Waiting makes absolutely no sense in a non-linear environment. If you're putting something off, ok, if I'm putting something off, waiting for something else to happen, understanding the universe perhaps more perfectly than anyone else, what does that say about me?
Or, is first irrelevant even though it already happened? There are, occasionally, situations where things must be done in order. You cannot, for example, eat your omelet before you make it. You can't eat tomorrow's breakfast today because then it would be today's meal.
So waiting is illogical in once sense and a necessity in another. This is a paradox of linear perception. It's a pretty lame excuse for not doing something, but those of us who put off things while waiting for things to happen are made as miserable as the innocent who suffer with us.
None of that helps, there is something called opportunity cost, the price of not taking advantage of the opportunities that are available. Opportunity costs are the highest costs in life.
This morning has dawned breezy and surprisingly cool. I have an excellent cup of coffee and were it not for the obvious health issues, obvious to me, and the massive opportunity costs, also obvious to me, today would be very different from what it is.
How do we modify the Euclidean equation for higher states?
The area of the lens is a function of area of the circle itself, pir^2. The amount of one circle overlapped by another defines the area which is shared and is, not surprisingly, being the second stage of dimension the function of change over both the angle and the radius over a given period of time where R in this case is the distance to the edge of a given line (the edge of the circle). Since we are now dealing with linearity, we have to look at the "movement" of this Radius from non-linearity (zero) to its actual length R. So this part of the equation is I (integration) from 0 to R of rdr. However, we are only dealing with a part of the circle within the lens, so we must also limit it by the angle that defines the two lines R intersecting the circle at either point where the two circles overlap. This two is linear so this angle must be calculated from an angle 0 (corresponding to overlap at a single point) to O (the actual angle in degrees) or I angle (Ia) from zero to O. This is the definition of only half the lens so the actual equation is:
Ac(O)=2Ir(0 to R)Ia(0 to O)r dr da or R^2
O.
Where Ac(O) is the area of the lens formed by the overlap of circles with a radius R and where the angle between the two radius to the two points of overlap of the two circles (which we will get to in the next post except for a reference to which you will be directed shortly) where they overlap.
This suggests for spheres a fairly simple modification:
Av(O)=3IR(0toR)Ia(0toO)Iz(0toR)drdadz which is in formula for the lens and then adding the next intersecting lens in 3 dimensions over the number of intersecting lenses. First, we are no longer working with an "area", instead we are dealing with a volume. Volumes are vastly different from areas. Superficially, we are only integrating over an additional variable, but the qualities of the resulting dimensional characteristic and the number of points that can be found within a volume as compared to an area vary according to different features.
Informational changes are 2^n. Integration suggests the addition of features r^n. This suggests that r=2. But we're about to look at something spookily similar and very different.
Now, this is not precisely the lens calculation we are looking for but it is a very simple version of the calculation (solving it for the volume of a circle (where there is complete overlap in every direction of every circle in a sphere) would yield the equation for the volume of a sphere (4/3 * pi*r^3) which is another way of describing the equation 2^2/3(the number of derivations) times pi (the constant mandated by a spiraling coordinate process) time the radius^3; in this case the radius itself, the radius of the angle O and the radius of the angle of the spherical element. This is, necessarily a function of integrating to determine the very issue of quantum coordinates (whether the quanta be inches, meters, points or any other quantum unit).
If there are multiple ways to combine the circles, then you have multiple types of resulting informational states, just as you have multiple amounts of overlap of intersecting spheres. The question of whether this type of diversity is possible. Even in our complex universe, there have to be quantum limitations or the variation in materials would be greater than what we observe. There are infinite levels of two dimensional overlap, imagine the diversity of three dimensional overlap. While the increasing complexity observed in going from space to energy and energy to matter suggest quantum changes in the amount of overlap, there are limitations suggested by the limits of observed phenomena.
It is of some concern because this formula (4/3pir^3) yields a different result than that required for compression (10^4) in this case vrs r^3 it is important to note that what we are looking at here is a static volume and the volume we're dealing with is of dynamic (moving) time which would add another dimension to r, that of time. While interesting, the equation that follows 2*pi*r^4 isn't as easily resolved.
We see a number of interesting variations. Let's look at the volume equation as we move forward.
2pir (circumference-the line)
pir^2 ("area" of a circle)
4/3pir^3 ("volume" of a sphere)
16/4pir^4("new dimensional feature" of a black hole)
32/2pir^5("new dimensional feature" of a compressed black hole)
While the features of information theory are absent from the volume side (increasing 1 coordinate change at a time), the exponential equation (information theory) does appear in the equation leading to the volume.
So we have R varying with n and the numerator changing at the rate of 2^n
This suggests that the solution is .
If we know that compression of a single point in three dimensional euclidean circles and 3 coordinate time we end up with an equation that can easily look like this:
P(point of photonic energy)=A(O)[as derived above]=E(10^2);
P(point of wave energy)=E(10^4)
P(point of matter)=E(10^8)
If we put these together we get a very different result than you may be thinking (unless you've thought about this). The reason is that a single point is only one part of a dimensional characteristic. The dimensional characteristic here is r. So....using the most simple linear equation (a spiraling line):
2pir=Tot(p) where p is the quantum unit (inches, meters, points). Thus the point equation becomes:
Tot(p)/2pi+tot(p)/(pir^2)+tot(p)/(4/3pir^3)+etc=r where r is the fundamental quantum unit of information. The interesting feature of this equation is that it does not require an analysis of time, but it does suggest that we can determine from the amount of gravity (points of every type) in the universe what r is if we know what the fundamental measure of gravity is which is covered in an earlier post somewhere. The remaining question is do we have to include integration over time to get to the value of r? The answer may not be yes, if we assume that a measure of all volumes in the universe (one dimensional on up) includes time which is suggested since we're really talking about measuring points of information, not points of information at any given point in time.
Not very complicated, eh? (Eh is my new word for everything, apparently) so we'll call this new unit of quantum gravity R or quantum information R an "eh unit" of information
It is important, therefore, to differentiate between a model of NLC information theory and NLC dimensional theory. One deals with a dimensional representation of something which is non-dimensional; the other suggests that information compresses according to the dictates of information theory as more simultaneous changing points are added. In this case, each dimension is the equivalent of a data set (+/-, 1/0,etc) so every time you add one you take 2 to a higher power by one regardless of whether you change the euclidean geometry of the model for representing it. Instead the change in the model reflects the way the increased information is expressed on a quantum level.
Notwithstanding that, the overlap of dimensional theory (one unit of dimension at a time) with informational theory (one +/- data change at a time) yields overlapping results which isn't shocking, it's just a function of the addition of units one at a time in an exponential equation.
They have some theories that "spiral around" this more correct model. One of them can be found here:
Is the Universe Bubbly? Searching in Space for Quantum Foam http://flip.it/BOI2b
The difference between foam and tiny circles lies in how the spirals come to exist and what they represent. In the foam analysis, space time exists independent of non-linearity. It becomes a little less clear what happens to the analysis when you begin to examine flat surfaces (holograms) where NLC got its start.
NLC is much more specific. The information stays the same. The singularity doesn't change. The information is displayed linearly based on some "quirk" which is the cosmic cd player, I suppose, and gravity and linearity are the result. Linearity is illusory, but the illusion has certain qualities. (1) One is that for every action there is reaction, vibration. (2) Another is that it is staged based on information theory, apparently. (3) Another is that it appears to exist as a spiral as a result of the first stage which is rotation and anti-rotational. (4) The fourth is that when rotation begins to spiral (albeit at a very very very small angle due perhaps to the very very very small size of the rotating singularity (technically there are two singularities, one which appears to rotate and the other which doesn't which may be just a relative way of looking at the same one) the reaction to this action is gravity which ensures that the spirals approach circles as opposed to straight lines. (5) The universe has a specific amount of information which means a specific number of quantum points and a specific amount of time. There are many other intermediary features, but (6) the completion of the circle lies in the transition to CT(x) where x is equal to all the information in a single quantum moment of the universe where we're back to everything happening at once.
This is all pretty simple, too easy to digest I suppose. You're looking for something to make it harder to digest. Let me see if I can do that in the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment