BDTH 6 of 10

So here we are wtih the final argument.

I changed it to narrow view from small minds, but that is the problem with being a genius, you are surrounded by smaller minds.  Nothing personal here, I am not a genius and in my refusal to find fault with my model, i have a small mind; knowing how the uiverse controls me I find it difficult to wrest the controls from the unseen hands of mathematics.

Several following posts will give the footnotes (you will have to view the youtube videos to see the slides). you will get the idea.

This has been submitted, for better or worse.  Articles are published, of course, but this is the mainstream.  if this happens i would say my nobel prize is in the bag, but if not the battle will continue in the secondary press.

Argument

Part 1 Compression as a source of dimension and force

1.     Overview of argument in favor of the Article:

I.                   Significantly advance

a.      This is a model of the universe below the level of thermodynamics

          The key aspects of this are (1) A specific equation (not a theory) yields sequential dimensions from a non-dimensional space, force, and time (2) change and time are separate, change being the only operative force and being quantum.  Time is an effect of dimensional change like force, (3) All the different dimensions (1-5) exist together.

A single equation model of force and dimension

          The model redefines force and matter in terms of a specific mathematical model so that force is a result of the application of the model, dimension is a result of the mathematical model.  Quantum change is the driving force in the universe, force is a result.

See Footnote 1 Omitted transition states

         

II.                Scientifically sound proof of the model

a.      Force strength, range and Compression State

This one chart shows how the model yields results which are backed up by observed results.

The ratio in terms of scale of all the forces work out well.  To understand how this works, you must forget about force being a driver and instead see force for what it is below the level of thermodynamics, an effect.  This means that what forces have been attributed to before is slightly different than what force is.  Saying things like "the weak force holds together.." is inaccurate when in fact the weak force is a “result” of the transition from one fractal state to the next.  For the higher forces, the cause vs effect is blurred, but the scale and range are instructive, and the precision of the results is high.

CT	2f(n)^2n	Dim State	Force	AuT Force		change	PreAuT
State	Compres- sion state			Spew	Aut Strength	range	recorded
1	4	Space-0					strength	range
	256	1	Gravity	G/AG		ct1-2-1	1	inf-g
2	1679616	1		PreCharge
		ct2-3	Charge	net sum precharge	variable	ct3-4-3		inf-EM1
3		2		Prephoton		ct2-3-2
	10^12-10^13	ct3-4	P-E interact	net compression	4.5*10^12-10^16	P-N	Prot/Elec:abs
4	1E+16	ct3-4	Energy//time	Atomic Prot/Neut abs	e=mc^2 (10^16)	N-P	10^16
	Transitional	ct4-5	PostAtom	N-P-N weak	10^25	N-N	10^25	10^-15
	Transitional	ct3-4-5	Forced molecular	N-P-e-P-N:EM	10^36	N-P	10^36	Inf-EM3
			strong	N-N 2 arms	10^38	N-P-E	10^38	10^-18
5	3.4028E+38	ct5	Very Strong	ct5 collapse	10^96	N-BH
6	2.136E+96	ct5-6	Non-Weak	ct5toct6	10^96<	BH-U

In looking at this chart, it is worth looking at a summary of the multiplication table showing the “full” or non-transitional results of compression of one state to the next for 2f(x)^2^x:

n	f(n)	2^n	Compression 2f(n)^2^n	ct1 states
1	1	2	4	4	space
2	2	4	256	256	precharge
3	3	8	1679616	4.30E+08	prephoton
4	5	16	1E+16	4.29982E+24	neutron
5	8	32	3.40282E+38	1.46315E+63	black hole
6	13	64	3.61655E+90	5.2916E+153	Uparticle

What you see here is the following:

Three “scale” ratios are clear: 1) Gravity=1; 2) e=mc^ corresponds to 10^16; 3) the strong force corresponds 3.4x10^38 corresponding to ct4-5 transitions.  These are precise observed ratios.

See FOOTNOTE 2 Force Scales

The weak force corresponds to a transitional force between 10^16 and 10^38, the loading of the first two information arms of ct5.  Similarly, electromagnetism corresponds to ct3 transitions within a ct4-5 matrix.  These are theoretical results but derived from a precise particle mathematical relationship.  Any shortcomings in the precision for the weak and electromagnetic forces are made up by the accuracy in resulting range solutions.

See FOOTNOTE 3 Electromagnetic and weak forces

It is logical that moving from non-dimensional space to dimensional ct2, you would generate gravity.  That other forces arise the same way is equally logical.  Moreover, the discussion of absorption and spew which ties the function of the Neutron to the Quasar (spewing black hole) is logical. 

          No other model is so clear in tying gravity to other forces and explaining the source of all forces from a common origin.

         

See FOOTNOTE 4 Gravity

Range

The second corresponding feature is the range observed.  Gravity and electromagnetic forces have perceived “unlimited range” because they are net pre-time forces.

The other forces correspond to the range over which compression applies them.  Compression of atoms or molecules will be restricted in range to the information arms over which they are applied, and these ranges are reflected in the observations and in the increasing compression of dimension reflected in the chart.

Underlying equations

The simplicity of the underlying model is the application of two iterated functions: 2f(n) and 2^n

When combined, it can be seen from the chart above that both the relative mass, force strength and range are defined by the model with such specificity as to demand further investigation.

The first slide under the first footnote in the attached argument shows how these fractal states are applied from ct3 (prephotons) to ct4 (neutrons) to accurately define Photons, electrons, Protons, Muons as transitional states (without quarks).  Similarly, the periodic table is essentially the filling of the first two arms of ct5 (black hole compression) between the ct4 neutron and the ct5 black hole.

Force, energy and other dimensional features result from the folding or unfolding of space in the form of “information arm” folding where the base increases by 2f(n) and the number of folds (information arms) by 2^n to get increased compression (ct) states.  The resulting mass of all sub-atomic and post atomic particles and forces correspond perfectly to these equations.   This chart appears complex, but it merely shows that forces, relative strength and observed range of forces follow the theoretical results of the model.

The most telling proofs are that all of the forces except for electromagnetism line up with compression results, it describes gravity with specificity and the scale of the e=mc^2 equation is reflected by 2f(n)^2^n for n=4 as expected.

See Footnote 5 equations

Part 2 Separation of Time and Change

            The second part is to separate time from change where time results from the same dimensional changes that give rise to force.

          The results of the first example and table are enough to carry the paper; but there is an important secondary result. Change is quantum (1,2,3, etc) and is unrelated to time even though time arises because of quantum change. Every point changes at exactly the same rate and with each change in the same x, but fused quantum information changes based on the fpix number for the point in question separate them and folding puts remote solution points in proximity.

          This is superficially covered by slides 4 and 6 in the short Denver slide show and in the appealed article in more detail.

          Time is not a dimension but is an effect of dimensional change, ct1 changes within the matrix of a ct3-4 transition state (between the photon and the neutron).

See Footnote 6 time

            This requires a more nuanced view of how the conclusion explains otherwise complex phenomena:

          Phenomena 1: Time dilation: results from the number of these changes that can occur within a ct3-4 regional matrix compared to ct1 changes outside the matrix.  Gravitational time dilation reflects that an increase in gravity squeezes those lower ct changes out and the less compressed information states become more compressed.

          Phenomena 2 and 3: Waves (2) and Schrodinger type observations (3) arise from pre-time changes viewed from the standpoint of time. 

          Pre-time changes are net changes.

          Wave:  A wave results from a point photon being rotated for many changes in x when viewed from the standpoint of time just as a wave form is generated by rotating a circle against the movement of a sheet of paper.  When the pre-time changes in x are viewed from the standpoint of time, the point appears to exist over all the points of the wave.

          Therefore, a point photon for any value of x is still a point. In a dual slit experiment, one of two things occur (a) The pre-time structure of waves are collapsed by observation or (b) the pretime rotation is stopped by observation.  Hence, an otherwise mysterious wave-particle duality is easily defined by having pre-time and post time results for change.

         

Summary

          Why are you inclined to reject a model which has this high degree of predictability?  Perhaps the answer lies in the movement of physics back 100 years.

          Marley and Michelson’s work is proved defected because instead of “empty space” space turns out to be the most dense dimensional feature and instead of things moving through space, space either pushes higher compression states, folds into them, or unfolds from them.

          Quark theory is rejected in favor of fractal geometry. 

          Feynman and Heisenberg calculations are reduced to irrelevance by the certainty of true quantum fundamental features.

          Schrodinger and twin slit results are explained; for any value of x, while being in multiple places over time. Schrodinger’s cat is only at one place for any value of x, but once time is applied, the cat appears to occupy many locations.

          This is too radical for a narrow view of the universe, but it can engage a broader view and it is mathematically specific and predictive.  On the other hand, Peter Haggni’s “universe is an information processor,” and Max Nathan’s “fundamental equations for the operation of the universe” are fully supported by this model.

III.             It is important: A new predictive model of the universe is important

IV.            It is accessible to readers: The videos as well as the article are complete summaries.

V.             It has reproducibility and is verified and even required by existing observations.

          The math is both clear, complete and easily applied to existing observations of force for confirmation, even with a hand calculator.

See Footnote 7 summary slides