NLT-A peak into the land of god 7 of 10 why don't the numbers line up perfectly part tres

There are few clues why we do not see simple transitions of linearity between clock time states.
First let's look at the history.
We cannot look for just patterns because photons and space have no real comparison, nor do photons and waves. Only at the transition of energy to matter do we begin to see quantum effects clearly.
While the equation e=mc^2 (ct3 to ct4) is familiar enough, the equation energy=photons*c (ct2 to ct3) is not well known, nor would it be easily understood if it was observed.
The much more complicated transition space=photon*c^1/2 (ct1 to ct2) is not only unknown but impossible to fully comprehend based on observations since we do not see transitions of this type.  And then we have Non-linearity to linearity.  Since the fractions can go infinitely in either direction c^ infinity or c^1/infinity non-linearity appears less as a starting point and more as an intermediary state of force that we only perceive as a starting point because we do not understand transitions or linearity.
We suppose that quantum gravity is a critical place because quantum gravity seems to be largely consistent from non-linearity forward.  However, we may also look at linearity and non-linearity as merely transitional states among the many others that we perceive and understand better but which are not terminal in either direction.
Therefore, we can take the initial linearity as a base equation and gravity as a measure of quantum change and transition.  We should be able to identify a feature of gravity that corresponds to 2^n transitions, but we should look for something that is more irrational.
What we are seeing here is a potential failure of quantum theory once we get beyond non-linearity.  It also contains the only possibility for true randomness, because consistency is built into the non-linear/linear transition.
In such a case, even linearity becomes little more than the force by negative ct(0).  All of our conceits must give way.  Even Non-linearity becomes nothing more than a time orbit, the very existence of time itself is only one step back,  Where it goes back to is unknown, but go back further it must in which case all of CT states are merely extension of this pre-linear foundation and perhaps, in that foundation, lies the fundamental particle which can be traced using exponential notation.

We are looking at light speed as a standard for scale, but we also know that scale doesn't work very well in any of the transitions, although there are reasons to believe that transitional speed in relevant to the inquiry. Let's look at the scale errors in the universe.  Will use what we most closely observe, the smallest such particle that is stable alone (at least for an extended time) being an electron which is at the scale of 10^-20 vrs that "accepted" Planck length of 10^-8. We are working with very rough numbers because exactitude would require abandoning mass entirely in favor of changing clock times and their effects.  This error is 10^12.

The next "error" is the electron (to allow a common scale) to BH which should be 10^32 (at most) and is instead 10^62 ( margin of error of 10^30; 3 times the error.  However using planck length as the common scale, the margin of error for the two examples below (from the prior post) are 10^46 to 10^42 which are, shockingly, the same as the scale of error (at least using the average) as the scale of error for the plank length to electron mass error.

Is this some coincidence or some sort of "scale" error that follows all transitions.  For example, is the Planck lengths to electron error of 10^12 a standard error of transition that would be found in moving from electron down to photons?  From Photons down to space?
Does it carry forward for the larger transitions?  And what would such a large factor represent?  A measurement correction, god bridging some space?

Remember too that this factor of 10^12 is NOT just 10 followed by 12 zeros.  No it is an exponential function x^n.   We assume that it is 2^n, but it need not be.  If Non-linearity is not an end point, then what else might fail in this intersection of information theory and quantum theory.  Let's look at the problems with coincidence.

3^n where n changes yields-0-1, 1-3,2-9,3-37, 4-111, n-etc
compared to 2^2 yielding     0-1, 1-2,2-4,3-8,  4-16,n-etc
Originally the numbers for 3 seem very far off, but if you ignore planck length and instead concentrate on a single building block (CT1, for example) if you back out all the prior states you get 111-37-9-3=62 or 10^62.  That happens to match up fairly well with what you might expect in terms of transitional size.
For the energy equation (which Einstein measured at 10^16) you would use 37-9-3=25
Still not very satisfying. So let's look at something different.  We know that the transition between photons and wave energy is difficult to imagine.  A 1^n is always going to be 1.  1^whatever=1
a 2 transition we know, as well as a 3.
a 4 transition grows very fast indeed, and is somewhat off the common scale.
But if we approach a number without arriving we get to a different type of scale.
In order to look at this, let's assume we use the next lower scale:
1 phase change=1 (1-0)
2 phase change=3-1=2
3 phase change=9-3=6
4 phase change=37-9=28
Let's combine the two, the next higher plus the next lower of higher change
CT(1)scale1(2)+scale2(1)=3
CT(2)scale(4)+scale2(3)=7
CT(3)scale(8)+scale2(9)=17 (close to the observed 10^16 scale)
CT(4)scale(16)+scale2(27)=43 (not so far off from the plank scale, but surprisingly close if you include the CT3 state (17+43=60) for the electron weight to the observed electron size.
These patterns are meaningless, however, even though there are reasons (negative times giving rise to energies,etc) to look for them unless you can find some reason for such a pattern.
The complexity of the analysis, however, should not detract for the fact that patterns may be intentional or accidental and the explanations for the transitions that we know must reflect those that are more subtle and based on the change in informational states.
We are down to three more points of inquiry...but first

Here is the set of equations and observations that we used in trying to select a proper scale:

What is seen is that much of this matter remains in orbit, increasing the gravity of the black hole (CT5) until a second unit of black hole is created (2x10^32 would be the starting point, but not the ending point.

The largest black hole is approximate 17billion times as large as the sun.

The smallest black hole is 6.3 suns.  So we can say that a "hydrogen black hole" is 6.3 suns, a "helium black hole" is 12.6 suns.  These very rough numbers can be worked backwards to get the size of fundamental units of other items (10^32 into 6.3 suns would tell you the size of the smallest particle of matter under this theory although that very rough number doesn't work any better than Planck Mass works for the smallest fundamental particle of matter).

Roughly, this yields the following analysis: 2x10^33g as the weight of the sun, 1.26x10^34g for a hydrogen black hole (hbh).  HBH^1/32=11.6 grams.

This suggests that a fundamental particle of matter would be 11 grams (that’s a lot since an electron is 9x10^-28 grams and a proton 1.6x10^-24grams).  We can make this worse.  Using an electron as the minimum size (as opposed to any of the other quark particles) this suggests a conversion rate of 2^64 which implies an intermediary stage or a jump in quantum size of compression 2^16 (2^4) jumping to 2^64 (2^6).  This progression of 0,1,2,3,4,6 has some frightening characteristics.  For example 0+1+2=3; 1+3=4;2+4=6 suggesting the next progression would be 3+6=9.  There is no basis for a non linear progression that comes to mind, but this would still be a patterned progression and if it turns out to be accurate, it would be worth additional study. 

Using Plank Mass (PM)  you get a conversion rate of 10^38 (sun) vs 10^-8 (Plank mass which is 10^46^th and which is probably outside the astronomic margins of error for 10^32.  However PM has been calculated using magnetic flux as 2.5x10^-4g  http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.0058.pdf.  This yields a factor of 10^42.  For electrons the scale appears way off 10^-28 to 10^34 which is 62, very close to the 10^64 integer jumping 2^6.

So you have PM which, while far from perfect, is at least a little closer.
The deviation for matter minimum size to Planck minimum size is smaller (10^20) than the electron minimum particle to black hole prediction-(off by 10^29) but both show predictions wildly off from observations.

For electrons to BH you have 10^62 and for protons or neutrons it would be 10^58 in terms of a pure mass scale.  The “obvious” question is what is half way in size between a black hole and an electron where you have the so called “missing link” of matter.  We can find some candidates.  One possibility would be a black hole with no acretion disk, no populated event horizon.  While such a "point" would have some "size" (fundamental particle size for a black hole just as we have the different types of fundamental particles for matter) it would be very hard to see.  Unfortunately, it woudl also likely be at the center of several solar systems (from collapsed stars of a size 1/2 the size of 3.6 suns).  Now these solar systems would be hard to see since they are dark so we cannot rule this out completely.  There are more important aspects, however, that we should look harder at.  Fundamental particle size is variable.  From Plank Mass to electron to proton to neutron to quark and, god forbid we go off on this tangent, strings (see the article above for a more thorough discussion of going in for harmonics vs something more).  The concept of orbits allowing the formation of several intermediary stages of matter and the concept that we have "massless" formations (EMF and Photons, not to mention space, but we mentioned it) and then "jump" to mass at the matter to energy transition indicates that mass is the wrong "scalar" for tracking change.

Since we know that an electron is a scale smaller than planck length of 10^-20 we can say that a lot more goes into the analysis of minimum particle size than a little math error.

We end up with some choices.   First you can reject Non-linear time entirely, but that requires a rejection of Einstein and I’m not ready for that.  Another is that you skip states or have intermeidate unobserved states which seems to work fairly well (10^-28 to 10^34 is a scale change of 10^62 which is very close (in terms of galactic hand grenades) to 10^64 which would be two states larger than matter (2^4 to 2^6).  The next higher state suggested (10^512) would take a whole mess of black holes to reach, but so would the next linear state of 2^6.  The final and best choice relates actual observation to mathematical calculation.  We find these discrepancies for plank length vs fundamental length of particles observed.  There are different ways to calculate plank length and different ways to define mass.  It means that the reliance on the electron scale or Planck Mass scale is unwarranted.

http://thewestsidestory.net/2014/11/22/21589/space-researchers-may-found-albert-einsteins-black-hole-object/