Gravitational fields and potential

I've been struggling for several days with an existential crisis a little different from the ones that I always have.  It is reflected in all of the things that have and have not been written, what has and has not been done.
I have been busier than I have thought possible which I have allowed to prevent me from doing those things which I wanted to do.  I also continue to run into unexplained road blocks.
Explained problems are big enough obstacles, but those which I cannot explain are almost as significant.
Explanations are hard to come by for the more esoteric questions.  I came up with a physics theory that denies control and I wonder if I am not letting that take over my thinking.  I am reading about another troubled thinker, one younger and ultimately more historic than my life, but I do not know what this means to me.
I am not getting the type of feedback that would allow me to make logical decisions, instead I am being left to my own devices.  It also increases the amount of work that I have to do.
The concepts that I see before me, that seem to control my thinking run into direct conflict with my creativity.  Can you create your way out of creativity?  I suppose that is as easy to imagine as everything else.
Book 7, the commentary on the Higgs boson class and the last 200 pages of A spiral is well underway and is expected to be completed in April.  Book 7 is not expected to yield any truly "new" insights, but it will provide some clarification as the issues raised in the Higgs experiments are examined.

Here are some notes from that book.

A note on dissolving bombs (in acid):
The heat can be part of it, but I'm talking about the organization of the acid (purity reduced) and of the spring/bomb (structure eliminated) are reduced. An explosion also increases entropy of the bomb. Think of a puzzle-organized when assembled, less organized when broken up. Entropy and anti-entropy are inherent in the system. 
Here is how AuT changes the equation: At the level of super-symmetry entropy is irrelevant, something else happens. The two states in their fundamental informational state only vary as results. The information locally may increase or decrease (compressional changes, the total information always increases over time and more pronounced changes in x); but all quantum points remain what they are, quantum moment solutions subject to constant sequential change, hence the film analogy: solutions at a quantum moment = single slide of film. 
Entropy isn't relevant if you're only talking about a math solution, there is no more energy in the equation 2x10 than 2x50 as an equation. One number being higher than the other doesn't add any energy, but it does make one larger relative to the other and from this relationship, relativity, time (what we experience), dimension and other features can arise.

A note on Gravity:
f=gm1*m2/r^2
potential= gm1*m2/r
In looking at the gravitational force and field equations there are two directions, but having their interesting features:
There are two directions for r, both having their interesting features:
As r goes to infinity the force goes to zero, but never gets there.  This will be addressed in the next post.
The other limit is equally interesting.  as r goes to zero the force goes to infinity but never gets there
what happens?
We see this, by the way, almost zero at neutron stars and then at not-zero? in black holes.  It also occurs (approximately) when two protons are forced together in a collider. What happens as gravity goes towards infinity and how is that taken into account in the results of the Higgs experiment?  AuT says the r limit goes to 1 and doesn't go to infinity in the other direction, but instead goes to the maximum separation in the universe for the two points subject to the gravitational effect and the limit itself necessarily affects the maximum separation.  The minimum amount of gravity says that the maximum separation for two points must allow for that fractional result which must, as a result, be a function of the total amount of information in the universe at any point in time and the maximum compression must change towards the ct5 compression which cannot be stable so it must change to transitional states giving rise to those higgs figments which will be discussed later.

Here are some of the Features of a particle collider:   gravitational force, r going towards 1 ct1 between particles (towards zero in pre-aut discussions). 
Velocity goes in the direction of the speed of light (1:256 substitution rates). 
What features are common to both of these that allow, not infinite gravity (the limit function as r goes to zero is only not infinite gravity if it goes to some version of 1) as seen in the neutron star-black hole transition; but the features instead yield quasi Newtonian billiard ball type velocity transfers (and transitions from protons to what I suspect will be called quark type objects including bozons).
While you discuss field interactions, they are also quantum point interactions and cannot, therefore occupy the same place, but they can have fewer intervening ct states because ct4 must have ct3 interplay, but ct3 may work with only ct2 interplay.
At the collision the feature is this:  Two transitional ct4-t5 states (protons) move towards one another.  This is high ct1 substitutions along with a reduction of intervening ct1 states.
As they approach the ct4-5 with intervening ct3-ct2-ct1 begin to interact.  At some point, ct1 to ct1 sharing occurs between the outer ct2 (photon) shells of the ct4-ct5 states and at the point of collision the ct4-5 transitional states become unstable and kick off ct1 states creating speed, and irregular unstable ct4-ct5 and ct3-ct4 states which are picked up.  As we go on, will it be possible to predict more about these ct4-ct5 transitional radiating features which are mistakenly called bozons?  The excitement is too much.

 I submit there is something that prevents r going to zero (despite the collision effects) and consequent break down results.  This is the requirement that there be one ct1 outside of a ct2 and this suggests two approaching limit this to one each, then one shared which results in the breakdown of both to free up internal ct1 states to allow the exchange.

Back to the original:
as r goes to infinity the force goes to zero, but never gets there.
the other limit is equally interesting.  as r goes to zero the force goes to infinity but never gets there
what happens?

Quantum theory means there is an answer that can take into account two parts, one a destructive force component and the other a gravitational component?  This involves two features:  One is gravitational force going to a quantum minimum which, like pi, may be a minimum based on the total amount of information in the universe. 

Distance does not eliminate gravity, the entire universe is held together by a well mapped gravitational matrix.

My take (not necessarily the take of traditional physics) I would posit that "goes to zero" (question 7) is a bit confusing because  it envisions infinite distance.  This is not accurate in our universe.  The greatest distance is finite and for reasons of dimensional creation gravity is not affected by distance. 

Query-what happens if you get to the end of the universe and take a step outward? Answer exits-the universe defined by info in it.

Move two objects, no matter how small, to opposite sides of the universe, and there is a finite attraction.  What does this mean?  The net amount of gravity in the system is a function of the total amount of gravitational states (quantum points having gravity) within the system.  Every shift in a point affects all other points no matter what the position.  Possible for every point to be connected to every other point only if solved together?

G(total)=sum(gp) The total gravity in the system is equal to the gravity of the points.  If the points are constantly increasing how can the gravity not increase constantly?  The answer has to lie in a non-gravitational feature, anti-gravity,known by its popular name, dark-energy shifting as solved together.
Gravity affects all aspects of the visible universe.  Gravity bends the travel of light as well as space itself.

This says some interesting things about those two things.  While they do not have mass necessarily, they have some feature that is the equivalent of mass for purposes of bending relative to gravity.  Are there features of the universe that are not affected by gravity?

Is there some answer that suggested that will be applicable to the continuing discussion.

1/r as r gets large, gravity does not go to zero, but it becomes less and less.

potential, anti-potential and hitchcok

Entropy and anti-entropy exist together.  We know this because we can put a puzzle together and we believe (pre-aut) that the puzzle will ultimately be unassembled or post-aut that entropy and anti-entropy cycle as being dominant.
The question was asked, what if you have a spring particle force and you dissolve it.
The broader question is, if you have potential what is it relative to?
Therein lies the answer to what is not a simple question.
Potential happens or doesn't happen

To give my AuT take on it, lets replace the simple spring loaded point with the alfred hitchcock time bombs.
Let's look at 4 physicists playing cards.  Hitchcock says action is the game and then the bomb explodes and suspense is playing cards waiting for the bomb to explode.
Our bombs will be: 1) ticking bomb, 2) disarmed bomb, 3) dissolved bomb and 4) exploding bomb.
Ticking bomb mimics the potential of the spring loaded point
the diarmed bomb has the same potential, but the probability has been reduced
the dissolved bomb has changed potential for entropy
and the exploding bomb has exchanged potential for kinetic energy.
Reading about them on this page, there is no difference to you which of the 4 bombs you are reading about.  If you filmed the four bomb and watched the film, there would be no difference between the four bombs, except perhaps your level of anxiety about what you are watching/reading.  If you stop the film and look at a single frame the absence of differentiating features is greater.
In super symmetry, all 4 bombs are the same.   Entropy, potential, kinectic and probability all are effects and not causes, the effects are removed from the observer.  They still  exist in the movie, but the observer only sees them as interchangeable based on some common feature, e.g. the amount of  light in the film.  As you break up the common features, they begin to differentiate and you run into the less symmetric universe.

Newtonian dynamics-the good/bad place-2

These are lengthy responses not possible in the short 1200 word space provided.
So I'll start with the 1200 word part and then put my notes forward.
As you read, be cautioned.  AuT is the darkest of theories of physics.  While it provides promise of understanding at a level far beyond any other theory, the price that is paid for that wisdom is too high.

 I should have no problem proving space time is not what we thought it was before AuT in 1200 words.   Let me make a start at that.  This is just a draft to put some thoughts down.
Matter accelerated to the speed of light loses time.
This means that velocity and time are interchangeable.
Photons move at the speed of light so they do not have time.
Energy and mass are interchangeable and energy and photons are interchangeable.
Hence time can be added or subtracted from something merely by slowing it down.
Speed is measured in meters per second.
Photons move at the speed of light so that we experience time which they do not themselves experience.
Time and space and mass are interchangeable since v=m/s, m=v/s and s=m/v so you have to have some sort of interchange between time and space.  Since e=mc^2 you can also say that mass=energy/c^2.
If you can eliminate time, you can eliminate any other dimension merely by changing speed.
Since there is only one speed, but 3 dimensions, that means that all 3 of dimensions must be independent from one one another.
While AuT defines the relationship between these dimensions, logic also must dictate that AuT is correct, that photons have only one, waves 2, matter 3 and so on.

“A true quantum universe, the universe of AuT.” Each “moment” we experience is quantum for the entire universe.  That is as “x” changes, the entire universe changes and is frozen in that next quantum instant.  If true, “Force” cannot be what Newton says because at any solution for X there is no “force” since everything is frozen relative to everything else. X, btw, is not time, although it looks that way now.  Not happy?

Point 2: Defining a  3-D Vector: Dimension is the second problem.  While points have relative solution values, in the underlying super-symmetry of the universe dimension is an effect, not a part of reality.  Before you discount this, remember that the drawing used in the lecture is a two-dimensional representation of three or four dimensions. Ipsfac-you can go from no dimensions to as many as you want if you have the right chalkboard. Einstein-energy and mass are inter convertible; what if space and energy  do too (hint they do)?

“A true quantum universe, the universe of AuT.” Each “moment” we experience is quantum for the entire universe.  That is as “x” changes, the entire universe changes and is frozen in that next quantum instant.  If true (the proof takes less than 1200 words, we’ll see if it makes it here) the “Force” cannot be what Newton says because at any solution for X there is no “force” since everything is frozen relative to everything else. X, btw, is not time, although it looks that way now.

1)     Defining a particle by virtue of a 3-D Vector: Dimension is the second problem.  While points have relative solution values, in the underlying super-symmetry of the universe dimension is an effect, not a part of reality.  Before you discount this, remember that the drawing is a two-dimensional representation of three or four dimensions, so its obvious you can go from no dimensions to as many as you want if you have the right chalkboard.

2)     Dynamical forces acting on it

3)     Changes in position over time

4)     F=m*a; v=d/dt(x(t); d(v)/dt=a or d^2/d^t^2(x(t)

Let’s talk about this.  Force is relative and in AuT all points are moving all the time (as we observe, the earth and everything on it has enormous force relative to the theoretical object standing still in space in its path-otherwise the dinosaurs killed by an asteroid would be auditing this class instead of me).

5)     P(momentum)=p=m*v=mdv/dt=d/dtp (conserved if forces don’t change, there is conservation) but this doesn’t work for a universe made up of constant changing information.

6)     Kinetic energy=T=1/2mv^2 (look to Einstein to see problem here because of conversion of energy to mass)

T=p^2/2m (energy conserved)

7)     With constant force in one dimension you can solve for velocity and position over time. F(x(t)-x0)=1/2m(v(t)^2-v0^2)=dT dT-variation of energy=Work

8)     Potential energy V(x0)-V(x)=W(x0tox) (potential energy is difference of energy between x0 and x)=dV

9)     Force: v(x)=-fx(t) or force is -dv/dx (change in potential energy relative to x)

10) E=T+V (sum of kinetic and potential energy) and dE=0

Ian Bissett’s comment
At the start of the video, you are discussing a point-like particle object. This must be isotropic non rotating, a spherical gravity field, with linear radial force vectors. 
But with a rotating object, the vectors do not rotate through space, but form logarithmic spirals. This produces a prolate gravity field, with reduced equatorial and increased polar gravity. Gravity is not symmetrical. Momentum and kinetic energy will depend upon spin rate. Particle interactions will depend on alignment.


This points out why I started looking for spiral models to get to my theory. This is a very important post, in terms of underlying symmetry.  We were talking about Fibonacci math earlier. The fact that a rotating object does not rotate vectors, but instead results in "logarithmic spirals" was the feature of projected reality that leads to F-series math models being appropriate to the underlying supersymmetry.

An interesting feature of super-symmetry is that If the theory has merit, it does not matter. That is, if there is no randomness to the universe, if thermodynamics is illusory, we do whatever we do because we are ordained to do it, programmed might be a better word. 

I don't want to force my theory on anyone, it's not a particularly happy theory, the darkest part of physics, and it has strange bits to it, but its basically hologram theory, stirred with relativity with a twist of limits. 

I write to entertain myself, but I take science seriously, if a little too sarcastically and I have yet to see anything anyone else has written which I would censor, but in a universe powered by irony (arguably the result of infinite convergent series, like pi); the more powerful the theory, the more it should find resistance.

The full set!

Newtonian dynamics-the good/bad place-1

The current group of posts is to provide a counter-point to a course I am taking on the Higgs-Boson (see prior posts for a link).
Since I only have 1200 words for comments there, the longer responses will appear here, often (like this one) spread over two posts.
One thing about AuT is that while it was largely possible at any point in time, the proofs that guided the way are fairly recent, particularly stable black holes and a better understanding of individual forces even though neither in itself are particularly relevant.
The Higgs Boson (and by extension all of Quantum Particle Theory) was a particular case which I attack with relish throughout my blog going back before its "discovery."   Even after the professed discovery, I said it was an illusion and gloried in the stories that questioned what was being discovered.
Why? AuT eliminates the Higgs boson by providing a different place from which gravity and mass arise.
Einstein and other conservation theories (AuT is decidedly NOT a conservation theory) allow the illusion of counting what you end up with in two or three places and saying that the sum total provides for existence.  AuT on the other hand allows for creation of energy, which it must, otherwise at some point in time the universe could never have arisen.
So we're going to cover the current article "Why Newtonian dynamics is a good starting place to understand the scientific methods used in particle physics and show why it is a terrible place to start."
Before I even start, I want to point out that Parmenides, the true father of AuT, and Zeno knew this many years before Newton starting stealing his math from the Gauls (debatable historically and only mentioned in passing) and explained why.  While the predecessor of AuT was largely complete, it was the science of the ancient greeks (or their logic, strictly speaking) that provided the correct path rather than the misdirection largely started with Newton.

My science would not exist without something to play the concepts off of, something largely accurate, but with subtle problems, like Newtonian Dynamics.
Only 1200 words of each of these can be provided, but I'm going to include some responses.
Here is a response to this question: "My understanding is that the Standard Model is "one of the most successful theories physicists have derived," a quote from "The Economist," July 13th, 2018. I also recognize it has problems of sorts, but do you think those justify calling it a "complex fallacy."
Reality is a complex fallacy.  Now don't get me wrong, this isn't my idea.  Parmenides and Zeno pointed this out 2500 years ago.  Indeed, my work is but an extension of theirs.   I've written 10 books on this subject, the last 6 (Algorithm Universe Theory) being the most up to date version, the first "The Einstein Hologram Universe" had some of the basics, but not the requisite math.  I cannot summarize that or even the solution to Zeno's paradox of the Turtle and Achilles (in book 5 or 6); but over the course of my participation in this class, I will provide a counterweight for the amusement of all and offered without malice if the  moderators don't mind.  If you read my blog, you'll see that I took the position that the Higgs boson did not exist many years before its "discovery" and discounted that discovery regularly after it was published.  This is not just because the Standard Model is flawed, it is because our entire perception of the universe is flawed-and I might add "IN MY OPINION."  

Time is not what you think, the distance between points doesn't exist, existence arises before dimension, and black holes are matter solved with Fibonacci's math in five places vs 4.
And
My argument is that you can learn as much from a flawed theory as you can from an accurate one if you approach it as an object to be determined. During this exercise, I would encourage you to pick apart my arguments. That will help refine the theory if it doesn't eliminate it (think of all the time it would free up for me!). Over the course, I will discuss the experiments presented (1200 words at a time) and you can be the judge. The "fails" question is the easiest to address, so for now let me discus that one. From the course material: "we will start to describe phenomena at the subatomic scale, where the laws of classical mechanics no longer apply". It is appropriate to say something like "Newton's laws fail because..." but Newtons laws are great approximations. How can they work on a macro level but fail on a sub-atomic level? The subtle answer is that they do not if you apply the right solutions at each level. What are those solutions? You've actually worked with most of them all your life if your involved in math, starting in high school. The first answer is an answer to the question, "Why Pi?" (hint-is not, why not)

The subtle but important difference between velocity and gravity

I continue to progress through the science of Nostradamus although the first draft will have its weak points.  It is peculiar for old physics to envision, but super-symmetry provides a fairly clear path to predicting the future.
I have mentioned that I solved the Zeno Paradox, but I don't want to introduce my own.
Hence, I want to talk about the subtle but important difference between velocity and gravity.
Both of these involve CT1 but they have different effects.  One moves things forward, ensuring every point in the universe is constantly changing position after ct2, there being no movement between ct1 and lower points except in terms of solution order.  The other pulls things together and in that solves the issue of the paradox and if you're in a hurry to see it, you can order book 6, no one is stopping you and if you wait, its coming.
Anyway, we look at things that come from before our time begins and we ask how can we know how truly old it is.  The answer is that the age is related from our perspective but unrelated to any common thread.  The photons, moving at the speed of light, necessarily have clocks that are still, so if they are concentrated into matter, only then do they have clocks and we apply our clock as the receiving matter to them to give them an age based on their solution order becoming closer to ours as the ct1 sharing has fewer intermediary sharing states.

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/higgs/5/?lid=a022e2b0-0967-479e-a6f6-c2df06febe0f

I want to talk about this course which is an important one to me.
The idea is that it will deal with the "Standard Model of Particle Physics," a complex fallacy trying to give durability to perceived reality.
There are three parts of a Model: 1) formulate the principles of a theory, 2) develop the mathematics needed to solve the equations of motions of the system under study, 3) test the model. 
The model of AuT is prepared in the same way.
If the principles of the theory are flawed and it cannot be fixed the mathematics becomes an exercise in trying to explain away unwanted observations.  This is true of the methodology used to find the HIggs Boson.  The observers want to find it so bad, they create a model that suits their purposes.
In the words of the lecture:
"A theory without predictive power is of limited use... Disagreement with experiments implies that something is wrong in the theory. Sometimes the disagreement can be cured by minor adjustments of the principles, but sometimes a radical change of paradigm is required."

Here is the first major flaw in the presentation: "...subatomic scale, where the laws of classical mechanics no longer apply."  We can propose this principle: "Any theory which fails between levels is flawed."

In a comment the problem faced by mathematics, such as mine, is set out graphically in a quote; Max Planck - said "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Oh goody, the next post will take this: why Newtonian dynamics is a good starting place to understand the scientific methods used in particle physics and show why it is a terrible place to start.

Remember, available on Amazon:

you can't run out of time in space

After 2300 yards, 1000 im; I'm still not comfortable and relaxed even though I'd have been happy with 1500. It was one of those rare nights when I was the fastest in the pool and not one of my better nights.
While I swam I thought about the illusion of time and after swimming I started these notes which are so little of what I need to say in this regard.
It is not enough to redefine time for you if we don't share this new time.
So what do you do?
These things don't make either of us happy.
We have different degrees of loneliness, different degrees of disappointment, but do we have different degrees of longing?  It's hard for me to gauge.
I put my disappointments here, reiterating disappointments, prejudices and ignorance in real life into ink.
Yours are more personal, I don't know where to look for them.
All of these posts have something to do with the book I am working on.  For the moment, it is at 53,000 words, boding well for novel length at 60,000 words although this work has so many stories at once it is like a collection of short stories.

If time doesn't exist in lower ct states how can we talk about how long it takes light to reach us or the age of the universe.
It is important to remember the Einstein famously noted that we each have our own time, but that doesn't make time universal, instead it is part of proof of AuT. We do not have so much our own time as the makeup of of the clock time as any of us experience it matches information change rates,but not state rate change, of other states.
This means that once time exists for any point, it continues at the same rate as any other time in terms of ct1 exchange, but that relative higher state changes vary due to the underlying changes in sate.
How then do we have similar times for lower ct states?
The simple answer is conversion.
Velocity translates into our clock time and the number of non-linear times, although the latter is imperfect.  Indeed, there not being velocity in space, space alone does not exist in a dimensional environment, there can be many ct0 and ct1 changes without any effect at all on time as  we experience or even as velocity as we experience it except to the extent that it alters the higher ct states.
Indeed, the original designation of ct is prescient over the informational ideas expressed by the carrier arms because there are clock times that are not directly interchangeable.
In a very biblical sense, until there was light, the universe existed, but it had no time.  So the first in the bible is also the first in terms of time, although not in terms of informational existence, in positive and minus states.

Mardi Gras and the Odd

6 ways to save money on your trip to New Orleans http://flip.it/JOwIRB
Is this an interesting article?  I have not read it.  I have ideas of my own on the subject, perhaps I could make that into one of my books or write it into the one I'm working on.  I will get to in time.

I was lucky enough to hear about the first adult prank that led to the cowbellion de raken society from a mardi-gras historian, a story that did much for the origin in Mobile, Alabama story; a post civil war drunken evening more than anything of what we see today and sadly with substantial roots in civil war veteran's lives; but then it's a catholic holiday of sorts.  It is sad, that historian's life has ended and my memory of the story, though fond is faded.  He was the father of the artist whose picture graces the six books of Algorithm Theory, a circumstance which is surprisingly coincidental if I even remember it correctly.

Gizmodo: Physicists Spot Evidence of 'Odderon' First Predicted in the 1970s. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIws4K3zTc

This entire undertaking is the pre-AuT attempt to explain the interaction of transitions states through the sharing of higher state solutions, in this case ct4-ct5 transitions.  In a universe which has both permanence of approximate state, but constant change, the sharing of lower states and teh building and destruction of higher states through gradual transitions, particularly at high states of compression, but present, as you'd expect from a study of AuT at the level of electro-magnetism, the ct1-ct2 transition stages as magnetism and ct3-ct4 states as electricity
If you were to have purchased book 5 or 6, maybe both, you would have seen the solution to Zeno's most famous paradox, Achilles and the Turtle.  It would also provide the answer to the Odderon, the Gluon and the true replacement of the prior nonsense of quarks and bozos.
You are probably saying, why on earth should I buy the book when you'll set it out in your blog and that is not a bad thought, but if you were in a hurry you might do it.  This "odderon" is a stupid example of what pre-aut physics needs AuT to make sense.  Together these two things show that AuT is conceptually necessary to understand how space is different from what we conceive and must be for the universe to work.

I am now well into the halfway point in the edits of both books I am working on.  This weekend is dedicated to trying to finish the very rough draft of Nostradamus, trying to figure out where it drags, what is too much science, how to introduce it so that the discovery has the evenness that I experienced.  At least one of those deals extensively with how the past and the future interact, although it is not all physics, much of it will appear here just as much of this appears there.  The character in Nostradamus is as angry and alone as I am.

I'm toying with a new book idea about someone who makes others feel his pain for people who cannot stand the pain of life.  Should it be science fiction or an emotional ride, a man or a woman.  If I had more feedback, perhaps I would write a book where all the elements are by election of the audience, but not this one.

After lunch I plan to go for a long ride, the weather will be warmer, the rain not yet here.  I need to see what is there, at the end of the bike ride.  I need a journey of some sort, to match the ones I am writing about.  I need to feel the exhaustion, hunger and the distance from home; and the accompanying excitement.  Stick around, come with me.