0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I read this UVS site, fairly completely.

The guy has spent some amazing time talking about fundamental principles found everywhere in spacetime, and thus it was a winner to offer that angled approach.

Mine is a little more in depth to that pattern, as it provides the basis of fractal topology using the fibonacci algorithm for the concept of time. The link is in my web icon under my name here (the planet icon next to the envelope icon), apologies. www.equusspace.com

It's not commerical, nothing is being sold, its really asking for collaboration, and thus money can in time be made by those who think its worth a shot.

My work explains the idea of UVS, yet the idea of UVS used by that theorist is like a kitten playing with a world of single-dimensional time thread, it getts a little knotted (what he is doing).

It's easier to suggest that the concept of "time" is a natural UVS itself, as an algorithm, "then" applying that UVS time theory to space. It does work.

As I was saying, the UVS theory is a step closer to formalising a universal code for spacetime, I can't dispute that.

The paradigm that the theory expresses according to the UVS model is a closed space system, no aether particles, and its a little difficult for me to say if it is variant or invariant for time and space, as using the Fibonacci sequence for time is a variant in itself, which impacts on space, and how that relates to the idea of quantum entanglement (using theta or -1/theta as temporal outcomes for each posit in space).The universe in my model is a closed universe in that space according to the behaviour of time away from a gravitational singularity loses its integrity, and this impacts on matter in that region to suggest everything just whittles away on a perimeter region away from a type of central virtual gravitational singularity.

Quote from: opportunity on 27/10/2018 23:29:31The paradigm that the theory expresses according to the UVS model is a closed space system, no aether particles, and its a little difficult for me to say if it is variant or invariant for time and space, as using the Fibonacci sequence for time is a variant in itself, which impacts on space, and how that relates to the idea of quantum entanglement (using theta or -1/theta as temporal outcomes for each posit in space).The universe in my model is a closed universe in that space according to the behaviour of time away from a gravitational singularity loses its integrity, and this impacts on matter in that region to suggest everything just whittles away on a perimeter region away from a type of central virtual gravitational singularity.IMO, be it physically transformable time, or multi-dimensional time, it is considered variant time in the holistic view of its paradigm. This is despite time in the local reference frame of its hypothetical construct that emulates the objective reality, can be considered as invariant.It seems to me the cosmos of your EQUUS SPACE hypothesis, despite is a closed system, but beyond the closed system, what forms your hypothetical cosmos, is not defined. Since you mentioned higher dimensional existence in another thread to explicate consciousness, I guessed you could be assuming an open system of the universe that manifest your hypothesized cosmos.The posit of invariant space for your cosmos, would inevitably invalidate the Big Bang theory. Just my two cents.

Its funny though, I don't consider using the golden ratio algorithm for time as invariant. It's still what the arrow prescribes, yet its a key substructure to that arrow, and I explain that in the papers.

One thing is obvious, the golden ratio and the Fibonacci spiral are no fluke, and they find themselves everywhere, in nature, philosophy, magical ideation, geometrical perfection, everywhere, like one could suggest its a type of conscious code of spacetime influencing everything.

I have a question for you though, "do you think a theory of everything will change the way we think about reality as a people?". A theory of everything ideally should be a neat way to put together all known streams of understanding of time and space, maybe with the addition of something like the UVS or golden ratio for time, yet will it change the way we regard reality compared to how we do know what we know today?

The quest to research will still exist, to push the limits, perhaps even to "dispute" the very idea of what a grand theory presents, yet will it, a grand theory, be convincing, or considered as a deterrent to current research activities in space, in astrophysics for instance?

(apologies for third post in this series, yet I think this is important)The idea of a grand unified theory that can prove what we can prove "here" in our solar system, our tangible reality, would of course require an explanation as to the link between gravity and electromagnetism. Yet that idea itself would have "profound" implications on theory relevant to the current astrophysical art. Have we burnt the bridge there, is our need to only accept what we know re. astrophysics too big to lose in considering a local theory of everything that will undoubtedly have a butterfly effect of understanding on what we theorise of the stars?

The research will show just "how much" the results depend on "knowing" the new physics at play.....and in that regard it is "completely new". Yet my key concern is, knowing the new physics at play with the new phenomena, is that it is a pin that will burst a great many theoretical bubbles in contemporary physics, especially astrophysics, and even perhaps more concerning, that the idea of the Planck scale will have become nothing more than a mathematical posit, the result of a simple mathematical equation that didn't have the benefit of a golden ratio algorithm for time, a posit with no actual physical bearing for anything

These are a few of the equations so far:Linking Avogadro's number was I thought impossible. The Rydberg equation I was thinking could have earned early points. Science is very stubborn sister.I've had my work cut out for me here.....I'm not perfect.....the image above at the top says table 3, yet below at the bottom it refers to table 5.....aye aye aye. It'd be nice to have collaboration