it's the end of the world as we know it and i feel fine

http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/its-the-end-of-the-world-how-do-you-feel/62757?utm_source=FTE&utm_medium=pp&utm_campaign=pp

It's been six days since my last post.  I'm rebooting right now and apparently it's taking a while for the system to come back up.
I am working on a 'break out' post, but even in the next few posts when I get to them I expect it to only come out in pieces.
I am busy, if inoperable.
Still, you couldn't ask for a life with more change in it, stay tuned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY

The changing face of AuT part tres

Before launching into a discussion of each of the features of AuT that has changed, it is worth discussing how important the changes are to the theory, both as a positive and a negative feature.
It might be said that the initial concepts embodied in EHT are completely lost in AuT and that is not entirely incorrect.  The problem with EHT is it clung too tightly to prior theories.  It's very name combined Einstein and Hologram theory, both of which continue to have merit, although only Einstein had practical application.
The problem is that both of those remained locked in concepts which did not stand up to scruitiny when math was applied to them together.  They broke down.  There is a great deal of observation that withstands the scrutiny of AuT as well it should if AuT is to withstand scrutiny.  But the theoretical underpinnings of explanations broke down quickly.
And that is why there is a theory where all coordinates have to change at the same rate because they all change to a single variable.
That is why we are able to look past what old theories identified as forces and see that all of those forces were merely shadows reflected from the mathematics which took away the false power that they held over other theories, the theories which can all be identified as "pre-aut" mathematics.
That is why we can solve so many previously unsolved anomalies in observed physics because AUT looks beyond observation and explains those, not just black holes, not just unifying all states of information (space-black holes) but even cracked the question of the big bang open so wide that it becomes a small piece of the bigger universe that AuT explains so completely.
That is why it is possible to come up with algorithms that fit into a model that provides this type of solution.
It is why dimension and time can be eliminated in favor a solution and why with such a bizarre result, we can still see why the solid universe works because quantum changes occur at 10-39th of a second.
It shows why space can exist outside of the model by higher states by going from non-linear to linear solutions within the model (0,1,1,0 in the suggested model).
And even though the model is simple it shows how staggering of solutions provides the necessary complexity observed and why randomness and history can exist in a quantum environment.
And without any support from the "greater" scientific community or any government, although I'm open to proposals, especially places with scenic views from the scientific centers.

The zeno socrates dialogs

This is available in edited form on Amazon, but it's in line for a subsequent edit after the summer edit of The first battlefield of WWII and the several ongoing projects that have to share this little space..

AuT Countdown clocks part 2-count up clocks

X is not consistent.  you have during compression the size
1/(x-n) as n approaches x leads to an equation where stability is defined by a variable x that is set somewhere in the equation and n approaches x in the equation.
x is fueled during compression spiral phases.
n in this case is the variable that changes in one direction so x has to increase then become "fixed" or "relatively fixed" meaning it changes but not as fast as n so it out grows n in the compression phase and n outgrows it in expansive phases.
So the effect of "compression" or "capacitance" is the "fueling" of x.
This is more important than it looks because capacitance and the extent is not just a matter for macro-universe events (compression to expansion and back) but it defines individual quantum states.
So the base equation shows, as the dual spiral model shows that for individual spirals x grows and then for a lengthy period stays the same and then grows again.  Imagine that, the early model becomes prescient!
The "fueling of x" can be explained by the amount of overlap which is increasing.  This increasing amount of overlap is the "carrier" referred to.  In this way you can have two equations.  One defines in a very limited sense the spiral arms making up any state.  In the other is an equation which steadily increases the size of x in the x-n equation so that x increases while the numbers defining the base in the Base^2^n equation remains a function of only, for example in matter, 2,3,5 just as space may be 0,1,1,0 matter may be 2,3,5,2.
This requires spirals off of spirals, one circulating off of the 2,3,5,2 type model and the other acting as a capacitor for loading a lifespan so you have:
a) a changing solution to pi ad described previously
b) a charging solution using the capacitance equation described earlier but driven by the overlap based on a steadily increasing amount of overlap (e.g. in the diagram below the overlap shown by A is smaller than the Overlap shown by D) followed by periods where the "compression decreases and an equation of the "type" sin(pi(changing)/2(x-n)" is coupled with the compression equation (base)^2^y where y (to differentiate it form the ever changing values of x and n, is equal to the compression state (ct1,2,3,4,5) so that for matter the equation at any point in time is along the lines of sin(pi(changing)/2(xchanging-n) base^2^y where n is the single variable for the universe and x and y are solutions to changes in the value of n at any given quantum point but the universe is made up of the sum of points n alligned by a proximity equation which is essentially 1,11,111,1111,11111 building outward and with offsets so that it might look like 1,11,112,2131,etc with the offset defined by the irregularities (described in the prior posts) being defined by the staggered nature of the changes of each separate point over different values of n.

Aut-why base 10 has unfocused pre aut mathematics and countdown clocks in the universe Part 1

the problem with base 10
1,1,2,3,5,8,1' where 1' is 5 more than 8,2' where 2' is 8 more than1',3' where 3 is1' more than 2', etc.  The spacing and not the numbers is critical to the f-series analysis so you have:
11,22,33,55,88,1'1',2'2', etc to get a better feel for how the system works outside of a human based number analysis which screws up the picture of the F-series.
It is an interesting irony because the base 10 system was brought to Europe in its current form by the same Italian who brought the F-series to us.  The power of the universe.
Conceptually the build out of the universe is envisioned as a single algorithm built on a single variable change using variations that are built into the algorithm.  That is there are no dues ex machina in the universe.
The building allows for tremendous variety.
1,11,111,1111,11111 representing to transition from space,photonic,wave energy, matter, black hole/ct5.  The application of this, however is a much more complicated than just matching clock time states because it follows an equation as n=1,2,3,4,5 as a "stable form of minimum particle as Fseries^2^n where the F-series is 0,1,1;1,1,2;1,2,3;2,3,5;3,5,8 for each state.
This in turn suggests that each "stable" series is stable as a function of a specific set of equations for each type of state, matter being the 2,3,5 curves.  Opposing this is the term of stability observed which suggests that states at the inflection point of our universe (post big bang inflection) has each state of matter being largely stable for a period of billion years which means that "stability" is another factor in the equation, a countdown clock built into the equation.  While there are many ways to arrive at this division by zero is a good starting point since a transition (or inflection point) has to occur at any number divided by zero.  Alternatively, this suggests that "stability" is a function of an inflection point type equation.  These two equations can be represented by:
1/x-n and sin(pi/n2).
1/(x-n) as n approaches x leads to an equation where stability is defined by a variable x that is set somewhere in the equation and n approaches x in the equation.
These can be put together in several ways:
e.g. [1/(x-n)]sin(pi/n2) or sin(pi/2(n-x)
The exact methodology is some variation.
If I didn't have to fight constantly and if I had just a little support this would go quicker.

Aut is the right model but...

In order to get to the proper math model it is necessary to make determinations what don't come easy.
The first one is: what is the "right" base model.  The F-series or Fibonacci series appears logical and gives good results when studying compression states.  It actually works perfectly within the observational parameters we have, although those are far from perfect.
2) After the F series, the next question is how is the model developed.  Space curvature suggests spirals, the vibrational nature of things, compression phenomena,  and the formula derivation of the infinite series of pi suggests postive and negative intersecting spirals.
3) The degree of curvature suggests that curvature and the number of spirals (in a given solution zone or in the entire universe) suggests that pi is derived from the increase in the single variable defining the universe.
4) Dilation, the illusion of speed, suggests an interaction with lower clock time states creates the illusion of movement and higher gravity of higher clock time states.
Model choices however, are large and mean that different paths lead to different results.
1) Do CT states increase with the value of x or do ct states stay within a narrow range, does this range include lower states or just higher states, what model allows for spirals to stay within a range if they do.  The return is suggested by space.  That is for space you have 0-1-1-0.  This means that space returns to non-linearity every two changes in x.  For photonic this would translate to 1,1,2,1 as opposed to 1,1,2,3,1 for example which could be equally likely.  And then there is 0,1,1,2,1 or 0,1,1,2,0.  All of these various models have the strengths, the 01120 would provide for gravity.  Then you get to wave energy which 235 or 12351, 112351,0112350 and another version of the model gets to 223355 or 1122335511 and even these have permutations such as 233452 where the two "coordinates" changing together are offset.  This looks at one single element and shows how many different paths are suggested.
2) Then there is the interaction equation.  The interaction, for example, between space and photons might look like 01,11,12,01 or even 001,111,112,001 for example which would provide for diferent dimensional element and speed.  For example 001 might be faster than 01 as a solution but 011 and 012 might be the same speed or one may be faster.
3) Note that this formulation doesn't even begin to address an interaction with a negative ct state if such exists even.  for example a 0-1,2 interaction would presumably be very different from a 1,-1,2 interaction or a 0,1,2 interaction.   The ability to solve interactions without resulting to negative numbers as well as suggested interactions with negative numbers raises significant questions.
4) Spirals growing in size are suggested by observed stabilities (things stay together longer as we move away from the latests big bang, for example) which raises a number of questions as well as suggesting that either (1 states stay the same longer which is contraindicated by the single algorithm changing all coordinates togetehr or that a single ct state stays the same along a long spiral arm and that compression occurs along a growing spiral arm even though the individual states along that arm change according to their ct state.  for example one "spiral arm" may have a spiral solution at 1.251x10^100 in length but during that incredible length at each change a photon would be changing along a simple 1,1,2,1 type progression.  How other time states would interact between spiral arms is raised by this type of model.
The reason why this is important is that it shows how many different models there are that need to be investigated to get to the proper model suggested by observations.  Up till now, using words we have jumped between models to get where we need to be, but eventually choices need to be made..
There are certain "results" that the theory gives, certain misconceptions that are ruled out, but coming up with the right fundamental elements of the algorithm remains complicated and the transition between simple spiral theory and compression models are difficult.
Carrying and secondary spirals works well with the type of "building" you see with F-series progressions which embody a basis for history, but how these would be expressed mathematically is a yet another offshoot to be explored.  Unfortunately, the raw data from the super-colliders is still being examined using "hack" mathematics, everyone looking for the wrong thing, since some of the answers might be suggested by what is hidden in that data, but it remains possible to look at.
As has been mentioned in a recent post, base 10 mathematics and the extremely rapid increases in scale (how must space is incorporated even in a single quantum of wave energy for example) adds to the complexity of looking for patterns in the solution and, of course, I'm the only one making a comprehensive study of the phenomena although you could help at least indirectly.
Some "changes" are not so much changes in concept as changes in perspective.
Originally, the very first model, was Einsteinian-using "the only reason for time" led to "in the absence of time everything happens at once."  A corollary as opposed to an entirely new rule.  Next came the idea that there was an algorithm powered universe, the single variable model, but even that is less than perfect because while it does provide a model where any point can be solved with a value of x, the "building of time states" one state following the F-series model being the result of "at least 2" prior states means that there is an element of linearity raising questions about whether there is true non-linearity.  While there is limited support for the idea that any point may be solved, instead of "everything happening at once" it appears that there is a single variable algorithm that gives rise to every solution of time, but there is still a hidden element of linearity to the system raising questions as to whether anything that Einstein said has an element of fundamental truth.
Still, having the ideas of randomness, the types of divisions we see on the quantum, even the human evolution (political and genetic) level does nothing but strengthen the conviction the theory works and the if it is broken in places, it is broken no worse than we are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yZ1uI5yPbY

I have been largely distracted from this, but I have been working from the blackboard.  i need a third blackboard already, but I'm not putting one up today.  I am dealing with one emergency after another and I have not been able to sit down and work consistently on anything other than dealing with emergencies.
I am writing this sitting outside in a world which seems like it will wash away with all the rain that has fallen.  Yesterday it wasn't even supposed to rain, but the roads were flooded in places.
There isn't much physics in this.  I have not made the kind of quantum leaps that are reflected in the last 5 or 10 posts and those are "mostly" shown in the last published volume.
My plan continues to be to have a comprehensive, if basic, formula for the "universe equation" in the next published volume.  Right now it is in pieces and words and is not totally satisfying.  All the parts are there, but exactly how they fit together and the formulas that have to substitute for the words remain unclear.
The biggest impediment  might be problems with using a base 10 system which complicates the solutions unnecessarily and is inherent in a coordinate based system.  Another problem is scale.  Quantum scales to observable so slowly that it is difficult to test anything past the bulk changes.
The concept remains so reliable, despite these problems, so predictive and descriptive of so many different concepts that it has to be right as much as anything according to the scientific method is right and perhaps I'll have the time for this in the near future.