Allow me to rant for a while, it's little enough to ask for opening up the windows of g-space.
Why am I so far ahead of everyone else? Yes that includes you Hawkins. Want to make something of it? That would be a Greek comedy, a person in a wheel chair fighting a blind man. Could it be because you are all stuck with your own theories, clinging to them like Potolmites to the earth as the center of the universe? You know it's not that, for my theory is built on the ruins of your work.
It has to be the suffering, me suffering more than anyone else; and that's because of you. The universe gives me the knowledge and its unwilling to give it to anyone else. It doesn't mean that I don't have to work for it, that is also how I'm built; but this kind of information isn't given to just anyone, its only given to someone what has given everything knowing it cannot possibly be the right choice, it has to be despair driven by irony.
And, of course, it is my desire to go back further. All traditional theories stop at the big bang, leaving the precursors to god. I think they are likely as not to be right, but unless Einstein was wrong, the universe is predetermined and predetermined means it already happened for all intents and purposes and that is critical to the thinking of NLC which rejects any randomness. Rejecting randomness means not accepting ignorance, it means figuring out what happens in g-space, going back a quantum unit at a time, inferring from what we experience, come up with a methodology allowing something complex to come from nothing (I've done that, by the way, if you read the last 30 days of posts); without doing that, I'd be another physics worm, like the one i rescued, trying to explain a universe while accepting theorems, taking the math and saying that I cannot disagree with it, even though it's clear that any math of moving time, of bi-directional dimension is corrupt. I was able to throw out rules that others were tied too. But I was only able to do that because I rejected everything dear to me for my own false gods, those rules became "relatively" insignificant, compared to the larger rules of life that I turned my back on, even though I knew they were self evident, and know it today.
Your work left the holes there, black holes as it were, hairless but dimensional moving black holes. Your black holes, however were the false singularities that I originally envisioned and I now understand that the measure of data comes from something far more complicated.
I followed your mistakes, expecting a slightly different wormhole, mine required that they all led to the same place, the only place they could go under the theories of the Einstein Hologram Universe. That failed, however, because they continued to move with the universe, so the only place under a relativistic, Einsteinian universe was closed off to them. You wanted them to be singularities and so did I, but they had dimension and there was no solution in that. Also, information theory dictated that they had to be part of the information system. You were willing to allow information to be lost in black holes, I saw that there was no lost information in a universe that relies on conservation, so your information poor black holes could not exist.
The only thing left was to come up with a mechanism and that is where we're working right now. We have a design where within what I'll call time orbits (F series orbits) you can slow down or speed up coordinates to go between the types of space that exist within that, but only at certain times are you able to skip to the next higher time state.
The rules are allowed to change (although even I take issue here) with the turns of the linear spirals to take into account the transfer of information from one state to the next so that compression can occur during these transition states in spite of the apparent lack of sufficient mass to overcome the speed of .The universe is enormous, but the basic rules of physics indicate it is finite. The "basic" concept is that an infinite universe would collapse under its own weight, but NLC allows for an alternative even though NLC is largely based on a finite universe. There is an alternate infinite NLC universe, you just continue the spirals forever, but there is no requirement. It is well within the theoretical models to allow for sequential compression based "fusion" type reactions (one actually being fusion) followed by periods of explosion based expansion with one-way coordinates having relative speeds to allow for illusory self determination, illusory three dimensional movement and transition between the compression states achieved at that level of compression.
I am looking at the next post, but I am tired. My nightmares, my nights without you, my despair awaits me. I will sleep again without you and I will wake up and you will not be there and I will lie awake until the nightmares come and I will embrace them because the terror they hold is less than the terror we make for ourselves.
As an added bonus and because I'm too tired to take it out for tomorrow, you can find the unedited next post below. If you want to wait for it to be edited, that's what i'd suggest, but if you want, you can glimpse deeper into this. The next post, however, will just be an edit of this with more information on the number of spirals, the calculations of force of the sequential "fusion/compression" reactions and more information on what we can expect at the transitions which appear to be rather abrupt by the math.
Part 4
Estimates say there are at least 100,000 million galaxies with an average of 100 million stars with each galaxy rotating each 1000 million years with 10,000 million years of expansion so far; but in NLC these are stagnant figures and the original rotation continues to exist in theory, the time frame that matters is the single quantum instant referred to previously.
Some of the issues discussed here are:
1) The force outward as "compression/fusion" reactions and the fusion as the cosmological constant at ct4-ct5; that is where the NLC Intersecting F-series sequential fusion reaction to maintain expansion against the force of gravity in algorithm form against a fixed universe is explained in more detail; including the calculation of force, which for some of the occasions is relatively easy from 1) number of intersections vs 2) total number of spirals vs 3) the e=mc^2 equation and 4) the length of intersection and followed by a period of gliding before (perhaps) the turning inward (at 90 degrees in the case of the linear (as opposed to curving F series) reflecting the collapsing part (which would indicate we are (even though it's been a very long time) in the pre collapse, post explosion phase (ct4-5 or ct5-6(maybe)) post overlap and pre-right turn expansion on the surface of a spiral (as opposed to the balloon used traditionally as an example).
2) How each compression state is exponential
3) What if ct1 is not unique as an outward spiral-what if each sprial appears to move outward (or inward) from a certain perspective
4) How many compression states occur for each spiral
5) How to determine the size of the spiral and the number of spirals based on model and estimates of planck length (and back again)
6) the amount of force at each ct compression state (how much fusion can be calculated)
7) outward spirals forced (changing the direction of spirals) using the force of fusion one length of the intersection at a time-it is gradual, not immediate compression)
8) how compression occurs at the edge of space allows for an expanding universe to have compression without collapse, meaning that at transitions of the spiral method you can have shifts, for example force or even gravity running backwards, or outward expansion transforming into inward expansion as a result of the universe spiraling inward despite the illusion of expansion, something even traditional theories envision in an Einstein bubble;
9) how red shifting proportional to distance from us reflects the increasing size of spirals past.
If it is finite than the limits of the universe can be determined with some certainty given a certain amount of information. Fibonacci Spiral NLC indicates that determination is a bit easier than in other theories because it is based on specific spiral features. Even with NLC without spiral theory, NLC provides a fixed amount of information transforming against some preset formula so that Spiral features merely provide a set of parameters for the variable portions of the equation.
The spiral compression force can be viewed as "fusion" which provides more than enough energy (given a sufficient quantity of compression) to overcome gravity (sort of like a "fusion" rocked drive but where the entire universe is the rocket. To understand how this is possible, it helps to look at the most likely way that this compression "force" would be handled.
As was mentioned earlier, the compression occurs at each spiral to the tune of 55% of the "intersecting spirals". What we are about to discuss is how much intersection takes place at each spiral. Here the "compression" occurs at ct1 (even though it is presumably running in the opposite direction-we will discuss how all spirals may run in an opposite direction) to ct2, at ct2 to ct3 at ct3 to ct4 (e=mc^2), at ct4 to ct5 etc.
size and the other almost (short 1) completely compressed and therefore moving (for example) at 170th the speed of the other suggested by the collision only increasing slightly the non-ct1 states relative to the ct1 states (we don't see 55% conversion at each step but we may see 1/170th conversion, then it might double 2/170ths and the two would affect 55%x2 of the others as there are no two parts to the one going "the opposite way,
These alternatives are what we must apply to the observed phenomena to see if we come up with the right numbers and since at the ct5/ct4 interface we observe slightly higher compression states, if these come out at 55% higher, then perhaps we're on to something, keeping in mind that compression occurs at exponential rates because of conservation and the rate of change and the speed of the relative parts as shown by the ct3-ct4 (energy matter) conversion ratio.
The most gratifying 1 into many approach comes from the informational progression:
1 to 2, 2 intersecting next to 4, 4 to 8, 8 to 16 just as is expected from information theory. That is a single going into many and picking up a second, these two going into many and picking up two more so that with each half spiral the compression is doubled. The relative speed can also be taken into account, 1 moving at half the speed as it goes into two, two slowing further as they go into four, whether by friction or weight.
It is left to the fractional intersection as well as the portions of the spiral where there is no interface to either explain or refute the suggestion of acccuracy.
define the area in logarithmic spirals
There is, of course, massive amounts of missing information/mass in the traditional universe, so we have that; but NLC solves problems and doesn't cause them so we have to at least suggest some answer to the problems.
Calculating the difference between the F-spiral observed
One that was previously discussed was the amount of compression observed at the ct4-ct5 boundary (matter to black holes) The only obvious source for the discrepancy between the expected and observed is the presence of matter (ct4 matter) within ct5. That provides the scale necessary, but if that were the case, then why is it not "observed" in other states? The answer could be that there is no corresponding one on one state to compare. CT3, 2 and 1 don't appear using traditional techniques for observing gravitational effect, presumably because they are too small or too spread out or because they run in the opposite direction relative to the state we are in. This last can happen in a number of different ways. For example, at each point where collision occurs, at each collision where a new time orbit is possible, all the other states may go negative (they reverse direction or the don't) or they appear to run in an opposite direction relative to the next higher state.
Another problem has to do with how do we define an expanding universe in terms of a series of steadily compression spirals. This one is actually easier to deal with because the spirals have almost nothing to do with true dimension, they are only a mechanism for defining compression or time orbits. Further, if we'd like we could look at each separate time orbit as a new big bang as was suggested earlier. This would mean that the last big bang (around the 5th or 6th spiral inward in my estimate) you'd be looking at 10,000 million years worth of time length in just that one spiral arm although we can also view this as 10,000 million years worth of time length over 5 or six spirals.
Expansion is actually provided for (in decreasing amounts in one case) in two separate ways.. The first, most likely has to do with expansion in the area provided for within the arc described between serials/area between; another is the possibility of an inverse relationship, yet another is that we're looking at the outside from each compression cycle. Of course, there's also the distinct possibility that spiral theory is a red herring in defining the mechanism for the algorithm governing compression; but you can't expect everything to be answered at once and all the fish to be properly filleted when the fishermen are working for free.
No comments:
Post a Comment