AuT Compelling 3-a closer look at time and history

There are alternatives and coincidences in AuT and the observations sought to explain them.

It is easy to get caught up in these and to move in the wrong direction.

Some things are self evident from the idea (which is really more of a necessity of observation) that space is made of the same stuff as everything else; or more accurately, everything is made up of space.        

While we only go back to ct0, it is fairly clear that ct0 itself may be a durable solution from something pre ct0, a ct-1 if you would or perhaps a ctA since numbers may be misleading for those solutions.  Since we know how time builds (and that is in book 4 and will be discussed further in book 5 and in the near future in this blog) at least up to a point, we can see how velocity and history interact with great particularity.

First, let me go back to some early observations.  While any study of even EHT would eventually lead to the disclosures in book 4 and more refined disclosures coming in book 5, it is significant that there was some confusion based on ideas which might appear in conflict.  Let's itemize those:

1) CT1 compresses according to f(n)^2^n compression into ct2 and that pattern continues, at least loosely, into ct5.  While we discussed the formation of gravity in the ct0-ct1 fpluspix compression, that is a background state which gives rise to compression and anti-compression as a preserved solution model (32/27 in prior posts, books 2 and 4).  This necessarily equates ct1 substitution into velocity for two reasons: 1) movement through space "is" ct1 substitution by definition and 2) the fixed rate is seen as lightspeed (1:256).

2) History builds and deconstructs according to f-series compression; a) the future is made of compressed past and b) when ct1 states turn decompressive the history built up falls apart into its constitutent parts.  To some extent a very transient history occurs in the ct2-ct3 transitions, but real history occurs only at ct4-ct5.  As was discussed previously this is why history in a closed system repeats, being made from the past recombining in predetermined patterns.  For the reason that time is based on universal quantum steps which cannot be the same on a grand scale because of changes in information (quantity and state) it only appears in one direction and travel is impossible because there is no dimension to travel down, although it may be traced, at least in theory, forward or backwards.

This led to some serious questions about how velocity is converted to time and what time was.  

First, we need to look at what time is not.  1) Time is not some bullshit pre-AuT 4th dimension.  Even dimension is not dimension, being only the number of solutions occurring relatively together based on place., but time is not that, nor is it some romantic thing put here so everything doesn't happen at once, even Eintein missed that one  2)  Time is not some magical thing, neither is dimension.  It is only a sequence of solutions.  The trap of post super-symmetry is the idea that these thermodynamic free solutions don't affect the thermodynamic universe when, in reality, they give rise to thermodynamics.

So what does that leave us for time?

In order to understand that we need to look at some of the drawings that reflect the mathematical models.

This venerable old drawing shows ct1 states 1,1,2,3,5,8,13 and one going up to 21.

Information builds in this fashion.  It also breaks down in the opposite direction according to this formula.

The drawing above shows how this process creates large packets of history compressed according to this underlying method.  However, these packets also break down.  At the ct1-ct2 interface, you merely have a ct1 substituting for a ct1 on a ct2 carrier.  What this represents is a two place solution in place of a one place solution 11 vs 1.  This gives rise to two dimensional features one of which is movement which we see as 1:256 substitution rates giving rise to our definition of the speed of light which reflections this information equation covered earlier.

Information	2*f(n)	2^n	2f(n)^2n			f(n)
N			max changes per quanum instant
1	2	2	4		2*1	0+1
2	4	4	256		2*2	1+1	velocity	1:256
3	6	8	1679616		2*3	1+2	Time
4	10	16	1E+16		2*5	2+3	ct4 time
5	16	32	3.4028E+38		2*8	3+5	ct5 time
							ratio of prior state to current state=maximum time
changes/quantum inst ct4			1.6796E+22	at ct4	3*4
changes/quantum inst ct5			5.7154E+60	at ct5	3*4*5
			1.62x10^-35	plank lenth
lightspeed	c=2.99792458x10^11k/sec			e=mc^2
	299792458	m/s		(e/m)=c^2					6^8	10^16
	1.62E-35	Planck length in meters		1.62	1E-35				6	10
	At lightspeed there are		1.6796E+22	changes per quantum moment					36	100
	For a distance	1.62E-35	there are	1.6796E+22	changes at light speed/quantum length				216	1000
	At lightspeed	299792458	m/s there are	1.0368E+57	changes per meter				1296	10000
	A quantum instant is		3.4584E+48	changes per second at ct4 at lightspeed					7776	100000
									46656	1000000
	If a quantum moment is 5.40374x10^-44th of a second (betw ct2 and ct4)								279936	10000000
		Then the maximum ct4 changes are:							1679616	100000000
		1.67962E+22	per	5.4037E-44	of a second at lightspeed					1000000000
	5.40374E-44	in A Planck length, the portion of a second								1.00E+10

The question was asked (by me to myself) is time higher ct changes (than ct1) exchanging or is compressed information and decompressed information from higher ct states exchanging.  The answer appears to be that it is a combination of these two.

We have to look at one more drawing to get a feel for this.

This shows the packets of compressed information being formed and then deformed and absorbed by nearby states.  One more drawing to understand how this can work even if there are decompressing packets of history (information/lower ct states)

This model of ct1 shows "positive A and negative B states making up an arm of the ct1 information state.  If this model is accurate and continues into higher states, it means the following:

1) You have a high (ct4 for example) ct state which is balance.  As one of the ct3 states falls out of symmetry (its charge changes making it an asymmetric ct3 at the location where it changed) it falls away and is replaced by another, symmetric (opposite charge to the asymmetric ct3) ct3 state or the ct4 state begins to degrade.  A nearby ct4 state or another place on the same ct4 state may pick up the asymmetric ct3.

Why does this work so well with ct4 and ct5 and so poorly at ct2 and ct3?

Another Drawing:

What you can see (fairly clearly at the ct2 level) is that there are packets of information.  At ct1, there are only 4 total "bits", but at each arm of ct2, the number of these bits increases by a factor of 2, so arm one has 4; arm 2, 16; arm 3, 32 and arm 4, 256 with these very large packets being compressed at ct3 and ct4.  Ct3 shows this and it's already so high (1.68x10^6) of total compression that significant history and time is possible,but its not the even more compressed and interchanged history that is possible in ct4 and ct5.

Thus, when you put all these drawings together, you see that shared (and unshared) packets of information create a historical record. Slight changes in time will occur and times will vary even within a relatively closed system (on a bulk level think about the train example vs someone standing beside the train).

While the last drawing only shows a single ct4 and ct5, these can interact with adjoining ct4 and ct5 states to share the packets which become asymmetric.

This model is not meant to be a final model.  The positive and negative combinations to form a stable arm (as opposed to multiple models) make sense for many reasons (magnetism would reflect this and it makes for a simple method of constructing and deconstructing adjacent states) there is a lot of math that goes with it, only some of which is reflected in the models for the very simplist of positive and negative changes (in prior posts, if you don't want to go looking for it, wait for book 5).

What we do have, however, is an entirely new view of what time and history are vs velocity which is base ct1 exchange as opposed to the maintenance of a higher ct state through sharing of otherwise symmetrically (polarity wise) higher ct states.