So I'll start with the 1200 word part and then put my notes forward.
As you read, be cautioned. AuT is the darkest of theories of physics. While it provides promise of understanding at a level far beyond any other theory, the price that is paid for that wisdom is too high.
I should have no problem proving space time is not what we thought it was before AuT in 1200 words. Let me make a start at that. This is just a draft to put some thoughts down.
Matter accelerated to the speed of light loses time.
This means that velocity and time are interchangeable.
Photons move at the speed of light so they do not have time.
Energy and mass are interchangeable and energy and photons are interchangeable.
Hence time can be added or subtracted from something merely by slowing it down.
Speed is measured in meters per second.
Photons move at the speed of light so that we experience time which they do not themselves experience.
Time and space and mass are interchangeable since v=m/s, m=v/s and s=m/v so you have to have some sort of interchange between time and space. Since e=mc^2 you can also say that mass=energy/c^2.
If you can eliminate time, you can eliminate any other dimension merely by changing speed.
Since there is only one speed, but 3 dimensions, that means that all 3 of dimensions must be independent from one one another.
While AuT defines the relationship between these dimensions, logic also must dictate that AuT is correct, that photons have only one, waves 2, matter 3 and so on.
“A true quantum universe, the universe of AuT.” Each “moment” we experience is quantum for the entire universe. That is as “x” changes, the entire universe changes and is frozen in that next quantum instant. If true, “Force” cannot be what Newton says because at any solution for X there is no “force” since everything is frozen relative to everything else. X, btw, is not time, although it looks that way now. Not happy?
Point 2: Defining a 3-D
Vector: Dimension is the second problem.
While points have relative solution values, in the underlying
super-symmetry of the universe dimension is an effect, not a part of
reality. Before you discount this,
remember that the drawing used in the lecture is a two-dimensional
representation of three or four dimensions. Ipsfac-you can go from no
dimensions to as many as you want if you have the right chalkboard.
Einstein-energy and mass are inter convertible; what if space and energy do too (hint they do)?
“A true quantum universe, the universe of AuT.” Each “moment” we
experience is quantum for the entire universe.
That is as “x” changes, the entire universe changes and is frozen in
that next quantum instant. If true (the
proof takes less than 1200 words, we’ll see if it makes it here) the “Force”
cannot be what Newton says because at any solution for X there is no “force”
since everything is frozen relative to everything else. X, btw, is not time,
although it looks that way now.
1) Defining a particle by virtue of a 3-D
Vector: Dimension is the second problem.
While points have relative solution values, in the underlying
super-symmetry of the universe dimension is an effect, not a part of reality. Before you discount this, remember that the
drawing is a two-dimensional representation of three or four dimensions, so its
obvious you can go from no dimensions to as many as you want if you have the
right chalkboard.
2)
Dynamical
forces acting on it
3)
Changes
in position over time
4)
F=m*a;
v=d/dt(x(t); d(v)/dt=a or d^2/d^t^2(x(t)
Let’s talk about this. Force is relative and in AuT all points are
moving all the time (as we observe, the earth and everything on it has enormous
force relative to the theoretical object standing still in space in its
path-otherwise the dinosaurs killed by an asteroid would be auditing this class
instead of me).
5)
P(momentum)=p=m*v=mdv/dt=d/dtp
(conserved if forces don’t change, there is conservation) but this doesn’t work
for a universe made up of constant changing information.
6)
Kinetic
energy=T=1/2mv^2 (look to Einstein to see problem here because of conversion of
energy to mass)
T=p^2/2m (energy conserved)
7) With constant force in one dimension you
can solve for velocity and position over time. F(x(t)-x0)=1/2m(v(t)^2-v0^2)=dT dT-variation
of energy=Work
8)
Potential
energy V(x0)-V(x)=W(x0tox) (potential energy is difference of energy between x0
and x)=dV
9)
Force:
v(x)=-fx(t) or force is -dv/dx (change in potential energy relative to x)
10) E=T+V (sum of kinetic and potential energy) and dE=0
Ian Bissett’s comment
At the start of the video, you are discussing a point-like particle object. This must be isotropic non rotating, a spherical gravity field, with linear radial force vectors.
But with a rotating object, the vectors do not rotate through space, but form logarithmic spirals. This produces a prolate gravity field, with reduced equatorial and increased polar gravity. Gravity is not symmetrical. Momentum and kinetic energy will depend upon spin rate. Particle interactions will depend on alignment.
This points out why I started looking for spiral models to get to my theory. This is a very important post, in terms of underlying symmetry. We were talking about Fibonacci math earlier. The fact that a rotating object does not rotate vectors, but instead results in "logarithmic spirals" was the feature of projected reality that leads to F-series math models being appropriate to the underlying supersymmetry.
An interesting feature of super-symmetry is that If the theory has merit, it does not matter. That is, if there is no randomness to the universe, if thermodynamics is illusory, we do whatever we do because we are ordained to do it, programmed might be a better word.
I don't want to force my theory on anyone, it's not a particularly happy theory, the darkest part of physics, and it has strange bits to it, but its basically hologram theory, stirred with relativity with a twist of limits.
I write to entertain myself, but I take science seriously, if a little too sarcastically and I have yet to see anything anyone else has written which I would censor, but in a universe powered by irony (arguably the result of infinite convergent series, like pi); the more powerful the theory, the more it should find resistance.
The full set!
Ian Bissett’s comment
At the start of the video, you are discussing a point-like particle object. This must be isotropic non rotating, a spherical gravity field, with linear radial force vectors.
But with a rotating object, the vectors do not rotate through space, but form logarithmic spirals. This produces a prolate gravity field, with reduced equatorial and increased polar gravity. Gravity is not symmetrical. Momentum and kinetic energy will depend upon spin rate. Particle interactions will depend on alignment.
This points out why I started looking for spiral models to get to my theory. This is a very important post, in terms of underlying symmetry. We were talking about Fibonacci math earlier. The fact that a rotating object does not rotate vectors, but instead results in "logarithmic spirals" was the feature of projected reality that leads to F-series math models being appropriate to the underlying supersymmetry.
An interesting feature of super-symmetry is that If the theory has merit, it does not matter. That is, if there is no randomness to the universe, if thermodynamics is illusory, we do whatever we do because we are ordained to do it, programmed might be a better word.
I don't want to force my theory on anyone, it's not a particularly happy theory, the darkest part of physics, and it has strange bits to it, but its basically hologram theory, stirred with relativity with a twist of limits.
I write to entertain myself, but I take science seriously, if a little too sarcastically and I have yet to see anything anyone else has written which I would censor, but in a universe powered by irony (arguably the result of infinite convergent series, like pi); the more powerful the theory, the more it should find resistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment