The whole dang universe

[ScottTheSculptor]

The Universe.

 

By ScottTheSculptor

 

　

 

Time is a one dimensional "thing" that flows into the sun and can vary.

 

If science can accept this; dark energy, dark matter, missing radiowaves from the galactic core, long lived particles from up time-stream, planetary density discrepencies (Mercury too dense, Mars not dense enough), proton magnetism, jets from black holes, and other cosmic mysteries are explained. All stars are time vortexes with time flowing in the equator and jetting out the poles.

 

All galaxies have a gravity gradient leading to the black holes in their cores.

 

You may wonder how we missed this I will attempt to explain . . .

 

Einstein thought that time was constant. If it is then you *can* mathematically connect space with time since gravity is timeflow and relative. But as soon as the rate of time changes that model falls apart. Just one too many variables.

 

In order to have "speed" light has to travel a set distance in a set amount of time. But this description locks time and distance within the "speed of light", yet allows "observed distance" and "observed time" to vary as you travel faster or slower relative to the "speed of light". This is illogical and requires that space "bend".

 

To fix physics just change "Speed of light" to "Rate of Time", let time flow through stars and extrapolate. The "rate of time" is relative and follows all observed physics. Light only happens at one "speed" in any timeflow. This speed is "the rate of time" and just coincidentally "the speed of light". You can not travel faster than "the rate of time" (doesn't that sound better?). This timeflow idea is adding to physics. The old subset works (mostly), the new functional superset contains the old subset.

 

There is no spacetime - just 0D space with 1D time, 2D energy and 3D matter existing in it. Each higher dimension defines it's own "distance" relationships in 0D space. The universe is a sea of 1D time quanta. Binding time into orthogonal 2D energy leaves a 90 degree axis to generate spin and jets. Orthogonal explains the 3D limit, symmetry, anti- (mirrors of 3D). Loops?. How do stars run 1D quanta in circles and stick them together in orthogonal sets? (I'll work on it. ;-) )

 

1D time quanta can stack end to end - flux lines.

 

Try it. Vary the value of C towards the sun. What happens?

 

I'm continually amazed by how many "church of science" members reject the idea as impossible without even considering the results. The solar system works just fine with a C varying as you approach the sun. Imagine a spacecraft traveling to Mercury. The change in rate of time doesn't change it's gravitational relationship to anything else in the solar system since gravity is also relative and tied to the rate of time.If you get closer to the sun the rate of time increases. Interstellar distances are measured in light years. As the rate of time speeds up the distances are perfectly compensated. Faster time means more light years to the same distance. This *is* the theory of relativity . . . with a new point of view, redefinition of a couple words and making a thing variable that you thought wasn't. The result is that almost(?) all the cosmic mysteries disappear all at once.

 

Space looks like weather with time, energy and matter flowing as chaotically as air. Space is *not* serene, peaceceful and empty - We just can't directly "see" time flow. Timeflow through dust clouds creates the gravity that start new stars. Gravity is both the flow of time across great distances and magnetic (time ripple) forces generated when *any* matter counters a timeflow.

 

Now to kill "Dark Energy"

 

The universe is *not* expanding. Map the direction that you are *getting* redshift readings. Notice that most readings are out the edges of the galactic ecliptic plane. Time is flowing *in* in the direction that red reading are noted, blue is up and out the timejets, between is time shear that scrambles the spectral lines. Redshift will slow to zero at the start of our galactic timeflow, ~ 15 billion yrs. ago . . .

 

Ask why it is so difficult to "prove" light bends around a star. The statistics of failures is impressive. Why does it only work on some stars? I posit that the stars timejets must align with your view to obtain the observed "bending".

 

Atom spin because of timeflow, protons have opposite charge from electrons, the ripples from the flow gets the electrons moving.

 

The jets from black holes are time jets. Energy flows with time. The rate of time is dependant on the size and time throughput of a star which is tied directly to its mass conversion rate. Black holes have incredible time rates.

 

There is a high probability that a gas giant can convert time and have jets. This would explain reported clock "malfunctions" when traveling over the poles of gas giants. I have some sketch ideas about how the physics works.

 

Solar flares can carry time. There is evidence of odd long-lived particles and time discrepencies connected to the largest of them.

 

The time flow gradient isn't dramatic. It should correlate with our perceived "universe expansion rate" and fit the "Pioneer anomaly". USNO more commonly puts a leap second in at maximum distance to the sun and takes one out at minimum (summer and winter soltices). The mass variation of the sun will map perfectly to noted clock corrections.

 

We have geological evidence that the rate of time has increased over billions of years. As the sun has matured.

 

Energy flow and time are connected. Things don't age near absolute zero, the higher the ambient energy the faster they age.

 

Freezers slow time, ovens speed time.

 

Dudes, you over complicated it

 

 

[Pincho Paxton]

If time was 1 dimensional you wouldn't get time displacement to work from a moving body that can move in 3 dimensions. And Einstein thought that time was relative, so not constant. Then later you adjust the speed of light to time flow, so again you are using a 3D timeflow because light travels in 3D, so you are not sticking to your own theory.But the sun jets part could be true. Time varies by relative movement, so jets fired towards you could alter your relative time reference, and telescopes do exhibit a strange phase shift. It's called the aberration of light, but I call it the aberration of time.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[ScottTheSculptor]

If time was 1 dimensional you wouldn't get time displacement to work from a moving body that can move in 3 dimensions. And Einstein thought that time was relative, so not constant. Then later you adjust the speed of light to time flow, so again you are using a 3D timeflow because light travels in 3D, so you are not sticking to your own theory.But the sun jets part could be true. Time varies by relative movement, so jets fired towards you could alter your relative time reference, and telescopes do exhibit a strange phase shift. It's called the aberration of light, but I call it the aberration of time.

 

The problem is that the 1D of time being a different 1D than the 1st D of 2 or 3 D.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the math.

Anyone?

 

Einstein bent space to keep the "speed of light" from moving - so relative and variable *only* if space bent.

Can't bend the zero-eth dimension.

[ScottTheSculptor]

So,

 

E & H fields are the legs of the loops of long chains of 1D time quanta.

 

All the math works from there to gamma rays.

Is that the single_quanta/ single_quanta 2D set radiation?

 

 

 

This explains particle/wave.

 

And quantum mechanics.

 

No wonder it looked weird from one equation.

 

You can only tell the quanta location - not the orientation of the local coordinate system.

 

Same thing for 2D.

 

 

 

 

I'm still working on the 3D - it's just the physics you know but with the new viewpoint and disconnected local coordinate systems.

 

 

Have fun y'all! This is a blast!

[ScottTheSculptor]

so,

 

your new mysteries are;

 

 

 

What is a "time quanta".

what is the mathematical relationship between the 3 coordinate systems.

 

 

 

We know that time quanta will "stack".

 

We know that 3D matter can change its movement vector.

 

!D coords pushed around by 2D and 3D structures. Well, everything pushing everything.

 

Sorry, need math help here.

 

Three simultatenous equations but each in their own coordinate system and affected by the location and momentum of the others.

 

I figured I'd have to share the "Universe" Nobel with a mathematician . . . but this is a Nobel all on it's own.

Edited September 13, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[Pincho Paxton]

so,

 

your new mysteries are;

 

 

 

What is a "time quanta".

what is the mathematical relationship between the 3 coordinate systems.

 

 

 

We know that time quanta will "stack".

 

We know that 3D matter can change its movement vector.

 

!D coords pushed around by 2D and 3D structures. Well, everything pushing everything.

 

Sorry, need math help here.

 

Three simultatenous equations but each in their own coordinate system and affected by the location and momentum of the others.

 

I figured I'd have to share the "Universe" Nobel with a mathematician . . . but this is a Nobel all on it's own.

 

And remember that the Universe does it without maths.

[ScottTheSculptor]

And remember that the Universe does it without maths.

 

Yup.

 

Math is *supposed* to be the symbols that represent the map of the logical path that you made.

Not the projection of logical extrapolations to *define* the universe.

 

 

 

I made the path - need some help with the symbols and the mapping.

[Pincho Paxton]

Yup.

 

Math is *supposed* to be the symbols that represent the map of the logical path that you made.

Not the projection of logical extrapolations to *define* the universe.

 

 

 

I made the path - need some help with the symbols and the mapping.

 

Yeah, well I try to replicate what the Universe does.. it's just an experiment.

[ScottTheSculptor]

Let's call this

 

"The Whole Elephant" theory.

 

 

and

 

just to be clearer, all the Einstien math works if you throw out the "distance" side.

 

Those are real clock rate changes. Not a warpage of spacetime.

 

Nobody but the theoreticals were using the other bit.

 

 

 

[ScottTheSculptor]

<Correction>!

 

the 1D time quanta don't care about "orthogonal".

A loop is the 2D form.

higher counterflow rates make smaller loops and higher energy.

keep pushing and the loops go 3D

 

and

 

There *is* a "bending!

But only in the 1D path in higher D space.

Any 1D path counter to the parallel 1D flow will "bend".

Path rates are relative to the flow - as above.

 

</correction>

 

and, of course, a conundrum.

You can only change the path of the 1D thing with 2D or 3D loops,

so you can only make energy/matter if you have energy/matter.

 

So!

Two simultaneous equations.

The 3D and the 1D.

As far as I can tell the 2D is equal to 3D in all dimensional calculations.

2D just looks different if seen radially or axially (wave/particle) - 1D "disappears" (quantum mysticism).

Running the 1D coordinate coorelation calculation and connecting it to the direction of flow tells you how much of what you can't see is still there.

 

Establishing the loop by bent space "creates" a new 2D coordinate system or "space"

By increasing the energy the loop gets small enough to interfere with itself and it bumps the flat orbit into 3D.

Again establishing a coordinate system and 3D "space"

 

time to energy - energy to matter

space is "created" in each step.

Can I guess the weak then the strong? (I'm not really there yet)

A loop just keeps going once established - 2D or 3D.

So must take energy to break (releasing time in odd vectors)

 

loose note: 1D time quanta do not "exist" in the direction of flow.

only in an angle counter to the direction of flow do they have a one dimensional edge.

 

and those "bent" 1D paths are the direction that time is flowing which is what is creating gravity.

Connecting the "bending of space" with gravity?

 

 

 

 

I'll rewrite "the universe" later. working on the relation between time quanta and "charge"

trying to figure out the electron/proton mass/charge differences

 

 

 

[ScottTheSculptor]

I'll call the strong and the weak.

 

the electron circumference must be near the length of a quanta.

the tail just barely runs into the head and makes the smallest bump into 3D.

Wonder if it is just a "swelling" - a deviation in the 2D loop just before the head actually passes the tail.

then the "width" of a quanta (3D field around the 1D object?) would push the next incremental piece of matter that much farther into 3D space.

I'm fishing for the reason behind the big mass difference . . .

 

 

Cool that "mass" is just the distance of deviation from the flat 2D orbit.

 

 

[ScottTheSculptor]

so electrons are loops that wiggle into 3D.

 

same mass for all electrons means that there is only one stable "wobbly loop"

 

threshhold to "break" into 3D then limit on how far it can wobble before it folds into a complex loop.

 

 

Protons must be "folded loops" - make the 2D orbit smaller and the end-to-end time quanta starts hanging out the ends.

 

tying the time quanta into a knot.

 

 

 

High energy "particles" must be time quanta spirals. The loops are stable and will last forever - a spiral has ends that will screw right out into the aether. the "longer" the screw, the higher the mass.

 

 

 

 

 

 

OKAY!

 

 

 

that's weak, strong, and the removal of gravity - all from a 1D time quanta of finite length.

 

The last is electromagnetism and charge.

 

 

 

personal aside: Hey bro! this short month since the words "you know more about sub-atomic than I do" left my lips is fast becoming all the head start you will get ;-)

[ScottTheSculptor]

so,

folded loops are cool!

it gives you crossing points and a difference between inner and outer portions of the loop.

allowing for an external 3D "shell" topography and differences in that surface.

and a reason for the big jump from the electron to proton mass - loops don't fold easily

someone please define the shape just from the size difference (you'd get a gold star! ;-) ) . . . if I knew more about 3D orbits . . .

Those of you more familiar with orbitals might guess the shape from nodes and path volume differences.

and by the by . . . charge is one quanta. protons have null nodes to attract the stable wiggles of the electrons (I admit its vague)

orbits reverse direction (in relation to the outside) when folding and crossing.

making a thing that attracts and repels at the same time.

 

powering on . . .

 

 

[ScottTheSculptor]

so,

 

the orbital diameter of an electron is *larger* than a proton.

 

the protons mass is from its deviation from the 2D plane

take an infinity sign and spin it about its long axis - then put a squiggly disc (electron) *around the center*. There's your neutron.

 

the missing axis from 2D is attracted to the crosing point of the 3D curve.

 

two ways to get there - axially or radially.

 

 

 

I think that is it. it's done.

 

Electromagetism is all time and charge - now you know what "charge" is.

 

 

 

Back in March I started with figuring out dark energy at the scale of the universe and dark matter on a galactic scale. With that answer I have marched down to building the smallest permanent object in the universe, answering major mysteries along the way (gravity, time, particle/wave, quantum, etc.)

 

Nary a physicist has acknowledged it or answered their e-mails.

 

Science *is* a religion.

 

 

 

I'll be off writing this all up in a single document - though I'm not sure I should bother.

 

 

---

 

 

WooHoo!

 

 

 

Found the other side of Einsteins equation.

 

It is the distance that the 2D loop extends into 3D space connected to the radius of the orbit.

All loops are the same length. The rotational "speed" is tied to how far it extends into 3D space - their mass is that distance.

 

The "bent" space is there.

 

 

 

!!

 

---

 

 

 

I should never say "well that about wraps it up"

Biggest and best fotr last:

 

Einstein was right.

 

 

 

But all the math applies to the 1D time quanta.

 

He equated it with "light" - but it lives in a different dimension.

 

Once the quanta loops it is in Newtonian space. As either a 2D thing or a 3D thing.

 

 

 

Whew!

 

Am I done?

Edited September 16, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[Pincho Paxton]

so,

 

the orbital diameter of an electron is *larger* than a proton.

 

the protons mass is from its deviation from the 2D plane

take an infinity sign and spin it about its long axis - then put a squiggly disc (electron) *around the center*. There's your neutron.

 

the missing axis from 2D is attracted to the crosing point of the 3D curve.

 

two ways to get there - axially or radially.

 

 

 

I think that is it. it's done.

 

Electromagetism is all time and charge - now you know what "charge" is.

 

 

 

Back in March I started with figuring out dark energy at the scale of the universe and dark matter on a galactic scale. With that answer I have marched down to building the smallest permanent object in the universe, answering major mysteries along the way (gravity, time, particle/wave, quantum, etc.)

 

Nary a physicist has acknowledged it or answered their e-mails.

 

Science *is* a religion.

 

 

 

I'll be off writing this all up in a single document - though I'm not sure I should bother.

 

 

---

 

 

WooHoo!

 

 

 

Found the other side of Einsteins equation.

 

It is the distance that the 2D loop extends into 3D space connected to the radius of the orbit.

All loops are the same length. The rotational "speed" is tied to how far it extends into 3D space - their mass is that distance.

 

The "bent" space is there.

 

 

 

!!

 

---

 

 

 

I should never say "well that about wraps it up"

Biggest and best fotr last:

 

Einstein was right.

 

 

 

But all the math applies to the 1D time quanta.

 

He equated it with "light" - but it lives in a different dimension.

 

Once the quanta loops it is in Newtonian space. As either a 2D thing or a 3D thing.

 

 

 

Whew!

 

Am I done?

 

I don't know if you are done. I don't know if you have any physics in there at all.

[ScottTheSculptor]

Don't embarrass yourself - history is watching.

 

 

 

 

 

So, I skimped on electromagnetism.

 

figured out that any loop "contracts" space and any time quanta running through that contracted space are accelerated.

 

Only perpendicular. Right hand rule. Any accelerated time quantum bends. Any bent path will accelerate time quanta. Best description of eddy currents yet.

 

 

Bring the loop down to the diameter to protrude into 3D space and it gets mass and an increase in the "depth" of the accelerating space.

An electrons depth will create a strong acceleration and strong field.

 

the closed quantum loop gives you a zero rest mass electron - speed it up at all and the fixed length dosen't fit the smaller circumference and it squishes/wobbles into 3D space. more speed means bigger deviation into 3D and more mass. speed it up enough and the diameter of the loop becomes to small to hold the 2D path around the loop. A proton pops into being as the loop goes into a new pattern - but I don't "see" the equal and opposite charge yet (or the pattern) - I'll think on it. If it is not on a cylinder things get weird- this is the "distance" side of Einsteins equation - faster loop contracts space and increases mass. mass is deviation from the 2D plane - what happens when the loop diameter is very small? is mass the area under the curve or the distance from the plane? 3D loops will take some thinkin'. . .

[ScottTheSculptor]

---

 

 

 

if the path for a proton is 3D then time can run backwards - for a quantum, for a part of the forward rotation of time,

positive is anti-magnetism?

 

 

---

 

 

 

So the low down for the mathematicians who can't "see" physics..

This is the division:

Einstein math (relativity) works on 1D time quanta

Schrodingers math (wave equation) works on 2D "light".

Newtons math works on 3D matter.

 

For the physicists;

Time is locally chaotic and within a larger overall timeflow.

1D quantum means we can not detect it hitting anything - just what happens when it goes by.

 

The "weak force" is the energy it take to break a permanent 2D loop.

The "strong force" is the energy required to break a permanent 3D loop.

Without timeflow there is no magnetism.

 

 

-

 

Can you see the trigger for a nova?

Cavitation in the time flow would create disruptions in time that would dis-associate the inter atomic bonds.

The heavier element would stay together if the timeflow was higher . . . so . . .

instant decay in pockets in the core.

Supernova is when the whole timeflow through a star is stopped - instant decay for the entire mass of a star.

 

 

 

_

 

I don't "see" black.

I see extreme blueshift.

"black" holes would just shift all their radation up the line.

But not black.

So they are actually "Blue Holes".

 

 

 

 

--

 

"blueshifted beyond our timerate" . . . so black to us but not *really* black.

 

a mass of a star is its color - local timerate determines the range of radition . . . and it's elemental composition.

 

 

 

 

--

 

so stars "grow" in the other direction?

More mass means higher timerate means heavier elements and greater blueshift.

Stars "grow" blue.

 

 

 

--

The aliens won't visit because we are in a bad neighborhood?

Stars don't age to death. They only die from being on the outside edges of the galactic timeflow.

Any disruption in flow is *bad* - unscheduled nova *bad* - end of the solar system *bad*.

Continually fed by time they, the inner stars, would just get more massive and older, faster.

Along with any intelligent beings in orbit around them.

The galactic core has had billions of years pass since we humans stepped out on this low time rate planet.

If the "older star beings" visited a younger, slower star/timerate they would decay into lighter elements.

Any intelligence on the outside edges would quickly surmise that it is much safer towards the core.

But we would have to carry time with us on the way . . . we will take our star and push it in that direction, humans slowly evolving to adapting to the bluer star and heavier elements as the star aged on the journey to a safer and previously established neighborhood.

That is probably a good project for "The Long Now" foundation.

 

There is some good sci-fi in the new universe.

 

 

[ScottTheSculptor]

--

 

So, electrons are monopoles?

the time quantum can't make it completely across the "depth" of condensed "space" in the center.

 

Acceleration would be high enough to turn it completely around.

 

cool! a thing unusual - a closed loop that isn't a monopole, it'll have to have mass to have the "depth" to reverse course. how much mass?

 

 

 

and

 

I see one folded loop up to silicon(?) then assembled groups of folded loops passed that.

 

Stars do do "assemble" elements - so scratch the supernova "decay" scenario.

 

 

 

 

note: the space that is not bending at the beginning of this thread is a different space. looping a one dimensional thing makes a new space.

 

--

 

the anti-magentism path cross points have to "feed" the loop to keep it going.

 

Electrons without a timeflow return to zero rest mass.

 

*any* folded loop would have to "make its own timeflow" to maintain shape.

The math will be fun. Geometry and forces.

Edited September 20, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[ScottTheSculptor]

--

 

 

 

WooHoo!

 

That is our new energy!

Build a null time field and crash bits of matter into it. The electrons will turn off, nothin' left but positive.

 

--

 

 

and so,

 

Fusion is a myth. High time rate turn hydrogen into helium. They are made from the same thing. The light shooting out is being created by the intense fields. Matter *is* created from energy . Stars don't age to death. They just geat bluer and bigger with higher time rates. Unless they "run out of time".

 

I guess that just pushed me into psuedo science? Even though it is true?

[ScottTheSculptor]

--

 

As long as I'm going "way out".

 

I ScottTheSculptor claim that a permanent magnet of sufficiently strong field will create electrons.

Free power forever.

[ScottTheSculptor]

--

 

While we are making electrons out of nothing but the fabric of space . . . let's use lightning to make single fold protons (hydrogen) and spin them up to helium amd lithium.

 

The waste electrons produced by all the power plants on the planet, combined with the photo-electric effect *creating* electrons over the surface of the sunny side of the earth - we will use to power our vehicles, cool our superconductors and build our batteries.

 

 

 

A new age of man has arrived

[ScottTheSculptor]

Been "looking" in the direction of the elements.

 

Fascinating.

 

Odd number of loops look like "protons", even make "neutrons". (yep, another myth: neutrons)

 

Odd number determine the "element", "radioactive" is an extra loop making an extra "neutron".

 

 

The rotation direction that the electron attaches is determined by the topology of the folded loop.

 

if they can attach spinning in the same direction you get magnetic materials.

 

Ferromagnetism - weak attachments far apart can "knock off" and then reattach in different spin orientations.

 

 

 

. . . still going

 

--

 

 

 

Superconductors happen when you "turn down" the electrons and you are left with a relatively stronger anti-magnetic field in the material.

Electrons can easily "detach" from those points. So no "room temperature", sorry.

 

--

 

 

 

Dang it!

 

Just lost antimatter.

The bits you were calling antimatter are just "other" hand spirals from the breaking of a loop.

 

And I was off running with anti-copper making antimagnetic fields for fun and flying saucers - dashed, just dashed.

 

--

 

the pattern for the 3D path/matter seems to be a variation of the lorenz attractor . . . this would account for *all* randomness and chaos in the universe.

 

The 1D and 2D patterns are not chaotic.

 

--

 

 

 

whoah!

 

red giants are solar systems converted into stars. Every bit of matter collects more matter, at some point it has a large enough field to make electrons, then protons (ignition?).

Earth makes electrons in the field *and* through photoelectric. high energy radiation from the sun may be converting the upper layer of electrons into protons. our core may be strong enough to create protons . . . that's why it is so hot in there. at any rate *eventually* all planets make protons - filling the solar system with hydrogen . . .

[mississippichem]

All of this is complete word salad. Who are you talking to? I hope for your sake that you are trolling.

[ScottTheSculptor]

scientific facts/word salad

to bad most people are strictly carnivores

 

 

argue against any?

 

--

 

 

white "dwarves" are huge massive and partially blueshifted so that we see only a small amount of their radiation. On their way to "black"

No such thing as a neutron so those are out. Brown dwarves . . . any mass big enough to produce protons? wait 'til helium to call "star"?

type 1a supernovae - redshifted to where we see the same "top end" of the radiation. long,long wavelengths of disparate energies can tell them apart. wavelengths in centuries.

[ScottTheSculptor]

clues

when 2D goes 3D mass is "created"

so

when 1D goes 2D . . . magnetism, waves.

 

fields

 

when a 1D time quanta "pushes" (as mass pushes into 3D) it corkscrews?

(a 1D thing can not spin)

it is only straight if it is not moving.

 

but why the perpendicular vector?

that is external to the corkscrew.

corkscrew loops . . .

 

is the universe creating time?

fair question.

 

 

imagine "the firmament"

shift a short 1D part of it

it pushes against and pulls away from "the firmament".

 

so the universe is time - it's just shattered into a bazillion pieces? (not really, but cool imagery)

 

 

why the perpendicular vector?

 

so when 0D goes 1D time is created (save me mr. zero!)

it "pushed" into the universe so can only be in one direction.

 

-- . . . (cartoons - wordgirl rocks!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

but why perpendicular if it "moves"?

and why only one length?

 

 

uhm,

the time quanta isn't time - time is the field

2d to 3d the field is mass

1d to 2d the field is magnestism

0d to 1d the field is time

 

so an area affect around the 1D object that creates the acceleration field/ time field

 

--

 

 

a *2d* field

 

--

 

along the length of the 1d quanta

a 1d thing is all edge - one edge, no ends

the 2d field has a direction only along the 1d length - that the only direction that exists

force is on the edge - it can only "bend" one direction and that it perfectly perpendicular to its motion.

the field lags the movement

no time then time?

time then more time.

this is what makes a 1d path bend

 

"atom smashing" says they can be spirals - but they have to be loops first.

 

so no other "corkscrews".

 

 

 

--

 

Dudes!

 

I'm running out of math here. Someone needs to make some new stuff to describe "two dimensional time fields"

so are we sub-quantum yet? guess it's still "quantum physics", just different math.

 

sub quantum is on the other side of the 1d pushing in - string guys have a new target.

Edited September 29, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor