This suggests a couple of things and one of them is that Time in its purest sense is the contact of a higher state (ct4 for example) with one CT1 state 1.07x10^39th times in one second. How contact is defined in an offset universe gets us to the idea of time orbits where a shared orbit is equal to contact.
If you accelerate cycle after each increase in x-strange spiral equation,
In this way, as you "accelerate" you are changing the number of ct1 states that are solved in the orbit. Even if you're just "vibrating" you're moving between two sets of ct1 states which is enough to interrupt the resulting time.
Hence velocity can be defined not as dx/dt but as dct1/to whre dct1 is the number of different ct1 states over the number of time orbits (quantum states sharing a common solution for ct4 in question and the associated ct1 states). Now many of you are saying this is just a semantic difference and I agree completely, but it is a semantic difference by properly identifying what you are looking at. The are both quatrapeds but one is a horse of a different color.
One gives a very specific reason for time dilation, the other takes the reasoning for granted and merely recognizes that it is happening. The actual "change" for any quantum remains constant, but relative contact with ct1 is "experienced" as aging and standard clock time.
One issue raised by this analysis is the possibility of strange inflection points. One way to view the universe is to say that the inflection points are dependent only on x. The universe expands and contracts according to the solution to the average solutoin for all curves as being either expanding (going away from their negative spiral) or contracting (going towards their negative spiral).
The introduction of time adds another possible wrinkle that might explain why we don't see space doubling with each historical quantum change inx.
In this solution x still changes the direction of the universe at inflection points, but wihin the universe defined by ct1, you have a universe which fully cycles based on the fixed amount of x at the time of the last inflection point. This secondary cycling is based on SCT which is, in fact, a secondary time frame to CT(0)-CT(1) transitions. This would allow for a more infinite cycling (ct 0-1) to ct(0) could exist with universes cycling within this pre-universse ct state.
At low values of x this pre-ct1 inflection point cycling would occur frequently. But at our size universe, the cycles would take place over bilions of years (I believe I calculated before about every 40 billion years) and given the size of x, the universe would have an almost incalculable age. Actually it would be relatively easy to calculate based on the information we have but its really old. The answer is determined this way (assuming our cycle is 40 billion years for the cycle (check an earlier post where I give the exact number).
If you have the number of quantum units (total gravity reduced to quantum size using the 1.07x10-39 figure) and then you use the F-series to see how many different universes this yield and then multiply that number by 40billion/2; you'd get an approximate age for the universe. It's pretty darned old, but that only gets you to the age of the ct0-ct1 universe and if there's one before it, well throw out the calculator, because you're going to need a bigger one.
This is a result which is almost mandated by age being equal to the amount of common/fixed space ct1 encountered by any quantum point of higher ct state over a given value of x.
Is it just the next lower state, ct1 or all of the related lower states that gives the effect of aging? This is a question that remains to be solved with certainty, but the changing position of ct5 over time indicates that it is ct1.
Velocity is anti-aging, that is to say it is anti fixed ct1 contact. This strange feature of the universe is not so strange when we understand that gravity is the change between two quantum universe states.
All of these things are intertwined and create confusion when viewed without reference to the underlying algorithm which is why AuT provides such clear answers to such puzzling questions of prior theories.
So the movement observed of all things through ct1 (space) ages them with greater speed as the ct1 states in contact increase. In other words if a ct1 state stays in contact with a ct4 state for longer, the ct4 state ages faster than if it changes ct1 states constantly. This is observed and aging then can be defined as the relative sharing of quantum states with a given ct1 state.
No comments:
Post a Comment