NLC-the transition at page 200-214: Expected publication date 1/18/15

As I get closer to the publication date, I will continue to put some of the newer material into posts.  It won't contain everything that the final printed version will contain, but for those of you who don't want to buy a copy, it will provide much of the same material, certainly all of the building blocks of the theory and the results.

I'm also going to be available for speaking opportunities.  What do you think, $10,000 or 20% of the door whichever is more; the deposit payable in advance plus airfare?

I know it's a little high for someone who isn't an ex president, but probably a bargain if my theories are right.  Like hiring Einstein for a child's birthday party.

Anyway, I'm not expecting too many bookings since everything will be laid out in the 3rd edition, but might as well offer.

This short excerpt celebrates crossing the 200 page mark.

TYPES OF MATCHED SPIRALS and gravitational/linear features of space

The formula represented by the drawing above is a function of space and photonic energy.

The larger models, whether you include intersecting spirals or not still only represent fundamental particles until they are assembled into larger constructs of a fixed model of any point in the universe by the intersections.

We can use the model to assume that broken intersecting spirals represent matched pairs of particles or we can assume that matched particles are those corresponding particles on opposite primary spirals.

We can also have spirals that are opposite but equal on intersecting main spirals so that they have no chance of coming together except during periods of overlap.

If the overlap is longer, then without overlapping on the same point along a line and at separate angles multiple "securing spirals" are possible.  Referring to the "8" overlap (ct4), there are 4 locations (including one above and one below without leaving the plane of the page) where two unit overlaps of the type described above could come off of it. 

This is exponential change.  Because at each stage the increase is an even number (because of the identity of the post-overlap lengths) this type of process remains possible at every stage of compression, but this process is not strictly equal.  Perfect compression would go from 8 to 16 and the impression that it is from 8 to 18 has to result from either geometry changes or observational errors (such as the inclusion of uncompressed materials along with the compressed ct5 materials). 

Hence the change observed is much closer to what is observed going from c4 to ct5.  You end up with 10^36 which is much closer to what is observed which is 10^39 (minimal black hole size).

The model of linear spiral-NLC has a great deal of tension built into it even as a stationary model.  When viewed as a moving model, one can see the movement of the various lines of attachment twisting the universe into a higher compression state.

The Fibonacci spiral has some interesting features, among these is that the ratios of consecutive terms (1/1, 1/2, 2/3, 3/5) is limited by the golden mean or golden ration which is (1+sqr(5)/2)

The linear versus curved model suggests that F-series linear spirals lead to curved spirals existing within the framework of a linear spiral approximately r=e^theta.  To the extent that you could say that the spiral may vary from linear to logarithmic, you can also envision Archimedian spirals (r=atheta), hyperbolic spirals (rtheta=a) or hybrid parabolic spirals (r-a)^2=4aktheta depending on the parameters.

These spirals arise from observation at quantum points seeing between the linear at any fixed point.

 What is observed may change.  For example, the outward spiral as Hyberbolic or Parabolic with a large value of "r" and a small value of "a" lends itself particularly well to the expansion models of the universe.  This type of transition is thought, however, to work poorly relative to the idea of a fixed information, static universe.  While aberrations are inherent in the observed consequences (otherwise the universe would have a more consistent distribution of matter) the aberrations appear to be in the higher states over CT1 (and ct-1).  In this way, space (ct1) appears uniform and the higher states more chaotic, more subject to curvature instead of linear features.

The force of the mathematical constants are seen outward as "compression/fusion" reactions and the fusion as the cosmological constant at ct4-ct5; where the NLC Intersecting F-series sequential fusion reaction to maintain expansion against the force of gravity in algorithm form against a fixed universe.  The calculation of force can be derived from 1) number of intersections vs 2) total number of spirals as well as from attributes of the algorithm, in this case 3) the e=mc^2 equation.

The effect is also and 4) the length of intersection is 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).

Each compression state is exponential when stable.xxx

It is uncertain if there is any reason that ct1 should be unique as an inward spiral.  The model suggests this should be the case, but that is only based on our geometry.

Compression occurs at the edge of space.  Space is fully uncompressed which allows for the appearance of an expanding universe even though the direction of the inward spiral is towards a greater compressed state.  The expanded states do not collapse.

At transitions of the spirals 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;

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.  But the fusion is not a force, it is, Instead, the result of the algorithm defining the spiral.

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. 

“Compression" occurs at ct1 (even though it is presumably running in the opposite direction.  While we cannot be certain what happens in the outward spiral, or at least don’t need to consider it more deeply than the peeling off of quantum time states or the exchange of quantum time states, All spirals may run in an opposite direction in some state before ct1 changes to ct2, at ct2 to ct3 at ct3 to ct4 (e=mc^2), at ct4 to ct5 etc.

          The original idea was that CT1 states at some point contains information in only one changing coordinate state and opposite this might be one with a fully compressed state.

Intersecting spirals show a much more logical alternative.  At the outermost point two very decompressed spirals and they steadily gain more information from each other as they move inward.

This would require that from the innermost spiral, the original one line that creates both spirals, there are two essentially equal, but somehow opposite spirals that each ½ half (approx.) of the information in the universe, but steadily lose it as they move out (or gain it as they move in) depending on the position.

This is consistent with an environment where everything happens at once, all the information is in the one quantum moment from which both spirals originate (from either end of the quantum moment visible in all the linear, intersecting F-series spirals.

Either way, at the outermost location, perhaps, for example only at the 170^th spiral outward the speed of each of the spirals start the 55% conversion at each step but we may see 1/170th conversion towards the total compression of all the data.

The modeling shows that the information is exchanged towards compression at a rate which doubles at each step.

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 change at a time into many approach in the F-series intersecting model 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 accuracy and to define what portion of the logarithmic spirals contributes to what part of the reality we perceive.

There is, of course, a massive amount 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

It has previously been explained that compression occurs at certain limits which involve spiral intersection which is one of the reasons intersecting spirals are used as a model.  This is consistent with observations of the big bang.  Likewise compression states help explain the difference in estimated vs observed weights for black holes.  Since black holes are only observed at great distances and within systems from which they draw material, NLC predicts that the difference between observed mass and estimated math is a function of unconverted non-black hole material held within the gravitational well defined by black holes.  This means that in theory that an isolated black hole (unlikely given the amount of intersecting spirals necessary to form one) would have the theorized weight.  This is the same thing as matter containing loose bits of energy (holding it together and different parts in orbit) and space.

While compression is viewed as occurring from state to state only at the intersection of main spirals, it is possible that once the higher levels of compression occur at these relatively rare intersections that lesser spiral intersections between these “primary spiral” interactions can give rise to fusion.  This is observed, of course, in fusion reactors and bombs.

Likewise, temporary black hole like structures can be made by colliding masses as sufficient speed, but these lack he compression possible at spiral interactions to be stable (it would require material on the scale of 10^16 to be stable under the theory). There is no fundamental reason under the theory why these changes outside of main spiral interaction would not be possible.

The presence of matter (ct4 matter) within ct5 up to unstable ct5 material could, theoretically, go to the next higher state just as compression to fusion is possible.  In a larger black hole, presumably this would give off massive amounts of radiation just as a fusion reaction does but the scale would be much greater.  The speed at which such a conversion would occur is largely unexplored, but we can assume, given the dispersion of change over the different spirals, that in standard clock time it would appear to happen more slowly than a fusion reaction.  Whether observed phenomena, like quasars reflect this is uncertain, but one does observe solar bursts of energy where black holes form from existing suns.  This feature of the dynamic universe raises more questions than it answers, but the most intriguing is whether the formation of suns capable of collapsing into black holes requires the next higher state to be present (ct6) outside of main spiral interaction.  Some explorations need to be left for later in a first draft 500 page philosophy text.

One would expect, given the compression requirements, that conversion of additional black hole material should only be present in the presence of ct6 but the proximity of that material is not easily envisioned.  When we look at fusion reactors, we see a separation from ct5 at a scale of light years, and yet, in the absence of these black holes bringing together galactic quantities of material we would not see the amount of compression necessary to form these fusion reactors.  While we can say that our presence indicates a different result is possible, we also cannot exist outside of the huge gravity wells.  Testing this theory is not as easy as one things.  For example, the idea of sending a nuclear fusion weapon into space outside of the presence of gravity wells might appear to deal with this problem, there is nothing to say that this would be inconsistent with the theory and, practically speaking, it is not possible for us at our stage of development anyway.

While we expect our rules of physics would apply in deep space, and while nothing in NLC says that is not the case, the “rules” of NLC take on a new significance if science allows us to even approach features of the universe as simple as “stillness”.

While non-black hole material within the gravitational effect of a black hole provides the scale necessary for the observed “mass” to match the theoretical mass, we have to look in the opposite direction to find the same mass features in lower states (ct3, 2 and 1).

If this is not "observed" in other clock time states, then the answer could be that there is no corresponding one on one state to compare.  CT3, 2 are shown to be affected by large gravitational fields under general relativity.  If ct1 doesn’t appear using traditional techniques for observing gravitational effect, presumably it is because they are too small or too spread out or even the unlikely possibility that their spirals run in the opposite direction relative to the state we are in. 

We are spared wondering about this, because ct1 is shown to drop out into black holes.  What this means, under NLC is that space has the features of information linearity (i.e. gravity) and that this feature becomes visible when the affecting gravity is as strong as that present at the black hole-space interface. 

What Einstein predicted for light (that it bends when exposed to a large gravitational force) is also predicted and observed for information based NLC.  Space must have gravity in such a scenario, the equation g(m1*m2)/d^2 for gravity applies to space.   NLC merely provides the specifics in terms of how space relates to other matter and the mechanism.  While this disagrees with EHT theory (the original theory that held that at black holes time become non-linear) it does appear non-linear to us because of the relatively slow changes of linearity due to the exponentially greater clock time slowing.