2200 yards a day after a mediocre weight workout.
It is not what it should be, but it isn't sitting around doing nothing either.
Exhausting is how I tolerate things, living in a constant state of exhaustion.
However, I am also in the process of writing the 3 articles two of which are invited and the third, for submission to the myopic science press, covering electro-magnatism and culminate in the solution of Schrodinger's equation for relativistic effects, the primary source of which can be found somewhere in this blog.
If you subscribe, you will eventually see a link to these in all probability.
If not, well who knows what will happen.
As I drink my coffee, I am going to talk about some articles today, but I want to talk about something else first..
It is not much coffee, I would like more. Perhaps one day.
One of the primary issues with AuT is that involved with what limit functions apply to iterated functions. That is right, today we are going to talk about the combining iterated functions and derivatives.
The change from one solution of an IF to the next is a limit!
There are, in AuT, two iterated functions obviously working together and one working 'hidden in plain view.'
The count is the hidden one. It is an iterated function with the solution of 1. However, it hides the fact that it also controls a variable limit, the fuse that changes the charge of each point from positive to negative and back again. My head spins, albeit in a limited and back and forth fashion. Let's now look at the other two IF equations:
The first is (I don't have my notes so I may come back and edit these, but I'll get you to the approximate right place now):
f(x)=1+x where x begins at zero along with the close related fuse equation for each solution
([-1^x plus 2x(-1)^x-1]):
The limit here is x approached zero:-1^0=1 which is a pretty strange limit. However, there is an upper limit which is the solution itself which fuses the result. When x=1, this fuse is -3 and this fuse in a second limit, the maximum number of changes in x before a charge change occurs and it varies with x according to a simple mathematical formula but it screws with all the subsequent limit equations even though it becomes so large that points at our place in the universe is effectively capable of being ignored for any given point even though for any collection of points it amounts to a cascading (since at the ct1-ct2 forld the points are effectively almost adjoining) result. This is important to us because if not, we'd experience gravity shifts in both directions or worse still merely as anti-gravity (dark energy). Since the close in points sequentially tumble towards gravity (one goes positive, the next goes negative) where we are, we don't see this effect even though on the universal scale it controls the movement of the universe; this is why locally we see galaxies careening together even though overall they are careening apart.
The second is:
f(x)^n as n moves from 1 to 2^x which is the function for inter-ct state compression and its limit is for [2f(x)]^n=f(n). F(x) is the fibonacci number for x and the limit for this is as n approaches 1 meaning that it has a limit of n=1.
The third, closely related IF is the familiar:
2f(n)^2^n with n=1 being the limit equation.
Oddly enough only this third dx/dy gives rise to full dimensional changes, although the approximations of the the second in light of the third gives rise to intervening curvature.
The one huge innovation of AuT in this direction is the determination that dimensional folding is compressive meaning that the more dimensions, the less relative volume relative to the prior dimensional state which is mathematically fairly certain and only observationally counter intuitive. This is why worm holes are suggested by folding (can't you just move between the folds) but is not possible because movement is only possible by moving through the various intervening lower ct states in all their limits to get from one dimensional fold to the next!
The unvierse functions not with one limit equation but with several. Why not just 3?
One reason is hinge states.
If one accepts the necessity of hinge states (which effectively exist by way of the second derivative) then you end up with this fourth and fifth limit equation:
[2f(x)-1]^n with n=1 for the limit and
2f(n)-1]^[2^n-1] with the limit of n=1.
This is simplified as can be seen since the same limits apply to both hinge and non-hinge states.
What this tells us is that in the universe there is a limit of zero, but with little applicability to where we observe the universe, our limit equations only approach 1 effectively because of the resulting high value of fpix compared to its limit function at the edge of the universe..
Lets now talk about some nonsense articles
This is interesting only if it is the right model of supersymmetry. I have filed patents for a true quantum related laser, btw. Its not a terrible idea, but you need to know what super symmetry is and the chances of APS figuring out what that is without it being crammed down their pathologically intollerant editorial board. Now for those of you saying, no more intollerant than me, I say, fair enough, but I also say that eventually I abandon my dead ends and make progress on my own.
Phys.org: A laser system built on principles of supersymmetry.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-laser-built-principles-supersymmetry.html
This is symptomatic. It talks about tying in fictitious particles together. This is what the APS is unwilling to abandon even if the right version of the universe runs them over which eventually it will.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-universe_1.html
The idiocy of science is partially myopathy. Its partially inflexibility. But mostly it is something the universe programmed into science, which in this case is editorial boards that cannot tell the difference between a diamond and a shard of glass, but then who can otehr than geologists?
Is it more important to be right or to think you are right?
That is the difference between me and everyone else.
I am certain I am right and I am uncertain whether that matters or not; but I know the only thing that matters to me is being right.
And the closer I get, the more certain I am that if I am not right, then I am insane.
As I have said before, it is a coin flip.
So what is wrong with the ideas in that other story:
Supersymmetry is (up to here it is right) a math-based theory that describes the relationship between bosons (sorry, no such answer) and
fermions (ditto) it suggests that for every known elementary particle, there has to be a much heavier "super partner." (total bullshit? Maybe not, because there are these larger, less dense, less informational things and perhaps those are partners of a type, to the extent they are not parents). To build a new kind of laser system, the researchers used this idea to create a stable array of semiconductor lasers that together offer the power needed for prospective applications. More specifically, they designed a system that emphasizes the fundamental mode by suppressing higher-order modes (what are they saying?). They did this by pairing them with low-quality modes—their lossy super-partners. ( have no idea what this means or why it means it and I don't know what the success means or how it is measured).
Subscription Link:
AuT is a new model for physics promising a
better understanding of dimension, time, the resulting periodic table, new
energy sources even faster than light travel.
https://my.sendinblue.com/users/subscribe/js_id/3ur2i/id/1 <--subscribe here
You are invited to subscribe to the Scientific
Panel Page for Algorithm Universe Theory where you will receive updates.
Subscribers will be given a link to the most
recent drawings. Within those drawings
is a link to the USA University Presentation 2/7/19 including Audio for the
first 8 slides.
By subscribing to our new portal you will get a
link to the Newest Drawings (for AUM 2nd Edition, Updated 1/30/19) which
Include a link to the new Powerpoint.
https://my.sendinblue.com/users/subscribe/js_id/3ur2i/id/1
