I was sitting in the hot tub, lightening in the background, thinking about the end of things, waiting without fear for lightening to strike close enough. I'm almost at the end of out of doors in the holy land, slowing loosing my vision, and generally enjoying the cool morning in the hot tub despite my almost certain demise in the near future. Then I read the best and worst quote from the book. The one that both defines it and destroys all the beauty in the abstract. And I realized, there is no end of things except the one that we make of it (or some such nonsense, perhaps I'd boiled my brain or been hit by the lightening, so I jumped out and decided to go ahead and finish this post so that in the next one I can put that quote before you.
And how appropriate that I would find it on a Sunday. Sadly, I won't post it today, probably.
AuT has been largely stuck, the last few weeks, on the issue of curvature. That will change with this post.
That doesn't mean I'm finished there. Indeed, books 1-4 all contain little pieces of inaccuracy due to the problems with the spreadsheet that was used despite the overall accuracy that somehow wasn't affected.
Book 2 will be republished, thankfully with just a different insert, but book 4 will require an extensive rewrite.
I thought about trying to explain something - how time states average ct1 changes while vibrating to limit the effect, but it's not really vibrating, its just steady change of underlying states.
The theory moves forwards in fits and starts, unlike some things which are so constant we often wish they would deconstruct.
If the effect is limited its by the relative length of time that one state stays positive or negative and the replacement of one state, maybe positive maybe negative with another...but substitution is how the states are combined together and it suggests both combining of solutions and the uncombining of solutions which is suggested by AuT but never shown in a drawing which only shows states being built from prior states. Is it possible that anti-gravity, possibly anti-history is the breakdown of these states or is it that the individual components go from positive to negative or is it some combination of these two? These are really big questions and the answers are not muguffit, but the reason that you read this blog.
The muguffit is what the spies are after but the audience doesn't care about according to Hitchcock.
Positive vs negative, building vs deconstruction of states these must be reduced to something certain and mathematical for AuT.
Wouldn't the deconstruction of states result in history being lost if that is how it is preserved between quantum states? Does this mean that history is preserved and then lost, and does it not fade with time? Can I forget you if I just live long enough?
AuT requires absolute solution order separation but also has simuleaneous solution changes and relative identity of solution. It contains, by definition, not by design or coincidence, the observed features of the Pauli principle and observed orbital solutions while providing all of the elements or sonstituent parts along with an explanation of how they interact and how that gives the result that are observed without forces, except as an effect.
Compression is common solution order for common states, positive or negative effects are positive and negative results, perhaps net effects in the positive or negative state give full effect to the result.
Destruction is defined by reduction to constitutent parts, not some false pre-AuT destruction but more of a dissolution, however violent it appears if observed over the long long periods of observation (1.07x10^37th for a second).
With that in mind, let us discuss the pauli exclusion principle and apply some AuT concepts to what we are seeing. This is not a mathematical analysis, but only an explanation in terms of AuT of what is observed in pre-AuT analysis of phenomena.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-quantum-rule-that-makes-existence-possible-d51a31381a09
All rules that accept matter as something are inaccurate in AuT. We start with the idea in AuT that the PEP (exclusion prinicple) is an effect of a mathematical formula and that force and matter are projections based on a mathematical algorithm as opposed to things which magically come into existence and interact based on mysterious forces. The mystery is not necessarily less, but exists at the level of supersymmetry.
We don't exist any less than in any other theory, but what we experience is an effect and not a cause in AuT.
In AuT there is a formula which preserves every solution in getting to the next solution and is reflected in the ct4-ct5 human state as Fibonnacci series. However, the series are alternatively positive and negative and over various amounts of compression, these average out to provide net positive and net negative results and even observably neurtral results giving the effective view of F-series type curved sprials changing according to approximate intersectional results that hide the instantaneous changes going on internally.
All changes are together, but relative change from positive to negative and in various compressive states to other compressive states gives effects along with the solution order (proximity of solution) relative to other distant or nearby solutions to provide a matrix for defining separation.
With these rules we can look at pre AuT pheomena more clearly.
Let's talk about the disgraced quark theory, at least according to AuT.
Leptons (electrons and neutrinos) Pre-AuT looks at neut(s) as uncharged electrons and correctly looks at electrons as quantum particles, anti-electrons as the opposite, but what are neutrinos? Could they be charge balanced electrons, where the fundament are essentially, if not exactly, balanced? Fermion-not same anti particle (electron/positron; neutrino/anti-neutrino which raises the question of how is a n/an differentiated? It could likely be the direction of change being opposite, but the degree of commonality being the same or it could be that balanced states cannot exist together without failing).
Gluons carriers of strong force are an since the forces holding things together are merely mathematical results leading to combining where solution order and compression state and charge match. After this, the survival and destruction is based on the time for the charge and the changes along the carrier states result in what is perceived as force.
This is reflected by photons, their intermediate compression to decompression state giving electromagnetic force as an effect.
The idea that a higgs bozons gives mass is only because mass is misunderstood.Bozons are said to can disappear with another regular bozon, but this is not the case, because bozons do not exist but instead reflect a mathematical result.
The idea of greater combination in the form of higher ct state effective force can be combined. AuT requires we combine fermions to make a barion (neutron, proton); exchange of gluons make exchange (cf information shared) photons can also bind.
Then we discuss Fermion vs bozon: spin differentiation (1/2 integer 1/2, 5/2,; bozon 1,2, -1, etc. Can this relate to a stable structure vs intermediary structures?
All these half states are only partially consistent with AuT. Odd number quarks (3 or 33) results in a fermion; Quarks/antiquark-act like bozon (even).
The one up and two down for neutrons, bound by gluons is repleaced with something differnt. The binding element is the transition states binding solutions together in even numbered pairings, just as predicted by pre-AuT observations but for entirely different reasons.
The idea of adding electrons to balance-electrically neutral-is replaced with the idea of a cloud of pre-quantum states, electrons being the units which combine in the carrier states.
There are anti-proton (anti quark, anti gluons) but these are just the reverse of these although their features, especially this question of history or anti-history are troubling. If positrons and anti electrons-make anti matter how do they relate, is it only the underlying state that changes, or do the features of winding vs unwinding define them?
The idea of basic building blocks is different, simpler in AuT. There are no such fundamental particles, only solutions that come out positive or negative.
With this background lets look at the fermion vs bozon difference in the pauli exclusion principle.
No 2 identical fermion (electrons, quarks) can occupy the same quantum state (same place and time and same quantum number properties. Since no two points are the same in AuT this explanation is a lot more complicated than it looks. Relative similarity, where PEP dwells, allows common solution at ct5 (black hole) states so PEP is not even true, but merely reflects the conceptual pairing we see at pre-ct5 levels based on our position just as the idea that Bozons can occupy the same state is also positional, from ct4 it looks like they can do it, but in ct3, they could not. The bozon non-sharing is a reflection in ct3 and sharing in ct4 is a reflection of ct4 non-sharing until you get to ct5 states just as magnetism is ct1 transition state (to ct2) and the strong force is a ct4 transition state (towards ct5) do this, fermions cannot. (this is pre dimension vs dimension type).
We see the pairing same vs different (energy, spin, angular momentum) quantum state in AuT as the pairing to fill the compression (2^n) equation and you can almost see the shells in the drawing above reflected in each separate arm having more "energy" because of the number of solutions necessarily combined and the solution order being separated further by the number of points that must be solved.
The question of whether the electron in a two electron shell have different state solutions: first spin up (plus 1/2); 2nd has opposite spin down (-1/2) and the question of how this occurs within the mathematical formulation can have many answers, from solution order alone, to some underlying state, to the total state being different, imagine one state holding it positive vs negative the next holding it up or down different based on different net results.
***
There are solutions built into the model shown in the drawing where the 3rd has to jump to higher energy state 2 in 2s like 1s. In more complicated atoms, Oxygen has 2p state next (3 levels x, y and z each level having two 1/2, -1/2) 1,2,3 s; d, p orbits. Each orbit can hold more states which is what the diagram for transitional compression states suggests, although the numbers in each sgtate do not necessarily correspond.
PEP "prevents" like particles (electrons in this case) from going into same lowest energy state (a proximity issue) whereas AuT separates them because solutions are defined by sequential 2^n compression carriers. The similarity and difference between these lies in one being viewed as a principle and the other being viewed as a mathematical result. This is semantics in one sense because both reject the idea of "force" as an absolute, both are "principle" driven and for this reason PEP is closer to AuT than most pre-AuT theory.
The dimensional aspect of PEP, the idea that "p" orbits have 3 dimensions suggests that orbital electrons correspond to lower ct states, 2 and 3 both having fewer than 3 dimensions, 3 having the necessary 2 and this suggests the transitional nature is more prevelant, more of a wave-photon transitional state, between ct3 type electron orbits and the 3 dimensional ct4 electron orbits. While all ct4 states (electrons) are stable ct3 compression states, filled ct4 carrier arms, upon interacting with the further compression of ct5 forces in the transitional proton and neutron states, they expand their dimensional range. The higher the ct4 compression, the closer to an actual ct5 state, apparently the more dimensionally diverse the ct4 orbital structure observed as these ct4 states become more freely replaced given their higher number within the continually more heavily populated carrier arms which is shown by the groupings in the drawings above. Since all of these states exist together, the level of complexity and movement and shifting between net positive and negative is very complex even when looking at a single transitional ct4-ct5 state like the single proton-neutron pair of Hydrogen.
This brings us to the 2nd level of pauli:
Unless there is a prior complete shell-last s or p filled, you get in pre-AuT physics the "force" leading to the interaction observed in atoms to combine in order to fill the outlying shells of each other atom. Again looking to the simple concept of H2 (two hydrogens loosely bonded) or H20, one hydrogen for each empty outer (higher) shell of oxygen which is force driven in pre-AuT, but is something otherwise in AuT.
In AuT it is a matter of solution order. If two atoms are solved proximately, then because they are joined by ct5 transition phenomenal, the exist as two part of the more complex arms shown above. In such event, they can be made, again looking to the drawing, of different types of pairings, but no matter how those pairings are put together, they have to fill the arm, but the underlying ct4 and ct3 states making them up can vary to provide that one is more electron and another is more proton so that these different compression states are mathematically dictated not by forces, but by the nature of the solution of the underlying parts. There are 16^32 ct4 states each of which is 10^16 ct3 states within the transition states from ct4 to ct5 so that ignoring the lower states for the moment, a rich periodic table is possible within the framework which also has to provide for molecular interaction, although the variation available is more than adequate for what is observed mathematically.
Alligning these compression states with observed phenomenal is physical chemistry, but is exemplary when looking for the interaction between observed elements (PEP, in this example) and mathematically suggested element in the AuT model.
backwards paragraph
Since all forces are transitions the “carriers,” gravity and anti-gravity arise from the movement from ct1 to ct2 (space to photonic states) while positive and negative arise from the transition from ct0 to ct1.
From out of doors in the holy land, part of the section on putting off what is important. I am going to interrupt this bit to put the most ironic quote from OODITHL in my next post, unless, of course, I change my mind and I'll also get back to some of the other stuff that I've skipped.
For a long time, in the hopefulness and confidence of youth, I dreamed of going to Palestine. But that dream was denied, for want of money and leisure.
No comments:
Post a Comment