AuT and the support of Lamaitre 2 of 2

Paradox-Para-contrary to; Dox (short for) opinion in terms of greek derivation.  In Latin these are joined to mean "seemingly absurd but true."
What better term to apply to my theories and life?

There are mind blowing disclosures in book 5 which are set out in these posts somewhat erratically and in some cases without sufficient emphasis, but it's really impressive how many features of the universe come together.
In the later parts and somewhat in the early parts there is a lot of repetition in Book 5, but that is common in mathematics where the build up of proofs demands a foundation which is used repeatedly thereafter.
Some of this may be dealt with in the editing process, but since I'd like to publish a rough draft at least in the next couple of weeks (perhaps a really rough draft after the first 60 pages in days), a lot is in the second 3/4(s) that may not get the ever cursory full edit treatment and which deserves more study before the second edition of book 5.
The question is validly raised, why publish book 5 in a rough form, or why not just publish a 60 page pamphlet; and the answer is that it is not at all rough in the first pages and the last pages are a way to eliminate Spirals from the list of books necessary to follow AuT from the beginning to the end.  It will save money for the true enthusiast and why are the rest of you even reading this?
All the books will require edits as the information is refined, for example the mind blowing aspects in book 5 will require another look at books 1-4, even though much of the information in those books is referred to and is necessary for a full understanding of book 5.  Extensive cross referencing in book 5 is present in the first 60 pages for the first time.
The breakdown of the really long books into shorter books was necessary so that they were in digestible bites (for me) and it makes a lot of sense to cut book 5 in half, but that would mean starting almost immediately on book 6 or leaving spirals in the mix and neither of those options excite me.
While everything is considered largely present for super symmetric AuT, there is much math, consolidation, and duplication to be dealt with.  For an unfunded, largely unrecognized work of genius, it is going fairly well.  Not a work of genius you say?  Well then, it goes all the better then.

Here's a taste of book 5 discussing "substitution tennis" (see the prior post):

Since movement in inherent in the system, relative amounts of thickness are represented by proximity of the two ct4 states and the higher state boxes to the edges of the next lower states.  A more accurate view might look more like the drawing below but with many more changes in thickness.

Figure 3 (imagine a rough star shape surrounded by successive similar star shapes and then space and then a bunch of other identical thingamabobs-star shapes))  Or, if you must, think of the box shapes below turned into erratic looking star shapes (you can't paste drawings into google's blogger or, at least, I don't know how to do it.  Seems like occasionally the program lets me do it).

Figure 3 is particularly important in several respects.  First, the arms represent gravity reaching out to other quantum states (see E-imagine it as the end of a star shape) when they are compressible, the decompressive state would make them repulsive but largely with the same effective shape.

It is important to think about the ramifications of these models.  Around every ct3 (wave) is a “shell” of ct2 (photons).  This shell is apparently so thin and exchanges so rapidly that we do not detect it except as the transition between ct2 and ct3 (wave particle duality).

Likewise, we might expect given the small size of photons that they would easily become unstable when observation shows them as long lived.  It is likely that the reason for this is because they are surrounded by “donor” space so it is easy for them to find replacements for each ct1 lost regardless of polarity.  It is possible given this that photons independently do not change polarity so there are no anti-photons.  Darkness, however, could be the result of anti-photons which is worth considering.

Aging where there is no transition cannot occur, so as long as photons and waves don’t transition, there is no opportunity for aging.  This is not the case with ct4 and another reason is added so that ct3 substitution and consequent aging involve 1) the minimal number of accurate state substitution candidates relative to photons (which have space) and waves (which have photons) means that sharing or a breakdown of states is more likely.  That is, the ct3 clouds are more restrictive because they have interfering clouds of ct2 and ct1 so that each higher state has a higher number of separating states to contend with for transitions for each change in x.  2) concentration makes sharing internal candidates more plentiful relative to those that have to move through ct1 and therefore include velocity components.

And here's a related gem: 

The exponential growth of clock time concentration giving rise to a converging series of compressed information states going from  space to energy to matter to black hole states and beyond.  Note that time is covered separately as a consequence of compression and essentially the ratio of ct1 exchange (light speed) to higher ct states which are inversely proportional to velocity due to the substitution of ct1 exchange for higher ct state exchange.  This ratio appears in the Lorentz equation as v^2/c^2 but actually reflects to exchange of ct1 with higher ct state exchange in ct4.  See the section on time vs x above.

Back to Lemaitre.  Does he support me?  I think the answer is, that if I was able to meet him he'd throw pate' in my face and call me a swine, but being dead his options are more limited.  Let's look at what he said about his theory and ponder this while I wash my face.

Quote: Scientific progress is the discovery of a more and more comprehensive simplicity.  
This is for all the assholes, and you know who you are, who have said or are thinking that I don't add anything to science because my theories are not more complex.  In fact, AuT is simple in design and complex in application which is the genius of the algorithm.  If I were grading Lamaitre in AuT physics (something I hope to be able to do to students one day) I'd give him a B for this statement.

Quote: The previous successes give us confidence in the future of science: we become more and more conscious of the fact that the universe is cognizable.
This is both helpful and not because AuT undercuts so much pre-AuT physics.  However, the reason why AuT is possible is because there is so much information readily obtainable with which to define the algorithm and its function.  Moreover, modern observations provide a great deal of support for AuT which would otherwise be impossible and focus the theory quite a bit.   Perhaps the best example is the minimum weight black hole.  Without that I would never have found the flaw in base 10 math that led to changing from a random base 10 to f(x).  A real game changer.

Quote (broken into parts) The radius of space began at zero; 
Nonsense, it starts way before there is a radius.  Book 5 covers this extensively and it's covered generally in a prior blog post with a paragraph that has achieved some importance; it's even italics in book 5.
Quote(cont) the first stages of the expansion consisted of a rapid expansion determined by the mass of the initial atom, almost equal to the present mass of the universe.
Also total bullshit, but he can be forgiven for getting one aspect of it right.  First, it starts without mass, second it starts with a very small amount of information relatively speaking.  While exponential growth of information is possible if each state adds another (think the broom scene in the sorcerer's apprentice) it is also at least conceivable that it grows 1 quantum of information for each value of x.  Density considerations argue in favor of the later (otherwise the universe successively doubles in size which I don't believe is observed), the former has something to be said for it in terms of memorized solutions.  He does, however, correctly note that "all" the "mass" is not present at the beginning which suggests he was bothered by the increase in information.
Quote: If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided.
Sort of right, we'll leave a more in depth discussion till later.
Quote: If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time. 
Oh, how right you are and if you had any idea what time was, who knows what you might think.
Quote: I think that such a beginning of the world is far enough from the present order of Nature to be not at all repugnant.
Say what?  This reminds me of a joke.  I can't remember it so here's one from the internet:
"What happened to your girlfriend, that really cute math student?" "She no longer is my girlfriend. I caught her cheating on me." "I don't believe that she cheated on you!" "Well, a couple of nights ago I called her on the phone, and she told me that she was in bed wrestling with three unknowns..." 

source: http://www.jokes4us.com/miscellaneousjokes/mathjokes/algebrajokes.html

Quote: The expansion thus took place in three phases: a first period of rapid expansion in which the atom-universe was broken into atomic stars, a period of slowing-down, followed by a third period of accelerated expansion.
A bunch of malarkey but only because he has missed his own suggestion that the universe isn't born complete.  Both he and  Einstein made this mistake.

Quote: It may be difficult to follow up the idea in detail as we are not yet able to count the quantum packets in every case. For example, it may be that an atomic nucleus must be counted as a unique quantum.
Almost right, he's not seeing it, but he's talking around successive compression states. Give him a C.

Quote: If the future development of quantum theory happens to turn in that direction, we could conceive the beginning of the universe in the form of a unique atom, the atomic weight of which is the total mass of the universe.
Getting colder
Quote: If this mass is sufficient, and the estimates which we can make indicate that this is indeed so, the initial expansion was able to permit the radius to exceed the value of the equilibrium radius.
A math supposition which is based on a false premise and therefore of little consequence.  Take away the C.

So you can see that the meeting would not go so well with LeMaitre, but perhaps it would go better with Einstein.

Now, I"m not saying I'm smarter than any physicist.  The fact that I figured out how the universe works makes me clever and lucky and not smart.  Worse still the Nobel prize will never be given to a chemist without a phd since that would admit to amateurs being smarter (as smart) than experts, but if history tells us anything, its that the guy who observes his errors is much more likely to invent synthetic whatever, than the genius who does everything right and is less attentive. History will judge me and I have a monopoly until my math is accepted on the definition of history, whoo-hoo.

#writerslife
#aut
#quantummechanics
#physics