It would be better for reveryone if my physics was not right.
I look for places where randomness would fit it, the enormous potential that exists a higher ct states almost demands it. The problem is that the potential falls apart at the quantum level.
To understand this, you can consider a molecular reaction at the ct4-5 level where relative compression states vary greatly, electrons in constant motion absorbing and regurgitating ct1-early ct3-4 states while interacting together and with the spew of multiple nuclei.
The exact moment of compression or decompression in such an environment is impossible to calculate. Indeed, Schrodinger's approximation are a way to average this in such a way as to get even a cursory grasp.
How in such an envirnoment can a single, relatlively simple equation hold up?
The answer is terrifyingly simple. Everything happening in that complex environment is merely reflecting what that simple equation is doing in a time and dimension free environment according to a very rigid set of rules and possibly the rigid 256:27 ratio suggested by the sinpi-1 to sinpi1 solution.
That is the problem, at the quantum level with 10^150 points in various states of flux, but having massive continuity due to solution order and high fuse values, you end up with exactly what we observe, something largely consistent, but impossible to accurately gauge at the high compression levels where time exists.
It destroys the magic of creation, the hopes and dreams of science and personality, not in the expression of the person as a whole, but the actual personality, it takes away the genius that brought it into the light, my genius if you must.
I am working on the new audio book, the first chapter is posted a post or two back.
An invitaton was sent to submit an aritlce. The part on time is the first section of the book, although reading and editing will take some time...and I have a fiction book I want to audio-ize also.
But let's talk about that article for a moment.
An overview of one element of this longer article was submitted and was questioned because of the following features: ",,,articles must be of high quality and scientific interest, and be recognised as an important contribution to the literature."
This is something only to be corrected with the entire article, but I want to stay focused and wonder if it is worth the trouble.
I mention this because I think it is worth considering whether this work, albeit produced over 7 years, fits these criteria. Is it better to suffer the slings and arrows, as Shakespeare asked? My suggestion is that inherent bias against new models is the primary problem with the time article. The objection to the article had no mathematical basis, the article itself, while very focused has a very specific mathematical basis and addresses any number of otherwise mysterious features of the universe.
If the objection had been "The math appears "too simple" to support a complex universe," I wold have agreed and lamented the truth and falsity of that claim.
That was not the problem, the problem was that "rigorours" understanding of the model has to occur after it is understood and, in this case, no one even tried.
However, the math is "observed" throughout the universe and the results are hard to rebut. Since the model defines all features of the universe from gravity to black holes to time it is important and should be of interest. It is radical, in its underlying simplicity and its bredth, but it is probably correct because the universe necessarily must arise from relatively simple phenomena in order to fit without "our logic system." That being said, while this article clearly defines what "hidden variables" control the universe, there is a second layer hiding behind this article. That is the layer where the quantum count arises, where it is maintained and where the results are remembered.
Not to make to fine a point of it, in a fractal model the NS is like a proton and the BH is like a neurtron. We can infer the universe is fractal because of the presence of multiple iterated equations, the denominator of pi, the gold ratio, 2^n; iterated equations giving rise to fractals.
I look for places where randomness would fit it, the enormous potential that exists a higher ct states almost demands it. The problem is that the potential falls apart at the quantum level.
To understand this, you can consider a molecular reaction at the ct4-5 level where relative compression states vary greatly, electrons in constant motion absorbing and regurgitating ct1-early ct3-4 states while interacting together and with the spew of multiple nuclei.
The exact moment of compression or decompression in such an environment is impossible to calculate. Indeed, Schrodinger's approximation are a way to average this in such a way as to get even a cursory grasp.
How in such an envirnoment can a single, relatlively simple equation hold up?
The answer is terrifyingly simple. Everything happening in that complex environment is merely reflecting what that simple equation is doing in a time and dimension free environment according to a very rigid set of rules and possibly the rigid 256:27 ratio suggested by the sinpi-1 to sinpi1 solution.
That is the problem, at the quantum level with 10^150 points in various states of flux, but having massive continuity due to solution order and high fuse values, you end up with exactly what we observe, something largely consistent, but impossible to accurately gauge at the high compression levels where time exists.
It destroys the magic of creation, the hopes and dreams of science and personality, not in the expression of the person as a whole, but the actual personality, it takes away the genius that brought it into the light, my genius if you must.
I am working on the new audio book, the first chapter is posted a post or two back.
An invitaton was sent to submit an aritlce. The part on time is the first section of the book, although reading and editing will take some time...and I have a fiction book I want to audio-ize also.
But let's talk about that article for a moment.
An overview of one element of this longer article was submitted and was questioned because of the following features: ",,,articles must be of high quality and scientific interest, and be recognised as an important contribution to the literature."
This is something only to be corrected with the entire article, but I want to stay focused and wonder if it is worth the trouble.
I mention this because I think it is worth considering whether this work, albeit produced over 7 years, fits these criteria. Is it better to suffer the slings and arrows, as Shakespeare asked? My suggestion is that inherent bias against new models is the primary problem with the time article. The objection to the article had no mathematical basis, the article itself, while very focused has a very specific mathematical basis and addresses any number of otherwise mysterious features of the universe.
If the objection had been "The math appears "too simple" to support a complex universe," I wold have agreed and lamented the truth and falsity of that claim.
That was not the problem, the problem was that "rigorours" understanding of the model has to occur after it is understood and, in this case, no one even tried.
However, the math is "observed" throughout the universe and the results are hard to rebut. Since the model defines all features of the universe from gravity to black holes to time it is important and should be of interest. It is radical, in its underlying simplicity and its bredth, but it is probably correct because the universe necessarily must arise from relatively simple phenomena in order to fit without "our logic system." That being said, while this article clearly defines what "hidden variables" control the universe, there is a second layer hiding behind this article. That is the layer where the quantum count arises, where it is maintained and where the results are remembered.
Not to make to fine a point of it, in a fractal model the NS is like a proton and the BH is like a neurtron. We can infer the universe is fractal because of the presence of multiple iterated equations, the denominator of pi, the gold ratio, 2^n; iterated equations giving rise to fractals.
Since Neutrons hold atoms together through the absorption of space (which is many different things after a fashion) for one not to increase in size it must radiate something. The same fractal requirements say that the BH does the same thing.
Magnetic fields suggest that space is absorbed and pre-photons are spewed by planets, stars, neutron stars, pre-photons being a transitional state between ct3 and ct4 the most dense form of space before transitional states between ct3 and ct4.
Charge appears nothing more than matching absorption and spew of two very different ct states, but it also may involves other states being absorbed and spewed which have no charge characteristics and this is almost certainly the case, of course, under the model (see the old audio book below for more on this).
Charge appears nothing more than matching absorption and spew of two very different ct states, but it also may involves other states being absorbed and spewed which have no charge characteristics and this is almost certainly the case, of course, under the model (see the old audio book below for more on this).
BH spew plasma and neutrons spew something which is a less compressed state of matter but somewhat theoretical in nature, something you would think would be more dense than pre-photons, but not giving the effect of charge; although an argument exists it is more dense than information, but less dense than pre-photons, what I would call ct3, for exampele. This would also work fairly well for a BH, although the plasma ejection of BH suggest the former result.
The pre-photons are what the standard model associates with magnetic fields, but energy (as opposed to force) is only pre-time changes in information seen from a post time perspective. This is a concept I am still getting my hands around.
One more supporting article, they are getting closer...to plagiarism and copyright infringement. For the moment, this article is so wrong and confused that it cannot be held accountable for anything other than being an embarassment in light of AuT
No comments:
Post a Comment