full story or is the story the development of the theory on this blog?  The question "what are you doing" is an interesting one.  Is that a question to me the student of the course?  I don't think so, I think that's to me the writer of the theory.  What, indeed am I doing?   My work is philosophical tainted with mathematics.  I'm trying to develop the theory enough so that I have an e=mc^2 equation for the entire universe and I'm darn close to it, having defined all the elements.  It "should be" news enough that I can explain why energy and matter are the same things and that I can, by extension eliminate all the foundations of science, thermodynamics, entropy, etc; but apparently that isn't enough for everyone.

• What is the story?  Is it the story of genius?  Perhaps not, because what am I but a mirror.  For years science has said that force drives the equations, AuT merely reverses that, the equations drive the forces.  Is it the story of science or the end of scientific inquiry?  The story perhaps is that the story was already written long before I sat down in the ashes of my world and began to take a hard look at yours.  The greatest physicist of our time, who is not a physicist at all, a chemist trespassing, a patent clerk, a bit of irony; the physicist who proves not physics but the mirror image, scisyhp, the study of the opposite view of things.
• What are you doing?  I am not changing anything, i am merely stepping through the looking glass so I can see from the otherside, all seriousness becomes foolishness, but what does foolishness become?  Or does it somehow cease to exist, stripped bare of relevance.

Why?  Why indeed?  Why does it matter.  Supersymmetry means ultimately that it doesn't matter.  Who gives a flying farthing (it's leeds college) (what's a farthing anyway?) what happens next if its going to happen no matter what?  The real answers and the perceived answers are totally different to this question.  Both should be answered.  The truth is that I'm doing the work of the reader of this blog in this exercise, your welcome.

• Why does this matter? 1) It doesn't 2) it explains everything in o-space, doesn't even start on g-space really; that's where the meat is.
• Why are you doing it? 1) The algorithm makes me do what I do, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  2) And yet...it is a work based entirely on love, the illusion of an uncontrolled force in a self determined universe, an anomally of sorts.  If I can explain the universe, do what no one else has done, even though it self disproves the point, then am I not worthy of the love I feel?  Don't answer that question, it's self defeating.
• Why should the reader care?  1) The reader shouldn't care, self determination is an illusion, and yet the reader should care about little else since it adds logic to all the insanity in the world and the universe around us.  Ultimately, it may allow for a manipulation of the universe that is otherwise unavailable, we move into space because we're destined to do so, the car floats because it always did and entropy, being non-existent, can be manipulated in ways we've never imagined.  2) I mean serious, supersymmetry and I have to explain why you should care?  And yet, you should hide from it.   I'm not costing anyone anything in this inquiry, I should be using this exercise to write a grant application, and ultimately I will, but first I must suffer because only in suffering are people made worthy and the outcome must be one of great irony to be worth telling in this universe.  The theory must be ignored and lost, or accepted after my death, etc.  Parminides was forgotten, except by the Greek Muse, Leonardo lost his fame to a leaning tower.  The theory will doom me perhaps.

Where?

• Where is it happening?  1) In my mind?  Isn't the idea of location anti-thetical to AuT?  Such a confusing question.  2) I don't talk about location much.  My heart, after all, is not in the same place as the rest of me, if you incorrectly accept location as a thing.  And when?  I am sleepless in the morning, again I sit waiting for the sun to rise, the sky is turning light, but the tree tops are not yet touched with any direct light.
• Where will it be used in future?  It will end everything when it is known and it will begin something different.  Will we as a people ever know it?  What effect did it have on parminides who actually knew it, who may have lived to see it fading into something abstract, the true genious lost.  Leonardo, he didn't really know what he had, and he was not a student of parminides, at least not obviously, and yet he we to the east to steal his math, is it not possible that he dug up the lost work of parminides?  did he know what he held, or was it only numbers.  Were I writing that article, you know my premises, that he laid the mathematically required groundwork for the Renaissance, but that is a different article.

Who?

• Who is doing the work?  1) The algorithm? 2) Me?  And yet my work is built on the work of many others.  I occasionally take the time to look for the math behind this and find little snippets out there.  The more I look away from myself, the more I find it.  And while I'm ahead of many others philosophically, I see a lot of math out there.
• Who is an ally?   Who indeed, certainly those others who work with information theory, but they are allies who would seek to strip me of my relevance, to argue that even though I appear ahead of them, I am somehow behind, their books will write around mine, use different language, win the prizes that I say are mine for a purpose that we both ignore because of the peril it causes to our sense of being.
• Who is a rival? All of science, thermodyamical maniacle scientists, who would throw me under the bus lest they have to give up the cherished false quark gods and clown forces, the work of illusionists and magicians.
• Who is paying for it? No one, at least not anyone else.  I am Dr. Frankenstein, working alone in my laboratory, frittering away whatever wealth I have to build a monster I cannot control.  Does that make it less important or more noble?  In a theory that describes nobility as an irrelevant effect, isn't it ironic enough for the universe that this is an exercise at leeds, in the europe of nobility central?  A place that still hangs onto royalty and lords?

When?  Ahh, time exists no more than space.

• When did this happen?  I have a specific starting point.  It's in this blog, the first posts on hawkins and holograms.  2012 wasn't it.  The world was falling apart around me, half buried under the rubble of my life and the muse dug me out.
• What steps preceded the news?  Isn't that the purpose of this exercise, to make it news?  Perhaps this is the question, how  was the theory developed, that goes best with the answer to the first when question.  The theory is built on the ruins of a life and also on the ruins of its predecessors, not just that of pre-AuT physics, but also on the early versions of the theory itself.
• What are the next stages and when will they happen?   The only real step remaining is to define an algorithm which builds compression from the three basic parts that we laid out already, years ago in general and yet only recently in a more specific post.  Perhaps I will do that and perhaps I will not, but the three pieces are there, expansion, compression and the rule that ties them together, in this case the pi variable, not the number pi, but the building block for pi solutions of the various types envisioned.  Ahhh, even as I write this the light brightens, the sun must have at last peaked over the horizen, yes, the universe says, yes, get close, I will bury you in irony.

Interviewing experts

When you’re interviewing individuals to gather information, remember the following points:

• Make sure you listen to the answer. If their answer doesn’t give you the information you’re after, ask again.
• Ask your interviewee who else is working in this area that might be good to talk to – either competitor or collaborator.
• Remember, your role is not to promote the person you are interviewing, but to gather information from all sides of a story.
• I was not able to do this part of the lesson because of a formatting issue although I will come back to it.  I was able to see the first question in the exercise, what 3 questions would you ask the?
• Why 3?  Why not the one most important question.  Enough for now, the sun has lit the sky if not the tree tops, it is time for me move on, I will return here perhaps.

venting on sunday

I could spend most of the next month on the backlog of articles to discuss that I have ready ("debunk" if you really want the truth).  The problem with AuT is that it is a little too correct for comfort.  A single variable universe is about the least romantic, least spiritual and most consistent theory of the universe.
In the last post, which should have caused more of a stir, I pointed out how basic was the transition to compression and the resulting curvature based on the underlying formula for pi, as opposed to the fictional number itself which is relatively unimportant to AuT.   The three basic sources of the algorithm, expansion, compression and the transitional element between the two were set out and yet it was received with something less than astonishment.  How unsurprising and pedantic.
You are reading my mind, not my books.  If you are not picking up on what you're reading, you should just wait for the books.  The mind spirals in on the truth, rarely is something great written without some revision, at least few things of length.  If you just read my blog, you'll eventually see the truth, you'll also see the path to the truth.  But it is a tortured path filled with brambles and deadfalls.
There is certainly a lot of teeth nashing over these posts and the inaccuracies in some of them.  Well, these are blog posts on the fundamental nature of the universe.  You have to expect a little inaccuracy, drunken weaving and irritability.  If you want something clean, ignore these and buy the books where I reconcile things, at least sort of and to the extent possible.
I actually had the audacity (audatious to myself) to appologize for a mistake!  Of course blog posts have mistakes if they are on fundamental physics.  Are you crazy?
Even so, they are more right than anythng else which is worth thinking about.
And there are snippits all over the place that are important, such as the fact that different compression levels allow for different history expressions which yield the perception of different forces.
Until you comprehend what that means in context, it's difficult to understand how imporant AuT is and how unimportant it is.

AuT-why ct1 (space) expands and higher ct states have history and velocity and more on irony

Let's do more on irony first.
Some of you are probably thinking that I should be more serious, less combative, perhaps less of a braggard (although if you are looking at supersymetry what's to brag about?).
You say, no one is going to take you seriously enough because, well you're an arrogant prick.
For those of you who understand this, you know that this doesn't make a bull's testical's difference in the grand scheme of things.  We are, after all, a flash in the pan of the universe.  We're never going anywhere far.  Maybe we'll get an unmanned probe to another star, more than likely we'll kill ourselves long before we get that far.  Part of the problem is that no one has really recognized me yet.  The Nobel Prize committee is thinking I'm a crackpot and I am, but I'm the Dr. Frankenstein (pronounced Freedlanderstein) type of crackpot.  I have my little monster that you are all reading about.
Even were someone to take me seriously enough (hard to imagine) who had the power to give me recognition, they'd say; wait, this guy isn't qualified enough to have figured this out, we have to go with someone with more degrees and symbols behind his name.  Jackasses.  Parminides figured this out 2500 years ago and Leonardo de Pisa supplied the mathematical model almost 1000 years ago and neither of them went to college, hell there weren't any real colleges in ancient greece or italy that I know about.  They were like me, jackasses that just happened to not get lost in fuzz of the universe and Parminides looked for the details, accepting nothing.  Well, that's not really true of LdP because he was just a math tinkerer, perhaps even a math thief, the name of my book on him which I haven't written yet.
So, you say to yourself, isn't it ironic that I'll be more famous than this Franken-lander bozo who wants so badly for eveyone to understand that bozons are the real quantum mechanical clowns?  And, of course, that is true because irony is built into the system.
On a quantum level, there is no irony, quantum moments are too fixed to have irony.  But over any multiple values of x you have irony built into the system which is reflected in our observations. Infinite Converging series are the height of irony, always trying to reach an unattainable endpoint and counterbalancing infinite series are irony squared as it were.  While we can solve for any quantum moment, at least in theory, the fact that the soltuion isn't fixed and that the results of the solution change at inflection points and create entropy and anti-entropy sporadically in localized places, but on the grand scale it can change, must change at inflection points.  At one moment the net universe is going up, the next down and these aren't just fractions of sections, these are the substrate on which seconds, standard clock time, that is, are built.

1.          A lot of the prior art is written from the perspective of different geometries which is good and bad.  On the one hand, it is too focused on space-time; but on the other hand it recognizes that we cannot accept a single geometry as controlling in all different spatial configurations.  This is the problem I keep running into with calculus.  Curves are solved with limits which don't exist in AuT, there is always a plus 1; and where is my plus 1 this morning if not buried in the sand somewhere, covered with sea foam, sleepless like me.

2.          Since ct1 (space) is predicted to increase in quantity based on some as yet unspecific 2^n or F-series exponential expansion, more likely a combination of both or the one to expand, the other to compress, or perhaps something combining them that we don't yet imagine.
3.    Book 3 contains those rough equations and it too is coming.  The suggestion of higher ct states (ct2, 3, 4) is that the expansion is reflected with 2^n informational expansion and that f(n) is not reflective of more space but with a higher number of coordinates changing at once (1,11,111,etc.) and greater velocities.
4.    These strange countervailing equations are good, but whereas 2^n specifically changes at a fixed rate, (200% increase), fibonacci numbers move at the lower 168% infinite converging on this at least rate.  My initial inquiries, however show some bizarre results when you double these percentages.  The rate of change of  the percentage almost instantly converges on one.  (why double them, because the F(n) is the fibonacci number times 2 if look at it or if you want it is the positive and negative).  Moreover the F(n) series (n+n-1+n-2) converges not on 168% but on 61.8%.  This rate is much lower than the rate of 2^n.  
5.    The difference is misleading, however, because compression is not F(n) but F(n)^(2^n) which gives an entirely different order of magnitude.  Whether you have expansion or contraction as a net, both suggest something discomforting, something that affects how the universe would be expressed, that if (F(n)) is used in place of Fibonacci(n) then the rate of expansion is so much higher than the rate of compression that the universe would not approach full compression, but would forever be getting bigger even as it compressed at a steady rate.  In such a case you could still get inflection points for the compressed portions, but the expansion would exponentially continue relative to the more limited compression, your inflection points would under this scenario steadily be more blurred.  This is indicated by some observations (dead galaxies discussed in a later post) but is much more unbalanced than is desirable.
6.    Spatial expansion at this higher rate in the absence of a corresponding increase in the amount of matter indicates that ct1 states increase in F-series expansion but higher ct states do not experience f-series increases, but instead create a historical reference giving the impression of  prior locations (velocity) and prior states (history).  While confusing at first, it has to be remembered that ct1 does not have a space-time component which only arises from a comparative rate of change between one coordinate at a time and two.  What this means is that for higher state changes (ct2 and above) they can show their exponential F-series expansion as history and velocity which would not be possible where it is absent in ct1.  Hence space increases in size while higher ct states increase in speed or history.  The more speed, the less history and the more history the less speed which is exactly what was shown with time dilation.

The problem that has to be dealt with in this is whether we have an infinitely expanding universe, that is one that expands faster than it compresses.  If we look around us, there is a lot of space suggesting this model has some merit.  The rate of expansion 200 to 168 or 200 to 61.8 can be measured against different time frames, but to get the significant compression levels suggested by observations you have to have a convergence model that compresses all forms of information.  This means you have these equations:
1) The equation for the increase in information (e.g. 2^x as x varies from 1 to infinity) (200%)
2) The equation of compression states e.g. (F(x)^(2^x)) (61.8%^200% but only for limited quantities of information)
3) The equation for the compression of the entire universe which, perhaps, looks something like this: C=I(tot(cty)F([2x(-1)^x-1]))(1-e^t/rc) (This is a sin type equation effected by the derivation of pi, the Geo function).
The equation for the compression of the entire universe which, perhaps, looks something like this: C=I(tot(cty)F([2x(-1)^x-1]))(1-e^t/rc) (This is a sin type equation effected by the derivation of pi, the Geo function).  The going in either direction at inflection points for offset solutions accomplishes many things; 1) it allows for compression and decompression states leading in turn to net compression/decompression movement of the entire universe leading in turn to a situation where space is expanding faster than compression or conversely where compression is outpacing space just as we witness.

AuT-the F-series Vibrational model and folding 2

Before getting back to the application of this model to models and how to interpret observations in articles are misinterpreting what they see, let's look a little deeper into this model
Information theory predict that the total growth of information is at the rate of  2^n (exactly 50% increase.
Compression grows based on F(n) with a convergence of around 61.8%.  Hence compression occurs at a higher rate than the expansion of information.  The universe does not completely compress because the universe is envisioned to have expansion and compression phases whether in a spiral or vibration model.
The difference 61.8-50 is not important but the ratio of the % change in compression to F-series expansion to 2^n (exactly .5) necessarily converges (infinitely) to 2 which follows the linear spiral models in the early research of Spiral modalities where curved (as opposed to quantum) models were used to predict expansion and contraction based on a fixed amount of information.  That is, f(pix), the special equation required to calculate any value of pi; and 2^n, the growth of information, both changing at a coverging rate.  The changing rates of the two converge on 2.
Thing singular result appears from initial examination that FS(convergence)% to F(pix)(convergence)% converges on 1.61 approx and infinitely because F(pix) converges on 1; and  FS(c)% to 2^n(c)% converges to 3.24 (approx double) because 2^n % convergenceis constant at .5.
This suggests a relationship of pix to 2^n of converging on 1:.5 or 2:1 and the same relationship would exist with pi.
Again, this is a mathematical tautology, it's true because of how the number converge, but it gives a relationship between curvature (based on an evolving pi irrespective of the amount of compression) and the increase in information.
Since pi is always on one side or the other of this relationship; i.e. pix is always on one side or the other of 1; expansion vs contraction can come from the net value over all points of this relationship of pix to any other feature of the universe and it continues to be tied to the growing amount of information 2^n based on infinite divergence tied to information theory and infinite convergence tied to F-series compression..  The same  relationship exists with pi to 2^n since the rate of convergence for fpix and fpi converge on 1 or they become identical at x=infinity and do not change no matter what number is used for the numerator.
In other words, you don't need intersecting spirals to get to a result that converges and diverges on a number experienced in the universe.
The flip side of the argument is that we experience spirals so that the expression of pi relative to expansion and contraction in multiple dimensions goes from a vibration type movement to a spiral type average.
If when N in the Fpix equation is equal to 1 you have vibration in one dimension, then when n equals 4 (our pi) vibration would be in 4 dimensions but relative rates would remain constant which is what we experience.

	pi for u(2)	pi for u1		-1
x for pi	4	converges on					summed		f(pix)	PI FOR
1	% change	0.78	-1^x	x-1	2x(-1)^x-1	f(pix)	n/f(pix)	n+n/fx	n/(n+n/fx)	4
2	0.498402556	1.565	1.00	1.00	-4	-3.00	-1.333333333	2.666666667	1.5	2.666666667
3	0.664543524	2.355	-1.00	2.00	6	5.00	0.8	4.8	0.833333333	3.466666667

Above is the method of calculating p for any value of n

pi	ratio	f(pix)	diff	f(pi)%	fs	fs incr	copy col g
converg	f(pix)%	rate of	in %	rate of	rate of	rate rel	Perc ch
% DIFF	2^n%	convergence	ai/ak	convergence	convergence	to f(pi)	% FS incr
1.5	1.11	1.8	0.83	2.52	0.773809524	0.307067271	2.666666667
0.769230769	2.80	0.714285714	1.08	0.551020408	1.165899627	2.115891916	1.35
1.197368421	1.54	1.296296296	0.92	1.58436214	0.871754596	0.550224329	1.736111111
0.866920152	2.44	0.818181818	1.06	0.690672963	1.118513222	1.619454186	1.575384615
1.122187742	1.69	1.184615385	0.95	1.366863905	0.905876811	0.662741044	1.634672619
0.906298169	2.31	0.866666667	1.05	0.763950617	1.089990975	1.42678198	1.611729899

Above is the ratios which are discussed (without taking them very far).

Write me, I may send you my spreadsheets. Who knows?

These drawings can be found in earlier versions of this theory and on the original cover of A spiral in Amber published in 2016 although the quantum model had been adopted by then.

There is one more element to obtain before we move on.
Information diverges from 2^n where n=1.
The % of change of F(Pi), that is there is a percent change of F(pi) from one value to the next and then there is a % change in this %,  diverges Infinitely from approximately 2 towards 1:

1	% change	0.78
2	2.006410256	1.565
3	1.504792332	2.355
4	1.33418259	3.142
5	1.250795672	3.93
6	1.198473282	4.71
7	1.163481953	5.48

The F series increase % diverges from 2 after jumping from 1, and the rate of difference between the F-series % change and the fixed rate of change for 2^n converges on 2.

Ok, let's change gears entirely more or less for a second and set up the discussion for CT1 substitution.

Shared memory:
If a bubble has 0,1,1 (zero is important in AuT unlike pre-AuT physics where the source of everything is unimportant (how can you figure that?).
What this really is, however for each bubble going out:
0, 1',1''=2'
1'+2'=3'
1''+2"=3
And so forth. This is shown in the drawing above.
What is important is that while you have a 3 it is made up of 1" and 2".  It is not just a 3, it is a 3 with the two prior states added (and zero).
That is, the bubble contains all of the numbers and states and  any one of these numbers in a higher state bubble can be substituted by a like number from another bubble as x changes.  When this occurs with a ct1 state, it appears as velocity.
While in ct1 you would not have this type of substitution, all of these spirals would look similar except the matrix would be more dense.  So if you look at ABC you can see where an exterior state is substitution for an Interior state and this could be ct1 substitution giving velocity.
And this continues.  What this shows is that all the information is preserved in each circle based on where it started and alignment can come from common starting points or tying can come from this.  Moreover, the theory suggests that all information building is done in the same fashion so that sharing of sub-states also occurs.
The difference in higher states is that to get to quantum sharing you are sharing the "bundles" based on an initial state of 1,1,2 where the 1 in question is not the original one, but the compressed 1 state and this continues for all additional compression states.
At higher states the ct1 within the bubble 1" can be substituted by an outside ct1 state.
At very high states, see ct4, you can see a matrix with ct1 states passing between the internal matrix between (directly or after a period in between) other ct4 states.  Ct2 states can also do this in theory.
To the extent that this looks like mitosis, it is to be understood that what we see and experience reflects what is happening on a smaller level since the algorithm doesn't change as it extends to higher states.
We will return to this shortly.

AuT-the F-series Vibrational model and folding

This is a pretty long post that could be shorter, but if you get down to the drawings, you will begin to see the point.  This post takes a lot of the stuff that is glossed over to get to a graphical framework that explains how we can take a simple model and get to a more complicated model.
After you read this you are going to want to reach out and kick something, so post a comment, preferably in your native language (this is read all over the world, so don't be embarrassed to admit that you have read it) and I'd sort of like to hear your thoughts.  Or don't.
There are parts of it that are not fully addressed, but the basic framework is set out.
There is another F-series model that works within the same theoretical framework as the offset intersecting spiral math and that is the stacked intersecting F-series intersecting spiral.  This is not true stacking since it occurs in a dimensionless environment, but occurs based on the order of movement.
In this case the initial framework is the same vibrational framework that was discussed and is only easily envisioned at low values of x:
0,1,0,-1,0,1 which creates the first positive an negative solutions offset by 00 (as well as an opposite value which doesn't prevent an F-series result.
because n=F(n-1) in this algorithm the next solution looks something like this:
(0,1,0,-1,0,1,1,0,-1,-1,0) or (0,1,0,-1,-,1,1,1,0,-1,-1,-1,0).  The difference between these two results being the need to move back over the prior solution to get to back to zero.  The initial stacking suggests a hybrid which looks like this:
I(A): (0,1,0)+(0,-1,0)+(0,1,1,0)+(0,1,0)+(0,-1,-1,)+(-1,0) or
I(B): (0,1,0)+(0,-1,0)+(0, 1,1,1,0)+(0,-1,-1,-1,0)
What is happening here is a little confusing but it has its own logic. Basically it means that each change has to step over itself to get to the next state, but that zeros do double duty, acting as zero for both positive and negative vibrational F-series results.
Up till now this model has been referred to but not examined in depth for two reasons.  The main reason is that there just hasn't been time.  The other reason is that the two models are essentially the same except for the vision they produce and the amount of overlap within the models.  The broad concept of F-series offset intersecting "spirals" works well for predicting outcomes, especially when it come to inflection points and it makes for a cleaner math model.  This vibrational model has some advantages because the results don't have as much built in dimension and stacking is easier to envision over longer periods of time, suggesting a greater stability.
Since each result is "stepped" over the prior result, you get ct1 substitutions of 1 every quantum change which is what is suggested.  Let me show that graphically:
1
11
111
11111
11111111
These are the first 5 positive states.  We can ignore the negative states for this discussion.
Inherent in this result is the existence of overlap between the top and 2nd of 1, of the 2nd and third of 2, of the 3rd and 4th of 3 and 4th and 5th of 5.
As with the intersecting spiral model, you end up with very long spirals pretty quickly (especially because standard clock time doesn't exist at this non-dimensional state of ct1)
If you jump ahead to where you have the next F-series compression state you get ct2 stacking that looks like this:
11
1122
112233
1122334455
and so on.  For lack of a better term, and for reasons that may become more clear in the drawings below, I'm going to call the transition from 1 to 11 and from 11 to 111 "folding."  That is you have one bundle of information fold over another to get compression.
The order of solution provides the same type of offset as the spiral solution with the main difference being that the "rest state" where two spirals are parallel to one another (by solution, not by overlap) is absent.
It is important to understand that these are both non-dimensional results so that shapes are less important than other aspects.
If the spirals are only offset by solution order at higher ct states (ct2,3,4,etc) then you have a resting phase built into spiral solutions that are not built into vibrational models, but this can be made up where ct1 spacing takes the place of the rest phase of the spirals.
There are additional issues.
Both of these models can exist together.
A vibrational model can shift to a spiral model and the number of spirals can shift.
By way of example, ct1 may represent a pure vibrational model.  Each length of space continues to exist in a time free invironment so that you have space with expansion/contraction phases of 1, 11,111,11111 all existing together so that stacking of these can occur with various half lives (designated as the number of points of overlap (see above) from 1 point of overlap (a half life of stacking too short to have relevance) to extremely long half lives which are, from our vantage point, forever, even though they are finite, presumably in the range of 14 billion years worth of overap from the viewpoint of a ct4 state.  In this example, the first spiral would occur when there was a compression level of 256 ct1 states overlapping at once.  This does not necessarily create a spiral, but it does necessarily create a "first dimension" because you now get (mathematically this is pre-ordained without a new equation) 11,22,33,44,etc ct2 type results.
Now some of you are probably having your head hurt like me, because you're asking yourself, what about the 257th overlap which is sure to be there since all of these vibrating lines are overlapping at once.  The simple answer is that the shift from 1,11,111,11111,etc to 11,22,33 is discrete.  By definition (information theory definition) this shift occurs where n goes from 1 to 2 in the equation F(n)^(2^n) although the information transition is 2^n.
The key to everything in this analysis comes down not to the equation itself, not to the general concept, but to the reason for the transition.
Why F(n)=Fseries(n)?
The solution to this should be so obvious that it hurts, but for whatever reason I don't have it.
In this case it's not a singular problem.
The mass energy equation is e=mc^2.  The "reason" for this is because the underlying defining equation is f(n)^(2^n).  What I'm looking for is the reason for this change.
The "general" reason is because you transition from 1 informational change at a time to 2, from one "bit" to two bits.  That explains the 2^n part of the equation.
However, when this transition occurs, there is no reason to change the F(n) equation.
Stacking

Growth, according to the information theory, can occur because there is growth from each point.
F-series growth is different. It has to come from two parallel points without reference to the history behind those points.

Both of these growth items occur together in the universe.  The top is the result of compression the bottom results from information growth.  The signficance of the bottom model is part of a vibrational model.
It's important to imagine 256 of these chains so interconnected as to be solved proximately at any level (say at 34) and then for one other chain to then be solved more proximately than one of the 256 as x changes.  It is also important to imagine that at this 256 level you are still building at an F-series rate, but that each of the numbers is made of a bundle of bundles, so that you have 8 bundles at 8 so that a single bundle (one of the 8) can be substituted in the sub-bundle.  This change allows for relativity and velocity.
The first two parts of this are a the negative 1 and the positive 1 variations.  This assumes no net increase in one type of information compared to the other.
This drawing is representative of the type of math that would lead to a result consistent with observations.  There are some important ramifications to this drawing which may or many not survive scrutiny.
The 1,-1 and zero may go on, without other expansion with each prior change remaining durable.  This is represented by having the "empty" zero states on either side of zero.  In this time free environment, there is no reason for other changes, but there is also no other obvious basis for the beginning of the F-series expansion.
Let me explain this.  What we are looking for is a model that represents what we observe in an F-series universe.  First you have 1, that is easy.  Then you have 1-1.  If you look at how this model builds it suggests that for modeling, to get to 2 you have to have two 1 states parallel to one another.  This parallel isn't because of dimension, but only because of solution order.  That means you have a one solution adjacent in time to another.  This means that if you start from one zero, you can return back to that same zero and generate the next 1 state as long as the original one remains durable.
It also suggests that unless there is something to stop this process, it will continue, so that at each change in x you produce another 0-1 state, possibly another 0,-1 state, and therefore you are starting another spiral build for every x which is what the model indicates is happening.
This is the same reproducing exponentially that you see in the top drawing.

The first part of the model shows that information comes into existence from the non informational aspects, zero, which presumably would be the time independent information state of god if that is what you want to call the predecessor to the universe as we experience it.
What is important in this model is that after there is the expansion of 1 the repetition of the initial model allows you to get from the moment of linear (yes/no) information to the F-series and you also increase information exponentially which are the two parts of the universe that we experience.
It also suggest that compression can occur as a result of these less expanded versions which build simultaneously at higher and higher concentrations changing at the same rate in higher compression states based on the entire model repeating the process in a form of "folding" so that unalligned states are brought into proximate solution order.
Now for those of you saying, "whoa, what's folding and how can you introduce something new," which is the million dollar mathematical question, you actually see folding above.
Where you add the value of the two adjacent states to get the next number, subsuming the pior lower states (when you add 3 and 5 to get 8 you are basically ignorring the lower values in the chain back to 1 and zero) you are laying the ground work to take 256 of these spirals, grouped together to make bundles of spirals to get to the next compression state.
  If this is the way that this happens then expansion would continue along the method presented in the model and you'd see expansion "in multiple dimensions" building the information exponentially form each point even though it would be with dimension.
We've talked about convergence and while at some point in time, the % increase is 618033989 for all intents and purposes, around n=37, the series continues to converge on some number despite the near irrelevance and the change is that is why space appears curved,becuase you quickly arrive at a place (say n=39) where the change is of the order of magnitude that we cannot detect it although it remains mathematically detectable.
I hear you screaming, "make your point."  Ok, the point of AuT is that the universe is simple from derivation and complicated by application.

"Folding" has to occur in exactly the same way for each state for this to be the case.  That is, you cannot, as in pre-AuT mathematics, insert another equation, another "force" whenever you run into a road block.  That would be cheating.  While someone is saying, "universal field theory, then;" that is not the point, because "field" or "force" are effects and not causes.  You can add, indeed we see the addition of fields with stages of compression and these are durable up to the point, at least, that neutrons and protons begin to break down, but behind that, in supersymetry you have to use the same equation applied the same way.

Folding, in the drawing above, is accomplished by the two lines from two different "1's" connecting to a two and from the "2" and "1" connecting to form a 3 and so on into infinity.

This same folding occurs in bundles (of 256) of these chains of folded solutions.  Otherwise, you'd be injecting another mathematics into the process and you might as well throw everything into the garbage can and say, the universe is made up of forces and revert post Parmidean, Pre-AuT mathematics.

In practice, as x changes, one chain from a folded bundle is exchanged with another chain for each change in x to achieve velocity at least in ct2 states.  Where the substitution of one change for another in a higher compressive state is shared between compressed states, you convert velocity to "history1" since the overall structure is preserved.  You can have histories 2 through infinity as the compression increases.

Put another way, Relativity arrises by having overlap between these chains in the same fashion to build 256 chains changing together in terms of value and solution order although you have have "universal" relative change and proximate change and they amount to the same thing although they are experienced vastly different.  Let me explain.

Let's say that you have two solutions (a+b(1)) in proximate order adjacent and you have two solutions (a+b(2) that change in proximate order on opposite sides of the univerese but that both are changing at the same rate.  Both of these form a type of matter for each change in x even though we recognize a+b(b1) as being tangible and a+b(2) as being entangled.  

a+b(1) can be folded, a+b(2) cannot be folded but both are otherwise similar no matter what scale of compression they are in and the underlying state is not affected.

The top drawing insists that growth occurs from every point, but observation tells us that expansion only occurs at ct1 and that at higher states, in place of expansion you get historyl in the form of a changed position in solution order along a single dimension up to 3 in ct4 states where we happen to abide.

The building of chains occurs with folding according to the F-series; the building of compressive states builds according to the F-series but relativity is inserted by having the sharing result from information states increasing (1 to 11 to 111) so that the number of solutions occuring together increases.  There is not change in information in any of these states but relative change allows for the results to be experienced differently relative to ct1 states and for the longest time everyone but Parminides and a few people who talked to him, interpret this, incorrectly as a thermodynamically driven universe.

Rabbit Trails

You can ignore what follows, because it just represents some examples of why I don't believe other models work well.
Here are problems with other models for dealing graphically based on simple math.
One way to match the overlap suggested by F-series compression is where 0,1,1 match (as opposed to a higher state.) If you look at the example I(A) above you can see the 0,1,1,0 pattern necessary for this result (F(n)=0+1+1 for ct1).
Now for ct2 you somehow have to transition from 0,1,1,0 to 1,1,2,0.  This transition only occurs where there is stacking, ie where you go from 1 to 11.
In this case you have stacking in place so that 0,1,1 is stacked with 0,1,1.  In such a case, for any two vibrational states the choices are 0,1 or 2 (0+0,0+1,1+0,1+1).
There are several ways to look at this.
This is an oversymplified analysis.  If you applied it to the other state, you'd have:
Any two stacked states would have (0,1,1,2) plus (0,1,1,2) would have (0,1,2,3,4); (0+0,0+1,0+1,0+2,1+0,1+1,1+1,1+2,1+0,1+1,1+1,1+2,2+0,2+1,2+1,2+2)
0       1      1     2      1      2      2    3      1     2      2     3     2     3      3      4
This doesn't work the same way, because you are not stacking like cases, instead you are stacking 11 cases.
Another way to look at this is that there is 1 0,0 state, one 2 state and two 1 states (1,1,2) which also provides no solution.
The problem is solved because what you are really doing here is stacking the 0,1,1,2 solution with another 0,1,1 solution, not another 0112 solution).
This gives you possible solutions of 0,1,2 and 3.
Now you cannot add a 0,1,1 solution, but another 0,1,1,2 state
yielding a 0,1,2,3 grouping of solutions.
If you add another 0,1,1 solution you get
0,1,2,3,4

AuT-details on interaction and curvature

So a few days ago I thought I had an easy way of describing the interaction of pi and the Fibonnaci series but I was disappointed.
There are interactions and there are what might be mathematical coincidence or might be places where they diverge from each other (very low values, 2 and 3, of x); but to understand this a more in depth analysis seems necessary which I will start here.
Pre-Aut physics can be forgiven for gluons since the sharing of ct1 states, being quantum, are essentially the same as particle sharing except the way they are shared is unusual and the quantum level of sharing is eratic because of compression, history and velocity.  However, this is a good place to start our inquiry because nothing is as it seems in AuT.
One problem is that AuT happens on different levels and even on different dimensions.  Separation has to be done without dimension and at quantum points time is absent; results are solution based at quantum moments and the second that traditional thermodynamics are introduced you've completely left the supersymetric framework of the universe and you're wasting time, which doesn't exist.  I know, I'm sounding like an abbot and costello routine, time to get to work.

1) quantum moments contain reference to prior quanum moments which allows for comparative perception.  Change is irrelevant.
2) Velocity, as a result, is merely a quantum moment with the history of the prior quantum moment built into it.
3) Quantum moments are closely related, in fact the amount of new information is very close to 38% from the prior quantum moment
4) History and velocity come from how new information is added, either as new ct1 states or shared ct1 states.
5) History and velocity do not occur with ct1 because there is no ct1 sharing because all ct1 states are independent of each other.
6) space-time, velocity and history result, by definition by compression which occurs based on the fibonacci scale and history and velocity also occur based on this scale as a result with the maximum outside ct1 sharing, new ct1 states, being 1:256 for any higher ct state; although this theory remains to be tested.
7) Pi evolves according to the equation in the prior post based on compression state and therefore curvature evolves.  There is a fixed formula (also given in the prior post as F(pix)) for curvature change which is an infinite series converging on 1.  The rate of convergence on 38% also converges on 1 and a relationship which should take into account substitution of ct1 states should exist, however tenuous.  Each change of 38% creates a length 38% greater than the length before with quantum moments between the lengths.
8) All solutions are simultaneous, but a relative solution order exists for higher ct states and this higher solution order relativity gives rises to all dimensional characteristics and also must be tied to pi and thereby to the 38% informatin increase (II%).
9) II% is a product of higher ct states and lower ct states can operate in the quantum moments between II% increases.
10) In the case of ct2, at each change in ct2 there is an relative change of 256 to 1 with space and the exchange rate means that 255 ct1 states making a ct2 remain shared while one ct1 state changes so that the rate of history to velocity is 256 to 1 and pi is defined by 2 an N in the F(pi) function (not to be confused with the sub-part f(pix) function).
11) CT state increases result from a shift between F-series compression defined as the number of coordinates changing at once which follows the features of 1,11,111,etc in a F-series model so that compression derives specifically from the number of orders from 1 to infinity changing together.  Sharing compression steps based on this scale whcih happens according to F(n)^(2^n) where N derives from the order and F(n) is a F-series number based on the order (111, for example being 3) and is, for 3, 3+2+1 which results from the historical building: 111,11,1; because the state is literally built from from the prior states.  It is possible that all lower states are build into this system.  For example, ct4 is seen as F(4) or 10.  But it could also be 11 (1111,111,11,1) where the lowest compression states are too small to have a signficant effect on the numeric outcome because of the amount of comrpession involved.
12) Compression changes are durable over F-series lengths between turns, turns being defined as the ends of the lengths created.
We will continue in the next posts.

The cruel muse

Why does the universe
prove my irrelevance
why does it answer
all the wrong question
the reason for the world
nothing more
than a complex solution
to an irreverant math problem
there is no magic
there is no point
there is no romance
just a single algorithm
spun toward infinity
totally out of control
but isn't that love
I wrote my math
to the Greek muse
a series of love letter
because I didn't know
any other way to say it
she did something very Greek
and stood like a statue
ignoring my needs
and leaving me
with a physics
that defines random
that defines entropy
that defines love
and choice and life
happiness and sadness
all the same way
in terms of something
an over riding purpose
a mathematical irony
built around one thing
infinites series
balance between two
converging and diverging
so even infinity is defeated
and in my love letters
i answered everything
just for the greek muse
who laughed to know
what i was finding
was a cosmic emptiness
much greater
than the emptiness of space

06/14/17: Quantum information theory and traditional physics vs Aut part 3 aut-

06/14/17: Quantum information theory and traditional physics vs Aut part 3 aut-Proof-Pi is derived from spiral theory (included out of order)
Now every once in a while, this theory becomes self proving. That is every once in a while I prove to myself that I have come up with the true theory of everything, at least everything in o-space.  These proofs tend to be tautologies, i.e. they are correct because they have to be correct, but that does not make them less important.
One example is that e=mc^2 fits with spiral compression theory (F(n)^(2^n); another is that the strong force matches scale of ct5 according to that same compression theory.
Now, one of the missing elements, until to day, was to directly tie F-series expansion to space curvature.  I thought I had found this solution, but it was, sadly a math error (a visual error).

To understand a tautology, by way of example, so you'll understand that what you're seeing is of incredible importance, is that if 1 plus 1 equals 2 then 2-1 equals 1.  Very simple, but if it were not true we'd have some real problems.

What you are going to see in this post, among other things, is this type of proof that F-series spirals lead to pi as a proof.  Fibonacci numbers and space curvature are two completely unrelated concepts, but the relationship still has to be determined.

This theory is About the "Underlying symmetry to quantum mechanics and thermodynamics."
It is Interesting: This work is as exciting as the ancient Greeks, being a product of Parmenides, as rich as the Renaissance, the mathematician being the same one to lay the math that powered that rich time in Italy;

AuT answers virtually all the questions left unanswered by science except those that predate space time but even in failing in this regard, it gives a framework from which to discuss that pre-linear time. It defines the holy grail of physics, super symmetry and by extension things like 'what is dark matter' and 'what is the big bang' but it leaves those glasses broken and less important than the appeared at first. Almost all modern physics is headed toward AuT and as such it may be the most timely of inquiries in that field and in a sense in any field.

In the last group we talked about how static Derivative equations gave us quantum results consistent with the specific formula for p used in the Geo function:
(Specific formulas (f(x)=x^n, 1/x, etc
General Formulas if you have two and act on them you get a result
F(u+v)=u'+v'; (uc)'=u'*c where c is a constant
polynomials require both kinds)
Now we're doing everything in reverse of dimensional mathematics so lets look at another result for movement:

dy/dT=cosT where you're using quantum points together, but in F-series expansions you don't have exact equivalence the increase is between 38.1% and 38.2% in a converging series.
As you are aware pi is an evolving equation set forth with specificity as:
Pi= N+(from 2 to max x)N/F(pix)]
F(pix)=[(-1)^x]+[2x(-1)^x-1]
The solution to F(pix) converges on 1 from either side.  What this equation allows is that you can change N to any number and get a resulting value for pi converging on a different value

	pi for u(2)	pi of N
N for pi	1	converges on
1	% change	0.78
2	0.498402556	1.565
3	0.664543524	2.355
4	0.749522597	3.142
5	0.799491094	3.93
6	0.834394904	4.71
7	0.859489051	5.48

We focus on the value where N=4, ct4 geometry.
F-series expansions you don't have exact equivalence the increase is between 38.1% and 38.2% in a converging series.
The percentage change in the solution to pi more closely reflection N/F(pix) since you get a fraction and the % change of F(x) designated as (FS%) converges on 1 as x goes to infinity as does F(pix) but the rate of convergence of FS% is substantially faster because it results from exponential increases in relative values and F(pix) results from addition.
The growth of the denominator of Fpix is plus 2 (on either side of 1) while the growth in the denominator of FS% is the next number in the F-series.
An examination of these numbers is instructive

f(pi)
n/(n+n/fx)
1.5
0.833333333
1.166666667
0.9
1.1
0.928571429
1.071428571
0.944444444

Perc ch
% FS incr
1.5
0.833333333
1.066666667
0.975
1.009615385
0.996336996
1.00140056
0.999465241

For every value of pi, the % difference (percent change) between two solutions goes to 1 as x goes to infinity.
The percentage change in the solution to the F-series converges on 38.2% more or less.
The F-series diverges from 1 to infinity.
F(pi) remains the same for any ct state (F(pi) is the same for 1-1/3 as for 4-4/3.
The Percentage difference (FS%) between sequential FS increases matches the change in f(pix) until x=4 when the FS% accelerates relative to F(pix).
While this is a trick of small numbers (2 and 3) this suggests a transition from  F(series) to F(pix) in light of the F(series)

The arclength from p to q where theta (the angle) yields a length that is the sin of the right angle from q down to the baseline of theta.

F(x)^(2^x) or compression number=(f series (sum(n,n-1,n-2))^(2^n) 
and
pi=n/[n+(from 2 to max x)N/F(pix)]

f(pix)=[(-1)^x]+[2x(-1)^x-1]

Pi= N+(from 2 to max x)N/F(pix)]

f(pix)=[(-1)^x]+[2x(-1)^x-1]

Int(from 0-x)(Ct(n))=Int(0-x)U![Geo(F(n)^(2^n)dx].

a.      Dct(m1)*Dct(m2)/[average(ct1) between m1 and m2]^2

linear-F-series spiral sin function (LFSSSF) which sequentially (as x changes sequentially) define all quantum points in our universe at any quantum moment for any value of x.  The LFSSSF near present x value and levels of concentrating being: sum xI(from 0 to T)[(gsin(pi/2x)x(FseriesFunction)^2^x)+(-gsin(pi/2x(xFseriesFunction)^2^x)]dx

capacitance: V=I(tot(ctx))(1-e^t/rc) where rc represents the forces leading to compression, the limits on carrier stacking and the ability to maintain carrier stacking between carrier state changes (as opposed to resistance and capacitance) and ctx is related to the total amount of information available for compression at any quantum point

Compression can be modeled with the rough general formula 
C(t)=E(1-e^-t/RC) and decompression is defined by D(t)=QRCe^-t/RC.

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/happens-mix-thermodynamics-quantum-world-revolution/

We have been looking a derivation of forces from spiral changes, mostly focused on ct1 exchange in the presence of other forces.  It continues to be hard to "not say" things like "the strong nuclear force" is the effect of ct5 on ct4 states even though that statement is largely true from our perspective.  The problem is that the strong nuclear force is the resulting force observed from high concentrations of ct4 overlap comparable to the ct2 states formed by ct1 in the presencese of ct4 type concentration states.  There is a single variable algorithm, solutions are relative, that is concentration is effected by the proximity (solution order) relative to the point in question and at very high concentrations you not only get ct5 but you also get intermediary, active pre-ct5 concentrations.  Active in this case means that they change more rapidly and having a different ct1 sharing proportion than the next higher state they mimic but don't fully achieve.
Velocity is ct1 exchange between a system on the ambient information matrix of ct1.
Gravity is the purest form of ct1 exchange, being that exchange that occurs between two ct1 abosrbing bodies.  The greater the density (e.g. mass vs photon) the greater the ct1 exchange and the greater relative effect over free ct1 exchange (velocity) but it remains the effect of sharing a common pool of ct1 whether locally or over the universe as a whole.
Heat is ct1 exchange within a system and differentiates from velocity only due to the sharing between common higher states, primarily ct4 and higher, of ct1 within a matrix formed by this exchange.  Heat is radiated, so ct1 exchanges of this type can occur over distances.  Heat is wave oriented so it must involve ct2 exchange between ct3 states within the ct2 matrix.  Photons within a ct4 matrix allow for this rate to increase.
Electromagnatism reflect ct1 exchange within the presence of ct4 and ct1 converts to a temporary ct2 transitional state just as ct4 tranforms to the transitional states of protons and neutrons, proton/electron pairs being the high speed exchange form of neutrons, i.e. the strong force plus heat type exchanges.
There was a break, in the answer, that break has been mended in the second book of the Algorithm Universe series.
We have the model that creates the spirals, the model that compresses and decompresses the spirals and, now, the method by which forces are generated by changes within the spiral solution either for compressed states alone (gravity) or compressed states relative to one another (the other forces).
The assembly of these pieces provides a unique view of the universe, not obtainable by any other analysis.
what  we refer to as spirals are really point solutions to spiral equations separated based on order and as we move from on point at a time to two or more the separation of simultaneous solutions adds dimension especially regarding solutions at the same level of the matrix relative to points on a different branch
imagine a current passing through a wire, this is wave length.
if the exchanging ct1 states are to keep up with it, the average travel would be the observed straight line through the middle.  While each change is a quantum change is small, the average curvature is exactly what you expect.
you can figure out the way that the forces drive these equations, then look at them in a mirror (backwards) and you're seeing the equations that give rise to the results we experience as reality.

PART 2 The magnetic, strong and weak forces

Prior art from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

Interaction	Current theory	Mediators	Relative strength[4]	Long-distance behavior	Range (m)[citation needed]
Strong	Quantum chromodynamics (QCD)	gluons	1038	(see discussion below)	10−15
Electromagnetic	Quantum electrodynamics (QED)	photons	1036	1/r^2	∞
Weak	Electroweak Theory (EWT)	W and Z bosons	1025	e^(-mw,zr)/r	10−18
Gravitation	General relativity (GR)	gravitons (hypothetical)	1	1/r^2	∞

The modern (perturbative) quantum mechanical view of the fundamental forces other than gravity is that particles of matter (fermions) do not directly interact with each other, but rather carry a charge, and exchange virtual particles (gauge bosons), which are the interaction carriers or force mediators. For example, photons mediate the interaction of electric charges, and gluons mediate the interaction of color charges.

          This focuses primarily on gravity, but since we want to discuss the full effect of ct1 exchange on higher states we must visit these two forces.

          If you imagine a coiled wire with a current passing through it, you see the electromagnetic force. This is a strong indicator that the weak force/electromagnetic force is acting on CT3, wave energy.

          The “magnetism” is merely the chain of shared ct1 states keeping up with the moving waves as x changes or, if you must, over time.

          The “merger” of the weak and electromagnetic forces can be seen (at high energies) of the substitution rate drawing the ct1 states from the surrounding environment to a more proximate location. AuT suggests that at strong energies or high speeds (both are speed, one being vibrational the other ‘straight line movement’) ct1 exchanges are more or less instantaneous and have less of an effect on an extended area in AuT.

          The strong force is harder to deal with.  As with the electromagnetic force, we get completely away from the boson nonsense.  Instead we stick with information theory and the distance (r) effects are based on relative position of the solution which we’ll talk about more related to gravity.

          Conversion rates are seductive.  The fact that a second is 1.07x10^-39^th of a second is suggestive.  But the better suggestion is that this is tied to the compression overlap ratio of 3.40x10^38 to one for black holes.  This does not mean that every atom is a black hole, it merely means that the algorithm solutions that give rise to compressed ct4 states, matter, generate the same compression ratios as are experienced with black holes.  This suggests that while the fundamental state of ct4 states have 4 coordinates changing at a time (1111,2222, etc) that within the algorithm the solutions have 5 coordinates changing at once where multiple fundamental ct4 states are joined together.  This would be a type of wave, particle duality but would, instead, be matter, black hole duality.  It boggles the mind a little bit but explains the disappearance of ct5 compression outside of the nucleus of the atom.

          It is critical to this understanding that we are NOT talking about a force.  Force is pre-AuT. We’re talking about a math solution that yields the force.  For a nucleus, the solution is yields compression up to five coordinates changing at once.  Once the nucleus dimension is breached, that solution hits the inflection point and drops to the ct4 solution.  It’s important to note that ct4 solutions need not cease to exist, but they become independent of one another.

PART 3 CT1 substitutions-the Gravity example

          Movement and distance, it must be remembered, do not exist in ct1, but in ct2 or any spiral state, you have the necessary relative changes to give rise to space and time.  For two masses, we’ll use m1 and m2.

          m1=yct1 changes per change in x, m2=zct1 changes per ct1 change and r=n1 where n1 is the number of ct1 changes between m1 and m2 if their locations remain fixed.  These are the variable giving rise to the equation above which looks like:

dct1/dx=yct1*zct1/n1^2=y*z/n1^2 for gravity for a fixed system.  Now dct1 represents the changes in the center as well as on either side.

d[F(ct1)]/dx=y*z/n1^2

          This assumes every other element is equal in the exchange of information since, under the rules of super symmetry, all features affecting the two masses are part of the overall solution.  This analysis is the difference between AuT and forces.

integrating gravity over time is a force.

          In the quantum end of things integration is not relevant and mainly comes into play if you are looking at a gravitational change which is not immediately instructive of anything.

          Differentiation requires that something changes in little bits, quantum mathematics being more or less perfect for this.

          In this case what we are doing is not measuring the change in the force of gravity, which isn't a thing anyway, except to the extent that a shadow or reflection is something.  Instead, what we are looking at is how, as x changes at the quantum level how ct1, the quantum backbone of the universe, changes relative to higher ct states in a given scenario.  This is both simple and not as simple as it sounds.

          The ct1 absorption rate for a given system is affected by the entire system.  In localized areas, such as our solar system, the rate change varies tremendously, as on the surface of the sun or deep solar system space.  But between any two higher states within the system, the exchange rate between them becomes less independent on the remaining portions of the system as they get closer together.

          Gravity reflects the ct1 substitution rate and for stable orbits or accumulations (planets or asteroids, for example) the substitution rates are fairly constant.  But gravity is affected by the stability or lack thereof of the other substitution rates (ct3,ct2,ct4) that lead to forces, but these rates are substitution rates of the same type, often acting in concert with other substitution rates especially at stable relationships.

          The overall substitution rate is heavily dependent on ct1 replacement rates, either shared, creating connectivity, or surrounding, creating movement.

          For shared replacement rates, the total ct1 change for a “closed” system creates a gravitational effect for the system and in this way the relative position of a higher ct state has shared ct1 states reflected in connectivity and exchanged ct1 states indicating movement and together, this constant rate change gives the system gravity.

          When you look at the gravity equation in this light while you have a constant force of gravity (equal to one ct1 change per change in x), the way that exchange happens can yield a vastly different effect on the mass which is subject to the substitution.

          One thing this says is that the gravity function of linearity is directly tied to the exchange of ct1 states with higher ct states.  Space has no gravity because it doesn't substitute for itself.

          It also says that gravity is only one effect of the information exchange that is always going on for everything.  But it also says that gravity is tied to the other manifestations of information change at the quantum level.

          The higher state exchanges, for waves, matter and black holes work the same generally but change relative to the scale of the exchange of information.

          Hence we have an initial  "force" which is actually a reflection of the math solution.  The reflection is implied in the AuT definition of force, matter, or anything else.  The initial force is ct1 exchange and we see that as gravity.  These exchanges occur even with individual quantum ct2,3 and 4 states as a part of the change in the value in x in the underlying algorithm.

          In wave forms this is complicated, but not replaced, by the addition of ct2 exchange which occurs less frequently and therefore gives photons and waves the appearance of having the qualities of both when it is clear that they are as distinct as any other things, except that the change from 11 solutions to 111 solution and the resulting continuity of information provides a relative slowing along an access of the ct1 exchange with other ct1 states.  Waves "spread out" as a result and different non-photonic results are experienced.

Seriously, you aren't ordering the books?