Charge, entrapment, symmetry 1 and simulations and flying terns

The two related and big areas that remain to be determined with more particularity are charge and the presumably closely related entrapment issues of trapped states vs aligned states.
These can be broken down into a number of components:
1) The range of entrapment (of eg ct1 within ct2,3 and 4 states-free vs aligned)
2) The stability of entrapment
3) How entrapment upsets transition states
4) How entrapment sets charge
5) How charge defines the status as matter or antimatter

What I figured out, in the last 12 months, given what was done in the prior 5 years, see aut is only 5 years old, not 7; is that all these things keep their dimensional status; space 0, photons 1, waves 2, matter 3, black holes 4 and so on if there is a so on.
That leads to the universe being a non dimensional string that has bunched up to trap all those dimensional states in its folds and the big bang is merely the process of the string moving towards an unfolded state.  The whole spiral thing is the evidence that the whole fpix thing means that it never completely compresses or unravels, although the jury is still out on many of those issues.
The movement away from the very quantum to the larger elements allowed for these insights and that is why I am doing a real launch of the theory, not wanting to be obnoxious, but just wanting to drive stakes in the ground for when I destroy the standard model, I want there to be no questions about who ruined the party.  I really just want to get my life on track, I'm serious, it all has to do with that and I could do that without all of this, but...I need something.
I am currently reading the memorable thoughts of Socrates (circa 4 or 500 bc I'd guess) which is a bit of a research book, but he lived the life of an impoverished philosopher, but he had his great  wisdom to fall back on.  What I have done, with no wisdom, oddly enough I did it with brain of a garden snail, is to solve the space time continuum problem which is quite staggering really, but other than my small audience around the world, I am hardly recognized and that has to change if I am to live the rest of my life as a comfortable aesthetic.

So this comes from 2013ish, one of my early unpublished posts:  Why e-hologram theory, not just hologram theory?  That refers to the fact that this theory had its roots in the idea that we lived in a state where everything happened at once and that time was perspective, i.e. we were in a Hologram.
That was some time ago,
The question might now be phrased, "Why algorithm and not simulation?" The difference from a simulation is that the universe is the solution to an algorithm in quantum points.  A simulation can change any points in any way, there can be any number of symmetries.  In an algorithm driven universe, especially a single variable algorithm, all the symmetries stem from the quantum variable.
Originally this post looked this way:
1) differentiate from s-hologram theory:  By way of resolution it turns out we are not in a fixed environment although it is fixed in terms of a specified result, it is not Einstein's everything happens at once without time.  Eliminating dimension, even as we live in dimension, showing that all the states of dimension exist together and how and why that drives the expanding (and otherwise contracting universe) is what makes AuT something different, unique, 'better' than everything that came before and the foundation of everything that comes after.
The old post continued with this line of query:
2) Einstein's time prediction-This is taken care of in figuring ot what time was and what it wasn't, all the confusion surrounding time and space is so much nonsense in a foundational sense.  However, if I had not looked at Einstein's prediction, applied it to the hologram and sought the foundation for reconciling these we would not be here, not that we're happy with where we are at.  At least we are in a state of truth, if not of satisfaction.  And yes, I'd take satisfaction over truth.
And the final sentence from the prior post, the 2013 that was never published.
3) black holes are main proof and they need not exist under pure e-hologram theory but do according to predictions of the universe by Einstein.   This is a curious statement, it looks like me just digging for a problem that didn't exist.  Black holes are, therefor both theories accept them.  The difference is understanding what they are, the additional fold they represent (or set of folds) and how they play a role in the expansion and contraction of the universe, not as gravity repositories, but merely as highly compressed results, waiting for their turn to do whatever comes next, a turn in terms of time independent turns, quantum solution turns where the universe can turn into something different, where black holes can turn into less compressed states because gravity does not have some ultimate hold over everything but where gravity is only a term for a result that is driven below the level of symmetry where force, no matter how great in the result, is turned weak.
And yes, I intentionally and confusingly overused turn and term and misled with the reference to the bird for your entertainment or mine.
Whatever.
It is a hot, unpleasant day without you to explain it to.  Turn to me in the long term, forgive my turns in the short term, as it were.  It is still too early to worry about audio book, no word yet.