AuT- and the missing link

So, I've said several times that it is a trivial matter from what I've done to come up with the part of the equation known generally as geo which defines when you get compression, that is the point at which information arms are formed.
We already know (if you don't read book one, really, get a copy) the scale of compression, but the point is that you have to have a "collusion of points" to get from a collection of adjacent solution points to the first stage of compression.
Under AuT you also need a fairly simple equation to get from one to the other.
Now it's not like I haven't done enough and without one frigging penny of support.  I've defined the origin of the universe (forget the big bang, big yawn is more like it), I've determined where forces come from (book 2 is in being rewritten in its second edition, but the first edition lays it out, a little sloppy, but its a first edition wofpos); and in the last few posts pointed out why forces have the range we observe, that on top of the litaney of things in prior posts on and on.  It's like that old advertisement, we don't make the aluminim foil, we make it stronger or whatever.  I didn't come up with e=mc^2 but I sure as hell figured out why it does on a quantum level and tied it to every other state of information, matter and energy and tied them together in bow and gave it to you.
Isn't that enough?  Of course not, you don't care.  What have you done for me lately.
I killed your gods, through the indirect methodology of killing faith as a concept, that's something.
The chance nature of the universe, bull malarky!
AuT functions off of logic, to a point.
AuT describes things that other theories cannot even approach.  This includes how forces arise from information, why forces have the observed range, and this in addition to explaining why e=mc^2 and how this can be applied to other features of the universe.
AuT admits that logic fails at the transition of o-space to g-space, but logic exists before that point.
Positive and Negative, left and right, up and down (relative to gravity) all make sense at this transition point and forward, all are internally consistent, if a little hard to buy.
What's more, at least I can say what g-space is.  Most throw some superstitious fu-fra at it, wave some incense and an idol or two and say, it's beyond man's kin.  Screw that, I tell you what it is, wait till book 4?  No, it's in the prior posts, but it'll be a little more clear in book 4.  Wait for it, you can read book 3 while you're waiting.
But you're sitting there whinning, but it isn't our physics, you redid everything, destroyed our symmetry and replaced it with yours, waaa, waaa.  I'd expect more from physicists.  Crybabies, wasting your time looking for things that don't exist and worst of all ignoring me.   You have your nerve.  But you say, "when you walk and look around you and see all the detail, you will balk at the idea that if you restarted this movie it would run the exact same way, it must be random!"
Nonsense.  Randomness or the more extreme idea of a god are much harder to accept.  Random? So cosmic dice roll controlling the universe?  That is hard to accept. Having a spontaneously erupting god is equally hard to accept, although AuT's substitute, a state where mathematical results are made durable is as godlike and as hard to accept conceptually as randomness and god.  All I can say is that logic flows from that point forward and that I can at least tell you something about g-space that is somewhat more precise than "the gods are on top of mount Olympus."
And of course, I proved the origin of the universe and provided what amounts to unified field theory (although the idea of fields is a bit of pre-AuT nonsense) just to show how much I care, but is that enough for you?  No, you just ask what have I done for you lately.
There are questions that you ask me.  "Where does the time go?"  I can actually find that.  The idea of durability along with combined information states provides for the type of universe that we have.  The time gone is in the present.

Anyway, where was I?  Oh yes, the missing link, the origin of curvature.
This is the core part of a rather lengthy chapter in book 4.  I considered just publishing it, but god forbid (or whatever it is, durabilty forbid?) you'd actually buy one of my books.
So here it is.
The question broadly phrased is where does compression originate.  It can be broken into parts (and it has been, I actually work it out in a spreadsheet in book 4); when do different values of sin repeat themselves.  We'll put the basic idea forward by using radians AND degrees.

How does proportion work when one is sin and other is not (i.e. how do we cram the sin (formula) into the formula where pi changes based on the state in question (the numerator changes based on the lengthy functions you can find in book 3 (if you care, or you can dig them out of prior posts).

To do this you have to take the relationship of radians to degrees into account and understand that 360 degrees is just degrees, the 360 is just an even number break down and even at that it's just an approximation, but we'll get there.
Sin works off of a factorial, but for low values of x, that's not very complicated.  Again there are pages of spreadsheets on this, but you can't get that until book 4 is published, but the basics can be set out, remembering that it's rough in the first editions and its basically just my brain vomiting on the internet in these posts.
You don't have fractional problems with factorials in these equations because you have a quantum universe.  In fact, these equations wouldn't work if you didn't have a quantum universe which proves AuT as if it needed any proof.  This is what I'd call one more self proving issue (i.e. if you didn't have a quantum universe you couldn't use factorial solutions because they wouldn't work).
I will now, however, pull a rabbit out of my hat.
The change in repetition is important and somewhere AuT says where compression will occur along with the 2^n factor.  Let's look for it mathematically:

Sin y(pi/180)=[(-1)^n/(2n+1)!]*y^(2n+1)

            Note -1^n/2n+1! =f(sin), not my own function, but my nomenclature to match it to f(n) or whatever.
Anyway, we take the old equation and just work it out a little, this is one of those self proving things and if there are typos in it, you can send me a grant and I'll fix them, not that I expect that because, after all, all I've done is figure out in detail how the entire frigging universe works.

=siny * sin pi/180=sinypi/180

So sin y=fsin*y^2n+1*180/fsin*pi^2n+1 which can be solved easily for each value of x.
note 180 is just a constant, it is the amount of separation between degrees and nothing more.  Moreover it probably is based on x so that the higher x is, the higher it can be but it can be a specific number for very low values of x.
the importatn thing is to solve for fsiny/fsimpiC which makes everything 1/pi? for the sin as long as n=x?.

            This relationship is related to how sinx is calculated: (x=angle in radians).

            Siny=y-(y^3)/3!+(y^5)/5!)-(y^7)/7!+… or

            Sum (0, max n) [(-1)^n/(2n+1)!]y^(2n+1)

Sample: (this is in book 4, but I'm not going through the trouble of loading it because it really doesn't matter that much)

Sin y(pi/180)=[(-1)^n/(2n+1)!]*y^(2n+1)

            Note -1^n/2n+1! =f(sin)

=siny * sin pi/180=sinypi/180                                                                                      

So sin y=fsin*y^2n+1*180/fsin*pi^2n+1 which can be solved easily for each value of x.

Looking at this another way, 180 is just a constant, how many gradients you are breaking curvature into, so siny(degrees)=C(y/pi)^(2n+1)

This suggests that C(y/pi)=2F(n) for curvature or…siny=compression equation where 2*y/pi^2n+1=2(f(n)^2^n which, in case you haven't been paying attention, is the compression equation.  

Now I'm not 100% sure this is all right, it's sort of first draft material; but it looked ok when I went to sleep and before drinking my coffee it still doesn't bother me.

But of course, I'm surrounded by morons who don't understand what I've done or they understand it but are unwilling to reach out and acknowledge it because it would upset whatever applecart they are carrying their own pet projects in.  It does not, after all matter; for while I've done all this for you, if I'm right I had no more choice than an oyster.

The Walrus and The Carpenter

Lewis Carroll

(from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, 1872)

The sun was shining on the sea,

Shining with all his might:

He did his very best to make

The billows smooth and bright--

And this was odd, because it was

The middle of the night.

The moon was shining sulkily,

Because she thought the sun

Had got no business to be there

After the day was done--

"It's very rude of him," she said,

"To come and spoil the fun!"

The sea was wet as wet could be,

The sands were dry as dry.

You could not see a cloud, because

No cloud was in the sky:

No birds were flying overhead--

There were no birds to fly.

The Walrus and the Carpenter

Were walking close at hand;

They wept like anything to see

Such quantities of sand:

"If this were only cleared away,"

They said, "it would be grand!"

"If seven maids with seven mops

Swept it for half a year.

Do you suppose," the Walrus said,

"That they could get it clear?"

"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,

And shed a bitter tear.

"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"

The Walrus did beseech.

"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,

Along the briny beach:

We cannot do with more than four,

To give a hand to each."

The eldest Oyster looked at him,

But never a word he said:

The eldest Oyster winked his eye,

And shook his heavy head--

Meaning to say he did not choose

To leave the oyster-bed.

But four young Oysters hurried up,

All eager for the treat:

Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,

Their shoes were clean and neat--

And this was odd, because, you know,

They hadn't any feet.

Four other Oysters followed them,

And yet another four;

And thick and fast they came at last,

And more, and more, and more--

All hopping through the frothy waves,

And scrambling to the shore.

The Walrus and the Carpenter

Walked on a mile or so,

And then they rested on a rock

Conveniently low:

And all the little Oysters stood

And waited in a row.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,

"To talk of many things:

Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--

Of cabbages--and kings--

And why the sea is boiling hot--

And whether pigs have wings."

"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,

"Before we have our chat;

For some of us are out of breath,

And all of us are fat!"

"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.

They thanked him much for that.

"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,

"Is what we chiefly need:

Pepper and vinegar besides

Are very good indeed--

Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,

We can begin to feed."

"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,

Turning a little blue.

"After such kindness, that would be

A dismal thing to do!"

"The night is fine," the Walrus said.

"Do you admire the view?

"It was so kind of you to come!

And you are very nice!"

The Carpenter said nothing but

"Cut us another slice:

I wish you were not quite so deaf--

I've had to ask you twice!"

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,

"To play them such a trick,

After we've brought them out so far,

And made them trot so quick!"

The Carpenter said nothing but

"The butter's spread too thick!"

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:

"I deeply sympathize."

With sobs and tears he sorted out

Those of the largest size,

Holding his pocket-handkerchief

Before his streaming eyes.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,

"You've had a pleasant run!

Shall we be trotting home again?'

But answer came there none--

And this was scarcely odd, because

They'd eaten every one.