Pages

Monday, July 31, 2017

AuT Range 2 or 3 or whatever

As we continue on, please don't think that I'm trying to force my faith on you.  I don't expect you to think I'm smarter than you are, despite the fact that by some measures I am.  If the richest person in the room is the smartest, that isn't me, but if the one who'se figured out the fundamental nature of the universe is the smart one, well, let's just leave it there.
AuT describes why things happen.  Other physics says the strong nuclear force functions in a region, AuT explains why.  Other physics says e=mc^2, AuT explains why.  Pre AuT physics, what all the physicists except me would have you believe (and you if you're a physicist and understanding this) is that a rock is hard.  I explain why.  It's no more of a jump than from being a caveman to an executive at google, but there it is.
Now, you may be saying that I'm bragging, but alas, my theory of the universe reduces everyone to a bundle of intersecting lines, not necessarily spirals although I am fond of saying that; but the truth is that in a predestined universe the significance of what I write and what you believe is about as relevant as the musings of a turtle in a pond.
What were we talking about, ah yes, the reason for the range of forces.
Part II

You can see the range issue in this figure, because range involves those elements involved.  If it is c1, then what we're looking at is only the interface of ct3 with ct4, this is the weak electronic force and cannot function except with this electron driven range.  The substitution and therefore the transitional states of ct3 to ct4 cannot occur anywhere but within the ct4 space.  Likewise the transitional state of ct4 to ct5 cannot occur anywhere but within the ct5-effect nucleus of the atom.  Hence their range is limited by their funciton.  this function, in turn is based on the compression of the area which is a function of the limited number of ct1 states within that very small diameter.
Hence when pre-AuT mathematics discusses the range of the various forces, what they are talking about in AuT terms is where you can solve for a transition from ct4 to transitional ct4 states and that only occurs along the mathematically defined ct5 informational arms.
More particuarly, the ct4 to ct5 interaction at the nucleus of the atom is the substitution within the range of the nucleus of an atom where ct1 concentration is limited to a solution that allows two ct4 states to be joined with ct5 separation to form the proton/neutron state within an atom.
But there is more to this than the obvious.


AA1 in the ct1 to ct2 state shows a standard movement, but what does aa2 show?  It is believed that this mathematical feature, the loss of information at the highest state of compression, occurs.  The high carrier state exchange suggests the creation of a long lived, low ct level (ct1) exchange.  This "space" at aa2 is not a differentiated type of information.  If, however, this occurs within higher states, such as ct4, it is likely that the offshoot would be a transitional ct2 state that has characteristics of the unbalanced (see the prior post) positive or negative features that are indicative of a neutrino.  This is a neutrino, but an AuT neutrino where the positive or negative effects are governed by the imbalance of information and where it is an information state and not a particle result.  
These neutrino transitional states would be longer life, because of the longer F-series arms involved in carrying their solution, and would have more of the features of transitional ct1-ct2 state which is what we would have to expect from the math model if we have the alternating F-series expanding and informational (2^n) compression states which are predicted by AuT and by observations of the universe.
AuT information arms give rise to other effects due to the relative degree of change and the relative solution step numbers.  One of these effects is to limit the extent of the resulting force.  Gravity results from ct1 linearity so it is not affected by distance.
Photons and Electromagnetic forces have relatively few steps. 
The four places, dimensions, in the fseries (1111) give dimension primarily, but ct4 has 2^4 arms and these 16 arms result in force being restricted over several different arms.  The difference between the two states that are involved is significant, but range is a function of the fact that one only results from the other.  This is more true for the ct5 32 arms that appear at work with ct3 states for the strong force.
 Looking at the weak and strong forces, it can be supposed that the weak forces involve ct2 state compression compared to ct5 and the strong force reflects ct3 states in light of ct5 with range changes that should be calculable based on these differences.  That is, if you take the number of information arms of the various states and the distances observed for their application, you should get a solution which can be carried in both directions to get the observed distances through a very limited trial and error.
Anyway, there are three published books on this, might as well start with book 1 before I get around to editing it although most of this comes from book 2.

Sunday, July 30, 2017

AuT information arms part 3 (book 4)-range, positrons and electrons, and the demise of idols

Listening to the late night radio, I've heard the nonsense of aliens, spirituality and the dependence on an active type of god.  If I wasn't ahead of everyone else in physics, if my model didn't shame everything before me, perhaps I could put up with the superstitious meanderings, albeit it's equally likely that much of what is said is not believed.
I would write this off as entertainment.  But people believe this nonsense.  If they were looking at their pagan idols in the light of AuT and explaining them anyway, that would have some limited merit (limited in reality and in the period of time it could withstand scrutiny).  But they don't.  The vast majority of people believe in their gods or worse still, their governments, their money, their incorrect views of reality.
I can't help it that I've figure this out.  It would be better not to have done so, I could live in blissful ignorance.  Stop reading now, I warn you.
But the universe had other plans for me.  Despite my best efforts the theory is forced down my throat and I show it to you for whatever reasons.
For me, and for you whether you want it or not, the stories of Christ, Mohammad, and the Greek Pantheon all have equivalent factual support with stories of peter pan and santa clause.  Doesn't mean that people don't believe the religious aspects of them completely, but what a group of morons we are to accept history and mythology withotu proof when explanations are litterally forced down out throats with AuT physics.  Granted a pre-super symetry view of things would leave a lot to the imagination, we are not resigned to that view any longer.  I don't want to tell the superstitious among you to leave your gods.  That would be unfair, since I also would happily hide behind some wooden idol, some manner of dress and practice were it possible.  But if you are to really study the universe, you realize that while we have not yet done away with the concept of god, indeed the algorithm itself it a godlike function; man made superstitions are just total nonsense.  I use idols to refer to man's gods, not those forces in g-space that are godlike.
  If you knew that a movie made up a god story, no matter what the support, you'd still say, it's just a movie, notwithstanding the appearance of miracles in it.  All of the miracles of the bible can be accepted as aspects of the algoirthm, but they are still just part of a movie, mathematically induced and of no more consequence than a clam being eaten by someone at a restaurant in San Francisco or some similarly godless location.
We fight wars over idiocy, we separate ourselves based on primitive superstitions, we ignore, at our peril, the super-symmetry of the universe and we face a greater peril by learning about it.
Anyway, what were we talking about?  Ah yes, Range.
This post is from Book 2 which is already published, which goes into a little more detail but doesn't have some of the diagramitic references, page 16 if you are following along.  I'm working on the second edition of that book which will include some issues from this book.
When I read atricles that are predicted by AuT it is helpful, but the lack of acknowledgement by the community is...predictable.

https://www.inverse.com/article/34594-matter-antimatter-majorana-fermion-particle-electron-stanford

What makes a difference here in this article is that AuT defines positive and negative aspects.
And AuT has postive and negative aspects built in.
Figure 8
            So here are the steps shown by the drawing above.
            Step 1 ct0=0,1,0,-1.
            Step 2: ct1(space)=-1,0,1,1 or 1, 0,-1,-1 yielding (f(n)^2^0)=1,-2 or -1,2 then 4 (from -1^2*2^2*1) or 4 (from -1^2*2^2)
            Step 3: ct2(Photon and the beginning of time and dimension) 4^2^2.  There are 4 arms at play.  The first arm merely combines four ct1 states or takes one ct1 state and multiplies it by 4.  These are very different outcomes.  The use of a single ct1 state makes sense because as the ct1 is replaced with another ct1 state, movement is implied and this would work for all the higher states.  If there are 4 added together, then only one at a time is replaced to generate the next movement or all 4 can be replaced in which case the transition is 4:256, 1:64.  Either of these solutions appear possible, but the logical one is that the ct1 state comes in and solves for the ct2 state, then is replaced by the next ct1 state which solves for the ct2 state.  This suggests that stacking is illusory.  There is no real stacking, just a ct1 state creates a ct2 state by vibrating along the 2^2 arms.  Then the next ct1 state does the same thing.
This would mean that the 2^n is the durable part of the equation, that information is durable and that the durability of these information arms can carry more and more dense ct f(n) states.
The second step is 4^2 or 4^2 (or more particularly 4*4).  Either way you are at 16, then 16*4 at the next arm, etc as shown above.  However, these particles continue to have their initial history preserved based on AuT mathematics so some positive 4’s have negative part, in fact they all do!
The next step is to look at why AuT positively requires that the application of these states to the theory yield the range we observe, literally in the definitions of information arms and compressive series and, if you haven’t read Books 1 and 2, how time dilation (aging vrs movement through ct1 exchange) in incorporated into these models to explain the range of the different resulting forces from the equations solved.

Friday, July 28, 2017

AuT Range

The primary proof that AuT is correct is prediction and result; or explaining where no prior explanation was provided.
Let's take the issue of range which as I said the prior post is explained by AuT.
Pre-AuT physics defines the distances, but leaves it to AuT to explain range.
AuT as you will remember, discovered that information exists in a dimension and time independent environment and that time and dimension arise from relative changes between this uncompressed state and the compressed state.
Moreover, the "place" changes in the F-series (1 to 11 to 111 to etc) relects directly the dimensions created in terms of the number of coordinates chhanging at once.
CT1 having only a single dimensional change is non-relative although there are arms from the ct0 state.
AuT has also stated from nearly the beginning, that gravity must arise from the move from non-linearity to linearity in the ct1 state.  Gravity has an infinite application, and this is reflected in the infinite effect of gravity, and the instantaneous effect.  AuT shows that this consistently evolving mathematical process also necessarily involves continuity from one moment to the next.
Now you say, but E-M forces are also infinite.  And it is a great point, but also totally consistent with what is observed with AuT.  The ct2-ct3 "speed" shows the same transition rate.  It's time to go back to our drawings, but the key is that ct2 substitutions occur all along the two dimensional "face" or "front line" of ct3 wo that speed is not eliminated until a force acts on ct2 changes that changes their rate of change, in the presence of ct4, for example, as discussed.
1/137th strength is, however, 10^37 times as strong as gravity.  In fact, the weak force, which is considered by AuT to be a compressed form of EM force, is 10^33 times as strong as gravity.
The reason suggested has to do with where the force is observed, in the presence of a higher state.  The ct2 force is relatively pure by comparison because it is not resent only in the face of higher states.
This requires a more significant mathematical explanation which will come later.


Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Posts to come

So there is some really great stuff coming, mostly written, about this new way of looking at the f(n)^2^n equation which will show where the distance of application for higher forces comes in to play, why gravity and electromag seem to go so much further (hint, look for what's already written on forces and compression and the relative strength) as well as finishing the section on how the compression takes place on the quantum level.
The material covers the information arms, but it also shows where f-series come into play to create what we observe.  All in all, its pretty exciting stuff and if you don't want to wait, most of its covered or obvious from the sketches which show the interplay.
One thing which the non-spiral analysis of the equations suggest is that the spirals come not from F-series intersecting spirals, but instead arise from this non-dimensional (therefore non-spiraling) information arms and we'll discuss that a little too.
Intersecting spirals is replaced somewhat with mixed information sets which are partially laid out in the prior two posts on the subject of information arms, but which will be covered in a little more detail, not too much, in the posts to come.
Unfortunately, I am traveling and have limited access to the type of heavy computer it takes for me to put this stuff out clearly and without any time so far to edit anything, so it may come out a little disjointed and then come together next week when I'm settled in one place.  Ahhh, the sad life of a homeless physicist.
AuT doesn't work with sin and cos like most Euclidean or, if you must, newtonian physics.  There are no arrows of force, because dimension is treated badly with AuT.  Moreover, force doesn't really exist in AuT, being an effect and not cause, so the typical ideas of symmetry, already in trouble on the quantum level, just don't go anywhere with AuT, although it is replaced with a higher symmetry.
In the interim, since you know I'm right by now, why not buy a couple of books?  Might keep me off the street.  Better still, invite me to lecture at your university.  How often do you get the opportunity to invite someone who has done what I've done to lecture?
I mean, all kudos to the giants whose work allowed me to make my little contribution, but let's face it, AuT is to Relativity what Relativity is to...well, not entirely fair, because AuT is designed to explain relativity, so who knows, but one day, you know you'll say, 'wow, for the price of a meal (and maybe a plane ticket and corner to sleep in) I probably could have had this homeless physicist speak and now that opportunity is gone forever!"
Or maybe not, but you know I'm right, deep down as much as you hate to admit it, you know.
Anyway, we'll see what tomorrow holds, every day seems to have something strange for me.

AuT information arms part 2 (book 4)

Chapter 7 the unbalanced information arm
            The answer is that we take two positives or two negatives before we perform the expansion along the two arms for 0,1,1.  That is we have -1,0,1,1 or we have -1,-1,0,1.  Why?
(2)^2^0 for the first arm times (-1)^2^0 for the second arm yields 2.  What this means is that the unbalance of the universe which we see as infinite series, expanding(f(n) and 2^n) and contracting (pi) (1/1-x) begin from this process of imbalance which is necessary to the 2^n results.
If you have an offsetting negative state, you still get the same answer once you get past non-dimensional space.
-1,-1=-2 and -2^2^0=-2.  -2*1^2^0=-2.
However….
            When you get to the next arm you are doing the second 2^2^1= arm.
            The first arm is -2 or 2 generated in the fashion shown, and then this arm is squared.  -2^2 or 2^2 yields a positive result which carries forward.
            This suggestions that ct1 solutions F(n)(2^0) are the first arm of the F(n)(2^1) drawing.  This looks accurate because at ct2 (photon) appears to use one changing ct1 states (space) where one comes in and another goes out before turning the arm and this is where your 1:256 solution to light speed comes from.

In the next post we show the steps in this process.

Monday, July 24, 2017

AuT Information arms part 1

This next series will explain the equation that gives birth to expanding series.  The idea of information arms is not totally new to auT (the last few pictures have shown the information arms) but a detailed discussion of how they work hasn't been given till now.


Information arms create durable information.  I could post the entire chapter here, but what would be the fun of that?
This post instead will deal with how we get to information arms in the first place.
In the discussion of the series from one state to the next we just glossed over ct0, accepting it as the solution to F(n)^2^n=2^0 as if that was the applicable equation.  That is the equivalent of einstein math (e=mc^2) which is a nice observation, but it doesn't explain "why" e=mc^2.  AuT has been doing that for years, but now we're taking a step further back.  Go get a beer or a cup of coffee.  This doesn't take long to write but may take a while to understand.
Folding suggests that you are putting together rows and this works very well for ct2, photons.  It also "sort of works" for space and if you look at the top left hand portion of figure 8 above you can see space folding into a v-shape, but we also know that folding, being a dimensional aspect, doesn't really happen.
Still some way we need these "information arms" which you see as the 1, 2 and 4 sided lines above to build on.  These are something special mathematically and they give rise to the entire informational universe.  
A hint at the next chapter is that f(n)^2^n suggests that f(n) is the important part, and it is, but is also isn't.  Follow me into the rabbit hole.
The idea of random rows is stupid because there is no reason for them, especially in non-dimensional pre-space states.
That these two rows will evolve into a next carrier 2^1 which is 2 steps that must be taken to achieve linearity from the non-linear points of information is a given, but how do you make the transition?
            Before this linearity there is the 2^0 state which has a single line on which linearity is built in the form of a history.  There is then a stacking of these single states and then a stacking of the double states and so on, 2^n, and the F-series are built along these.
            The f-series construction 2^n says that these are built on top of each other in the fashion indicated which is always consistent from one state to the next.
            Here’s where we get some evidence of what is going on at the quantum level if you have positive and negative solutions.  0' math from the prior discussion suggests strongly that you have a 0' with both positive and negative states.
The solution, if you accept 0', requires (so far) that you have an unbalanced equation with 11 and -1 and that the solution is solved in its respective halves which will then combine to give you the second informational arm.  This leaves open the possibility of unbalanced halves with two negatives and a positive which, bizarrely enough arrive at the same result.  Since this result is carried forward for all subsequent solutions we get this for the operative equation:
            For the first equation (ct0) you basically have 0’ which hovers between two states, -1 and +1.  These are the same as yes/no for reasons that will be explained in greater detail but if I say I am not not going, then I am going.  If I say, yes, I am going; effectively two yes answers then yes, I am still saying yet.  This totally bizarre logic is mathematically sound only in our universe, but our universe is the one where we lay out the math:

           This solution -1,0,1- gives the wrong answer.  The wrong answer is that you add the 1,1 and the -1-1 and you get the answer.  This doesn’t work because if you solve for this equation (0,1,1) you get the right answer with F(n)^2^n but if you solve for -1,0,1, even if you square the two sides separately (-1)^2^0*(1)^2^0 is still only 1 only 1 and the universe doesn’t expand.  So what do we do Mr Genius?
          The answer is that we unbalance the equation and use infomation arms, but not yet...that will be part 2!
Isn't this fun?  For more detail, order books 1-3 of AuT theory or for a more disjointed version, feel free to read all the prior posts.

Saturday, July 22, 2017

Why a rich president is unlikely to pardon himself or his family for high crimes and misdemeanors (from a practical standpoint)

I attempt to be non political as much as possible.  The ways of men are illogical and fight against the ideas of supersymmetry.  I am emotional, like most people, to the point of stupidity; but I recognize that this is the result of the lack of perfect order in the universe and perhaps in a contracting universe people would act more logical.  I doubt it.

Without judging the current president, the founding fathers knew one day the states might have to stand against an almost insane narcissistic demogauge who would promise relief from corrupt self serving life serving professional politicians; but who would, instead, give additional power to a corrrupt oligarachy in congress to the point where the choice would be revolt or reconstruction of the government.  A remedy was supplied to take the place of outright revolt, the State Constitutional Convention.
And yes, many years ago I wrote a book about it, two in fact.  Neither is very good, but I'm rewriting the fiction (World War C) and will eventually get to "China's weaponized Economy", probably through a series of posts focusing on the state constitutional convention.
It is hard to imagine the forsight of those who wrote this into the law, but it is important to recognize that when these laws were set down, the USA was a collection of states who were, begrudgingly, yielding power for a greater good.
People thought about what they said back then and many knew how to write.
I will give some time to organizing that constitutional convention, if you buy a copy of CWE, you can read what's in it.  I will, of course, finsih the physics, but as I"ve said before, it's really just a matter of sweeping the pieces into a dustpan and emptying it onto the internet.  It means very little in the grand scheme of things.

For those of you who feel I'm describing the current management of the United States, let me say it's a coincidence.  While I may have reservations about what is going on today, my problems are as much with the aged semi-permanent oligarchy as with the administrative branch leadership which has been pretty horrible before now.  I am not willing to admit that the current president is the worst, although its possible he will give the past presidents a run for their money.  Who knows, it's only been 6 months.  We can be pretty certain the current president is not the most honest.

So why can the president not bestow pardons like cupcakes at a birthday party?

The answer lies in one of those old and wise decisions from 1915 brought to light by the man who kept america out of the war (whoops, that didn't happen).  Of course, I can't say that was a lie, but it does shown that the mirror of history often reflects a different story; and if Wilson was elected by a statement that was rooted loosely in the overall truth, at least, he also brought us the predecessor of the United Nations which is something.

He also indirectly brought us the case below penned by Justice McKenna.

It is a beautiful case, not for its holding, but its logic and its writing.

Get to the point, right?
The point, laid out, largely as dicta, is that a pardon is given without consequence, but that it must be accepted.  That would be of little consequence, except that acceptance is an admission of guilt (See Burdick included in its entirety below).  So what?  Good question.

Civil Liability and moral accountability.  See for example, Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248 (1983).  Now, I may be wrong about this, but I think the admission of guilt and the scope of the pardon go hand in hand.  I think the Presidential Pardon must to some extent identify the scope of the crime, since otherwise it would not form a contract capable of acceptance.  Now these are weighty matters, not fully adjudicated, but one can see that if someone with something to lose admits to a crime that would open them to, say for example, tax liability or other litigation; that the choice is complicated somewhat as to whether to take it or not.  For example, let's say that an ex football player was offered a pardon for killing someone and he accepted.  He would not, thereby, be excused from participation in the civil litigation for wrongful death that might follow.

Now I'm not saying that the majority of the players in the national tragic opera we live in are spoiled rich babies who care more about their money than their freedom.  There may well be true patriots but let's face it, in the United States it's admitted that it's all about the Benjamin's except when it isn't.  Health care, for example, is all based on the maintenance of power, political donations and not decency, honor and doing the right thing.  For that reason, I don't see a slew of pardons coming out yet.  Did I say yet?

U.S. Supreme Court

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)

Burdick v. United States
No. 471
Argued December 16, 1914
Decided January 25, 1915
236 U.S. 79
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
Acceptance, as well as delivery, of a pardon is essential to its validity; if rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, the court has no power to force it on him. United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150.
Quaere whether the President of the United States may exercise the pardoning power before conviction.
A witness may refuse to testify on the ground that his testimony may have an incriminating effect, notwithstanding the President offers, and he refuses, a pardon for any offense connected with the matters in regard to which he is asked to testify.
There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.
There is a distinction between amnesty and pardon; the former overlooks the offense, and is usually addressed to crimes against the sovereignty of the state and political offenses, the latter remits punishment and condones infractions of the peace of the state.
211 F. 492 reversed.
The facts, which involve the effect of a pardon of the President of the United States tendered to one who has not been convicted of a crime nor admitted the commission thereof, and also the necessity of acceptance of a pardon in order to make it effective, are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
Error to review a judgment for contempt against Burdick upon presentment of the federal grand jury for
refusing to answer certain questions put to him in an investigation then pending before the grand jury into alleged custom frauds in violation of §§ 37 and 39 of the Criminal Code of the United States.
Burdick first appeared before the grand jury and refused to answer questions as to the directions he gave and the sources of his information concerning certain articles in the New York Tribune regarding the frauds under investigation. He is the city editor of that paper. He declined to answer, claiming upon his oath that his answers might tend to criminate him. Thereupon he was remanded to appear at a later day, and upon so appearing he was handed a pardon which he was told had been obtained for him upon the strength of his testimony before the other grand jury. The following is a copy of it:
"Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States of America, to all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting:"
"Whereas George Burdick, an editor of the New York Tribune, has declined to testify before a federal grand jury now in session in the Southern District of New York in a proceeding entitled, 'United States v. John Doe and Richard Roe,' as to the sources of the information which he had in the New York Tribune office, or in his possession, or under his control at the time he sent Henry D. Kingsbury, a reporter on the said New York Tribune to write an article which appeared in the said New York Tribune in its issue of December 31st, 1913, headed, 'Glove Makers' Gems May Be Customs Size,' on the ground that it would tend to incriminate him to answer the questions; and,"
"Whereas the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York desires to use the said George Burdick as a witness before the said grand jury in the said proceeding for the purpose of determining whether any employee of the Treasury Department at the Custom
House, New York City, has been betraying information that came to such person in an official capacity; and,"
"Whereas it is believed that the said George Burdick will again refuse to testify in the said proceeding on the ground that his testimony might tend to incriminate himself;"
"Now therefore be it known, that I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States of America, in consideration of the premises, divers other good and sufficient reasons me thereunto moving, do hereby grant unto the said George Burdick a full and unconditional pardon for all offenses against the United States which he, the said George Burdick, has committed or may have committed or taken part in in connection with the securing, writing about, or assisting in the publication of the information so incorporated in the aforementioned article, and in connection with any other article, matter, or thing concerning which he may be interrogated in the said grand jury proceeding, thereby absolving him from the consequences of every such criminal act."
"In testimony whereof, I have hereunto signed my name and caused the seal of the Department of Justice to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington this fourteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fourteen, and of the Independence of the United States the One Hundred and Thirty-eighth."
He declined to accept the pardon or answer questions as to the sources of his information, or whether he furnished certain reporters information, giving the reason, as before, that the answers might tend to criminate him. He was presented by the grand jury to the district court for contempt, and adjudged guilty thereof and to pay a fine of $500, with leave, however, to purge himself by testifying fully as to the sources of the information sought of him, "and in event of his refusal or failure to so answer, a
commitment may issue in addition until he shall so comply," the court deciding that the President has power to pardon for a crime of which the individual has not been convicted and which he does not admit, and that acceptance is not necessary to toll the privilege against incrimination.
Burdick again appeared before the grand jury, again was questioned as before, again refused to accept the pardon, and again refused to answer upon the same grounds as before. A final order of commitment was then made and entered, and he was committed to the custody of the United States marshal until he should purge himself of contempt, or until the further order of the court. This writ of error was then allowed.
The question in the case is the effect of the unaccepted pardon. The Solicitor General, in his discussion of the question, following the division of the district court, contends (1) that the President has power to pardon an offense before admission or conviction of it, and (2) the acceptance of the pardon is not necessary to its complete exculpating effect. The conclusion is hence deduced that the pardon removed from Burdick all danger of accusation or conviction of crime, and that therefore the answers to the questions put to him could not tend to or accomplish his incrimination.
Plaintiff in error counters the contention and conclusion with directly opposing ones, and makes other contentions which attack the sufficiency of the pardon as immunity and the power of the President to grant a pardon for an offense not precedently established nor confessed nor defined.
The discussion of counsel is as broad as their contentions. Our consideration may be more limited. In our view, of the case it is not material to decide whether the pardoning power may be exercised before conviction. We may, however, refer to some aspects of the contentions of plaintiff in error, although the case may be brought to
the narrow question, is the acceptance of a pardon necessary? We are relieved from much discussion of it by United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150. Indeed, all of the principles upon which its solution depends were there considered, and the facts of the case gave them a peculiar and interesting application.
There were a number of indictments against Wilson and one Porter, some of which were for obstructing the mail and others for robbing the mail and putting the life of the carrier in jeopardy. They were convicted on one of the latter indictments, sentenced to death, and Porter was executed in pursuance of the sentence. President Jackson pardoned Wilson, the pardon reciting that it was for the crime for which he had been sentenced to suffer death, remitting such penalty with the express stipulation that the pardon should not extend to any judgment which might be had or obtained against him in any other case or cases then pending before the court for other offenses wherewith he might stand charged.
To another of the indictments, Wilson withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty. Upon being arraigned for sentence, the court suggested the propriety of inquiring as to the effect of the pardon, "although alleged to relate to a conviction on another indictment." Wilson was asked if he wished to avail himself of the pardon, to which he answered in person that
"he had nothing to say, and that he did not wish in any manner to avail himself, in order to avoid sentence in this particular case, of the pardon referred to."
The judges were opposed in opinion, and certified to this Court for decision two propositions which were argued by the district attorney of the United States, with one only of which we are concerned. It was as follows:
"2. That the prisoner can, under this conviction, derive no advantage from the pardon without bringing the same judicially before the court by plea, motion, or otherwise. "
There was no appearance for Wilson. Attorney General Taney (afterwards Chief Justice of this Court) argued the case on behalf of the United States. The burden of his argument was that a pardon, to be effective, must be accepted. The proposition was necessary to be established, as his contention was that a plea of the pardon was necessary to arrest the sentence upon Wilson. And he said, speaking of the pardon, "It is a grant to him [Wilson]; it is his property, and he may accept it or not, as he pleases;" and, further:
"It is insisted that, unless he pleads it, or in some way claims its benefit, thereby denoting his acceptance of the proffered grace, the court cannot notice it, nor allow it to prevent them from passing sentence. The whole current of authority establishes this principle."
The authorities were cited, and it was declared that "the necessity of pleading it, or claiming it in some other manner grows out of the nature of the grant. He must accept it."
There can be no doubt, therefore, of the contention of the Attorney General, and we have quoted it in order to estimate accurately the response of the Court to it. The response was complete, and considered the contention in two aspects: (1) a pardon as the act of the President, the official act under the Constitution, and (2) the attitude and right of the person to whom it is tendered. Of the former it was said that the power had been
"exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation [England], whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it."
From that source of authority and principle the court deduced and declared this conclusion:
"A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of
the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private [italics ours], though official, act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended."
In emphasis of the official act and its functional deficiency if not accepted by him to whom it is tendered, it was said:
"A private deed, not communicated to him, whatever may be its character, whether a pardon or release, is totally unknown, and cannot be acted on."
Turning, then, to the other side -- that is, the effect of a pardon on him to whom it is offered -- and completing its description and expressing the condition of its consummation, this was said:
"A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him."
That a pardon, by its mere issue, has automatic effect resistless by him to whom it is tendered, forcing upon him by mere executive power whatever consequences it may have or however he may regard it, which seems to be the contention of the government in the case at bar, was rejected by the Court with particularity and emphasis. The decision is unmistakable. A pardon was denominated as the "private" act, the "private deed," of the executive magistrate, and the denomination was advisedly selected to mark the incompleteness of the act or deed without its acceptance.
Indeed, the grace of a pardon, though good its intention, may be only in pretense or seeming; in pretense, as having purpose not moving from the individual to whom it is offered; in seeming, as involving consequences of even greater disgrace than those from which it purports to relieve. Circumstances may be made to bring innocence under the penalties of the law. If so brought, escape by
confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy. This, at least theoretically, is a right, and a right is often best tested in its extreme. "It may be supposed," the Court said in United States v. Wilson,
"that no being condemned to death would reject a pardon; but the rule must be the same in capital cases and in misdemeanors. A pardon may be conditional, and the condition may be more objectionable than the punishment inflicted by the judgment."
The case would seem to need no further comment, and we have quoted from it not only for its authority, but for its argument. It demonstrates by both the necessity of the acceptance of a pardon to its legal efficacy, and the court did not hesitate in decision, as we have seen, whatever the alternative of acceptance, whether it be death or lesser penalty. The contrast shows the right of the individual against the exercise of executive power not solicited by him nor accepted by him.
The principles declared in United States v. Wilson have endured for years; no case has reversed or modified them. In Ex Parte Wells, 18 How. 307, 59 U. S. 310, this Court said:
"It was with the fullest knowledge of the law upon the subject of pardons and the philosophy of government in its bearing upon the Constitution when this Court instructed Chief Justice Marshall"
to declare the doctrine of that case. And in Commonwealth v. Lockwood, it was said by Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, he then being a member of that court, it is within the election of a defendant "whether he will avail himself of a pardon from the executive (be the pardon absolute or conditional)." 109 Mass. 323, 339,. The whole discussion of the learned justice will repay a reference. He cites and reviews
the cases with the same accurate and masterful consideration that distinguished all of his judicial work, and the proposition declared was one of the conclusions deduced.
United States v. Wilson, however, is attempted to be removed as authority by the contention that it dealt with conditional pardons, and that, besides, a witness cannot apprehend from his testimony a conviction of guilt, which conviction he himself has the power to avert, or be heard to say that the testimony can be used adversely to him, when he himself has the power to prevent it by accepting the immunity offered him. In support of the contentions, there is an intimation of analogy between pardon and amnesty, cases are cited, and certain statutes of the United States are adduced whereby immunity was imposed in certain instances, and under its unsolicited protection testimony has been exacted against the claim of privilege asserted by witnesses. There is plausibility in the contentions; it disappears upon reflection. Let us consider the contentions in their order:
(1) To hold that the principle of United States v. Wilson was expressed only as to conditional pardons would be to assert that the language and illustrations which were used to emphasize the principle announced were meant only to destroy it. Besides, the pardon passed on was not conditional. It was limited in that -- and only in that -- it was confined to the crime for which the defendant had been convicted and for which he had been sentenced to suffer death. This was its emphasis and distinction. Other charges were pending against him, and it was expressed that the pardon should not extend to them. But such would have been its effect without expression. And we may say that it had more precision than the pardon in the pending case. Wilson had been indicted for a specific statutory crime, convicted, and sentenced to suffer death. It was to the crime so defined and established that the
pardon was directed. In the case at bar, nothing is defined. There is no identity of the offenses pardoned, and no other clue to ascertain them but the information incorporated in an article in a newspaper. And not that entirely, for absolution is declared for whatever crimes may have been committed or taken part in "in connection with any other article, matter, or thing concerning which he [Burdick] may be interrogated."
It is hence contended by Burdick that the pardon is illegal for the absence of specification, not reciting the offenses upon which it is intended to operate -- worthless therefore as immunity. To support the contention, cases are cited. It is asserted besides that the pardon is void as being outside of the power of the President under the Constitution of the United States because it was issued before accusation or conviction or admission of an offense. This, it is insisted, is precluded by the constitutional provision which gives power only "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States," and it is argued, in effect, that not in the imagination or purpose of executive magistracy can an "offense against the United States" be established, but only by the confession of the offending individual or the judgment of the judicial tribunals. We do not dwell further on the attack. We prefer to place the case on the ground we have stated.
(2) May plaintiff in error, having the means of immunity at hand, that is, the pardon of the President, refuse to testify on the ground that his testimony may have an incriminating effect? A superficial consideration might dictate a negative answer, but the answer would confound rights which are distinct and independent.
It is to be borne in mind that the power of the President under the Constitution to grant pardons and the right of a witness must be kept in accommodation. Both have sanction in the Constitution, and it should therefore be the anxiety of the law to preserve both -- to leave to each
its proper place. In this as in other conflicts between personal rights and the powers of government, technical -- even nice -- distinctions are proper to be regarded. Granting, then, that the pardon was legally issued and was sufficient for immunity, it was Burdick's right to refuse it, as we have seen, and it therefore not becoming effective, his right under the Constitution to decline to testify remained to be asserted, and the reasons for his action were personal. It is true we have said (Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 601161 U. S. 605) that the law regards only mere penal consequences, and not "the personal disgrace or opprobrium attaching to the exposure" of crime, but certainly such consequence may influence the assertion or relinquishment of a right. This consideration is not out of place in the case at bar. If it be objected that the sensitiveness of Burdick was extreme because his refusal to answer was itself an implication of crime, we answer, not necessarily in fact, not at all in theory of law. It supposed only a possibility of a charge of crime, and interposed protection against the charge, and, reaching beyond it, against furnishing what might be urged or used as evidence to support it.
This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.
It is of little service to assert or deny an analogy between amnesty and pardon. Mr. Justice Field, in Knote v. United States,95 U. S. 14995 U. S. 153, said that "the distinction between them is one rather of philological interest than of legal importance." This is so as to their ultimate effect, but there are incidental differences of importance. They
are of different character and have different purposes. The one overlooks offense; the other remits punishment. The first is usually addressed to crimes against the sovereignty of the state, to political offenses, forgiveness being deemed more expedient for the public welfare than prosecution and punishment. The second condones infractions of the peace of the state. Amnesty is usually general, addressed to classes or even communities -- a legislative act, or under legislation, constitutional or statutory -- the act of the supreme magistrate. There may or may not be distinct acts of acceptance. If other rights are dependent upon it and are asserted, there is affirmative evidence of acceptance. Examples are afforded in United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128; Armstrong's Foundry, 6 Wall. 766; Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 147. See also Knote v. United States, supra. If there be no other rights, its only purpose is to stay the movement of the law. Its function is exercised when it overlooks the offense and the offender, leaving both in oblivion.
Judgment reversed, with directions to dismiss the proceedings in contempt, and discharge Burdick from custody.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

Friday, July 21, 2017

aut-book 4: compression and curvature

The heat is unbearable.  Early this morning, before the sun came up I went out and was bathed in it.  Last night I walked out into it after exercising and the gentle breeze provided no comfort, the air was hot moving in and out of my lungs.  The water outside still have an element of coolness, but at 71% it is uncomfortably cold to start swimming and now it is at 86 degrees, a cool bath.  Pools drink chlorine in this environment.
Change your air conditioner filters, the units are working hard this time of year and need whatever break they can get.

Pi is not something that exists, it is something that arises from a non-linear solution.
-1 conv vib don't change
summed to converg f(pix) pi for ac2
-1^x x-1 2x(-1)^x-1 f(pluspix) % change n/f(pluspix) n+n/fx n/(n+n/fx) 4
1.00 1.00 -4 -3.00 -1.333333333 2.666666667 1.5 2.666666667
-1.00 2.00 6 5.00 -1.67 0.8 4.8 0.833333333 3.466666667
1.00 3.00 -8 -7.00 -1.40 -0.571428571 3.428571429 1.166666667 2.895238095
-1.00 4.00 10 9.00 -1.29 0.444444444 4.444444444 0.9 3.33968254
The importance of breaking pi into its constituent parts is because we see the universe as only a positive element, because it is solved as only a positive element.  However, in building the universe to the point of observation, pi begins with a unit which we’ve called 0’ which has both a positive and a negative element potential.  To understand this we have to examine what is positive and what is negative.
Since we live in a mirror, we know that what we see is backwards, so the first point we have to accept is that the true basis of reality is a negative, which is defined as a state (0’) which can be either positive or negative in terms of linearity.  The exact math in this time/dimension independent environment allows us to recognize that -1^x is merely the only way that we can manipulate this environment but what it really says is that there is a regularity to how 0’ expresses itself in the algorithm that underlines the universe.  This demands that the algorithm we are coming up with is not just a math equation, but has some alternate durable form in g-space.

The next few chapters will discuss how this new vision of -1^x affects what we observe and how we get to the geo function from this solution.
Hidden in the equations for AuT is the source of the inflection points.
conv vib
summed to converg
-1^x n/f(pluspix) n+n/fx
1.00 -1.333333333 2.666666667
-1.00 0.8 4.8
1.00 -0.571428571 3.428571429
-1.00 0.444444444 4.444444444
We start our inquiry with only three columns and we could cut this down further but next let's look at curvature from a different angle, the sin equation:
The Sin Equation
            If the spirals are only offset by solution order at higher ct states (ct2,3,4,etc) then you have a resting phase built into spiral solutions that are not built into vibrational models, but this can be made up where ct1 spacing takes the place of the rest phase of the spirals.
            This relationship is related to how sinx is calculated: (x=angle in radians)
            Siny=y-(y^3)/3!+(y^5)/5!)-(y^7)/7!+… or
            Sum (0, max n) [(-1)^n/(2n+1)!]y^(2n+1)
So for this equation when defining pi, it is essentially fixed, but not exactly fixed for high values of x.
Converting radians to degrees gives some interest results but neither provides a non-specific result for quantum points.
In looking a this equation it is important to note that radians requires a value for pi, but pi is calculable for any value of x, at least in theory.
This equation for sin shows that both of these results have effectively the same operative features:
     1)       (-1)^n is present for both pi and for sin so it can, in theory be removed easily 
     2)      2x(-1)^(x-1) is partially mirrored mathematically by y^(2n+1).  The between these two lies in the additional variable y which to some extent is mirrored by the numerator variable of pi and the two are related to some small extent which we will get to shortly.
     3)      (2n+1)! Is mirrored by n+n/fx=n(1+1/fx) where f(x) is derived -1^x so that the relationship is 1+n to 1+ 1/f(-1)^n.
        The reason for pointing out these relationships is not because of the identity of the equations.  If you are looking for a solution to a pi based (radians) angle you are going to get to a related solution.  Instead the reason is because the key equations are used in the algorithm to define curvature, to derive curvature from non-dimensional space by applying a comparative algorithm to the solution.
            This comparative solution describes the addition of multiple places of necessity (going from 1 to 11 to 111).
            So we have one more derivation to go.  How do you get multiple dimensions to change at once.  This requires an examination of the f-series.
            In base 10 this looks like this:
            1*10+1=11.  1*100+1*10+1=111 and so on to infinity or
            1+1*10+1*10^2….
            Using n for 1 we get
            N+n*10^n-1+n*10^2n…=n(1+10^n+10^2n…).  The part in parenthesis mirrors, of necessity the factorial part of pi or sin so, for example, it is the equivalent of (2n+1)!
            The universe does not, however have base numbers so we have
            n(1+y^n+y^2n….)  Another way to write this is: n+[y^(n+1)!] which is surprisingly similar to this portion of the sin function [(-1)^n/(2n+1)!].  Y, of course, varies with F(x) which is also 2(f(x)) or 2 times the Fibonacci number.  Y is merely a substitution for a non-base number which varies according to the solution order relative to other similar states.  Since you need 256 ct1 states to make a ct2 state, the solution suggests that 11, the dimensional state of ct2 corresponds to a base value of y=f(n)=4 and n corresponds to 2^n for n=4.
             We will explore these relationships to arrive at the interface between curvature and compression, the final piece of Algorithm Universe Theory.
     

            This result, a tautology for all intents and purposes, ties curvature more or less directly to compression states and suggests that a growing curvature correlates in a growing compression state which is observed.

book 3 ready