Hi all,
I am new around here so I thought it would be better to drop my little bit of conjecture into half baked ideas. Then if peeps think it is a load of bull, I guess it is in the right place ;D
Why is over unity not really over unity?
I guess by now, everybody knows there are grand unification theories all over the place virtually bursting the net at the seems. Some plausible and some just so crazy your have to wonder what they are smoking.
So why should what I have to say be any different to those ideas.
1. This is conjecture, not a theory
2. This is only and increment of measurement. (not a set definition for the structure of the universe)
3. This does not require you to re-write current accepted laws of physics.
A GUT that allows over unity and does not re-write the laws of physics?
Has this grabbed your attention.......? if not then I guess this will be a bit of dull read for you, maybe I can suggest some funny videos over on www.youtube.com to pass your time whilst the non single cell amoebas have a read of this post. I am sure they will let you know when they are finished :)
Only joking, but seriously, don't feel compelled to read this just to dis the contents as you will find it is not quite so easy to attack as you may think. (Not that it this adds the slightest shred of validity to it, but I have been trying for over 25 years to disprove it, with no luck, it's a tough little nut to crack, the reasons will become apparent as you read on).
Zero point, Physics stumbling point.
As a young child at school I first heard about this issue of how finite physics just gets thrown out of the window when we reach zero point. The analogy that the teacher presented to our class of 8 year old's was;
"How do you have a physical object less than zero, and how would you measure such a thing"?
The fellow students piped up with the usual answers, which where easily pronounced as being wrong by the teachers counter arguments.
Just sort of daydreaming I flicked through the math's text book and came across the simple image describing scale. Basically it was tree, a man and I believe it was a dog. With a line going from the top of the tree, to the man, the dog and so on to the ground.
Not quite sure why, but I reached for my pencil and my ruler and started to draw a line vertically, Half between the tree and the man, and the same between the man and the dog.
Then out of the blue I blurted out, what if zero, was only our zero? (meaning in terms I know use, what if this was only a relative zero point and not absolute zero?).
The teacher look at me very oddly.
Realising I had just said that aloud. I paused for few seconds and said it again. Louder this time.
"what if zero, was only our zero?"
The teacher asked me to explain......
So a thought for few more seconds and looked at what I had drawn. Then said.
"What if the zero point, is only a horizon"?
"Only one of many such scale horizons"?
"If you numbered each scale region from horizon to horizon (scale universe to scale universe) to the largest number possible","You could use all measurements in each scale in the same way as you do now".
I then held up the picture (forgetting in that moment that I had just defaced one of the school text books).
The teacher was not annoyed about this, but instead the colour just drained from her face.
It was at that moment that I realised I had discovered something rather unusual, being a child I did not realise just how much this simple discovery would shape my entire life and my understanding of our universe.
Time Density and Mass (TDM)
No that is not a contradiction in terms, Time density is rather different than the relative term of mass. For the sake of explanation I will describe few term which I have had to create for TDM since nothing existed that I was aware of at the time to describe these things.
Pseudo Superlimunal = This refers to the theoretical velocity when comparing two or more scale universes as an external observer.
Subluminal= This is an existing term referring to a relative velocity which is less than that of light in vacuum.
TDS= Time density signature, this is the specific scale, density and or resonant frequency of an object if you where to take every possible type of matter/energy and line it up from infinitely small to infinitely large. In reality doing so would actually be an absolute void (Absolute zero point) but that a bit steep of learning curve for the moment so I will leave that to the side.
EVF= Electromagnetic Vortexial Form, this is 3 dimensional electromagnetic energy, the importance measuring the other dimension rather than just a wave form will become apparent.
Fawcett and drain principle= (For the British readers, please excuse the Americanism, I know lot of peeps from Stateside of the pond and this saves a lot of time explaining what a tap and plug hole is) This is a very important principle of each finite universes structure, without it the universe as we know it would be a closed loop (well actually it is a closed loop, but again that is a bit of a steep learning curve for this stage in the explanation)
TDM States:
Question: What are TDM states?
Answer: Quite simply they are nothing more than an increment of scale related measurement based upon the definition of our finite universe. A glorified tape measure if you prefer that term.
Our current relative finite universe in this theoritical mathematical structure is defined as TDM state 0 , this spans from the smallest definable measurable unit of energy (highest relative density) to the maximum possible physical state where light can no longer propagate in this finite universe (lowest relative finite density).
Question: How many TDM states are there?
Answer: Infinite possible scale versions of the finite universe. (TDM states).
Question: How are they arranged?
Answer: Have you ever seen a Russian doll? (see picture) where you open it up to find one just alike but smaller inside it, then open that one to find another even smaller and so on? Well in the same way each TDM state exists at the relative zero point (horizon) of one and the absolute lowest density of another. (inside each other)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgiftaroo.com%2FMerchant2%2Fgraphics%2F00000002%2FRD105_lg.jpg&hash=2f7b5cf39c9eede7263ee7b9b8b6b16b04edad7d)
As and example of just 15 TDM states:
TDM-7, TDM-6, TDM-5, TDM-4, TDM-3, TDM-2, TDM-1, TDM-0, TDM1, TDM2, TDM3, TDM4, TDM5, TDM6, TDM7
Relative absolute velocities in each scale (TDM state) and the pseudo superluminal velocities when compared with the original TDM state zero by an external range of observation to that of the finite universes.
Increasing density TDM states
TDM state Relative velocity Pseudo Superluminal velocity
0 0 to C 0 to C
1 0 to C C to 2C
2 0 to C 2C to 3C
3 0 to C 3C to 4C
4 0 to C 4C to 5C
5 0 to C 5C to 6C
6 0 to C 6C to 7C
7 0 to C 7C to 8C
Decreasing density TDM states
TDM state Relative velocity Pseudo Superluminal velocity
0 0 to C C to 0
-1 0 to C 0 to -C
-2 0 to C -C to -2C
-3 0 to C -2C to -3C
-4 0 to C -3C to -4C
-5 0 to C -4C to -5C
-6 0 to C -5C to -6C
-7 0 to C -6C to -7C
As you can see each in each finite universe in its relative scale the given object is actually subluminal (less than light velocity) when compared to matter/energy that is of a similar scale, yet when compared with other non relative scales of interaction it has a pseudo superluminal velocity (Faster than light) velocity. In this way TDM can both conform to classical physics in each relative scale and also allow for easy interpretation of FTL velocities without defying the laws of physics.
As one common argument still exists in TDM, ?nothing can exceed light velocity?, As to do so would cause it to be subluminal in another TDM state. (I.E the resistance acting upon it causes compression that increases its Time density signature (resonant/oscillation frequency) to that of objects in another scale range of observation and interaction).
So for an example if a unit of force was the energy required to compress an object to such high density that on our relative scale range it was zero.
What would happen if you applied 6.5 units of energy per volume of compression force upon that object?
I am sure you can work out the classical physics terms of how this is impossible, most people in that frequent this forum will very familiar with that conundrum and that would take more energy than exists in our universe, in classical physics on its own you would be correct, but you are still left wondering where did all that theoretical energy go as it would be 5.5* greater than the energy needed to destroy the universe.
In TDM I can say its is interacting 0.5 along the curvature of space time in TDM state 5 and travelling at subluminal velocity of 0.5C. but when compare to its original TDM state zero its has a superluminal velocity of 5.5C
If you want to know, I can show you how you plot that?
Also that if you scale that state back up to our own Universe you can work out the exit co-ordinates in our finite universe. Yes I am talking about plotting the so called folding of space time ;-)
By now you are scratching your head? thinking I am a crackpot or your jaw has just hit the floor. If you really do not want to know about this then just put this down to few minutes of wasted time and read on in the forums.
If you Want to hear more...
Want to know how to quantify gravity? why energy is 3 dimensional and the importance of the electromagnetic vortexialform? And many, many other answers? Or is that yet more fodder for questions?
That is the down side of leaning more, you will realise that in the scale of things that really what we know is like a tear drop in an ocean that is our infinite universe....
OK, So I can't go cutting off this post in midstream, without giving you all a taster which could be very interesting to the guys around here.
A little question and a TDM answer that may catch your full attention.
If I am travelling along in my car at night time at 100 miles an hour and switch my headlights on, would the photons be travelling at C + 100 mph?
Well we all know the classical physics interpretation about how fast light propagates and the various conflicts in mass between SR/GR and QM that this simple question creates as well as the silly philosophical answer that current classical physics returns. Philosophy and physics never do mix well.
But what if I said the photons that the observer of those headlights sees are not the photons emitted by the lights. Would you think I was crazy?
Ok so you probably already think that... so I will pose another question to help explain.
Question: What happens when you gently drop a large heavy stone into a bucket of water that is full to the brim?
Answer: in normal circumstances the water overflows!
Remember that?..
Now if we treated the photons as being a matter state (since energy and matter and interchangeable), what would happen to particle passing through other objects?
Resistance?
Compression?
Now if I said these particles where compressed proportionate to the resistance and there increased velocity by the vehicle. You may begin to understand. There physical structure becomes too dense to interact with other matter in the current relative scale range (TDM state 0) they cannot physically collide with anything on this scale, However they now interact with matter of a similar scale range in the next higher Density TDM state 1 (as very low density subluminal matter). In doing so TDM state 1 has gained matter, to compensate it expands. Whilst this has been occurring the car and the observer in the original TDM state 0 have followed the normal curvature of space time and increased their density proportion to volume and resistance. So they are now of a scale range that can interact with the lower density particles of the previous TDM state 1 which are being displace, Which in turn are now extremely high density particles on the original TDM state 0. This displaced matter is the photons that the observer see?s coming from the headlights of the car approaching at 100 mph.
Now if something was between the lights of the car and the observer to act as a moderator ( An object to cause rapid compression of the photons through several TDM states) how much energy would be returned? oops not supposed to be explaining the time density shift of ZPE yet ;)
I will give you clue, if you use a specific density moderator between your field coils, how powerful do you think your TPU experiments will get?
Study a combination of Faraday ZPE work and that of Dr.Gunter Nimtz's Quantum Electron Tunnelling experiments and you may begin to understand how this moderator alters the TDS more rapidly.
You may also realise that the above actually explains the scattering effect of photons observed in photon slit experiments.
You can read more about TDM here. it is old stuff, http://www.crownedanarchist.com/timedensitymass.htm quite a few typos, it was an email interview I did a few years ago, btw it is seriously long... don't say I didn't warn you.
Should you want to know more. then feel free to post questions, well that's unless the moderators around here don't wan't TDM on the site. If that is the case then feel free to ask me questions in the chat about anything section on http://www.r-force.org , it's one of my sites so the topic can't get booted.
Hello 13th
(love that avatar ;) ) Welcome to the forum, no such thing as an odd theory here,
Who can say they know it all, only the megalomaniac ;D ...
I,ll look over the conclusions you come up with, it fits in nicely with a few others I,ve
been reading through. Appreciate!
No I Don,t have a mullet
Joe Dirt
Hi, many thx for the welcome.
I know it all, I'm a megalomaniac! ;D
Only kidding, actually I am glad I don't know everything, life would be seriously boring.
TDM is more of tool for interpretation, although I offer alternatives to seed ideas that is not the end of it.
Like the a tool maker creates an artist brushes, it is not the toolmaker that creates the masterpieces that those brushes in the right hands can make.
I am just the tool maker.
Of the few ideas I do seed in TDM, it does show some interesting alternatives of explanation that literally makes terms like over unity obsolete. Although in any single Finite scale universe (TDM state) the basic laws of thermodynamics still exist. By removing the blinkers that limits our range of obervation TDM if only in a theoretical model gives us an interpretation of the whole picture instead of just a tiny part of it as we currently see.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcubemedia.gamespy.com%2Fcube%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F641%2F641969%2Fsonic-gems-collection-20050815041904944.jpg&hash=9df7a8946221a3d12a98e2469b00df6ae3742799)
Look at this picture of rather well known game. Most people would assume they see all the picture.
Now look away and say everything you just seen!
Did you notice that you did not take as much on board as you thought you did.
Now if I say look at Sonic. Then look at the robot. Have you noticed how although there is other information in the picture, that is just becomes superfluous background content.
Now try and concentrate on everything in the picture at the same time.
Even in picture as small as this, it is not so easy to do.
Modern Physics is somewhat like this, it takes just one thing that we can concentrate on and know about and ignores the rest.
However unlike you as the observer of this picture. Currently we can't step outside of the finite universe and, Point to it and say "Look.........there is more"!
So how do we solve this?
TDM's approach is to take a single item, like sonic in that picture, to concentrate only on that and scale it up and down. So that it can be a picture composed of varying scales of sonic, to create a simulated facsimile of the universe that is very close to the overall picture.
For those familiar with the term fractals, TDM is scale related fractal universe.
Another way of explaining current physics way of looking at things.
Take a box room. Drill a hole in the wall, now start a ball bouncing around that room and from your limited view point looking through the hole in the wall, observe where the ball appears and disappears from your line of site.
Add several balls and as the observer looking only through that tiny hole in the wall, their paths will make no sense to you as you cannot know what is occurring in the rest of the room.
TDM changes your range of observation to that of the whole room, so that you can see the balls are not just appearing from no where, you are not actually gaining something from nothing. Its just balls bouncing around the room. However if you stick with the single finite range that is the observer looking through the hole in the wall, and drop another ball into the room via that hole, should it collide with one of the existing bouncing balls. Outside your range of observation (elsewhere in the room) you will suddenly see it come shooting past a much higher velocity in the range you can see.
So to you as the observer looking through the whole in the wall, this simple bouncing ball has just achieved over unity.
So is Over unity energy from nothing?
Well as I have explained it really depends upon how you look at it, we exist and interact in the finite universe that is the observer looking through the whole in the wall. So to us, the answer would be yes.
However as the theoretical external observer who can see beyond the zero point of our scale range of observation (each horizon), it is still the same simple laws of physics in respect of interaction of objects.
TDM is an increment of measurement that allows us to give theoretical physical values to less than zero. To treat such scales in relative terms. Yet unlike so called magic numbers, quantum wave packets etc, TDM is fully reversible back to our scale.
This reversibility from the theoretical to the physical is what makes the TDM approach so unique. However I strongly believe Nikola Tesla used a similar process in his experiments. As he had too much precision in what he did for it to be pure trial and error.
Some of you will be already familiar with the Einstein-Rosen Bridge http://www.krioma.net/articles/Bridge%20Theory/Einstein%20Rosen%20Bridge.htm or the The Multiverses of Dr David Deutsch. http://www.qubit.org/people/david/ so TDM will not sound that odd too you.
Take the latter and add scale, density and numeric values to the infinite multiverses and you will be part of the way to understanding TDM. However Unlike Dr David Deutsch work, TDM does not violate the laws physics in any way.
Excellent read!
Yes, everything is relative to the observer and yes, there is no such thing as overunity - to few. When so called OU happens - the observer, not able to think beyond the horizon, will consider it overunity.
The danger is when someone shoots too many balls through that little hole and too many shoot back.
Thanx
I guess you understand about the cascade of the house of cards effect then ;)
So you may be able to understand why I have been sitting on this for few years. Waiting for others to voice their opinions enough so that it does not stand out too much from the crowd.
A knife is a useful tool as well, but in the hands of the wrong person it can kill.
As you may have guessed I am not seeking fame and fortune, as long as I have enough to get by I am happy, this is more about giving others the usable tools to let them at least think outside the box.
Then who knows what they can create ;)
The one thing to remember in this area of physics, no matter what you are taught, there is no right or wrong, just the plausible and seemingly less plausible. If I said the universe was compose of big pink fluffy bunnies you would say I was mad, as that is less plausible. Yet in the nature of an infinite space time continuum, logic states that somewhere that has to be the correct interpretation. Now if it was scale density related bunnies, you would have TDM (yep it works with any definable object ;D )
Great oaks from little acorns grow......
Quote from: 13thHouR on July 21, 2007, 09:45:04 PM
I will give you clue, if you use a specific density moderator between your field coils, how powerful do you think your TPU experiments will get?
Quartz? or something that changes state? - just guessing...
EDIT: Maybe a rotating magnetic field would change specific density.
Quartz is a possibility however it generates its own resonant frequency when electrons are discharged across it. Quartz is more suited to being the emitter than the moderator. although at specific frequencies Quartz does make a good magnetic gate (blocking the normal ion field).
Moderators in most applications tend to be silicon, carbon, in the case of thermal/fission reactions then graphite is used.
I am in the process of creating some graphics that will explain the EVF which will make this easier to understand.
Silicon or carbon - why not water?
-------------------------
It is well-known in UFO circles that "quartz has it's uses" and that space and everything in it can be expanded or shrunk.
An Earthy example of this is the "Oregon Vortex" site where one can see this shrinking first hand. Then there are the pictures in the books by UFO abducties of little Greys in the palm of the hand.
-------------------------
Universe is 12 dimensions, by the way - no more, no less. At least this is what "they" explained to Wilbert Smith. They is whoever he was talking to with his "Smith" coil.
H20 has a higher proportion electrostatic rather than covalent bond, cool if you want oxygen and hydrogen separation, but as moderator it absorbs too much of the signal energy. That plus I think you would rather that it stay as protium. With the micro black holes that are being created, it will progress through deuterium,tritium, quadium, pentium, Hexium, Septium, Muonium etc.
You are trying to create over unity not a hydrogen fusion bomb. :o
I try not to get into the whole UFO thing, Well that is an issue for elsewhere.
Warning RANT MODE ON! ;D ;D ;D
On another note you can interpret the universe in as many dimensions as you choose, but there is one little problem, when you go to just 4 you are predicting infinite scale relate dimensions of the previous 3. So in finite terms there are 3, in pseudo observer terms there are 4.
If you count the inverse as Einstein did then there are 7. You really do not need more than this as this spans infinity.
I do not laugh at other peoples interpretations, but I do laugh at their justifications for this.
A little explanation.
3 = Finite universe.
4th is pseudo observer interpretation, out side looking at multiple scale version of the finite 3 dimensions.
7= 3 finite, 1 time, -3 finite dimensions, which represents both the finite and negative finite possibilities linked by a pseudo dimension of time. Einstein, knew about the opposite arrow of time long before Hawking did, then again Hawking and I never did see eye to eye. OK the guy did wonders to bring science to the average person, but he never earned the Lucasion Professor of Mathematics title. As everything he published was done elsewhere before. At least the likes of Sir Isaac Newton did the ground work to earn that title.
btw that little interview that Prof. Stephen Hawking gave few years ago at the White House along with President Clinton, I was the student who asked him a question about the pea instanton that he could not answer. surprising what you can do with cloned IP address and an anonymous proxy ;)
Oh well if he was going to steal the idea, he could have at least pointed out that it was only the smallest definable object in our finite universe and that there are infinite possible smaller or larger versions. Then he would have been welcome to claim it as his own, but he chose to quote it wrong, so in my book that made him an open target.
Getting back onto the topic of dimensions, I use the old adage,
"if it works, don't fix it".
Peeps tend to only create extra dimensions to allow for their ideas to work, it does not mean they are wrong, but if you have to re-write physics to make your idea work you are kind of on an up hill struggle.
You should see the crap I have had said to me over the years, and TDM does not re-write any of the laws of physics.
It still makes me laugh that so many people concentrate on Superstring Theory, although in reality it has no practical usage outside the study of complex wave form interaction. This is yet another bit of mathematical conjecture that requires you to have capped multiple dimensions, I wish somebody would point out to them once they exceed 3 that it amount goes infinite. ;D
Actually I did, and the wife of one of the top researchers in the field booted me out of the superstring theory forums
I guess she did not like the blatantly obvious being pointed out. ;D ;D ;D
Anyway this is not my sounding board of the silly arguments in the physics community. I leave them to their little mathematical brainteasers in string theory and patting each other on the back for a pointless job well done. Personally I get on with the practical work in the ultra high energy field and create tools which other people can use. Not some stupid thing that ends up in some MENSA book of puzzles or fanboy science journals.
Rant mode off
Ah, that feels better :D :D :D
Now the rant is over, his interpretation may be a bit bogus, but the smith coil is genuinely very efficient.
btw Rotating magnetic fields are EMP carrier waves, more suited to (to use a SC-Fi analogy) crude Star trek type sub space transmissions. Rotate them in 3 dimensions through their horizontal/vertical axis and you get into the GEMP area that I defined elsewhere in these forums. As this sets up a multi scale mobius type path of any given point on that spinning object. A 3 dimensional Gyroscope in simpler terms. It becomes super heavy in all directions.
An interesting coincidence, H.G.Wells had a model of such a device on his desk when he wrote "The Time Machine".
Not saying anyone is right or wrong. (Spoke it too definitively.)
12 "parameters" - Chapter IV "The Field Fabric" - Wilbert Smith. http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci~1.htm
Dave Lowarance has done a lot of work showing that Smith was correct about many things and has advanced some of the ideas that Smith didn't get to (died of cancer).
Dave's site is: http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/index.htm
Dave's latest experiments: http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/FieldDensity.htm (Hmm field density)
Heim Theory also uses 12: http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Seculine-Heim-HQT-Brief-Rev-A.pdf
(Dr?scher extended Heim's orignial 6 dimensions.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory
UFO and alien stuff should not be cast aside any more than Hawking lectures. Varo edition of "The Case for UFO's" has some interesting comments on the universe and fields that are in-line with current ideas even though those comments were made decades ago.
Take everything with a grain of salt.
Don't get me wrong about UFO's, heck I lived in UFO central during the 1980's (Berkshire England), it was as normal to me as seeing the sun come up in the morning.
As I said I am not saying Smith was wrong, everybody is entitled you use their own understanding to explain things.
However I deal in practicalities, his ideas although very well thought out, are not reversible, reversibility is the downfall of these theories or conjecture. If you can't reverse it, then the data involved is as meaningless as Hawking's Magic numbers.
Hawking's lectures, hmmmmmmmmm ok for the masses and the fanboy's , no disrespect intended, but to quote relativistic mass when finite classical physics uses invariant and covariant mass is just down right irresponsible.
As an example Not one of Hawking's (how shall I say?....... borrowed equations) used relativistic mass. Yet he dares to create conjecture about ultra high energy states, which are not invariant or covariant they are firmly in Einstein's absolutes of Relativistic Mass.
If you use TDM. then you can use invariant and covariant mass in ultra high energy states, as TDM allows you to work with them as subluminal low/high energy states.
Quite simply a number of his lectures, I have only heard few as I could not bear to listen to any more than that, misleads the listeners into making fundamental mistakes in cosmology.
As I said this is not the place for me to get into rant's about fellow scientists morals. We have more important business to tend to.
I give Hawking the credit he is due, but I also have no respect for what else he does. This guy cost me over ?1,000,000 pay out for the injuries I sustained in a serious RTA 10 years ago. For that I will not forgive him as my children lost out because of it, but I do not let that alter my opinion of his scientific credentials, as I said I give him credit where it is due and serious take the mickey out of him when he deliberately misleads peeps.
I must stop pushing the sale of TDM and get on with writing it up for peeps here ;D
Edit: Smith was remarkably close, not sure why he decided upon capping the dimensions? as this knocks down all his other work. I guess he was so determined to comply with classical physics that he forgot that a lot of his work was in an area that classical physics could only predict, not define.
If he had only given classical physics a way to define this, then he would have published TDM, not me. In a way it's sad to see independent thinkers not see their ideas come to fruition. For the ground work he put in on the rest of his ideas, he really does deserve a lot of respect.
I think as I produce the rest of the write ups you will see just how close he was to a working theoretical model.
Oops I sound a bit arrogant there, really I am not, I am thick as two short planks of wood, if i wasn't so stupid I would have just accepted it when they said it was impossible to define a physical object smaller than zero. ;D
QuoteHowever I deal in practicalities, his ideas although very well thought out, are not reversible, reversibility is the downfall of these theories or conjecture.
Smith was educated in classical electrodynamics so his understanding of concepts in this area were limited to this basis. The information that was given to him had to be explained in terms that he was familiar with or else it could not be transfered. He was told that 12 was all that is required and that was it - period. He was also told that "light just is" - when he inquired about it. He did a great deal of experimentation as well. He would have completed his work had he not died - as would Maxwell. Sad how some great minds go before their time.
As for reversal, since when does time unwind? Time is occuring in past, present, and future simultniously. I would think it's very nature forbids it to be reversable.
I am not a follower of Hawking's theories, but if he has the will to live, so be it.
Tesla had a theory as well, but it will never see the light of day. Before his death, he spoke about and said that it was complete and scoffed at Einstein's mathematical contraption. Tesla's impulses were irreversable as well. I know that is defferent context - couldn't resist.
I get the impression you been able to verify your theory or portions of it through experiments? (Sorry I saved your posts, but have not studied them all.)
EDIT: http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/smith2.htm
(Smith's letters.)
It is hard for somebody who is taught to think in certain way to break out of that mould, however in this case the mould is the domain of classical physics and the area he worked in steps firmly beyond classical physics limitations of the finite.
I understand his dilemma, to observe reactions that GR/SR predict yet not have anyway to explain them with real values that others can use. So he created a model which allowed him to work and log what is was observing.
The downfall as I explained before, unless this new range of observation can be simulated, reversible and not require a whole new understanding of physics from the ground level up. It is a real up hill struggle to get peers to review the findings correctly. Most just close off on the first mention of extra dimensions.
Reversibility of time:
This is a fundamental requirement of existence. without it we have no finite or infinite universe as it is Newton's equal and opposite effect. (Yep even over unity is a Newtonian law, I know that sounds like a contradiction, but with a wider range of observation these are simple physical interactions).
This is going to screw with your head, the universe is contracting (compressing) so fast that we see the equal and opposite effect of it expanding. It's a bit easier to understand when you look at a rotating propeller on an aircraft, as it starts to spin, you see it spin in that direction, however as it gets faster your will observe it rotating the opposite direction.
OK this is an optical illusion, however at much higher velocities such as the relative velocity of light in a vacuum, you will not only get optical illusions in your subluminal state, you will also get physical illusions of the opposite occurring.
Basically most matter as it exists in our finite universe is subject to resistance. This resistance causes compression. Compression changes density, thus in turn changes the point in space time in which is can interact with matter of a similar density. Rapid relativistic shifts in density are phenomenon known as Black holes, White holes, Worm holes. In non absolutes terms it is simple case of an object finding its stable point in another objects gravitational field.
On our time line, we become compressed (which appears to be expansion), however on the equal and opposite reverse time line decompression is occurring (which appears to be contraction). If you existed on either then in either way you would not know any difference as this becomes all you define everything by.
Basically a mobious line, a loop that to the observer on it, that travels in a straight line.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldofescher.com%2Fgallery%2Fjpgs%2FP3L.jpg&hash=46504190f585f091f4169c9b5ff453a1e9108a13)
Much like the ants on that picture. they cannot see a beginning or an end, they see the same path that they travel endlessly, yet in doing so they walk on both sides on of a flat plane switching between forward and reverse time seamlessly.
We have had symbols of the mobius structure around us for thousand of years.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffairwayflyerz.com%2Fthebasket%2Fimages%2FDiscraft%2FFC-MiniYinYang.jpg&hash=21de0f255ed13fbbd9cf3de1229fb103e2e62c80)
Yes, Yin and Yang is is a mobius loop, translate it back into 3 dimensions and that is what you end up with.
Another example of a rotating mobius loop
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.palmyria.co.uk%2Fillusions%2Fgeometry%2Fmobius90solidanim.gif&hash=130c67f9417aef4f7dbb5233e5cc38afb26acb09)
As for NT's work being reversible, he measured energy in Centimetres, a measurement of scale. Sound familiar? ;)
Given that Gabriel Mouton based the metric/decimal system on the length of one minute of arc of a great circle of the Earth (now called a nautical mile, 1852 meters). He also proposed the swing-length of a pendulum with a frequency of one beat per second as the unit of length (about 25 cm). A pendulum beating with this length would have been fairly easy to produce, thus facilitating the widespread distribution of uniform standards.
It is understandable why NT decided to take the metric approach to measurement of energy/density. Although as you say those theories where lost.
Experimentation, now the first sign of crackpot is when they say open your eyes and look around you. The dilemma I have is that with TDM essentially being a GUT. That is exactly what you must do. As it has to be readily observable around you to be a so called Grand Unification Theory.
The unique things about TDM:
1. Do you have to prove a tape measure can measure?
2. Each unit of measurement is all that classical physics can define, so classical physics can't be used to disprove it. (That is the part that has driven me nuts over the years, as we can only create finite experiments, because when we carry out zero point experiments using finite physical hardware, the reactions can be only measured in a our finite terms. Which is precisely what TDM allows classical physics to do) So the conundrum, how do you disprove it.
btw that is a basic mistake a lot of researchers make, you do build things to show functionality, but with theories/conjecture the object is to disprove it. If nobody can disprove it under peer review, then it becomes an accepted conjecture or theory.
Something is not automatically wrong until you disprove it, its just plausible or less plausible.
3. My whole approach to TDM is to use real world explanations rather than nothing but complex formula's which only a few elite can prove or disprove. I guess I do a Hawking, but in my case with Ultra High Energy physics field of study, I make it accessible to peeps who do not hold professorships in mathematics. I use simple analogies (where possible) or real world things that anybody can observe. Which negates the need for a lot of the experiments.
As an example of such a description
You are Standing on a beach looking out to the horizon on the sea. A Ship 100 nautical miles the other side of that horizon fires a shell.
To you that shell just appears at the horizon. up through then air then lands near you.
In physics terms that Horizon is the event horizon, or our zero point, physics cannot define the ship sitting the other side of it as it is too small for physics to define. So it cannot show where that shell appeared from.
TDM is no different than Gabriel Mouton's increments that we now call nautical miles, except that the increments are horizon to horizon (Event horizon to event horizon in finite universe terms)
Now an interesting twist on over unity. If you have big gun on that beach and fire beyond that horizon, and on the other side of the horizon is a fleet of ships that fire back at you. Is this over unity?
Believe it or not, apply that to the finite universe and the limitations of classical physics on it's own, it really is over unity. ;D ;D ;D
I guess those doubters reading here, now see how silly the definitions of over unity really are.
However within that, do you need to set up an experiment to know that you can't see the naval frigates over the horizon? Maybe you understand now when I say about negating the need for a lot of the experiments. Unless what you are working on throws its data in the face of existing understanding you do not have to replicate what has already been studied and observed.
;D
... addition to the previous question: should that then enable us to "suck" all of the energy/substance from the the upper/lower level increments of world?
Is there a critical amount of mass/energy for a this one cell to be stable?
Sorry about the delay, been seriously busy the past couple of days.
Finally tracked down a new Oscilloscope and Function Generator, I can give some real time feed back on the other experiments.
Anyway to get back to your question, think back to the bucket of water.
Now imagine that you link 3 full buckets of water with tube near the bottom connecting them, and anything that overflows from one bucket is pumped back into the other two buckets. Will the levels ever change permanently if the stone is removed from one bucket and placed in another?
So basically what this means is that no matter what you gain or lose in any specific scale, it has to come from somewhere or go to somewhere. Even so called sub space of sci-fi is just another scale of existence. So your nice little message home to your parents whilst your are travelling around Alpha Centuri could very well end up being very odd looking shapes that appear in front of caveman on another time density scale ;D
OK the probability of that effect occurring in that point in space time on earth is very remote, but is is a good example of how density and time are interlinked. Also how you should consider the consequences in space time the next time you fart, maybe that last mouthful of beans could be enough to kick start the big bang ;D ;D ;D
All right so I am joking, but in that joke is genuine facts of how we take our normal interactions for granted and do not seem to comprehend that on one hand we are so insignificant but on another just how much our very existence alters the structure of the universe.
Put simply,space time always fills in the mistakes.
The generally considered figure of the mass of the finite universe is 1053Kg of so this falls short of the actual amount but is a figure that we can work with. If a single object in a finite universe became 1053Kg then it would be our finite universe.
However on a different scale universes what we measure as 1053Kg could be photon or and entire Galaxy. However in relativity to those scale universes (TDM states) they would be considerably less than 1053Kg
Quote from: armagdn03 on July 25, 2007, 12:01:15 PM
If I properly understand your conjectures on on a new "multiverse", once energy / mass reaches some prededurmined point, be that our reletivistic zero, or the other end of the spectrum ( Speed of light?) the energy or mass in question ceases to exist in our luminal universe, and is now contained within the next "level" of the universe hierarchy if you will.
Assuming I have this correct, and taking into account your theories on reversability being of chief importance in the validation of such theories...
One could consider the avarage machine. If you were to take into account all energy losses, be it friction, light, heat, sound, in closed systems this machine, whatever it may be will halways have a COP of 1, no more no less. Energy put in = energy out (be it in various forms).
Now we take our avarage OU machine, and apperently we we have...all things considered...more energy out than put in. We put some energy in, but the addition of all energies out is more! Now, this is explained from your theory by saying that we have borrowed energy from one of the levels of universes either above us or below (or just above only?) us on the "energy scale". So far so good, this jives with current emprirical data. We are not creating energy...there is no system out of equilibrium, we just need to look at a bigger picture and see that the energy is not "free" not invented, or created, simply take from somewhere else.
But should it then not be possible to have an energy system that depleats or injects energy into another universe just beyond our "horizon"? With reversability, could we not then create a device which has a negative COP? Where if we were to put in some energy, the total energy out would be less?
Just a thought....but I it would be interesting to hear some responses, as this poses another question....would this device be usefull somehow?
P.S.
You gave an example of energy being injected from our horizon zone into a higher level and then re-entering our zone again (the car and light analogy). This makes perfect sense, but what if we put energy into the level below ours...will it be gone forever? will it return and have any impacts on our universe that are forseeable? What from that zone below us, can push that energy back into our zone?
By jove I think he's got it ;D (although light velocity is nearest zero point and ultra low velocity is the larger low density boundary of our finite universe)
Seriously this is the point, we still essentially have the same system where in this conjecture model, we understand that we still do not get something from nothing.
However because we cannot physically step beyond that Horizon without leaving interaction with where we where originally, then in all sense and purposes, like the fleet of frigates firing back at us over the horizon, to us this will be over unity, as we can only interact with one specific scale range at any one time. (That scale range of interaction can be composed of many scale ranges spanning different locations in space time, but again that is very steep learning curve, so for the moment we will stick to the simpler model of the linear scale TDM states)
In losing matter/energy via decompression to lower density scale, this is a similar reaction, however in this case the filling back in of the missing matter comes from normal lambda space around us, as in the displacement follows the easiest path which is an implosion of matter to fill the void in the higher density of our scale.
This would be like instantaneously removing the stone from the bottom of the bucket of water and having its density lowered so it floats near the top. Basically the water rushes down to fill in where the stone was previously. Which if you plot scale density from the bottom of the water to the top, then again in our limited range it would be like we are on the side of the frigates firing all the shells away from us across the horizon. Air fills in where the shells where previously but as we know from TDM that is not where it stops this filling in spans our relative universe and beyond.
Some of you make realise when I mentioned Lambda space. That in fact I am talking about Einstein's rather elusive aether.
by now you may be beginning to understand that the entire process is a bit more complex of filling in from TDM+ and TDM- states, but as I said for easier understanding it is better to keep it in singular linear terms for the moment.
To answer you other question about usage with a few furthers questions of my own, what benefits would there in be in losing mass from certain heavy isotopes without gaining energy? ;)
What would happen is you lost massive amounts of energy in the middle of a nuclear fission chain reaction (Atomic explosion). ;)
On a smaller scale, how efficient would cooling of your PC be? Or how about an air portable air conditioner which does not require heat exchanger tube to be hanging out of your window.
There are as many practical uses for
Under Unity as there are for Over unity.
No worries, all rambles welcome, TDM can be quite heavy going at the best of times.
The bucket example is not directly about the stone or issues of over unity, it's more to do with how water easily flows to fill in loss or gets displaced to compensate for gain. Something that most people can easily visualise.
However To alter the density of the stone only requires you to alter its resonant frequency. If you fool other matter into responding to oscillations at a different resonant frequency then the object will find another stable point to interact with, but I leave that area for Hutchinson to investigate. Of Which he was doing quite well from what I last seen.
I can understand your approach its more to do with the outcomes of the experiments and what benefit this has to mankind or just us in a our daily lives. Ultimately I guess that is all of our goals. Although a few do like the idea of fame and fortune too.
Making things more efficient or replacing them completely, each idea has it place and its specific target, it is important that although we pool our resources on the most probable that we don't forget that there are as many ways of achieving our goal.
The more saturation of different devices we have. Then there is more probability that somebody has the materials or the skill available to repeat this for themselves.
In respect of magnets, look at those links I made to the flying frog experiments. This can be created with permanent magnets. We just have to learn to look at magnetism like any other physical force. It can be saturated and compressed.
Consider this:
"There is insufficient Uranium on our planet to create an Atomic Bomb".
Ernest Rutherford replying to H.G.Wells description of the Atomic explosions in his writings.
Was Ernest Rutherford wrong as we now have atomic weapons?
Well actually he was correct, it was only by some very clever concentration of a standard explosive force by the guys on the Manhattan Project, that for a few nanoseconds we can make fissile material react as if it has become super heavy. (increase it's physical and gravitaitonal density) which to surrounding matter reacts like we have more fissile material per volume than exists on earth.
So we proved H.G.Wells to be correct, yet also proved Rutherford to be so as well.
Just shows that TDM is not the only place where opposing arguments can be shown to be correct without violating either standpoint.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
what now?
s.
That changes nothing, just classical physics peering down telescope with the other eye closed and saying why can't I see the world next to me?
A lot of double talk about a relative zero point that they seem to think is absolute. (not sure why they think that as physics tells them it is not)
Anyway as I said I leave the finite physics to the rest of the scientific community to argue about.
TDM in single increment uses all they define. So if they adapt the definition, TDM in it's very nature adapts with them.
btw Time is our construct, our description of a period of interaction. To have glass jar sitting on shelf and say "that is time". It is a rather silly concept, much as not being able to define duration near relative zero as being time, is the 'blatantly obvious being put into practice. I guess with not much else to do somebody has to waste "time" on this. ;D ;D ;D
I do find research like that fascinating, as the general scientific community make out the overunity research to be the realm of crackpots, yet time and time again we hear of the most ridiculous research in mainstream science that makes even the most obscure overunity designs seem like works of genius.
Like ?250,000 spent on finding out if buttered toast always falls on the floor butter side down, ok this was resolving issues of probability, but that could be done on a ?400 PC, 50 loafs of bread, a few Kg of butter and a ?40 test rig.
So where did the other ?249,500 go to?
The same goes for the research quote in that article, the cost of the equipment involved is astronomical.
Do you know what they are really proving?
That when there is nothing, there is nothing to define time.
It does not take a ?multi million test rig to prove the blatantly obvious. If you have nothing there then there is no (a) to (b),
If there is no (a) to (b), there is nothing to define time with, it's simple as that.
OK beyond relative zero TDM gives us a scale related (a) to (b) and so on, but they are not using TDM, they are stopping at relative zero.
At least even the most obscure idea in over unity is trying to achieve a goal. That quoted research achieves, absolutely nothing, is nothing, yet it is not actually absolute nothing. Me thinks its yet more double talk, about 'nothing' ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Anyway for the record, time does not cease to exist at around or at zero, its only the guys sitting in the smaller picture trying to define the large picture without actually setting any base rules for it. So their findings are meaningless constructs of narrow mindedness.
If they would only open their eyes they would see in the finite universe terms, Yes time ceases to exist at relative zero, but in the infinite possible scales of the universe it is a constant.
Einstein was correct in the finite terms, time is not a constant, but on infinite terms it is. The more accurate term is as Einstein said, time is relative.
I know that sounds like a contradiction, however its the combinations of two ranges of observation, one that it limited and one that is unlimited. So in turn the contradiction's that this creates in definitions. On or around the relative absolutes of the limited range one would normally switch to a larger range to give you more data to work with. Thus cancelling out these contradictions
With blinkers on of a limited range of observation, relative zero becomes the absolute, so the duration of one pulse to the next is infinity. so it does have time but that time is infinity. However if you had that one pulse, it would not be even relative zero as its existence means you are more than zero.
Getting the point yet?
Relative or absolute zero, either way experiments in this area are pointless in the finite because the event of measurement makes it non zero and your results are wrong.
Again TDM can get around this by defining relative zero points as scale relative zero points, spanning for infinite negative to infinite positive scale voids, but you would have come full circle and would be defining the interactions of the universe again ;)
Been busy rebuilding a test lab. So not had time to post the TDM details.
Anyway Mostly set up now (still need to get two more function generators), just got to get some decent RF shielding before i really push the boundaries again.
For the guys over in the TPU section.
This is what you are trying to create with the soliton waves being created in your devices. (The soliton is the harmonics created after the peak in the square wave)
http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~dugald/breath.mpg
This is commonly the 5 Mhz carrier observed in other TPU devices. This wave is essentially the electron carrier/accelerator. By increasing the frequency of this carrier you will increase the rotational inertia of the device, however as a counter reaction the electrons will be pushed faster.
As you are aware, the electrons cannot technically exceed light velocity, however if your collectors contain universal stable atoms in the circuit such as iron. This moderator will rapidly compress the high velocity electrons, thus in classical physic terms induce high level quantum electron tunnelling.
Be very careful with this type of setup, I am not talking about 1 or 2 times increases here, this has the energy potential to push the soliton peak into yottawatt territory ( 1024 watts)
Well actually it is much more, in planck power terms it is 3.63 * 1053 watts per single planck length
There is sufficient energy in these soliton waves to create nuclear fusion of most atoms.
In realistic terms we are not working on scales that will cause critical mass, however it is vital that those replicating the TPU devices are extremely careful when injecting 2 or more frequencies as soliton collisions will cause the spikes to increase exponentially.
As already observed by device builders
http://magnetism.fateback.com/Overunity.htm
5 MHz keeps popping up...Dave calls it a "NMR pulse" rather than a soliton.
Build it.
Yep it a quite important frequency.
The important thing here it that we can easily isolate this peak and solitary waves.
In doing this we can visualise how the electrons surf the soliton carrier wave. When electrons are moving in this free state we can create very interesting ZPE effects as observed by Tesla in his high energy burst tests.
The use of targets (moderators) to rapidly enhance the Quantum tunnelling does raise the spin properties of the electrons exponentially. (alteration of Density sphere as mentioned in the page you linked to) I refer to this as TDS shift in TDM.
Soliton waves are also referred to as Scalar waves. The most efficient way to create these waves is as I mentioned previously the double helix (As others reminded me here) this is a Caduceus (Smith) Coil setup.
As an example of a scalar (Soliton) wave transmitter.
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/spgen/
This setup displays the tunnelling effect that I mentioned previously. Where the radio emissions can easily penetrate standard radio emission shields.
For those of you that do not have scopes to see this in action, here is a video of non grounded pulse wave resonance in a coil (soliton waves) that I found on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpEYlmsMmyw
That is a good visualisation of the spikes.
btw I am working on a non grounded variation of the TPU setup, just to see how well this performs.
(WARNING!!!) non grounded soliton wave coils can have extremely high tension charge, do not attempt this unless you are familiar with high tension safety protocols. As high capacity HT discharges can instantly stop your heart.
For those of you that don't quite get the idea of the loop that travels in a straight line, how about a simpsons explanation.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cNV9FEKi9FQ
;D
Says it better than paragraphs of words explaining it.
Also shows the TDM decompression in action
Hmmmmmm......
The mass is decreasing in this universe, (or so I've read). Black holes (Singularities for the purist) in the center of each galaxy are slowly ripping matter apart, and sending it "somewhere". Say it is a drain effect, sending it to another scale universe. This would mean that we are not tpm 0, as it would have all drains leading to it, but not away.
Assume we are then TDM 2. Assuming this is a "direct touch" TDM conclusion, IE that TDM 2 would touch TDM 1 and TDM 3, but not TDM 0 or TDM 4, then we would also detect numerous "drains" into OUR finite universe, from the black holes in TDM 3. Even though TDM 3 would necessarily be a smaller scale (progressive entropy) it could not be infinitely so, since you claim an inifinity of TDM's.
Since each TDM could then be viewed as a close sustem, any change in mass would be detectible. Since we would be losing mass/energy to TDM 1, and gaining mass/energy from the smaller TDM 3, we would then be able to directly detect the incoming mass/energy, since TDM 3 and our own TDM 2 would have an infinitely small difference in mass. IE our loss of mass/energy would be infinitely small to TDM 1.
These black holes in each finite universe (singularities) would be your horizon points. This makes your theory directly falsifiable, with defineable and predictable ability, even with our limited understanding of our own finite universe.
The only problem is the detectable mass/energy decrease of our TDM is anything but infinitely small, it is in fact staggeringly huge (the probability of hundreds of thousands of entire suns have been ripped apart and sent through the drain as I write this)........
Also, any drain in the mass/energy from the infinitely small TDM's, even if said drain was infinitely small, would eventually lead to the destruction of a finite but infinitely small universe. Since this scale of reduction would be FASTER (if my understanding of your acceleration scale is accurate as linearly progressive) than ours, it would lead to a scalar reduction of infinitely small TDM's at an infinite speed, since the acceleration in these universes would approach infinity. This would happen on both the + and - sides of the TDM scale. Therefore there could not be an infinity of TDM's.
Next, consider the "-" TDM's. These would naturally follow to be mirror image or anti-matter universes.
NOW CONSIDER TDM 0 (this might blow you away). TDM 0 would be the recieving TDM, recieving all mass/antimass/energy, both from the - antimatter TDM's, and from the matter TDM's. Now, just like our TDM scenario, it would HAVE to be finite by definition, therefore would be full of both matter and antimatter...... (remember that it is only a tiny bit larger than TDM - 1 or TDM 1, and that the drains from each lead to TDM 0)
OUCH! (just something to chew on)
Paul Andrulis
Trying to disprove a conjecture by re-writing it, is not a good start, but I welcome the feed back and will explain how in one sense your are both right and wrong at the same time. (Don't you just love logic of infinite states ;D )
What ever is relative to you, is the zero state. Without this approach classical physics falls flat on it's face, as you may remember unless you define a point to observe to and from, you can never really be sure where anything is in the space time continuum. (You always need a comparison to define a measurement).
Yes we are losing matter and also proportionately gaining matter. Although the origin of the matter is constantly changing, each state has a density or volume which relatively constant (Again it is classical physics that defines this requirement, physics requires measurements and measurement require constants).
However your argument is like saying this is a lake. The sun shines, the water evaporates, it turns to cloud and rains, flows off the land into the lake. It is a closed loop so none of this can exist.
Essentially it is this need to achieve the stable state that fuels everything we observe around us, if everything was already at this absolute point of rest where there is absolutely no loss or gain, then we would be as you stated a closed loop that is basically a void. Well this may seem like a contradiction, but it is a closed loop and yes it is a void, but that is a seriously steep learning curve for everybody else reading this so I will fill a small spec of the infinite possible finite states that exist between us and the absolute void that is the basic requirement of infinity. Infinity=Void
We have numerous drains, but we also have as many fawcett's as well. But always just a little out of balance with each other. As perfect balance would become an infinite closed loop or void, that is the final or beginning state.
The very action of matter being compressed on our state so that it interacts with say TDM state 1000, would create an equal and opposite displacement.expansion wave through space time, that would gain so much energy that it would literally syphon itself off into other scale ranges before it ever got back to us.
The very nature of physics creates a state which is directly falsifiable 'The Void'
In your very argument, instead of disproving TDM. You have in fact proved viability of the conjecture.
As TDM relies upon this absolute close loop, but is composed of infinite possible relative absolutes (Event horizons).
Are you not aware that equal and opposite reactions of basic Newtonian Mechanics creates a close loop if you take it to it's extremes?
A= Void Infinite possible scale state in between B=Void
To get from the void to void, requires the infinite possible actions and reactions to have occurred and we at our relative location are only part of the way along that path.
So although the universe became a void in the blink of an eye, because we exist within the relativity to the matter that was formed in that instantaneous burst, a great expanse of infinite possible finite states exist to us.
I came up with a very similar argument about 20 years ago, and it backfired on me when I broke it down into the probabilities within TDM.
The argument only holds water, if you change the laws of physics.However even then, because you have changed the increment, does not change anything other than the definitions of the dimensions of an object. TDM instantly adapts because of what it uses as its increment of measurement.
As I stated this is a stubborn little conjecture, as a single state in TDM is composed of all that which we can define within our laws of physics. Later those laws, you do not alter TDM.
I wasn't kidding when I said you could use anything. The Universe could be composed of infinite scale versions of a nasal hair and TDM still works.
It's a simple rule really, but you cannot disprove an object using the same object. As to do so would disprove the evidence you are using in the first place.
To put it simply why your argument holds no water (yet), To achieve the perfect closed loop void, Every possible reaction that can occur in that closed loop must have occurred. On our perspective of being within the reactions, they have not all occurred yet.
So basically you are jumping to the end of story (or is that the beginning) without reading all the pages in between.
However I am honoured to have had you put so much thought into this argument.
I am going to really mess with your head now. If your matter is compressed to say TDM state 6.5, if you scale it up to our current state you will have the x,y,z,t location of the exit location on our scale range.
Every possible state that exists can be scaled up or down to our scale. Now you can ask yourself how is it possible that an infinity can exist in a finite.
I will be interested to see if you can answer that? It's ok if you can't.
To be fair, one is just scale, the other relates to Zeno's Ulysses and the Arrow. In the latter you may see something very familiar ;)
btw Yes TDM state 0 (Our current state) Which does not mean it is a zero, its just a coordinate. Does gain and lose matter to all other states, but only if those states have reactions that create matter within our scale range/density. or we create matter within their scale range/density
If We gain, we also lose to another scale a proportionately as the reactions allow, that is a kind of very large closed loop, but as your seeing now.it is so much more complex, if we have a reaction that causes us to lose, we gain again. Always trying to keep a balance but never quite getting there, as it take infinity to do so.
It that trying that is the non closed loop part, because it never quite fills back in, because of all the side reactions. So more actions and reactions occur to try and compensate for than and so on.
Also you seem to be assuming this is just expansion, refer back to what happens when the expansion gains too much energy, as in the expansion is also subject to compression, thus folds back in space time again before it ever gets back to us, Thus leaving an imbalance that has to be filled in from elsewhere.
Lets just say the initial explanation is simple, but what is involved is a chain of actions and reactions has a complexity that far exceeds the human capacity to even begin to contemplate all of the instances of what is occuring. As it would take an infinity to do so.
The one fundamental mistake you have made in your argument, is quite a simple one. You have forgotten that there is infinite possible finite states. So the absolute rest state you describe would take infinity to reach. So until you can define a point where infinity ends. It stops being a closed loop, yet it is still a closed loop.
I did warn you it's a steep learning curve if you try to run before you can walk. ;)
If you really want to run so soon, if I say all these infinite possible states and our finite universe are on in the same, can you visualise that?
Again don't worry if you can't because being able to visualise such complexity of form is still quite a rare ability that only shows up in nature every few generations. Even the likes of Stephen Hawking or Even Albert Einstein could not even attempt grasp that one. However Nikola Tesla, did possess this ability.
thank you very much for your great post !
i learn well this post ..
thanks again for sharing !1