I'm hoping that I have an opportunity to spend time in a place which is muggier than here and which has been described as having bugs the size of chickens flying around. It's a strange thing to hope for; but there are so many potential problems getting there that it hardly seems like something to worry about today with the thunderstorms in the distance and the mosquitos in the future.
A ceiling fan, probably because there is such humidity, makes a big difference, it is like blowing water around, it turns an opporessive humid heat into something that is almost cold. I suppose you just can't win unless you climb up and turn down the speed of the ceiling fan. There, it's so humid, it just started raining, the water was just too much for the sky to hold, I guess.
The discussion of the incongruency in weather is appropriate to the post of the day. I'm dealing with serious inner ear issues which means I can only write for short periods of time. It helps to use my bad eye, which is like trying to write on a billboard a mile away through a blizzard where the most I can hope for is to see if one of the letters goes up eventually. It reminds me of some work I did for the visual impaired computer company back when my vision was good. I understood the importance of what was being done, but not that I'd eventually need it. That is getting off the point. which is that I think it helps the inner ear thing to balance out the use of my eyes so that if this is illegible at the end of the day, it's not that surprising to me.
I occasionally swim with my eyes closed to spare my vision and this is a similar thing, writing with my eyes closed.
Anyway, getting to the point of this post.
Dark and cold energy, cold energy being my term, is the topic of discussion on this muggy hot/cold morning, its paradoxes fitting so well with those I am going to write about.
Dark energy is the algorithm solution that leads to expansion (related as the cause of gravity and not a reflection of it). Cold energy is the same algorithm during the compression phase.
Today, let's deal with a universe that is expanding faster and slower at the same time, which is the result that AuT suggests, a part of the different converging series inherent in the intersecting f-series.
So, can you have a universe that is expanding faster while expanding slower at the same time?
If the answer is yes, then the increase expansion vs speed of expansion seems to hold the answer.
There are two types of expansion. One driven by F-series stacking and another is driven by the compression vs decompression solutions. F-series expansion will constantly increase, compression and decompression (a majority of intersecting vs a majority of moving apart) cycles will change and compression is the result.
So here's the article I want to discuss which is a most "AuT" article and helps to see why AuT is such a strong explanation:
http://www.npr.org/sections/
The description of geometry is wrong, but they understand the reasons. For example, they say perspective is the problem and that is correct, but the perspective mistake that they don't discuss is that it is our view of space which is the error, while AuT points out that much information exists in a space time free state. So let's look at some of what they say:
"Current measurements indicate that the universe has a flat (or nearly flat) geometry. For cosmology, a flat geometry means that rays of light actually travel on a straight line across space. (In a curved geometry, the rays would trace a curved path, like when you run your finger over the meridian of a globe.) Also, and very importantly, a flat geometry means that the universe is probably infinite. If you'd start moving on a straight line, you'd never come back to where you started. (In a spherical geometry, if you move, say, along the equator, you'd get back to your starting point.)"
Solution order has nothing to do with space-time except that the relative solution density gives rise to space-time effects. Hence, a flat geometric solution merely means that changes occur according to a linear framework which is required since a "break" in solution order woudl disappear as soon as another solution was reached because there is no true distance between one solution and the next.
Hence, this otherwise perfect quote: "there is no space "out there" for it to expand into. What the cosmic expansion does is stretch space itself, as if space were made of some kind of stretchy rubber material. There is no physical border out here, only stretching space..." is confusing because it continues to look at space as a thing, while space is just the way that information is displayed during quantum solutions. Space isn't "stretchy," instead information increases constantly and at an exponential rate. However it also compresses (1,11,111,1111,11111, etc) so that it can increase, but it can be displayed as more compressed which is what our premise says; depending on whether it is increasing faster than it is compressing. Since compression is governed by an intersection/non-intersecting modality when space is non-intersecting, there is no more of it at any quantum instant, but it is increasing at a faster rate because more of 11111 is changing into 1 so it will expand faster between two statest than if more 1's are changing to 11111 even though the amount of information increases more with either version. This is the solution that AuT suggests and, oddly enough-not really odd at all, the one that observations suggest.
Now, order of solution (as shown in Book1) yields some interesting results because every point allows you to view every other point from that solution so you have relative separation. But you also have a beginning, even though every point on the chain is the center in terms of its relative location to otehr solutions. How does this "almost AuT article address this?
"... every point is a center of the expansion, as observers measure their neighbors moving away, carried by the stretching geometry."
This statement is both true, from a center of expansion argument, and confusing because it is not stretching geometry, it is at the quantum level a matter of quantum solution order and over time this appears to stretch because the total amount of information increases (exponentially) even though the way it is expressed can increease or decrease depending on the compression.
The article goes on to describe the Hubble "law": "where the galaxies move away from one another with velocities that grow in proportion to their distances. So, an observer sees a galaxy that is twice as far away from a closer one move away (or recede) twice as fast." Which raises some issues which are so large and so important relative to explaining F-series solutions that it requires a separate post.
The broad issue is that in diverging solution (over values of x) the number of ct1 solutions between two points (or galaxies in this case) must increase, but the absorption of these ct1 states only changes based on velocity of the point in question. Velocity (ct1 absorbtion) is relative as well as important internally, just as gravity generating features relate to the change in ct1 between the two points (m1*m2/r^2 is solved relative to ct1 loosely in book 1 and book 2 and is a major source of the treament coming out in book 3).
A quantum universe means that locational features can be solved at quantum instances, but gravity does not exist except as a solution on the quantum scale because at any quantum point the solution is fixed even though the order of solution and the compression of the solution are different between any two points of necessity.
Hence, you have to depart from the quantum view if a single ct1 is added, and look at the difference between the two solutions where the ct1 affects the distance of both by only 1 solution order. The gravitational effect and the display effect are, based on non-quantum phenomena are displayed based on the difference and not some elasticity between solutions.
And here is something worth listening to this week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqg4taiLRRE
The only difference between this and the better eric clapton stuff is the guitar volume is turned up a little higher, anyway that's what I think.
^
No comments:
Post a Comment