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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment