Anonymous ID: 70550e April 16, 2019, 4:34 a.m. No.6197563   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7570

>>6197278 lb

And there you go, talking about something that never happened. Transition metals in the spectra of "new" stars pretty much make the big bang impossible and all theories if cosmic formation null and void.

 

QM also makes what you are suggesting impossible, but that goes into things you aren't exactly ready for and don't have the math developed for me to articulate the concept. I can try, but it's heavily reliant on your ability to understand the consequences of QM on the macroscopic scale, as well as expand your thinking in regard to time.

 

If you think of a bose-einstein condensate and then excite a few particles within to a point where they reveal a state, then you get the concept of logical propagation of states through time. Much like a chess board, I can show you a board state and you then know that, based on the rules, a certain number of moves are possible in the future, and a certain number of moves could have occurred immediately prior. Any sequences of moves which are "functionally equivalent" to each other become coherent in a superposition, much like the bose-einstein condensate at large.

 

On the macroscopic level, this means there is functionally no need for the world to have existed during its past. The past is a logical extension of the presently observed state, and there are many functional equivalents that redact to a coherent state for which we do not have the energy exchange necessary to resolve.

 

The planets around other stars… Do they have trees? If so, what shape are their leaves? This detail is irrelevant at the present and coherent. The very existence of planets in distant stars is often a coherent feature, or nearly so, with the past retconning itself in the shadows of what is still unknown.

 

This is what needs to be understood as the true nature of time. For all possible states within a set of values, how many are defined? For any set which is fully defined, it has achieved the status of what I call an integer, the point at which no further division or classification will yield differentiation. In this case, the theoretical WIMP would be an example of an integer. It is a timeless particle that can neither receive nor emit energy as its state is full. Well… Maybe.

 

Thus, when I say you need new math, I am talking about math that functions below integer values. In short, undefined numbers that have yet to actually become defined. This will be the real brain-bender, is the realization that most of the world exists in an undefined state and, therefore, our integer-based description of time no longer holds up as the linear experience we have is not an accurate representation of how the physical universe actually experiences time.

 

For example, if I have a sample frequency of 10, and a period of 1, and a board with a 4x4 grid of states to sample at each interval but its rate of action is 100, then the states of the board between each sample which are functionally equivalent to each other all exist…. Until something logically constricts the possible states observed in past, present, or future.

 

What is key here is understanding that there is the possibility for "future" events to touch back to details in the past. You inherently assume we are "in the present" and that time is linear… But rather than being scripted, time is a unilaterally expanding concept as the coherent states within open cycles are broken out as defined and closed states. The present is a much larger concept than current math allows for, which continually progresses up until a cycle is fully defined and rolls over into the next one, seeded by the prior. That is why there are 'turning points of destiny' or 'crossroads.'

 

The trick to all of it is realizing that at "sub-integer" levels, 1/2 of any given dimension of N is also equal to a dimension of N, also with a 1/2… It is at the point where 1/2N no longer equals an N with a 1/2 distinct from its prior iteration that the concept of an integer has been realized and the system can be normalized with that concept as 1. What is also important is understanding that nothing beneath 1 is of any consequence. IE, if a Planck Meter is 1, then there can't be 1.5 Planck Meters. Only integer values. This leads to the fundamental area being triangular or hexagonal as a scalar field. But these units are so small that models of spacetime using lorentz transformations are generally sufficient for most things.

 

But planck units are small and themselves coherent to many things. We need to be able to prune out irrelevant events, or be able to otherwise properly define/triage our world so as to locate true integers as opposed to arbitrary ones. Example, interference patterns or the ratio of length of a conductor to wavelength and consequent frequency of a signal. Again, we don't have a proper system for working with the concept, so this is like discussing jet engines over rolling stones.

Anonymous ID: 70550e April 16, 2019, 4:50 a.m. No.6197624   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7655

>>6197570

No, they are very real. Measuring, however, breaks down well before planck units. Planck units are grains of sand next to an electron that is the size of the sun. Smaller, even, closer to the size of individual atoms.

 

But this misses the entire point of what was stated. If the bus frequency is 500 hz, then changes in state at 1mhz will only have consequence to things connected on that bus at the time of signals being gated. However, if data on an FPGA is dependent on states from two independently clocked busses, and values on the 500, hz bus is also present on, say, a 7khz bus, then changes in state at the 1mhz frequency can have impact on events not indicated or detected by the 500hz bus.

 

The question is… In the real world, what defines busses, their frequencies, and inputs?