AuT-Developing a model
for the intersection of spiral using concepts of compression and capacitance
In investigating the
concept of capacitance and compression to examine concepts related to the
intersection of spirals, two models were examined from o-space. The one that I hoped might provide more
guidance was the magnetism model, the capacitance model seems to work better,
but both will be discussed in some detail.
It is important in
looking at these models, to understand that electricity has no place in quantum
mechanics. Just as the spiral of gravity
led in a very indirect route to intersecting linear spirals as a quantum model
for discussion purposes, so also does an examination of what happens during
spiral intersection leads to looking for a real time model for an algorithm
that will work for discussion purposes.
When I say “for
discussion purposes” what I mean is that none of these is an answer. We’re merely looking for some foundation for
the derivation of a single algorithm with a single variable that can explain a
very complex and diverse universe which we experience.
A big problem with all
of these models is that most of them solve for the wrong variable. The F-series linear spiral model doesn’t
really solve for anything, it is a pure algorithm converting a variable, x,
into a location along the spiral.
Intersecting F-series linear spirals were necessary in order to have
compression and interjected a problem because at the point of intersection
there was no clear explanation as to what happened.
There were several ways
to approach this intersection and a few of them were examined. The wave formation/Bernoulli model is nice
because it allows for accumulations of spirals of the type that could lead to
stable quantum states. The problem with
that model is that it doesn’t work well with observed phenomena.
Magnetism has an intriguing
model, but it is only covered superficially because it doesn’t seem to work as
well with observed phenomena. This is not to say, however, that those models of
“graphing information” have no place.
Wave formation show stacking spirals and magnetism shows the conversion
of one type of energy (electricity) into another (magnetism) and back again
which is a model that works well with stable and non-stable CT states.
Friction is a pretty
complicated phenomenon that involves the accumulation of a lot of tiny forces
at the microscopic level, which result from effects at the numerous contact
points between two objects and it also has some relevance in looking for an
acceptable model.
What we also need to
look for in these models are inflection points, points where the answer to the
algorithm shifts. There are built in
inflection points (where the intersections of the spirals being and end) but
what happens within the spiral should have a different set of inflection points
where, for very small amounts of what we’ll call time capacitance (TC) it
becomes stable. TC becomes stable where the exponential equation is satisfied and
for each intersection this is related to the last highest and next highest CT
state, e=mc^2 for the ct3-ct4 boundary, an equation felt to be quantitatively
16^2^16 for the ct4-ct5 boundary. This
does not have to rule out lower stable compression formation at each state, for
example at the ct4-ct5 boundary you can also have the lower e=mc^2 type of
compression occur and observation almost requires this to be the case if you
use the capacitance/compression model.
The model of capacitance
is a function of a single curve generated from an analysis of the change in
time relative to the resister and capacitor.
The solution to this analysis is usually graphed using either Voltage
(over time) or the Current (discharge) (over time):
V(t)=E(1-e^(t/RC) and
I(t)=E/Re^(-t/RC)
The beauty of these two
parts of the model is that they left provides for a steady (actually it begins
low and slowly slows as it builds towards, but never reaches a maximum) build
up which would be expected when two spirals remain in overlap and the latter (I(t))
allows for a steady discharge which we see as the current state of entropy in
our universe (again, very high initially and slowly decreasing but never
reaching zero). One possible problem with
the model is that the intersection spiral model provides for a longer period of
“charging” the capacitor than the period of discharging. This is a problem which is actually solved by
observation.
Observation solves the problem
by providing that a certain amount of the “charging” is made “stable” so that
the discharge period is necessarily shorter.
By way of example in our current observed universe:
We have an intersection
roughly modeled on V(t)=E(1-e^x) where x is t/RC. However, within this model, certain amounts (approximately
½ of 47%) from a linear perspective (53% overlap vs the ½ of the remaining post
overlap) is “trapped” in a higher stable CT state. Note that if you follow the spiral in the
opposite direction you get an opposite but equal result.
Hence, once we add in
compression, we get a consistent model to observation. This is not to say that the intersecting
spiral model and the capacitance model fit together to perfectly define the
equations for overlap and that the post intersection spiral and discharge state
define perfectly the state in which we find ourselves. That would be nice, but we’re not there yet.
A perfect design of the
spiral would require a more perfect understanding, but these models give us
tools with which to study how this occurs.
Similarly trying to
figure out the point where stable compression occurs is fairly complex
especially if you use the model of stacked solutions to quantum points of
spirals shown before where there are spirals of different lengths for every
quantum point in our universe at a quantum instant which is the easiest model
to envision coming into existence “spontaneously” which we’ll call “the near
infinite spiral” model (NIS).
The point of
intersection where V(t)=I(t) is a likely place to start in the analysis, it
usually appears at the half way point, but given the variables involved this location
is more likely a coincidence than a point where the solution occurs. The reason that it have any value is that it
seems to bear some “resemblance” to the relationship of 53% to 23.5% in some of
the more simple models, allowing you to have a conversion of 26.5-23.5 or 3% of
the lower states to the new higher ct state.
While this does match some of the simple models, the actual
concentrations observed (e.g. 1/1,000 of matter is black hole material; the
seemingly near infinite comparison to the amount of energy to matter, the seemingly
even large comparison of space to energy) seems to suggest a different result).
Still, given the fact
that the 3% which would have existed 11 billion years ago when discharge began would
be largely dissipated to reach our current place on the spiral, it is not to be
entirely ruled out. That is, the 3% at
the point of what we’ve called “the” big bang, could have, due to discharge/decompression/entropy,
changed to the 1/1000th that we observe today.
It is not an ending place, because accepting
the near infinite spiral model (NIS) you are liable to have many different
points where V(t)=I(t) for solutions to many intersecting spirals during the
period in question and you will have intersections at all points during the
universe; i.e. you will have mini big bangs (capacitance followed by discharge)
going on constantly. What makes a
notable big bang different can only be the solution where a lower CT state
becomes a higher stable CT state and the discharge afterwards. Fortunately, or not, this appears to be
observed.
No comments:
Post a Comment