Slept till 5:30 which was 6:30 today. It was cold and I could have slept longer.
The long bikes are behind me and today should be a swim day if I do anything. I would go right now if I could. It's easy to feel that way when you cannot do something. The pool will not open till 1 which is both an excuse and a problem.
I am pretty much done with the christmas book until I get some feedback from a few readers who ave promised their thoughts.
I am focused now almost exclusively on my speech for my physics presentation which is now less than weeks off locally and less than 30 days nationally.
There are two formats for that, one is the power point presentation which will be an updated version of the one on youtube with a number of corrections, essentially completely rewritten and, if I can force myself to do it, redictated so that you will be able to listen to my speech on Youtube.
The big question is whether to present the rotational math or not. Getting too deep into the hinge aspects when they are not fully formed conceptually is a problem and since there is no inherent model I have found other than those already cited for curvature which are, at best, a fairly based, but remotely consistent model in the sin equation.
There are places where the standard model supports AuT fairly directly: 1) Space potential: probably the closest thing to ct1. In fact, the two are the same except that ct1 is a specific model and potential is a bit more esoteric in origin and ct1 is a predecessor to ct2 while potential is a field phenomena (AuT doesn't have fields except as an effect, it might be said that ct1 and potential are the same, but that ct1 is a more fundamental view. 2) Two dimensional nature of waves. This is obviously the same, but in the SM it is more of a two dimensional travel within a 3 dimensional space matrix where AuT correctly observes that (1) ct1 moves everything else and (2) all dimensional states co-exist. There are certainly other places where the two models come togther. 3) Transitional photons are actually ct2 and transitional ct2-ct3 states. This is discussed below as a nomenclature issue.
Then there are changes in the speech. The primary one is probably the way that electrons and waves are differentiated. Only in Vol 2 and a little in the latest edition of Vol 1 do I fully get my own hands wrapped around the fact that quantum ct3 is not a wave state. That is pretty obvious in retrospect, but the old terminology of photons and waves confused me.
In fact, calling ct2 photons is a nomenclature problem. CT3 are photons and waves are transitional ct3-ct4 states probably up to T12 in the ct3-ct4 transition if not beyond. While the ct nomenclature is a self fix, the use of the word photons for the ct2 states caused me to make mistakes which are only fixed in the latest version and even then a little more tentatively than it should be.
For the future proto-photons or just ct2 is a much better presentation. This is an evolving theory and I can be forgiven, having figured out the secrets of the universe and having correctly replaced the standard model, from having been prejudiced by the nomenclature that preceded my work. I would argue my original nomenclature which was, in the end, self correcting, makes up for any problems with using hte old nomenclature although I was arguing ct3 as a quantum state and waves at the same time seems a bit dense. The solution became obvious from looking at molecular states at ct4-ct5 transitions which ultimately forced me to realize that waves must be ct3-ct4 transitions by extension.
Here is something I wrote about the underlying effect of the theory.
If you look at the news and ask yourself, how can everyone be so stupid, and if you then tell yourself, I have plenty of money and I would like to invest some of it in how to stop stupid, then I have an investment for you; because I understand what stupid is.
The long bikes are behind me and today should be a swim day if I do anything. I would go right now if I could. It's easy to feel that way when you cannot do something. The pool will not open till 1 which is both an excuse and a problem.
I am pretty much done with the christmas book until I get some feedback from a few readers who ave promised their thoughts.
I am focused now almost exclusively on my speech for my physics presentation which is now less than weeks off locally and less than 30 days nationally.
There are two formats for that, one is the power point presentation which will be an updated version of the one on youtube with a number of corrections, essentially completely rewritten and, if I can force myself to do it, redictated so that you will be able to listen to my speech on Youtube.
The big question is whether to present the rotational math or not. Getting too deep into the hinge aspects when they are not fully formed conceptually is a problem and since there is no inherent model I have found other than those already cited for curvature which are, at best, a fairly based, but remotely consistent model in the sin equation.
There are places where the standard model supports AuT fairly directly: 1) Space potential: probably the closest thing to ct1. In fact, the two are the same except that ct1 is a specific model and potential is a bit more esoteric in origin and ct1 is a predecessor to ct2 while potential is a field phenomena (AuT doesn't have fields except as an effect, it might be said that ct1 and potential are the same, but that ct1 is a more fundamental view. 2) Two dimensional nature of waves. This is obviously the same, but in the SM it is more of a two dimensional travel within a 3 dimensional space matrix where AuT correctly observes that (1) ct1 moves everything else and (2) all dimensional states co-exist. There are certainly other places where the two models come togther. 3) Transitional photons are actually ct2 and transitional ct2-ct3 states. This is discussed below as a nomenclature issue.
Then there are changes in the speech. The primary one is probably the way that electrons and waves are differentiated. Only in Vol 2 and a little in the latest edition of Vol 1 do I fully get my own hands wrapped around the fact that quantum ct3 is not a wave state. That is pretty obvious in retrospect, but the old terminology of photons and waves confused me.
In fact, calling ct2 photons is a nomenclature problem. CT3 are photons and waves are transitional ct3-ct4 states probably up to T12 in the ct3-ct4 transition if not beyond. While the ct nomenclature is a self fix, the use of the word photons for the ct2 states caused me to make mistakes which are only fixed in the latest version and even then a little more tentatively than it should be.
For the future proto-photons or just ct2 is a much better presentation. This is an evolving theory and I can be forgiven, having figured out the secrets of the universe and having correctly replaced the standard model, from having been prejudiced by the nomenclature that preceded my work. I would argue my original nomenclature which was, in the end, self correcting, makes up for any problems with using hte old nomenclature although I was arguing ct3 as a quantum state and waves at the same time seems a bit dense. The solution became obvious from looking at molecular states at ct4-ct5 transitions which ultimately forced me to realize that waves must be ct3-ct4 transitions by extension.
Here is something I wrote about the underlying effect of the theory.
If you look at the news and ask yourself, how can everyone be so stupid, and if you then tell yourself, I have plenty of money and I would like to invest some of it in how to stop stupid, then I have an investment for you; because I understand what stupid is.
At the same time, I am looking for a few investors who are willing
to invest in the future.
Over the last 5 years I developed Algorithm Universe theory and in
2018 the certainty behind the theory and the development reached the point
where patents could be filed.
There is a new physics which might yield results fast or it might be
slow, but the technology is the future of applied quantum mechanics.
Do you want to invest in real floating cars? Faster than light travel? Space elevators? Unlimited energy?
All of these things are part of the promise of a new physics.
Whether they can achieved or not remains to be seen, but if you
want to invest in the future, there is no better investment.
A new vision of physics might hold the key to these things.
In 2013 an investigation into the shortcomings of the standard
model, hologram theory and relativity led in just 5 years to a new model of the
universe.
One which explains the balance of features that give rise to
dimension, force and time.
This article shows one of the two major differences between AuT and pre-AuT physics.
Change is not equal to Time.
AuT defines time specifically and in do so changes forever its hold on the universe.
Interestingly, it gives credit to the Einstein Quote in EHT (a long ago predecessor of AUT) to someone else, but that is a fairly small attribution issue for something which is not correct. Whoever is responsible for that quote is merely wrong.
Time as an effect of dimensional change in response to a quantum counter has very little to do with true physics and is the most misdirecting part of pre-AuT physics.
Indeed, the majority of the rewrites in Vol 1 and 2 of Algorithm Universe Compendium are not tied to mathematical quantum leaps or a more clear definition of dimension, transitional states and hinge states, but instead arise from this new and more clear understanding of what we call time and why it hides the most fundamental aspects of the universe from us.
Higher hinge states appear to be functions of changes caused by pre-time features just as charge is a force reflecting pre-time changes when viewed from the position of time. It might be that the concept of dimension as we experience it is the result of the illusions cast upon the universe once time is applied.
Hence there are two fundamental quantum leaps in AuT, both tied together and both in the first paragraphs of all of the summaries; space is made of the same stuff as everything else and is the building block of everything else; and that time and change are different and therefore time is just an irrelevant effect, important to us only because we each get so little of it.
https://physicsworld.com/a/time-examined-and-time%E2%80%AFexperienced/
No comments:
Post a Comment