It is hard to go on. It's not just you, although you embody futility. It is knowing that no matter what I write, I will be surrounded by ignorance and hatred for no reason other than control and hatred. I am not in the same position I was in before and I expect things to get better yet before they get worse, but what am I in a vacuum? How is anyone in a vacuum? How does I change the world? How can you? Does it matter at all what I come up with if it is let loose on a world where everyone is a war, unless they are running from it for no reason other than to survive for the next round of destroying cities, trees, and when it suits those involved science and love, perhaps something where I am one of the guilty parties.
So is it wrong for me to want to leave everything, to just get on a road, a dirt path, to leave everything to find what I think I had with you. Perhaps the only thing that keeps me here, is the need to finish this third edition.
Anyway....
How do we reconcile NLC exponential growth with interacting spirals? How does spiral theory support observed universe matter distribution?
These are issues that can be easily addressed if we are wiling to commit to a relationship between non-dimensional characteristics and algorithms with dimensional features.
The constant acceleration away from any fixed point in the universe could be argued (as it has in the past) to be a function of gravity or some feature of multi-dimensional space-time. Alternatively, it may relate to non-linearity expressed in a linear form as gravity and movement away from a common point, but not the black hole theory of EHT. Using spiral theory, the common "points" are the middle of the spiral and the edge.
When NLC and spiral theory put forward the possibility that the algorithm running the expression of non linearity begins at the outer (an outer) layer of a (expanding?) logarithmic spiral, a suggestion is included.
What is the model in mathematics for that. I think it's incorrect, even though the easiest answer comes from the fact that spirals spiral around a center, so that as we look out from this center, we see things expanding out in every direction more or less equally since the outer bands.
But compression theory suggests that we're the third or fourth (visible) spiral from the outside and this provides a less ego-centric answer.
In a logarithmic spiral, an F-series spiral, the outer bands are proportionately much greater than the inner bands so that the outer portions would be most of the perceived area. This means, that if you were within these outer spirals, even if there were more than a hundred spirals yet to go, you would still see the majority of the outer spirals in the past as moving apart in a "relatively" constant way. Consider this you're watching ships miles away from an island, all sailing between two logarithmic spiral. While some in one direction might be moving away more quickly, except for those coming back within the nearest spirals, they are so much farther away proportionately that they seem to be moving away and continue to move away especially if the island starts to spiral in to the future logarithmically. Yet another observed phenomena explained? Perhaps.
One has to better understand the relationship of algorithms to the singularity, which is driving the other. How does the idea of a single set of intersecting spirals for the entire universe compare with an infinite number of spirals?
Without answering those questions yet, let's look at the other question we started out with. How do we get to exponential compression, from logarithmic spirals? This is really a continuation of the issue of how we interpret the fundamental spiral.
There are two ways. The one that seems to be suggested by the origin model set out in the drawing is that there would be equal spirals passing in each direction since they come from a common point in a common process. Equal but opposite can remain, but there is a suggestion that for purposes of how they would interact requires that we treat one of the as a large "tube" spiral of information intersecting with a singular spiral running in the other direction. The reason? Exponential theory.
Utilizing exponential theory, we want to see this interaction as a function of 2^n expressed gradually but quantum jumps, like that expressed in orbital changes. We're going to stick with our 170 spirals and 340 separate lines, 170 intersections, not for any reason, but because we can use 10 or 50 or 100 but we started with 170. We'll get to a specific number later. Using 170 in one direction, 1 in the other AT THE OUTER EXTREMITY provides a mechanism of sorts.
We have one (ct1) intersecting with 170 (ct170), and in this model, we'll peel one off due to the intersection leaving ct2 in one direction, ct 169 in the other. So the one spiral becomes two until they intersect again, "peeling off" two, so that we have ct3 with 10^4 intersecting with ct168.
There is an alternative view: ct1-intersecting with ct 170 yield ct2 and ct169 followed by a jump to ct2, then there is ct2 intersecting to yield ct4, then ct8 but with the characteristics of ct 1, 2, 3 given before. There's no difference in the treatment.
The main feature that we should be concerned with at this point is that this model provides a mechanism for spiral mathematics to yield information theory. 1 to yield 2, 2 at collision to yield 4, then 8, 2^n from 1 to 170.
This also allows us to explain our ability to manipulate the relative speed of the pairs to have some limited control (by physical compression mind you) to manipulate fusion and fission and the easier job of manipulating the 4 of energy to get different results. That is that there are a number of these spirals traveling together. At the level at which we find ourselves, assuming my earlier calculations are correct, we have clock time 4 and there are 2 (ct2), 4 (ct3), 8(ct4) lines of data traveling together and we can slow down any one of these 4 relative to the others. While you might argue that this flies in the face of a three dimensional universe, the truth is that each of these lines in manipulation, be divided into a forward moving and backward moving portion lowering the number of dimensions to those observed (3 plus time) but all, ultimately, moving in the same direction.
However, no matter what manipulation we can accomplish within the spiral, at no point in time are we able to accomplish what collision accomplishes, which is changing the direction of intersecting F-spirals of any of the lines. Perhaps the goal of NLC should be to accomplish that, to overturn the concept of a fixed universe to disprove one of the primary features of the theory.
In the next posts, we'll turn to the amount of time (%) between different spiral collisions noting it is not just the 45% halved on either side, but the prior (or subsequent depending on your direction) parallel lines leading to the prior or next collision.
Initially since we are arguing we are going in, there is an increasing amount of overlap, but if we go out, it is decreasing. Both can exist at once because one defines the outgoing spiral and the other the in going spiral.
As you will recall, we started trying to reconcile the ct4-5 state conversion rate with what is expected by ct-4/ct3 without F-series. By utilizing F-series, we see that we can duplicate this but we still need to show that this solves the difference between the expected 10^16 and the higher observed state of compression for black holes or we have to show the observed compression is inaccurate.
No comments:
Post a Comment