Aut but not bitter

Bitter?  No, too early in the process to be bitter.
http://www.universetoday.com/131128/2016-nobel-prize-physics-complicated/
This raises the question not of gravity waves which are not the same as other movement, but movement in general
All of what we call movement is, by definition even to Kinder P, change relative to ct1 solutions.
Actual change (from one universe state to the next) is actual variation of the universe.  The choices for this variation are broadly:
1) Current universe made from stacking two prior universe (where's all the extra weight from this information?)
2) Current universe made from cycling each quantum state and increasing the amount of information by increasing x by 1 (while you don't have the weight problem, you also depart from the information solution)
3) A combination of 1 and 2 by having some but not all states stack
It could, of course the nobel prize announcement, be written at the last minute that I came forward and explained these other guys didn't even know what they are looking at, but all in good time, right?
Kinder P believed in the fantasy of balanced mathematics.  AuT believes in infinite converging series (actually knows the universe is powered by those, but we don't want to embarrass the nobel prize committee).  Kinder P believes in positive and negative energy (represented by matter and gravity being balanced) while AuT recognizes that there are alternating spirals but that gravity is only the effect of state change and matter is only the compressed information of space.
The "perfect balance" that Kinder P looks for in the universe is absent, but it's hidden in the high value of x and the resulting approach towards a solution that is never reached to curvature and equal parts positive and negative spiral convergence.
One way of dealing with item 1 which is the suggested approach is to ignore the stacking of all information and instead only stack new information.
Looked at another way:
x
x
xx
xxx
xxxxx
is the appearance of true F-series history.  At values of x that we experience the next value of x is very high.  But you can also have a change reflected this way:
x                             x xx xxx
xx                           xx xxxx xxxxxx
xxx                        xxx xxxxxx  xxx.xxx.xxx
and so on.  In this way, x is only increasing by 1 on the stacking state (the left hand column), even though the total amount of information is growing exponentially.
What we experience directly is reflected by the increase in x by 1 while indirectly the amount of information is stacking up and increasing according to the F-series.
It is also possible that the stacking of the universes only occurs at inflection points.
This is one of the more important concepts because history in a quantum universe requires that stacking occur of history would be invisible, but how it is stacked is critical.
One suggestion is that only space is stacked.  Space occupies an important place because we know that movement is accomplished only relative to this state of information even though all other forms of information arise from this one.
There is an answer, but apparently no one is giving me the nobel prize this year, they're giving it to people chasing bozos and misconceptions.  That's ok, they really don't have a choice.

Building an algorithm-unbalanced energy

In Kinder Physics, it was felt that the positive and negative energy of the universe was finely balanced so that a perfectly expanding universe was possible and every positive had a corresponding negative so that the universe could, in theory collapse and make nothing or double if you'd like.
Early NLC and EHT predecessor to AuT adopted this foolishness, foolish because such a universe would cancel itself out or continuously double.
Instead the AuT universe we live in has a slight offset between positive and negative 'information' which gives the universe its curvature and allows staking without a collapse.
Another suggestion, which is intriguing but apparently not supported (emphasis on apparently) is the "cycling" of the AuT universe. Unlike Kinder Physics you don't have this "magically ridiculous one big bang (there's sort of a big fizzle at the very beginning, but not really a bang).  Instead you have a big bounce, but not a silly Kinder big bounce, but a more subtle, more elegant inflection point bounce.
The rarity of these inflection points (we're 14 billion years into ours and if you look at prior posts you see both how far we have to go going out and can estimate the same length of time going back-and this is based on observations, not fancy mathwork although the fancy mathwork is what makes clear what just confused Kinder Physics) is a pretty good answer to why we have so much in between time, but the idea that each increase in x leads t a complete recycling of the universe cannot be completely ruled out.  99.99999etc % ruled out, but not completely.
I'm shooting for late October, perhaps as late as December for the second volume of Sprials in Amber, clarifying and correcting huge amounts of information.  I'd say the first 100 pages are now 50 pages or less.  Put it on your christmas list.

Spirals in Amber-A Halloween Ghost story

Here you are, just like I promised.  One day I will sit with you and read you all the things I wrote you and all the things I wrote to you, but until then you will have to be satisfied with this Halloween Ghost story, although I know you are not satisfied and that you find your satisfaction where you will. But that is my cross to bear and I digress.
In the last e-mail I explained that because of the method of building the universe that a pre-most recent big bang civilization could, in theory if they had someone as smart as me, send a message from the past to us in the future if we just knew how to look for it.
This same conceptual framework allows for the idea of ghosts and even messages from the dead if not from the future.  So grab a cup of hot chocalate, add a liberal dose of bourbon, sit by that wonderful fireplace of yours and get ready for an AuT ghost story.
While I write this the moon is brightly lighting the world outside.  Clouds are backlit by it and from out of the darkness come all manner of night winged creatures, birds of prey large and small, and bats.
I suffer from a great melancholy because I have lost the love of my life and I think, if only there was some way that someone could have warned me of the wrong paths I would take over and over in my life, if only I could send some message back, but there is no way back so perhaps I should look to the future.  But how can I communicate to the future?
Then it hits me, that there have been many messages from the past that were passed to the future.  Long ago, a pre-human we now call Lucy (of Al 288-1) rose up and sent a message down over three million years of time.  Al 288 told us her story despite the clouds of time.  She sent a message, even though she was a primitive australopitecine pre-person with no known knowledge of stacked universes and quantum moments.  She communicated like a ghost, finding the appropriate source to extract her information like a white coated seer or ghost reader and the message from Lucy was, "I am your distant ancestor, I feel from a tree and broke a limb and from this I died.  It was probably raining when I died and I covered myself in mud to hide from wide animals because I could not climb back up in the tree, but I could not survive and I died.  Remember me."
And those bones you point to and say, "no ghost," even relativity, that antiquated way of looking at information theory, are nothing but a compressed form of energy, the vibrations sent through time in a form that you call hard, but which a black hole material being would see as nothing more than a sprite and which AuT would call information which in  any form is just that.
Another ghost with a more recent past and perhaps a little more information is Otzi, the ice man found in the alps.  He died a mere 5,000 years ago.  He tells the ghost whisperers "I ran from my enemies up into the mountains, but they injured me.  Perhaps I was a raider who attacked them and who could not keep up with my companions.  Perhaps a neighboring tribe attacked me, but it is of no great moment, because I ran into the mountains and died, but I died with all of my tools and weapons so you would know more about me and my people, but I am dead nonetheless.
Great men and great women tell their stories even though they died without writing anything while other ghosts like you and me have a great love story that will never be fully written and is known fully only to us.  Some ghosts try to give a purpose to life, suggesting perhaps that the purpsoe of life is to generate these moments, some good, some terrible in their agony and grief.  AuT suggests that the world is nothing but a formula, but perhaps the purpose of that formula is to play itself out, to leave this trail of stories preserved like ghosts from the past to the future.
And who knows what ghosts we will find when we know what to look for, ghosts with longer stories to tell than even that of Al 288-1.  Perhaps we will find that we are, perhaps that everything that we call the universe, is nothing more than a message from one lover to another if we just find where to look.

Building an algorithm-a cold, super hot universe

One of the great misconceptions of pre AuT mathematics comes from the idea of 'heat.'   Even Kinder physics understands what heat isn't.  Heat isn't hot.  It's movement.  Moreover, it isn't real movement like the changes reflected by the changing value of x.  That would be gravity.
Instead heat is movement relative to ct1.
  Since movement is illusory it's important in F-series stacked, offset, intersecting spiral theory to understand what movementt is, or more particularly the difference between change (the value of x changing) and movement (the change relative to ct1 of higher ct states.
This is the reason why space does not appear to move even though it has to "change" at the same rate as any other state change.
Kinder physcis doesn't distinguish between these two types of change since it did not realize there were two different types of change.
Hence, at the time of the initiation of the universe (a long, long time before the big bang kinder-p talks about) the universe was very, very cold (not very very hot) because all clock time was ct1 (all information was uncompressed) so there was nothing to be hot because there was nothing to change relative to ct1 except other ct1 which change is equally (exactly equally) as important, but not heat.
Hence, time and heat are inter-related in some sense just as movement and time dilation are inter-related.
We're obsessessed with movement relative to ct1 (or more exactly with large numbers of ct1 information states) because that gives us our illusory sense of time and it also gives us warmth in the absence of being together, yes that's for you to think about.  But CT1 is changing, but in a dimensionless environtment that allows it to seem to be changeless, when, instead, it is a pure type of change since it is only changing relative to an absence of change.
This is crucial to our understanding of not just heat and standard clock time, but even fundamental existence of our universe so it will require more than one post; but, as always, you heard it here first.

Building an algorithm-living in an algorithm

Here's an interesting article discussing whether we live in a simulation or not.
http://aol.it/2d0fYa1
The beauty of this article is that it supports strongly (50%) the AuT version of the universe.
The difference between the concept and the proof is that AuT provides a viable mechanism for the simulation.  It is hard to give a more concrete example of what AuT adds to the general consensus.
Of course, and idea without a mechanism is science fiction, once the mechanism is defined it is science.  The only science fiction in AuT is g-space where the algorithm originates.

Changing curvature and speed and compression all relate to how clock time states interact and how they generate the quantum results that are stacked to give the regional and general inflection points that give rise to the richness of our universe at a value of x which is so high as to be impossible to fully conceptualize except on paper.
NLC-time orbits after the application of Fibonacci F-series part 7 contains some of the spreadsheet results, but the bottom line is that the F-series number after only 349 overlaps is 3.865*10^72.  That is when x=349, the resulting amount of information from which this 349 quantum universe can draw from has risen to 3.865*10^72 bits because of the stacking process.
The overlap at this point in time in the universe (the part leading towards or away from compression) is this same number. While this looks fairly stable given the fact that 10^39ths of these are necessary to form a second show that this universe exists in a very unstable fashion.
The entire size of the F-series number is not relevant, since only a choice from this enormous number is expressed at any quantum point, but the possibility for stability at this point in time is fairly high.
At x=349, however, there is only enough information to form a single photon, albeit with 100 quanta of space.
I continue to drag through the first edition of spirals in amber, probably cutting out half the material in the first 100 pages.  It's a mess.

Building an algorithm among bozos

As you know, my lack of tact will probably keep me from winning the nobel prize even when everyone admits that I'm right and that everyone else who wouldn't give me recognition (or money) are just a bunch of bozos chasing bozons but I have to play this out my way.
The immediate prior post for the first time ever intimated the formula for transition between ct states and yet the internet did not explode.  When it does you'll know you're one of the first people who ever read that it should have.
Moving through ct1 states is a big part of the aging process in terms of speed and time dilation whether this is a cause or effect.
Putting the concept of regional compression together with time dilation and the conversion between compressed states and well as the effects of a broader general compression provides in concept a mechanism to work with exponention compression formulas to explain why higher ct states form and what conditions provide for this.
I am excited to be getting my book edited, but just to give you an idea of what you're getting I'm going to insert a page from it.

As you can see, you're not getting a lot of value from the old book.  Perhaps you should as me for a refund.  The new book...
Let me say that I could die tomorrow or worse perhaps, so to the extent you see how brilliant AuT is you can understand the need to put together a rough version and to publish it as I go along.  I can tell you, however, that the next edition will not look much like the first edition.  Most of the basics are there, but I'm moving so fast I cannot keep up with myself and I note the closer I get to the fundamentals, the more the universe throws in my path.
I am, however, engaged in some very interesting things in the real world and they may, in this case carry the day for me, or at least give me the shot at...well, that is for another blog, not this one.
Stay tuned, I expect the second edition will come out some time in October, perhaps I'll shoot for a Halloween publication date.  And fear not, the halloween post I promised is coming.

building an algorithm-not so unified field theory

Forces derive from visible events in AuT.
Gravity is the effect from stacking prior universes to form the current universe.
Photonic energy is the force resulting from the compression of spacial information into photonic information, closely followed by wave energy which is the result of the  compression of photonic information into waves, and the strong and weak forces which result from the ct3-ct4 compression cycle.
magnetism is also results from the interaction of ct3 and ct4.
The  requires that some unseen force which results from the ct4-ct5 state or the formation of black holes.  It stands to reason that we would possibly see the effects of this but could not see the force itself.  It is, however, possible that gravity is actually this force.  While you might say that this leaves blank the force that results from the ct0-ct1 (stacking of universes) you'd be wrong, because we can fill that in with "time" since it is as close to a reflection of a changing x as we're likely to see on a basic level.
This suggests a pre-big bang (most current) universe with expansion and contraction without gravity, but AuT theory actually allows for this.  Now the better suggestion is that the effects of gravity vary as they are positive and negative but the so called repulsive forces which allow for the prediction in classical physics of black holes and neutron stars (if you fully overcome the RF you have to drop out of space into a singularity according to pre AuT math (yawn) and if you don't quite have the mass/gravity for that you get a bunch of bunched neutrons that have almost yielded to gravity but not quite).
White AuT supplies a ready explanation (two sets of information cannot because of the offsets occupy the same answer at the same time although they can get very very close as x approaches infinity which from our limited perspective it largely has) These forces also supply a mechanism for the staggered compression of states consistent with an increasing x.  As x gets larger, the "separation of states" defined by the decreasing angle between successive states (converging series of pi) allows for closer and closer results of solution for given time states so they can get closer and closer together.  This is a way of explaining how with high values of x (and more perfect curvature of space through averaging of states) you can have more compressed states and provides a thankful mechanism for why higher ct states only form with higher values of x.  Until the curve is compressessed enough, the solution to the algorithm "separate" the resulting quantum points too far for the higher ct states to form but as the curvature increases as an infinite converging series the solution allows for compression of the "newer" universes because they are more curved.
This might even provide an alternate mechanism for spirals.
One o fthe big questions posed so far by AuT is whether or not you have true F-series spirals which would require for inidividual spirals long periods of stability, the parrallel lines before they begin to converge after diverging.

Something has to happen in order to have solutions comprised of both diverging and converging positive and negative information sets (we see this in pi because it involves adding and then subtracting sequentially unit skipping denominators) to get the "net averages" creating inflection points and changing an expanding universe to a contracting one without increasing the mass of an otherwise constantly expanding or contracting universe (although the total amount of information and therefore mass does change at every quantum point) and the spiral equation allows for this. A similar result can be obtained merely by having offset solutions to sequential F-series universe stacking, however, and until the final line is drawn on the final equation for the AuT universe (or actually stacked universes) we don't need to rule out anything.
One point of this amazing little blog post, is that the force which Einstein and company wrongfully tied to black holes and neutron stars of the repulsive force is actually a diminishing force (forces not being forces at all it's really just a diminishing separation requirement as the curvature of the space math solution increases) allowing for the higher compressive state of ct5 (black holes) to exist just as at a much earlier value of x (the single variable in the single variable AuT one variable equation) allowed for waves to get close enough together to have a solution for matter to exist and way way back several "big bangs ago" presumably allowed space to coallece into photons.
There's a lot more to this, but it will wait since time (or the increasing value of x) is in no hurry to deal with me.

Random Posts

Between dying and going blind and figuring out the basis of quantum mechanics its hard to make time to do everything.  So I had to set aside some time which might otherwise have been spent on this blog to get some closure relative to the second edition of spirals in amber.
It would be wrong to say that I'm making no progress, because a lot is being done, but that first edition is a mess.  There are gems of truth in the book, but the second edition will be light years ahead of the first.
The universe decided that I was moving to fast and it threw some diversions in front of me, but I did spend today concentrating on the book and getting into the treatment of different time states which has become something entirely different given the stacked universe model.
The margins of the first edition are now filled with notes pointing out everything that should have been changed.
Let me make an excuse for myself.  I'm in a hurry to publish because one day mainstream physics is going to admit I was right because some mainstream physicist is going to either rewrite my work as his or come up with the same thing, reach a more receptive audience, or perhaps just not piss off everyone he writes for or he'll submit something to a publication which will publish it because he'll get my math finished and everyone will say how smart he is and I want to be able to say, if anyone is listening, that I was really smart first.
So I publish a lot of stuff that can't be called anything but quantum mush instead of quantum math.  However, there are only two letters between mush and math and you might say that is where I'm "at".  I really should be doing stand up.
I was at my charity board meeting and had some speakers come and it turned into something really weird but me and my speakers left and went downstairs and laughed and laughed about it and it really made me feel good, because I'm really good at laughing and we had a rip-roaring time.  In fact it was so much fun that I missed the rest of the board meeting and have no idea what really happened, but its a long story and one that I can't do justice here.
Today is the first day in a while that I didn't get any exercise but that's a long story too and I guess I moved around enough during the day, but I"m feeling a little guilty about it even though I did a little better yesterday.
Anyway, I'll get back to something of value in the next post, this one is just a place marker.  Not dead yet.

Building an algorithm, hairy black holes and aliens and philosophy of illusory self determination-aliens a halloween pre-story for you

The universe doesn't give a flip about us.  We are so tiny in its scheme of things.  If you look at the data embodied in our system (people) and the change inherent in that system and compare it to say just the sun, it fades into nothing by comparison and that has nothing to do with the overall universe.
And, of course, quantum entropy is non-existent.  We create that apparent order because in our little part of the universe, there is an increase at this moment in time in entropy (spirals coming together) which is reflected in the much grander scale of fusion on the sun which comparatively renders our data storage of no consequence.  The greatest of us is no more significant in this than a butterfly which is about to get smashed by your window.  A side note, I was near the woods this weekend (alone) and decided to go into them for a hike despite the heat and near certainty of catching malaria.  Afterwards, I took the opportunity to jump in the cold, clear water (freezing initially, but then comfortable) which I did for old times sake.  But where was i?
The world isn't here for us, we're just here?  True, but not there.
No, I"m here to talk about the aliens in the universe before I get to the bigger post on ghosts in AuT which I will, for Halloween, breath life into.  But back to Aliens.
We listen to the background noise which we believe comes from the big bang.  We listen to the stars for messages from aliens.
What we should be looking for is a message left by aliens from a pre-collapse universe that was left for us. It is likely that there was sufficient organization before the latest big bang that some society would have figured out something insightful that would give us a head start on the next collapse and that they, out of a sense of pathos left us a message in a way that will lead to my ghost story in a coming post.
Of course, if I can figure AuT out, it's almost certain that some aliens in our universe version have figured it out and perhaps they'd send some of that to us which would, for a solar system without me in it, save a lot of time and money looking for the wrong things, like bozons and quantum time and strings and such.
So how does insight into the workings of the universe fit into things?
It prevents goofball articles like this one:

http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/if-our-universe-is-just-a-random-occurrence-science-has-a-big-problem

We are more like a story which some creative entity put on auto pilot, a self writing story.  Once you set up the basic rules, you get war and peace; in our case mostly war.

And while we're debunking nonsense, let's talk about the "black holes" have no hair and the even more nonsensical idea of "falling into a black hole."  What idiocy is that!  Imagine falling into something which is more solid than anything else in the universe.  Remember, even though in my early work (3 years ago (EHT)) I posited that black holes were singularities going to the same place (I addressed why that theory didn't make sense already, read the old posts) it quickly become obvious that they were just more information states in exponential compression changing together.  You can't fall into that, all you can do is fall against it.  A quantum black hole would be exponentially more solid than a neutron.  Imagine how silly you'd feel arguing you just fell into a neutron.
That doesn't mean that matter doesn't fall towards black holes and having made contact with them that something doesn't happen.
All matter types have contact with one another in the sense that solutions are stacked.  Actual contact requires dimension which is absent.
So when you look at a black hole that is greater than the minimum predicted and less than twice the minimum, what you are looking at is a "hairy black hole."  I say that because it is the opposite of the idea that black holes have no surface features.
Black holes have the same surface that matter has, just with more coordinates changing together.
Like matter interacts and shares information properties with adjacent photonic, wave energy and space, so too would black holes share information and surface with those 4 states and change relative to them.
But that is enough for now, when I was alone in the woods, I was able to enjoy it because I was alone on purpose, it was not like being abandoned, and for a short time, that was good enough.
I wish the universe did give a damn about us, because if it did I could ask it a question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMlou7Q0GRE

Building an algorithm-the exclusion prinicple and attraction

So how does this process occur.  It is made up of draft concepts, so here's one of those draft concepts which, if it fits into the model, gets to stay.
The comparison of the new solution of AuT with the prior ideas that fell by the wayside (e.g. algorithms replacing a specific amount of unchanging information as suggested by einstein) shows how theories are built.  Nothing too rediculous unless it doesn't work, like pre-AuT quantum mechanics.
So here's an undeveloped concept,
The 0-1-1 combination suggests both an overlap and a repulsion within the fixed system.  At the 0 point, there is nothing to conflict with so that another state can join with it but as soon as the change in state occurs it is repulsed.  There is an exception which occurs when one has space followed by the other, shared state, having space as its next state.  0-1-1-0 paired with 1-0-1-1.
This is one way to find an exception allowing for shared states.
The significance is that this provides a methodology for going from 1,1,0 to 11,11,22.  The 11 comes from the two 1 states together, the 22 is where the 11 states come together.  Subsequent compression can come from the attraction between positive and negative time states.
This type of combination would not be reversible without a separation of the joined states, but it would allow there would be no empty space so no 0 for the higher states because the 0 would be filled.
This is the type of matrix analysis that needs to be made in order to get a dimensional result from information which does not otherwise have dimensional elements and which would provide a mechanism for stacking time states.
The right mechanism will automatically provide for stacking and if it is accurate it would include a mechanism for exponential growth at the ct4 ct5 level and provide a methodology for ariving at concentration states where comrpessions would occur spontaneously.
When this is addressed later, well it will be addressed later, but I have a ghost oriented post I need to make for Halloween.

Building an algorithm-the failure of entropy

Entropy doesn't exist.  Kinder-physics won't like this, but the universe is geared towards a steadily more organized system despite isolated instances of disorder and despite the fact that for a period of time it is "net" moving in an entropic direction.  On the quantum level everything is moving according to a very rigid plan and at a rigid rate of change towards a rigid converging, if infinite, series.
The Kinder pre-AuT physics is not so stupid because on a middle level, we live in an entropy driven system, but our EDS is illusory just as self determination is.  When you get caught up in the illusion you lose the symmetry of the system.  Symmetry requires that our "perceived self determination" is only a tool to accomplish an end by an underlying system.
It is not "I think therefore I am" instead it is "The desired result of the algorithm requires these thoughts to accomplish this result which makes me think I am."
A careful study of AuT allows that by careful analysis it "backed in" to spiral theory and following that line of thought eventually stumbled upon the Algorithm Model.  AuT then started with where we are and made a steady line backwards until an existing model (Freeman actually saw a stacking system of sorts in his calculations but they were tied too close to traditional physics, but otherwise he might have stumbled back into the AuT model) or at least an existing framework was discovered which could be adapted to the "backed in model."  Once that was available, it was possible to go back to g-space again and begin taking that model outward which worked equally well.  That's the sign of a good theory, one that works in both directions.
It provides predictability in terms of compression using numeric systems that we accept.
The complicated part isn't having the pieces because those are all required by the system.  The complicated part is putting them together.
Fortunately, there are models that give F-series results using matrix type models of the type needed in order to create the illusion.  A matrix yield an F-series can be viewed as looking backwards from a model that takes an F-series and "stacks" it in order to get the illusion of multiple dimensions from a single algorithm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number#Matrix_form look down till you get to the section entitled

Matrix form[edit]

A 2-dimensional system of linear difference equations that describes the Fibonacci sequence is

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{F_{k+2} \choose F_{k+1}}&={\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\1&0\end{pmatrix}}{F_{k+1} \choose F_{k}}\\{\vec {F}}_{k+1}&=\mathbf {A} {\vec {F}}_{k}~,\end{aligned}}}$

This derivation is of little significance as a derivation, but as a mechanism for determining how individual solution can combine to give multi-dimensional qualities to define space and separation it  holds some promise for this model.

Leonardo Bonacci Sequences (Fibonacci Sequences) make sense primarily because when used with an offset and anti-spiral model you get pretty good results.  Backing out from a boring set of curves to something stacked is where the modeling gets interesting.  This matrix type of concept that might lead with more study to the stacking mechanism.

In this section:

Divisibility properties[edit]

Every 3rd number of the sequence is even and more generally, every kth number of the sequence is a multiple ofF_k. Thus the Fibonacci sequence is an example of a divisibility sequence. In fact, the Fibonacci sequence satisfies the stronger divisibility property^[36][37]

${\displaystyle \gcd(F_{m},F_{n})=F_{\gcd(m,n)}.}$

Any three consecutive Fibonacci numbers are pairwise coprime, which means that, for every n,

gcd(F_n, F_n+1) = gcd(F_n, F_n+2) = gcd(F_n+1, F_n+2) = 1.

Every prime number p divides a Fibonacci number that can be determined by the value of p modulo 5. If p is congruent to 1 or 4 (mod 5), then p divides F_p − 1, and if p is congruent to 2 or 3 (mod 5), then, p divides F_p + 1. The remaining case is that p = 5, and in this case p divides F_p. These cases can be combined into a single formula, using the Legendre symbol:^[38]

${\displaystyle p\mid F_{p-\left({\frac {5}{p}}\right)}.}$

Primality testing[edit]

The above formula can be used as a primality test in the sense that if

${\displaystyle n\mid F_{n-\left({\frac {5}{n}}\right)}}$, where the Legendre symbol has been replaced by the Jacobi symbol, then this is evidence that n is a prime, and if it fails to hold, then n is definitely not a prime. If n is composite and satisfies the formula, then n is a Fibonacci pseudoprime.

When m is large—say a 500-bit number—then we can calculate F_m (mod n) efficiently using the matrix form. Thus

${\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}F_{m+1}&F_{m}\\F_{m}&F_{m-1}\end{pmatrix}}}$ ≡ ${\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\1&0\end{pmatrix}}^{m}}$ (mod n).

Here the matrix power A^m is calculated using Modular exponentiation, which can be adapted to matrices--modular exponentiation for matrices^[39]

you get to some interesting models because (1) it works for larger number of the type you'd find where there was compression and (2) you get the type of exponential stacking that supports the observed results.

If there is a problem with these models it is that I need an upgrade in my matrix mathematics which I'm not sure if I have time to finish.  Perhaps that will be something for someone else.

Building an algorithm 17

An object at rest tends to remain at rest, an object in motion tends to remain in motion.   Newton's theories related to velocity are accepted by the kinder-physic community.  An entire science is built around his observations of "natural forces" and the equations that "defined" them.
But he did not define them.  All he did was calculate them.
Later scientists came up with rules that predicted what would happen in the context of an amazingly predictable relativity.  But what was it predicting?  Gravity?  The interaction of time and space?  But it was obsessed with distances and forces as things in and of themselves.  It looked for harmony, but only with the matrix we lived in.  There was plenty of thought about what is behind the matrix, but that was too theoretical, even for the theoretical physicists and those who were close enough were distracted by life, especially war, but that is part of life.
Do you ever sit around wondering how people can be so stupid?  I know you do.  You sit and watch the news and you say, people can't be that stupid!  They're killing themselves, killing each other, they believe in the most bizarre fantasies in the world, they pay huge multiples for stocks that don't make any money...profit from it!  They are destroying the only planet they have and don't really seem to get why that's a bad idea and spend most of their resources preparing to kill each other when they aren't actually doing it.  Andy you think, even if we're just monkeys we have have to be smarter than this.
But if you look at human stupidity through the lens of AuT you see the ebb and flow of intellect as a reflection of the solution of the twin algorithm towards or away from intersection, you see irony not as a thing in and of itself, but a recognition that things of necessity flow together and apart.
The stacked algorithms form an onion (layers) of complexity, but it's equally important to see that the form things falling apart and coming together, constantly with only a net coming together or falling apart in any localized outcome.  At each layer, the underlying mathematical result is hidden further by the layers on top of it.  Newton looked at the results, but he didn't have the tools to look under the result to see what caused them because the layering process was so good at disguising what would otherwise have been an obvious sequentially more complicated solutions that underline not just Newton's forces, but everything.
But we're dumber than the monkeys.  Where's the explanation for that?  What else can it be other than that imperfection is a requirement of the system.
The Makeup of any group of spiral states tends to remain the same, whether it defines a quantum acceleration or a quantum stillness over any small group of combined states of necessity because of the way that spirals are made of the prior states.  A prior state that is moving is going to require a great deal of change to become still and the other way.  Newton's law then supports this whole idea.  What he accepted blindly as inertia, we now can see is a reflection of the natural tendency of combined items to reflect the status of what is combined to get to the current quantum state.  The fact that perturbations occur and often times on a large scale is because the combined solutions hold pockets of rapid change on a scale of x which is difficult to imagine at least by you, I think I have a handle on it.
The approach of the F-series to the gold ratio is seen with the function lim(n approaches infinity)F(n+inf)/Fn
GR(phi)=(1+sqr(5))/2 which is approx 1.618.  Interestingly it is also equal to [-1-sqr(5)/-2] of necessity because the first equation is equal the the second equation time -1/-1.
The golden ratio is a relativity function.  In two lines (a and b) the golden ration for any two lines is determined where a+b is to a and a is to b.  Mathematically: (a+b)/a=a/b
As an infinite series it can be expressed as:
13/8 + Sum(0 to inf)[(-1)^(n+1) * (2n+1)!/(n+2)!n!4^(2n+3)]
It can also be expressed as (sqr(1+sqr(1+sqr1+...)
What AuT teaches us is that infinite series have solutions for any quantum state in the universe.
For the golden ratio this would be GR=1+2sin(pi/10) or 1/2csc(pi/10) as pi is solved for  a perfect circle, but we know that pi evolves which is what allows curvature in a quantum universe.
When you use the concepts to collapsing space, you see that it cannot collapse perfectly in the way required by relativity which is a little too clean to be right.
Gravity exists, and it bends light, but the reason why it exists and what it reflects and what information states those photons represent is where the answer lies.  For the interactions of space-time with black holes is much like the interaction of photons, wave energy and space against ct4, the stuff we are made of.  It looks like forces, but it is only change of information as states attempt to move from one moribund state to the next.
So what happens with a black hole that prevents photons from escaping?  What happens to the different ct4 states that fall within the gravity well if they cannot join a singularity, for we know that they can only achieve a stable state in adequate concentrations and if they do not fall within the black hole and cannot become ct5, what happens.  The answer lies in the interface of ct4 and ct3.  When a copper wire is exposed to wave energy, it carries it.  The waves do not cease do exist, but neither do they have the same level of freedom before.  The understanding of these interaction, the study of them understanding what they are, will lead to a better understanding of what we are seeing in space and what we see when we look closer on us.
And what if we get too smart.  What if we build a disallowed tower of babel?  Why, the universe can deal with us without even thinking, a meteor, a supervolcano, supernova, something we have never heard of or perhaps the easiest thing, it will kill our knowledge with our own stupidity, the use of its primary weapon.  Irony.
 As I continue, we will look at some other question.
What is the effect of spatial calculations and the exclusion principle if there is no real dimension, is there any exclusion principle?  The solutions of relativity to black holes are too pure, they have time collapse because classical physics looks for perfection in a universe which can only exist by virtue of the tiny offset imperfections in an evolving pi equation.
And you will gradually see the genius in these posts and you will one day say, I could have hired him fairly cheaply to give a lecture, but I never did.  I wonder why not.  And the universe will answer you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qcVtEy6G1Q

Building an algorithm 16 gravity and anti-gravity

It's not really fair to say that an F-series (fibonacci series) yields the current universe.  That does appear to be part of a single variable algorithm, but the persuasive look of randomness should bother everyone.  How coudl a relatively simple algorithm give rise to something as complicated as today.  How can I explain it?  Well, the easiest way to explain it is to say that if you took a photograph of the entire universe, that would be a lot easier to imagine.  If you still can't get your hands around it, think about the alternative.  A zillion monkeys randomly typing it out on a zillion typewriters (that's randomness).  Still no good?  How about a spontaneously generated all knowing god who follows specific rules that he doesn't even need to follow?  The idea is that you're being stupid.  A foundational algorithm that builds on a very few specific rules is so much more likely that the only real problem is the background in which the algorithm exists.  But if you're looking for spirituality, that's whereyou can find it, in g-space.
It's time to talk about what happens when we stop blowing expansion into the Freeman Balloon Universe.  This is another way of ignoring dimension, which models fairly well on the actual universe which has none.
There are so many things based on misconception.  For example, the reasons that photons leave stars but not black holes.  The idea that black holes fall into a singularity is a odd little trap (double entendre) and one which I fell into originally.  Only when I noticed they were moving with the rest of the universe did I realize the mistake.  So why no photons?  It's pretty simple, they are not trapped, they are compressed out or into the higher compression state.  This doesn't stop black holes from attracting light, however or space.  In fact, time dilation requires that space be compressed in the proximity to any object with sufficient mass, even ct4 scale materials which are exponentially less dense than black holes.  A side note-the idea of miniature black holes making up dark matter is so absurd that it is absurd.  All ct5 states are exponentially more dense that ct4 states, it just works out that way.  Anything else would be unstable.  It might be created in a laboratory but as soon as the compression forces were removed it would break up and it would only be dense ct4, not ct5.
Now some of you are going to cling to black holes of the type in The Einstein Hologram Universe and that is my wrong turn also.  Since it remains possible (if outrageous) that book remains in print and you're welcome to read its misleading pages and who know it may be right.  Because the AuT universe doesn't give a crap.  It makes me point out the way that things really work for its own purposes and it can snuff me out (or you out) whenever it takes a mind to and if its going to happen in the next 10 minutes, that was also the case 50 billion years ago.
That 13.7 billion year ago start to the universe is utter nonsense since x wasn't large enough for even ct4 to exist in it's present form at 13.7 billion years from the true start.  Note you have all the information to do that but, you are correct, it wasn't in the book.  That was my mistake.  It is, however, in this blog (the spreadsheet allowing you to determine how much information is in the universe from the 16 billion expansion universe that we're in (note it may be 50x13.7 billion years too,but I'm going with the shorter time till I have a minute to unravel the post).  Whatever the age, it's based on AuT theory, not the nonsense that is spouted by the kinderphysic community.
At full compression, the "big bang" suggests and explosion, but there is no explosion, although some force changes the compression of the universe.  What is it?
This is an anti-gravity defined by the fact that an inflection point has been reached where a net inward movement is suddenly replaced with a net out ward force.
This transition will continue according to our estimates for either 16 billion years or 50x14 billion years when the next inflection point is reached.
What is the anti-gravity?  It appears that there is a net feature.  It currently nets where antigravity is greater than gravity for the entire universe, although for locations where gravity predominates, higher ct states, there appears to be something quite different.  As a matter of fact, the fact that we see so much gravity indicates that we are approaching an inflection point sooner rather than later.  When that happens we'll see a contracting universe.
There has been a very slight observed increase in gravity of the earth tied to meteor impacts and the like, but do we know that to be the case?  It's a slow process, the conversion from expansion to contraction and occurs at such a small level it might be hard to see and may be impacted by the relative stability of the states, that is ct4 states and ct5 states may change slower than ct1-3 states, that is the net anti-g and g for space, photonic and wave energy may change more quickly and even more often.  It is worth looking at more, but I have a bike ride to tdo this morning.
ct1 forms a matrix, possibly around the non-linear state (o,1,1-the zero).
The expansive force is around us, perhaps because it is "outweighed" by gravity it appears invisible or perhaps doesn't appear at all, but as the universe shifts and the air goes out of the Freeman balloon model, perhaps it will become predominate in some way and we will see it pushing against and apparently ever increasing gravity with just a different spin.
Space may change itself.  instead of an average of 0,1 it might be 1,1.
However, it is more likely the case that gravity itself changes over time.  It will  take 16 billion (the short time frame) years for gravity to change from "net anti-gravity" to "net gravity" in this model.  Now it could be that the transition will take 50 times as long for this change.
However under either it is possible under that spiral theory that gravity has changed so little during the 10,000 years of sort of recorded history that having seen 10,000/16 billionth of a change has not been noticed or it could be that the features of space might change to increase the apparent gravity there while it remains locally unchanged in compression states.
The possibilities are exciting and not quite endless.

I'm just saying, it's a powerful concept, a powerful memory, a bike waits for me, a little motivational music...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToP82VUjrNU&list=RDToP82VUjrNU#t=0

Building an algorithm-you are here revisited part 2

The last series of not totally co-existent blog posts need to be drawn together.
All physics has in common theme that self determination is illusory.  While there is are limits to what can be measured, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, this limitation is merely the over-complication of the process embodied in its features that require two points of inquiry in a single variable universe.  The Heisenberg mistake is in focusing on size, which is illusory, instead of mathematical modeling which can be solved for any point with certainty unless the universe is truly random in which case you should close this blog and get about your business.
But all physics rejects randomness.  The contribution to non-randomness, to the extent that it can be called a contribution, of AuT is that it explains the purpose of illusory self-determination.
All events or solutions to the algorithm have a common purpose.  Amusingly it is nothing more glorious than to begin or end compression/expansion cycles.  In the early universe, this would have been fairly obvious, but given the layers, with x of the scale over 10^100 for each quantum instant, and the offset addition of several universes each with different space characteristics and all misaligned, the simple purpose becomes more clouded, especially given the existence of temporarily stable states along with co-existent expanding and contracting 'unstable' spiral states.  Having the possibility of any point being recalculated for each value of x further complicates the model, especially if it leads to high x values being present in low value pi solution models.  For purpose of the current model, it is worth noting (ad nauseum) that expansion is where the solution of the two spiral sets for any point are moving apart and the contraction is where they are moving together.  Another complicating feature has to do with the offset feature of the universe.
While we can be absolutely, 100% certain that two separate points are offset due to the changing solution for the space/pi equation; it is less certain whether for any one point there is an offset.  While the model almost screams an offset, it remains possible, if not likely, that for individual points that they are perfectly aligned F-series intersecting spirals of the type discussed in the early model.  This would mean, at the point of overlap that you'd have these particles have equal amounts of positive and negative solution and they would disappear to some extent.  While this is a disturbing result in some ways, it would go a long way towards explaining why space looks like it does.  In AuT, of course, the idea that space would look empty is asinine, pre AuT physicists even knew this.  The only real difference is that space becomes fairly easy to understand in AuT and you can see what it looks like at least mathematically.
The problem with having aligned individual states is that it complicates a simple math model and it begs the question of why those individual points would not just collapse instead of stacking as the model requires for everything else.  But I digress.
The point is that the universe has a very simple fundamental purpose and while it is elegant in its simplicity it is far from romantic.  The 9/11 hijackers were not, fundamentally, making some grand statement about infidels, they were merely carrying their share of compression/decompression cycles and did nothing more horrible or glorious than the stamping machine that spit out the rivets that went into the several planes that were hijacked.  To fear, glorify and hate them is the job of morons, not physicists.  Physicists' jobs are to make better and better ways of achieving those cycles because the cycles demand it and, strangely, to explain why what we do is absurd.
There are some challenges here.
The first is to determine how two different state universes add up.  Since they are offset, adding them together is complicated from the simple F-series model.  you don't have 1,11,111, instead you have the pi' function constantly changing the angle of overlap between points so you have (geo(1),geo(1)geo(2), etc) so that the points added are offset by a geometry function which gives us the dimensional qualities of the universe we experience.
The second is to explain when compression occurs.  As the geometry function gives the illusion of dimension, so too does the compression function give the illusion of solidity.  While we can look at compression as the transition from 1,1,1 to 11,11,11 to 111,111,111 and so on, and while we can see the compression and decompression cycles as function of F-series algorithms, the way that they are aligned and the reason they align according to the equation (fseries(n))^2^n remains to be perfectly defined.
There are a finite number of ways for this to be solved, but the appearance of randomness in the solution is required at sufficiently high values of x only because of our observations.  However, the appearance of randomness hides a relatively simple model of clear cause and effect.

the k bomb

In my last blog I suggested that we were either 2% into the expansion phase or 98% of the way through it.  I'm uncomfortable with the 2% but I'm not so sure it's the wrong number.  After all, the universe doesn't really care whether I'm comfortable or not.   If it does, it obviously wants me uncomfortable because we're not writing this togehter.  I have no support, but I'm going to move on to the destructive phase of things and talk about the k-bomb.  Yes, I promised you that AuT theory would not disappoint you, that you'd be able do do something destructive with it.  You just have to be patient.
Now that I have predicted the "end" of our present universe, it will be fairly easy (because of the addititive quality of the F-series) to predict the actual age of the universe.  How, you ask?
It's actually quite simple, the complex looking universe being fairly simple.  First knowing the universe is 13.7 billion years old and, I'm going to use the shorter period for this entry, about 2.3 billion years from now it will start to contract (it's a curved function because it's averaged because of the pi function that ensures that it will never end as long as x can get bigger, any single function would have a long stable period, we can figure out from the expansion period what the contraction period will look like (there are many charts in the book showing the period when the spirals come together).  We know this will be longer for each universe based on the equation in that really long spreadsheet I put in one of the posts a few months back.
Anyway, the value of x for our universe (a subset of the value of x for all the universes so far) is roughly 32 billion years converted into seconds. and then multiplied  by 10^39.  That is a lot of x, but it's not as big a number as you'd think because the universe is defined by quantum moments which takes a lot less information that defininging it over a bunch of quantum moments.  In fact, I daresay my spreadsheet may actually cover that number in which case there would only be a few hundred (at most) big bangs so far, each adding to the x of the next one, but all those can be summed up.  See if we know how big x is for our universe approximately, we can get the exact number by looking for the closes spiral expansion or compression that matches it.    Part of that chart, by the way, appears in "A spiral in amber" although it did  not make the cut for "Spirals in amber" but you can find it in this blog if you spend some time looking.  Or you could write me and ask me to send you a copy of the spreadsheet, maybe I would, who knows?
Or, since you are too lazy to pick up the phone and call me, you can wait and I'll take some time to solve it in here.
But what's that?  This blog entry is called "the k-bomb."  We all know about Einstein and his H bomb.  That uses the conversion factor for ct4-ct3 to blow things up.  More particularly, the algorithm solves for us building 10,000 years of post ice-age society just so we can compress chemicals and explode them in order to satisfy the compression or expansion cycle for a particular group of spirals.  Yes, the crazy north koreans are just fulfilling an expansion/compression cycle as mandated by the F-series, pi building offset universe that we live in.  It's a lot of absurdity if you look at them, just to do some spiral decompression, but stupid as they are, if you look at the superpowers (usa, russia and china) of nuclear weapons, you see we're doing it on a much bigger scale and if you look  at world war ii, you basically see the same process.  Even so, compared to the activity within the earth or at the sun, it's a relatively minor amount of bother or algorithm solution in the grand schem of things. That is what we are, however.  We are algorithm solving results.  Well, you are anyway.  Just kidding, we all are.
But we're talking about a weapon more powerful than Einsteins.  A k bomb, which I now believe I have enough information to start on, can not only destroy an entire planet, but in relatively short order a solar system and even, given time, a galaxy.  Well, it would take a really, really  long time to destroy a galaxy and it wouldn't really destroy any of it, but it's a really powerful weapon that if applied properly could do a lot of damage, that is if you call change damage.  I'm not sure you can really call solving a math problem damage.  Of course, fortunately, it's rather hard to detonate a k-bomb, although its surprisingly easy to build.  No one has known how to build one before me, of course.
I will get to that.
The greeks, not surprisingly, given their early work into Algorithm Universe Theory, actually envisioned the k bomb in their mythology.  It's hard to believe that such a weapon was imagined 2500 years ago, but there you have it.   They envisioned the weapon and its results, but it was shrowded in superstition, or perhaps they actually did see it and hid it on purpose, who knows?
 There is some suggestion that they tried to build one over several generations, but it failed if they did and any attempt in my opinion was probably silly, like a child designing a nuclear weapons with tinkertoys.  You might be able to put something together that looked like a nuclear weapon, but it wouldn't be capable of detonation.
My k bomb should be capable of detonation with the same awful result that the greeks envisioned.  Imagine that?

You are here-revisited rate of change-expansion

Occasionally in this blog, I make a slight divergence to determine where the heck we are in the universe.  I do this mainly to remind you with relatively simple mathematics how much smarter I am than everyone else.  Honestly, no one believes that.
Today, I will tell you where I expect the next inflection point to be and why.  At this point, inflection point, which I am going to give you with some specificity (using several assumptions) you will know exactly when the universe will suddenly stop expanding and start contracting.
Prepare to set your alarm clock.
Don't worry about reading fast, it won't happen while I'm typing this or while your reading it unless you're reading it far, far into the future after everyone has signed a petition acknowledging that I was smarter than everyone else, I suppose.
As most kindergarten physicists know the universe is expanding and that the farther galaxies "appear" to be be moving faster.  We know why this is the case using AuT, but Kindergarten physicists do not know, so I will refer to the fact that the average inflection point over all the spirals stacked to form the universe is in a net expansion state which relates to an inflection point that occurred around 13.7 billion years ago and is affectionately known as "the most recent inflection point from net compression to expansion" or "the big bang" to the kinder (a little German there just for you).
For purposes of this we are going to (1) accept relativistic effects and then (2) reject them and finally (3) we're going to correct for CBR which is the only thing that matters since it's the only point of reference relative to the beginning and end of things for reasons that will be clear..
The farthest object we see is at 13.3 bln light years and is moving away from us (1) at three times the speed of light or (2) the speed of light less a bit. [remember that 1 accepts the relativistic effects and 2, the more accurate measure, rejects them].  However, (3) for CBR it's not moving at all.  If it is, as I will discuss shortly, then the universe is really old and you better grab your hat and umbrella.
The universe is young!  Relatively speaking, I believe it is 1/44th of its way towards the beginning of its contraction phase.
Let me explain.
The farthest object is 13.3 bln light years away.  In a universe that is 13.7 billion years old that means it's essentially at the edge of the universe and it took 13.3 billion years for it's light to reach us which was some 420 million years after it formed.  It's essentially at the edge of the universe, but whether we're going to stick with 13.3 billion light years or the 13.7 doesn't matter much because the extra distance isn't important for rounding this off.  If you really want to put an alarm on your phone and it will handle the numbers, you can try to get more precise, you'll have the math.
According to relativity the distant galaxy is moving at (1) 3c relative to us which is (3) zero relative to CBR but it's really moving at (2) the speed of light (c) and we know that to be the case because...the initial spirals are all space moving at the speed of light and this is only slowing down a little because it's only 400 million years old.  I.E. ct1 changes at the speed of light if you put a speed to it at all.
You and I are in a galaxy that's moving at the relatively slow speed of 627km/s.  Earth is actually moving slower than the galaxy relative to cbr but if you start comparing apples to pomegranates you're going to end up with a fruit salad.  Anyway, we're a mere 25000 light years from the center of the 13.7 billion light year across universe.  We're only 1.9x10-6 of the way to the edge of the universe.  Now let's talk about what is happening because of this.  The other galaxy is not really moving at 3 times the speed of light or even at the speed of light.  It was when it's light started to come to us a 13 billion years ago, but it's subject to the same average inflection point that we are, we're just 13 billion years down the road from it.
To put it another way, the universe has slowed from expanding during that 13.7 billion years from the (1) relativistic speed of 2c (599564800m/s) or (2) the real speed of light (299782450 m/s) all the way down to 627,000 m/s today  It's gotten a lot slower over those 13.7 billion years unless you correct this for CBM and spiral motion.
If you use the measured speed we'd be 98% of the way to the inflection point (and you'd be running to grab your umbrella and raincoat) which is part of the reason I think that goes in the wrong direction although it would still mean we have 2% of 13.7 billion years before the inflection point).  Instead we're looking at is slowing from the cbm of non-movement all the way up to 627,000 m/s going towards a dead stop at 299782450m/s relative to cbm.
That means that we've slowed down 2.25% of the ways slowed 299155450m/s over a mere 13.7  billion years.  It has slowed 2.25% of the way to being at a complete stop, an inflection point.  Put another way, we're 1/44 th of the way to the next inflection point.  This means that 44 times 13.7 billion years from today we'll be at the inflection point and I'll be around 609 billion years and a half century old.  Makes my back hurt just to think about it.
And you...are here!

One footnote, if we've really slowed 98% of the way down then in 2.74 billion years the universe will stop expanding.  That's pretty fast but it might be the right time frame, who knows?

Building an algorithm 15: compendium-why einstein and I were wrong...until I got it right

gravity is an effect not a cause.  All the other forces arising from gravity, all other forces are effects
the universe is not a place of events, it is a place of an algorithm being solved for a variable
the universe contracts and expands, but not because of gravity or dark energy which are effects but because the algorithm has average inflection points which spiral towards but never reaches equality or a balance of the positive and negative
the algorithm defines both a positive and negative F-series.
The algorithm allows for stacking of time states because F-series are stackable (1,1,2 is the same as 11,11,22 is the same as 111,111,222 and so on)  This qualities extends to stacks on top of stacks.
The positive and negative sides of the algorithm are required to provide for expansion and contraction about a common solution.  As the solution moves away there is expansion, as the solution stays parallel (not exactly parallel because of offsets) there is near stability, as the solution moves together there is compression.  For each solution this model holds, even as the solutions are stacked leading to an average solution about which the universe expands and contracts.
There is no relative movement in the sense of quantum change.  Relative movement instead takes into account (1) that all points must change at the same rate according to a single variable and (2) space (ct1) or some other state provides a matrix and the interaction with the matrix gives the appearance of relative change that is observed.
There is no separation, if there was, then space could be infinitely divided and would lose itself as a point of reference.  Instead, there is a finite amount of information from which the definition of pi is defined at any value of x and this information has no separation but is only a solution of yes or no which solution is divided into two separate F-series.  The amount of information varies according to the F-series as x increases incrementally.
Parminides (not Einstein, Newton or anyone else) was the father of AuT, I am the Dr. Frankenstein.
The big bang is an average inflection point, one of a very large number of those corresponding to intersecting offset spirals which approach but never achieve equal size or allignment according to the pi type infinite converging series.  It is a big bounce, but a defined big bounce.
Einstein defined space time, but failed to realize that it had been proven 2600 years before according to logic to be an illogical system.  Einstein said that the reason for time was so that everything didn't happen at once.  That led me down the wrong path in assuming that the universe arose from a finite amount of information allowing a consistent definition of pi and that any point in the universe was merely the expression of the information for a value of time.  In fact, that analysis fell apart because it required the universe collapse and that would have required that there be a fixed point of reference, a beginning which is contraindicated.
The universe must be an informational based system with lmiits or there would have to be something  beyond the universe which would create an infinite system.  In fact, the universe has no dimension.
Black holes do not define a singularity.  If they did they would all have to drop into the same place and they move in space.  Even the earliest versions of the theory recognized that all states must have gravity in order to have the amount observed, that all states were interchangeable (none could drop out of space just because of their weight) and even a cursory observation showed that each state was the exponential informational change for the preceding state.  n^2^x where the existence of 2 in the equation showed that the states (ct1-ct5 that we observe) were information states.  N, based on observation, proved to be the F-series for that state (2,3,5 for matter for example) and x the state number (4 for matter).  This made it clear that the transition observed was ct1 space, ct2 photonic energy, ct3 wave energy, ct4 matter and ct5 black hole material).  There was nothing magical about any state although the interaction of states and particularly the interaction of the states with ct1 gave rise to solutions that we call forces when they are linear.
Linearity was originally seen by me incorrectly as movement from the singularity.  It later became clear that the movement was from one solution to the F-series equation to the next.  Space itself evolved since the definition of pi is based on the changing total amount of information or the total value of x for any universes stacked to make the F-series.
If you are blinded by accepting space as a given, then you cannot see the true nature of the universe as stacked quantum states.  Without the stacking of states there would be no history possible which is why the idea of everything happening at once and any point co-existing with all others had to be abandoned, such quantum instances would not give the appearance or illusion of history.
The original use of the F-series came from a model based on gravity from looking at the end of the spectrum.  The final use of the F-series came from its value as a building block from the beginning of creation.  The curve of gravity changes.
The spiral of the universe corresponds to the spiral of information developed by the author:

o

a primitive discussion of einstein and hologram theory

Still stuck with everything happening at once but beginning to uncover the problems in the theory

A compendium of all the information developed still clinging to the wrong ideas

The first edition of the work that incorporated (along with a bunch of old information) the correct method of defining the universe, the second edition of this coming this year

Building an algorithm 14: ct1-speed and gravity and a non-steady state universe

Newton and Einstein math models predict that a static universe would not work.  In this way they incorrectly state that the universe must be either expanding or contracting and not static.
AuT correctly points out that the universe is not static at all, that change is an absolute requirement in the solution to the single variable universe although any particular solution defies both Newton and Einstein by remaining quantum and therefor static.
Also AuT suggest that the "universe" is neither expanding nor contracting but that it merely defines an average which reaches inflection  points according to an algorithm and that at the inflection points the average is either expanding or contracting.
However, at any point the universe is unbalanced.or it would become non-linear and is both expanding in portions of the solution and contracting in portions of the solution even at inflection points, although the theory is that the proportion of expanding at the end of any compression point is less than the inflection point before corresponding to the evolving solution of pi.
It is suggested by the model that the amount of ct1 contacted over time by a "higher compression state (e.g. ct4)  increases speed.  That is between F(x) and F(x-1) if a ct4 has a common solution within a series of adjacent solutions with more ct1 states as opposed to the same ct1 states then it moves faster (compare if it contacts more -ct1 (the opposite spiral solution).
It is also suggested that if the number of ct1 states contacted shifts between a common set of ct1 states than you get the same result which explains gravity giving rise to the same phenomena of time dilation.
This in turn suggests that in a compression algorithm, ct4 or 5 in particular, more ct1 is circulated more quickly.  This suggests that in a compression state that the solution over a given set of separate quantum states remains more concentrated but that the circulation speed between the outermost quantum states at least and ct1 states occurs more often.
Presumably, "more" gravity is possible from the ct(4) state over a given set of locations over a certain amount of time.  That is as more ct1 space is squeezed out by the presence of multiple ct4 states, it generates more gravity in a given location but also should have more time dilation outside of the more concentrated areas which should be capable of observation in a system.  The alternative is that the concentration of ct1 states with ct4 states is not affected by the density of the ct1 state.
In this way, speed and gravity effects of ct1 solutions in proximity to ct4 affect it in a similar fashion which suggests that one is the effect in any single F(x) solution and results from the change between F(x) solutions based on the interface of ct1 and ct4 in adjacent solutions with the same ct1 states increasing concentration and different ct1 states creating speed.
It is also suggested Waves and photons are sufficiently spread out so that the amount of ct1 is not crowded out which follows that the amount  of ct1 contacting those two states is constant since none is crowded out by a compression solution giving them a constant maximum speed relative to ct1.

The changing Face of AuT 2

Here's a chapter or two from the second edition of Spirals in Amber:
Time (as we experience it) may result from the existence of CT5 even though matter is CT4 because with CT5 a point of reference is created.
In relativity, space time is changed (bent) by gravity.  In NLC the amount of gravity (positive or negative) represents the amount of linearity in a system.  In NLC, linearity is illusory, gravity can be seen much like the effect of lighting a particular slide.  The slide itself hasn't changed.  One can see this quality of intersecting spirals where spirals overlap at collisions (Figure 2).
In AuT the slide changes in successive, sequentially larger compressed combinations of systems where each combined system changes internally as x increases acording to the broad equation:
F(x)-F(x-1)+F(x-2).  For any F it changes by virtue of being a combination of the prior two F(s) but also each of the two combined F(s) change as x changes.  Otherwise, the internal spirals would  not move.
Put another way:
F(x)-f(x-1) rotated according to the solution for each point solved for x  + F(x-2) roated according to the solution for each point solved for x.
This dual change means that in each system, it's internal components vary as they are combined successively.  It also might suggest a slight alteration in history with each successive change although it would not be perceptible because each subsequent quantum state would be based on that alteration.  Still this raises some great questions, my next science fiction story.  Someone realizes that history is changing with each quantum moment and tries...what?  to stop it?  perhaps to alter it so that in the current state he ends up with someone he loved once, a Frankenstein type spinoff perhaps?  Coming in 2017, perhaps.  Maybe the universe, in the interim, will chose to rub me out.  Sort of feels like it sometimes.

The changing Face of AuT

Here's a chapter or two from the second edition of Spirals in Amber:
Time (as we experience it) may result from the existence of CT5 even though matter is CT4 because with CT5 a point of reference is created.
In relativity, space time is changed (bent) by gravity.  In NLC the amount of gravity (positive or negative) represents the amount of linearity in a system.  In NLC, linearity is illusory, gravity can be seen much like the effect of lighting a particular slide.  The slide itself hasn't changed.  One can see this quality of intersecting spirals where spirals overlap at collisions (Figure 2).
In AuT the slide changes in successive, sequentially larger compressed combinations of systems where each combined system changes internally as x increases acording to the broad equation:
F(x)-F(x-1)+F(x-2).  For any F it changes by virtue of being a combination of the prior two F(s) but also each of the two combined F(s) change as x changes.  Otherwise, the internal spirals would  not move.
Put another way:
F(x)-f(x-1) rotated according to the solution for each point solved for x  + F(x-2) roated according to the solution for each point solved for x.
This dual change means that in each system, it's internal components vary as they are combined successively.

Building an algorithm 13-Would you like some pi with that Gravity

The basic formula for these is given in terms of "informational weight" earlier, but coming up with a specific method of combining the information is on the way, but it's a slow process.  These diagrams serve to give you some idea of the difficulty of getting to a single method of combining two prior states so before the fine tuning let's compare the gravity diagram with the pi diagram.
We're going to add another way that gravity may be expressed.  Again they all have to do with going from a quantum state to a linear state, but there is yet another shift in the methodology when we use the F-series accumulation.
By way of review the changes we've discussed previously are set forth in this diagram:

These are shifts within a state as x (the single variable driving the algorithm) changes.
Item A shows the gravity arising from relative changes between the positive and negative spirals, but this appears to be an expansion contraction equation (intersecting spirals) as opposed to a pure gravitational element.
NLC predicts and observations suggest that Gravity comes from a shift from non-linearity to linearity which can be shown in any of the other changes above, but it can also come from change that exists from the combining of two prior states to get to the current state in which case it evolves from the change from the diagram above to the next diagram.
In order to see this shift we have to modify the diagram above to get at least a feel for how the evolution of space curvature affects the outcome.
Pi suggests the universe vibrates as do the effects reflected by the intersecting F-series spirals which you arrive at mathematically with these models.
While the stupid say, "we can't be an algorithm because the table my computer sits on is too solid," the wise says "the lack of complete density (a more solid universe) indicates that there is an offset during the vibration required to give any space for movement at all."
Put another way, if the universe were not offset, when you tried to move through space it would be so compact that it would be impossible.  The amount of offset is almost irrelevant except in a relative sense, however, because dimension is clearly a illusion in an information based universe and as long as you can express a solution in terms of great distance, there is no actual separation between solutions necessary.
Questions about for the two separate spirals.  It even has to be asked if  one is merely the mirror image of the other or is it enough that it is on the negative spiral?  However, the math shows us there is more going on than merely imaging.
Gravity appears to arise from the change by adding two states to get to the third just as the other forces arise from this solution to the math equation (instead of the primitive Pre-AuT method of looking for forces and the cause or carriers (god forbid!) for forces, you instead say the solutions to the algorithm gives rise to solutions that we interpret and use as forces.
So lets look at another diagram that will show how the positive elements build on the positive spiral followed by the negative elements building on the negative spiral and this additive quality would suggest that the total amount of gravity would increase for the universe steadily but in small increments which would follow a universe of expansion and contraction around inflection points if you allow for a negative and positive expansion and contraction based not on the amount of gravity but instead on the amount of intersection tendency vs separation tendency in the numerous spirals generated as is discussed previously in the derviation of the big bang phenomena..
Whether you have positive or negative gravity is important because you can, in this scenario have a "net" gravity for any quantum state which is the amount of positive over negative gravity and this can shift depending on the spiral state.  In fact, compression and expansion inflection points requires that the net amount of attraction shifts which, in turn, suggests intersecting spirals and pi suggests that the build out of the universe involves first adding to the positive spiral and following that adding to the negative spiral.  Whether this involves adding both positive and negative to the positive spiral and then positive and negative to the negative spiral is less clear so below we will use a model that follows the derivation of pi..
While I use graphics to show the addition of prior states to form future states and while this is indicated in the durability of the universe, the actual method by which stacking occurs yields an uncertain, but observed method of stacking in the form of the forces we experience and history.  That is, we are in that solution so we see it in the forces that are present and the transitions that are observed.

This shows a combination of changing geometry (evolving pi) with combination compared to the more simple model where all elements remain the same

It's hard to read, but on the left is a column showing the un-edited  positive and negative points.  On the right, the points are modified at least for the first three values of x to show how the curvature of space is affected.  Later, the positive changes and negative changes reflected by the denominator in the pi equation are shown just through x=7.  In other words, we're looking at an insanely young universe, but we're seeing the two arms capable of development in different fashions depending on how the information is combined from each prior universe.

It is discussed in the small words, but we'll cover it in more detail later.

Thus endith part 13.