I've been gone from here for a while.
Two days ago I did a hard stair and weight workout, yesterday I did 2500 yards, could not even feel the effort, very strange. Today, other than a 2 hour walk I got no exercise. It has been a while since I had a day off. Not happy about it, but I am back here.
I am far along with the invited phase 1, but I am waiting or one of two potential collaborators to sign on.
It is weird to redefine physics. It is lonely. It always will be, because my lack of credentials, at least in the eyes of those who I embarass with my success, will prevent acknowledgement for a long time.
Perhaps not too long if I build the fusion reactor, but even with my science that will be a challenge.
I can say, it will be biilt, the question is how will it work. It is very different from anything that has ever been built, similar in some ways, but quite different.
I would tell you what is involved, but I am not ready for that. It is enough to say it is in the patents that are filed and to some extent it is in the books that are written. Only my lack of total certainty when those were published limited the information, I know so much more.
When I applied to the NEVS which I am attending in July; I did not have it. That is weird. That was to get the information to investigate. Now the NSF is the target for that, but I can get this from anywhere, I can do it myself. There is modeling, but I know better than anyone what I am modeling.
Things are moving fast. A fast spinning wheel...
Aristotle's wheel rolls one dimensional state against the other, it is what I said in the patents, but even my words escaped my notice till now, when all things have been made clear.
Dimensions are not dimensions. That is a tough pill to swallow and it does not go down easy. There are 3 dimensions, yes. Where do they come from? The relative movement of base 4,6 and 10? 6, 10 and 16?
I am not certain of this. Before I woudl have said 4, 6 and 10. Now I am not so sure. I am not sure why the number 3 works the way it does, coudl it be 4, 6 and 10 against 16? If that is the case, why isn't 4 and 6 differently dimensionally from 10?
Certainly 4 is a first dimension. It is a first folding of non-dimensional space. It is 2 against 4 though.
The wheel turns and the results are observed as time is added.
In a quantum state there are no thermodynamics, everything is frozen, but everything is froen relative to everything else, there is dimension, there are ratios, there are positions. A froen slide of film still has two dimensions. Time then, over time things change and these changes are frozen for any value of x but over many values of x these changes in dimension, this rolling of one state relative to another changes and it is time and it is a visual reference for change and it is dimensional rearrangement so that dimensions have to arise from the transition of one state relative to the next notwithstanding the fact that the compression varies. We see 3 dimensions from our ct4-5 standpoint, the molecular, atomic standpoint because all of the other compression states change relative to the point of reference and it evens out dimensionally because everyting is compressed to three dimensions or it is irrelevant.
Ct1,2 and 3 are essentially all space. The changes that are 3 dimensional are the changes of ct4 and 5 in all their consituent transitional state glory. Yes space changes too, space drives the changes in ct4 and 5; but what dimensional features we experience as 3 dimensions and time all come from the rearrangements over large value of x.
The background states are too small, too irrelevant to make a noticeable difference.
And the electron appears as a point when it is not, not because of dimension, but because it is so close to being irrelevant even though it is enormous cmpared to ct3, compared to the photon. There are 4 basic largely stable ct4 transitional states according to the model, t6, 12 and 16. Three diemnsions? I am not convinced, you ave the same polynomial approximation problems.
The 12 states are only 5 and change, however, that is what we know and if the model does not work, if fusion is possible, then the reason for the lack of balance in the electron is probably the same reason for the lack of completion in the proton. It remains unstable because the t13 that is missing is stable as 6t12 states whcih are stable as 5 t12 states because...it is stabilized by t6 states? There is only the t13 mission from t16, but that is 10^3; for the t13 states, what is missing is 10^7, you could look at it as 10^6 if we're talking about the t12 and to some extent we are. 6, 3, 0, it is a pattern that asks you to recognize it or to reject it. But if we are using t12, then it is really 10^4, 10^6, think about it.
There are a lot of other states in there, but they are transient relatively speaking, their role...dimenished.
Let's stop there for a moment.Two days ago I did a hard stair and weight workout, yesterday I did 2500 yards, could not even feel the effort, very strange. Today, other than a 2 hour walk I got no exercise. It has been a while since I had a day off. Not happy about it, but I am back here.
I am far along with the invited phase 1, but I am waiting or one of two potential collaborators to sign on.
It is weird to redefine physics. It is lonely. It always will be, because my lack of credentials, at least in the eyes of those who I embarass with my success, will prevent acknowledgement for a long time.
Perhaps not too long if I build the fusion reactor, but even with my science that will be a challenge.
I can say, it will be biilt, the question is how will it work. It is very different from anything that has ever been built, similar in some ways, but quite different.
I would tell you what is involved, but I am not ready for that. It is enough to say it is in the patents that are filed and to some extent it is in the books that are written. Only my lack of total certainty when those were published limited the information, I know so much more.
When I applied to the NEVS which I am attending in July; I did not have it. That is weird. That was to get the information to investigate. Now the NSF is the target for that, but I can get this from anywhere, I can do it myself. There is modeling, but I know better than anyone what I am modeling.
Things are moving fast. A fast spinning wheel...
Aristotle's wheel rolls one dimensional state against the other, it is what I said in the patents, but even my words escaped my notice till now, when all things have been made clear.
Dimensions are not dimensions. That is a tough pill to swallow and it does not go down easy. There are 3 dimensions, yes. Where do they come from? The relative movement of base 4,6 and 10? 6, 10 and 16?
I am not certain of this. Before I woudl have said 4, 6 and 10. Now I am not so sure. I am not sure why the number 3 works the way it does, coudl it be 4, 6 and 10 against 16? If that is the case, why isn't 4 and 6 differently dimensionally from 10?
Certainly 4 is a first dimension. It is a first folding of non-dimensional space. It is 2 against 4 though.
The wheel turns and the results are observed as time is added.
In a quantum state there are no thermodynamics, everything is frozen, but everything is froen relative to everything else, there is dimension, there are ratios, there are positions. A froen slide of film still has two dimensions. Time then, over time things change and these changes are frozen for any value of x but over many values of x these changes in dimension, this rolling of one state relative to another changes and it is time and it is a visual reference for change and it is dimensional rearrangement so that dimensions have to arise from the transition of one state relative to the next notwithstanding the fact that the compression varies. We see 3 dimensions from our ct4-5 standpoint, the molecular, atomic standpoint because all of the other compression states change relative to the point of reference and it evens out dimensionally because everyting is compressed to three dimensions or it is irrelevant.
Ct1,2 and 3 are essentially all space. The changes that are 3 dimensional are the changes of ct4 and 5 in all their consituent transitional state glory. Yes space changes too, space drives the changes in ct4 and 5; but what dimensional features we experience as 3 dimensions and time all come from the rearrangements over large value of x.
The background states are too small, too irrelevant to make a noticeable difference.
And the electron appears as a point when it is not, not because of dimension, but because it is so close to being irrelevant even though it is enormous cmpared to ct3, compared to the photon. There are 4 basic largely stable ct4 transitional states according to the model, t6, 12 and 16. Three diemnsions? I am not convinced, you ave the same polynomial approximation problems.
The 12 states are only 5 and change, however, that is what we know and if the model does not work, if fusion is possible, then the reason for the lack of balance in the electron is probably the same reason for the lack of completion in the proton. It remains unstable because the t13 that is missing is stable as 6t12 states whcih are stable as 5 t12 states because...it is stabilized by t6 states? There is only the t13 mission from t16, but that is 10^3; for the t13 states, what is missing is 10^7, you could look at it as 10^6 if we're talking about the t12 and to some extent we are. 6, 3, 0, it is a pattern that asks you to recognize it or to reject it. But if we are using t12, then it is really 10^4, 10^6, think about it.
There are a lot of other states in there, but they are transient relatively speaking, their role...dimenished.
Phys.org: The geometry of an electron determined for the first time. https://phys.org/news/2019-05-geometry-electron.html
This article's title is misleading bullshit.
Since I know what an electron actually looks like, well with the reservaions that have been set out above, and since probabilities are preaut nonsense, it is not worth a comment excep...it talks about the geometry being determined for the first time and guess who has already seen the geometry for the first time. You are right, it is you!
No comments:
Post a Comment