AuT and the standard model 1 of (done)

It/is late.  I am outdoors in the wilderness. The ground is cold, all around me is darkness. The wind blows, it sucks whatever warmth I have.  Iam underdressedfor this  late night, but there is nothing to be done for it.  i will live or die i will sty healhy or this wet cold will overtake me with some viral nightmare.  I chehck my watch.  Time seems to stqand still.  an hour longer and i can get away from this, it will be at least that long if I don.t lie to myself.  I have something to write with, but no light.  I record my thoughts as well as I can, there is no moon, only star light.  The stars are bright out here so far away from everything else.  In an hour, if Iam lucky I will find my tent and the warm bag and I will be warm if uncomfortable on the hard ground.  It is too cold for mosquitos, that is what reallly is cold comfort.
It is so quiet, the wind russles the woods.

The problems (comparing AuT) with the standard model begin immediately:
The SM-beginss with Force carriers and Matter particles
1) What do the carriers carry them through?  We can say :space: but what does that tell us.  The SM begins by talking in circles.
2)  How do they carry them?  Over time?
And what are matter particles since we no  they are energy and now we are back to force carriers again.  It is a theory which creates more riddles than it answers.
Before moving any futher we have to stop and from a logical standpoint make a comparison.  The mind rails against our existence as a simulation and in the broader definition, in the greater sense an algorithm is a simulation.  What are the differences?
But what of the more narrow definition?  There are no rule changes possible in AuT.  While a goal would be to disprove this, gravity, electro-mag to a lesser extent and observation say that all change is at the same time, tied togehter for for all quantum points in the univese.  A simulation suggests a more complex underlying framework.  An algorithm does require a god like mind to hold it, but it does not require a complex underlying framework or computer.  It only requires a massive memory (for each point in what is now essentially an infinite number of points from our perspective) and the ability to count one number at a time and to apply the solution to each point sequentially.  The very concept of existence is still abhored logically, but not as badly.  The idea of a more complicated godlike thing exists but it is less all knowing, it is merely the ability to count, to calculate, to remember.
AuT does require a complex beginning, too complex for o-space logic; but its much better, fits observations better, and is exponentially more simple that SM.  But more importantly everything in it builds from simple to complex and this suggests it can be followed backwards to a sufficiently simple origin to have some internal logic.  The grand info theory of the carrier arms is simple binary, the f-series is self generating, fpluspix builds from -1^n and those of you who have read the books know that -1^n has a relatively good explanation in o-space logic.
So what do we is reconcile SM with AuT because it is absurd to require the the opposite; but all proofs that are complete should work in both directions.
Lets look at the first idea:
   Force carriers vs ration solutions (force as a result of solutions to the algorithm).
   Necessarily you have to get to the same point which is why you see so much of one theory in the other, the idea of building dimensions, for example.  That is beside the point.
   With both you have nothing but math to work from.
   AuT departs at this point.  Instead of force carriers, force results from ratios of one solution set to another and time does not exist as such but is instead a result just as force is.  So first we eliminate time and then dimension in favor of solution order and then the relative solution orders give rise to dimension and force.  Indeed, both AuT and SM agree that the difference between non-mass and mass is the addition of the third dimension but only AuT realizes that both exist together, that we see dimension in the lower states only because we impose our third dimension on the two dimensional objects because we put perspecitve over vision.
While it is tempting to try to reconcile the two theories through semantics, the problems with SM run deeper than perspective.
Time vs change-SM uses a resulting measure which varies according to Lorentz just as forces vary depending on the particles involved.  AuT uses true change which occurs both in time environments and those where time is not relevant.
Dimension vs ratio: SM is stuck in 3 dimensions and attempts ineffectually to force other states into 3 dimensions with results that vary from the bizarre to science fiction.  AuT on the other hand recognizes that force and matter result from relative solution density and the ratio between these as well as the gradual transitions along carrier arms necessarily present and only within a narrow region of space.  The gradual transitions are as intervening states align and disalign both as discreet steps and intemediatry steps along information arms.  in this way, the true quantum nature of things eliminates carrier particlels and force in favor of quantum states existing sequentially based on the allignment and un-alignment of 1 dimensional solutions based on pre-dimensional solutions.
And, of course, there is more...