Saturday, 23 May 2015

I Am Still Ironing Out Abyssal Dynamics

This is what abyssal dynamics mean for objects within the universe:

As you can see the diameter of a black hole stretches all the way to the edge of the universe from the Image above.

This should be WHY.
Note: I am still ironing out the details, but I have the general framework now.

Friday, 22 May 2015

Abyssal Dynamics

This is an equation I am trying to refine to describe a black hole. I am calling it Abyssal Dynamics.


The freaky thing is that if you reduced the value for the radius of the universe to zero, in this equation you would end up with infinity divided by zero.

Thanks, ZI's THC

***Update***
 
 The point of an abyssal dynamic is that the four dimensional radius of a black hole exceeds the radius of the universe, I just haven't ironed out how exactly to equate it yet.
 
Thanks again,m ZI's THC

Monday, 20 April 2015

Leonard Susskind And Steven Hawking Were Both Right

... Because what is behind the singularity of a black hole from the point of the observer in reality does not exist, so the event horizon of a black hole must be the edge of the universe, in the middle of the universe.

In my books, Hawking is vindicated.


Time Reflections And A Singularity

Convergence And Inverse Time Ripples

    As a convergence approaches, ripples from the future come backwards in time to the present from the singularity or convergence. As the convergence approaches the inverse time ripples become stronger. This is gravity. As one approaches a convergence or a singularity the likelihood of you reaching the convergence or the singularity increases, just the same as one approaches an object its effect's of gravity increase on the one approaching. Gravity is an inverse function of time.

    As one approaches a black hole time for the approacher slows down relative to objects further from the black hole, because the time reflection of the singularity becomes stronger.

    The earth has gravity, yet no singularity, but on closer inspection, earth has no point anywhere where time completely inverts as well. In stead, earth is approaching a singularity, a total convergence which is ever out of reach and thus earths gravity is escape able.

    Conversely a convergence of events also has this point of no return, in which all sequences of events afterwards will be ever altered. Notable convergences on earth are things like the rise of Hitler, The dropping of the atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the fall of the Soviet Union (this is not a collection of good and bad, just fact, the world changed irreversibly after those events and there is no two ways about it), the wheels invention, the discovery of the tool, even religious events are all convergences. Each one of these things first became possible, and because they were possible became more possible until they happened, and each one had a point of no return. Take Hitlers speeches at the Burger Brow(spelling), a likely point of no return, [the crucifixion of Jesus became inevitable (when did that become inevitable?)] , D-Day made the dropping of the atom bomb inevitable, as since the Nazi's were guaranteed to be defeated the dropping of the first two weapons became inevitable to show strength to Stalin. All these events became possible, and because they were possible became more likely until they were a reality, in other words time moving backwards, in other words GRAVITY.

    The great depression. That is the convergence I am looking for, I understand that one and it sums up what happened afterwards nicely. As the stock market bubble approaches a peak, a convergence, the people most heavily invested in the past(which may have been the future, but backwards, eck) profit more and more, and the people most invested in the future (which may have been the past but also inversely, eck squared), profit less and less, then the convergence hits a perfect storm of switches from one 'state' to another with only people with a high birds eye view able to see past the singularity. Suddenly the people who were profiting nearly limitless are losing everything no matter what they do, and the people who were losing everything profit no matter what they do. The people invested in the past seem to move across the singularity with ease, the people with the least, the lowest mass. Whilst the people ever looking to an ever bigger and brighter future, the people with the most AND the most to lose, seem to have had the most trouble passing across the singularity, the convergence, the peak.

Eck is a semi- Garfield term...


It is our new idea that waves may be inverse particles, here are a few 'graphs'

Now the week off I was planning :)

Friday, 17 April 2015

Collision 5 + The Insomnia Sequence
















The Insomnia Sequence

1/5=0.2, 1/0.2=5,

[5/0.2=5(5), 0.2/5=0.2(0.2)]

[5/0.2=5(5), 0.2/5=0.2(0.2), 25/0.04=625, 0.04/25=0.0016, 1/0.0016=625, 1/625=0.0016, 0.0016(625)=1, 0.0016(25)=0.04, 625(0.04)=25, 0.04(25)=1, 0.2(5)=1]

625(0.2)=125=[(5/0.2)(5/0.2)](5), [[(5/0.2)(5/0.2)](5)](5)=625, 1/125=0.008, 0.008(0.2)=0.0016,

    The insomnia sequence is virtually bottomless. Any number within the insomnia sequence can be arrived at by various combinations of other numbers in the insomnia sequence, and dividing  one by any number in the insomnia sequence only makes the problem worse, but symmetrically so, because it will give you another number in the insomnia sequence, and if you multiply those numbers or divide them in both orders, you get more numbers in the insomnia sequence which are all directly related, by yes, other numbers in the insomnia sequence. I was going to drag on this paragraph as long as possible, but I am so very tired...

5=a, 0.2=b, 25=c, 0.04=d, 625=e, 0.0016=f

a, 1/a=b, 1/b=a
a/b=a(a)=c, b/a=b, b(b)=d, 1/c=d, 1/d=c,
c/d=c(c)=e, d/c=d, d(d)=f, 1/e=f, 1/f=e,

e/c=c(a), b(e)=c(a), f(c)=d,


4/2=2, 2/4=0.5, 1.5/4=0.375, 1.5/2=0.75

It does not work when anything but one is what is being divided.

Wednesday, 15 April 2015

Collision 4

The two particles in collision 4 experience time at about 22% of the rate of a particle standing still.













The next attempt will be more accurate. I am shooting for 6.25% the normal flow of time expierenced by the particles.