The problem with this article is that it is like a discussion of horses where everyone talks about daffodils.
In the scientific method before you test a theory, after observation, you have to come up with one that is viable. None of these are viable because they don't explain what is observed. They say "the universe expands, things started from a point; but without an explanation of why you're really just discussing religion, i.e. a faith based system.
Now don't get me wrong. I have g-space (non-space/time) which is not explained except in terms of what its not and I call it g-space because I have to have faith its there. It's the environment that holds the algorithm and adds 1 to x. I call it g-space after god because it serves that function. That makes me little better, actually no better at all, than these other physicists who are banging on their drums around a campfire thinking they know something when they don't but I point out that self determination is an illusion and they mostly probably cling to it for one reason or another.
I'm not altruistic in this regard. I want my theory recognized for being right because I want to travel to get out of here and, quite frankly, I need the money. Knowing how the universe works makes it less likely I'll win the lottery. That is, in an irony based universe intent on me determining the origins of everything several factors are at play: 1) I'm given just enough to get where the universe wants me to be and 2) recognition is always a short distance away. The only way, in this universe, that I can be right is that I have to remain obscure and if I manage to escape obscurity, I must be wrong in some crucial regard.
AuT doesn't explain the red shift, i.e. the expansion of space, it explains why it occurs. In AuT space "expands" by adding solutions between some points while simultaneously reducing it between others in a counterbalanced infinite series of expansion balanced against compression.
It would be easy to observe if it happened in a uniform way, but the methodology of intersecting solutions offset from one another ensures that it is not uniform, but it also ensures that it is not random. That is, I type this exact same paragraph at x=a gazillion gazillion and you read it every time. You think pashaw every time and I take a sip of coffee confident that I am correct.
The increase in information isn't a space-time event; but there is a constant order and the increase of space we currently see (during the decompression phase) means that there is little enough space compressing into light (photons) to make a signficant effect on expansion at least in any localized area. Where, you ask, is space being compressed at all? Well, we see it. Space is compressed around large masses. You may not like it, but its there and everyone knows its there because Einstein observed it, but that doesn't mean he knew what he was looking at. At Suns it gets compressed enough to radiate photons. What you have to remember, however, is that what we're observing is compression and not space. Space is merely the number of solutions between each other. Let me pontificate (more).
CT4(1) and CT4(2) are minding their own business in the universe. CT1(1-100) are between them in order of solution but offset from one another so that a three dimensional web is formed. We know something about what this looks like from book 1 (second edition) but I don't have that picture uploaded so I'll use another one:
What this shows, inter alia, is that all these solutions are separated from one other by the order in which they are solved and that any one of these solutions has a particular place relative to another. This is, more or less, a picture of space since the compression of higher ct states makes the diagram too dense to easily draw, although the "faster" circle shows what spatial compression would look like, the solutions are closer together although there still isn't distance. How do you do this? AuT says by intersection or solving them at the same time. How can you solve two equations at once. Well, Leo d Pisa figured that out. You merely go from 1 to 11 in the F-series so that you solve and get 2,22;3,33,5,55; etc and it actually works and jives with observed results. Note that Leo didn't apply this Parnidiean observations in light of relativity because he didn't know that relativitity existed and anyway, he was busy as an early accountant paving the way for the renaissance. The insane thing is that this accounting triumph doesn't even warrant him a statue and while the poorly founded tower is totally famous, the true genius of Pisa is not even recognized in his own city. Why not? Irony. So if you go to Pisa expecting to see Fibonacci's house and statutes and awards by later generations thanking him for the math that made the renaissance possible (it's a little early to give him his due credit for AuT, I have to be dead first) you won't find any of it.
Anyway, I digress (shockingly).
Where the fuck were we?
Oh yes, we have ct4(1) and ct4(2) and between them are ct(1-100) defining what we interpret as a straight line although its just 100 solution orders. The problem is that these orders are themselves separated from others by similar orders and from each other so its a mess.
Looking at the simplified version above, you're seeing one level of expansion in this way, but you ar enot seing others. In exponential expansion, each is offset by more than one. In F-series expansion you almost double the amount of information with every change in x (not quite, but almost). If you look at the very bottom, you see "doubling" only at the very bottom. Each subsequent change doesn't double. How this doubling occurs withotu having an even bigger universal expansion than we see is a little complicated to understand and bears a longer discussion, but for the moment, we can say that since there is no dimension in ct1, it doesn't have much of an effect on obsesrved space time because it's non-dimensional. The doubling of other states (without compression) does, however effect things. How do we "see" the doubling without everything getting bigger?
Ahhhhhhh, now we're talking AuT!
Since every point is "built" from the prior point, the excess expansion (not absorbed currenty by compression) is hidden as history, velocity/movement if you were, which are, like self determination, illusory.
So we have our existence as c=a+b; but both a and b are in the past in terms of solution order. The change is simultaneous, since there is not clock time, in ct1, but x changes either way so the amount of information changes. Once you get past space in compression, however, everything has relative movement to ct1 (rate change) based on the number of coordinates changing at once so you get separation, but you also have a realtive growth. x changes 1 at a time, the f-series changes based on the c=c-1(a)+c-2(b) solution that Leo "came up with." Now, one more aside is important. Did Leo come up with or dig up the F-series? We probably won't know that, but if someone has a Sumarian Tablet with this information on it, I think it would be relevant to the inquiry since he did get his renaisance mat from the arab. An outrageious claim? Maybe not. Look at a pyramid and turn it upside down. Doesn't it look a lot like the rough two dimensional drawing? This isn't a coincidence. The pyramid is an expanding infinite series. Anyway, I'm not here to beat up on Leo d Pisa for recognizing brilliance where he found it, I'm here to beat up on physicists who beleive the big bang is anything other that what AuT says that it is. It isn't that I don't want to beat up on people who can no longer defend themselves, it is just a topic for another day.
Anyway, you want to say, but a+b is still a+b; but it isn't. Because C is a+b and a is b+d (c-2b+c-3d) so you see that things are hidden and solution order changes means that things move. Lord knows in book 1 we talked about this movement enough that I don't need to beat that dead horse anymore, the summation math reflected by integration shows that as the rate of change (dx) approaches zero (it can't get to zero in AuT as is also discussed in book 1) the importance of the prior state changes is greatly reduced but it never goes away.
So we are correct when we say that the universe gets "smaller" when we go backwards because x is lower, but the relative amounts of ct1 to other states which is what gives the universe size varies based on compression vs the size of x and not just the size of x alone. This is why big bang stuff is only partially correct, but we're only talking about a recent inflection point and not a true infinitely dense point although there is enough density to create an echoing "strong force" and, to a lesser extent "weak force" (effects and not causes, not true force in the sense these other physicists use it) that permaeates the universe long after the latest big compression net compression phase.
Now we did have a plasma type compression which generated the radiation which when separated by expanding ct1 solutions turned into mircowaves which will continue to be stretched until they begin shrinking again in 14 billion years or so (we'll have a blue shift universe and everyone will have a goofy explanation of a compressing universe which is a lot like the goofy one that traditional physics has for the big bang-where did it start? they will ask, the dumb answer by these future aliens will be, the universe was once infinitely expanding...and this stupid answer is why AuT makes sense and everything else doesn't, but that's another blog post; maybe one for aliens 14 billion years in the future to unravel).
Now, other big bounce stuff (e.g. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.021301) comes to similar conclusions for similar reasons, but these are mere copies of what AuT did first and better because while these provide an AuT type model (the underlying conformational symetries are similar) they don't have the super-symetry yet and when they do, these other physicts will insist they didn't copy me, they merely came up with the same result. Perhaps they'll get a prize. The irony is that my work is first and better but they'll be recognized not because their theory was better or first (big bounces after all date back to the 1920's); but because it is more ironic that they'd steal it from me than that I'd be recognized for deterining the basis for super-symetry and inflection point physics first.
No comments:
Post a Comment