Before I get to the real bull malarky (no more malarky) of pre-AuT time, let me pause and say that I mentioned I would slowly starve to death while being the most brilliant physicist alive because I don't have a degree.
Fortunately, in doing so I will not only pass my target weight, but achieve my secondary target weight, well ahead of schedule if today's weigh in at 173.8 (1.2 pounds below target and a mere 3.8 pounds above what I consider to be my optimal weight) is any indication.
Yesterday, in the absence of warm water, I rode yet again. I fear, speculate and am essentially sure that at least part of the weight loss is loss of weight lifting upper body weight which can only partially be limited by swimming which is coming in a two swims a week on average.
I am going to my first post apocalypse funeral today. At least all my suits fit.
Enough about reality, lets talk about the real time definition, the one that kills all the time travel books and all of the god myths at the same time.
How do we know the AuT definition of time, as a stop frame animation set out in AuT is accurate?
First, time and space are interchangeable. Duh! They have to be the same thing.
Second, the math of gravity and dimensional compression work. (Read one of the books for christ's sake); which doesn't necessarily explain time, but does show there are three pre-time states ct1-3; and the appearance (and disappearance with acceleration) of time corresponds perfectly with this model, photons being essentially ct4 transitional states that are mostly pre-time in makeup.
So having done that, lets talk about the bull shit that is the prior art starting with the question of quantum gravity which AuT provides in detail but for which I do not yet have a single accolade, well I do have a print out from a presentation at a small physics conference.
The Old (O) stuff will come from Richard Muller, Prof Physics, UCBerkeley, author of "Now—The Physics of Time" (2016) a book which has about as much relevance post AuT to physics as "Hop on Pop."
Answered December 19, 2015 · Upvoted by Anshuman Kumar Srivastava, PhD in photonics, Bachelors and Masters in physics
O-"We don't need a theory of quantum gravity. The reason that so many theorists are working on it is that their intuition tells them that a quantum theory of gravity should exist..."
N-Duh, it is already laid out in this book:
O-"All other forces in physics have been demonstrated to require quantization. So maybe gravity too."
N- That is only right to the extent that ct state completion reflects a discrete shift in applicable ct state, in fact all the forces, to some extent the 3 transition gravity force, can be broken down into the other ct states.
O- "Einstein showed that we can understand everything we know about gravity today from geometry. That is not true of any other force. So maybe the theorists are wasting their time; gravity may turn out to be the only "force" in physics that is not quantum in nature."
N-Oh, he started out so well, of course gravity and geometry are the same since dimension arises from folding and the first stage of folding is gravity, but then he just goes off into pre-AuT bull shit.
It's also in this book in Audio Form:
No comments:
Post a Comment