If you accept that relativity took 10 years to develop, and AuT took half that time, then buying anything other than the last 4 books is like reading a paper on what relativity looked like after 3 or 4 years.
I've made that warning before, so I can only feel so bad about it.
The most compelling arguments in Favor of aut are the ready definitions of space and time. If you want a pre AuT definition of time, here are some places where you can find it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bbYNCdqak&index=8&list=WL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKKbkS_LOu4&t=213s&index=20&list=WL
The problem with these definitions is that they are bullshit.
They argue that time is some magical, dimensional thing which it is not.
We're going to talk about these articles, later. First we're going to talk about AuT and we're going to get more specific on time.
The next few posts are going to cover this issue.
There are some problems with the calculations that I have been working with, so we're going to start by going over some of those calculations.
AuT is the first theory (if you get books 1-4 at least of Algorithm Universe Theory and not the old copies) that explain time in terms of dimension from the standpoint of algorithms that control and compel all the other events of the universe. It is easy to see the relationship of time and velocity, but without the model, the significance of this in terms of "place" and the resulting directional consistency, reflected in Newtonian misinterpretations (an object in motion tends to remain in motion being an example of an accurate statement that misses the significance of super symmetry).
Time vs Velocity Time (ct4 vs Ct1) can be explained using this simple spreadsheet and a drawing.
It is important to remember that a second is an artificial measurement.
| 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 | ||||||||||||||
| Key Take away | ratio of prior state to current state=maximum time | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| misleading take away | 1.62x10^-35 | plank lenth | ||||||||||||||||||
| lightspeed | c=2.99792458x10^11k/sec | e=mc^2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 299792458 | m/s | (e/m)=c^2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1.62E-35 | Planck length in meters | 1.62 | 1E-35 | |||||||||||||||||
| At lightspeed there are | 4.2998E+24 | changes per quantum moment | ||||||||||||||||||
| For a distance | 1.62E-35 | there are | 4.2998E+24 | changes at light speed/quantum length | ||||||||||||||||
| At lightspeed | 299792458 | m/s there are | 2.6542E+59 | changes per meter | ||||||||||||||||
| A quantum instant is | 8.8535E+50 | ct1 changes per second at ct4 at lightspeed | ||||||||||||||||||
The first part of this (key take away), the number of changes per quantum instant is a pretty straight forward measure the substitution rate of ct1 at lightspeed. The difference at higher ct states (ct4 and ct5) has to do with the consistency forced on the system over longer periods of time.
The second, misleading take away, is confusing because it wrongly assumes that "light speed" has meaning. It does not. CT1 exchange giving rise to the impression of light speed is far different.
First, let's look at the old way: AuT suggests that the minimum length of time per quantum change is 1.679x10^22 of light speed at ct 4 and 5.7154x10^60 of light speed at ct5 according to the ratios of change suggested by the chart above. 1:256 for light speed from ct1 substitutions into ct2. Therefore as long as this rate occurs (1:256) in higher ct states the "light speed effect" is present. That does not, however mean you experience near light speed for these other states because "the light speed effect" occurs absent time.
For example, by multiplying column (n) for 3 times 4 you get the not completely unexpected result of:1.68x10^22.
The next part is a bit confusing because I am getting a different result today. Part of the problem appears to be improper assumptions, so what we're going to do in this rather lengthy post is to correct the analysis using the correct definition of time.
What we can look at realistically is the following:
1) We can determine the number of changes per quantum instant 1:256 for ct2. Conceptually, this occurs at this rate and not faster because only one ct0-ct1 fpluspix change occurs at a time because they are staggered in length.
2) If we establish quantum length, we can get changes/quantum instant per quantum length, but how do we get length? How do we get dimension?
To do this, we're going to look at an old drawing friend of ours along with a new drawing. I've also included the less accurate approximation that Newton uses and increased or changed the labeling slightly.
Many of you are thinking, "would you mind finishing the label" to which I reply, you can see what's going on from the prior discussion (see the books) of this figure and "rome wasn't labled in a day." Moreover, there are many researching space time with healthy salaries and grants. You are reading this all over the world, because you know I am right and they are wrong, or they were till they started reading this. And yet it will take time, perhaps more than I have to be recognized and paid for this. Doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but it would be nice to have fully labeled drawings, wouldn't it?
A digression about an erroneous calculation:
Previously we calculated that a second, according to an analysis of planck length, yielded 1.07x10^37 changes per second (this is discussed on page 296 of sprials 2nd). I am uncertain where the error is, but the whole concept was in error anyway from a perspective point of view.
Previously we calculated that a second, according to an analysis of planck length, yielded 1.07x10^37 changes per second (this is discussed on page 296 of sprials 2nd). I am uncertain where the error is, but the whole concept was in error anyway from a perspective point of view.
Roughly it was determined in the approx fashion using these numbers
1) Light travels at 299,792,458 meters/s (the speed of light in meters per second).
2) Planck length is 1.62x10^-35 of a meter.
So if you divide item 2 (meters) by item 1 (m/s) you end up with the minimum length of a second which is NOT 1.07x10^37, but is instead 5.40374x10^-44 of a second, indicating that the minimum length of time is 5.40374x10^-44th of a second, exponentially faster than previously discussed a bit confusing.
What this means is that many of the calculations concerning the inflection point of the universe may have errors just, as discussed in the last couple of posts, the age of the universe given by a study based on pre-AuT physics (13.5 billion years) is probably inaccurate, but that isn't my calculation.
What this means is that many of the calculations concerning the inflection point of the universe may have errors just, as discussed in the last couple of posts, the age of the universe given by a study based on pre-AuT physics (13.5 billion years) is probably inaccurate, but that isn't my calculation.
Our perception of this change is discussed around page146, 169 and of spirals in amber, 2nd edition.
The idea is that what a second is depends on (1) ct1 exchange and (2) other exchange and (3) ct state and hence the minimum length of time varies accordingly.
In order to create dimension and time we need to look at place in AuT.
Let us start with the drawing on the left. This redraws the standard model for dimension. Transitionally, ct1 is not shown, but time, which has nothing to do with ct1 is treated by way of sequential changes along the other 3 axis. It is appropriate to show ct1 without a line since it exists as mostly balanced (off by 1 for the universe) positive or negative but without dimension.
Books 1-4 discuss how dimension builds, so that discussion is not repeated.
We're used to marking a point on the combination of these axis. That analysis is a reflection.
Instead, the non-dimensional analysis looks like this:
At Ct5 there are 5 different axis. We exist in a 5 dimensional environment but we only experience 4 dimensions. In terms of place, this difference is 11111 vs 1111 experienced. The difference will be discussed in a later post.
Newtons laws are reflected in the difficulty in changing between place. The matrix is reflected in a number of quantum points, some compressed, others not. The exponential scale of compression is retained. Essentially, the points are 11111 vs 1234 to 2111 vs 2234. The change at the ct1 level cannot easily shift to the more compressed place so the direction is conserved in the reflected result. This does not prevent the entire matrix from varying in the same way since at the ct1 level all changes occur together. The relativistic effect of the higher ct places changes how the ct1 changes are perceived.
By way of example, we're going to look at this feature: 13579. Any number may be exchanged with any other number.
as we move from 13579 to 23579 there is velocity. At 3,5,7 and 9 there are time features. If the number of ct1 changes move to another place, the velocity increases exponentially and time exponentially is reduced but the changes are incremental so this effect is reduced.
To get an idea of this, the multi-layered chart on the right is shown, but it is at best an image to look at. The point that it teaches is that along multiple axis of an increasingly dense matrix ct1 changes for each ct2 state, but the higher states are shared to reduce the effect overall.
Another old friend shows how this feature works.
CT1 exchanges (shown) create velocity both internal and external to the matrix formed by the increasingly dense sharing. Internal ct1 sharing is vibration, external is velocity but they both have the same effect on time.
A in this case represents ct3 made up of ct2 exchanges shown as a series of F-series exchanges. The ct0 exchanges vary the polarity but they are zero dimensional changes. These ct1 changes are velocity and they continue, externally or internally.
At ct2 and ct3 there is not sufficient sharing to overcome the effect of light speed ct1 substitutions. This is also discussed in the books.
In ct4 (electrons) this effect is also minimized, but there is an increasing effect on time at ct5. Exchanges before ct4 (believed to be electrons) are probably inconsequential and time likely does not exist outside of ct5 phenomena, at least transient ct5 states, believed to be protons and neutrons.
One more drawing is worth considering:
At every level these exchanges are occurring constantly, so every piece making up ct5 while made up of 16^32 ct4 in turn made up of 10^16ct3 and 1679616 ct2 but sequentially locked together as pairs with only ct1 states freely exchanging despite the internal exchange rates.
As long as the matrix can survive, time as we experience it can exist. There is some time at ct3, but "history" is transient.
"History" is the survival of information through f-series sharing along information arms. The huge bundles of solutions make this sharing possible in ct4 and ct5 and to a lesser extent in ct3. It is essentially absent in ct2, but not completely absent in theory, because theory suggests there is only 1 ct1 exchange in every 256 ct2 set even though there is a constant variation in ct0 according to the complex model of fpluspix.
History has two aspects that this collection of posts will examine.
There is the postive aspect of history where prior states are combined and recombined along 4 or 5 f-series states to allow us to "experience" the past through its inclusion in the future and the negative and spiritual effect of history which is the breakdown of states (as compared to recombination) which leads to the disappearing effects of history and in subsequent recombination the mathematical basis for both determining the future (based on it being made up of the past) and past life type memories and even quantum entanglement representing historical points joined by present and future recombination features.
All of these will be examined here.
And, while it is based on one more self serving and false human origin, human control algorithms, Merry Christmas.
The idea is that what a second is depends on (1) ct1 exchange and (2) other exchange and (3) ct state and hence the minimum length of time varies accordingly.
In order to create dimension and time we need to look at place in AuT.
Let us start with the drawing on the left. This redraws the standard model for dimension. Transitionally, ct1 is not shown, but time, which has nothing to do with ct1 is treated by way of sequential changes along the other 3 axis. It is appropriate to show ct1 without a line since it exists as mostly balanced (off by 1 for the universe) positive or negative but without dimension.
Books 1-4 discuss how dimension builds, so that discussion is not repeated.
We're used to marking a point on the combination of these axis. That analysis is a reflection.
Instead, the non-dimensional analysis looks like this:
At Ct5 there are 5 different axis. We exist in a 5 dimensional environment but we only experience 4 dimensions. In terms of place, this difference is 11111 vs 1111 experienced. The difference will be discussed in a later post.
Newtons laws are reflected in the difficulty in changing between place. The matrix is reflected in a number of quantum points, some compressed, others not. The exponential scale of compression is retained. Essentially, the points are 11111 vs 1234 to 2111 vs 2234. The change at the ct1 level cannot easily shift to the more compressed place so the direction is conserved in the reflected result. This does not prevent the entire matrix from varying in the same way since at the ct1 level all changes occur together. The relativistic effect of the higher ct places changes how the ct1 changes are perceived.
By way of example, we're going to look at this feature: 13579. Any number may be exchanged with any other number.
as we move from 13579 to 23579 there is velocity. At 3,5,7 and 9 there are time features. If the number of ct1 changes move to another place, the velocity increases exponentially and time exponentially is reduced but the changes are incremental so this effect is reduced.
To get an idea of this, the multi-layered chart on the right is shown, but it is at best an image to look at. The point that it teaches is that along multiple axis of an increasingly dense matrix ct1 changes for each ct2 state, but the higher states are shared to reduce the effect overall.
CT1 exchanges (shown) create velocity both internal and external to the matrix formed by the increasingly dense sharing. Internal ct1 sharing is vibration, external is velocity but they both have the same effect on time.
A in this case represents ct3 made up of ct2 exchanges shown as a series of F-series exchanges. The ct0 exchanges vary the polarity but they are zero dimensional changes. These ct1 changes are velocity and they continue, externally or internally.
At ct2 and ct3 there is not sufficient sharing to overcome the effect of light speed ct1 substitutions. This is also discussed in the books.
In ct4 (electrons) this effect is also minimized, but there is an increasing effect on time at ct5. Exchanges before ct4 (believed to be electrons) are probably inconsequential and time likely does not exist outside of ct5 phenomena, at least transient ct5 states, believed to be protons and neutrons.
One more drawing is worth considering:
At every level these exchanges are occurring constantly, so every piece making up ct5 while made up of 16^32 ct4 in turn made up of 10^16ct3 and 1679616 ct2 but sequentially locked together as pairs with only ct1 states freely exchanging despite the internal exchange rates.
As long as the matrix can survive, time as we experience it can exist. There is some time at ct3, but "history" is transient.
"History" is the survival of information through f-series sharing along information arms. The huge bundles of solutions make this sharing possible in ct4 and ct5 and to a lesser extent in ct3. It is essentially absent in ct2, but not completely absent in theory, because theory suggests there is only 1 ct1 exchange in every 256 ct2 set even though there is a constant variation in ct0 according to the complex model of fpluspix.
History has two aspects that this collection of posts will examine.
There is the postive aspect of history where prior states are combined and recombined along 4 or 5 f-series states to allow us to "experience" the past through its inclusion in the future and the negative and spiritual effect of history which is the breakdown of states (as compared to recombination) which leads to the disappearing effects of history and in subsequent recombination the mathematical basis for both determining the future (based on it being made up of the past) and past life type memories and even quantum entanglement representing historical points joined by present and future recombination features.
All of these will be examined here.
And, while it is based on one more self serving and false human origin, human control algorithms, Merry Christmas.
No comments:
Post a Comment