In my last blog I suggested that we were either 2% into the expansion phase or 98% of the way through it. I'm uncomfortable with the 2% but I'm not so sure it's the wrong number. After all, the universe doesn't really care whether I'm comfortable or not. If it does, it obviously wants me uncomfortable because we're not writing this togehter. I have no support, but I'm going to move on to the destructive phase of things and talk about the k-bomb. Yes, I promised you that AuT theory would not disappoint you, that you'd be able do do something destructive with it. You just have to be patient.
Now that I have predicted the "end" of our present universe, it will be fairly easy (because of the addititive quality of the F-series) to predict the actual age of the universe. How, you ask?
It's actually quite simple, the complex looking universe being fairly simple. First knowing the universe is 13.7 billion years old and, I'm going to use the shorter period for this entry, about 2.3 billion years from now it will start to contract (it's a curved function because it's averaged because of the pi function that ensures that it will never end as long as x can get bigger, any single function would have a long stable period, we can figure out from the expansion period what the contraction period will look like (there are many charts in the book showing the period when the spirals come together). We know this will be longer for each universe based on the equation in that really long spreadsheet I put in one of the posts a few months back.
Anyway, the value of x for our universe (a subset of the value of x for all the universes so far) is roughly 32 billion years converted into seconds. and then multiplied by 10^39. That is a lot of x, but it's not as big a number as you'd think because the universe is defined by quantum moments which takes a lot less information that defininging it over a bunch of quantum moments. In fact, I daresay my spreadsheet may actually cover that number in which case there would only be a few hundred (at most) big bangs so far, each adding to the x of the next one, but all those can be summed up. See if we know how big x is for our universe approximately, we can get the exact number by looking for the closes spiral expansion or compression that matches it. Part of that chart, by the way, appears in "A spiral in amber" although it did not make the cut for "Spirals in amber" but you can find it in this blog if you spend some time looking. Or you could write me and ask me to send you a copy of the spreadsheet, maybe I would, who knows?
Or, since you are too lazy to pick up the phone and call me, you can wait and I'll take some time to solve it in here.
But what's that? This blog entry is called "the k-bomb." We all know about Einstein and his H bomb. That uses the conversion factor for ct4-ct3 to blow things up. More particularly, the algorithm solves for us building 10,000 years of post ice-age society just so we can compress chemicals and explode them in order to satisfy the compression or expansion cycle for a particular group of spirals. Yes, the crazy north koreans are just fulfilling an expansion/compression cycle as mandated by the F-series, pi building offset universe that we live in. It's a lot of absurdity if you look at them, just to do some spiral decompression, but stupid as they are, if you look at the superpowers (usa, russia and china) of nuclear weapons, you see we're doing it on a much bigger scale and if you look at world war ii, you basically see the same process. Even so, compared to the activity within the earth or at the sun, it's a relatively minor amount of bother or algorithm solution in the grand schem of things. That is what we are, however. We are algorithm solving results. Well, you are anyway. Just kidding, we all are.
But we're talking about a weapon more powerful than Einsteins. A k bomb, which I now believe I have enough information to start on, can not only destroy an entire planet, but in relatively short order a solar system and even, given time, a galaxy. Well, it would take a really, really long time to destroy a galaxy and it wouldn't really destroy any of it, but it's a really powerful weapon that if applied properly could do a lot of damage, that is if you call change damage. I'm not sure you can really call solving a math problem damage. Of course, fortunately, it's rather hard to detonate a k-bomb, although its surprisingly easy to build. No one has known how to build one before me, of course.
I will get to that.
The greeks, not surprisingly, given their early work into Algorithm Universe Theory, actually envisioned the k bomb in their mythology. It's hard to believe that such a weapon was imagined 2500 years ago, but there you have it. They envisioned the weapon and its results, but it was shrowded in superstition, or perhaps they actually did see it and hid it on purpose, who knows?
There is some suggestion that they tried to build one over several generations, but it failed if they did and any attempt in my opinion was probably silly, like a child designing a nuclear weapons with tinkertoys. You might be able to put something together that looked like a nuclear weapon, but it wouldn't be capable of detonation.
My k bomb should be capable of detonation with the same awful result that the greeks envisioned. Imagine that?
Friday, September 9, 2016
Thursday, September 8, 2016
You are here-revisited rate of change-expansion
Occasionally in this blog, I make a slight divergence to determine where the heck we are in the universe. I do this mainly to remind you with relatively simple mathematics how much smarter I am than everyone else. Honestly, no one believes that.
Today, I will tell you where I expect the next inflection point to be and why. At this point, inflection point, which I am going to give you with some specificity (using several assumptions) you will know exactly when the universe will suddenly stop expanding and start contracting.
Prepare to set your alarm clock.
Don't worry about reading fast, it won't happen while I'm typing this or while your reading it unless you're reading it far, far into the future after everyone has signed a petition acknowledging that I was smarter than everyone else, I suppose.
As most kindergarten physicists know the universe is expanding and that the farther galaxies "appear" to be be moving faster. We know why this is the case using AuT, but Kindergarten physicists do not know, so I will refer to the fact that the average inflection point over all the spirals stacked to form the universe is in a net expansion state which relates to an inflection point that occurred around 13.7 billion years ago and is affectionately known as "the most recent inflection point from net compression to expansion" or "the big bang" to the kinder (a little German there just for you).
For purposes of this we are going to (1) accept relativistic effects and then (2) reject them and finally (3) we're going to correct for CBR which is the only thing that matters since it's the only point of reference relative to the beginning and end of things for reasons that will be clear..
The farthest object we see is at 13.3 bln light years and is moving away from us (1) at three times the speed of light or (2) the speed of light less a bit. [remember that 1 accepts the relativistic effects and 2, the more accurate measure, rejects them]. However, (3) for CBR it's not moving at all. If it is, as I will discuss shortly, then the universe is really old and you better grab your hat and umbrella.
The universe is young! Relatively speaking, I believe it is 1/44th of its way towards the beginning of its contraction phase.
Let me explain.
The farthest object is 13.3 bln light years away. In a universe that is 13.7 billion years old that means it's essentially at the edge of the universe and it took 13.3 billion years for it's light to reach us which was some 420 million years after it formed. It's essentially at the edge of the universe, but whether we're going to stick with 13.3 billion light years or the 13.7 doesn't matter much because the extra distance isn't important for rounding this off. If you really want to put an alarm on your phone and it will handle the numbers, you can try to get more precise, you'll have the math.
According to relativity the distant galaxy is moving at (1) 3c relative to us which is (3) zero relative to CBR but it's really moving at (2) the speed of light (c) and we know that to be the case because...the initial spirals are all space moving at the speed of light and this is only slowing down a little because it's only 400 million years old. I.E. ct1 changes at the speed of light if you put a speed to it at all.
You and I are in a galaxy that's moving at the relatively slow speed of 627km/s. Earth is actually moving slower than the galaxy relative to cbr but if you start comparing apples to pomegranates you're going to end up with a fruit salad. Anyway, we're a mere 25000 light years from the center of the 13.7 billion light year across universe. We're only 1.9x10-6 of the way to the edge of the universe. Now let's talk about what is happening because of this. The other galaxy is not really moving at 3 times the speed of light or even at the speed of light. It was when it's light started to come to us a 13 billion years ago, but it's subject to the same average inflection point that we are, we're just 13 billion years down the road from it.
To put it another way, the universe has slowed from expanding during that 13.7 billion years from the (1) relativistic speed of 2c (599564800m/s) or (2) the real speed of light (299782450 m/s) all the way down to 627,000 m/s today It's gotten a lot slower over those 13.7 billion years unless you correct this for CBM and spiral motion.
If you use the measured speed we'd be 98% of the way to the inflection point (and you'd be running to grab your umbrella and raincoat) which is part of the reason I think that goes in the wrong direction although it would still mean we have 2% of 13.7 billion years before the inflection point). Instead we're looking at is slowing from the cbm of non-movement all the way up to 627,000 m/s going towards a dead stop at 299782450m/s relative to cbm.
That means that we've slowed down 2.25% of the ways slowed 299155450m/s over a mere 13.7 billion years. It has slowed 2.25% of the way to being at a complete stop, an inflection point. Put another way, we're 1/44 th of the way to the next inflection point. This means that 44 times 13.7 billion years from today we'll be at the inflection point and I'll be around 609 billion years and a half century old. Makes my back hurt just to think about it.
And you...are here!
One footnote, if we've really slowed 98% of the way down then in 2.74 billion years the universe will stop expanding. That's pretty fast but it might be the right time frame, who knows?
Today, I will tell you where I expect the next inflection point to be and why. At this point, inflection point, which I am going to give you with some specificity (using several assumptions) you will know exactly when the universe will suddenly stop expanding and start contracting.
Prepare to set your alarm clock.
Don't worry about reading fast, it won't happen while I'm typing this or while your reading it unless you're reading it far, far into the future after everyone has signed a petition acknowledging that I was smarter than everyone else, I suppose.
As most kindergarten physicists know the universe is expanding and that the farther galaxies "appear" to be be moving faster. We know why this is the case using AuT, but Kindergarten physicists do not know, so I will refer to the fact that the average inflection point over all the spirals stacked to form the universe is in a net expansion state which relates to an inflection point that occurred around 13.7 billion years ago and is affectionately known as "the most recent inflection point from net compression to expansion" or "the big bang" to the kinder (a little German there just for you).
For purposes of this we are going to (1) accept relativistic effects and then (2) reject them and finally (3) we're going to correct for CBR which is the only thing that matters since it's the only point of reference relative to the beginning and end of things for reasons that will be clear..
The farthest object we see is at 13.3 bln light years and is moving away from us (1) at three times the speed of light or (2) the speed of light less a bit. [remember that 1 accepts the relativistic effects and 2, the more accurate measure, rejects them]. However, (3) for CBR it's not moving at all. If it is, as I will discuss shortly, then the universe is really old and you better grab your hat and umbrella.
The universe is young! Relatively speaking, I believe it is 1/44th of its way towards the beginning of its contraction phase.
Let me explain.
The farthest object is 13.3 bln light years away. In a universe that is 13.7 billion years old that means it's essentially at the edge of the universe and it took 13.3 billion years for it's light to reach us which was some 420 million years after it formed. It's essentially at the edge of the universe, but whether we're going to stick with 13.3 billion light years or the 13.7 doesn't matter much because the extra distance isn't important for rounding this off. If you really want to put an alarm on your phone and it will handle the numbers, you can try to get more precise, you'll have the math.
According to relativity the distant galaxy is moving at (1) 3c relative to us which is (3) zero relative to CBR but it's really moving at (2) the speed of light (c) and we know that to be the case because...the initial spirals are all space moving at the speed of light and this is only slowing down a little because it's only 400 million years old. I.E. ct1 changes at the speed of light if you put a speed to it at all.
You and I are in a galaxy that's moving at the relatively slow speed of 627km/s. Earth is actually moving slower than the galaxy relative to cbr but if you start comparing apples to pomegranates you're going to end up with a fruit salad. Anyway, we're a mere 25000 light years from the center of the 13.7 billion light year across universe. We're only 1.9x10-6 of the way to the edge of the universe. Now let's talk about what is happening because of this. The other galaxy is not really moving at 3 times the speed of light or even at the speed of light. It was when it's light started to come to us a 13 billion years ago, but it's subject to the same average inflection point that we are, we're just 13 billion years down the road from it.
To put it another way, the universe has slowed from expanding during that 13.7 billion years from the (1) relativistic speed of 2c (599564800m/s) or (2) the real speed of light (299782450 m/s) all the way down to 627,000 m/s today It's gotten a lot slower over those 13.7 billion years unless you correct this for CBM and spiral motion.
If you use the measured speed we'd be 98% of the way to the inflection point (and you'd be running to grab your umbrella and raincoat) which is part of the reason I think that goes in the wrong direction although it would still mean we have 2% of 13.7 billion years before the inflection point). Instead we're looking at is slowing from the cbm of non-movement all the way up to 627,000 m/s going towards a dead stop at 299782450m/s relative to cbm.
That means that we've slowed down 2.25% of the ways slowed 299155450m/s over a mere 13.7 billion years. It has slowed 2.25% of the way to being at a complete stop, an inflection point. Put another way, we're 1/44 th of the way to the next inflection point. This means that 44 times 13.7 billion years from today we'll be at the inflection point and I'll be around 609 billion years and a half century old. Makes my back hurt just to think about it.
And you...are here!
One footnote, if we've really slowed 98% of the way down then in 2.74 billion years the universe will stop expanding. That's pretty fast but it might be the right time frame, who knows?
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Building an algorithm 15: compendium-why einstein and I were wrong...until I got it right
gravity is an effect not a cause. All the other forces arising from gravity, all other forces are effects
the universe is not a place of events, it is a place of an algorithm being solved for a variable
the universe contracts and expands, but not because of gravity or dark energy which are effects but because the algorithm has average inflection points which spiral towards but never reaches equality or a balance of the positive and negative
the algorithm defines both a positive and negative F-series.
The algorithm allows for stacking of time states because F-series are stackable (1,1,2 is the same as 11,11,22 is the same as 111,111,222 and so on) This qualities extends to stacks on top of stacks.
The positive and negative sides of the algorithm are required to provide for expansion and contraction about a common solution. As the solution moves away there is expansion, as the solution stays parallel (not exactly parallel because of offsets) there is near stability, as the solution moves together there is compression. For each solution this model holds, even as the solutions are stacked leading to an average solution about which the universe expands and contracts.
There is no relative movement in the sense of quantum change. Relative movement instead takes into account (1) that all points must change at the same rate according to a single variable and (2) space (ct1) or some other state provides a matrix and the interaction with the matrix gives the appearance of relative change that is observed.
There is no separation, if there was, then space could be infinitely divided and would lose itself as a point of reference. Instead, there is a finite amount of information from which the definition of pi is defined at any value of x and this information has no separation but is only a solution of yes or no which solution is divided into two separate F-series. The amount of information varies according to the F-series as x increases incrementally.
Parminides (not Einstein, Newton or anyone else) was the father of AuT, I am the Dr. Frankenstein.
The big bang is an average inflection point, one of a very large number of those corresponding to intersecting offset spirals which approach but never achieve equal size or allignment according to the pi type infinite converging series. It is a big bounce, but a defined big bounce.
Einstein defined space time, but failed to realize that it had been proven 2600 years before according to logic to be an illogical system. Einstein said that the reason for time was so that everything didn't happen at once. That led me down the wrong path in assuming that the universe arose from a finite amount of information allowing a consistent definition of pi and that any point in the universe was merely the expression of the information for a value of time. In fact, that analysis fell apart because it required the universe collapse and that would have required that there be a fixed point of reference, a beginning which is contraindicated.
The universe must be an informational based system with lmiits or there would have to be something beyond the universe which would create an infinite system. In fact, the universe has no dimension.
Black holes do not define a singularity. If they did they would all have to drop into the same place and they move in space. Even the earliest versions of the theory recognized that all states must have gravity in order to have the amount observed, that all states were interchangeable (none could drop out of space just because of their weight) and even a cursory observation showed that each state was the exponential informational change for the preceding state. n^2^x where the existence of 2 in the equation showed that the states (ct1-ct5 that we observe) were information states. N, based on observation, proved to be the F-series for that state (2,3,5 for matter for example) and x the state number (4 for matter). This made it clear that the transition observed was ct1 space, ct2 photonic energy, ct3 wave energy, ct4 matter and ct5 black hole material). There was nothing magical about any state although the interaction of states and particularly the interaction of the states with ct1 gave rise to solutions that we call forces when they are linear.
Linearity was originally seen by me incorrectly as movement from the singularity. It later became clear that the movement was from one solution to the F-series equation to the next. Space itself evolved since the definition of pi is based on the changing total amount of information or the total value of x for any universes stacked to make the F-series.
If you are blinded by accepting space as a given, then you cannot see the true nature of the universe as stacked quantum states. Without the stacking of states there would be no history possible which is why the idea of everything happening at once and any point co-existing with all others had to be abandoned, such quantum instances would not give the appearance or illusion of history.
The original use of the F-series came from a model based on gravity from looking at the end of the spectrum. The final use of the F-series came from its value as a building block from the beginning of creation. The curve of gravity changes.
The spiral of the universe corresponds to the spiral of information developed by the author:
o
the universe is not a place of events, it is a place of an algorithm being solved for a variable
the universe contracts and expands, but not because of gravity or dark energy which are effects but because the algorithm has average inflection points which spiral towards but never reaches equality or a balance of the positive and negative
the algorithm defines both a positive and negative F-series.
The algorithm allows for stacking of time states because F-series are stackable (1,1,2 is the same as 11,11,22 is the same as 111,111,222 and so on) This qualities extends to stacks on top of stacks.
The positive and negative sides of the algorithm are required to provide for expansion and contraction about a common solution. As the solution moves away there is expansion, as the solution stays parallel (not exactly parallel because of offsets) there is near stability, as the solution moves together there is compression. For each solution this model holds, even as the solutions are stacked leading to an average solution about which the universe expands and contracts.
There is no relative movement in the sense of quantum change. Relative movement instead takes into account (1) that all points must change at the same rate according to a single variable and (2) space (ct1) or some other state provides a matrix and the interaction with the matrix gives the appearance of relative change that is observed.
There is no separation, if there was, then space could be infinitely divided and would lose itself as a point of reference. Instead, there is a finite amount of information from which the definition of pi is defined at any value of x and this information has no separation but is only a solution of yes or no which solution is divided into two separate F-series. The amount of information varies according to the F-series as x increases incrementally.
Parminides (not Einstein, Newton or anyone else) was the father of AuT, I am the Dr. Frankenstein.
The big bang is an average inflection point, one of a very large number of those corresponding to intersecting offset spirals which approach but never achieve equal size or allignment according to the pi type infinite converging series. It is a big bounce, but a defined big bounce.
Einstein defined space time, but failed to realize that it had been proven 2600 years before according to logic to be an illogical system. Einstein said that the reason for time was so that everything didn't happen at once. That led me down the wrong path in assuming that the universe arose from a finite amount of information allowing a consistent definition of pi and that any point in the universe was merely the expression of the information for a value of time. In fact, that analysis fell apart because it required the universe collapse and that would have required that there be a fixed point of reference, a beginning which is contraindicated.
The universe must be an informational based system with lmiits or there would have to be something beyond the universe which would create an infinite system. In fact, the universe has no dimension.
Black holes do not define a singularity. If they did they would all have to drop into the same place and they move in space. Even the earliest versions of the theory recognized that all states must have gravity in order to have the amount observed, that all states were interchangeable (none could drop out of space just because of their weight) and even a cursory observation showed that each state was the exponential informational change for the preceding state. n^2^x where the existence of 2 in the equation showed that the states (ct1-ct5 that we observe) were information states. N, based on observation, proved to be the F-series for that state (2,3,5 for matter for example) and x the state number (4 for matter). This made it clear that the transition observed was ct1 space, ct2 photonic energy, ct3 wave energy, ct4 matter and ct5 black hole material). There was nothing magical about any state although the interaction of states and particularly the interaction of the states with ct1 gave rise to solutions that we call forces when they are linear.
Linearity was originally seen by me incorrectly as movement from the singularity. It later became clear that the movement was from one solution to the F-series equation to the next. Space itself evolved since the definition of pi is based on the changing total amount of information or the total value of x for any universes stacked to make the F-series.
If you are blinded by accepting space as a given, then you cannot see the true nature of the universe as stacked quantum states. Without the stacking of states there would be no history possible which is why the idea of everything happening at once and any point co-existing with all others had to be abandoned, such quantum instances would not give the appearance or illusion of history.
The original use of the F-series came from a model based on gravity from looking at the end of the spectrum. The final use of the F-series came from its value as a building block from the beginning of creation. The curve of gravity changes.
The spiral of the universe corresponds to the spiral of information developed by the author:
o
a primitive discussion of einstein and hologram theory
Still stuck with everything happening at once but beginning to uncover the problems in the theory
A compendium of all the information developed still clinging to the wrong ideas
The first edition of the work that incorporated (along with a bunch of old information) the correct method of defining the universe, the second edition of this coming this year
Building an algorithm 14: ct1-speed and gravity and a non-steady state universe
Newton and Einstein math models predict that a static universe would not work. In this way they incorrectly state that the universe must be either expanding or contracting and not static.
AuT correctly points out that the universe is not static at all, that change is an absolute requirement in the solution to the single variable universe although any particular solution defies both Newton and Einstein by remaining quantum and therefor static.
Also AuT suggest that the "universe" is neither expanding nor contracting but that it merely defines an average which reaches inflection points according to an algorithm and that at the inflection points the average is either expanding or contracting.
However, at any point the universe is unbalanced.or it would become non-linear and is both expanding in portions of the solution and contracting in portions of the solution even at inflection points, although the theory is that the proportion of expanding at the end of any compression point is less than the inflection point before corresponding to the evolving solution of pi.
It is suggested by the model that the amount of ct1 contacted over time by a "higher compression state (e.g. ct4) increases speed. That is between F(x) and F(x-1) if a ct4 has a common solution within a series of adjacent solutions with more ct1 states as opposed to the same ct1 states then it moves faster (compare if it contacts more -ct1 (the opposite spiral solution).
It is also suggested that if the number of ct1 states contacted shifts between a common set of ct1 states than you get the same result which explains gravity giving rise to the same phenomena of time dilation.
This in turn suggests that in a compression algorithm, ct4 or 5 in particular, more ct1 is circulated more quickly. This suggests that in a compression state that the solution over a given set of separate quantum states remains more concentrated but that the circulation speed between the outermost quantum states at least and ct1 states occurs more often.
Presumably, "more" gravity is possible from the ct(4) state over a given set of locations over a certain amount of time. That is as more ct1 space is squeezed out by the presence of multiple ct4 states, it generates more gravity in a given location but also should have more time dilation outside of the more concentrated areas which should be capable of observation in a system. The alternative is that the concentration of ct1 states with ct4 states is not affected by the density of the ct1 state.
In this way, speed and gravity effects of ct1 solutions in proximity to ct4 affect it in a similar fashion which suggests that one is the effect in any single F(x) solution and results from the change between F(x) solutions based on the interface of ct1 and ct4 in adjacent solutions with the same ct1 states increasing concentration and different ct1 states creating speed.
It is also suggested Waves and photons are sufficiently spread out so that the amount of ct1 is not crowded out which follows that the amount of ct1 contacting those two states is constant since none is crowded out by a compression solution giving them a constant maximum speed relative to ct1.
AuT correctly points out that the universe is not static at all, that change is an absolute requirement in the solution to the single variable universe although any particular solution defies both Newton and Einstein by remaining quantum and therefor static.
Also AuT suggest that the "universe" is neither expanding nor contracting but that it merely defines an average which reaches inflection points according to an algorithm and that at the inflection points the average is either expanding or contracting.
However, at any point the universe is unbalanced.or it would become non-linear and is both expanding in portions of the solution and contracting in portions of the solution even at inflection points, although the theory is that the proportion of expanding at the end of any compression point is less than the inflection point before corresponding to the evolving solution of pi.
It is suggested by the model that the amount of ct1 contacted over time by a "higher compression state (e.g. ct4) increases speed. That is between F(x) and F(x-1) if a ct4 has a common solution within a series of adjacent solutions with more ct1 states as opposed to the same ct1 states then it moves faster (compare if it contacts more -ct1 (the opposite spiral solution).
It is also suggested that if the number of ct1 states contacted shifts between a common set of ct1 states than you get the same result which explains gravity giving rise to the same phenomena of time dilation.
This in turn suggests that in a compression algorithm, ct4 or 5 in particular, more ct1 is circulated more quickly. This suggests that in a compression state that the solution over a given set of separate quantum states remains more concentrated but that the circulation speed between the outermost quantum states at least and ct1 states occurs more often.
Presumably, "more" gravity is possible from the ct(4) state over a given set of locations over a certain amount of time. That is as more ct1 space is squeezed out by the presence of multiple ct4 states, it generates more gravity in a given location but also should have more time dilation outside of the more concentrated areas which should be capable of observation in a system. The alternative is that the concentration of ct1 states with ct4 states is not affected by the density of the ct1 state.
In this way, speed and gravity effects of ct1 solutions in proximity to ct4 affect it in a similar fashion which suggests that one is the effect in any single F(x) solution and results from the change between F(x) solutions based on the interface of ct1 and ct4 in adjacent solutions with the same ct1 states increasing concentration and different ct1 states creating speed.
It is also suggested Waves and photons are sufficiently spread out so that the amount of ct1 is not crowded out which follows that the amount of ct1 contacting those two states is constant since none is crowded out by a compression solution giving them a constant maximum speed relative to ct1.
Saturday, September 3, 2016
The changing Face of AuT 2
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)