Here's a chapter or two from the second edition of Spirals in Amber:
Time (as we experience it) may result from the existence of CT5 even though matter is CT4 because with CT5 a point of reference is created.
In relativity, space time is changed (bent) by gravity. In NLC the amount of gravity (positive or negative) represents the amount of linearity in a system. In NLC, linearity is illusory, gravity can be seen much like the effect of lighting a particular slide. The slide itself hasn't changed. One can see this quality of intersecting spirals where spirals overlap at collisions (Figure 2).
In AuT the slide changes in successive, sequentially larger compressed combinations of systems where each combined system changes internally as x increases acording to the broad equation:
F(x)-F(x-1)+F(x-2). For any F it changes by virtue of being a combination of the prior two F(s) but also each of the two combined F(s) change as x changes. Otherwise, the internal spirals would not move.
Put another way:
F(x)-f(x-1) rotated according to the solution for each point solved for x + F(x-2) roated according to the solution for each point solved for x.
This dual change means that in each system, it's internal components vary as they are combined successively. It also might suggest a slight alteration in history with each successive change although it would not be perceptible because each subsequent quantum state would be based on that alteration. Still this raises some great questions, my next science fiction story. Someone realizes that history is changing with each quantum moment and tries...what? to stop it? perhaps to alter it so that in the current state he ends up with someone he loved once, a Frankenstein type spinoff perhaps? Coming in 2017, perhaps. Maybe the universe, in the interim, will chose to rub me out. Sort of feels like it sometimes.
Saturday, September 3, 2016
The changing Face of AuT
Here's a chapter or two from the second edition of Spirals in Amber:
Time (as we experience it) may result from the existence of CT5 even though matter is CT4 because with CT5 a point of reference is created.
In relativity, space time is changed (bent) by gravity. In NLC the amount of gravity (positive or negative) represents the amount of linearity in a system. In NLC, linearity is illusory, gravity can be seen much like the effect of lighting a particular slide. The slide itself hasn't changed. One can see this quality of intersecting spirals where spirals overlap at collisions (Figure 2).
In AuT the slide changes in successive, sequentially larger compressed combinations of systems where each combined system changes internally as x increases acording to the broad equation:
F(x)-F(x-1)+F(x-2). For any F it changes by virtue of being a combination of the prior two F(s) but also each of the two combined F(s) change as x changes. Otherwise, the internal spirals would not move.
Put another way:
F(x)-f(x-1) rotated according to the solution for each point solved for x + F(x-2) roated according to the solution for each point solved for x.
This dual change means that in each system, it's internal components vary as they are combined successively.
Time (as we experience it) may result from the existence of CT5 even though matter is CT4 because with CT5 a point of reference is created.
In relativity, space time is changed (bent) by gravity. In NLC the amount of gravity (positive or negative) represents the amount of linearity in a system. In NLC, linearity is illusory, gravity can be seen much like the effect of lighting a particular slide. The slide itself hasn't changed. One can see this quality of intersecting spirals where spirals overlap at collisions (Figure 2).
In AuT the slide changes in successive, sequentially larger compressed combinations of systems where each combined system changes internally as x increases acording to the broad equation:
F(x)-F(x-1)+F(x-2). For any F it changes by virtue of being a combination of the prior two F(s) but also each of the two combined F(s) change as x changes. Otherwise, the internal spirals would not move.
Put another way:
F(x)-f(x-1) rotated according to the solution for each point solved for x + F(x-2) roated according to the solution for each point solved for x.
This dual change means that in each system, it's internal components vary as they are combined successively.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Building an algorithm 13-Would you like some pi with that Gravity
The basic formula for these is given in terms of "informational weight" earlier, but coming up with a specific method of combining the information is on the way, but it's a slow process. These diagrams serve to give you some idea of the difficulty of getting to a single method of combining two prior states so before the fine tuning let's compare the gravity diagram with the pi diagram.
We're going to add another way that gravity may be expressed. Again they all have to do with going from a quantum state to a linear state, but there is yet another shift in the methodology when we use the F-series accumulation.
By way of review the changes we've discussed previously are set forth in this diagram:
These are shifts within a state as x (the single variable driving the algorithm) changes.
Item A shows the gravity arising from relative changes between the positive and negative spirals, but this appears to be an expansion contraction equation (intersecting spirals) as opposed to a pure gravitational element.
NLC predicts and observations suggest that Gravity comes from a shift from non-linearity to linearity which can be shown in any of the other changes above, but it can also come from change that exists from the combining of two prior states to get to the current state in which case it evolves from the change from the diagram above to the next diagram.
In order to see this shift we have to modify the diagram above to get at least a feel for how the evolution of space curvature affects the outcome.
Pi suggests the universe vibrates as do the effects reflected by the intersecting F-series spirals which you arrive at mathematically with these models.
While the stupid say, "we can't be an algorithm because the table my computer sits on is too solid," the wise says "the lack of complete density (a more solid universe) indicates that there is an offset during the vibration required to give any space for movement at all."
Put another way, if the universe were not offset, when you tried to move through space it would be so compact that it would be impossible. The amount of offset is almost irrelevant except in a relative sense, however, because dimension is clearly a illusion in an information based universe and as long as you can express a solution in terms of great distance, there is no actual separation between solutions necessary.
Questions about for the two separate spirals. It even has to be asked if one is merely the mirror image of the other or is it enough that it is on the negative spiral? However, the math shows us there is more going on than merely imaging.
Gravity appears to arise from the change by adding two states to get to the third just as the other forces arise from this solution to the math equation (instead of the primitive Pre-AuT method of looking for forces and the cause or carriers (god forbid!) for forces, you instead say the solutions to the algorithm gives rise to solutions that we interpret and use as forces.
So lets look at another diagram that will show how the positive elements build on the positive spiral followed by the negative elements building on the negative spiral and this additive quality would suggest that the total amount of gravity would increase for the universe steadily but in small increments which would follow a universe of expansion and contraction around inflection points if you allow for a negative and positive expansion and contraction based not on the amount of gravity but instead on the amount of intersection tendency vs separation tendency in the numerous spirals generated as is discussed previously in the derviation of the big bang phenomena..
Whether you have positive or negative gravity is important because you can, in this scenario have a "net" gravity for any quantum state which is the amount of positive over negative gravity and this can shift depending on the spiral state. In fact, compression and expansion inflection points requires that the net amount of attraction shifts which, in turn, suggests intersecting spirals and pi suggests that the build out of the universe involves first adding to the positive spiral and following that adding to the negative spiral. Whether this involves adding both positive and negative to the positive spiral and then positive and negative to the negative spiral is less clear so below we will use a model that follows the derivation of pi..
While I use graphics to show the addition of prior states to form future states and while this is indicated in the durability of the universe, the actual method by which stacking occurs yields an uncertain, but observed method of stacking in the form of the forces we experience and history. That is, we are in that solution so we see it in the forces that are present and the transitions that are observed.
We're going to add another way that gravity may be expressed. Again they all have to do with going from a quantum state to a linear state, but there is yet another shift in the methodology when we use the F-series accumulation.
By way of review the changes we've discussed previously are set forth in this diagram:
These are shifts within a state as x (the single variable driving the algorithm) changes.
Item A shows the gravity arising from relative changes between the positive and negative spirals, but this appears to be an expansion contraction equation (intersecting spirals) as opposed to a pure gravitational element.
NLC predicts and observations suggest that Gravity comes from a shift from non-linearity to linearity which can be shown in any of the other changes above, but it can also come from change that exists from the combining of two prior states to get to the current state in which case it evolves from the change from the diagram above to the next diagram.
In order to see this shift we have to modify the diagram above to get at least a feel for how the evolution of space curvature affects the outcome.
Pi suggests the universe vibrates as do the effects reflected by the intersecting F-series spirals which you arrive at mathematically with these models.
While the stupid say, "we can't be an algorithm because the table my computer sits on is too solid," the wise says "the lack of complete density (a more solid universe) indicates that there is an offset during the vibration required to give any space for movement at all."
Put another way, if the universe were not offset, when you tried to move through space it would be so compact that it would be impossible. The amount of offset is almost irrelevant except in a relative sense, however, because dimension is clearly a illusion in an information based universe and as long as you can express a solution in terms of great distance, there is no actual separation between solutions necessary.
Questions about for the two separate spirals. It even has to be asked if one is merely the mirror image of the other or is it enough that it is on the negative spiral? However, the math shows us there is more going on than merely imaging.
Gravity appears to arise from the change by adding two states to get to the third just as the other forces arise from this solution to the math equation (instead of the primitive Pre-AuT method of looking for forces and the cause or carriers (god forbid!) for forces, you instead say the solutions to the algorithm gives rise to solutions that we interpret and use as forces.
So lets look at another diagram that will show how the positive elements build on the positive spiral followed by the negative elements building on the negative spiral and this additive quality would suggest that the total amount of gravity would increase for the universe steadily but in small increments which would follow a universe of expansion and contraction around inflection points if you allow for a negative and positive expansion and contraction based not on the amount of gravity but instead on the amount of intersection tendency vs separation tendency in the numerous spirals generated as is discussed previously in the derviation of the big bang phenomena..
Whether you have positive or negative gravity is important because you can, in this scenario have a "net" gravity for any quantum state which is the amount of positive over negative gravity and this can shift depending on the spiral state. In fact, compression and expansion inflection points requires that the net amount of attraction shifts which, in turn, suggests intersecting spirals and pi suggests that the build out of the universe involves first adding to the positive spiral and following that adding to the negative spiral. Whether this involves adding both positive and negative to the positive spiral and then positive and negative to the negative spiral is less clear so below we will use a model that follows the derivation of pi..
While I use graphics to show the addition of prior states to form future states and while this is indicated in the durability of the universe, the actual method by which stacking occurs yields an uncertain, but observed method of stacking in the form of the forces we experience and history. That is, we are in that solution so we see it in the forces that are present and the transitions that are observed.
This shows a combination of changing geometry (evolving pi) with combination compared to the more simple model where all elements remain the same
It's hard to read, but on the left is a column showing the un-edited positive and negative points. On the right, the points are modified at least for the first three values of x to show how the curvature of space is affected. Later, the positive changes and negative changes reflected by the denominator in the pi equation are shown just through x=7. In other words, we're looking at an insanely young universe, but we're seeing the two arms capable of development in different fashions depending on how the information is combined from each prior universe.
It is discussed in the small words, but we'll cover it in more detail later.
Thus endith part 13.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
AuT Building an algorithm 12-the changing face of gravity
I seem to have survived the worst of my recent illness, although I'm not exactly out of the woods yet. Apparently the universe wants at least one more blog post out of me, so I will accommodate it. It would have been nice if you'd shown you cared a little, I say while coughing slightly. You wouldn't want to be around me.
This is one of a series of posts so it won't be finished, but some things have to be laid out.
The exact point where gravity is created is discussed here. No bozos or bozons will me mentioned except in jest.
Before we look at these heavily expanded diagrams, it is critical to understand that the distance between two points is a solution. Since the algorithm is solved in g-space, there is no distance between points. This is why stacked solutions are necessary to give the impression of separation. Without adding each two preceding universes to the next, there would be no distance generated.
Hence, merely by varying the angle very slightly, and below we will discuss how slight those variations are, you are assured that no overlap occurs except where mandated by the solution.
To put this in perspective, take a separation defined by the difference of 1/(10^100). This is a very, very small separation to us, but in a non-linear environment, there is no "actual" separation, only a difference in solution. Proximity is effective only to the extent that it mandates a specific change in the subsequent universe that is relevant.
It is also critical to not that it is not driven by the addition of universes, that is merely a result. All change in the universe from one constant quantum point to the next is driven by the quantum change of a single variable.
In one of the next posts we are going to look at the "wrong turn tree" which I've begun and which will steadily grow as we move towards the publication date for the second edition of Spirals in Amber slated for say December. The perfect Christmas gift (since it basically undermines any man made religion).
Two diagrams are going to be used for gravity and then a third will be used for acceleration and finally an examination of the derivation of pi using something other than distances or the base 10 numbering system to give some perspective.
The problem with the acceleration diagram is that the amount of compression to get from space which has no observed velocity and no acceleration to photons which have a great deal of velocity but no acceleration is very great. Fortunately, it is not so great as the amount of compression needed to get to matter. For photons it is (1+1+2)2^2 or 4^2^2 or 256. That is if you were able to break a photon down (or the basic unit of a photon), and it certainly seems likely you could, then a single photon would yield 256 units of space.
Once you get to matter where "acceleration" comes into the picture, you have 10^16 scale of energy which is a 6^2^3 or 6^8 scale of photon compression you end up with a surface (for basic units) which compression limits the amount of space which can contact the matter at any point in time (for any solution in x (or, more specifically, for any solution of x,x-1,x-2)) This severe impact of the "different" space that can impact the quantum element of matter over a period of time severely limits what we would otherwise observe as speed over that time period. This is logical because you earthlings equate speed with movement through space so the more space contacted over several values of x by a quantum of anything, the faster it seems to move even though it is not moving at all in any quantum moment and even though all quantum are changing at the exact same rate so that what you call speed is just common solutions for space with whatever is moving. Photons being less compressed can contact more space during any quantum sets of events.
If we assume that at the quantum level space has a surface like black hole material has in black holes (theorized even by people like Hawking who don't know what black holes are) then the amount of different space that can contact that surface at a given point in time is limited by the surface area which, in this case, ensures the "observed acceleration" to be limited to the change in space.
The movement between values of x generates gravity and this is what was more or less mistakenly called previously the change from non-linearity to linearity. While it is the movement for linearity that generates gravity, it's not exactly the same thing.
This is one of a series of posts so it won't be finished, but some things have to be laid out.
The exact point where gravity is created is discussed here. No bozos or bozons will me mentioned except in jest.
Before we look at these heavily expanded diagrams, it is critical to understand that the distance between two points is a solution. Since the algorithm is solved in g-space, there is no distance between points. This is why stacked solutions are necessary to give the impression of separation. Without adding each two preceding universes to the next, there would be no distance generated.
Hence, merely by varying the angle very slightly, and below we will discuss how slight those variations are, you are assured that no overlap occurs except where mandated by the solution.
To put this in perspective, take a separation defined by the difference of 1/(10^100). This is a very, very small separation to us, but in a non-linear environment, there is no "actual" separation, only a difference in solution. Proximity is effective only to the extent that it mandates a specific change in the subsequent universe that is relevant.
It is also critical to not that it is not driven by the addition of universes, that is merely a result. All change in the universe from one constant quantum point to the next is driven by the quantum change of a single variable.
In one of the next posts we are going to look at the "wrong turn tree" which I've begun and which will steadily grow as we move towards the publication date for the second edition of Spirals in Amber slated for say December. The perfect Christmas gift (since it basically undermines any man made religion).
Two diagrams are going to be used for gravity and then a third will be used for acceleration and finally an examination of the derivation of pi using something other than distances or the base 10 numbering system to give some perspective.
The problem with the acceleration diagram is that the amount of compression to get from space which has no observed velocity and no acceleration to photons which have a great deal of velocity but no acceleration is very great. Fortunately, it is not so great as the amount of compression needed to get to matter. For photons it is (1+1+2)2^2 or 4^2^2 or 256. That is if you were able to break a photon down (or the basic unit of a photon), and it certainly seems likely you could, then a single photon would yield 256 units of space.
Once you get to matter where "acceleration" comes into the picture, you have 10^16 scale of energy which is a 6^2^3 or 6^8 scale of photon compression you end up with a surface (for basic units) which compression limits the amount of space which can contact the matter at any point in time (for any solution in x (or, more specifically, for any solution of x,x-1,x-2)) This severe impact of the "different" space that can impact the quantum element of matter over a period of time severely limits what we would otherwise observe as speed over that time period. This is logical because you earthlings equate speed with movement through space so the more space contacted over several values of x by a quantum of anything, the faster it seems to move even though it is not moving at all in any quantum moment and even though all quantum are changing at the exact same rate so that what you call speed is just common solutions for space with whatever is moving. Photons being less compressed can contact more space during any quantum sets of events.
If we assume that at the quantum level space has a surface like black hole material has in black holes (theorized even by people like Hawking who don't know what black holes are) then the amount of different space that can contact that surface at a given point in time is limited by the surface area which, in this case, ensures the "observed acceleration" to be limited to the change in space.
The movement between values of x generates gravity and this is what was more or less mistakenly called previously the change from non-linearity to linearity. While it is the movement for linearity that generates gravity, it's not exactly the same thing.
The "gravity options" diagram shows how the "push" from one position to the next can generate gravity at one or more locations between a-f and combinations thereof. Each will be mentioned briefly here and then discussed in more detail in subsequent posts:
a: This is the separation of opposite results which are offset by a single value change of pi and one is the negative of the other except for this offset.
b: This is the movement within the same spiral arm of positive and negative elements within that arm about a common solution point
c and d are opposite changes around a single quantum of space. This is the movement of 0,1,1,0 or 0,-1,-1,0 for c and d respectively. The combination of these two for a single point (e.g. about B) is an example of two separate changes yielding a gravitational event.
f shows the movement between solution where the initial solution (x=1 or 2 depending on how you look at it) to the stacked location for x-4 (the maximum shown in the diagram) yields gravity, that is gravity exists only from the stacking from a common point.
The second diagram above shown how inflection points are generated by the overlap over time of the universes generated by the stacking of separate universe (positive and negative). This creates expansion or compression for the universe as a whole (around the average solution inflection points) as the universe approached (without ever reaching) equal amounts of positive and negative matter. During this cycle shown by these offset lines, the universe goes through periods where it expands and contracts without regard to the amount of gravity within the system, but instead as a result of the underlying sum or combined sub-universes some of which are expanding and some of which are contracting at any point in time while approaching in a pi like infinite converging series a solution where the total amount of plus and negative information are equal at the point of compression. Note that this diagram does not show the changing converging angle changes which are imperfectly reflected in the top drawing but if it were properly drawn (and you can see this in even the first volume of Spirals in Amber) these lines appear curved at high values of x and pi or even relatively low values of x.
Speed
The amount of compression shown here is not even close to the exponential amount required for photons to form in quantity, but this gives an impression of how the solution to a one variable algorithm gives the impression of speed merely based on the amount of space in the proximity of a higher state.
Where compression is high enough for photons to exist, massive amounts of space solutions are present to interact and give the photon speed. This process is even greater for other forms but instead of the smaller spiral solution, you have a longer spiral solution corresponding to the number of states through which the higher compression states may pass.
pi derivation and angles. This final diagram is to show that when we talk about fractions, we are also talking about changing geometries Hence for this early formation of pi you have 4+4/3-4/5+4/7-4/9+4/11-4/13+4/15th. The difference is that the original solution (pi=4) uses a non sided geometry which has no counterpart in space. The second part of the solution, the second "stacked" universe is 4/3 which is also an irregular structure based on our perceptions of space. Only at 4/5 do we begin to recognize a dimensional structure which we can understand and which remains for the balance of the solution for the curvature of space. As can be seen, however, you are using exponentially less information from an state during these subsequent states because you are returning to an initial point with each change from a higher number of potential states after only 4 movements no matter how many potential points are available for the state in question.
Thus endith part the 12th.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
AuT Building an algorithm 11-the changing face of gravity
The way that gravity works is coming out quite differently in AuT from NLC.
AuT suggests that a change in a positive spiral solution relative to a negative spiral solution might be required.
In NLC gravity resulted from this occasion: 0 to 1. In AuT, as x changes this cycle looks more like 0-1-1-0-1 so there is one non-linear to linear solution for one linear to linear and one linear back to non-linear. This would suggest that in space gravity exists and then anti-gravity exists and for a middle ground there is a linearity that is from one linear state to an identical linear state.
Likewise, offset by the changing value of pi there is a 0-(-1)-(-1)-0 spiral which changes at either the same rate of offset by 1 (e.g. 0-1 would correspond to just 0 and 0-1-1 would correspond to just 0-(-1) the negative spiral always one step behind the positive one.
However there is another factor giving rise to forces in AuT and this is the change from one state to the next. Looking at the simplist universes:
AuT suggests that a change in a positive spiral solution relative to a negative spiral solution might be required.
In NLC gravity resulted from this occasion: 0 to 1. In AuT, as x changes this cycle looks more like 0-1-1-0-1 so there is one non-linear to linear solution for one linear to linear and one linear back to non-linear. This would suggest that in space gravity exists and then anti-gravity exists and for a middle ground there is a linearity that is from one linear state to an identical linear state.
Likewise, offset by the changing value of pi there is a 0-(-1)-(-1)-0 spiral which changes at either the same rate of offset by 1 (e.g. 0-1 would correspond to just 0 and 0-1-1 would correspond to just 0-(-1) the negative spiral always one step behind the positive one.
However there is another factor giving rise to forces in AuT and this is the change from one state to the next. Looking at the simplist universes:
While the exact mechanism for determining how these "space spirals" sum together is uncertain and while the offset mechanism is defined by a changing value of pi but imperfectly defined until the point of intersection where they are summed is defined gravity is suggested as either: (1) the change of the positive spiral relative to the offset negative spiral or (2) the change in position from x=2 to the new position represented by x=3. While there are two different ways that these are shown, there are actually several graphic representations but the "shifting origin" suggests that the shift may result in gravity. Note that while while the negative spiral in the shifting origin model remains in place, there is no reason to believe this is a necessary outcome and how the solution is defined is not a result of distance, but only the change in the information state. Further this model assumes a 0-1-1-0 (or the negative) solution but there is no reason to assume that some other spiral result comes about other than the peculiar nature of "space information" suggests that a non-linear to linear result might offer an explanation for that strange behavior.
Thus endith part 11.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Building an algorithm 9
To fully prepare this work, eventually someone needs to prepare a chart showing all the abandoned twists and turns of the theory, a tree of the universe. Perhaps preparing it backwards would be easier, but there have been so many choices that had to be made to get to a place where a concise and consistent theory arose.
As I edit the latest version for the new steps in it I am making huge slashes in the information provided as I abandon what I consider to be one dead end after another.
Today I did almost nothing on the book and that is after a weekend where death faced me at one turn or another.
The theory took a quantum shift when I left behind the last vestiges of Einstein and Hawking, respectively a singularity where everything happens at once (now replaced with an algorithm that can solve for any x) and any specific tie to what has heretofore been called space/time theory.
I have replace predestination with a super-predestination. They both amount to the same thing, physics governing our actions, but sp holds that the solution to the alorithm drag events to a conclusion giving rise to forces rather than having any independent background forces.
These are small things but taken with the results that are previously identified, the improperly based being eliminated, gives a much more lucid explanation of why the converging infinite series and diverging infinite series give rise to what you call reality and I call the shadow existence of mankind.
Nor despite having both ends laid out, ignition of the space time quantum universe and compression towards its final conclusion, do I believe even the next edit will be a magnum opus. Yes it will be nobel prize worthy, although it does render such a prize rather mundane, like one big bang against the millions suggested by the theory as inflection points, as inevitable as yesterday since tomorrow is anyone's guess. But despite having the fundamentals of both ends it will still fall short of the final mathematica.
The building of one solution on top of another suggests a commonality of solution, perhaps even an overlap of solution which I think might be contrary to a theory where things do not overlaps so much as they converge even as they diverge, a discrepancy which is nevertheless inherent in the solution which says the larger x the closer to the fully compressed state though neither pi nor full compression are expected of the theory.
In fact the pefectly alligned F-series spirals have had to give way to F-series spirals defined by an evolving pi curved universe and just as pi by definition could only be solved by a finite universe in the theory of NLC which preceded AuT so must an infinite solution be the result of converging series universe.
I had hoped for a finite series universe where spirals would meet, but I now see they will always be offset, the universe will never finally collapse in on itself with two equal but opposite types of informtion cancelling each other out.
And yet, there may be an end, because since time and space don't exists in the singularity, it is possible in that environment even if not in ours that infinity may be a finite number. That is also, rejected by AuT which replaces infinity with nothing other than an algorithm which for any imaginable x can be solved, although from our perspective, the algorithm appears to build with an ever increasing value of x.
However, despite the shortcomings, I have a more clear picture of the universe than anyone else, you don't have to like it or agree, at least not yet.. Eventually you will, perhaps when someone with less modesty comes up with details which remain hidden even from me this afternoon.
As I edit the latest version for the new steps in it I am making huge slashes in the information provided as I abandon what I consider to be one dead end after another.
Today I did almost nothing on the book and that is after a weekend where death faced me at one turn or another.
The theory took a quantum shift when I left behind the last vestiges of Einstein and Hawking, respectively a singularity where everything happens at once (now replaced with an algorithm that can solve for any x) and any specific tie to what has heretofore been called space/time theory.
I have replace predestination with a super-predestination. They both amount to the same thing, physics governing our actions, but sp holds that the solution to the alorithm drag events to a conclusion giving rise to forces rather than having any independent background forces.
These are small things but taken with the results that are previously identified, the improperly based being eliminated, gives a much more lucid explanation of why the converging infinite series and diverging infinite series give rise to what you call reality and I call the shadow existence of mankind.
Nor despite having both ends laid out, ignition of the space time quantum universe and compression towards its final conclusion, do I believe even the next edit will be a magnum opus. Yes it will be nobel prize worthy, although it does render such a prize rather mundane, like one big bang against the millions suggested by the theory as inflection points, as inevitable as yesterday since tomorrow is anyone's guess. But despite having the fundamentals of both ends it will still fall short of the final mathematica.
The building of one solution on top of another suggests a commonality of solution, perhaps even an overlap of solution which I think might be contrary to a theory where things do not overlaps so much as they converge even as they diverge, a discrepancy which is nevertheless inherent in the solution which says the larger x the closer to the fully compressed state though neither pi nor full compression are expected of the theory.
In fact the pefectly alligned F-series spirals have had to give way to F-series spirals defined by an evolving pi curved universe and just as pi by definition could only be solved by a finite universe in the theory of NLC which preceded AuT so must an infinite solution be the result of converging series universe.
I had hoped for a finite series universe where spirals would meet, but I now see they will always be offset, the universe will never finally collapse in on itself with two equal but opposite types of informtion cancelling each other out.
And yet, there may be an end, because since time and space don't exists in the singularity, it is possible in that environment even if not in ours that infinity may be a finite number. That is also, rejected by AuT which replaces infinity with nothing other than an algorithm which for any imaginable x can be solved, although from our perspective, the algorithm appears to build with an ever increasing value of x.
However, despite the shortcomings, I have a more clear picture of the universe than anyone else, you don't have to like it or agree, at least not yet.. Eventually you will, perhaps when someone with less modesty comes up with details which remain hidden even from me this afternoon.
old-satisfying but inaccurate
Newer, less satisfying but closer to observed phenomena
second edition coming sooner or later
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Building an algorithm-10 article review -
While technically right, since Hawking was right for all the wrong reasons I have to rate this relatively low.
CT5 is defined, these complex theoretical manipulations toget to a relatively simple solution are tiring.
http://www.aol.com/article/
So we can say that Hawking is right, but only to the extent that we accept a surface which doesn't exist. Eventually the general physicists will give away their conceit perhaps when someone they know of comes out with exactly the same findings as AuT but calls it something else, plagarized but with a fancy name to it. It is bothersome, but what AuT says is that all vanity is foolishness so allow me, the stripper of vanity, to also be your biggest fool.
The problem is that classical physicists continue to ignore AuT at their peril since eventually it will be determined they were wasting their time ignoring the facts.
So let's get to the facts.
What does AuT say about space. If we accept that there is a cycle (0,1,1,0) then once every three transitions space disappears from our perception. We don't notice it because from our perspective this occurs for 1x10-39ths of a second and it appears for twice that long giving it the shadowing appearance that misleads people like Hawking into believing it is nothing, the same reason that it makes up dark matter but non-AuT scientists don't see it.
Why are photons so much more visible. It helps to think about these as bits of film moving more slowly than 10^39 per second. Two slides then one empty, you'd get a pretty good picture from that.
With photons, not only do you have a longer "burn rate" 0,1,1,2,0 but the "2" might take twice as long to fade away. Now you have 4 out of 5 slides to one empty, 1,1,2,2,0. However, given the known building out you also have the F-series base and exponential function so for every photon you have 4^2^2 space particles so that you effectively have 4^2^2 (to 1^2^2?) slides for a like number of empties. The exponentially larger sizes you see for wave energy and matter and finally black holes makes them look more and more dense although in reality they are just larger information-alignment states.
So what Hawking would say if he were paying attention is, of course black holes are just more compressed information states, obviously based on the F series 3,5,8 or 16^2^5 for ct5 which makes them to appear less changeable even though their information states change at the same rate.
What this means if you look at the drawing is that each of the triangles "turns" just as each of the larger information state shapes turn with each change in x and all the turns are made at the same rate whether as part of a higher concentration state or not.
CT5 is defined, these complex theoretical manipulations toget to a relatively simple solution are tiring.
http://www.aol.com/article/
So we can say that Hawking is right, but only to the extent that we accept a surface which doesn't exist. Eventually the general physicists will give away their conceit perhaps when someone they know of comes out with exactly the same findings as AuT but calls it something else, plagarized but with a fancy name to it. It is bothersome, but what AuT says is that all vanity is foolishness so allow me, the stripper of vanity, to also be your biggest fool.
The problem is that classical physicists continue to ignore AuT at their peril since eventually it will be determined they were wasting their time ignoring the facts.
So let's get to the facts.
What does AuT say about space. If we accept that there is a cycle (0,1,1,0) then once every three transitions space disappears from our perception. We don't notice it because from our perspective this occurs for 1x10-39ths of a second and it appears for twice that long giving it the shadowing appearance that misleads people like Hawking into believing it is nothing, the same reason that it makes up dark matter but non-AuT scientists don't see it.
Why are photons so much more visible. It helps to think about these as bits of film moving more slowly than 10^39 per second. Two slides then one empty, you'd get a pretty good picture from that.
With photons, not only do you have a longer "burn rate" 0,1,1,2,0 but the "2" might take twice as long to fade away. Now you have 4 out of 5 slides to one empty, 1,1,2,2,0. However, given the known building out you also have the F-series base and exponential function so for every photon you have 4^2^2 space particles so that you effectively have 4^2^2 (to 1^2^2?) slides for a like number of empties. The exponentially larger sizes you see for wave energy and matter and finally black holes makes them look more and more dense although in reality they are just larger information-alignment states.
So what Hawking would say if he were paying attention is, of course black holes are just more compressed information states, obviously based on the F series 3,5,8 or 16^2^5 for ct5 which makes them to appear less changeable even though their information states change at the same rate.
What this means if you look at the drawing is that each of the triangles "turns" just as each of the larger information state shapes turn with each change in x and all the turns are made at the same rate whether as part of a higher concentration state or not.
Representations for triangles from x-1 to 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)