Similarly AuT does not define the periodic table, it explains the periodic table, not just the charge but the symmetries which mandate the proton/neutron matrix. This is laid out in the two posts (well, mainly the second) on the battle with the periodic table which turns out to be no battle at all, but instead one of the great proofs of the underlying theory and the dual fractal math, in this case dual, dual fractal math.
Therefore, in terms of articles, I have another potential title to add to these four:
The universe in 4 acts
the block-chain math universe
the universe below the level of thermodynamics
dual fractal math behind dimension
This 5th potential title would be:
The derivation of the periodic table using AuT dual dual fractal geometric modeling
It is worth noting that on christmas eve i posted a mathematical derivation of the periodic table that worked and gave both the atomic number and atomic weight based purely on mathematical fractal aut modeling and which worked more or less perfectly for the first three rows and thereafter was matched with minor deviations which were easily reconciled based on the instability of higher ct5 compression states, e.g. heavy atoms and even heavy molecules have inherent instabilities tied to the changes of the elemental parts, e.g. ct4 states spontaneously going from compressive to decompressive within the overall matrix.
It is interesting that the post primarily involved, essentially only involved the first two information arms of ct5, leaving the remaining arms for molecular modeling.
It is expected that some very similar result will be possible to break ct4 into its component parts of alternating wave and particle states culminating in the electron and proton using fractals of ct3 and ct4. This modeling is actually easier since the compression states are lower, the number of total ct1 states exponentially less and therefore easier to draw and manipulate mathematically.
In terms of perspective the wave forms can be seen as fractal combinations of ct3 and ct4, eventually evolving into particulate forms (t4,8, 12?) just as at ct5 you have ct4 states evolving to atoms within the first ct5 folding of arms and then subsequently becoming molecules. Important is that molecules form within the first two information arms, H20 for example being a "light, uncompressed" form of Neon.
The explanation is that the balance of ct4 compression is higher in Neon proportionately to the ct5 compression and likewise the opposite is the case in the case of water. Likewise the amount of the strong force in Neon is proportionately greater because of compressing two more hydrogens into Neutrons, than in water.
That miracle, also a product of great and unrequited love, was followed up with some as yet less than perfect modeling along two important areas:
1) the corresponding ct3 and ct4 fractal models to generate waves, electrons and protons; and
2) better molecular modeling which is yet in its infancy. Several potential models have already been toyed with and primarily rejected, one being a pure math model using this
and the other a pure cubist structure where certain cubes are uncompressed but still joined with the strong force, e.g. an oxygen as 8 squares with two of them loosely joined with the letter H in them to define water.
These graphic drawings are particuarly unsatisfying as looking too much like orbital models.
There was also a third graphic which showed a carrier or hinge state which had a middle bar of oxygen with two legs, each of which is a hydrogen and wherein the carrier is a lesser ct-state, perhaps a ct4hydrogen carrier which bunches at the oxygen although this suggests a more diffused hydrogen cloud around oxygen as oppposed to the quantum molecule model which is not totally satisfying. However, given the role of folding as opposed to true dimensional change, this appears to be the better model for going between states.
This is reminiesent of the so called gravity problem (why doesnt the gravity get used up? A: Because the net gravitational conversion giving rise to the force is very gradual compared to the overall g and anti-g changes that it can happen over very long periods of time at the ct5 level where we look at gravity. This gets a little screwy when we look at light and is worth thinking about this way:
light has gravity but does not show it because it does not have the large gradual changes but instead had "dormant gravity" only visible when the waves change charge states which is very slow at our location in the universe, the charge change being a break down from gravitational to anti-g upon the breakdown of the ct1 states of which the ct2 states are composed.
It is worth remembering this d-gravity would also be present in stable ct4 and 5 states.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07KV5VPP7
https://www.amazon.de/dp/B07KV5VPP7
https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B07KV5VPP7
https://www.amazon.es/dp/B07KV5VPP7
https://www.amazon.it/dp/B07KV5VPP7
https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B07KV5VPP7
https://www.amazon.nl/dp/B07KV5VPP7
https://www.amazon.com.br/dp/B07KV5VPP7
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B07KV5VPP7
https://www.amazon.com.mx/dp/B07KV5VPP7
https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B07KV5VPP7
https://www.amazon.in/dp/B07KV5VPP7
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KV5VPP7
No comments:
Post a Comment